HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E01-007 - CITY OF TUKWILA / PARTE RYAN - CODIGA FARM BACKWATER CHANNEL, BOAT LAUNCH, PICNIC FACILITY AND SIGNAGECODIGA FARMS SIDE
CHANNEL & PARK
CONSTRUCT BACKWATER
CHANNEL, BOAT LAUNCH,
PICNIC FACILITY & SIGNAGE
12529 50T" PLACE SO.
(LOTS 37 -59)
E01 -007
(07/21/2008) Rebecca Fox - Commissioner Peterson notice of potential appearance of conflict of interest for L07 -096 anPa9O71
From: "Peterson, Lynn E" <Iynn.e.peterson @boeing.com>
To: <jpace @ci.tukwila.wa.us>
Date: 06/02/2008 9:49 AM
Subject: Commissioner Peterson notice of potential appearance of conflict of interest for L07-
096 and -097
CC: "Wynetta Bivens" <wbivens @ci.tukwila.wa.us >, <rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us>
Jack,
I noticed a DCD information board posted along 65th Ave for
L07 -096 and L07 -097 and stopped by the planning department to inquire
about what these were due to my close proximity to the lot in question
(approximately 122 feet from the corner of my lot). Assuming maximum
build out of the lot (HDR combined with offsite wetland mitigation),
this would have create a definate appearance of Conflict Of Interest
(COI). After talking with Rebecca, it sounded like that the wetland
area was not under consideration for rezoning and thus the impacted area
would be farther away from my lot, although I suspect that it would
still be close enough to create the appearance of a conflict of
interest. In the event that these items make it to the Planning
Commission, I will probably excuse myself from participating on them to
avoid any appearance of a COI.
Lynn Peterson
Date: 15 June 2002 MSC: Northwestern Division
District: Seattle District
SECTION 1135 DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
1. PROJECT: Codiga Farms Intertidal Restoration Project
State Congressional District - 09
2. LOCATION: The proposed project is located in Tukwila, Washington, in King
County, approximately 10 miles south of Seattle along the Duwamish River. See attached
location map (figure 1). The Duwamish River estuary extends from the mouth of the river
to River Mile (RM) 14. The name then changes to the Green River and extends another
85 miles to the headwaters in the Cascade mountain range. The Codiga Farms project is
located at about RM 10. A map of the project area is included as enclosure 1, a picture of
the site is included as enclosure 2.
3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT.
The purpose of the proposed project is to restore tidal and riverine hydrology to the site in
the form of an off - channel slough, estuarine marsh and riparian buffer. The project would
improve overbank storage, increase the shoreline length, provide improved estuarine
habitat and improve flood plain inundation. The project would create 830 linear feet of
side channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish such as chinook and chum and create a small
'/2 acre estuarine marsh, which will provide important primary productivity and nutrient
export In addition, the project would provide approximately 1.6 acres in riparian and
upland planting to provide cover and support wildlife. A perimeter fence will divide the
habitat restoration features from the park to help minimize human traffic into the restored
area. A proposed path will also help minimize access into the restored area and provide
maintenance access to the restored area. The project would also include recreational and
educational improvements on an existing 1.15 -acre municipal park. Amenities would
include interpretive signage on habitat restoration and historical uses of the area, ari
observation platform, paving of a parking lot and installing concrete on a portion of the
path for wheelchair access. Project components include:
• excavation of two adjoining sloughs (25,000 cubic yards)
• placement of rock at the entrance channel and to support slopes (156 cubic yards)
• large wood debris with root wads (about 40)
• placement of gravel on the channel bottom (250 cubic yards)
• creation of an intertidal marsh (about 21,500 square feet and excavation of 13,000
cubic yards of material
• perimeter fencing to allow for plant establishment and controlling duck and geese
access to the site _
• interpretive signs
• an observation platform
• a small covered picnic area
• seven picnic tables
• A portion of the gravel path will also serve as a _hand boat launch are a.
• Riparian, upland and marsh plantings
An existing barn will be demolished at the site and a small community garden (pea
patch) and parking area will be realigned to accommodate the habitat restoration project.
How Existing Corps Project Would be Modified. The existing project at Howard
Hanson Dam and upstream levee projects would not be directly modified for this project.
The project seeks to restore tidal and riverine hydrology, which has been adversely
effected by the construction and operation of Howard Hanson Dam and levee projects.
The following discusses some of the impacts of the federally authorized and other
projects in the basin as well as history of the site under consideration.
Basin Impacts The construction of the Tacoma Diversion Dam (in 1910 at RM
61), Howard Hanson Dam (HHD constructed 1960, RM 64), and numerous levees along
the river have reduced the migration of the river within the middle and lower basins,
affecting sediment transport; and reduced inundation of a significant portion of the
historic floodplain. The HHD flood control operation eliminates flows sufficient to cause
large -scale shifting or reconfiguring of the channel. Levees confine the river in numerous
locations. Except for an area of braided multiple channels near O'Grady Park (RM 36.9
to RM 40.6), much of the river has assumed a single channel configuration. The Corps
has constructed levees in the Middle Green River as well as Howard Hanson Dam in the
upper basin.
Diminished channel length, reduced shoreline length, and considerably less estuary
characterize the existing channel conditions in the middle and lower basin today as
compared to conditions at the time of European settlement. The following table
summarizes some of the physical changes in the system. Additional information on
hydraulic changes in the system can be found in the August 2000 Preliminary Restoration
Plan.
Table -1 -1. Selected Parameters of the Green/Duwamish Basin
Parameter
% Change (from pre -
Pre- settlement 1936 1994 settlement to 1994)
Basin Area 1,640 sq. miles* 483 sq. 483 sq. miles ** -70%
* Duwamish only miles **
* * Green only
River /Stream Miles 1,900 miles 580 miles* 380 miles* -66%
Accessible to Fish 83 miles ** 125 miles ** -93%
* three basins
combined
** Green/Duwamish
only
2
-
Estuary Area 3,950 acres' 298 acres 45 acres -99%
Channel Length2 61 miles3 55 miles 50.6 miles -17%
Shoreline Length 152 miles 121 miles 111 miles -27%
Channel Width4 Unknown 277 feet 195 feet -29%
(between 1936
and 1994)
Notes:
1. Estimate includes tidal flats, tidal marsh, and tidal swamp.
2. Channel length is calculated for the Green/Duwamish River only. The estimate is from the
estuary to the approximate downstream limit of the Green River Gorge at main RM 47.4.
3. Estimate includes some 21,000 feet of the Duwamish straightened during filling of the
estuary and approximately 55,000 feet of braided channel and sloughs lost in the middle
valley. It is a compilation of information from USGS maps and aerial photos and is an
estimate of the maximum active river length for the period 1892 to 1936.
4. Estimate is a comparison of six cross sections within a reach in the middle Green River
Valley between the Neeley Bridge at RM 35 and the Whitney Bridge at RM 39.
Alteration of the flow regime by HHD and the various diversions of the river's original
flows have affected the river in another significant way. Historically, when flows
inundated the adjacent floodplains, floodwaters seeped into the floodplain, recharging the
water table. This water slowly drained toward the river over the year, supplying small
floodplain streams, side channels, and the mainstem of the river with cool flows through
the summer low flows. Without floodplain inundation, this process cannot occur, and
floodplain streams and side channels dry up earlier in the season. River temperatures
may also be affected by the loss of cool groundwater inputs during the summer low
flows; ...:.._.
Reduced flows have also reduced water supply to the banks and geomorphic surfaces
within the active channel. This has reduced overbank storage and affected riparian
growth. Reduced soil moisture conditions have been found to lower the growth rate and
survival of typical riparian plants. Ultimately this leads to a reduction in riparian width
and the eventual replacement of typical riparian plant species with species tolerant of
drier conditions.
Site History and Impacts. The proposed project seeks to restore some of the
habitat losses in the lower Duwamish. Historically, this portion of the Duwamish had a
broad and connected flood plain. Within the tidal portion of the flood plain existed
estuarine marshes and sloughs. Starting in the 1860's levees were constructed at the
marsh edges and these areas were converted to agricultural production such as hop fields.
The broad fertile flood plain of the Duwamish attracted many immigrant dairy farmers at
the turn of the 20th century. Archie Codiga moved into what was then called Allentown
from Switzerland in 1910 and established a dairy farm. The site has been maintained as a
farm sirice then, while many.of the adjacent farmlarid'was theri'coiiverted to housing or
industry.
Prior to 1860, the Duwamish was a flat, meandering river with tidal influence. The
Duwamish Estuary was an extensive marsh of over 4,000 acres. This transitioned into a
brackish marsh, saltmarsh, and mudflats on the farthest edges of the delta. The main
channels were largely unvegetated mudflats and sandflats. Patches of eelgrass were
likely present in the saline areas. The historic Duwamish Estuary in the lower basin was
largely a detrital -based system and provided significant food and habitat for both
terrestrial and marine organisms. Juvenile chum and chinook salmon frequently foraged
in sand flat and marsh areas. These prime estuarine wetland and intertidal rearing areas
for chum salmon converted high detrital carbon inputs from freshwater flows to forms
usable to salmon. These forms included significant insect and crustacean populations in
the marsh on which juvenile salmon feed.
From a fish and wildlife standpoint, this conversion had harsh consequences. Flow
regulation at Howard Hanson Dam, the construction of levees and placement of fill that
was put along the margins of the tidal portions of the river interrupted the flow and as a
result, nutrient export from the marshes to the adjoining habitats such as mudflats was
diminished. Intertidal sloughs that were once refuge areas for juvenile fish (salmon,
sculpins, and sole) shorebirds (dunlin, sandpiper and yellowlegs) and waterfowl (pintail,
and baldpate) was lost. The continuity of the large interspersed habitats of the estuary
became fragmented. This project offers an opportunity to restore some of the former
estuary.
Alternatives. Four alternatives were evaluated during the combined planning and
design study. The following section addresses the measurement of environmental
outputs, a description of each alternative and an evaluation of the alternatives based on
costs and benefits. An economic evaluation of the recreation project components is also
presented below.
Environmental Outputs and Costs. Environmental outputs for the alternatives include a
quantitative measure of estuarine marsh, riparian buffer and estuarine slough length
created under each alternative. Also under consideration is the overall quality of the
habitat created. For the scale of project under consideration, this is a qualitative measure
to take account of habitat complexity and species diversity as defined below.
• Habitat complexity: An interspersion of highly productive and varied habitat
types is proposed for this project. This will allow for greater species diversity
within the project area than is currently available. More of the life history
needs (such as reproduction, feeding and rearing) of this diverse population
will be able to occur within the project site which will lessen the need to
disperse to other habitats. This will lower predation and expenditure of energy
(increase in fitness).
4
• Species Diversity: Sometimes referred to as Biodiversity, it describes the
variety of life forms, the ecological roles they perform and the genetic
diversity they contain. For this project it is consideration of more than a
single species approach. That is, by excluding exotics and invasive species
from the project area, benefits (food, refuge or reproduction) will be provided
to a variety of organisms.
Each of the alternatives under consideration was rated high, medium or low for habitat
quality in context of diversity and complexity.
Habitat Restoration Alternative Evaluation.
The following table summarizes the components and costs of each alternative. The costs
in the table only include construction costs, and do not include contingency or S &A. A
description and evaluation of each alternative follows the alternative summary table. An
incremental cost evaluation provides information to assist in selection of a preferred plan.
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Table 1: Alternative Outputs and Cost
Alternative
Estuarine
Slough
(linear feet)
Estuarine
Marsh
(sq. feet)
Riparian
Buffer
(sq. feet)
Municipal
Park
(sq. feet)
Habitat
Quality
Cost
($1000)
No Action
0
0
4,000
50,300
Low
$0
Minimal
630
0
4,000
50,300
Low-
$784
(5,040 sq ft)
Moderate
Mixed -use
Habitat &
Recreation
830
21,500
83,700
44,000
High
$883
(Preferred)
(6,640 sq ft)
Full
1500
43,000
126,000
0
High
$1,464
Buildout
(12,000 sq
ft)
5
• The no action alternative. The no action alternative maintains the current
condition and serves as the current baseline condition. For comparison purposes the
no action alternative includes 50,300 of parkland, 4,000 square feet of vegetated
buffer and 126,700 square feet of degraded riverbank, for a total area at 181,000
square feet or 4.15 acres.
• The minimal alternative. This alternative would include excavation of one small
slough (630 linear feet multiplied by an 8 foot bottom channel width) or 5,040 square
feet) and no estuarine marsh. All interpretive and recreation features (covered picnic
area, observation platform picnic tables and parking lot) would be included. For the
alternative evaluation, recreational amenities were preliminarily estimated to cost
$44,100 and restoration features $740,140. The total restored habitat area is 9,040
square feet, which includes the 5,040 of estuarine marsh and 4,000 square feet of
riparian buffer. The cost per square foot of improved habitat area under this option
would be roughly $81.86 ($740,000 divided by 9,040 square feet of improved habitat)
per square foot. In addition to the high per unit cost of restoration, this option
provides only minimal improvement to habitat complexity and opportunity for
species diversity
• The mixed use habitat restoration and recreation alternative. This alternative
proposes to excavate two adjoining sloughs totaling 830 linear feet (6,640 square
feet), creation of a'''A acre intertidal marsh (21,000 square feet), and 1.6 acres (83,700
square feet) of riparian planting. This alternative slightly decreases the size of the
existing park and provides for educational and recreational amenities. Cost shared
recreation features include the interpretive signage, a concrete trail to the observation
area, covered picnic area, and parking. Recreational features are preliminarily
estimated at $44,100 and include the same elements defined above. A gravel trail will
also be provided from the parking lot to the river's edge to provide maintenance
access to the restored area, the gravel path will also provide viewing access to the
restoration features and serve as a boat launch ramp. This alternative would result in
the creation of 111,840 square feet of improved habitat area. The total habitat
restoration costs for this option are $839,500, which would be about $7.50 per square
foot of improved area.
• The full build -out option. This alternative would convert the entire property into
intertidal sloughs and estuarine marsh while retaining none of the recreation or
interpretive amenities. This alternative creates the maximum habitat benefit area,
nearly a fifty percent increase over the mixed -use plan. This plan would create
12,000 square feet of estuarine slough, 43,000 square feet of estuarine marsh and
126,000 square feet of riparian buffer. Total square footage of improved area would
be 181,000 square feet. The cost of this alternative is estimated at $1,464,000
resulting in an average cost per square foot of $8.09. The cost increase is primarily
due to significant increases in the quantity of material excavated, bank stabilization
— material and plantings.
6
The table below presents summary information from the incremental cost evaluation.
The alternatives are first sorted by average cost per output, those plans• which produce
lower levels of output than the plan with the lowest average cost are eliminated from
further consideration. In this case the mixed -use alternative has the lowest average cost
per output while the minimal alternative has lower output but a higher average cost per
output, as such the minimal alternative is eliminated from consideration. The next step is
to compute the incremental costs per incremental output for the remaining alternatives.
Alternative Evaluation
Table 2: Incremental Evaluation for Restoration
Alternative
Total
Restoration
Costs
(X $1000)
Total
Habitat
Restored
Average
Cost per
Output
Incremental
Cost per
Incremental
Output
No Action
$0
0
$0
n.a.
Mixed -use
Habitat &
Recreation
(Preferred)
$883
111,840
$7.50
$7.50
Full Buildout
$1,464
181,000
$8.09
$8.40
Minimal
$740
9,040
$81.86
Eliminated
from
evaluation
Based on the cost effectiveness and incremental evaluation, either the mixed use plan or
the full build out plan is incrementally justified. Although the full build out alternative
provides the greatest increase in improved habitat, approximately a 32% increase
compared to the mix use plan (137,000 square feet under the mixed -use plan compared to
181,000 square feet) and the incremental costs per output are not substantial, the added
implementation costs of this option are not judged to be "worth it ". In addition, this
limited evaluation does not include the value of the loss of the park. Additionally the
non - federal sponsor is not willing to support a habitat restoration project that would
include the loss of the park. Based on this evaluation the federally recommended
alternative and the alternative supported by the non - federal sponsor is the mixed -use
plan.
7
Recreation Evaluation.
In accordance with_EP 116.5 -2 -502, recreation components of ecosystem restoration
projects must meet several criteria. They must be economically justified, cannot increase
the overall ecosystem project cost by more than 10 %, cannot impact or reduce the
restoration outputs and must be provided on the lands needed for the basic ecosystem
restoration project. Exceptions to the last criteria are where lands may be needed for
parking, public access and health and safety features.
Costs. The recreation features that are proposed for inclusion in the Codiga farms project
include signage, parking improvements, picnic tables, a picnic shelter and a viewing
platform. The preliminary cost estimate for these items is $44,000. Average annual costs
based on a 50 -year project life and the federal discount rate for 2002 of 6.125% are
$2,840.
Benefits. The Unit Day Value Method (UDV) was used for the economic evaluation.
This method assigns a value per use based on the willingness to pay of users. The value
is determined based the overall recreation experience at the site, the availability of other
similar recreation opportunities in the area, the carrying capacity of the site, the site
accessibility, and the esthetic value of the site.
Based on the generalized scoring system in EGM 01 -01, the existing condition
score for the site was assessed and determined to be 15 corresponding to a general
recreation value of $3.53. With the project in place the score increases to 48 which
corresponds to a value of $5.85. The City of Tukwila does not track annual usage of the
existing site, however use information is available for the Pea Patch at the site. This
information combined with estimates for expected increases in park usage can be
compared to recreation costs to determine the projects economic viability.
