Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA02-040 3 of 5 �T• URRENCE
DATE
NAME - INITI 'AT
CITY OF RENTON 6.• inns "¢
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 n AAA 1
PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMI
APPLICATION NO.: LUA-02-040, EIS, SM, PP, SA-H (Revised)
DATE RECEIVED: July 15, 2003; Revision received October 12, 2006
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: May 3, 2004 (Final Environmental Impact Statement); Not
required for revision
DATE APPROVED: April 1, 2005; Revision approved November 27, 2006
TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit, Revision
[ ] Conditional Use Permit
[ ] Variance Permit
Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton granted a Shoreline Substantial Development permit on
April 1, 2005. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-100, on November 20, 2006, the City of Renton approved a revision to
the Shoreline Substantial Development permit granted in 2005.
A Shoreline Substantial Development permit was approved on April 1, 2005 for the following action:
APPLICANT: Century Pacific LP (Steven Wood/Campbell Mathewson)
1501 Fourth Ave. Ste. 2140, Seattle, WA 98101
PROJECT: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, 4201 Lake Washington Blvd. N.
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM)for the
subdivision of a 23-acre site into 115 lots ranging in size from 1,779 square feet to 16,867 square feet and
associated utility and road improvements. The project would be developed in two phases. The lots, intended
to be developed in two phases, consist of townhouse units- most of which would be constructed as 2-unit, 3-
unit and 4-unit structures. The buildings could be up to 50 feet in height within the shoreline jurisdiction and
potentially up to 75 feet outside of the shoreline jurisdiction.
Both Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines are designated as"urban"environments under the City's
Shoreline Master Program.
The western boundary of the site includes approximately 1,900 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline
(Exhibit 1)—for which a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark would be maintained with 35 feet
of native vegetation and 15 feet of lawn for the majority of the lakefront lots. In addition, May Creek bisects
the property extending southeast through the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to the May Creek Delta
within Lake Washington. The project would provide a 50 foot buffer on each side of the May Creek ordinary
high water mark and would restore currently impervious areas to native vegetation within the buffer area. A
conceptual site plan review was processed and approved with conditions by the City of Renton Hearing
Examiner. Detailed site plan review is required to be conducted prior to the construction of any structure on
the property.
Residential development is permitted within this urban environment designation provided the development
provides reasonable public access to and along the water's edge. For public access to Lake Washington, an
access easement would be provided through an Open Space/Water Quality tract to a parcel under the
ownership of the Department of Natural Resources, which is leased by the current owner. For public access
along May Creek, a public trail is proposed to be provided along the entire south side of the creek within the
property boundaries and terminate in an interpretative display of the history of the mill site at the delta.
Shoreline Permit, Revised 2006 03.doc
CITY OF RENTON
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971
PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION NO.: LUA-02-040, EIS, SM, PP, SA-H (Revised)
DATE RECEIVED: July 15, 2003; Revision received October 12,2006
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: May 3, 2004 (Final Environmental Impact Statement); Not
required for revision
DATE APPROVED: April 1, 2005; Revision approved November 29,2006
TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit, Revision
[ ] Conditional Use Permit
[ ] Variance Permit
Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton granted a Shoreline Substantial Development permit on
April 1, 2005. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-100, on November 20, 2006, the City of Renton approved a revision to
the Shoreline Substantial Development permit granted in 2005.
A Shoreline Substantial Development permit was approved on April 1, 2005 for the following action:
APPLICANT: Century Pacific LP (Steven Wood/Campbell Mathewson)
1501 Fourth Ave. Ste. 2140, Seattle, WA 98101
PROJECT: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, 4201 Lake Washington Blvd. N.
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM)for the
subdivision of a 23-acre site into 115 lots ranging in size from 1,779 square feet to 16,867 square feet and
associated utility and road improvements.The project would be developed in two phases.The lots, intended
to be developed in two phases, consist of townhouse units- most of which would be constructed as 2-unit, 3-
unit and 4-unit structures. The buildings could be up to 50 feet in height within the shoreline jurisdiction and
potentially up to 75 feet outside of the shoreline jurisdiction.
Both Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines are designated as"urban"environments under the City's
Shoreline Master Program.
The western boundary of the site includes approximately 1,900 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline
(Exhibit 1)—for which a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark would be maintained with 35 feet
of native vegetation and 15 feet of lawn for the majority of the lakefront lots. In addition, May Creek bisects
the property extending southeast through the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to the May Creek Delta
within Lake Washington. The project would provide a 50 foot buffer on each side of the May Creek ordinary
high water mark and would restore currently impervious areas to native vegetation within the buffer area.A
conceptual site plan review was processed and approved with conditions by the City of Renton Hearing
Examiner. Detailed site plan review is required to be conducted prior to the construction of any structure on
the property.
Residential development is permitted within this urban environment designation provided the development
provides reasonable public access to and along the water's edge. For public access to Lake Washington, an
access easement would be provided through an Open Space/Water Quality tract to a parcel under the
ownership of the Department of Natural Resources,which is leased by the current owner. For public access
along May Creek, a public trail is proposed to be provided along the entire south side of the creek within the
property boundaries and terminate in an interpretative display of the history of the mill site at the delta.
Shoreline Permit,Revised 2006 03.doc
•
City of Renton P/B/PW Departm-.s Six _ 9 Substantial Development Permit,REVISED
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
November 29,2006 Page 2 of 3
The proposed Revision to the 2005 Shoreline Substantial Development permit is as follows:
APPLICANT: Garry Upper; Conner Homes Co.; 846—108th Ave NE;
Bellevue, WA 98004; 425-646-4437
PROJECT: Barbee Mill (LUA02-040, EIS, SM, PP, SA-A)
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: During the project engineering phase, following preliminary
plat approval, it became evident that raising the elevation of the southerly half of the site by up to six
feet would provide multiple benefits to the project. This increase in finish elevation would be accomplished
through the importation and placement of structural fill on the project site.
The increase in elevation provides the means of meeting several conditions placed on the project by the
Hearing Examiner(Exhibit 2)specifically:
Mitigation measure B3: The new May Creek bridge needs to be constructed to provide a design clearance
above the 100-year flood elevation of May Creek. In order to accommodate this elevation, the driving surface
of the road must be at elevation 31 feet above sea level at each end. The grading plan, revised as proposed,
would accomplish this.
Mitigation measures B4 through B6: The project must accommodate projected May Creek flood waters and
provide an enhanced 100-foot wide buffered corridor for May Creek. Originally, the preferred EIS alternative
for meeting these requirements would have resulted in "benching"the west side of May Creek, thereby
providing capacity for the potential flood water and new vegetation along the stream corridor. During
engineering design, however, it was determined that flood capacity could be increased while retaining a
significant amount of existing riparian vegetation if the elevations of the bridge and lots adjacent to the stream
corridor were raised. The resulting increased corridor buffer area (currently asphalt)would be planted with
riparian vegetation. This revision was an EIS alternative preferred by the State Department of Fisheries.
In addition to allowing several mitigation measures to be met more effectively, the proposed revision would
improve utility service efficiency. With increased site elevation, the sanitary sewer system would be gravity
based, rather than require a new lift station. The infrastructure, including all pipes and the water quality pond,
would be above the groundwater table. Since groundwater is currently being remediated and monitored for
residual contamination, separation from the utility systems would be preferred.
The amount of imported fill on the 23 acre site would be increased from 37,000 cy to approximately
80,000 cy. An additional 20,000 cy of sandy silt, previously dredged from the May Creek delta and
stockpiled on the site would be recycled as topsoil. The placement and grading of fill is shown in Exhibit
3.
The shoreline treatment proposed along Lake Washington is illustrated in a series of cross-sections shown in
Exhibit 4 (Sections 1 through6). It appears that the proposed reconfiguration of existing rip-rap and bulkheads
would create a significantly improved shoreline condition, particularly when replanted with appropriate
vegetation.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attachment Exhibit 5
SEC-TWN-R: 32-24 N-5 E
WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Lake Washington and May Creek
APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton
The following sections/pages of the Master Program are applicable to the development:
Section Description Page
4-3-090.J Urban Environment page 3-25
4-3-090.K, 3,4, 6,7 General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses page 3-26
4-3-090.L Specific Use Regulations page 3-27
Shoreline Permit,Revised 2006 03.doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Departn`.. _ , Shc: Substantial Development Permit,REVISED
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
November 29,2006 Page 3 of 3
4-3-090.L.14 Residential Development page 3-36
4-3-090.L.17 Trails page 3-37
The 2005 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit was approved pursuant to the following terms and
conditions,which remain in affect:
1. The applicant shall comply will all SEPA mitigation measures established by the Environmental Impact
Statement(EIS) issued on May 3, 2004 and set forth in the Mitigation Document, dated January 10,2005.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval required by the Hearing Examiner as part of the
decision for the Preliminary Plat and Level II Site Plan issued on February 22, 2005.
3. The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies.
That the permit be granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the
following:
1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant
from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements.
2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7)of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the
event the permittee fails to comply with any condition herein.
3. A construction permit shall not be issued until twenty-one(21)days after approval by the Washington State
Department of Ecology or until any review proceedings initiated within'this twenty-one (21)day review
period have been completed.
/e / 421 Otc
Gregg Zimm44(f an, in'ist o November 29,2006
Planning/Bing/ ublic Works
cc: Attorney General's Office
City of Renton, Plan Review(Kayren Kittrick)
City of Renton,Surface Water Utility(Ron Straka)
City of Renton, Parks(Leslie Betlach)
Applicant
Project File
Shoreline Permit,Revised 2006 03.doc
J SE 72nd St.
i i .--
J/ •
R-a R-8 .
- ' i NE 50th St.
1/ 1 •
:
' F
,.• ,.. CA , i •
,� / C❑R cn PE 48 t. ;SE 76th ti i St. -
' , �O C) ( ,• 176th Plt-�
/ n"I SE! [77th P1.
1` r _
k �� "tn ( Ij
CA ‘L i 1
J ;L-SE 80th St.
// 1I .
CUR Cl 43KI F1
//°*:> :
Gj1T�.!i 7 R-10
I •
Q
W
4,,,' R-8 m t .
/%�j •-10 . 40th St 6CA R-10 6 •
/ T\ NE 40th St
j �a5° .f2-8 R-8 > rt a
N•38th St10
R-8
z i SE 86th
�� R-8 QI w��1� L';..
va �N 37th 1R .8 b , R-8 ,1 __
R-8i
` •
NE'36th -\ i
!% N 36th St
�' BR-8 N 35th St R'-8 �� R-1 I i
R-8
i R_B.N. 34th;St R;8= N 34th St ill
�� !.I '� �� :.....: :.
14 33rd PI R-8 • ! �E 33rd'St. . ' i
11 R-8� R-g • ✓R-8 I ro R-8�
I [ 7 re,R-8 1,33rd St i -, i
/Z R-8 1 g i • '.R-e N 32nd St: ' i) Si RC ~� R- R-1'
�� R-8 1 MR-8:N•32nd;St::,.. I ., , 1� R-1'�1
` ' .T l\E 31 t St
RCico� J 31tt R-eR-8� R e. R s
kg R-8 I R-8 N 30th St R_8 10 . CN C N ( R�� `-- ��
'ci•
i 1
R® R-8 N 29th St 10I CN 8h St : S h St R=8! R-1 . \._
'Q-8 \- - R-8 coR-e R R` p' t]] R-8 a
I( R-8 \\ I-R-4" I F I . ': I - .: 27 s. R,-g :
'NO mania. H. i° •
I EXHIBIT
I 1
I
•
T
si?too
\NG Summary Table of Mitigation Measures
�EVEvef f RE A. Earth, Soils and Geology
C,•� 1 Z Al. The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during clearing, grading and
VL site construction.
G�, G A deep foundation system for building construction shall be utilized;OR
A3. Ground improvement measures shall be installed;OR
A4. Containment Walls shall be provided to prevent lateral spreading;OR
A5. Comparable engineering design.
B., Surface Water Resources
B1. The project shall include the construction, operation and maintenance of water quality facilities
designed according to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
B2. The residences and other structures shall be constructed with the lowest floor one foot above base
flood elevation.
• B3. New vehicular bridges shall be built to span the floodway to avoid restriction of flows during
regulatory flood events.
AND provide a final engineering design consistent with one or a combination of B4,or B5,or B6: -
• B4. Contain the 100-year floodplaiin within the proposed May Creek open space corridor of
approximately 50-foot width on each side of the stream by enhancements to the existing stream
channel, removal and replacement of bridge crossings, and/or placement of fill outside of the
established stream buffer edge. The floodplain delineation and any necessary stream / buffer
improvements shall be based on hydraulic modeling at the time of final engineering design. •
B5. Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open space corridor and
providing additional storage volume(i.e.a flood terrace excavated on either side of the stream).
• 66. Provide a wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and flood storage to
reduce channel scour and compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of sediment
deposited in the stream channel.
C. Groundwater
Cl. Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site as outlined in the
Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16, 2000 and/or pursuant to an
alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards.
C2. Evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and perform
groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup
standards.
•
D. Plants and Animals
D1. Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity.
D2. Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during
construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging and access areas away from buffer
areas. •
D3. Clear to completely remove existing invasive species in buffer areas and re-plant with native
species consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee •
Mill Preliminary Plat approvals.
.- D4. The width of proposed bridges shall be minimized to that necessary to accommodate vehicular and
pedestrian traffic in order to optimize light penetration to those areas immediately adjacent to and
under the bridge deck. Bridges shall also be designed with reasonable below-deck clearance
adequate to pass debris and maximum flood volumes in accordance with current City of Renton
and other applicable regulatory criteria for life safety.
D5. Plant open space and buffer areas with native vegetation consistent with preliminary landscaping
mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat.
EXHIBIT
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
. j 2
•
D6. . The width of proposed bridges shall be minimized to that necessary to accommodate vehicular
and pedestrian traffic with minimum below-deck clearance adequate for passage of small animals
and/or mammals including,but not limited to deer,ducks and geese, muskrats,squirrels,mice and
frogs.
D7. Use native plants in residential landscaping to minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or
herbicides.
D8. Limit wetland displacement to the extent practical by designing changes in the proposal to place
development outside the wetland and buffer.
-D9. Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement on site.
D10. Compensate-fo(10ss of buffer through buffer-width averaging and enhancement of the existing •
buffer vegetation.
D11. If applicable, thena) Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established
(where the lake is shallow,on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks);OR b).
Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization (where the lake is shallow, on public lands
or in conjunction with greater building setbacks);OR c)Provide plantings in rip-rap.
D12. Reduce the elevation above OHWM of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more natural shoreline
plantings.
D13: Preserve those pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from the near-shore
habitat that is important for juvenile salmonids.
D14. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive and
complex communities of indigenous vegetation. •
D15. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of mature canopy from
indigenous vegetation to provide summer shade and to intercept light and glare.
D16. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive
communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer disturbance and allow public access further from
the shoreline. The first thirty-five (35)feet from the ordinary high water mark shall be vegetated
with native plant or grass species as appropriate. The remaining fifteen (15) feet may be
landscaped as appropriate to be utilized as a yard area.
D17. Either: a) Prohibit docks and require the use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near-
shore habitat; OR b): Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage, AND THEN; c)
Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration.
D18. Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than residents such-as
the homeowners association or a similar entity.
E. Transportation
El.• Site access (railroad crossings) shall occur in the vicinity of existing at-grade crossing locations
with roadway improvements reviewed and approved by the WUTC and BNSF. Pre-cast concrete
crossings shall be utilized.
• E2. Provide active control for the two (2) railroad crossings designed with cantilever and gates and
warning devices automatically activated by train approach as required by BNSF and the WUTC.
Further, the City and future developer(s) shall work together with BNSF during the design of
• roadway improvements to determine any other appropriate railroad crossing solution(s).
E3. A traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings shall be
provided.
E4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new
average daily trip associated with the project. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording.of the
final plat.
E5. The on-site roadway system shall be constructed per the details and specifications provided by the •
approved Barbed Mill Preliminary Plat as a public road system designed to public road section
standards for residential access streets per the City of Renton Development Regulations.
F. Hazardous Materials
F1. The applicant shall remove contaminated soil as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan
Uplands Areas dated June 16,2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable
Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards.
Mitigation Document • Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
ii
•
F2. Th applicant shall evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is
complete and shall perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model
• Toxics Control Act cleanup standards.
F3. The applicant shall address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals
through appropriate removal, stabilization, or isolation, consistent-with requirements of the Model
Toxics Control Act.
F4. A contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan shall be provided.
G. Aesthetics
G1. Apparent building bulk shall be reduced by design features, materials and color, including sloping
roofs,roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets.
G2. If buildings are greater than three stories or 35 feet in height,relative building bulk may be reduced
by.screening through large vegetation. Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in
proposed plantings may be required.
H. Light and Glare
H1. Shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection shall be incorporated.
• H2. If buildings are greater than three stories or 35 feet In height, buildings shall be designed and sited
to reduce or eliminate glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun reflection.
I. Noise
11. Reasonable measures shall be taken during construction to minimize noise and vibration resulting
from any necessary pile driving operations. Such measures shall include pre-drilling of the upper
portions of driven piles for large structures or use of alternate technologies such as pin piles for
smaller,residential supports.
12. Vibration, auger casting,or similar alternate construction methods shall be used where practical to
limit noise related to pile support installation.
13. Noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, welding machines, pumps, and
similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background
noise levels shall be provided.
14. At-grade rail crossings shall have underground conduit installed and other equipment installed as
needed to facilitate future double=gating of public railroad crossings at the time of crossing •
construction.
• J. Historic and Cultural Resources
J1. An interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site reflecting the lumber
economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area shall be provided by the developer. The design and
location shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services prior to recording of the final
plat.
J2. In the event archaeological deposits are found during construction, work is to stop and the
Washington State Archaeologist is to be contacted by the developer/contractor(s).
K. Public Services -
K1. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the
recording of the final plat.
K2. • The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the
recording of the final plat.
K3. Public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek shall be provided and
incorporated into the preliminary plat. The applicant shall work with City of Renton staff to
determine the location and design of the public access.The system may include a soft surface trail
along May Creek,sidewalks,and an open space tract adjacent to Lake Washington.
{
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
111
•
• ,
•
BARBEE MILL
i.sg.:',--,„_':i 1 67"././;:-;:•:".7:)..-• .
s.... G.ty„,„;,,,,,,-•
Shoreline Development Permit Grading and TESC Exhibit ,
.3 ..,,. . :.,..;• .. :,.. '.' IN*,.• V ./
; ):: • --)1 ) I '?) ( 11 V 0 \
A _ U
_.-2 ' ".
..:,,,....,,,,,-,:,_--' --J.
..q,..)---------------• ..--- v4itli
,.. j. ) .'" \„,;•_,,, ) .., ----------- -
_.------------------ - ;:-.,_
-. ---- ------
1.1T.'? -----::- ------ Ap.47. y,
. ,-... 7. ,,,,,:„.„,., ,,,
.,.._ ,.._....._______----------- • ------912.5 Et • N.-- 9• ' • 15.5 El
16 --.-•,•=... -------- -:-..17--:-----------' \ - ------ ------\ ..,-- ....,....."...---.- . •: 1.,'=19- /•-=', '-'"'•.:"'';'rt. Al•11111.--'74tVA..,17iiP4*
.7'-• .-.---_.=.-_7_7.____---•-..-..--,.9 0.. -.---..... ,.9• ---- • •-•....-• . 111 ••-•7 ,-.-----J--.ikv --L, ,7_. .7-14,:c.1:41,-;,,4,.,.:
7--71157- -.---7";:)..-.--- ' -------------I -•-•-:-"*10.11001.1" .-111iW=Mli iiiiiiiligliiiit' '.7Y- ,,,-':1---r-f•-• 7--1-r---r--)--1-- ..., -1----r--- y., - • ,---1-- t-.-.: ----.: - ir,ir,"0,4:4:7_,I /.//
1.I,,. (7./-": Ai
a . We)...71)./,.
.--:-.1.-r-'2,i 41111 I. 21 10!) 1 SO 1 19 15 1 17 18 1 15 1 14 13 1 it 11 1 '• 1 9 5 5 4 1 ' h 5''.• / 41,1 a.l/i19 1.•:„WI
..•
-.-- ' 1 9"1" i : . 1 1 1 : •:: : 1 . . 1\ - ,-.--1-.2••:,,, 7../..? 9/1 •. 44;41*,
----. --',.. .e. ,//-**„. '9,,,,,,,,A.--
' ' .-__j___-- ...1- ' -L--1 +t-J-.!, '
,, .
. . _
411 'et:1' (k-,--- - i- _-+ _ • ,..10 _
•,,--,---..,(„:1 .1 -ti--
•'-'11-1'
, __ •IIIII- ;..aa; , . , . ,,,,,, , .4,...t. . i. /
- - ---.---1 0.0 i '" i.f ..
-Zi_ ' 0 s, 1 -.(7::-.-. - •-i.:...q.;', ••, , / t.,/ 5/ .• if, /
•/'. --/--t- - ----- -t- --4- • 47' fir' • • i.l.• ,liam -.4`. ' /1,,, n '78 . 79.80 , e,1 at 4•-•;;-/.4-ii , o';. 55 ! ,...e ' IIIIII 1• - 1 '•• ' •-4'•-•- 1 • r - -- 1-1 7 /
. ,
.• . i
(i . I' / .'' / till-T'l I I) I- •6.'1 i' i -'.'s/ /
....- .r.
• „,, ...j., 11, , ,
b.a' 41114Vak,ftivii:•••••immrsilamiorsk-•••• ---;%:-': il
• -• -I /1 '/ill i ' I
, • / .."/
dill I° \ ....„/
LirEteo-r"',...="z=r-*I-E -:::---:•:::--713- 1 1 I
i ..., .7.=121%.... .. ,,,, . ..'"
-,- Le • .. /4
• m4./ ,./ . .7 r z
-----::::-)c-- ' •--t,44a3 •i
• I.0 , .0-_-_,_*--r--,--- 4111111,1Fir7Z,Tiorli - - cri Al
IIIF -'.''. • .-.- g-1--- '':'. '' .• .4*ik - (n, i , .-7169
.."`, "'"1"."` 11 • 1 - - - '.'',i 4. '' ..::;;ri0000%,":41I'4 N / / . P -Z-1! /,_ . /2///' // •//ca 7%i35,ROW WE '411111"
1 \ 1E1 III
\,. ..1._i__ : \.. 1 0:::,......El 13 m ;;:.. :.:------,..----•..,--; ;;;-_,Ilt,.91 , \ 111 A„.. 4, , 4/ ./
% 1 ' 4P "* -;/ fr '.••. 1 ,g,4 ' / --./ ,,,..a ,,Ifb ,,. . .
/ .I-J -. 1001111-Wort%• ." ' - . ------••• ••,,a.. : - sN --. ..-- 1, • ...--• ,,/ ,.•. -" q,r Ar iiii
\ . m-11111 71c1;' 0 r -! • -i.,>. ,ref
\ tat.- i II, i,,,,,N4 .., ).. .--N,..-
A. I ‘ '.- - - ..--• \ ..0c-z---:-.3-,:,- . ..-t-- .,. , •.;f •,,- .. .1./
,)I f-•••A 1 .;1111;0F4Rniiii1621111 I . ... \\ \ 'g11111WRIIIR:•-•)1 I i ,,i.„,...,‘•
..„„will , ......=_.--:_...\--
, 71,711 ,..,....5,-.:-,-,,,.---,--.-.----,-3.-
\ \". \Ill
...-1' ' .r.... v\-*:• sig•:,'-4. lif-;--2---:,--•:--';'' 'P-.7..:-,./.---,‘,.'.Y?.1 \" \ , .......2' •-•-• -- ' '.....4,---,-4.,--1.,/. i lit / ::, : J g',.., ft...-.- urSTRAU 4 iti r07015...
‘1 ‘"-••••-• fi,W-\\- -'.. 1 A 1 '' '''---/-•-'.,(44‘ -)y il".0 ., , •-..-. 0 -e-./. .'W. Ji.//// 7/A \ "°"'r'si re cat1-0•11 MR OK IL
F.V......
!Al, 1-\'...,,----;-\ ‘_ __ ,I .1 skitill:;: .4.•,4e„ii,":,74 ' % ,:r1111411,1) „.•••,"--_.--..:e 4, ,•I 1
./1 .)i 7 1•,,.'/1- •/ .;,1,fi , CINV:=741""-
7:::-‘')\ -Z•7'::V.)11111$ '''.‘"--2 " 3 .., •i:.--AfIg. ' •' „;...i6rd' 116....., ..,01 -...-..-•:'. ..s ••/:.-1 .,t,/ ', •.',1/ \... Dire,taal Mt Mecca SO ECU
i r•' I 1 11--- • ,1, .-..' AO #, -:',": • • Witifirif . ,g,l.' .7.:.......2./- fiyy7 y /,:, ..i../.,, -.. .............. .
,.//iliiiiiil f, ..q.,. .4 ......,40,..„.44. , ( \ , _.,__.:, .---,..--..; v.4.40//6 /"..''' /' uz...r...............
( \ \ lki iii1M11.1LL 24,,'Lirt.....7.,'"'"Rtfl, "op .,;•I. ...,..easi....... 4).. k e i , erAlf W`-.4 IL\ / alutit.tit SIMMS WE*al DM WI.
'...\\\c•-•'.I tt i'Ldipt,,,, Ertdrilltkea.;.;ttkg . ..t. ,i/e9A1 ..'..._......_ ',...-- .A4ghttt,A..." ..,..t.,., f '' .5.,,':1 ,P.% ,.,..7:.likk..Z, • OttiontrdrIalnot Ma Fa DM fti .
• N. -...V f•/I!W AtkkIV.tP,'___Nal0 • ',';,,::.V"Itrii # ,,;p,- .*--c,-,:.,-:--i''''ivi,lwri4e,1,7,v• ,-:/ei;';'/';1,•.iv,' ci-mat SY Sta isastattitearcl.se.
I "\-I/r'..•IUP N' VA:."I''•-•:.•••16.1.'•, r-11. ' • / .0''''''" . _/3''''•11.r- , dtg''' i gite.44,' t VI\,.\ Oproa mower=tam No Sat
Agitio,„.
I ,).,•-..../.'.,/(-- \\111. I it. ''''-- ' \ngr.11/1. - :••..• .7-7r)s...",,...- - •....1-,- h .;.ilik:.7.11.r.---WAVAY' C \\\
rt
-...A,'....,;,1:,....,E)*T,:ill-41- 7.1\ ,_.-$-5.7:.---„--47. '3,,, '.'or° - - ii..:.- T, fr.Z. ''':i1/1-.,--:**igi.4'.:•-,---1-',--- ''' latie ow".am al Mr n.\,----.11V ‘-i'./., q 1'At '''„c :'• 1 It.'14--,v. ii -• kr•• '"' 'mi's 17/43'-•---4;-';',:il!---7.947''-, i•-•-• ' altialarttly•tta Mr.PI sierl CUla
.;,-.....,V.,.....:1.,„.,‘,..t.':i. t. '. .„ I. 1 d.*-: ',...k4at",• ii....-. ) „ill.i.„ , U. .• ////,'41'...,,...,-/441-qt;21.-- - - ---- cp---..mogp.--,,...az,......c i'...-:::: .,'-......1.,;)/:',AW,,\AI: , \ (i.:‘- -ir., I, il--,-,14- - --7;-4,41; ?/, /:#7,-/,fr3ct-frfic... ,,;---, WC•71011.111:011111.1.1.=KM
'4)‘‘...-.G.•••,. I (t.\\Slin..\..'-' .. '\% 1 i i' '1 1' t (• . ?•17/ '//el/le?" ',c, -... .....-. 5406 Ma ea SOX CY Dare..
:, . .• -.l 1/- • • I/ :'//,/.,/.//.43,1 ' ' ._/,,r.<•. '.'; C I z%Orr",...41."..ra I r'
\.-'1,7.7.1----'' .,\.)k\\Ilumu ,.. . - ... • . 01 ..,!I, !
1--.) .1__,....., i \ ', at ' 1 \ I;a ill; i; iki''A ., .„ 7 li'Val ' • ;t,„A...7,:/'k.(..),-- ---.--- .'-'ziZ4` •-...1;1%1i\i\y i', - ' 1 i ' iii.e.• :•44, u cv, /, .,,,,..,,fgv,. •4 • ,s‘z,„,--4,,;,...4g-
'.( ,.:7-:-)' ''A.'S\\KA\11111 ‘,7 . 1 •. 4., ,-;,-', 4 .0.............................:1....i...,=::„....
Ev....................,...
, . •,,,,,,,,,k,,,,/ 1,..,'2,, 7...4-.. ,-.T.
IA' ' •»•')Irr---- , ' ''''' ." ' .. kr/ / ,n /V i ' -- LEGEND .
.04'....6Y/..' /, ----70 .,,,,,e,oa A to,... .• / ,,f,,, 7.. , .
• .............
-F--_,..,, --. v -.:1 /1 1 ..00400.7 .,.., • ,„/F,,,, / ../.:, ,,,, •
k L..__„\r,‘ f•,,, „.•
-.._A ^.._, ,,,,,.-•-•.%•4<, .. ..4)/ ' iliPV,.-. 4: or, ' ///Ali' J., elff • --:-..-- Sat Ma
..j.,„ ........,•Ye/ ...../.. .--^-• / A 1,./.4iinq,„,,,, ,- ,..,:i , ',..t.,,,. -1, /, /7 1//":,...,,,,)14„ --,-S- comet MetrimnsTALT fiNtr
-4,--0,- irsealIMUI MY
i .;:,..,....- ...,,, . .4 v,,44..eipv, .,,,,,,, .. p t. .-se. r- :7•,,,,„,..?... .:.. _____ gm./110:6P0:•=X
tilitt.Jii/h.. 1.0, II i / /,'•";1" / .4•'.// •'..V.? ','-' • / ' 106....4t4;i4i V,• .‘" ••• / ;f4if ,, / •
•-• ,„ Lep WON
••••••,-...,,...MUM=CS SAL
4)A, ---."--.. )4 JilifiriA.:44V4,9.L.'* A --/,1 7 4,/,:,;,.,• < .
•%.,,-• . 7A,4.iy 1<viiti, , ,i ,../-• in .......,......,-
''. x"-- -.‘ •• vi."4;ril. .,,,--*/$4,1-f s: 4, .7 (._•,,,,, •,7/ /
(((
, . COSMO MOW Mt
/.. • 4..... inN.. <,,,' ItS,431*...//,_-.. e Nk 17 /1....' 4'./• /'''.\\-,,,,, -- -....,-.. •....'-'-' . , , VhsP' ,.111W/44,, -.V°• // /2. 1/./•.,<:7..
/
, 0 '•;-• -..------:- ., _.--...-,!-...;AV:80,v4tV,V4)01) • uri fr - A -ii tk;.K" s' '.% .',.. 1 (\„.,.."•:-'44111i - d'i,,,,,;;0;:k,(dr ' 7 i IA, ,,,-.•,./ .
..-•-•\\ Irdr....4t" .<1...0,,,740k1WV-./:',102.,," / .,,r 0,..// . -• -N.,:":\ \ ) , r• , . ..546-,-:,--'-*%1,1-4174, .. , ofiC(il p' 1 i • . ._o_a
) C//1 re... .."•. T.„...*-1:641e7-7,4--441144-A77f.044,4/7 1. ';*./..,
...,,,.......
•-',..;}r• t, - ..ogrigN,",-'„,:lt.-...;, -,7 '44/rx.„ ti. , ./,,„,.i./ .
• ,r, 4,, .N, ;# ,W y .,07 , -,
:-/ (.- T• ,Alk eett 0
13 MM.IV 1111051,..../1.191
' -'••••_,__,..,.., _,,\•.'s ''.--'4""?..".'.:'IF oil ,iiir ' '." -- ':"..e' ' ''
1 .-..'7---•-..,,Thimr :- '- ,iff/77
CONNER
j•' )1 it. . dr9i. ',/,'','
5-,-,. i ..- .' '14:,'-. -v. !".:.,;/14',.; /2' . ..'i ///'-, . • Imam. Shoreline Development Pettnit Greeting&Wit C782S02
•
EXHIBIT
3
.
•
•
•
I (,_"
'
' ; Ili t1 I ; ij ' 1. ,00e '\ B A.RB EE MILL
_ ♦E; ',C 1ii
1�II�� t "_ ii Liti, " LAKEFRONT SECTIOIS
I . 'SE T10 6 'M 'F.•
r� t ,, ,` , 1`;' 11111111i I -- 1�` 1-, �11 �`' I �� �'' ' '97``;� �'n / I'/jJIIJ t :-- - Conner HomesLU; , 1 L''u. 1 i I ===`'�' �-"-''�`C '`ir' Sheet 1 Of 7 �¢ C 1 7472
1 /' , ,/ ,` ,I'I , ,i�S, _ . /11qi - ;hit /' ILrLt r�;I irs
1``t'�'` ; r�- ,'`'`� `,^___�` \\��l C-34--- -,_'I�1, - E/i ;`� ' .c__ -;t�e_;}�1a.vU
tr
,, t \_` 1 \1, ♦% i, + .'t\`i I' iiL��l I 35- A9 /, ,- - --- ''.' /`A G `�+
•
•
IIlllajM•mmuml-
` \S `Tit�N r 5%' 'IIIllIII •II ,/z,? �`'I �w�,:•3 s j %+''ti '1-f' !? ' IEEE:THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL. BUILDINGS, LOT
I ' - _ 1 ,''� r , , r ' 11 137 /11'I , LAYOUTS AND IMPROVEMENTS
', r---^� i i , ` . t -`, t r r 1 I I,�`I. tAlil I I. SHOWN ARE
_ , 1 t , : %N -- ' S1,O.%='4{1 \ REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT
♦•� , ♦`♦, ` t r ♦,r, r-'�`; 11 \ 11.E�e Al' �. r IS PROPOSED, BUT IN MOST CASES, THEY HAVE NOT
\• ' s� \ so ,� r w BEEN DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED. THE FINAL PLAN
_• `, i i ': `▪ ` r tt i i':! , r ,'" 4• I ...,., MAY DIFFER FROM THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THE
'" ,``'` ' I „ i`i`'I it -It`1````"r rr•♦I,tf l`��k \J9 , t 1. '41\1 ,-1'_J,'• S,.•;, ,l` r? DEVELOPERSTHE PLANR IS FINALIZEDNA THE RIGHT TO MENMAK CHANGES
`.o !•�'�" J? AS THE IS AND IMPLEMENTED/Al .
• ..1 „i'—'„ ‘•• '' is I'1 ..:!,1,.....::::\ 's, .1,/,./.1,)A\%1 \ 40 r' ‘V
/` �' -'�1'ISECT ` ,�'',\ ..r111111'11. , ,•.r.
IT
pp ( dr.:' r r'
/ I / - • t t V 41 \% 1 /JI I 1 r 1
, 1 I i ' 4%, 4 ' , r ,. --...' ‘• ' ' ' ' i‘
. .
.',„-i----1 .,, ,,,,,,,,,:,:, \,,,,, / )._ ,. \\,,,‘,..,..,,,,,s,1:,
�. : , 1!� � r',;+�`.', : ' SE TI'N}r � ;�1�43_ ,�/ � ` ,n !
7 / i' ' isi � y, ., •
:-.,.k ..,.",: (••• ,>.),__2,\v,--••• ‘.....\ ,...,, );',.. 44 ' a ' i 1.... j /,-,'/‘Vi ..1/10' o a
, , „. , „.. ...., , ....,,,, ,
` ` , _ _ # /
OCfOBER6. 2008i. II : r _./liw,:4,./) ,
„, ,.....„, -„0„.„-
,, , , ,____,.. „. ,; r---ev;,,', '-:.:7••• z/ '-'•• •:::•,—-- 7 !,,, „,,,,4 ,,,,,d, , , :,, . .
\% ' gEGj-1I r�/ j� ` �S \ f �� .� '�r „1.,,,,,)
rr`� + I t
` r`' ,�' ; , r/1• r- -1`Ir f/ /�•14 ♦s;��`` ..// r �� ` it '1 ♦♦ • "r ..,. 14;_�.:J
..,, ,:( i , (,,
' ` J $ / ,1 Incor orated
''t,,--ir`r, ` / 4.-, .r/� l' 1 \`• `, '''' ` / J''' ''',7,, r \4// �t Y01 $04 �10� 10230NE Points Drive �40D
I Z
/ ' - t, ` \ I r „ IGrkland, Washington 98033
` r',,,,'• i ` SECFI(2�' 1♦ ` -'<:•�\- ` J(JJ ,,"• ' /'ti\ '�, Phone: 425 822-4448
/ i i i -�`, ' ,,1,^\```` i, i= +i.. � .i" ,, `. u ` ` FAX: f 425; 827-9577
I, ,. ; ,, r/l" s' Internet: WWW.Otak.COM
1 I 1 f f ' ti `,-`••`: , r�' 1 ``,::1 ....:� .n'``•.' ,, {' r 1/ 4\ 1 �./, t
r
. EXHIBIT
4
•
fre4oud C
S�norctiwe Orths9")
ill, V111i-w (8.(a74
Ayr&
:.
141454414, e.,„.44,
40.•
L•ilce. Nhsk;Ko-1-ov+
7ci5rf-ia9 Raf
B A R B E E MILL SECTION 1 0' 2' 4' 8'
LAKEFRONT SECTIONS 71.7.7
Sheet 2 Of 7
froposeL Gradc
Kip- gf. icn 6
I&bMbV4.4
I
411 e.f.GteNt QY4i+in
}-Hill. t,hix✓ 18.6
ltoA ,_,41„,.__./6" v.„4e54—iii Cor a/c 5
kw .
4...... vv„k•.14-vv 44 L-T
.4400i
X;s-f;►ii 12-ip_gzp ,
BARBEE MILL SECTION 2 0' 2' 4' 8'
LAKEFRONT SECTIONS . 7Iiimlim..7 ,
Sheet 3 of 7
i
1
•
pr#Po$ee4 6ra4a -'
trs�-t� tipvf
6vlk — 4
?ror. "ref of
434-
g,ggJ4'z bra le
ctiro tlin[ Ov LiI% I
I I
.4
L akc el.(via -' MOPS
ti
L alcrc 1.54: .4 s,
•
B A R B E E MILL SECTION 3 0' 2' 4' 8'
LAKEFRONT SECTIONS
Sheet 4 Of 7
1'ropose rad{
is-I-;h 6sv
4L WA-tivtt breliha J
141111 vd/P.e.. - MG 1
V•ie.Ar in lo
A_ 41101"C—
B ARBEE MILL SECTION 4 °' 2. 4' s'
LAKEFRONT SECTIONS 7%77
Sheet 5 Of 7
aF fro p05 �iwaa�e
eralj•L Or " p tWM'y
kl i qti Wyt-ge 184 Oxis-Whi &raie
L-aki W I SkirtSi eN
0
B ARB EE MILL SECTION 5 . °' 2' 4' 8'
LAKEFRONT SECTIONS
Sheet 6 Of 7
e .
f rgD,rtI Graeae
er.t i1KIL &Ain arl
Riopl W;4 bv- 18.1.
•
g ierli'K.) nar
BARBEE MILL SECTION 6 °' 2' 4' 8'
LAKEFRONT SECTIONS 7.71M7.1
Sheet 7 Of 7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ORDER NO. 325436-5
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS SITUATED IN THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING AND IS DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
ALL THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24
NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON AND OF
SECOND CLASS SHORELANDS ADJOINING LYING WESTERLY OF
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION, IF ANY, OF SAID SHORELANDS LYING NORTH OF
THE WESTERLY PRODUCTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT
LOT 1.
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
THE DESCRIPTION CAN BE ABBREVIATED AS SUGGESTED BELOW IF
NECESSARY TO MEET STANDARDIZATION REQUIREMENTS. THE FULL
TEXT OF THE DESCRIPTION MUST APPEAR IN THE DOCUMENT(S)TO BE
INSURED.
SECTION 32 TOWNSHIP 24N RANGE 5E NW QUARTER NW QUARTER
EXHIBIT
5
BIOLOGICAL ,ASSESSMENT
I OF LME
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Renton, Washington
August 26, 2002
DEVELOPMENT PLANK G
CITY,OF REbto
•
RAEDEla.ASSOCIATES;. INC
Kik
_________F4A
Report To: Mr. Alex Cugini
Barbee Mill Company, Inc.
4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N.
Renton, WA 98057
Title: Biological Assessment
for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat,
Renton, Washington
•
Project Number: 2002-036-001
Prepared By: RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC.
5711 Northeast 63rd Street
Seattle,Washington 98115
(206) 525-8122
Date: August 26, 2002
RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC
5711 Northeast 63rd St. Seattle, VVA 98115 (206) 525-8122
Principals: Kenneth J. Raedeke, Ph.D.
Certified Senior Ecologist, ESA
Dorothy A. Milligan Raedeke, M.S.
Wildlife Biologist
Project Personnel: Emmett Pritchard,B.S.
Wetland Ecologist
Victoria Luiting,M.S.
Wetland and Mitigation Ecologist
Dawn Garcia,B.S.
Wetland and Wildlife Biologist
Claude McKenzie,B.S.L.A.
Landscape Architect
Gail W. Livingstone,B.S.L.A.
Natural Resource Planner
Danette Emberlin Fuhrer
Technical/Administrative Assistant
,
RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC
5711 Northeast 63rd St. Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 525-8122
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF PHOTOS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 3
2.1 Project Location 3
2.2 Project Description 3
2.3 Action Area 3
2.4 Identification of Listed Species 4
3.0 SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION 5
3.1 Environmental Baseline Conditions 5
3.3 Description and Distribution of Species and Habitat 7
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 16
4.1 Project Overview 16
4.2 Stormwater Facilities 17
5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT 19
5.1 Listed and Candidate Fish Species 19
5.2 Bald Eagle 25
5.3 Osprey 26
6.0 MITIGATION CONDITIONS 28
7.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT- SUMMARY 31
8.0 LIMITATIONS 32
9.0 LITERATURE CITED
33
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES, TABLES, AND PHOTO PLATES 40
APPENDIX A: AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A-1
V
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Regional Map 41
2. Vicinity Map 42
3. Project Site Plan 43
4. WDNR Stream Type Map 44
5. WDF Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization Map 45
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Total contributing areas for water quality ponds no. 1 and no. 2 46
2. Stormwater facilities design summary 47
vi
LIST OF PHOTOS
Photo Page
1. Mouth of May Creek and south bridge, looking north. 48
2. May Creek, 50 ft. south of north bridge, looking south 48
3. May Creek, 250 ft,north of north bridge, looking north. 48
4. May Creek, 50 ft north of north bridge, looking north. 49
5. May Creek looking south to middle bridge. 49
6. May Creek, 150 feet north of north bridge, looking north. 49
7. May Creek, 100 feet north of north bridge looking north. 49
8. Wetland H. Looking north. 50
9. Wetland 1. Looking north. 50
10. Barbee Mill facilities 50
11. Lake Washington shoreline, looking south 50
12. May Creek at north bridge, looking north. 51
13. Barbee Mill osprey nest atop sawdust tower. 51
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Raedeke Associates, Inc. has conducted a Biological Assessment(BA) to evaluate
potential effects on certain federal and state listed species that may result from
development of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat in Renton, Washington. The
site is located on the east shore of Lake Washington between the Lake Washington
Boulevard North and the Lake Washington shoreline near the NE 44th Street/I-405
interchange in north Renton. The Barbee Mill Company is currently seeking approval for
the proposed development from the City of Renton. In June of 2002, the City of Renton
withheld issuance of a Threshold Determination under the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),pending additional information requests including a
BA.
This BA was prepared at the request of the City of Renton in a letter dated June 3, 2002
from Lesley Nishihira, Senior Planner for Renton, to Dan Dawson of Otak, Inc.
Specifically, that letter requested: "Five(5) copies of a Biological Assessment
completed by a qualified biologist. The study must assess the potential environmental
impacts from the associated infrastructure improvements that have been identified as
components of the proposal in the submitted checklist, as well as direct and indirect
effects from the proposed plat on adjacent Lake Washington and May Creek shoreline
areas (i.e. site design issues such as building placement, lighting and shading and their
impacts on critical habitat and endangered species)". The information contained in this
BA satisfies the City's request.
The City of Renton has requested that the BA evaluate potential direct and indirect
effects from the associated infrastructure improvements of the proposed development on
Lake Washington and May Creek shoreline areas (City of Renton 2002a). Specifically,
the City of Renton has requested an evaluation of the potential impacts to federally listed
species that may be present or use habitat associated with the site (City of Renton 2002a).
Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coastal/Puget Sound bull
trout(Salvelinus confluentus), and bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are all species
listed as threatened that may be present within the vicinity of the project. Coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) are currently a candidate species for federal listing. The City of
Renton (2002b) has also requested that the BA include an analysis of impacts to Osprey
(Pandion haliaetus) due to the presence of a known nest site located on the property.
This species is not a federally listed or candidate species protected under ESA.
The site is currently utilized by Barbee Mill Company, a specialty cedar products
producer. Under current conditions, approximately 85% of the site is now covered by
pavement and structures associated with the mill operation. The lower reach of May
Creek, a Type 1 stream (WDNR 2002b) flows through the southern portion of the site
roughly 1,000 feet from Interstate-405. The current average buffer width for the entire
on-site portion of May Creek is less than 25 feet. Surface water from the site currently is
not treated and drains directly to Lake Washington and May Creek as run-off. Existing
viii
buffers for May Creek are narrow and provide limited function for the protection of May
Creek. Portions of two small palustrine emergent,persistent (PEM1)wetlands, totaling
approximately 0.02 acres on-site, are located in the southeastern portion of the property.
Both wetlands have been highly disturbed by human activities as allowed under the City
of Renton(1999) Wetland Regulations and meet criteria for a Category 3 rating.
Wetland H, the northernmost of the two wetlands, drains via a ditch to May Creek.
Wetland 1 seeps into ditch that connects to a storm drain that flows to Lake Washington.
Neither wetland provides habitat to salmonid species.
The Barbee Mill Company proposes to construct a 115-unit housing development on the
22.9-acre property. A new local access bridge would be constructed over May Creek and
would require the removal of an existing bridge. Two other bridge crossings would
remain and would be converted to foot traffic. Installation of new foundations for the
proposed bridge would be necessary and would likely require work below the OHWM of
May Creek. Neither wetland is proposed to be impacted by site development. The site
plan includes lots for residential construction adjacent to Lake Washington and May
Creek. A 25-foot setback from Lake Washington would be maintained per City of
Renton(1998) shoreline management regulations. In addition, building height would be
voluntarily limited to 50 feet within 200 feet of the shoreline. The original submittal
called for a 50-foot buffer with buffer averaging that allowed a buffer as narrow as 25
feet. This proposal was consistent with the City of Renton's Municipal Code requiring a
25-foot buffer. Upon the requirement of our firm and the request of the City of Renton,
this buffer was increased. The project proposes an average buffer of greater than 60 feet
for May Creek that would range from a minimum width of 50 feet to a maximum width
of approximately 100 feet. Buffers for May Creek would be restored to pervious
condition and all portions of the proposed buffer would be enhanced with supplemental
plantings of native vegetation to restore the proposed buffer to a forested condition.
Stormwater would be treated per requirements of the 1998 King County Storm Water
Drainage Manual.
Potential for direct mortality and disturbance,water quality impacts, and critical habitat
impacts as a result of site development was examined. The proposed project has the
potential to affect the federal and state listed species listed above. However, due to the
level of impacts currently occurring as a result of the operation of the Barbee Mill which
have resulted in the low functional quality of buffers for May Creek, the high level of
impervious surface area, and the absence of stormwater treatment for the site, the
proposed development would likely result in an overall improvement in on-site habitat.
Therefore, the project is not expected to have any adverse effects on listed and candidate
species.
Provided that the Applicant complies with the conditions listed in section 7.0 of this
report, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to listed or candidate species are
expected.
ix
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Barbee Mill Company proposes to construct a 115-unit housing development to
replace the Barbee Mill Company located on a 22.9-acre property on the eastern shore of
Lake Washington in the City of Renton, Washington. The Barbee Mill Company is
currently seeking approval for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat from the City of Renton.
In June of 2002, the City of Renton withheld issuance of a Threshold Determination
under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA),pending additional
information including a Biological Assessment to determine potential impacts to
federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species (City of Renton 2002a). At
the City's request, the Barbee Mill Company revised the proposed site plan, as submitted
to the City of Renton, from its initial April 4, 2002 configuration as part of the
preliminary plat application. The revisions are related to the provision of adequate
buffers for May Creek a Type 1 stream (WDNR 2002b) located on the property and
resulted from recommendations by Raedeke Associates, Inc. and preliminary discussions
with the City of Renton. Minimum buffer widths were increased from 25 feet to 50 feet
and average buffer width was increased from approximately 50 feet to approximately 60
feet. These revisions resulted in the loss of two lots from the original 117-lot
configuration and a reconfiguration of the remaining lots and stormwater treatment
facilities.
Raedeke Associates, Inc. was retained by the Barbee Mill Company to prepare a
Biological Assessment(BA) to address the potential impacts of this project on listed fish
and wildlife species and their habitat in compliance with the 1973 federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA). ESA makes it illegal for any authority, agency, or private individual
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to "take"or"harm" any species of fish or
wildlife that is listed as endangered without specific authorization. Take is defined under
ESA as "harass, harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct." Harm is defined as "an act that actually kills or
injures a protected species." Harm can arise from significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or injures protected species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning,rearing, migrating, feeding,
or sheltering."
Our report is based on an examination of the revised preliminary site plan and
stormwater calculations received in our office on August 12 and 13, 2002 from Otak, Inc.
Due to the preliminary nature of the site plan, it was necessary for Raedeke Associates,
Inc. to make certain assumptions regarding building heights, stormwater discharge rates,
and location of stormwater outfalls based on conversations with Mr. Campbell
Mathewson of Century Pacific L.P. and the staff of Otak, Inc. These assumptions were
made in order to address issues raised by the City of Renton during the initial review of
the preliminary plat submittal and are detailed the descriptions of project overview and
stormwater facilities (Sections 4.1 and 4.2,respectively).
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
2
This BA addresses the occurrence of Chinook salmon,bull trout, Coho salmon, and bald
eagle, in addition to osprey (at the request of the City of Renton)within the Action Area,
the presence or absence of their preferred habitat, and the potential for effects of the
proposed development on that habitat. This assessment is based upon our familiarity
with the site and its existing conditions, agency consultation regarding fish use of May
Creek and Lake Washington, a review of the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR)Natural Heritage Inventory, the Washington Depai tuient of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) database, consultation with the
project engineer regarding the stormwater plans (as presented in Appendix B), and our
best professional judgment and experience. We have also reviewed pertinent background
literature and have drawn species occurrence and habitat suitability information for the
May Creek delta and Lake Washington shoreline adjacent to the Barbee Mill from recent
Biological Assessments prepared for the City of Renton for the construction of a joint-
use dock located just south of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (Meridian 2001)
and the remediation dredging of the Barbee Mill log storage area in Lake Washington
(Harza 2000). These Biological Assessments included extensive fish and habitat
information for Lake Washington and May Creek within the vicinity of the Barbee Mill
property.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
3
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is approximately 22.9 acres in size and is located in a portion of the
northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 24 North,Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of
Renton, King County, Washington(Figure 1). Specifically, the Barbee Mill Company
property is located at 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, Washington
(Figure 2). The site is situated on the east shore of Lake Washington and west of the
Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. A log storage yard owned by Port Quendall
is located north of the property. The site lies along approximately 1,700 feet of Lake
Washington shoreline. In addition, May Creek, a Class 1 stream (WDNR 2002b, Figure
3), flows in a southwesterly direction through the site and outlets into Lake Washington
near the south end of the site.
2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Barbee Mill Company proposes to construct 115 town homes and duplexes, as well
as associated public streets, utilities, water quality ponds, and landscaping (Otak, Inc.
2002,Figure 4). To accomplish this,the Barbee Mill Company facilities, including all
buildings, asphalt surfaces, and other associated structures would be removed. The
proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat would include the construction of 13.07 acres of
new impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of
developed area on the 22.9-acre site. New impervious surfaces would include buildings,
driveways, walkways, and stormwater facilities. Detention ponds are not required for the
project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge Exemption in the 1998 King
County Storm Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). However,water quality treatment is
required under KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8.
2.3 ACTION AREA
The action area for the proposed project includes the area of development, roads
accessing the development, and the associated stormwater infrastructure. Included in the
action area are stream reaches, 100 feet upstream and one mile downstream, from the
project site. This would encompass the lower reaches of May Creek and all portions of
Lake Washington within one mile of the project area. May Creek is identified as
tributary#0282 in Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) 8, the Lake Washington
Basin.
1
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
4
2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF LISTED SPECIES
Agency contacts provided information regarding endangered and threatened species
present in the project vicinity. A search of the WDNR Natural Heritage Program did not
identify any threatened and endangered plant species within two miles of the proposed
project site (WDNR 2002a, See Appendix A for agency correspondence).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) identified Puget Sound Chinook salmon
(Onchorhychus tshawytscha) as a federally threatened species that is, or may,be present
in Lake Washington and/or May Creek within the vicinity of the project site. In addition,
NMFS identified Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon(Onchorhychus kisutch) as
a candidate for listing under ESA that may utilize habitat within May Creek and Lake
Washington. Coho salmon are considered within this BA to preclude additional analysis
should Coho salmon be listed in the future.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus) and bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as federally listed
species that occur within the project vicinity(USFWS 2002a, Appendix A).
In addition to these species, the City of Renton requested that an evaluation of potential
impacts to osprey(Pandion haliaetus)be included in the BA due to the presence of an
active nest on the property(City of Renton 2002b).
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
5
3.0 SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE CONDITIONS
3.1.1 Action Area
Physical Baseline
The project site is located within the alluvial deposits of May Creek and Lake
Washington. The U.S. Depaitinent of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA
SCS 1991; Snyder et al. 1973) Soil Survey maps Norma soils for the site. This soil is
poorly drained formed under sedges, grass, conifers, and hardwoods. These soils are in
basins on glaciated uplands and in areas along the stream bottoms. Norma is a hydric
soil series (USDA SCS 1991, Federal Register 1994).
Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is
armored with riprap. Both east and west sides of the stream bank are armored with riprap
at the mouth of May Creek in the vicinity of the southernmost bridge (photo plate 1,
photo 1). Portions of the west side of the stream are armored with riprap between the
southernmost and northernmost bridges (photo plate 1,photo 2). Riprap is placed
intermittently along the east and west banks of the creek from the northern bridge to the
eastern site boundary(photo plate 1,photo 3).
The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet. The
stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches;hence the stream's OHWM is only
slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream. Short riffle glide complexes dominate
the stream between the three bridges (photo plate 1,photos 2). Pool and riffle complexes
characterize the creek northward from the northernmost bridge to the eastern property
boundary(photo plate 2,photo 4). Stream substrate varies from fine silts and sands
downstream from the southernmost bridge to gravel and cobbles upstream from the
bridge. Substrate in the deeper pools in the northern on-site reaches of May Creek
consisted of fine silts and sands. Water depth during our March 26, 2002 site visit varied
from greater than 30 inches in several of the pools located north of the bridges to 8 to 16
inches in the riffles and glides. Water levels within the creek dropped approximately 4
inches between our March 26, 2002 and June 3, 2002 site visits.
The existing buffer on May Creek ranges from a minimum width of 5 feet along
significant portions of the west bank of the creek(photo plate 2, photo 5) from the
northern bridge downstream to the confluence with Lake Washington to a maximum
width of approximately 100 feet along the east bank of the northern on-site portion of the
stream. Average buffer width for the entire on-site portion of May Creek is less than 25
feet. Much of the buffer along May Creek consists of managed lawn,particularly
downstream from the northern bridge (photo plate 2,photo 5). Scattered areas of riparian
shrub vegetation including red osier dogwood(Cornus sericea), and willow(Salix spp.)
are interspersed with the lawn areas; however, the shrub areas are located 5 to 10 feet
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
6
from the stream edge and do not provide substantial stream shading (photo plate 1,photo
2). North of the northern bridge,May Creek is relatively well shaded by a 25-foot-wide
row of red alder trees (Alnus rubra) growing along the east bank of the stream (photo
plate 2,photo 6). In recent years, the Barbee Mill improved the vegetative cover of the
existing riparian area along May Creek with supplemental plantings of willow, red osier
dogwood, western re cedar(Thuja plicata) and other native species (photo plate 2, photo
7).
Two Category 3 (City of Renton 1998)palustrine, emergent wetlands were identified
within the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the eastern property boundary(David Evans
1997, Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002a, 2002b). Small portions of the two wetlands (less
than 1,000 square feet total) extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands are
managed as lawns. Wetland H is located north of the current entrance to the Barbee Mill
from Lake Washington Boulevard North and drains via a ditch that connects the northern
portion of the wetland to May Creek(Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002a; photo plate 3,
photo 8). Wetland H is dominated by red fescue (Festuca rubra,FAC+), reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), and tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea,
FAC). Wetland 1 is located south of the mill entrance and is connected to Lake
Washington via an approximately 150-foot-long pipe (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002b;
photo plate 3, photo 9). Wetland 1 is dominated by common velvet-grass (Holcus
lanatus, FAC), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW), bentgrass (Agrostis
spp., FACW-FAC), dagger-leaf rush (Juncus ensifolius, FACW), birds-foot trefoil
(Lotus corniculatus, FAC), small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus, FACW), and
sawbeak sedge (Cares stipata, OBL). At no time during the year are salmonids able to
use either of the wetlands or their drainage conveyances.
Existing Conditions
The Barbee Mill Company currently occupies the project site. Approximately 85 percent
of the site is covered by impervious surface in the form of pavement and various
buildings associated with the mill operations(photo plate 3,photo 10). Mill facilities and
pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. An existing bulkhead extends along
the majority of the Lake Washington shoreline owned by the Barbee Mill. A dock
extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore midway between the
northern property boundary and the mouth of May Creek. Numerous pilings and log
booms associated with the mill extend from the shore for several hundred feet out into
Lake Washington (photo plate 3,photo 11). Over the past several years, annual dredging
of Lake Washington has been conducted by the Barbee Mill Company to remove bark
debris from mill operations and to remove sediment deposited from the upper reaches of
May Creek. Recent SCUBA surveys by the Harza Engineering Company, Inc. and
Meridian Environmental, Inc. of the May Creek delta and Lake Washington shoreline
adjacent to the Barbee Mill have found that these dredging activities have improved
salmonid rearing habitat in the project area by improving substrate conditions (Harza
2000, Meridian 2001).
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
7
Approximately 1,000 feet of the lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the
southern portion of the project site. Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May
Creek. The southernmost of the three bridges is a single lane wooden structure located at
the mouth of May Creek(photo plate 1,photo 1). The bridge provides vehicular access
to southern portions of the mill. The middle bridge is a narrow foot-traffic only wooden
structure located approximately 200 feet upstream from the mouth of May Creek (photo
plate 2,photo 5). The northernmost bridge is a two lane concrete structure that provides
the primary access for the mill (photo plate 4,photo 12).
3.1.2 Drainage Descriptions
Lake Washington Basin
The Lake Washington Basin known as WIRA 08 is comprised of waters funneling into
Lake Washington and hence through Lake Union and the Salmon Bay waterway to Puget
Sound at Shilshole Bay(Williams et al. 1975). The Lake Washington Drainage basin
contains 470 identified streams providing approximately 700 linear miles of rivers,
streams, and tributaries (Williams et al. 1975).
May Creek
May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly 8.6 miles to
Lake Washington(Williams et al. 1975,Figure 5). The May Creek watershed drains
approximately 14 square miles of residential, open space, agriculture, and commercial
land uses (King County 2001). The on-site portion of May Creek is classified as a Type
1 stream (WDNR 2002b, Figure 4), based on its size and anadromous fish use. During
the past several decades, the lower portions of the watershed have undergone intensive
residential development while the upper two thirds of the watershed have retained a mix
of rural residential, small farms, and some forest areas (King County 2001). Currently,
the amount of effective impervious surface coverage within the basin is 7 percent.
Under, current zoning, full build-out would result in an increase of effective impervious
surface to 12 percent(King County 2001).
3.3 DESCRIPTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES AND HABITAT
The project site lies within the range of the Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of the
Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon,
Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout and bald eagle. The Chinook salmon,bull trout, and bald
eagle are listed as threatened under the federal ESA. Coho salmon are proposed for
federal listing under the ESA and will be included in the following discussion. In
addition, an active osprey nest is located on existing mill facilities. Ospreys are listed as
a State Monitor species in Washington and active osprey nests are protected under the
federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The taking of the nest would be prohibited
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
8
without a permit from the USFWS; thus, this species will be included in the following
discussion per the request of the City of Renton(2002b).
Most of the information in this section has been adapted from Harza Engineering
Company's March 2000,Barbee Lumber Mill Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population
Survey and ESA Fish Species Assessment(Harza, Inc. 2000), and Meridian
Environmental, Inc.'s Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population
Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment(Meridian, Inc. 2001).
3.3.1 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Status
On March 24, 1999, the NMFS listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Federal Register 1999a: 14308-
15328). The abundance of Chinook salmon within the Puget Sound ESU has decreased
drastically from historical levels. Puget Sound stocks show both long- and short-term
negative trends in abundance (Myers et al. 1998). Decline of this species within the
Puget Sound ESU is attributed to habitat degradation consisting of stream blockages,
forest practices,urbanization, and agriculture (Myers et al. 1998). Habitat degradation
includes stream bank degradation, sedimentation, and widespread removal of large
woody debris and riparian vegetation, resulting in loss of stream shade. Other effects
include changes in flow, and rerouting of streams, loss of estuarine areas,harvesting, and
negative genetic effects of hatchery releases of Chinook salmon(Myers et al. 1998).
Habitat Requirements
Compared to the other Pacific salmon, Chinook salmon have the most complex life
history with a large variety of patterns. The length of freshwater and salt-water residency
varies greatly (Myers et al. 1998). All Puget Sound stocks, including those found in Lake
Washington and its tributaries, exhibit"ocean-type" life history patterns (Federal
Register 1998: 11482-11520). Puget Sound Chinook salmon, including those found in
Lake Washington, consist largely of summer and fall run stocks,with juveniles that
typically migrate to the marine environment during the first three months after
emergence from stream gravels (Myers et al. 1998). However, Chinook juveniles have
been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended
time periods (Harza 2000, Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Channel size and morphology,
substrate size and quality,water quality, and cover type and abundance (Quigley et al.
1997)may influence distribution and abundance of Chinook salmon. After three to five
years in the ocean,Puget Sound Chinook salmon return to spawn in the fall and spring.
Spawning occurs in the mainstem of rivers in gravel and cobbles (Myers et al. 1998).
Presence in Project Area
Chinook salmon are known to use May Creek and the shoreline of Lake Washington in
the vicinity of the Barbee Mill (WDFW 2002a).
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
9
The primary Chinook salmon stock in the project vicinity originates from the Cedar
River. The Cedar River run is a native,naturally spawning population without
supplementation from hatchery stocks. The Cedar River stock is thought to be depressed
(Harza 2000, WDFW 1994). Adult Cedar River Chinook salmon enter Lake Washington
through the Ballard locks from late June through September with a peak in late August.
Spawning occurs from mid-September through mid-to-late November,with a peak in
early to mid-October(Harza 2000, WDFW 1994). Fry probably begin to emerge in
February and continue through March and perhaps April (Harza 2000, City of Seattle
2000).
Chinook salmon rarely occur in lakes and the distribution and behavior of Chinook fry in
Lake Washington and the role the lake plays as a rearing area is not well understood
(Harza 2000, City of Seattle 2000). Unlike most systems in which juvenile Chinook rear
in rivers and estuaries,juvenile Chinook in Lake Washington rear in the littoral areas of
the lake from January to July. In the south end of Lake Washington, the nocturnal
distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon appears to be related to slope, substrate, and
depth. During a study conducted in the spring of 2000, researchers observed the highest
densities of juvenile Chinook salmon along the shallowest depth contour surveyed (0.4
meters compared to 0.7 meters), in areas with small to fine substrate (sand/gravel), and in
areas having gradual slope (<20%) (Harza 2000). Overhead cover appeared to be
avoided, although the researchers could not determine its importance due to confounding
factors (e.g. slope and substrate) of variables found beneath these structures. The theory
is that juvenile Chinook salmon use shallow near-shore areas with small substrate and
little structure to avoid predators (Harza 2000, Piaskowski and Tabor 2000).
May Creek does not have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon run and individuals utilizing
the stream are likely strays from the Cedar River. However, these stray Chinook use
May Creek for spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002). Lake Washington is a major
migration corridor for Chinook and is also used for juvenile rearing. Spawning surveys
conducted in 1976 and 1977, found Chinook salmon population densities in May Creek
of one and seven fish per mile,respectively. Population surveys conducted in 1983 did
not find Chinook salmon in May Creek,while surveys conducted in 1992 and 1993 found
peak densities of one fish per mile (Harza 2000,Foster Wheeler 1995). In 1999, six live
Chinook salmon and four carcasses were spotted in May Creek at approximately River
Mile 0.5 in May Creek (Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001,Marvos et al. 1999).
3.3.2 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Status
On November 1, 1999, the USFWS issued a final rule announcing the listing of bull trout
throughout the coterminous United States as a threatened species under ESA (Federal
Register 1999b:58910-58933). Thirty-four subpopulations are identified within the
Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout distinct population segment. Bull trout were once widely
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
10
distributed throughout the Pacific Northwest,but have been reduced to approximately 44
percent of historical range (Quigley et al. 1997). Key factors in the decline of bull trout
populations include harvest by anglers, impacts to watershed biological integrity, and the
isolation and fragmentation of populations. Changes in sediment delivery (particularly to
spawning areas), agradation and scouring,reductions in shading(high water
temperature), water quality, and low hydrologic cycles adversely affect bull trout. In
addition,bull trout appear to be negatively affected by non-native species such as brook
trout(Salvelinus fontinalis)through competition and hybridization (Quigley et al. 1997).
Habitat Requirements
Bull trout are thought to have more specific habitat requirements in comparison to other
salmonids, and are most often associated with undisturbed habitat with diverse cover and
structure. High quality bull trout habitat is typically characterized by cold water
temperatures, abundant cover in the form of large wood,undercut banks, large boulders,
etc., clean substrate for spawning, interstitial spaces large enough to conceal juveniles,
and stable channels (WDW 1992). Therefore,negatively impacted watersheds are not
thought to provide optimal bull trout habitat (WDW 1992).
Spawning and rearing is thought to be primarily restricted to relatively pristine cold
streams, often within the headwater reaches (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), although
adults can reside in lakes or reservoirs and in coastal areas, and they can migrate to
saltwater(Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). Cold-water temperature is also a
critical factor for bull trout; many studies show that temperature must drop below 9 or 10
degrees Celsius before spawning occurs (McPhail and Murray 1979, Craig 1997). Areas
where water temperature exceeds 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) are thought
to limit distribution(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Bull trout spawn from August through
December when water temperatures are decreasing,although migratory bull trout begin
their spawning migrations as early as May. Spawning typically occurs in cold, low-
gradient 1st to 5th order tributary streams, over loosely compacted gravel and cobble
having groundwater inflow; frequently they spawn in the headwaters of tributary streams
(Rieman and McIntyre 1996, Craig 1997). Juveniles are usually located in shallow
backwater or side channel areas, while older individuals are often found in deeper water
pools sheltered by large organic debris, vegetation, or undercut banks (Federal Register
1999b:58910-58933).
Presence in Project Area
Due to habitat requirements, it is highly unlikely that bull trout would be present within
the action area. No bull trout spawning has been documented within the Urban Growth
Boundary, including the project area(Lucchetti 2002).
The only confirmed bull trout stock in the project vicinity is the Chester Morse Lake
population in the upper Cedar River watershed(Hama 2000, WDFW 1998). Cedar Falls,
a complete barrier to anadromous fish, is located a short distance below Chester Morse
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
11
Lake prohibiting migration outside of the upper Cedar River watershed(Harza 2000,
WDFW 1998).
While a distinct population of bull trout does not occur within the project action area,
bull trout sightings have occurred within Lake Washington and its tributaries during the
past 20 years (Harza 2000, USFWS 1999, and WDFW 1998). The origin of these fish is
unknown, yet it is believed that they may be from a remnant bull trout population
spawning in the lower Cedar River and/or from a remnant population spawning in
Issaquah Creek. Others believe that the water temperatures in the lower Cedar River and
Issaquah Creek are likely too high to support a bull trout population and that the fish are
strays from an anadromous population from outside of the Lake Washington watershed
(Harza 2000, WDFW 1998, USFWS 1999,Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933).
3.3.3 Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Status
On July 25, 1995,NMFS printed a proposed rule adding the Puget Sound/Strait of
Georgia ESU for Coho salmon to the candidate species list (Federal Register
1995:38011-38030). Historically, Coho salmon inhabited most coastal streams in
Washington, Oregon, and northern and central California. Although population levels
have not declined from historical abundance levels, several risk factors may necessitate
the listing of this species under the federal ESA in the future. Risks to this population
involve artificial propagation, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, dramatic decline in
adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions (Busby et al. 1996). Habitat degradation
can occur as a result of activities such as logging, agriculture, development, and dams
that can cause high mortality from egg to age-one smolt.
Habitat Requirements
Coho salmon are anadromous fish that typically have a three-year life cycle, one of the
shortest life histories of all anadromous salmonids. Different patterns of life history are
linked to different populations. Juveniles, forming large schools, rear in freshwater for
one year, migrate to the ocean, and return in 5 to 20 months to spawn. The distribution
and abundance of Coho salmon is most likely influenced by water temperature, stream
size, flow, channel morphology, vegetation type and abundance, and channel substrate
size and quality. Coho salmon prefer to spawn and rear in stream reaches less than 4 to 5
percent gradient. Coho salmon generally return from the ocean to spawn from early fall
to late spring, spawn in mid-winter and then die. Spawning occurs in substrates ranging
from silt to large gravel of tributary streams (Johnson et al. 1991). Coho eggs incubate
from four to six weeks depending on water temperature and hatched larvae generally
remain within the gravel substrate for an additional three to four weeks before emerging
in early March to mid-May(Harza 2000, Wydoski and Whitney 1979, R2 2000).
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
12
Presence in Project Area
Coho salmon are known to use May Creek and the shoreline of Lake Washington in the
vicinity of the Barbee Mill (WDFW 2002a).
Adult Coho begin returning to Lake Washington in late August and continue through
early to mid-November. After entering Lake Washington,most Coho will remain in the
lake for several weeks if river and stream flows are low. Migration to rivers and streams
occurs from August to mid-January with the majority of spawning taking place from late
September through mid-January (Harza 2000,R2 2000). After emergence, Coho fry
typically congregate in schools within pools, while juveniles aggressively defend
territory in riffle habitat. Juveniles generally rear in natal streams for one to two years
before migrating to the ocean(Harza 2000, Wydoski and Whitney 1979). The role of
Lake Washington in juvenile Coho rearing is not well-understood(City of Seattle 2000).
Compared to other anadromous salmonid species, Coho spend less time in estuarine
habitat and instead move rather quickly out to sea(R2 2000).
Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influence by hatchery production. Therefore,
recent studies have not been able to fully evaluate the status of self-sustaining naturally
spawning Coho populations in the region. However, recent trends in both hatchery and
wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline that may be attributable to
urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor ocean conditions (Harza
2000,Fresh 1994, WDFW 1994). Lake Washington Coho populations, including those
within the Barbee Mill project area, appear to be depressed,based on the steady decline
in escapement numbers (WDFW 1994). Spawning surveys conducted in 1976, 1977, and
1985 found peak Coho densities in the lower May Creek at 23, 5, and 55 Coho per mile
respectively. While surveys in 1992-1993 found peak densities of only two fish per mile
(Harza 2000, Foster Wheeler 1995).
3.3.4 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Status
Bald eagles were first protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and later listed
as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In 1978, the eagle was
reclassified as threatened in five states, including Washington. The bald eagle is also
currently listed as a state threatened species (WDFW 2000b). Once numbering between
250,000 and 500,000 in the continental U.S., factors including human development and
the use of the pesticide DDT reduced the population to a low of about 400 pairs by the
early 1960s (Stalmaster 1987, Stinson et al. 2001). With the banning of DDT in 1972
and a number of active recovery efforts, the continental U.S. population of bald eagles
has since made a dramatic recovery. In the past 20 years, the population of nesting bald
eagles has grown about 10 percent per year as eagles reoccupy habitat(Stinson et al.
2001). By 1998, breeding pairs numbered approximately 6,000. Recovery is especially
dramatic in Washington State,where there are now over 600 nesting pairs, with
approximately 300 pairs in Puget Sound alone.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
13
Because of the significant increase in bald eagle populations in Washington, the State has
proposed to reclassify the bald eagle as a sensitive species concurrent with the federal
proposal for delisting of the eagle (WDFW 2002c). However, to date the bald eagle
remains a federally listed species.
Habitat Requirements
Bald eagles are found wherever food(i.e., fish and waterfowl) is abundant, with nesting
typically occurring in forested settings that are relatively free from human disturbance
(Stalmaster 1987). Nesting pairs return to the same nesting territories year after year,
while wintering groups tend to be transitory. In Puget Sound, the seasonal home range
containing the foraging and nesting habitat of an eagle pair averages about 2.6 square
miles (Stinson et al. 2001). Selection of territories usually involves rivers or large bodies
of water. Bald eagles prefer fish to all other types of prey(Stalmaster 1987), although
they may prey upon small mammals and waterfowl. Bald eagles reportedly forage most
intensively at first daylight and at low tide (Watson et al. 1991). In the Pacific
Northwest, nest initiation begins sometime in February and the breeding cycle ends when
the juveniles disperse near the end of August(Stalmaster 1987).
In Washington, bald eagles nest primarily west of the Cascade Mountains, with scattered
breeding areas along major rivers in the eastern part of the state. Wintering populations
are found throughout the Puget Sound Region, the San Juan Islands, Hood Canal, the
Olympic Peninsula, and the upper and lower Columbia River and its tributaries (Watson
and Stinson 2001).
Migrant eagles arrive at their traditional wintering grounds during late October
(Anderson et al. 1986). Washington State consistently supports the largest wintering
population of bald eagles among the western and Pacific Northwest states, if not in the
continental U.S., with well over 1,000 birds counted during past studies (Knight et al.
1979, Dobler 1983, McAllister 1984). Primary winter range includes the Olympic
Peninsula, San Juan Islands, Puget Sound and its major tributary rivers, Hood Canal, and
the Cowlitz and Columbia Rivers (Rodrick and Milner 1991), especially where food
sources such as waterfowl and fish congregate. Destruction of habitat and food sources,
and direct and indirect chemical poisoning or killing has led to low reproductive success.
Presence in Project Area
No bald eagle nests are located on the subject property. The WDFW (2002a) PHS
database depicts two bald eagle territories in the vicinity of the project site. One territory
is depicted on the southeast shore of Mercer Island. This eagle pair has used three
alternate nests within their territory, the nearest being approximately 1-mile west of the
Barbee Mill property on Mercer Island. This nest was apparently blown down in the
winter of 1999 (WDFW 2002a). A second nest, approximately 1.2 miles west of the
Barbee Mill, was reported as being active for 7 years but"unrepaired"in 2001. The third
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
I ,
14
alternate nest is located near the southern tip of Mercer Island, where a development was
proposed in 1999 (WDFW 2002a). Information for nest activity was not available in
2002 (WDFW 2002b). The southern portion of a second bald eagle territory is located
approximately one-quarter mile northeast of the Barbee Mill property,but does not
include the project site (WDFW 2002a).
Bald eagles may forage along the lower May Creek channel and delta and the shores of
Lake Washington,most likely concentrating in areas with significant use by adult
salmonids or waterfowl. However, eagles have not been documented on-site and are
unlikely to use the proposed project area for perching, nesting, or roosting due to the lack
of suitable large trees or snags. In addition, the frequent disturbance due to the operation
of the lumber mill may also discourage bald eagles from using the site.
The USFWS has determined that wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the
project(USFWS 2002a, see Appendix A for agency correspondence). Wintering
activities typically occur from October 31 through March 31. The WDFW(2002a) PHS
database does not show winter concentration areas or occurrence of wintering bald
eagles. Wintering bald eagles may range over the Lake Washington basin,but there is no
documentation of regular or individual use within the project vicinity(USFWS 2002b).
3.3.5 Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Status
Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are protected under the Revised Code of Washington(RCW
77.15.130), which protects wildlife including birds,their nests and eggs (WDFW 2000,
Patricia Thompson WDFW, pers. comm. August 1,2002). Ospreys are not protected
under the ESA, but as a migratory bird, have protection under the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918. Under the Act, it is unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, or barter any
migratory bird, or their feathers,parts, nests, eggs or products.
Ospreys are widely distributed across the globe,breeding in North America from
northwestern Alaska throughout most of Canada south to Baja California, the Tres
Marias Islands, Sinaloa, several southwestern states including southern Texas, and along
the east coast south to the Yucatan Peninsula. Breeding birds are also widely distributed
in the Old World including Australia. Winter ranges include the Americas, especially
north of the equator, and also a wide distribution throughout the Old World (Johnsgard
1990).
From 1972 to 1981, the osprey was included on the Audubon society's Blue List of
declining species. In the mid-1980's the U. S. Forest Service classified ospreys as
"ecologically sensitive" and the species also received special conservation status in 15
states. Declines are likely due to persistent pesticide usage (especially DDT) that may
still be the cause of depleted osprey populations in some areas, as well as excessive
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
15
human disturbance or declining fishery stocks (Johnsgard, 1990). Population estimates
in the early 1980's were thought to be about 8,000 pairs in the contiguous United States.
In Washington, breeding bird survey data show a significant population increase of
11.7% increase from 1982 to 1991 and an increase of 10.2%per year from 1996 to 1991
(Smith et al., 1997).
Habitat Requirements
Ospreys are large, fish-eating birds of prey, averaging about 3.5 pounds with a wingspan
of approximately 63 inches (Sibley 2000). The basic needs of osprey can be summarized
as an adequate source of fish and an elevated nesting site that is at least within a few
kilometers of the nearest food supply (Johnsgard 1990). In the United States, ospreys are
migratory, arriving on their breeding grounds in early spring after wintering as far south
as Chile and northern Argentina(Erlich et al 1988). During the nesting season, they are
monogamous, forming a long-term pair bond, although they separate during the winter.
The birds tend to display a strong fidelity to a particular nest, returning year after year to
the same location (Johnsgard 1990). Upon the arrival of the male to his summer grounds
and the onset of egg-laying, old nests are renovated and new materials are added; osprey
nests can become quite large. Generally, one clutch of two to three young is reared in
nests constructed on dead trees or artificial structures (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
In Washington, ospreys are common along large water bodies in lower-elevation forested
landscapes on both sides of the Cascade crest. They are rare breeders in steppe zones
along large rivers (Smith et al., 1997). Nests and foraging observations have been
documented at higher elevations but are uncommon occurrences. In northeastern
Washington, they are found along major river valleys, and are common along the Pend
Oreille River(Smith et al., 1997).
Presence in Project Area
There is an active osprey nest located on the sawdust collection tower near the center of
the Barbee Mill site (photo plate 4,photo 13). The site has been active since 1995 or
1996 (WDFW 2002d) and is active in 2002 with two offspring (WDFW 2002d). The
pair typically returns to the nest in April and raises their young prior to their departure in
October. The birds appear to be very tolerant, and have raised young for the past several
years, despite the operation of the sawdust collection tower that supports the nest.
Currently a webcam monitors the activities of the osprey family, which can be viewed on
the World Wide Web (Barbee Mill 2002). The WDFW(2002a) database depicts a
second osprey nest located off-site, approximately one-eighth of a mile north of the Mill
property. In 1993, nest materials were transferred to an artificial platform, creating a new
nest site (WDFW 2002a).
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
16
4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The information presented on the site plan, existing drainage conditions, and stormwater
system are summarized from the Preliminary Technical Information Report for the
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat prepared by Otak, Inc. dated April 4, 2002 and additional
material received from Otak, Inc. including a revised site plan and stormwater details
provided to us on August 12 and 13, 2002. Assumptions regarding building heights and
restoration of the buffer for May Creek are based on communications with Mr. Campbell
Mathewson of Century Pacific, L.P. during July and August 2002.
4.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Barbee Mill Company is proposing to construct a 115-unit housing development on
the property currently occupied by the Barbee Mill Company(Figure 3). The proposed
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat would include the construction of 13.07 acres of new
impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of
developed area. New impervious surfaces would include rooftops, driveways, walkways,
and stormwater facilities. The proposed project would reduce existing impervious
surface coverage of the 22.9-acre property from approximately 85 percent down to about
57 percent. On-site wetlands would not be filled during project construction and the
standard 25-foot buffer for Category 3 wetlands (City of Renton 1998)would be
maintained.
A recent traffic study prepared for the project found that approximately 732 average daily
trips would be generated by the project. Currently the existing mill facility generates 136
average daily trips, so the number of new trips would be 596 (HDR 2002).
Approximately 3,400 linear feet of new local roadways would be constructed for access
to the new residences.
A new local access bridge would be constructed over May Creek and would require the
removal of the existing middle bridge (photo plate 1,photo 4). Installation of new
foundations for the proposed bridge would be necessary and would likely require work
below the OHWM of May Creek. The new bridge would be approximately 32 feet wide
and include sidewalks. The remaining two existing bridges would be converted to foot-
traffic-only use.
The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington and 40 lots adjacent
to May Creek. The project proposes that all residential structures to be constructed along
the Lake Washington shoreline would maintain a 25-foot setback, as required by the City
of Renton (1998) Shoreline Master Program. In addition, this BA assumes that building
height would be limited to 50 feet within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Washington
and May Creek. The project also proposes an average buffer of greater than 60 feet for
May Creek that would range from a minimum width of 50 feet to a maximum width of
approximately 100 feet. Wherever the proposed buffer is currently covered by
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
17
impervious surfaces,measures would taken to restore them to pervious condition and all
portions of the proposed buffer would be enhanced with supplemental plantings of native
vegetation to restore the proposed buffer to a forested condition. Native plantings would
include western red cedar(Thuja plicata), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), Oregon ash
(Fraxinus latifolia),black cottonwood(Populus blasamifera), bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), red osier dogwood(Cornus
sericea), Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra), Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis), western
crabapple (Malus fusca), salmonberry(Rubus spectabilis), hazelnut(Corylus cornuta),
red elderberry(Sambucus racemosa), and vine maple (Acer circunatum).
Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings
located on the property, removal of asphalt, excavation and backfill for utilities and water
quality ponds, and grading for road construction. Infrastructure construction will include
approximately 38,000 cubic yards of fill for road and lot construction and 32,000 cubic
yards of excavation from the water quality ponds and underground pipes. It is expected
that large earthmoving equipment would be used on-site to clear the property. Approved
erosion control measures would be implemented to protect surface waters from delivery
of construction related sediments and pollutants; however, a Temporary Erosion and
Sediment Control (TESC)Plan for the project has not been developed at this time.
4.2 STORMWATER FACILITIES
Detention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct
Discharge Exemption in the 1998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
(KCSWDM). However, water quality treatment is required under KCSWDM Core
Requirement No. 8. Approximately 67,679 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per
the KCSWDM Secion 6.4.1. The proposed design includes two separate water quality
ponds to provide a total of 72,026 cubic feet of wetpond volume to treat run-off from
pollution generating surfaces (Otak, Inc. 2002, Table 1). Both ponds have been sized to
the 100-year/24 hour storm event.
The proposed storm drainage system is sized to convey the 100-year/24 hour storm to the
water quality ponds in their overflow conditions without overtopping their rims. The
100-year design flow rates at selected catch basins were determined by using the Rational
Method (Otak, Inc. 2002, Table 2). The stormwater conveyance system is designed to
meet the 1998 KCSWDM Section 4 stormwater conveyance standards (Otak, Inc. 2002).
Following water quality treatment,water from each of the two water quality treatment
ponds would be discharged directly to Lake Washington through separate 18-inch
diameter pipes. Based on information from Otak Inc., this BA assumes that the discharge
pipes would outfall to an invert elevation approximately 0.5 feet below the mean-lower-
low-water for Lake Washington. Based on information from Otak Inc., discharge rates
for the larger of the two ponds would range from approximately 2.5 cubic feet per second
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
18
(cfs) during the 6-month/24 hour storm to approximately 8.0 cfs during the 100-year/24
hour storm. Water velocity at the pipe outlet ranges from approximately 1.4 feet per
second during the 6-month/24 hour storm to approximately 4.5 feet per second during the
100-year/24 hour storm. Discharge rates for the smaller pond would range from
approximately 1.6 cfs during the 6-month/24 hour storm to approximately 5.0 cfs during
the 100-year/24 hour storm. Water velocity at the pipe outlet ranges from approximately
0.9 feet per second during the 6-month/24 hour storm to approximately 2.8 feet per
second during the 100-year/24 hour storm.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
19
5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT
This determination of effects is based upon information regarding presence of listed
species within the project area, existing site conditions, project design, and the
implementation of the stormwater plan. Potential effects (direct and indirect) of the
proposed project and the associated stormwater facility to the species of concern in this
evaluation are summarized below.
5.1 LISTED AND CANDIDATE FISH SPECIES
Because of the similar life history requirements of Chinook and Coho salmon, direct and
indirect effects resulting from project construction would likely be similar for both
species. Therefore, the following discussion of the direct and indirect effects would
apply to both species. As discussed above, there are no documented occurrences of bull
trout in the project area nor is there evidence that May Creek ever supported bull trout
populations. Therefore,no direct or indirect impacts to bull trout or their habitat would
be expected. Activities on the project site that may have direct and indirect effects to the
fish and habitat within the Action Area include: (1) direct mortality or disturbance, (2)
water quality impacts, and (3) critical habitat impacts.
5.1.1 Direct Mortality and Disturbance
Installation of the Stormwater Treatment Outfall
The direct effects of the project are related to the extent and duration of the construction
activities within Lake Washington and May Creek and whether fish are rearing or
migrating at that time. Direct effects are also related to immediate habitat modifications
resulting from the project.
Direct mortality or disturbance may result during the installation of the stormwater
treatment facility outfalls below the mean-lower-low-water(MLLW) of Lake
Washington and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge below the ORWM
of May Creek. Specific plans for installation of the structures are not developed at this
time; therefore, Raedeke Associates,Inc. cannot fully address the potential direct effects
to federally listed and candidate fish species that may result from their installation.
Impacts to listed fish species can be minimized if in-water work is done during the time
of year when fish are not present, as prescribed by WDFW, and other appropriate BMPs
are employed. We recommend that a qualified fisheries biologist be employed to assist
in the development of the stormwater treatment outfall and bridge footing installation
plans.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
20
5.1.2 Water Quality Impacts
Reduction of Impervious Surface
The project proposes to reduce impervious surface coverage of the site from
approximately 85 percent under current conditions to approximately 57 percent under the
proposed development conditions. This would be accomplished through the removal of
existing asphalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures. New pervious areas would
include residential yards, and setbacks from Lake Washington and May Creek. Setbacks
from May Creek would be planted with native species to provide forest cover for the
stream.
Reduction in impervious surface is likely to significantly reduce run-off velocities and
volumes to May Creek. This could lead to more stable flow regimes and decreases in
peak flows during storm events (Schueler 1994). Scouring of the streambed would be
less likely to occur and would likely lead to an increase in stream habitat complexity,
including an increase in the quantity and quality of available salmon spawning and
rearing habitat (Schueler 1994). Currently, sediments and pollutant loads are transported
directly to May Creek without treatment. Under proposed conditions, stormwater would
be routed to stormwater treatment facilities before being discharged to Lake Washington.
Thus, sediments and pollutant loads to May Creek would likely be reduced. Sediment
deposited over stream gravels after salmonid spawning has been shown to reduce embryo
development and survival (Furniss et al. 1991). Impervious surfaces also collect and
accumulate atmospheric pollutants, as well as leaks from vehicles and other sources of
chemical contaminants. These can be transported to aquatic systems such as May Creek
and Lake Washington during storm events. Thus the reduction in impervious surface
would likely result in an overall beneficial effect for federally listed and candidate fish
species within the action area.
Stormwater Facilities
The proposed stormwater system would meet current King County (1998) stormwater
regulations. Under current conditions, stormwater is discharged directly to Lake
Washington and May Creek without treatment. Detention ponds would not be required
for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge Exemption in the 1998
King County Storm Water Drainage Manual (KCSWDM). However, water quality
treatment would be provided per KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8. Therefore, no
significant effects would be expected from operation of the stormwater facilities (King
County 2001). Proposed treatment of stormwater would be an improvement over current
conditions for the site. It would likely result in either no adverse effects for federally
listed and candidate fish species or may result in an overall beneficial effect due to water
quality improvements.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment
g Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
21
5.1.3 Critical Habitat Impacts
May Creek Buffers
The proposed restored buffer along May Creek would be a substantial improvement over
existing conditions, and would be expected to provide many of the buffer functions
necessary for the maintenance of suitable salmonid habitat. The proposed buffer would
average greater than 60 feet in width. Buffers would be no less than 50 feet along all on-
site portions of May Creek and in some areas approach a width of 100 feet. All proposed
buffers along May Creek would be restored with supplemental native plantings described
above in Section 4.1 to provide forest cover for the stream.
Under current conditions, May Creek buffers average less than 25 feet in width. Asphalt
pavement for the Barbee Mill extends to within 5 feet of the bank top of the creek along
much of the west bank. Existing buffers along the lower half of the on-site portion of the
stream consist primarily of lawn and the majority of the on-site portion of the stream is
poorly shaded. Scattered clumps of shrub vegetation are interspersed throughout the
southern portion of the buffer. These areas have developed primarily as a result of recent
buffer enhancement efforts by the Barbee Mill Company; however, shrubs in these areas
are located approximately 5 to 10 feet from the stream edge and do not provide
substantial stream shading. The east side of the northern on-site portion of the stream is
fringed by red alder trees that overhang the stream;however, the width of the buffer in
this area averages approximately 30 feet and includes only a single row of trees directly
adjacent to the stream.
The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include
removal of sediments and pollutants, erosion control,provision for large woody debris
(LWD)recruitment,regulation of water temperature, and regulation of microclimate
(May 2000). The required buffer width for maintenance of these functions varies with
stream size and ability of the channel to migrate freely and there is not a single buffer
width that can be applied to all situations.
The Tri-County response to NMFS's 4(d)rule for the taking of listed Chinook salmon in
the Puget Sound is wider than that proposed for the Barbee Mill project. The Tri-County
response recommends maintenance of a minimum buffer width of 115 feet for urban
streams like May Creek (Parametrix 2002). Some research suggests that the proposed
narrower buffer may not provide the same level of buffer function as that of the wider
buffer(May 2000,Parametrix 2002). However, Knutsen and Naef(1997) reported that
stream buffer widths greater than 35 feet can adequately provide pollutant removal and
sediment filtration and water temperature regulation. In addition, Pollack and Kennard
(1998)recommend that buffer widths of on-site potential tree height (SPTH; 50 to 250 ft.
based on a 300 year SPTH in western Washington)would be required to reasonably
provide a full range of riparian functions, and therefore, not contribute significantly to
loss of salmonid habitat. The proposed buffer for May Creek would fall within these
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
22
limits, and thus, could be expected to provide an adequate level for several important
buffer functions.
Therefore,because the proposed restored buffer would be a substantial improvement over
existing conditions, and because the proposed buffer width would likely provide many of
the buffer functions necessary for the maintenance of suitable salmonid habitat, the
proposed buffer would not be likely to adversely affect listed fish species.
Lake Washington Shoreline Buffers
The project also proposes that all residential structures along the Lake Washington
shoreline would maintain a 25-foot setback, as required by the City of Renton(1998)
Shoreline Master Program. Land ownership for shoreline lots is proposed to extend
beyond the OHWM of Lake Washington. It is likely that development of these lots
would be typical of most residential development and include landscaped lawn, shrubs,
and small trees. Opportunities to provide substantial beneficial shading of the near shore
habitat through installation of large shrubs and taller trees are minimal because the
project is located on the east shore of the lake and thus afternoon shading from taller
vegetation would not extend over the water. As the project area comprises only a
fraction of the total Lake Washington shoreline, and the existing condition of the Barbee
Mill shoreline includes paved asphalt and buildings within five feet of the OHWM of the
lake, it is likely that effects resulting from conversion of the 25-foot setback zone to
residential landscape would be negligible.
Artificial Lighting and Shading of Lake Washington by Residential Buildings
Long term direct effects to salmonids can occur as a result of near shore permanent
shading such as that created by overhead piers,boathouses, and log booms. The direct
effect of shading would be the loss of shallow water habitat for normal migration,
feeding, and refuge from predators. For instance,preliminary research by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake
Washington tend to avoid overhead structures (Meridian 2001, Piaskowski and Tabor
2000).