The existing site use under current conditions is primarily by individuals who use
the existing pea patch. Based on use over the past five years, an expected 20 individuals
will participate in the pea patch program. Based on this information, it is assumed that at
least 20 individuals:will•visit. the-site an estimated 10 times per year for a total annual use
of 200 days. This will serve as the existing condition usage estimate. Based on this
information, the usage is multiplied by the existing condition value of $3.53 to arrive at
the annual recreation value of $706.
Park usage is expected to increase with the added recreational amenities at the
site. Existing pea patch program participants are expected to continue using the project,
but the unit day value will increase for these individuals. New users to the park are also
expected. If we assume that the added amenities to the park would attract 15 additional
users per week between May and October and an additional 2 people per week between
November and April the total annual user days is 642. This usage multiplied by the
increased value with the project in place of $5.85, results in a total annual value of
$3,755._
8
Based on this information the net annual increase in value over the existing
condition is $3,049: This figure represents a conservative estimate of recreation project
benefits. The benefit figure is divided by the annual costs to arrive at a benefit to cost
ratio. The benefit to cost ratio is calculated to be 1.1. The proposed recreation amenities
at the site are economically justified.
Project Benefits. By restoring flood plain connectivity and intertidal habitats (i.e. small
blind channels, mudflats, intertidal marsh) a variety of benefits could be expected. The
following are three of the most important considerations:
• The Codiga Farm area would be restored to a more historic condition. By doing so,
both primary and secondary productivity at the site would be increased. By restoring
habitat types that produce the basic food sources (such as organic carbon, detritus,
and benthic and epibenthic organisms) at the base of the food chain, the benefits will
be realized throughout the trophic structure. This restoration would also facilitate
nutrient exchange as well as provide better fish access.
• As a result of restoring several habitat types (mudflat, tidal slough and marsh) and
establishing functional connections between the watershed and estuary, the
restoration work would also - significantly increase the species diversity at the project
site. Many of these species are sensitive species or are currently in decline in the
region due to development and loss of habitat.
• Also as a result of restoring a complex and interconnected system, the restoration
work would provide better support at critical life stages to the more diverse species
assemblages that could now utilize the site. These life stages include reproduction,
rearing, feeding, refuge, immigration, and emigration. The site also offers one of the
few off- channel refuge areas during high flow events in many miles.
Target species that would most benefit from this potential project include many species
of fish, birds, and mammals. Fish species include juyenilesole, sculpins, stickleback,
chum salmon, chinook salmon, and cutthroat trout. Bird species include geese,
goldeneye, coot, gadwall, bufflehead, merganser, great blue heron, green- winged teal,
killdeer, mallard, sandpipers, dunlin, goldfinch, juncos, osprey, redtail hawk, bald eagle,
redwinged blackbird, and song sparrows. Mammal species include river otter, raccoon,
and muskrat. The increase in shallow water habitat would probably benefit chinook and
chum salmon the most and these important species have been in serious decline in the
Puget Sound basin within the past few decades. Puget Sound chinook has been listed as a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
The following table describes the physical changes in habitat that can be expected if
construction is completed.
9
Table 1 -2 Project Habitat Benefits
Physical Change in:
Pre - Project Condition
Post Project Condition
21,500 sq. feet
Estuarine Marsh
0
Riparian Buffer
4,000 sq. feet
83,700 sq. feet
Estuarine slough length
0 linear feet
830 linear feet
Importance of the proposed outputs. Specific species that would benefit include the
Washington State sensitive species such as great blue heron, the federally threatened
species American bald eagle, and significant species that are regionally in decline such as
dunlin, goldeneye, and gadwall. The project site would provide overwintering habitat for
the common merganser and nesting sites for the spotted sandpiper. Several salmon and
trout species would especially benefit from this project as well. These include the
threatened Puget Sound chinook, and churn salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout. If
residence time is increased due to the feeding and refuge opportunities afforded by this
project, the salmon would be larger and more fit as they migrate to the ocean. This would
increase their survival rate during their long migration prior to spawning. Many salmon
species in the Northwest are currently in severe decline and have been petitioned for
endangered species status. Currently chinook is listed and bull trout is proposed for
listing. The wild stocks of salmon and trout in Duwamish/Green Basin are but a small
fraction of their historic numbers.
Relationshi. of .ro.osed .ro'ect to other .ro'ects and .lans. Several agencies have been
working cooperatively to restore the Duwamish estuary. There is currently a Coastal
America demonstration project within the estuary. This demonstration project was
completed in late 1994 and is similar in scope to the potential Section 1135 project in that
it too involved the removal of material to restore the shoreline to its natural shallow water
habitat. This new project that is being proposed under Section 1135 would further
develop the partnerships fostered in the original demonstration project and would benefit
from the lessons learned. Additionally, working with King County (under the 1135
program) -and the =Fort of Seattle (under 206 authority); two other-estuarine habitat
projects have been constructed further down stream. This project would have a
cumulative beneficial effect for those projects.
The Codiga Farms project is a "spin -off, early action project" of Seattle District's
ongoing Green/Duwamish Ecosystem General Investigation Study (G.I.). The Codiga
Farms project received one of the highest project rankings of any of the projects
evaluated in the G.I (over 50 projects were evaluated). This project is consistent with the
goals and objectives established in the G.I and address many of the limiting factors of
habitat productivity that were established under the G.I. (estuarine loss, off - channel
feeding and rearing opportunities for juvenile salmonids).
Lands, Easements and Rights of Way (LER). -
Approximately 4.13 acres of land is required for the proposed Section 1135 Project. The
city of Tukwila, one of the two Non - Federal Sponsors already owns fee interest to 4.11
10
acres of which 3.10 acres of fee interest is necessary for the proposed restoration project,
---with an estimated value of $147,000. Washington State Department of-Natural -
Resources (DNR) a co- sponsor owns the additional 0.02 of an acre in public trust,
necessary for the proposed restoration project, which it will make available for the
project. The value of the DNR land is considered nominal. Access to the site is from an
existing public road. During construction the City of Tukwila will also make available
1.01 acres for a strip of land between the public road and a portion of the permanent
Section 1135 project site for a temporary staging area, with final further improvement to
a section of this area for construction of a parking lot as part of a recreation feature
outside the Section 1135 permanent project footprint. Since there is no loss in utility to
the ecosystem project if the parking lot was not built or a loss in utility if the recreation
feature is built without the ecosystem project, the parking lot is viewed as a stand -alone
item that the City could choose to relocate in the future if necessary. So the City will only
receive credit toward its cost -share requirement for the temporary work area easement,
including the parking lot area within the temporary work area footprint for the purposes
of the Section 1135 project. The estimated value of this temporary right is $7,000. See
the project drawing for the location of these items.
Following is a summary of the estates and estimated fair market value by each estate
proposed for implementing the Section 1135 project.
TABLE I
ESTATE
Fee
Temporary Work Area Easement
(15 months)
Subtotal
Contingency 25%
TOTAL
ACRES
3.12
1.01
4.13
4.13
ESTIMATED FAIR
MARKET VALUE
$147,000
7,000
$154,000
38.500
$193,000 (rounded)
-Real Estate Baseline Cost Estimate -
Before advertising for project construction both the City of Tukwila and Washington
State, Department of Natural Resources will need to certify their LER available for
construction. See Table II below for the real estate cost estimate for this proposed
project. The cost includes an estimated fair market value of the lands to be provided for
the project and administrative costs for certifying their LER available and any acquisition
costs, (e.g. incidental acquisition costs, such as title, survey, appraisal costs, negotiations,
recording fees, legal fees, etc) if the lands were acquired within a five -year period of the
date the Project Cooperation Agreement is signed. The Federal review and assistance
costs are estimated at $12,000 and include providing Non - Federal Sponsors with LER
requirements, review of appraisals, coordination meetings, review of right -of -way
documents, legal support, crediting activities, etc.).
11
TABLE E -II
FEATURE CODE 01 LANDS AND DAMAGES
Lands and Damages $193,000
Non - Federal Sponsor's Costs 28,000
Subtotal of Sponsor LER Credit $221,000
Federal Review and Assistance Costs 12,000
TOTAL LER (includes 25% contingency) $233,000
4. CONSISTENCY STATEMENT: The project modifications would be consistent with
the authorized Howard Hansen Dam project and would in no way adversely impact the
project.
5. VIEWS OF SPONSOR: The city of Tukwila will act as the non - Federal sponsor for
cost - sharing purposes for this project. Washington State, Department of Natural Resources
also acting as a non - Federal Sponsor with limited participation to only providing their LER.
The city has expressed a strong interest in and commitment to restoring the biological
productivity of Codiga Farms. Their letter requesting assistance, dated January 25, 2000
is attached as enclosure 4. The city and Washington State and the Department of Natural
Resources are in agreement with the project as described in this fact sheet. The City of
Tukwila is in agreement with the estimated implementation cost and has set aside funding
for the project in their capitol improvement program budget for 2002. By letter dated 28
February 2002, the sponsor has outlined their understanding of their responsibilities
under the program, including cost - sharing and agreement with the terms of the PCA, and
indicates their continued support for the project.
6. VIEWS OF FEDERAL, TRIBAL, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES:
There is strong interest in and commitment to achieving the goals of this potential
restoration project amongst state and Federal resource agencies.
During project development and planning, District staff worked closely with
representatives of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe to identify "and address cultural issues
relating to the property. Tribal representatives participated fully in the Green Duwamish
General Investigation study under which the Codiga Farms 1135 was initially proposed.
The Tribal representatives also participated in the decision to go ahead with Codiga
Project under the section 1135 program, and not the larger Green/Duwamish Ecosystem
Restoration Project. Tribal fisheries staff were consulted during the preparation of the
EA and FONSI, and offered no comments during the public comment period. Seattle
District Staff archeologists surveyed the site for native artifacts, and coordinated the
finding with both the Tribe and the SHPO. To date, the Tribal representatives have
provided continued input, and have not given written indication of unanswered concerns.
Seattle District ERS will continue to coordinate with the Tribe during the construction
and monitoring phases of the project.
12
7. STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE: This project is compliant with
all applicable regulatory requirements. An Environmental Assessment, 404(b)(1)
analysis, water quality certification, Coastal Zone consistency and a Biological
Assessment have been completed for the project. Under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, Nationwide permit 27 applies. The FONSI was signed 4 September 2001 and the
HPA was received 23 July 2001. Endangered Species Act compliance is being met
through the Programmatic. Biological Assessment (June 2000) prepared for the Green -
Duwamish Ecosystem General Investigation Study. Concurrence letters for the Codiga
Farms Project were received 10 April 2001 from the NMFS and on 10 March 2001 from
the USFWS. All environmental compliance is complete.
8. COSTS AND BENEFITS: The benefits associated with implementation of this
project will outweigh the project costs. The project will result in ecosystem benefits to a
variety of organisms and increased biodiversity. The recommended plan is the NER plan
and the plan supported by the non - federal sponsor.
9. SCHEDULE:
Begin Planning and Design
Complete Planning and Design
Sign PCA
Contract Award (Sponsor In -Kind)
Complete Construction
Complete Monitoring
1 December 2000
5 March 2002
30 July 2002
10 August 2002
15 July 2003
30 October 2007
10. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
• In -kind Services. The local sponsor has indicated that they wish to perform
., limited in-kind services, in the form of materials_ and equipment.:This, effort. is
estimated to be $146,000.
• Monitoring. There will be monitoring associated with this project. Monitoring is
needed to ensure both biological and functional effectiveness. Monitoring will be
focused on the factors that are targeted for improvement. In years one, three and
five we will monitor: plant survivability (percent cover), fish use (primarily
juvenile salmon), prey resource production, and cross sectional area at the mouth
of the slough where it meets the Duwamish River. Estimated monitoring is
expected to be $45,000 total for the project ($30,000 biological and $15,000
physical). Note the monitoring cost represent about 3% of the total budget.
Additional documentation on the unique demands for monitoring can be found in
the August 2000 Preliminary Restoration Plan. Approval for the additional .
monitoring was provided in earlier documentation._
• Co- sponsor. A deviation to the model PCA is being requested. A portion of the
entrance channel is under Department of Natural Resources (DNR) jurisdiction.
The City of Tukwila and the Washington Department of Natural Resources will
13
act as non - federal sponsors. The DNR parcel is estimated at 0.02 of an acre (640
square feet), more or,less as documented on :Plate G -2.of the project. drawings.
based on 2' contour information. Design and construction requirements specify
that the channel must extend from elevation 0' to —2' (N.G.V.D., 1929) and be of
sufficient width to allow for construction and maintenance of the backwater
channel and re- vegetation of the area.
• Project Costs. The project will be conducted through an equipment rental
contract, District Emergency Management staff has reviewed the project cost
estimate.
• Technical Documentation. Additional project documentation related to the
hydrologic design of the project, HTRW investigations, and geotechnical
evaluation is available at the District.
• HTRW Investigations. HTRW investigations found that a portion of the barn
removal (lead paint on the milk barn, and asbestos on several windows) and soil
removal related to a waste oil spill are not eligible for cost sharing in accordance
with ER 1165 -2 -132. The Corps has estimated the amount not eligible for cost
share is $17,000. The sponsor as an in -kind contribution will complete barn
demolition and disposal. The sponsor will be required to demonstrate to the
Corps that all CERCLA hazardous material has been removed from the site,
including confirmation sampling of the soil.
• Financial Capability. The City of Tukwila, the project sponsor for all financial
considerations, has demonstrated their financial capability to implement the
project. The City has set aside $100,000 in their 2002 budget to meet their
required cash contribution and to fund several work -in -kind items to be
contracted. The remainder of the non - federal share will be comprised of work -in-
kind, performed by in -house staff and provision of necessary real estate.
• Historical Preservation. As indicated by a MOU signed by the Corps and the
SHIPO, Historical documentation of the barn is required. Estimated costs for this
item are $13,000 and will be a 100% federal responsibility in accordance with the
provisions of P. L. 93 -291, the Archeological and Historic Data Preservation Act.
This project was a congressional add for FY00.
•
14
11. FINANCIAL DATA: a. (all costs in thousands of dollars)
Project Costs
Federal Funding Needs
Totals Non -Fed Federal FY01 FY02 FY03 FY+
Planning and 158 158 158
Design
Construction
Restoration 1186 336 850 400 445 5
Total 75%/25% 1344 336 1008
Recreation 50/50 52 26 26 26
Historic Pres./00/0 13 13 13
HTRW 0/100 17 17
Total Project 1426 379 1047 158 413 471 5
Note: Projects with a Federal cost of $1,000,000 or less will have a combined entry for
planning and design instead of separate report and plans and specifications rows.
b. Non - Federal Requirements: LER $221,000
Cash $ 11,900
In Kind Services $146,000
Annual OMRR&R $ 2,000
c. Fully funded Cost Estimate: The fully funded cost as found in the PCA is estimated to be
$1,426,000.
'T2. `FEDERAL, .-ALLOCATIONS TO DATE:
Feasibility: $158,000
Plans and Specs: $0
Construction: $0
CFnI1Y o'
TUKWILA
Codiga Farms
Project site
Site Iocation tor the Codip Perms $airion Hal:01 Site Channel Project.
Figure 1
16
17
1821CK'
1d:
.. 18!.4....
4FLLG
t,I, .rc 6 :, 0 :44
Access
Trail/Path
IN
Y;)w 1.4.71141. M.311
ti. lG 1C°
'S1L _'lll
- [):Y' GEM. :: 4+I.
6 1. 10:1a. 1 e Ceti 1
1[S`:1 n.71_E• 1 14.3.70. 1.1.4L01044,•,454• ,41 • ,::)l3f vl ICE.4. 041
4.
N, l (•[:':R' :_ 'J 1. +at. 1E f 1.E0 py r ,1111Y
• <: 11e S.3 .1 ' - '.4,1.46' ?4,C-P:14
EC4 :FFfn._�1s:S'1S, ::731, a(__ 151
645030( 11, [:.4417([ .9 F?':,[CI o;Fl3$1 -,
..141• 1 h• -1 4,1 11.1. ,14444. e..444,1414
50.61 CR: 1.....C., 4:3 14.. 34.. 1.
r (.At 7:61! .'C '3 + 10lT1'II5 .:1E 364776•1Na T_.
fE•4•C>FNI:T1 ,1 _ iC:CY3 ;•7064('.
�1f14.1.1 (011 . 1415 4 •1.,",411, 14..10 N':1.. 1%
C'C3.,' :: 3.1(61,• 71. F
11 1. :.-1 1'34:. 1 '1t NI'•1✓ 1f 'Al ';4 ✓ Jrt'.,
41 441.4 tun, al C;:SU i , r6[ I LP,1 1 ( -�
..ra.[w::!!1 V .15:' �!•F1. El$ITOUI,
w.11l:�.li lE.rrJSF;
7 4710 :4:1431 • 44, F1•E' 310'!' 7' 11101 :'ry3 JJII'
1.7. r ' , , , : ' ' 5 ' - . 42'201 ' ,.f. 54 w1
3TE 1 s..,
F.E;(: U . 30, 61'44 � w
E. • C 1': F 114.4. (.C. :1 (a. 13
S. 4410. 11 'G6.. 31 1M 6: T, 11A110/111.
C•.i' i1Tri,f'. fi61�iMT .(11, 31 04 47 •.I"' S N
ICrrl ill 1 11..1 Il3r .Ka_ ii[ E1 1 .v[4. o.:a.E
'6' FRS11...: .6114 73 .NW {'i'i 5(
00413E 1x r[11' ;.i• ; 7RA4a ¢.11 :. 4I:07n A5 • W111 1r, v 11
4''0''1. :L f - G''.31 '✓ I' :•111 1`,:1'.1,1(4 to ''Y..
6,0,070 '.1:;. 4K• : 41. C 31.631.-344 1: 7.0 a_ ; r, EI,01,
:2. .1 3'37 1 :•:3: ,4r •.':CELT T'• AIM.: 7.4.1('•.1
33137 1/3 (EWE '6 !' In 1 6 :ITE- 161 PO: 444. 7', 4431.+
/I(' N: :4217 0,,,1 16444,:,
DRAFT
VS ARMY ENGEER 061R1C1• SEA1116
CORK 02 ENGEFRS
110071. 1•1•010101
;:':ICS ',FU: 1261721 '5 :]!CI: U,
911 RAN
43:1:411'11
I'.Lit�1 i-J
Shoreline Management Act
Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter
From: City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98188
Date of Transmittal: May 25, 2001
Type of Permit: Substantial Development
Local Government Decision: Approval
To:
Applicant Information:
Name: Ryan Partee, Fisheries Biologist
Address: City of Tukwila, Dept. of Public Works
6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Phone: 206 - 431 -0179
Department of Ecology
Attn: Marcia Geidel
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504 -7600
Date of Receipt:
4.1#0
Applicant's Representative:
Name: Same
Address: " "
Is the applicant the property owner? Yes (City owned site)
Location of the property: 12529 51st Place South
Water Body Name: Green/Duwamish River
Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes
Environment Designation: Urban
Phone:
CG 57
Description of Project: Construct a side channel to restore juvenile rearing habitat,
revised parking lot and community garden, picnic shelter, observation deck, pedestrian
path and interpretive signage on the Duwamish River.
Notice of Application Date: April 6, 2001 Final Decision Date: May 24, 2001
By: Carol Lumb, Associate Planner, City of Tukwila
Phone Number: (206) 433 -3661
•
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MAY 10, 2001
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT INFORMATION
The City of Tukwila Public Works Department has filed an application for a conditional
use permit and a request for special permission parking to install a habitat restoration
project at 12529 50 Place South in Tukwila. The project is located on an approximately
3 -acre site and will also include a nonmotorized boat launch, a picnic shelter, observation
deck and interpretive signage to explain the history of the site and the habitat restoration
features.
You are invited to comment on the project at the public hearing scheduled for Thursday,
May 24, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. before the Tukwila Planning Commission. The hearing will
take place at Tukwila City Hall in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard. To confirm the time and date before the hearing, call the Department of
Community Development at 431 -3670. For further information on this proposal, contact
Carol Lumb at 431 -3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100,
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Other known required permits include:
• Land Altering and Grading
FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
The project files are available for review at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you
may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development,
located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Please call 431-3670 to make sure the files will be available.
Application filed:
Notice of Completeness Issued:
Notice of Application Issued:
c:\mydocs \Codiga Farm\heamot.doc
March 23, 2001
March 27, 2001
April 6, 2001
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665
ft.
• •
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
CONSTRUCT BACKWATER CHANNEL, BOAT LAUNCH, PICNIC
FACILITY, INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE
PROPONENT: TUKWILA DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, ANY
ADDRESS: 12529 »50 PL S
PARCEL NO 017900-2952
SEC /TWN /RNG: SW 11-23-04 LOTS 37 -59
LEAD AGENCY: .; CITY OF "TUKWILA
(..F;ILE NO E01607
The City has determined that the proposal does not have = a; probable
significant adverse impact or the' environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(6)
This decision was "made after review''of- a - completed envi ronmental
checklist' and other information or; fi le, with the lead agency. This
information is available to the public on request.
*********.**.**********,*4**********.********* * ** * * * * * * * *: * * * * * *. * * ** * * * * * **
This determ i nat i on i s' f i na 1, and ` s4gned this'
2001 .
day of
Steve I_ancater, Responsible Official
City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3670
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Copies of the prOt*dures for SEPA appeals are available: >�w,th the
Department of Commu=nity,Deve1opment.
Dept. Of Community Development
City of Tukwila
AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
I, LESL /E HEREBY DECLARE THAT:
Notice of Public Hearing
)t/
,Determination of Non - Significance
Person requesting mailing: CAROL L—\)00413
Notice of Public Meeting
Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance
Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt
Determination of Significance & Scoping
Notice
Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt
Notice of Action
Planning Commission Agenda Pkt
Official Notice
Short Subdivision Agenda
Notice of Application
Shoreline Mgmt Permit
Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt
Permit
_
__
FAX To Seattle Times
Classifieds
Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds
PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111
Other
Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 1,17( day of MAy in the
year 20A, _
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 02/09/012:17 PM
Project Name: PUB( /L VUoR K 5
Project Number: E0 (- 007
Mailer's Signature:
Person requesting mailing: CAROL L—\)00413
P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 02/09/012:17 PM
CH LIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PET MAILINGS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
('DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE
( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D.
(. ATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
(OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
()TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES
•( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
() DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV.
(6EPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE
( )JDEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV.
4EPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV
( PT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION"
( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
*SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS
* SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11
( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2
( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION
( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC
() K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT
(VrTUKWILA LIBRARY
() RENTON LIBRARY
( ) KENT LIBRARY
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
() QWEST •
( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY
( ) HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT
( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
UTILITIES
CITY AGENCIES
( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT
( ) T ILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
Ga3r�.
folitun F- -(, PUBLIC »WORKSI' . () FIRE
T614'*e.f.- ( )'POLICE ( ) FINANCE
( ) PLANNING ( ) BUILDING
( ) PARKS & REC. () MAYOR
O CITY CLERK
O HEALTH DEPT
() PORT OF SEATTLE
( ) K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR
(y'R.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL
(0-K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES
(ASTER LIBRARY
(vrk C PUBLIC LIBRARY
( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE
( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
( ) WATER DISTRICT #20
( ) WATER DISTRICT #125
( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
( ) BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT
() RENTON PLANNING DEPT
( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC
( ) CITY OF BURIEN
( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU
( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE'
" NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ.
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
( V6UWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
() P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
( ) SOUND TRANSIT
( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
( ) W K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
( U KLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
MEDIA
() SEATTLE TIMES
() SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL
() HIGHLINE TIMES altr-
Z 1r'
7/21/00 \ \TUK2 \VOL2\ PLANNING \ administrativeforms \FORMS \CHKLIST.doc
c7r•e� '
'DM S
s tL Plc"
6) SO PA (Juaai 4
ec.u1--
G
Q3 i�u5
PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS
SEPA MAILINGS
Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing)
Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section
*Applicant
*Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list)
*Any parties of record
* send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination
Send these documents to DOE:
SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper)
SHORELINE MAILINGS:
Notice of Application:
Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners
within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted.
The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any
person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final
decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the
application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral
.presentation made at the,hearing:
Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision:
Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE)
Department of Ecology Shorelands Section
State Attorney General
* Applicant
*Indian Tribes
*Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list).
*Any parties of record
* send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination
Send these documents to DOE and Attorney General:
Permit Data Sheet
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra)
Findings (staff report or memo)
Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant)
Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
— Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements
— Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline
- Grading Plan
- Vicinity map
SEPA determination (3-partfrom Sierra)
Findings (staff report or memo)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline
Notice of Application
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed)
02/05/01 P:\PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS.doc
May 8, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Lancaster, Director
1
Fm: Carol LumJJAssociate Planner
Re: Project File No. E01 -007: Codiga Farm Side Channel and Park
Project Description:
To construct a side channel for fish habitat enhancement, picnic shelter and interpretive
signage for habitat restoration project, boat launch and parking for picnic and pea patch
usage within the shoreline environment.
Proponent
City of Tukwila, Department of Public Works
Location:
12529 50th Place South
Date prepared:
April 25, 2001
Lead Agency:
City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development
Challenges to Document:
None
Other Agencies of Jurisdiction:
Department of Ecology, United States Army Corps of Engineers
Recommendation:
Determination of Non - Significance (DNS)
SEPA Review — E01 -007 • •
Codiga Farm Side Channel
May 8, 2001
Existing Environmental Information:
• EIS prepared by the U.S.. Army Corps of Engineers on the restoration sites being
funded by that agency.
• Environmental Checklist and ESA Screening Checklist prepared by the applicant
Summary of Primary Impacts:
Earth
The soils at the proposed building site are glacial till, sand and gravel covered
by approximately 2 feet of topsoil. The site is generally flat with the steepest
slope being 3 -5% along the river bank. The site is not leveed on this side of the
river bank.
The western portion of the site is currently used as a pea patch for city residents.
The. pea patch will be reoriented and enlarged as part of the overall project.
A significant amount of excavation will take place on the site since the project is
to create a salmon habitat side channel. It is estimated that 15,000 to 22,000
cubic yards of excavation will occur. Some of the excavated soil will be used to
grade the site. The remaining will be hauled to a legal disposal site or
appropriate fill location. Approximately 5% of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project completion.
Best Management Practices will be used, as required by the 1998 King County
Surface Water Design Manual, to minimize erosion and offsite sediment
transportation.
Air
Normal emissions and dust associated with use of construction equipment will
occur during construction of the project. Emissions will conform to
P.S.A.P.C.A. requirements.
Water
The Green/Duwamish River abuts the site. The purpose of the.project is to add
a 800 foot side channel to the River to restore juvenile rearing habitat. The
project is subject to the State Shoreline Management Act. A Hydraulics Project
c:\mydocs \Codiga Farm \SEPA- staffrpt.doc
2
SEPA Review = E01 -007
• •
Codiga Farm Side Channel
May 8, 2001
Approval (HPA) permit is required from the state Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife since work will be done waterward of the ordinary high water mark; a
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit is also required for the project.
Approximately 600 cubic yards of material may need to be removed in order to
connect the completed side channel with the River. The finished project is
intended to allow the river to back fill into the side channel. Water depth and
quantity will fluctuate with the elevation of the River. The project is within the
100 year flood plain. The flood plain elevation is approximately 12.5 feet.
The parking area will be paved either with concrete or asphalt. Runoff from the
parking area will be routed into a bioswale for treatment and infiltration, per the
requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (K.C.S.W.D.
Manual). All requirements of the K.C.S.W.D. Manual will be met for this.
project.
Plants
Currently there are alder, maple and fir trees on the site along with shrubs, grass
and pasture. All invasive vegetation will be removed and the side channel will
be planted with native terestrial and aquatic species to improve the habitat value
of the side channel.
Animals
The SEPA Checklist notes that hawks, herons, eagles, songbirds, and most bird
species found in Western Washington have been observed on or near the site.
The site is located along the Pacific Flyway migration route. The mammals
observed on the site have been river otter, mice and voles. The River provides
habitat for salmon, trout and shellfish.
Energy/Natural Resources
Electricity will be used to power a light in the parking lot. The light will be
regulated by photocells, on at dusk and off at dawn.
Environmental Health
No environmental health hazards are expected as a result of this project, nor is
the project expected to increase the need for emergency services. The project
3
c:\mydocs \Codiga Farm \SEPA- staffrpt.doc
SEPA Review — E01 -007
Codiga Farm Side Channel
May 8, 2001
Light/Glare
The only exterior lighting will be a pole light illuminating the parking lot for
security purposes. The light will be controlled by photocells, which will turn the
light on at dusk and turn it off at dawn. No glare from the parking lot light is
anticipated on the adjacent residential area.
Recreation
As part of the park components of this project a hand held boat launch will be
installed along with a picnic shelter and pathway with observation platform that
allows visitors to look out over the side channel. Interpretive signs will be
installed to explain both the value of side channels in the life cycle of salmon
and the agricultural history of the site.
Historic /Cultural Preservation
The site has been used since 1929 as a dairy farm and contains the only
remaining barn in the City. The barn and its associated structures as well as the
landscape have been deemed eligible for the State Historic Register. The
applicant and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are working with the State
Historic Preservation Office to determine what mitigation will be required for
demolishing the buildings. The applicant expects to photo - document the site
and some of these photos will be used as part of the interpretive signage.
Demolition of the barn and other structures is needed given the design of the
side channel to maximize its habitat restoration value. The Corps is also
investigating the archeological significance of the site. The Tukwila Historical
Society has offered to assist with the text for the interpretive signs. The
proposed design of the signs mimics the architecture of the barn.
Transportation
The site is accessed via 50th Place South. Currently there is a gravel parking lot
that provides parking for 8 cars for the pea patch. The parking lot for the project
will be shared with the pea patch. The Parks Department has provided a
memorandum documenting the anticipated parking needs for the site. Parks
staff recommend that 12 parking stalls be provided, based on their standard
requirement for this type of park of 3 parking stalls per acre of neighborhood
park site with active amenities. This site is approximately 3 acres with a mix of
active and passive park facilities. The majority of the site will be used for the
side channel fish habitat restoration, with the active features including a
c:\mydocs \Codiga Farm \SEPA- staffrpt.doc
SEPA Review — E01 -007•
Codiga Farm Side Channel
May 8, 2001
community garden, covered picnic shelter, fish observation deck, walking trail
and non - motorized boat launch. A portable toilet will remain on the site. The
site plan indicates that 12 parking stalls plus one ADA stall for a total of 13
parking stalls will be constructed.
Public Services
The development of this site as a small park and fish restoration project may
generate an increased need for public services such as police and fire. The
Police Department has reviewed the project and recommended that a pay
telephone be installed in the event there is an emergency on the site and that the
parking lot be lighted.
Utilities
Utilities currently available at the site include electricity and water. A portable
toilet is provided in lieu of full restroom facilities. No additional utilities are
anticipated to be needed as a result of the park construction.
Recommendation
Determination of Nonsignificance
6
c:\mydocs \Codiga Farm \SEPA- staffrpt.doc
�IZ3- 1O'I
CODIGA HISTORIC INTERPRETATION ISSUES
REUSE OF MILK HOUSE
SHPO Request
• Would like to see discussion of reuse of historic milk house as picnic shelter or view
shed
• Clean and rehabilitate and open up walls toward river for observation/safety
Tukwila Concerns
• Reuse of milk house not part of City's park design
• Discourage closed structure that can hide illegal acivities_______.____
• Large amount of lead paint in milk house
• Rehabilitation (foundation), lead abatement (board/window removal), and
modification (taking out back wall with necessary framing changes) would lead to
loss of historic integrity
• No money to do this
• City Council has given formal permission to take it down
•
•
•
DESIGN /CONSTRUCTION OF PICNIC SHELTER
SHPO Request
• Would like to see reuse of original barn timbers in a space frame to convey
height/volume of original structure
• Modern material shelter suspended inside space frame
• Reuse siding around space frame for railing around perimeter
• Discourage use of barn roof in modern materials on shelter unless historic materials
are to be used
• Wants contemporary structure that uses materials of original and conveys mass of
original barn
Tukwila Concerns
• City was under the impression that this was what SHPO originally had in mind
• Shelter has to be built from modern materials (codes will not allow original timbers to
be used structurally)
• Would like to reuse historic materials in non - structural design elements
• Must have open sides to discourage illegal activities
• Unclear on how internal shelter would work/convey historic feel of building
•
•
• additional concerns (Corps): vandalism of wood structure, water/bird damage on
exposed flat timber surfaces, reuse of historic wood not in preservation guidelines?
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINE OFFICE SYMBOL:
PROJECT:
SUBJECT:
•
COMPUTED BY:
CHECKED BY:
L J
c
DATE:
SIff. OF
PART:
C
gNPD FORM 7 (R SED) JUNE 86
10. GRID
•
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
April 16 - April 20, 2001
OTHER
Codiga Farm Side Channel Project
An Open House was held Wednesday, April 18, from 5:00 -7:00 p.m. at the Community Center to present
information about the Codiga Farm Side Channel project. Staff from Public Works, Parks, Community
Development and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers attended to answer questions of area residents. Five
area individuals attended, including former City Council member Wendy Morgan, who attended as
President of the Tukwila Historical Society.
While not many people attended, those who did come had a number of issues they wanted to discuss.
These concerns included the following: plans for including a pay telephone at the site (suggested by the
Tukwila Police Department in case of an emergency involving the boat launch) will be a magnet for drug
dealers who already are a strong presence in this neighborhood; if the pay telephone is placed there, then
surveillance cameras should also be installed on the site; the park should be gated so that it doesn't attract
nuisance activity at night; the porta -potty is used for illegal activities and should be removed; there needs
to be more presence by the police department in this area; the park should not be named after the Codiga
Farm (there is already a bridge named for Mr. Codiga) but a name representing a broader community
should be used. Concern was also expressed about the number of abandoned vehicles and trash that has
collected around and under the bridge. The Historical Society was concerned that the barn is being torn
down with no real effort to preserve it and that they were not notified directly about the meeting but found
out about it at the Council meeting this week. Ms. Morgan offered the assistance of the Historical Society
with writing the text for the interpretive signage on the site. The Society requested copies of pictures of the
barn and the original architectural drawings for their archives. Parks Department staff will follow up with
the Historical Society to develop the interpretive signage. Staff will also discuss the safety issues raised
with the police department.
Steve Lancaster, Director, Department of Community Development
• •
Automobile Parking Regulations and Policies
Parking of automobiles can be divided into two use groups:
1. Parking as an accessory use - whether it's for a residence or a business. The parking is
there because the business or residents want to provide on -site space for cars as a
courtesy /necessity for visitors, employees, or owners.