Adverse effects to salmonids resulting from shading due to the construction of adjacent
residential buildings are not expected or would be negligible because they would not
permanently shade the lake in the way that piers and other over water structures would.
Shadows cast by buildings would not persist for long duration during the day due to the
west facing aspect of the site. Shading of the lake would be limited to the early morning
hours and would be transitory,meaning that shadows from adjacent buildings would
move relatively quickly across the near shore environment with the changing aspect of
the sun.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
23
The current proposal does not include the construction of docks or marinas,which would
create permanent over water shading; however, any future proposals for these types of
structures should be closely assessed by a qualified fisheries biologist.
Artificial light cast from overhead piers can adversely affect juvenile salmonids
(Simenstad et al. 1999). These can cause delays in migration or cause a change in
migratory routes into deeper water without refuge where juveniles would be more
vulnerable to predation(Simenstad et al 1999). However, artificial light intrusion into
Lake Washington would be from adjacent residences and street lighting rather than
overhead pier or marina lighting and therefore would likely be of lower intensity to
artificial lighting conditions examined by Simenstad et al (1999).
Construction Activities
Direct effects on listed fish species resulting from project related construction activities
would be minimized through the implementation of an appropriate Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If implemented, adverse impacts from project related
construction activities to listed fish species are not expected. The SWPPP should provide
a careful assessment of the risk to May Creek and Lake Washington. The risk
assessment will integrate the site-related elements such as slope, soil types, geotechnical
stability, groundwater, offsite sources of water flowing into the construction area, and the
proximity of site stormwater discharge to critical areas. Specific elements of the SWPPP
should include the following measures:
1. Mark Clearing Limits: Prior to clearing or disturbing the limits must be
marked. This element is part of most normal construction plans as one of the
first steps.
2. Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans shall install a
stabilized construction entrance (or other method of preventing sediment
transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is
proposed, use geo-textile fabric under the rock.
3. Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis it may be necessary to detain
runoff from a site under construction. It may be necessary to construct and
use a detention pond to control flows during construction.
4. Install Sediment Controls: If there is runoff from the construction site,
sediment shall be removed from the water. Note that the water quality
standards must be met.
5. Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil shall be stabilized by use of
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Note there are time periods of allowed
exposure that depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent
groundcover needs to be part of the construction plans.
6. Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes that need to be protected from erosive
flows and concentrated flows until permanent cover and drainage conveyance
systems are in place.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
24
7. Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets require protection from sediment
and silt laden water.
8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance
systems shall be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction.
Culvert outlets require protection.
9. Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches,
vaults, and foundations shall be discharged into a controlled system.
10. Maintain BMPs: The plan shall provide for inspection and maintenance of the
planned and installed construction BMPs as well as their removal at the end of
the project.
11. Manage the Project: The plan shall outline how the site shall be managed for
erosion control. It needs to cover phasing, training,pre-construction
conference, coordination with utilities and contractors, monitoring and
reporting. It shall provide for notice of problems, revisions during
construction and contingency planning. One of the most important elements
in the management of the project is planning for contingencies based on the
risk of exposure during phases of the development. It is essential that
planning is ongoing throughout the life of the project.
Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows:
• Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and April
30.
• In water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and
construction of bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed in-
water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,.respectively.
• The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum
location for a temporary sediment and erosion control (TESC)pond. The majority of
construction stormwater runoff from the site will be temporarily routed to this pond
via interceptor trenches and berms. Later in the project, stormwater will be routed
via permanent drainage pipes.
• Stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond facilities to downstream systems
will be controlled and monitored during construction to ensure compliance with
established water quality discharge requirements.
• Soils shall be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable
practices include,but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding,
mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, the early application
of a gravel base on areas to be paved, and dust control.
• Matting,plastic sheeting or other approved slope stabilization measures will be
specified on the TESC plan to be placed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
Plans will make provisions to prevent concentrated flows from being routed over
slopes.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
25
A monitoring plan, with independent testing, shall be part of the quality assurance plan
for compliance. The construction SWPPP shall contain a plan for stormwater sampling
locations, background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting
schedule shall at a minimum require samples during every storm event in the wet season
that generates runoff, and site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs. The
monitoring and sampling are to be done in a professional manner consistent with current
sampling protocols and reporting requirements. The sampling points are to be shown on
a map and marked on the ground.
5.1.4 Cumulative effects
Cumulative effects are the additive effects of future State, local, and private activities that
are reasonably certain to occur in the described action area. Development in the action
area is expected to continue as the population in greater Lake Washington basin
continues to grow and urbanize. Additional impacts of urban growth in this area include
an increase in impervious surface,pollutants that come from land development, and
urban runoff such as fertilizers,pesticides,pet wastes, and storm sewers.
Impervious surface within the May Creek watershed is currently at 7 percent and is
projected to increase to about 7 percent under current zoning. The project proposes to
decrease the area of on-site impervious surface by approximately 33 percent. This would
result in an overall benefit to the watershed as a whole.
The stormwater treatment facility is designed to filter urban runoff and mitigate for water
quality impacts of increased impervious surface within the Lake Washington basin. Due
to project design, the proposed development will likely not degrade current habitat
conditions for listed fish species in this area.
5.2 BALD EAGLE
5.2.1 Direct Effects
No bald eagles nest on or within a mile of the site. The nearest intact bald eagle nest is
approximately 1.1 miles west of the proposed project area on Mercer Island (WDFW
2002a). Due to the distance of the nest from the project site, development of the site,
including disturbance during construction,will not affect nesting activities of these bald
eagles (WDFW 2002c,USFWS 2002b). Bald eagles are not likely to use the proposed
project area itself for perching,nesting, or roosting due to the lack of suitable large trees
on-site. In addition, the frequent disturbance from the operation of the Barbee Mill
Company may discourage bald eagles from using the property.
The potential foraging habitat along
ng the shores of Lake Washington and the mouth of
May Creek and its riparian zone is not expected to be adversely impacted by the
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
26
proposed project. The project is not likely to adversely affect salmonid fish species upon
which eagles forage, and may benefit certain species (see discussion above for listed
salmonids). Depending on their habituation to human activity, eagles that may fly over
the project site are not likely to be disturbed by construction activities or human activities
after construction. Research by Bottorff et al. (1987), described how bald eagles flying
over dock construction in the San Juan Islands (Washington) did not demonstrate any
avoidance behavior.
As there is no documented bald eagle use near the project vicinity, there would be no
direct impacts to bald eagles.
5.2.2 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Negative indirect of cumulative effects are not expected for bald eagles because of the
proposed development. Positive effects may result from the construction of water quality
ponds,which may attract waterfowl and provide an additional prey base in the absence of
fish and other preferred prey. In addition, any positive effects for salmonids that result
from restoration of the May Creek buffer would also indirectly benefit bald eagles by
potentially increasing their prey base.
5.3 OSPREY
5.3.1 Direct Effects
The sawdust collection tower currently supports the osprey nest on site. The proposed
development would remove all existing mill structures including the tower. Impacts to
Osprey that use on-site areas would be minimized through application of WDFW
management guidelines for nest removal and relocation. The WDFW recommends
relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure, erected within the project vicinity.
Varieties of artificial platforms have been designed,most consisting of a frame or solid
base mounted atop a tree or artificial support. The US Fish and Wildlife Service concurs
with Washington Depailnient of Fish and Wildlife in their determination regarding the
best management of the osprey nest site on the Barbee Mill site (USFWS 2002b).
Specific designs and suitable erection sites are discussed in WDFW's Landscaping for
Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest (Link 1999) and in WDFW's Priority Habitat and
Species guidelines for osprey. We recommend that a WDFW biologist be consulted
during relocation of the new nest site. Following WDFW guidelines, the nest would be
removed and relocated while the birds were on their wintering grounds.
However, the osprey pair may not use a new site that has been constructed for them. If
not, the returning pair of osprey would likely find an alternative site, however should the
pair not breed, the removal of the tower and relocation of the nest site could adversely
affect the productivity of the nesting pair, resulting in a negative cumulative impact on
osprey numbers in Puget Sound.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
27
5.3.2 Indirect Effects
Osprey tolerance to human activities depends upon the frequency of the activities and
whether or not the ospreys are accustomed to human interactions (WDW 1991). Ospreys
that currently utilize on-site structures are likely to be accustomed to human activities
due to the current level of activity resulting from mill operation. Therefore, there would
likelybe no indirect project impacts to the osprey.
P
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
28
6.0 MITIGATION CONDITIONS
Provided the following mitigation conditions are followed, no significant unavoidable
adverse impacts to listed or candidate species are expected.
1. Building heights should be limited to 50-feet within 200-feet of the shoreline of Lake
Washington and May Creek.
2. In-water work should be conducted during the time of year when fish are not present,
as prescribed by WDFW.
3. A qualified fisheries biologist will be employed to assist in the development of the
stormwater treatment outfall and bridge footing installation plans.
4. A WDFW biologist will be consulted during relocation of the new osprey nest site.
Following WDFW guidelines, the nest would be removed and relocated while the
birds are on their wintering grounds.
5. Specific elements of the Stormwater Prevention Plan should include the following
measures:
1. Mark Clearing Limits: Prior to clearing or disturbing the limits must be
marked. This element is part of most normal construction plans as one of the
first steps.
2. Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans shall install a
stabilized construction entrance (or other method of preventing sediment
transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel construction entrance is
proposed,use geo-textile fabric under the rock. Note: a wheel wash is
required for plans that propose winter grading.
3. Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis it may be necessary to detain
runoff from a site under construction. It may be necessary to construct and
use a detention pond to control flows during construction.
4. Install Sediment Controls: If there is runoff from the construction site,
sediment shall be removed from the water. Note that the water quality
standards must be met.
5. Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil shall be stabilized by use of
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Note there are time periods of allowed
exposure that depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent
groundcover needs to be part of the construction plans.
6. Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes that need to be protected from erosive
flows and concentrated flows until permanent cover and drainage conveyance
systems are in place.
7. Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets require protection from sediment
and silt laden water.
8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance
systems shall be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction.
Culvert outlets require protection.
9. Control Pollutants: The plan shall show how all pollutants, including waste
materials and demolition debris will be handled. This includes maintenance
Barbee Mill Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
29
of construction equipment, fertilizers, application of chemicals, and water
treatment systems.
10. Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches,
vaults, and foundations shall be discharged into a controlled system.
11. Maintain BMPs: The plan shall provide for inspection and maintenance of the
planned and installed construction BMPs as well as their removal at the end of
the project.
12. Manage the Project: The plan shall outline how the site shall be managed for
erosion control. It needs to cover phasing, training,pre-construction
conference, coordination with utilities and contractors, monitoring and
reporting. It shall provide for notice of problems, revisions during
construction and contingency planning. One of the most important elements
in the management of the project is planning for contingencies based on the
risk of exposure during phases of the development. It is essential that
planning is ongoing throughout the life of the project.
6. The following Best Management Practices should be employed:
1. Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and
April 30.
2. In water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and
construction of bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed
in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek, respectively.
3. The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum
location for a temporary sediment and erosion control (TESC)pond. The
majority of construction stormwater runoff from the site will be temporarily
routed to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms. Later in the project,
stormwater will be routed via permanent drainage pipes.
4. The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility will
remain in an undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized.
5. Soils shall be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast.
Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary and permanent
seeding, sodding, mulching,plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting,
the early application of a gravel base on areas to be paved, and dust control.
6. Matting,plastic sheeting or other approved slope stabilization measures will be
specified on the TESC plan to be placed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
Plans will make provisions to prevent concentrated flows from being routed over
slopes.
7. A monitoring plan,with independent testing, shall be part of the quality assurance
plan for compliance. The construction SWPPP shall contain a plan for stormwater
sampling locations,background measurements,and a periodic reporting schedule.
The reporting schedule shall at a minimum require samples during every storm event
in the wet season that generates runoff, and site inspection condition reports on the
installed BMPs. The monitoring and sampling are to be done in a professional
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
30
manner consistent with current sampling protocols and reporting requirements. The
sampling points are to be shown on a map and marked on the ground.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment
g Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
31
7.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT - SUMMARY
The proposed project has the potential to affect the federal and state listed species
described above. However,based upon existing poor condition of the buffers for May
Creek, the high level of impervious surface area, and the absence of stormwater treatment
for the site, the proposed implementation of project design features, including provision
of a functional buffer for May Creek, reduction in impervious surface, and treatment of
stormwater,would likely create an overall improvement in on-site habitat. Some
temporary disturbance to listed species and habitat may occur during initial construction
of the project; however, implementation of erosion control and conservation measures
during project construction should minimize these impacts. Therefore, the project is not
expected to have any adverse effects on listed and candidate species.
The information outlined in this BA is based upon current conditions at the proposed
project site and the proposed site plan and stormwater plan. Information gathered on-site
by Raedeke Associates, Inc. staff has been incorporated into this report. Should changes
in listing status or management guidelines occur before project construction or
completion, these changes should be taken into consideration, and any necessary
consultation should be undertaken.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
32
8.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The Barbee Mill Company and
their consultants. No other person or agency may rely upon the information, analysis, or
conclusions contained herein without permission from them.
The determination of ecological system classifications, functions, values, and boundaries
is an inexact science and different individuals and agencies may reach different
conclusions. With regard to wetlands and streams,the final determination of their
boundaries for regulatory purposes is the responsibility of the various agencies that
regulate development activities in wetlands. We cannot guarantee the outcome of such
determinations. Therefore, the conclusions of this report should be reviewed by the
appropriate regulatory agencies.
We warrant that the work performed conforms to standards generally accepted in our
field, and was prepared substantially in accordance with then-current technical guidelines
and criteria. The conclusions of this report represent the results of our analysis of the
information provided by the project proponent and their consultants, together with
information gathered in the course of the study. No other warranty, expressed or implied,
is made.
II
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
33
9.0 LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, B., J. Frost, K. McAllister, D. Pineo, and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986. Bald
eagles in Washington. Wash. Wild. 36:13-20.
Barbee Mill, 2002 Osprey at Barbee Mill. From the Ospreynest.org web page:
www.ospreyn.est.org. Last updated August 12, 2002.
Bottorff, J., J. Schafer; and D. Swanson. 1987. Noise disturbance study on Bald eagles
at Orcas and Shaw Island ferry terminals, San Juan County, Washington.
Washington State Department of Transportation. Olympia, WA. 12 pp. +
figures.
Busby, P.J, T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant,L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz,
and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce,
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 261 pp.
Craig, S.D. 1997. Habitat conditions affecting bull trout spawning areas within the
Yakima River Basin, Washington. Central Washington University. Ellensburg,
Washington. Master's Thesis. 74 pp.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland Determination Report on the JAG
Development Property. 14 pp. plus appendices.
Dobler, F.C. 1983. The 1983 bald eagle survey for Washington. Washington Dept. of
Game, Olympia, WA
Erlich, Paul R., Dobkin,David S. and Wheye, Darryl. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: a
field guide to the Natural history of North American birds.
Federal Register. 1995. 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and threatened species: Proposed
threatened status for three contiguous ESUs of Coho salmon ranging from Oregon
through central California. Vol. 60,Number 142. pp. 38011-38030. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C. July 25, 1995..
Federal Register. 1998. 50 CFR Parts 222,226, and 227: Endangered and Threatened
Species: Proposed Endangered Status for West Coast Chinook Salmon; Listing
Status Change; Proposed Rule. Vol. 63,Number 45. pp. 14308-15328. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. March 9, 1998.
Federal Register. 1999a. Endangered and threatened species: Threatened status for three
evolutionary significant units (ESUs) in Washington and Oregon and endangered
status for on spring Chinook salmon ESU in Washington. Vol. 64, Number 56.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
34
pp. 14308-15328. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C. March 24,
1999.
Federal Register. 1999b. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants; determination of threatened status for bull trout in the coterminous United
States. Vol. 64,Number 210. pp. 58910-58933. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. November 1, 1999.
Foster Wheeler. 1995. May creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for
King County and City of Renton. August 1995.
Fresh,K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. In: Lake and
Reservoir Management. Vol. 9, no. 1,pp. 148-151.
Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance.
In: W.R. Meehan(ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on
salmonid fishes and their habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication
19.
Grubb, T.G. 1976. A survey and analysis of bald eagle nesting in western Washington.
M.S. Thesis,Univ. of Washington, Seattle. 87 pp.
Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Mill Aquatic habitat and Fish Population
Survey. August 2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates, Inc.
HDR Associates, Inc. 2002. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Barbee Mill Preliminary
Plat. March 28, 2002.
Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles and falcons of North America;biology and
natural history. The Smithsonian Institution.
Johnson, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991. Status
review for Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. U.S. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 95 pp.
King County. 1998. King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. King
County Department of Natural resources, Seattle, Washington.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May creek basin action plan. King County and the
City of Renton. April2001.
Knight, R.L., J.B. Atheam, J.L. Bruggeman,A.W. Erickson. 1979. Observations on
wintering bald and golden eagles on the Columbia River, Washington. Murrelet
60:99-105.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
35
Knutson,K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's
priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Link, R. 1999. Landscaping for wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county
urban growth areas: methods and fmdings. King County Department of Natural
Resources. April 2002.
May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available
science. Kitsap County Natural Resources Department.
McAllister,K.R. 1984. A summary of the 1984 midwinter bald eagle survey in
Washington. Washington Dept. of Game, Olympia, WA.
McPhail, J.D., and C.B. McMurry. 1979. The early life history and ecology of Dolly-
Varden in the Upper Arrow Lakes. A report submitted to the B.C. Hydro and
Power Authority and Kootenay Region Fish and Wildlife Branch, Helena
Montana.
Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001. Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and
Fish Population Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment. June 25,
2001.
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S.
Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K.Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status
review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California.
U.S. Department of Commerce,NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443
pp.
Otak, Inc. 2002. Preliminary Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill
Preliminary Plat, King County, Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill
Company. April 4, 2002.
Parametrix. 2002. Biological review of the Tri-County model 4(d) rule response
proposal. Prepared for the Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. April 19,
2002.
Piaskowski, R. and R. Tabor. 2000. Nocturnal habitat use by juvenile Chinook in
near-shore areas of south Lake Washington, a preliminary investigation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office. Available at:
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/fish/docs/piaskowski-report.pdf.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
36
Pollack,N.M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian
buffers needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of
Washington State. The Bullit Foundation, Washington Environmental Council,
and Point-No-Point Treaty Council.
Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment for ecosystem
components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great
Basins: Volume 3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest service,Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4
vol. 1,057 - 1,713 pp.
R2 Resource Consultants. 2000. Tri-County urban issues ESA study guidance
document. Prepared on behalf of the Tri-county Urban Issues Advisory
Committee. February 2000.
Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002a. Barbee Mill wetland boundary confirmation summary
letter. Renton, Washington. Report to Mr. Campbell Mathewson, Century
Pacific, L.P. March 28, 2002.
Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002b. Barbee Mill wetland delineation summary letter.
Renton, Washington. Report to Mr. Alex Cugini, The Barbee Mill Company, Inc.
August 6, 2002.
Renton, City of 1998. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Sensitive Areas Ordinance -
4835. City of Renton Planning Commission.
Renton, City of 2002a. Leslie Nishihira. Initial SEPA checklist review letter for the
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. To Mr.Dan Dawson, Otak, Inc. June 3, 2002.
Renton, City of 2002b. Personal communication with Ms. Leslie Nishihira regarding
purpose and scope of a Biological Assessment regarding the Barbee Mill
preliminary Plat for the City of Renton. July 9, 2002.
Rieman,Bruce E., John D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for
Conservation of Bull Trout. In: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report
INT-302. 43 pp.
Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's
priority habitats and species. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish
Management and Habitat Management Divisions. Olympia, Washington.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
37
Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of imperviousness. Watershed protection
Techniques, 1(3):100-111.
Seattle, City of. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle
Public Utilities. April 2000.
Sibley, D. A. The Sibley guide to birds. 2000. National Audubon Society. Chanticleer
Press, Inc. New York.
Simenstad, C.A., J.R., Cordell, R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler,B.Nightengale, and J.A.
Schafer. 1999. Ferry terminal impacts on juvenile salmon migrating through
Puget Sound near shore environment. Puget Sound Notes. 42:9-12.
Smith,M. R., Mattocks P. W., and Cassidy,K. M. 1997. Breeding Birds of Washington
State Location Data and Predicted Distributions Including: Breeding bird atlas
data and habitat associations. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA 1997.
Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County area,
Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 100 pp.
Stalmaster, Mark V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books. New York,NY. 227 pp.
Stinson,D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report
for the bald eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia. 92
pp.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States; In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A.
Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Draft summary for bull trout in Lake Washington.
November 23, 1999.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. United States Fish and Wildlife Service species
list request letter for T24N,RO5E, S32. FWS REF: 1-3-02-SP-1721. July 29,
2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Personal communication with Ted Thomas
regarding the bald eagle territory occurring near the Barbee Mill property and
osprey nest. July 31, 2002.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon
and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries,
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
38
Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian
Tribes, Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. 1998 salmonid stock inventory:
appendix,bull trout and Dolly Varden. July 1998. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002a. Habitats and species map. Mercer
Island, 7.5 minute quadrangles. July 23, 2002.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002b. Personal communication with
Jennifer Brookshire regarding the bald eagle territory occurring near the Barbee
Mill property. July 31, 2002.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002c. Personal communication with Ms.
Julie Stofel regarding use of Barbee Mill project site or vicinity by bald eagles
and potential affect of site development on nearest bald eagle nest. July 31, 2002.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002d. Personal communication with Ms.
Patricia Thompson regarding state regulatory status and use of Barbee Mill
project site or vicinity by osprey and buffer recommendations. August 1, 2002.
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2002a. Natural Heritage Inventory
Database search verification of no listed plant species or high quality natural
systems within Section 32, Township 24N,Range 5E, W.M. Washington Natural
Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia,
WA. August XX, 2002.
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2002b. Forest Practices Base map
information for T24N, R05E, S32. Transmitted to Raedeke Associates, Inc. and
received on August 14, 2002.
Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Bull trout/Dolly Varden management and
recovery plan. Washington Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management
Division, Olympia, Washington. Report 92-22. 125pp.
Watson, J. W.,M. G. Garrett, and R. G. Anthony. 1991. Foraging ecology of bald
eagles in the Columbia River Estuary. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55:492-
499.
Williams,R.W.,R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams
and salmon utilization, Volume I, Puget Sound region. Washington Department
of Fisheries: Olympia, WA. 704 pp.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
39
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fisheries of Washington. University of
Washington Press. Seattle, WA.
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
FIGURES,TABLES,AND PHOTO PLATES
i 1)41‘)\\---\ ... —— ••••• -:7.77
:.UNITEDSATES:: .': ..::.>:< ;'::::.
Sc)
i
/an Juan C\, Bellingham
c . ____ __-'1..: '::Whtcbiri.Co,
Skagrt Cd:
1
/
: . Q nac ,
: A rtes .`'
• .:`
VICTORIA i SAN JUAN ISLANDS
i
Island Co.
......../J-- -1 •••••::. i
1
Po
rt rt
Angeles port
T••
P 0
nse
' • • - • - - • film) - C) .. - , —
Ev r et t
am Co.
ff .
Ed o
. "Snotio)ilsh iCo.`.`.
then;
Kin C 0
son.Co Vnd
,;<::; ;=a:.;> ..�:•<,:': ; ';..:.
Ma ,,
•
s.
son Cif4/ g:co
.......:..
O
_ N
i
!• Re•
io
ass:Bren3erton�
i 0
:
..,.,,..............:,::::......,,:,..,......:..::::::::::::.. , -...! 0
m
•
TE"
a .
t
, m
•
� •
P �
:
:
AG edeirs
t
s-
Aub
1. R10RTH..:,r .t PuyaLup m
r 9
O
N •
Figure 1. Regional map showing general location of the project.
•'i4 ate".'. '`N: .,'j'i7
•' %=r g'68T'.z- .,..;,$ 9300` - LA, , SE`'.. :68TH,:;I
=!' li'sT-k';i -N o ~-'t 0- ST iie
` vs. RTONE R.�= 'E ¢ I =
='; t'.'_; :i1otso ,TH x k,`, m A M SE 70TH ST 011
- F;:,:PARK%4:,,',, ,A P. 'T q -i` ,
`'.0g:;rrs,;c:''N .. ° !, '1 • .,:':: Z 4 SE 72ND
ST =;._ ' 2±3tJ :5 0 �ti q .� IST
all SE'%�72ND.`'PL'F
. m sr , .sr,1ST
e�' 1 ;�.� ;;fir, 's'NEor/4
m P
7 �,��, ^ , �'". ;; '• ,,. 76TH . ST
tX
sir
�i� k;, ,2 fw SE H 5 ,z
�• lr 1 E • ,'' / .::'' :; D I� fw 76TH PL
i^ 77TH fr`rc^ • SE 76'H / //';,.: :.:,:` L.f
6L ST H,`../ :ti: `r•. 43. '/, ,.:;NE2: G1 sE�t,n/6 s tx a
BARBEE „ PL ;"r n
SD CLARKE'1 MILL SITE / ®;:s- f " � P.
•>: sE /BEACH:- 3' >''<?` ''- �, %1' T', SE 'a
'LiSLAND A C P< 78m!/', R(C--/ y /'; j .N 43RD" ' ' SE 80TH 79TH ST S
HE A!) 0T., yT !• -,./40/� �". y `•........_ r:`,j 'P "'� 11200 ollC
LN SEA f J,,:,J :'' -.':' g
.t.74
�-.1... .n
N`40TH`:ST,''^: do Ifp ?_'a SE''_ban,
�i` --1300';� .! SE 85TH PL
ON _ .2 .,z` I • ':X i ;v'1:,-rot coo , _.. ,�-c .-..N SE 85TH LN
31 / !'38Th
r �57;: ;x rwK- � F<,J,_ E SE
am sr
• / 2 • i N. 37i .2 0•: ,:v1� �� r;..A,0,. SE 86TH SE 87TH
KENNYDALE ;�,:.6 „ST:;:Q .tr..+;.N 9c
:;36TH 1 i '� <NE, :i36 f H sE SE 88T
BEACH PARK 3" {5e I _= f;: , 116C
,,.:> �36TH:f`.-ST 1 o•:;" ''!. *La'
;f s; V,•r,;'1`k ''.'<:;y.;:f 'tit ,,I S_E8c
v.
} F
,
0!LIMA 70.0: i.
1. N ,/., ,L% - ,�`' ''z.'1
C. I1 � 'lam, a'."'t� v":' I
0.1
u.jTh
.:Q: ;' .-'y'1:: - -:j :.;-'q1• 4'-'s`�F$Erz�i.b,;i2;:�:.:`-'"tr".
o I ST! `: 1.::2_ �r.<.,,. :itr3i. --�:ti40
mot:;. '' ,� r7.'.IVnm
- -, :700; '130.0' li '4; ,aya 174:,r' t
Q ©<',VS^.".«�3 JI 11i ps E<: Cl' y:�"�"�.�Vt�^':".sA-�', R,-•�q"'=.�,�n`+ ,
11
9 -S >28TH,. :PL H • T:., :: : :. '2UTA�aj:_2.::.
ye
31 , "N` "'•"•.',i';:x.,,; .V-:.:„. ...:;v,,,:•--= 1 IME,r,•r,-,‘-.:-•,-.'-',-•-,.,,,-••,,,.• '.-3 -i-,1,171...-':u,-,"'.',,317:,• ....t.-i-f:'0
i�l: I w
a :a o.
r.':
'.1p.'I 4
2 ,��T�! I. HE- ;:�: r���#tc�.'„'i' Lia Nv
O
,� �ti. '`':;,`1.0. .: off` ii- c . `;: ,LtQNS:% �: -
m '�\\N'_24T v:; ;->s '°:.
11 1l1n TON
1 • aNEryg�
,-`11 4'U�.11 J 1.l kf f�l (�l V =g,' >r,; r� `z.��;17.0Q-. R RYA?3R
(6 A
,F:,..„„a,..,.... .....,..„ „,:.:,........ E ,., '::' :;' ,,,, c22NOr<
, c., •Lt=',1 • a >>.'''' NEi:;iz.▪ST S"` .F:1:..0 . ., -
- o NORTH ;�t.,..,0„,.. F' = <,,....:.5;., .,.•�:,:,� �;. ._, >:
No 'oil;u _ 0 4', ,Q J,p.:
x* ?ry}yr=_• \;� ;����` :Mc E' ..."20THU..:_ ,.I__. .... ..< ,.. (..il-�...
•
Figure 2. Vicinity map for the study area. ''Reproduced with permission granted
by Thomas Bros. Maps. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros.
Maps, and it is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof,
whether for personal use or resale, without permission."
r f/ FIGURE 3
7TO /� BARBEE MILL COMPANY
i SITE BOUNDARY LINE ', / BAR E E MILL PLAT
.., •
f-m ee_..m, t.am mw..>' -•__ •, m I•• ,�,, r , r-i-----' r �r____ ----,-,_� /,•' %J /% /
f.,1_ 1._ 2a ,s i I r---- -mot rim•• < , ram.. ,<m- '- • I I .m. > •• / /' / `u i 1 ', r ,,/ i \ CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
_r '.' . I 2, jm , 19 I '.m'' rr,-->i >�..—j g., ,j , •�mwm>I 1 m>i m>j >n .. j .«nm> va.r '' /`" / / ..
I I> ,i; 4. 5 ,k L 1a ,] Is mam G c, > >n' ''s'° / / y, i/ / /' .L—.
v>'v n I S E I 22 > 3 20> P �' b' `,a> 'ma. mom ; 6 •
amm 81 m 3 uom§ $ / ;' / /. _
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
I I I ~ Ifi I 13 1 12 I, 6 I .va 7 r m> s 1F E 3 / 4 /!�
, °•yt 2l I, I I :� I 16 1 I 10 9 8 I 6 I '• , ' / / l
it
) rom- mac /-..m ..m .am' .� __z J 1-nm`J Ln .. nm J L 7,-1_-__J L-__ _J L_� _ J ,,,,,„....."1.: / / Ib, // ,
4
_74,
',IL «s.ro .� //' -- -w au na. - .// / I, % / \.\�.— I
�6i .�m2a `1/ 1 '' C'.«� / i2 '�.:, !-'a v:zy�.n.'v '• 't,!' n� r w.,1 II` r m 1 .`"«o /Ai , II// /j1
41 1 /( ], q , / ]3�+ i, ]5 J ]6 a«.n �',• ,`` 61 v«m8 awm vl anam amm I i 1tI
1 -`«1 28 1 V+ ./` ' `' ''6e` '' I mm> c! tg 1169 6a `6]>• g`66 I�$ 1,,• 'III ' / !O •19I > I - °\` , Fa'```, :' 4 ` %Pr"` T I ]a m ]0 I I I I ,I /' /
O L J \b`,v ''i°, @`,y i g8, ` ..m_' Lava new J L.m J In». I / /
/
0 STORMWATER I" �1~I m" p'' M« „a,gory/ ,11 / I
N 1 I TREATMENT POND 1 > '-> -� /� • / / I
c ",,_\ 1. .�e„``` e2 '� ',: F;y �'a y ",ii7TOB (Top of Bank)
I I anv> <v'm�'ea 8` `'`tea•' �> (ai' Y 6a °> f_`,i bb / .% / / I
Q >� b, I
_cl _ \
�`' - .'' , m>' �. OHW(Ordinary High Water) I
COI
, CD >��, 58 /III /� h \
[TT-- 00 '4.4""4. 1 •.° ''' ' ,,,0°'.0.„, ".---112:\\.:7733 '''. 5‘ \\\ \ .-...;";:4'\--' ,,,....:'001/ :// ,0 C // I'Z'
l- i �>ed>31 1 I a�yt'.>n> ra«5' .,;a'e'o` i�•���✓ `° :i bU a/ Ui� \\ I
01 ,
32
N 1-.a..w v-----,x i n«,a v `'a. so//f /i%��//� •
/' 76G6�/ ��� / ��
111
O .,I-.. my 'e• -„a /ne.,.v`. •�a9 «� /!%i'_=_=_, /t h6- / /�� �\
N ! ' • //
LAKE « ' ,� ` ,,
I I u« vaa .7 'ab / ./ '
/ .G BUFFER F./ 11'' %/ � ���
WASHINGTON -x w� _=- a, , o Q-/ // �'\ I
5 as i'tk4 WETLAND H
..,' 1--�-- 1 �' 1& i. '/ III / .
/ ` , 35 '`I 1 wem, \ I g0n.•,,,a;;s, 115?,` di i, / // // \\\
II g
< BUFFER ,,,5 •� I'
``I 3a ---� z :,....,,t,lo,�� '{/ 4°' / /,/ \/I .// ;#''' / / . .
la
L_ 39 •
my ;ii
` ////
1 OD OP" C 40 °,..,;. /
M to... A�/� /4, m' 9 % p0O , ` ,',< /2 �^ d, \\ // '� 9 ,05 11' / / ;`� north
• "N .,y/ / U\•.`"»v \i+\' / /� '�I/� ,` 4104 / A f /
0 -7
'dr
/10 /
j '�_ �►��/ /�<; `o;/;' 'hh , ; /— RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES,INC.
b /
`� t�\\\ '� 69 5711 NORTHEAST 63RD ST. SEATTLE WA 98115
E ^\ / �g > Al o .,,,,,,, �� �`, ; (206) 525-8122 FAX: (206) 526-2880
Aiiipl
n a
STORMWATER 95 _ 'WETLAND 1
0
S /
'' -u- RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES PROJECT: 2002-036-001
>, TREATMENT POND 2 ,��`a 9, K---
/ / , 96�s bh Vi /
i .. yr 'i-dN io J, c j9' ,�_>.rs,/
U ( a„- /a ;4 ;% `�/j DATE: 08-14-02
f r/ - � .°.:: ,�... K.___ , ss z x.�,� / -r__�>YI -_
a SITE BOUNDARY LINE! '"'y' ```, ' / "' v DRAWN BY: CJM
/ :;'r '': % 4;r'- Base information from Otak, Inc. drawing names
"N %"�. ''/ base.dwg and existing.dwg received 8/12/02
FOREST PRACTICE BASE MAP
TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST(W.M.), HALF Cl, SECTION 32
•
E{ri;:I: ''i{=,Ijri1{<ffiarh,`•i�fa:.�'j2..{i;r 'l' J / • • i, I I I t `. ..L-2 • ,
hf'Ri§,i;'a' FiV_;j; N ;3`i.�?r =7. �•s o• ff ,. .7..2$' 1,
.S 'I I •.�'s. I • �� • 2a.
-- !il"i;{794s1 hfi:ti%.i.%=%= ,.. i•
..
N ,; r44."sj,`,,, :14. V T� • ,.). ,.1. :[:. .L .•\ r'`
_
L `! •1r' - 4 . J { i'
;'1-^ i{ r (Tj'y ,
-;4"•,i,1.,ttdtl?.otiVli;itM,,.,.:4.%;e4 ^, + I•, I
I
I{I •
.-•1..
•
•
: :./.
•
"'•'I�iXIYtSS h1hG.InN�,r' _ t r., 1'•.• ..• 1 ( 1I
,.._,..... . . ........ .,„, .
I =iXii S j'%tti:t i,J's_'f:d6;., .... :,..,::•,.. •.,A,..... !,, ...,I;•. , . f: .:..4',: •...,.:;..... . ,,. .,...,:
�,- . • •
f,; Y i.
}Fcil= i_: r.j :rd,tEil3 i:?::S:;i}�J •.•.-'."'- i ',LLi, SS 5: t 54
}. .tits';/ 1" 1 '
��:49='' i f .'�i� I . •, •• • ,
•
•
'.ISM i'4WtdAsi ? f'` . . -.1 F.41 .II 1'T.� ? • .•TJV(r,.7..3:.
i•+ :.;f;,i-r.r:,.I.v=iiG f 1 : } r „' 1 ,r:.:�..
•
•
ia i ' ', l~
5i'.a;f' P • ' I f. �itgf .I r
: 1' t' ' r • •• • f t f X ,1 {
t.' a ! • [ ::41•A:ir ;1 . .• f 13 f I t .l r /
r I - ...��..—f
'lei• ' ; {
• r
- :s
., . : \ '1, 1.' �'f35:372-- .feaSj0' • t
•
a r. '(
t • f } Pik `
�:.
m ` • IT
mts y--., � ..� t: t OFF
N NORTH _ -s': ,{ 1 \ ' I
•
Wednesday,August 07,2002
10:25:42 AM
• ' NAD 27
Contour Interval:40 Feet
'- Figure 4. Washington Department of Natural Resources (2002)Forest Practice Base
Map for the project area.
. SYMBOLS
•
r;-`, .'N' �'�I \�° PASSABLE - BARRIERS - IMPASSABLE
Falls f:;,ry,: ,`i y ,,` lilt ill
„'rt,;1;,;'ti Cascades .
r;: L; O 10 ', t Beaver Dams '*?C*
s' � oLog Jams
1-----0 ,
g:rrY m V5'-:i;-,::i'.Ikl,N,.•i.Aiy::.t'--;0.'ti1;.•q_4.-,4-t45,t,i5zi4n;'.it4.:.,,t'i'4,g-%i g
Mo,.,.,„/
Dams �` '7
'.{„?;` \c ino4 Salmon Hatchery
c w;;r�r'ltiti''' ,60;4--M(1 n )
c:id Fish Passage Facility
En <4 $ f M�r'x 02 —�
�, rhit: Stream Gage
i fir:Sri.1.0:•: O) ti stream Mile
N.
°' ,r sty, , UL o N
"d O 01 O Reference Point
- ;. �5 \O Coo/ a O Q
•
••
9 /4 ,SITE
�c Lake
5Gw 1. ` 7. Baren ".. c� o
so
« yK. 1 a °' > < 279
r<m illfri 0 752+,z-3,_ o
m C? -41‘ 3 9
'.e4i 0289
t:;. 09 .9S
RitattA so
,�lnss+i?h� � 2 9
m r
w,LL
a.
g I 1/2 0 I MILE O
O 0297
�♦�►�♦��♦�♦• SCALE I"= I MILE
m
m ♦�♦���♦ • •ifr•♦
o to 6 ••♦ Diki•i0•�••��i�i�i•i♦. Renton
o .,•:,• 4�..••s 4,,,;••••�� SOUTH
dji
•4#-).000•♦•oo LAKE WASHIICIGTOf�I ,.' Lake
NORTH I , �":��:�:• .,,.
, ♦,.♦•••♦••• DRAINAGES
Figure 5. Washington Department of Fisheries (1975) Washington Streams and
Salmon Utilization map,Volume 1.
SOUTH LAKE WASHINGTON DRAINAGES
Lake Washington Basin-WRIA 08
Stream Location Drainage
Number Stream Name Of Mouth Length Area Salmon Use
SOUTH LAKE
WASHINGTON
0059 Mercer Slough Sec8,T24N,R5E 6.3 - Chin., Coho,
Sockeye
0260 Sturtevant Creek RB-1.7 1.3 - Coho
Sturtevant Lake Outlet-1.3 - -
Mercer Slough cont. @a mi. 1.71
as Kelsey Creek
0261 S. Fk. Kelsey Creek LB-2.4 2.1 - Coho, Sockeye
0262 Unnamed RB-1.65 2.3 - Coho
0264 Unnamed RB-2.7 1.1 - Unknown
0266 N. Branch Kelsey Cr. RB-4.7 1.85 - Coho
Larson Lake Outlet-6.3 - -
0268 Coal Creek Sec17,T24N,R5E 7.0 - Coho, (Sockeye)
0269 Unnamed LB-0.8 1.7 - (Coho)
0273 Unnamed RB-2.25 1.05 - Unknown
0281 Unnamed Sec17,T24N,R5E 1.3 - Unknown
0282 May Creek Sec31,T24N,R5E 8.6 - Chin., Coho,
Sockeye
0284 Unnamed RB-1.15 1.2 - (Coho)
0285 Unnamed LB-1.7 1.0 - (Coho)
0292 Unnamed RB-5.9 1.5 - Unknown
0293 Unnamed RB-6.1 1.65 - Unknown
0294 Unnamed RB-6.7 1.3 - Coho
0297 Unnamed RB-7.1 1.0 - (Coho)
Lake Kathleen Outlet-8.05 - -
N
Q
m
ra
Q
N
m
i
ED
Rl
O
0
0
M
O
O
O
N
Lake Washington-603
Figure 5. Continued.
..
•
P.
g.
c�i �'I" �T'_ h. .•�` _` „���.. SMr•1_(,�}I'r• /(1;'i 01 '. fl._ N�l
co
ca
o
o
7 .
g Photo 1 Mouth of May Creek, looking north. South bridge with rip �, • ,.1
w rap, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-072-6]. v� 1r . .
4 Y s kr r.� 'tii.6
• ,+
i � � r i3 r \ t aO t , I
co
1 . 1 {F 9- l. 0 P F1 I 1 • n r 4l
co
co
_ .
CU
4 aa', L
_. - , 7 r,,J .;.,cam: '
z f
cp
m - ,.,, ` 4., ` `ramco
z. ! 9J
o ' -,- - ' • 'IA,-.... .0 '•-••••:''','6.-
Photo 2 May Creek, 50 feet south of north bridge, looking south. Photo 3 May Creek, 250 feet north of north bridge, looking
West bank rip rap, riffle-glide habitat, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-072-24]. north. West bank rip rap, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-073-4].
Photo Plate 1
ifite
a.
4� Nit :1 5 K'{p • •a a,J Y �,..• V. 7 y ;si ?�lKF i A.r. ! .•�
Vj 7 7 • '' t....i, • Or f � ..-"• .41 i' r o.,: .- ,.
L-�
v `Y j( ~ .Y'y ' o r" C �v12- 't .,•`' fy c; .i t Zf ;, it
4 t �, 1 P
t _ • j .�` !r� h,� •.'� s
p .. f :S, '`• �.• -., "� 1,r ' '�- . '-c ,srs*a�'L,•ay.:a11 > -
cv 3� ,,, _. 'rr •s«J �' ,{ � X :'���3 '''x r , '�a�ll ;. �+ }!�j' rt�Cr ..D�IMr. - '�!_
w•:- �t l ti .ah ,... 2. 1-. ,A , ' rf��,."K>-A • ryti:....•' -.• ; n
o
o
ce- ,"
F:, � �' _
m .. �' a — k� err ::_
r ` � rr r. 6ar t'/r e. ` r
-
o / sr o - F t rrT� .s4o
st ,. h
.moo
o I -..5..5 "w•;7T--1 �', . '_ � •
-' s�'•T w G:
+. r'r34'� '— - rii - +�,aC'
g Photo 4 May Creek, 50 feet north or north bridge, looking north, A Photo 5 May Creek, looking south to middle bridge. Narrow west
0 6-3 02 [photo 2002 072 24A]
o buffer. Mowed lawn east buffer, 3-26-02 photo 2002-043-18].
gr� " :,.' '� `' - rt K� �. 1�'Y r!' Y 4 .� ,- "` ,, ✓mot- . ,tis' X i
•
o
o
-A. ! ) ice' t ,,•' q ■ M1 . C ...N....9' 'ST ,.1'i
•
o
!�yrSjf�:,SF�4 ICy M N'i .•.e ') A.. ir'A q, P• , i ,
,';`-'-r- ��... Itw h .�w .c j�itf • r 4. ;o• by
co
•
c, y 41.;,, ...-01.. . —, , ,..--,,,,:- , c, •• • .„7..z.•=:,
.r a. ^ �' c••• �" 2t� it \ - •�F ` '-
CO
Illi
•
i rti
CO
• ,- r • J�{` - • ~ !R
k f . e sar `}� x v: ,�:' io � .a4 - � � r Ij�'r :!q;•r- (� �� ♦ T . . �
M r�tt -A ! ' re . . _ A y " I � c1 ti
i e p� , r ` Y � � i. .r; ( _ , -:....„.„7„::;, �Y ' J1 j ( - ,4 .i.,F � = =tr{o0 y ��� _: •
Photo 6 May Creek, 150 feet north of north bridge, looking north, Photo 7 May Creek, 100 feet north of north bridge, looking north.
6-3-02 [photo 2002-073-3]. Riparian buffer plantings, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-073-1].
Photo Plate 2
> a;, .,:z � � 4 { .ter /
04 sa As
, . , , ...,._. 4,. ,v. ......
. _ ,,,,,.,./...,•,. 4-04' -e, • •-,... ,. . 111 .:Iiii& , b
'1 o ~ -a 'Li X.
'' ' „ /./4." e ' • r r. 4.(, a Ai- . .ca t .rsn.
$ „�.,+1' `•c, � i •411- _ "° M. fi 3t it",'", �^ �, AAkL• ._ •1 .' �l I �'t
�k fy :err y v,,i . ` as ` g - �,
as+r .; ' srrj i'4 1 re
c, r ,' .5� M1. r K'. M i A f .a .s �t r1,
O s /1 a '.t.- K ,
. _ g
Photo 8 Wetland H, looking north, 3-26-02 [photo 2002-043-10]. Photo 9 Wetland 1, looking north, 6-3-02 [photo 2002-072-12].U 4
O
O ,
•
J I
CV
o
1 MN' j :II �r fir'
7 ill:11Fr..
r
1.,;ifitiLIT '''*--
CO r - ....-- .... . 3CdLLriB'_r4'-�aOIIwe lsiu; �__
co
16.
ts.A
S -- 3A• Y b r j f
cll
•
ItPhoto 10 Barbee Mill facilities, 3-26-02 [photo 2002-043-21]. Photo 11 Lake Washington shoreline, looking south, 6-3-02
[photo 2002-073-9].
Photo Plate 3
-0 f.,•:.__,,z,..--.-.-.;,-t.',A,- ' •— -7.i.,'• - iftt'st7.„4-e. AIN •4 - • ,
r__—co Der _j_ ?-- _r <-� ` -- ill: . ►,
0 0 • mn t
t.'i.' . i ,
14114..1.4114'"I'Pil. Ilt,t`
Q.. y - . ti' 4? _,f
iij
ry' Y� i- AIM
g F� ' ,
'* Photo 12 May Creek at north bridge, looking north, 6-3-02 Photo 13 Barbee Mill osprey nest atop sawdust tower, 6-3-02
[photo 2002-072-23]. [photo 2002-073-2].
Photo Plate 4
46
Table 1. Total Contributing Areas for Water Quality Ponds No. 1 and No.2 Design based
on information provided by Otak Consultants.
Developed Area
Land Use Impervious Pervious Total
[Acres] [Acres] [Acres]
Residential Lots 7.59 3.82 11.41
Water Quality 0.44 1.67 2.11
Pond Tracts
Open Space 0.00 0.25 0.25
Onsite Roadway 3.73 0.00 3.73
Offsite Roadway 1.31 0.00 1.31
Total WQ 13.07 5.74 18.81
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates,Inc.
August 26, 2002
47
Table 2. Stoiniwater Design Summary based on information provided by Otak
Consultants.
Water Quality Pond Capacity
Treatment Design Device Design Criteria Required Provided
Standard (cubic feet) (cubic feet)
Runoff KCSWDM' NA Lake 0 0
Control Washington
Direct Discharge
Exemption
Runoff Basic Basic 3 times Runoff 67,679 72,026
Treatment Wetpond From Mean
Annual Storm
11998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
2 Direct Discharge Exemption C Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control
Barbee Mill—Biological Assessment Raedeke Associates, Inc.
August 26, 2002
APPENDIX A
Agency Correspondence
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
�� DOUG SUTHERLAND
Natural Resources Commissioner of Public Lands
�p
ril 15, 2002 f7 g a i ,.`r
,
; I.
1'[L AUG 1 9 2002 + i
Emmett Pritchard
Raedeke Associates Inc ' `! I` -
5711 Northeast 63rd St
Seattle WA 98115
SUBJECT: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat—Project#2002-036-001 (T24N ROSE S32)
We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on significant natural
features in your project area. Currently, we have no records for rare plants or high quality
ecosystems in the vicinity of your project.
The information provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on
existing information in the database. In the absence of field inventories, we cannot state whether .
or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare species;there may be significant
natural features in your study area of which we are not aware.
The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for information on the state's rare
plants as well as high quality ecosystems. We have begun to add information to our database on
selected groups of animals of conservation concern, such as freshwater mussels, butterflies and
bats. However, to ensure that you receive information on all animal species of concern,please
contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol
Way N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091, or by phone (360) 902-2543.
If you have internet access, please visit our website for more information. Lists of rare plants and
their status, as well as rare plant fact sheets, are available for download from the site. You will
find us listed under Programs & Topics on the WA DNR homepage at www.wa.gov/dnr. Please
call me at (360) 902-1667 if you have any questions, or by E-Mail: sandra.moody@wadnr.gov.
Sincerely,
Sandy Swope Moody, Environmental Review Coordina r
Washington Natural Heritage Program •
Asset Management&Protection Division,PO Box 47014, Olympia WA 98504-7014
1111 WASHINGTON ST SE I PO BOX 47000 I OLYMPIA,WA 98504-7000
• FAX:(360)902-1775 I TTY:(360)902-1125 I TEL:(360)902-1000
° '° • Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER i�j1
1 es,„p� _
G.,{ bee, avi 1
2oo 2 -O 3 ^O O I Syr ias9 a°y
JUL1
2 4 2002
State of Washington •
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE b .. •
___
Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N,Olympia,WA 98501-1091-(360)902-2200;TDD(360)902-2W07-
Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building,1111 Washington Street SE,Olympia,WA
I
Date: JUL 2 3 2 2
Dear Habitats and Species Requester: •
Enclosed are the habitats and species products you requested from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). This package may also contain documentation to
help you understand and use these products.
These products only include information that WDFW maintains in a computer database. They
are not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your
project on fish and wildlife, nor are they designed to provide you with guidance on interpreting
this information and determining how to proceed in consideration of fish and wildlife. These
products only document the location of important fish and wildlife resources to the best of our
'tnowledge. It is important to note that habitats or species may occur on the ground in areas
;riot currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not
.been conducted. Site-specific surveys are frequently necessary to rule out the presence of
riority habitats or species.
Your project may require further field inspection or you may need to contact our field biologists
or others in WDFW to assist you in interpreting and applying this information. Generally, for
assistance on a specific project, you should contact the WDFW Habitat Program Manager for
your county and ask for the area habitat biologist for your project area: Refer to the enclosed
directory for those contacts.
•
Please note that sections potentially impacted by spotted owl management concerns are
displayed on the 1:24,000 scale standard map products. If specific details on spotted owl site
centers are required they must be requested separately.
•
These products are designed for users external to the forest practice permit process and as
such does not reflect all the information pertinent to forest practice review. The Forest Practice
Rules adopted August 22, 1997 by the Forest Practice Board and administered by the
Washington Department of Natural Resources require forest practice applications to be
screened against marbled murrelet detection areas and detection sections. Marbled murrelet
detection locations are included in the standard priority habitats and species products, but the
detection areas and detection sections are not included. If your project is affected by Forest
Practice Regulations, you should specially request murrelet detection areas. •
WDFW updates this information as additional data become available. Because fish and wildlife
species are mobile and because habitats and species information changes, project reviews for
fish and wildlife should not rest solely on mapped information. Instead, they should also
consider new information gathered from current field investigations. Remember, habitats and
species information can only show that a species or habitat type is present, they cannot show
that a species or habitat type is not present. These products should not be used for future
projects. Please obtain updates rather than use outdated information.
August 2000
Because of the high volume of requests for information that WDFW receives, we need to
charge for these products to recover some of our costs. Enclosed is an invoice itemizing the
costs for your request and instructions for submitting payment.
Please note that sensitive information (e.g., threatened and/or endangered species) may be
included in this request. These species are vulnerable to disturbances and harassment. In
order to protect the viability of these species we request that you not disseminate the
information as to their whereabouts. Please refer to these species presence-in general terms.
For example: "A Peregrine Falcon is located within two miles of the project area".
If your request required a sensitive Fish and Wildlife Information Release Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) and you or your organization has one on file, please refer to that
document for conditions regarding release of this information.
For more information on WDFW you may visit our web site at www.wa.gov/wdfw or visit the
Priority Habitats and Species site at www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm.
For information on the state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as high
quality wetland and terrestrial ecosystems, please contact the Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program at P.O Box 47014, Olympia Washington 98504-
7014, by phone (3.60)902-1667 or visit the web site at
www.wa.govidnr/htdocs/frinhp/wanhp.html.
#you have any questions or problems with the information you received please call me at (360)
02-2543 or fax (360) 902-2946. .
'Sincerely, .
Lori Guggenmos,.GIS Programmer .
Priority Habitats.and Species
Enclosures
August 2000
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
REGIONAL HABITAT PROGRAM MANAGER CONTACTS
For assistance with Priority Habitats and Species Information contact a regional
habitat program manger and they will direct your questions to a biologist.
County project is in... Contact...
Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield Lincoln, Kevin Robinette
Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, 8702 North Division Street
Whitman Spokane, WA 9921 8-1 1 99
Phone: (509) 456-4082
Adams, Chelan, Douglas, Grant, Okanogan Tracy Lloyd
1550 Alder Street NW
Ephrata, WA 98823-9699
Phone: (509) 754-4624
Benton, Franklin, Kittitas, Yakima Ted Clausing
1701 24th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902-5720
Phone: (509) 575-2740
Island, King, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish,
Deborah Cornett
Whatcom 16018 Mill Creek Blvd.
Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
Phone: (425) 775-1311
Clark, Cowlitz, Klickitat, Lewis, Skamania,
Steve Manlow
Wahkiakum 2108 Grand Blvd.
Vancouver, WA 98661
Phone: (360) 696-6211
Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, Sue Patnude
Pacific, Pierce, Thurston 48 Devonshire Road
Montesano, WA 98563-9618
Phone: (360) 249-4628
August 2000
United States Department of the Interior
AUG 9 07• FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
2002
Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 . r./' LJ I-
'
Lacey, Washington 98503
Phone: (360)753-9440 Fax: (360) 534-9331
AUG 1 2002
Dear Species List Requester:
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are providing the information you requested to assist your
determination of possible impacts of a proposed project to species of Federal concern. Attachment
A includes the listed threatened and endangered species, species proposed for listing, candidate
species, and/or species of concern that may be within the area of your proposed project.
Any Federal agency,currently or in the future,that provides funding,permitting,licensing, or other
authorization for this project must assure that its responsibilities under section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), are met. Attachment B outlines the
responsibilities of Federal agencies for consulting or conferencing with us.
If both listed and proposed species occur in the vicinity of a project that meets the requirements of
a major Federal action (i.e., "major construction activity"), impacts to both listed and proposed
species must be considered in a biological assessment (BA) (section 7(c); see Attachment B).
Although the Federal agency is not required, under section 7(c), to address impacts to proposed
species if listed species are not known to occur in the project area, it may be in the Federal agency's
best interest to address impacts to proposed species. The listing process may be completed within
a year,and information gathered on a proposed species could be used to address consultation needs
should the species be listed. However, if the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat, a formal conference with us is required by the Act(section 7(a)(4)). The results of
the BA will determine if conferencing is required.
The Federal agency is responsible for making a determination of the effects of the project on listed
species and/or critical habitat. For a Federal agency determination that a listed species or critical
habitat is likely to be affected(adversely or beneficially)by the project,you should request section
7 consultation through this office. For a"not likely to adversely affect" determination,you should
request our concurrence through the informal consultation process.
Candidate species and species of concern are those species whose conservation status is of concern
to us,but for which additional information is needed. Candidate species are included as an advance
notice to Federal agencies of species that may be proposed and listed in the future. Conservation
measures for candidate species and species of concern are voluntary but recommended. Protection
provided to these species now may preclude possible listing in the future.
For other federally listed species that may occur in the vicinity of your project,contact the National
Marine Fisheries Service(NOAA Fisheries)at(360)753-9530 to request a list of species under their
jurisdiction. For wetland permit requirements, contact the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers for Federal permit requirements and the Washington State Department of Ecology for
State permit requirements.
Thank you for your assistance in protecting listed threatened and endangered species and other
species of Federal concern. If you have additional questions,please contact Yvonne Dettlaff(360)
753-9582.
Sincerely,
cea-
Ken S. Berg, Manager
Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
Enclosure(s)
ATTACHMENT A July 29,2002
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, CRITICAL
HABITAT, CANDIDATE SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF CONCERN THAT MAY
OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED
BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT PROJECT
IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
(T24N ROSE S32)
FWS REF: 1-3-02-SP-1721
LISTED
There are two bald eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)nesting territories located in the vicinity of the
project at T24N ROSE S30 and S31. Nesting activities occur from.January 1 through August 15.
Wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the project. Wintering activities occur from
October 31 through March 31.
Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) occur in the vicinity of the project.
Major concerns that should be addressed in your biological assessment of the project impacts to
listed species include:
1. Level of use of the project area by listed species;
2. Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species,and foraging
areas in all areas influenced by the project; and
3. Impacts from project construction(i.e.,habitat loss,increased noise levels,increased
human activity)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance
of the project area.
PROPOSED
None
CANDIDATE =
None
CRITICAL HABITAT
None
SPECIES OF CONCERN
The following species of concern have been documented in the county where the project is located.
These species or their habitat could be located on or near the project site. Species in bold
were specific occurrences located on the database within a 1-mile radius of the project site.
Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belleri)
California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)
--C—ascades-frog-(Rana cascadae)
Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi)
Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans)
Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis)
Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata)
Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi)
Pacific fisher(Martes pennanti pacifica)
Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata)
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi)
Valley silverspot(Speyeria zerene bremeri)
Western toad (Bufo boreas)
Aster curtus(white-top aster)
ATTACHMENT B
FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SECTIONS 7(a) AND 7(c)
OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973,AS AMENDED
SECTION 7(a) - Consultation/Conference
Requires: 1. Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs to conserve endangered and
threatened species;
2. Consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS)when a Federal action may affect
a listed endangered or threatened species to ensure that any action authorized,funded,or carried
out by a Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The process is initiated by
the Federal agency after it has determined if its action may affect(adversely or beneficially) a
listed species; and
3. Conference with the FWS when a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a proposed species or result in destruction or an adverse modification of proposed critical
habitat.
SECTION 7(c) -Biological Assessment for Construction Projects *
Requires Federal agencies or their designees to prepare a Biological Assessment(BA)for construction projects only.
The purpose of the BA is to identify any proposed and/or listed species that is/are likely to be affected by a
construction project. The process is initiated by a Federal agency in requesting a list of proposed and listed
threatened and endangered species(list attached). The BA should be completed within 180 days after its initiation
(or within such a time period as is mutually agreeable). If the BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the
species list,please verify the accuracy of the list with the Service. No irreversible commitment of resources is to
be made during the BA process which would result in violation of the requirements under Section 7(a) of the Act.
Planning,design, and administrative actions may be taken; however, no construction may begin.
To complete the BA,your agency or its designee should(1)conduct an onsite inspection of the area to be affected
by the proposal,which may include a detailed survey of the area to determine if the species is present and whether
suitable habitat exists for either expanding the existing population or potential reintroduction of the species; (2)
review literature and scientific data to determine species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological
requirements; (3) interview experts including those within the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, state
conservation department, universities, and others who may have data not yet published in scientific literature; (4)
review and analyze the effects of the proposal on the species in terms of individuals and populations, including
consideration of cumulative effects of the proposal on the species and its habitat;(5)analyze alternative actions that
may provide conservation measures; and (6) prepare a report documenting the results, including a discussion of
study methods used,any problems encountered,and other relevant information. Upon completion,the report should
be forwarded to our Endangered Species Division, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503-1273.
* "Construction project" means any major Federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human
- environment(requiring an EIS),designed primarily to result in the building or erection of human-made structures
such as dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This includes Federal action such as permits,
grants, licenses, or other forms of Federal authorization or approval which may result in construction.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT
IN THE VICINITY OF T24R05E SECTION 32
Report Date: July 22, 2002
PHS POLYGON FORM LIST - CROSS REFERENCE REPORT
-- IN THE VICINITY OF T24R05E SECTION 32
FORM NUMBER/
PHSPOLY# PHS CODE*USE CODE
2 900000
3 903666
HALE*B-
4 900000
*_
5 903666
HALE*B-
6 902048
UNOS*-
7 902041-902043
UNOS*-WET*-
8 902508
WET*-
9 902041-902043-903666
UNOS*-WET*-HALE*B-
10 902043-903666
WET*-HALE*B-
11 902508
WET*-
12 902041
UNOS*-
13 902041-902043-903666
LINOS*-WET*-HALE*B-
14 902508
WET*-
15 902509
_ UNOS*-
• 16 902508
WET*-
17 902508
WET*-
18 900000
*-
19 903666
HALE*B-
20 902509
UNOS*-
21 902508
WET*-
22 902505
RIPAR*-
23 902030
UNOS*-
24 902042
UNOS*-
PHS POLYGON - SPECIES AND HABITAT LIST
PHS FORM# PRIORITY PHS CODE COMMON NAME USE CODE USE DESCRIPTION
900,000
902,030 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE
902,041 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE
' 902,042 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE
902,043 YES WET WETLANDS
902,048 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE
• 902,505 YES RIPAR RIPARIAN ZONES
902,508 YES WET WETLANDS
i 902,509 YES UNOS URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE
903,666 YES HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE
Form number 900000 indicates presence of PHS is unknown or the area was not
mapped. Form numbers 909998, 909997, or 909996 indicate compilation errors.
' YES under the "PRIORITY" column indicates that the species or habitat is considered
a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of
Concern List.
WILDLIFE HERITAGE POINT - SPECIES LIST AND REPORT
IN THE VICINITY OF T24R05E SECTION 32
QUADPT PRIORITY SPPCODE COMMON NAME USE CODE USE DESCRIPTION
- 4712252014 NO PAHA OSPREY B BREEDING OCCURRENCE
4712252015 YES HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE
-- 4712252031 NO PAHA OSPREY B BREEDING OCCURRENCE
4712252035 YES HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE
4712252039 NO PAHA OSPREY B BREEDING OCCURRENCE
4712252041 YES HALE BALD EAGLE B BREEDING OCCURRENCE
YES under the "PRIORITY" column indicates that the species or habitat is considered
a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of
Concern List.
quadpt: 4712252014 sppcode: PAHA use: B name: OSPREY
year: 1993 class: SA accuracy: C state status: SM fed status:
township - range - section: T24N ROSE S29 SEOFSW occur#: 810 seqno: 2
general description:
OSPREY NEST, LOCATED ON ARTIFICIAL PLATFORM ERECTED ON SAFER SITE THAN ORIGINAL
- NEST. NEST MATERIALS TRANSFERRED TO THIS PLATFORM.
quadpt: 4712252015 sppcode: HALE use: B name: BALD EAGLE
year: 1998 class: SA accuracy: C state status: ST fed status: FT
township - range - section: T24N RO5E S30 SEOFSW occur#: 616 seqno: 1
general description:
BALD EAGLE NEST LOCATED IN SNAG-TOP D.FIR IN GREEN SPACE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AT TOP OF
STAIRS UP FROM E. MERCER WAY; WEST & UPHILL FROM WHITE HOUSE. NEIGHBOR REPORTS
NEST BLEW OUT IN WINTER 1999.
quadpt: 4712252031 sppcode: PAHA use: B name: OSPREY
year: 2001 class: SA accuracy: C state status: SM fed status:
township - range - section: T24N RO5E S32 NWOFNW occur#: 810 segno: 3
general description:
OSPREY NEST ON BARBEE MILL PERMANENT EQUIPMENT, SINCE 1995 OR 1996. ACTIVE, SUCC
1998; OCCUPIED, ACTIVE 1999; 2 FLEDGLINGS 2000. CONTACT PHONE: 425-226-3900.
quadpt: 4712252035 sppcode: HALE use: B name: BALD EAGLE
year: 2001 class: SA accuracy: C state status: ST fed status: FT
township - range - section: T24N ROSE S31 SWOFSW occur#: 616 segno: 2
general description:
BALD EAGLE NEST 8 FT BELOW TOP OF FIR AT 8487 W MERCER WAY. GOOD VIEW FROM
E MERCER WY AT MAILBOX 8526-8520, LOOKING SOUTH. TREE IS CLOSE TO RD AT/NR
TOP OF SKINNY 1/2 ACRE PROPERTY. PLANNED DEVEL AUG 2001.
quadpt: 4712252039 sppcode: PAHA use: B name: OSPREY
year: 2001 class: SA accuracy: C state status: SM fed status:
township - range - section: T23N ROSE S08 NEOFNW occur#: 1153 seqno: 1
general description:
OSPREY NEST ON CELL TOWER. BEEN HERE AT LEAST 4 OR 5 YEARS PRIOR TO ENTRY IN
DATABASE IN 2001.
quadpt: 4712252041 sppcode: HALE use: B name: BALD EAGLE
year: 2001 class: SA accuracy: C state status: ST fed status: FT
township - range - section: T24N ROSE S30 SEOFSW occur*: 616 segno: 3
I general description: •
BALD EAGLE NEST IN DOMINANT DOUG-FIR THAT IS PITCHING BADLY. NEIGHBOR SAYS NEST
HAS BEEN ACTIVE FOR 7 YEARS. NEST APPEARS UNREPAIRED IN 2001.
GPS LOC 47.53400 122.21867.
Note:
If known occurences of spotted owls and marbled murrelets exist they will
be displayed on the accompanying map, however, detailed information for
them are not included in this report.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - PHS POLYGON REPORT
Report Date: 07/22/2002
form: 902,030 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1
sitename: SEATTLE CITY PARKS (VARIOUS) .
general description:
SEATTLE CITY PARKS.
source: MULLER, TED; WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATION.
date: 91 code: PROF
synopsis:
HAVE PERSONALLY VISITED MOST OF THE CITY PARKS OVER A 30 YEAR PERIOD.
form: 902,041 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1
sitename: MERCER ISLAND OPEN SPACE AREAS.
general description:
RELATIVELY DENSELY FORESTED TRACTS. SOME STEEP HILLSIDES.
source: MULLER, TED WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS.
date: 03 91 code: PROF
synopsis:
PERIODIC VISITS AND OCCASIONAL OVERFLIGHTS.
source: MULLER, TED WDW; WDW REFERENCED MAPS & ORTHOPHOTO.
date: 03 91 code: GSMAP
synopsis:
USED MAPS & PHOTOS TO DETERMINE PERCENT COVER TYPES.
form: 902,042 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1
sitename: NORTH RENTON
general description:
FORESTED RAVINES WITH INTERMITANT STREAMS.
source: MULLER, TED WOW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS.
date: 03 91 code: PROF
synopsis:
WORKED WITH PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. TO SOLVE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - PHS POLYGON REPORT
Report Date: 07/22/2002 •
form: 902,043 species/habitat: WET species use: season: accuracy: 1
sitename: MERCER SLOUGH
general description:
LARGE MIXED WETLAND IN ASSOCIATION WITH LARGE LAKE. OPEN WATER, PERSISTANT EMERG
ENT, SCRUB SHRUB, EMERGENT AND FORESTED.
source: CITY OF BELLEVUE PARKS DEPARTMENT, MERCER SLOUGH PARK PLAN, IN FILES.
date: 05 90 code: TRAN
synopsis:
CITY SURVEYED ENTIRE AREA FOR COVER TYPE & WILDLIFE.
form: 902,048 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1
sitename: COAL CREEK PARK
general description:
MOSTLY STEEP FORESTED GROUND. RIPARIAN ZONE OF COAL CREEK AND UPLAND MIXED FORES
T-MOSTLY ALDER/MAPLE.
source: MULLER, TED WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS.
date: 04 91 code: PROF
synopsis:
SEVERAL SITE VISITS TO LOOK AT VARIOUS PROJECT PROPOSALS.
form: 902,505 species/habitat: RIPAR species use: season: accuracy: 1
sitename: MAY CREEK RIPARIAN AREA
general description:
MIXED FOREST RIPARIAN ZONE
source: OPPERMAN, TONY WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS.
date: 04 91 code: PROF
synopsis:
VISITS TO THE AREA WHILE DOING SEPA REVIEW.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE - PHS POLYGON REPORT
Report Date: 07/22/2002
form: 902,508 species/habitat: WET species use: season: accuracy: 1
sitename: MAY CREEK WETLANDS.
general description:
SCRUB-SHRUB, FORESTED, AND EMERGENT MARSH WETLANDS ALONG MAY CREEK AND IT'S TRIB
UTARIES, INCLUDING LAKE BOREN.
source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS MAPS, 1990
date: 12 90 code: GSMAP
synopsis:
LOCATIONS MAPPED BY COUNTY STAFF.
source: OPPERMAN, TONY; WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATION.
date: 03 91 code: PROF
synopsis:
DRIVEBY OBSERVATIONS ENROUTE TO AND FROM SEPA INVESTIGATIONS.
form: 902,509 species/habitat: UNOS species use: season: accuracy: 1
sitename: LAKE BOREN/MAY CREEK PUBLIC PARKS.
general description:
HAZELWOOD AND LAKE BOREN PARKS. TWO SMALL PARKS IN MAY CREEK DRAINAGE. UNDEVELOP
ED, COVER MAINLY MIXED SECOND GROWTH W/SHRUB UNDERSTORY.
source: DNR ORTHOPHOTO TO ESTABLISH COVER TYPE. STREET ATLAS TO ESTABLISH BND.
date: 84 code: ORTHO
synopsis:
SERVE AS REFUGIA FOR MORE COMMON SPECIES
OF URBAN WILDLIFE.
form: 903,666 species/habitat: HALE species use: B season: WSU accuracy: 1
sitename: SE MERCER ISLAND BALD EAGLE TERRITORY
general description:
LA^[>EAGLE TERRITORY NEST IN DOUG FIR; ALTERNATE IN CLARK'S BEACH PARK TERRITORY
ACROSS LAKE ALONG I-5: PERCH TREES & FORAGING. PRODUCTIVE SITE IN 1996.
source: THOMPSON PATRICIA; WDFW PERSONAL OBSERVATION.
date: 06 96 code: PROF
synopsis:
AERIAL SURVEYS FOR OCCUPANCY & SITE VISITS; VERIFICATION & UPDATE FROM AUDUBON
OBSERVERS.
W i r1ING'iuLN L)EPAIZirir.NT or rISH ruvj WILLl tr'E
PRIORITY ANADROMOUS AND RESIDENT FISH PRESENCE REPORT FROM THE STREAMNET DATABASE
IN THE VICINITY OF T24R05E SECTION 32
Report Date: July 22, 2002
PRIORITY ANADROMOUS FISH PRESENCE
CODE COMMON NAME STREAM NAME STREAM LLID RECORD DATE SOURCE
CHFA Fall Chinook Cedar River 1222590476452 05-20-97 C. Smith, WDFW
COHO Coho Salmon Cedar River 1222590476452 04-17-97 C. Boranski, WDFW
SOCK Sockeye Salmon Cedar River 1222590476452 06-27-97 R. Egan, WDFW
STWI Winter Steelhead Cedar River 1222590476452 07-10-97 S. Follie, WDFW
COHO Coho Salmon Coal Creek 1221938475758 04-17-97 C. Boranski, WDFW
SOCK Sockeye Salmon Coal Creek 1221938475758 06-27-97 R. Egan, WDFW
STWI Winter Steelhead Coal Creek 1221938475758 07-10-97 S. Follie, WDFW
COHO Coho Salmon Honey Dew Creek 1221803475169 04-17-97 C. Boranski, WDFW
CHFA Fall Chinook May Creek 1222101475287 05-20-97 C. Smith, WDFW
COHO Coho Salmon May Creek 1222101475287 04-17-97 C. Boranski, WDFW
SOCK Sockeye Salmon May Creek 1222101475287 06-27-97 R. Egan, WDFW
STWI Winter Steelhead May Creek 1222101475287 07-10-97 S. Follie, WDFW
PRIORITY RESIDENT FISH PRESENCE
CODE COMMON NAME STREAM NAME STREAM LLID RECORD DATE SOURCE
CCT Resident Cutthroat Cedar River 1222590476452 07-15-97 WDFW Staff
RBT Rainbow Trout Cedar River 1222590476452 11/24/93 WDFW Staff
CCT Resident Cutthroat Coal Creek 1221938475758 07-15-97 WDFW Staff
CCT Resident Cutthroat May Creek 1222101475287 07-15-97 WDFW Staff
DBT Dolly Varden/Bull Trout Cedar River 1222590476452 07-05-01 Jeff Chan, USFW
The fish information in this report only includes information that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
maintains in a central computer database. This information only documents the location of important fish resources
to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory of the fish species in the state. Fish are identified
as priority by WDFW if they meet one of three criterion as listed in the Priority Habitats and Species List. The list
is available by contacting WDFW Priority Habitats and Species section at (360)902-2543 or it is available on our web
site at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/phspage.htm. To insure appropriate use of this information users are encouraged
to consult with WDFW biologists.
MICROFILMED
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 1
Prepared for
City of Renton
Renton,Washington
Prepared by
Parametrix
5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200
Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350
(425)822-8880
www.parametrix.com
September 2003
Project No. 554-1779-017 •
Y.a.3 ... CITY OF 1ENTON
tst, PlanninglBuilding/PublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator
Jesse Tanner,Mayor
September 2, 2003
Dear Reader
Attached is a copyy of.the.Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the >:.. :.
Barbee.:Mill Preliminary Plat: The proposal is located adjacent :to Lake
Washington and: the shoreline of May Creek on a 22.9-acre site. The ;DEIS.
evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed 115 townhouse lots and
from the'continuation of the existing industrial:use.
In May 2002, the Barbee Mill Company submitted;a Land.Use.Master Application
(LUA 02-040) for a Preliminary Plat. The City of,Renton Environmental.Review
Committee issued a Determination of Significance on. November 5, 200,2. The
City of. Renton, in accordance with the State. Environmental Policy Act,`(SEPA)
'process, issued a Scoping Notice on November 27, 2002. On December 10,
2002, a public scoping.. meeting was held•to receive written and oral comments
on the proposed scope of study. A Scoping. Document was issued on January
10, 2003.
The issues identified through the scoping.process are addressed in the DEIS..:
These include:earth; water, plants and-animals,. hazardousmaterials,'aesthetics,
light and glare; transportation, noise and'cultural.resources:;
For each environmental.:.issue, an analysis is provided and significant
environmental impacts attributable to the Proposed_,Action.are reported. Where ..' _..
significant impacts were determined to :potentially exist, options•for possible
mitigation measures were suggested,,including two'alternative shoreline, buffer
options:
Written public comment on the DEIS will be accepted for a-30-day;review.
period, starting on Tuesday, September 2, 2003 and ending at:.'500 pm;
Wednesday, October 1, '2003. Written comments should be addressed to:
Susan Fiala, Senior Planner; Development Services Division; 6th floor Renton.
City Hall; 1055 South Grady Way; Renton,WA 98055:
A public. hearing :has been scheduled. to: accept both. written and .oral:.
comments on the DEIS. It will be held on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at
6 'pm, in City Council Chambers, 7th floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South
Grady Way; Renton, WA.
_, Following the public comment period, the City will prepare and issue a Final
Environmental Impact Statement .(FEIS) that will include responses to the
1055 South.Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 11 E lr 1. O 1'd
AHEAD Or
C, This paper contains50%recycledmaterial,30%postconsumer THE CURVE
• I i
'' comments received during the public comment period. The City will then issue a
Mitigation Document which will set forth the necessary.conditions to diminish.or
j eliminate environmental impacts, as one portion.of the approval of the Proposed..
Action.
1; If you have any questions or require clarification of the above, please .contact. '!
Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, at 425-430-7382:
The City of.Renton appreciates your interest and:participation. ,
{ For.the:Environmental Review Committee: -
1
Gregg Zimmerman
Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works'
• fib.
g': .. '.
Ir
FACT SHEET
Name of Proposal Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Description of Proposal Preliminary Plat approval for subdivision of the site into 115 residential
lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet. Construction and
dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake
Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway. Utilities include water,
sewer, and storm drainage, including water quality treatment facilities. An
open space area of approximately 30,000 square feet would abut publicly
owned lands along the shoreline. A buffer area is proposed along May
Creek ranging from 20 to 100 feet. Displacement is proposed for portions
of the southern wetland that lies largely within the BNSF right-of-way.
Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland.
Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include
construction of 115 duplex and town home units using shared walls
between property lines.
Location of Proposal 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard NE
Renton,WA 98056
Proponent Barbee Forest Products Inc.
Proponent Contact Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific,LP
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle,WA 98101
(206)689-7203
Lead Agency City of Renton
Contact Person Susan Fiala
(425)430-7382
Approval and Licenses • Preliminary Plat Approval
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
• Variance and/or Modification from Critical Areas provisions for
displacement of wetland areas and wetland buffer area averaging
• Plat Street and Public Facility Engineering Plan Approval
• Clearing and Grading Permit Approval
• Site Plan Review
• Approval of public crossing over railroad and/or street
modification for access to the development by Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement i September 2003
I
Approval and Licenses • Washington Department of Natural Resources aquatics lease
(continued) termination assessment and restoration order
• King County Demolition Permits for removal of existing sawmill
buildings within public aquatics lease area
Authors and Principal Parametrix
Contributors 5808 Lake Washington Boulevard NE, Suite 200
Kirkland,WA 98033-7350
II (425) 822-8880
Date of Issue September 2,2003
Date Comments Due October 1,2003
Date and Location of September 23,2003 6:00 p.m.
Draft EIS Public Hearing Renton City Hall
Council Chambers
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
Date of Action on Winter 2004
Applications
i '
!, ! Location of Background City of Renton
Information Planning/Building/Public Works
' 1 Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
(425)430-7200
Parametrix Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE
Suite 200
Kirkland, WA 98033
(425) 822-8880
II
Cost of EIS $ 15.00 Draft EIS - -
I $ 15.00 Technical Appendices
$ 5.00 CD version
I �
City o,CRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft Environmental Impact Statement ii September 2003 '
J �
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COVER LETTER
FACT SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
ACRONYMS viii
1. SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 ALTERNATIVES 1-1
1.1.1 Proposal 1-1
1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site 1-1
1.2 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 1-1
1.2.1 Affected Environment 1-1
1.2.2 Impacts 1-4
1.2.3 Mitigation 1-4
1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 1-5
, 1.3.1 Affected Environment 1-5
1.3.2 Impacts 1-5
1.3.3 Mitigation 1-6
1.4 GROUNDWATER 1-6
1.4.1 Affected Environment 1-6
1.4.2 Impacts 1-6
1.4.3 Mitigation 1-7
1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 1-7
1.5.1 Affected Environment 1-7
1.5.2 Impacts 1-8
1.5.3 Mitigation 1-10
1.6 TRANSPORTATION 1-11
1.6.1 Affected Environment 1-11
1.6.2 Impacts 1-11
1.6.3 Mitigation 1-12
1.7 HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS 1-13
1.7.1 Affected Environment 1-13
1.7.2 Impacts 1-14
1.7.3 Mitigation 1-15
1.8 AESTHETICS 1-15
1.8.1 Affected Environment 1-15
1.8.2 Impacts 1-15
1.8.3 Mitigation 1-16
- 1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 1-16
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 559-1779-017
- _ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement iti September 2003
i
1 ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ',
1.9.1 Affected Environment 1-16
1.9.2 Impacts 1-16
1.9.3 Mitigation 1-17
1.10 NOISE 1-17
1.10.1 Affected Environment 1-17
II 1.10.2 Impacts 1-17
1.10.3 Mitigationl-18 ,
1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 1-19
1.11.1 Affected Environment 1-19
1.11.2 Impacts 1-19
1.11.3 Mitigation 1-19
II
2. ALTERNATIVES 2-1
I' 2.1 PROPOSAL 2-1
j 12.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE 2-4
I
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3-1
3.1 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 3-1
! ' 3.1.1 Affected Environment 3-1
! I i
j 3.1.2 Impacts 3-3
3.1.3 Mitigation 3-4
3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3-8
3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-8 I
' 3.2.2 Impacts 3-14
3.2.3 Mitigation 3-16
3.3 GROUNDWATER 3-22 i
3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-22
3.3.2 Impacts 3-24
3.3.3 Mitigation 3-24
• ' 3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 3-24
' ,
3.4.1 Affected Environment 3-25 --,
3.4.2 Impacts 3-34
3.4.3 Mitigation 3-43
3.5 TRANSPORTATION 3-61
3.5.1 Affected Environment 3-61
! ; 3.5.2 Impacts 3-68
3.5.3 Mitigation 3-83
' I
! , ! 3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3-89
! ! 3.6.1 Affected Environment 3-89
3.6.2 Impacts 3-96
3.6.3 Mitigation 3-97
3.7 AESTHETICS 3-97
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat - 554-1779-017
Daft-Environmental Impact Statement iv September 2003 I -
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3.7.1 Affected Environment 3-98
3.7.2 Impacts 3-102
3.7.3 Mitigation 3-117
3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE 3-118
3.8.1 Affected Environment 3-118
3.8.2 Impacts 3-118
3.8.3 Mitigation 3-119
3.9 NOISE 3-119
3.9.1 Affected Environment 3-119
3.9.2 Impacts 3-123
3.9.3 Mitigation 3-125
3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-126
3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-126
3.10.1 Affected Environment 3-126
3.10.2 Impacts 3-130
3.10.3 Mitigation3-132
4. REFERENCES 4-1
5. DISTRIBUTION LIST 5-1
APPENDICES
A Scoping Determination(Bound with EIS Text)
Volume 2—Appendices B—E
B Floodplain Analysis Technical Report
C Water Resources
D Terrestrial Plants and Animals
E Aquatic Species
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement v September 2003
i
�_ I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
I '
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1-1 Vicinity Map 1-2
1.1-2 Local Vicinity Map 1-3
2.1-1 Preliminary Plat 2-2
3.2-1 May Creek Basin Vicinity Map 3-9
3.2-2 May Creek Location and Stream Type Map 3-10
3.2-3 Floodplain 3-17
3.2-4 Proposed Water Quality Treatment and Stormwater Drainage System 3-18
3.4-1 Existing Shoreline Protection 3-26
3.4-2 Northerly Wetland 3-35
3.4-3 Southerly Wetland 3-36
3.4-4 Option"A" 50-foot Buffer 3-49
3.4-5 Option"B" 100-foot Setback 3-51
3.4-6 Cross Sections Lots 27&28 3-53
3.4-7 Cross Sections Lots 29 and 30 3-54
3.4-8 Cross Sections Lots 35 &36 3-55
3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification 3-59
3.4-10 Shoreline Modification Provision of pocket Beaches and Other Features 3-60
3.5-1 Project Area Map 3-63
3.5-2 Overall Plat Plan 3-64
3.5-3 Year 2002 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3-65
3.5-4 Year 2007 No Build PM Peak Hour Volumes 3-70
3.5-5 Project Trip Distribution 3-72
3.5-6 PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes 3-73
3.5-7 Year 2007 With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3-74
II 3.5-8 Alternative Access 3-87
3.6-1 Site Map with Adjacent Properties 3-91
I '
3.6-2 Building Locations 3-92
3.7-1 Location of Viewpoints for Visual Analysis 3-100
3.7-2 Area of Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction 3-101
3.7-3 View 1-Existing Conditions as Seen from Lake Washington Blvd.near Ripley
Lane 3-104
3.7-4 View 1—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from Lake Washington
Blvd.near Ripley Lane 3-105
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement vi September 2003
ti
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3.7-5 View 2—Existing Conditions as Seen from near 40th Street 3-106
3.7-6 View 2—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 40th Street 3-107
3.7-7 View 3—Existing Conditions as Seen from near 38th Street 3-109
3.7-8 View 3—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 38th Street 3-110
3.7-9 View 4—Existing Conditions as Seen from near 32nd Street 3-111
3.7-10 View 4—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 32nd Street 3-112
3.7-11 View 5—Existing Condition as Seen From Park Avenue and 40th Street 3-113
3.7-12 View 5—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen From Park Avenue and
40th Street 3-114
3.7-13 View 6—Existing Conditions as Seen from Lake Washington near Mercer Island 3-115
3.7-14 View 6—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from Lake Washington
near Mercer Island 3-116
3.10-1 Location of Existing Buildings 3-129
3.10-2 Historic Lake Washington Shoreline 3-131
LIST OF TABLES
3.4-1 Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000) 3-41
3.4-2 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) 3-41
3.4-3 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT(1993) 3-41
3.5-1 Corresponding LOS Grade and Intersection Delay 3-66
3.5-2 Level of Service Summary 3-67
3.5-3 Trip Generation 3-69
3.5-4 Project Impacts to City of Renton 3-75
3.5-5 Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary 3-75
3.5-6 Year 2000 to 2003 Intersection Accident History Summary 3-79
3.5-7 Project Impacts to the City of Newcastle 3-80
3.7-1 Visual Simulations 3-103
3.9-1 Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources 3-121
3.9.2 Noise Levels 3-121
3.9-3 Noise Measurement Results 3-122
3.9-4 Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA) 3-124
3.9-5 Noise Modeling Results 3-126
r 3.10-1 Structures on Barbee Mill Site 3-128
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement vii September 2003
I
1
I
I , ACRONYMS
I
APA Aquifer Protection Area ,
BA Biological Assessment
' BMP Best Management Practice
1 BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
1
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
i cfs cubic feet per second
CMZ channel migration zone
COR Center Office Residential
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
DPS Distinct Population Segment —
I, Ecology Washington Department of Ecology
EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS environmental impact statement
1 EPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency ,
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
I-405 Interstate 405
, I
KCBW King County Backwater _-!
KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
KCSWM King County Surface Water Management
Leq A-weighted energy equivalent
LWD large woody debris
mg/L milligrams per liter
, mllw mean lower low water
mm millimeter
mph miles per hour
MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement viii September 2003
I ,I
ACRONYMS (Continued)
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OHW Ordinary High Water
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RMC Renton Municipal Code
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCP pentachlorophenol
PHS Priority Habitat and Species
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCW Revised Code of Washington
j 1 RMC Renton Municipal Code
ROW Right-of-way
SHPO State Historical Preservation Office
SMA Shoreline Management Act
SPTH Site-potential tree height
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
TIR Technical Information Report
TOC total organic carbon
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compound
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDOE Washington Department of Energy
WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
r Draft-Environmental Impact Statement ix September 2003
1. SUMMARY
1.1 ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed.
1.1.1 Proposal
The project site is located on Lake Washington, in the City of Renton(as shown on Figure 1.1-1).
The proposed subdivision and related site development include subdivision of the site into 115 residential
lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet; construction and dedication of public streets with one
bridge crossing of May Creek; construction of utilities; provision of an open-space area of approximately
30,000 square feet that would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline; a buffer area averaging
about 50 feet in width along May Creek; and displacement of wetland and buffer area in two wetlands.
• Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include construction of 115 duplex and
town home units. Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence
of a specific proposal for shared moorage. Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the
shoreline to protect buildings and associated private lawn area.
Public lands of about 29,000 square feet lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line are presumed to
be developed in the future as public open space. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are
presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails, benches, and interpretive
facilities.
1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site
• This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site, with different uses than the
existing sawmill. The following assumptions have been made: no construction of public roads,
the existing driveway access would continue; existing structures would be retained and adapted to
new uses and new structures would be developed for a total of 545,000 square feet of building
area.
1.2 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY
1.2.1 Affected Environment
The site is underlain by glacial deposits consisting of recessional till and outwash. Till is a very dense
mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous
weight of the glacial ice. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt-water
streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. These glacial units are overlain by
alluvial (stream-deposited) and lacustrine (lake-deposited) geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand,
as well as imported fill materials. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site have
been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup plan
approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology).
The southernmost splay of the Seattle fault is located along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site.
The May Creek basin area is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large
events with recurrence intervals longer than 100 years) because of known earthquake epicenters in the
region. Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to seismic-induced landslides,
ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest damage in a future large
earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement I-I September 2003
2
5
405 522
5
DUVALL
202
REDMOND
KIRKLAND
202 203
520
SEATTLE Lake BELLEVUE ,c
Washington re"�.
90
•
W ISSAQUAH
.. V
NEWCASTLE
900
RENTON PROJECT
405 SITE
Parametrlx DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01
Figure 1.1-1
W Vicinity Map
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
L.
4...- ... •.- 111:1% ,,,,
/ !WM 1641' ;. -4
''. /:::::::'':-'.:^2..........7..K7..1f..'......':.?'...7. ,A „,,,..„ ,, ltelittr1..z..,
1 --_: ,7 :4_4 44TI4 • - _ BO"N
_ STREET «„
T
:=SITE
_ o r
r:
e0 f
.........................._..... _ the
- r
- , -N, afarap ,
A i
d••vs
0 c•
___ Y, :ice 1
_ �V
.---- . if.a . ..
...;,..._ .
. ...
_ ■■ rY
i�Y
• c,
.., vh:a f
:i Pa:a:'
. ...........
............ ................... .
I
G �UF
;i:it,..''''''.011111
Z..
........: •
__
2
-.... . .. .._...'.. !J!
r
®� t ®lam ;. pn Lit‘lI
®aaa.
1ihm, it ..,..., . ,
«mien miVg1 .
of ran
,...
,....., CITYii \'f' V ENERIN
OFiimI.
■rally
, ,.,::,,f, • „....:11111;-.
` ;excl. ' RENTON `ME
; ""am 4 l
. NI 5100011016111.11POOM• '., '
iiiiii hitiolim .44t, :'; :,,,, , ....„.... ,..:‘,',.r_-, ...: ._:111!
;;;:ii& a
tti
i ififfilkviiii LAT:.:..,,,,
, 1,., . ",I i
a
l . :.
'1� % ' 11 I''. INA all a
gi .
lip
. ... Millitl.'"'
Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)8/03(K)
dik
City Limits Figure 1.1-2
lap City
Vicinity Map
1.2.2 Impacts
Construction impacts include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the site. Vegetation
would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be demolished on the
site prior to grading.
This project may cause erosion,sediment-laden runoff, and dust on the shoreline of Lake Washington and
along May Creek.
Liquefaction during an earthquake is a risk on the site due to the fills and alluvial soils that underlie the
surface. Localized loss of soil cohesion from seismic induced liquefaction could result in foundation
subsidence with associated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges as well as
localized cracking or subsidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. Lateral movement
could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight movements typically produce cracks and
fissures in overlying deposits, causing building structure failure through increased shear strain. Greater
lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to compress to the point of buckling or being
pulled apart. Roadways may experience slight to severe cracks, and fissures; utilities may be broken in
numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is close to the lakeside,which results
in a lack of a confining geologic boundary. That, together with the gradient provide by lake depth could
result in movement of portions of the site to the west.
It is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads, and utilities due to the
complexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site
developed to date.
There is also a risk of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass. This risk
cannot be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic
deposits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement.
1.2.3 Mitigation
To control erosion during construction, contractors would implement Best Management Practices(BMPs)
and standard mitigation measures included in Ecology's Stormwater Manual and City of Renton surface
water management regulations. Erosion control plans should be in place prior to construction.
Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented by:
• Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath
the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits.
• Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the
liquefaction potential.
• Containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduce the hazard of lateral
spreading,particularly near the shoreline.
The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining
appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable
seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost, high replacement and repair cost,
and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency access, and
economic loss. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability
because of the potential for loss of life. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further document
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 September 2003
underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on
a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific building type,
size and location. Additional Environmental review may be required at that time.
1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
1.3.1 Affected Environment
The proposed alternative site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek
discharges to Lake Washington.
The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site.
Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap.
The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet.
May Creek is listed as a Class AA (extraordinary) water under State Water Quality Standards. The uses
of Class AA waters include domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply. Also, these waters
provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids, clams, oysters, mussels,
crustaceans, and other shellfish (e.g., crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops), as well as wildlife habitat. In
addition, these waters provide recreation (primary contact recreation, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic
enjoyment),commerce, and navigation.
The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State
as being impaired for zinc, copper, lead, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It
offers good rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife, provides multiple recreational
opportunities, supports varieties of resident fisheries, and acts as a focal point for the surrounding
communities. Although the water quality of Lake Washington is considered very good, natural runs of
Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout appear to be declining. The
reasons for these declines are still not fully understood.
The May Creek Basin Action Plan outlines an action plan for correcting adverse conditions in the May
Creek basin. It provides a set of actions to (1) reduce the threat of flooding to homes; (2) make
infrastructure improvements that will facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce
erosion; (3) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and (4) take
reasonable steps to prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. The Action Plan notes
that: "In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to
enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored."
Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious
surface in the form of pavement and various buildings associated with the mill operations. Mill facilities
and pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. The site contains three stormwater collection
areas and outfalls associated with the industrial activities, and non-point discharge drainage areas not
associated with industrial activities.
1.3.2 Impacts
The proposed project would reduce existing impervious surface coverage on the site from approximately
85 percent to about 57 percent. The proposed reduction in impervious surface area would reduce
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 September 2003
stormwater run-off volumes from the site to May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition, reduction in
impervious surface area could increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater.
Water quality treatment for the proposed alternative is required under City of Renton codes. Preliminary
plans include treatment of stormwater that would be an improvement over current conditions for the site.
Flooding impacts for the site were assessed based on the presumption of cessation of dredging at the
mouth of May Creek because deeper water conditions would no longer be needed for log handling and
storage. Another reason for stopping dredging is the benefits of the shallow water and emergent habitat
provided by normal delta processes. With the formation of a natural delta,the 100-year floodplain would
cover a substantial part of the site.
1.3.3 Mitigation
Construction impacts would be minimized through implementation of an appropriate Temporary Erosion
and Sediment Control(TESC)Plan.
Operation and maintenance of the proposed water quality treatment facilities to conform to City of
Renton requirements would reduce adverse water quality impacts from pollutants in runoff.
Containment of the 100-year floodplain within either the proposed May Creek open space corridor, or in
alternative 50 foot or 100 foot wide corridors could be accomplished with fill outside the flood corridor to
bring the lowest floor of residences a minimum of one foot above base flood elevation or levees
approximately 2 feet above existing ground level. Compensation for flood storage area lost could be
provided.
Provision of the wider 100 foot wide corridor would provide additional flood conveyance and storage to
compensate for the future increase in floodplain depths that will occur because of aggregation of
sediments in the stream over time.
Existing bridges should be removed and/or reconstructed to reduce the restriction to floodwater flow.
1.4 GROUNDWATER
1.4.1 Affected Environment
The project site is primarily a groundwater discharge area. General groundwater flow on the site is west
toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site.
Elevated concentrations of arsenic have been detected in the groundwater over the northern half of the
site, with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were also detected in
specific areas. Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source.
Detections of hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank(UST)
areas. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has been approved for the site that calls for removal of the
contaminated soil on the site and groundwater treatment.
1.4.2 Impacts
Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water
supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No
groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 September 2003
Small amounts of groundwater recharge from pervious surfaces, the stormwater conveyance system, and
potential infiltration by stormwater facilities are likely to be minor compared to groundwater from up-
gradient sources such as May Creek. Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly
altered due to the installation of foundations.
1.4.3 Mitigation
Removal of the contaminated soil and dewatering and treatment of the contaminated groundwater during
Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site would improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic
and other contaminants.
1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
1.5.1 Affected Environment
Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is currently limited because buildings and paved areas
associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington and to within 5 to 25 feet of May
Creek. A small portion of the site on the east side of May Creek near the BNSF Bridge includes
substantial upland vegetation adjacent to the riparian zone of the stream. A revegetation plan for the May
Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was required in 1994 as a condition of
Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification, but the majority of plantings do
not appear to have survived and have not established a stable riparian and shoreline vegetation
community.
Species known or expected to use the area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese, northern flicker,
spotted towhees, white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, tree
swallows, black-capped chickadees, house finches, American crows, double-crested cormorants, hooded
mergansers, American wigeons, scaups, buffleheads, and common mergansers. Mammals and
amphibians on the site include voles and mice, the Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray
squirrel, muskrats, and possibly Pacific tree frogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May
Creek limits its value as a habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to use the
project site portion of the creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project
site.
The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site.
The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996. The osprey is protected under the Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which makes it unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase,
ship, transport, or export any migratory bird, part, nest, or egg. It is also protected under State of
Washington laws.
Two bald eagle nest sites are approximately one mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the
May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near the project site; however, use of the actual project site
is unlikely due to lack of suitable large trees for perching and roosting. Bald eagles are federally and state
listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has been proposed for federal de-
listing and state down-listing to sensitive.
Two small wetlands are located largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern edge of
the property and small portions of these wetlands extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands
have been regularly mowed, as part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also
to maintain access to water utilities.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 September 2003
May Creek and Lake Washington support five species of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, coho
salmon, sockeye salmon,winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout. Resident rainbow trout are also a
priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are federal
species of concern that have been found within King County and may also occur near the project site.
There are three fish species that are present, or may be present, within the Barbee Mill project vicinity
that are either federally listed or a candidate for listing under the ESA. Chinook salmon is a threatened'
species. Coho salmon is a candidate for listing under the ESA. The Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) of bull trout is a federally threatened species that occurs within the project
vicinity.
1.5.2 Impacts
The existing osprey nest will be removed during demolition of mill buildings. The proposed project
would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile of the project site.
Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the
majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will
remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation and may permanently preclude revegetation because
of shading and drought conditions. The stream crossing also may restrict animal movement. The
northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the access street
will reduce buffer dimensions below the Renton code minimum of 25 feet. The southerly wetland will
experience partial displacement due to roadway construction and modification of the drainage system in
the area.
Impacts on wildlife during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of
disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts
for pile driving for foundation construction could be a substantial disturbance over several years and
could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are
habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. These wildlife populations may develop some
tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to corridors during nighttime and other hours when
construction doesn't take place. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due
to disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. After construction, human activity levels
and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions and result in reduced use by foraging
eagles. The high noise levels associated with ongoing building construction for several years may
discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sawdust tower from relocating in the immediate vicinity.
Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume with the cession of dredging. The
long-term effects of delta deposits result in extensive shallow aquatic habitat. The proposal includes
setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the water's edge to about
100 feet and averages about 50 feet. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acre of publicly owned land
between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. The existing sawmill and
related facilities would be removed, which would allow opportunities for provision of a more natural
shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads and replanting the area to provide a buffer of indigenous
native species.
The open space area along May Creek would result in an increase in forage,cover, and potential nest sites
for wildlife. Creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the
completed project site. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project is
proposed to be vegetated with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress, which will result in
limited habitat value.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 September 2003
The proposal includes creation of 16 lots with direct private lake frontage. A building setback of 25 feet
from Ordinary high water(OHW) is proposed for these lots. Vegetation in these areas is presumed to be
lawns and ornamental landscaping. Chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be
applied up to the waters edge and lead to over-spraying, inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing
chemicals. All of these will directly affect waterfowl and aquatic species through direct toxicity or by
nutrient enrichment which can increase plant production and oxygen demand. Human disturbance along
Lake Washington, given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings and recreational docks and
watercraft use,would reduce wildfowl and aquatic species.
Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads is not expected to substantially increase due to the project, as low
speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions.
The direct impacts of the project to aquatic species are related to the extent and duration of the
construction activities, whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate
habitat modifications that result from the project. Initial construction of subdivision infrastructure would
potentially cause some disturbance, which would make the site susceptible to erosion and accidental
discharges of sediment and pollutants to surface water. The impacts on May Creek of constructing the
proposed bridge is likely to be related to design, specifically the setback of abutments or bridge supports
from the stream.
The proposed buffer along May Creek would be an improvement over existing conditions. A 50-foot
width would fall significantly short of providing full riparian functions. The primary functions of stream
buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large woody debris (LWD) recruitment,
bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature
through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate. The required width of the buffer to maintain
these functions varies with stream size and the ability of the channel to migrate.
The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock per developed lot for up to 16
additional docks. New docks, as well as the existing boathouse and existing pilings and log booms, create
permanent near-shore shading. The establishment of these structures can disrupt normal migration and
feeding patterns, provide refuge from predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation,
phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore. Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in
the southern portion of Lake Washington tend to avoid overhead structures. Residents with docks may
also desire to institute dredging, which would deepen shoreline areas, thereby reducing the habitat
benefits provided by the May Creek delta.
Bulkheads are expected to be needed for shoreline protection of residences because the proposed 25-foot
building setback provides little area for natural shoreline processes without potentially threatening
buildings. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish by disrupting the
migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile salmon, preventing recruitment of sediment into the lake
necessary for the formation of natural shallow-water habitat, and generally creating an inhospitable high-
energy environment for juvenile fish.
Artificial light from buildings close to the shoreline, street lighting and piers can also adversely affect
juvenile salmonids by causing delays in migration, or a change in migratory routes into deeper water
where juveniles would be more vulnerable to predation.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program, which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington. The
applicant has not defined a public access program. It is presumed that this would take the form of a trail
adjacent to the water on residential lots,which would contribute to the need to bulkhead the shoreline and
lead to direct human disruption of waterfowl and aquatic species.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 September 2003
1.5.3 Mitigation
Osprey mitigation measures can include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in
the project site vicinity. Research has proven that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting
structures. Noise from construction of residences for several years, including pile driving for foundations,
may limit the willingness of osprey to relocate in the immediate vicinity.
Mitigation of construction impacts to existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native
buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction. Staging and access areas
should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. In portions of the site
where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur, clearing to remove these species would
be beneficial if the area is replanted with native species.
Mitigation for loss of vegetation at bridge crossings and possible restriction of animal movement may
include sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain plant
communities and provide for animal movement.
Residential landscaping should be designed and maintained in ways that minimize the use of fertilizers,
pesticides, or herbicides to reduce adverse effects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic
organisms in May Creek, Lake Washington. Enforcing restricted use of chemicals on private lawns and
landscaping is,however,difficult in the long term.
The displacement of wetland area for the southerly wetland and buffer area for the northerly wetland
could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer. If
impacts are not avoided, compensation by wetland creation could be located north and west of the
northerly wetland adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Design would be required to address a
variety of parameters including hydrology, soil amendment, plant selection, and maintenance. Mitigation
of impacts to lost buffer area could include enhancement of the existing wetland and buffer vegetation
communities.
Mitigation for the adverse impacts of bulkheads can include relocating bulkheads landward of OHW, to
allow natural shoreline conditions to reestablish, providing plantings in riprap, or more extensive
vegetative stabilization. These options have limited application under the proposal because of the 25-foot
building setback and the depth to the lake bottom in dredged areas.
Impacts of docks can be addressed by prohibition and use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from
near-shore habitat, or a reduction in docks through shared moorage. Impacts on near-shore habitat can be
reduced by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration.
Mitigation through alternative buffer areas involves conceptual plans for 50- and 100-foot buffers along
both May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. Greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of
vegetation communities and support a wider range of wildlife and aquatic species. The establishment and
persistence of native vegetation on this site is likely to require long-term management both to monitor and
replace plantings that die prior to establishment,but also to control invasive plants.
For the Lake Washington shoreline, both the 50- and 100-foot buffer options are likely to reduce impacts
such as the introduction of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides from residential landscaping. Increased
buffers would provide additional vegetation and wildlife habitat. Greater opportunities would be afforded
for replacement of bulkheads with more natural condition with limited regrading to provide a more
natural shoreline gradient and provide in-water substrate. Planting more extensive and complex
communities of native vegetation would contribute to a more productive food chain through shading,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 September 2003
recruitment of large woody debris, and other processes. The greater setbacks would reduce impacts from
lighting and direct disturbance from public trail access by allowing greater setbacks from the shoreline.
Some of this mitigation could be implemented on the public land between the inner and outer harbor
lines,which varies in width between 20 and 80 feet. Extending setbacks to private shoreline frontage will
allow greater benefits along a continuous shoreline corridor.
1.6 TRANSPORTATION
1.6.1 Affected Environment
All intersections in the study area are stop-sign controlled and all operate at Level of Service (LOS)A or
B, except for the I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard) at NE 44th Street that operates at
LOS F and currently meets warrants for signalization. The I-405 interchanges at 30th Street and 44th
Street both are currently at LOS D for ramp merge/diverge operation.
The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard
that crosses the adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. There are
currently four private rail crossings that serve properties in the vicinity located west of the railway.
Existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities in the vicinity are limited to a bicycle lane on Lake
Washington Boulevard. Pedestrians are accommodated on roadway shoulders. The nearest transit
service is at the Kennydale Park and Ride near 30th Street and I-405.
1.6.2 Impacts
Future baseline conditions without the project were developed using the City of Renton EMME2
transportation demand model for the 2007 year of full development. The forecast includes general traffic
increases from growth in the region as well as specific approved projects in the vicinity.
The duplex and town home units on the site are expected to have trip generation typical of single-family
dwellings. The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic
volumes with 81 percent of project traffic routed to the north, and 19 percent to the south. Traffic further
splits to trips oriented to I-405 and trips routed on local arterials.
Two site access points for public roads site access are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard
and one onto Ripley Lane to the north of the site. Both access points cross the BNSF railroad.
Consideration of grade-separated crossings will be required pursuant to RCW 81.53.020. The
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is charged with approval of new public rail
crossings and will evaluate grade separated and at-grade crossing options based on topographic,
operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the crossing. The proposed access
points have substantial constraints in meeting geometric criteria for rail crossings.
Project traffic contributes up to 22 percent of the year 2007 traffic growth on Lake Washington
Boulevard,with a lower contribution to arterials further from the site.
All study area intersections are projected to operate with an LOS C or better during the PM peak hour
with the exception of the I-405 ramp intersections with Lake Washington Boulevard (NE 44th Street).
The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F
in current conditions,the 2007 baseline and with the project, due to heavy approach volumes on the minor
legs (north- and southbound). The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 September 2003
intersection operates at LOS F with the additional trips from the project due to the southbound left-turn
movement.
The I-405 ramp merge and diverge operation for the northbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th
Street, and the northbound on ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F under both the year 2007
baseline and with the project. The I-405 southbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street, and
the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E under the year 2007 baseline and with
project trips. The analysis indicates the project traffic volumes will have no further impact on the ramp
operations.
Project trips routed through the adjacent City of Newcastle contribute about 20 percent of the 2007 traffic
volumes on 112th Avenue SE at 68th Street and less on other arterials. There is no change in Level of
Service on affected interchanges from the project as compared with the 2007 baseline conditions.
A concern raised by the City of Newcastle is the potential greater use of alternate routes when congestion
is heavy on I-405 and commuters use local streets to bypass congestion sections of the freeway. Potential
alternative arterial routes, however, generally have longer travel times than the freeway, except in cases
where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. The impacts of diverted trips
include trips from throughout the local community, of which the project is a small part. Diverted trips
can be addressed,by planning arterial improvements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405, or
by retaining capacity constraints, such as stop-controlled intersections, that tend to increase travel time
and may discourage drivers from trying alternate routes.
Vehicular and rail crossing safety is unlikely to be substantially changed by traffic demand of the project.
Pedestrian demands on the discontinuous pedestrian facilities in the area could lead to additional
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.
Cumulative impacts of this development will include traffic and pedestrian demands of future
development of the Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north.
At the least, residential development of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred
more residential units and several hundred PM peak hour,trips and would generate a need for additional
access points, or geometric and signal improvements at existing intersections.
1.6.3 Mitigation
At the I-405 southbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection, an all-way stop
control or a signal would mitigate operation at LOS F. The installation of a signal is not warranted based
on the 2007 projected vehicular volumes.
The I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection operations can be
mitigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane. The intersection
also meets volume criteria for signal warrants.
The development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of
$75 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system impacts of diffuse new
trips from the development on the general circulation system.
Geometric limitations of the proposed rail crossings can be mitigated by moving the crossings to locations
where Lake Washington Boulevard and the rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some
impacts on grading for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek. Relocation also would reduce
separation between crossings and increase the potential for both to be blocked by a stopped train. This
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 September 2003
could be mitigated by connecting this site with the at-grade crossing at the north end of the Vulcan
property.
Safety at railroad crossings involves three basic approaches:
• Grade separation,which removes potential vehicle train conflicts,but is more expensive;
• Passive control for at-grade crossings, involving signs and pavement markers and relying on
drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping with adequate
clearance from the rails;
• Active control of at-grade crossings, which consists of signals and gates designed to provide
warning devices automatically activated by train approach and may include gates that physically
exclude vehicles and pedestrians.
The City of Renton and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission will evaluate crossing
options based on topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the
crossing. Consolidation of existing private crossings may be required.
Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities
and programs that would provide safe pedestrian circulation.
1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1.7.1 Affected Environment
As part of lumber processing, various substances were used on the site to treat wood including arsenic
trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron sulfate and pentachlorophenol. Underground storage tanks
(USTs)with petrochemical fuels were located on the site. A variety of solvents and industrial chemicals,
fuels and lubricants have been utilized in sawmill operations.
Soil and groundwater contamination documented at the Barbee Mill site includes arsenic at
concentrations up to 830 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 20 mg/kg) and zinc in
concentrations up to 490 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 130 mg/kg). These elevated
concentrations of metals in soils present pathways for migration of contaminants to groundwater. Low
levels of chlorinated phenols have been detected in the soils from a few borings but do not exceed the
cleanup levels. No polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were
detected.
Lake Washington sediments adjacent to the site contain total organic carbon (TOC) that exceeded
Freshwater Sediment Quality Values. Concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and other
hazardous substances are well below sediment screening levels.
Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, (compared to the
selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L). The groundwater plume extends west and northwest
of the source area, with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the nearby Quendall Terminals
site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below site cleanup levels. Low levels of
hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of chlorinated
phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. PCBs or VOC were
not detected in areas sampled.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 September 2003
A remediation plan for the Barbee Mill site was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology in
2000 under the Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA) includes: removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards
of soil impacted with arsenic and zinc; confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base;
dewatering of the excavation area; groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes, including
prefiltering, oxidation, precipitation, and adsorption; discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake
Washington; removal and disposal of impacted soil at a licensed location; backfilling and compacting
excavation with clean fill; and implementing a groundwater monitoring program and possibly an ongoing
groundwater treatment program.
A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington, next to the Barbee Mill site, was
conducted between 1999 and 2002, under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program. This effort removed
approximately 26,000 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris that was dredged and stockpiled on the
site. Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total exceeded
the MTCA Method B carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) criterion. These sediments are
currently being transferred to a licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County, Washington. The remaining
clean sediments are stockpiled at the site. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action letter
• for the sediments from Ecology(2003).
Potential impacts from sites in the vicinity of Barbee Mill include the Quendall Terminals property
immediately north of Barbee Mill, which was the site of a creosote manufacturing facility that refined
coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917 and 1969. The activities at the site
contaminated the soil and groundwater with PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylenes, and other organic
compounds. A public right-of-way is proposed through the Quendall Terminals site to provide access to
Ripley Lane. A remediation plan may be required to be implemented for that portion of the site prior to
constructing a roadway.
The Vulcan (J.H. Baxter) site is located next to and north of the Quendall Terminals site. This site was a
former wood treatment facility from the mid 1950s to the early 1980s. The chemicals used on-site
included creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP). Contaminants present in the soil, groundwater, and
sediment of the site include dioxins,PAHs, and dense non-aqueous phase liquids(DNAPL).
Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt and the
deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high lake
levels has been conducted. The monitoring shows a consistent east-to-west groundwater flow pattern
beneath the site in both groundwater zones. These studies indicate that contaminants from the sites to the
north will not flow onto or impact the Barbee Mill site.
1.7.2 Impacts
The remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the site to levels suitable for future
residential use. The remediation program is assumed to be the first step of site redevelopment. Residual
risk to future residents from soils that will remain at the site will be minimal, because concentrations of
detected compounds in these soils left in place are below action levels. The action levels are established
based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment.
In addition, contaminated groundwater will be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional
removal and treatment if follow-up monitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels.
The shallow groundwater system at the site will not be used for water supply.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-14 September 2003
1.7.3 Mitigation
Construction specifications for future plat infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for
encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials
contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health safety
precautions, protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous
material, and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as
part of title report to provide notice on property transfer as well as conditions that will allow intrusive
work.
1.8 AESTHETICS
1.8.1 Affected Environment
The site is currently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to
the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the Barbee Mill site are
small-scale, single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the
shoreline to the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with large structures.
Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and
slope steeply toward,Lake Washington,creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines.
From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to
screening from tall trees. Where the Barbee Mill site is visible through gaps in trees, it generally is not
dominant. The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and
is highly intact. Compositional harmony, or unity, varies from viewpoint to viewpoint, but is generally
moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the lake have moderately low unity and
intactness because the large scale, bright color, and uniformity of the industrial structures on the May
Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the shoreline and surrounding hillsides.
1.8.2 Impacts
This proposal would remove existing industrial development. Proposed building density would be much
higher than now exists, with 10 feet between buildings and 15- to 35-foot setbacks between street edge
and building front. Open space would be retained in the form of water quality and stormwater control
ponds, and public land on the shoreline ranging from 20 to 80 feet wide.
Views of the site from Lake Washington Boulevard would transition from the site being a minor part of
views from the vicinity to 32nd Street, to increasing dominance as the site is approached. The extent to
which the proposal dominates views is a function of its relative size and the extent to which views retain
the dominant features of the Mercer Island skyline and views of Lake Washington. As one comes closer
to the site, the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and the
Mercer Island skyline. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington
that is visible. For closer views, the height of buildings and the overlap between buildings present an
apparent wall that blocks views of the lake in the middle ground.
For viewers farther up the hill,the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings,
and portions of the existing view of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be
retained.
The visual impact from Mercer Island and Lake Washington would include a line of buildings that fill the
entire site. Construction of new buildings, however, would not block views of the dominant element of
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-15 September 2003
the distant view, the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual interest of the lake would remain in the
foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase because of the common design theme of a
residential community, as compared to the variety of the existing industrial character. Incorporation of
indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land between the inner and outer
harbor lines,could considerably soften the visual impact of the new buildings.
Views from inside the proposed development would likely be that of a dense urban setting in contrast to
the low intensity residential use in the vicinity. This would be especially pronounced in the interior of the
site where building heights of 50 to 75 feet with 10-foot setbacks between buildings, as well as a 60-foot
separation between buildings across the street from one another,would create a canyon-like effect.
1.8.3 Mitigation
For the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic
impacts could be reduced by a number of strategies.
Changing building bulk could take several forms. The most obvious would be to reduce building height.
Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce buildings more in keeping with typical
low-rise residential development in the vicinity. A second means of reducing the appearance of building
bulk would be to increase setbacks between buildings. This would produce less of a canyon effect on
streets within the development, and present less appearance of a solid mass of buildings from outside the
development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary building height, bulk, and
setbacks.
Common design features, materials, and color, as well as landscape design, could reduce apparent bulk of
buildings. These include sloping roofs,roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs, and building offsets
that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall surfaces. Window detailing can add visual
interest and provide both visual unity and variety.
Screening of the buildings on the site would require large vegetation that would not be expected to mature
for a number of years. The current design, however, does not provide sufficient area in front, side or rear
yard setbacks to support large trees. The design of landscaping for open space areas could also provide
for large species. The major public views of the project could be softened by landscaping only if
substantial landscape areas were provided between town homes east of May Creek and the access road on
BNSF railroad right-of way. Additional landscape area could result in reduction in the number of units in
that area.
1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE
1.9.1 Affected Environment
Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have
some shielding, but probably date from the 1960s; many need repair. There are no glare sources on site
because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass.
1.9.2 Impacts
Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street
and/or sidewalk lights, building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater
number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in
an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-16 September 2003
Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to reduce
spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall
brightness at night and would reduce glare.
The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an
uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level
of ambient light. Impacts to residential areas in the vicinity would be lower since there are already
streetlights in the neighborhoods, and the site is partially screened by tall trees.
Headlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade
between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the
roadway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south,
headlights generally will point into the bank, which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family
residences.
1.9.3 Mitigation
For both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light
from distant residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast,
shielded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding
glare from glass surfaces.
1.10 NOISE
1.10.1 Affected Environment
Existing sources of noise near the site includes noise from operating the main sawmill intermittently,
operation of Quendall Terminals located to the north of the Barbee Mill site, which stores and sorts logs;
and from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals, as well as noise
from arterials in the area and I-405.
Noise related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard is typically 54 to 64 dBA. Noise from
the I-405 freeway approximately one-quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady background
daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from especially noisy trucks.
Average noise levels at residences adjacent to I-405 are typically 68 to 71 dBA.
Noise comes from train operations, including engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive
horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet from the source. Locomotive horns are sounded at rail crossings of public streets and
at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle or pedestrians near the tracks.
Locomotive horns typically have a sound level of about 115 dBA.
Sensitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools, nursing homes,
hospitals, or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site.
1.10.2 Impacts
During construction, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels due to the use of heavy
equipment and the hauling of construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the
type of equipment being used, and the amount of time it is in use.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-17 September 2003
In addition to the noise levels associated with typical construction equipment, use of driven or drilled
pilings for deep foundations may be required. There are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and
vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce regular loud thuds. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this
type of source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver vibrates the pile into the ground and produces lower
noise levels over a sustained period.
The existing residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly site boundary and are separated
by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the site west of May Creek is a
minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. The greatest noise impacts will occur to residents
occupying homes on site while construction is ongoing on other buildings.
Noise impacts from traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard are expected to be in the range of 1-5 dBA.
This noise increase results from growth in regional trips as well as trips from the project. A change of 3
dBA generally is the threshold at which a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons. Noise
levels from traffic on Lake Washington are projected to remain well below the levels of 67 dBA for
residences that the Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a substantial noise
impact.
The creation of public road crossings would make train locomotive horn sounding mandatory and would,
therefore, increase the frequency. At the current frequency of four trains per day, the impacts to most
residences on and off the project site would likely be slight. If train frequency became more frequent in
the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant annoyance along the entire rail line on the
east side of Lake Washington. The BNSF railroad has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the
next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service, however, does not require approval of local jurisdictions under
federal law governing railroads.
1.10.3 Mitigation
State and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours. A variety of relatively
simple and inexpensive practices would generally provide an approximate 10 dBA reduction in sound and
would be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that
would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels.
The effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible
depth (depth may be limited on this site by the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would
result in less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place
concrete can be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is
installed using an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal, thus
eliminating the need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and
the need for lateral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction.
The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) has proposed regulations to allow designation of a "quiet
zone" that would make sounding of locomotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than
mandatory. The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application
by a local community if at-grade rail crossings meet a"sealed" status to fully compensate for the absence
of the audible warning provided by the locomotive horn.
•
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-18 September 2003
1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES
1.11.1 Affected Environment
Barbee Marine Yards, Inc., a ship and barge building company, was established on the site in 1943. The
Barbee Mill Company, Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property,
retaining the sawmill operation but abandoning the ship building business. The Barbee Mill was the last
active sawmill remaining on Lake Washington. A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except
the water tower and the wooden mill warehouse;the mill was completely rebuilt, and additional structures
have been added since then.
The oldest building on the site is the mill warehouse. Also known as the black building, it was
constructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the years. This
building and the water tower were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. The historic survey concluded that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of
the Barbee Sawmill or, on the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that
they lack "integrity of setting or feeling associated with the site" as individual components because the
original site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. As Barbee Mill does not qualify as an
historic district, and it is not of exceptional importance, it was determined that the mill warehouse and
water tower were not eligible for listing on the National Register.
Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding cultural resources of
hunter-fisher-gatherer societies is near the original location of May Creek, which was at the north end of
the site. Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916, most of the Barbee Mill site was under
water, and the eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened, the shoreline dropped
approximately 9 feet. Because of extensive disturbance for industrial use, it is unlikely that this site
would contain any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources; however, the northeast corner has the potential
for deeply buried resources.
1.11.2 Impacts
As part of redevelopment of the site, all existing industrial buildings will be removed. The lack of
national, state or local listing of the buildings results in limited authority to require preservation of
privately owned structures.
1.11.3 Mitigation
An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed development could present information
about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as well as indicating how it reflects the
lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. Lake Washington's sawmill industries were an
important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history.
An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the
site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction,
the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from
their vicinity. The foreman would also contact the, Washington State Archaeologist who would assist in
determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the
history of the area and whether such deposits should be recorded.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-19 September 2003
Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Earth,Soils,and Geology
Erosion and sedimentation Implement Best Management Practices(BMPs)for erosion control prior to
construction
Liquefaction Construct buildings on a deep foundation system, such as pilings,that would
transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable
alluvial deposits
Install ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic
compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential underlying roads and utilities
Provide containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduced the
hazard of lateral spreading, particularly near the shoreline
Surface Water
Erosion and Sedimentation [ Implement an appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC)
Plan
Pollutants in Surface Water Construct, operate and maintain the proposed water quality treatment facilities
Flooding Contain the 100-year floodplain within either the proposed May Creek open
space corridor, or in alternative 50 foot or 100 foot wide corridors contained by fill
or levies at least one foot above base flood levels
Construct residences with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation
Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open
space corridor and providing additional storage volume
Provide the wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and
flood storage to compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of
sediment deposited in the stream channel
Remove and/or reconstruct existing bridges to reduce the restriction to
floodwater flow
Groundwater
Groundwater Contamination Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site
Provide ongoing treatment of contaminated groundwater,if monitoring after soil
removal indicates, pursuant to Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site
Plants&Animals
Removal of Osprey nest Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site
vicinity
Removal of existing vegetation Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from
disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging
and access areas away from buffer areas
Existing invasive plant species in Clear to completely remove invasive species and re-plant with native species
buffer areas
Loss of vegetation at bridges Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight
and precipitation to maintain vegetation
Restriction of animal movement at Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement
bridges
Lack of habitat value of residential Use native plants in residential landscaping
landscaping.._............................................_........... i..........._.........................._........... ... ......................_............... ._.................................._.......__............................ . -.........__.......
Surface water pollution from E Use of native plants in residential landscaping can minimize the use of fertilizers,
fertilizers, pesticides,or herbicides pesticides, or herbicides
with resulting impacts on wildlife and
fish Provide greater setbacks from surface water to reduce overspray, spillage and
runoff that carries pollutants into water
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 September 2003
Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures(continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Plants&Animals(continued)
Wetland and buffer displacement Avoided wetland displacement by designing changes in the proposal to place
development outside the wetland and buffer
Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement elsewhere on site
Compensate for loss of buffer through averaging and enhancement of the
existing and buffer vegetation
Bulkhead impact on aquatic species Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established
(where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building
setbacks)
Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization(where the lake is
shallow,on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks)
Providing plantings in rip-rap
Reduce the elevation above OHW of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more
natural shoreline plantings
Loss of waterfowl habitat through Preserve pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from near-
removal of pilings and other in-water shore habitat important for juvenile salmonids
perching sites
Lack of large woody debris(LWD) Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
recruitment establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous
vegetation
Elevated shoreline water Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
temperature establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer
( shade
Light and glare impacts on wildlife Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
and aquatic species establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to
intercept light and glare
Direct disturbance of wildlife and F Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
aquatic species from residents or establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer
public using public access facilities disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline
Impacts of docks on juvenile Prohibit docks, require use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near-
salmonids shore habitat
Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage
Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light
penetration
Difficulty of ensuring maintenance of Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than
shoreline vegetation residents
Transportation
Increase transportation demand from Provide demand management programs including improved transit and carpool
trip generation facilities and service and on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would
provide safe pedestrian circulation to these facilities
Intersections not meeting City of Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake
Renton level of service(LOS) Washington Boulevard)intersection through an all-way stop control or a signal.
standards A signal is not warranted based on the vehicular volumes
Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 northbound ramp(Lake Washington
Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection with an all-way stop control and the
addition of a northbound right-turn lane or a signal. The intersection meets
volume criteria for Signal Warrants
Geometric limitations of propose Move the site access to locations where Lake Washington Boulevard and the
railroad crossings rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some impacts on grading
for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 September 2003
Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Transportation(continued)
Potential safety impacts at railroad Provide grade separation,which removes potential vehicle/train conflicts, but is
crossings quite expensive. This may be implemented in the future to mitigate cumulative
impacts of development of adjacent properties
Provide active control designed to provide warning devices automatically
activated by train approach and may include gates that physically exclude
vehicles and pedestrians
Provide passive control involving signs and pavement markers and rely on
drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping
with adequate clearance from the rails
Provide for consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of
conflict points
Provide for a traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to
reduce crossings
Increased pedestrian/vehicle ° Include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide
conflicts safe pedestrian circulation
Diffuse impacts of new trips on the Contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee
circulation system
Hazardous Materials
Soil and groundwater contamination Remove contaminates from the Barbee Mill site through Model Toxics Control
.__.___. Act cleanup
Address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals
through appropriate removal,stabilization,or isolation,consistent with
requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act
Encountering contaminated soil Provide a contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan
during construction l
Visual Impacts
Reduce building bulk by reducing building height
Reduce building bulk by increasing setbacks between buildings
Reduce building bulk by varying building height, bulk,and setbacks
Reduce apparent building bulk by design features, materials and color,including
sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets
Reduce relative building bulk by screening through large vegetation. This
mitigation would not take place for a number of years until vegetation matures.
Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings would
be required
Light and Glare Impacts Incorporate shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection
Design buildings to avoid glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun
1 reflection
Provide additional buffers with dense vegetation to block light and glare
Noise
Construction noise impacts Restrict hours of construction to reduce noise impacts during hours when nearby
residences would be most sensitive
Noise from pile driving Restrict construction hours of pile driving
Pre-drill pile holes to the maximum feasible depth(depth may be limited by the
character of deposits)
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 September 2003
Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures(continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Noise(continued)
Require less noisy pile installation methods, if feasible given soil conditions, such
as vibrating piles into place,cassion-type piles,auger cast piles or other
methods
Construction noise from stationary Provide noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors,
equipment welding machines,pumps, and similar equipment that would operate
continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels
Noise from locomotive horns Provide at-grade rail crossings that meet a"sealed"to qualify for possible
Federal Railway Administration(FRA)designation of a"quiet zone"for
locomotive horns
Historic and Cultural Resources
Loss of existing buildings Provide an interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the
site,as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding
heritage of the area
Potential disturbance of An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the
archaeological resources northeast corner of the site,and if deposits are found,consult with the,
Washington State Archaeologist in determining whether the archaeological
deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area
and should be conserved
Public Services •
Cumulative impacts on parks and Provide parks and fire mitigation fee for cumulative impacts(see Appendix A)
public services
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-23 September 2003
2. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed.
2.1 PROPOSAL
- ' The current proposal of the applicant contains the following:
1. Features of the proposed preliminary plat and site development that allow division of the site into
lots include the following(Figure 2.1-1):
• Subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet
is proposed.
• Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake
Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe(BNSF)railway. Roadway width is proposed to be a 36-foot-wide road surface and
a 42-foot right-of-way for all roads.
• One vehicular bridge crossing is proposed over May Creek. One existing bridge is proposed
to be retained for pedestrian use.
• Storm drainage water quality treatment facilities for the portion of the site west of May Creek
consists of a water quality pond with a capacity of approximately 56,900 cubic feet.
• A stormwater water quality treatment pond to serve the portion of the site east of May Creek
is proposed,with approximately 11,000 cubic feet capacity.
• An open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet is proposed. It would abut publicly
owned lands along the shoreline administered by DNR. Approximately 6,500 square feet of
this site is proposed for storm drainage facilities, which would leave a net area of
approximately 23,500 square feet. The applicant has not developed a proposal for public
access to this area.
• A buffer area of approximately 20 to 100 feet and averaging about 50 feet is proposed along
May Creek. Specific planting plans have not been proposed.
• Displacement is proposed for portions of the southern wetland, which lies largely within the
BNSF right-of-way. Approximately 400 square feet of wetland area would be displaced,
together with associated buffer area, to accommodate roadway access to seven lots.
Mitigation for this displacement is proposed to take place within the northerly wetland.
• Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland, which is also primarily
within the BNSF right-of-way. Buffer averaging will reduce.the wetland setback below the
minimum code standard of 25 feet to accommodate road access to serve eight lots. This
would require approval of a Critical Areas Variance.
• Public sidewalks are proposed for both sides of public streets.
• No walkways,trails, or public access are currently proposed along the May Creek corridor or
the shoreline.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 September 2003
fj
r
jjr f �.r
kw
1,
• . : ti��j � i1 'c----
=, • �' " ��
COR-2Zo� , r , i
,. — �. . �
�f r I
wr. / f zf 1
, ,:7--10,7,4trOffr<4ai OUNAlla viy r
Tract"B" roA
``ract"C' Water
PUBLIC LAND Open` ' Quality f f N t f j
�' Space NA \� .,,,,,,
rr �,f „//
4 / ,, 4.
43;gk.
N
` LLP• Aip • jj',� r,• l ,
•
o, ‘..,,,,.,..„7.
" . r�r,� �P , ,LAKE
�f -oHw ;WASHINGTON r . �.- • , �1 (/4.1-wage • :it .44,- ' /47 /&
PUBLIC LAND �.••'• 4 ,t" r y' y—,. j iti-.. /, j > 4 lr1"�4 / ', -'N%r f
v• a i .c,' j,7 \ �l `r AY CREEK, • .: •' // / / 7/'
r N; 1
DELTA iiiip #)> / % ///
���p V iR
.q
1
x1 40 T
r
j . 1f ti �.d� � � r,,,
I
;payyd\,
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-2-1-01
SCALE IN FEET Figure 2.1-1
iir Overall Plat Plan
0 150 3I0 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
2. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include the following:
• Construction of 115 town home units utilizing shared walls between property lines. The
majority of units are within duplex structures. Two structures with four units and two
structures with five units are proposed east of May Creek. Note: Existing zoning does not
limit use to residences and does not limit residential building type to town homes. Future lot
owners could propose apartment buildings or other uses that meet dimensional and density
standards. These building types are not part of this proposal and are not analyzed in this
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Future proposals would undergo separate
design and environmental review.
• On-site structures would be governed by dimensional requirements in the existing zoning,
which is Center Office Residential 2 (COR-2)and Shoreline Urban Environment designation:
> Front, Rear, and Side setback: No specific standard is contained in the COR-2 district,
which specifies setbacks are to be determined through site plan review.
•
The proposal includes the following setbacks for duplex and town home units:
— Street setback— 10 feet
— Rear lot setback— 10 feet
— Side lot setback—5 feet
— Shoreline Setback: 25-foot minimum
> Height: 125-foot maximum under COR-2.
— The proposal includes a maximum height of 50 feet within the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Management Act, which extends 200 feet from the line of Ordinary High
Water (OHW). A 50-foot-high building would be up to 5 stories high, assuming a
standard ceiling height of 7.5 to 10 feet.
— Maximum height outside of shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to be 75 feet. A 70-
foot building would be up to 7 stories high.
• Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence of a specific
proposal for shared moorage.
- • Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline for lots with building setbacks
of 25 feet from the Ordinary high water (OHW). This reflects common shoreline building
patterns on Lake Washington.
• Foundation types for buildings are presumed to consist of deep foundations to transfer
building loads to underlying dense glacial soils. The depth is currently unknown, pending
more detailed geotechnical investigation in the future.
3. Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) managed lands: Features presumed to be
developed on public lands lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line and administered by
the DNR as trustee for the public, are presumed to be public open space. This applies to
approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The
width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23 to 28 and approximately 80 feet
along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are
presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails, benches, and
_ interpretive facilities.
This presumed use of public lands is consistent with management goals in the Revised Code of
Washington(RCW)79.90.450 and 79.90.455 to:
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement - 2-3 September 2003
(a) Foster water-dependent uses
(b) Ensure environmental protection
(c) Encourage direct public use and access
(d) Promote production on a continuing basis of renewable resources
(e) Generate income from use of aquatic lands in a manner consistent with the above goals
Note: The public land between the inner and outer harbor lines is not within the incorporated city limits
ol[Renton,which follows the Inner Harbor Line.
2.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE
This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site, with different uses than the existing
sawmill. For this alternative,the following assumptions have been made:
• No construction of public roads will occur on the site. The existing private driveway access
would continue.
• Existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses.
• Existing non-conforming structures within the shoreline setbacks would be retained, including
structures on public lands administered by the DNR.
I
• New structures are assumed to be developed under zoning conditions that allow major
modifications, production increases, or expansions of existing use only with a Hearing Examiner
conditional use permit(Renton Municipal Code [RMC]4-2-080,Footnote 23).
> New structures approved under a conditional use permit would meet all minimum shoreline
and stream setbacks.
➢ Restoration landscaping would be provided within minimum shoreline and wetland setbacks,
if required, in association with the approval of new buildings.
D. All impervious surfaces on site would remain, except for shoreline and stream buffer areas,
which may be revegetated, if required, in association with the approval of new buildings.
➢ If triggered by new approved construction, stormwater treatment for water quality would be
implemented to meet current codes,which would result in somewhat larger, open stormwater
treatment areas, due to the larger impervious area.
> Perimeter landscaping, and parking lot landscaping associated with new buildings, would
meet current codes.
• Specific presumed building area and uses on site include:
j I ➢ Building Floor Area: 545,025 square feet
— Warehouse: 272,500 square feet
- Light Manufacturing: 218,000 square feet
— Accessory Office: 55,000 square feet
➢ Parking Area: 220,000 square feet
818(based on pro-forma sheet)spaces
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 September 2003
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATING MEASURES
�_' 3.1 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY
- This section provides analyses of soils, geology, earthwork, geologic and seismic hazards, and
erosion/sedimentation for the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation development.
These analyses are important both for disclosure of project impacts and for providing a context for
assessment of impacts on other elements, such as water quality.
This section was prepared based on review of existing data and a peer evaluation of existing studies and a
qualitative evaluation of likely impacts. The analysis was based on existing site information and soil,
geologic,and geotechnical studies.
The geology and soils in the project area were evaluated to identify the suitability of the soils for building
and to identify sensitive or geologic hazard areas. Geologic hazard areas include land that is prone to
erosion, landslides, and earthquakes. Information was collected from existing reports and maps of the
area, including the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (now know as the National Resource Conservation
Service) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In addition, site-specific information on geology and soil
types was determined through geotechnical investigations performed in 1999 and 2003.
3.1.1 Affected Environment
From a regional geologic perspective, the project area is located in the middle of the Puget Sound
lowlands, which is a north-south trending structure that is a topographic trough. Tertiary andesite
comprises the bedrock in this area. Glacial deposits consist of recessional outwash and till that
unconformably overlay bedrock. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt-
water streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. Till is a very dense mixture
of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous weight
of the glacial ice. These glacial units are overlain by alluvial (stream-deposited) and lacustrine (lake-
deposited) geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand. Imported fill materials have also been added to
surface in the area(Yount and Gower 1991).
The affected environment relative to local soil and geologic conditions on the project site was evaluated
based on descriptions and subsurface information included in local and site-specific studies(Golder 2002;
Hart Crowser 2000; Shannon and Wilson 2001). The soils at the project site consist of silts, sands, and
peat, with sawdust, wood, and fill. These units are underlain by glacial outwash sand and gravel (Hart
Crowser 2000). The thickness of the fill is 10 to 15 feet, followed by 40 to 50 feet of lake and stream
deposits. The glacial deposits were encountered at depths of approximately 60 to 65 feet on the site. The
depth to bedrock is greater than 130 feet. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site
have been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup
plan approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (see Section 3.6 of the Draft
EIS,Hazardous Materials).
The project site is located on the May Creek delta,which is the source of a significant portion of the post-
glacial sediments. Through time,May Creek has meandered over the site area. The area was mapped by
Waldron et al. (1962) as alluvium consisting of mostly silt clay and peat, with generally poor drainage
and slow to moderate infiltration. These geologic materials are characterized by variable permeability
with poor seismic stability and fair foundation stability due to the compressible organic layers. The fill
was placed to buildup the project site shoreline. The wood and sawdust are present because the site was
operated as a sawmill for more than 60 years.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 September 2003
i I
The near-surface geology and soils conditions in the project area would not change substantially between
the existing site development and the redeveloped neighborhood. The development would include for
removal of contaminated soil (discussed in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials) and importing clean fill
material for site grading. The environmental consequences associated with soils would primarily be a
result of the site remediation and construction of future residences.
3.1.1.1 Seismic and Landslide Hazards
Because the Puget Sound region has a history of earthquakes with a magnitude 5.0 or greater on the
Richter scale,the ground in the entire project area could experience shaking in the event of an earthquake.
The USGS has identified the western Washington area to have a moderate to high risk of earthquakes
(USGS 2003). The loose soils, fill, and deltaic deposits at the project site are prone to landslide and
liquefaction in an earthquake. The severity of movement in an earthquake would depend on the location
and magnitude of the seismic event, as well as several other site-specific factors such as depths to
groundwater.
The Seattle fault is a 4 to 6 kilometers wide, west-trending zone of three or more south-dipping reverse
faults that transect the Puget Sound Lowlands. The Seattle fault is cut into two segments by a north
trending, high-angle, strike-slip fault zone (Johnson et al. 1999). The published location of the
southernmost splay of the Seattle fault is along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site (Shannon
and Wilson 2001). Topographic expressions of this fault are not indicated at the project site. Also,there
is no known recent displacement of sediments shown by borings across the area, which indicates limited
or no motion across the fault during recent times.
Past studies in the vicinity of the project have identified seismic risks in the area. The May Creek basin
area is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large events with recurrence
intervals longer than 100 years) because of known earthquake epicenters in the region (Heaton and
Hartzell 1987; Noson et al. 1988; Gower et al. 1985) and thick unconsolidated sediments in an area of
observed seismic-induced mass wasting (Bucknam et al. 1992; Atwater and Moore 1992; Karlin and
Abella 1992; Jacoby et al. 1992). Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to
seismic-induced landslides, ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest
dIamage in a future large earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta.
Sliding and generation of turbidity currents are natural processes occurring off deltas like the May Creek
delta. Slides and resultant slide-induced waves have occurred on the south side of Mercer Island, across
from the May Creek delta (Jacoby et al. 1992; and Karlin and Abella 1992). Lobes and terraces on the
bathymetry of the delta indicate the presence of wave cut terraces and possible slumps (USGS Bellevue
South Topographic Map 1983). On a geologic time scale (thousands of years) the May Creek delta is a
high seismic risk because of the potential for seismic induced landslides and slide-induced waves (King
County 1995).
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake
shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils,which are soils in which the space
between individual particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil
particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake,
the water pressure is relatively low; however, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase
to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. In technical terms,
liquefaction is the transformation of loosely packed sediment into a fluid mass. It is the transformation
from a solid to a liquid state as a result of increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress. This
process occurs most readily in fine- to coarse-grained sands of uniform grain size. The mixture of sand
and water act as a viscous liquid with significantly reduced shear strength. The process of liquefaction
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 September 2003
can be triggered by a variety of mechanisms, including seismic shaking, wave-induced shear stress, the
static force of a thick sequence of loose sediment on a slope, erosion on the toe of a slope, or seepage
force due to a changing water table(Obermeier et al. 2001).
The results of liquefaction generally include the following:
• Loss of bearing strength of soils
• Increased pressure against foundations and retaining walls
• Lateral spreading
Loss of bearing strength of soils can result in the slumping of earth and sinking of structural foundations.
Differential settlement of foundations can cause shear forces in other parts of the structure that cause the
overlying structure to develop cracks or to fail.
Liquefied soil also exerts higher pressure on structures such as foundations or retaining walls, which can
cause them to deflect. This can also cause shear forces in structures, leading to failure. On structures
such as bridges, lateral pressure can cause supports to deflect,which can push foundations out of place to
the point where bridge spans loose support or are compressed to the point of buckling(UW 2002).
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is the displacement of ground under a gradient as the result of
liquefaction of underlying soils. Lateral displacement can range from slight to severe movement of
several meters. Slight movement typically produces cracks and fissures in the overlying deposits.
Greater movements can result in unsaturated overburden soil sliding as intact blocks with the formation of
ground fissures and subsidence at the head of the movement and compression and buckling at the toe.
Locations where there is no confining geologic boundary, such as at a stream or lakeside,typically result
in greater lateral spreading(Rauch 1997).
Both landslides and liquefaction can have caused major damage beyond structural damage to roads,
bridges and other structures by making roads unusable, blocking streams with resulting flooding or other
damage, and breaking pipelines and power and communication lines, leading to loss of fire flow, loss of
domestic water service,and pollution from spilled sewage, including related health hazards(USGS 1996).
Whether either landslides or liquefaction occurs depends on a variety of factors, including slope, strength
of geologic materials, and the magnitude of shaking.
3.1.2 Impacts
3.1.2.1 Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation
The near-surface geology and soils in the project area would change as a result of the proposed
development because of the removal of contaminated soils from the northern part (discussed in Section
3.6, Hazardous Materials) and the importing of clean fill material for site grading. The environmental
consequences associated with soils would primarily be a result of the site remediation and construction.
Redevelopment of the project site would include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the
site. Vegetation would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be
demolished on the site prior to grading.
This may cause erosion. Sediment-laden runoff may discharge to Lake Washington and May Creek.
Wind erosion during dry seasons can produce dust. If soils are trucked off-site or if fill is transported into
the project area, some soil may be blown off trucks while in route.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 September 2003
371.2.2 Seismic and Landslide Hazards
Geotechnical assessment of the Barbee Mill site has concluded that the fills and alluvial soils that underlie
the site to depths of up to 60 feet are potentially susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake (Golder
2002). The potential impacts to the Barbee Mill site from seismic induced liquefaction include the
following three mechanisms, as discussed above.
• Loss of bearing strength of soils.
1
• Increased pressure against foundations and retaining walls.
• Lateral spreading. --
Dlepending on the area subject to liquefaction, the depth, and the extent of lateral movement, damage
could range from minor to severe. Localized loss of soil cohesion could result in differential subsidence
or deformation of foundations with associated structure damage(i.e., deflection of foundations walls with
associated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges) localized cracking or
subsidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. A loss of soil cohesion in larger areas could
result in rotational failure causing building structures to tip where substantial portions of foundation
support is lost. Lateral movement could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight
Movements typically produce cracks and fissures in overlying deposits causing building structure failure i
through increased shear strain. Greater lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to
compress to the point of buckling or be pulled apart. Roadways may experience severe cracks, and
fisures; utilities may be broken in numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is
'close to the lakeside and the lack of a confming geologic boundary with the gradient provided by lake
depth could result in movement of portions of the overburden to the west.
It is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads, and utilities due to the
• .complexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site
developed to date.
The risks of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass, as discussed above,
cannot be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic
deposits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement.
31.3 Mitigation
3.1.3.1 Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation
Site work should be phased to minimize the amount of exposed soils to the areas that are under
construction. To control erosion during construction, contractors would use Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and standard mitigation measures approved by Ecology's Stormwater Manual (Ecology 2001)
and by the City of Renton surface water management regulations. Soil and Erosion Control Plans would
be in place prior to construction. By effectively using construction BMPs, erosion, sediment-laden
runoff,and dust would be controlled,and adverse impacts would be reduced.
The following measures could potentially be used to limit erosion and sedimentation:
• Prepare comprehensive erosion, sedimentation and spill control plan to outline how the site
would be managed for erosion and other hazards. It would cover appropriate measures for each
phase of site development, training, pre-construction conference, coordination with utilities and
contractors, monitoring, and reporting. It would provide for stockpiling of erosion control 1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-4 September 2003
i —
I '
material on site. Monitoring of water quality and notice of problems may be appropriate.
Provisions for contingency planning and revision to the plan should be provided.
• Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited or prohibited between October 1 and April
30,because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest.
• Delineate and mark clearing limits, limit the amount of the site opened for disturbance at any
time. Limiting exposure is especially critical close to water bodies.
• Buffer zones should be provided around wetland areas, May Creek, and the Lake Washington
shoreline. Where possible,existing vegetation should be maintained as a buffer. A barrier should
be placed along the creek and wetland areas to protect them from construction activities and
prevent construction equipment or stockpiling within those areas.
• All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Time periods of allowed
exposure would depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would part
of the construction plans, including:
> Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable
practices include, but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding,
mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, and early application of a
gravel base on areas to be paved,and dust control.
> Protect cut and fill slopes from erosive flows and concentrated flows and establish temporary
and permanent cove.
• A stabilized construction entrance or other method should be installed to prevent sediment
transport. If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be
installed under the rock. A wheel wash would be required if wet season grading occurs.
• Temporary stormwater control should be provided,which may include:
> Detention for runoff from a site under construction. A detention pond may be designed to
contain runoff from the worst-case storm event expected during construction.
> Protect existing drainage inlets from sediment and silt-laden water.
> Stabilize channels and outlets of temporary and permanent conveyance systems to prevent
erosion during and after construction.
> The water from dewatering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations should be
discharged into a controlled system. Treatment may be required for sediments or pollutants.
• Control pollutants from waste materials and demolition debris, construction equipment, leakage
of fuels,fertilizers, application of chemicals,and water treatment systems.
• In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of
bridge footings should be conducted during Washington Department of Fish.and Wildlife's
(WDFW)prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,respectively.
• A monitoring plan, with independent testing, may be appropriate as part of the quality assurance
plan for compliance including a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background
measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule should, at a minimum,
require sampling during every storm event in the wet season that would generate runoff, as well
as site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 September 2003
3.1.3.2 Seismic Hazards
Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented for varying levels of the presumed extent of l'
liquefaction,with varying levels of risk.
The following three basic strategies were identified by the applicant's geotechnical engineer:
• Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath
the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits.
• Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the
liquefaction potential.
• Containment walls to mitigate the hazard of lateral spreading(Golder 2002).
The use of foundations would likely involve piles drilled or driven to dense deposits not subject to
liquefaction. It is unclear from prior geotechnical work done on the site how deep such piles would need
to'be driven. In the central area of the site,two borings have indicated that dense glacial till is present at
approximately 60 feet. The most reliable foundation system would be founded on the dense glacial till.
Shallower pile-supported foundations might be acceptable if non-liquefiable soils could be confirmed at
shallower depths.
Piles driven through a weak, potentially liquefiable, soil layer to a stronger layer would not only have to
carry vertical loads from the superstructure, but also would have to be able to resist horizontal loads and
bending moments induced by lateral movements if the weak layer liquefies. Sufficient resistance could
be achieved by piles of larger dimensions and/or more reinforcement. In addition, it is important that the
piles be connected to the cap in a manner that allows some rotation to occur, without failure of the
connection. If pile connections fail,the structure may fail due to overturn forces.
There is uncertainty in evaluating the relative effectiveness of ground treatment strategies for limiting
lateral deformations because a limited amount of research has been performed that evaluates seismically-
induced lateral deformations of improved soil sites(ODOT 2002).
I '
Stone columns are a densification measure with the added advantage of providing drainage. They are
routinely placed by sinking a vibrofloat or probe into the soil using a water jet to the required depth.
While adding additional stone to backfill the cavity, the probe is raised and lowered to form a dense
column. A system of closely placed stone columns provides areas of compacted soils not subject to
liquefaction. In addition, stone columns may prevent the build-up of excess pore pressures in a soil,
which would otherwise lead to liquefaction by reducing the effective stress between soil particles. This
effect,however, is not the most important one, since time for a positive effect of the drainage is limited to
the duration of the earthquake, which means that in this short time, any drainage into the column only
affects a rather limited zone near the column perimeter but never the whole soil volume. This is
especially true for sands with a silt content of above 12 percent since the drainage effect becomes
negligible(Madabhushi 1999).
Jet grouting is an additional means of stabilizing soils in place. Cement grout is the most common
stabilizer used. The soil improvement is installed through a drilled hole from the existing ground surface
down to the desired depth. A rod containing a jet is inserted into the hole and grout is pumped at high
pressure. The grout penetrates the existing soils, enhancing the strength of the soil matrix. The jet is
rotated while being drawn out of the hole, forming a column of improved soil. Numerous columns at
close intervals can be used to create a block of improve soil. The columns can also be interspersed with
cells of unimproved soils surrounded by jet-grouted columns, thus creating an area of improved soil
without having to treat the entire area(Berger/Abam 2002).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-6 September 2003
Deep dynamic compaction involves the use of impact energy on the ground surface to create dense and
compact subsurface soils. Weights typically ranging from 10 to 30 tons are lifted with standard,
modified, or specialty machines and dropped from about 50- to 120-foot heights. Freefall impact energy
is controlled by selecting the weight, drop height, number of drops per point, and the spacing of the grid.
In general,treatment depths of up to 35 feet may be achievable in granular soils. The major limitations of
the method are vibrations,flying matter, and noise(Martin 1999).
For small pockets of liquefiable soils, building foundations can be designed and constructed to tie all
elements together to make the foundation move or settle uniformly. Such a foundation design is useful
for bridging over areas of local settlement to adjacent stronger ground. The strength of such a foundation
also reduces failure from shear forces induced by differential settlement(UW 2002).
The extent to which stone columns,jet grouting or other soil improvements can resist the load applied
from the untreated deposits located behind the treated area depends on a number of factors. Such factors
include the area of liquefiable soils applying the load, the area and depth of soil improvements and the
materials used. In many cases, soil improvements are used in conjunction with retaining structures to
contain lateral movement due to liquefaction.
Containment structures to control lateral spreading present significant structural challenges due to the
depths to consolidated materials in the range of 60 or more feet and the extremely high forces likely to be
bear upon such structures if large areas of deposits liquefy. In addition, such structures must extend
below the liquefiable deposits to prevent lateral movement of the entire structure. One retaining structure
option is installation of secant pile walls. These are walls formed from shafts drilled into the earth. The
walls consist of reinforced concrete shafts spaced on a regular interval and spanned by columns of
unreinforced concrete which fill in the gaps. The first step of installation generally involves drilling
shafts to be filled with unreinforced low strength concrete. Primary shafts to be reinforced with steel and
higher strength concrete are drilled between and cutting into the sides of the unreinforced shafts. The
process is repeated resulting in a wall composed of circular shafts joined together. (Berger/Abam 2002)
It is likely that an area of considerable width would be required for soil improvement and retaining
structures between building sites and Lake Washington.
Mitigation of impacts on streets and utilities pose more challenges because they are extensive linear
facilities. Although these facilities could be built on deep foundations, the cost is generally a limiting
factor. Ground improvement measures along road and utility corridors can provide some reduction in
shallow liquefaction potential that may reduce slumping, but would not address lateral movement.
Construction of utility pipelines can involve materials of additional strength to resist breakage from minor
displacement together with sections of flexible line to allow displacement without breakage. In addition,
having emergency backup facilities for fire flow or domestic supply can mitigate the adverse impacts of
system failure during a seismic event by providing temporary facilities for fire fighting and water supply.
The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining
appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable
seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost,high replacement and repair cost,
and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency access. Residential
land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability because of the potential for loss
of life. Commercial and industrial uses may receive lower levels of seismic protection because the
potential loss of life may be less due to population density, and also the fact that workers are in an active
state and awake so they can exit failing buildings. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further
document underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies
based on a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific
building type, size and location. Additional environmental review may be required at that time.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-7 September 2003
I � I
3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
3.2.1 Affected Environment
3.2.1.1 Surface Water Bodies
This section includes a discussion of existing streams and other waterways, hydrology, floodplains, and
water quality. More detailed discussion is provided in Appendix C. These analyses provide a basis for
assessment of impacts on wildlife, aquatic resources, and endangered species. This section has been
prepared based on review of existing data, a peer evaluation of the technical studies provided by the
applicant, and qualitative evaluation of likely impacts. Proposed mitigation has been evaluated for the
potential impacts identified. Additional technical analysis is contained in Appendix C.
Surface Water Bodies
May Creek
The proposal site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek discharges to Lake
Washington as indicated in Figure 3.2-1. May Creek is identified as tributary #0282 in Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 08. May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly
8.,6 miles to Lake Washington (Williams et al. 1975). The May Creek basin encompasses a 14-square-
mile area between the Cedar River, Coal Creek, and Issaquah Creek drainages. The basin lies primarily
within unincorporated King County, but the western and southwestern portions of the basin
12 percent of the total area) are within the Cities of Newcastle and Renton (KingCounty
tY
1995). The May Creek watershed consists of residential, open space, agriculture, and commercial land
uses (King County 2001). Under current zoning, full build-out would result in an increase of effective
impervious surface from 7 percent to 12 percent(King County 2001).
The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site as
indicated in Figure 3.2-2. Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill
I property is armored with riprap. The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10
to 20 feet. The stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches; hence the stream's ordinary high
Water(OHW) is only slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002).
Annual dredging at the mouth of May Creek in Lake Washington has been conducted by the Barbee Mill
Company since the 1950s to remove sediment transported from the upper reaches of May Creek in order
to maintain water depth for log handling and log storage for the sawmill.
. II
The portion of May Creek located on the Barbee Mill site is classified as a Type 1 stream (DNR 2002),
based on its size and anadromous fish use. King County classifies streams under three different
categories. Class 1 streams have been inventoried as Shorelines of the State under King County's
Shoreline Master Program(King County 1991).
The water quality classifications of May Creek is a Class AA (extraordinary) water under State Water
Quality Standards WAC Chapter 173-201A. The water quality of Class AA waters exceeds the
requirements for all or substantially all uses including domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply.
These waters also provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids,
crustaceans, and shellfish, as well as wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide opportunities for
recreation, commerce, and navigation. Any water listed as Class AA must meet certain water quality
criteria for fecal coliform bacteria; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved gas; temperature; PH; turbidity;Y;
toxic, radioactive, or deleterious materials; and aesthetic values set forth in WAC 173-201A (MRSC
1997).
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 September 2003
; ,,;. .`, :,—,,,e:- --7;k'''".,:, ': Afik, : ' ().-A r..-,-,'" \\,)
: ,,,,,,e ,k , . , :
580 �-
SEATTLE �r
cSl?%l7gtC)t1,
.s. BELLEVUE
z::„`,-'.-,'„T'2,—.„,,-e-:,•"*.,:,,.,,,,‘,,':..„,„1,,‘",,'",,,:,-,i,k' g'o, ,.'"..'.;,',-5'.t,•
l405
'
. , .. i
`;*'',
''' MERCER .w , ">
•,,a• , „, ISLAND ;t 00 ,,.;„4'4'11P4141iii,i_i. .. • ' r,,
f7
t
�. .x :I ,i '•�< F..'t ,..:,::....„...,,,,1 i max.
• I'o, e' Y 4 f N +e. / 1SSAfvtUAN
SITE , W A71E
'',, ',. �Si, `ts:y...M "ELF.. I • M eet Y.
Ilk
y. ,,,,
Illk
41,
: RE,.,T,o. ..."„ „,......„,,,t,...,„„,:,....„,,,,,,,...„:
,..,,,,:,4,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,:„.,,,,.. „,:,,,,,, : ,:,.., ,
9B ,
0!
Tit W,LA �189 �— t
405 \*)
Date of map,October 1998 Z
Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
takN Figure 3.2-1
o 1 2 Miles
May Creek Basin
—_—_ Vicinity Map
AY NI.EIO t.$
!.',;1.•"r..,• ':',. • • .'.l... 7:'41:C) ...,,,„,,,,-A
•PASSABLE,BAP RI Vis,IMPAstAlinl'
• —,••••-rZl'''''• . .. . ,
.:•0111„. ,';',i,.. ' IL
"Fott;• In—
:' '*4'' '• . . (:)---- 17f-
y,
„ . . .„ .
, . .
0
'''' 'f:.i-' ' -,. • . .• --rt4TIL :Coscti ci es•
. ,i - • •
.. .
'AO* !8 e over 'barns
. .
.. . ,S4,5, ". • - i ' ' • - —
..
. .
• ,-.t.V.Q0,444:4,. 't''.0 • '..."'N'S.,........
..:44,M,
Y. 4,,,V....144tVf;1 .
‘4
. . ft''''1,..:11•0*,;,' •- : t-il
-.,„ ,:,i0,'4-r' -.,...iTy, . . •:•-.- ...
' Cka, ... ,:::,, ' ==•::F •:PO.rit9. '' Z'r.
•-.. „„rt4 • ii,„• •,. : eilk
- ' .............
:: ,,,kh,*'... lA.•,,,„4-*A.... . , „.. .. W . 0-• .
,V7„,.... • ,. - . • '. .... - ., 2'' '''Z •
-•,,iglito..,,t.A.1,-. • .,-.:,..',,. .''., ...: .- .. . *Iwo. .Sqlrp.9n•Hqt.c her y
• .op":„.,
•',Pre& *,,,p lr. ,,,,— ,,.. - .;it• • -'''''
-,•I,,W'''''''e A• ''''A'...2,-SW 21-a- ', 'IV , ' . ) .
•<c...4 fiftti .p.osktiOe•-Kticility
Fr.,-,,,.,viiv,14p4yv.,,„ ,• • :-. : ,. •15 ,-.. ,,,e&I,,k1:;;:y;k,,,,g•-,,,'i„,vo,• • • . '*.. • ' 2k•'-`04,A.4.x"*;:k.," ...,rei • - ,ok7Z.. •" •
. • .. . 'S•tteoni 29,5194
.
• '' •-•'4'''iidri.VA'' • " A711_.
.. :,•.. ,,',;tetX41:-:;i4IX ' ..- „, LC-r 4eD'iv • hl(?.:( 16'ç.
. ;,k
t-. 'v •40; •.Sil".6.10bi 'IV.I.if.e•
' ..,34 , „. ." to
• vs - iel• . ty. • t's,. .... .a : , e....-....r• -.„.... ,, . •N- et/ .!z1 ' :Nfgferlce. 'Potpt
•p
• ' r..1.7,4,
J. 10,44,,,I•4 •et.,--,.z. .
., .r. ..... .
. ..„. .
.. ..i„,,...;.„...ti,,,,, ,.:„:e ., „Trcrti4 •• „ii, :
• .
.:., ..,....,,,.....:„. 40.::.z,,„ :.,./., :•s,
\..
.
• •
. ..
SITE. •.- .
.c5..
:.:-
. „•,'.,„,,,,,,....,,,:;„61..,i‘ „. , .. el cz '
. . 3,4`,?t-f.rklj• •: : 4 e.Gred"t•,x•r, -, .
- •••f.,':'.''':::;:;rr'''''' .-' . .. la •
Oh• •
.•••.:(31 '0 '
34,,iik 11,11,-,.=?4 ,,, 41..'.c2, :- • \ . .
441....•`•!. , . .c::.
,.'1.Ya...., .0 4 . ,• : VO TO .,. .•,...
1 f•,,,,,i kg', 1-..,,,,7 .m .
.0, ..
AY-f:. • •- : -e, ?...9
t'.4 " . . • . .rtt= • ..
''*.k-4,44/,.- ••0"' tN1 :- .. v .0e,re.
0cF... 51
.. 94.' '
''''P•
• .: 0.8-'
, itli li,:•. • •• - •- - • . . . ..
-•140:0t.,' ,. • . - g?" oc,,....
--.:41,0.A • .• . . .. . . . ,. . . .. ri'b
. '
.. ......,
.-',,',.9:4.v.,,,Fai , - (L.:).. • 049/. „,.. • •
....,•70‘.,4.:12N• •
•,,!i,,,k,..4„.4ix1.;,,„, , • .,:„, • . . .v, .
•.•••43,,m4.... .•• ....e...„ . ,
.. 5:,• .t.,, •a . . ta:
RI,,,N.I.,,4,4,4. .",..,....74.,,,k, . , lz, ,. .-,,, • •a,
'°',4*.,.P.igr..w.::...,,,A • .. . . \,...
.' ..
,Ck,,V..1.-4,4,, ,,,:,,, . .. . . . •. .
. . - . „st.0.
, Tv•-(=.441.,' ': . , . . . . . ' . ' '•
1,"
•!1•V"r___....,;--`"/•"."'-‘ - . • .
(..S., ... ' • '
11).ONO • •.. '. •, , .
.t . . ..
.. . . . .
...'.:4
1/2 0 1 MILE
.0. • t • I - - , 0,97.'..• , •
2 ....4
...C.:44 •
.e
el AO*: ;SCALE) 1 MILE •
•crl .4 44:4:4 44.4,.4.I...4:4 -•
. .
•-`4.4. 448,..+4.44$44 to,
I ..044:;$*:+44:•K 404 kitt•
•
0 R n.t 6 r) :
SOUTH:
,44 ..4
,40-4,.....1y,,,"1,; 44 :
4. • .•\......?.•*4. ##.#4,+#44:#4.4 • . .
. .
.
LAKE WASH 1:N•G• TON
,...• ,
4C elf.44:44 4.44.0 di,
4..****44444.4.4+44, .'.4701 iroltAips
N404•4,.•+:114.4#414 t,'. .•
.Y.'I w•-0-4.-iy•-ow•
:tVite4.4•444~. DR Al N.AGES• . . . •,04,.....m.......4....,..•
. . . . ...
Source:Washington Department of Fisheries(1975)Washington Streams
and Salmon Utilization map,Volume 1.
Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
/rAlik Figure 3.2-2
May Creek Location
' 410 and Stream Type Map
The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State
as being impaired in the 1998 listing under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for zinc, copper, lead,
and fecal coliform bacteria, zinc, copper and lead are listed based on one to three excursions beyond the
criterion collected by King County Surface Water Management(KCSWM)at the mouth of May Creek at
Lake Washington in 1994. Fecal coliform is listed based on 27 excursions beyond the upper criterion out
of 92 samples (29 percent) collected at King County station 0440 (May Creek River Mile 0.1) between
January 1991 and April 1997. (www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/links/impaired wtrs.html) and
www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/303d/w8a-303d.pdf).
Lake Washington
The basin containing Lake Washington is a deep, narrow glacial trough with steep side slopes. The lake
receives its main inflows from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers, and drains approximately 472 square
miles. Most of Lake Washington's surrounding watersheds are urban in nature (DNR 1999). The lake
connects to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The Ship Canal provides
the only discharge from Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington. The Lake Washington Basin is WRIA
08.
Lake Washington is listed as Lake Class under State Water Quality Standards(WAC Chapter 173-201A).
As with May Creek, its water quality should meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all
uses, provide areas and habitat for fish and wildlife, and provide recreation, commerce and navigation
opportunities. Any water listed as Lake Class must meet the same water quality criteria as those for May
Creek.
Considering its urban location, Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake and it is
a valuable natural resource to both King County residents, and fish and wildlife. This, however, has not
prevented natural runs of Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon and steelhead trout from
declining. The reasons for these declines are still not fully understood(DNR 1998).
Identified Management Strategies
The May Creek Basin Action Plan(King County 2001) (hereafter referred to as the Action Plan) outlines
a set of actions for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin: 1)reduce the threat of flooding
to homes; 2) make infrastructure improvements to facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream
banks, and reduce erosion; 3)protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin;
and 4) prevent existing problems from becoming worse. The Action Plan's primary recommendations
include:
• Establish and enforce requirements for runoff retention/detention, forest retention, and water
quality facilities for site development.
• Develop basin stewardship and community participation through creation of a May Creek Basin
Steward.
• Establish a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of implemented actions.
The Barbee Mill site is contained within the regional sub-area identified in the Action Plan as the Lower
Basin Sub-area,which extends from the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington upstream to River Mile
3.9,above the Coal Creek Parkway S.E. crossing. Primary recommendations for this Sub-area specific to
the Barbee Mill site area include Recommendation No.10: Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta
Dredging. The Action Plan notes that sediment deposition occurs naturally in the May Creek delta, and
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-11 September 2003
that increases in erosive storm flows from basin clearing and land development have increased the need
for more frequent dredging to maintain adequate access for the mill's continued commercial operations.
The Action Plan goes on to note:
"In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future,
opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance
dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been
undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need
for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved
habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of
environmental and economic benefits. Any major redevelopment project also should
consider opportunities for acquisition and restoration/preservation of riparian lands
adjacent to the May Creek Park system. Until funding for such a project becomes
available, continued dredging is the only viable alternative for maintaining commercial
operations at the mill. Such dredging has no downstream impacts, and the impacts on
' channel habitat are localized and minimal. This recommendation recognizes the need for
dredging to continue until a long-term solution can be identified and funded, and that
even a long-term solution likely will include some need for ongoing maintenance
dredging."
3:2.1.2 Floodplains and Flooding
The May Creek Delta is formed by the discharge carried by the stream into Lake Washington where it is
deposited on the lake bottom. Delta deposits extend underwater in Lake Washington approximately
3,000 feet and extends upstream to approximately a half mile. The character of the delta was influenced
by construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 that lowered the lake's water level by 9 feet.
This exposed portions of the delta that were previously underwater and initially increased the gradient of
May Creek's lower channel and caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic
May Creek delta. This action shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into
the lake.
Subsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined
the channel, resulting in high ground along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to the east
bank. This fill concentrates flow in the fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport
capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. Dredging operations by the
Barbee Mill site has removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediment per year since the 1950s from
the mouth of May Creek(King County 2001).
Floodplain modeling of existing and future conditions using the hydraulic model HEC-RAS (USACOE
2001) is presented in Appendix B. Approximately 1,125 feet of May Creek within and adjacent to the
proposal study area was modeled. In general, the 100-year floodplain width and depth are influenced by
the three existing bridges,whose fill and structure help confine the floodplain, and the predicted 100-year
floodplain would cover a substantial part of the site as indicated in Figure 3.2-3. (see Floodplain Analysis
Technical Report,Figure 2-2,Appendix B).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-12 September 2003
3.2.1.3 Existing Drainage
Impervious Surface Areas
Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious
surface in the form of pavement and various buildings (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). An existing
bulkhead extends along the majority of the site's shoreline, and a 50-foot dock is located about 300 feet
from the northern property boundary. There are also numerous pilings and log booms associated with the
mill extend from the shore for several hundred feet out into Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc.
2002). Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May Creek: a single vehicle lane, wooden structure at
the mouth of the Creek, a wooden, foot-traffic only bridge approximately 200 feet upstream, and a two
lane concrete structure 350 feet further north(Raedeke Associates, 2002).
Conveyance and Stormwater Discharge
The Barbee Mill site consists of three stormwater collection areas and outfalls associated with the
industrial activities,and non-point discharge drainage areas not associated with industrial activities(Loyd
and Associates 2003)and is discussed further in Appendix C.
North Outfall
This outfall discharges stormwater collected from the north side of Barbee Mill, and drains approximately
40 percent of the facility's industrial activity area. No chemical usage occurs in this area. There is a
covered and bermed, petroleum product storage area, and a wash area near the east side, north of the dry
kiln,drains to an oil/water separator that is not connected to the storm drain system. This outfall does not
have an oil/water separator at the terminus of the storm drain system at Lake Washington, although
numerous catch basins exist within the storm drain system that provide for settling of potential
windblown dust and debris,which is minimal.
Middle Outfall
This outfall drains approximately 10 percent of the industrial activity area. It has an oil/water separator to
trap the minimal amounts of residual hydraulic oil or other petroleum product from the sawmill area.
South Outfall
This outfall drains 50 percent of the activity area. The storm drain system has catch basins and lines that
terminate at an oil/water separator adjacent to the lake. Wood debris from dredging is currently stored in
this area.
Non-Point Drainage Areas
The non-industrial, southern portion of the facility adjacent to the east shoreline of May Creek is a non-
point drainage area (Loyd and Associates 2003). There is no industrial activity in the May Creek
corridor.
Wetlands
The northernmost wetland drains via a ditch to May Creek, and the southern wetland drains to Lake
Washington via a 150-foot-long storm drain pipe (Raedeke Associates, 2002). See discussion of impacts
in Section 3.4.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-13 September 2003
I
I I
Adjacent Upstream Drainage
II
A drainage basin near North 40th Street, between I-405 and the BNSF railroad, drains south towards
Barbee Mill, first along the east side of the railway, then the west. The stormwater daylights into a
surface ditch before entering a 15-inch drain line to cross the site and discharge to the lake (Otak, Inc.
2002).
3.2.2 Impacts
3.2.2.1 Impacts of the Proposal
The proposal involves removing the existing Barbee Mill facilities. The proposed Barbee Mill
Preliminary Plat and future construction of residences would include the construction of 13.07 acres of
new impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area on
the 22.9-acre site. Existing impervious surface coverage would be reduced from 85 to 57 percent
1 I (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington
and 40 lots adjacent to May Creek. Eight of the lots along the lake front on intervening public land
I waterward of the Inner Harbor line. This public land varies from 16 to 80 feet wide. Residential
structures along the lake's shoreline are proposed to maintain a 25-foot setback from the waters edge.
The proposed buffer for May Creek would range from a minimum width of about 20 feet near the existing
bridge close to the mouth of the creek to a maximum width of 100 feet for a short distance north of the
northerly wetland. The average width is about 50 feet. A specific landscape plan for the Mill Creek
buffer area has not been proposed. For the purposes of drainage analysis, it was presumed to be restored
with native vegetation. (Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002).
A new bridge for a two lane public street would be constructed over May Creek and would require the
removal of an existing middle bridge. Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be
necessary and is presumed to include no work within the OHW of May Creek. The new bridge would be
approximately 42-feet wide and include sidewalks. One of the other existing bridges would be retained
and converted to foot-traffic-only use.
I
Stormwater Discharge
I I The proposal would reduce impervious surface area, leading to reduced stormwater run-off to May Creek
and Lake Washington. It could also increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater.
1!
Impacts to Water Quality
I I
Degradation of surface water quality can result from new development when increases in stormwater
1 pollutants, or erosion and sediment transport, result in higher discharges of contaminants to receiving
I waters. If not properly mitigated, potential stormwater pollutants from a developed site can include oil
and greases, nutrients, toxic organics, metals, and suspended solids. Long periods in stormwater
detention ponds and water quality treatment ponds can increase water temperatures through sun exposure.
Water quality treatment for the proposal is required under King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
(KCSWDM) Core Requirement No.8 (King County 1998). Stormwater will be routed to treatment
facilities, described in Section 3.2.3—Mitigation Measures before being discharged to Lake Washington.
The reduction in impervious surface area and the proposed,enhanced May Creek buffers will also provide
beneficial effects due to water quality improvements(Raedeke Associates,2002).
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-14 September 2003
II I
! ill
Maintenance Activity Impacts
Landscape maintenance could include use of fertilizers, pesticides, and/or herbicides, and potentially
affect biological activity in receiving waters if not removed by water quality treatment or otherwise
mitigated. Sediment removal from water quality treatment ponds could result in increased turbidity in
stormwater discharges,particularly if the maintenance were performed during wet periods.
Construction Water Quality Impacts
Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings, excavation and
backfill for hazardous materials remediation. Excavation and fill would be required for utilities and water
quality ponds, and road construction grading as well as construction of dwellings after completion of
subdivision. Infrastructure construction would include approximately 38,000 cubic yards of fill for road
and lot construction and 32,000 cubic yards of excavation from the water quality ponds and underground
pipes. These activities can expose soil that could be transported with stormwater runoff, and soil
compaction can decrease stormwater infiltration, increasing surface water runoff. Use and maintenance
of construction equipment, on-site wastes can produce pollutants. If not properly mitigated, surface
waters can be impacted.
Floodplains and Flooding
Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many
factors, including the erosive force of the river, and the nature of the material protecting the proposal
development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three
proposal scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from the
thalweg of May Creek) were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate
of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995). The existing condition assumes the existing channel configuration,
delta elevation (which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three bridges. In
addition,the individual scenarios assure the following:
• Scenario 1 —No setback and no levees or fill;
• Scenario 2—The development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot setback from
ordinary high water; and
• Scenario 3 — The development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot setback
from OHW.
Scenario 1 —Existing site topography
The 100-year floodplain would cover about half of the site west of May Creek, as indicated on Figure 3.2-
3. The higher eastern bank would limit the extent of the floodplain on that side of the creek. The almost
level topography on the west side of the creek would result in extensive but shallow flow over about a
third of the site affecting 25 buildings. A small area near the mouth of May Creek remains outside the
floodplain, possibly because the existing bridge present enough of a barrier to flood water to divert water
to the west.
Scenario 2—50-Foot Setback
Construction of levees or fill at a distance of 50 feet from the existing stream to contain the floodplain
would divert floodwaters from the 100 year floodplain from all the buildings areas on-site. The
containment would result in slightly increased flood stages (up to 1.6 feet) at most of the cross sections
modeled(see Appendix B).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-15 September 2003
I
1
1
I
Ii
II Scenario 2— 100-foot Setback
I '
I Containment of flood waters at a distance of 100 feet from the stream also would prevent flooding of
building sites and is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly lower flood state elevations than
Scenario 2(see Appendix B).
I
1
3.2.2.2 Impacts of the Continued Industrial Use Alternative
Impacts associated with the continued industrial use alternative are assumed to be similar to current site
11 conditions. If additional buildings were constructed,they would replace impervious pavement and the net
impervious surface would remain the same. The extent of the floodplain on the site would be the same.
1 Because there are buildings within the 100 year floodplain, the assumption is that they will be flooded
when such events take place. Impacts of flooding on uses contained on-site would depend upon ground
floor uses and whether existing and new buildings are flood-proofed by raising the floor area above the
flood elevation.
I
3.2.2.3 Cumulative Impact
Cumulative impacts of development of other sites in the vicinity are not expected to impact water
resources on the site or change the impacts produced by the proposal.
3.2.3 Mitigation ;-
I
3.2.3.1 Operational Impact Mitigation
' 1
Site Hydrology
I
i Detention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge
1 Exemption in the 1998 KCSWDM(King County 1998);however,water quality treatment is required.
Thie proposal's reduced impervious surface will decrease surface runoff and increase stormwater
1 infiltration and groundwater recharge. Decreasing the amount proposal could be enhanced by the use of
1 pervious pavements on driveways, parking areas and sidewalks, using tree and brush cover to provide
1
additional interception of rainwater, and infiltration of roof drain discharges.
1 Stormwater Discharge + 1
I I
The proposed stormwater drainage system indicated in Figure 3.2-4 is sized to convey the 100-year, 24-
1 hour storm with the water quality ponds in their overflow conditions. Its operation and maintenance
11 I
would conform to City of Renton and KCSWDM requirements (King County 1998). If mitigation
I measures were properly implemented, adverse stormwater discharge impacts are not expected. The
following brief description of the proposed conveyance system is based on the Technical Information 1
Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (I'1R) (Otak, Inc. 2002). Appendix D of the TIR provides
the preliminary calculations showing that the stormwater conveyance system meets the 1998 KCSWDM
Section 4 Stormwater Conveyance Standards(King County 1998).
i
it
11
i
I
II, 1
I J
I
II Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
I Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-16 September 2003
i
-CORF 2 ZONE � p
1 1,,,* ,, _ v--- l':-.:r.... v.-...,.. w...... r- T..7.:[,..--..--,,,- ,..,,,.. - ,, 4,4
�., 1 L -_I L- —J I_ ___I L_. ___I
s ;i -- .• •,▪ t=;'':: — ,fir
1 — ; - — STREET - —
,-..---2-, ,..i‘ ..::----,_,: /----- „--7.... ..,...7c7„.:=1, r,. ....[k.. , . .---,y 1
p ---, ,, ih, , ...\ , ,..
, ,,,, ,,,,/, , -i. L-
. ,,,* e, ,., *,,,/ ts,
s . 1 Tract,�C, O,o T /` Jlf� `l
PUBLIC LAND p , / /
. � '/ ° / / /
�. Space .\' 9
j
�� o ` j
° ,// / 1 / --/
..,...., , , 'r,./.. ,>•''', A
_ 77/ , ,
• l - N. V�", e. P BUFFER Q f
• -'1 __//-l. =ff
LAKE oa r• ,,, , ` .../ ,,, ..N.,,olek*. •
''(`. ~ .-� ' , . "\ , C9 /
WASHINGTON E L — 1 � /// •
oHw !if ;% r`% am!
1 -..--:,1°I WIA' //,/ NAti/f /1 /
go('.3- • %" 4 ;/',//' !I,
::„ I. • 4' •i 9 ",-."7 , AZ, 4,1 ,T ----______
� • A � Fes'...cif
n,2.,_
,,,,,, .. 41k ,,. ,.. /7/ /
PUBLIC LAND F' \4 / / """""
,./ /` "' ` 41 /" / J %
/ \. . . '\
/ ;j
t.. ._ %
r
.� -' _ _ ..
_ . N 40TH ST
Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: 1(1779017P01T14F-3-2-03
SCALE IN FEETak
Figure 3.2-3
I W Flood Plain
o ioo 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
i i --
r t
u_ i 17
-- emu:: ..�.-- ,._
'-C://i/pi .
_ 4.
- Air ' I 1_I ° I r°wl a' '' ,° I_l -i l _I I .\I \ °d / f ,
1/
/ i'l
k 3
4/ t-r
< i� ` �l di — m j
1 i . lik -4,1"`TV---\ \/
, _Thm,
r-- - ::, ki/-674k,•- • 4 ,. / 1, 111.,ilr'r 17_ ./:// oh
1/ //
\- Try:. , 1 .'''.. .---- 5.!1Ta e.°:r Q l',16_ L---...)--1,---' /\ \/ :—/ 1-44 . - L. ',/...ju / '''/ / /
‘s: sl I \I , Orr- < \ , z.,,,/ / / p
ti(sPa-ce\ 1 i it•----- c' ''',..„„ , q.,Ac,---- ,—.".11 ,11.61..,`, / ,.,/—•-/ */. / /
r, \ ,,, ,,,... \‘‘..‘ . ,- ,,„\\. , t>.....,_,,, . - \ A,,,,,,,,,7-7- t3 //
\ Iii,
4i..),- -: .\ 1111"/: . .1-->,,,,..:11.4. 7.\--\- \ . \\,z.,-di'," .-77 i /// -,,,
Ei
\ IFLW. \I r.,./„...v. 1,„,\ - ' _,,,,:;:, -,>,---- ;,,,„---,,,,- , , ,/ „ /7f,
,j r-'' /\ ,,..: ,A„ , , ,,, / , ,
IL —Ili yel \ ..‘4.111111V:',, '-'44- 1:Co' '''1•1"At7/ it / e
1 1 Ali \ .,, , „. , --;,--7;,„::-,:_,-,, • i 0- 4 / cl,>/
___.!1*, �/ ?' 'i 4 ° 1` p ffjj f
LAKE I, ,- !/ . s, `Ii f !a I, , e/
WASHINGTON \ illa f 7,FN?i N "' A' /
is• " '� 1 - , '''','
, ' %) _____
1/".7•y4 I
e ,, 0\N . ryviee . ..G ;_ilV; yf / /
*„/A4) ,,...\'' \• ' iiiii 4,AIVINS‘ti :::,,y/
‘" 11111#,--:-..,--. ;;;;:;4*/;1''r./:..11fi....14 i''':;)1.;*' 41..i'''''44r- 1..'''./. - '
.:4,-," ‘4,„/
-\_,,,„,-_,---- .94,s, .. -...,
MAY CREEK q„ _
?:9 � ."'i
DELTAis •. f�
�� � `sfCam` . //
•2O 1�/ W4447 :, i LEGEND
`4.. V7r ° — * Flow path
yak
.n__ ,� �� /:; x.,« J M ;5,,'�N 40TH ST
7 "' '.a'r,. 2 Basin boundar
Source: Otak Basins,Subbasins and Site Characteristics Map,Figure 3
Parametrix DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-04
Figure 3.2-4
SCALE IN FEET ,IrliN Proposed Water Quality Treatment
and Stormwater Drainage System
o 100 200IW Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
i
Discharge to Lake Washington
Following water quality treatment, water quality treatment ponds would be discharged directly to Lake
Washington through separate 18-inch diameter pipes (indicated as WQ1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4).
Discharge rates for the large pond would range from 2.5 cfs during the 6-month,24-hour storm to 8.0 cfs
during the 100-year, 24-hour storm; for the small pond,these figures would be 1.6 cfs to 5.0 cfs (Raedeke
Associates,Inc.2002).
Adjacent Upstream Drainage
An existing bypass storm drain line would be replaced with another line with a capacity adequate to serve
the developed offsite N 40th Street basin.
Mitigation for Floodplains and Flooding
Potential flooding and floodplain mitigation measures could include the constructing of levees or
constructing the proposal on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-year flood level as presented
above under Scenarios 2 and 3. The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1.0 foot
above the ground surface during the 100-year flood. Therefore, the levee or fill should be at least 2 feet
above the existing ground elevation, to provide 1 foot of freeboard for the top of the levee or the lowest
occupied floor of residences as required by RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. These mitigation measures could protect
the development from flooding and reduce the chance of the stream migrating to a new location.
Dredging at the mouth of May Creek could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation
measures.
As an additional mitigation measure, all existing bridges could be replaced with bridges that would not
restrict the 100-year floodplain.
Reduction in floodplain storage capacity resulting from fill placement or levee construction would have to
be mitigated. In general, these impacts could be mitigated by providing compensatory storage at the
project site or a location immediately upstream. This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by
removing an equivalent volume of historic fill adjacent to the stream at an elevation greater than the bank
and less than the 100-year floodplain elevation.
The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 3.2.1.3 and Appendix
B. However, because the site is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating, potentially
aggradation would continue, with deposits that would reduce the capacity of the stream bed over time.
This would result in greater floodplain depths that would eventually exceed the above estimates. This
could be compensated for to some extent, by increasing the height of the levee or the elevation of the
bottom floor of residences. An additional option is utilizing the wider 100 foot setback from the stream,
which would provide additional flood storage to compensate for the reduction in conveyance capacity.
Mitigation for Water Quality
City of Renton standards require that runoff from pollution generating surfaces be treated. The proposed
design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before it is discharged (see Figure 3.2-4). The
facilities' operation and maintenance would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM (King
County 1998) requirements. If mitigation measures are properly implemented, adverse water quality
impacts are not expected. The following description is based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary
Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-19 September 2003
it
11
, I I
!i The drainage area west and north of May Creek would drain to Water Quality Pond WQ1 in Tract B. The
area would include the residential area of 4.54 impervious acres and 4.92 pervious acres, and Streets E
and F that connect the site to Ripley Lane and have a drainage area of 0.89 impervious acre.
Approximately 8,811 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per 1998 KCSWDM Section 6.4.1. The
elevation for the top of sediment storage would be 19.0 feet, and the design water quality surface
elevation would be 21.0 feet. Calculations for the water quality volumes are contained in Appendix C of
the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc.2002). The measured volume for the preliminary
WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900 cubic feet. Following water quality treatment, water would
discharge directly to Lake Washington(indicated as WQ 1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4).
I '
The area south and east of May Creek would drain to smaller Water Quality Pond WQ2 near the mouth of
May Creek. The area would include residential areas, and an access road to Lake Washington Boulevard
North for a total drainage area of approximately 2.20 acres, 1.87 acres of which would be impervious.
The required water quality volume for this drainage area would be 9,036 cubic feet, or 11,026 cubic feet
if the water quality surface elevation were set at approximately 20.0 feet. Following water quality
I. treatment,water would discharge directly to Lake Washington(indicated as WQ2 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4).
The possible increased temperatures of stormwater discharged from the water quality treatment ponds
during summer months could be mitigated with dense bank cover around the edges of the proposed
ponds.
Mitigation for Maintenance Activity
Maintenance of the water quality ponds would be private,and would conform to City of Renton and 1998
KCSWDM(King County 1998)requirements (King County 1998). Impacts caused by sediment removal
from the ponds could be decreased if maintenance was scheduled during periods of little rain. Impacts
from the possible use of pesticides could be reduced with an Integrated Pest Management Plan, as
described in the Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001). The potential for pollution to stormwater
runoff would be reduced by the implementation of the following BMPs:
I ;
• Installation of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of
stormwater in landscaped areas
• Prevention of disposing of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems j
j • The practice of mulch-mowing
• Disposal ofgrass clippings, leaves sticks,or other collected vegetation bycomposting, if feasible
P g
If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not expected.
3.2.3.2 Construction Impact Mitigation
BMPs for sediment control should be implemented using the standards outlined in 1998 KCSWDM,
Appendix D. Impacts resulting from construction activities would be minimized through implementation -
j of an appropriate SWPPP, including a risk assessment and an approved Temporary Erosion and Sediment
Control (TESC) Plan. If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not
expected. Specific elements of the SWPPP should include the following(Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002): t_1
• Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing,the limits should be marked.
• Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans should install a stabilized construction I^I
entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel
construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-20 September 2003
I �
• Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis, it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site
under construction. A detention pond may be used to control flows during construction.
• Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment should be
removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met.
• Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Both
temporary and permanent groundcover would be part of the construction plans.
• Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows
until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in place.
• Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt laden
water.
• Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would be
stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would require
protection.
• Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials and
demolition debris, would be handled. This would include maintenance of construction
equipment,fertilizers, application of chemicals,and water treatment systems.
• Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations
would be discharged into a controlled system.
• Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and
installed construction BMPs, as well as their removal at the end of the project.
• Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion control.
It would cover phasing,training, coordination,monitoring,reporting, and contingency planning.
Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows(Raedeke Associates,2002):
• Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and April 30, because
these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest.
• In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of
bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake
Washington and May Creek,respectively.
• The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum location for a
TESC pond. Most stormwater runoff from the site would be routed to this pond via interceptor
trenches and berms,and later via permanent drainage pipes.
• The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility should remain in an
undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized.
• Stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond facilities to downstream systems should be
controlled and monitored during construction to ensure compliance with established water quality
discharge requirements.
• Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices
include, but are not limited to, temporary/permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic
covering,erosion control matting, a gravel base for areas to be paved, and dust control.
• Matting, plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures should be specified on
the TESC plan for placement on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-21 September 2003
• A monitoring plan should be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction
SWPPP should contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations,background measurements, and
a periodic reporting schedule. The sampling points would be marked on a map and on the
ground.
The Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001)contains additional erosion and sediment control BMPs
that include the following:
• Limiting disturbed areas as practicable;
j f
• Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas;
• The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure;
• Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient terraces;
• Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration, as needed,to reduce turbidity in the site
discharge;
• Specialized concrete handling;
• Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals;
• Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and
equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill
containment features, and a spill clean-up kit;
• Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction;
• Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead; and
• Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures.
3.3 GROUNDWATER
Infiltration movement and storage of groundwater depend on surface and subsurface deposits.
Groundwater'exists in many types of geologic deposits; however, accessibility to that water and its
movement in the deposits depends on the pore space in the deposits and their connectivity. Aquifers
provide numerous connected voids through which groundwater can travel(e.g., sand and gravel), making
II G the groundwater accessible. Aquitards restrict groundwater movement because they lack pore space
and/or connectivity(Shannon and Wilson 2001).
3.3.1 Affected Environment
The layering sequence of aquifers and aquitards affects vertical groundwater movement. Surface aquifers
allow infiltration of precipitation to the subsurface to recharge the aquifer. Three aquifer systems are
present in the area of the project site. The local unconfined aquifer is in the alluvium and fill, which is
mainly silt and sand. Within the alluvial unit of medium to fine sand are discontinuous zones of silt and
peat that may cause localized semi-confined conditions (the second aquifer system). The sand in the
north central portion of the site becomes gravelly, which may represent a channel of May Creek and the
CityRenton-Barbee Mill PreliminaryPlat 554-1779-017
o.f
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-22 September 2003
third aquifer system. The base of the alluvial and lacustrine deposits consists of a relatively continuous
silt layer, 5-to10-feet thick. This unit overlies the glacial sand and gravel unit(Hart Crowser 2000).
Depth to water in this area ranges from 3 to 7 feet below the surface. This equates to a 14- to 18-foot
elevation. The aquifer is in communication with Lake Washington to the west and pinches out to the east.
The Seattle Fault may have a significant effect on the local flow system. The soil types at depth on both
sides of the fault are different. The effect of the fault on the aquifer system has not been studied.
The City of Renton began an effort to protect its groundwater supplies that is consistent with the
Washington State Wellhead Protection Program (Chapter 246-290-135(4) WAC) and recommended an
Aquifer Protection Program in its 1983 Water System Plan. Aquifer Protection Ordinance No. 4367 was
passed by Renton in 1993 and Aquifer Protection Areas (APA)were established to protect the quality of
Renton's municipal water supply. Land use and development is regulated by the ordinance in this area.
The Barbee Mill site does not fall into this area. The closest municipal well is southeast of the project
site.
Groundwater Flow
The project site is generally in a groundwater discharge area. General groundwater flow on the site is
west toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site. There is an upward
vertical gradient near the lake (Hart Crowser 2000). Flow in the unconfmed alluvial aquifer is most
susceptible to localized change due to placement of fill, cutoff walls, and utilities. Low permeability
pavement and fill will decreases overall infiltration and recharge over the site. The on-site wetlands are
discussed in the wetland section of this report. Bedrock and regional aquifers would probably be
unaffected because their recharge areas are further upland.
The primary water supply aquifer in the area is the City of Renton Well 5A, which lies in an APA south
of the project site. The site is more than 5,000 feet northwest of the well and outside of its 10-year
capture zone. The well is deep and unlikely to be affected by shallow contamination. Due to its distance
from the project,there would likely be little effect on that well.
Groundwater Quality
The water quality impacts likely to occur in the shallow unconfmed aquifer would include increased total
dissolved solids from turbid surface water infiltration and contamination from surface spills of chemicals
and petroleum products. There are several groundwater monitoring wells on the Barbee Mill site.
Multiple site investigations have been conducted at the project site and are discussed in more detail in
Section 3.6,Hazardous Materials.
Elevated concentrations of arsenic (0.0086 to 52 mg/L) were detected in the groundwater over the
northern half of the site, with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were
also detected in specific areas. Surface water screening standards were applied to groundwater samples
because the lake is a receptor for groundwater, and it is of higher concern relative to human and
environmental impacts. Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method B surface water cleanup levels,
Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards, Clean Water Act Criteria, and estimated background
concentrations were used as the basis for choosing groundwater screening levels in recent investigations.
Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source. Detections of
hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank (UST) areas.
Groundwater treatment would be part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan for the contaminated soil
on the site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-23 September 2003
Groundwater Rights
Ecology has issued no Groundwater Rights Certificates in the project area. The closest location is more
than 2,000 feet east on the east side of I-405. The impacts to those with claims are unknown, but would
probably be small to none.
3.3.2 Impacts
Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water
supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No
groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site. There are no on-site drinking water wells or other types
of wells penetrating the deeper aquifers; therefore, impacts to the deeper aquifers would probably be
minimal.
The saturated thickness of the shallow aquifer fluctuates seasonally in response to precipitation (dry
during low-precipitation months). Because the site is presently almost totally covered with impervious
surface,the amount after redevelopment would probably not be significantly different.
Pilings for a structural foundation can act as a conduit for surface contaminates to migrate to the
unconfined aquifer. Minimal impacts to the deeper aquifers would be anticipated under this alternative.
Cumulative Impact
Groundwater impacts have been determined to be minimal for the proposed redevelopment of the Barbee
Mill site; as a result, no cumulative impacts would be anticipated. Impacts to surface water flow,
interception of runoff by the stormwater conveyance system, and potential infiltration by stormwater
facilities are discussed in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources.
Installations of foundation may alter the shallow groundwater flow direction depending on their depth.
Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly altered due to the installation of
foundations. May Creek is located mainly upgradient of the construction area and is discussed in more
detail in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources. Impact on site wetlands and wetland recharge are
discussed in Section 3.4,Plants and Animals.
3.3.3 Mitigation
No specific mitigation measures are required for shallow or deeper groundwater impacts. Impacts to the
aquifers below the project site resulting from redevelopment activities are anticipated to be minimal.
Although the shallow aquifer is not a valuable water supply source for the community, it is important for
on-site and adjacent wetland areas. Removal of the impacted soil and dewatering and treatment of the
impacted groundwater during those activities would probably improve groundwater quality with respect
to arsenic.
Shallow groundwater could potentially be encountered during installation of subsurface utilities or other
intrusive activities. Because the shallow aquifer table is likely to be low during the portion of the year
when precipitation is minimal, the chance to encounter groundwater could be minimized by conducting
intrusive activities during the dry season(late spring through late summer and early fall).
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
This section discusses impacts on terrestrial plants and animals as well as aquatic species. Additional
detailed discussion is found in Appendixes D and E.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-24 September 2003
3.4.1 Affected Environment
Vegetation Communities
Non-native vegetation and managed lawn areas dominate the existing shoreline and riparian
vegetation in the project area. Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is limited because buildings
and paved areas associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington, and to between
5 and 25 feet of the waters' edge along most of May Creek.
Along the east bank of the stream,just below the BNSF bridge,there is a forested buffer of red alder and
black cottonwood trees and a shrub layer dominated by willows. Small areas of alder occur south along
the east bank. Below the concrete bridge, the east bank is also predominantly managed lawn with some
shrubs. Substantial areas along the east bank are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canary-
grass.
The west bank of May Creek is characterized by a narrow riparian buffer, which is dominated by lawn
grasses and non-native herbaceous plants. In places along the west bank,paved surfaces extend to within
5 to 10 feet of OHW and the riparian vegetation averages less than 25-feet wide along the stream
(Raedeke Associates 2002). Some trees and shrubs do occur along the west bank, but they are scattered
through the managed lawn areas, are relatively low growing and, in general, are too far from the stream
bank to provide significant shade to the stream.
In general, with the exception of the small forested area near the BNSF bridge, the riparian buffer
vegetation likely does not provide significant shade and/or leaf litter to the stream. The lack of shade is
due to the presence of riprapped banks which prevent riparian shrubs from growing close to the water,
non-native weeds such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary-grass, and the large areas of managed
lawn that line the stream in the project area.
The Lake Washington shoreline in the project site also contains extensive unvegetated areas of riprap,
indicated in Figure 3.4-1, which precludes the development of dense shrub or forested vegetation along
the edge of the water. The portion of the shoreline east of May Creek is managed lawn. The shoreline
west of May Creek has recently been cleared as part of dredging operations and consists of disturbed soils
that have a sparse cover of annual weeds. Further to the north, sheet pile bulkheads and riprap are present
up to the log loading area of the sawmill. South of the sawmill log entry building, the shoreline is
retained by a log bulkhead with shallower water. Most of the shoreline is cleared, but it supports some
soft rush and the invasive shrub, Scot's broom,which grow in the spaces between the riprap rocks and log
bulkheads. A dock extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore north of the
existing sawmill building. Numerous pilings and log booms associated with the mill have been installed
in the lake and extend several hundred feet out into Lake Washington at two different points.
For the shoreline and riparian areas, the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) database does
not have records for rare plants or high quality habitats in the vicinity of the project.
A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was
required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification.
94-2-00196. The majority of plantings do not appear to have survived or established a stable vegetation
community. Additional discussion is provided in Appendix D.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-25 September 2003
I
f,
j; f, ; �; ,
- OHW, - ---)ei �/
,,,,,,,:tf:
(11 - --.'-'--) :, .„.„
--: ' s li\
7/1 ---___g 17 r 1:1 ww
,, , ,ti: 1
, ....../,.///
-. ,—) \ (7/-7
,,---, iI PIER f_-- /" /
1 /
• • •7
..a_4_„,, .
/j
/ / /
,__
•. •. :. 1:7.1-- --___ ,_ ,,'''-'7.4
LOG i 6IP
j� t
RAFT r 1 % j .� / /
1 ,,° om ` I -.. :- ,g � v / Q
�y� J 01 a./ cliv - I 4 ////
Ill r J 1► 't i r �� %
LAKE r / /� �' / w--,�';%f'a 11't i I N I )j 7
WASHINGTON A f �' i` r! ,I�
,--, P 7 i if i t .2 af•lif
1
�1i' i,` f, J /
,___, /121 / f f
) _t,<C /66'f; `=y
0 •.il :\, / /e7 /,' / ,,,,,tc-/ ---,-.7:-.1....:.:(./ ll'-,,
MAY CREEK O• �/ '"" A ` t
DELTA j _• f j
r, s .i i;f . f/ �u, df /� f
M� �
J N 40TH ST
o
Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-01
CD BROKEN ASPHALT
SCALE IN FEET
SHEET PILE BULKHEAD Figure 3.4-1
up —8— LOG BULKHEAD Existing Shoreline Protection
0 i00 200 C> RIP RAP Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
i ' • • • • LOG PILES
Wildlife
Limited habitat for wildlife is provided in upland vegetation in the narrow corridor along the riparian
zone of May Creek and along the BNSF railroad right-of-way on the eastern boundary of the site.
Species known or expected to use the riparian habitat area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese,
northern flicker, spotted towhees, white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows, red-winged
blackbirds, tree swallows, black-capped chickadees, house fmches, American crows, muskrats, and
possibly Pacific treefrogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May Creek limits its value as a
habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to use the project site portion of the
creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project site.
Habitat for a variety of waterfowl, as well as potential foraging areas for gulls and other predatory birds,
is provided along the Lake Washington shoreline and aquatic areas. The low level of current activity on
the site, as well as the presence of the log rafts and pilings on the lake, likely enhance the lake habitat in
the area relative to other near-shore portions of Lake Washington where human activity levels are higher.
t _-
Two wildlife species of special interest, the osprey and the bald eagle, are known or are expected to use
the project site vicinity, as described further below.
Mammal use of the project site and surrounding area can be presumed by studies of the May Creek
corridor and other habitat in the Lake Washington Basin. Surveys of May Creek and other riparian
habitat in the Lake Washington basin indicate a diversity of small mammals, such as voles and mice,
which are common in mixed vegetation communities. These species provide forage for nesting and
migrating raptors, including red-tailed hawks, barn owls, and owls. Introduced mammal species include
the Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray squirrel, among others. House cats and off-
d leash dogs from adjacent residential areas likely cause disturbance to native and introduced mammals at
the site. Forest-dwelling mammals such as deer are commonly observed in the May Creek drainage and
have been observed to swim from the delta area to Mercer Island.
Osprey
The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site.
The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996 (Raedeke Associates 2002). During a site visit on
April 8,2003,the birds were observed both on the nest and in the vicinity.
The osprey is not listed as threatened or endangered but is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and RCW 77.15.130. It is unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, ship, transport, or
s export any migratory bird,part,nest, or egg.
Ospreys are fish-eating birds that occur along lakes and rivers. The birds build large nests of sticks on
snags or on living trees, and also readily nest on human-made structures including power line towers,
light poles, and similar structures (Poole 1989). On the coast, osprey nests are usually adjacent to, if not
over, water, whereas on inland lakes and waterways, nests are usually more distant (i.e., up to 14
kilometers but typically within 3 to 5 kilometers)from foraging areas(Poole 1989). The majority of nests
in Oregon and California studies were within 1 km of large lakes and rivers (Zarn 1974; Vana-Miller
1987).
Ospreys generally arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. Pair bonding persists
from one year to the next, and the same nest site may be used over successive years (Ryser 1985). Most
migratory ospreys lay 2 to 4 eggs from late April to early May and incubate them for 5 to 6 weeks(Burns
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 559-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-27 September 2003
1974; Poole 1989). Young fledge when they are about 2 months old (Burns 1974; Cadman et al. 1987).
They return to the nest for feeding and roosting for another week, and can be found nearby for sometime
thereafter(Cadman et al. 1987).
Bald Eagle
No bald eagle nest sites are located on the Barbee Mill site. The two closest nest sites are approximately d
1 mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near
the project site; however, use of the actual project site is unlikely, due to lack of suitable large trees for
perching and roosting.
Bald eagles are federally and state listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald
Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has
been proposed for federal de-listing and state down-listing to sensitive.
Bald eagle habitat consists of open water areas with abundant prey (i.e., fish and waterfowl) and nearby
large trees for nesting, perching, and roosting(Stinson et al.2001). Habitat quality is also associated with
freedom from human disturbance. However, eagle sensitivity to disturbance varies, and eagle use of
urban areas with significant human activity is not uncommon.
Bald eagle pairs arrive on their nesting territories as early as December(Stinson et al. 2001). Each eagle
pair maintains an active nest and often alternate nest(s) within its territory, and successful nests may be
used over several successive years (Buehler 2000). Clutch size is usually two and, in western
Washington, young hatch by late April after approximately 35 days of incubation (Stinson et al. 2001).
Young eagles fledge around 11 to 13 weeks of age, usually during early to mid-July in Washington. -
Eagles nesting in Washington, as well as fledglings, leave their territories in early fall and migrate north
to British Columbia and southeast Alaska, where salmon runs provide prey concentrations. Adults
generally return to their Washington breeding grounds by January, while juveniles usually return several
months later. Bald eagles wintering in Washington State generally arrive from October to December and
jleave between January and April. These wintering birds nest in British Columbia, Alaska, the Northwest
I Territories,and the Yukon.
Wetlands
Two small wetlands (Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3) occur largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along
the eastern edge of the property (Raedeke Associates 2002), and small portions of these wetlands extend
onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands are Category 3 (City of Renton) palustrine emergent
wetlands (David Evans 1997). Wetland hydrology is provided by surface runoff on the site, runoff from —
I east of the site (via culverts under the BNSF tracks), and shallow subsurface flow through the BNSF
railroad bed (Raedeke Associates 2002). Both wetlands and buffer areas have been regularly mowed, as
part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also to maintain access to water
utilities.
Specific functions likely provided by the wetlands on this site include some sediment retention and
limited water storage. Both wetlands,due to their small size, limited buffer area, and periodic disturbance
associated with mowing,have low species diversity and probably provide minimal wildlife habitat.
Aquatic Habitat
i r
Aquatic habitat in May Creek and Lake Washington has been substantially altered by dredging operations
conducted by the Barbee Mill Company since the 1950s. The relocation of May Creek to flow south
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-28 September 2003
rather then west across the site, and associated fill and riprap has eliminated most natural stream
functions. Dredging operations that annually removed about 2,000 cubic yards of sediment from the
mouth of May Creek which served to prevent deposition of sediments in the May Creek streambed, and
has prevented formation of a delta at the mouth of the stream. The most recent dredging in Lake
Washington was implemented for removal of bark and other materials deposited by log storage (Harza
2000,Meridian 2001). Additional discussion of aquatic habitat is found in Appendix E.
The shoreline of the Barbee Mill site reflects the extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington
that have occurred over the past century. The modifications that have taken place have simplified the
nearshore habitat and reduced structural diversity. The removal of shoreline vegetation on the site is
typical of much of the lake shoreline that has been replaced by residential and commercial development.
Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing Lake Washington shoreline is lined with bulkheads
that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers
extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline
vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to
simple (vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant
community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat(USCE 2001).
Near-shore landscapes on Lake Washington provide suitable habitat conditions for Chinook salmon, bull
trout, and other aquatic species where natural habitat forming processes and functions are less altered.
Native trees and shrubs growing near the water provide leaf litter, terrestrial insect food sources, and
- eventually woody debris along the shore and in the water. Native emergent vegetation in shallow water
increases the complexity and diversity of habitat in the near-shore zone. The shoreline vegetation helps
maintain and develop natural processes that establish a shoreline supporting the food web and provides
crucial in-water habitat.
Lake depths along the margins of the site are largely related to past dredging of the mouth of May Creek
and the log handling area. The shallowest depths of the lakebed are encountered adjacent to the existing
sawmill north of the log handling area and are 3 to 4 feet below OHW. The greatest depths are about 12
feet in the vicinity of the log dump and sawmill loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill.
Substrate in the project area is a mixture of silt and fine sand with occasional patches of gravel(Meridian
2001). Where observed, gravel was mostly located in very shallow water (less than about 0.5 meter),
whereas silts were the dominant substrate in deeper water.
Fish Species Use
May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline support five species of salmonids, including Chinook
salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout(KCSWP 1995). Of
these species, Chinook salmon are federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)
and coho salmon are considered a candidate for listing as discussed below. Sockeye salmon, winter
steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout are identified by WDFW as priority anadromous and resident fish
species (WDFW 2003). Resident rainbow trout are also a priority species that may occur in the project
area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are a USFWS species of concern that have been found within
King County and may also occur near the project site(WDFW 2003).
ESA-Listed Species
} Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
On March 24, 1999, NOAA Fisheries listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the ESA of 1973 due to drastic decreases in abundance
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement _ 3-29 September 2003
compared to historical levels (Federal Register 64:14308-15328). Puget Sound Chinook salmon stocks
have shown long- and short-term negative trends in abundance that are attributed to the effects of forest
practices, urbanization, and agriculture (Myers et al. 1998). These land uses typically cause habitat
degradations that include stream blockages, stream bank instability and modifications, increases in
sedimentation, widespread removal riparian vegetation and large woody debris, loss of stream shading,
alteration of flow regimes, rerouting of streams, and loss of estuarine and near-shore habitat(Myers et al.
1998). Harvest and negative genetic effects of hatchery releases of Chinook salmon are also considered
factors of decline(Myers et al. 1998).
Chinook salmon have a wide variety of life-history strategies that vary based on the length of freshwater
and salt-water residency times (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound stocks of Chinook salmon, including
those found in Lake Washington and its tributaries, are summer and fall run stocks that generally exhibit
an "ocean-type" life history pattern where juveniles typically migrate to the marine environment during
the first 3 months after emergence from stream gravels (Myers et al. 1998); however, chinook juveniles
have been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended periods of time {.
(Garza 2000). Juvenile Chinook salmon spend anywhere from several months to a year in estuary and
near-shore areas prior to migration to the open ocean (Myers et al. 1998). After 1 to 4 years in the open
ocean,Puget Sound Chinook salmon return to spawn in summer and fall. Chinook salmon spawn in areas
of clean gravels and cobbles,and generally in the mainstreams of rivers(Myers et al. 1998). " ''
Most juvenile Chinook salmon that use habitat within the project vicinity originate from the Cedar River.
The Cedar River stock is a native, naturally spawning population without supplementation from hatchery
stocks that is considered a depressed stock (WDFW 1994). Adult Cedar River stock Chinook salmon
enter Lake Washington from late June through September, with peak numbers occurring in late August.
Spawning in the Cedar River occurs from mid-September through mid-to-late November, with peak
spawning occurring in mid-October (WDFW 1994; City of Seattle 2000). Fry emerge from February
through March.
The distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon along the Lake Washington shoreline has been demonstrated
to be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Highest densities of juvenile Chinook salmon have been
found in areas with small to fine substrate (sand/gravel) during day and night, and in areas having a
gradual slope of less than 20 percent (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). From February to March, Chinook
salmon commonly used overhead structures during the day, but rarely at night. In contrast, Chinook
salmon generally do not appear to use overhead structures later in the spring during the day or night
(Tabor et al. 2002). During the day, Chinook salmon are often found in aggregations, whereas at night
they have been found to be inactive on the bottom in shallow water,close to shore.
Woody debris and overhanging vegetation are commonly used by Chinook salmon in March and April,
but are used less progressively from May into June (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002, Tabor et al. 2002). It is
at this time that predators such as smallmouth and largemouth bass move into shallow waters, often
utilizing such cover and other overhead structures.
While May Creek does not have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon population, some individuals believed
to be strays from the Cedar River do use May Creek for spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002).
Spawning surveys conducted in 1976 and 1977 found adult Chinook salmon population densities in May
Creek of 1 and 7 fish per mile, respectively. Spawning surveys conducted in 1983 did not find Chinook
salmon in May Creek, while surveys conducted in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities of 1 fish per mile
(Harza 2000,Foster Wheeler 1995). In 1999, 6 live Chinook salmon and 4 carcasses were spotted in May
Creek at approximately River Mile 0.5 (Meridian 2001).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-30 September 2003 f
i--
�.-- From March to June of 2002, the May Creek delta and the lower 278 meters of May Creek (all on the
Barbee Mill site) were snorkel surveyed to assess juvenile salmonid densities (Tabor et al. 2002). Few
Chinook salmon were observed in the channel, convergence pool, and delta area of May Creek. In that
study, densities of Chinook salmon did not greatly differ between delta areas and lake reference areas
(Tabor et al.2002).
Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
On July 25, 1995,the NOAA Fisheries added the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU for coho salmon to
the candidate species list based on several risk factors that may necessitate the future listing (Federal
Register 60:38011-38030). Risk factors include artificial propagation, high harvest rates, habitat
degradations, observed declines in adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions (Busby et al. 1996).
Habitat degradations include activities such as logging, agriculture, development, and stream blockages.
f
Coho salmon are an anadromous species that typically have a 3-year life cycle. Adult coho salmon start
returning to the Lake Washington basin in late August and continue through mid-November. After
entering Lake Washington, adult coho salmon may, if necessary, remain in the lake for up to several
weeks until river flows are adequate for upstream migration. The majority of spawning in Lake
Washington basin streams occurs from late September through mid-January (Harza 2000, R2 2000).
Spawning generally occurs from in gravel substrates of tributary streams, and fry emerge from gravels in
early March to mid-May (Johnson et al. 1991; Harza 2000; R2 2000). The stream distribution and
abundance of coho salmon is likely influenced by water temperatures, stream size, flows, channel
morphology,vegetation type and abundance,and channel substrate size and quality.
Coho salmon runs in Lake Washington are heavily supported by hatchery production. Therefore, it has
been difficult to fully determine the status of naturally spawning coho salmon populations in the region.
However,recent trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline
in populations that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor
ocean conditions(Harza 2000,Fresh 1994,WDFW 1994).
The use of Lake Washington by coho salmon is poorly understood, but juveniles are known to use May
Creek and the shoreline of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Barbee Mill project area (WDFW
2002a). Spawning surveys of May Creek conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found that peak coho
salmon densities in the lower reaches of May Creek to be 23, 5, and 55 coho salmon per mile respectively
(Raedeke Associates, 2002) Subsequent surveys conducted in 1992-1993 found densities of only 2 adult
fish per mile (Harza 2000, Foster Wheeler 1995). In more recent fish surveys conducted near the mouth
of May Creek, juvenile coho salmon were found in May Creek on the project site and also in Lake
Washington in close proximity to the mouth (Harza 2000). However, juvenile coho salmon are not
generally known to reside in lakes for extended periods of time prior to seaward migration. Therefore,
most use of the Lake Washington shoreline by juvenile coho salmon occurs primarily in April and May
during seaward migration.
Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus)
On November 1, 1999, the USFWS issued a final rule listing the bull trout as a threatened species under
the ESA throughout the coterminous United States (Federal Register 64:58910-58933). Thirty-four
subpopulations were identified within the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. According to Quigley et
al. (1997), the distribution of bull trout has been reduced to approximately 44 percent of its historical
range. Key factors in the decline of bull trout populations include population fragmentation, watershed
and habitat impacts(sedimentation,reductions in stream shading,altered flow regimes),hybridization and
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-31 September 2003
competition with non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and harvest by anglers (Quigley et al.
1997).
Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history forms. Bull trout have more specific habitat
requirements than other salmonids species, and bull trout spawning and rearing is generally restricted to
undisturbed relatively pristine cold streams, often occurring in headwater reaches (Rieman and McIntyre
1993). These streams have stable channels with abundant cover in the form of large wood, undercut {;
banks, large boulders, and clean substrates used as spawning and rearing habitat (WDW 1992).
Migratory adults frequently use lakes, reservoirs, larger rivers, and saltwater coastal areas for feeding
and/or migration(Federal Register 64:58910-58933).
Cold-water temperatures are particularly critical factor for bull trout. The maximum water temperature
considered to be suitable for bull trout is 8° to 10°C for spawning 2° to 4°C for egg incubation, 4° to
10°C for rearing, and 10°to 12°C for migration(USFWS 1998). Areas where water temperature exceeds
15°C (59°F)are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
Migratory bull trout begin spawning migrations as early as May, and bull trout spawn from August
through December when water temperatures are decreasing. As is typical of most salmonids, spawning
occurs over gravels and cobbles with good intragravel flow of water or groundwater inflow. Juvenile bull
trout use shallow backwater or side channel areas, and move to deeper water sheltered by large organic
debris,vegetation, or undercut banks as they grow.
Due to the habitat requirements of bull trout, it is highly unlikely that bull trout would be present within
the project vicinity. No bull trout spawning has been documented within the Urban Growth Area
boundary (Lucchetti 2002), which includes the project vicinity. The only confirmed bull trout stock in
the Lake Washington watershed is the Chester Morse Lake population, which is restricted to the upper
Cedar River watershed (WDFW 1998). Bull trout have, however, been sighted within Lake Washington
and its tributaries over the past 20 years (Harza 2000; USFWS 1999; WDFW 1998). The origin of these
fish is unknown, though these fish may originate from anadromous populations outside of the Lake
If
Washington Basin(Harza 2000;USFWS 1999;WDFW 1998).
Other Fish Species
Other species known to occur in the project vicinity include yellow perch(Perca flavescens), smallmouth
bass (Micropterus dolemuei), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), northern pikeminnow
(Ptychocheilus oregonensis), black crappie (Pomoxis migromaculatus), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis
gibbosus), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), brown
bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), longfm smelt (Spirinchus
thaleichthys), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) shiner (Notropis spp.), and prickly sculpin
(Cottus asper)(Meridian 2001). In snorkeling surveys conducted in March and August of 2000,the most
abundant species observed in Lake Washington near the project site were yellow perch, and juvenile
smallmouth and largemouth bass (Harza 2000). Other species observed in 2000 included northern
pikeminnow, three-spine stickleback, and speckled dace. Though no salmonids were observed in these
studies, they were conducted during months when migrating juvenile salmon would not be expected to
occur. In May 2001, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, yellow perch, and three-spine
stickleback were observed (Meridian 2001). Most fish were found in water depths less than 2 meters
(about 6 feet) along the shoreline. Typically, these fish were associated with overhead and underwater
cover in the existing dock,boathouse,and submerged logs.
I I `
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-32 September 2003
' Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the evaluation of proposed projects with a federal nexus to evaluate
impacts on habitat of commercially managed fish populations. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been
defined for the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish
for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (NMFS 1999). NOAA Fisheries has further
clarified the definition:
NOAA Fisheries has recently proposed EFH for Pacific Coast salmon, including Chinook salmon, within
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (NMFS 2000) that address construction/urbanization
impacts upon salmon habitat. Among numerous types of non-fishing activities that may affect EFH,
should BMPs fail,those applicable to the project area are those that would:
• Alter sediment delivery to, and quantity in streams and estuaries.
• Alter water flow,quantity,timing,temperature, or chemistry.
• Alter the amount or types of nutrients or prey.
• Discharge pollutants,nutrients, or contaminants.
Critical Habitat
The designation of critical habitat for listed species was required under Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA.
The ESA defined critical habitat in Section 3(5)(A) as "the specific areas within the geographic area
occupied by the species, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection."
NOAA Fisheries designated critical habitat to include all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to
listed Chinook salmon in Puget Sound (Federal Register 65:7764-7787). On April 30, 2002, the U.S.
District Court vacated the rule designating critical habitat for 19 ESUs of salmon and steelhead on the
West Coast, including the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. NOAA Fisheries is currently
reconsidering the designation of critical habitat. An analysis of the effects of the project on critical
habitat, as defined under the vacated rule, has been included in this EIS in the event that critical habitat is
re-designated before this action is fully implemented. This analysis may be relevant in determining
whether initiation of consultation will be necessary if critical habitat is re-designated.
Currently,NOAA Fisheries has not determined critical habitat for Puget Sound coho salmon as they are a
candidate species and their status has yet to be determined (Federal Register 60:38001-38030). A
perspective on potential habitat definition is provided in the NOAA Fisheries proposal that critical habitat
for Oregon Coast coho salmon should include all freshwater waterways and substrates below
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several
hundred years) and several dams that block access to former coho salmon habitats (Federal Register
64:24998-25007). Should Puget Sound coho salmon become listed or proposed for listing, Lake
Washington and May Creek in the general vicinity of the project site would likely be considered critical
habitat.
The critical habitat designation was deemed "not determinable" for bull trout due to the meager
understanding of the biological needs of bull trout(Federal Register 63:31693-31710). A critical habitat
designation is generally expected within 2 years of the proposed rule, but it is not known when this
designation will be made for the Puget Sound bull trout DPS.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-33 September 2003
3.4.2 Impacts
3.4.2.1 Impacts of Subdivision and Building Construction
Vegetation Communities
Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the
lj h
majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will
remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation consisting largely of shrubs and grasses below the
existing lower office parking lot. The extent of impacts will depend on bridge design and construction
methods. It may be possible to maintain existing or enhanced vegetation beneath the bridge if the bridge _
deck is high enough to allow light penetration and water is provided by precipitation or irrigation.
Wildlife
I
The existing osprey nest on the sawdust tower will be displaced by removal of the structure. Mitigation is
discussed below.
Impacts on existingwildlife communities duringconstruction would depend on duration of construction
P P
I and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road
construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for bridge or other foundation construction could be a Y_
substantial, although temporary disturbance. If pilings are required for building foundations, and the
construction of residences occurs over several years, the impacts on sensitive wildlife could lead to
avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat
generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals currently using the creek as a corridor
are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife
populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and
other hours when construction is not taking place.
The effects of human activities on waterfowl may be greater along the portion of Lake Washington
adjacent to the project site. Use patterns may change during construction. Nesting activities almost
certainly will not occur near very high noise levels such as impact pile driving.
The high noise levels associated with construction may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the
sawdust tower from relocating in the vicinity.
Wetlands
The northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the adjacent
Street C and the town homes will eliminate existing buffering vegetation below the Renton code
minimum of a 25-foot buffer area for a Category 3 wetland (as indicated in figure 3.4-2). The roadway
constructed adjacent to the wetland is in a fill section and is proposed to be supported by a low retaining
wall. Construction impacts likely will extend approximately 10 feet from the edge of improvements and
therefore encroach within about 10 feet of the wetland. The buffer area remaining after construction will
be approximately 20 to 22 feet wide at its smallest dimension. The buffer area is currently mowed grass
with encroachment by stored soil.
1I
The southernmost wetland will experience permanent displacement due to roadway construction of an
area of about 10 feet by 40 feet, with construction disturbance of up to another 10 feet(see figure 3.4-3).
Modification of the drainage system in the area to serve the new development likely may affect the source
of water to recharge the wetland, resulting in potential loss of the total wetland area of 1,712 square feet.
If portions of the wetland were retained, all of the buffer area on the west side of the wetland would be
eliminated.
CO)of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-34 September 2003
it
y Pp%� \� - / t
i I I_...�. f;'/ f.�,i-.»_ '`l r Ell 0 l' j j 1�
; -, (.--
III III I f _ 0
t III. f �� AI
a ,� ra, /, M TLANb--., 11 ,-- ,_—,..:. - ' /�
►`/ \ C I�\ i,1 \ I
1,f s, 4. _ ` I, 1 1 t \\ ki
{— It -4 I '41;
• I , y " , I , if / f
X�/
j � 1\ i / / /fi / i' I
/ t. 1 11,51 / / I I t / k „ ,
----t- -rip \ 1 I I I 1 1 l ,S" • ;, : i # 1 /
-- . 7 de . it \ ,1 113 - ii I . fiyI
\\:\\\ i
KEY MAP A„,97/
' / � !l�% \ `~ 12 I;I 41:- N// ._..---i-.0% re\--- '/ /'y
1 ;% /
' Yam. �� / `r :11J / / ''
�� �, ,�,� _110 Ii" � f r �� jf 4,ei �WETL9 D
1 �•
, �, r emu/ f4
f :;! / !y - p ,f / l BOUNDA
/ / z
,j \ 'j•• // f /N \ 108
/ ,,, /X = 'f 5ETBACK/
411 I \\.� �v 7 / / l
. ‘
r f 106 /
'�' j ? ', • // f PPROXIMf,T AREA
/ /` /,, /�% F CONS,TRycTION
'1, • / / /it/ ` DISTUR-A CE
...N.--__-_.1-05 J f /
` / / // ' / 2
- `.`- / //
-.,. / / / ,
-- -1- 3 ---- / /*// / �„O / % rr
x
, t 4, \\ ..-- _ ......._._ ----2._.......____------- --,- - ___ / /, / /
f
/ 0,
,....._ _ _,, ___..36..,_ ___. / /
, ____
7_,,,______/, / / ,
0.,' //
0 NT
, A 1 ./\1. / ,i/ / /
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-02
SCALE IN FEET 'At „L Figure 3.4-2
WETLAND
NJ Northerly Wetland
,
25 50 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-- ' /fr" 7 kr- \ ____ --- -'4
.....
11111111111111111 I i j ' - 1" --'" - /
,_,, I7_��� ` 1 :,,,, _ 104 �` _
_ 10
���� 11111� .1 ,,:'+4 /,—_ //
mr
�� fAlt/,
. . i /"'"' / ,,,":41,..i\S- . „ii,•tisiimie7-• , • ------___L_
.• /&/' / At/ •-47-N ,a,,, i -----
_,,,,_ 1 \ _dig , /48"
i II tr,,,\, /,( /,/,_/
i .„...,,,,,,„„.„.
, ,,
W
./..,, ,\ ,0,,,,
i , d,,,,,,- .7,4_,,,,,,,,,,y .
SOUTHERp / _._...... /
rE ~ 101 �► ©I
ARD
/i' Q�l / \ N. /0 , 4, \ / di
KEY MAP ; \ > ///" 1( ' K / 4V\I
/ fi, - ,•
� �t ` yQ / / +..., r •Nt 9 e.• / I,,,_ -4......,\ / '.,7:Aor WETL- , ID
�l4 / / / ' +
rr CI
- R _. -4� -- / 5' E BA /'
/ -2/ - -----..-----.--pL, . -IF -. j T CK k°
r
�, l` 4fr/ co
1 �� 1 / ! /
j // Y 1 7././
f f /I \ '98 4/ t / i/// /i 1 \,
--, ..1‘ /// / . /Ili ' / / •-'...,/,
' \ /7 7 / Jo' # „,; .0.°4; - „,,
J i 1 / // %/ �. tl
/a /// �'�'/ N 40TH ST
/ /
//d f /
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-03
SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.4-3
WETLAND
W Southerly Wetland
0 25 50 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Aquatic Species
Direct impacts on aquatic species relate to the extent and duration of the construction activities, whether
fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate habitat modifications that result from
the project. Direct mortality or disturbance may result during installation of the stormwater treatment
facility outfalls and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge if they are below the water level
of May Creek
Erosion and sedimentation from construction of subdivision infrastructure, such as roads, bridges,
stormwater treatment facilities, and utilities, may discharge to water. Increased sedimentation may
adversely affect aquatic species and habitat in the short-term. Suspended sediment originating from this
site is likely to contain higher levels of contaminants than from more natural landscapes. High turbidity
can reduce feeding rates by young salmonids (Gregory 1994; Gregory and Northcote 1993). Young
salmon and bull trout may avoid the site because of increased turbidity which may reduce total food
resources available to stocks (Bisson and Bilby 1982). High concentrations of suspended sediment may
also delay or divert spawning, and extremely high concentrations can cause spawning salmon to avoid an
area(Spence et al. 1996).
The magnitude of impacts will, however, likely be related to design considerations and the application of
appropriate BMPs for erosion control as outlined in the Water Quality section. An important
consideration will be limiting construction, especially in-water construction, during periods when use of
the vicinity by listed or sensitive aquatic species is minimal (as prescribed by WDFW,NOAA Fisheries,
and Ecology), and if other appropriate BMPs are employed.
3.4.2.2 Impacts of Development and Use of the Site
Vegetation Communities
Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume after the sawmill is closed and the need
for dredging to maintain depth for log storage and movement has ended. The delta will take a substantial
amount of time to fill in the deepest dredge of up to 12 feet. The long term effects of delta deposits is
likely to be similar to the Coal Creek delta in Bellevue about two miles north of the site where the delta
has expanded considerably since development of the Newport Shores residential area in the early 1960s,
resulting in extensive upland and shallow aquatic habitat(King County 2003).
The proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the
waters edge to about 100 feet, with the average distance being about 60 feet. A stream buffer is
designated on the project conceptual landscaping plans, but specifics of proposed plant species and
densities of planting are not specified. This open space will substantially expand the area of potential
indigenous vegetation on-site.
In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acres of publicly-owned land between the inner and outer harbor
lines will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from
the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet
along Lots 23-28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. The existing
sawmill and related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more
natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads, and replanting of the area to provide a buffer of
indigenous native species.
The proposal includes creation of 38 lots directly fronting on May Creek,with 300 feet of road parallel to
May Creek and a 120-foot long roadway and bridge crossing the creek. Twenty-four lots are proposed
along the Lake Washington waterfront. Of those, eight front on the public land managed by DNR,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-37 September 2003
leaving 16 with direct private lake frontage. A setback of 25 feet from the building line is proposed for
these lots. The lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline propose either a 10 foot or a no building
setback. The 25-foot shoreline building setback has no proposed landscape treatment in current plans. It
is likely that common residential landscaping typical of lots in Renton would be applied, without specific
conditions of approval. One would expect primarily lawn and ornamental plants. Extensive soil
amendment likely would be required for fill soils to support landscaping.
A 280-foot wide Open Space parcel is proposed adjacent to a portion of the publicly owned shoreline and
contains a water quality pond that takes up about a third of the area. An irregularly shaped water quality
tract is located near the center of the site. A water quality pond takes most of the space in the latter tract.
The water quality tract and wet pond treatment area that would be constructed as part of the project is
proposed to be planted with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress.
There are a number of challenges in establishing a community of native vegetation on a site largely
characterized by impervious surfaces, imported fill, and compacted soils. The absence of nearby
communities of native vegetation complicate the provision of seed sources for a natural succession of
plant communities. Revegetation in such a context requires human intervention at every stage of
establishing and maintaining a viable plant community. Specific considerations for establishing such a
community is discussed in the mitigation section below.
The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the
creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of
habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could
create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta. (King County
2001).
Wildlife
Human disturbance associated with the residential use would generally have minimal effect on the
existing patterns of wildlife use of the May Creek riparian and upland area. Most of the existing animals
that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals using the
creek as a corridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed.
These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to
nighttime and other hours when human activity is lower. The establishment of greater wildlife
populations may be delayed until new communities of vegetation along the riparian corridor have
sufficient time to mature.
Plantings of indigenous vegetation in the May Creek open space area would result in an increase in
forage, cover, and potential nest sites for wildlife. The creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a
visual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. Streamside buffers are proposed to be
narrowest near the mouth of May Creek with the narrowest area occurring between streets on opposite
sides of the stream. Streets represent substantial sources of disturbance from vehicle noise and lights and
generally warrant greater buffering. The proposed bridge for vehicular traffic also represents a potential
impediment to wildlife movement along the stream corridor depending upon its design. The hours that
traffic is present will likely be longer with residential development, discouraging wildlife movement that
has to cross the roadway. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project
may provide additional wildlife habitat, depending on the extent of riparian vegetation along the pond's
edge and the complexity of the vegetation community. The current proposal for a mix of shrubs and
dwarf ornamental trees provides limited habitat value. The proposed open space area and the wet-ponds,
however,provide the potential for wildlife habitat as discussed in the mitigation section below.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-38 September 2003
l
The effects of human disturbance on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the
project site may be greater than to the habitat generalists that use other portions of the project site. The
relatively high level of waterfowl use in the area, as currently observed, may reflect the existing low
levels of human use along the lake's shoreline since closure of the sawmill. Increased human activity and
noise, especially given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings may result in reduced
waterfowl use of the area. The addition of recreational docks and watercraft use would further reduce
wildfowl use.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3-
090-K-14-d). The applicant has not defined a public access program. For the purposes of this analysis,
public access facilities are presumed to take one or more of the following forms:
• Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line for general public use. These areas
are about 16 feet wide at lot 24, 20 feet wide at lot 28, and around 80 feet wide at the open space
tract and adjacent to lots 29 and 30.
• A public walkway along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between Lot 29 and
the mouth of May Creek. This would occur within the shoreline building setback area of
proposed lots, which is proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located
directly at the water's edge, to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as
possible.
• Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek,
including use of two of the existing bridges for pedestrian crossings.
Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest impact because:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline likely would be required to maintain the trail at the
shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus
narrowing the potential for establishment of a complex and productive plant community at the
littoral edge.
• Use of walkways is likely to introduce direct disturbance to wildlife species using the area.
I_r • Persons are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and may
disturb plants, especially newly established plantings,or contribute to soil erosion.
Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts on shoreline waterfowl as
discussed in the mitigation section below.
Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads due to the project is not expected to substantially increase as low
speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions.
Osprey
The proposed construction would involve the removal of all existing mill structures, including the
sawdust tower with the osprey nest site. Without mitigation, the birds may or may not fmd and use an
alternative nesting structure in the vicinity. Increased human activity and noise, as well as the presence of
artificial lighting,may also influence osprey use of the site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-39 September 2003
jl
Bald Eagle
The proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile
of.the project site. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to
disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. Noise levels after construction would be
reduced, however, human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing
conditions. Depending on the sensitivity of individual bald eagles as well as their waterfowl prey, use of
the project site vicinity by foraging eagles could be slightly reduced.
Wetlands
I
The desire of adjacent residents to create an aesthetically pleasing area along the BNSF right-of-way
could lead to mowing or other activities that would impact native wetland vegetation and water quality.
The addition of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to maintain landscaped areas could potentially ! h
impact both wetlands via surface runoff and pesticide or herbicide drift during application.
Aquatic Species
The proposal would decrease the area of on-site impervious surface as the result of removal of existing
asphalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures on the site. This will reduce runoff,but is likely to have
a negligible effect on flows in May Creek because the project site encompasses a small proportion of the
overall drainage area and is located at the very downstream end of the watershed.
Development of the site would result in an associated increase in vehicle use of the site, and associated
pollutants. However, stormwater from streets and other impervious surfaces would be routed to an on- _
site treatment facility before being discharged to Lake Washington, as described in Section 3.2 Surface
Water. This may reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants draining directly into May Creek and
Lake Washington.
Aquatic species would benefit to some extent from the proposed buffer along May Creek. Additional
buffer area would be expected to contribute to riparian functions and the maintenance of existing
salmonid habitat. However, the proposed buffers along May Creek would fall significantly short of
providing full riparian functionality.
' I
The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large
woody debris (LWD) recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and
pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate (May
2000, Pollack and Kennard 1998; Knutson and Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993). Buffer width
recommendations for riparian functions from these comprehensive reviews are presented in Tables 3.4-1,
3.4-2,and 3.4-3.
The Tri-County response to NMFS' 4(d) rule for the taking of listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon
includes a proposal for a wider stream buffer than that proposed for the Barbee Mill site. For urban
streams like May Creek, the Tri-County response recommends maintenance of a minimum no-touch
buffer width of 115 feet, plus an additional 65 feet of restricted use buffer beyond the no-touch buffer
(Parametrix 2002). The Tri-County proposal also recommended that these buffers be measured from the
lateral extent of any existing channel migration zone (CMZ). The CMZ concept is based on best
available science as reviewed by May(2000)and in CMZ guidelines developed by DNR(DNR 1999).
Based on the recommendations presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3, a buffer width of
approximately 50 feet, as proposed for May Creek on the Barbee Mill site, will not provide the full range
of habitat functions and protections that streams require. In addition, the proposed buffer would not
provide for stream channel migration processes that contribute to the formation of instream habitats.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-40 September 2003
Table 3.4-1. Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000)
Range Of Effective Buffer Minimum
Function Widths Recommended Notes On Function
Sediment removal and 8—183 m (26-600 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent sediment
erosion control removal
Pollutant Removal 4-262 m (13-860 ft) 30 m (98 ft) For 80 percent nutrient removal
Large Woody Debris 10—100 m(33-328 ft) 80 m(262 ft) 1 SPTH based on long-term
natural levels
Water Temperature 11 —43 m(36- 141 ft) 30 m(98 ft) Based on adequate shade
Wildlife Habitat 10—200 m(33-656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Coverage not inclusive
Microclimate 45—200 m (148—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Optimum long-term support
Table 3.4-2. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths
Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997)
Function Range Of Effective Buffer Widths(Ft)
Water Temperature 35- 151
Pollutant Removal 13-600
Large Woody Debris 100-200
Erosion Control 100-125
Wildlife Habitat 25-984
Sediment filtration 26-300
Microclimate 200-525
ii
Table 3.4-3. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths
ti
Identified from FEMAT(1993)
Function Number of SPTH Equivalent(Ft) Based on SPTH of 200 Ft.
Shade 0.75 150
Microclimate up to 3 up to 600
Large Woody Debris 1.0 200
Organic Litter 0.5 100
Sediment Control 1.0 200
Bank Stabilization 0.5 100
Wildlife Habitat 30—183 m(98—600 ft)
Improvement of some stream habitat functions,however, would be accomplished by the proposed buffer.
Pollutant removal, sediment filtration, and some water temperature regulation (particularly on small
streams) can be improved or provided for by buffer widths as narrow as 35 feet, particularly in areas
having a flat topography as on the Barbee Mill site (Knutsen and Naef 1997). Some additional LWD
recruitment and bank stabilization due to vegetation is likely.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-41 September 2003
Lake Washington Shoreline
Aquatic species will benefit from resumption of normal delta formation where May Creek discharges into
Lake Washington when dredging operations are terminated. Delta formation can be expected to create
more shallow water habitat throughout the project waterfront,which would potentially benefit all aquatic
species, including juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Additional shallow habitat will be generally
beneficial by increasing the complexity and diversity of habitat in the nearshore zone.
In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63-acre publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines
will be managed as public open space. A variety of measures could enhance natural shoreline processes
in this area including bulkhead removal where shallow water is present. The mitigation section contains
additional discussion of this option.
If this area is developed for public access, human activities at or near the shoreline may introduce direct
disturbances to the shoreline and shallow water habitat areas that are not present in an industrial site
where noise is the most constant impact. Disturbance from human activity may include informal access
to the shoreline that can erode slopes and impact vegetation, as well as wading or swimming in shallow
areas,which can disturb the use of the shoreline by fish. Mitigation measures that can accommodate both
passive public enjoyment and a productive natural environment are discussed in more detail in the
mitigation section.
A 25-foot setback from the waters edge is proposed for the 16 lots without direct frontage on Lake
Washington. This limited area would preclude long-term measures to enhance the shoreline environment.
It would not be large enough to establish a vegetation community that would contribute to natural
shoreline benefits. This impact is discussed in more detail in the mitigation section, which outlines
potential benefits of greater shoreline setbacks. For the lots fronting on Lake Washington, chemical
fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be used on residential and ornamental
landscaping. The application of these substances can be expected to occur up to the limits of the lot, since
landscaping can extend to the waters edge. Direct application of chemicals to the water can be expected
from over spraying and inadvertent spillage. Runoff containing chemicals can be expected to flow
directly into adjacent waters of Lake Washington. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides affect aquatic
resources through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment, which can increase plant production and
biochemical oxygen demand.The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock on the 16 shoreline lots not fronting
public land. Under the City of Renton Shoreline codes, docks up to 80 feet long and 12 feet wide could
be constructed. Long-term direct effects to salmonids can occur from docks and piers, boathouses,
pilings and log booms. These structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns, provide
refuge for predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, and forage fish
along the lakeshore(Kahler et al. 2000). Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern
portion of Lake Washington generally avoid overhead structures (Meridian 2001; Piaskowski and Tabor
2000).
The proposed 25-foot building setback would likely lead to retention of bulkheads for shoreline
protection. Areas with a deep dredged lake bottom will likely need to retain bulkheads until delta
formation creates shallows that reduce wave energy prior to reaching the shoreline. Where the lake
bottom is shallower, natural shoreline processes could be allowed to occur, but these would lead to some
loss of setback area through erosion. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity
of fish species by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile chinook and coho salmon.They also prevent the recruitment of sediment into the lake that is necessary for the formation of natural
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-42 September 2003
shallow-water areas thatprovide refuge, spawning, and habitat for a varietyof aquatic species,
g � feeding q
and for creating an inhospitable,high-energy environment for juvenile fish.
C
An additional impact of building close to the shoreline and dock construction is artificial light. Artificial
light reaching shallow areas can adversely affect juvenile salmonids (Simenstad et al. 1999) by causing
delays in migration or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be more
vulnerable to predation (Simenstad et al 1999). Artificial light from adjacent residences and street
lighting, would likely be of lower intensity than the artificial lighting conditions examined by Simenstad
r , et al (1999); therefore, the extent of change cannot reasonably be determined. Currently, the City of
Renton has no specific restriction on pier lighting.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program as discussed above for impacts on wildlife.
Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to contribute to impacts:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline is presumed to be required to maintain the trail at the
shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, and
the adverse impacts of bulkheads discussed above.
• The impervious surface of a walkway is likely to introduce a certain amount of runoff directly to
the adjacent surface water. A pedestrian frail is unlikely to attract significant pollutant loads,
however,periodic cleaning of the walkway may result in discharge of soil and other substances.
• People using the frail are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow,
and in doing so,may disturb substrate or directly displace aquatic species by their activities.
Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce these impacts as discussed in the
mitigation section.
3.4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts
As noted above, during the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have
simplified the near-shore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has
been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the
existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change
shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern
L of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex
(horizontal fallen trees with branches)to simple(vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to
{ 1 remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water
habitat(USCE 2001).
3.4.3 Mitigation
Impact mitigation includes the following steps:
1. Avoid the impact.
2. Minimize the impact.
3. Reduce the impact over time.
4. Rectify the impact.
5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-43 September 2003
Impacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas of the site are
inherent in the permanent change of use to the residential development proposed, and its specific setbacks
and presumed uses discussed above. The mitigation outlined illustrates opportunities to expand the
beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas to include more complex plant communities and
associated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse impacts of the proposal.
Mitigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically Renton Shoreline
Regulations, which sets forth several requirements as follows: the potential effects on wildlife should be
considered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the
environment (RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); landscaping should be representative of the indigenous character of
the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland); the ecological qualities of natural and -
developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources (RMC 4-3-090-K-6); and
wildlife habitat should be incorporated into the site(RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
3.4.3.1 Mitigation of Subdivision Construction Impacts
Mitigation of construction impacts on existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native
buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing.
Staging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native
vegetation. During construction, any cleared or re-graded areas on the site should be kept covered and/or )
re-seeded with a temporary cover crop to prevent the establishment or spread of invasive weedy species.
Selective clearing of portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur,
could be combined with vegetation establishment if cleared areas are quickly planted with native species.
Mitigation of construction impacts on aquatic species can largely be accomplished by controlling erosion
and sedimentation as outlined in the Water Quality section of this Draft EIS. Perhaps the most important -
consideration during construction activities is to conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish
are generally not present. Staging areas, especially the storage of fuels and chemicals, should be located
as far from water bodies as possible.
' I _
Establishing vegetated buffer areas adjacent to the creek and lake at the plat infrastructure stage avoids
the piecemeal implementation as each lot develops, provides for oversight of the removal of impervious
surfaces at the time existing buildings are demolished, and allows the establishment of an area for
interception of runoff from building sites.
3.4.3.2 Mitigation of Development and Use of the Site
Vegetation Communities
Project conditions could require residential landscaping to include native vegetation in private lots
fronting the shoreline, although assuring long-term maintenance given residential preferences for lawn
and ornamental vegetation is a long-term education and enforcement issue. Planting of native vegetation
within the proposed 25-foot setback area would provide some habitat, although the quality of the
vegetation community would be limited. Native vegetation will minimize the need for fertilizers,
pesticides, or herbicides and reduce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic
organisms in May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition, importing high quality soil material and
ensuring adequate soil health, prior to installing residential or ornamental landscaping, can decrease the
need for chemical supplements or controls in landscape maintenance.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-44 September 2003 '
The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the
creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of
habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could
create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001).
Mitigation measures for installation of indigenous vegetation in the proposed open space area adjacent to
g g g P P P P J
the public shoreline and within the Water Quality tract would enhance the value of the site to wildlife.
Establishment of a viable community of indigenous vegetation on an industrial site presents a number of
challenges. These relate to the degradation of the substrate that supports plants, and to isolation from
existing plant communities that would provide a diversity of species to colonize specific niches and
microenvironments. Plans for restoration of natural vegetation communities on developed sites can be
aided by inclusion of the following concepts:
Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. Site design must reflect the
( fact that restored plant associations will evolve and mature over time. A complex vegetation community
that contains as many features of native communities must be created within the restored vegetation
community.
Spacing. Within each target plant community, the patterns of species and their spatial relationships
should be replicated to the extent possible. It is important to develop a design to incorporate trees in the
overstory canopy, trees in the mid-story, shrubs in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer.
Other important components of the ground layer are logs and stumps, which provide habitat for insects
and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and organic matter.
Interspersion. Refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the transitions among
various plant communities. In general, the relationships between patch size, structure, edge, and
dispersion/interspersion in the landscape are the critical factors affecting wildlife value of a system.
Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area between plant communities. Such
transitional areas or "edges" are rich in wildlife, both in numbers of individuals and species, and are
considered important components of functioning ecosystems. Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity
to several habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the amount of edge in a system is extremely
high,the integrity within individual plant communities may be lost.
Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on this site is likely to
include a number of challenges because the existing geology and soils largely consist of a variety of fill
materials, and there is no local community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native
species. Establishment of a soil substrate for indigenous vegetation will require extensive soil
amendment. Persistence of the introduced plant communities will require replacement of specimens that
do not thrive and control of invasive"weed"species.
The provision of a management entity is needed to provide a long term commitment to monitoring
establishment and replanting, to control the impacts of use by adjacent residents or the public, and
possibly to mediate between the interests of adjacent residents and the general public purpose of the
buffer areas. Substantial resources are likely to be required over an extended period of time. Potential
management agencies can include the City of Renton Parks Department; DNR, which has management
responsibility for the public uplands and submerged aquatic lands; WDFW, which has primary
responsibility for managing wildlife and fish resources; volunteer participation by the public using
shoreline access; and the adjacent homeowners or a homeowners' association; or cooperative programs
involving all of these agencies. Dedication of buffer areas to public ownership, or a public easement for
management by a public entity,may be required.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-45 September 2003
, I
i
1 The palette for selection of plants for buffer areas in riparian and shoreline areas should be varied and
I include a variety of plant communities. Native trees include western red cedar, western hemlock,
Douglas fir, black cottonwood, big leaf maple, Oregon ash, and bitter cherry. Native shrubs and small
' trees such as red currant, red elderberry, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, Pacific crabapple, red-osier _
dogwood,Pacific willow, Sitka willow,and Scouler's willow red-osier dogwood,twinberry,salmonberry,
Pacific crabapple, and bitter cherry.
11
11 Wildlife
Mitigation of impact of bridge crossings may include greater height to allow penetration of light and ,
I 1 precipitation to maintain plants,and vertical and horizontal clearance for wildlife movement.
;,
I Establishing and maintaining streamside shoreline vegetation will provide upland habitat, provide t;
screening from human disturbance, and contribute to the enhancement of the food chain provided by
! shallow near-shore habitat that has been produced by delta formation. Maintaining some or all of the
I' existing log rafts and pilings in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site, would provide perch and
loafmg sites to benefit waterfowl. To avoid conflict with mitigation for aquatic species, pilings in deep
water areas are the best candidates for retention.
Fencing the open space areas to reduce disturbance from domestic animals will enhance wildlife value.
,
Osprey -
I
II Os re mitigation measures could include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in
Osprey g P Y
the project site vicinity, as recommended by WDFW and agreed upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
1 Service (USFWS). A WDFW biologist should be consulted during relocation of the new nest site,which
will occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds. Potential sites for relocation on site include the
riparian corridor proposed to be established along May Creek.
I, , Research has indicated that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures (Saurola
11
1997; Houghton and Rymon 1997). Prolonged exposure to noise during an extended buildout of the site
I may, however, discourage the existing osprey pair from relocating within open space on-site. Potential
mitigation would prohibit the loudest construction noise such as pile driving during the nesting and early
fledging period of late April to late July.
11
1
III Mitigation of Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement
i
' Avoidance
'1 The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the -
1 proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer, with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for
,I temporary construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the town homes on Lots 109 through
!' •11,5 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west. If the roadway and town homes were
shifted enough to provide a permanent buffer dimension of 25 feet, but allow construction disturbance of
the existing degraded buffer with future restoration, about eight town home sites could be retained. ,
The displacement of the wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could be avoided by redesign of
1 this portion of the proposal to place all development outside the 25-foot wide wetland buffer area. This
would involve shifting the access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the
, immediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed lots 99 and 100 and require
a
i, ,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-46 September 2003
reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If retained, existing utilities consisting of
water valves and a hydrant should be re-located outside the wetland and buffer.
Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement
Restoration of the buffer area of the northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of
native vegetation to replace the displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation west of the wetland
is characterized by non-native grasses and forbs, with some areas of red alder and Himalayan blackberry.
Replacement buffer area vegetation would include a mix of native trees and shrub species such as western
red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas fir, big leaf maple, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, salmon berry, and
red currant. Enhancement of the existing wetland vegetation community of the northerly wetland, which
consists of introduced vegetation, could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent
plants.
Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced,together with likely changes
in hydrology, would necessitate replacement elsewhere on site. The City of Renton specifies a 1.5:1
minimum replacement ratio for wetland creation and replacement. The code provides for additional area
in cases where there is uncertainty about the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation;
where there is a significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or
projected losses in functional value(RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e).
The most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the northerly wetland, adjacent to
the proposed May Creek buffer area. Likely constraints for wetland creation in this area that must be
addressed include the following:
• Adequate hydrology through groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a wetland
vegetation community. Surface water runoff from building roofs could provide recharge for the
wetland. (Runoff from streets contains pollutants that can be an undesirable addition to wetland
ecology.) Regrading some of the area north of the existing wetland to lower the elevation may
provide sufficient groundwater hydrology.
• Both wetlands and buffer areas are largely devoid of native species due to mowing. A specific
wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology. The invasive
nature of the existing community of reed canary grass poses a high risk of invasion of the
enhanced and created wetland by weed species. This risk can be addressed by removing the
existing reed canary grass by grading and replacement with dense plantings of native shrubs and
trees.
• Monitoring and enforcement is a critical element of successful wetland compensation. Recent
studies have found that failure of wetland mitigation has been attributed to design, installation,
and maintenance flaws. The single most important cause of failure has been lack of enforcement
(Mockler et al. 1998, Johnson et al. 2000). The location of most of the northerly wetland on
BNSF property will require cooperation to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a single
biological entity.
Aquatic Species
There are a variety of mitigating measures for natural stream and shoreline function that are related
closely to the amount of land devoted to mitigation buffers. For this reason, discussion of mitigation is
covered below under "Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas." This mitigation addresses such
functions as (LWD)recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants,
regulation of water temperature through stream shading,bulkheads,artificial light and public access.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-47 September 2003
Removal of existing in-water structures such as pilings,the existing dock, and log booms would improve
conditions for juvenile salmonids by reducing the amount of existing cover for predators, such as
smallmouth bass, and by not interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Mitigation of the
adverse impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number of strategies
ranging from avoiding construction of docks, reducing the number of docks, and or through specific
design and construction measures.
Avoidance of the impacts of new docks could be addressed by a plat condition prohibiting private dock
construction. This would avoid the potential impacts from use of the docks and from dock shading. Such
a prohibition could include the implication that property owners would use commercial moorage at off-
site marinas or could provide for alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located at
!; a distance from near-shore habitat. The latter option could include a dingy dock for access to buoys and
floats. Such a dock could include the existing sawmill dock at the northern end of the proposed common
area (that could be reduced in area) or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would avoid
proximity impacts on adjacent residential lots.
An option that would reduce impacts, but not prohibit new docks, could involve shared moorage by two
or more property owners. In such a case docks could be developed at property lines to serve two adjacent
properties, or a single moorage facility could be developed to serve the entire development. Dock
construction could include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted above,
long-term use of docks is likely to be hampered by delta formation and could lead to requests by residents
to dredge,which would reduce the benefits of natural processes that create shallow shoreline habitat.
Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Areas
More extensive buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities that would support re-
establishment of indigenous elements of the Lake Washington shoreline. Buffer areas would reduce long-
term and cumulative impacts of residential development of the shoreline, and expand the beneficial use
for wildlife and aquatic species.
I, Two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Lake Washington shoreline and
{ May Creek:
Option A, 50-foot buffer
Under Option A, (Figure 3.4-4) the following design modifications are proposed to slightly increase the
buffer adjacent to May Creek:
• Re-orienting the turn-around for Street A from the riparian corridor to the interior of the project.
III
• Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the
proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHW. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces four
proposed town home units to one or two.
For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components:
• A 25-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline that would include restoration of the shoreline to a
more natural condition through:
> Elimination of bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads
> Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and providing substrate for
plantings near the water
i l
I ,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-48 September 2003
f COR-2 ZONE }
f r — /
l` / .....im .xu..ieo s ws.-ev.g
. � ngr I I.�.,,.QI I ,�.,,��I �I I I�,�s1 I����sl� �� g��T
I,�-,�s
( __ \IIi _ II � II ,a . II ,. p 11 - . 11 . ' II ' . 11H y /
op._.„9
1 STREET - /., ,
50'SETBACK ""`"°°°s 7, / ./` ,, / , .,•,.. I I I /
= J // v/ // L m I IIro-11— _ IL _/
Tract„B" s //w.� .. /
Water Quality \ / ..„../ l
PUBLIC LAND`) :;! Tract"C" \ /,� \\ ' / \ ., / _- f
Open ■ / ?' \\m \\/ / \/ /�
1 I Space \ \� ,� fig/ / /
1 .\ v -\ \ //i/
4111115111M-111 till'i\-'/ 7, <;e5v/ / 27'
10I gi///, `- -0HW / __x f C90
' \�
111'11111l1a4.060"m°g10'.i.s
LAKE y' 5 1:n1 , 7// / \ ;,,' �f�6
WASHINGTON `.�1 /7 �, . f'-
i/
kV 50'SETBACK
ailmee4111.110111151111mor iii,j/iti./ it4t),, 1 ,('::474,/, ',/1' //4rf------- ----
, W1-"I's/ '
V
17
PUBLIC LAND7/ //u \ • , /'/ `\ p s
* y/ ;//2) {/
i9
1
i MAY CREEK/\___ • ----- . --.-\ .„..- * litesr/
, +�• ii
DELTA .� •. ,.4/
as .
1
gym--r"� '5a- a.. f ,Y. , _..._
I ....._.
A—A_zclr>F r
1._._ �;_ ;f sl '' J AATL.1 QT
/ i . . -x: ;y" I __. _
REVISED 50' SETBACK FROM OHW
88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND
FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES
101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-04
SCALE IN FEET PA& Figure 3.4-4
Option "A" 50-foot Buffer
n W 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
> Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors
for adjacent residential development
> Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the
water, with fencing between the trail and waterfront, and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet
on the shoreline with benches or other passive features
• A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, including yard areas and ornamental landscaping would
probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent
lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits, and which also would likely be
fenced for privacy.
This mitigation option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 100, given the
current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building
types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example,
construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high could result in five to seven story buildings that could
accommodate well over 100 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction.
Option B, 100 foot buffer
Option B (Figure 3.4-5) would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek, with specific
changes on the May Creek corridor including the following:
• Elimination of most of the potential for development on the east side of the stream.
• Reduction of the number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15.
• Elimination of most of the development on both side at the mouth of the stream.
For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components:
• A 75-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline
to a more natural condition through implementation of similar but more extensive features as
Option A, including:
> Elimination of bulkheads,or reduction in height of existing bulkheads.
> More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope.
�- -- > Planting a mixture of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees, that
could be accommodated in the wider buffer area, while preserving some view corridors for
adjacent residential development.
> Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 15- to 25-feet from the
water with fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet
on the shoreline with benches or other passive features.
• A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, to include yard area, ornamental landscaping, which
probably would be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to
prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits and which also would likely
be fenced for privacy.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-50 September 2003
I '
I
1
I
I__
COR-2 ZONE
F. --1,, Fr. -1. IT. -1,. 17, -I„ 17. -1. in. 7, i T. 7 117:1 iri /4
/ ' IL �L ��. 1j� _I� _IL LL LL J IJ / ,
I �� —ST — i- // /
OHW r r / , / „ / 1� 1� „ II „ m /f /
�,/ / �� / �� � ll � 11
100'SETBACK — — \/ \/ — /
- Tract"B" �/
Water Quality
PUBLIC LAND \ d
, ..,. / Tract"C" � cietka.
,� .•
I I Open
l 7 I Space / t /
lti*. y f ///
,4
„Immo .,.. .*
y,-- r 'O.. .
�/ i U Rf O
vi
i , ., > . . ,X / //fay
oct
. • J Ii YI-"-�OHW • •,.. __\ / =c,
•
//7/ , 'f , /Q/
LAKE 1 `„ / • ,• , • /,, '1/ /y�!
WASHINGTON U `/ /��.li /�. ' 100'SETBACK
hii
/ •
/---- C 1/4.. \ „;/ .• /: ///".NI
d4 q
`w
'// '''-,„,,,,,/,,,‘,.
PUBLIC LAND j• u" • N.
//!/
I 1 M
ct.‘ ./' :‘„,`, .',. \ ' „V/ ,
/\_ . - •
:ife' ,, 84— N
dd MAY CREEK °`m- rV,/ .- ,,
DELTA "/ * a / _ �_-_--
/ '' 1i . / i
a�
a.aww`�
'° .R$zoNE_._ _.._ 1 / *, } t_`% N 40TH ST
REVISED 100'SETBACK FROM OHW
50 BUILDING SITES
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-05
SCALE IN FEET tila Figure 3.4-5
W Option "B" 100-foot Setback
100 200I Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Option B would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 69, given the current layout of
townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the
applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with SMA jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of
residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high
could result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 100 units on the 43 lots
outside SMA jurisdiction.
Cross-sections that indicate the building setback are provided for three different portions of the Lake
Washington shoreline.
• Figure 3.4-6 is at proposed Lots 27 and 28 where the existing public land along the shoreline has
a width of about 20 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as
the 50 foot and 100 foot buffer options.
• Figure 3.4-7 is at proposed Lots 29 and 30 where the existing public land along the shoreline has
a width of about 80 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as
the 100 foot buffer option. The 50 foot buffer option would be accomplished by existing public
land.
• Figure 3.4-8 is at proposed Lots 35 and 36 where private lots would front directly upon the
shoreline. There is no public land at this location. This figure indicates the existing
development, which includes no buildings; the proposed development with 25 foot building
setbacks as well as the 50 and 100 foot buffer options.
The following describes the extent to which these two mitigation options would reduce impacts in relation
to the proposal and each other:
Impervious Surfaces
Impervious surface on-site is reduced to about 60 percent under the proposal. Under Option A, a slight
increase in pervious surface would be provided along May Creek and the pervious area along Lake
Washington would be doubled. The increase in pervious surface under Option B would double along
May Creek and increase four-fold along Lake Washington. Total impervious surface would be reduced
by about 5 percent under Option A and about 20 percent under Option B. The decrease in impervious
surface is unlikely to have a substantial direct impact except along the Lake Washington Shoreline,where
either the 50- or 100-foot setback would allow infiltration of most precipitation and eliminate runoff
entering the lake except under the most intense storm events.
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
The larger width of the buffer areas that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Options A and B
would provide greater structure, or physical complexity, greater spacing, or complexity in spatial
relationships including overstory, mid-story, shrubs, and understory, and greater interspersion, or
complexity and transitions among various plant communities. This could be expected to provide not only
more wildlife habitat, but more complex niches for a greater variety of species and a more complex and
productive food web. A greater separation from human disturbance would be provided that would
encourage species with less tolerance to humans. Benefits would be greater with the greater buffer width
in Option B because of the greater habitat area,the greater buffer from human disturbance, and the greater
potential for complex communities.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-52 September 2003
I ,
Public Land Existing Inner Harbor
OHWM Line
I
Existing
Warehouse
30—
20- -
..........--..... Existing Log Bulkhead
Lake Bottom
EXISTING SECTION
I- A
Inner Harbor
I Public Land Existing Line
OHWM 7 _
Street%
I I
I I
high
1 Building 50'
Existing Log I I I
1 I 1 50'
Bulkhead I 1
30—
--I I I I L
20—
25'Building Setback__ Lake Bottom
PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25 SETBACK
E -I
Public Land Existing Inner Harbor
OHWM Line p _ --1
Street
I II I
I
1 75
I I
1 Building 50'
I 50'
Regraded high
1 1
Shoreline
30—
20— 25'Lawn-- ,,,,._ I
1 .
OHWM L __I 1 I I .,__ L
......—___•—T:
Lake 25'Rem
Bottom—/
I 50'Building Setback
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK
I- _ j
Public Land Existing Inner Harbor
OHWM LineI E ___1
Street q
I II 1
I75'
I I
I Building
50'high
I
Regarded I 50'
Rded I
30—
Shorerme
— __L_ I I I 1 L
20——•—•—
— --.—
Revegetation Area —..-1 25'Lawn I-...—
Lake
Bottom] 100'Building Setback
]
- 200'Shoreline
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK
Parametrix DATE: 08/28/03 08:20am FILE: K1779017P0IT02F-3-4-06
Figure 3.4-6
Cross Sections
SCALE IN FEET
_ Lots 27 &28
0 30 60
. ,
I '
Existing Public Land Inner Harbor
OHWM Line
I
Existing '
Saw Mill
30-,
20-—.—. ems= ------ -... ._.__ —_,---
.1 64'Public Land
Lake
Bottom
EXISTING SECTION r
I
- Existing Public Land Inner Harbor
OHWM Line Street Cb I
'Regraded I Building
n High 50 I Building75'
I I I
Shoreline I i
30- + L I L
64'Public Land - .1
Lake Bottom'
I
ollo -. 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
PROPOSED SECTION
Existing Public Land Inner Harbor Street q 1
OHWM Line
I Building 75'
Building 50' I I High
High I
Regraded
Shoreline
i 30-
�
.-1 .._ ... _ _.. ._. .._ . . . . .-O— - _ -
7
64'Public Land - .1
Lake 75' 25'Lawn -.-
Bottom/ 100'Setback
200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
I
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-07
Figure 3.4-7
SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections
Lots 29 & 30
0 30 60
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing
Line OHWM
I
Existing Paved
30- Storage Area
OHWM L_
20--. —•—._
700-
-- — _ _ Rip Rap
Bulkhead
Lake Bottom——
as dredged
EXISTING SECTION
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing I
Line OHI Street l
75'
i
___ I I I Buildinghg 50' I I I 50
Rip Rap
30- Bulkhead I I
OHWM (____Lawn 1,...._............ ..ti _.I-_. ,_........,.. I ...,..... ._._,....,.��.J.._........, ...-..
20-�_._._.�''"
f7�' 25'Building Setback
____ —
Future Lake Bottom
- 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction ..]
-
Della as dredged
PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing I
Line OHWM Street
I -r -- 1 F I
75
I I i
Building 50'Hih I I I 50
Regraded
—. Shoreline
OHWM 1_ L 1.. l — I 1
30—
20- •—
2:1 25'Lawn
Future 25'Revegetation Area
Delta H
Lake Bottom 50'Building Setback
as dredged
200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing I
Line OHWM Street l
i75
Building 50'50'h I I I 50'
Regraded
, 30- Shoreline
OHWM .—.L ._._.—1.—._—,—. -�—.
20-�_ -
75'Revegetation Area 25'Lawn
' Future
Delta 100'Building Setback, . i
-
Lake Bottom
as dredged 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction -
Al TFRNATIVF RFCTICAI WITH 100'AFTRACK
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-0B
Figure 3.4-8
SCALE IN FEET
Cross Sections
Lots 35 & 36
0 30 60
There is no proposal in the current application for planting riparian vegetation along the Lake Washington
shoreline. Both Option A and B respond to the Renton Shoreline Master Program that provides general
guidance that landscaping be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway
(stream, lake edge,marshland)and be compatible with the Northwest image(RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
Option A provides little difference from the proposal in buffers along May Creek, except near the mouth
of the creek where the proposal includes setbacks of less than 50 feet.
Option A doubles the setback from Lake Washington, as compared to the proposal. This additional area
provides limited opportunities for establishing a viable community of indigenous vegetation along the
Lake Washington shoreline. A 25-foot wide buffer of native indigenous plantings adjacent to the lake
with a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a planting area that will accommodate
only one or two native trees (at maturity) between the residential lawn area and the shoreline. A 25-foot
buffer of native vegetation would be likely to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively
simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. The presence of public access trails
in the area would also lead to potential impediments to establishing a stable vegetation community
because of trampling and other disturbance,and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife.
The 75-foot area for indigenous plantings provided under Option B would provide for a much more
varied community of plants on May Creek and at the lake shoreline and would allow regrading to provide
a more natural transition to the waters edge. A greater complexity of vegetation would be reflected in
value to wildlife. The disturbance afforded by public access would be reduced as discussed below.
There is potential for conflict in values between the interests of residents on lots adjacent to Lake
Washington and the benefits of greater buffers. In many cases, homeowners on the Lake Washington
shoreline are likely to desire views of the lake and the distant landscape that would not be accommodated
by typically dense communities of indigenous species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to
develop an effective community of indigenous shoreline vegetation and wildlife habitat because those
communities typically create dense screens, especially native evergreen species. This conflict may be
present to a less extent on lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline where public ownership, as well as
the Shoreline Management Act, supports planting indigenous vegetation as a means of enhancing
environmental values.
With the 25-foot buffer of indigenous planting under Option A, some accommodation of both interests
could be provided by emphasizing groundcover and shrubs in the shoreline with the tree species chosen
for the potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the level of major views. Such species would
potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that would allow some views between trunks, while
providing a leaf canopy that would overhang the lakeshore and provide shade and other desirable
elements. Native evergreens could be located closer to residences and along lot lines or other locations
where view corridors between individual or groups of trees can be provided. Building design that placed
the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would
provide the potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy fences
between the lawn areas and areas of indigenous plantings.
Option B provides few opportunities for view corridors from private lots due to the 75-foot wide buffer
of indigenous plantings. Property owners would likely access public trails and viewpoints to enjoy
unobstructed views of the water. The development of a public trail system along the May Creek and Lake
Washington shoreline may contribute to a perception of these open space areas as a public resource with
value for the community as a whole, rather than being primarily an amenity (or inconvenience) for
adjacent property owners (Sherrard 1996). Such public access can more readily be provided with the
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-56 September 2003
wider setback in Option B with less impact on maintenance of indigenous vegetation and less impact on J
adjacent property owners.
Option A could be implemented on the entire public land corridor along the shoreline by DNR, which
manages the land as a trustee for the public. The existing leaseholder has certain responsibilities for
removal of existing facilities and restoration of the landscape that could be integrated into DNR action.
Maintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require designation of a management entity which
could include some combination of the City of Renton,DNR, and the WDFW. Maintenance of plantings
on private lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve long-term enforcement issues in view of
property-owner interest in making recreational use of the shoreline, and interest in maintaining views of
the water and a general cultural preference for lawn. Maintaining non-ornamental landscaping on private
logs likely will require extensive public education and enforcement. Providing for management of the
shoreline setback by dedication to the public, or by an easement providing for management by.an entity
other than the individual property owner, would likely contribute to better maintenance of indigenous
vegetation.
i
Stream and Lake Morphology -
i
Under Option A, the 50-foot buffer area along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in providing
limited opportunities for establishment of vegetation communities that support natural stream processes _
such as meandering. It is likely that stream bank protections would be maintained to keep the stream in
its;existing channel. The major difference would be near the mouth of the creek where delta formation
and a less incised creek provide additional opportunities for stream meandering under the additional
buffer area provided by Option A. Option B would double buffer areas on May Creek, as compared to the
proposal. This would provide a much greater area for natural stream processes such as meandering. -
j Maintenance of existing streambank protection would be required only in exceptional cases.
Option A provides limited area for natural lake erosion and beach formation on Lake Washington.
Portions of the shoreline with shallow depth would accommodate removing bulkheads and allowing
erosion to form a more natural shoreline. Option B would allow considerable area for natural processes
to occur. In both cases, areas previously dredged would be dependent on delta formation that would take
II several decades to re-establish shallow depths. Additional discussion is provided below under bulkheads.
Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration
Under Option A, the 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in its j
ability to provide natural control of pollutants and sediment in runoff. The two differ near the mouth of
the stream where, under the proposal, the buffer width narrows, while under Option A it would provide
additional area to filter sediments or runoff. On the Lake Washington shoreline, substantial additional
pollutant control would be provided by doubling the width of building setbacks and providing an
additional 25-foot buffer area of indigenous plantings. Interception of sediment and chemicals in runoff
would be moderately effective with the 25-foot planting area, and very effective with the 75-foot wide
area. Extensive erosion control BMPs would be required during the process of removal of impervious
surfaces and regrading for initial planting. After initial removal of existing impervious surface and
establishment of permanent vegetation, future land alteration would be separated from the waters' edge
by a buffer. It would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was established prior to building
I.
construction.
-
Both Options would result in a decrease in application of herbicides and pesticides near the shoreline as
, compared to the proposal where development of lawn areas would be expected to increase chemical
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 -
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-57 September 2003
i I
applications. Direct application to water through overspray or spill would be avoided. Infiltration of
waters containing pollutants via direct groundwater input would be reduced by greater setbacks.
Water Temperature Regulation and Regulation of Microclimate
A riparian buffer width of 50-feet as stated in the proposal and Option A would not be sufficient to
provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek through shading, but would
provide some benefits of additional shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level of shading
would most likely serve to prevent or moderate further temperature increases of water prior to entering
Lake Washington that would otherwise occur with no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of
the project site and the short distance of stream on the site, stream temperatures will, however, largely be
affected by habitat and water uses upstream of the project site. The greater buffer area in Option B would
provide more vegetation and shading benefits.
Options A and B would increase shading of Lake Washington shallow water areas and reduce
temperatures increases in area that would otherwise receive direct sunlight as compared to the project's
proposed 25-foot building setback (presuming that few large trees would be planted on private lots and
shading would be negligible).
Indigenous shrubs and trees planted on the lake shoreline would, in time, grow to provide shoreline
overhanging vegetation and provide temperature moderation of shallow water habitat. The project site
faces largely to the west. The sun angle and height during the summer months will allow shading to
occur in the morning, because the sun rises north of due east after the spring equinox. During mid-day,
the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead, allowing overhanging vegetation to
shade shallow water areas. The sun in the afternoon is also slightly north of west, allowing crown
shading. In addition, the angle of the sun shining through more layers of atmosphere in the afternoon
reduces heat transmittal.
Shading i dependent on the density of vegetation and the size of the tree crowns and would be more
effective with the greater buffer width in Option B.
Large Woody Debris Recruitment
Option A and the proposal would provide for approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek,
which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment, but limited increases in
LWD recruitment would be expected as planted vegetation matured. Short-term mitigation measures
could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat,but this should only be considered a short-term
solution, and the subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows would
have to be carefully considered.
Options A and B would provide s more potential for LWD recruitment on Lake Washington than the
proposal. As with May Creek, LWD could also be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline in the
short term. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon in early spring (through
April);however, it also would provide additional habitat for non-salmonid predators such as bass. Option
B would provide more area for vegetation biomass and would provide greater LWD recruitment potential
for both the creek and the lake shoreline.
Bulkheads
Shoreline protection for residential use on Lake Washington is assumed to be necessary with the proposed
25-foot building setback due to the southeast facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-58 September 2003
--I
storms from the south. The current sheet-pile bulkheads on the site were installed at high activity log-
handling areas and are not necessary for shoreline protection from wave action. In addition, shoreline
areas are anticipated to fill in over a period of years with sediment originating from May Creek due to
discontinued dredging operations. This will likely provide more shallow area that will dissipate wave _'
action prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will provide accretion of new land waterward
of the existing high water line. Delta formation also will provide shallow water habitat along the
shoreline.
-
The greater setbacks from the shoreline in Options A and B provide greater potential for removal of
existing bulkheads on the shoreline because residential structures and associated lawn areas would not be
' i threatened. Areas where the lake is shallow, or where it becomes shallower through delta formation,
I,' ' removal of bulkheads would contribute to the formation of a more natural shoreline in conjunction with
bio-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options presume that some area is
I , , available for natural processes and may be precluded in areas where a 25-foot building setback is --
proposed. The wider shoreline buffer areas provided in Options B decrease the potential adverse impacts
on' adjacent buildings from shoreline erosion, and provides a greater potential for short-term
' bioengineering options. Bioengineering options could include regrading the upland portion of the
shoreline and limiting armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle. This would allow for
' more natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure 3.4-9 This may be especially applicable in
publicly owned portions of the shoreline. Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline
enhancement in areas of public ownership could be coordinated with Washington Department of Natural
Resources requirements for removal of existing development on the public lands. -
bosign Typicals
Adequate Setback at Suucturee -
--N to Mold OnticedlcO Deck - -
1 end Provide Set*Fagot
in CM el Sanktalttid 1
oita Send Grade Seneca
Wito.RootedYeletatltnl10Reduce
Surface Err/idiot
. Resode to Stable Slaps
Provide tor Wane of Water
` ,f � -. ,' ,.d Stable Arcot Stone on Stable Slope
3�;°t >. _ , spaces Fltled
_ _ t with
1 •.� • .,Alt.-.
. F , 14
,: sF ak•• ;7' nl
St l oe. e Precccuvn
`°Gravit�t#tde t r" ,y�<,:` 7-. -. kw S �IIt9
- • .' .or FitteM Ot r. 7 tt«.--,.1 "... Aryl
Not Shown:SRr r) Tled into °,.-A ;;�,. ,.,_,.r;-'�'ax -'1*.,x ••i�
k to Minimize Dotes horn - ' • _. . .,.„,1:;:-
Saaking Erosion s —
f Source: Tri-County 2000
I Figure 3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification
II , Further options include varying the shoreline from its existing straight configuration to provide inlets and
I pocket beaches to more closely replicate natural conditions, as indicated in the conceptual sketch in
I��
1 City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-59 September 2003
Figure 3.4-10. After a period of decades, delta formation may result in considerable accretion of new
land and may isolate existing bulkheads inland away from the shoreline.
Maw Piprap
Repe lti• .,•.tsr FVP1?Dine.
UrgeBoulders Provtdo Habitat
4F,atectsimones C7 ,t, ,
.�
�����'may.. f v
4 `�
MOM
Source: Tri-County 2000
Figure 3.4-10 Shoreline Modification
Provision of pocket Beaches and Other Features
As an interim measure, short of bioengineering, or for those portions of the site where dredging has
created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads,the following measures could be implemented:
• Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads, or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to the
OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side, will reduce the negative impact of
wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also be desirable to
engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small gravel substrate that
provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening period prior to substantial
accretion from delta formation.
• Riprap re-vegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings or
rooted plants, provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including shade, leaf
litter, browse, and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture nutrient-laden
sediments(WDFW 2003).
Residential Noise and Lighting
Noise and lighting impacts on wildlife along May Creek would be similar under the proposal and Option
A as vegetation in the approximately 50-foot wide riparian buffer matures. Option A provides more
buffer area and mitigation near the mouth of the creek.
Along Lake Washington, the 25-foot building setback along Lake Washington will not serve to reduce
residential lighting and noise impacts as compared to the additional buffer areas under Options A and B.
Conditions could prohibit outdoor lighting; however,this would be very difficult to enforce over time and
may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows. The elimination or reduction in the
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-60 September 2003
number of docks discussed above would reduce light from that source. Option B will provide greater
noise and light mitigation because of greater buffer dimensions.
Public Access Disturbance
Under the current proposal, it is presumed that public access would be provided to meet the provisions of r',
Renton's Shoreline Master Program. In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake, public access would
likely be at the edge of the shoreline to minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation could include setting
back public access from the shore and reducing residential lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation
is provided by larger setbacks,as discussed below.
Under Options A and B, access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back from the
• shoreline along the portion of the shoreline where private lots abut the shoreline. Buffers equivalent to
Option A could be implemented on most of the public shoreline which ranges from 20 to 80 feet wide.
Public access could be provided further from the waters' edge along the entire waterfront under Option A
or B. It is anticipated that a trail system would meander 10 to 15 feet from the waters' edge under Option
A and 40 to 50 feet from the waters' edge under Option B. Controlled public access for shoreline
viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct
j I shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or re-established
through delta deposits. The larger setbacks provide greater flexibility in accommodating the requirements
of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for"significant"public access on Lake Washington.
Option B would provide greater flexibility in implementing these features than Option A:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required. This would
provide opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the range or degree of LT--I
beneficial use provided by re-establishing indigenous vegetation.
• It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks.
Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the public use and indigenous
vegetation area.
• Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings, which
would limit the amount of runoff reaching the adjacent surface water.
Fencing between the trail and the shoreline would reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and
erosion from informal pathways.
3.5 TRANSPORTATION
The transportation analysis addresses the impacts of the proposal to the local traffic system. The analysis
was prepared in accordance with City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Sections 4-6-070 and 4-9-070
authorizing the identification of transportation impacts and the identification of appropriate mitigating
measures and requirements for disclosure of environmental impacts by the State Environmental Policy
Act(SEPA).
3.5.1 Affected Environment
3.5.1.1 Roadway Network
The study area for traffic impact analysis is defined as the area where the proposed action causes the
generation of additional trips to the street system where an impact to operation, safety, or non-vehicular
' � k
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-61 September 2003
circulation may occur. The impacts to the City of Newcastle are included to specifically address the use
of Lake Washington Boulevard and other routes to bypass freeway congestion. The study area is
bounded by Lake Washington Boulevard SE/SE 60th Street to the north, I-405/Lake Washington
Boulevard to the west, and Burnett Avenue (at the approximate alignment of N 27th Street) to the south,
with additional area of qualitative description of potential bypass routes through the City of Newcastle.
Figure 3.5-1 depicts the project area and the study intersections, Figure 3.5-2 depicts project layout, and
Figure 3.5-3 depicts existing year PM peak hour traffic volumes.
The arterials within the study area include Lake Washington Boulevard, I-405, SE 60th Street, SE 64th
Street, NE 44th Street, Burnett Avenue, Ripley Lane, and N 30th Street. The arterials providing direct
access to the project site include Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane (for emergency access).
The following is a description of the arterials in the study area:
• Lake Washington Boulevard is classified as a collector arterial in the project vicinity providing
north-south access from I-405 and other arterials to the proposed site. The arterial is generally
two lanes with a bike lane on both sides. Lake Washington Boulevard has a posted speed limit of
25 mph.
• I-405 is a north-south state highway providing regional access. In the project vicinity, I-405 is
_ ' six lanes (two general-purpose and one HOV lane in each direction). The NE 44th Street
southbound and the N 30th Street northbound on-ramps have an HOV bypass lane to the meters.
• SE 60th Street is a two-lane east-west arterial in the City of Newcastle with a posted speed limit
of 25 mph. Sidewalks are present on both the north and south sides of the road. A park and ride
lot is located on SE 60th Street.
• SE 64th Street is a two-lane east-west arterial in the City of Newcastle with a posted speed limit
of 30 mph.
• NE 44th Street is a collector arterial with a five-lane section directly east of I-405, narrowing to
two lanes to the east. It serves several businesses at I-405 and provides access to residential areas
to the east.
• N 30th Street is a two-lane east-west collector arterial west of Park Drive and a minor arterial
east of Park Drive. N 30th Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
Burnett Avenue is a north-south collector arterial south of N 30th Street. It begins and terminates at
Lake Washington Boulevard to the north and south. It serves primarily residential land use and has a
posted speed limit of 25 mph.
The traffic operations analysis includes the following intersections indicated on Figure 3.5-1:
1. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 60th Street(impacts on Newcastle)
2. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 64th Street(impacts on Newcastle)
3. Northbound I-405 interchange ramps at Lake Washington Boulevard at NE 44th Street
4. Southbound I-405 interchange ramps at Lake Washington Boulevard-NE 44th Street
5. Lake Washington Boulevard at Ripley Lane
6. Ripley Lane at project north site access(emergency access)
7. Lake Washington Boulevard at project south site access
8. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 36th Street
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-62 September 2003
I
4 ;
1 , /
\
...,
„ 4c,
, ' if 1321111
tt) 7
r Co Z.
co 0
r ' •s '.. „ pLEASUPE .-, 0
. „
co m
z ,......... °0
-- ), SE 60TH ST r
. .• 0, ...„. Z
r .I ,,
„ , •I' SE 60TH ST I„ .
CO. „ .
-,
0 rn
m.•
SE ••TH ST X
— w
co
Lu
r .
„
.c.0 1—zrc SE 68TH . SE 69TH
4 4 '
r „ , •
13
/ / 1
SRE I
76TH ST
' A-, •, , i kr
0 i 1 44TH icg
‘I' 4 „ QUENDALL i
„
' ' „ TERMINALS 4` e 414 0
, . - PROJECT I 0 V 7
Z
' Z
>., . .. . a
, < :< < M
- F-
co
//40TH 7:
] •
..e'
0
I 1 .
. „
.i
0" S. 88
ST .N 36TH ;-1 •
;"' :',''•,P4,:,,,a,',.,‘,- ',.,-;:i
--- cr K% ,;44' ••`,,i' 5 , ,
1 cr L
z
z EL e/ f2•.:',' ,":.;: :c''''.:`-'-'3,1,;;J: , ,
ca 0 .r,,;-: „-,,-••e,::;.=,g,>,i4o . , --_',c7-','' ', ,',,-1,2;co N 30TH s f I ?, :,,,..,'..i,,z,mAy,--.:p7:-;- :~, .,ti•-:5,-w:-:::-;:,.= .,,,,.)..t
„ , •••• .,..%; kl,,,-
i
. ,
. .= .
-' : : -, , \0 NE 2rni sr '&4%:',AW,i;4:, •4
e,..
, „ , , •,_ 0 •',<.': t
a;',..,i:• I
co
>
m
Gene Coulon :- •X•
' - , • Memorial ,' co m
Beach Pa
1
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
Figure 3.5-1
10
Project Area Map
1 ,
t
Jfi . Yff
���
/*/ / . /
, 1 , , ,,„:"
J , ./: . ,/
_ . /7
COR-2 ZONE �
f. �,-,�,L. L'JL -ILJLJLJLp L' JLJ `7/.s /• / jf
I OFIW--,,.... ! -''' ; grarrarc:n '---.:z--.i- : ---77/
ract"C ii» • � `;' f If
PUBLIC LAND ?. " Open + -" ��� �1j jj/r:a ' A* ,*-Attl3"41:7‘4 '''--,
�`. Space 1 �i 44 / r
, ' ' ;C-- '::_. 0,‘As w,,,, • . , ,FFLy / ,,,,,,,,,
LAKE , � ' • -,_, '-,.