2. Parking as a primary use - there is no other primary use of a site other than the parking
of cars. There may or may not be a fee charged to use the parking space. This type of
parking as a primary use can provide a service for businesses within walking distance or
for some distant use.
Parking as a primary use can provide:
• riders for a transit system
• publicly subsidize parking spaces for urban centers
• reduction in the number of auto trips into congested areas such as urban centers,
airports, etc.
• dispersal of automobile parking to sites outside of congested areas
• • an economic use of land
• potentially less auto trips among neighboring sites
1995 Comprehensive Plan (amended)
Relevant Policies on Public Parking Lots and garages
8.1.16
Support multi -modal transfer areas for cars, buses, pedestrians and rail.
13.4.14
Support short and long term use of rail, carpools, buses
13.3.3
Support street capacity improvements and trip reduction (trip generation control) measures
as means to control street network capacity.
13.6.4
Work with King County and Port of Seattle in controlling adverse impacts from airport
operations and development.
Relevant Tukwila Definitions
3.48.010 (2) "Commercial Parking" means any transaction or arrangement whereby a vehicle is
parked and a fee is charged for parking or allowing the vehicle to be parked.
18.06.270 "Essential public facility" means a facility which provides a basic public service,
provided in one of the following manners: directly by a government agency, by a private
entity substantially funded or contracted for by a government agency or provided by a
private entity subject to public service obligations (i.e. private utility companies that have a
franchisee or other legal obligation to provide service within a defined service area.)
APR 23 '01 12:03 NMF.`
')RTHWEST REGION P.2 /7
00u1 OINi.y
r
%Tr;
Colonel Ralph H. Graves
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
Post Office Box 37551
Seattle, Washington 98124-3755
Patrick T, Cy
Re: Section 7 Informal Consultation on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Green Duwamish
Ecosystem Restoration Program, King County, Washington (NMFS No. WSB -00 -423) and
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Northwest Region
7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1
Seattle, WA 98115
April 10, 2001
ATTACHMENT F
Dear Colonel Graves:
This correspondence is in response to your request for consultation under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Additionally, this letter serves to meet the requirements for consultation
under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson - Stevens
Act).
Endangered Species Act
The. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed le August 31, 2000 request for
concurrence with your findings of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA)" for the
above referenced program, based on the Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA, June 2000),
Final Feasibility Report (October 2000), and Supplemental Letter (March 27, 2001). Your
findings in regard to the listing of Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) as
Threatened under the ESA. This consultation with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) is conducted under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and its implementing regulations, 50
CFR Part 402.
The NMFS has evaluated the 50 projects in this ten -year program directed at ecosystem habitat
restoration and enhancement, largely for salmonids and especially Chinook salmon, and concurs
with your findings of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect," to either the species or the
designated critical habitat for most of the projects (See Table 1). Based on the ACOE's
Supplemental Letter of March 27, 2001 to the PBA, NNS agrees with the assignment of the
projects into four groups: early action (Calendar Year 2001), Phase 1 projects (Years 2002-
2003), Phase 2 (Years 2004 - 2009), and those that require an individual consultation or
reinitintion under this consultation, based on requiring more detailed construction plans. Five
projects during Phase 1 are considered Demonstration Projects which will provide information
on how to better implement larger scale projects planned for Phase 2 which ultimately occur at
Printed on Recycled Papa
MAY 0 9 2007
TUK`t t..A ATTACHMENT F
PUBLIC b'uo} K —
APP 23 '01 12 :04 NMFS r_ °.THWEST REGION P.3 /7
multiple sites or units.
Table 1 Green Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program Projects
Project No Project Name
Phase ESA Status
Marine Projects
1 Elliott Bay Nearshore 1 Concur
Tidally- Influenced Estuarine Projects
2 Site 1, Duwamish 1 Concur
3 Riverton Side Channel 1 Concur
4 Codiga Farms Early Action Concur
Free - Flowing Riverine Projects
5 Black River Marsh 2 Concur
6 Gilliam Creek 2 Concur
1 Lower Springbrook Creek 1 Concur
8 Upper Springbrook Creek 1 Concur
9 Mill Creek East 2 Concur
10 Garrison Creek 2 Concur
11 Mullen Slough, Prentice Nursery Reach 2 Concur
12 Mullen Slough Reach 2 - Concur
13 Mill Creek, Schuler Brothers Reach 2 Concur
14 Mill Creek, Merlino Reach 2 Concur
15 Mill Creek, Wetland 5 K. Reach 2 Concur
16 Mill Creek, Goedeke Reach 2 Concur
17 Green River Park 1 Concur
18 Horsehead Bend Side Channel 1 Concur
19 NE Auburn Creek 1 Concur
20 Meridian Valley Creek 1 Concur
21 Lake MeridianOutlet Relocation 1 Concur
22 Olson Creek 1 Concur
23 Riverside Estates Side Channel 2 Concur
24 Mainstem Maintenance 1 Concur for Demo'
25 Porter Levee 2 Concur
26 Kaech Levee Pond 2 Concur
27 Ray Creek Trib Coiridor 2 Concur
28. Hamikami Levee Modification. 2 Concur
29 Turley Levee Setback 2 Concur
30 Loans Levee Setback 1 Concur
31 Burns Creek Restoration 1 Concur
32 Middle Green River Large Woody Debris 1 Concur for Demo
.APR 23 '01 12:05 NMFS t•' -WEST REGION
-3-
33 Middle Green River Gravel Replacement 1 Concur for Demo
34 • Flaming Geyser. Landslide 2 Individual'
35 Flaming Geyser Side Channel 2 Concur
36 Newaukum Creek 1 Concur for Demo
37 Big Spring Creek 2 Concur
38 Brunner Slough 1 Concur
39 . Upper Green R Side Channel Enhancement 2 • Individual
40 Upper Green River Gravel Replacement 1 Concur for Demo
P. 4/7
Above Howard Hansen Dam
41 Gale Creek . 1 Concur'
42 Boundary Creek 2 Concur'
43 Sweeney Creek Early Action Concur'
44 Olsen Creek 2 Concur3 •
45 May Creek 2 Concur3
46 Maywood Creek 2 Concur?
47 Gold Creek 2 Concur'
48 Sunday Creek Riparian Planting 1 Concur
49 North East Creek 2 Concur'
50 Volunteer Revegetation 1 Concur
' Concurrence as NLAA for one demonstration unit in each project.
2 Either reinitiate this consultation or initiate a new consultation, based on further
Project designs.
' Culvert replacement projects will use NMFS' Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at
Stream Crossings, Final Draft, March 28, 2000 (Appended).
Those restoration projects in which NMFS concurs provide an increase in quantity of critical and
essential fish habitat though the removal of upland fill and the removing of fish passage
impediments and an increase in quality of the critical and essential fish habitat because of the
reasons provided in your Biological Assessment and Supplemental Letter: 1) the work will be
done during a time of the year when chinook salmon are not present; 2) most of the upland •
construction will take place "in the dry" with final connection to the aquatic environment during
permissible periods, 3) the implementation employs a landscape ecological approach for the
entire watershed from the headwaters of the Green River through the Duwamish estuary to
marine habitats in Elliott Bay shallow subtidal substrates; 4) these projects will complement
other ongoing Green- Duwamish River Basin restoration and mitigation efforts; and 5) the project
will meet all of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval
conditions,
This concludes informal consultation on these actions in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(b)(l).
The ACOE must reinitiate this ESA consultation if:• 1) new information reveals effects of the
action that may affect listed species in a way not previously considered; 2) the action is modified
APR 23 '01 12:05 NNES ' - THNEST REGION P.5 /7
-4-
in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species that was not previously considered;. or 3) a
new species is listed, or critical habitat designated, that may be affected by the identified action.
Essential Fish Habitat
Federal agencies are obligated, under Section 305 of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (IvISA) (16 USC 1855(b)) and its implementing regulations
(50CFR600), to consult with NlvfFS regarding actions that are authorized, funded, or undertaken
by that agency, that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The MSA 03) defines
EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth
to maturity." Furthermore, NMFS is required to provide the Federal agency with conservation
recommendations which minimize the adverse effects of the project and conserve EFH. This
consultation is based, in part, on information provided by the Federal agency and descriptions of
EFH for Pacific coast groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and Pacific salmon contained in the
Fishery Management Plans produced by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council.
The proposed actions and action areas are described in the Biological Assessment. The action
area covers four different types of habitats: marine, tidally- influenced estuarine, and riverine.
The marine habitats contain designated EFH for various life - history stages of 46 species of
groundfish, 4 coastal pelagic species, and three species of Pacific salmon; the estuarine habitats
contain designated EFH for various life- history stages of 17 species of groundfish, four coastal
pelagic species, and three species of Pacific salmon; and the riverine habitats include designated
EFI-I for various life - history stages of three species of Pacific salmon (Table 2). Information
submitted by the ACOE in the Programmatic Biological Assessment is sufficient for NMFS to
conclude that the proposed action may adversely impact EFH in the short term by:
1. Increased siltation during in -water construction operations; and
2. Release of previously unknown chemical contamination during construction.
EFfI Conservation Recommendations: The conservation measures that the ACOE included as
part of the proposed action are adequate to minimize the long -term adverse impacts from this
project to designated EFH for the species in Table 2. It is NMFS' understanding that the ACOE
intends to implement the proposed activity with these built -in conservation measures that
minimize potential adverse effect to the maximum extent practicable. While NMFS is satisfied
with the nineteen General Best Management Practices (BMPs, in Section 2.5) in the PBA,
short -tern impacts should be minimized with the following recommendations.
1. Where gravel/cobble material is to be used in gravel replacement projects, it will be sieved
(screen) to remove fine - grained materials smaller than 1/4" in diameter (BMP #15). It is
assumed projects will require some level of maintenance over time; this should not include
in -water dredging of sediments.
APP. 23 '01 12:06 NMFS t THWEST REGION
P.6'7
2. Construction activities will cease if chemical contamination found at any site exceeds the
State of Washington sediment standards or Model Toxics Control Act, where applicable
(BMP #16), until the contamination is either removed or the project abandoned.
Please note that the MSA ( §305(b)(4)(B)) requires the Federal agency to provide a written
response to NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations within 30 days of its receipt of this
letter.
This concludes EFH consultation in accordancc with the MSA and 50CFR600. The ACOE must
reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS if the proposed action is substantially revised in a
manner that may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the
basis for NMFS' EFH conservation recommendations (50 CFR 600.920(k)).
This concludes ESA and EFH consultations. If you have questions regarding either of these
consultations, please contact Robert Clark at 206- 526 -4338.
Sincerely,
Donna Darm
Acting Regional Administrator.
APR 23 '0.1 12 :07 NMFS :THWEST REGION
P.7,7
-6-
Table. 2. Species of fishes with designated E 11 in the proposed action areas (M = Mme, E
Estuarine, R = Riverine).
Groundfisb
S.ecies
spiny dogfish (M, E)
S ualus acanthias
big skate (M)
Rua binoculars
California skate (M, E)
Ra'a inornata
longnose skate (M)
Ra'a rhino
raffish (M, E)
H drola is colltei
Pacific cod (M, E)
Gadus rnacroce1halus
hake (N4, E)
Nlerluccius •roclucrus
black rockfish (M)
Sebastes melano's
bocaccio (NI, E)
S. •aucis•inis
brown rockfish (N4, E)
S. aurtculanrs
canary rockfish (M)
S. •inni er
China rockfish (M)
S. nebulosus
copper rockfish (M, E)
S. caurinus
darkblotch rockfish (M)
S. crameri
greenstriped rockfish (M)
S. elon_ ants •
Pacific ocean perch (M)
S. ahitus
quillback rockfish (M, E)
S. malt er
redbanded rockfish (M)
S. babcocki
redstripe rockfish (M)
S, .rort °er
rosethorn rockfish (M)
S. helvomaculatus
rosy rockfish (M)
S. rosaceuS .
roubheye rockfish (M)
S. aleuttanus
sharpchin rockfish (M)
S. zacentrus
splitnose rockfish (M)
S. di•lo•roa •
striptail rockfish (M)
S. saxlcola
tiger rockfish (M)
S. ni ocinctus
vermilion rockfish (M)
S. miniatus
yelloweye rockfish (M)
S. ruberrirnus
yellowtail rockfish (M)
S. avidus
shortspiue thornyhead (M)
Sebastolobits alascanus
cabezon (M, E)
Scor aenichthys marrnoranis
lingcod (?v1, E)
0•hiodon elon :anus
kelp greenling (M, E)
Hexa:rammos deco 'animus
sablefish (M, E)
Ano,lo oma fmbria
Pacific sanddab (M, E)
Citharichthys sordidus
butter sole (M, E)
Iso•setta lsale'is
curlfin sole (M, E) •
Ple'uronichth s decurrens
Dover sole (M, E)
Nlicrostomus • aci 'cur
English sole (M)
Paro.hr s vetulus
flathead sole (M, E)
P11' • o; lossoides elassodon
pctrale sole (M, E)
Eo•setta 'ordani •
rex sole (M)
GI •toce•halus zachirus
rock sole (M, E)
Le• Edo ,setta bilineata
sand sole (M, E)
psettichth s melanostictus
starry flounder (M)
Platichth s stellatus
arrowtooth flounder (M, E)
Atheresthes stomias
Coastal Pelagic
S. ecies
anchovy (M, E)
En :raults mord= •
Pacific sardine (M: E)
Sardtno s sa: ax
Pacific mackerel (M, E)
Scomber •• ,anicus
market squid (M, E)
Loll o o•alescens
Pacific salmon
S • ecies
chinook (M, E, R)
Oncor thus tsh tscha
coho (M, E, R)
0. kisutch
Puget Sound pink (M, E, R)
0. orbuscha
APP. 23 '01 12:03 NMF IOR.THWEST REGION
Qt1t"1 OP
n
Colonel Ralph H. Graves
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
Post Office Box 37551
Seattle, Washington 98124-3755
P.2 /7
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Northwest Region
7600 Sand Point Way N.E„ Bldg, 1
Seattle, WA 98115
April 10; 2001
" "— — - - -- Attenuon: Patrick T, Cagney
Re: Section 7 Informal Consultation on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Green Duwamish
Ecosystem Restoration Program, King County, Washington (NMFS No. WSB -00 -423) and
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation.
Dear Colonel Graves:
This correspondence is in response to your request for consultation under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Additionally, this letter serves to meet the requirements for consultation
under the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson - Stevens
Act).
Endangered Species Act
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed fHe August 31, 2000 request for
concurrence with your findings of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA)" for the
above referenced program, based on the Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA, June 2000),
Final Feasibility Report (October 2000), and Supplemental Letter (March 27, 2001). Your
findings in regard to the listing of Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) as
Threatened under the ESA. This consultation with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE) is conducted under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and its implementing regulations, 50
CFR Part 402.
The NMFS has evaluated the 50 projects in this ten -year program directed at ecosystem habitat
restoration and enhancement, largely for salmonids and especially Chinook salmon, and concurs
with your findings of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect," to either the species or the
designated critical habitat for most of the projects (See Table 1). Based on the ACOE's
Supplemental Letter of March 27, 2001 to the PBA, NMFS agrees with the assignment of the.
projects into four groups: early action (Calendar Year 2001), Phase 1 projects (Years 2002 -
2003), Phase 2 (Years 2004 - 2009), and those that require an individual consultation or
reinitiation under this consultation, based on requiring more detailed construction plans. Five
projects during Phase 1 are considered Demonstration Projects which will provide information
on huw to better implement larger scale projects planned for Phase 2 which ultimately occur at
Printed on Recyclul Paper
MM 0 9 2001
TU° VR ..A
PUBLIC WORKS
consultation with these agencies and has supplied each of them with a programmatic
biological assessment for the Ecosystem Restoration Study. This procedure was
identified in the Restoration Plan. These documents, each over 125 pages in length, are
considered to long to be included in the Final EIS. They are available from the Services
that have jurisdiction for ESA issues. No additional information on ESA compliance will
be included in the Final EIS.
Green/Duwamish River Basin Restoration Program
Final Programmatic EIS
• They occur on lands that were purchased with recreation funds or the lands were
purchased for the purpose to provide shoreline and public access prior to any
suggestion of aquatic habitat restoration.
Public features in some restoration projects is not a unique concept, there are a few sites
in the Duwamish Estuary where habitat features have been incorporated into parks. The
T -105 area that is owned by the Port of Seattle and Seaboard Lumber site that was
constructed by the City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation are two such
examples. Many shoreline master plans discuss the importance of public access to the
States shorelines. Some public grants place an emphasis on providing some public access
to publicly acquired lands. The more important question is what is the best way to
accomplish this without jeopardizing the objectives of the restoration activity. The above
mentioned projects are but two examples on how this can be accomplished.
There are only a handful of projects where trails or viewing platforms are proposed.
Additional analysis "to assess the impacts to sensitive habitats" is not needed since these
properties, in the most part have already been purchased and the public currently has
access to them. The public features do not include placement of fill material for trails in
wetlands. There are three, hand boat launches (for kayaks and canoes) proposed but no
boat moorage facilities have been considered. There is a need for public education on the
causes of habitat degradation and the benefits of restoring such habitats. Signage to
inform the public will occur at suitable locations where budget allows.