( WASHINGTON I , ram.- tt„,--,. . •, ,
• 1 r
:MOW 1111-111wri.-
•
•
!' , ,, i_
: ' '' `ftlw*8144t, ' . I '‘/-' '
PUBLIC LAND l- -<.:< J�,t:
V.•` % / �, A�` it / / /
/%.4 1,,,,,„'% ,. ( opt - 1r ( -,,,, / / /
AY CREEK I / N. ,
LTA ?i
r.---
._ / / s. \// + I= Oe I jf
i ' j='z°RR _ a 40TH ST
1 I t\0
I` s
, / ' d
i
I
Parametrlx DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-5-02
SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.5-2
I W Overall Plat Plan
0 150 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
1-1
n R 139 CI El (4-cir CI
co R 1
N N E 1 r r
+ �► c 102 R.25 + A(' 4
,42 4
SE 60th St in N A"2� „1aB\�° N 30th St
�\ce
1 � ro 4 r 4) m CO rn CO
co r- 12.°
2- ro m
J �
_It
.
Q R 012
j I 0 r- '> NC.
11
l T N N F 9 O N. `37 9�clett pve
L rr + co 0
-f J 2
SE + �►
64th St North Access
i f Driveway • N 4
��a�a ;wCD 4 (� 0� N LO
3 MCPco
1 � N CO r •st 1 *6>
T co rn m
6 air
I
0 ❑7 11
OS CO N m R29 m� CO
r N •
E- 113
��
CO m -- 15 4
R2
N 9 \�d
_ Jc65 NZ \ . + C 24
\aKe
j NE 44th St LO LO
_ J a N 30th St
-A E
58 r ' as
j 178 °� �` ry 2. cc
167--0- o
43� rn NJ-
N CO �� 84-N m
-I z 12 U)
A
I ' El ElR3 12
co r- co co
CO CD
r co r E- 121 °' F3 R164
Ir 181 �► _ F 98
I N 36th St
Lake Wa Blvd
n wag\�a _ N 30th St
m \K �. m 4 s
119-0. o �>r m o cor N 60- 4 r'
9 `3 At
,\� 470-0- _ 0
m z
co
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-3
%o Year 2002 Existing
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
1 '
9. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 30th Street
10. Lake Washington Boulevard at Burnett Avenue(N 27th Street)
11. Southbound I-405 interchange ramps at N 30th Street
12. Northbound I-405 interchange ramps at N 30th Street
Level of Service under existing 2002 conditions is shown in Table 3.5-2.
3.5.1.2 Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted for the study intersections during the PM peak hour
1 I under year 2002 existing conditions, and year 2007 with and without project traffic. The degree of
congestion or the quality of the traffic operations is rated with a level of service grade; the letters A
through F are used for the rating scale. The letter A represents the best (least congested) conditions and
the letter F represents the worst(most congested)conditions.
L
The LOS ratings are based on the performance measure ranges identified in the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM 2000) published in 2000 by the Transportation Research Board. The delay and LOS
{ results for the intersections analyzed in the study area are the output of the Synchro software program.
The correlation between the intersection operations,LOS grade, and delay are detailed in Table 3.5-1.
The delay reported for a four-way stop control or signalized intersection is defined as the average control
delay and is calculated by taking a volume-weighted average of the delay of each approach. For two-way
stop control intersections, the delay reported correlates to the approach with the worst operating
conditions.
Table 3.5-1. Corresponding LOS Grade and Intersection Delay
Delay(seconds/vehicle)
Intersection LOS Signalized Unsignalized
Operations Grade Intersection Intersection
_ a
Best A 510 510
J! B >10 and 520 > 10 and 515
C >20 and 535 > 15 and 525
D >35 and 555 >25 and_5.35
V E >55 and 580 >35 and 550
Worst F >80 >50
Source: HCM 2000.
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-66 September 2003
i ;�
I
,
Table 3.5-2. Level of Service Summary -
Level of Service(Delay in sec/veh)
Stop Year 2002 Year 2007 Year 2007
Intersection Control Existing No Build with Project
1. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 60th Street All-way B(14) C(19) C (19)
2. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 64th Street Two-way C(16) C(22) C(24) I
3. 1-405 northbound ramps(Lake Washington Two-way F(71) F(>90) F(>90)
Boulevard)at NE 44th Street
4. 1-405 southbound ramps at(NE 44th Street Two-way C(20) E(38) F(54)
. (Lake Washington Boulevard) 1
!
5. Lake Washington Boulevard at Ripley Lane Two-way B(11) B(12) B(13)2
6. Ripley Lane at north site access Two-way A(8) A(8) A(8)1
1 I A(9)2 -
I j 7. Lake Washington Boulevard at south site Two-way B(10) B(11) B(13)1
.I I access
B(12)2
! ,
8. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 36th Street All-way A(8) A(8) A(8)
9. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 30th Street Two-way A(10) B(12) B(12)
10. Lake Washington Boulevard at Burnett All-way A(8) A(9) A(10)
Avenue(N 27th Street)
111. 1-405 southbound ramps at N 30th Street All-way C(15) C(19) C(19)
12. 1-405 northbound ramps at N 30th Street All-way C(17) D(26) D(27)
i
' Analysis conducted with all traffic accessing to the south site access onto Lake Washington Boulevard.
2 Analysis conducted with traffic from 50 units(43 percent)accessing to the north site access onto Ripley Lane to and from the north.
! I
3.5.1!.3 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Network
Lake Washington Boulevard is striped for a bicycle lane on the shoulder, which results in bicycles,
I pedestrians, and disabled vehicle sharing the same space. Lake Washington Boulevard generally has 6-to
I 8-foot-wide shoulders,with a ditch and cut section on the east side and a fill section on the west side. In
id I the surrounding neighborhoods, pedestrians are generally accommodated on the roadway shoulder or
11. 1
verge;there is a 4-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side of the I-405 overcrossing at 44th Street.
1.1
11 I Pedestrian volumes and comfort are likely to be low near the site because pedestrian walking areas are
I close to traffic. No pedestrians were observed in the site vicinity during site visits. The major pedestrian
I
attraction is Gene Coulon Park, approximately 0.75 mile south of the site; there are few other recreation
1 or commercial attractions for pedestrians in the area.
Bicycle volumes are believed to be relatively high in the area because of a continuous bicycle route
I, paralleling I-405. Lake Washington Boulevard is believed to include high numbers of commuters on
weekdays and high numbers of recreational bicyclists on weekends.
I.
I There is no transit service on Lake Washington Boulevard in the project vicinity. The closest transit
service is at the Kennydale Park and Ride at Park Avenue North and N 30th Street,and flyer stop at 1-405
at N 30th Street. Routes include:
1
• Metro Bus Routes 111 and 114 serving Downtown Seattle,Newcastle,and Renton Highlands; .-
' • Metro Bus Route 167 serving Kent and the University District in Seattle, with flyer stops on I-
405 and SR 167 between the two end points;
I City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-67 September 2003
1
I
• Metro Bus Route 247 serving the Overlake Transit Center in Redmond and the 148th Avenue
corridor in Bellevue and Kent,with flyer stops on I-405 and SR 167 between the two end points;
• Metro Bus Route 342 serving the Shoreline Park and Ride Lot and the SR 522 Route, including
Kenmore and Bothell to the Renton Boeing Plant, with flyer stops on I-405, SR 167 and
Downtown Bellevue between the two end points;
• Metro Route 909 providing DART service between the Kennydale Park and Ride and Downtown
Renton via the Sunset Hill area;
• Boeing Custom Route 952 between the Auburn Park and Ride and Boeing Everett, with flyer
stops on I-405 and SR 167 between the two end points; and
• Sound Transit Route 560 serving Sea-Tac Airport and the Bellevue Transit Center, with stops in
downtown Renton and with flyer stops on I-405 between the two end points.
3.5.1.4 Site Access
The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard
that crosses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. This railroad right-of-way
was acquired by the Northern Pacific Railway in 1908 and included a reservation of a rail crossing for the
entire contiguous parcel that existed at the time, which now includes the Barbee Mill, Quendall
Terminals, and Vulcan properties. There are currently four private rail crossings that serve these
properties. The existing driveway at the Barbee Mill site has a grade of approximately 12 percent
between Lake Washington Boulevard and the railroad, and a gentler grade below the railroad to the
parking lot of the current mill office and bridge crossings over May Creek to the north and south.
The rail line is currently used at a frequency of four trains per day, one local freight train round-trip, and
one round-trip by the Dinner Train; operating speeds for freight trains are 10 mph. The line is
occasionally used for through freight trains when the BNSF mainline down Puget Sound is closed
because of landslides or other reasons. The BNSF has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the
next 5 to 10 years; however, the railroad has discussed use of the line for rapid transit or commuter rail
with Sound Transit, but there are no specific plans for passenger service (Cowles, personal
communication, 2003). In a similar situation, the BNSF line over Stampede Pass reopened in 1996 after
closure for 14 years (Washington State Department of Transportation [WSDOT] 2001). An increase in
service on the BNSF line and use by through traffic would not require approval of local jurisdictions
under federal law governing railroads. The line adjacent to the site has the potential to carry through
traffic because it connects with the BNSF Stevens Pass mainline at Snohomish to the north and connects
to the BNSF mainline to the south in Renton. Until the 1970s, the rail line was used for multiple trains
per day by the Northern Pacific and Milwaukee Road railroads. The rail line connects with the BNSF
1 ; Stevens Pass mainline at Snohomish to the north and connects to the BNSF mainline to the south in
Renton. The line is occasionally used for through freight trains when the BNSF mainline down Puget
Sound is closed because of landslides or other reasons(Cowles,personal communication,2003).
3.5.2 Impacts
3.5.2.1 Future Baseline Street Network
Traffic forecasts for this study were developed using the City of Renton EMME/2-based travel demand
model for the impact-year specified by the City (2007), with adjustments to add approved development
projects. Specific projects in the vicinity, including the Labrador Subdivision, The Bluffs, Tamaron
Point,and Southport,were included in the EMME2 baseline volumes. There are no funded transportation
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-68 September 2003
1 1
1 `
improvement projects identified in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in the
project vicinity. Figure 3.5-4 depicts the PM peak hour impact-year traffic volumes.
3.5.2.2 Project Trip Generation
Project traffic volumes were estimated using appropriate Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) surveys for
the proposed residential development and the industrial alternative. Development of trip generation for
the No-Action Alternative was produced to provide a comparison to the trip generation of the proposed
action and indicates an order of magnitude of trip generation and resulting impacts. Level-of-service
analysis has not been performed for the No-Action Alternative.
The trip generation for the proposed development was based on the ITE Trip Generation equations for _
land use code (210) Single-Family Detached Housing; there is no rate or equation available specifically
1 ! for a duplex development. A wide variety of factors can affect trip generation rates from dwellings .
including family size, age of occupants, and family income. Studies of duplex housing have indicated
1 . that their trip generation is analogous to that of single-family detached housing (see: Duplex Trip
Generation Rate Study,prepared by Snohomish County Public Works, September 26, 2002). The project
site also includes units in a shared town home configuration with four to five units per larger structure.
Because these units are expected to be at or above the floor area size and a price range comparable to
single-family dwellings in the region, the single-family trip generation rate was also used for these ,i
dwellings to provide a conservative estimate.
The trip generation for the industrial alternative was consistent with the development of the site under
1 existing zoning, which includes land use code 130 (Industrial Park). Results from the trip generation
I
1 analysis for the proposed action and No-Action Alternative are shown in Table 3.5-3. During an average -
weekday,the trip generation analysis indicates that the proposed development will generate 123 PM peak
hour trips (79 inbound and 44 outbound) and 1,188 daily trips. For comparison purposes, the No-Action
Alternative, under current land use, would generate 502 PM peak hour trips (105 inbound and 397
outbound)and 3,797 daily trips.
' i
Table 3.5-3. Trip Generation
Independent Weekday
Land Use Code Variable Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips
Barbee Mill Proposal/Proposed Action
123 total(79 inbound, 1
(210)Single-Family Detached Housing 116 Dwelling Units 44 outbound) 1,188
No-Action Alternative 502 total (105 inbound,
(130) Industrial Park 545,500 square feet 397 outbound) 3,797
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies for the Puget Sound region generally stress the
provision of facilities, such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on major roadways, and additional
transit service and vanpool capacity, as well as incentives provided by employers. The choice of using
modes of transportation other than single-occupant vehicles for trips involves trade-offs between travel
tune that are affected by multiple factors. One of the strategies relating to residential development is the 1
provision of higher density development, which provides residential, commercial, and office uses within
walking distance to allow people to fulfill everyday needs without using a car. Uses can be mixed in the '
salme building or can be located within a certain radius,typically a 0.5-mile walking distance.
!
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-69 September 2003
1
4
co .zt CI
R148 Q � N R.
r N r F 8 N r
A) + L R.25 + y- 4
- 108
3
N
SE60thSt A-2l v N 30th St
\Nag'\vd m
O) d• N 10— A�4_ J
--
r r
J
. _
❑2 R 0 10
1- (0 � 3 12 2.
E 9 o N.r 3�
�
_ Y lr + No .t e
P
J 2 North Access -J y ��c e
SE 64th St Driveway m ' 4 �I
An O � imON N R ��A7:11
¢ 4 r' .N o� �o M 1 I.
1 r r
P 1
r--+ 0 ❑7 D o 11
r > R 38 *�
r RI o m m d'
N N �t -4 139 v 0o R 2 rn r M F 186
L A y- 85 �N re, A) y' E c 30 '
a 1
NE 44th St LO \I o=
J ea N 30th St
In
79 ro , a v
, cc214-� ry 2 197-� Do
597.
0
o N r VP 102 m
-- -N
l zm
111 ® R4 12
CO m 4- 1
m m r F 150 N 0 g 4 R 208
A) y j 209 A) 1' L F 110
N 36th St a
- Lake Wa Blvd
g\s a
N 30th St
a ���a m ' v
'i 172--*. ° 7,0 E O N N 70-f m
I 5m cozo T
1-11 " 511 — ,-3-N
m
co
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
I XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 3.5-4
Iv Year 2007 No Build
PM Peak Hour Volumes
Other features, such as connections between desirable destinations and safe sidewalks and bike lanes, can
encourage the use of alternative transportation modes and encourage walking or bicycling. The use of
transit can be enhanced by providing safe pedestrian access to bus stops and convenient transit routes that
connect to desirable destinations, as well as amenities, such as bus shelters,which can make waiting more
pleasant. Facilities that reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, such as limits on curb cuts and
narrower street widths to slow traffic speeds or other traffic calming measures, make for a safer street
environment and generally encourage walking.
For this site, there are no commercial or recreation facilities off site within walking distance.
Furthermore, the development does not include a mix of uses likely to encourage alternative modes of
transportation, and there is no transit service on Lake Washington Boulevard or within walking distance.
There may be opportunities for residents to car-pool or van-pool to common work destinations; however,
the setting and design of the development does not justify reductions in trip generation rates based on
higher than normal use of other transportation modes.
3.5.2.3 Project Trip Distribution
The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic volumes as
output from the EMME/2 model. The distribution is shown on Figure 3.5-5 and indicates that directly
leaving the site, 19 percent of project traffic is destined to the south and 81 percent is destined to the
northeast. To the north, 16 percent will access I-405 to the north, 18 percent I-405 to the south, 25
percent to 44th Street, 9 percent to 112th Street(SE 68th Street), 1 percent to SE 64th Street, 5 percent to
SE 60th Street, and 7 percent north on Lake Washington Boulevard north of SE 60th Street. To the south,
2 percent will access I-405 to the south from the N 30th Street interchange, 2 percent destined to the east
on N 30th Street, and 14 percent continue south on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 30th Street.
Two site access points for public roads are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard and one onto
Ripley Lane. As a conservative scenario, the south site access onto Lake Washington Boulevard was
analyzed with all project trips accessing this location. The site access on Ripley Lane has the potential to
be used for northbound trips from the portion of the site with shorter travel distance using that route. A
second distribution was reviewed: routing traffic from 50 units in the northerly part of the site (up to 43
percent of the trips)destined to or from the north would use the north site access onto Ripley Lane.
Traffic destined to or from areas south of the site (15 inbound and 8 outbound trips) likely would use the
southerly access rather than out-of-direction movement to the north. The intersections affected by the
different site access distributions include the intersections of Lake Washington Boulevard with Ripley
Lane and the south site access and the Ripley Lane/north site access intersection; the impacts are
accounted for in Table 3.5-2.
Figures 3.5-5,3.5-6, and 3.5-7 depict the trip distribution,project trip assignment, and year 2007 PM peak
hour traffic volumes with project trips, respectively. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the increase in traffic
volumes in the project vicinity associated with the proposed development.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-71 September 2003
1
„ : ', ::, ,., •:,„ „„ 1 ",:, :=, : '''„ - , :: ci;
4., \32.
CO
i 4.6 - PLEASURE o
POINT % 77o m
5% SE 60TH ST -'
� .' h SE /60SH ST
16% 73
1%
SE 164TH ST m
W I—
�, 9% l
`;',:-r E S SE 68TH
SE 69TH
/1,.9Y
22%
WLCAN JZ
• SITE c�' 74
SE 76TH ST
g�
QUENDALL / ,® W
' - 81% ; TERMINALS/ , W
T 25%
��r W
PROJECT GI
Z
GI
. ::::-- ' /1 1 1 •>
I-
19% N 4OTH
;3 18%
AN�36TH ST SE 88TH ST
14% v.
A A�g� .9
z 1 ';:. 'k;-`;'{?ARK�x z',,
"S,':X: �
cr
¢ ;:vt 2% A et,n,-.;)/; x=^.Ma
ico z cc cc `' :' ; ' rr:} Cam'
0N 30TH S I 1 i3§'. >Ys; Mi4 " �.t`37 ,tr'aajcr';z•�.';fz:}^ ' F.3,.,, t ' -
` -a EXIT 6 ,' :'.. s, --k,.•••I 4..� CREEK; •k, • ,fix
--- NE 27TH ST .:`<.%,:;; ,rc '` a>
I_ 14% Z
- m
Gene Coulon �s-•;.
Memorial. m Z
;!' 2
' Beach Park' G m
A
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
Figure 3.5-5
�, g
Project Trip Distribution
,
H
0 R 0 Elc 0
i n 0 -0-- 0 R O
0 u
co 0
4
SE 60th St Ojr 4
�a\vd m N 30th St
0�( o LaKe ro
I' m Qi Y T O
0 o OD N 36 `J
ro
J
Li
❑2 R0 © 10
i a) O o
> R 0
E 0 0 0_ �► Y jr 0 A) + CO 0 e� Pie
L _North Access J + 8xm
SE 64th St Li, Driveway m -o k r
g�,a > 0-A m O O
‘3ya 5 < �` 4 r'' 3 '
\' \" T r o 0 071 °,
Dk
-~ ❑S -0 ❑7 p0 11
m R0 c-5
-4- 20 a oe .4) + F 4
0 %, R6
a 1r0 N 0 E 1r0
yNE 44th St co M 0\16ct
10--AE J Lade�a N 30th St
i1 ro
o
c 4 r' •6 1 _*
—' 11 0 't o o >r Cl)
7—N — 0 1
m
z
,I
�'' El El R 0 I=1
r 0 0 F51 m N o m E- 0
R
ro 0
�__ c 0 �► J 0 n E- 2
E
_ Lake Wa Blvd N 36th St at
n �a(V , N 30th St
E K o
1 28-). m \\ E o o , z r'
o Q� m �t Q N O O
8 m 0� 1 -�
m
ti-
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
i__ XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-6
ur PM Peak Hour
�_ Project Traffic Volumes
I__
El El
R148 ��c R. 1
c*) co
V� co d) -.4-. 8 • N
A) 4' ► 112 R 25 + IC 4
N $l N 30th St
SE 60th St JLO l\laB"d m
°° 5} " `Y)
,__) 10� rn N.r • 2�0� J as co N
J
•
❑ a • R12 ❑ 10 rL0
R
r N N co -4- 10 O r 31
4) y 0 O
SE 64th St North Access +
Driveway > R r
6� , --A p • o N c.1 4
2�� r o CO 1 �
n\�T 1-
t.
❑3 ❑ N 11
> R '38 co m ��� �r
(Nv N CO <- 159 ��7� D, CD y co E- 190
N R-6
► as jr 85 NN 2�� E r 30
,
NF 44th St -Ioo co 0,0 CC/ Kg`�a N 30th St
, , J89 ' �a rg-
� 198->
_ 225-). o �t o N a°N T- cn
103
! i 66 zm
N
® ® R4 12
co co F 1
r co co <- 201 cNV co r- g R.4 208
A) + L Jr 209 4) + 4k. _ F 112
Lake Wa Blvd N 36th St cc
E �a�\J > N 30th St
o
co
200—> cc 22 E O (o N 70� co ' 4 r'
O
m r) z Cc) r
19-� �3�► 512- - r r r`
m
m
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
"AIXX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-7
Nu • Year 2007 With Project
;
PM Peak Hour Volumes
Table 3.5-4. Project Impacts to City of Renton
PM Peak Hour Volumes
Year 2007 %of Growth
Total(with Attributed to
Arterial Section Year 2002 Project) Project Traffic
Lake Washington Boulevard(north of NE 44th Street-I-405 ramps) 560 705 19
NE 44th Street(east of Lake Washington Boulevard-I-405 ramps) 585 725 22
Lake Washington Boulevard(between NE 44th Street and N 30th Street) 350 540 12
Lake Washington Boulevard(south of Burnett Avenue) 360 540 9
N 30th Street(between Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405) 490 585 7
3.5.2.4 Future Level of Service
Results of the LOS analyses indicate that all study intersections operate with a LOS grade of C or better
during the PM peak hour, except the I-405 ramp intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard (NE 44th
t__ 1 Street). The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates
with delay because of heavy approach volumes on the minor legs (north and southbound), and the I-405
southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection operates with delay because
of the southbound left-turn movement. Table 3.5-2 summarizes the LOS analyses results.
3.5.2.5 Impacts on Interstate 405
The impacts on I-405 ramp operations at NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)and N 30th Street
were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000) ramp merge and diverge analysis tool.
Under both the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action (in 2007), the I-405 northbound off-ramps to
NE 44th Street and N 30th Street and the northbound on-ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F.
Under both the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action(in 2007),the I-405 southbound off-ramps to
NE 44th Street and N 30th Street and the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E.
The analysis indicates that the project traffic volumes would have no further impact on ramp operations,
and there is no measurable increase in delay between the No-Action Alternative and under Project
conditions.' Table 3.5-5 summarizes the ramp merge and diverge analysis results in terms of LOS and
density(passenger cars per mile per lane).
Table 3.5-5. Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary
Level of Service(Density pc/mi/lane)
Year 2002 Year 2007 No Year 2007 with
Interchange Existing Build Project
Lake Washington Boulevard(NE 44th Street)
1-405 southbound off ramp diverge D(33) E(35) E(35)
1-405 southbound on ramp merge D(32) D(33) D(33)
1-405 northbound off ramp diverge D(35) F(40) F(40)
1-405 northbound on ramp merge D(32) E(37) E (37)
N 30th Street
1-405 southbound off ramp diverge D(33) E(36) E(36)
1-405 southbound on ramp merge D(30) D(33) D(33)
1-405 northbound off ramp diverge D(34) F(39) F(39)
1-405 northbound on ramp merge D(34) F(39) F(39)
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-75 September 2003
,
3.5.2.6 Site Access
The site is adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. The proposal
includes public street crossings at the location of the existing Barbee Mill site private driveway access
i and at the existing private driveway crossing at Ripley Lane approximately 350 feet north of the
intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. (Continuation of a private crossing is
ji
p ecluded by BNSF Railroad practices that limit a new or modified private crossing to a maximum of six
11 pr perties(Cowles 2003b personal communication).)
e procedure for establishing a public street crossing over a railroad right-of-way in the State of
, ' Iashington is governed by RCW 81.53.020 and WAC 480-62-150, and requires approval of a grade
crpssing petition by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Legislative policy of the
Slate of Washington to requires new highway crossings of railroads to be grade separated, where
p o cticable (RCW 81.53.020). This policy applies to local streets, and feasibility generally includes
,; c o nsideration of topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors as well as public need for the
cro ssing, and reference to guidelines adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration (Nizam 2003
,! p:i•sonal communication). The vehicular traffic volumes from this development and the current level of
u e of this rail line do not meet FHWA criteria for grade separated crossings, which generally are
i, i plemented for very high vehicular or train volumes(FHWA 2002).
Ti e'decision to provide public roadway crossings of railways may include elimination or consolidation of
e 'fisting public or private crossings to minimize the total number of crossings. This type of consolidation
i mo y require property owners in the vicinity to work together to provide a circulation system to serve all
p .perties on the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks. The proposed northerly access to the site on to
' pi ley Lane would require dedication of a public street over the property to the north.
ii
It may be desirable, however, to ensure that the feasibility of future implementation of a grade separated
ra 1 crossing is not precluded. The location where existing roadway grades provide the greatest potential
fo 1 overcrossing is near the Ripley Lane intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard, where the
roF dway is currently above the railroad. An overcrossing at this location, however, would require
s bstantial reconfiguration of the Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane intersection with substantial
I c inges in elevation and grade for both roadways.
I
A the proposed at-grade crossing location(at the existing site access),the elevation difference with Lake
i ashington Boulevard is approximately 10 feet. Given the 60-foot separation between the road and
ra lroad at that location, a 16 percent grade could theoretically be established. The combination of
standards for roadway approaches and rail crossings may preclude any substantial change in grade
i, I between the roadway and the railroad. The guidelines of the American Association of State Highway and
*nsportation Officials provide that the roadway surface should not be more than 3 inches higher or
lover than the top of the nearest rail at a point 30 feet from the rail (AASHTO 2001). The similar
WSDOT Design Manual standard is 3 inches above or 6 inches below (WSDOT 1998, Section 930.03).
Tlie normal standard for a road approach to assure a safe area for cars to wait for entry and for sight
di tance is an area 20 to 30 feet in length with a grade not to exceed 6 percent(WSDOT 1998 Fig 930-3).
e buildout of Lake Washington Boulevard, with a center left-turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks,
w uld require most of the right-of-way. This combination of requirements would leave little area for a
c range in grade between the road and the railroad. -
T F e difference in elevation between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard decreases to the north,
rth both at nearly the same elevation approximately 400 feet north of the existing site access
(approximately 400 feet south of the May Creek bridge). Relocating roadway access to this point
presents few limitations for meeting geometric or sight distance standards on Lake Washington
f City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-76 September 2003
}_ t Boulevard. It presents several design challenges for the project because the elevation of the railroad is
approximately 20 feet above the elevation of the majority of the site. Specific design issues include:
• The grade of the access roads serving the lots on the east side of May Creek would have to be
raised at its northern end to meet the grade of the new access road near the grade of the railroad.
That would involve substantial fill and would likely completely displace the northerly wetland if
the BNSF allowed fill on their right-of-way. If the railroad did not allow fill, retaining walls of
substantial height would be required. The design of buildings also would be affected. Buildings
near the northerly end of the roadway would likely step down from street access at a mid-level
with lower floors atgrade. The roadwayprovidingaccess to the east side of MayCreek would be
a dead-end approximately 700 feet long.
• The height of bridge crossings of May Creek would be higher(or fill,where allowed outside the
floodplain,would be substantially higher).
• The access road would intersect the loop roadway system on the west side of May Creek at about
Lot 55. This would present few design issues, but would result in a dead-end street about 580
feet long at the southerly point.
• Relocation of access is likely to impact the northerly wetland and would require development of
additional wetland mitigation area.
The proposed crossing at Ripley Lane, which provides access to the site by a roadway constructed over
the property to the north, has similar, although less severe, grade limitations. The change in grade is
approximately 4 feet on the east side of the railroad and approximately 6 feet on the west side. This grade
change would not allow a 3- to 6-inch change in grade to be maintained 30 feet on either side of the
railroad, nor would the change allow a 30-foot landing at 6 percent grade to be provided at each
connecting street given the 65 foot separation between the rails and the existing pavement of Ripley Lane
and the 70 foot separation between the rails and the roadway on the east side. In addition, widening
Ripley Lane to a three-lane section with a center left-turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks to accommodate
the ultimate buildout of property in the vicinity would move the roadway closer to the rails.
An alternate location that is nearly at-grade occurs at an existing private railroad crossing approximately
r(( 200 feet south of the existing Lake Washington Boulevard intersection with Ripley Lane. This location
would be approximately 200 feet north of the Barbee Mill property line and would be accessed from the
site by a roadway, which would be constructed over the property to the north. The existing site access
proceeds at an angle across the railroad right-of-way, which would likely be unacceptable for a public
street. Construction of a roadway at this location could involve potential conflicts with the Ripley Lane
intersection. In particular, the left-turn storage lane, which serves that intersection, might overlap with a
center acceleration lane for left turns out of the site. Potential conflict would increase with greater traffic
volumes as the sites to the north developed and generated additional trips.
Traffic control at railroad crossings involves two basic approaches:
• Passive control. This involves signs and pavement markers and relies on drivers and pedestrians
to recognize that a train is approaching by listening for the locomotive horn, seeing the
locomotive, and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails. Passive control includes
signage and pavement markings that would include, at the minimum, a circular Railroad Advance
Warning sign and pavement markings consisting of a stop bar. Supplemental markings can
include reflecting cross-buck signs, lighting,or stop signs.
_ • Active control. This consists of signals and gates that are designed to provide warning devices
automatically activated by an approaching train and may include gates that physically exclude
vehicles and pedestrians. Active controls include a range of devices activated by a train's
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-77 September 2003
' approach and range from track-side or overhead flashing lights to gates, which are normally
installed on the approach for both vehicular lanes and pedestrian walkways. Because gates can be
circumvented by cars that drive in the lane for opposing traffic to weave around both gates, quad
gates can be installed to close both the lanes and prevent drive-arounds and to provide greater
security. Employment of quad gates also may qualify for consideration of a"quiet zone" where
sounding of locomotive horns is not mandatory,as discussed in Section 3.9,Noise. ;
T sere is no specific standard for choice of traffic control, but many considerations must be balanced,
in luding vehicular and pedestrian safety. In addition, the cumulative impacts of additional growth and,
th-refore, additional exposure to accidents, are relevant.
T se WSDOT uses general guidelines for screening appropriate control based on many factors. One
cr tenon is related to the type of roadway and an exposure factor based on the average daily traffic on the I
roi dway and the number of trains per day. Based on that general criteria, a two-lane site access roadway
se ing the entire traffic demand of the site would have an exposure factor of 4,400(1,100 ADT x 4 trains
p=r day) and would warrant flashing lights (WSDOT 1998 Figure 930-2). A slight increase in traffic or
n ber of trains would warrant gates according to this criterion; additional traffic would be likely if
additional sites were development to the north. This guideline does not specifically consider pedestrians.
F.r the proposed project, the degree of pedestrian exposure also may be a substantial factor if public
access to the shoreline is provided and integration of a pedestrian circulation system in the area results in
1. rge numbers of pedestrians. Other criteria recommended for consideration include sight distance,
sc ool bus use, a history of accidents, and interactions between traffic control devices at nearby
in ersections. ,
S d ecific to this project, the possibility of higher future use of the train line may justify more stringent
i control measures. A potential safety concern is short queuing distance between the rails and traffic
control at Lake Washington Boulevard. Cars on the tracks may be blocked by cars queuing at the
in ersection. The 50-to 60-foot separation between tracks and the intersection provide queuing space for
to to three vehicles. It is possible that a vehicle could find itself on the tracks with cars stopped at the
in ersection and a train approaching. Additional lane width to provide a means to escape this situation is
a ery desirable feature. In the case of a quad-gate crossing, a system also may involve sensors to ensure
I tip t outbound gates do not shut with vehicles present. In a case where signalization is present at Lake
ashington Boulevard, preemption of signal phasing likely would be required to allow traffic on the _
I c ss street to clear the intersection whenever a train approaches.
Ii
3 5.2.7 Traffic Accidents and Safety Analysis
a accident history was reviewed for intersections in the project vicinity to identify potential safety
c ncerns. The City provided accident data for a 3-year period from 2000 to 2003. The average accident
r e in urban areas for a roadway with a collector arterial classification is 4.27 accidents per million
v Ihicle miles (1996 Washington State Highway Accident Report). The section of Lake Washington
B I ulevard from N 30th Street to the I-405 interchange ramps experiences a collision rate of
a proximately 3.5 accidents per million vehicle miles.
I addition to accident histories, another means often employed to locate intersections with safety
c ncerns is to calculate the accidents per million entering vehicles. Locations experiencing greater than
1 0 accidents per million entering vehicles indicates a high rate of occurrence. Table 3.5-6 summarizes
t e collision and injury rates and accident types for the study intersections where accident data were
proovided. The listed intersections experience less than 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles. The
predominant type of accident that occurs is a right-angle collision at unsignalized two-way stop control
intersections.
Cry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D}aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-78 September 2003
Table 3.5-6. Year 2000 to 2003 Intersection Accident History Summary
Property
Collisions Collisions per Injuries per Damage per Accident Type
Intersection per Year MEV Year Year (%of Accidents)
Lake Washington Right Angle(88%)
Boulevard/NE 44th Street 2.7 NA 1.3 1.7 Approach Turn (12%)
1-405 southbound ramps/NE
44th Street(Lake Washington Right Angle(67%)
Boulevard) 1.0 0.36 0.0 1.0 Sideswipe(33%)
Right Angle(72%)
1-405 northbound ramps(Lake
Washington Boulevard)/NE Sideswipe(14%)
44th Street 2.3 0.56 1.0 1.7 Approach Turn(14%)
Rear End(33%)
1-405 northbound ramps/N Right Angle(33%)
30th Street 1.0 0.43 0.3 0.7 Sideswipe(33%)
Rail Safety
The number of railroad safety incidents has declined over the past several decades in Washington State
and throughout the nation. There are basically four types of railroad safety issues:
1. Collisions involving vehicles and trains at highway-rail grade crossings.
2. Collisions involving vehicles or pedestrians and trains within the railroad right-of-way, classified
as railroad trespass incidents.
3. Derailments or railway collisions. Derailments involve one or more units of rolling stock
equipment leaving the rails during train operations for a cause other than collision, explosion, or
fire. Collisions involve any impact of two or more pieces of railroad on-track equipment or
impact between railroad equipment and foreign equipment. Derailment and collision-type
incidents usually result in very few fatalities or injuries.
4. Hazardous material incidents are regarded as a separate category in order to more closely monitor
the transportation of these products.
Accident statistics are available on-line from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission at
http://www.wutc.wa.gov/web 1/wol/crash.html.
Nationwide, half of train/vehicle fatalities involve at-grade crossings with passive controls and half are at-
grade crossings with active controls. The accident rate at passive controls is presumed to be higher
because crossings with active controls involve locations where vehicle volumes are higher.
The Federal Railway Administration strategy to address train/vehicle collisions includes:
• Targeting funds to high-risk crossings through grants to states;
• Installing new technologies, such as four-quadrant gates, at the most dangerous crossings; and
• Developing education and enforcement programs that increase the public's awareness of the
dangers of railroad crossings(CRS,2003).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-79 September 2003
,
Active controls at crossings are the most effective physical strategy to reduce collisions. For the proposed
nejv crossings, the City of Renton, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the
ra lway must decide the appropriate balance between risk and cost. The risk of collisions with pedestrians
be F ause of trespass on the right-of-way can be addressed by fencing the line adjacent to the site and by
in [tailing warning signage,as well as education programs.
A cidents on the rail line adjacent to the site also have the potential to affect the life-safety of residents by
bl IQ,cking access to the site when trains come to a stop after a collision. Train stopping distance is affected
b}�II$the momentum of the train, which is a function of speed and weight, and the reaction time of the
enlgmeer from the time a visual cue is received to the time brakes are applied. For freight trains operating
o the line presently with up to 10 cars and a locomotive,stopping distance is likely to be in the range of
s Veral hundred feet, depending on the weight of the train.
T e distance between the proposed road access points is approximately 2,000 feet and would require a -I
tr I. length of approximately 25 to 30 cars to block both entrances. If the entrances were moved as
o timed above,the distance between the two would be approximately 1,000 feet and could be blocked by
a ain 15 to 18 cars long. If the rail line were reopened to long-haul freight trains of between 100 and
1 0 cars, a train length of 1 to 1.5 miles long could,under a variety of operating conditions ranging from
, acl idents to operational stops, block both entrances. The potential for operational stops to block the
e ances is low given the lack of switches between south Lake Washington and Bellevue. Under
e fisting use of the line for local freight service, it is unlikely that freight trains would block both
e ances to the site.
1 additional access option that would provide greater separation between access points and reduce the
p tential for blockage would be to develop a continuous frontage roadway on the west side of the BNSF
ra lroad. This would provide access to the existing crossing at the north end of the Vulcan site a
se aration between access points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with
c nsolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points.
1
3.5.2.8 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions -_-
1 e City of Newcastle lies to the northeast of the site and is expected to experience a portion of the
p 1 ject-generated traffic. Based on the trip distribution analysis, up to 22 percent of project traffic (27
P 1 peak hour and 262 daily trips) are destined to, from, or through the City of Newcastle. Table 3.5-7
d scribes the arterial sections affected by project trips, traffic volumes, and the percentage increase in I
I tr lffic due to the project development.
I
1 Table 3.5-7. Project Impacts to the City of Newcastle
PM Peak Hour Volumes _
%of Growth
Year 2007 Total Attributed to '
Arterial Section Year 2002 (with Project) Project Traffic
112th Avenue SE-SE 68th Street(south of Lake Washington Boulevard) 449 506 19
L ke Washington Boulevard(Between SE 60th Street and SE 64th Street) 285 333 15
I "
Lke Washington Boulevard(north of SE 60th Street) 331 381 10
SE 60th Street(east of Lake Washington Boulevard) 231 294 5 j
' ,
' I
di),of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D'aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-80 September 2003
1
_ The Lake Washington Boulevard intersections with SE 60th Street and SE 64th Street operate at LOS C
or better under year 2007 conditions with or without projects traffic; therefore, they are not adversely
affected by the development traffic. Based on the traffic volume forecast from the EMME/2 model, it
does not appear that a significant volume of traffic is bypassing the congestion on the I-405 freeway
through the City of Newcastle on Lake Washington Boulevard. The volumes experienced on Lake
Washington Boulevard are in the realm of traffic volume expected for a collector arterial.
A concern raised by the City of Newcastle involves the potential for commuters to use alternate routes
when congestion is heavy on I-405, especially increased use of local streets to bypass congested sections
of the freeway. These routes are most likely to be used by drivers familiar with the local street system
and with designations relatively close to the bypass route. The most likely routes involve:
• Southbound traffic exiting I-405 at Exit 9 (112th Ave SE/SE 60th Street) and using Lake
Washington Boulevard through Bellevue and Newcastle to 44th Street in Renton, or potentially
continuing south on Lake Washington Boulevard to SR 900 and points between;
• Southbound traffic exiting I-405 at Coal Creek Parkway and continuing south to SR 900 or
turning to the west to access final destinations between Coal Creek Parkway and Lake
Washington at SE 60th Street, SE 72nd/69th Street, or SE 89th Streets; and
• Northbound traffic exiting I-405 at Exit 5 (SR900), Exit 6 (SE 30th Street), or Exit 7 (SE 44th
Street)and continuing north along Lake Washington Boulevard to Exit 9; or
> taking the same route from I-405 along Lake Washington Boulevard and connecting to
destinations to the east via NE 44th Street/89th Street SE, or SE 64th/69th/72nd Streets, or
via SE 60th Street; or
> taking the same route and continuing north via SE 60th Street and 119th Ave SE to Coal
Creek, Parkway, and potentially further north via 128th Ave, Richards Road, 116th Avenue
to Bellevue,Kirkland, and beyond.
All of these potential arterial routes have the disadvantage of lower speed limits and intersections
controlled by stop signs or signals. These arterial routes would have longer travel times than the freeway,
except in cases where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. In cases where
multiple stop sign controlled intersections are present, delays at intersections would become substantial if
large numbers of trips divert. If congestion occurs regularly over a long period of time, drivers would
seek out and find alternative routes. Theoretically, those routes would be chosen as alternative routes
until congestion resulted in equal travel times over alternate routes. In practice, drivers regularly making
trips with local destinations close to these alternative routes would have experienced the difference in
travel times between congested freeway conditions and local arterials and would choose the faster route
for their normal trips. In cases where freeway congestion seems greater than normal, they may divert to
alternative routes.
The EMME/2 model used to route traffic under future conditions accounts for roadway capacity when
routing trips and achieves a reasonable balance between local arterials and freeways. It does not account
for those occasional situations where accidents or other factors produce higher levels of freeway
congestions. In those cases, all the routes outlined above are likely to experience larger volumes of
traffic, which is likely to result in delays at intersections, especially stop controlled intersections, such as
SE 60th Street and Lake Washington Boulevard. Trips to and from the proposed project are likely to
involve the routes along Lake Washington Boulevard (southbound from Exit 9 to the site or northbound
from Exit 5 to the south). The number of trips potentially diverting to alternate routes from the area in
Renton west of I-450 (including the site) is not likely to be more than the current southbound off-ramp
volumes employing a right-turn movement; rather, it is likely to be considerably less. As a worst-case
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-81 September 2003
scenario, approximately 250 trips would be taken, with project trips totaling approximately 5 percent of
th I t total. Given this conservative case, trips on Lake Washington Boulevard at 60th Street would
in rease roughly 50 percent. This increase could be addressed in several ways: by planning arterial
i Iprovements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405, or by retaining capacity constraints,
s eh as stop controlled intersections, that tend to increase travel time and may discourage drivers from
t4ing alternate routes. The latter approach tends to similarly delay trips with a local destination. A
p lissible response to address the potential for diverted trips would include designing future intersection 1 '
si alization to provide higher levels of service to local trips turning into local collector streets, similar to
S 60th and SE 64th Streets,while providing less capacity for through movements.
3 5.2.9 Non-Motorized Facility Impacts and Relationship to Transit
e non-motorized facilities in the project vicinity include a designated bike route (with bike lanes on
b th sides of Lake Washington Boulevard) and some discontinuous sidewalks, primarily on the side
s eets. The need for non-motorized facilities exists because attractions, such as Coulon Beach Park, are
to ated south of the site and transit stops.
, e site is likely to create additional demand for pedestrian facilities as follows:
i • Residents of the proposed development are likely to desire to use pedestrian and bicycle facilities
for circulation within the site to points of interest, such as the publicly owned shoreline along
Lake Washington, and for public access along the balance of the shoreline, if provided, as well as
to points of interest in the vicinity that currently are limited to Gene Coulon Park, approximately
0.75 mile to the south and nearby residential areas.
• Local residents are likely to desire to use pedestrian facilities for circulation within the site to
points of interest, such as the publicly owned shoreline along Lake Washington, and for public
access along the balance of the shoreline, if provided.
C mulative effects of the proposed action (in conjunction with development of adjacent properties in the
ix of intensive office, hotels, and residential activity in a master planned development) are likely to —'
c eate substantial demand for pedestrian circulation to the high-intensity development from this site and
adjacent residential areas and to shoreline amenities adjacent to this site, including the public land on the
s 'oreline adjacent to the proposed development. The cumulative effects of this development are likely to
i tensify the impact of demands related to this development, and include the following:
• Demand for additional capacity and comfort for bicycling and pedestrian routes along Lake
Washington Boulevard, which would connect this site (and future mixed-use development in the
sites to the north)with Gene Coulon Park to the south and to transit routes and the Park and Ride
at North 30th Street.
• Demand for safe and comfortable pedestrian routes crossing the BNSF right-of-way and
traversing the site to provide access to public lands along the shoreline and other public access
! that may be provided.
• Demand for more convenient pedestrian connections from the site to future development in the
north. As presently configured, all pedestrian connections to the north would be channeled back
to the proposed roadway adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. This will likely be perceived as
out-of-direction travel for residents of the westerly portion of the site and for the general public
who access public land along the shoreline of this site and who wish to access mixed-use
development to the north. This demand can be addressed by providing pedestrian access, which
may also be combined with vehicular access, to the property to the north near the northwest
corner of the site.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-82 September 2003
i -
I`4
• Demand for bicycle routes through the site will intensify, particularly with routes that skirt the
shoreline and provide access to mixed development to the north.
• Pedestrian demand from school children is likely to be limited to circulation within the project.
The public elementary school serving the site is the Kennydale Elementary School on North 30th
Street just east of I-405. Students from the site would likely be bussed to school and therefore
require pedestrian routes to bus stops within the site. McKnight Middle School and Hazen High
School are also east of I-405 and would likely transport students by bus. Some older children
may occasionally walk home from after school activities.
Effects on transit from the proposed 116 residential units, and as the result of cumulative impacts of
mixed-use development of property to the north, are likely to consist of additional demand for transit
service. Demand for transit service is very elastic and depends largely on the connectivity of the system
to desired trip ends and the frequency and convenience of service. Individuals earning a high income are
expected to live in this project area; as a result,transit use would generally be lower because the residents
have the ability to utilize personal vehicles and are likely to value the flexibility provided. The exception
generally is the demand for transit service to central cities where congestion provides a trip time
advantage for transit and convenience of taking transit is high (TCRP 1995). Transit use in this area is
not likely to be high unless more convenient transit service is provided close to the site, or low travel time
express service to major employment centers is available from the Park and Ride Lot in the area.
3.5.2.10 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts of this development would include traffic and pedestrian demands of future
development ofthe Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north.
The exact parameters of future development cannot be exactly predicted, but zoning allows a mix of high
intensity uses that can be expected to generate substantial traffic. At a minimum,residential development
of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred more residential units and several
hundred PM peak hour trips.
Additional development would generate a need for additional access points, or geometric and signal
improvements at existing intersections. The mitigation measures section below addresses the number of
additional trips through site access points that would justify channelization of intersections. Other
measures that might be employed to serve cumulative trip generation may include an overpass over the
railroad to serve all development from a roadway system on the west side of the railroad tracks.
The proposed site access points for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat would not specifically restrict
development potential of the adjacent sites, or limit options for developing access to Ripley Lane, which
is likely to be the main access.
3.5.3 Mitigation
Mitigating measures were identified for locations operating at LOS E or F. Signal warrant analyses were
conducted for intersection locations where LOS analysis indicates a need may exist.
3.5.3.1 Mitigation of Vehicular Traffic Impacts
Locations not meeting City operational standards include the I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street
(Lake Washington Boulevard) and 1-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street
intersections. The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection
operates at LOS E with 38 seconds of delay under 2007 no-action conditions, and with project traffic,the
intersection operates at LOS F with 54 seconds of delay. The intersection fails primarily due to the delay
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-83 September 2003
e iperienced at the southbound left-turn movement. The intersection cannot be mitigated with
cannelization improvements alone. A review of the stop control identified that either an all-way stop
c•ntrol (LOS B with 12 seconds delay per vehicle) or a signal(LOS A with 6 seconds delay per vehicle)
w•uld mitigate the intersection operations. The installation of a signal was not warranted based on the
v=hicular volume(see following analysis).
T i e I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F
fo existing conditions and year 2007,with and without project traffic. The intersection operations can be
m tigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane (mitigates to LOS
C with 20 seconds of delay per vehicle with project traffic). Another solution is to signalize the
in ersection, which requires no channelization improvements (mitigates to LOS A with eight seconds
delay per vehicle with project traffic). The intersection met volume criteria for Signal Warrants #2 and
e development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of
$ 5 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system impacts of new trips
from the development that are distributed throughout the general circulation system.
' l
3. .3.2 Signal Warrant Analysis
Signal warrant analyses were conducted for the northbound and southbound I-405 ramps at Lake
ashington Boulevard-NE 44th Street under horizon-year 2007 conditions per Section 4C of the Manual
o Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD). The descriptions below summarize the criteria outlined in
th MUTCD for the intersection signal warrant analysis.
srrant#1: 8-Hour Vehicular Volume
ondition A:Minimum Vehicular Volume
his warrant applies to conditions where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for
onsideration of signal installation. The warrant is conditioned on a traffic volume threshold for the
inor and major approaches for each of any 8 hours of an average day.
ondition B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic
is warrant applies to conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on
minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street.
e warrant is conditioned on a traffic volume threshold for the minor and major approaches for each
f any 8 hours of an average day.
ombination: 80 percent of Conditions A and B
is warrant applies to conditions where both Conditions A and B volume thresholds are met by 80
sercent.
rrant#2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume
is warrant applies to conditions where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to '
onsider installing a traffic control signal. The warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes exceed the
lotted curve on Figure 4C-1 from the MUTCD for 4 hours.
•rrant#3:Peak Hour
is warrant applies to conditions where for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street
.uffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This signal warrant shall be applied
nly in unusual cases but is not limited to office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial
_i
omplexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over
i J
Ci i of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
I aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-84 September 2003
a short time. This warrant is conditioned on delay experienced on a minor approach and traffic volumes
experienced on minor approach and total entering intersection.
I-405 Northbound Ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street Intersection
The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection is currently two-
way stop controlled with at least two-lane approaches along NE 44th Street and single lane approaches
along the I-405 ramps and Lake Washington Boulevard.
Based on the traffic volume forecasts with the proposed development traffic,results of the signal warrant
analysis indicate that the minimum vehicular volume criteria for Warrant#1 (Condition A, Condition B,
and Combination) were not fully met. The volume criteria are met for Warrant #2 and Warrant #3.
Volume criteria for Warrant#1 (Condition B and Combination) are not satisfied for any hour during the
day. The volume criteria for Warrant #1 (Condition A) are met for only 2 hours of the 8-hour
requirement during the day. The hourly traffic volumes for the minor leg approaches meet the MUTCD
criteria for at least 8 hours of a day; however, the major leg approaches reflect only up to 65 percent of
the volume criteria for Condition A and 43 percent for Condition B during the eighth highest hour.
Cumulative impacts of future developments requiring signalization of the intersection based on Warrant
#1 include the generation of an additional 380 vph on NE 44th Street(east and west of the intersection).
The minimum vehicle volume criteria for Warrant #2 (4-Hour Vehicular Volume) are met for the
minimum 4-hours of the day. Additionally, the minimum vehicle volume and delay criteria for Warrant
#3 (Peak Hour)are met for 2 hours during the day(criteria requires to meet one hour of the day).
The signal warrant analysis was completed for the year 2007 without project traffic. The results indicate
Warrants#1,#2, and#3 were not met for the full criteria. Warrant#2 vehicular criteria was met for three
of the required four hours and Warrant#3 criteria was marginally not met.
I-405 Southbound Ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)Intersection
The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection is currently two-
way stop controlled with(effectively for analysis purposes) single-lane approaches along NE 44th Street-
Lake Washington Boulevard and the I-405 ramps. Under guidelines describe in the MUTCD, the
southbound right-turn volume was removed from the analysis because there is a designated right-turn lane
that operates efficiently at LOS B and with a delay of 23 seconds.
Based on the traffic volume forecasts with the proposed development traffic, the minimum vehicular
volume criterial for Warrant #1 (Condition A, Condition B, and Combination), Warrant #2 (4-Hour
Vehicular Volume), and Warrant #3 (Peak Hour) are not satisfied for any hour during the day. For
Warrant#1, the major leg approaches reflect up to 71 percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and
47 percent for Condition B during the eighth highest hour. The minor leg approaches reflect up to 71
percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and meets the criteria for Condition B during the eighth
highest hour. Cumulative impacts of future developments requiring signalization of the intersection
based on Warrant #1 include the generation of an additional 200 vph on NE 44th Street (Lake
Washington Boulevard)and 60 vph on the I-405 southbound off ramp.
The signal warrant analysis was completed for the year 2007 without project traffic, yielding similar
results(Warrants#1,#2,and#3 were not met).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-85 September 2003
3.5.3.3 Channelization Warrant Analysis
C annelization warrants were conducted for the south site access/Lake Washington Boulevard
in ersection under horizon-year 2007 conditions per WSDOT standards. The intersection channelization ,
is planned for a northbound-shared through-left turn lane, southbound-shared through-right turn lane, and
e.stbound-shared left-right turn lane.
A channelization warrant analysis was conducted for the northbound left-turn movement site access per
th- WSDOT design manual, Figure 910-9a(see attached). The northbound left-turn movement totals 15 ,
vehicles during the PM peak hour. The location experiences a total peak hour volume (north and
s•uthbound approaches)of 540 vehicles. Northbound left-turn movement storage is not needed based on
, c jannelization warrant guidelines. Due to the low volume of traffic maneuvering the northbound left-
tu , additional background growth on Lake Washington Boulevard would likely not warrant a left-turn
1. o e beyond the horizon year based on vehicular volume criteria alone. ,
i
• U additional check of site access channelization was conducted for the AM peak hour (where inbound ,
. Id outbound traffic patterns are reversed). The heavier traffic flow is outbound from the site; therefore,
a !hannelization warrant analysis was conducted for the eastbound right-turn movement per the WSDOT
design manual, Figure 910-12 (see attached). The eastbound right-turn movement totals 12 vehicles
d ring the AM peak hour. A storage lane for the eastbound right-turn movement is not needed based on !
c annelization warrant guidelines.
I
' C mulative impacts of' developments accessing the south site access may include the need for turn lanes.
T e total volume of traffic needed to warrant the installation of a northbound left-turn lane (given no
c flange in background traffic) is 60 vph (an additional 45 vph). The total volume of traffic accessing the
e. tbound approach needed to warrant the installation of an eastbound right-turn pocket is 250 vph(or 45
v tit turning right),which is an additional 200 vph on the approach(or 30 to 35 vph turning right).
1 3 5.3.4 Mitigation for Site Access and Rail Impacts
I pacts of the proposed site access on safety, as well as other impacts, can include a range of potential
I m asures, including:
I"
• Grade-separated rail crossings, if found to be practicable as directed by the legislative policy in
. RCW 81.53.020. This option also could be implemented in the future when properties to the
i
I north develop to mitigate cumulative impacts of development.
• Relocated grade level crossings to meet guidelines for level rail crossings and intersection
approach grades as indicated on Figure 3.5-8. This may place crossings closer together and
increase the potential for blockage of both by a stopped train. This could be mitigated by
connecting the existing access point at the north end of the Vulcan property with this site through
a continuous frontage roadway on the west side of the BNSF right-of way. That would provide a
separation between access points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with
consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points.
• A variety of crossing controls for grade level crossings,ranging from:
> passive signing and stop bars, -
➢ warning lights and bells,
'
> gated control of approaches,and
' > quad-gate control of all vehicular and pedestrian approaches.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-86 September 2003
,
I
it //
// 7
i t
i II
' //*
pskj
.- , ) c --,
,_
.._____/„.----,\,\ \
,,,,,..,#,4,,, ,,,' 7
. •,7,/ ,,,
COR-2 ZONE
/ ;. 4
( L- -1 LJL IL_ IL IL __ILL _ILi_IL _IL _IL_ / f/ ' 1 _
1 OHW_ jfl 4r4re,Fromil
, �HH •"�I II II / '/
: Tract"B" MN —7 / /
' -ract"C' Water V � }I //JPUBLIC LAND E:"°`. I Open' Quality /f / f �/\, "I Space %SS*
• i r 1 j
_ _ 3 • '' •// f 1!
��( ' OW *//' \\\:16. • • /, rBUFF� / `�
LAKE - im�� ;1` " �/ j 1/4 '',
WASHINGTON ' L tI /w \`..
1
liftio 'W\ .t.p‘, ' , ,,�,`,•••fi, f, /
PUBLIC LAND / i���• %t� /'' f f
N, , /c,,, ;74/ 4,. .// `",/ ,,,‘‘, / / /
i. 0000 i, II. ,..,,,,,, r( lz \ s--„, ,
��` LIMI ;- 1
iVIAY `-� • FLOOpPLAIN y
DELTA I...: f f I
ti / I i (
�A I f j i ,
?- F_w 2O Ii 4OTH ST -- -
1--.._._r_. ( ,..
fJ__—_.....___i 4
3
J
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-5-08
SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.5-8
W Alternative Access
0 Tho 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
i
• Impacts of increased safety hazards from nearby residents trespassing on the railroad right-of way
can be addressed by:
> Fencing railroad right-of-way, and
> Education programs.
Potential impacts of blockage of both access points to the site and resulting risks due to lack of
emergency vehicle access can be addressed effectively only by grade-separated crossings. This impact is
unlikely to occur with current local freight use of the rail line.
3.5.3.5 Mitigation of Non-Motorized Facility Impacts and Transit Impacts
Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities
and programs that might be implemented in coordination with a variety of parties. Measures include:
• Provision of pedestrian facilities within the site with a design that provides greater pedestrian
comfort through setback from the curb with an intervening planting strip, and/or provision of a
buffer between travel lanes. An on-street buffer might consist of curbside automobile parking or
a marked, dedicated bicycle lane.
• Provision of pedestrian connections to the properties to the north within the northwest portion of
the site to provide convenient access to anticipated future mixed-use development in the area and
avoiding the necessity for out-of-direction movement back to the east to access the site. This
pedestrian connection might be combined with a vehicular connection.
• Provision of public access to public lands along the shoreline and other shoreline public access
that connects to the general pedestrian circulation in the site and to Lake Washington Boulevard.
• Provision of off-street trails within open space along May Creek connecting to the site circulation
system at the northeast corner to provide continuity with the access roadway to the north and
connecting to shoreline public access.
• Provision of pedestrian and bicycle connections to Lake Washington Boulevard and a railroad
crossing providing pedestrian crossing control, such as gates.
• Pedestrian and bicycle improvements to Lake Washington Boulevard consisting of sidewalks, in
addition to bicycle lanes.
• Transit service impacts of the proposal can be mitigated by integrating additional service on the I-
405 corridor to local Park and Ride Lots with adequate capacity for local demand, or by
providing service on Lake Washington Boulevard with other transit enhancements.
All of these measures are likely to contribute to an environment in which choice of alternative modes of
transportation is supported by site design. The multiple issues faced in choosing something other than
single occupant vehicles for trips will also be supported by employer incentives and system
improvements, such as HOV lanes and expanded transit routes, as well as rideshare matching services,
that are included in a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program.
3.5.3.6 Mitigation of Cumulative Impacts
Mitigation of cumulative impacts of this proposal together with expected impacts of redevelopment of
other industrial sites in the vicinity can be mitigated by developing an overall mitigation program. The
mitigation program could ensure that intersections and other improvements are designed to accommodate
future channelization and signal improvements. The circulation system could include provision for a
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-88 September 2003
I
gr de separated crossing of the railroad and other elements such as a street serving all properties west of --
th i BNSF railroad served by a minimum number of railroad crossings. Such a circulation system could
include abandonment of Ripley Lane between the railroad and I-405 right-of-ways.
3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3. .1 Affected Environment
Tie purpose of this section is to identify potential and confirmed hazardous materials that may exist on or
I ar and the Barbee Mill site, and assess the environmental impacts of the proposed project design. The
si a is known to contain contaminated soils and groundwater. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has
b en prepared for the site pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and approved by the
al shington Department of Ecology and the City of Renton. Scientific studies applicable to this site
co eluding the Independent Remedial Action Plan) and available studies for adjacent sites were used as
I th I primary basis for the analysis.
3.6.1.1 Regulations Governing Hazardous Materials
H: ardous materials are regulated at the federal, state, and local level and are classified based on the laws ,
a Id regulations that define their characteristics and use(i.e.,hazardous or dangerous wastes, hazardous or
to I is substances). Facilities or properties that store or manage hazardous materials or waste in significant
q 'ratifies, or have released hazardous materials or waste to the environment, are required to report these ,
activities to both the federal and state agencies that regulate them. In addition, several local agencies
p otect human health and the environment.
F deral
I i l T e Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers several programs under a variety of regulatory
a thorizations, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive
E vironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA), and the Toxic Substance Control
A t (TSCA). The EPA maintains databases that track sites with potential or confirmed releases to the
I e Ivironment. RCRA regulates hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that are in
a tive operation. CERCLA provides a means of discovering and listing hazardous waste disposal sites on 1 - -
the National Priorities list, followed by EPA oversight or direct involvement of site cleanup. TSCA
11
regulates toxic substances, which are a subset of hazardous substances. TSCA was adopted to require
e ialuation of new chemical substances and existing chemicals (other than pesticides) put to new uses for
h alth and environmental effects. The EPA maintains files of hazardous waste management for facilities
!I b Ised on notification requirements; defines the type of handling to be performed; and in the case of spills
I o accidents, determines whether a release to the environment has occurred.
S ate ,
' E ology implements state programs that regulate hazardous materials and waste, in cooperation with the
c rresponding EPA programs and regulations; MTCA regulations (Chapter 173-340 WAC) and
Dangerous Waste regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC) are the principal regulations in this regard.
Ecology maintains records and lists of hazardous waste sites, spills,and enforcement actions.
1 I1oca1
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulates discharges to the air from hazardous materials and waste
sites. Public Health Seattle and King County enforce landfill and waste disposal site regulations. The
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D-aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-89 September 2003
i
City of Renton municipal code includes regulations pertaining to hazardous and toxic materials,
underground storage tanks (USTs), and activities within wellhead protection areas around municipal
water supply wells.
3.6.1.2 Site Industrial History
Shannon and Wilson (2001c) completed a search for hazardous materials in the area of the Barbee Mill
site for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange DEIS. Historical and environmental records were reviewed,
which included aerial photographs, city directories, Sanborn maps, and a search of the EPA and Ecology
databases. Historical information was also obtained from Hart Crowser(2000).
The Barbee Mill site (see Figure 3.6-1)was first used as an industrial site in the 1920s by the May Creek
Lumber Company and Railroad, which operated a dock and a railway in the southern portion of the site.
In 1943, the current site was deeded to Barbee Marine Yards, which built and operated a shipyard to
construct barges, tugs, and other vessels during World War II. In 1945 the ownership of the Barbee
Marine Yard was transferred to Barbee Mill Company. Filling at the shoreline in the 1950s increased the
site area. In 1957, a fire almost completely destroyed the mill and most of the early records were lost.
The mill was rebuilt and operations continued. The area north of May Creek was paved in 1974,
including installation of a storm drainage system with three outfalls to Lake Washington. Mill operations
have since been reduced, and only limited cut-line activities are current ongoing.
The database information (Shannon and Wilson 2001c) indicates that the Barbee Mill is a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Information System Small Quantity Generator of hazardous waste, and that
the Barbee Mill site has been entered on Ecology's Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites list due
to confirmed or suspected releases of contamination to the environment.
3.6.1.3 Locations of Hazardous Materials and Related Features
Buildings
The sawmill (A), planer (B) and press/old dry kiln (C) buildings were used as fungicide spray areas
during mill operation (see Figure 3.6-2). An electrical transformer "corral" was located adjacent to the
sawmill. The transformers were replaced in the 1960s without (polychlorinated biphenyl) PCB testing.
There are some small transformers in the sawmill and the planer building that have been checked and
confirmed as PCB-free. Activities in both of the buildings required the use of hydraulic oil grease, oil,
and welding supplies. The original boiler for the old kiln is still in operation, and is suspected of having
an asbestos wrap. It is a dual-fuel boiler able to use oil and natural gas.
The shop(D)was used for miscellaneous activities for mill operation and maintenance. The parts wash is
currently water-based and serviced by Safety-Kleen; however, limited amounts of non-chlorinated
solvents were used in the past. The dry kiln (F) building, completed in 1973, is used for lumber storage
and temporary storage for small quantities of waste oil and antifreeze. The area between the shop and the
dry kiln is used for steam cleaning mill equipment. One of the oil/water separators is located in that area.
The stacker(G)operates by means of a hydraulic system and electric motor, and required oil and grease.
A bermed area waste material storage area is located adjacent to the Boise Building (H). Latex paint,
hydraulic oil, saw oil, motor oil, StaBrite P, antifreeze, used oil, grease, and lubricants were used in this
area. The black building (I)has a concrete floor and is used for equipment storage, which includes wire,
motors,metal,paper wrap, and latex paint. The warehouses(J and K)are used for lumber storage.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-90 September 2003
I
/.y,
•
/
1 / fix', �/ •'&" `�
/ B J 4'? •j, ,
.� I �� �`1 J.H. B0.%TER ♦ J:, /
/ FI (NORTH) //' �`/'.
•
�• / ".„, <". ref .`f f
,/,•',:e' ,'/
'-. e‘tr.......... . • /
/ e,„,.„---------\\. . i. . J. .SER •, 1 : •
, ..', ‘.,.<,, 4,4 , ,..,44 i ., •-,
. \
a \1 OUENDAU. / /,
TERMINALS
7(♦
t / ♦ S •
1
/ r xba /ems' ,l 1
;. v t oao. a\.., f/f,
11 . I - ° '''z ••.. 00.06.07•>/lettl A.":•••;,'',;iii;;;.-7 i
�__.. 1. ` �. 1 i i '/// /N f 1 :
`T._;,::mJ l :. _�- -� ff /V r jJ2 L-7-.0 ,i ` ; .
1 .- 1 —
'1 ? 9ifRB�E r' --� t j:,'!/ / AQ'OpE l i t � �:;i ;
I..,..._ .-7:.=1.1 i i MILD '-,_s=,� ., /,','''lip\ i / i
e
1 •
! i } . I I ♦' ;� a t •i
j `� 1 / / t''�*'• t t . i
{JJ ♦ i
t: tf Ax,-. V ..,,,,,,t'l , •
',T` !1
e too 200 400
1
Fru F IN FEET
Source:Base Map from ThermoRetec,file 24385383 `
Parametrix Barbee Mill EIS 554-1779-017/01(10)6/03(K)
---- Estimated extent of arsenic impacts to ground water(Hart Crowser 2000) Figure 3.6-1
Site Map with
•- - - - Estimated extent of arsenic and zinc impacts to soil(Hart Crowser 2000)
- Adjacent Properties
I
1
C
IZ •
'
r . ,,,7' 1 / *
twu
/ - it
• ! 1
/ aDruA .0E- 1 1 • I i I
I •/
r
KZ - -T---/ \NN, PP"'diliEIMIIIII....., /. , ,
r <- __....----- \ #B\--
/:/
/:/
\ i�'M1� .a. J i �l 'fin r+ C`r '/
f A;'
/ f
j / ,/
11
. \' 11:,) 7 ' .
f f r
9 / ( 40 // tY / --,,,,
LAKE ��/ ,WASHINGTON I !/ t4f 'f i1 / • ; f
g \ �} tl� /
1 A,11,k/
;} it r rihr __ _.__7
7 1, /14/7 ---------(1 / //2,:////,/ ",,,,,,
y ,
C/c- '5) (,,,,,,,_;,,,:,,e,,,, it // 3 0 ,
7--- •_—__<----;i;;;-,',Vc, -‘ 1 ' Ak4 ,
AV
MAY CREEK �r _ .�i% �� `
DELTA r, / f
/ p 'r
.1 1 / / L./
1------------- ..-_.__._ I / N 40TH ST _ —
'd. a
/
,_________ 7._____L..._c 0•',,,7
Parametrix DATE: 07/25/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3
SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.6-2
Building Locations
o 100 2lo ‘Er Building
Mill Preliminary Plat
For a brief period in the late 1940s, the mill used a new experimental arsenic-based compound to treat
pilings in the northeast portion of the facility (see Figure 3.6-2). The mill owns a patent on an
experimental water-soluble compound that contains arsenic trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron
sulfate. Permatox 100 was used for sap stain control until 1978; it contains pentachlorophenol (PCP).
The copper based PQ8 was used for sap stain control until 1988. Since then, StaBrite P has been used for
that purpose. There were three areas on site assigned for spraying.
Underground Storage Tanks
Between December 1989 and February 1990, five USTs were removed from the site. The tanks ranged in
size from 200 to 8,000 gallons and contained diesel, gasoline, fuel oil, and heating oil. Most of the site
vehicles were converted to compressed natural gas after the tank removals. One 2000-gallon above-
ground storage tank containing diesel remains on the site.
Stormwater Outfalls
The stormwater sewer system serves the portion of the site north of May Creek with three outfalls to Lake
Washington. Two oil/water are in line for Outfall 001, which services the central portion of the facility.
Outfall 002 drains the northwest portion of the facility. An additional oil/water separator is in line with
the sanitary sewer on the northeast side of the property.
3.6.1.4 Site Investigations and Discovery of Releases
Soil and groundwater contamination at the Barbee Mill site were first indicated by sampling results from
ThermoRetec (1996) and confirmed in by Hart Crowser (2000). Concentrations of arsenic, zinc, and
petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of cleanup levels were documented in soil and groundwater.
ThermoRetec (1997) collected composite sediment samples from catch basins of the stormwater system
and analyzed these samples for metals, chlorophenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total
organic carbon, and PCBs. Carcinogenic PAHs, PCPs, 2,3,4,5-tetrachlorpenol, and a variety of metals
were detected.
Impacts to Lake Washington sediments from wood waste and chemical use from the Barbee Mill
operation were investigated by Anchor (2003). The Anchor work concluded that total organic carbon
(TOC) was the only parameter that exceeded Freshwater Sediment Quality Values, and that
concentrations of PAHs and other hazardous substances reported by ThermoRetec were well below
sediment screening levels.
3.6.1.5 Chemicals of Concern and Migration Pathways
Soil
Soils beneath the Barbee Mill site consist of fill, alluvial, and lacustrine silts and sands, and peat, with
sawdust, wood, and fill. These units are underlain by glacial outwash sand and gravel (Hart Crowser
2000). The silt and peat layers are discontinuous and the sand layers become more gravelly in the middle
of the site.
Screening levels applied by Hart Crowser(2000)for soil were based on MTCA Method A and B cleanup
levels for soil, the default groundwater protection cleanup level, and the Puget Sound background
concentrations for metals in soil. The selected screening levels are not the lowest possible applicable
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-93 September 2003
levels for soils due to the elevated background concentrations of metals in the Puget Sound. The select
sc eening levels were used in the 1999 site investigations with the concurrence of Ecology.
senic concentrations were detected in site soils at concentrations up to 830 mg/kg, compared to the soil
cl anup level of 20 mg/kg. Zinc contaminated the soil in the same area as the arsenic and in the
tr sformer area next to the sawmill, with soil concentrations up to 490 mg/kg (compared to the soil
cl '!anup level of 130 mg/kg). The approximate extent of these elevated concentrations of metals in soils
is (shown on Figure 3.6-1 and represents a pathway for migration of contaminants to groundwater.
C !ncentrations of metals detected in groundwater at the Barbee Mill site are discussed in the following
se tion.
L iw levels of chlorinated phenols were detected in the soils from a few borings in the spray areas,but no
de ections exceeded the cleanup levels. No PCBs or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected
in the sampled areas.
Groundwater
D pth to groundwater at the Barbee Mill site is 4 to 5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow on
th site is to the west toward Lake Washington,with a northwest component in the northern portion of the
si e. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, compared to H
th selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L. The groundwater plume extends west and
n Irthwest of the source area, with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the adjacent Quendall
T !rminals site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below the site cleanup levels. Low
le els of hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of
c orinated phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. Neither
P i Bs nor VOCs were detected in the areas sampled.
3 6.1.6 Cleanup Approach and Schedule
S a it and Groundwater
e remediation program proposed by Hart Crowser (2000) and approved by Ecology (2000) for the
B trbee Mill site is excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil, and pumping and treatment of
toundwater. Site remediation will include:
• Removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards of soil contaminated with arsenic and zinc;
• Confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base;
I • Dewatering of the excavation area; -
• Groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes including prefiltering, oxidation,
precipitation,and adsorption;
• Discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake Washington;
• Removal and disposal of contaminated soil at a licensed location;
• Demolition of building in area to be excavated, and rerouting utilities in the area;
• Stockpiling soil for loading and stormwater management;
• Backfilling and compacting excavation with clean fill;and
• Implementing a groundwater monitoring program, and groundwater treatment, if indicated.
II'iry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _
!haft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-94 September 2003
Sediments
A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington, adjacent to the Barbee Mill site,
was conducted under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program, with input from Ecology. Between 1999
and 2002, approximately 26,000 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris were dredged and stockpiled
on the site. Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total
exceeded the Method B carcinogenic PAH criterion; these sediments are currently being transferred to a
licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County, Washington. The remaining clean sediments stockpiled at the
site are awaiting on- or off-site beneficial reuse. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action
letter for the sediments from Ecology(2003).
3.6.1.7 Potential Impacts from Sites near Barbee Mill
Quendall Terminals
The Quendall Terminals property immediately north of the Barbee Mill(see Figure 3.6-1)was the site of
creosote manufacturing facility that refined coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917
and 1969 (Hart Crowser 1997). The activities at the site contaminated the soil and groundwater with
PAHs,benzene,toluene,xylenes, and other organic compounds. After the refining operations ceased, the
site was used as a storage area for bulk fuel and for log sorting operations. Other than wood waste debris,
investigations did not identify any contamination from subsequent site lease activities.
Detailed studies of the site history and operations have not identified any industrial activities south of the
former May Creek channel (Hart Crowser 1997; ThermoRetec 1996). These studies, in conjunction with
the hydrogeologic system and environmental media chemical sampling data, have lead investigators to
believe that the soil and groundwater contamination occurs from the area of the former creek channel to
the north. Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt,
and the deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high
lake levels has been conducted which shows a consistent east to west groundwater flow pattern beneath
the site in both groundwater zones(Hart Crowser 1997).
The contamination identified on site includes PAHs in the soil, dense non-aqueous phase liquids
(DNAPL), and benzene, naphthalene and benzp-a-pyrene in groundwater (Hart Crowser 1997). Wood
waste is also identified as a contaminant in the offshore lakebed sediments. The area of contamination
has been mapped numerous times, the result of which is consistent with the area of historical site
operations and westward migration to Lake Washington(Exponent 1999) The recommended strategy for
remedation of the Quendall site involves removal of DNAPL affected soil near the shoreline and capping
of the balance of the site to control mobility of contaminants and prevent direct human contact. For
groundwater remediation two DNAPL collection trenches and biosparging are proposed.
As part of the Barbee Mill proposal, a roadway is proposed to connect to Ripley Lane through the
Quendall site. The alignment adjacent to the BNSF Railroad is contaminated at a lower level than the
westerly portion of the Quendall site. Concentrations of benzene, cPAHs, and PAHs have been detected
within the roadway alignment with higher concentrations to the north.
Documented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that flows are primarily east to
west. Contamination from the Quendall Terminals site is not likely to affect the Barbee Mill site.
Groundwater is not likely to flow from the westerly more contaminated portion of the Quendall site to the
location of the proposed roadway to the east.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-95 September 2003
J.H.Baxter Site
The J. H. Baxter(Vulcan) site is located adjacent to and north of the Quendall Terminals site (see Figure I
3.6-1). This site was a former wood treatment facility from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s (Shannon
and Wilson 2001 c; ThermoRetec 2000a). The chemicals used on site included creosote and PCP;
contaminants are present in the soil, groundwater, and sediment. Dioxins, PAHs, and DNAPL are also
present on the site.
agreement between Baxter and Ecology divided the facility into two properties based on historical use
a d contamination. In the south property, contaminated sediment is in Baxter Cove, listed hazardous
w ste (K001) is in the lagoon, DNAPL is present in a former tank area that that will be removed
a cording to the ThermoRetec cleanup plan (2000b). The material will be properly disposed of and the
ar as backfilled with clean material and stabilized. Capping the north property is the remedy designed to
p tect human health and the environment from the low levels of PAHs and PCP in the soil. -
D cumented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that contamination from the J.
H Baxter site would not affect the Barbee Mill site.
P n Abode
A potential site of contamination was identified at the Pan Abode site (Shannon and Wilson 2001c),
w ich is located across Lake Washington Boulevard from the Barbee Mill site (see Figure 3.6-1). Two
u derground fuel storage tanks were formerly located on the Pan Abode site. Soil and groundwater
s ' piing conducted in 1996 indicated potential impacts to soil and groundwater from the former tanks,
h toric use of wood preservatives, and metal slag in shallow fill. Additional investigations conducted in
1 97 concluded that chemicals detected in soil and groundwater did not exceed MTCA cleanup levels.
D cumented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that contamination from the
P Abode site would not affect the Barbee Mill site.
3 6.2 Impacts
3 6.2.1 Construction Impacts
1
e of heavy equipment would create disturbed soil, stockpiled soil, and bermed areas. Dust, erosion, -
a d sedimentation are impacts during construction activities that may pose a risk to workers, public
health, and the environment if contaminated soils are encountered.
3:16.2.2 Project Impacts
The remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the Barbee Mill site to levels suitable for
future residential use. Removal of the contaminated soil (per the Ecology-approved cleanup plan) is the
fastest and most effective way to reduce the long-term risk from on-site contamination. Residual risk to
future residents from on-site soils that would remain at the site is minimal because concentrations of
detected compounds in these soils not proposed to be removed are below action levels. The action levels
are established based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment.
In addition, contaminated groundwater would be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional
removal and treatment if follow-up monitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels.
The shallow groundwater system at the site would not be used for water supply.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-96 September 2003
Construction of the roadway across a portion of the Quendall Terminals site to the north is not likely to
affect contaminant levels or mobility on the balance of that site. It is likely that remediation of
contaminants within the proposed roadway, if required, could proceed independently of remediation of
the balance of the Quendall site.
Industrial use of the site would not alter impacts.
3.6.3 Mitigation
Construction bid specifications for future infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for
encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials
contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health safety
precautions, protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous
material, and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as
part of title report to place limits on property transfer,as well as conditions that will allow intrusive work.
The level of contamination encountered within the roadway across the Quendall site could be addressed
by a variety of remediation strategies ranging from removal and disposal, to stabilization in order to
reduce mobility,to isolation from direct human contact. The proposed remediation for this portion of the
Quendall site is capping of the soil (Exponent 1999) Construction of the roadway would provide an
impervious surface that would provide a barrier to human contact with contaminated soil and reduce
infiltration and leaching of residual contaminants from the unsaturated zone into the groundwater. The
City of Renton, may require additional investigation to characterize contaminants within the proposed
right-of-way in more detail and may require preparation of a remediation program to be implemented
prior to roadway construction and dedication. Additional information will be useful in determining a
cleanup strategy that meets the City's objectives for dedicated right-of-way as well as meeting the
requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act.
Any remedial action implemented for the project, including the roadway to the north, must comply with
the following requirements:
• Protect human health and the environment;
• Comply with clean up standards WAC 173-340-700;
• Comply with applicable state and federal laws WAC 173-340-710;
• Provide for compliance monitoring WAC 173-340-410;
• Use a permanent solution to maximize extent practicable, and provide reasonable restoration time
WAC 173-340-360; and
• Consider public concerns WAC 173-340-600.
3.7 AESTHETICS
This section describes the character of the existing landscape, the visual impacts of the alternatives, and
the extent to which viewer groups in the study area would perceive the impacts. Photo-simulations are
provided for representative views.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-97 September 2003
1'
I
3.' .1 Affected Environment
l
3. .1.1 Methodology, Aesthetics, and Visual Quality f j
lie assessment of visual quality addresses both the character of the visual experience and the impact
i upon the viewer. For the purposes of this analysis,visual quality and aesthetics are analogous terms. The
assessment of visual quality is subjective, from the perspective that the human subject perceiving the I
vi ual environment applies personal and cultural frames of reference to discern and evaluate visual
in f ormation. There is, however, broad-based agreement in federal, state, and local laws and regulations,
as�well as supporting research that establishes general public consensus of what constitutes a desirable
vi ual environment. This broad-based agreement is the foundation of the process and definitions put forth
in the Federal Highway Administration's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects Manual
( A Manual;FHWA-HI-88-054).
V sual character refers to identifiable visual information in a selected view. The existing visual or __
a=sthetic environment is described using objective descriptors of attributes (such as form, line, color, and
to ture) and specific environmental features. Relationships between elements of the visual environment
ar- described in terms of dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity. Dominance refers to the position of
I a individual element, or its extent or contrast among all the other elements of a view. Scale refers to ,
a'parent size relationships between an element and the other components of its surroundings. Diversity is
a function of the number, variety, and intermixing of elements in a view. Continuity refers to the
m l intenance of visual relationships between connected or related landscape features. The integration of
th-se elements into a complex characterization allows a more complete description of the character of a ,
v -w as a whole.
iV sual quality is the assessment of the value of the visual experience of a selected view. This analysis
u•ies FHWA's definition of three descriptors: vividness, intactness, and unity. Vividness describes the
el morability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns.
I tactness describes the integrity of natural and human-built visual patterns and the extent to which the ! ; I
1 dscape is free from encroaching elements or eyesores. Unity describes the compositional harmony of
' e landscape considered as a framed view, much as one would evaluate a painting or photograph. This
d es not imply that all elements are the same, but that they are arranged in a way that is pleasing or ! i
i teresting.
!ewer response is analyzed in terms of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. These two elements 1"
ork together. Viewer exposure refers to the physical location of viewer,the number of people exposed ,
t 1 a view, and the duration of their view. Viewer sensitivity refers to the degree to which a viewer
p i rceives elements of the environment and the extent to which those elements are important to the viewer.
piewer sensitivity is affected by the activities in which a viewer is engaged; the visual context; and the
v lues, expectations, and interests of the person involved in the activity. Sensitive viewers are generally
r Isidents of the area and are engaged in elective activities, such as recreation. Moderately sensitive
viewers are people engaged in other elective activities such as shopping, patronizing a restaurant, or
a,ending a cultural or sporting event. Travelers and workers tend to be the least sensitive group because -
of the demands of driving and the short time in which they are exposed to visual elements.
3,7.1.2 Methodology, Assessment Procedure
I The Barbee Mill site and its environs were visited in order to assess the visual character and quality of
►i11 site and to determine viewer groups and viewer sensitivity. The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan
Was reviewed for open space, pedestrian/bicycle routes, and recreation plans and policies. The site is
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-98 September 2003 ,
I I 1 1
zoned for use as an office and residential center due to its location at Renton's northern city limit and at a
major exit/entrance ramp from I-405.
Graphical simulations for key views were created to illustrate the probable visual impacts of the proposed
alternatives. Key views were selected to represent a range of views from locations where significant
numbers of viewers are present,where representative features of the existing structure and alternatives are
present in important views, and where the visual quality of the views is high. The view selection process
included field reconnaissance to locate significant visual features and landmarks and to assess the
intrinsic qualities of the landscape. The fmal viewpoints were developed,reviewed, and approved by city
staff before preparation of visual simulations. Viewpoint locations are indicated on Figure 3.7-1.
Photographs for the simulations were taken at a lens focal length (35 mm) that approximates the normal
static field of view of humans at the scale of a standard sheet size at normal reading distance. This does
not reproduce the entire field of view perceived by a human observer, but it does provide an accurate
representation of the scale of a structure in relation to other objects seen from the viewpoint. The
simulations are discussed in Section 3.7.2,Impacts.
Building heights were determined by whether a building is within or outside the line of jurisdiction of the
state Shoreline Management Act. The applicant has proposed maximum height of 50 feet within the area
of shoreline jurisdiction and 75 feet outside of the shoreline area. The area of Shoreline jurisdiction is
shown in Figure 3.7-2. Maximum building height under zoning regulations is up to 125 feet in the COR-
, 2 district. A 75-foot height was specified by the applicant at as a reasonable maximum for the duplex and
town home residential proposal. For these types of structure, the 50 and 75 foot heights are
conservatively high since it is unlikely that such building types would reach five to seven stories.
3.7.1.3 Existing Conditions
The Barbee Mill property is situated on the southern third of the May Creek delta on the southeastern
shore of Lake Washington. This shoreline had been periodically inundated and subjected to flooding
before the Hiram Chittenden Locks opened in 1916, creating a generally flat shoreline terrain. The
natural shoreline has been replaced by a manmade shoreline created with bulkheads and fill materials for
i the length of the property that contains the working buildings. East of present-day May Creek, the
landform steps up to a gently rolling terrace, then rises to become low, rolling hills. Lake Washington
Boulevard and 1-405 generally follow the terrace and visually and physically separate the shoreline area
from the residential neighborhoods on the surrounding hillsides. Views of Lake Washington from the
wooded hillsides to the east of May Creek are valued(Renton 2000).
Viewer exposure east of the site is moderately low due to the limited number of viewers, tree screening,
and the distance from sensitive viewers. Residents east and northeast of Lake Washington Boulevard and
I-405 are sensitive viewers; motorists and cyclists on these routes are less sensitive. Viewer exposure
from Mercer Island and Lake Washington is high due to the popularity of boating and the density of
homes on the east side of Mercer Island. These groups are sensitive viewers and have a clear view of the
mill site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
1 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-99 September 2003
QY
: i
VULCAN
SITE '�• sZ
' SE 76TH ST
44/
off, Q
�
v
� QUENDALL
TERMINALS L
.t 0 7
44T
PROJECT /
SITE .
F ••
Al>
Q
'` N •OTH
,' 21,E
`
N 36TH --1
y
•
wy;i
Z
- ( ST
W
Lt 0TH ST I I :',, ' xA y• K' x
.. •i;>, ,r'.:. .�. fir,.(zq.
a ,y..,: .f. ;.:;;.PARK „t
•
NE 27TH Sr
�ircc„
:.Gene Coulon,.'••. 70
Memorial ' 1-
Beach Park :
/33
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
trAhN
Figure 3.7.1
W Viewpoints
I
-
i
I '
1
29,E
.,. ...COR-2 ZONE
....�,w
- it -if----, �.. .� IT-�. E. . f-_ f 1— —I f 1I—
`: s. — STREET A”.,._ - . __ __—
r
-4 —„ •,\ r440,3_,_„,
,/,
-.7 ,
, /,‘.. sw ' -.4. _ ... „id /
. ... , ...\, v._
,i 1 I Tract"B" �O NEE -
`: / Water Quality f. G� / 'g/°'m� aI /j
PUBLIC LAND Tract„C„ 0�'S`O :',.\ .f/. T L JJ
1 =� Open ■ '�- � l
Space ' •\ W / •
1 /
t
f_ 200'SHORELINE i '_'''.—'1 11 w<• 111‘ \, s'- >7', •'.'5.' *\.:' r-, S
/322
JURISDICTION .�. — "\ t BUFFER/Q
..'7
1 X ., /1/1 Z9NE/ -
LAKE of il y L=• .�� OHW . .�.._ ,e _� .w
; , / /
WASHINGTONi* b% ' f�/ •'r. a;f ,` g�
v a / / Q'
gl 1 -frat ��� Vie' /l+f= � l
///3%,,,70,....
/V .\ /1 / 4..•t
, 200'SHORELINE
1 ` " " ,�`/ v 47 �ti JURISDICTION
PUBLIC LAND 4.• /'/
\ ,----,..1.w.= r-s;'-'-- N : ./.4A \
i P �' 1 `�.
_ MAY CREEK ANA4&
`; ": e// �.DELTA . 1 , '"
O;% 1. 1�7( m'j r
.1 _ N 40TH ST
.--_$_R 7.ONE -'..,.._. g J ': (t� :r.am sas;=r
gg • y�rr',, mil'
i
1 ,
Parametrix DATE: 06/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01 T14F-3-7-02
iFigure 3.7-2
SCALE IN FEET1 'Alt 200-foot Shoreline Management
o i o0 2I o ,m Act Jurisdiction
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
I-i
i
1 l
The site is presently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to
the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the mill site are small-scale,
single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the shoreline to
the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with very large structures. The texture
of the mill and the north end of the delta is coarse, with large building footprints and a great deal of open
area. The texture of the surroundings is medium-fine due to the small footprint of the homes and lots.
Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and
i slope steeply toward,Lake Washington, creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines. The
area is moderately to heavily wooded, a feature that establishes visual continuity along the hillsides and
lake. Utilities are above-ground in the neighborhoods and along Lake Washington Boulevard. There are
no parks near the project site,but an existing bicycle trail follows Lake Washington Boulevard.
The visual character of the site is industrial with highly diverse structure types and colors. Most of the
mill's buildings are low, boxy, metal warehouses, painted white or aqua. They range in size from small
sheds to very large open-bay storage or production buildings. The old mill warehouse is the only wood
structure remaining from the original sawmill. The 1960s warehouses and shops on the north part of the
site are arranged on a grid, while the new kiln, shipping shed, and a small storage shed are aligned with
the railroad tracks. There are large open areas paved with asphalt between the buildings. The Barbee
Mill water tower (108 feet) and the sawdust collection tower (approximately 60 feet) dominate most
views. The south end of the property is grassy and open with only two structures: the 1960s office
building near the entrance drive and the boathouse at the mouth of May Creek. Trees and shrubs have
been planted along the new May Creek channel. On the waterfront, a wharfing pier extends into Lake
Washington from just north of the sawmill building, and remnants of an older pier are immediately to the
south.
From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to
screening from tall trees. The mill site is visible through gaps in trees, but it generally is not dominant.
The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and is highly
intact because there are no incompatible visual intrusions. Compositional harmony, or unity,varies from
viewpoint to viewpoint, but is generally moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the
lake have moderately low unity and intactness because the large scale, bright color, and uniformity of the
industrial structures on the May Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the
shoreline and surrounding hillsides. The industrial operations on the May Creek delta (including Port
Quendall) dominate the shoreline and disrupt the continuity, and hence the intactness, of the wooded
hillsides.
3.7.2 Impacts
Both developments proposed will affect the visual environment by removing all existing structures and
adding new ones. The visibility of the new development will be determined primarily by the size and
height of the buildings, but color and materials could temper visual impacts as well. Five visual
simulations were prepared (Table 3.7-1) to illustrate the visual impacts of the alternative from key
locations. Depictions of the gross bulk of structures were based on height, building coverage, setbacks
required by city of Renton zoning standards, and specific commitments to height and bulk contained in
the preliminary plat application.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-102 September 2003
Y i,
1
Table 3.7-1. Visual Simulations
View Location Direction
1 Lake Washington Boulevard,just south of Ripley Street SW i
2 Lake Washington at 40th Street NW
3 Lake Washington Boulevard at 38th Street, looking northward N
4 Lake Washington Boulevard at 32nd Street N
5 Park Avenue at 40th Street NW
6 Lake Washington near Clark Beach Park on Mercer Island NE
l
le following sections discuss the potential visual impacts on the site and possible mitigation measures. -
P oposed Subdivision and Residential Development
T e proposed residential development would remove all existing buildings and structures and would +'
co struct duplexes and town homes of four to six attached units. The vertical scale of the proposed
d:v elopment is about double the height of the majority of existing mill buildings with townhouses up to
7 feet (seven stories) tall outside the 200-foot shoreline boundary and up to 50 feet tall inside the 1
b•undary. Footprints of the proposed townhouses are about 70 feet by 70 feet, or half the size of the t
w. ehouses. Building density would be much higher than now exists, with only 10 feet between
1.
b ildings and 15 to 35-foot setbacks between street edge and building front. Open space would be '-1
re ained in the form of water quality and stormwater control ponds and approximately 520 linear feet of i,
p blic land on the shoreline. May Creek would be preserved and planted with native and ornamental
tr:es and shrubs. A new road would be constructed from the north end of the property to a connection on
' pi ley Lane,just north of Lake Washington Boulevard. !I
Fi L ures 3.7-3 (existing conditions) and 3.7-4 (proposal), illustrate the change as seen by motorists and
l
c lists on Lake Washington Boulevard near Ripley Lane. The low profile, high diversity, and overall
o.�enness of the existing mill site would be replaced by tall, uniform, closely spaced townhouses. The
visual impact would be moderately high because the height and continuous massing of the new
to ouses would dominate the street and block existing views of the vegetated skyline of Mercer Island
. d glimpses of Lake Washington. The visual character would change significantly since industrial metal
b 'ildings in the middle ground would be replaced with residential housing in the foreground and
1. dscaping. Visual quality would depend on the site and architectural design, but could be moderate if
1. dscape and architectural designs create a development that has internal unity and coherence.
V vidness for both existing and proposed views is low because there are no striking or memorable
fe tures. —,
I
F.I ures 3.7-5 and 3.7-6 are from a viewpoint near 40th Street and illustrate the impact as seen from the
n ighborhood due east of the mill. Visual impacts would be similar to those described for views 1 and 2.
F oillm Lake Washington Boulevard,the distant view of Mercer Island's crest would be lost. Farther up the
hi 1 the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings and portions of the existing
vi' w of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be retained. This simulation
des not show the gateway to the development or landscaping along the roadway, both of which would
likely be positive contributions to the overall appearance of the site. As with view 1,visual quality could i
ii
improve if the development achieves unity and intactness through design of buildings and landscaping.