This comment is addressed in the section 4.13. A new paragraph under the section
entitled Land and Shoreline Use. On Page 4 -17 a new paragraph will be added just
after the second paragraph at the top of the page. The paragraph states:
"It is important to provide public access and some park like amenities (such as trails,
viewing platforms and hand boat launches) in a limited manner at a few of the restoration
sites. This will only occur on lands that were purchased with recreation funds or the
lands were purchased for the purpose of providing shoreline and public access prior to
any suggestion of aquatic habitat restoration. The public features do not include the
placement of fill material for trails in wetlands. Planning for public amenities will occur
in a manner as to not jeopardize the objectives of the habitat restoration project."
Comment: Biological Assessment. We would like to see a summary of the Biological
Assessment in the final EIS (40 CFR 1502.25 (a)). By doing this, the EIS would
demonstrate that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) procedures are being followed and
that listed species, such as the chinook salmon and its habitats are being protected ".
Response: There is information on the ESA currently in the Draft EIS. Sections 3.5.4,
3.6.3 and 3.7.1 discuss life histories. Sections 4.7.4, 4.8.3 and 4.9.2 discuss possible
effects and Section 8 of the Restoration Plans outlines the procedure for addressing these
issues. Federal coordination for ESA is described under section 7 of the act which
identifies both US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) as the agencies with jurisdiction. The Corps has entered into
Green/Duwamish River Basin Restoration Program 3 -4
Final Programmatic EIS
the Water Resources Development Act. If the Ecosystem Restoration Study is to receive
federal funding it will come through an appropriation in the Water and Energy Budget.
The decision on if there will be funding and how much is left up to the U.S. Congress and
the President. An estimate was conducted for the preferred alternative as part of the
feasibility document with an estimated construction cost of $116 million dollars. None of
the other alternatives have an associated cost estimate. Funding for construction of the
projects is 65% federal and 35% local. Of the 35% local cost share, a portion can come
from in -kind services as well as the value of the land the project is occurring on. Sources
of local funding can come from a variety of non - federal sources such as Salmon
Recovery Fund ALEA grants and from the local municipalities where the proposed
restoration project is to be constructed.
To address this comment a new section in the Restoration Plan has been created. On
Page RP -23, section 4.4 Funding of the Restoration Plan, will state:
"The Feasibility study cost estimate for the restoration plan is $116 million dollars. Of
this projected construction cost amount, the federal share is 65% and the local match is
35 %. If the Ecosystem Restoration Study is to receive federal funding it will come
through an appropriation in the Water and Energy Budget. The decision on funding is
made by U.S. Congress and the President. A study such as this is usually authorized in
the Water Resources Development Act.. Of the 35% local cost share, a portion may
come from in -kind services as well as the value of the real estate the where the project is
occurring. Sources of local funding can come from a variety of non - federal sources such
as Salmon Recovery Fund ALEA grants and from the local municipalities where the
proposed restoration project is to be constructed."
Comment: Land and Shoreline Use. "Please clarify the statement (Page 4 -17) "Public
access to natural resources could benefit from the individual restoration projects if the
projects(s) include trails, viewpoints, and interpretive signs."
The Corps has stated that some areas it would build a viewing platform or trails to
some restoration sites, but added that a number of state /local ordinances could permit
access to more sites. The final EIS needs to assess the impacts from access to sensitive
habitats, such as an increase in the number of pets and people near a wetland area, and
whether boaters would be allowed to drop anchor above delicate aquatic sites."
Response: Concur. Clarification is needed. In the Draft Restoration Plan there are a
few sites (such as Codiga Farms and Metzler) where restoration projects are planned and
they do include some public facilities. As part of the proposal there are a few park like
features such as trails, hand boat launch, viewing platforms and interpretive signage.
These features are included for a few reasons:
• They allow public to view and interact with nature access in a limited and composed
manner.
• They allow an opportunity to educate the public on the specific projects and the
benefits of the restoration activities.
Green/Duwamish River Basin Restoration Program 3 -3
Final Programmatic EIS
RESPONSE TO LETTER #2
REGION 10, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (letter dated August
10, 2000)
Comment: Cumulative Impacts. "We recommend that the EIS discuss cumulative
impacts of continuing the status quo through the no action alternative, and the relative
benefits of the action alternative."
Response: This comment has been addressed in the section 4.20.1. A new paragraph
under the section entitled "Cumulative Impact of All Restoration Activities included
in this Action" has been added. The following will be added to page 4 -23 as the last
paragraph under section 4.20.1
"With specific regard to water quality, portions of the Green River, the Duwamish
Estuary, and several tributaries of the Green River are recognized as water quality
impaired per the State Department of Ecology Department's 303 (d) list due to fecal
coliforms, metals, temperature, dissolved oxygen and hydrocarbons. Impacts from past
activities, such as development, industry and water control projects have degraded the
environment and continue to affect water quality and fish (Comment letter from Region
10 EPA dated 8/10/2000). In the long term, under the no action alternative there could be
expected to be some improvement to this condition with the implementation of
jurisdictional water quality plans as well as the State Department of Ecology's Total
Maximum Daily Load study.
Under both of the action specific alternatives discussed in this EIS, habitat improvements
could also provide long term benefits for fecal coliforms, temperature and dissolved
oxygen as habitat restoration projects are implemented. Many of the restoration projects
include planting of native vegetation in a riparian buffer and some fencing on certain
projects. Vegetation provides shade to the river and tributaries and filters out some of the
contaminants prior to tier release to the receiving bodies. The scale of these benefits has
not been quantified."
Comment: Fundin . "We recommend that the EIS identify funding sources and the
estimated cost of each alternative. The COE has said that the restoration will cost
between $100 million and $150 million and that funding would come from the Water
Resources Development Act and local matching grants. This project is 65% federally
funded and 35% locally funded.
One possible source of local funding identified in the EIS is the Regional Needs
Assessment (RNA), a countywide effort to develop funding strategies for carrying out
water resources projects. We recommend that the EIS include specific data on the
possibilities of the project receiving matching funds. RNA process identified $50 million
in design and construction in the Green/Duwamish Watershed."
Response: Clarification is needed. Authorization and funding are accomplished by
separate Congressional Actions. Specifically, a study such as this is usually authorized in
Green/Duwamish River Basin Restoration Program 3 -2
Final Programmatic EIS
In addition, we are pleased that the Corps has signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Muckelshoot and
Suquamish tribes and local governments to comply with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Activities under the MOA include identifying historic properties
and evaluating their eligibility for the National Register. In addition, the agreement
provides a protocol to protect cultural material or human remains of importance to the
tribes.
Please contact Val Varney (206) 553 -1901 if you have any questions. Thank you
for the opportunity to review this draft EIS.
SinS,erely,
1/'1
Bk/
Richard B. Parkin, Manager
Geographic Implementation Unit
3
State of Washington
County of King
City of Tukwila
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E -mail: tukplanO,ci.tukwila.wa.us
AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING
OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S)
I : rA.,l FA-R�t"-E' (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 AP2IL Si Zoo 1 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section
18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at
12.5 2.9 5,o fi, PL . S so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular
access to the property for application file number PR-E1)1 — Oct 4
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.
A )
Api4licant or Project Manager's Signature
On this day personally appeared before me Ryan A°. Par /ee_ _ to me known
to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged tha /she signed the same
as i /her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this q%h day of /4peil.
,V to
PUBLIC
I II 9 G 16 -061 • •
QF • .n
•
NOTARY PUBLIC in and f 'r the State of Washington
residing at Renton
,200/
My commission expires on 6 -16- 09
MAR 2 7 2001
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Western Washington Office
510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102
Lacey, Washington 98503
Phone: (360) 753 -9440 Fax: (360) 753 -9008
Colonel Ralph H. Graves
District Engineer
Seattle District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, Washington 98124 -3755
Attention: Mr. Pat Cagney
(FWS Reference: 1- 3 -01 -I -0906)
Dear Colonel Graves:
This letter responds to your August 31, 2000 transmittal letter and Programmatic Biological
Assessment (PBA) for the Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program which we received
on September 5, 2000. We are able to provide partial concurrence.
The PBA covers forty -nine restoration projects within the Green/Duwamish River Basin that the
Corps of Engineers (Corps) is proposing for implementation over a ten year period. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) and Corps staff have discussed on a number of occasions the need for
more detailed project information to complete the Section 7 consultation. The Service proposed
that the Corps meet annually with the Service, prior to the construction season, to review any
refinements in project details that could have an impact on federally listed species, but especially
the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout. The Corps informed us in January 2001, that they were
uncomfortable with the requirement for future reviews because of the uncertainties that could
potentially affect project implementation. Instead, the Corps requested that the Service treat the
PBA as a batch consultation. You further asked that we separate out any of the projects that we
considered to be lacking in sufficient detail to complete the consultation, as well as projects for
which we could not concur with the Corps' effect determination. For the purposes of this
consultation, we are treating the forty -nine projects described in the PBA as a batch consultation.
The Corps of Engineers has determined that the actions, as described in its PBA, are not likely to
adversely affect the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus), northern spotted owl (Stria occidentalis caurina), gray wolf (Canis lupus), Canada
lynx (Lynx canadensis) and Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus).
Based on the information provided in the PBA and the Corps' final feasibility report for the
Green/Duwamish River Basin ecosystem restoration study, we concur with the Corps'
determination of effects for the bald eagle, marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, gray wolf,
and Canada lynx. With regard to the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout, we concur with the Corps'
effect determination for forty -three of the forty -nine projects described in the PBA and listed in
the attachment to this letter. These projects are covered under this consultation for a period of
ten years.
JD)ECCENED MAR 0 2001
USACE ATTACHMENT F
REGULATOR' BRANCH
We do not concur with the Corps' "not likely to adversely effect" determination for the bull trout
• for the following six projects: (1) mainstem maintenance (Auburn to Elliott Bay); (2) middle
Green River large woody debris placement; (3) middle Green River gravel replacement; (4)
Flaming Geyser landslide control; (5) Newaukum Creek restoration; and (6) upper Green River
gravel replacement. We recommend that the Corps consult individually on these projects.
Although these six projects are expected to benefit bull trout in the long term, we believe they
have the potential to adversely affect bull trout in the short term. These projects are larger and
more complex than the others, involve significant in -water work, and have not been developed
in enough detail at this time for us to conclude that the adverse impacts to bull trout would be
insignificant. As project details become more refined, our concern for these projects and their
potential impact to bull trout may lessen. In the absence of detailed project information, we need
to be more cautious and therefore conclude that bull trout foraging could be adversely affected in
the short term as a result of fine sediment releases during the modification of streambanks, the
construction of engineered log jams, the addition of spawning gravels and the construction of
other habitat improvements. Elevated levels of sediment can reduce the abundance of bull trout
prey resources as well as make it more difficult for bull trout to locate their prey.
This concludes informal consultation pursuant to 50 CFR 402.13. This project should be re-
analyzed if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation; if the action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in this consultation; and /or, if a new species is listed or critical habitat is
designated that may be affected by this project.
If you have further questions about this letter or your . responsibilities under the Act, please
contact Gwill Ging at (360) 753 -6041 or John Grettenberger at (360) 753 -6044.
Sincerely,
LCaroI Schuler, Manager
Western Washington Office
Ji(e)-0
Attachment A. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs with Corps of Engineers' not likely
to adversely affect determination for the following projects:
Lower GreenlDuwamish River Sites
Elliott Bay Nearshore
Site 1, Duwamish
Riverton Side Channel
Codiga Farms
Middle Basin Restoration Sites
Black River Marsh
Gilliam Creek
Lower Springbrook Creek
Upper Springbrook Creek
Mill Creek East
Garrison Creek.
Mullen Slough, Prentice Nursery Reach
Mullen Slough Reach
Mill Creek, Schuler Brothers Reach
Mill Creek, Merlino Reach.
Mill Creek, Wetland 5K Reach.
Mill Creek, Goedeke Reach
Green River Park
Horsehead Bend Side Channel.
NE Auburn Creek
Meridian Valley Creek
Lake Meridian Outlet Relocation
Olson Creek
Riverside Estates Side Channel
Porter Levee Setback
Kaech Levee Pond
Ray Creek Trib Corridor
Hamikami Levee Modification
Turley Levee Setback
Loans Levee Setback
Burns Creek Restoration
Flaming Geysers Side Channel
Big Spring Creek
Brunner Slough
Upper Green River Side Channel Enhancement
Upper Basin Restoration Sites:
Gale Creek
Boundary Creek
Sweeney Creek
Olson Creek
May Creek
Maywood Creek
Gold Creek
Sunday Creek Riparian Planting
North East Creek
8" Dia 2.75" (Lettering, Red)
NOTICE OF LAND USE ACTION
1.5" (Lettering)
Ls 0` - 0 22
TYPE OF ACTION: o f- 021.
PROJECT NAME: k� U1 ^ O0�
01— 0_ _ (v1\ L)k /4'
SVtolalne.. Sv3Si2f:,,•,PC-1 'W V' -24yr
5 oe.c.A.3 t 02A/ vud. cis — ilaN t. v
SITE ADDRESS: AM
APPLICANT: i2-5-.).A sb R ia.�
J>vv Lw'li
1.5" (Lettering)
TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER AT
(206) 431 -3670
Tukwila Planning Division
6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
1 .O "(LETTERING)
FIGURE 4
GAAPPHAN \LANDUSE.APP'SHORLINE.DOC, 06/15/00
March 26, 2001
•
Cizj' of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
To: Ryan Partee, Fisheries Biologist, Department of Public Works
FM: Carol Lumbr Associate Planner, Department of Community Development
RE: cShoreline Substantial Development Permit for Codiga Farm Side Channel and Associated
Improvements, LO 1 -022
Your application for a shoreline substantial development permit (LO 1 -022) to construct a side
channel for fish habitat enhancement, picnic facility, boat launch and associated parking located at
12529 50th Place South has been found to be incomplete. I have attached a copy of the Complete
Application Checklist with the missing items identified. In addition, there are the following items:
• It appears that the Title Report does not account for lots 44, 45, and 46 (Assessor's tax account
number 017900 - 2469). These parcels are owned by James Codiga and are identified as being a
part of the project on the site plan. If they are part of the project and privately owned, then
property owner permission must be obtained to include them in the project and a Title Report
submitted for them.
• At the Pre - application meeting, there was a discussion about revising the parking to include only
one lot. The site plan still shows two lots. Does the site plan reflect the correct layout of the
project?
Upon receipt of the identified items, the City will re- review them for completeness and will send
you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. The Shoreline Permit
application 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 18.105.070(E).
In addition, the Pre - application Checklist, provided after the meeting held on March 1, 2001,
identified the need for a Conditional Use Permit for this project. That application has not been
submitted as yet. It would make sense to consolidate all of the land use applications and determined
to be complete so one public notice period can be used for all four of the applications. The
Conditional Use Permit application should be submitted as soon as possible.
If you have any questions please call me at 431 -3661.
Enc. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Checklist
c:\mydocs \Codiga Farms \incomplete.doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
CITY OF TUKWILA
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665
E -mail: tukplanaci.tukwila.wa.us
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS
PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY
SS
The undersigned being duly swom and upon oath states as follows:
1 r C�1 rl of 'NlGwhus 1 S,
1.► 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.
c4 -yes
3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent.
4. Owner grants the City, its emplqyees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real
property, located at So fl. S uo-rS 3-4 —S9
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 Toss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City.
6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for
items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days.
7. Non- responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without
refund of fees.
EXECUTED at To r� -/S-
(city), %A A- (state), on kkotosei 1.5 Zool
A-.l {Z, 'A.a i "'E- / Lrcrr1 of 7-1.)11,/ L.A-
1,3o 0 Swnit!xncrErti (IL.tic)
Sob 43z, 01-
(Print Name)
(Address)
(Phone Number)
449 g
(Signature)
On day personally appeared before me Ran R • Par tee to me known
executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledg6d that(ft 'she signed the same as i er voluntary act
purposes mentioned therein.
SUBSCRIBED AND S\ ORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS 152/ DAY OF -yam Qi,
this
to be the individual who
and deed for the uses and
:-AGE A. Q�1h
C 11
'- • s'Ol1% e'• 11,/
;o NOTARY pm\
PUBLIC
lI�� 616 -011` •
11 WAS
i
■
Ci w. tJB) N -e- zz,c�/
NOTARY P IC in and for the Stat of Washington
residing at Iron f'o /7
20o/
My Commission expires on 6 — /lam' 0
COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST
The materials listed below must be submitted with your application, unless specifically waived in writing by the
Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if
you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted at a
later date for use at the Public Hearing (e.g., revised colored renderings). Application review will not begin until
it is determined to be complete.
Once an application is determined to be complete, it is considered "vested" — that is, the application is considered
under the zoning and other land use controls in effect at the time . the complete application is filed. However,
having a complete application in no way limits the City's ability to require additional information as needed to
establish consistency with development standards.
City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670 (Department of
Community Development) and 206 - 433 -0179 (Department of Public Works).
COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST TABLE
rise M g iT apProvdll r l �ub oL ork Z! an iriT'
Iw�t inf� fmC.t ..- ife ii ' ,? 'u ireiIE f y2eaw h rve :rvl^iiY al V't, • ' <F
n g
Gas' anic
a , ,T: ni.,,,,.RC r,,t '4- -,, - E f
.:4 t ft�� � Nv;.k� ..i F .%7 @.e
orcmatio� n. •.
; Inf
; dl yc 4
Y. PbW/P1n . •
': ue . 'x^*
Offc eLUs eO. n ly � , -.n• � • +�2 :
{
.4 . C
Cmm� ents Ba,Condrtro ns .:fe.Li?.
,,,
w. -yy :�- .• 4 i-i. 4 .u34, : w....„, µ '-'1"
r.:s+».io•
APPLICATION FORMS:
1. Application Checklist: one (1) copy, indicating items
submitted with application.
.
2. Complete Application Packet: 'eight (8) copies and
• one set of High Quality Photo Reductions, reduced to
"R241- 241 c lta
,
yD v,�,
-
81/2" to 11" of all plans. (See Project Description and
Analysis, Site Plans and Evaluations).
3. Application Fee ($550).
N1,4-
4. SEPA Environmental Checklist: eight (8) copies and
fee ($325).
✓
PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS:
5. King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the
• location of each property within 500 feet of the subject
lot.
✓
6. Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners
and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of
the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple -
family buildings, e.g. apartments, condos, trailer
parks- -must be included).
W" �'
y
7. A 4' x 4' Public Notice board will be required on -site
within 14 days of the Department determining that a
complete application has been received.
PROPERTY INFORMATION:
8. Vicinity Map with site location.
V
9. Surrounding Land Use Map for all existing land uses
within a 1,000 foot radius from the lot's property lines.
GAAPPHANU .ANDUSE.APPLSHORLINE.DOC• 06/15/00
casesrupon.approvakofbotirP.zi
�w'':.....
11i u4,.
't').M rt:.-. W'tat 1^")1.s�.: i' '.ri)i tI. 4C.SF
ormaiiiiiM iii ed iVi be, �eaiimuazilVdr_
�
njorma
�Commentr&:
Offiea
hcOorks>and'.t'lannrng
_ •.A .-Cup
..._........a�'��� I;•.`-� # >. ,i r.n�.r,
t;.1., ,�,
liT'[!�C /•'P,_Ir`ig,�
n
��•��`�':�w.- .ta:-:�.��' t,.c.. ..�..
'. 5.. c°:Z•. nncU
10. Title Report: Clearly establish status as legal lot(s) of
record, ownership, all known easements and
encumbrances.
Tv),,ss L (mod n lvel.✓Yi.,i %r
.(
•
11. Lot lines for 300 ft. from the site's property lines
including right -of -ways.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS:
12. A written discussion of project consistency with each
decision criteria. (See Application),
✓
SITE PLANS:
13. One set of all plans and analyses shall be stamped by a
licensed professional surveyor, architect or engineer,
and have an original signature. Additional copies of
the signed set may be submitted to satisfy the total
'number of copies required. Any revisions must also
comply with this criteria.
GAS cU, --.IA!
LXU_ A t 9 i4
14.
A boundary and topographic survey (2 ft. contours
including a minimum 20 ft. beyond the property line)
with all structures, improvements, easements,
encumbrances and right -of -way width/infrastructure.
Elevations shall be City of Tukwila datum (NGV
1929 datum for 100 year flood elevation with
equation to City of Tukwila datum). T his shall be
- •
N � - 6,4,5„.,
,��
V' `,�,," 5`
stamped by the surveyor..,
15. Location of all sensitive areas (e.g., streams, wetlands,
slopes over 20 %, coal mine areas and important
geological and archaeological sites.). Provide
sensitive area studies as needed per TMC 18.45. Also
show trees over 4" caliper, indicating those to be
retained. All proposed sensitive area and tree
protection measures shall be shown.
N (/a' '
16. 100 yr. flood plain boundary and elevation as shown
on FEMA maps.
x
✓
17. Proposed lot lines (solid), existing lot lines (dashed), if
also applying for a short plat or subdivision.
N (A-
18. Building footprint showing changes in elevation, site
improvements with sufficient dimensions to be
accurately described and located (e.g., building square
footage keyed to parking standards, driveways,
firelanes, parking layout, loading and service areas,
landscape areas, rockeries /retaining walls, fences,
pedestrian and recreation features, building and site
lighting, mechanical units (with screening integrated _
with building design), and any street furniture.
6,) 5'-t-t oar,- Aso nlaV
90,414)---\31.9
a \mb S\Av\QA-
4qAkt 04--
-.--
b-( '-°' '"
-1v L lat- _
?API i( i^+
19. Fire access lanes and turn- arounds, per Fire
Department standards.
` S A.•k. L 01 ay. --
IU 1/4-
G. APPHAN \LANDUSE.APP\SHORLINE.DOC. 06/15/00
f rilMIion, 0.4 #1re`�a z i t�sua�t"titt
.:i 3.f + ia. .ir.1. r ..,..r) 3r ,,,�A.-. a g�amc�••.
�Case$ u On a ravato both I r br d to , an::::n ,g-`ct
. ,,, �.P PP f P,r�b`7'crWork�'�rtc�.P %a ranOO+�--c�•
v'�f ; ^5 �.. 4..MX iu:�.�!.'j��rt. �fi .+ ��'r' A < K
S'L'� °= ', >ti , =
C'.9 «. ...: +'._. ;' -. ':�' _..: -. '.:: a :afs+..a N'�'
t In rmafioni'
�. ::•:r - -w55
K sd�..
f;,,;:W,aived., >•.,�,
K A°' '�,.1t
Pb IYk / Pln t
.. ��><A}
k(j e TJs f it ""' r ,' r%„ c
.d 4 F e y;t,. .:. y ti
5 nts '•+p.� l ,s' .. � d:,
, Giimtrients; �nrfii7 � �'`�'- .�"' •;
=t=s r 4 ' {jj
..i` �.-� � t±Fii �O.. -.�- Li--`��+ }`3"�'S'1 ��T.
�-».+ •` :. >'.44.7.--C:s:iti. .,'e. ...:.1; ^. _. -.+ -? ^et....Fb,
�. . >,,,
20. For sewer and water (domestic and fire): Existing and
proposed utility easements and improvements, on site
and in street. Schematic designs to be provided
regardless of purveyor (e.g., site line size, location,
and size of public main. No capacity calcs, invert
depth, valve locations or the like are needed).
w ilk 4.4,/1✓ '..L e.. "(J/.1 -C-,
- P°&ul " a.- v-2„. s-m
21. Document sewer and water availability if provided by
other than the City of Tukwila.
22. Storm drainage: Proposed schematic design for all
conveyance systems, water quality features and
detention structures per TMC 16.54.060(D) (e.g.,
detention ponds /vaults, frop -T elbows, coalescing
plate separators, and bio- swales). Include a Level One
- downstream analysis per TMC 15.54.060(D), and a
narrative discussion of consistency with the King
County Surface Water Drainage Manual's Core and
Special Requirements.
i° Gtozu-,- - 'N"
FA,cNidd-®v
23. Locate the nearest existing hydrant and all proposed
•
hydrants.
,
n1.5514'11
24. Schematic road design.
ni/
25. Geotechnical analysis. River bank stability analyses to
be included in a flood zone control permit.
-6) ;
1) -, W- »� q-,-"-L -1-5
iv vtilv/
26. Landscape planting plan by a Washington State
licensed landscape architect. One set of all plans and
analyses shall have an original ASLA stamp and
signature. Additional copies of the•signed set may be
submitted to satisfy the total number of copies
required. Any revisions must also comply with this
criteria.
N1/1.5S'
27. Lighting plan: Include location and type of street and
site lighting, site light levels (foot - candles) and how
lighting will be contained on -site (e.g. lights shielded
to prevent direct off site illumination and maximum 2
foot - candles at the property line).
-
yVVtSS /rii
28. Signage per Tukwila Sign Code.
t ni-ev-p t(-11A -c. ,�,, ; r
29. For stream frontages: provide existing and proposed
top of stream bank, stream bank toe, stream mean high
water mark, and base flood elevation (i.e., 100 yr.
• flood).
pj 14-
G: \APPHAMLANDUSE.APPSHORLINE.DOC, 06/15/00
P
�•?���a w+m:exc' «:.� J. Jwwa..�.wr ♦ « : �i
mahon�Requi�ed•�May,e a ed`ir;ti �" al. �
rifiir i
�.yy s,..,. ,, V
"�y7i3ii.i.bq'y:«c:t't, 'C`.Y!'i•,2T,. 'btC�."'.dp.T �t4; F'7.:®
r , s 3H' �'
°:easest 'ulgrnapproval ofrboth ublicl�Wbrk� a to
' g:t
5"
n QrmatTOn
"� t: rf
w. :i',;A :.. q
r:...:ir
° Waived<
[Y -,,,,5 a7A +' t .
! c
t:PUiY�/El,rt;,[rl�?:..'.
.� a" a e +3t -aY rn
-tom. +� r
LS' '«
EP.., t•L,p • n" t 'y
.- ',; :"_::• o-as' f,T., 'T,.% f*''. r-.,:,
Vd < ". tii , 4,_ ,,,o-
Comrrierils do Cbriiiitronr
{ 9t1 "1,3 R•. !? S.{
r.• .S. , ' ,.�+"•,; P
q ,. 'iu n...' ri k o�•1,t, 1 alr-t.
.. 4*. .it!�:J+rD �l•`�+.F�'���cc,�
cq CRs .r,- ,• ,a' a a" 011'.;.. r •.. ; R
y ":H n' A :M.,:x 3
T ,,:�,�:�',. Y4. $ n.�M;l R
zz�' «� °�' . `5'' :-.i,. t. �;n'�&..r «.. T':c'•.'?i�.:iCfi..> ;aJ:,'YQt1k zik
SITE PLANS FOR SHORELINE PROJECTS:
-
30. Existing top of bank, landward catch point toe of
levee, riverbank toe, mean high water mark and base
' .o elevation (i.e., the 100 year flood
31. For wor riverwar• o the MHWM: Distance work
. extends into the river and distance to Federal projects
i. and navigation channels.
In t SS l)-1)
32. Limits of the 40' River, 100' Low Impact and 200'
High Impact environments.
33..Dike/ riverbank maintenance easement (min. 30' from
the top of bank).
��
34. Construction limit lines and areas of
clearing/grading /filling including volume and type of
fill or extracted material.
-
ELEVATIONS
(Do not need to submit if project is subject to Design
Review)
35. Building elevations: with dimensioned and scaleable
facades, features, accents, colors and materials. Colors
and materials shall be keyed to a Colors and Materials
board.
& vv-so 61.4./,,..iut, u` iAAN,- iii. i-a- -o
t,,t t'4,` }'. J ,-4.. 4 sv
p;3 E. (844. alto ca,., -s -o•ft..,
0..1k- {3vr»Zr- c, tr.L.a./cs .
36. Colored elevations.
M / /�
f! TN .-S-e- Ofiv,K,u✓
37. Models or a photomontage of the site at completion
and at three years, from the nearest downslope street
A model or photomontage is required for multi -
family developments over 6 units (TMC
18.60.040). A photomontage is required for
Planned Residential Developments.
38. A rendering is optional. If submitted, it must
accurately show the project and be from a realistic
perspective (e.g., 5.5 ft. height above the sidewalk).
CROSS - SECTIONS FOR SHORELINE PROJECTS
39. SHORELINE CROSS SECTIONS at maximum 75'
intervals along the shoreline showing:
• Existing and proposed elevations and improvements,
• Limits of the.40' River, 100' Low Impact and 200'
High Impact environments,
• The top of bank elevation, landward catch point toe of
levee, riverbank toe, mean high water mark and base
flood elevation (i.e., the 100 year flood), and
• Dike/ riverbank maintenance easement (min. 30' from
the top of bank).
Pi tSS /n� _ pD� (AU), 1--A-,
L( h■ 4-`'°'~ Ce° i°,✓�
el • N.2..t t;'" ■
G: WPPHAN\LANDUSE.APPSHORLINE.DOC, 06/15/00
s
D W
O rV
4 4C PRO 05"
Reply To
Attu Of: ECO -088
Letter #2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
August 10, 2000
Col. James M. Rigsby
Seattle District Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124 -2255
Dear Colonel Rigsby:
Ref: 98- 072 -COE
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Green/Duwamish River Basin
Restoration Program, CEQ No. 000208, according to our responsibilities under the
National Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the Clear Air Act. The EIS
proposes to improve the overall health of the ecosystem for fish and wildlife species by
restoring the amount and quality of habitats.
We are pleased that the Corps is undertaking such an ambitious project to
restore and improve the Green /Duwamish River Basin, which has been affected by
industrial use, flood control, grazing practices and residential development. We also
appreciate your coordination with other agencies to ensure that the restoration activities
complement each other.
Of the three alternatives evaluated, the preferred alternative is a multi- species
one which would reestablish a large area of aquatic environment and riparian corridors,
and provide connections to existing productive habitats. This would benefit multiple fish
and wildlife species found in riparian and riverine environments in the Green /Duwamish
River Basin. Under this alternative, a total of 50 restoration projects has been identified
and will be completed during al0 -year period.
Based on our review, we have rated the draft EIS, LO -1 (Lack of Objections -
Adequate). An explanation of the EPA rating system is enclosed for your review. We
have commented below about the cumulative impacts analysis, the lack of specific
information on project funding, and the level of public access allowed to the restoration
sites, especially sensitive wetlands.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Cumulative Impacts
Portions of the Green River, the Duwamish River Estuary, and several tributaries
of the Green River are recognized as water quality impaired per the State Ecology
Department's 303 (d) list due to fecal coliforms, metals, temperature, dissolved oxygen
and hydrocarbons. Impacts from past activities, such as development, industry and
water control projects have degraded the environment and continue to affect water
quality and fish. We recommend that the EIS discuss the cumulative impacts of
continuing the status quo through the no action alternative, and the relative benefits of
each of the action alternatives.
Funding
We recommend that the EIS identify funding sources and the estimated cost of
each alternative. The COE has said the restoration will cost between S100 million and
$150 million and that funding would come from the Water Resources Development Act
and local matching grants. This project is 65% federally funded and 35% locally funded.
One possible source of local funding identified in the EIS is the Regional Needs
Assessment (RNA), a county wide effort to develop funding strategies for carrying out
water resource projects. We recommend that the EIS include specific data on the
possibilities of the project receiving matching funds. RNA process identified $50 million
in design and construction in the Green /Duwamish Watershed.
Land and Shoreline Use
Please clarify the statement (Page 4 -17) "Public access to natural resources
could benefit from the individual restoration projects, if the projects (s) include trails,
viewpoints, and interpretive signs."
The Corps has stated that in some areas it would build a viewing platform or trails
to some restoration sites, but added that a number of state /local ordinances could permit
access to more sites. The final EIS needs to assess the impacts from access to.
sensitive habitats, such as an increase in the number of pets and people near a wetland
area, and whether boaters would be allowed to drop an anchor above delicate aquatic
sites.
Biological Assessment
We would like to see a summary of the Biological Assessment in the final EIS (40
CFR 1502.25 (a) ). By doing this, the EIS would demonstrate that the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) procedures are being followed and that listed species, such as the
chinook salmon and its habitats are being protected.
2
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Program
King County, Washington
Species Under National Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction
Prepared for:
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
4735 East Marginal Way South
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, Washington 98124
Prepared by:
Jones & Stokes
2820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004 -1419
• 425/822 -1077
June 2000
2.4 Program Activities
The geographic focus will be at the watershed level, with the intent to manage restoration based
on the total resource need rather than through individual projects.
Examples of activities to be carried out under this program include:
• Reducing barriers to fish passage — This activity will include reconnecting old channels
by removing or relocating levees and other barriers.
• Increasing habitat — This activity will include retaining or importing sediment and
importing large woody debris (LWD) in the mainstem, side channels and in tributaries.
• Increasing channel diversity — This activity will include improving the channel cross
sections. Channel diversity will also be improved by the placement of LWD, gravel, and
riparian plantings, which will lead to more diverse channel conditions.
• Improving estuarine habitat — Habitat will be increased by creating deltaic habitat in
freshwater tidal as well as saltwater areas:
• Increasing streamside vegetation — Streamside vegetation will be increased by planting
along tributaries, side channels and the mainstem.
This program will be implemented through the Green/Duwamish River Ecosystem Restoration
Program administered. jointly by the Corps. of Engineers and King County.
Under this program, monitoring of restoration and restoration success will be accomplished from
a watershed (ecosystem) approach, utilizing the monitoring protocol and GIS database program
developed as a part of the ERS.
2.5 General Best Management Practices
1. All regulatory permits and official project authorizations must be secured before
project implementation. All terms and conditions in these regulatory permits
and other official project authorizations must be followed to eliminate or reduce
adverse impacts to any endangered, threatened, or sensitive species or their
critical habitats.
2. In -stream construction will occur only during approved in -water work windows
based on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project
Approval permit.
3. The use of heavy equipment that will result in excessive soil disturbances or
compaction of soils will be minimized.
4. Use of heavy equipment in or adjacent to streambeth end streambanks will be
minimized to reduce sedimentation rates, channel instability, and aquatic habitat
impacts. If fording of equipment is absolutely necessary, vehicles and
machinery will cross streams at right angles to the main channel whenever
USACOUGRI!EN RIVERINMFS
OWOS/OOe
6 Green/Duwamish Restoration Program
Programmatic BA: Ecosystcm Restoration
possible. Crossing sites will avoid sensitive fish habitat and areas susceptible to
erosion, and they will be restored if necessary.
5. Excavation or transport equipment will be limited in capacity, but sufficiently
sized to complete required restoration activities.
6. Streams, riparian zones, and wetlands will not be used as equipment staging or
refueling areas. Equipment will be stored, serviced, and fueled at least 100 feet
away from aquatic habitats or other sensitive areas.