The presence of access roads and buildings immediately adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and the
limited building setbacks provide few opportunities for softening through screening by trees.
i
•
Ci y of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
1 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-103 September 2003 1 ;
i'
i
I I
as
y
c
•
,I40
�ih S y, a � F.., �4.<. �,' . y� ,.'ya' 't fir- '•jri.f f.� a� /0
� �` r •-'' max , ' (p'w'>^+...a 5 ` $gg^ ,a+•r' .t VU/
4*'!4-44.;;I',',41-40;h4,t,,,,#,.'il•A,I,c..''',;.'!"•;4*,, :',V),4•••,,_;.tt,y,''-,ilig„g:‘..,..,'1.4! 'it.:44.1.„. At...—% CO 1 2
� r 'br r� tt 17: may._ +y, -1„�." '���` ;s^• 1 -# C 7 ?'3v , #r 1 • d ''� ,j. +" t.� /.�
0 .1— 4— i
ttg,,,,p'::,t, ..„.,..iv•kt- ,„.‘,..„-..4,6*,,,,,...•tv4.1:, *.:3„,,i4,,a;.:4,six.44:04%, *,:»A„,t,..14'!.:tc,%-,hio,N.,',..,.. ',4it_ IA''',14 A:•ca3•4,..4,-p7„,,,,,' 0 cs
,g r• €. x-. ,a" r. >� a -. ors _� d
• 1 � ie �'° tr '' , ','is t�+ t .4 ,„%� ` 9 V.
'l as.4�r1',„,i " ,:4 r > a S+, 4;j•. y ''" • w * da _ E._
}..3 'I._ w,�„x ,*,- d r � t � r,��F"t„t "r�, -&i. z„
•
•
.,'*•.`x a•e _ > .."x c_ s .'"t''f.. y 'T,,1 Y{ ik '1 7�•....4 E' l
' ue •, �p
t vt. r w ,�s-, s�^ 'f :a is ,,:•'',.
'l'' "7"' • . , - •..''i ,';',,,it., ,,p.,‘i'li,..:At,mot:..-', '",' ,,- A';',-,1,..':' : :\,„,_....= ''A‘,!.,','
£ - , >., - 4 = ;Aye ,a t,,44,,-',4':4•,4•,-i".,,t
r\', ‘,Za' .
r r• - ''.. ' •;ate: -.
III
(•. _ .?4--���' 1w.w{:i.: ._ a , ff. \ .... > �',a;;:.�.
5 ° \ Otis. ' a
- +FEi%t" #to 3 L � �" t F Y
U
tj
Cri)
1cd
L
0 C
E -
J
o.
O d
" aµ Y.y�«'" „ >3; -• 5,''i "if >s' t y ":i9r,}' y"' €s i wx^ •`, a. . a.F r ose ,, 4'. ,
�`" k* ,� 7 ,a'$),. 9.2. ! '.'; �+' , =z tu.1 � s` x r ti„°. •- "aa'
"�, "3. L�tE�+ u.rn.§, e4 r5q �Ew4 ,< ac',X• *' 3'+ !:
�+,.. �.>•• s :v " ar' '!"°''�c'x,*�,-'"� ",'tC '" a,sA ��rniz+�# ,; 8'R,. 22''j, r . i�: I
)
ti„
1,4
,3vS.. :� �S 4 a °� 1,^' " , . 1_ }N�
e � Rb� �• " � is M• co .—, Y S t -", N a Y'd zir'' i ¥ f.4 +'x 24"'d' i.
�� � .. ,,,� .. '"` �" hr#•�, ,..4*t t. mot... 'a,8' � y�'.Y � 4/
' _ '+ ''mot'''' 2 j`C 3•t i s X. " 'x f, �S�'-. ,,j'M
i ,. ; .�t, 'k"Kj§Ck ti` i • 54.,f {', .k f j@ t ,,;',`4't �
'? A'S. "!;[e1�. • ,, ki'�t ff . ! '' i(dea '°°{}°s" ' -
lk i a+� E fetes � •ye: �f � �b�q+��,+Y",Y ,S• �
'�4, q Y't 'r<: a Y'lE t `�t i:;z' .' ,.'P's ;� Yy:'x✓` i
Y, a� '.'x#k� �t i' 'f< ¢ q, . , 4 '" " a°„xcY.'A''' ;,,, #,l 9'
j @@ b^�s
�".s, � £ s£ 'k Y'�#. •y t 1 P''�k„, F t sbu ' Oy ,. 3.
°sR.,;.;' :� �, � s c ,�� ni � � °ia >,:; ,a�si ��`, • a'�As• a''
i �.� _ :�,+.• .a. ,t a' 3 �i `3gCi"5r'..>;',.`:dFa`,S:"p''; 3a ,
Y fit _S� .dr `. f ;r,-..:.1C' . s1ii s (' • ;;.r'£°
..4 >'b ::..',.°wo a;• _ ,,•J.,-;N 'S by ..
s 1' `+i pj �.� J`'' ''rev <' ,'� � "�':a 4 �,'' ,:.
_`< ,i , i � '* P 4� 3' 41' ,P / P n' �.,,,,A"'
',.:'?"',441;1'''''''-'A''':F1:
: illi::,,.‘„,..,,,,,,-/„',,,,
, ,,,,- )„...
s ,� Ott.. °it.. S� `:. \ , -, -,•„.-... , a. '1T,/'„t,.nf,a° t �,9
: r''''',';',14',' ' -- -,---,-,-,-,"--- ;.-r, ,,:-,,''',\,,;,',.,: ',.:','':,/'','e'''‘:: '' .,,', , ,",'''t''''4.,•-'-',"''''''';-'%g5 ' 1.-2',','1-;-,,;:',L; '', '',-4:41,''''-',,,'
IA
', .anti'. ° :,t `'' _ p', • r f,,,§::dw i""„ x,r y5
' as '',�, k gf j ' .-[ -,'-•,,,, ' .. ,:-:',,'-:-.::-:;---',-,', ,, -, -,:,'-:, '„ '"••-?:','.,., ,-,,"•. .., -..,,-.; 1•;, ,,,;..,,,„.„4?-•::::.):",„ -ri l•:-''',,":!:',--,--:", ,--‘.--.1it,,;-‘,.-0,i,,,,,%,-,1;:. ,",., :•-;?
,r,• .;.3 1 g
i dd
� a+° . � <�E�" ram:;'nt,�r—rat.,'��ro ,,:. �
�.:•i 9: �� � ��,4�<,. �• „ /,fix AS co
i. t' . k 4,,,,.. 't PE,. y'npgt a.,.:4,,,, �', ,',' S S,'.� , p✓ v
F tv" �• °`• "4 o»n '..,;?„,,,,,,,A,,,,,'a ; ,, «* " ,. I, „ ..»-t n, •" ' ,- ,aom -�
i
yU
i.i
: /)id
,,
a
1 I
N
O
C y
xo w
_ =
",p ._nx t x • #'z` F t �' E" °'r �€, -``S '< a�i,:;M'x,a"' 1
il
it `,k; x^ x• *' I .�°,� e� 1iiiitAitg'kV).,3". ..rlDa,�.y.'�s.`�e°aw. fl
r ,�,'y� ,*,'� ��. `y,'{ ;' it
tie#,!:„.;:.,::::,, ' ,..-4,. ; -. ---':.:'44',,,,,,i .-..;;-,,,..,,;,'‘.•,';„,i-.L-'s-t-, ,,::,',.,:'‘,,' ' ,;:.14::,:-.,:.,. ..3.'.,.y„::!:E4:110:74,41,,k,:!::,74,06,..40.,:"...,,s,v,:.....,.,,,,,k,,,,,,„...,,,,,,,-.,,,,,,2
y
•ce
_` ix e C3 ; � ,, .. 5 •? . " t moo..� &a a'.,",,'k ^ ii 4•' .\O e .., a r . ' "` _ Q:yi4\ aMn;,: `{ 'f�_`" ; .: 4� 'i< ° 1. sgys E t r . � .: ,r 3 ' •' 'S• .f ' k �.x• p�m� • �i i v 1-i','N ,t
:":":1 1.' .:.'4, 4-,,r-iNfi''''-'-'1,1,,T4,4'), T4,1'' ,'. \'''IkVii:^#, ''.1:;1.0',";',11:71',,.1.,. ,*StR
• w te 1r ,<`• <_ f +;'. ^,',1 {a`, , aa ,\t._ ' g's _ , E `1 ° fia . o?,.„ .t ^. 2, yIqftfe
p , \ �•W' £f �• mix \ £: ^ ,, ,r : s;'r'x,•,` .' <
Ia - ' .. "•emu a•t ,
4, ‘, . ,,,1161f., :::. ..,:.:At-,1 1
; ,. : a ''ei„a�'ryse.asv a+• \•.S ^' y 1. °�'� � �' � x b 0
1 1 '''-i'',. ' ‘.,1!4''-;:°•-**,;, ''''''''t'",:••• •..-' ''','-':-'''','t-"•;‘,Ni:i':,':..,.'':.'::::..;'27'7;•F',','' '',„ ,•t-ot ,,,,,'., •i;:''',-..--'i',..:',',,*.i.N.,1",fe'.. A, NZ'l7.;,',;04ktitk,.;4L•'4
1. • ,,,,f,,....2-0,‘., ,,Nsik', ,--..i‘ •''''.•‘,"4••.''''.:-14'.'•'--',.,•••••',?:-:'''''''''.:-:: ';., ''.",,„ ;,:.‘,'• - 1 .`"IA*"iiiii, ,.,,,,v.,-,,,,..:-.1 .,,,,,;,-.:,\Ilviiiit4 ,
1 t,i,,,4„,k,41,,:\*,„4,,‘,::: „...,-„,,,,,,::,,,i,;..7."..„ 2,,,::::.:,,,:.„,.......,-,:„,,,,,-,,,,,,,-,:.„,-, v... „ 1 4.,14• IN':-.":"k: ''','At.st ,',`,'.‘4:*:: ''..,ik''.t.1''':',Pfit s':'Z:
I' • :W04:71:. ‹Z‘•'''''''. ''',ZV''''S''''';'e, ••'•, ':•?•':'''''''.7''..',''' ''''.' •':S'1,:,,,': ',i- ,,, ... 1 i . ':: ','''4+,,k; :, :'-..):w:,, , 74%'-•. '''itiklEM14. .7
.. � �� \ `�,'<r`"g Y♦ `{r'. i P .' <a." i,'�, A 5��•:S 4 a\� ,ail . $ •f.' p
j �,\\\ � i..,�,z�• �.�, i„ �,k3.2"t ,r .'t6J-�+ \ \�, p\�'` �'Z..a o ,'- -'
j tit1:\u� ' �c •"*7-, j ,' *." ` :,,",Ao+'t t4"« •. •ti y 'N'•e 3 h' e�:g� .pia
•
°�•� �' '��T � a*�,�' y •\ �s. ®�\��', pia ro,
i . `" €� ,*fit,
CC
f:w
0 n
Lam- fr�-' ,_._-- ,
—- A — `t } { s }i I
,; .""'�i'i.ads. .' .,^ ;y/'.n.%' °' y '.:if
%,y°, ,,rr;.>�; . —W-.a..a.,...,, a ...,< ,
4- ua`1'j r +rf" • may.^ .,,1?,+%j,� z,° .xs° "'`% i,; "qFe •• -", va ..d
a
"
"
F
' ,,^ ' „",. ,� '.', . ';'' rrr, ,: �: .. ", '.„y�' ': ..'' ii•
'' ,:'fie` t: ,
..:, � / .. � .,, , ;,�,,�,�>r, ... ,r., .ram .rr,v ..., , i�., ,�.'" �
.6�. .r ,, ,J4xa'
e,yt,,:4^ir ,/'b,: i„�i�','q;, y l5': �" „ ;7', ,2'�/(s y, muy?'«,_ , - • -
: f° " -
� fi ' %- : " .,k, 'e' ;:e >v r ` :s "" ;
•
r.
•
•
:Tr
O„ 's;cx�Y < ,4 ' � " i," j x ,- fi S» fi ,Y y� o r il '.'„i'. ,- e,8
.
<,ws: w - ., <',1 y �i <r." '1'Hfr
1 iS':
.'..- .,;;,Jq-: ii, `%,Vr�- z„ .. .Zm-'^. "r:;. ..<"7 ',i . •t ` y9v^�
,• > - r`-' .,4 n3r1+ 4 i'/,` AE.Vi' /j r 7; "'a$..r.L;r:'-: ,,.,. , '"y ri r..;y•.: : •A't.
i' '.f:' ", ,•' r 3, / ' r r�r'"' ,yj .. ,:,, "kr•, 4. J:. •` .'et -- ,.'.• "S
r... s ' ,.// /3 . may :f, r..
v S r,�f f+r� ', p , � i )y"7^yi a r. h- - ''.
.: 1 a .r / ;jNxa vi' tik! :SX (
as' r*. wry/.. ,4 4 ..; ; , ,T *;lit','' , r ,:, ' ' A.fm »a'�''''`.., R i »i^ *':
�} ,.�, , � 9yw' X y4 °4,',' 'cu L/r M,,!,^*n'e - ,.1r-",, " 4' M:l; K" }'�P M'
y. c " ,✓ ry .¢, ,r°t ,ft,,:,- ` ar s..: ' rZ' s ..
x: ,.r. r.?
�� .x�y$N nm+ss. _ .: .,�',r^" b,,,�,r9 'x ip '"w�l' '_.�;.' Y-..,` _� `. ��`• • F. • n.
il,''€'" n•r,,Ae Al )c y. :''W.""' /u.:00 416 '. "y"/> ,,: ,, ,'';I'"'e X, "Qy W 'i i� t:,,:'f s t '" `x
x, F', .4 r . ;ry ,/,>,": ,, ,F,c. ' 15`' >,' Y,7,". r , ,, <J
r ri y'qq . 4 .. rrq r> *� .,7* ''' ,i .• gyp: , 4A «'�,,� a,* • ..., ,
+, t, . ,ry,Gx�f, 4,,,,Y' > ,,,A:y, i r�,.;,5, s 1, - R', ,y y ,z,,..�`n, e ) le. ''w. `�, . Y ,
' ' - 1" :;. F' f,£. kr „ ,,i,;, ?'', e r•';-';. t, " ,44:� f,,` `+r,7 <° - rr.sx44 .y<. .,
,�, ':yr F i �. ar"r `;' z,' , -' of y 4 r, x.. ,J. 'i ,.^e ,w w,,5 .mow
s f r ,s r r p ., v ,,e,i4: *" rr °! t fix -�` is �5 "v !",ui1 .
'� ..g;9 `; tom, N ;,i ', s : ai +< 4, , . r„.,
„� .r'y.. ,s e "' -f:r/ ,s/'tww °n r y. 1.Stag` i«, .r,r.�. „�'�i
(1.,: iy #,,7, �siw s " ., 'r '"�'� �`"`+iq` c.'+`,i's•. a�' " •! 'd` �� -,,Y« ,.', :f x+,.,?„.
igkagn
.or`4. .w iEF' .� s .#.. t hf 1"-C s :a ' =F,v,„:4e ,,t.,,,
- �' �. <� Yws '! .yl, :'t r-Y+ ..� - "k'�" .4., r >'".:-y. -'t<, .'a .b :Y.',,w.
.' "l.:« tf:e'"':f � 4%,,,x" r "Pa-„, r +, �° r '.� ;,;1;..-,4A *,".- t,-„, ¢ x,`'` v,,7;.v.
���;�,, ,r „";� ,r�;y,��. ,t«t f � r �„�` >.'r'�w '�.: .� r�� 'r ;: +�..•'.`;aaa�.',��,,p'`:.�4- �=�''-, -' �-
,,>. . t s ...1 r e i"°` ,:t; Y r ly ! , .a. 3 x t -x. •w :7. ::7':e
:y, si<i ,i't 1.1 r; '1 ,,r. y, ,�,M••r ,, l' .4. y, 4 .x:r�! ,' F y� ,.i 'x<4�.3r- -"'s' -,-.+:.'-_:.r`^y's. ,s---,
•
Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3J-6
View 2-Simulation
liar as seen from
ofDevelopment near 40th Street
1;
1
Fi' ures 3.7-7 and 3.7-8 illustrate the potential impact as seen from the neighborhood near 38th Street
south of the site. This view represents one of the intermittent scenic views of distant hillsides and Lake
Washington presently available from breaks in the tree screen. The visual impact would be moderately
high because the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and
north Mercer Island. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington that
is ' isible. As with views 3 and 4,this illustrates a change in visual quality available to motorists on Lake `'
ashington that currently enjoy an almost continuous view of the Mercer Island skyline and intermittent
vi ws of Lake Washington. The scale of the proposed buildings become a foreground and middle ground - ,
fo us, as compared to the existing sawmill buildings that are lower in elevation and smaller in scale.
V ual quality is likely to be higher than indicated in the simulation because the corridor along May `"
s
C eek, which is between 20 and 25 feet wide can support screening and softening trees and other
la l dscaping.
1 Figures 3.7-9 and 3.7-10 illustrate the potential impact from neighborhoods near 32nd Street. The new
development would have a low visual impact because the site is part of the distant view, and tall trees ,
o s scure the eastern portion of the site. Both existing and proposed views retain the dominant features of -,
th- Mercer Island skyline and intermittent views of Lake Washington. Because of the small relative scale
o'I the proposed development in the distance, the visual character would remain essentially the same.
A U ditional landscaping incorporated into the development isn't likely to change the visual impacts much
1 b:tcause of its overall minor role in the view.
i
Figures 3.7-11 and 3.7-12 illustrate the potential impact from the hillside neighborhood southeast of the
1 si e, near the corner of 40th Street and Park Avenue. Visual impacts here would be low to moderate
d-lpending on the viewer's vantage point because Mercer Island skyline and distant views would not be
o obstructed, but a portion of the lake and Mercer Island's shoreline would be. The change from an
i I•ustrial operation to a residential development could be perceived as a positive change. The overall
b ilk and scale of buildings is not as intrusive as for views from Lake Washington Boulevard,but is likely
t. be perceived as a substantial change from existing conditions. The dominant element in the view will
remain the Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington. 1
e most significant visual impact would be from Mercer Island and Lake Washington (Figures 3.7-13
'd 3.7-14). This would be a moderately high impact because the bulk, height, and scale of the
d lvelopment would be greater than currently exists and would fill the entire site, although the existing
buildings provide an almost continuous view from the distance. Construction of new buildings would not
bock views of the dominant element of the distant view, the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual `'
ir-terest of the lake would remain in the foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase
because of the common design theme of a residential community, as compared to the variety of the
existing industrial character. Indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land
b ltween the inner and outer harbor lines, could considerably soften the visual impact of the new
b 'Wings. Docks, if provided for shoreline lots,would be a minor feature and not visible from a distance,
c mpared to the bulk of the buildings. i'
e view from within the development would likely be that of a dense urban setting. Building heights ,
(10 to 75 feet) are greater than road widths (30 to 36 feet), creating a canyon-like effect. The 10-foot
s tback from the right-of-way and between buildings will add to the sense of enclosure and limit views
o�it of the complex. Views across Lake Washington can be had from the 24 shoreline lots and other
residents using the shoreline open space. Views of the May Creek corridor with an expanded buffer area
vu;ill be provided from about 40 lots. About 48 lots will have front views onto streets, although 20 of
`'
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-108 September 2003
1
„ ...,, ,• . . -..r.„. , ,,,,....' .4,---/-, A./,,,14,-•':;' -':...”
rf4ffscf, 4,' ,72/ff,W4116111ri-7-w,,i44v,f, , ... ,,,f<z•f ff04,,,t,,4/'/,,,, ,,,,,lf,,f,,,,,iff:If„.;,,,,,,,ft-K:,4,,,ff '. .•,,,-,;,2, 4..,, ,,, • • • :47,,,,,„0,,„,,,,4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,...,,,,_ .4,,;,,,,,,„..,,v,, 7.,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,.,,,,, , ,,,..,,,,!..,:, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:.,,,,,,‘,.;,.
"'rt‘,'-'''':4-, ,,',77-,,,-",,'-r:::,,,'"„4-.:' -r,.•,-4-:','•:,',f,A,.:-'f--',--44 -', t- te,--,-* ,,,,,,,- :,...t:T':''''',:',/,..:',-;':' V0,-. ,-.5,-24 4,,,,:,,,:,:„/,,„•,', '''',:,,.; .;,„7,,, t,,,.,,,••, ,4', ' 0.,,,,,•,,, •,,, ,-,-. -,
-' .r.,' ''' 4,' '''./ ''''' ' ',/•-f r., /-/-//',-- 4,‘•••.0'‘,,'' -1,"f.'k, %.*1,",:'• 1%',4' ''%''Y! "•,,-,;',4-,:'-,I*W*.;,,':',::'ili:',41*T3'::::',4.*AP,.*, ':',',,,,*,,, ,:';.,.. ,;.;,,,, ,, ,; ,, ,.;',,O.,,,,-„,,...,,, , -,
- — -''',;,.,..4., ''''.:,',*/;P,/ ,'1* :,'fx/: ",, , /‘e ''''''',%0S', ",'fr,,,,,, ,„,...,,ari,,,,,,,,,,,-;:-,:t,.,:,;41,..,,,,,,,trtr.4,-,, ,,,•,.r,,'..,,,,,,r,-,,r.,,,,,i,rt,„ , . .::,-,:r.r,r2:',, '- •, ,, ,-,..,:r.,r.qm, - ,-,r,„--. . :
4.,-„,--,-4.• •'''', 71;i5,',',r; 'f „,, 0:-,4',;'„ fr„:7'..,:„.-4;,. ..ii,,,;:f,;!'j'.-,i',:i•1'%-,r,ofi*,‘,",rlPs',y k.,4°,'1,,'.;,,',4 t,t„',.„',,,,,,'t,,4,,';',,4,',O?-;.!,,e,,',,„P.,;,,':'We,,;',.,,,,/,A,:.'.!,/,,,:.i,„,44',,,,°",,,-,A;O,,,:,•t4•„f,,--,,,•*,,,.•„:•,,„%,,.',,-',,,„',,',',.e,e,,,,,,,',,'0,%-'',;'44':'.,*;",;,,'*,.',,r',,,T,4hs,,,(i:41,,,,,,*4,44_,.e-,„,„,0k::,7a,,,-,,.,a.l.'..:,,;''.;.;e.„r,4rt e'ifr,,,,f,,.,,..,c1.7-,i,0',4,„l,',".';,.,,.;,,;,,,,;-',,,,.,-,,',,.,,:'„';.y,.„,r,'.',;;;,„•y,,;,14ft.,,1,•,F",.,,,,":,',:,,,,2,,i 0„,i-,,t,,r',i,,,,":,,;„,-5.,,,,'f;,,':i.,-,*.O.k,W,.,-7•-,",•"":,t';-,„-",'1(2,-"•'.i,-,1-','."-'';,'/-.;.';,',,‘,.'-',.:%3,,•i,:,.4'.4.,r.'-..::.if„„fIZ'„iA7:;,,1A,.7kk4,V<-*:r*4‘-X'*,*5.g"#7.4,:"t,*;1 r,,,t3„'-t',''-J,'',;-"Z.,,'1'.•,r'.,•'",,,..-,.*t-t,,.,:,4i,,;-r'k•-,.V'':1%,'4*,:4;'';4,'4,,z'';,:,',"4'1,.:'::,:4,Z-„'-',,"'3'';,''5„;r:'"‘'',,,'„'.!I-.A'•S,.„,:'.'t:',1",,'"„''•''4',-i‘.",-'";'074:,r,;:,'r'';.,,1.,i4 4,72;,',*,•,•`:„.:•,,;-,,-",,4;';,:'.,,:,,:,q,:V.;„,,,:,.,,.,Pf:,I,,:,.t-,.-.r,i,Mf".-;•,-,,4:s,':*:t'-„,‘!,*1,;•?,r.-,.fr„:,-•4'-e-„,e'',,%,,1,*%,.;.,%';*•;.',>&-.-,r..';,„•-:,°;';,*-,,,-'',:'."-',,ef-,.•;''.•.4."...4-•p..:,4.-.',z•-.t;i"'`:,;,,.-V',,-*,''.',..,,,.„,,-,":1,'4,.,-,.e,;.•:'','-.7':,:',4,,.'-S-,'.-.1•.*•,.'."t 1*„'„4:'•,,-,,,1-.•--:",.:1',-,,J:';,„;',','-.'-'-''`'7A''fi.,';-,:,,,,-,:,,,,,,,,:',•,.',4,"•,,,„,-1a.,..C,,,,,,.‘,4,,''*0'''•,,'..'',,1*„'.,:,.:-,,,':,•",,/'1,',w',''.-!""j 2.",,A,:,,,',,.,,:,,',,.',0i„,•-,,',-%„i;..,.',:;0„'1/-.:,.,:",';.''*-'",*,:,:''"-'.4,„s,-,:-:.:::,r.„":.,,-,;,::„,.4,,:,;',,,,,7,'4',,.;,,„t•';1..T',,,-.'..,4,.:..;•:4.-?;-;4;:',4'-,-;,,,'*;;''':',,J,,;,;,'-.;.,„-4:.,,'-:--z•-,'•,,,:,4,,,'.:,.'.'1',,„;'',;.7,:.;.„-,-z-',-','„,,.:.,,',!,„';,,!,i.,,'..-,,.i;`9,:7".44',,-,'•'.,`.:'"1'',w•,,,.!5.%••,,,*;.:.,',,4„,''•.',.1,.'r;7.,`.;-,:‘,4.,y,::4'.,-'',:'0..-.'.:',A' ,.",,y.';.,S.1'•,,-':'','-,•,•,-',,,,,..-,',i.-..,,„•:.;:'7.,:,,,,A...0'r*I,i;:,L.,'.,4t5-,,•,,,*'4e,,..,,e..4,.:''„:,r';v.:,..:V,,:',.z,'.',,';.'.,",7r",,,,,'^:,,-,,r,',,,••,'•'1,:,--:''',,-''',,'„'i"',::.1''•,4'.,,:,4-',."1-'.•'.."'.-:1:,4:•f':',..,:,*.,,,,.'\',.-.,,,.,.-,,,z-„t::oe",.•,"*/.'•::'.„.,.,.,.:-'^,.,..,',•:'.-':',,.',,k-',';-,-,•4':--.;.`7
"
, i , Y 4 *;,"-.!`•`:;,.,,-'.4..iX''',•.'::*'.*._°„.'X„'^.•:,:.„-.,,•'-,,,.V;1'.'.V4..,'-'',,,-5'7,,.,:..„„.,'''',,•.-•',',-'-
,•;';'':,,'''(,'A-;,.,•'',:•,:',,"",;.,•4':•,'S:•;„,"-,,,7.,k2'tz.-,'„•',4'',-,,.;,.1-;,,,-,5:'•''',-;1"
k % ,'•',;,•
,'^.'''2'•.:-
••.'
:,-;'''': 3' ' -,1* '"'"4:'-` ':/:,:* "-;A.r.,--':,. ,,.':* ,-',,•3 ''''',*.,-",,,e,..:. ' .:,,...-.',.',, ,,,,- ,....!-,-,,',"; .,- '•.,,..2 ,•' ' ,-'''-;.:---'&,,,,,x,,,,,,,,,CA.M.111+ ,14:** A‘',` . ., .. .',L.,'
''.,'11-.A,‘7.„'''''"'':':4 '''f/ ',,' '-,'.',,:::,;,.7' :':';' ., :-*,,-' ',:-:, :,; °,',.*,'„.'.,..`: , -', ''''',.' , ,,,,,',' ' ,:'''.!"`:':,,,-„*.:•.;,:,,,,-:;,',,,:,;:7':A,''.*:':';', It.-,, "t-. **.•-'4$C7'''4.170,,e1;,,,,,`:..-'''.f., ,',-
ret-t4''..,,„*,. '''': ':, ,,*,':, '-'i,?','' ..04.; ,:',”,.''•:,,'',-'---•';:e:,*:-.::`-',,,L',*,.i ::, ‘,• ' .:':``' ' -",:,, ''.''''A'',..!,- ' ''' ''':../,'',.:' ,-, ' -,' ',.;:' - ',,,,,-,A•s-::-,' ..;-79.i4.--",7.rfor's ,.-4:;::•:,.,i'y 4-,
i7;e4k4.,":',,,r.'-' ," ..-? ,:: ,-.41.-', ;' ',, '-'.',. .,'-7...::•:-:,,„:`,"-,-.-'.'-„,'-: :, '',,,',::::' r'",-'1:::..,--:' • •„ -. .-- ..'„i-4--..-..,„,.`:-,•-,,s 2,,,', •7'',.•-•,4;,r;,.....-i:,,,-;,;t„qf.'-*J
0-!,,r-..:,::- -,,,,,y: ::, r..4.: . „ •, • t-.----- .,;.,-,•;:-.-,--,,-',- ,,,,, - -'' -',:;:w-;;,r„, ,„,,,,,,:;,,,t.,,,:;,.-,t, ,,ttrt.„‘-.7:-:•.ti„ , ...,:.. ,-,,.
..,,,A4 7,vi.,34 ° ' 'e ,'"'f..':.,' .: .;.''' •• . ".,-..- ••, ;-•, . :,„,„ 'v.:7'..•'.,t •,',..:'''-- "
*4-"i.;`$!:,'-'. '".?....- '..; '''',.'" ".' -'-' •-;, 'r "''''', '...•„': ,- . -,-', .-.';---!„, ...', .'':..•' .--..'. ,,. .'n;:-.'"-•';.')'''•- ''''''' '4-:-4 • =::',f.'' -. • •A 1` . .4,ipt...,',.. 1,• .
, :<1-,4,-,2f,i..-..•: ..*:'. . •' •,° .,•.•• ''4.:,‘:•; '', '.. ':',•C;--. •.:•.-..-".".-- ,„'' '„';•' f.4.i•---- -,;"'•"- (....i •--'", '.40fi*:,4 .„...,-„,•• '. ..,,,,• ..4i''' . •,, ' --
).-...4 04 17:.2.411:;;-42'''.-','.:•.':•-' 4-:-::;:; :':,':'• '; : •-:* •:' :-''' ' - ..'''.-',-.' -:-.' ' ''.- -,'..'t .•i•.f. ::','.:, „.ife'."-. :11,4e.t.4-1;,=:::.. • . - , I- : ..* - . -.,
,. -: -,*' .4.,.": i,tf • : "';?...-'* ' .1`''''' )
,:„., ...,,,,_,.......... ..,,,,,, ,;',. ';'„ . .• .. ..4.-:,;:!...::,,•., ,,,,;•••,,:lit-•,'-•,,, ,• ,-4.,,x,r,„;.„ .. ...:,,,,m....:.20„,,.. r, .„, ,
,, tort.o., •---
.... . ,. . .,, . % .. „. . ,—,,,,--•,- - tkvt, ---- ' •--., '' -'0.* '-. --.0t '- '• -
. - ,....„,-, f- -e• . Vi ,...--, -. - ...f.1077.- • • -c-faii--;ef- ...$6,.... . ..4, * .11,.''''',',.,,,,,„,......,m.'m'" -,,"/", .
* - ' '' ,,,....4! tr*.`.",,, ..,,,.., .,.,,,,w, 4,,,.r„,,,'',A ,'4%,',,, ,4 .i',„,': '3, - 4-iv„,,a,-,:',...'-'• 0,.. .-4 ' r '• ''4•.' ''''' — .."***".* '' '"******': ' '"`-'*"*"•i•'''''''' ;'***.'
' 477* 47•'"4*%•':',•41t• '.','''''''',..:A: 'fr;;I:Ore;'''';'''''''',‘'.4* ' ..A5,-..";,.•-• 0 -r;t":„isir4,tcs,,I,,,•,•.„:A4tet--.'7..,,,-,!,;,,,,,„0.-•••,,,,,--„,,,,,,,s,„,;?, ,7..'•:,q,,,,, -,-- ':„..4,"•-••,,,, :,,,,••..•.:
N . . ;.-.7,.,,;.,g, ,;;;,,,,:„, . ,‘, ;,,,,‘,„,! 'b,.• ,,,,,,:„. !:,-- ;0.',44,„.' „,„,:';::--1-ji,,,,,,,,•;;;t=„.v• • , reao •Jvcro,,,,-(,,*, ",.,,,,„ •,,, ,!,.;7„.„,,,,, ,,,,,,77„,:, ,,,,.. ,t,,,,:,,,j.. ..,:,,,,;., ri.••;',-,1!
' .*(A, 4,,,,I.f.'S''‘,,,,g4..".k;',,ia; '-,;;i','•*;,A*•5‘.• ,,'-',.*- ."*. ;lir;•"•:1:7-.7••':-'--- '''''.;,:rt•tr;4;'•::ii'• ',"*:;.•,: i''.'":-`:;41;••i.':;1;,,,';,;-_*-•',.o-,. tr''''''''''.f':'A''Ft••*k-•,._„,..,:f,,,,,,f';''4••'•• 1::'''''.1='"
' 4 . ' ".$07,-••.-"--!•;--; '•/'• '4',C•:,',- ,•;--76'>4-, ;•••''..,,,,, .,'-'•.:';:•,.."f7:',41a,:Zr,•:. ': *le„".*:•••;,,,,,,:•,0*,'''.• :•'''',"••1„..•;.;., ,,,,:•••••-;;;;;`jv4..,-Try0;•t•A,-,1-4.g,',, ,6,,oe;,-,44,_,..'-,-we-7,-,41,„. ."...-.•'....„;,
,•• ,,„ , ,,,,,-.,,, 417,4,,,'''',..,,,•,4',,1,-',-VC...,,,466,7,., , ' 1,4,, 4„,,,,,''': ‘,,,,‘,,,..*.r!,4 --",' ,, „;.,;''';',,, ,,,,,,;,.,/ ,'"-”'"'"*:-',,tiai-ei:p---'%1'1.2....'-',. TZ'A'" o.''''-''.1;, ' ,,.•,•,,,,,,44-;.,,,,.-i„ ,*.....A.;
ri,,,.; ..,,,,,,,,, ,.,„,it,,,,,,,k, •,„il,„i!,..: ,,i, -,:,":3-r.,:,......0..,-40.-.::,,,„ .. .,.t.,„4.71;-•„v.::..„::/*'4'''' • „— -' ,,,,*-re'."-„k'',',••••"•wt; :::..,...,1•,,,,' ...--...t...-• to, •• '4,..,‘,11,...‘,44.4...t,-#.,
• ,.."'v--"...‘,":.7.„kr"..-4"--% I.,.* ."."..... .f. -'• '' ,z•. ".4„..,;•,41- '•%--,-,,,,.:;‘,0..;--‘; -,.-.; •''''%,'","•'-' ';'",i'-••','•*.•"I'' "•.,>ii,.c,;',•-•.'';••‘•- ' '24't"..' .'",'''•?,x4' .1,':%-*43
- ".•1 - .!1:P..,0 *-'r. P.,:t e•'',”'”44,4,..:1'.. .„^”'''',"''"::'.. ' '' ' „ " -,4.,.4 'f;f4g,•-•fi'';;,;*.?..4'..0.-•_„;,'.-, ',I.' ,..• ' -,''''.;/,',3. , '---,-N...'
, ,;,"*',- -4, '.:, . • ',,,,i,„..,17,14..;,,,'''•:.-„•:,',,,-%..;,,,, ,,,iilt,-;k. ,:4. '''' r#,-;;1
," .,• 7,,r.-•-';:',. ' ' "i ",-,,,,"4.', .,', ' '---,-(*`-'. ,G00"i4. .*,•I'.1 V:4,-')..i'.6--i44,P,1*:-,...-•'• :it1'.',. -4-
i,,tv4r,:12%,.*'• ' ,Vi';',':-;' 04'; ,'''' /),• •• •,,,-,' - 'ir'•• "/4 / '.7:i' • ; 4'' '/ " '-•0-4 .,/,""FP' -v4,.,. *. ... -%.4,4111:3•"'...-,".:, ''.. .`t• .a...1'. •
, -.' ''''':'..AA' ;'•;.Afir"',/•'-",-, !•'•'" '' ,. '...-.2',4'' •,,,410.40,,, '':,•••,• • , •,- •.,f,.... ,<;•'.i.',.0, -;;.,,,;r /•'-• ,i,„ ,,'‘,,,,,, -.• ,,, N.,4 4.11.134r,,..„4‘,`.,,N41. .::k;,,. 1:;„
',"* ; ,v-ifr,----- ' - ,,,;, , _ ,,-,-47,;#");,•:•#`4;, ' ' . - '•;"•"''''-',.X.,•**.4,•t:t •?,:e: 4t.r.".";:i'Altftt,":1',"• .:?;
'.,r -...,7..,„„.4.:',4-w,,,-,'•'-,* 4..--" „,•;,,,,, r,,• . - -/„,,„ ,• , ,.',.', ,4,,,,,,,,-____. ..1,•:„.,;-.,',,,,,;',:,,,,,-;;;,,„‘h,...rz,-;:-.,:. , Q.,,..„ ',.•„':, -,,..,.4 ;,..4,-1,..4.•,r NV. .!.•:.':
*Tcri• ;''''''''' ','' ,"-.'' /. .,,,,,,e,,,. -04,'Woo,' 4,4,1),-,',,'„,' ,•'...,•/4, ..,-/,'‘. / ,,,,, ,,,',-.':.- .,-•'f'' ,,t i'‘',', ','..,,f•',.,‘,.',"1‘;'':-4'4,;.*;;;P';':,?...."'"''--,i'''''.')54,1,:il:;;;F.'„,,, :.,,e':',''''1,'
''" '' ''''0‘' '1-"'"' ''/,„.4091tiaig,74# ".4''/;;',";`,"-., 4',fi'47,'"..1;;',;4',0? y.-,.0 ,•, .,,,,',,,-,,:,,,,./.11÷,...7,,,';%:,'%',.‘:z,,,::,,,,,,,,,,ri„.>,/,*,,,•,p/k*.•*•.*#-111:,•,..;,•,*„..,,,•;;,:„...-A1/4;-:,::-',C;i,.,-;'-'.•••','
1#1,4'" -"'"*; -LI,' •,•,-;:tr',/,‘,•77 .474.;•$7,%*";•,‘,44,,i*•;*;'.; •,„.;*-•54,11ory":,,,;"0"tV , „,•:„,„„,f,,,•;,,;;;.,,,ft:,, , •,-,,,•.:,•'**',,;, •:•;...V*,t,,,,,o,,,,,,„;i,‘,„-Jot-T.: :,,,,,',.;::-;,,,,*--•.i' ." '*;,,,
' , ,,,,,%4,47 ;fie"t 444•„" lefzi4!:;,4-,4;,,:„;-$7,3,;,,:,,:--q,%,,,,,;,-,,,,, ' ,e,,,,,,,,'0:,,,'.,,,,,,,,Y,',:44A . ',-;„', •1 :*:(, ..,--X.'‘,.,',!.-,--. 4,- ,',,:,,T •-...-1-4,--„•,,,,•-rtrn::'"'lli-' ,-..4'-,.',:".i. .•,:•:4•••'F.'
61',i -•;""`‘ '''"•"-'7-",';','' 44N.'''?"4" : 'ft-4-4,01,,Ii;',% :'.';•if".'',i,',,,i;:••s.';';:t:;t4:ter'-,-','''.7,'F',:,-,,,;,:iti'4”; '',,'' , , '';,',•!..144.1"..44•(-1. '4'''''...*21./? iit‘':'''''.5'''''' ;0.0
- „ , 4', „ ''11:';?5i4...,‘4,i '''.:310+1 /;' ': ;'4,45,„,,t'-4';', 4:';'''.7 4't;'''':-:-,,,i*5,,,,, ',:i,;,:,.::,r,:44':::,,-;,V•tit", ,.; ,e,- ''.',,N .-,i‘::::cAr"f 4....;*4 ,,! „,,.:!: -::,-:,f,•et. '''''T,,•,1
.ife,',•,.;,;.?,,ptiit&•:V,it,,I 4';.04, ,ifr,,,t:;5%,',4%/1 „.efri,Sirte",.; ,,,,,'"if.'741‘4:',44"T*C4,4.t.,%* Iteet:,,,.4';,,,/-iin(S,Z* ,,:''<7^•%fft. '3.41•(' t',,P'''',,,O.i.',,,.1,:,..t; •.::•;''''''.
•'.14-4"1.-Wi,';• 7'•";17••,';,;',.:),Tf,,'iltV4:4,!1":-.10$14e,,'-;,1,:ffi,,,,,-k,'..',,.. '' ,4,,*;!:,:`.11,-",rAc... ',,'.17,„'",e.'*,P.,14,):::',„,.,'' $1,r;rfk'it,,•:,:w;t', ..,'•,,,t„4,, V'=„$,16.,$',....,' ? ..-,,,',=`,,i.p.---.:' ,,:',..t.:,.,!,
' ' 'V-.4-.•? '..•,,t".•• '.7, 4*z.Pe,'-',,,, --.,,,,-,.,--,,,,',F1, -'''-ft;f:,•‘-','.;:i.5,;'4•1,'/I'';,.•;„,,'*- 'Ili;',.'5r,,,,,,,,; 'I'-1-' !‘;.''' '''-,'? P4e,t,,''''.74,..'t'"tite, ,e'''q''''''',.,'. Mui,e*.,:?'-'.." ...,. ,
);;',.! '' ,,;'-'.,4/1. 1:,*'A':,;"'" ,,'A;;;',:''''''',.:;'''4%;4444'.iiin4,11-;';"1/-1,;,,,r,r4,7t• .!*"•"tfi•V',„•r.: ?`•-•"440.,..".,,,a°1- ..4"s!"'"`7::', -•;;;44:1,4 7:44:44: 1',";•;:t4".4•;'•,,,c- ,:!'‘.,:!4, ,6•474.4,Vi-%.1 41
, ' '. ,,i-. • . -,,i';',••••:,;•t.,.,,A;:r ''' "4.,IC l'•'`.'`.*.t, ..." -,.;•!:','",:fitris.,*•"0,4"; '''''4 •'
,,,",,1:;;;14,?%,,4"'A;,'W,,;,,,%"''-:: ''',`",;;*',1,tti,"I 4.;4:1`''''7-f:,'i,V,:,,,,^,.6.44:0.?:ae,. 6,,'11';;;;,#:'' ?'':''Pt(1,:se+4'. ''''''..,q'P°VI''''"W"-';',::' ,.‘*, •,' ';*,:;"'til''.•1, ':•'.'•,''' ' ..;,,re,1 :,`,''.'''"'''1'„ ,=4*‘2,:e4;
4V
.::'44,, ',,-.',,,::•' - ',4'‘',:,,,,,-,;,.4,,,,.,'-',".1-', '''A)7, -*--. -'..4.'/ '-'--'‘-' -'4 -''''''' *.''' - '---//' - 4", " - 4 ' - -' ' - ' ' v.- '-*'' 4`.4`)k* ' *
arrot4;74'1'." '* ' ''' Vt''''''''14:' /711PrIkk" ',"•0* „RV:'''',/'0'' A,,: '' ' ,'1 K'''..-„„'f'',"t(,71`;•'4, 1* ' '''‘ 0, ,„ •*•^ '." • 1 •,,,, , , ,t14 ,..41,4‘..'1:*i•.' `.rjtj
7,--„.!'''„4!e„11,r;4'3,,t ', , L,I,'I''' ,,,,V;° '3.4);' 40;' ' .**** ,--=,4.,;,;;;{,„-;.,4,,,': •,,%. ,t''.:,,,,';:- 4'.-:,p4d-bi•-.4-.".,-,:,=:r-It.- # ,'-'::",•.4?‘/:—..,,,',or-.;',,,:fs,%.'-re-;--,',R•
t::,,,'-•-,,,A5p4:,"-/--AO'. ,,;'' '''.,-4.-e-,-"4:e;'4.3;e,Pg• ;,•4 ',,,•; ',,,,4,-.'-5,•/:,k,,,m‘,,,,, ,1 eiie" ;,,,..,40 .710,. •„,,,,,,,,,,,,,„•„. -,,,,,,,,,,,,, -,.. ,,- e,, - .„ . ,
,;. -.A,.,40,„„Art,,,,0.4,,,,t -4,,,.40-t:ttio--1, ,Ajorr" ,:-.,--.. .•,,,,ott-,44.0.4Fr-,::-..",ft ''-',-IPIP 't' * "''‘ '
',•;,,,,•-• ',",:•,,t''''e,,,:,et?".-,1741,1,';',.'','';,;;,4k,:. . 4,4•4,w,..,t..„7, . ,„- ...
rarnetrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3.7-7
View 3-Existing Conditions as
seen from near 38th Street
.,
- _.' ---- , -_
•
--
-_ _,,,, '•
s..y
'�".
�g ,is >'he� • c :Y s
.
•
` ;•a fr � • '• x� � ,, 7• 1 H y` 1 '� �;/ / ,I r s :a ¢,1:4 ,���ka,4s u ' ./ / . % r r , � a x� c s ,iY 4 ,y i i/ / 5 � ! ,�z»���;y . ' ".; µ""�bn� ,::"' �l�Fr „���1 " k, ,oi '' ; � „✓ � `.' ', r�/ '/' �% ✓ 4 _/ ,,3., , , '=� ,' " - .9< ,, �,sr */ �t/%l %� / ,y yf;, ,.,9j + ' °,v;, ' "" u> ,{~af' C"' a" y r > a: ate, / /; mil a� ; ..;' y ,, ,� "rc. ,� �i / n> � , as «Y :;:, y., ,' '� �� ry„i>c'y <s1y;�.<ya,H?-,✓ < t/ /r /�.�:. Y;.z;,..^+eta / , ° 7w.// r' %4 4: s 'y : �.,...mp� ,. , , d: • y � :� r "/� r •;>/? . � f ! .«r� - r� � : n,�, ,., N , 23F it ;v a
•
vii
�' ° :%✓�ramv;' , � ,, ,� <, r �.�,
4.
21 w,• 4.fi j'i : '•An�jc L J wn ' w+ •. .
p'` w . w< ' _.ti. :"
v,
/ '�/ .. 9 a a Y.
� /� /fit :.✓' �::
n
fr r`
, r,‘s
Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779.017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3.7-8
View 3—Simulationseenf of Development
W Buildings asfrom near 38th Street
I
1
c d
CL
v .:o,;.._ "• ciim
•. ..,...,,,„_,., , „,,,,,., .
.. %j,,,,t,,,„,.,,s,„„,,,,t,,-,
,,,,,,,,,, ,
.i. '4.+ ,rya '. ,„ •-/ •,- Q `
+ .. • `v ;1 .a f ip :?sty,. +�� L
e„ 3 i'F $£ b �' T U. > f/1
'•4.` 3 -qay,� n k -,y3.e ""''perp„„.
!ti
1^i:; �' , (gam ' ' yff;; � ,� ,��+�� �:
i �, i,•
µ; �'/�. < ,`','.°c,^e„ -,. ;_' Y *x ,s a°j.;ae•��;'y/ F y,y:
.ywE . sueg'=; P ,# ,
•
'_id, I'''''''',,,,,,,,;:'''':''':
:r,/ .. "P" yF, ' "i~ !,,.' Jry`K, ,¢ • b '• f�
Nr a ' ...r,' ,.,. ,. " ;4 ;,�:°.,. „.s 1,„ " -3'7','3"3 .'4,..,4-,T„,,..:4;.:3;1,,.:':3.,":13-,,,-;/VT",3.-T7-",r,0';`,".„,>:. s$ .a "?
",s�.k',}-.' .'i,,,.,4 F'inst, i�' s , A� � q9 :: � ;"�'.;' e'::y� � � "3'i" �� �..
°d., 4s`n L h Z 8 S
�'t'".; ; +r ''a ." '44' +'�M i j - w 'r am '.,,. .9 ;
- '4 i
A
+, 7
I
( y
.'Er
S. ° in/y,�,Y.i" ".l.N z=Y r°'..F 13,,}yj 3'V r '., "'"tip. k#,i si' e 4Y £'d,
d.��•' � .cb°',u '• dam' ,.;r;",%�i/y/�✓�%fa�'!; �f', tJ k ��`c ���:C"Y.<''s� ', -..,
Win,' -' �` E a i ax \
'' n�m:: ,,.%�. .-,.%s�.'�`'" .��'..�;` .x.'�„ ��, g-� ,:;'X;r ,.,,,,g. ��YaM.
,
;3 uj = ,,vr�°i✓i,. ;l` NZ¢ l4 e J L ' ,�<,% < $ y „ ' .4k
'F, »r. ,� f ^^!! ,'rr`.,q<d�r,,,,e e'er N 4 � � y&'y�.
R F
ii.(.. ; ..„ 4 kl l•!'-I4,-', ;,-,:•-;,;i:-
440,
.e',s �9L f, < a��,..�.n # �. i9v, �., s eat o
k.l°:'S.> fig• F S 41. '# "k �ry "�..k, ��+ � :�r Yk '$' $
.41
.P-#, w !" �,.� r fix•
;,,<t•-•�✓ "--.:I' R „s -ar*n, "s v M,'$"" e"'+3�Fn #, w" •g' '',:'',A;:;
y,<•ar 7;4 W :r c` o
� , - >; ,� "`" " ii,. g a 4U; to •g«.'v"}' F O1 i
cr
4CD) il )
�y 5 ' x r ,g i� � .�? a r�` M a� •,r,,.' f ,� M �.. n«• i "k.�,y," °
e8`', a £x}i " .A,.� ,� f .al.+'o „,, ',i ' `Y .s".. .. ", grm`."`! p
co
U
1
L
-- '•-. ,- . .
, .
.. _
IIIPP __
• .,
- .- --
',!.5',,,,,,,,,,;''',' LliA,', i. 'c,',' :,„.'',, i, r'''‘,.1:'' ' -•',"-.:?0',,'•, 7.77,77V,:F:'::.:/''."7,',?,77:.","'„*;/•- ,'a' '''',''''!"!''''''''","''„":'''''' ' "::,,''',:::;''•'„'.::-::,'''''''':'':::'; • CI'''',, -i'' ' ,,':., ''',:'"," ., '.;,'1%, ,''.,::,„;,,,,,,,,,:,-,„
'',.'•:''',,,i'%;''',.'';''r.f.,k,',.:fY".1„ „:,'"',„'t,,*,,'i'„,„";t',•,'%%N, '.''''''..„";,.. '':,,,;.:''!. ,,
\
, .•'''-
,. .
• '1','''! ‘T:. , f4- -; ''),44--.- '"':'''1'-',-,it--14.,,-- ,:-;,? ,:e1:.;„-,„ ,*i . ',''-',4 - \
rio; ,i,..4,,;,-,,;,i',/,,,,,,%,;i f%,,'„?, -5";?,, ':', ,,,,-,'\V, <i .;
; ,y,-„,•;, ‘•-,,,,I-,,2',',,,",-, ,A'''„'" : !IA*, : `," ' '',,,,' ' ,4:, ,,' . -"(,
- i. .
.. .
. .
. -
. ,
,,.., ,„4,i,', ',,;',, - %, '7',:z:-',","":%',• ,' -%." s' 4,11,, „ , ;,:‘,. \,N',,', : ' :,- .,, • „ , : , ;.', , ,, `
. . • - , -. ,,„ ' „. „ .• :-,''',:.'"„:-;•-,;,:::/,''''' .' ",".:1,1,"','''' , . .
. „ ... . ,. , „• „
..-L,.',',. ';.•,..",,,,,'--,,,,,,,,,.44, ,,--',.- -- ,:. , i --, ' ,,., °,,,, ,; ,\ ...- , , 4. . , .,, „ , .,'..., „ .: , ...: , ‘ ., , . , .,., . .,.
, . .. . . „
si,J..,,r,-,,,0-fwii=,,oi,,,,i..v„!„,...-; ',,,'., . -:., ' -. -, .. -.,--, ,,,, -.-N, - :„., ..,-_ • .. .. .- .- • --.4*.e...."',•''.:,,•„-----:-• ',i,,,,,:: '-:'. 1',', ''',,,," -; ', , : ,',. .'2\",,:;..-.,,,‘,-,, .,., , - - ,
, . .t:'?,.;V,T4;i C'S....!*:,',..10 V,A;11':t;A:**:1,:,,, ''' - „";-. .';,,,-' -' ,:‘- ''"''‘ -• \, .
4.4"411kvy ' V.:i 'i,,'A, -`.5kkg*,:'? -\\"',." '‘ 7 ' k. - \,.,\,;',N'.,. , , ' ',-,;,, , , • .,." - ,,,,,, ,-- ,,,,,,', ,' .:- ,-, . 4
;;I:',,. .7.*t..-2,4V 4.4%'''''.- ..-°- '' "'',,...- kt4.-k,""- ",,', '... --. - .•, ,' ..,..',-,-'\ .:c,,
Altst4.:;.•'''''.1.1.0.4'w.7141".. ...;11.".,'" ' k,':,f;.4.--„-',f4,',.;;:.„4,:" :„ -2 ; ' ' ', ..„ N-i. ,y,' , ., ,' ' • ' . „„ , ' :, ,
XAr.s:•#.4t.A,„:..r, , - 'k,..,'...,.-74,',- -,-ii",.. ,„--„c'"—T: =-,.. . ':'.',--.,• N;•„',‘;-'„ • - ',: ' '.5',; ' • ,-,, - .„7:•:;.,'•'!•''- :;:.:•' '2'' ; 7'• , l',;',.''•
;f44;r1.11 .4,',4411•SP:'%,. 11,441;.•.':;?:;,'„ ' ''', , ' . ..„, , , ., , „
4N;f:t•t,, ,IkS,.„?.?$,P4 *-,,,,r,;,;:'*L.A. *5'...t."I'l;*7`<k' •;,'"•Wii..''''',--,,• ':" ,., -".°F %'•,', -::'L-'',':-',i ,,'''',' .:- ":,',, " s , ' ;. ' '..,' ..,,-,',..-:-,-, „ .„ ,•„ . %'.'`.---,',--4.'.'" -
...14t,,C:VVi.+14;.*'.40?4T,,i4,1''•,:*#:•• 44,,511444-.19,:".1-':',. ' ''''---,'; - ••••`'--S.:::'--:- :",.„,'T--. .: --.;:::..! „ -;• --• ,' ', -<'' - . f -;,;,,,i.i,. ';' r ---,-,:°:-:,,,r,,,k,,,*. ,''.
:'*V47,1*f44!„,14 1";*4--"TA!,*1,,Ziz..,,s.N'tV•falf:;.1",". .4....A..-",'"':...-' '• ; • -:'.: N''.'''''', '.4'''''.:2-rir-P",- '',.-:-. ' ----' • - • ,;;;4.,,,-;:-t ,;•::',-, .,..i.:‘,,:-.,....4%*•'..-4-1i.":• -
17* '1` ,,i4 OP'" it''''...,;14:;%.•'''. •:.
tt,
.;:.4-0-,:.,1.-,-;', *FM.';4'Z,- "4" ",:-.`' •?..:71.4.....At4......,-;:y.:,......?•$--,.,- •., :,,,,,, -•,.„-.,-.,,,,:,,,,,. ,•.- ---,,, .i.:et,,,A•f,•,-, ,-, '..-. ,.,-..„.,,,,v..:,„..,%,...t.. .cA.," , ...".Z.1' ':.:(1, ,,,4...... . ,.
-,irp...4j, q•Vt:Ar,...44,1.; .1.e-!•„,,. ,.„::-.t, - .7; --,:uw-4,;e1-4.0.„,-,r,....v,.-471.:..,---,,r ..•,.,,;,;c- .: ,..,,..; ---7,_.- , „..i,•-„iii..t:.,....„-2-1.0,14r"„''''-:-•' "•.:." ....=, ;tr,:if,ti:.-4.00..,r0":,:`1.101.1...31141,-IVAV ' ''''';:•••4
1"1.4,„*:,.;,f,.,,,..,:,... ..,..,. f.,*;44,,,x.„.„.701%,;440411.,::,..,4„;04.,,,ii: „,, t ii• 4.,\•,,,, , ,. ,:•,.•.,,,i ',--•-'-4.°:11;;;;.,,,i,„1::,-,, 4,';4° ',""‘f, ,-- -t, ;Ey' "1, It' '''''_',:i4t-". -4,-...A.'Net
.V 1 s 5.y.-tr- - I4 *.442tRINWAslr-•-,ft.teV:4&*441%‘,.;•:,. :i''.. - --,?-:, • ,‘. ;- -',----'-,,,,,%,:i.,.... ..,v :.,,,,,WI: .---:, - -- . 1.. . „ -.4c,..:,-.--..:04,4,,r.1,,.
:W.,. ,.„.0t,,V...;t-z: . ,, —;.. ,,' vi,;,41.f,,,,,•1.43!,•itf-erl,:k.„tx,,:v;,.....C.;;.4.,,, -,,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,,,K-',27 j„-,-----,-,'„,r,-.MP:' " ,.*''-it' y l'A :,' , - ,,,,,-4 '-ie-:"-4'2.;; ''..g.*"1"
ig';',,r,;..0„,I,;4..,,, ,,,,.Wf,`-r5.-7,‘'.4%-fttpa'r.:.... '.,:',.:i•V:;,4.,!:.t.1.,:,y'1. 4:,tfi,Tit--''-: -"r'''''.''..,r4:' ..0-44A4 --.,,p.., ,...,,,x.',.-,.',4:-.7.7:--. ',/- ,a,,,,,T,‘. ••-. .,-.--?-4,44,1?,:f2,'•,*:.1.-..tt':.'•-
4.1%.,..2...w*,--t,,V,-• - ':,,,,,,,*",-',,•,,,...-.1t,l, • '.. ..!••tc...:,%iis;:_,,,,..-,,,sii•;,i.F-,:-7717;L''',-,i',, -;„.ft,,,f#::•.=„:7:-':::i '7Jit. if,,,I,i,..•frrki,-,5a1,--'''..',..!-:....*.1„'T•4---'1:;•-,/,..; i '.1„,..4„wiik....,0V-.,;:v4r- ,
.7'•„,a.,..,,,trit, ' '5 k4 ;/;,..' 44,4,' :k7P:P:" '
:1;.,•044 ,-i i 'i;" kEf4,.x ,,,, ,''',, ., .,„ • ..iv,...lri--:;,„: -1..A.a, „I:71'z. ,-,,,...,..-1 %.',;',--:',1,;<- 1,--4:;.-‘<,..:-.•i'• ,,0,..1.--,,grr," •11:; ,;-, -,,,,,-.-,2, ,
.::t;ii,., ;;;';':.--'=',,-'4-.7.; L'. .7*.‘11'.7 • VI\ .. . ill/:./,, " ••, --'• •..,.-'.' ---a ---. .•,:ty. - •-. k ‘ ,,,,,..„„,•' ,., .t ' v 4:,ifeffialit.. . —
,,,, ,,..e-:,,,;,-,,4, ‘,,,, - ,,.!„,7 . .,-f.- ,t,., .., ...:„ „, , -„a- .......:.,„-:-....z.„---- ,', ,-....,;,:,- -,,,,.51-., -,•••.-: „,,...,. „..._.•-•,- ,47,-----...rwr...m , , -' - •-.-... .--.
: -..!).1,-:•0'4:-*''' ' - . ,.', A -, ' --- .4-'. '?".-..'-,-,-'''''7q-7,7÷, -.‘,'''''',4,--,2,:yr' .,-•--.1,1-'"•- ." .tt...;.fr: ••‘...."-I.• . '1"t"71- —..-.-:-----"-
lor"-*.;.-:1,. '4..1.,,tz-4*--tol•k:-: " .411—`,-"9—..',..- - ., ' _ , --';---.7-.5„7,210;''':-,1„,.:,%.,
-.1. ...''/...:".44.÷.••-,4• '',-1 pi.,-.1,-sixti,.. ---t-.- ----1,,,,,,,,,.,;,.,-;7.--9,-1 .„..,-5-4,0-,,,,,,,,,4,,,,,x ,,,,,,,,., , k.,,,,\,,,,,„ .„„„‘„,, ,, - ....,-•. ...- .1, ...,.v. i..- iii„.•,,ty ot,,
' • " • .4, •'";-;*' ' ''4', ''''•If
, O,."%,,i)t.«,•', ‘':*;•,1;', i,;'');1', '''', ',1 ,,,5', ',•'',•';',:':52; ; '' ', ,,i';''''',$..,'„,;',‘"'"' "....,,,,,:.'";..,, ' ".„ •-.., 'a 4... ,', _...iftlAw',''': ''''C•
4,11**,,*;e•'•'•,'.*:...'''''''. 9;,V'V;fr'' '.(;',7"51;;FC;;4, ''''•;%;' ;',‘'k'/'f*3,',•',-•fi','" ,ife-91:•-•,,..„--.., ,,,,:‘,-,,,..-,,,;'- -'; „' .--'N.,,,,,„-5,,.--.,,,.,..,,,,i:',-,.-_-,..-,.„,--,,...„•„.;-, ..;i-,-.:':. ---------- -
••,';c ,, ,' , ,,--,.,P,,r(;,o. ,',. .; ti:- ,' %,',,-: .. 7,"; ,, " -- ; 'f-,-;•-•,:,--:.,-;',5 7-..,';',,,,,-'‘,....,":•41-`"--;"4;--"-:,,i,:,'•-2.'-'' .-°- -
,k,,..,,,--,,,,,,,,,7',1'..,::, or--,,-•-- . •':-.,, - / ' .,,:e• ' .1. ,;:l :,- `,,4 - ,,,,..fr,„,•'',-.1-1. ';,t,--, , 1,..,,* ' "; - ,,,,- ./,'-' ',,,,',.;... .-0,,4,,..e,,,:k, ;„' -....." ,,•:,,-",,,,i.;,, ''- .;.--7-,-,-;.-- -
rPt'4:7:' " ;,',",,, ,,,•'' '-';.""1,4Y -.,-,,.''?,%"',,r,°.4,'/;3/". **,,'E;', 7''''•,'. 51,1,1V.4 ,Y-1),0:',lk - ,,1j.."1''. :',;4t;',7:11::,,%, ,,,...4 „II;, ,,, ,..'..-'' '-... , ,. ..,?;,:,. /,-.„,,,?:,;4-:,'''',,!''':'.."4,
''',',.;4."/'-',% .14'"'' z,e;'"I'!,,-4',.,0;',,L,,; ,,, '-'';‘,,i',,,f* -,,r;41,4,1,,,,,:,F,.,i .fa',,f, '-.:(.-',"••••:-.?:',- '''-'-•'!''.,,,,„fa -- e,'"•°°,-,*_'40,10.-1.'---..'''''-'"'i',7q. :'-':4','-'1..,;";"',-,L,-.-:--''''''' `
;i:,.,- ,,,.,-..ts: p.,..-...177,.7i0,-.-f,,,--fve,,,,,kotit4;,,,„-- ' 1,,,I...,i1.1 13,3; ;.,,f,., - - -,.. ...: :::-,,,„,„,. :•,,,,-,;,,,;,-,240<:' :J.';'-•/.;••LI•"::;'!R;.‘'."."'''' 'N',..:-: •;:": '15.7.,'''.;•'; ',.".k‹;i4:::,,,:j
'-.., ''•.•.,.•'",::0 44,0f,,,,-:lel.''* ""140',';'," "4-,' As " -,y,",..,-,e; ,*"%""- ' .*,,„,4 '41,,.. "*''',$-'7'.4aYV'', 104:.,*"'',14,.'-'.--R.:rg -.,,,%,"'"z.,,,,''':s4;,1_,,,1„,,,,ns,„,;,ki ,',-,,,,r,,..-:,,,„ . ;
-, .,- ., .--1,4i,,,i*,•„,4,,,,..„,,4.1, ics4.,,,,,f,,,p, ;4p4, , :4::,.''',e'"1 "' ' • , `-„,;''',>,"lk t".e),. .'„47-,''ss/,'1,tr-:..." ',,,..,.,K,:;',4tet' t.',.4',4' ',":"'-."1"'s;'',' "t$s7k.,,''''''''''''-'!" ' °'
'II', _40..- .•',."',' 4-,5„"'.1:''4....-,i'", --":%' ;-':%%E.,;.4""f'V.??","/"'"''''-.2 . ., -44 ' 4"'iA. " 0:,:,'''flii,:..:,•---.$,,,,:--;",-.,-.-- '',..',-;?:‘' -'..':- ":4' ;-,(-•',.,'',,.'-',4,T2,-<Rif:.q.,;-`-;.,0--;-,,-`,',--,; - -',,-‘ °-3
..4,---,4, 4,;-t,..:i r,g,.44,4•.-....41:4 ',1,,%',1-1.... ..i.--0 ' - • ,, ,,,,. .:,,,,,,,t,---,, .-,:,- - ,,;,4- ,,,,,; " ; :: - ,,,:.-„,,„p-,----1•,,-..:,-.-, ,
1,p„,.,,,„;,v,,;,,•',,,.".,;v--o:sy,,,,--1: t4,--4.1'4,4.-4,1- ' ,..,,,„04,-,',,,,.,•-•:7-,, :;?,,,,, ,,,,,A.,. ,..,„,,,,,,,,A. 34...,,,,,,,
''''''Y''.4.1;07`;°M ''' ''''' Yr2g.t.41'44,0'W. Afir',7" :11•:.',X, - t!',',:,g0t1r1,-,'?f:,;„,f,', ..1-Z,,.,,,,,,i?.4,....414-zt.,:,;:.,0%,:.,-;;,5,r,-7,..,..r.emit,,,,,,,..,3!„:„...3 .,i,._,
,......04.c,...,0*..., . .. .., .,. ..- ,,„ . ., . .
Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3.7-10
ifilk, View 4—Simulation of Development
IV Buildings as seen from near 32nd Street
„-.'' -• '••,: •,"10-:,-;,-,''- ':,‘,, ,
K, Wr:9 ti�..
« , 68; 4'
.a
-L %
�b
>.a
^
Y
-%F fE' 3.a�y.a Aa �rt q_ . '°
e+�r s.hrr � y«� yi'ii F ;,
rr9..
A r
.,
g x g
Y. *F`e a tx L�;a > ww ty ..;•, t ' `f .k ±4 '' 37' t � '`s a 7 �>+M t=M„ '”` ,M ,t•.1''`";.
•
•
�'t d Fx '+ . .$t '»t ,y. i r`� ffF1�St, r... Y J, ^��`
IA .f� r r h� 'h' g ^� 7 s -"'" � ,� i-� xH.: z, ds .�."'" 4
157
'il
• rs '., Y^s*5 t z '' C'., ' '' • l ` `' "tr' e Eq 1 '7
• a k' '; 'i •« ,'r.' s , ,ern
Y' ry -.a."` '� .,f. i t� -4 .s �r" y if .»••.rs
> a, t •f.� +' r�tk, .. � "-- ,ty,��s`, `.,{ :R ,r 4 ,fie'" i - :„-.-3i,,+*.0,," s""- - . .°':,
' „Y '° �tt'�9, l ySy' ,y',4*°" r.?•�r,� wP r P' J, r r M i�` a x 'k
'4� �" w l ca Sys,. a r,, / ,� 4
r :, f" '�'y 'Y � � a .5°r , a,r�5 , kts'-r y'+ ;.,.�' ° oyr ,,�i € -.x,. '•` -,, ,' s . .�" „ ,'' ^
r�e`q ; e ;T v '^"k } �` -{,, «� '° . Yl '�" `k'v,' y> ,3"� »r `. a Sl""°� m"
�fr, .04440440r Ord 1, tr a A, i�� ''( <" ✓ �"q .r` , , «x xk°x yP
r�, --s . *. ;o 1 : �,F,r »{vi,,,,,,,,,,,,o,,,,.,,,
'"� ? -, .. ,,r,!, , 3� t ar "':b,.,'•i) ` ..§;,, ,` ••` zt' y�• ,�6 ik p ..t ue' !,""'!
=' ,� ,7. ¢"' '.x . Y",fafg , ,,f� , ,ii^t r 4:,• Y ,-a'. ',4,4V .,,,: 12,,S "F ,�3:l 'r %.. , 'w,:h ,e
"ot e€ ,y � .•'kd r r „r *, ;✓A ir*, p v,%'f* ;:s � `,,y..-r1 ' .•, Rg4 tier r .wj'{ 1II;.,. l:g. ,14.44' 4:4
3�,p}+r° ;�r [�:.41; ,x•'�r `��� ;Y °� ��.t��nr.+ ,tY aft' 'its.;,�"„,1�ts" �f$dy� c" k�''c. � ° 3Si_ ,a 3it g t`,;�4 .�' x ,�„
�• f""�fnw " "{,. ly S.r r '' „t'^' 4, "...F`., ,, r.. ew', F d" i� yit`..V
• .!�'' ^
'' -'E".. J .- `�,T*4 *.t ' .AJ 't•, "°''.l o., ; 44 -�.' 7, 3 -7$;{r; -"� ,. -,i.•:. fI , ay 4'fi, .q. gyp;c°.
• arm � r �`��� 1f' r1z,�, ,�r°P,rs�,yN� �� 1k �� ,.J ��4 �f" <fr $ t '"l-. � ,�x�n?"1,*'�.•�;
r B y j''a r ;
,max-� ^°� ,� ���� � � ���� � � s /�.�"�'� `�'":�� ���t"' I K "'1'eS �• "l'3" • �+` +T. .l 7, .�� y. W. ;aj
'fir ,, ". .l. ,i' s"+,;7 r,$ h `J °„arc /-e-;-,t kiS '+xi -- ,^«=f S 1.-T4 ` " '� ?4". , i, .+�;� a "4 a''. .,y<t{.
? �,�,y ,t. ,�. �• '�'� / f d i ',�,"sG Y .rY' f •:S*,'� Y it>>'�'F.. �? ,� t"•i• t=M1.,•+' ,f ' •' ",,yfn <7
-' '�✓�.>%�t ',°'`c' 'J, "t` A r x *a e: ,,,A � n Y b'"'Cy,,- a, fAy:. ' 3°: 'f, SS y t1,r't i*4.*. ,''' - ,
.' t-s ! '.:k � ' '' Zi*VO - i ',� rel _N. 7y »' µ• � �':ri< k li`. ,�. ' �.
y a ij• r r° =r '1� }#r'a;j f }@� �; yt ti sy ti t, a
•..r r .r r �''•�.:-,,,* x"r`*€ ,r7 2+ ` ' 21 Yt t t ra"t+,r•/ ', ,'.1, S�`': ',t 'i 7 • # J it' e ° '
.?, .t , ";Fs rt° ;f l rY•l .S" • >.f t vf_ ,,-:j /.. ,��, .11; t 1'. #t` •1. ,t ,,4'. ,rr �, , ?. yr 3
`+3r ' - '.'fr;r4 ", A l` G '“: � f ':`1i::n'}a R *, §�"• t, r.,r f,,rf. y�/ ,l t. ..fi v'''f} `s,� y. 1,*: �r.„"^". .r� • ..;;9
t
tr'.i. >if°t+ r f ,s-J Y.fr ' » K' • '° } ;�� )¢"�s' '"T','t1, ✓ ?;4 `' X ,,,pair�' 'is jwirr .' i '- w.x fS If �`' t its+.r',yv,*': , 'r,+:C;� '� .. {Yxi
rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)7/03(K)
Figure 3.7-11
View 5—Existing Conditions as seen
r--
from Park Avenue near 40th Street
may>
i•.>
I xPe .e,c
F' �,
a
•
s ,'
•
' ''• '-.. '-'i ' aSw.'a,
,t .ar , > tk fir ¢ ill"�3~� 4r,;� €
•
•
t. .eti:" y . a,r< N« " ' -�`L :. �`v. ''< �> � + c, �, � '- E� s"r . 3 X ,. i'Skr "A� a " E.ye: yy . -: a ,'.a c 4 i« �t,"... ' s ..... fir . �s .' .. � � S � s � 7 r,G. w r ; a a" ' >< . .� y < 1 " Y � rn 'a^%. .iS f *� A�>�_ i ".r Q� 1 Yk au y4 w" +e } . . .r i i 9 rS e - '' 4*.'1'''w3'„„1s!Y 41* • N y t „•4%%Fn p'y4�%q4 fi ^y E'y3x b.ty E•ix i � a d,� ' n _ . I i �... r' t ._ 7 r »w. �w E «La` .r y •
•
44.
•
,?,,,,;....- • : -..: -. . " , -, . ' 7'Pr s'. '...,'... .....l• '''' , :,,: '..f:r::!:t7' '---t-;—t—jr--t-'—'ittif. -,,,A ta'
' , ,� •'� .,' ... M ..,G, Ate ,� �h.».' Ya` E � �.,, ...n•M.+S.
• yr' , ' e �. ,..>.. ,: `� f k !'A nGGC N,,, • .,:y h, .'t'' 5 ;
•
:,y*+it ,k `.,+•+ F !^ aYS 'r•!' s ^ G' '••k-*•,,;. .,t nt+• v:,Z :.S ' 8 '.
, .,. 'r^ '. ,.1' arX�t....i a e,u.•,,.. !a ,.d *'�•- �..s 4 ' 7.4'y ,-- 4`a.•2 +�.� ,.0 { •.,-.v
`.•••..: ` }4.� 'i �.. t• s t ;x Y �•�• .. +„k f ` ° �nri.�1 ??�.nn 7� "•' `����';fi;/ r ax e.> : tk ,' S'" it
t � w"� k` � '14 4 �'.Y t'' r.v
•
' - r,,".'y� :' • t `kx•
'$ i s61 1• • k' Y icy'.r "1_ F .•3`1t
"� .r 'aN � *;;;-•,..*,:,*.
� 'k•?er' - IS+4 45 " f,' �tri1. ft�^may %
•
r ¢ �YY� v�
�"�s���� � P ,!r' qg. • • ,.� fF' # t�a'`_.'' t,�: Y'�. • "7' �+'. ',�• E� -�' s a r E f a,J�`.� � "'�t'E t • t ��T w�' y.+ '` ,k.
• f ' ♦♦• y • yy(y •y
+ 't Y _ }' E..`, G ., L 1 k 4 '0° •.iL•, " '.' ,.8 R}•,Est,. .t. , .' i*,• Ayy_A .•0 .`
'. -t •;;;;. t, ,,ram Y,rr s :?a ?i„ • a , <F' • t :• . �, : .� , .rw,
xa ` t. r5"`p �. R`y + t�a� A"+A ,,+1 to s, e '� '
v` </ t ': ' 7t .( -• �3�" t '•`;r3' r t '''' ¢t '.i,#i� e tir, f,� r •,-
•
• •t'a4 •1 r`.f f..;II.:A r tf �. :+ < r F , </,''' r. . t .I{-g1•(; of i''': •+ -• �� r-> t t ,•k
+<x. • r tt z{ rfr 1t•t •gtfrt• 1,44( 5. Y ;rl xil Xf•ft`, .F' •' .`- t t- �xt
Parametrix city of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)7/03(K)
Figure 3.7-12
Mill, View 5—Simulation of Development Buildings
as seen from Park Avenue near 40th Street
a,✓.
•
„••• ' :':
"t'/ ,
f `
•r
41/.«
s
,h a f° /, lsy '# a . r x' sa'" • 19 /y" -�'" i � � ,^ �� °y; �/ ,/ ja '" / q / � , ue� . ° A x tar A, �r � , / .fi, r n 4 ,� . ;`y'4451
:k)6" ' "�"5 %< , 1. % ':i •I '' .' P. .,y� ',r ' .',, ;, 4 , "/ ;Vi „ >; , �r, '9439 5 :,: ' < , ,w • i. '" %^ ' 4/5 / '� >4 ✓ � 'fS' ;
55
,�'.J9 '/am „ W -;�;;^ , , rG • h 1yY fir : x;a' et;. d r 'fz/s, H i , �EbyF, U ' y
9.
•
• s` hti y / § : • "44 ` ;' ' ,fr,/ % , 9 r ,,"/. ° tE�, �y ,`!'n • , prv.vY :,,r ' ,f, b ;"'Bq4:4*,; ° / dy -;N' '•s"r, 3„ dsti„ D:j°. >2/✓ V' ye , 2'enF...- ��`�"� ' tYJ>•.s'%''," ,r b .- ; y "wF �: , %" s� : ' ^isN. ,,.A" '°y/' , '/oo ,' /n ./tyf Y ; ° '/ j° f .y <C_ .^t°so ,+ xNY
•
II:
•
,
,h
'nfy
F,S
;'f5
w,.J�y s
Mf' • %:es», ;,-< •'•.�`. 'G,l,.a';•s ,y'• �`�
of� "� , °3. :.%; °,y 'ib ,'.y ." ^✓
F ,
c
e P°s
•
�
sp�R,, r�„
��"yamkV .✓�s' p a,'s�%.
F f,, &,H �r y �'T,
.ie"f, /�/a
4 -
%,L..
n�` a"� t'�� ./�"s r%' / '."a aid fi s,,. SZSC y/ z•. • /, ,T 1x, °.' �'8"S4.ar.? 'G:,.4' , tea..' r^:"""a .
• <r
..,✓ " ,�> �`,�`,,j�'hy � / .t /��t �� �/./ w, � ., Wif ,��� t,.� s ',r`� ' yam 'r "�J���€.
rX (.1/9 yx r � :,At " / ,,e:, , y/y 4*,; _ as" '�":,-A,, s tic. ` k' E.•14,4' : ._
""z� g� $ l/„ "3� � r ,y 6 3',.i(1 3 ,;„�� '''<,,,, C 77 r`.z.,x "" - .,,,� ,.x
,r?Z44, rl fi ",,,, 40,/,, � ,,-, ,i' as %4 aay , /',i. 4, d'. x,,;4,'^ 044.". � - >,. :: i,,".. �e�',' V w Fw
5+" k -, .x " d ,am d• t r "�: ;F� Ys�s :Y
,:, ♦wy w j Frr,4 �, Y a %ma y y/ " `m<' >v .. � yny •W ' x �'° .k:. :,r..,,.. r „;
�,, * � �. v04. , � � � t 'NYx .��``�''•»,t 7• '� .H /,�f�����,� ."fp
�, wr 5 >r,.« sw._
''''7 •s .� .G .: 5- t4 r � 5" ,. r' ume'k+w y b• • ^""`n2�Y° ,' `-y,• ,wk„"^..,,, t". .s. $r-"`"4hi..,
..- y}`"''4 +Y.f r �r ..��,sw ,i" wrk' x`=»yr.'M"1 7 ..0, '" . 141X:, r^+s 2":.,14
�- r "" t • •,:f: ^s• - 4 ";';•:.;.x `�,'"--Y.' r+,..,''''n,^",., `" ..*, ;, 'u .417,,,'nT '"."d4.x."..':•-.."'."t,*"`" �5" r "7. --/ i.
'T ern "�.«. vri�I:�s�„�, '/. . . + •w
ar. r.. r a. �,x a,,,, ",X',,� rr',.T.w,� „ a .•,..N,s-.._ .. ..:1--,ye�,,i4,-•"""+w''' .. n• + '."M,rrvv»s",
r ,.,,. ,w, .:, .RbAL�aw.,C•- • wr. w ,
• k.,+M ;,,,, frwG.:,, , ,»lf ..;;!n� ?a ':..�'" ' ' w.a; "!�;�'v r.
s:•w ' -r a _».". , t '�, *,R�i , , �tq fa+wt""' .,.6 '," .:.f...r. ' ,'x'e.,'u""o�,r" »
.x-:?.• N,'.`X'A" b' '. » "tiM
•
` ., ••. w T .,'+9„y+:.,/°�F,r...'x 4Y�f,w•+bI7"'",w�' n _ .,,,, .�e- . _;. ' >
rametrix city of Renton/554-1779.017/01(14)6/03(K)
,,Th..._._..i.\
Figure 3.7-13
View 6-Existing Conditions as seen
from Lake Washington near Mercer Island
u) -0
cc •
C
u) as
cr)—
c u)
"o to
-- o
co
m 1_
. ,
+.
C
1 '
0 CU
• ';,'SA4t;;ir.!,i;i':*IJ"'.'4ktka,t'ji-t:',',,el1441.111.1 •.'::.'''11''. E
...__:
, - •„, ,, , ' ', '••14*;',„h4,4,1-c:-.ii.:1:',,-Affiii-,7,..„44,i.,:s--rgil i „k, -4.:::•.1;,,,i-,!,,‘,.
cs c
_...„---. ,,,-,•••-7"7.7.-: ' -- ''" .•. ' • ,.._':4,!'„1..;';-i::,%‘.:::,-.4-4;,:',:ii,,1/41'.:04,.tv,-,:vo..,--i :,',': • % ..-,..:!:,til' 0 c
,,,,,-77,77.---,--: •.-.2:•,•', -•'- . ' • ',, „ V7r,,T7-,'-':--FA" ,ti);;;4e... ,,kk,1:451 '41 ,. .:!fa,
0 o
,..,-- -''',',;:c''',,,,, ,-,:-.':.',:::',‘:',.':::,, • '' ,,,...2.•-:,•': „., ', ;,,',' . 'il.',,'-..31.'f,:',''''''f,,%.,''''i:Y'''-'44'1,4it(Xkisliktz,v,,,i4k111 T 'i ,
• 4-'
e cr)
'r,,t.c'-.',"ii,,•:`,,,,%151itIii0 I;,4'tt.."%ft''..::',•
'2,,.",i:'1,4.:,•-:1.,t,'iirk:'''',''-3:,"2‘,g',,-:.,,•::;‘;,..-„,,-',-,,',z;.;':.'',--'-'''.'''-2-,,:-,'•'''';,'-,I-',:i 1-:-',.I,&3J'',3 v1Nt,°,:,
::':.:'•'-;..','','';;;'',.,--"A-,A;::4::.:::.'-.,-:,',''•'40.-."':4r!.,':;,;"i0r.;0f.4*tt:*i9-4 t,tl•4,.:.-":4F".•1R:.1":4,!,,,ih,t,1,,,,5,'':,:',';;,'4,I:-.4,tl,1,';,141,1lit,4::-:,,.':;A:iii.itii4P'V,tk:g',42•.,,.„4-,-;<.;',eilli ii„„!.,,:"„.:,,7.;"t71
A ,t,.,q,i•',..:,::.;.:::,.::,4:i,,'.:"',,:!,.":!.:',:
...7.- =
g• .cuc0o)
CI
— RI
,",,, ,,‘,,:;',4',,,',::, -,Y:'',,%-,:„,4,,,,::, „'4' -,, ',, :""'',,i" ,, S:,,,,,,,;'',;,-;''''''.,..•:,•.2,.',;i......:..,;,,,f,;:fAi-.021iiii.!,,,,41,4;rt"-p4f:Iiiii:',!::, ..,:!N,....:,;•:, ;),
',N,q• :.,-,'-''?:',' ' -.';',4V;4i,:al.'.'..; .:,•.,., ',
7 E
Iii.:,,,,,,:. ,4:‘,,,. . ..::„‘- ,, , ,,,,„-.: ,::',',.'i'1',.', ---3>i*Va;i:•;t '1%-,' ,6i':4:',''.41 :..:4,.1%1WC,'-'''':41.1, ,,1,-;.'„i'.,:.
.. „,
r. -
1,,_: -;:;'''''''•'".„'„-,",,4,',i',,,,,:!;,7•:•., , ,, ' ''''' '.. ,' '',',.•,-.':-' . -..„ --'- •.,•2:-.,•,':1714:,.111 .i.,-..--tl,'°P:1!•i,..'4,.',44,i-.1;thti,AN;Ti:••°.
- -‘,-:, --.- - :'• ' .----,i:.,•.-1•..:....f.,..ii!..,r,,,;••'••, --„,.0,,,, • -,• ,s!, „,,,,::,,,4,c, •,,, .:. :.•- .i. ,..,„.! • U) 0
.;'..,.. ':::17'.f'V''''' '',4'it''',V': .„ , : ,-,„ '", --;'"-.-','','• \:::;;„ ,-'-''A‘ ' :11,Ar. 'W'.$11 ' ...I:4
0 to
'', '.,7 ''1':i 2.44%24 ''' I:;,44 C:,''•.:::.:. ::,;,-,:''.. $ (7)
r,fi ,.0 4,,..4,,,,1„svl,64.4 r„,1 .:::.;„:"...„,...t.„:::
,,-,,,.„...i.., ---,-„;,:r,, ,,:.-.,,,,,,.-: ,.,,.2,:,-,.:-. . -,,,-. ..-, :.1,:.;.;,,-*:.,,. -,--,',..,,,',',',.,t ,:"2."'„•,k• ' ,,,--,,•,,,'„Li4t:'0,44:,. •;"P„W„.r,el,11 ..'"4: I ,,,,•
cs) 0 0
,..
l'''•tii,,-,.„,,,„ -.! ,.::.,,,, ,,„,,,-4-4,,,,,,'.,`'`,7„;','2.„2:„.: „ -„...,;,: -:',:„'j,,,'",;',7,:::.,"-„',"i'-„,:-';',:!,..j..,',. 311tit..:-:- ',1,..''-'',i''''''Vf,44,4.:'7t!‘,4,,ii''...i,'':;?.;.:,17ii.;';et f*..,)•
;-:,•::'-; •:,-I;';,';',--:::•'„...: ':,-' •"'„''' ' '"--,- ''',''''''' '''''''''.° tf•:':,:ii.3:4'1;;, :",;:;.t. ,,Ziillijitl.f.':A.,!?4 il'ciik..Ili ,"...,-,..:; ....!4.:57,!„:!,),.1
„'''' 1''''6*,. , e''': .„.1;...,- ;'-'s''.'' ''',- - ' . „... -'? ' -Atkili i,";;I',,''."?',Pr.,;1-P°01,'',k4N•Ojii,','".4'il ,,i10e44:,+-:',::-..il!.: itt
7
i'''•• .'t.'--"'"•:.‘ 1::'..- ' .. " ' • ,,,t• ','.4,• ',/,''' -- ''..:','S.%rilr.'," '.''."2„,'",x:i,-,:'q• I',/i-',',",)411. ,V1 ''i'::. .;'i:C.:4;14';'''',
','`•'"•°•‘• ,•-, ',':„;,',..„„,'' -:'.-.,.'"',7-,:-"..5;','' " '''''''-:.: , ., .- ' ":
141W7;10.41, , -:,.„,.'"„, .'i„,14';'"'"f'i•,p!,i '•.,l'!', !.,:';'!0.0,,'„,Zi!..,?.'
iit+j,,:,;0,..';',,, .):',,i;,'i.i.4,,,?:::,!,
4.I
• - I ' .•'.‘.:1;2;':,.:,-,. ''::!'„1,‘;,.„.;-,f'it'S ' ' ':'.''',:',',:i''''-„'''''''' '::' ''''::' '''''': :'''''''' ''' . 14::; ,,,:;iir.i4,:.'''''''''-' :ili7R, 'it, i.",f?'.4f:•t4::,14.2feiti'...",
1 ?
1. ,,--i,.'„,..l''',„'•::: ,„ '''-:%„'„f,'%;„ ' °''. , „,L :.., '.'-,'":';'''' .--.' '.''..;,.-.:,','-'.. ...'-,i4,*.A:A., :::„:•:0',‘"10.'4i'i'ild-ii !,'.:'2,' ''':.,;:f'il'''.''"."'
' ' - ' ''''-'-' '• ' ' ''4 „ ' '‘-- -'-'-' .•.•,,,,Aletr.i; ''• - ;•-•'1---,',i',,,'.,,,,As,,,y.1,-,..Y:,:•• • k• '.ik,,'•!,:-.-');:!,:; :.f•:,,.
,_ - ,.,„72;,,,°-:-:,,, • :. ',:„ , ...,::. - - -•- ; .' ' •-•:,\ :.- , •-•'-• •,,,r,','"-•''il,„'-ilIol-ii i7:::::', --4,.'77.;:P:1
„•_:•,-1-44,, ,,,34,,,,.:„! ,„?,:-4-;54,,,-„,„,,„,•1,1‘ .,..,,.,:,;.,,, , -.,..,::::,,,.;,F.4:,
,.-, p.osi, . :,?'''!';?'''' ' :,`'.:''''::;- ,,,:' ' ' "1,_::,/ '' ' 1'•-,', ''.;1:&,::'''',YiT''t'''''''.1:'':Ti'e.:12ZIF,I,TO,,,-- ';i'...1 IP-41'4 4,!;-:','
, i:‘,,,' : :-.':;::7;''s..:t;;'‘,,,,,,,::::, , _,,,,-;:!, . . ,,;,)',,,,,,, ,'''''';'4,i''',,';,:,:„ ::,-:: ''!'''.' ,1:.7:4;!4,;j':. ',:•-,1„.^4t:6::1':?:;:51*014' 11,':,':',„4:i,'• :4"1:1:'-'•,,:A!*;,:,;•;:,;:!0::::'•I'l
, ,',,-: ',,,,<,,,,,„;.,,,,':'' •:'','',:„: •, ,,„ :;,,,,,..4„:":4:./7:2 '.,::' ,,,,,-,i,,:t,A?:',-,f,;;'!",:-:,,::-,;,.:zi.:44i —f',,,''';,':;:',,.0.4.'',=''';':::,y' .-:ic..i.,'!:,,i4i.,'''4,'',- 1,.'1.,,...,,',:•,:;.,',.:;
• ., , .,,,,, „ . . . , . , ,. , ,,,,„ ,-.- 1,..„=„,-...,hcipc...vx: 4,,,t f?1/ ,44 .•- : r,•.: ••4
,-.,„:0,-, „„,:: • .,•.,,,,,!,, i , -,„ , • ' . '.',.-4:::'-,0?•s-,:,'•-•-',-,:-."•;. :;14'.,''1-' %*'"iir
It
,..-,, '"':''4,Yrniltl,';.--il '.'j':'.',,':41".1:,'.]1*;'.•' •,,"1 '':';",
1 wR , -' ''":":;:':+•::::, :' ' ''. " - ::';:', . ,' ,::„;;„,"11:':"^"::4%5.';'-;', iiT';."'4,-;, ';.„6"i„,•''.';:--' ,, .'''':' ..,:
. , ,,,-, ,,,,;; , „ .,<:4714i,'ireqi, ", ,„
f:••42.-,:,.'-' - 1-
- -,--1,:''',,i,„ ,,;,-,;,,:1,,r,,•,,,'_i:i•-,::.y-i,,.:„ :,,,.;,,.„.„,,tlfz ,:i4-wi '•,:„•••• ,:1„•„;',.-5.r,-, .. ''_.4:
---z1.--.,,, ,-- !0-4- ,-, --:;:::;,"': !-",-.-..., ..:7...):'..:;:-ZL''2{', :- '.' .1:: ' ..1.„!:, ,,],.4 .;.;.•-.I.:%1
.-:.;:, -,,-.... ',:',.. -.';'''''.'"^:4,;,:, 7- ,''''''': OM',C. ::;;.' 4''''' '''::':'''.."I71''!;.!'°:l
A ,,". " ;,,,,,`;,'';' , , , ,*Fr:r.V1''''.',„ ''.A1 ', C''',7,'4.-.ir;,•,4,i1,•.rtl:„:•, :„.;,•°. ,,-
--..' '.'`—‘-'''•-- ---- '.-:;'-,- ''- 'i ' •5'50N :::, .,,,AA " :'': . $'''''Pi ,' ,;';': ,t aitgU,:,..;:': x .•,,,,,,I , ;it :7
:__ ' .„,,,,,,•, , ,,;:i,,,„, 4'--- - , , " : ;;,-'l''''''' .„' ' V.'-3,7,,',.•::,.. '-'-'' 444,;','!'‘OV:I.!:•:,0•;00416':' i','
, ,--4.--,4.....4i- ,x,'''• -i'li';.',,,:i',. , , ,„ --„,-," ""(',,,),,IV,, ,,,:• f",' " ,,, ',,,c,",''1:044,7'''''i
„ „,,..," ,,,,',-, ,..-2.,..:,..--'-','-,S<',*,i'',..:AA'''',' ''', •'9",• '',''>„,,.. ''..',^.-1`X.4,:*;;.";""i• iii#4,:**,:',"?;-"•'‘: *,4,4,,,, 11.:*,. +-,:i'*,,, '''.:'-5,1;';'4,1*'-',.V::*2
,i447 . A,:-.;,,...,-,-4,1,4*-1:,41,',!A,-; - :›,,
' 4''''''''4''•"lett ;:,,'>,.,,,,-..„,,,,
z\
‘)' r ''•;;=''''-;.,:,,' ' '-',;e'' ',f''',,',•,:'?'...';,'"i,''''' ''''' :::, ''' ;:41'''' ' ;1':•'.1•4:3! ' ,i(r11°PA::',W'''"1`.P44 ,-;t„V'' " -`•;',",',.. ,•..;,:, ',44;,,,L,..;'Alii
, ',', ' •'' x;),', - -''' .•' .:,, '''','",;':,,„ "„,,o '• ' ,',0,"' ... ..t,,,,-,.„4 i*,,,,,,, °;4 .-,iffi.,4,..,,,,,,,zia001,411
, ''' '''''"'' ' '111-5' - 1", ::"*',-''''' , ': • 1,,,,v ':, - ' 1'4?;': !"''.,‘, „„,,,,,,,''' W,t'l,,; -;.-,,A04;$,,,
.,0*-°' ..0,-,.,,,,;,,•%„1,',,.,', ',4,.' (,,,i-,,,,t,',4,44-:.•,.4ye,;;,';',4".> ; ,.,.,:•..,-: .