7. Where possible, restoration activities involving excavation will take place in the
dry season. Where new channels are excavated, the excavation will be isolated
from surface waters then breached once work is completed.
8. Native vegetation will be planted on disturbed sites (including project site, disposal and
staging areas, and access roads) when necessary to reduce soil erosion, establish cover,
prevent invasive plant colonization, and provide shade.
9. Sedimentation and erosion controls (i.e., certified weed -free hay bales, silt fence, etc.)
will be implemented on all project sites where restoration activities are implemented,
materials or equipment are staged, or fill is placed to minimize the release of fines into
the aquatic environment
10. Excavated materials removed during the completion of a restoration activity will be
disposed of properly.
11. Boulder, rock, and LWD materials used for restoration projects will not be removed
from any streams.
12. Inspection will be performed within one year following project completion to ensure
that restoration activities implemented at individual project sites do not create
unintended consequences to fish, wildlife, and plant species and their critical habitats.
13. Restoration activities will take place when minimal consequence to fish, wildlife and
plant species occurs.
14. Any temporary access roads will be built to avoid impacts to fish, wildlife, wetlands, or
other sensitive resources. Any temporary roads built will be obliterated and the area
restored upon project completion.
15. All gravel /cobble material used for restoration activities will be screened to remove fine
material prior to placement.
16. For all in -water restoration activities where sediment contamination is possible, a
sediment quality analysis will be conducted for contaminants. Any restoration project
found to be in an area that has unacceptable contaminant levels will be abandoned. For
activities that create off - channel or new channel habitat, construction will occur in the
dry therefore contaminated sediments will be removed and the site cleaned to meet
acceptable sediment quality levels before the area is inundated.
USACOGGREEN RJ VER/NMFS
oarosrooa
7 Green/Duwamish Restoration Program
Programmatic BA: Ecosystem Restoration
17. All sites where riparian plantings occur will be monitored for invasive exotic plant
species. If exotic plant species are found they will be removed.
18. Site - specific surveys will be conducted within projects where there is a reason to believe
the listed or threatened species may occur. For example, a survey will be conducted at
the appropriate time of year to determine if listed or threatened species are present.
19. With the concurrence of NMFS and USFWS, the sponsor will salvage, remove and
relocate fish, including listed or endangered species, when the situation is warranted (for
example, when working on an existing side channel where fish may already be present).
�
USAcovctu EN tuvrxmnu s 8 Green/Duwamish Restoration Progr '."
06103/004 Programmatic BA: Ecosystcm RestorationV
A
B
C
4
- 9115 ----
of Engineers
Seattle District
3
2
STIeDOI. ZONE
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
DATE
EIT
CODIGA FARMS HABIT
RESTORATION
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
FY 2001 PN XXXXXX
TW n)....e ...b• y .... 3..1... a..rl.t us v.... w....'.
T A.m... :.a..M.. w ..a....Tta.....w.. ..ta..ar. eoe.�
..rT~..ws.aT�.. r rwl.N 4s ..wee 1q-oiyiSL rd 1..V ....Mn
I 3
11
11111111111111III 111111 '1111 1i III'
I..
'IIIII
1111111 11111
.11
II
II
I�.
B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A
BELLINGHAM
MT. VERNON
PROJE
SEATTLE
W A S H I N G T O N
ELLENS 'aG
YMPIA
CHEH/ LIS
YAKIMA
VANCOUVER
PORTLAND
O R E G O N
0
DEPOT
PE}OLETON VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
°WALLA WALLA
pl
DATE AND TIME PLOTTED. 21 -NAY -2001 15.57
DESIGN FILE. I.\ DESIGNS \MISC \CIV\CODIGA\CODIGGOA.DGN
9
lA J
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
CODIGA FARMS HABITAT RESTORATION
COVER SHEET AND AREA MAP
KING COUNTY
sin I N*TTATNN
D
Osa. PWN °i' OAF
WASHINGTON
DAM
0IJUNOI
tiTc
G -I
4QT 1 OF 4
A
B
C
-7.70
"P1•$A
-0148
44\
•••-•• CF BC-2.
-1265 -
REMOVE EXISTING
WOOD RAIL FENCE
; \
7.74
••*-4,.... •
-7.2
•4•53
*N., le .27 \
-,--WATE4 STANDPIPE-%
•
181?
18,03
W030 PP. JO' T.ALL
, I STR. LITE
•5:\ .\,./ 25 AYA TRANS.
GUY POLE
.▪ f.e
O N.....
dem, :4
liorvi&„ame,w \ N
s's, i 30' TALL
N -4%....
,V1000 PP
ek.
No:dad.
- %
.s.
Ni
AIM L".■IF %AI \
awm.1.7
..ov N,..•'NN N. \
's W.V. CASE TOP EL 2L52
I.
losE 8126. 6'.-'''s12:,... a.
474 17.86 MAW
MOW 19.22 k , ke,
,VAL i.VE TOP EL 19.12
Al siMsmr 4.03
17 .211■013 0/70V/MIW Is
1C2 1488/7ACK ..
asmis
I
‘•••• \,2.12..4.r47„
MM986144.1 .25";\
.3t , 20,29's, ••;„2
.31 al" ...' t a • --... us.,
_ ....-4 9,13 It
90••'' .'is /..?..'s*: ••".- 280..84ss Ns,
a ssliffil. 0 aux.
aa. YEW?
ig,di i aNiga
..-''..g.).;27 •2943,
,....... '',.
N
18.13, 11. • 20.27.
7/ /
if
/
, .
\
15.19
IS
82083 .234 113.1'2
1.
-1
4
AM1111=I
MX
ML14111M/
■ 4111111E1
/0.241W
411111111/ ' •
18,90
/
1 8
••• 10,85 20/2 i
/
-4F114 CAI
.41111896114"
M/M62119974-
,a-11111M218
9124141:131i8.
••••• ••• ••‘
• ...
,„•••••••• 20-26, ,••
•- •••••., 10. "CONC. RETAINING
WALL I
11147
188:1/.1
4
L-JJ
1 .
11.70 's5 .1*
•
•':498122.
IMUM
ek.
1 1 431 r
\ "NO !ts211 17
2
\
V21.1.0 F.\
. RETAINING WALL xm(sSTORAGE BIN)7
• ° 10 \i/
•••••••1 2 /' F4FINI1903.555
••••.,
2V0:10
EEL1.21176il .763
4.er . ,
ALUM 113N
sn43oL
ZONE
REVISIONS
OESOIIPTION
OATS
By
, -;••„1",-,.• • -•
NOTES:
I. HORIZONTAL CONTROL BASED ON NAD 83/91,
WASHINGTON NORTH ZONE
2. VERTICAL CONTROL BASED ON N. G. V. D. , 1929
GA., SA., 47
11‘
4.30
1,5 .208
I
-2.932.12
wool
F CE
.89
I EXISTING ,
'Mari \
it 1 I \ BC28 4
lArtrAKE /1/4181772 . •
11, \ EL 35.91°
\ REBA
7\915
•••••••4.,2,9F
-N. .4/11.20
15123- j-i':411<Ca'ss ::18:.er8 9.11:1
EL . I 7 .58
REBAR
-4.0184:
'54-141:18
'710=1.
-61113=1
1:121=8
• /
-7 7477.2;
I
•-•,.10§10
*E"
30
40-1422,01.-
,0S
27.53 '
4.
-2 .1
-2.97
-2.57
-2.89
-2.93
.19
TIgo proisen flooloneell by Me Seal% OM.. MS. /eiry Crew el trorars.
vs. Alma. Isr soanowess end rwiestmeOset •••Ignathano of onahrosuos awrilr
1011. Ira v0.1.sasteen. •■• ■•■ Awn preket olloes*..110dro M. me «
weir emOwrier• reoullroll 57 VI 1110-11.4153, Prefewlentil Nogystr•tin.
3
DATE AND TINE PLOTTED. 21-KAY -2001 16.25
DESIGN FILE. I • \DESIGNS NNISC \ CI V CODI GA \C001 CS1313. DON
2
40' 20' 0 40' 80'
▪ = 40' 1 5-1 5-1
REDUCED._ TO. -50X ,OFL. NU SI
ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SEATTLE, WASFINGTON
CODIGA FARMS HABITAT RESTORATION
EXISTING CONDMONS/DEMOLITION PLAN
KING COUNTY WASHINGTON
ennTATICSI RIM
D
PWN
MC NM tom.
01JUNO I
PLATE
C- 1
DAF 2 OF 4
B
c
-o
T-------
PEPATW
- .
000
\ 1111'
At PARKING LOT
(lr-SPACES)
At.
6' WIDE GRAVEL
WALKING PATH
14
\:5113t-E
KCNIC
V4t4:.
•
Hig5CAISUMARICTION\
4-
CHAIN LINK
FENCE (TYP)
2
SYLEIOL
ZONE
4
\\________________
we *Wed by SestIfft Olgfrial MS. iirts, Oros of Cnolneera.
lie MM. 0 eprn.rve sod re0Oreetan
. ot ■0..mI(ry stoov.41• f
1101 omtestkm o Mvw •sna
1•1fl 0. roe el
' weir ..fl* es nom/1M to DI 1110,41111. Pretemyral lipalnylkos
3
•
DATE AM TIME PLOTTEDI 21-MAY-2001 16.14
DESIGN FILE. D\DESIGNS\NISONCIVNCODIGA\CODIGSOA.DGN
2
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
DATE
BY
40' 20' 0 40' 80'
• 40' 1
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SEATTLE, WASHNGTON
CODIGA FARMS HABITAT RESTORATION
SITE PLAN
KING COUNTY WASHINGTON
— PIN
•WITATKNO PVC OM.
IDOL
OIJDIOI
oat* 3 OF 4
N.ANI
C-2
A
8
C
•
_ = - -30
20
0
- 10
0
> 0
0
w —10
-20
■
INVERT EL 4'
y
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
� T r
CHANNEL *1 BOTTOM
EVCAVATION
NATIVE
PLANTINGS
CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
NAY
ti
pO
M
r
1
Station
pO
5:. "37
CHANNEL #1- PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE; VERTICAL EXAGGERATION =2X
WETLAND
PLANTINGS
OHW
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE
1 .■■.<r.•
-- -.I2 GRAVEL
=LAYER
LARGE II8' MAX) ROCKS
SPACED EVERY 20' TO
BREAK UP FLOW
4
8' CHANNEL
WIDTH
BENCH EL. 4'
1' LAYER OF
»IOPSOIL.
ANGLE OF 'REPOSE
SUITABLE FILL
MATERIAL
ROCKS TO
ANCHOR LWD
LARGE WOODY
DEBRIS BURIED
IN BANK
CHANNEL SECTION - TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
TM M.. s .b..� a ..aN wM. ro..,LLN~sr May ie w�wwi. moor
unewn sr en Vim. sidatarn. 1011.8 11. mem of
3
Elevation
25
20
10
0
-5
INVERT EL I'
SYMBOL
ZONE
INVERT EL -2'
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
EVCAVATI'ON-
CHANNEL s2 BOTTOM
1 • 1
REVISIONS
OESOItPTIOH
GATE
BY
MATCH CHANNEL * I
INVERT ELEVATION
O
Station
NOTES:
CHANNEL #2- PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE; VERTICAL EXAGGERATION=2X
1. CHANNEL INVERT ELEVATIONS ARE MEASURED TO.r
--7-77-7;-TOP,.-OF - GRAVEL- LAYER.` — �
Y."
•
•
\
•
•
J
•
)0 YEAR FLOOD
LEV. - ,a.S (F- E.M.A.)
"0P OF BANK
BounloAY
•
• •
eo \c
d‘7*
Fenco
I O.
Too
. Y
•
•
•
•
•
,
\oo -.
• �r
•
` 0
\!
tp
. I �r.\
r
..'<
.n\ rte/ /
LINE OF OFPD1NAZY HIGH WATE/Z/
V C
#41 ION Llr:E
X .> n
High rotor lino
•
\ � r
i /. < ♦0 \ >s% )<` . _ — —
r' . \
1.1. ft \ �_ `
5.
>0
•
• 55
•
`\
•
a»
_\ TI
\I I
.
I/.
•
•
• . n Aspholt \
■
•
• —moo...
s Roll
•
\ \Cuord • \
• .— / •
/ • - " '��G'i \� lc ..n \ / /.
cr \ ' \ `, //
` 100 YEAR FLOOD
v /
!...- '\ \�`� \\ \y� 1''1, ELEV. /3.0 (F.E.M.A)
•�
_
• _ —
o
•
•
•
_ _ N �_9.o0_ •
•
d
•
/ • rt#
�
,
• \ '%4
v
/ •
\\ 'I
S.1f' r
/
0 20 40
Bo
tbad i. L(92:74
/ —' Soundnr7 k ieiayrephic 1
DR..wu+G !rtnesE+t
Surray —LIe: tort Pea
Pateb d CoOL;a Jy:m : D9907TP
City o! Ttorrizt. LA
S r ratite. rears .ti. 5,- "‘"7 4 OF 4•
DESIONfD
SCALE
DRAON TF
NOR t" - �Y
PL. !�T EOUNDARY O+FOCO,[ \kFL
�La r� Jr D: CAT' r�looul ri aet�^;
.l°FROMO BOGY �a •> Peaeo��Z09)P7 ?-7_. •
JOB MJM3?2
9907
IRWIN ENGINEERING'
CIVIL ENGINE i.R7:.,
AND LAND SURVEY=
e24 30093 rota .5171727
1,9
/
100 • YEAR FLOOD
ELEV. - 12.5 (F•E.M.A.
TOP OF BANK
PLAT BOUNDARY
NOTE: LANDS EXTEND BEYOND
PLAT BOUNDARY Q.8 UTT!N6
LOTS 3e THRU 44. SEE NOTE
ON SHEEET 2 REGARO/NG OWHER-
SHI P R I VCsM W/'R D OF "A T
DoUMDARY.
d!» Aap
1\ / / ' / / • Fence
To.
t
%\ // /// '
\ // / //
\ /' /
\ // /
■
•
\
/
/
s\ /
cli; 'J /'
oJ\ //
./
\ 4 \\ // /•
N /
\ / � '
/
u.o 7
2$.0 >
/
P
\
• Wood
Fence
LINE OF ORDINARY HUH WATER
VEGETATION LINE
X'a"
High rater Ina
PL.. A.74:
;YLA ', . I r . 373. 1 h ' 1 r0 st £i'J T O W . .
RCt/1t1:•:;;;;D TITZ4 c ri;;;CATE SE OBTAINED
TO DISLOSE IF VACATED AND VERIFY OWNERSHIP ..
ALSO AI NT OF WAY POR ,3o" PC. >x IT INFrVN
ON .X 5 FREEWAY RIGHT 0< way MAPS PER $f!7
0.T. FILES. RECIMMEND Titns COAT/F /CAM IS
Oil TAIMOD TO CI. AR/fY OWNER'S/I/P.
:• 05- Z[yn_•• Iw7C..C50—.._.. - •.L+�. ice. T:.7?..4...«
20.0
/' /' \
\ / ' �' -\
,• / /
/'`� ' /��
r..r. \ �` \S tee`
4..m #�.. 7- �,
NO
/• jam <�.•/_ \ ��•aa— � _
l9p' \
ta
\ \\
RS
\\ 0 \\ .yam an �_'
\\ oa \\ \\€ lOth PIS +� I •'_« a., r,.
, __ie.... ..... \ :. Cu a 0 ..... 4., .9.5320:_w_ ..... ‘
�.., / \ /
\ \\ \ / xa «/ ;�/ `\ �'/ 10Or, YEAR FLOOD
\\ \� / \\ \ / 10 +\ EL �/ l3. 0 (F. E.M.A�
\ ' -/ \\ \ . / yc
/
/
•
• J
/ o
/• /
/ - • /
/
/ /' '
o.
/
'
•
/ / .
I \ ..' / '
// /
CI, A. \
Pe reel 'J'.
ura
av
o \• .
\
\
SCALE: 1..40'
1
0 ' D O
hod 711. D91DD781
_ oESCxm• srAtl Jce HtI►raErr IRpi1N ENGINEERING Bounder) I: Topographic commie r
ar DRAIMV TF HOR 1• - sd (aD07 CIVlL SNG��gg�G 3urret-Ilbenta11M Pee:
_ AND LAND 3URVSYING Parch t ccood�tt��a 11nrm.• : D9907TP
PLAT a 0 U N D A R Y CHECxm �y,F VERL (DATE er. 1ollls Ism srxlar c1e� at nalr.fn. >fA
900 I'7 t DC rICO u 6040) Tcr Bruoo Dtc� dt /.s'rx SHhT7 4 oI 4
APPROKD Ooolc (O Frtr 6 1992a =�'�!
�aeeraawwr a�••,ar6%".7 ,,.,(Y.a•S.l!'i:TlRyiC9I�1S '.".r... Sr "'.•rte � ".. ..�.'.. +...tSL,._' ......:.tS�S _.. ._..�t�:.'aa::'.....I:�..
•I
•
a7,
_ •
rt a ,11■ i." ion
2,,. t
:r
• ,. -I W 2I it 2.1
L se b•
�/ % irfl •G•e
1 Wi :'1 Ji�j
f e• c1'tl�e t. . r to t• Lf x. ..:0433 13. a.c a Jr t+ I to
41-4---vi—Pie
T 1 I � r i : ' ., ':9! _ ' i..,� IS I 141 �"`
F: ' —I -,
�''f 1-1--;--0. ® ���il .• .
ar•
10
t P.
*St�
195
10
• `o
a
t
IZSTH.
•4.t• •w.
icP
2
13
ri 644 f
? s /
14 Q
@t
, t. 7
4
a 000.9
5110 t+'
co**
8
15 °
Lx. coV FOCMi /O 1,00 4i 4L
9 if bri �„
17 ...\
I8 • w
Aa-
YE4tC
5 82 -34- I1 E. 569.05
PCL 8
j.1144.
t i ° r/%
L ao10 /
/4 /FCC
8904120877 /00' /,(„06
TV. SP 89.1 -SS /
,G_N�E,
19 •
312- ' •
• 21 . • .:
•
•
125
Zoo
22
.2o1 4t
R.�
,n \ NA i re:
.0. • t K N —
� •t1. • 46.0
Ji • "4 1 • v
•
h 9:4, tl• •
ro
CI f2
0 xl'
7
•
6
—
Cr
6
5
y
TKc12T1ES WR>L,.4 SCof v1
T2-4E P1eojcr-T- s rTE.
/ o r
•,.ate
PO•
A
0
• o. llHa
t. •
,. r
5
�• •
• ,• �,s
,,• tf •
.• ./ Y?..i4
4.
As' L w
s .e ,
�i`'
n
4.510
l+
to
to
tl
LI
t) t•
u tL
_ •
rt a ,11■ i." ion
2,,. t
:r
• ,. -I W 2I it 2.1
L se b•
�/ % irfl •G•e
1 Wi :'1 Ji�j
f e• c1'tl�e t. . r to t• Lf x. ..:0433 13. a.c a Jr t+ I to
41-4---vi—Pie
T 1 I � r i : ' ., ':9! _ ' i..,� IS I 141 �"`
F: ' —I -,
�''f 1-1--;--0. ® ���il .• .
ar•
10
t P.
*St�
195
10
• `o
a
t
IZSTH.
•4.t• •w.
icP
2
13
ri 644 f
? s /
14 Q
@t
, t. 7
4
a 000.9
5110 t+'
co**
8
15 °
Lx. coV FOCMi /O 1,00 4i 4L
9 if bri �„
17 ...\
I8 • w
Aa-
YE4tC
5 82 -34- I1 E. 569.05
PCL 8
j.1144.
t i ° r/%
L ao10 /
/4 /FCC
8904120877 /00' /,(„06
TV. SP 89.1 -SS /
,G_N�E,
19 •
312- ' •
• 21 . • .:
•
•
125
Zoo
22
.2o1 4t
R.�
,n \ NA i re:
.0. • t K N —
� •t1. • 46.0
Ji • "4 1 • v
•
h 9:4, tl• •
ro
CI f2
0 xl'
7
•
6
—
Cr
6
5
y
TKc12T1ES WR>L,.4 SCof v1
T2-4E P1eojcr-T- s rTE.
/ o r
•,.ate
PO•
A
SEATTLE
6:\ MIC/H
EF23511b6
41/44 ,
4=-
1
.i;
SEATTLE
City of Tukwila
Comprehensive
Plan
Map
Scale 1'-2500±
6,1s
NORTH
December 4, 1995
This Is a graphic representation of land
use designations adapted by City
'Council 12/4/95. Larger maps
that show property lines,
designations, and other
zoning Information are
available at Tukwila
Department of
Community
Development
100BI Rom MART scrE
11177111
0
C:0
- SEATAC
CoMprehensive
Plan
Designations
' ,
iiii om, vie
At
FL,
VW- '7141
11,67i
710 11111Flp 1:1111111310.11111.
iftMER1111111117÷1:4
13 '111111FPriillirdrilligh1110111r1111Pil
tom Him PIM=
Mit !I !1ST 1111111 11111=-7,
:1111: frETIErirl Fili
-) L1111
is
LDR-Low Density Residential
MDR7Medium Density Residential
HDR-High Density Residential
0-0fOce
MUG-Mixed Use Office
RCOlesidential Commercial Center
NCC-Neighborhood Commercial Center
RC-Regional Commercial
RCM-Regional Commercial Mixed Use
-TUG-Tukwiia-Ulbari-Ceriter
s seam
C/LliCommercial Light Industrial
TVSFTukwila Valley South
LI-Light Industrial
HI-Heavy Industrial
MICA.-Manufacturing Industrial Center/Light Industrial
MIC/H-Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Industrial
Overlays and Sub Areas
Public Recreation Overlay
Shoreline Overlay
(Approx. 200' each side of river)
Manufacturing Industrial Center
Boundary
Tukwila South Master Plan Area
, Tukwila Urban Center
Potential Annexation Area
Tukwila City Limits
8 lama
1
CD
LL1
CC
1
KENT
SW 43RD ST
CITY OF TUKWI4A.
S 93
S 99 St
S DO St
-r
r I
Wrier
Golf 1
Country
Club
S 116 t
4161 RI RTON
S 124 St
/111
•
4
e,
•/11
0'
?ROTE CT LCCRTIO N
Fort
Dent o'1;
`:i2.)
kl
...... .
-
0
f 5 00'
1
000'
r
6000'
1;1
. ,
*land Th-
SegoPk1.
4
el
koiEeT ITN( m
•
dS
1
ATTACHMENT D -1
EXISTING LOCATION OF RIVER, LOW IMPACT AND HIGH IMPACT
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS FROM OHWM
)O YEAR FLOOD
LEv. -
roP of BANK
BOUNcRR"se
If
•
Jo
/
/ /
�
/ ,p. \
.> \ /' /' O \
' , \.ems \00 / \ /� ' \
moo ..... / / / \ \ \
aI. >•' y /' ▪ '/' `',r.\ •
as \ / / it / \`
n.al / / / \
•
.INE OF ORDINARY 14 1GH WAYER/
iE``' -R ?ION LINE
x >n
/
/
/
/
/
top / /
/ • - /
r /
Y� }
\
' �JI ?ems i
` \ >O �..�'_ %' `` _
\
HIgA water fine
\\• Asphalt --....\______
ti
\.Y
•
/ : i
/ / / •
1 N. / • /
7 ; ie
• \s
/_
'J+
\ \ / \ \ ,_fa..._
I X/ \ /
i / / \' • , \ /
\ — ./
\yi/ \ ��• '/ 100 YEAR FLO<
/ \\ \\ /ro'y�
\ \ ',.°
\ '
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
59
611.1 -4� i
0
PLAT 6OUNIDARY a+facm . FIELD r a DC
•
40, I00 Ze, Fsa«
IR TCIVILII
"1512, ; ATTACHMENT D -1
ru
csc tsnJt OA/LIMA.
ATTACHMENT D -2
LOCATION OF RIVER, LOW IMPACT AND HIGH IMPACT
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF SIDE
CHANNEL FROM OHWM
Ito
L4"
' N 4347-
�C
4•41 • �sc..�a p F Pest ► E t
c i'aT A +_ c 4- 2" 2 4.
i
�4.�.lgS. �rL
Ito -ro-na.`
• t1Ix 11ATEUE 5p t
coo, cLa 0 = - -Co +- `Ia° / -
(2.15 VIA .° co tom-, •
4 j A..-r-1 c ) A-r-w
-5p cti c S
T1. 0 4L U.ut GL.4-r)
Q t c is t
4o. (oo oo
r , Z` ,; 0
1;142po5tn oAl w0,1 .
ATTACHMENT D -2
COMA- FA-A144s
e . OF Txl1ad1/411Li4 --
g1A-14 ' , i - E - c i � M 6
•••• \
'
•••„.1. \ G Mat_ PARKING
; \ \ LOT (20.-SZACES)..-.-
‘,........, \
HAND LAUNCH
LOCATION
r
\V
X \
‘N.N.
\\
\\
NATIVE PLANTS
TREES TO• PROVIDL
SHADE FOR CHANNEL -
CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
WETLAND PLANTINGS
OHW
-v N
:
N \ , . _ II_
‘ _ ‘.....71.-..,.....,---_- _ ,..7..-_- _ ---;
\. ,.....-- i..., EXISTING GROUND
\ N. SURFACE
\:....
\ \‘. ‘ .c.
L '.
‘. ..•
‘... X. L..-
...."'N
t 1
PLACE LWD AT
CHANNEL OUTLET r
•i"
LWD
WETLAND PLANTINGS
3'
PROJECT
WALKING PATH ‘...D
(GRAVEL, 6' WIDE) CI
BACKWATER CHANNEL I
(INVERT EL‘.% 7')
LARGE ROCKS TO
BREAK UP FLOW
KENT
TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTION
• NOT TO SCALE
":-;\ --- • • •-• LINTERPRETI.VE/DISPLAY ..>- - ••-
/
•,
• QBSERXATION PLATFORM&
I. PROVIDE WARNING SIGN AT END OF TRAIL.
CAPTION TO READ: "CAUTION: WESTWIND WEIR
1.5M1 DOWNSTREAM."
BACKWATER
CHANN6L. 2
GR/Z9Et...P.ARKING LOT ‘
/7 / i
..:
:.
.......v■r "" t - -- - .... ---.---...1:4- S.
c.) ' ', • / \ -- „
SMALL HEXAOONAL \ Ci•\.
SH6LTER (ZIYX30' P•AD) WITH "'AN'
4 /FABLES/ • •-• •-•-••••• .. ••••
TOP OF
.,. BANK
/2.5 .........
•
• L
•
• •••. \
4 _ _
FLOW
CODIGA FARM BACKWATER CHANNEL
SCALE: I" = 50'
00'5
BERM (TOP EL. 20',
4H: I V SLOPES)
...... ---
TQE.-0E-FLOOD" BERM
. •
b
\N. 40
..-:.,.....,"
230
• • ---- --:. __ _ .......V./.. _--,-.- - -,_ ,-.. . ' :.=
a 20
t...:
w-J 10
50' 25' 0 50' 100'
10 • 50' 1 1.44 1-4 11. 1-1 1-4
INVERT EL 7'
10
z
1-
w
PRELIMINARY QUANTITY ESTIMATE:
40
30
20
10
-10
BACKWATER CHANNEL 2-PROFILE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
•"" I 7 --- —
PROPOSED BACKWATER INVERT EL 0Y
cVII LE
0
0
-7
INVERT Et 4'
' I ' I • ' '' •
0
0
BACKWATER CHANNEL I-PROFILE
EXIST
0
UND SURFACE
INVERT EL 3'
•
0
tn • STATION o
+ +
0
0 01
DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: 20-MAR-2001 14:55
DESIGN FILE: 1:0desIgns0msgcl0cIvOcodIga.dgn
STATION
PROPOSED POND OUTLET
CHANNEL PROFILE
r••••••...
0
0
r
0
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
GREEN/DUWAMISH RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION
CODIGA FARMS BACKWATER CHANNEL
KING COUNTY
Sal
111,017117101
0=. DAF
WASHINGTON
Una
0 IMAR20
SMUT
OUANTITY
EXCAVATION
21,500 CY
GRAVEL
1,100 CY
ROOTWADS
16 EA
LARGE STONES (I2-I8)
20 EA
CONCRETE
25 CY
FILL
650 CY
40
30
20
10
-10
BACKWATER CHANNEL 2-PROFILE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
•"" I 7 --- —
PROPOSED BACKWATER INVERT EL 0Y
cVII LE
0
0
-7
INVERT Et 4'
' I ' I • ' '' •
0
0
BACKWATER CHANNEL I-PROFILE
EXIST
0
UND SURFACE
INVERT EL 3'
•
0
tn • STATION o
+ +
0
0 01
DATE AND TIME PLOTTED: 20-MAR-2001 14:55
DESIGN FILE: 1:0desIgns0msgcl0cIvOcodIga.dgn
STATION
PROPOSED POND OUTLET
CHANNEL PROFILE
r••••••...
0
0
r
0
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
GREEN/DUWAMISH RIVER HABITAT RESTORATION
CODIGA FARMS BACKWATER CHANNEL
KING COUNTY
Sal
111,017117101
0=. DAF
WASHINGTON
Una
0 IMAR20
SMUT
S.
SEATTLE
VAS It M1R!..VRRit.R1 “` ”11i •P...i:
b.
6 ®i6136 MIC /H
�1-
H
.
0.142
1� 1J
R
I,MIC/H
-KING -
COUNTY
SEATTLE
1h 1,11
;City of Tukwila
Comprehensive
Plan
Map
Scale 1' =2500t
NORTH
December 4, 1995
This is a graphic representation of land
Elie designations adopted by City
Council 12/4/95. Larger maps
that show property lines,
designations, and other
zoning information are
available at Tukwila -
Department of
Community
Development
fi
100D' Rim MART si1E
SEATAC
Comprehensive
Plan
Designations
LDR -Low Density Residential
MDR -.Medium Density Residential
HDR ;High Density Residential
0 -Off ce
MUO -Mixed Use Office
RCC- Residential Commercial Center.
NCC- Neighborhood Commercial Center
RC- Regional Commercial
RCM- Regional Commercial Mixed Use
TUC Tukwlla Urban Center
C /LI,Commercial Light Industrial
TVS- Tukwila Valley South
LI -Light Industrial
HI- I -(eavy Industrial
MIC L- Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light Industrial
MIC /H- Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial
Overlays and Sub Areas
Public Recreation Overlay
Shoreline Overlay
(Approx. 200' each side of river)
Manufacturing Industrial Center
Boundary
Tukwila South Master Plan Area
Tukwila Urban Center
Potential Annexation Area
iciiII.J.H
.46 P AVii iiiiii111;i=
..... ill1111=
.611 r 1..111 ���+,',111111 E111111=
:1(411.41M;,ii11111111t1171111=
m0:11: x.111111 iRp!��'IE:. �i'i:11:=
r tiiIEE3'�'1'
111.114114111111110
�IG1 °11111=
=1111 2M
S IMIHST
MIST
11
O
W
CSC
; WI3RD ST
`y) KENT
TA
1!Q
'II•
4;!
;41
ski
rd9
diga Farms Side Channel
Date: March 21, 2001'
Photography Dated: July 6, 1999
l +i
• v"
cc■
'70
293''
049 • 2.. mf6..
tfA
40
Xc,d(Jl• • Zel
ave
vkci'
11/\ 6(3
•
- -
)P'
Jr
.. •
J
\,0
0101,)6r7
. 0
; 637,r
•
9\
s?
0 fit .63
// X 1645001 .7 7
Y 181534. 02
fg. 14
jot.
2(
_ /./.S7-32
7 A/;76 -la-.
6-z. 57
)
- 70 1 i 14'
e19 't/.
9 - v
)Ze
94 0-40',4* 1
1,0°.yeicrie' 0.
1315.63
pig
e'%>
,t b.
tcp 42'
4.•
.0 br2 ° IZ 1 t
c.
Hosioa
8(
/
21/
.e.frreg‘
/6 ',cc,. e-spfr
\ V \\
_ Y yy. ♦
ti \ --
._i ♦ y /sue ' '
y yy y • r \
LAUNCH �i
��� . \ \ ii 1 L
�.•- l�r..,� •,, IX
6' WIDE PCC
� '`y`'• •� SURFACE ISTING GROUND
`t• .� '` ;•`'may `,WALKING PATH
HAND
LOCATION
FENCE (TYP)
BELLFWE
NATIVE PLANTS
1:?
PLACE LWD AT
CHANNEL OUTLET ,'-
r
BENCH
EL 14' ~ i t t 7111T111.417.14
3'
PROJECT
LARGE ROCKS TO
BREAK UP FLOW
KENT
PICNIC \
.SHELTER
. PARK
SIGNS \,,,,,"�
POL•E
•� - —'
LIGHT . ?
TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
) FENCE.. TYP)
Ir'
11 t •
tt /1
\; BACKWATER
CHANNEL
• — \.-.- - - -\
I ; f t 4 \
\
i \ .. ?OP OF
1 , BANK
\
\\
\ `y
\ • \\
/2.a
:;, �'`t�. \ •,
PAY HISTORIC' -.
INFORMATION
VIEWPHONE\ F;\ . ' \ry
•
h PL
•
NOTES:
I. PROVIDE WARNING SIGN AT END OF TRAIL.
CAPTION TO READ: "CAUTION: WESTWIND WEIR
I.5MIDOWNSTREAM."
\
•
BERM (TOP EL. 20',
4H: IV SLOPES)
TO.E- OF F L000'FLOW BERM
FL OW
CODIGA FARM BACKWATER CHANNEL
SCALE I" = 100'
=• • i;•`• •,
40
30
PRELIMINARY QUANTITY ESTIMATE:
fkf : '0=, wL•' '?
I /
)4.
112.91
5 2.5
0
0
r
r T
Int
•/
1•
,„
• \
\JJ
• 1
a
'14
\
- L. —I— --. \
. \ 1 '‘. ....
I \
r \,
■ \ i.
L., IA
• \
100'
3
.3
..4
•:‘ LA
O
r
0 lit
1.
LA.
• 9
.. ,
s..
_,... 1
..„.> ,
,-.
_1 _ .1- , 1-4------r:
. .
. -. - -- .
.
. ... _ _ . -.....
...,
• , ,
--. -- . ' I
I •
... _
r's
•,',,,,.. • ..4
I
......1..
I
' .., . ..
..----
\ I
• 1
e ( „
I I I I
I N. I •
\ I
, .L _
1 ' I
.5.,03 %.■ : 1,/.111 N.:-./00
D v IV A M 1 3 11
t 1 ..
40,