A;,.',.. :, :,:i214 ',. '4,14,''' '''''(''''''Vt:11'''''''7)'':';
..,.:,..,,,',.,.---,:;.--E,;4::;r`;•. ;Fbif,-,'. ' '.,, .„,:,;,;:! '";;;;',4-`,/,,,,47:1;-',;044.10,1,'' ,..-y' t, t'''
-----,,,-,,,•, --' .,-'' ,„,,..-,,,;'-..:...'. i,,-;;,,,,e•‘,'„ ' '.*3 74.%(:1'"1" '1(‘'f'.4"‘4''''''''.*:I r,
,,,.,';';"-', ":'-" . -,;•-, ,177,;'"'=', '- •, "-;;,-"- --,"•'.'''.ii:•:Vi irr:li'.i.4‘-‘''',,,1!: ..:;',1* ,,'r,,'4.-i' ' ' .,#'"" t k• ::, 4/".. 3
,,.„,,, ,i,i,''':;.:i.ef':, ,';‘,0 ''',. ''!:,,,o'„4 .c. ,'••-••*„'•'-•I; .
;iii,•,';- -i'.-', - ';',:-,,,;„:•;,,c;;;`,`„;._; -- •.!-_--c-7---,x0t-:•;. •-.2.1.'.:1-.:':4:::,,;t4;',11,' ' '. isio,kli'"A'Aii'41P,:- 4':::•f,-4,4`li4.E• '..,
,:„tp.::.-,!:.''V ''''.',1; . ,,.. V:: '.'-' '''''''
t4:,, '
. ,.' /::",:•'''"'44 '''' '''''.0''':..'E:1'4.•::;;I:4:AtiAg.**arr, ,,, lef-.1"101‘;';'''4'.i.i.- ',Jitik ''''''..:?''fr.' LI,4„.
' 1
,, ,,;',:k:'',.'''T, /,,,•')Ut .;:",:.,:.':.:'.%i..: 4;1.;;,'-'','':'?,%,,,',..:":42`;'•;''':i's;„‘,'""'titift''. ''''7' ; *-:l'.',$i, Cs*
•_ '
" '• ' "'-1:.;'''4''''•.''' •-• ' ''',-,"-':7::.,'' ' i''-';:;''":',:';',5.' "Ti;:'7,7:44.714...4!".-: ''''f.,i-VAti.';'."'7,14'4A4T"j!: 1-34ifii:.!?!.!iiIi' '2'
a)
'Xi''',':•;;.:",-;-"'"'..2,-4;:t‘.''',.".:::''': : ,";""''-';'- : ''--:44''' ."'''''''''',A44i.5**11;;Z4V'''',2t-iri14-4.;liVtl' -,i l'' *74,Itt:':: :‘,$4.'ii cc
, :,:-.. •::-,,"-..°"..-.1:'1':::''''"„„..•,•;,';.:.!ir:'''''''''.,'''' ''''''": ''',' 4;,-;',,,::',„ •:',:41,41t: '.1.,';',;'," 0:.,.,„•'.:,.;,,,,,,* .„/;;;Iet,,til•!''A ,. :Aim ,)!,:4'.4:4'..
a
,
:i,„,",:,,,,,,,,,,L ,„
,..,,,,,,:-.:;„,,,, -:-..,,,:..:,,:,,, ,,,, .• ',,,,,,,, ,,,. ,,,; ,---- , :,,,,,,,,,,,,,4.,,,,, ,. .08::,..,,,,,,,,,... ,-
4,
,) i)
, ...,:, . ._
. ,.. ,
P.
-
---
'; _.,
\ 4
\
t ose will have vies of the water quality tract with ponds and proposed low vegetation There are limited
opportunities for landscaping in front of the buildings where a 10-foot setback is proposed between the
si ewalk and building front. For the most part, however,the only landscaping will be at May Creek and
e stormwater tract. At the latter, proposed shrubs.and dwarf ornamental trees will provide limited
v sual relief.
i,
C 1 ntinuation of Industrial Use
e visual impacts of this alternative would be moderate to high, depending on the infill density and new
b}ilding heights. Assuming maximum allowable height and a higher density of buildings that extend
s.uth to the mouth of May Creek, the visual impacts could be similar to those for residential
d,velopment, except that the visual character would remain industrial. The simulations approximate a
11y built-out condition. New buildings would probably be similar to the existing metal-siding industrial `` _'
' I wi ehouses and therefore have a neutral to negative visual impact. If infill construction were limited to
--
t e northern end of the site where operations are now,the visual impact would be less than the residential '
p coposal since the new structures would appear to be part of the existing building mass. Vividness, '-
i actness, and unity all would remain low, contributing to an overall low visual quality. More
1. dscaping is required if new buildings are approved, therefore tree screens and restoration landscaping
c oluld be mitigate some of the negative visual impacts although landscaping of the public land along the
s oreline probably would not occur.
F u r both alternatives, shading and shadow impacts on nearby areas might be slightly greater than existing
c oinditions because of the density and possible heights of the buildings. The impacts outside the property
ould not be significant, however, due to the distance of the nearest residential neighbor. Proposed
b ildings would be set back from the shorelines of Lake Washington and May Creek, so new shadowed
c oinditions at these locations probably would not be created.
3 7.3 Mitigation
Fur the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic
i pacts could be reduced by a number of strategies ranging from changing building height and bulk to I
s s1ecific building design features that that provide visual unity and interest to screening and softening.
C anging building bulk could take several forms. The most obvious would be to reduce building height.
' T i e proposed 50 foot height within SMA jurisdiction results in buildings that are about 60 percent as high \
a.'they are wide as seen from the street. Buildings outside SMA jurisdiction are proposed to be up to 70
f-et high, or almost as high as wide. Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce ,
b ildings more in keeping with typical low-rise residential development in the vicinity. It may be
o served that duplex structures likely would not achieve the full building bulk presumed, since a 50 foot
h gh four story building on a 40 by 100 foot building site would have a floor area of about 16,000 square ,
f et. A second means of reducing the appearance of building bulk would be to increase setbacks between I
b ildings,either separately or in conjunction with reducing building height. This would produce less of a _
c you effect on streets within the development and present less appearance of a solid mass of buildings
om outside the development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary building ,
height,bulk, and setbacks. This could include a transition in height with the lowest buildings and greatest
setbacks near the shoreline, providing opportunities for buildings further inland to enjoy view corridors
over and between buildings and presenting less of an apparent wall of buildings when viewed from the
water or from residential shoreline residences to the south. Another option would be to step building
heights from east to west across the site, or maintain lower building heights at the site perimeter with
h. her buildings in the center.
Cary of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Daft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-117 September 2003
,
The use of common design features, materials and color, as well as landscape design, could provide a
number of features which reduce apparent bulk of buildings including sloping roofs, roof detail such as
gables and eve overhangs and building offsets that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive
wall surfaces. Window detailing can add considerable visual interest and provide both visual unity and
variety, depending on the use of common elements and the variety of size,position,or design provided.
Screening of the buildings on the site would require very large vegetation that would not be expected to
mature for a number of years. Mature vegetation can provide a crown area that is higher than building
roofs, or screen a substantial portion of building walls. The current design, however, does not provide
sufficient area in front, side or rear yard setbacks to support large trees. The design of landscaping for
open space areas could also provide for large species that would provide crown area that could provide
visual relief, as opposed to the dwarf ornamental trees proposed. The major public views of the project
could be softened by landscaping only if substantial landscape areas were provided between town homes
east of May Creek and the BNSF railroad right-of way. Such additional landscape area could result in
reduction in the number of units in that area.
Mitigation under industrial use of the site would probably be less effective because existing structures
would remain. Painting existing structures a color that would blend with the surroundings better than
white and aqua could reduce negative visual impacts. New structures that are taller than the existing
buildings should be designed to be either as unobtrusive or as interesting as possible. A formalized entry
into the site would improve the visual character of site as seen from the roadway.
?_r 3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE
h r 3.8.1 Affected Environment
Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have
some shielding, but probably date to the 1960s; many need repair. There are no glare sources on site
i because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass.
3.8.2 Impacts
) Potential light and glare impacts for both alternatives would be minimized by incorporating preventive
measures in the project design;therefore, low-level impacts would be anticipated. The impact from glare
could be mitigated by careful design and placement of the buildings, especially with respect to windows.
Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street
and/or sidewalk lights, building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater
number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in
an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of
r Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to prevent
.I spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall
brightness at night and would reduce glare. Under Alternative 2 (Continuation of Industrial Use), the
dominant light sources would be building-mounted and pole-mounted security lights. The density of such
1---
1 lights could increase,but the overall impact would be moderate if modern lamps with shielding and low-
intensity filaments were designed into the project.
` l The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an
uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level
of ambient light. Impacts from the four other views would be lower since there are already streetlights in
the neighborhoods,and the site is partially screened by tall trees.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
){ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-118 September 2003
I,
H'adlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade
b tween the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the
ro dway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south,
h;adlights generally will point into the bank, which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family
re.idences.
3.:.3 Mitigation v
F t'r both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light
from distance residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast,
s c elded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding
gll e from glass surfaces that might temporarily blind motorists or cyclists. ,---
h
T 1 is project is not expected to generate indirect or cumulative impacts that would be significant after
m tigation.
i
3. NOISE
3.4.1 Affected Environment
3. '.1.1 Background on Noise Definition and Measurement
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound(EPA 1971).
T 1 e human ear responds to a very wide range of sound intensities. The decibel scale (dB) used to
d;scribe sound is a logarithmic rating system, which accounts for the large differences in audible sound I,
in ensities. This scale accounts for the human perception of a doubling of loudness as an increase of
1 II dB; therefore, a 70-dB sound level will sound about twice as loud as a 60-dB sound level. People
g;nerally cannot detect differences of 1 dB; in ideal laboratory situations, differences of 2 to 3 dB can be
d oti ected by people, but such a change probably would not be detectable in an average outdoor
{ e vironment. A 5-dB change would probably be perceived under normal listening conditions. Sound
le els associated with a range of common noise sources are shown in Table 3.9-1.
I I I
1
Pen addressing the effects of noise on people, it is useful to consider the frequency response of the
h man ear. Instruments are, therefore, designed to respond to or ignore certain frequencies. The
fr quency-weighting most often used is A-weighting; it approximates the frequency response of human
ih raring and is highly correlated to the effects of noise on people. Measurements from instruments using
s system are reported in A-weighted decibels or dBA. All sound levels in this evaluation are reported
i iA-weighted decibels.
D'stance from the source; the frequency of the sound; and the absorbency of the intervening ground,
o �structions, and duration of the noise-producing event all affect the transmission and perception of i
n 'ise. The degree of these effects also depends on who is listening and on existing sound levels. The
✓ i iability in the way individuals react to noise makes it impossible to accurately predict how any one
individual will respond to a given noise; however, when the community is considered as a whole, trends
emerge that relate noise to annoyance. Two main types of health effects may potentially occur from �- `'
excessive noise: auditory and non-auditory. Auditory impacts are caused by high noise levels that can
—
potentially damage hearing and produce either partial or total deafness. Non-auditory health impacts ! j
include sleep disturbance and speech interference and may also involve human physiological (other than
hearing damage)or behavioral effects.
1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-119 September 2003 j
I
Ir II
- 3.9.1.2 Regulatory Overview
Washington State and City of Renton Noise Standards
The City of Renton has adopted the state of Washington's noise regulation in WAC 173-60-040.
Maximum permissible environmental noise levels are set based on the Environmental Designation for
Noise Abatement(EDNA)land use categories in both the noise source and receiving property.
There are several important variations and exemptions in the noise regulations,including the following:
1. Day/night noise levels are set a standard 10 decibels lower between the hours of 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.
2. An exception is provided for short duration noise levels exceeding the standard, which
provides for exceeding the standards above by one of the following amounts for the following
'i periods:
a. 5 dBA for 15 minutes in any 1-hour period
b. 10 dBA for 5 minutes in any 1-hour period
L c. 15 dBA for 1.5 minutes in any 1-hour period
3. The following exemptions from noise regulations are relevant to this project and the
surrounding context:
a. Sounds from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt
at all times when received by Class B and C receptors (commercial and industrial) and are
exempt when received by Class A receptors (residential) during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10
p.m.).
b. Sounds created by motor vehicles are exempt when regulated by chapter 173-62 WAC.
c. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight are exempt.
d. Sounds from railroad operation are exempt.
e. A variety of emergency and warning devices are exempt.
f. Bells,chimes, and carillons are exempt.
The regulations apply differently according to the use of the site. For industrial use, the maximum noise
level for the residential area across Lake Washington Boulevard from the Barbee Mill site is 60 dBA,
based on a Class C source and a Class A receiving property. For residential use of the site under the
proposed residential use, the maximum noise level is 55 dBA, based on a Class A. source and a Class A
receiving property.
Noise levels for individual motor vehicles are regulated by performance standards in WAC 173-62, also
adopted by the City of Renton. These rules set limits on the noise generated by various classes of motor
vehicles. These standards are based on noise levels at specific distances (e.g., 50 feet) from vehicles
-.� moving at particular speeds (e.g., 45 miles/hour). These limits range from approximately 72 dBA to
approximately 90 dBA,depending on the class and speed of the vehicle.
1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-120 September 2003
7
}
Table 3.9-1. Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources
Thresholds/ Sound Level Subjective Possible Effects on
Noise Sources (dBA) Evaluations Humans(a)
luman Threshold of Pain Continuous exposure to
(,arrier jet takeoff at 50 feet 140 levels above 70 can
iren at 100 feet cause hearing loss in ,
130 majority of population
bud rock band
et takeoff at 200 feet 120 Deafening
'Iuto horn at 3 feet
�
i,hain saw
oisy snowmobile
locomotive Horn 110
pact pile driver ,,,
' !awn mower at 3 feet 100
oisy motorcycle at 50 feet Very
Loud
,eavy truck at 50 feet 90 '
'pneumatic drill at 50 feet 80
usy urban street, daytime ———_ ^ _ Loud
—
ormal automobile at 50 mph 70
acuum cleaner at 3 feet
_........_..._........._. ..................._....... ... - .............._........._..._.
Speech Interference
it conditioning unit at 20 feet
60
(l onversation at 3 feet
Moderate
0 uiet residential area 50
1,ight auto traffic at 100 feet
Library Sleep Interference
e uiet home 40 --
Faint
•oft whisper at 15 feet 30
.light rustling of leaves 20
roadcasting Studio 10 Very Faint -
hreshold of Human Hearing 0
Both the subjective evaluations and the physiological responses are continuums without true threshold boundaries. Consequently,overlaps exist
among categories of response,depending on the sensitivity of the noise receivers.
(a)Source EPA 1974 +-
e maximum noise levels are indicated in Table 3.9-2.
Table 3.9.2. Noise Levels
I
EDNA of Noise Source EDNA of Receiving Property
Class A Class B Class C
CLASS A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA
CLASS B 57 60 65
CLASS C 60 65 70
Source: WAC 173-60-040
1
I
1
Cry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D;aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-121 September 2003
i
1
Noise levels from railroad operations are governed by federal law (the Swift Rail Development Act,
1--- enacted November 1994) that requires that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) adopt rules to
k J regulate railroad crossings. The FRA rules require locomotive horns be sounded upon approaching every
"unsealed" public grade crossing. An unsealed public grade crossing is defined as a crossing without
grade separation, quad gating; or crossing guard with median barrier. The rules also require each lead
j locomotive to have an audible warning device that produces a sound level of at least 96 dBA at least 100
feet ahead of the locomotive. The minimum noise level of 96 dBA(with averages between 100 and 110)
ry- ensures that it can be clearly heard and recognized over ambient background noise in a variety of
j environments, such as inside an enclosed automobile or truck cab and by railroad employees. In addition,
J all major railroads have operating rules that require their engineers to blow train horns at rail grade
—I crossings as a warning to motorists and pedestrians(FRA 1999).
3.9.1.3 Existing Noise Levels
I Existing sources of noise near the site include the following:
( • Noise produced by operating the Barbee Mill Sawmill. This mill site is presently a relatively
small noise generator. The main sawmill is operated intermittently to saw the small amount of
1- unprocessed logs currently on hand. Machinery in the main sawmill building and the planning
1 i building is completely enclosed, which reduces noise levels. The sawmill and planer buildings
are about 800 feet from the closest residences east of Lake Washington Boulevard, which
—, attenuates noise levels. There is also a finishing operation for windows and doors located in a
building near the northeast corner of the site about 250 feet from the nearest residences.
• Noise from operation of the Quendall Terminals, located to the north of the Barbee Mill site is
largely from loaders used to store and sort logs. The major source of noise is the operation of
_ heavy diesel machinery, which generates noise levels from 90 to 100 dBA. The Quandall
Terminals is approximately 500 feet from residences on the east side of Lake Washington
i
Boulevard and an equal distance from residences to the north on Ripley Lane.
ii
L— • Noise from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals is
caused by heavy machinery and noise from maintenance of boats. Residences abut that property
7 to the north.
• Noise from arterials in the area is largely related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington
— Boulevard,which currently carries about 400 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Noise levels for
i , residents close to Lake Washington Boulevard are typically 54 to 64 dBA, as indicated in Table
3.9-3.
U__i Table 3.9-3. Noise Measurement Results
Location Noise Measurement
Map Code Street Address Leg Lmax Date Time
1 44016 Lake Washington Boulevard N 55 64 05.11.2000 1:45 pm
55 79 05.22.2003 11:20 am
- 1 2 Eastport Shores Apartments, 59 68 05.11.2000 12:20 pm
4100 Lake Washington Boulevard N
3 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard N 54 62 05.11.2000 3:30 pm
I,,__ 4 3940 Meadow Avenue N. 68 71 05.11.2000 2:15 pm
,— Source: WSDOT 2001
i
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
1� Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-122 September 2003
1
• Noise from the I-405 freeway about one quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady
background daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from
especially noisy trucks. Average noise levels at residents adjacent to I-405 typically range from
68 to 71 dBA, as indicated in Table 3.9-2. I
• Noise from train operation includes engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive •horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA
at a distance of 50 feet from the source (Dane 1998). Locomotive horns are sounded at rail
crossings of public streets and at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle
or pedestrians near the tracks. Horns would not be sounded at the existing private driveway
entrances to the Barbee Mill site or the Quendall Terminals site, unless vehicles or pedestrians
were observed in the vicinity. Four trains a day typically use the BNSF rail line to the east of the
Barbee Mill site (Cowels 2003 personal communication). Locomotive horns typically have a
sound level of about 115 dBA. Measures of existing trains indicate average sound levels of about _
110 dBA at crossings, 107 dBA 1/8 mile away from crossings, and 101 dBA 1/4 mile from
crossings. Sounding practices of railway engineers typically result in whistle durations from 20
to 40 seconds(FRA 1999).
S;nsitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools, nursing homes,
h.lspitals,or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site.
N.!ise levels in the vicinity have been surveyed recently for studies related to I-405 improvements and for
th s project. Noise measurements are indicated in the table below. Traffic noise was the dominant noise
1s. rce at all locations monitored.
?e primary source of noise for receptors 1 and 2 is Lake Washington Boulevard. Receptor 3 receives
n ise from both Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405 because of its elevation and direct line-of-sight I
e posure to both roadways. Receptor 4 is located north of the existing noise wall on I-405 and that
fr'eway is the primary noise source.
3 9.2 Impacts
3 9.2.1 Construction Impacts
D ring construction of any of the alternatives, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels along
IF proposed new alignments and existing access areas due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling
o construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the type of equipment being
tried, and the amount of time it is in use. Table 3.9-4 displays ranges of noise produced by typical -
coinstruction equipment.
addition to the noise levels associated with these typical types of construction equipment, construction ,\
o this site may require driven or drilled pilings for deep foundations due to the loose delta deposits in the
. ea. The depth of foundations would depend on the depth to cohesive geologic deposits that could
s pport foundations without risk of settlement or failure. Generally, the depth to consolidated deposits is
g eatest in the westerly portions of the site.
I
P le driving is potentially the greatest source of noise and vibration generated from construction activities.
I ere are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce a high
l-vel of vibration for short periods(0.2 second)with sufficient time between impacts to allow a building's , -
r-sonant effects to decay before the next vibration event. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this type
of source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver,which can operate at different frequencies,vibrates the pile
into the ground.
Cjl of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
gal?-Environmental Impact Statement 3-123 September 2003
_' As shown in Table 3.9-4, sound levels 50 feet from construction equipment exceed the levels
recommended for residential land uses. The residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly
site boundary and are separated by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the
site west of May Creek is a minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. Construction noise is exempt
between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. from the maximum permissible sound levels specified in the noise codes of
Washington State(WAC 173-60)for residential receiving properties. Construction noise impacts to most
existing residences are likely to be moderate because of distance attenuation. The likely exception is
access roadway and bridge construction impacts on existing dwellings along Lake Washington
Boulevard. The greatest noise impacts are likely from pile driving. The greatest impacts would be
experienced by occupants of the initial dwellings constructed on the site from foundation pile driving over
V- the build-out period.
Table 3.9-4. Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA)
-, Estimated Leq Range of Noise Levels
": i Construction Types of
Activity 50 feet 350 feet Equipment 50 feet 350 feet
Clearing •
83 66•
Bulldozer ! 77-96 60-79
j Dump Truck 82-94 65-77
`--` Scraper 80-
...._...... ........._.._..— ._.._....._._.. . ......... ......_....._..
; 93 63-76
Grading 75-88 58-71 —._......_....._..._................_..
Bulldozer 77-96 60-79
Paving 72-88 55-71 '- ave __..._..._...........f_
Paver 86-88 i 69-71
— -- - —_
Dump Truck 82-94 ....._.....__._...i._............... ........._65-77._...
Building Construction 85-90
Impact Pile Driving 90-105
Vibratory Pile Driving 1 85-95
i
Source:EPA 1971
FTA,Noise and Vibration Technical Report,1995
-- ' 3.9.2.2 Rail Noise Impacts
Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a distance of
50 feet from the source. This would impact the residents on the east side of May Creek,next to the BNSF
tracks. Locomotive horns sounded at the rail crossings of the proposed public streets will result in noise
levels of 110 dBA at crossings, 107 dBA 1/8 mile from crossings, and 101 dBA 1/4 mile from crossings.
The creation of public road crossings would make horn sounding mandatory and would, therefore,
increase the frequency, as compared to current discretionary sounding. At the current frequency of four
trains per day, the impacts to most residences on and off the project site would likely be slight, especially
because most existing trips are during the day or in the early evening for the Dinner Train. If train
frequency became more frequent in the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant
__ annoyance along the entire rail line on the east side of Lake Washington, which is generally a residential
{ area from the south end of the lake to where the railway crosses I-405 in Bellevue. The BNSF has no
plans to increase rail service on this line in the next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service, however, does not
require approval of local jurisdictions under federal law governing railroads.
.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-124 September 2003
'I
I ;
3.'.2.3 Transportation Noise Impacts
N'ise impacts from increases in traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard related to regional growth and
trios from the project are within the range of traffic volumes and noise impacts previously studied for the
I-4 05 interchange at 44th Street. Future projected noise levels in Table 3.9-5, below, indicate that
ins reases in noise would range from 1 to 5 dBA. A change of 3 dBA is generally is the threshold at
w ich a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons.
Noise levels from traffic on Lake Washington are still well below the levels of 67 dBA for residences that
the Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a noise impacts (FWHA 23 CFR 772).
e increase in noise at 3940 Meadow Avenue N is related primarily to I-405 traffic. The level of impact
of traffic from this project on I-405 would not produce a detectable noise impact.
3. .3 Mitigation
3.!.3.1 Construction Impact Mitigation
S :to and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
Construction noise, however, can negatively affect people living nearby. The noisiest activities, such as
pi le driving,could be restricted to start later and end earlier.
A variety of relatively simple and inexpensive practices could reduce the extent to which people are
a`ected. For example, construction noise could be reduced with enforcement standards requiring
m fliers on equipment: Practices such as turning off equipment when idle could also reduce noise. ---
S tionary equipment could be placed as far away from residential receptors as possible. Portable noise
b.: 'ers could be placed around equipment, with any openings directed away from the residential
re eiving property. These measures would generally provide an approximate 10-dBA reduction in sound
d would be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment
th:t would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels. Substituting
h draulic or electric models for pneumatic impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills, and pavement
b -akers would also reduce construction noise.
ij
{ 'i e effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible
depth(depth may be limited on this site the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would result
in I less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place concrete
c. be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is installed
u- ng an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal, thus eliminating
th= need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and the need for
la feral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction.
3 9.3.2 Rail Noise Impacts
T e FRA proposed regulations to allow designation of a "quiet zone" that would make sounding of
locomotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than mandatory. The regulations have not
y-'t been adopted; however, they provide some indication of the likely range of measures that might be
t.i en if locomotive horn noise became a problem because of increased use of the rail line.
C y of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-125 September 2003
'+ r
Table 3.9-5. Noise Modeling Results
Modeled Peak Hour Leg(dBA)
ii
Location 2000 Existing 2025
1 44016 Lake Washington Boulevard N 55 58
2 Eastport Shores Apartments,4100 Lake Washington 62 63
Boulevard N
3 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard N 54 59
4 3940 Meadow Ave. N. 68 71
Source: WSDOT 2001
The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application by a local
community if at-grade rail crossings are improved to decrease the likelihood of automobile or pedestrian
conflicts at rail crossings. To accomplish this, rail crossings would have to be improved to meet a
"sealed" status to "fully compensate for the absence of the audible warning provided by the locomotive
horn." This would require that all approaches be controlled by four-quadrant gates, median-divided
barriers incorporating gate arms long enough to block all lanes and prevent driving around the gates.
_ Gates would also have to block the sidewalks. FRA estimates the cost of a quad-gate installation to range
from $200,000 to $1 million, depending on whether it is associated with traffic signals and based on the
number of lanes of roadway and the number of rails(FRA 1999).
3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Unavoidable adverse noise impacts include the residual noise from construction,trains, and use of the site
,r that cannot be reduced to acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described below. The most
substantial unavoidable adverse impacts would occur from impact-driven pilings for foundations, if less
noisy alternatives should prove infeasible because of the character of geologic deposits.
3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section considers potential historical and cultural resources at the Barbee Mill site, discusses
probable impacts on these resources, and suggests mitigation measures. A brief history of the Barbee
Mill site and an inventory of existing buildings and structures are provided. The analysis presented here
,-, draws upon previously recorded investigations, in particular the following documents: Archaeological
and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment (LAAS 2001), Cultural Resource Assessment JAG
Development, King County, Washington (LAAS 1997), and Historical Resources Discipline Reports
(BRA 2000). These reports (completed for other development proposals) were in-depth and
comprehensive investigations into the significance of possible cultural and historic resources at the
`' Barbee Mill site. The Renton Historical Society and Museum was contacted, resulting in a telephone
interview with Mr. Stan Greene,a researcher for the Society.
ly°
3.10.1 Affected Environment
3.10.1.1 Applicable Regulatory Compliance
Prehistoric and Native American resources are protected by federal and state laws, regulations, and
guidelines. Washington State laws addressing cultural resources are the Archaeological Sites and
Resources Act(RCW 27.53)and the Indian Graves and Records Act(RCW 27.44). Under these acts,the
agency is responsible for making a reasonable and good faith effort to identify Indian Tribes that attach
significance to this site. To comply with this act, Parametrix contacted the State Historical Preservation
•i__
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-126 September 2003
O ifce (SHPO) by letter, on behalf of the city of Renton, to solicit existing information on historic and
cultural resources on site. Similar letters were sent to Tribes that may have an interest in the site to solicit
th-1ir input. The SHPO (Dr. Robert G. Whitlam) responded with a voicemail message acknowledging
re leipt of the letter. Letters describing the proposed action were sent to the Duwamish, Kikiallus,
M ckleshoot, Snoqualmie, Suquamish, and Tulalip Tribes.
3. 0.1.2 Historical Background of Barbee Mill Tract
le Barbee Mill property was once part of a larger(160-acre)parcel purchased around 1875 and owned
b I J.Madison Colman. In 1903,the Northern Pacific Railroad Company acquired a right-of-way through
thr property along the eastern edge and built the railway in 1905. Barbee Marine Yards, Inc., a ship and
b. ge building company, purchased the southern third of the Colman property in 1943. The Barbee Mill
C mpany, Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property, retaining the
sa mill operation but abandoning the ship building business. At that time,there were numerous sawmills
o s rating on Lake Washington, but the number had dropped to thirteen by 1950. Today the Barbee Mill
is he only active sawmill remaining.
A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except the Barbee water tower and the wooden mill
warehouse. The mill was completely rebuilt in 1959 and incorporated these two existing structures. The -
water tower, built in the 1930s, was purchased in 1943 and was barged from the Seattle-Renton Mill
Company in Bryn Mawr by Barbee Marine Yards. The mill warehouse, also known as "the black
b gilding," was constructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the
years, including replacing windows and the sliding door.
H storic Resources
a ,
T e HRA report,Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange(2000),
w s undertaken to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,which contains the
cr teria for determining if properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A
p perty may be eligible for listing if it is at least 50 years old and qualifies for at least one of the
f•I lowing:
• It is associated with events that made a significant contribution to the area's history.
• It is associated with a significant person.
• It embodies distinctive characteristics of the period's style or method of construction, represents
the work of a master, is of high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entry
whose components may lack individual distinction.
• It may yield information important in prehistory or history(36 CFR 60.4).
B ildings or structures that are less than 50 years old can qualify for the National Register but only if they
. e integral parts of districts that meet the criteria for Register eligibility or are of exceptional historical
i portance(HRA 2000,p. 16).
T e report covered the three properties on the May Creek delta: Barbee Mill, J.H. Baxter Company, and
t e Quendall Terminals. Historic property inventories were completed for the Barbee Mill Warehouse
a d the Water Tower, neither of which was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
P aces. The mill warehouse and the water tower are associated with the sawmill industry on Lake
ashington,which was important to both the local and Puget Sound economies. This meets the criterion
f'r being associated with events that made a significant contribution to the area's history; however, the
s 'rvey indicated that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of the Barbee Sawmill or,
C;ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-127 September 2003
j
,_,'' of the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that they lack "integrity of
setting or feeling associated with the site" (HRA 2000, p. 1) as individual components because the
��~; original site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. The buildings that now comprise the sawmill
_) operation are of a distinctly different character from the wood warehouse and are less than 50 years old.
Since the Barbee Mill does not qualify as an historic district, nor is it of exceptional importance, it was
r- determined that the mill warehouse and water tower were not eligible for listing in the National Register.
The SHPO concurred with the finding.
A site inventory was conducted in February 2003. For completeness, the structures are briefly described
l in Table 3.10-1, below. The list is generally from north to south Locations of structures are indicated in
i Figure 3.10-1. Dimensions are approximate, as scaled from the CADD survey drawings.
az Table 3.10-1. Structures on Barbee Mill Site
Map# Resource Name Year built Description
�_; 1 Warehouse 1970s One-story metal;partial lease for storage 80 x 160 feet
2 Warehouse 1970s One-story metal empty 80 x 140 feet
l 3 Mill Warehouse 1945 One-and two-story,wood-frame 120 x 80 feet
1 "The black building"
4 Boise Building One-story, metal,"Cut line"shop where timber trusses were
-, made 140 x 95 feet
1 I, 5 Green Shed One-and two-story, metal,storage of wood from Shop(#4)310
x40feet
6 Wharfing pier Early 1940s Wooden dock for loading/unloading barge.
7 Sawmill Complex One-to three-story buildings, metal,for unloading, barking,and
1 (Note:buildings are on slicing logs. Includes shop on first floor, production equipment
DNR-managed area on second floor,and storage for blades and saws on third floor.
j--, outside`inner harbor'line) Total=260 x 60 feet
8 Waste Wood Complex Assemblage of conveyor belts,ducts,chipper,associated
machinery and support structures. Includes a small building for
office and rest rooms, and a sawdust collection tower.
Approximately 230 x 200 feet
i
i- 9 Planer Building One-story, metal 100x 140 feet plus two small rooms
10 Water Tower 1930s 108 feet tall. Transferred to site in 1943. 30-x 30-foot base
11 Old Kiln One-story, metal;dry kiln and cooling shed 160 x 50 feet
12 Shed 45 x 35 feet
1 13 Garage One-story metal 60 x 50 feet
14 New Kiln One-and two-story metal 190 x 45 feet
_�
15 Boxcar Building One-and two-story wood frame with metal siding for loading
wood products onto boxcars for shipping 120 x 40 feet
16 Sheet piling 1960s Constructed dock edge of property
17 Office 1960s Main office building for Barbee Mill 60 x 30 feet
- 18 Boat House Two-story metal 60 x 30 feet
LI
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
r'r Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-128 September 2003
,�ti
1
/
I
/:
r
I 1 2 113 /' ` •
` / : /
CM 1110
i OHW -,- Evetce
�j
-�� p ram; 5
f ./ /
7::1-----Ilimmi
/
I--s 1 r
I q _ / 2
12,-----2, / ".///
, 1 t___71y:// -.0 /
....1-4---,--:"„--/y //.§)/
\En \\'.....-,-.::::___----- / 1 / ----..-: ',.„(/
N . \ 7- //
//\,
-..-fly ° .. A....6` /,%fog
1 / .. g '�1s, JZ LAKE / 15 ,,'� ,;\\1 1 ! ) �1��
WASHINGTON iq�`•' ' J :1 % "y
::\ / :'j I ; ; Iffy/f/y�
.72
\l' i j` i f .i t��
_ fr �t .'"
n,
1 /
" 7----- ,,f, / ''''''"--,„
t ,/7 /ee- \- , Vic,f / •,
+•--- elf t( �, ,„, i f 'lfin.2 � �,1 1,r
A: ,,, ;\, ‘,,,,
MAY CREEK -.,„,
DELTA x ,-' i 7
7.---:///7--y .�,� `//' _....�..__ `~\
.r
1 /
Syr_- �_.._..._ — — _._.
___ _..__ __. _ /y
,� -- _ N 40TH ST
tozerir
4 :, r1
Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 ALE: K1779017P01T14F-3-10-01
' SCALE IN FEET ,FIN Figure 3.10-1
W Building Locations
0 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
4
a
3.10.1.3 Cultural Resources
Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding hunter-fisher-gatherer
cultural resources is near the original location of May Creek(LAAS 2001;LAAS 1997),which was at the
a north end of the May Creek delta. The original May Creek was the home of the Lake Washington
Duwamish, who knew May Creek as "the place where things are dried" because they gathered and dried
salmon there. As Euro-American settlers began to occupy these traditional gathering and fishing places,
the indigenous people moved or were moved to other locations. The combination of unsatisfactory treaty
terms and the occupation of usual and accustomed fishing and gathering places resulted in skirmishes
between some tribal groups and army troops and volunteers. Apparently the May Creek villagers
remained at their village for several months after the war ended, living in three houses. Eventually most
of the tribe moved to reservations. The USGS surveys of 1860s did not record any Duwamish houses at
May Creek.
'" Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916,most of the Barbee Mill site was under water,and the
eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened, the shoreline dropped approximately
9 feet. There has been considerable disturbance of the land over the last 100 years for industrial uses and
then for construction of I-405. Material from the upland portions of the site was used as fill to create
usable land for the shipbuilding and sawmill operations. The changing shoreline of in the vicinity of the
May Creek delta is illustrated in Figure 3.10-2.
No cultural resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified
anywhere on the delta, but it is possible that some remains exist in the northern part because of the
historic tribal uses of the original May Creek. Only the northeast corner of the Barbee Mill site, near the
black building, falls into this area. Since most of the site is paved with asphalt, it was only possible to do
shovel probes at the south end of the site. The holes immediately filled with water, indicating that there
are several feet of fill here. This is not unexpected since the shoreline was moved farther to the west by
constructing bulkheads and backfilling, and May Creek was relocated southward twice. Based on the
above fmdings,the cultural assessment reports indicated that it is unlikely that this site would contain any
intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources, but that the northeast corner had the potential for deeply buried
resources.
3.10.2 Impacts
3.10.2.1 Construction Impacts
Direct impacts on the buildings and site within the Barbee Mill site would occur from the demolition of
existing buildings and construction of new buildings. The buildings have been determined to be
ineligible for listing in the National Register; therefore, there would be no effect on historic resources. It
is unlikely that there are any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources on site, except at the northeast corner
near the black building;therefore,while unlikely,the potential exists for impacts to cultural resources.
3.10.2.2 Operation Impacts
Operation of a development under the Barbee Mill development plan would not affect cultural or historic
resources.
_
r_.
,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
r-_ Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-130 September 2003
1
ft. , , , 4: •"" I , '''• .
i.-' 1 (.:), 8 74:,-'1.• ,PH,''' . . . f r---'
. . . Shoreline Boundary. • ,,
*.Alki i ' r . •
• ,
(United Stateal$Iinfeyor General 1864) ,, --. -.: ..:::. ,• ; .,1 :•.---.41-r•-$274
, • I ',, -11 ,,,,,1 .,,,,, a ,3•'•.= 4; / i, li
May Creek * ' 1 ,,.„. .:' 1, t ;.z.
...
(United tatesS0nreyor General 1864) /.. .-f •c\J i ::::',1 f.,.', ' :i t.,. 1864 Wagon Road
. ''''''''1 ' til
.,.-- .
Trail I " •' '• •- 100 44
•• . (United States Surveyar•deneral 1864). '' ', ri , ft?,i, '.7 ` ',i. _,,,„.,.,,.
, .
.1, ,.•1 .' i loll —.1.'iv'.. ' c,,,,,,,,
awn,Pfl...":•°' Shoreline Boundary ./.° ;";,/' - !A.) v,t,,z',i',,,,..,#.,Ikti, -At 6:,...,,,,,-,...., •\,,,:ik 1,
(United States knit cPrPs pt Enbinaers 1920) .,,› , ,,,,',-• .:p.:,,i ',1 A , ,,,,,, .,. ,,,,,, , .. .
_____ May Creek - -` -- .ti ,.1.., - '' ',",t. 4 ^i° •',,,a0c0,<ZA%
''' ''.-„..,°'''''"'elk, 0 ',, * ... ‘ ;,,,01 • 1 ;
(United'BiPteS•Arnwcornt of Engineers 1920) '' --1.., ",4:`: :.' 'E,',. - l'••••"* • ,:1 1,
MIN 1111111111111.1.1111 Former Railroad' ? >''..;-;" ' I'. _..1.'")**it'.4, ,'-,'',-' ,',:'' "'", a
.r_._
(',,In)tad Sta*s.AnnY•Corps of.Bngineers 1920) !•• ,..;•,,..: „,,,(•-••-7- ,, .. . 1 :,f,i, ,c54,,,....• J.
; • L.
- .,), • , . ;,..„
, I • : • ' PresentMay Creek •t,.. ...:/_1.4•2_, _ L.,..,,,--11- :4: it..._...........-1,..\,..4.. ----
.
). Marsh 7"Fli T,,,.,k ,.. 44z al ify
(United Slates Army Corps of Engineers 1920) 4,..•:;"• ,
' 1 ' c?'411 ily • :.
0 ,•-, . 41.'' ''''.0r' '''''' '"'", ,. '7;;..%0
,—;
I * ''''' •A; /
'11
,I:t.' ''', fl 1 il ,'.7 11 .;:ill
../.
4 ,./ ,4,4 , 1/ 'kitr' ,:..1•:. i,,/. l'il il /,A .A.,./
'4144'""" , '1,., . • . 1 : 1120 S1/2horeline30-/3/ I 4F.A... 14,,,4,':-/igi. ,,,, - ',4 ,,,,,ei°
" er',,,•6.. .,,,,
4 4 k<?°' 1.° N'''
, A. ,,,.,...: , .,,14';;ii: ;',' i' •; 10,0 '1'0, 0
.. 1864ShOreib1 le.1,4C• •,04f,
. . • . ,.,-;.`'•'''' . i ,. -',.., .',,-* r,-
_ -..
7r .47`4,3(ifl'e.1,t')'•;* ' ::',':III 't
......'n
. .
1 7- ...,•,... - ...4
11,0*• /14r
reoeK ,/,=„, -,44",-;4•-,-,-! .....".i,14,4,!,..,,,., y..,...„C. i ,,,,,,,,,,,
, , ,‘,,,,,,k
-, ,,..„„N.„,;,-- . ,7, .,:v:st::$1,1
'ft' A. -.; ••:-',.:/vD.,1.,,,•',4 Yy Y 41,* ,,i,,k.2,,,'•:. er, 44'F,':•,'‘'::- ',4-.4.., — .
r • ` . : 7\ .kl. 40**',.: ,:.:;• .1'',":':-, , / .47 ,, ,,:•./ ...:** "74:',, ,•,,l;', ''''••\2.sv Iv v .1,i,
,F—. f , . s • ',4Ct --,0 *•, -''''' .'..C4r*//',„7,.., •';‘,A'.::*'14‘,;'''''',•,:::::,'''''' l'! .%
"' • , ..-'''''.' : .' "';"`;.1'.' ' 'lit l''':‘/;17t,\11.1 ft.;7"'°,4;f4:4• 4 .4 ' • . 1' .'%
1.,..7.7"..,,„ay ',..y—. < -4:,-•• .-"-f'Dilpi..t&F-'-'------ —. - , , .,
------ ----°-------11,',-:---::.-.-. f—, ivl .',.,..-;', A• 9 ',Tt, ;.'?`,',t0' • i • , . •••
..._ _, • , •••• 1 .: 1. Li "..-4 ' l',, : X. (--,' ,,,, et. n .,-,41 ,441", , --,
, . CO ' ' ' lil--' r"•I : . 4°'‘'')/.1:5( 1,., i 1. ':1',- I '1 ' 1 ' , . .0
' .• '..: ' ; -2,- . ty.4.-1 '''''' 4.1.- 1-tviay oreor(":, f \ :''.• . ' i. :, . .
i •1 , , J D ," .. - 'tom- ,,,..-4,:- . fri 192b . 14 --
,---- i
.,;..:•;. .,i0-:!".• /.4! 1-,,,„ki ki,t no,. ,A
i • .
! -,, Marth in.1920- •.. -Iyif;1 . . 4:. •-... ":4'4... I til. 1. , In -,
i e . • sta. •N: .wki
• , ,
1-t-g-tor-Nn--- • -----z-v- 4 ---- ''- May Creek
\ .
A
• ' di4r.;4„ , ,,,4 0,./",,,,,,,,,,„,..-^ s-, .•, i .•
, , %. •• • ,,,, ..• , . : \ •Vi ' in -10i
„ 1 b fl
— k
, . . ,... • 1• ;, ,.,.
. ...`41,3VV.,40%,..4,V2 ' .•i, i . ^....
:_-_. :'.- :'.!., - s"://;;',/,7,17717:.,' g • i i, .,,,,,
1 , May Crook- ' 1, • •
• i ° .'re.v,p./ - '1,-,--k-^.., '_,,,,,y ,,,,-: q-.: . 864-Trailii
'-.'.''.7 'in.1$97'• ,,. k ., '.:4-..'\° ' •
— ,..,, , • • :,,-4,,„( .644 ,• - .. .,,
) : : •,., \ ,.,I; 'i.1`..-.47- c' .4.9/t:. c. ';'' * t. 1 ' ' .'4 ' \\
, i. k• . ‘q,....,-,,` •°, i:•:,-.„•tdrik/ 1' W.;.,-.k.i4:1• . ' . ° b . — ' .., : / :' :: . k 1 4
..' !. , ,,, \ ,
/. ,, -,"""I '. . 'ei ' ‘-' • ' -t-,,,,,:„.,...,. I' :':p ...i.-,--'
r /1: , t,,,,,,, . 4. _ . .., ......-0.1,0,...1----,- -, . ‘• - :iti., .i A 0 500 1000
x...' V i ... ,,,- .°. • -,,, i.. . ,71i r
I::? ''''': ,1' [
I' i CI 1 ,tt " • ''-- . k r' ----,... .1 ' •1 I 1 ' .N
, •• .4, ,..,.. ''. %,..1.,... v,,,1„,.........,,, . , .4.: , , ,,, ,, , Feet
•• !,;11,4:: ,- '5-..4' .?. ,' ' '.:‘,/: - - ----- HI 1 ' 1000 feet=305 Meters
•• -• ,,...,.... ,....,..,..,,,,...,r,-.. , -,-.
'
I './,,,ii•,",./:ellt i , [ . : I.. ,, , 1
,/ ,... I :•,,4 ,?ffil 'I' • 041 ,--•if,?,••.\--mr1*°'i •,.:‘: .T, .. Base Map fioni USES Bellevue Squib,
; --
WashIngtOn, 1983:•Parametrix Barbee Miii 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
Figure 3.10-2
Lake Washington
40
,., Shoreline Changes
4
•
_I
3.10.2.3 Indirect Impacts
Indirect or cumulative impacts on cultural or historic resources within or near the site would not occur
under this development plan.
3.10.3 Mitigation
3.10.3.1 Historic Resources
Lake Washington's shoreline sawmill industries were an important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American
settlement history. Although the original mill from the 1940s no longer exists,the modern Barbee Mill is
the last of the mills on Lake Washington; development of this property would offer an opportunity to
commemorate the industry's history. An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed
development could present information about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as
well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. The display
_; could build on a brief description of the geologic history of this portion of Lake Washington and a history
of the Lake Washington Duwamish people who once lived on or near May Creek and its delta.
3.10.3.2 Cultural Resources
An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the
site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction,
the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from
their vicinity. The foreman would also contact Dr. Robert G. Whitlam, Washington State Archaeologist
{ (360-586-3080), who would assist in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained
information important to understanding the history of the area and whether such deposits should be
recorded.
There are no unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural or historic resources due to this development plan.
I
t
r---,
I �
r'-
1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-132 September 2003
I I
4. REFERENCES
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2001. Guidelines for
geometric design of very low-volume local roads (ADT<400). Prepared by American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. Washington,D.C.:American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Atwater, B. F.; Moore, A. L., 1992, A tsunami about 1000 years ago in Puget Sound, Washington:
jr Science,v.258,no. 5088,p. 1614-1617
Berger/Abam. 2002. Alaskan Way Seawall Report. Submitted to Washington State Department of
Transportation. Seattle,WA. Beger Abam Engineers. July 2002.
Bisson, P. And R. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:371-374.
Bucknam, R.C., Hemphill-Haley, E., and Leopold, E.B. 1992. Abrupt uplift within the past 1,700 years
at southern Puget Sound,Washington: Science,V.258,p. 1611-1614.
Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America. No. 506
(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North American,Inc.,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.
Burns,T.S. 1974. Wildlife situation report and management plan for the American osprey. Coordinating
Guidelines for Wildlife Habitat Management No. 1. Hamilton, MT: U.S. Department of
__ Agriculture,Forest Service,Northern Region,Bitterroot National Forest. 6 pp.
Busby, P.J, T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V.
, Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington,Idaho, Oregon,and
California. U.S.Department of Commerce,NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261 pp.
Cadman,M.D., P.J. Eagles, F. M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario. University
of Waterloo Press. 617 p.
Chrzastowski, M. ca. 1983. Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington
Ship Canal,King County,Washington. Department of the Interior,USGS OFR 81-1182.
City of Renton. 1999. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted February 20 1995, amended
October 25, 1999.
City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities.
April 2000.
Cowles, 2003, Mikael Cowles, Right-of-Way Agent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, phone
communication, 05-20-03
r--
1
CRS 2003, Congressional Research Service,Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues,
Issue Brief for Congress, Order Code IB10030, March 12, 2003,
http://hutchison.senate.gov/Transportation3.pdf
1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
1 Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 September 2003
'
1�
Di ne County, Wisconsin. 1998. Dane County, Wisconsin, Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, Dane —'
County Regional Planning Commission, Madison, WI. Available at
http://www.co.dane.wi.us/rail/crfs/final/html/chap5.htm
D=vid Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development
Property. 14 pp. plus appendices.
t
D ' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Quick facts on Lake Washington
status. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/kwash.htm.
D ' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1999. Lake Washington Water Quality.
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/wash.htm.
D ' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Forest Practices Base map
information for T24N, RO5E, S32. Transmitted to Raedeke Associates, Inc. and received on
August 14,2002.
E.ology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington. Publication Numbers 99-11 through 99-15. Washington State Department
of Ecology,Water Quality Program, Olympia,WA. August 2001.
E.ology(Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. The 303(d)List of Impaired and Threatened
Waterbodies. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html, last updated
August, 2002, accessed on December 4, 2002. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water
Quality Program.
E tranco, Inc. 2001. I-405/NE 44th interchange project waterways and hydrologic systems report.
Prepared by Entranco,Inc.for the City of Renton.
E ponent. 1999. Noson, L. Draft Cleanup Action Plan for the Quendall Terminals Property,November
1'99
F„deral Highway Administration. 1981 reprinted 1989. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.
FHWA-HI-88-054.
F' MAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an
ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and
Interior. Portland Oregon.
F' A 2002, Federal Highway Administration Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Rail Grade
Crossings, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group,November 2002
F ster Wheeler. 1995. May creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and
City of Renton. August 1995.
F II • (Federal Railroad Administration). 1999. (Federal Railroad Administration), US Department of
Transportation, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Technical
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Rule for the Use of
Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,December, 1999
F esh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. Lake and Reservoir Management
9(1):148-151.
Cz of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
aft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 September 2003
'__ FTA. 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual. DOT-T-95-16.
Furniss,M.J.,T.D.Roelofs, and C.S.Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: W.R. Meehan
(ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.
Golder. 2002. Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site
Development,Golder Associates,April 4,2002
Golder. 2003. Supplemental Letter on Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility
Barbee Mill Site Development,Golder Associates,May 5,2003.
Greene, S. 2003. Renton Historical Society and Museum. Telephone interview with Stan Greene,
�_- Researcher,May 2003.
Gregory, R.S. 1994. The influence of ontogeny, perceived risk of predation, and visual ability on the
foraging behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon. Pages 271-284 in Stouder, D.J., K.L. Fresh, and
R.J. Feller, editors. Theory and application in fish feeding ecology,University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
Gregory, R.S., and T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, Planktonic, and Benthic Foraging by Juvenile
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Turbid Laboratory Conditions. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:233-340.
Hart Crowser. 2000. Independent Remedial Action Plan, Upland Areas,Barbee Mill Co. June 16,2000.
Revised September 6, 2000.
Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Mill aquatic habitat and fish population survey. August
2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates,Inc.
HCS (Highway Capacity Software). 2000. Highway Capcity Software Version 4.1c. McTrans Center.
University of Florida.
Heaton, T.H. and S.H. Hartzell. 1987. Earthquake hazards on the Cascadia subduction zone. Science,
236, 162-168.
Houghton,L.M. and L.M Rymon. 1997. Nesting distribution and population status of U.S. ospreys 1994.
Journal of Raptor Research 31:44-53.
Houston, S.C. and F. Scott. 1992. The effect of man-made platforms on osprey reproduction at Loon
Lake, Saskatchewan. Journal of Raptor Research 26(3): 152-158.
' HRA(Historical Research Associates,Inc). Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th
Street Interchange. May 2000
http://wwvv.ce.washington.edut—liquefaction/html/main.html
International Osprey Foundation. 1992. Design for osprey nesting platforms. Available at
http://www.sancap.com/osprey/Platform.htm
Jacoby, G. C.; Williams,P. L.; Buckley,B. M., 1992,Tree ring correlation between prehistoric landslides
and abrupt tectonic events in Seattle,Washington: Science,v. 258,no. 5088, p. 1621-1623.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 September 2003
y_,
I, I
I I -
Jo son, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991. Status review for
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle,
WA. 95 pp.
,I it
Jo son, P,D Mock, E Teachout, A McMillan. 2000. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation
Study:Phase I, Compliance. WSDOE, Olympia,WA. Publication No. 00-06-016.
Jo son, S.Y., Dadisman, S. V., Childs, J.R., and Stanley, W.D. 1999. Active tectonics of the Seattle
fault and central Puget Sound, Washington- Implication for earthquake hazards, Geological
Society of America Bulletin,July 1999. V. 111;no.7 p. 1042-1053.
K ler, T., M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and
other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. Report to
the City of Bellevue,Bellevue,WA.
K rlin, R. E.; Abella, S. E. B. 1992. Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound region recorded in sediments
from Lake Washington: Science. v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1617-1620.
K ng County. 1991. Executive Proposed Basin Plan for Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound. King
County. Surface Water Management Division, Seattle,WA. July 1991.
King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water
Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department -
' Surface Water Utility.
K g County. 1998. Surface Water Design Manual. King County, Department of Natural Resources,
Seattle,WA. September 1998.
g County. 2001. Final adopted May creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton.
April 2001.
g County. 2003. King County Streams Monitoring Program, Coal Creek (Site 0442). Available at
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/w1r/waterres/streams/coal_intro.htm
utson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats:
1 , riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
L S. Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington. March 27, 1997.
L. son Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS). Appendix R: Archaeological and
Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Discipline Report. May 2001
L , R. 1999. Landscaping for wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press,
Seattle,Washington. 320 pp.
oyd. 1994. May Creek Corridor Revegetation Plan,Lloyd and Associates Inc.,March 10, 1994.
.yd and Associates. 2003. Stormwater pollution prevention plan for the Barbee Mill Company,
stormwater discharge permit: S03-000718. Prepared by Loyd and Associates, Snoqualmie,
Washington,for the Barbee Mill Company,Renton,Washington.
! I
fry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-4 September 2003
Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth
areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002.
Madabhushi. 2001. Modeling of Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading, Proceedings of NSF International
Workshop on Earthquake Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering, Cleveland/Ohio/USA/8-10
November 2001. http://ecivwww.cwru.edu/civil/xxzl6/proceeding/paper/Madabhushi.pdf.
Martin. 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117,
Guidelines for Analyzing and mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California
Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, March 1999.
http://www.scec.org/outreach/products/liqreport.pdf.
May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Kitsap
_.' County Natural Resources Department.
Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001. Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population
Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment. June 25,2001.
Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Second Edition.
Upper Saddle River,New Jersey:Prentice Hall.
Mockler, A, L Casey, M Bowles,N Gillen, J Hansen. 1998. Results of Monitoring Wetland and Stream
Mitigations in King County. King County DDES,Renton, Washington.
MRSC. Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of
Washington. http://www.mrsc.org/mc/ toc/wac.htm, last updated November 18, 1997.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington.
Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope, G.J.Bryant,D.Teel,L.J.Lierheimer, T.C.Wainwright,W.S. Grant, F.W.
Waknitz,K.Neely, S.T.Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35,443 pp.
Nizam. 2003. Ahmer Nizam, Railway Safety Division. Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission,phone communication. 05.13.03.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. Office
of Habitat Conservation.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Appendix A: Description and identification of
Essential Fish Habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon.
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. January
1999. Available at the PSMFC website at: http://www.pcouncil.org/.
Noson, L., Qamar, A., Thorsen, G. 1988. Washington State earthquake hazards. Olympia, Washington:
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1988.
Obermeier. 2001. Paleoliquefaction Studies in Continental Settings: Geologic and Geotechnical Factors
in Interpretations and Back-Analysis, Stephen F. Obermeier et al, US. Geological Survey Open-
- File Report 01-029. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of3,1-029/.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-5 September 2003
ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002. Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction
Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon. Final Report. Oregon Department of
Transportation Research Group. http://www.odot.state.or.us/tddresearch/reports/liquefaction3-
6.pdf
II
O iak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County,
Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002.
P ametrix. 2002. Biological review of the Tri-County model 4(d)rule response proposal. Prepared for
the Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. April 19,2002.
Pi skowski,R. and R.Tabor. 2000. Nocturnal habitat use by juvenile Chinook in near-shore areas
of south Lake Washington, a preliminary investigation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western
Washington Office. Available at:http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/fish/docs/piaskowski-report.pdf.
Ps llack, N.M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to
protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. The Bullit
Foundation,Washington Environmental Council,and Point-No-Point Treaty Council.
Paiole, A.F. 1989. Ospreys: a natural and unnatural history. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press. 246 p.
Q igley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment for ecosystem components in the
interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume 3. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. 1,057- 1,713 pp.
Resource Consultants. 2000. Tri-County urban issues ESA study guidance document. Prepared on
behalf of the Tri-county Urban Issues Advisory Committee. February 2000.
R.�edeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological Assessment for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, Renton,
Washington. Prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington for the Barbee Mill
Company,Renton,Washington.
R edeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological assessment: Barbee Mill preliminary plat, Renton,
Washington. August 26,2002.
R uch 1997,EPOLLS: An Empirical Method for Predicting Surface Displacements Due to Liquefaction-
Induced Lateral Spreading in Earthquakes Alan F. Rauch, PHD Dissertation, Civil Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, May 5, 1997
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-219182249741411./unrestricted/Chp03.pdf
R' nton, City of. 1998. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Sensitive Areas Ordinance - 4835. City of
Renton Planning Commission.
R-nton, City of. 1999. N. 40th Street/Meadow Avenue N. stormwater system improvements drainage
report. City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Surface Water Utility.
I --
Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull
trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,
Utah. 38 pp.
I I
Cry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D i aft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-6 September 2003
Ryser,F.A. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. Reno,NV: University of Nevada Press. 604 p.
Sandercock, F.K. 1991. The life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395-445 in C.
Groot and L. Margolis (eds.). Life history of Pacific salmon. University of B.C. Press,
Vancouver,B.C.
Saurola, P.L. The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: a review of population trends and
their causes in Europe. Journal of Raptor Research. 31:129-137.
Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of imperviousness. Watershed protection Techniques, 1(3):100-
111.
Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Geology and soils Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon
&Wilson,June 2001.
Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Groundwater Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon &
Wilson, June 2001.
Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon
&Wilson, June 2001.
Shannon&Wilson. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report,I-405/NE 44th Interchange Shannon&Wilson,
June 2001.
Sherrard,David. 1996. Managing Riparian Open Space. Environment Development, American Planning
Association,January/February 1996 http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/pdf/nature.pdf
Simenstad, C.A., J.R., Cordell, R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler, B. Nightengale, and J.A. Schafer. 1999.
Ferry terminal impacts on juvenile salmon migrating through Puget Sound near shore
environment. Puget Sound Notes. 42:9-12.
Snohomish County. 2002. Duplex Trip Generation Rate Study, Snohomish County Public Works Dept,
Traffic Analysis and Data Management Group,Everett,WA, September 26,2002
Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to
salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation. Corvallis,
Oregon. 356 p.
Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald
eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,Washington.
Tabor, R. A. and R. M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic
systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2001. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Lacey,Washington,April 2002.
Tabor, R. A. J. Scheurer, H. Gearns, and E. Bixler. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook
salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2002. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,Lacey,Washington,December 2002.
ThermoRetec. 2000. Feasibility Study and Cleanup Action Plan. JH Baxter North Property.
ThermoRetec,April 5,2000.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-7 September 2003
i II
Tr-County. 2000. Tri-County Urban Issues ESA Study: Guidance Document APPENDIX I, Salmon
Recovery in Urban Settings, Salmon Recovery Problems and Potential Habitat Enhancement
Techniques. (R2 Resource Consultants et al.2000).
U. . Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. Lacey,
Washington.
U.'.. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Draft summary for bull trout in Lake Washington.
November 23, 1999.
U.I.. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/. National Seismic Hazard Map.
Assessed on April 8,2003.
U`,,CE. 1992. Bearing Capacity of Soils. Engineering and Design Publication Number: EM 1110-1-
1905, US Army Corps of Engineers, 30 October 1992. http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-
docs/eng-manuals/em 1110-1-1905/c-1.pdf.
U`'.CE. 2001. Endangered Species Act Guidance for New and Replacement Piers and Bulkheads in Lake
Washington, Lake Sammamish and the Ship Canal, Including Lake Union, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District, Special Notice, October 25, 2001. ! s
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/ACF22.pdf.
U DA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2003. The Urban Forestry Manual USDA Forest
Service, Southern Research Station,http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/pubs/ufmanual/
U S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/ . National Seismic Hazard Map.
A sessed on April 8,2003.
U EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment
and Operation,Building Equipment,and Home Appliance,NTID300.1, 1971
U 2002. University of Washington Soil Liquifaction Web Site. Department of Civil Engineering.
University of Washington, Seattle,WA.
V. a-Miller, S.L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: Osprey. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological report 82(10.154)46pp.
ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead
Stock Inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and
Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, Olympia,Washington.
ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. 1998 salmonid stock inventory: appendix,bull trout
and Dolly Varden. July 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington.
ashington Department of Natural Resources(DNR). 1999. Forests and fish report. Unpublished report
by Washington Department of Natural Resources,Olympia,Washington.
Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Bull trout/ Dolly Varden management and recovery plan.
Washington Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, Washington.
Report 92-22. 125pp.
DI
of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-8 September 2003
__,' Washington State Highway Accident Report. 1996. WSDOT Accident Report.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_andZIP Files/StateHwyAccidentRpt.pdf.
Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon
utilization, Volume I, Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fisheries: Olympia, WA.
704 pp.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2001. I-405/44th Interchange
Reconstruction Project,Draft Noise Technical Report,January 10,2001,Parsons Brinckerhoff
I
WSDOT 2001a. Washington State Department of Transportation. East-West Passenger Rail Feasibility
Study: A Preliminary Analysis Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation.
HDR Engineering,Inc. The Resource Group Transit Safety Management. May 2001.
WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation). 1998. Washington State Department of
Transportation,Design Manual, 1998. Olympia,WA.
Yount, J.C. and Gower,H.D. 1991. Bedrock geologic map of Seattle 30' x 60' quadrangle, Washington:
US Geological Survey Open File Report. 91-147, 37p. 4 plates scale 1:100,000.
1
Zarn, M. 1974. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species; Osprey Pandion haliaetus
carolinensis. USDI Bureau of Land.
,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-9 September 2003
IA
1
5. DISTRIBUTION LIST
City of Renton Federal Agencies
City Manager US Environmental Protection Agency
Community Development Services US Department of Fish and Wildlife
Public Works,Traffic NOAA Fisheries
Public Works, Surface Water Management Non-Government Organizations
Public works,Development Services Renton Chamber of Commerce
Fire Renton Historic Society
Police King County Audubon Society
Local and Regional Agencies Washington Environmental Council
King County Dept. of Development and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Environmental Services
Libraries
King County Metro Transit Renton Public Library
King County Surface Water Management
King County Library,
King County Dept.of Transportation Bellevue Regional Library
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Seattle Public Library
Tulalip Tribes
Media
City of Newcastle
Seattle Times
City of Bellevue Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Eastside Journal
Puget Sound Regional Council South County Journal
State Agencies Renton Reporter
Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic
Development
Department of Ecology
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Transportation
Office of Archaeological and Historic
Preservation
Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission
Department of Natural Resources
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 5-1 September 2003
APPENDIX A
Scoping Determination
i •
BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SCOPING DOCUMENT
U4Y O�
- NTO�
City of Renton
Development Services Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
r
I � I
BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SCOPING DOCUMENT
In roduction 1
Description of the Proposal 1
Project Site 1
Proposed Action 1
Relationship to Remediation Process 2
Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals 3
A ternatives Chosen for Analysis 4 ,
E S Approach 4
E ements of the Environment 4
Natural Environment 5
Built Environment 7
Final EIS... 12
P oject Name/Number: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
File No. LUA-02-040, ECF, PP
L-ad Agency: City of Renton
� l
R',sponsible Official: Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
do Jennifer Henning
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Proponent: Barbee Mill Company
jl Alex Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira, Senior Planner
Development Services Division, P/B/PW
Renton City Hall—6th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
(425) 430-7270/ (425)430-7300 fax
INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton has requested comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat proposal. Both public and agency
scoping meetings regarding the project have been held. Comments submitted in writing
L_ or given through testimony have been considered and incorporated into this document
where appropriate. All comments received during the scoping period are contained
+—, within the official land use file and are available for review.
This scoping document provides a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
as well as those elements of the environment identified for consideration and analysis in
the EIS.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
Protect Site — The 22.9-acre site is located on the west side of Lake Washington
Boulevard North between North 40th Street and North 44th Street and abuts Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way along the eastern boundary. The property
contains 16 buildings, some of which are currently utilized for limited lumber operations
with the remaining buildings unused and in disrepair. Existing development within the
vicinity of the site includes predominantly detached single family housing located within
the Residential —8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zone.
The property is situated within the Center Office Residential (COR-2) zoning
designation, which is intended to provide for a mix of intensive commercial, office and
residential activity in a high quality, master planned development that is integrated with
the natural environment. Stand-alone residential development is also permitted in the
zone provided the required density of a minimum 5 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) is
satisfied.
The site is located within 200 feet of the Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines
and is, therefore, subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program. The property is
L ' relatively flat with approximate grades ranging from 0.5% to 4% to the west for areas
north of May Creek, from 1% to 7% towards May Creek and Lake Washington. on the
south side of the creek, and from 7% to 35-40% along the banks of May Creek. The
City's Critical Areas Maps designate the property as containing potential high seismic
hazards, steep slopes (15% to 25%) and flood hazards.
Proposed Action — The applicant is requesting to subdivide the subject site into 115
residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 square feet to 7,336 square feet. The
proposal would result in a net density of approximately 8.35 dwelling units per acre (22.9
gross acre site — 9.13-acres combined sensitive areas and public roadways = 13.77 net
acre --> 115 units/ 13.77 net acre = 8.35 du/ac).
The lots are intended for the development of townhouse units — most of which would be
constructed as duplex structures along with some 3-unit, 4-unit and 5-unit structures to
be located on the southeast side of May Creek. Lot lines will be located along common
walls with separate units on each lot. The shoreline fronting lot lines would extend to the
inner harbor line.
Scoping Document A-1
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
LI ndscape, roadway, utility improvements and four utility/open space tracts would be
I
established with the plat. With the exception of the existing building located on the
s oreline (within Department of Natural Resources lease land), all buildings would be
d molished as part of the project and lumber operations would be discontinued.
A cess to the project would be provided via an existing 60-foot wide access easement,
w:ich would be dedicated to public right-of-way, from the Lake Washington
Boulevard/Ripley Lane intersection through the abutting property on the north side of the
si'e. The project would provide 42-foot wide internal public roadways throughout the
m jority of the project with a 32-foot wide roadway proposed on the south side of May
C leek. Private streets and driveways are also proposed in specific locations within the _
pl t.
In'order to provide connection to the secondary access point at the southeast corner of
, th property, a bridge crossing over May Creek (at the location of one of the three
e isting bridges) would be necessary. Installation of new foundations for the proposed
b idge may require work below the ordinary high water mark of May Creek and if so,
w uld require approval of a variance from the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
R i gulations prior to the installation of required plat improvements. An additional existing _
b 'dge is proposed to be utilized as a pedestrian crossing.
T e western boundary of the site includes approximately 1,900 lineal feet of Lake
Washington shoreline — for which a 25-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark
w 1 uld be maintained. No other alterations or improvements to the lake shoreline are
in luded with the proposal. In addition, May Creek bisects the property extending
s IIutheast through the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to the May Creek Delta
w thin Lake Washington. The project would provide a buffer from the May Creek
o idinary high water mark ranging from 50 feet to 100 feet in width and would restore
c rrently impervious areas to native vegetation within the buffer area. All mature trees
located within the May Creek buffer area are proposed to be retained.
T e project applicant has also identified two category III wetlands with associated
buffers within property boundaries —one adjacent to the southeasterly property line near
tlie end of street C (aka "northerly wetland") and another at the southern edge of the site
n ar the south end of street C (aka "southerly wetland"). The applicant is requesting to
b ffer average the minimum required 25-foot buffer for the northerly wetland. In
a I dition, approximately 400 square feet of the southerly wetland is proposed to be filled,
with enhancements to the northerly wetland and buffer area proposed in order to
pitigate for loss of wetland area.
P'oject construction would require extensive grading and excavation activities
t lroughout the site for the removal of existing asphalt areas and the creation of new
building pads, roadways, and utilities. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at
approximately 32,000 cubic yards of excavated material and 38,000 cubic yards of fill `�
aterial to be imported to the site. In addition, approximately 18 trees would be
r imoved as part of on-site grading activities.
Relationship to Remediation Process — The Barbee Mill Company has proposed an
independent remedial action plan (IRAP) pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act
(PATCA) to the Department of Ecology in order to perform excavation and removal of
approximately 21,500 cubic yards of arsenic contaminated and elevated zinc level soils
(those exceeding MTCA method A levels) that are contained within the uplands portion
o"t, the property. The environmental investigations and proposed remedies for the
arbee Mill site are documented in the following report:
oping Document A-2
arbee Mill Preliminary Plat
1
I ,
_ • Independent Remedial Action Plan, Upland Areas, Barbee Mill Company, Renton,
Washington prepared for the Barbee Mill Company dated September 6, 2000 by Hart
Crowser, Inc.
The IRAP was reviewed and determined to be acceptable by the Department of Ecology
on September 12, 2000. Subsequently, the City of Renton conducted Environmental
(SEPA) Review and issued a Special Fill and Grade Permit for the remediation project
on September 9, 2002. The permit will remain valid for a period of 4 years with the
requirement for either an extension or new permit upon expiration.
Although the approved remediation is anticipated to occur concurrently with site
preparation activities for an approved development project, some analysis regarding the
intended clean-up levels and the appropriateness of those levels for the proposed
residential development will be necessary in this EIS.
Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals — The following permits and approvals
will likely be required for the redevelopment of the site:
• City of Renton: Preliminary Plat Approval
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Approval
Level II Site Plan Approval
Level I Site Plan Approval
Shoreline Variance Approval, if applicable
Wetland Buffer Averaging and Compensation Approval
Street Modification Approval
Railroad Crossing Access Approval
Site Preparation, Demolition, and Construction Permits
Final Plat Approval
• King County: Shoreline Permit for DNR lease lands
• Washington
Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste— No Further Action Letter
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Approval
Shoreline Variance Approval, if applicable
Water Quality Certification
• Washington
Department of Fish &Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
• Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission: Approval of Railroad Crossing(s)
• US Army Corp of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits, if necessary
• US Environmental
Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance
• All other applicable licenses and permits necessary to allow the redevelopment of
the site under the proposed action.
Scoping Document A-3
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
i
7
� I
ALTERNATIVES CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS '
1
In addition to the proposed action described above, the following alternative will be
considered in the EIS:
No-Action - Continuation of some form of industrial use of the property (the specific
industrial activity on the site may change over time, but on an overall basis would remain
consistent with its character). Some form of clean-up would likely occur per the
arj'proved IRAP, but the specific cleanup plan and the timing of remediation would likely
be;different and extended.
ElI APPROACH
BI _
El Required - The lead agency has determined that this proposal could have
si nificant adverse impacts on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement
( IS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. �I__'`I
T e EIS is intended to address all probable significant impacts that would occur as a
re ult of redevelopment to the site. The EIS is intended to provide a sufficient level of
d-Itail and analysis such that further environmental review under SEPA will not be
n?'cessary.
T e EIS will build upon previous environmental documents prepared for the site and
c•mprehensive planning efforts conducted by the City of Renton. Some of the
documents that will be consulted and incorporated, as appropriate, into the analysis of
th;- EIS include:
• Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft and
Final EIS (January 1992 and February 1993).
• City of Renton Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental DEIS and FEIS
(December 1994 and February 1995).
• Port Quendall Preliminary Plan Draft and Final EIS (September 1981 and February
1982).
• May Creek Basin Current and Future Conditions Report(August 1995). J
• Barbee Mill Dredging, Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, LUA-02-067,
ECF, SP, SM (August 2002).
• Barbee Mill Soils Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, LUA-
02-069, ECF, SP, SM (September 2002).
jl
E EMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
j ,
T e lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS. Direct,
i direct and cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposal !
ajpd alternative will be identified and evaluated for each of the following elements of the
e vironment. Mitigation measures will also be identified, as appropriate and warranted.
T e items discussed within both the natural and built environment categories have been
preliminarily listed in order beginning with those that should be studied most extensively, -
f !lowed by items requiring lesser levels of analysis. Although the analysis of the less
s'gnificant items will likely be minimal, it is necessary due to the inability to fully ascertain
t e breadth of such impacts based on the information provided. Therefore, the
I
coping Document A-4
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 1 I
1f
( identification and disclosure of those potential impacts as they specifically relate to the
proposal, along with associated mitigation measures as warranted, will be contained
within the EIS.
L
Natural Environment
Earth —A site specific analysis of soil, geologic and hazard conditions will be prepared.
This analysis will build upon the data provided in previous documents. The discussion
of existing conditions will address the soil and geologic characteristics of the site and
the sequencing of the geologic strata that underlie the ground surface and the offshore
area. Any limitations of the site's soils for grading and for support of structures and
roads will be described. Applicable maps and cross sections will be provided.
In addition, a discussion of applicable geologic hazards as established by the City's
Critical Areas Maps with emphasis on the site's potential as a seismic hazard area.
Seismicity of the region will be discussed and will include a description of some of the
larger historic earthquakes that have affected the area, as well as the potential for the
site being affected by larger earthquakes that have occurred at times that pre-date
settlement of the area.
The potential for earthquake-induced landslides or liquefaction will be addressed. The
susceptibility of the site's soils to erosion and sedimentation, and existing sediment
discharge problems at the mouth of May Creek will also be described.
Appropriate design of the foundations and other supporting structures, as well as
anticipated building construction methods for development of the site will be described.
The general nature of these types of building foundations will be discussed in order to
provide a baseline for evaluating potential impacts of construction.
An evaluation of the anticipated impacts of proposed construction at the site will be
i conducted. Impacts associated with cuts and fills that would be constructed in
i association with access roads leading to the site and general site grading will be
addressed. The quantities and depths of cuts and fills will be estimated, and any need
for import/export of material identified. The potential for erosion and sedimentation
impacts will be evaluated; specific emphasis will be placed on any potential impacts to
May Creek. Any potential slope stability impacts will be defined for steeply sloped
areas along May Creek. Finally, any risks of construction and building placement
associated with potential seismic events (liquefaction) will be addressed. Mitigation
measures which may be relevant to minimize impacts on the site will be identified.
Soil and sediment contaminant sources and levels that exist on site will be identified
based on information generated as part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan
(IRAP) prepared in accordance with the MTCA and as approved by the Department of
Ecology (refer to the Toxic and Hazardous Materials section of this scope for further
discussion).
Plants and Animals: Shoreline and Wetland Habitat — Existing upland habitat
conditions and values on-site will be described. An analysis of existing on-site wetlands
will be performed with functions and values of the wetlands and their habitat
relationships to May Creek and/or Lake Washington to be described. This analysis will
build upon data provided in previous documents and field confirmation of present
conditions.
Scoping Document A-5
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
i
1
A assessment of the proposed shoreline buffer areas of Lake Washington and May
Creek will be provided relative to any upland habitat value and identified critical habitat _
ar, as. Potential impacts to upland habitats and any identified wetlands from project I
c nstruction and post-development will be addressed, including potential impacts from
in reased erosion, water quality changes and increased human activity. In addition,
a 'alysis of cumulative impacts from reasonably expected unrestricted landscaping and +
fu ure applications for residential use docks from the lake fronting lots. Cumulative
impacts from future use or alterations of the DNR-owned uplands will also be addressed.
O. portunities for enhancement of resources will be examined, particularly in light of
e fisting conditions.
i
PII nts and Animals: Fisheries - Aquatic and riparian habitat along the Lake
W' shington shoreline on, and adjacent to, the site will be characterized in terms of
fi heries habitat and functions. A plan view and side view maps of shoreline fisheries -)
h bitat will be prepared. The examination of existing biological activity, as well as the __
c ndition of the near shore lake bottom sediments, will build upon existing studies. This
d ta, together with the assumption of fish use, will be used to characterize existing ---�
c nditions.
P tential impacts on fisheries resources from both construction and operation of the
p 1 posal will be assessed. Such impacts could include effects on critical habitat areas
d e to potential increases in erosion/sedimentation during construction, changes in
w ter quality conditions, the influence of in-water structures (docks, bulkheads) on
s ilmon/predator interactions, dredging-related impacts and increases in lighting on
s ilmon migration. Mitigation plans and/or opportunities for habitat enhancement and the ,
iequacy of the proposed shoreline buffers will be examined. !
a
IA;
ater Resources: Stormwater Drainage / Runoff / Flooding - Existing drainage _
p tterns, runoff rates and volumes will be described, with particular attention to peak
flows to May Creek. Drainage sub-basins within the site will be located. Specific -'
flooding and sediment discharge problems at the mouth of May Creek will be addressed.
P st-development runoff patterns, volumes and flows would be estimated. Potential vl
i pacts to May Creek and each surface water discharge location will be evaluated,
in luding possible increases in erosion and sedimentation due to construction.
A 1 ditional analysis of the upstream drainage basin for existing and future developed
c 'nditions will be conducted to address the potential need for upsizing existing culverts. - '
A;alysis of detention, water quality and compensatory storage for filling within the _'
fl iodplain will be included. In addition, options for alleviating sedimentation problems at
the mouth of the creek will be examined, specifically addressing the continued dredging
of; the creek relative to potential flooding impacts and expansion of the 100-year
floodplain into developed areas. The appropriate design of bridge foundations located
within the floodplain will be discussed. The relationship of the proposed drainage
system to the adopted surface water drainage standards will be assessed, and the need
fdr any mitigation identified. I ii
1
Water Resources: Groundwater - Groundwater levels on-site and immediately
adjacent to the site (Lake Washington) will be described based on past and current
irh�estigations. The direction of groundwater flow will be documented. The contribution
of infiltration on-site to groundwater and surface water resources will be described. Any
,
, i
Si oping Document A-6
B rbee Mill Preliminary Plat ; !
potential impacts to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. Measures to
mitigate any identified groundwater impacts will be addressed.
Groundwater contaminant sources and levels that exist on-site will be identified based
on information generated as part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan (IRAP)
prepared in accordance with the MTCA and as approved by the Department of Ecology
(refer to the Toxic and Hazardous Materials section of this scope for further discussion).
Water Resources: Water Quality — Existing water quality conditions in lower May
Creek and Lake Washington will be described based on available data and previously
conducted studies. An assessment of the current conditions of any wetlands, seeps or
swales will be performed. Surface water contaminant sources and levels that exist on-
site, if any, will be described based on information generated as part of the IRAP. City of
Renton plans, policies and regulations relevant to shoreline areas, wetlands, surface
water quality management and use of Best Management Practices will be identified.
Water quality impacts during construction and post-development will be assessed,
' including potential impacts resulting from erosion and stormwater pollutants typical of
urban runoff. Potential impacts to May Creek, Lake Washington and any wetlands will
be addressed. Post-development water quality composition will be estimated using
existing literature, with consideration of the effect of proposed water quality treatment
facilities. Predicted changes in water quality for May Creek and Lake Washington will be
compared to relevant standards. Opportunities for mitigating any identified impacts will
be described and examined.
Air Quality — The analysis of air quality impacts will be not be requirerd. Construction-
related air quality impacts during demolition and construction, such as the potential for
generation of dust during site grading activities, will be mitigated by normal conditions of
approval .
Built Environment
Transportation — An overview of existing conditions within the study area will be
provided. A description of the local arterial network, including Lake Washington
Boulevard, Ripley Lane, Park Avenue North, Burnett Avenue North and WSDOT 1-405
facilities at the NE 44th Street and NE 30th Street interchanges will be included.
_ Existing trips associated with current on-site uses will be discussed with levels of service
at nearby intersections to be analyzed.
There are several transportation issues regarding the proposed development that will be
addressed, including impacts to the existing roadway network, impacts to the Burlington
Northern Railroad and availability of public railroad crossings, access to the 1-405
freeway, impacts from increased trips through and on Newcastle streets, and cumulative
traffic impacts of the proposed development and existing, as well as future, land uses.
In addition, safety, pedestrian and non-motorized facilities, emergency vehicle access,
transit impacts and the design of the railroad crossing(s)will be addressed.
Trip generation and distribution will be determined for the Proposed Action and
alternative and will build upon previously conducted studies. The City's transportation
model would be used to determine trip distribution. The City's transportation model will
also be used to determine future year (year of opening for the proposed development)
traffic forecasts for the roadway network surrounding the project site. Future year
forecasts will include traffic generated by pipeline and approved development identified
Scoping Document A-7
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Itraffic
b the City. The future year forecasts will be used as baseline for the '
1 !
determination of traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The roadway
network will be analyzed for the project during the p.m. peak hour based on a level of
seirvice (delay) analysis. The level of service analysis will include project-impacted
in ersections, including site access locations.
4propriate mitigation will be identified for vehicular traffic impacts, and will include
options for trip reduction through Transportation Demand Management (this could
include options for mode split, peak trip spreading, etc.). Potential increases in mode
split to transit; HOV and non-motorized travel will be explored. Mitigation would also
adi W dress, where appropriate, design of railroad crossings pursuant to UTC and BNRR -'
requirements, as well as safety and emergency vehicle access. The proposal's
p rticipation in planned off-site improvements, and additional improvements not currently
pl nned, will be evaluated relative to mitigation.
T xic and Hazardous Materials — The site is known to contain contaminated soils —
p 1marily contaminated with arsenic and zinc. An Independent Remedial Action Plan
p rsuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) has been approved by the Department
o Ecology and the City of Renton (file no. LUA-02-069) that would bring soil conditions '
u 1 to residential standards. The IRAP has not yet been implemented on the site.
D scussion of timing of the intended clean-up as it relates to site development
p separation will be included in the EIS.
I addition, analysis of contamination levels on adjacent properties and compatibility with
t e proposed residential development will be completed. This analysis may build upon
t e on-site analysis conducted for the site but must specifically address the compatibility 1
and appropriate proximity of the proposal with heavily contaminated properties abutting -'
the site.
Aesthetics, Light and Glare — Existing aesthetic qualities and scenic resources of the ' 1
site and the surrounding area, including Lake Washington, will be identified. The
i idustrial character of both the upland and marine portions of the site will be described. If
description of the general view shed to the site, which includes surrounding residential
(t the north and east), 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard, and portions of the West
ill (unincorporated King County), Mercer Island, Newcastle and Lake Washington itself,
' ill be included. Photos from these representative viewpoints will be provided to visually
d cument existing conditions.
T e potential impacts to views from these areas from redevelopment of the site will be ! '
evaluated. The proposed uses, heights, design, and shoreline features will be ,__,
considered relative to existing uses. Visual impacts of the proposal during the different
phases of redevelopment, as seen from selected viewpoints, potentially including from -
Lake Washington and Mercer Island, area parks and roadways, and representative
el isting residential areas, will be evaluated. Visual representations such as view
c rridor maps, conceptual drawings, photo simulations, computer simulations, or other
it ustrations will be used in this analysis.
he change in aesthetic character of the site from industrial to residential will be
aluated, particularly relating to design, scale, intensity and compatibility with the
surrounding aesthetic character. Any additional mitigating measures to reduce any
visual impacts of the proposal that are not included in the proposed design and are
warranted will be evaluated. r
$coping Document A-8
arbee Mill Preliminary Plat M
i
Existing sources of light and glare emanating from the industrial use of the site will be
identified. The potential impacts of light and glare from redevelopment on surrounding
- land uses (especially residential uses to the north and east); residences across the lake
on Mercer Island, and from Lake Washington itself will be addressed. An assessment of
the impacts of night lighting on fish habitat will also be discussed (integrated with
Fisheries analysis). Measures to mitigate impacts from light and glare will be identified,
as appropriate.
Noise — The analysis of noise related impacts will include relevant federal, state, and
local sound level criteria will be identified and discussed for impacts of the project on
surrounding uses. Construction noise will be evaluated by specific construction activity
and phase (i.e., pile driving, excavation, etc.), using published sound levels of
construction noise. These sound levels will be adjusted to represent the actual
distances to potential receptor locations in the neighborhoods surrounding the project
site.
Potential means for mitigating any identified traffic and other noise impacts will be
discussed. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise, and potential constraints
on the timing and duration of construction noise events, will be identified, as warranted.
Land and Shoreline Use—The Land Use analysis will not be analyzed.
All issues related to land and shoreline use will be analyzed separately as part of the
permit review and approval process. The permit review will consider relevant issues
including conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and related plans, ordinances or
regulations and will discuss the general consistency or inconsistency of the proposal.
with the City's Zoning Code, and Office/Residential zone provisions, the proposal's
relationship to other applicable standards/regulations (i.e., Critical Areas Regulations)
and he relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Program.
Public Services and Utilities: Fire Police and Emergency Medical Services — This
element will not be analyzed.
The proposal would add new residential units to the City that would increase the
capacity demand of the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. This is an adverse
impact that can be mitigated by the applicant through paying a Fire Mitigation Fee.
Payment of the fee would be required prior to the recording of the plat.
Public Services and Utilities: Parks—This element will not be analyzed.
It is anticipated that future residents of the plat would generate additional needs for park
and recreational facilities. The proposal does not include the provision of on-site
recreation areas to meet the full park demand of future residents of the proposed plat.
This is an adverse impact that can be mitigated by the applicant through paying a Parks
Mitigation Fee. Payment of the fee would be required prior to the recording of the plat.
Public Services and Utilities: Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste — This element
will not be analyzed.
It is anticipated that future residents of the plat would generate additional needs for utility
services including water and wastewater. Impacts of the proposal will be met through
the utility services capital improvement and financing program and may include on and
off-site improvements, utility hookup fees or other charges.
Scoping Document A-9
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
P blic Services and Utilities: Stormwater — Stormwater impacts will be analyzed as -,
part of the Water Resources element.
P blic Services and Utilities: Schools—This element will not be analyzed. _1
T I'e project will have a marginal impact on schools, but is within the growth projections
anticipated by the current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities,
or make facility improvements, including transportation services.
Historic and Cultural Resources — The analysis of historic and cultural resources will
bs utilize existing information resources. Cultural resource records and reports on file at
th State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be researched, along with
re orts, maps, photographs, etc. available at the University of Washington and State
' li varies. Consultation with appropriate tribal sources will be conducted. Based on j
th se sources, and with consideration of the recent industrial use of the site, any areas _
of potential cultural or historic sensitivity will be highlighted. If the potential does exist, ,
p tential impacts from construction and operation of the proposal will be assessed.
M' asures to mitigate any potential impacts will be identified, as appropriate.
S cioeconom ics (Population, Housing, Employment) — This element will not be
ari alyzed.
The projected growth is within the general future forecasted population, housing, and
e ployment characteristics for which the city has developed its Comprehensive Plan
a Id facilities plans.
-
FINAL EIS
en thereview Draft EISand co is compmentleted, it will bCommentse issuedreceived and made
the availabldesignatede for pucommenblic and
a ency m . t '
pgriod (usually thirty days)will be incorporated into a Final EIS, together with appropriate
responses to those comments. Final action on the proposal will not be taken prior to the
is.uance of the Final EIS.
,
1
i
I I_�
SI oping Document A-1 0
1 B rbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 1
I
Prepared for
City of Renton
Renton,Washington
Prepared by
Parametrix
5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200
Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350
(425)822-8880
www.parametrix.com
September 2003
Project No. 554-1779-017
* CITY OF RENTON
.ail 1 Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator
September 2, 2003
Dear Reader:
Attached is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. The proposal is located adjacent to Lake
Washington and the shoreline of May Creek on a 22.9—acre site. The DEIS
evaluates potential impacts resulting from the proposed 115 townhouse lots and
from the continuation of the existing industrial use.
In May 2002, the Barbee Mill Company submitted a Land Use Master Application
(LUA 02-040) for a Preliminary Plat. The City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee issued a Determination of Significance on November 5, 2002. The
City of Renton, in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
process, issued a Scoping Notice on November 27, 2002. On December 10,
2002, a public scoping meeting was held to receive written and oral comments
on the proposed scope of study. A Scoping Document was issued on January
10, 2003.
The issues identified through the scoping process are addressed in the DEIS.
These include: earth, water, plants and animals, hazardous materials, aesthetics,
light and glare; transportation, noise and cultural resources.
For each environmental issue, an analysis is provided and significant
environmental impacts attributable to the Proposed Action are reported. Where
significant impacts were determined to potentially exist, options for possible
mitigation measures were suggested, including two alternative shoreline buffer
options.
Written public comment on the DEIS will be accepted for a 30-day review
period, starting on Tuesday, September 2, 2003 and ending at 5:00 pm,
Wednesday, October 1, 2003. Written comments should be addressed to:
Susan Fiala, Senior Planner; Development Services Division; 6th floor Renton
City Hall; 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA 98055.
A public hearing has been scheduled to accept both written and oral
comments on the DEIS. It will be held on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at
6 pm, in City Council Chambers, 7th floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South
Grady Way; Renton, WA.
Following the public comment period, the City will prepare and issue a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that will include responses to the
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 B. E N T O N
®This paper contains 50%re ycled material,30',4,post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE
comments received during the public comment period. The City will then issue a
Mitigation Document which will set forth the necessary conditions to diminish or
eliminate environmental impacts, as one portion of the approval of the Proposed
Action.
If you have any questions or require clarification of the above, please contact
Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, at 425-430-7382.
The City of Renton appreciates your interest and participation.
For the Environmental Review Committee:
It\4 6747 3 3/H1#z '#t—
Gregg Zimmerman r yN
Administrator
Planning/Building/Public Works
r 4
age
FACT SHEET
Name of Proposal Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Description of Proposal Preliminary Plat approval for subdivision of the site into 115 residential
lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet. Construction and
dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake
Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway. Utilities include water,
sewer, and storm drainage, including water quality treatment facilities. An
open space area of approximately 30,000 square feet would abut publicly
owned lands along the shoreline. A buffer area is proposed along May
Creek ranging from 20 to 100 feet. Displacement is proposed for portions
of the southern wetland that lies largely within the BNSF right-of-way.
Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland.
Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include
construction of 115 duplex and town home units using shared walls
between property lines.
Location of Proposal 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard NE
Renton,WA 98056
Proponent Barbee Forest Products Inc.
Proponent Contact Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific,LP
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle,WA 98101
(206)689-7203
Lead Agency City of Renton
Contact Person Susan Fiala
(425)430-7382
Approval and Licenses • Preliminary Plat Approval
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
• Variance and/or Modification from Critical Areas provisions for
displacement of wetland areas and wetland buffer area averaging
• Plat Street and Public Facility Engineering Plan Approval
• Clearing and Grading Permit Approval
• Site Plan Review
• Approval of public crossing over railroad and/or street
modification for access to the development by Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement i September 2003
Approval and Licenses • Washington Department of Natural Resources aquatics lease
(continued) termination assessment and restoration order
• King County Demolition Permits for removal of existing sawmill
buildings within public aquatics lease area
Authors and Principal Parametrix
Contributors 5808 Lake Washington Boulevard NE, Suite 200
Kirkland,WA 98033-7350
(425) 822-8880
Date of Issue September 2,2003
Date Comments Due October 1,2003
Date and Location of October 23,2003 6:00 p.m.
Draft EIS Public Hearing Renton City Hall
Council Chambers
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Date of Action on Winter 2004
Applications
Location of Background City of Renton
Information Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
(425)430-7200
Parametrix Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE
Suite 200
Kirkland,WA 98033
(425)822-8880
Cost of EIS $ 15.00 Draft EIS
$ 15.00 Technical Appendices
$ 5.00 CD version
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement ii September 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COVER LETTER
° FACT SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
ACRONYMS viii
1. SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 ALTERNATIVES 1-1
1.1.1 Proposal 1-1
1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site 1-1
1.2 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 1-1
1.2.1 Affected Environment 1-1
1.2.2 Impacts 1-4
1.2.3 Mitigation 1-4
1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 1-5
1.3.1 Affected Environment 1-5
1.3.2 Impacts 1-5
1.3.3 Mitigation 1-6
1.4 GROUNDWATER 1-6
1.4.1 Affected Environment 1-6
1.4.2 Impacts 1-6
1.4.3 Mitigation 1-7
1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 1-7
1.5.1 Affected Environment 1-7
1.5.2 Impacts 1-8
1.5.3 Mitigation 1-10
1.6 TRANSPORTATION 1-11
1.6.1 Affected Environment 1-11
1.6.2 Impacts 1-11
1.6.3 Mitigation 1-12
1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1-13
1.7.1 Affected Environment 1-13
1.7.2 Impacts 1-14
1.7.3 Mitigation 1-15
1.8 AESTHETICS 1-15
1.8.1 Affected Environment 1-15
1.8.2 Impacts 1-15
1.8.3 Mitigation 1-16
1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 1-16
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement iii September 2003
' I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) '
1.9.1 Affected Environment 1-16 I_
1.9.2 Impacts 1-16
I
1.9.3 Mitigation 1-17 1
1.10 NOISE 1-17
1.10.1 Affected Environment 1-17
1.10.2 Impacts 1-17
1.10.3 Mitigation l-18 j ,
' 1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES 1-19
1.11.1 Affected Environment 1-19
1.11.2 Impacts 1-19 0
1.11.3 Mitigation 1-19
2. ALTERNATIVES 2-1
1 2.1 PROPOSAL 2-1
2.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE 2-4
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3-1
3.1 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 3-1 ,
3.1.1 Affected Environment 3-1
3.1.2 Impacts 3-3
3.1.3 Mitigation 3-4 _
3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3-8 '
3.2.1 Affected Environment 3-8
3.2.2 Impacts 3-14
3.2.3 Mitigation 3-16
3.3 GROUNDWATER 3-22 1
II
3.3.1 Affected Environment 3-22 !
3.3.2 Impacts 3-24
3.3.3 Mitigation 3-24 1 r
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 3-24
3.4.1 Affected Environment 3-25
3.4.2 Impacts 3-34 '-.'
3.4.3 Mitigation 3-43 _
3.5 TRANSPORTATION 3-61
3.5.1 Affected Environment 3-61
3.5.2 Impacts 3-68
3.5.3 Mitigation 3-83
3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3-89
3.6.1 Affected Environment 3-89
3.6.2 Impacts 3-96 1
3.6.3 Mitigation 3-97
3.7 AESTHETICS 3-97
City of Renton Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
554-1779-017 ,_
raft-Environmental Impact Statement iv September 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3.7.1 Affected Environment 3-98
3.7.2 Impacts 3-102
3.7.3 Mitigation 3-117
3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE 3-118
3.8.1 Affected Environment 3-118
3.8.2 Impacts 3-118
3.8.3 Mitigation 3-119
3.9 NOISE 3-119
3.9.1 Affected Environment 3-119
3.9.2 Impacts 3-123
3.9.3 Mitigation 3-125
3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 3-126
3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-126
3.10.1 Affected Environment 3-126
3.10.2 Impacts 3-130
3.10.3 Mitigation3-132
4. REFERENCES 4-1
5. DISTRIBUTION LIST 5-1
APPENDICES
A Scoping Determination(Bound with EIS Text)
Volume 2—Appendices B—E
B Floodplain Analysis Technical Report
C Water Resources
D Terrestrial Plants and Animals
E Aquatic Species
ti .
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement v September 2003
1
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LI II T OF FIGURES
i ,
1.1-1 Vicinity Map 1-2
1.1-2 Local Vicinity Map 1-3 ' ,
2.1-1 Preliminary Plat 2-2
3.2-1 May Creek Basin Vicinity Map 3-9
1
3.2-2 May Creek Location and Stream Type Map 3-10 i
3.2-3 Floodplain 3-17 1
3.2-4 Proposed Water Quality Treatment and Stormwater Drainage System 3-18
3.4-1 Existing Shoreline Protection 3-26
3.4-2 Northerly Wetland 3-35
3.4-3 Southerly Wetland 3-36 ,
3.4-4 Option"A" 50-foot Buffer 3-49 ,
3.4-5 Option"B" 100-foot Setback 3-51
3.4-6 Cross Sections Lots 27 &28 3-53
3.4-7 Cross Sections Lots 29 and 30 3-54
3.4-8 Cross Sections Lots 35 &36 3-55
3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification 3-59
3.4-10 Shoreline Modification Provision of pocket Beaches and Other Features 3-60
Y
3.5-1 Project Area Map 3-63
3.5-2 Overall Plat Plan 3-64
3.5-3 Year 2002 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3-65 1 `
3.5-4 Year 2007 No Build PM Peak Hour Volumes 3-70
3.5-5 Project Trip Distribution 3-72
1 3.5-6 PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes 3-73 -
3.5-7 Year 2007 With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 3-74
I 3.5-8 Alternative Access 3-87
3.6-1 Site Map with Adjacent Properties 3-91
3.6-2 Building Locations 3-92
3.7-1 Location of Viewpoints for Visual Analysis 3-100
3.7-2 Area of Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction , 3-101
3.7-3 View 1—Existing Conditions as Seen from Lake Washington Blvd.near Ripley
Lane 3-104
3.7-4 View 1—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from Lake Washington
Blvd.near Ripley Lane 3-105
4i0,of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement vi September 2003
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3.7-5 View 2—ExistingConditions as Seen from near 40th Street 3-106
3.7-6 View 2—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 40th Street 3-107
3.7-7 View 3-Existing Conditions as Seen from near 38th Street 3-109
3.7-8 View 3—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 38th Street 3-110
3.7-9 View 4—Existing Conditions as Seen from near 32nd Street 3-111
3.7-10 View 4—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from near 32nd Street 3-112
3.7-11 View 5—Existing Condition as Seen From Park Avenue and 40th Street 3-113
3.7-12 View 5—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen From Park Avenue and
40th Street 3-114
3.7-13 View 6—Existing Conditions as Seen from Lake Washington near Mercer Island 3-115
3.7-14 View 6—Simulation of Development Buildings as Seen from Lake Washington
near Mercer Island 3-116
3.10-1 Location of Existing Buildings 3-129
3.10-2 Historic Lake Washington Shoreline 3-131
LIST OF TABLES
3.4-1 Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000) 3-41
3.4-2 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) 3-41
3.4-3 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT(1993) 3-41
3.5-1 Corresponding LOS Grade and Intersection Delay 3-66
3.5-2 Level of Service Summary 3-67
3.5-3 Trip Generation 3-69
3.5-4 Project Impacts to City of Renton 3-75
3.5-5 Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary 3-75
3.5-6 Year 2000 to 2003 Intersection Accident History Summary 3-79
3.5-7 Project Impacts to the City of Newcastle 3-80
3.7-1 Visual Simulations 3-103
3.9-1 Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources 3-121
3.9.2 Noise Levels 3-121
3.9-3 Noise Measurement Results 3-122
3.9-4 Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA) 3-124
3.9-5 Noise Modeling Results 3-126
3.10-1 Structures on Barbee Mill Site 3-128
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement vii September 2003
1_
1
ACRONYMS
APA Aquifer Protection Area
BA Biological Assessment
BMP Best Management Practice
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations i
cfs cubic feet per second
CMZ channel migration zone -'
COR Center Office Residential
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel I'
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
DPS Distinct Population Segment
Ecology Washington Department of Ecology
EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS environmental impact statement
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
I,
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit
!' FHWA Federal Highway Administration ti
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
iI
1 1-405 Interstate 405
I
KCBW King County Backwater
I
KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
KCSWM King County Surface Water Management
Leq A-weighted energy equivalent
11 LWD large woody debris
mg/L milligrams per liter
mllw mean lower low water
mm millimeter
mph miles per hour
MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
1I
city of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _
u raft-Environmental Impact Statement viii September 2003
� I
ACRONYMS (Continued)
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OHW Ordinary High Water
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RMC Renton Municipal Code
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCP pentachlorophenol
PHS Priority Habitat and Species
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RMC Renton Municipal Code
ROW Right-of-way
SHPO State Historical Preservation Office
SMA Shoreline Management Act
SPTH Site-potential tree height
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
5 TIR Technical Information Report
TOC total organic carbon
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compound
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDOE Washington Department of Energy
WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement ix September 2003
i i
1. SUMMARY
1.1 ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed.
1.1.1 Proposal
The project site is located on Lake Washington, in the City of Renton(as shown on Figure 1.1-1). 11
The proposed subdivision and related site development include subdivision of the site into 115 residential
lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet; construction and dedication of public streets with one
bridge crossing of May Creek; construction of utilities; provision of an open-space area of approximately
30,000 square feet that would abut publicly owned lands along the shoreline; a buffer area averaging
about 50 feet in width along May Creek;and displacement of wetland and buffer area in two wetlands.
• Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include construction of 115 duplex and
town home units. Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence1111
of a specific proposal for shared moorage. Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the
shoreline to protect buildings and associated private lawn area.
Public lands of about 29,000 square feet lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line are presumed to
be developed in the future as public open space. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are
presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails, benches, and interpretive
facilities.
1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site
• This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site, with different uses than the
existing sawmill. The following assumptions have been made: no construction of public roads,
the existing driveway access would continue; existing structures would be retained and adapted to
new uses and new structures would be developed for a total of 545,000 square feet of building
area.
1.2 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY
1.2.1 Affected Environment
The site is underlain by glacial deposits consisting of recessional till and outwash. Till is a very dense
mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous
weight of the glacial ice. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt-water
streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. These glacial units are overlain by
alluvial (stream-deposited) and lacustrine (lake-deposited) geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand,
as well as imported fill materials. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site have
been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup plan
approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology).
The southernmost splay of the Seattle fault is located along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site.
The May Creek basin area is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large
events with recurrence intervals longer than 100 years) because of known earthquake epicenters in the
region. Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to seismic-induced landslides,
ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest damage in a future large
earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta.
City of Renton-Barbee Mil1 Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-1 September 2003
2
1115 522
DUVALL
202
REDMOND
KIRKLAND r
202
203
5200)/
SEATTLE .,.;, , e . BELLEVUE
Washington." $fLak
o
90
ISSAQUAH
U
NEWCASTLE
900
RENTON PROJECT
405 SITE
Parametrlx DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01
Figure 1.1-1
Vicinity Map
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
irk ® ,,,,,,..„T . .,,,
. „.„.
-4i' ,..
...,
,. " .,
._____.__„. ._ _.
l.,,,„„, ....._.......... . . .
. ,,,::,.:
d .:
- / i- ���-� / STREET ,
c
.:S
t I
I
[� j•f i
- O
cns •
1 ,
a
MIll .
,L
I
•
ia.
1
F
s
re :.`: '1 '11111111F.-',..,.. to a . „
fa _�� I
manna, _r� CITY =1 '
r T
nOF - ®ILA ®� [--
I®ate- i RENTON ® NPileir :I:::
s MU IL
_
: ..',.,.:1: ,
' VitillAntei
IIIIII
-...,..--4. R mit.;---„All''''',..''..,:::'--.:" ':' .-
•
)liOIL# P .
• , . r -, ':::::. A RIME niiiik740 ,,„
/
'� ' pip! r,/NI illi
. tilliA ..
Paramatrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)8/03(K)
1
City Limits Figure 1.1-2
Local Vicinity Map
1.2.2 Impacts
Construction impacts include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the site. Vegetation
would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be demolished on the
site prior to grading.
This project may cause erosion, sediment-laden runoff,and dust on the shoreline of Lake Washington and
along May Creek.
Liquefaction during an earthquake is a risk on the site due to the fills and alluvial soils that underlie the
surface. Localized loss of soil cohesion from seismic induced liquefaction could result in foundation
subsidence with associated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges as well as
localized cracking or subsidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. Lateral movement
could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight movements typically produce cracks and
fissures in overlying deposits, causing building structure failure through increased shear strain. Greater
lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to compress to the point of buckling or being
pulled apart. Roadways may experience slight to severe cracks, and fissures; utilities may be broken in
numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is close to the lakeside,which results
in a lack of a confining geologic boundary. That, together with the gradient provideky lake depth could
result in movement of portions of the site to the west.
It is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads, and utilities due to the
complexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site
developed to date.
There is also a risk of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass. This risk
cannot be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic
deposits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement.
1.2.3 Mitigation
To control erosion during construction,contractors would implement Best Management Practices(BMPs)
and standard mitigation measures included in Ecology's Stormwater Manual and City of Renton surface
water management regulations. Erosion control plans should be in place prior to construction.
Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented by:
• Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath
the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits.
• Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the
liquefaction potential.
• Containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduce the hazard of lateral
spreading,particularly near the shoreline.
The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining
appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable
seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost, high replacement and repair cost,
and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency access, and
economic loss. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability
because of the potential for loss of life. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further document
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 September 2003
underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on
a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific building type,
size and location. Additional Environmental review may be required at that time.
1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
1.3.1 Affected Environment
The proposed alternative site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek
discharges to Lake Washington.
The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site.
Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap.
The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet.
May Creek is listed as a Class AA (extraordinary)water under State Water Quality Standards. The uses
of Class AA waters include domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply. Also, these waters
provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids, clams, oysters, mussels,
crustaceans, and other shellfish (e.g., crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops), as well as wildlife habitat. In
addition, these waters provide recreation (primary contact recreation, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic
enjoyment),commerce,and navigation.
The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State
as being impaired for zinc,copper, lead, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It
offers good rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife, provides multiple recreational
opportunities, supports varieties of resident fisheries, and acts as a focal point for the surrounding
communities. Although the water quality of Lake Washington is considered very good, natural runs of
Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout appear to be declining. The
reasons for these declines are still not fully understood.
The May Creek Basin Action Plan outlines an action plan for correcting adverse conditions in the May
Creek basin. It provides a set of actions to (1) reduce the threat of flooding to homes; (2) make
infrastructure improvements that will facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce
erosion; (3) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and (4) take
reasonable steps to prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. The Action Plan notes
that: "In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to
enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored."
Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious
surface in the form of pavement and various buildings associated with the mill operations. Mill facilities
and pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. The site contains three stormwater collection
areas and outfalls associated with the industrial activities, and non-point discharge drainage areas not
associated with industrial activities.
1.3.2 Impacts
The proposed project would reduce existing impervious surface coverage on the site from approximately
85 percent to about 57 percent. The proposed reduction in impervious surface area would reduce
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 September 2003
stormwater run-off volumes from the site to May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition, reduction in
impervious surface area could increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater.
Water quality treatment for the proposed alternative is required under City of Renton codes. Preliminary
plans include treatment of stormwater that would be an improvement over current conditions for the site.
Flooding impacts for the site were assessed based on the presumption of cessation of dredging at the
mouth of May Creek because deeper water conditions would no longer be needed for log handling and
storage. Another reason for stopping dredging is the benefits of the shallow water and emergent habitat
provided by normal delta processes. With the formation of a natural delta,the 100-year floodplain would
cover a substantial part of the site.
1.3.3 Mitigation
Construction impacts would be minimized through implementation of an appropriate Temporary Erosion
and Sediment Control(TESC)Plan.
Operation and maintenance of the proposed water quality treatment facilities to conform to City of
Renton requirements would reduce adverse water quality impacts from pollutants in runoff.
Containment of the 100-year floodplain within either the proposed May Creek open space corridor, or in
alternative 50 foot or 100 foot wide corridors could be accomplished with fill outside the flood corridor to
bring the lowest floor of residences a minimum of one foot above base flood elevation or levees
approximately 2 feet above existing ground level. Compensation for flood storage area lost could be
provided. frep,,1l o_ 2.2
Provision of the wider 100 foot wide corridor would provide additional flood conveyance and storage to piE
compensate for the future increase in floodplain depths that will occur because of aggregation of
sediments in the stream over time.
Existing bridges should be removed and/or reconstructed to reduce the restriction to floodwater flow.
1.4 GROUNDWATER
1.4.1 Affected Environment
The project site is primarily a groundwater discharge area. General groundwater flow on the site is west
toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site.
Elevated concentrations of arsenic have been detected in the groundwater over the northern half of the
site, with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were also detected in
specific areas. Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source.
Detections of hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank(UST)
areas. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has been approved for the site that calls for removal of the
contaminated soil on the site and groundwater treatment.
1.4.2 Impacts
Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water
supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No
groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 September 2003
Small amounts of groundwater recharge from pervious surfaces, the stormwater conveyance system, and
potential infiltration by stormwater facilities are likely to be minor compared to groundwater from up-
gradient sources such as May Creek. Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly
altered due to the installation of foundations.
1.4.3 Mitigation
Removal of the contaminated soil and dewatering and treatment of the contaminated groundwater during
Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site would improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic
and other contaminants.
1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
•
1.5.1 Affected Environment
Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is currently limited because buildings and paved areas
associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington and to within 5 to 25 feet of May
Creek. A small portion of the site on the east side of May Creek near the BNSF Bridge includes
substantial upland vegetation adjacent to the riparian zone of the stream. A revegetation plan for the May
Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was required in 1994 as a condition of
Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification, but the majority of plantings do
not appear to have survived and have not established a stable riparian and shoreline vegetation
community.
N
Species known or expected to use the area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese, northern flicker,
6) spotted towhees, white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows, red-winged blackbirds, tree
swallows, black-capped chickadees, house finches, American crows, double-crested cormorants, hooded
mergansers, American wigeons, scaups, buffleheads, and common mergansers. Mammals and
amphibians on the site include voles and mice, the Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray
squirrel, muskrats, and possibly Pacific tree frogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May
Creek limits its value as a habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to use the
project site portion of the creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project
site.
The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site.
The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996. The osprey is protected under the Federal _
tMigratory Bird Treaty Act, which makes it unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase,
ship, transport, or export any migratory bird, part, nest, or egg. It is also protected under State of
Washington laws.
Two bald eagle nest sites are approximately one mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the
May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near the project site; however, use of the actual project site
is unlikely due to lack of suitable large trees for perching and roosting. Bald eagles are federally and state
listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has been proposed for federal de-
listing and state down-listing to sensitive.
Two small wetlands are located largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern edge of
the property and small portions of these wetlands extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands
have been regularly mowed, as part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also
to maintain access to water utilities.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 September 2003
May Creek and Lake Washington support five species of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, coho
salmon, sockeye salmon,winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout. Resident rainbow trout are also a
priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are federal
species of concern that have been found within King County and may also occur near the project site.
There are three fish species that are present, or may be present, within the Barbee Mill project vicinity
that are either federally listed or a candidate for listing under the ESA. Chinook salmon is a threatened
species. Coho salmon is a candidate for listing under the ESA. The Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) of bull trout is a federally threatened species that occurs within the project
vicinity.
1.5.2 Impacts
Theex_istin osprey nest will be remove during demolition of mill buildings. The proposed project
wou have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile of the project site.
Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the
majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will
remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation and may permanently preclude revegetation because
of shading and drought conditions. The stream crossing also may restrict animal movement. The
northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the access street
will reduce buffer dimensions below the Renton code minimum of 25 feet. The southerly wetland will
experience partial displacement due to roadway construction and modification of the drainage system in
the area.
Impacts on wildlife during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of
disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts
for pile driving for foundation construction could be a substantial disturbance over several years and
could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are
habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. These wildlife populations may develop some
tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to corridors during nighttime and other hours when
construction doesn't take place. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due
to disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. After construction, human activity levels
and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions and result in reduced use by foraging
eagles. The high noise levels associated with ongoing building construction for several years may
discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sawdust tower from relocating in the immediate vicinity.
Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume with the cession of dredging. The
long-term effects of delta deposits result in extensive shallow aquatic habitat. The proposal includes
setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the water's edge to about
100 feet and averages about 50 feet. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acre of publicly owned land
between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. The existing sawmill and
related facilities would be removed, which would allow opportunities for provision of a more natural
shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads and replanting the area to provide a buffer of indigenous
native species.
The open space area along May Creek would result in an increase in forage, cover,and potential nest sites
for wildlife. Creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the
completed project site. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project is
proposed to be vegetated with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress,which will result in
limited habitat value.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 September 2003
The proposal includes creation of 16 lots with direct private lake frontage. A building setback of 25 feet
' from Ordinary high water(OHW) is proposed for these lots. Vegetation in these areas is presumed to be
, lawns and ornamental landscaping. Chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be
applied up to the waters edge and lead to over-spraying, inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing
chemicals. All of these will directly affect waterfowl and aquatic species through direct toxicity or by
nutrient enrichment which can increase plant production and oxygen demand. Human disturbance along
Lake Washington, given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings and recreational docks and
watercraft use,would reduce wildfowl and aquatic species.
Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads is not expected to substantially increase due to the project, as low
speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions.
rtr The direct impacts of the project to aquatic species are related to the extent and duration of the
construction activities, whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate
test habitat modifications that result from the project. Initial construction of subdivision infrastructure would
potentially cause some disturbance„which would make the site susceptible to erosion and accidental
discharaes_f sedinrnt and pollutants to surface water. The impacts on May Creek of_csinstructing the
proposeslja_ida is likely to be related to design, specifically the setback of abutments or bridge supports
from the stream.
1.11
AK The proposed buffer along May Creek would be an improvement over existing conditions. „ .2-foot
width would fall significantly short of providing full riparian functions. The primary functions of stream
buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large woody debris (LWD) recruitment,
bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature
through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate. The required width of the buffer to maintain
these functions varies with stream size and the ability of the channel to migrate.
¶)
The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock per developed lot for up to 16
additional docks. New docks, as well as the existing boathouse and existing pilings and log booms, create
permanent near-shore shading. The establishment of these structures can disrupt normal migration and
feeding patterns, provide refuge from predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation,
phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore. Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in
the southern portion of Lake Washington tend to avoid overhead structures. Residents with docks may
also desire to institute dredging, which would deepen shoreline areas, thereby reducing the habitat
benefits provided by the May Creek delta.
-
127 U t,. 14 H E_ *L,
Buds are expected to be needed for shoreline protection of residences because the proposed 25-foot
building setback provides little area for natural shoreline processes without potentially threatening
buildings. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish by disrupting the
migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile salmon, preventing recruitment of sediment into the lake
necessary for the formation of natural shallow-water habitat, and generally creating an inhospitable high-
energy environment for juvenile fish � T
Artificial light from buildings close to the shoreline, street lighting and piers can also adversely affect
juvenile s—a-Gaids by causing delays in migration, or a change in migratory routes into deeper water
where juveniles would be/N. re vtrabletp predation. l
Public access alongthe shoreline ispresumed to be developedpursuant to the requirements of the Renton
ub ` P q
Shoreline Master Program, which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington. The
applicant has not defined a public access program. It is presumed that this would take the form of a trail
adjacent to the water on residential lots,which would contribute to the need to bulkhead the shoreline and
lead to direct human disruption of waterfowl and aquatic species.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 September 2003
1.5.3 Mitigation
Osprey mitigation measures can include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in
the project site vicinity. Research has proven that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting
structures. Noise from construction of residences for several years, including pile driving for foundations,
may limit the willingness of osprey to relocate in the immediate vicinity.
Mitigation of construction impacts to existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native
buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction. Staging and access areas
should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. In portions of the site
where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur, clearing to remove these species would
be beneficial if the area is replanted with native species.
Mitigation for loss of vegetation at bridge crossings and possible restriction of animal movement may
include sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain plant
communities and provide for animal movement.
Residential landscaping should be designed and maintained in ways that minimize the use of fertilizers,
pesticides, or herbicides to reduce adverse effects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic
organisms in May Creek, Lake Washington. Enforcing restricted use of chemicals on private lawns
landscaping is, however,difficult in the long term.
The displacement of wetland area for the southerly wetland and buffer area for the northerly wetland
could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffers If
impacts are not avoided, compensation by wetland creation could be located north and west of the
northerly wetland adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Design would be required to address a
variety of parameters including hydrology, soil amendment, plant selection, and maintenance. Mitigation ie
of impacts to lost buffer area could include enhancement of the existing wetland and buffer vegetation
communities.
Mitigation for the adverse impacts of bulkheads can include relocating bulkheads landward of OHW, to
allow natural shoreline conditions to reestablish, providing plantings in riprap, or more extensive it,
vegetative stabilization. These options have limited application under the proposal because of the 25-foot
building setback and the depth to the lake bottom in dredged areas.
Impacts of docks can be addressed by prohibition and use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from
near-shore habitat, or a reduction in docks through shared moorage. Impacts on near-shore habitat can be
reduced by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration.
Mitigation through alternative buffer areas involves conceptual plans for 50- and 100-foot buffers along
both May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline. Greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of
vegetation communities and support a wider range of wildlife and aquatic species. The establishment and
persistence of native vegetation on this site is likely to require long-term management both to monitor and
replace plantings that die prior to establishment,but also to control invasive plants.
For the Lake Washington shoreline, both the 50- and 100-foot buffer options are likely to reduce impacts
such as the introduction of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides from residential landscaping. Increased
buffers would provide additional vegetation and wildlife habitat. Greater opportunities would be afforded
for replacement of bulkheads with more natural condition with limited regrading to provide a more
natural shoreline gradient and provide in-water substrate. Planting more extensive and complex
communities of native vegetation would contribute to a more productive food chain through shading,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 September 2003
recruitment of large woody debris, and other processes. The greater setbacks would reduce impacts from
lighting and direct disturbance from public trail access by allowing greater setbacks from the shoreline.
Some of this mitigation could be implemented on the public land between the inner and outer harbor
lines,which varies in width between 20 and 80 feet. Extending setbacks to private shoreline frontage will
allow greater benefits along a continuous shoreline corridor.
1.6 TRANSPORTATIONS• ^l-- —r-
r 1-- ,-;••
1.6.1 Affected Environment -- --�
All intersections in the study area are stop-sign controlled and all operate at Level of Service (LOS)A or
B, except for the I-405 northbound ramp(Lake Washington Boulevard)at NE 44th Street that operates at
LOS F and currently meets warrants for signalization. The I-405 interchanges at 30th Street and 44th
Street both are currently at LOS D for ramp merge/diverge operation.
The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard
that crosses the adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. There are
currently four private rail crossings that serve properties in the vicinity located west of the railway.
Existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities in the vicinity are limited to a bicycle lane on Lake
Washington Boulevard. Pedestrians are accommodated on roadway shoulders. The nearest transi
service is at the Kennydale Park and Ride near 30th Street and I-405. tat.4 - 4 1jo't'
1.6.2 Impacts
Future baseline conditions without the project were developed using the City of Renton EMME2
transportation demand model for the 2007 year of full development. The forecast includes general traffic
increases from growth in the region as well as specific approved projects in the vicinity.
The duplex and town home units on the site are expected to have trip generation typical of single-family
dwellings. The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic
volumes with 81 percent of project traffic routed to the north, and 19 percent to the south. Traffic further
splits to trips oriented to I-405 and trips routed on local arterials.
Two site access points for public roads site access are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard
and one onto Ripley Lane to the north of the site. Both access points cross the BNSF railroad.
Consideration of grade-separated crossings will be required pursuant to RCW 81.53.020. The
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is charged with approval of new public rail
,,/� crossings and will evaluate grade separated and at-grade crossing options based on topographic,
�� 1 operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the crossing. The proposed access
points have substantial constraints in meeting geometric criteria for rail crossings.,
Project traffic contributes up to 22 percent of the year 2007 traffic growth on Lake Washington
Boulevard,with a lower contribution to arterials further from the site.
All study area intersections are projected to operate with an LOS C or better during the PM peak hour
with the exception of the I-405 ramp intersections with Lake Washington Boulevard (NE 44th Street).
The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F
in current conditions,the 2007 baseline and with the project,due to heavy approach volumes on the minor
legs(north- and southbound). The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 September 2003
intersection operates at LOS F with the additional trips from the project due to the southbound left-turn
movement.
The I-405 ramp merge and diverge operation for the northbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th
Street, and the northbound on ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F under both the year 2007
baseline and with the project. The I-405 southbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street, and
the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E under the year 2007 baseline and with
project trips. The analysis indicates the project traffic volumes will have no further impact on the ramp
operations.
Project trips routed through the adjacent City of Newcastle contribute about 20 percent of the 2007 traffic
volumes on 112th Avenue SE at 68th Street and less on other arterials. There is no change in Level of
Service on affected interchanges from the project as compared with the 2007 baseline conditions.
A concern raised by the City of Newcastle is the potential greater use of alternate routes when congestion
is heavy on I-405 and commuters use local streets to bypass congestion sections of the freeway. Potential
alternative arterial routes, however, generally have longer travel times than the freeway, except in cases
where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. The impacts of diverted trips
include trips from throughout the local community, of which the project is a small part. Diverted trips
can be addressed, by planning arterial improvements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405, or
by retaining capacity constraints, such as stop-controlled intersection that tend to increase travel time
and may discourage drivers from trying alternate routes. 0-11 t 4,4 114 f " „ ' ,
Vehicular and rail crossing safety is unlikely to be substantially changed by traffic demand of the project.
Pedestrian demands on the discontinuous pedestrian facilities in the area could lead to additional
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.
Cumulative impacts of this development will include traffic and pedestrian demands of future
development of the Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north.
At the least, residential development of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred
more residential units and several hundred PM peak hour trips and would generate a need for additional dlitt
access points, or geometric and signal improvements at existing intersections.
1.6.3 Mitigation
At the I-405 southbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection, an all-way stop
control or a signal would mitigate operation at LOS F. The installation of a signal is not warranted based
on the 2007 projected vehicular volumes.
The I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection operations can be
mitigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane. The intersection
also meets volume criteria for signal warrants.
The development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of
$75 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system impacts of diffuse new
trips from the development on the general circulation system.
Geometric limitations of the proposed rail crossings can be mitigated by moving the crossings to locations
where Lake Washington Boulevard and the rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some
impacts on grading for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek. Relocation also would reduce
separation between crossings and increase the potential for both to be blocked by a stopped train. This
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 September 2003
o
could be mitigated by connecting this site with the at-grade crossing at the north end of the Vulcan
property.
Safety at railroad crossings involves three basic approaches:
4 • Grade separation,which removes potential vehicle train conflicts, but is more expensive;
• Passive control for at-grade crossings, involving signs and pavement markers and relying on
el drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping with adequate
clearance from the rails;
� t Y;111k‘i '• Active control of at-grade crossings, which consists of signals and gates designed to provide
warning devices automatically activated by train approach and may include gates that physically
exclude vehicles and pedestrians.
The City of Renton and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission will evaluate crossing
options based on topographic, operational, safety, And economic factors and the public need for the
crossing. Consolidation of existing private crossings may be required.
Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities
and programs that would provide safe pedestrian circulation.
1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1.7.1 Affected Environment
As part of lumber processing, various substances were used on the site to treat wood including arsenic
trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron sulfate and pentachlorophenol. Underground storage tanks
(USTs)with petrochemical fuels were located on the site. A variety of solvents and industrial chemicals,
fuels and lubricants have been utilized in sawmill operations.
Soil and groundwater contamination documented at the Barbee Mill site includes arsenic at
concentrations up to 830 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 20 mg/kg) and zinc in
concentrations up to 490 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 130 mg/kg). These elevated
concentrations of metals in soils present pathways for migration of contaminants to groundwater. Low
levels of chlorinated phenols have been detected in the soils from a few borings but do not exceed the
cleanup levels. No polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were
ille detected.
Lake Washington sediments adjacent to the site contain total organic carbon (TOC) that exceeded
Freshwater Sediment Quality Values. Concentrations of polynuclea aroma hydrocarbons and other
hazardous substances are well below sediment screening levels.
Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, (compared to the
selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L). The groundwater plume extends west and northwest
of the source area, with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the nearby Quendall Terminals
site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below site cleanup levels. Low levels of
hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of chlorinated
phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. PCBs or VOC were
not detected in areas sampled.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 September 2003
A remediation plan for the Barbee Mill site was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology in
2000 under the Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA)includes: removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards
of soil impacted with arsenic and zinc; confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base;
dewatering of the excavation area; groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes, including
prefiltering, oxidation, precipitation, and adsorption; discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake
Washington; removal and disposal of impacted soil at a licensed location; backfilling and compacting
excavation with clean fill; and implementing a groundwater monitoring progranrpossibly an ongoing
groundwater treatment program. �, � ... ✓ a a
A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington, next to the Barbee Mill site, was
conducted between 1999 and 2002, under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program. This effort removed
approximately 26,QQ0 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris that was dredged and stockpiled on the
Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total exceeded
the MTCA Method B carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) criterion. These sediments are
currently being transferred to a licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County, Washington. The remaining
clean sediments are stockpiled at the site. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action letter
for the sediments from Ecology(2003).
Potential impacts from sites in the vicinity of Barbee Mill include the Quendall Terminals property
immediately north of Barbee Mill, which was the site of a creosote manufacturing facility that refined
coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917 and 1969. The activities at the site
contaminated the soil and groundwater with PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylenes, and other organic
compounds. A public right-of-way is proposed through the Quendall Terminals site to provide access to
Ripley Lane. A remediation plan may be required to be implemented for that portion of the site prior to I..
constructing a roadway.
The Vulcan(J.H. Baxter) site is located next to and north of the Quendall Terminals site. This site was a
former wood treatment facility from the mid 1950s to the early 1980s. The chemicals used on-site
included creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP). Contaminants present in the soil, groundwater, and
sediment of the site include dioxins,PAHs,and dense non-aqueous phase liquids(DNAPL).
Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt and the
deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high lake
levels has been conducted. The monitoring shows a consistent east-to-west groundwater flow pattern
beneath the site in both groundwater zones. These studies indicate that contaminants from the sites to the
north will not flow onto or impact the Barbee Mill site.
1.7.2 Impacts
The remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the site to levels suitable for future
residential use. The remediation program is assumed to be the first step of site redevelopment. Residual
risk to future residents from soils that will remain at the site will be minimal, because concentrations of
detected compounds in these soils left in place are below action levels. The action levels are established
based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment.
In addition, contaminated groundwater will be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional
removal and treatment if pilowd.ayncmitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels. tit
The shallow groundwater system at the site will not be used for water supply.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-14 September 2003
1.7.3 Mitigation
Construction specifications for future plat infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for
encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials
contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health safety
precautions, protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous
material,and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as
part of title report to provide notice on property transfer as well as conditions that will allow intrusive
work.
1.8 AESTHETICS
1.8.1 Affected Environment
The site is currently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to
the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the Barbee Mill site are
small-scale, single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the
shoreline to the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with large structures.
Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and
slope steeply toward,Lake Washington,creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines.
From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to
screening from tall trees. Where the Barbee Mill site is visible through gaps in trees, it generally is not
dominant. The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and
is highly intact. Compositional harmony, or unity, varies from viewpoint to viewpoint, but is generally
moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the lake have moderately low unity and
intactness because the large scale, bright color, and uniformity of the industrial structures on the May
Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the shoreline and surrounding hillsides.
1.8.2 Impacts
This proposal would remove existing industrial development. Proposed building density would be much
higher than now exists, with 10 feet between buildings and 15- to 35-foot setbacks between street edge
and building front. Open space would be retained in the form of water quality and stormwater control
ponds, and public land on the shoreline ranging from 20 to 80 feet wide.
Views of the site from Lake Washington Boulevard would transition from the site being a minor part of
views from the vicinity to 32nd Street, to increasing dominance as the site is approached. The extent to
which the proposal dominates views is a function of its relative size and the extent to which views retain
the dominant features of the Mercer Island skyline and views of Lake Washington. As one comes closer
to the site, the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and the
Mercer Island skyline. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington
that is visible. For closer views, the height of buildings and the overlap between buildings present an
apparent wall that blocks views of the lake in the middle ground.
For viewers farther up the hill,the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings,
and portions of the existing view of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be
retained.
The visual impact from Mercer Island and Lake Washington would include a line of buildings that fill the
entire site. Construction of new buildings, however, would not block views of the dominant element of
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-15 September 2003
the distant view, the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual interest of the lake would remain in the
foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase because of the common design theme of a
residential community, as compared to the variety of the existing industrial character. Incorporation o
indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land between the inner and outer
harbor lines,could considerably soften the visual impact of the new buildings.
Views from inside the proposed development would likely be that of a dense urban setting in contrast to
the low intensity residential use in the vicinity. This would be especially pronounced in the interior of the
site where building heights of 50 to 75 feet with 10-foot setbacks between buildings, as well as a 60-foot
separation between buildings across the street from one another,would create a canyon-like effect.
1.8.3 Mitigation
For the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic
impacts could be reduced by a number of strategies.
Changing building bulk could take several forms. The most obvious would be to reduce building height.
Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce buildings more in keeping with typical
low-rise residential development in the vicinity. A second means of reducing the appearance of building
bulk would be to increase setbacks between buildings. This would produce less of a canyon effect on
streets within the development, and present less appearance of a solid mass of buildings from outside the
development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary building height, bulk, and
setbacks.
Common design features, materials, and color,as well as landscape design, could reduce apparent bulk of
buildings. These include sloping roofs,roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs, and building offsets
that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall surfaces. Window detailing can add visual
interest and provide both visual unity and variety.
Screening of the buildings on the site would require large vegetation that would not be expected to mature
for a number of years. The current design,however, does not provide sufficient area in front, sideuor rear
yard setbacks to support large trees. The design of landscaping for open space areas could also provide
off` r large species. The major public of the Eroject could be softened by landscaping only if ,
substantial landscape areas were provided betweenlown-hames..east of May.Creek and the access road on
BNSF railroad right-of way. Additional landscape area could result in reduction in the number of units in
that area.
1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE
1.9.1 Affected Environment
Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have
some shielding, but probably date from the 1960s; many need repair. There are no glare sources on site
because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass.
1.9.2 Impacts
Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street
and/or sidewalk lights, building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater
number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in
an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-16 September 2003
Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to reduce
spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall
brightness at night and would reduce glare.
The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an
uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level
of ambient light. Impacts to residential areas in the vicinity would be lower since there are already
streetlights in the neighborhoods, and the site is partially screened by tall trees.
Headlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade
between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the
roadway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south,
headlights generally will point into the bank, which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family
residences.
1.9.3 Mitigation
For both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light
from distant residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast,
shielded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding
glare from glass surfaces.
1.10 NOISE
1.10.1 Affected Environment
Existing sources of noise near the site includes noise from operating the main sawmill intermittently,
operation of Quendall Terminals located to the north of the Barbee Mill site, which stores and sorts logs;
and from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals, as well as noise
from arterials in the area and I-405. rp FtT a
Noise related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard is typically 54 to 64 dBA. Noise from
the I-405 freeway approximately one-quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady background
daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from especially noisy trucks.
Average noise levels at residences adjacent to I-405 are typically 68 to 71 dBA.
Noise comes from train operations, including engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive
horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet from the source. Locomotive horns are sounded at rail crossings of public streets and
at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle or pedestrians near the tracks.
Locomotive horns typically have a sound level of about 115 dBA.
Sensitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools, nursing homes,
hospitals,or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site.
1.10.2 Impacts
During construction, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels due to the use of heavy
equipment and the hauling of construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the
type of equipment being used, and the amount of time it is in use.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-17 September 2003
In addition to the noise levels associated with typical construction equipment, use of driven or drilled
pilings for deep foundations may be required. There are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and
vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce regular loud thuds. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this
type of source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver vibrates the pile into the ground and produces lower
noise levels over a sustained period.
The existing residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly site boundary and are separated
by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the site west of May Creek is a
minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. The greatest_noise impacts will occur to re,dents
occupying homes on site while construction is ongoing on other buildings:, 4d1
4
/ye
Noise impacts from traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard are expected to be in the range of 1-5 dBA.
This noise increase results from growth in regional trips as well as trips from the project. A change of 3
dBA generally is the threshold at which a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons. Noise
levels from traffic on Lake Washington are projected to remain well below the levels of 67 dBA for
residences that the Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a substantial noise 7
impact.
The creation of public road crossings would make train locomotive horns ding man atory and would,
therefore, increase the frequency. At the current frequency of four tr ' s er day, the impacts to most
residences on and off the project site would likely be slight. If train frequency became more frequent in
the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant annoyance along the entire rail line on the
east side of Lake Washington. The BNSF railroad has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the
next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service, however, does not require approval of local jurisdictions under
federal law governing railroads.
1.10.3 Mitigation
State and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours. A variety of relatively
simple and inexpensive practices would generally provide an approximate 10 dBA reduction in sound and
would be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that
would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels.
The effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible
depth (depth may be limited on this site by the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would
result in less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place
concrete can be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is
installed using an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal, thus
eliminating the need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and
the need for lateral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction.
The Federal Railway Administration (FRA) has proposed regulations to allow designation of a "quiet
zone" that would make sounding of locomotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than
mandatory. The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application
by a local community if at-grade rail crossings meet a"sealed" status to fully compensate for the absence
of the audible warning provided by the locomotive horn.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-18 September 2003
1
1.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ImiI
1.11.1 Affected Environment
Iarbee Marine Yards, Inc., a ship and barge building company, was established on the site in 1943. The
arbee Mill Company, Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property,
retaining the sawmill operation but abandoning the ship building business. The Barbee Mill was the last
aictive sawmill remaining on Lake Washington. A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except
t e water tower and the wooden mill warehouse;the mill was completely rebuilt,and additional structures
ave been added since then.
e oldest building on the site is the mill warehouse. Also known as the black building, it was
nstructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the years. This
ilding and the water tower were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic
laces. The historic survey concluded that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of
e Barbee Sawmill or, on the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that
ey lack "integrity of setting or feeling associated with the site" as individual components because the
iginal site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. As Barbee Mill does not qualify as an
istoric district, and it is not of exceptional importance, it was determined that the mill warehouse and
ater tower were not eligible for listing on the National Register.
Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding cultural resources of
hunter-fisher-gatherer societies is near the original location of May Creek, which was at the north end of
the site. Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916, most of the Barbee Mill site was under
water, and the eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened, the shoreline dropped
approximately 9 feet. Because of extensive disturbance for industrial use, it is unlikely that this site
ould contain any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources; however,the northeast corner has the potential
r deeply buried resources.
11.2 Impacts
As part of redevelopment of the site, all existing industrial buildings will be removed. The lack of
national, state or local listing of the buildings results in limited authority to require preservation of
privately owned structures.
1.11.3 Mitigation
An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed development could present information
about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as well as indicating how it reflects the
lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. Lake Washington's sawmill industries were an
important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history.
i An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the
site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction,
the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from
their vicinity. The foreman would also contact the, Washington State Archaeologist who would assist in
determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the
history of the area and whether such deposits should be recorded.
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-19 September 2003
Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Earth,Soils,and Geology
Erosion and sedimentation Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)for erosion control prior to
construction
Liquefaction Construct buildings on a deep foundation system, such as pilings, that would
transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable
alluvial deposits
Install ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic
compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential underlying roads and utilities
Provide containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduced the
hazard of lateral spreading, particularly near the shoreline
Surface Water
Erosion and Sedimentation Implement an appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC)
Plan
Pollutants in Surface Water Construct,operate and maintain the proposed water quality treatment facilities
Flooding Contain the 100-year floodplain within either the proposed May Creek open
space corridor, or in alternative 50 foot or 100 foot wide corridors contained by fill
or levies at least one foot above base flood levels
Construct residences with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation
Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open
} space corridor and providing additional storage volume
Provide the wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and
flood storage to compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of
sediment deposited in the stream channel
Remove and/or reconstruct existing bridges to reduce the restriction to
floodwater flow
Groundwater
Groundwater Contamination Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site
Provide ongoing treatment of contaminated groundwater, if monitoring after soil
removal indicates, pursuant to Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site
Plants&Animals
Removal of Osprey nest Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site
vicinity
Removal of existing vegetation Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from
disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging
and access areas away from buffer areas
Existing invasive plant species in Clear to completely remove invasive species and re-plant with native species
buffer areas
Loss of vegetation at bridges Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight
and precipitation to maintain vegetation
Restriction of animal movement at Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement
bridges
Lack of habitat value of residential Use native plants in residential landscaping
landscaping
Surface water pollution from Use of native plants in residential landscaping can minimize the use of fertilizers,
fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides I pesticides, or herbicides
with resulting impacts on wildlife and _...............
fish Provide greater setbacks from surface water to reduce overspray, spillage and
runoff that carries pollutants into water
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-0/7
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 September 2003
Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Plants&Animals(continued)
Wetland and buffer displacement Avoided wetland displacement by designing changes in the proposal to place
development outside the wetland and buffer
Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement elsewhere on site
Compensate for loss of buffer through averaging and enhancement of the
existing and buffer vegetation
Bulkh ad impact on aquatic species Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established
(where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building
setbacks)
Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization(where the lake is
shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks)
Providing plantings in rip-rap
Reduce the elevation above OHW of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more
natural shoreline plantings
Loss f waterfowl habitat through Preserve pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from near-
removal of pilings and other in-water shore habitat important for juvenile salmonids
perching sites
Lack bf large woody debris(LWD) Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
recruitment establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous
vegetation
Elevated shoreline water Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
temperature establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer
shade
Light and glare impacts on wildlife Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
and aquatic species establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to
intercept light and glare
Direct disturbance of wildlife and Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
aquatic species from residents or establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer
publi using public access facilities disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline
Impa is of docks on juvenile Prohibit docks, require use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near-
salm nids shore habitat
Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage
Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light
penetration
Difficulty of ensuring maintenance of Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than
shoreline vegetation residents
Transportation
Increase transportation demand from Provide demand management programs including improved transit and carpool
trip generation facilities and service and on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would
provide safe pedestrian circulation to these facilities
Intersections not meeting City of Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake •
Renton level of service(LOS) Washington Boulevard) intersection through an all-way stop control or a signal.
standards A signal is not warranted based on the vehicular volumes
Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington
Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection with an all-way stop control and the
addition of a northbound right-turn lane or a signal. The intersection meets
volume criteria for Signal Warrants
Geometric limitations of propose f Move the site access to locations where Lake Washington Boulevard and the
railroad crossings rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some impacts on grading
for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek
City of I.enton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 September 2003
Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Transportation(continued)
Potential safety impacts at railroad Provide grade separation,which removes potential vehicle/train conflicts, but is
crossings quite expensive. This may be implemented in the future to mitigate cumulative
impacts of development of adjacent properties
Provide active control designed to provide warning devices automatically
activated by train approach and may include gates that physically exclude
vehicles and pedestrians
Provide passive control involving signs and pavement markers and rely on
drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping
with adequate clearance from the rails
Provide for consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of
conflict points
Provide for a traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to
reduce crossings
Increased pedestrian/vehicle Include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide
conflicts safe pedestrian circulation
Diffuse impacts of new trips on the Contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee
circulation system
Hazardous Materials
Soil and groundwater contamination Remove contaminates from the Barbee Mill site through Model Toxics Control
Act cleanup
Address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals
through appropriate removal, stabilization, or isolation, consistent with
requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act
Encountering contaminated soil Provide a contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan
during construction
Visual Impacts
Reduce building bulk by reducing building height
Reduce building bulk by
cks
Reduce building bulk by varying buddingheight,etween buildings b
bulk,and setbacks
Reduce apparent building bulk by design features, materials and color, including
sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets
Reduce relative building bulk by screening through large vegetation. This
mitigation would not take place for a number of years until vegetation matures.
Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings would
be required
Light and Glare Impacts Incorporate shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection
Design buildings to avoid glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun
reflection
Provide additional buffers with dense vegetation to block light and glare
Noise
Construction noise impacts Restrict hours of construction to reduce noise impacts during hours when nearby
residences would be most sensitive
Noise from pile driving Restrict construction hours of pile driving
-..__._...,,._ Pre-drill __.
pile holes to the maximum feasible depth(depth may be limited by the
character of deposits)
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 September 2003
Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Noise(continued)
Require less noisy pile installation methods, if feasible given soil conditions, such
as vibrating piles into place, cassion-type piles, auger cast piles or other
methods
Construction noise from stationary Provide noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors,
equipment welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate
continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels
Noise from locomotive horns Provide at-grade rail crossings that meet a"sealed"to qualify for possible
Federal Railway Administration (FRA) designation of a"quiet zone"for
locomotive horns
Historic and Cultural Resources
Loss of existing buildings Provide an interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the
site, as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding
heritage of the area
Poten
tial disturbance of An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the
archaeological resources northeast corner of the site, and if deposits are found, consult with the,
Washington State Archaeologist in determining whether the archaeological
deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area
and should be conserved
Public Services
Cumulative impacts on parks and Provide parks and fire mitigation fee for cumulative impacts (see Appendix A) 11
public services
mill
111
III
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Linvironmental Impact Statement 1-23 September 2003
2. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed.
2.1 PROPOSAL
The current proposal of the applicant contains the following:
1. Features of the proposed preliminary plat and site development that allow division of the site into
lots include the following(Figure 2.1-1):
• Subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet
is proposed.
• Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake
Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe(BNSF)railway. Roadway width is proposed to be a 36-foot-wide road surface and
a 42-foot right-of-way for all roads.
• One vehicular bridge crossing is proposed over May Creek. One existing bridge is proposed
to be retained for pedestrian use.
• Storm drainage water quality treatment facilities for the portion of the site west of May Creek
consists of a water quali .por ,with a capacity of approximately 56,900 cubic feet.
• A stormwater water quality treatment pond to serve the portion of the site east of May Creek
is proposed,with approximately 11,000 cubic feet capacity.
• An open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet is proposed. It would abut publicly
owned lands along the shoreline administered by DNR. Approximately 6,500 square feet of
this site is proposed for storm drainage facilities, which would leave a net area of
approximately 23,500 square feet. The applicant has not developed a proposal for public
access to this area.
• A buffer area of approximately 20 to 100 feet and averaging about 50 feet is proposed along
May Creek. Specific planting plans have not been proposed.
• Displacement is proposed for portions of the southern wetland, which lies largely within the
BNSF right-of-way. Approximately 400 square feet of wetland area would be displaced,
together with associated buffer area, to accommodate roadway access to seven lots.
Mitigation for this displacement is proposed to take place within the northerly wetland.
• Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland, which is also primarily
within the BNSF right-of-way. Buffer averaging will reduce the wetland setback below the
minimum code standard of 25 feet to accommodate road access to serve eight lots. This
would require approval of a Critical Areas Variance.
• Public sidewalks are proposed for both sides of public streets.
• No walkways,trails, or public access are currently proposed along the May Creek corridor or
the shoreline.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 September 2003
4/7
,
gi /7 //I"(
COR_2 -- /pi
iiüHHIV'
, .
OHWcriffe ( ;f j la ' // �.
Tract"B" Nal ,�
.,_ ract"C Water //
PUBLIC LAND Open Quality 44W-! ,/ t /
•Space S ���j •,S, ,,,-—__,---% .. z'
l 1-- .-: • ." .44..-A.7- /
li
.,,,„„wo- / ' /--,,,...,,,
. . wit tr,„ . - /, J R` to ,
LAKE ow � � _.._/� "/., i
WASHINGTON f' J insaK\ ��• OHV1y r "� j —
WW 10. 'I' •'A*71,\ "'I)/ :'
\\
PUBLIC LAND a '7\`,; �,�,�' yI ` ,/ -
4%, 1
,Iti.\
..._
4,i,
_la,* .. * i. 44,,ip _.4 -.
j
AY CREEK �� �,�,\\_.....-. ______. . kx*i.:� I
DELTA ',� ,,�. 4,A1
, ..
‘„..... .;__.
1
1
•.asore P Gi4lt t" i-- i
1� '�,� •_ 40TH ST
t,,„:,/.:
t L_____. I._ _ . 'n�
I 1 ✓ /,
ie
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-2-1-01
SCALE IN FEET Figure 2.1-1
W Overall Plat Plan
0 150 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
2. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include the following:
• Construction of 115 town home units utilizing shared walls between property lines. The
majority of units are within duplex structures. Two structures with four units and two
structures with five units are proposed east of May Creek. Note: Existing zoning does not
limit use to residences and does not limit residential building type to town homes. Future lot
owners could propose apartment buildings or other uses that meet dimensional and density
standards. These building types are not part of this proposal and are not analyzed in this
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Future proposals would undergo separate
design and environmental review.
• On-site structures would be governed by dimensional requirements in the existing zoning,
which is Center Office Residential 2(COR-2)and Shoreline Urban Environment designation:
> Front, Rear, and Side setback: No specific standard is contained in the COR-2 district,
which specifies setbacks are to be determined through site plan review.
The proposal includes the following setbacks for duplex and town home units:
- Street setback- 10 feet
- Rear lot setback- 10 feet
- Side lot setback-5 feet
- Shoreline Setback: 25-foot minimum
> Height: 125-foot maximum under COR-2.
- The proposal includes a maximum height of 50 feet within the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Management Act, which extends 200 feet from the line of Ordinary High
Water (OHW). A 50-foot-high building would be up to 5 stories high, assuming a
standard ceiling height of 7.5 to 10 feet.
- Maximum height outside of shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to be 75 feet. A 70-
foot building would be up to 7 stories high.
• Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence of a specific
proposal for shared moorage.
• Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline for lots with building setbacks
of 25 feet from the Ordinary high water (OHW). This reflects common shoreline building
patterns on Lake Washington.
• Foundation types for buildings are presumed to consist of deep foundations to transfer
building loads to underlying dense glacial soils. The depth is currently unknown, pending
more detailed geotechnical investigation in the future.
3. Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) managed lands: Features presumed to be
developed on public lands lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line and administered by
the DNR as trustee for the public, are presumed to be public open space. This applies to
approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The
width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23 to 28 and approximately 80 feet
along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are
presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails, benches, and
interpretive facilities.
This presumed use of public lands is consistent with management goals in the Revised Code of
Washington(RCW)79.90.450 and 79.90.455 to:
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-3 September 2003
(a) Foster water-dependent uses
(b) Ensure environmental protection
(c) Encourage direct public use and access
(d) Promote production on a continuing basis of renewable resources
(e) Generate income from use of aquatic lands in a manner consistent with the above goals
Note: The public land between the inner and outer harbor lines is not within the incorporated city limits
of Renton,which follows the Inner Harbor Line.
2. CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE
is alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site, with different uses than the existing
s ill. For this alternative,the following assumptions have been made:
• No construction of public roads will occur on the site. The existing private driveway access
would continue.
• Existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses.
• Existing non-conforming structures within the shoreline setbacks would be retained, including
structures on public lands administered by the DNR.
• New structures are assumed to be developed under zoning conditions that allow major
modifications, production increases, or expansions of existing use only with a Hearing Examiner
conditional use permit(Renton Municipal Code [RMC]4-2-080,Footnote 23).
D. New structures approved under a conditional use permit would meet all minimum shoreline
and stream setbacks.
> Restoration landscaping would be provided within minimum shoreline and wetland setbacks,
if required, in association with the approval of new buildings.
➢ All impervious surfaces on site would remain, except for shoreline and stream buffer areas,
which may be revegetated, if required, in association with the approval of new buildings.
> If triggered by new approved construction, stormwater treatment for water quality would be
implemented to meet current codes,which would result in somewhat larger,open stormwater
treatment areas,due to the larger impervious area.
D. Perimeter landscaping, and parking lot landscaping associated with new buildings, would
meet current codes.
• Specific presumed building area and uses on site include:
➢ Building Floor Area: 545,025 square feet
- Warehouse: 272,500 square feet
- Light Manufacturing: 218,000 square feet
- Accessory Office: 55,000 square feet
➢ Parking Area: 220,000 square feet
818(based on pro-forma sheet)spaces
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 September 2003
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATING MEASURES
3.1 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY
This section provides analyses of soils, geology, earthwork, geologic and seismic hazards, and
erosion/sedimentation for the affected environment, potential impacts, and mitigation development.
These analyses are important both for disclosure of project impacts and for providing a context for
assessment of impacts on other elements, such as water quality.
This section was prepared based on review of existing data and a peer evaluation of existing studies and a
qualitative evaluation of likely impacts. The analysis was based on existing site information and soil,
geologic,and geotechnical studies.
The geology and soils in the project area were evaluated to identify the suitability of the soils for building
and to identify sensitive or geologic hazard areas. Geologic hazard areas include land that is prone to
erosion, landslides, and earthquakes. Information was collected from existing reports and maps of the
area, including the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (now know as the National Resource Conservation
Service)and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In addition, site-specific information on geology and soil
types was determined through geotechnical investigations performed in 1999 and 2003.
3.1.1 Affected Environment
From a regional geologic perspective, the project area is located in the middle of the Puget Sound
lowlands, which is a north-south trending structure that is a topographic trough. Tertiary andesite
comprises the bedrock in this area. Glacial deposits consist of recessional outwash and till that
unconformably overlay bedrock. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt-
water streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. Till is a very dense mixture
of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous weight
of the glacial ice. These glacial units are overlain by alluvial (stream-deposited) and lacustrine (lake-
deposited) geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand. Imported fill materials have also been added to
surface in the area(Yount and Gower 1991).
The affected environment relative to local soil and geologic conditions on the project site was evaluated
based on descriptions and subsurface information included in local and site-specific studies(Golder 2002;
Hart Crowser 2000; Shannon and Wilson 2001). The soils at the project site consist of silts, sands, and
peat, with sawdust, wood, and fill. These units are underlain by glacial outwash sand and gravel (Hart
Crowser 2000). The thickness of the fill is 10 to 15 feet, followed by 40 to 50 feet of lake and stream
deposits. The glacial deposits were encountered at depths of approximately 60 to 65 feet on the site. The
depth to bedrock is greater than 130 feet. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site
have been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup
plan approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (see Section 3.6 of the Draft
EIS,Hazardous Materials).
The project site is located on the May Creek delta,which is the source of a significant portion of the post-
glacial sediments. Through time,May Creek has meandered over the site area. The area was mapped by
Waldron et al. (1962) as alluvium consisting of mostly silt clay and peat, with generally poor drainage
and slow to moderate infiltration. These geologic materials are characterized by variable permeability
with poor seismic stability and fair foundation stability due to the compressible organic layers. The fill
was placed to buildup the project site shoreline. The wood and sawdust are present because the site was
operated as a sawmill for more than 60 years.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 September 2003
The near-surface geology and soils conditions in the project area would not change substantially between
the existing site development and the redeveloped neighborhood. The development would includelfor
removal of contaminated soil (discussed in Section 3.6, Hazardous Materials) and impajIing clean fill
material for site grading. The environmental consequences associated with soils would primarily be a
result of the site remediation and construction of future residences.
3.1.1.1 Seismic and Landslide Hazards
ecause the Puget Sound region has a history of earthquakes with a magnitude 5.0 or greater on the
'chter scale,the ground in the entire project area could experience shaking in the event of an earthquake.
e USGS has identified the western Washington area to have a moderate to high risk of earthquakes
( SGS 2003). The loose soils, fill, and deltaic deposits at the project site are prone to landslide and
1. uefaction in an earthquake. The severity of movement in an earthquake would depend on the location
a d magnitudeiof the seismic event, as well as several other site-specific factors such as depths to
oundwater.
i►444r pact;rle
The Seattle fault is a 4 to 6 kilometers wide, west-trending zone of three or more south-dipping reverse
f;ults that transect the Puget Sound Lowlands. The Seattle fault is cut into two segments by a north ,
•i nding, high-angle, strike-slip fault zone (Johnson et al. 1999). The published location of the '
s i uthernmost splay of the Seattle fault is along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site (Shannon
. id Wilson 2001). Topographic expressions of this fault are not indicated at the project site. Also,there
i,no known recent displacement of sediments shown by borings across the area, which indicates limited
• i no motion across the fault during recent times.
• st studies in the vicinity of the project have identified seismic risks in the area. The May Creek basin
. -a is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large events with recurrence
i tervals longer than 100 years) because of known earthquake epicenters in the region (Heaton and
artzell 1987; Noson et al. 1988; Gower et al. 1985) and thick unconsolidated sediments in an area of
•bserved seismic-induced mass wasting (Bucknam et al. 1992; Atwater and Moore 1992; Karlin and
bella 1992; Jacoby et al. 1992). Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to
s-ismic-induced landslides, ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest
• age in a future large earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta.
11
`tiding and generation of turbidity currents are natural processes occurring off deltas like the May Creek
•elta. Slides and resultant slide-induced waves have occurred on the south side of Mercer Island, across
from the May Creek delta (Jacoby et al. 1992; and Karlin and Abella 1992). Lobes and terraces on the
bathymetry of the delta indicate the presence of wave cut terraces and possible slumps (USGS Bellevue
South Topographic Map 1983). On a geologic time scale (thousands of years) the May Creek delta is a
high seismic risk because of the potential for seismic induced landslides and slide-induced waves (King
County 1995).
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by earthquake
shaking or other rapid loading. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, which are soils in which the space
between individual particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil
particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake,
ttre water pressure is relatively low;however,earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase
to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. In technical terms,
liquefaction is the transformation of loosely packed sediment into a fluid mass. It is the transformation
from a solid to a liquid state as a result of increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress. This
process occurs most readily in fine- to coarse-grained sands of uniform grain size. The mixture of sand
aid water act as a viscous liquid with significantly reduced shear strength. The process of liquefaction
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 September 2003
can be triggered by a variety of mechanisms, including seismic shaking, wave-induced shear stress, the
static force of a thick sequence of loose sediment on a slope, erosion on the toe of a slope, or seepage
force due to a changing water table(Obermeier et al.2001).
The results of liquefaction generally include the following:
• Loss of bearing strength of soils
• Increased pressure against foundations and retaining walls
• Lateral spreading
Loss of bearing strength of soils can result in the slumping of earth and sinking of structural foundations.
Differential settlement of foundations can cause shear forces in other parts of the structure that cause the
overlying structure to develop cracks or to fail.
Liquefied soil also exerts higher pressure on structures such as foundations or retaining walls, which can
cause them to deflect. This can also cause shear forces in structures, leading to failure. On structures
such as bridges, lateral pressure can cause supports to deflect,which can push foundations out of place to
the point where bridge spans loose support or are compressed to the point of buckling(UW 2002).
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is the displacement of ground under a gradient as the result of
liquefaction of underlying soils. Lateral displacement can range from slight to severe movement of
several meters. Slight movement typically produces cracks and fissures in the overlying deposits.
Greater movements can result in unsaturated overburden soil sliding as intact blocks with the formation of
ground fissures and subsidence at the head of the movement and compression and buckling at the toe.
Locations where there is no confining geologic boundary, such as at a stream or lakeside,typically result
in greater lateral spreading(Rauch 1997).
Both landslides and liquefaction can have caused major damage beyond structural damage to roads,
bridges and other structures by making roads unusable, blocking streams with resulting flooding or other
damage, and breaking pipelines and power and communication lines, leading to loss of fire flow, loss of
domestic water service, and pollution from spilled sewage, including related health hazards(USGS 1996).
Whether either landslides or liquefaction occurs depends on a variety of factors, including slope, strength
of geologic materials, and the magnitude of shaking.
3.1.2 Impacts
3.1.2.1 Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation
The near-surface geology and soils in the project area would change as a result of the proposed
development because of the removal of contaminated soils from the northern part (discussed in Section
3.6, Hazardous Materials) and the importing of clean fill material for site grading. The environmental
consequences associated with soils would primarily be a result of the site remediation and construction.
Redevelopment of the project site would include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the
site. Vegetation would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be
demolished on the site prior to grading.
This may cause erosion. Sediment-laden runoff may discharge to Lake Washington and May Creek.
Wind erosion during dry seasons can produce dust. If soils are trucked off-site or if fill is transported into
the project area, some soil may be blown off trucks while in route.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 September 2003
3 .2.2 Seismic and Landslide Hazards
G otechnical assessment of the Barbee Mill site has concluded that the fills and alluvial soils that underlie
t site to depths of up to 60 feet are potentially susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake (Golder
2 ,02). The potential impacts to the Barbee Mill site from seismic induced liquefaction include the
f lowing three mechanisms, as discussed above.
• Loss of bearing strength of soils.
• Increased pressure against foundations and retaining walls.
• Lateral spreading.
D',pending on the area subject to liquefaction, the depth, and the extent of lateral movement, damage
c ld range from minor to severe. Localized loss of soil cohesion could result in differential subsidence
o I deformation of foundations with associated structure damage (i.e., deflection of foundations walls with
a ociated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges) localized cracking or
' s •sidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. A loss of soil cohesion in larger areas could
'I r;l.ult in rotational failure causing building structures to tip where substantial portions of foundation
'1 s:�I.port is lost. Lateral movement could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight --i
•vements typically produce cracks and fissures in overlying deposits causing building structure failure
t ough increased shear strain. Greater lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to
II
c Impress to the point of buckling or be pulled apart. Roadways may experience severe cracks, and
fIIsures; utilities may be broken in numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is
jI c se to the lakeside and the lack of a confining geologic boundary with the gradient provided by lake
d jpth could result in movement of portions of the overburden to the west. -
I
I is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads, and utilities due to the
c u mplexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site
'! dweloped to date.
•
•
' e risks of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass, as discussed above,
c: not be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic
a;posits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement.
1.3 Mitigation
1; 1.3.1 Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation
` to work should be phased to minimize the amount of exposed soils to the areas that are under
nstruction. To control erosion during construction, contractors would use Best Management Practices
(n MPs) and standard mitigation measures approved by Ecology's Stormwater Manual (Ecology 2001)
. d by the City of Renton surface water management regulations. Soil and Erosion Control Plans would •
in place prior to construction. By effectively using construction BMPs, erosion, sediment-laden
r 11 noff, and dust would be controlled, and adverse impacts would be reduced.
e following measures could potentially be used to limit erosion and sedimentation:
• Prepare comprehensive erosion, sedimentation and spill control plan to outline how the site
would be managed for erosion and other hazards. It would cover appropriate measures for each
phase of site development, training, pre-construction conference, coordination with utilities and
contractors, monitoring, and reporting. It would provide for stockpiling of erosion control
. pry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 —
raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-4 September 2003
material on site. Monitoring of water quality and notice of problems may be appropriate.
Provisions for contingency planning and revision to the plan should be provided.
• Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited or prohibited between October 1 and April
30,because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest.
• Delineate and mark clearing limits, limit the amount of the site opened for disturbance at any
time. Limiting exposure is especially critical close to water bodies.
• Buffer zones should be provided around wetland areas, May Creek, and the Lake Washington
shoreline. Where possible, existing vegetation should be maintained as a buffer. A barrier should
be placed along the creek and wetland areas to protect them from construction activities and
prevent construction equipment or stockpiling within those areas.
• All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Time periods of allowed
exposure would depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent groundcover would part
of the construction plans, including:
> Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable
practices include, but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding,
mulching, plastic covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, and early application of a
gravel base on areas to be paved, and dust control.
> Protect cut and fill slopes from erosive flows and concentrated flows and establish temporary
and permanent cove.
• A stabilized construction entrance or other method should be installed to prevent sediment
transport. If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be
installed under the rock. A wheel wash would be required if wet season grading occurs.
• Temporary stormwater control should be provided,which may include:
> Detention for runoff from a site under construction. A detention pond may be designed to
contain runoff from the worst-case storm event expected during construction.
> Protect existing drainage inlets from sediment and silt-laden water.
➢ Stabilize channels and outlets of temporary and permanent conveyance systems to prevent
erosion during and after construction.
> The water from dewatering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations should be
discharged into a controlled system. Treatment may be required for sediments or pollutants.
• Control pollutants from waste materials and demolition debris, construction equipment, leakage
of fuels,fertilizers, application of chemicals, and water treatment systems.
• In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of
bridge footings should be conducted during Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's
(WDFW)prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and May Creek,respectively.
• A monitoring plan, with independent testing, may be appropriate as part of the quality assurance
plan for compliance including a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background
measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule should, at a minimum,
require sampling during every storm event in the wet season that would generate runoff, as well
as site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 September 2003
'1
ii
it
3. .3.2 Seismic Hazards
1' M tigation for seismic hazards can be implemented for varying levels of the presumed extent of
liquefaction,with varying levels of risk. ' _'
I
e following three basic strategies were identified by the applicant's geotechnical engineer:
• Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath
the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits.
• Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the
liquefaction potential.
• Containment walls to mitigate the hazard of lateral spreading(Golder 2002).
T u e use of foundations would likely involve piles drilled or driven to dense deposits not subject to
liquefaction. It is unclear from prior geotechnical work done on the site how deep such piles would need
to be driven. In the central area of the site, two borings have indicated that dense glacial till is present at
a o.roximately 60 feet. The most reliable foundation system would be founded on the dense glacial till.
S t,allower pile-supported foundations might be acceptable if non-liquefiable soils could be confirmed at
s u9i llower depths.
PI es driven through a weak, potentially liquefiable, soil layer to a stronger layer would not only have to
c.i vertical loads from the superstructure, but also would have to be able to resist horizontal loads and
binding moments induced by lateral movements if the weak layer liquefies. Sufficient resistance could -'
b; achieved by piles of larger dimensions and/or more reinforcement. In addition, it is important that the
p'es be connected to the cap in a manner that allows some rotation to occur, without failure of the
I c snnection. If pile connections fail,the structure may fail due to overturn forces.
I I' ere is uncertainty in evaluating the relative effectiveness of ground treatment strategies for limiting ; i
1.q eral deformations because a limited amount of research has been performed that evaluates seismically-
i nIIe uced lateral deformations of improved soil sites(ODOT 2002).
_q
' one columns are a densification measure with the added advantage of providing drainage. They are i
routinely placed by sinking a vibrofloat or probe into the soil using a water jet to the required depth.
ile adding additional stone to backfill the cavity, the probe is raised and lowered to form a dense
' dolumn. A system of closely placed stone columns provides areas of compacted soils not subject to i j'
1 •uefaction. In addition, stone columns may prevent the build-up of excess pore pressures in a soil, -'
I 01 ich would otherwise lead to liquefaction by reducing the effective stress between soil particles. This __
;,,r ect,however, is not the most important one, since time for a positive effect of the drainage is limited to I
t fie duration of the earthquake, which means that in this short time, any drainage into the column only
.ifects a rather limited zone near the column perimeter but never the whole soil volume. This is
o pecially true for sands with a silt content of above 12 percent since the drainage effect becomes '
-gligible(Madabhushi 1999). Il'
t grouting is an additional means of stabilizing soils in place. Cement grout is the most common
abilizer used. The soil improvement is installed through a drilled hole from the existing ground surface I
••wn to the desired depth. A rod containing a jet is inserted into the hole and grout is pumped at high
. essure. The grout penetrates the existing soils, enhancing the strength of the soil matrix. The jet is -
otated while being drawn out of the hole, forming a column of improved soil. Numerous columns at
it ose intervals can be used to create a block of improve soil. The columns can also be interspersed with --
4.-11s of unimproved soils surrounded by jet-grouted columns, thus creating an area of improved soil
ithout having to treat the entire area(Berger/Abam 2002).
I t
t°-ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-6 September 2003 '
1'
� I
Deep dynamic compaction involves the use of impact energy on the ground surface to create dense and
compact subsurface soils. Weights typically ranging from 10 to 30 tons are lifted with standard,
modified, or specialty machines and dropped from about 50-to 120-foot heights. Freefall impact energy
is controlled by selecting the weight, drop height,number of drops per point, and the spacing of the grid.
In general,treatment depths of up to 35 feet may be achievable in granular soils. The major limitations of
the method are vibrations,flying matter,and noise(Martin 1999).
For small pockets of liquefiable soils, building foundations can be designed and constructed to tie all
elements together to make the foundation move or settle uniformly. Such a foundation design is useful
for bridging over areas of local settlement to adjacent stronger ground. The strength of such a foundation
also reduces failure from shear forces induced by differential settlement(UW 2002).
The extent to which stone columns,jet grouting or other soil improvements can resist the load applied
from the untreated deposits located behind the treated area depends on a number of factors. Such factors
include the area of liquefiable soils applying the load, the area and depth of soil improvements and the
materials used. In many cases, soil improvements are used in conjunction with retaining structures to
contain lateral movement due to liquefaction.
Containment structures to control lateral spreading present significant structural challenges due to the
j h depths to consolidated materials in the range of 60 or more feet and the extremely high forces likely to be
bear upon such structures if large areas of deposits liquefy. In addition, such structures must extend
below the liquefiable deposits to prevent lateral movement of the entire structure. One retaining structure
option is installation of secant pile walls. These are walls formed from shafts drilled into the earth. The
walls consist of reinforced concrete shafts spaced on a regular interval and spanned by columns of
unreinforced concrete which fill in the gaps. The first step of installation generally involves drilling
shafts to be filled with unreinforced low strength concrete. Primary shafts to be reinforced with steel and
higher strength concrete are drilled between and cutting into the sides of the unreinforced shafts. The
process is repeated resulting in a wall composed of circular shafts joined together. (Berger/Abaco 2002)
It is likely that an area of considerable width would be required for soil improvement and retaining
structures between building sites and Lake Washington.
Mitigation of impacts on streets and utilities pose more challenges because they are extensive linear
facilities. Although these facilities could be built on deep foundations, the cost is generally a limiting
factor. Ground improvement measures along road and utility corridors can provide some reduction in
shallow liquefaction potential that may reduce slumping, but would not address lateral movement.
Construction of utility pipelines can involve materials of additional strength to resist breakage from minor
displacement together with sections of flexible line to allow displacement without breakage. In addition,
having emergency backup facilities for fire flow or domestic supply can mitigate the adverse impacts of
system failure during a seismic event by providing temporary facilities for fire fighting and water supply.
The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining
appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable
seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost, high replacement and repair cost,
and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access,especially emergency access. Residential
land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability because of the potential for loss
of life. Commercial and industrial uses may receive lower levels of seismic protection because the
potential loss of life may be less due to population density, and also the fact that workers are in an active
state and awake so they can exit failing buildings. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further
document underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies
based on a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific
building type,size and location. Additional environmental review may be required at that time.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-7 September 2003
i
i
II 3,2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
, ! 3,2.1 Affected Environment
I f
I' , 2.1.1 Surface Water Bodies
I I i is section includes a discussion of existing streams and other waterways, hydrology, floodplains, and
'
1 1 :ter quality. More detailed discussion is provided in Appendix C. These analyses provide a basis for
aI isessment of impacts on wildlife, aquatic resources, and endangered species. This section has been
pepared based on review of existing data, a peer evaluation of the technical studies provided by the
aIplicant, and qualitative evaluation of likely impacts. Proposed mitigation has been evaluated for the
p'otential impacts identified. Additional technical analysis is contained in Appendix C. I
IT S rface Water Bodies
icy Creek
e proposal site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek discharges to Lake
JJashington as indicated in Figure 3.2-1. May Creek is identified as tributary #0282 in Water Resource
I i'l'ventory Area (WRIA) 08. May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly
8p,6 miles to Lake Washington (Williams et al. 1975). The May Creek basin encompasses a 14-square-
le area between the Cedar River, Coal Creek, and Issaquah Creek drainages. The basin lies primarily
' ' : thin unincorporated King County, but the western and southwestern portions of the basin
I 1 ` (d .proximately 12 percent of the total area) are within the Cities of Newcastle and Renton (King County
1 1'°95). The May Creek watershed consists of residential, open space, agriculture, and commercial land ,i-
u'ces (King County 2001). Under current zoning, full build-out would result in an increase of effective !
j : i pervious surface from 7 percent to 12 percent(King County 2001).
I I e lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site as
i dicated in Figure 3.2-2. Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill
I pI�operty is armored with riprap. The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10
I to 20 feet. The stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches; hence the stream's ordinary high
d.ter(OHW) is only slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002).
I 'II ual dredging at the mouth of May Creek in Lake Washington has been conducted by the Barbee Mill
II II•mpany since the 1950s to remove sediment transported from the upper reaches of May Creek in order
t o' maintain water depth for log handling and log storage for the sawmill. _
e portion of May Creek located on the Barbee Mill site is classified as a Type 1 stream (DNR 2002), ,i
b.sed on its size and anadromous fish use. King County classifies streams under three different
cl!tegories. Class 1 streams have been inventoried as Shorelines of the State under King County's
So oreline Master Program(King County 1991). f
I. e water quality classifications of May Creek is a Class AA (extraordinary) water under State Water
I I ality Standards WAC Chapter 173-201A. The water quality of Class AA waters exceeds the
I rl.f quirements for all or substantially all uses including domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply.
I d
1 ii ese waters also provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids,
ell staceans, and shellfish, as well as wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide opportunities for
i ! r-creation, commerce, and navigation. Any water listed as Class AA must meet certain water quality
ci'teria for fecal coliform bacteria; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved gas; temperature; pH; turbidity;
I I t i xic radioactive, or deleterious materials; and aesthetic values set forth in WAC 173-201A (MRSC
1997).1
I
l
I rty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
I 1.aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 September 2003 `
I
z
1 j (. 1
520
-'SEATTLE
L:aka
•
/?WashIAton1S \°: r.
BELLEVUE11111,
e¢t
so .r_ ao f ::
11.414S4- l''Po', ,' .
c\---,
,.
, 4444
likIN
\Lc'
S,,
';..
'`A`..-. --;
. :xLE. 15SA4UAH
9IIo,'
7.
::,11.i.:,,,,,,I.,,,,,,,:::::;?':ri::: ' y
� i:1,16:::',410:::::—,1.t;:i'
rpy'(`t r� [/I Z g��#(jam' �?? M. .teky1C spent-x t,2 '/ fir: \\\\
YY� r i55 a -, 'w�. s.. y ..
:,,-
!Tr (I,
ENToN `;?;. > v" -i ka y; ' m
99
W
TU W.LA fit16 \....).,,, ',1
Arc: 1111P \''''‘••• .
Date of map,October 1998 1
Parametrix City of Renton/654-1779-017/0,1(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3.2-1
May Creek Basin
N , =Miles Vicinity Map
I
SYMBOLS,
,,,1,.•. .-so" •
' t'V \I PASSABLE.,:BA FER1ERS,1 roPASBABLE''i,,,,,,,..::' •.: 0, C) . ,
• .4
1 M.- 'itttle•
,,....
. _rn
-.714-a, :P.Oet0CfeS -111,_
Th )
-3
• jus,,,,A4A
4Vr3g9 Beaver Dams "NAlz•x*
?5-&-',....... ''''; '-,-r. Lag Jams .-=..<•...'‘;k-i',...":
l -,,,,W.c•".4"..4.p.;..'-
;/..4.-,..„;',':ez Kplk. • '
• t:,-A,*,,r...trOrle• . - -, t-4 ' .:: ,
Dome. .
' .0iViili'4; tr4.1 s
I i‘ : .•417ir.'1A1V.21:t&I''''''4n.tiN"..;'''' C> ' fa° ig , . ...... • •
. ,
, ' ...;:•,-.i%••:.., 47k;',F, "'eft ... . • •
"Ir' .'' 4,'e'r,-14:31. -- : . , ', : • ,:.4011001 .Balraon H9ichory
g.::',/" ••'"•:•,•,.ht•A, / •'' • .0.4...-?,a,
,„„'t^,VW, *5_`0„•VIA,', , . •: t•
r- "ct .1 Vi*Ps'ilftti,J:;';it:'W 11'
,1 I Tr, •cf*tteV4;?4,4.9,' r . ' '
•
'sf rearri-"GAge
* .'":,;'''t4r ..••'''-tir
....e.' ,...,ti . .. .
,; Vii:,*,,,,' ,,i3OV • ,.. .;
11/1:-. 11.•„
a
l al ,,'-xv., '':-.744-r" ':"'••• e;,t11:., , , 4,
; ' 14:1•Zer1)91:;`-:1...,,ci
(114 . ,.,..
e....k. ''t
':0-kflt•''a-A1.1:74S; AO i
.711,df... 1 ill.• - ' •:1€11) . (.:7).
; •
• ' '3.1,',- \ .
.\L(I itiN;'''','''''. • :'VA' I. .
:' • .?-qa:a,2.1 t '
9
. ',1,74.W.v,,• ,,L.4...... ., ... • l?Oi'fii;,!,--. es
-,
• ,-;:,..,?fr,:,V,=7 , • ,i."
, lita.,.Z.,,, 'Cli.,:-::,• '- ' • IN? W, ,
pe,r.,,,,,,,,4 i I • • • l:SN .
- .
'7‘'''''''''i••T - . -;'0 . • 7n..tts... % . A;: '.2.0.Z.79
‘• ,, . .
CI , • : 9,280 '
. „
; • 4. ••e"....,,,
0
\
(5. • a.:S s:N14>,, 0,*;,IQ.
%
1..J.
:'il"rtr
,
4i•=',U,':-.0,',,ZI,Yik4• . ' , . • .
.d• 'tA.
' co,,r...,t.!,,,4.--,f,t-N,4,::,.,•;•••••. .. . , , fg?
. ,
-0
161:r.
,.. •
Lx. •I 0 . '
I 1/2 a 1 MILE
4 ammr,-7...r . Oaer•• •
stALE;; 1',.I MILE
ia 4".4.4.4,++•a *44.
,_, . .4.+44••*4•*1•04..
I , •,.... 4,4.4:4* •••••V 44.,•••e
„ 1 •• $ii4gt,:kr•;',4;:l'ilf:4,
.. .4,44•44;o:il,•:•:4;44,1./.. 4,1 e Re on SOUTH • )...L.)-••
:'4 ..'t.**:..1‘:+:41*"..;...:tt..:
1#•• r 0# / #4-•••#-#10 •. ,
.1..4,4.4
.-
U ......,vii44:0;:s.....,....f..,....4.„,. LAKE WASH IN G:TO:N .-,,,,:,•.„tOke
' : 14.1 relbi.i>.en,10.1444,44,11,64.4•4
1 ! :;t0.4.1;•:+44 44.4...%
•,,.....:44,44:41.r. DRAINAGES
• •,..••••••.„.
, -
Source:Washington Department of Fisheries(1975)Washington Streams
and Salmon Utilization map,Volume 1.
1 ,
Para matrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
"Ala Figure 3.2-2
lair May Creek Location
and Stream Type Map
•
f �
dV,
The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State
as being impaired in the 1998 listing under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for zinc, copper, lead,
and fecal coliform bacteria, zinc, copper and lead are listed based on one to three excursions beyond the
criterion collected by King County Surface Water Management(KCSWM)at the mouth of May Creek at
Lake Washington in 1994. Fecal coliform is listed based on 27 excursions beyond the upper criterion out
of 92 samples (29 percent) collected at King County station 0440 (May Creek River Mile 0.1) between
January 1991 and April 1997. (www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/links/impaired wtrs.html) and
www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/303d/w8a-303d.pdf).
Lake Washington
The basin containing Lake Washington is a deep, narrow glacial trough with steep side slopes. The lake
receives its main inflows from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers, and drains approximately 472 square
miles. Most of Lake Washington's surrounding watersheds are urban in nature (DNR 1999). The lake
connects to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The Ship Canal provides
the only discharge from Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington. The Lake Washington Basin is WRIA
08.
"
Lake Washington is listed as Lake Class under State Water Quality Standards(WAC Chapter 173-201A).
As with May Creek, its water quality should meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all
uses, provide areas and habitat for fish and wildlife, and provide recreation, commerce and navigation
opportunities. Any water listed as Lake Class must meet the same water quality criteria as those for May
Creek.
Considering its urban location, Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake and it is
a valuable natural resource to both King County residents, and fish and wildlife. This, however, has not
__- prevented natural runs of Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon and steelhead trout from
declining. The reasons for these declines are still not fully understood(DNR 1998).
Identified Management Strategies
The May Creek Basin Action Plan (King County 2001) (hereafter referred to as the Action Plan) outlines
a set of actions for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin: 1)reduce the threat of flooding
to homes; 2) make infrastructure improvements to facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream
banks, and reduce erosion; 3)protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin;
and 4) prevent existing problems from becoming worse. The Action Plan's primary recommendations
include:
• Establish and enforce requirements for runoff retention/detention, forest retention, and water
quality facilities for site development.
• Develop basin stewardship and community participation through creation of a May Creek Basin
Steward.
• Establish a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of implemented actions.
The Barbee Mill site is contained within the regional sub-area identified in the Action Plan as the Lower
Basin Sub-area,which extends from the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington upstream to River Mile
3.9, above the Coal Creek Parkway S.E. crossing. Primary recommendations for this Sub-area specific to
the Barbee Mill site area include Recommendation No.10: Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta
Dredging. The Action Plan notes that sediment deposition occurs naturally in the May Creek delta, and
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-11 September 2003
I
Ili I
th t increases in erosive storm flows from basin clearing and land development have increased the need
I' ,I fo more frequent dredging to maintain adequate access for the mill's continued commercial operations.
, e Action Plan goes on to note:
1
"In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future,
opportunities to enhanceMayCreek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance
1 dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been
undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need
I
for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved
habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of
environmental and economic benefits. Any major redevelopment project also should
consider opportunities for acquisition and restoration/preservation of riparian lands
adjacent to the May Creek Park system. Until funding for such a project becomes
available, continued dredging is the only viable alternative for maintaining commercial ,
operations at the mill. Such dredging has no downstream impacts, and the impacts on I
channel habitat are localized and minimal. This recommendation recognizes the need for
1 i dredging to continue until a long-term solution can be identified and funded, and that
include some need for ongoing even a long-term solution likely willg g maintenance
dredging."
'12.1.2 Floodplains and Flooding
I e May Creek Delta is formed by the discharge carried by the stream into Lake Washington where it is
II .I.posited on the lake bottom. Delta deposits extend underwater in Lake Washington approximately
3,1100 feet and extends upstream to approximately a half mile. The character of the delta was influenced
bl construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 that lowered the lake's water level by 9 feet.
11
1 . I is exposed portions of the delta that were previously underwater and initially increased the gradient of _
ay Creek's lower channel and caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic
,! p ay Creek delta. This action shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into
j nle lake.
I p
; `, bsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined i .
toe channel, resulting in high ground along each bank, with the west side being lower relative to the east
j' .1. . This fill concentrates flow in the fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport -
c;l pacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. Dredging operations by the 1'
It bee Mill site has removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediment per year since the 1950s from
I, ' t e mouth of May Creek(King County 2001). ,
1, , 1
I ' oodplain modeling of existing and future conditions using the hydraulic model HEC-RAS (USACOE
1I 1' 101) is presented in Appendix B. Approximately 1,125 feet of May Creek within and adjacent to the
!' p oposal study area was modeled. In general,the 100-year floodplain width and depth are influenced by
t e three existing bridges,whose fill and structure help confine the floodplain, and the predicted 100-year
" .odplain would cover a substantial part of the site as indicated in Figure 3.2-3. (see Floodplain Analysis
II
I,-chnical Report,Figure 2-2,Appendix B).
;I 1:Ii II I.
l
Ii 1
1 l
I
G4i Renton-Barbee Mill PreliminaryPlat 554-1779-017
h'o.f
' Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-12 September 2003
i
a
o il
3.2.1.3 Existing Drainage
ti Impervious Surface Areas
Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious
surface in the form of pavement and various buildings (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). An existing
bulkhead extends along the majority of the site's shoreline, and a 50-foot dock is located about 300 feet
from the northern property boundary. There are also numerous pilings and log booms associated with the
mill extend from the shore for several hundred feet out into Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc.
1 2002). Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May Creek: a single vehicle lane, wooden structure at
the mouth of the Creek, a wooden, foot-traffic only bridge approximately 200 feet upstream, and a two
lane concrete structure 350 feet further north(Raedeke Associates,2002).
Conveyance and Stormwater Discharge
The Barbee Mill site consists of three stormwater collection areas and outfalls associated with the
_^I industrial activities, and non-point discharge drainage areas not associated with industrial activities(Loyd
and Associates 2003)and is discussed further in Appendix C.
North Outfall
This outfall discharges stormwater collected from the north side of Barbee Mill, and drains approximately
40 percent of the facility's industrial activity area. No chemical usage occurs in this area. There is a
covered and bermed, petroleum product storage area, and a wash area near the east side, north of the dry
kiln, drains to an oil/water separator that is not connected to the storm drain system. This outfall does not
have an oil/water separator at the terminus of the storm drain system at Lake Washington, although
numerous catch basins exist within the storm drain system that provide for settling of potential
windblown dust and debris,which is minimal.
Middle Ou fall
This outfall drains approximately 10 percent of the industrial activity area. It has an oil/water separator to
trap the minimal amounts of residual hydraulic oil or other petroleum product from the sawmill area.
South Outfall
i �
This outfall drains 50 percent of the activity area. The storm drain system has catch basins and lines that
terminate at an oil/water separator adjacent to the lake. Wood debris from dredging is currently stored in
} this area.
Non-Point Drainage Areas
The non-industrial, southern portion of the facility adjacent to the east shoreline of May Creek is a non-
point drainage area (Loyd and Associates 2003). There is no industrial activity in the May Creek
corridor.
Wetlands
The northernmost wetland drains via a ditch to May Creek, and the southern wetland drains to Lake
Washington via a 150-foot-long storm drain pipe (Raedeke Associates, 2002). See discussion of impacts
in Section 3.4.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat - 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-13 September 2003
{
it
1
1
1
A jacent Upstream Drainage
1
A.drainage basin near North 40th Street, between I-405 and the BNSF railroad, drains south towards
Barbee Mill, first along the east side of the railway, then the west. The stormwater daylights into a
s ace ditch before entering a 15-inch drain line to cross the site and discharge to the lake (Otak, Inc.
2112).
; l
3 .2 Impacts
3,' .2.1 Impacts of the Proposal
, e proposal involves removing the existing Barbee Mill facilities. The proposed Barbee Mill
'L P p liminary Plat and future construction of residences would include the construction of 13.07 acres of
n+v impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area on
22.9-acre site. Existing impervious surface coverage would be reduced from 85 to 57 percent _
('i�aedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington '
I, ,
a n d 40 lots adjacent to May Creek. Eight of the lots along the lake front on intervening public land _
II ' G terward of the Inner Harbor line. This public land varies from 16 to 80 feet wide. Residential
s i ctures along the lake's shoreline are proposed to maintain a 25-foot setback from Ake waters edge.
T e proposed buffer for May Creek would range from a minimum width of about 20 feet near the existing
it b dge close to the mouth of the creek to a maximum width of 100 feet for a short distance no of the
,' niirtherly wetland. The average width is about 50 feet. A specific landscape plan for the ill reek i'-
b;'ffer area has not been proposed. For the purposes of drainage analysis, it was presumed to be restored ,
th native vegetation. (Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002). M,
• new bridge for a two lane public street would be constructed over May Creek and would require the
r- oval of an existing middle bridge. Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be
n'-cessary and is presumed to include no work within the OHW of May Creek. The new bridge would be
a O proximately 42-feet wide and include sidewalks. One of the other existing bridges would be retained
"'1" a d converted to foot-traffic-only use.
ormwater Discharge
f e proposal would reduce impervious surface area, leading to reduced stormwater run-off to May Creek
d Lake Washington. It could also increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater.
II pacts to Water Quality
yy
0 egradation of surface water quality can result from new development when increases in stormwater
v llutants, or erosion and sediment transport, result in higher discharges of contaminants to receiving =
aters. If not properly mitigated, potential stormwater pollutants from a developed site can include oil __
. c d greases, nutrients, toxic organics, metals, and suspended solids. Long periods in stormwater
•'-tention ponds and water quality treatment ponds can increase water temperatures through sun exposure.
ater quality treatment for the proposal is required under King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
( CSWDM) Core Requirement No.8 (King County 1998). Stormwater will be routed to treatment 1'--'.
cilities, described in Section 3.2.3—Mitigation Measures before being discharged to Lake Washington.
• e reduction in impervious surface area and the proposed,enhanced May Creek buffers will also provide ,
eneficial effects due to water quality improvements(Raedeke Associates,2002). 1
,
city of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 -
aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-14 September 2003 1 r
r� I
Maintenance Activity Impacts
Landscape maintenance could include use of fertilizers, pesticides, and/or herbicides, and potentially °k
affect biological activity in receiving waters if not removed by water quality treatment or otherwise
mitigated. Sediment removal from water quality treatment ponds could result in increased turbidity in
stormwater discharges,particularly if the maintenance were performed during wet periods.
Construction Water Quality Impacts
Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings, excavation and
backfill for hazardous materials remediation. Excavation and fill would be required for utilities and water
quality ponds, and road construction grading as well as construction of dwellings after completion of
subdivision. Infrastructure construction would include approximately 3 8 000 cubic yards of fill for road
and lot construction and 32,000 cubic yards of excavation from the water quality ponds and underground
pipes:yTfiese activities can expose soil that could be transported with stormwater runoff, and soil
compaction can decrease stormwater infiltration, increasing surface water runoff. Use and maintenance
of construction equipment, on-site wastes can produce pollutants. If not properly mitigated, surface
waters can be impacted.
Floodplains and Flooding
Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many
factors, including the erosive force of the river, and the nature of the material protecting the proposal
development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three
proposal scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from the
9 thalweg of May Creek) were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate
e of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995). The existing condition assumes the existing channel configuration,
delta elevation (which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three bridges. In
addition,the individual scenarios assure the following:
• Scenario 1 —No setback and no levees or fill;
• Scenario 2—The development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot setback from
ordinary high water; and
• Scenario 3 — The development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot setback
from OHW.
Scenario 1 —Existing site topography
-1
The The 100-year floodplain would cover about half of the site west of May Creek, as indicated on Figure 3.2-
3. The higher eastern bank would limit the extent of the floodplain on that side of the creek. The almost
level topography on the west side of the creek would result in extensive but shallow flow over about a
third of the site affecting 25 buildings. A small area near the mouth of May Creek remains outside the
floodplain, possibly because the existing bridge present enough of a barrier to flood water to divert water
to the west.
Scenario 2—50-Foot Setback
Construction of levees or fill at a distance of 50 feet from the existing stream to contain the floodplain
would divert floodwaters from the 100 year floodplain from all the buildings areas on-site. The
containment would result in slightly increased flood stages (up to 1.6 feet) at most of the cross sections
modeled(see Appendix B).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
{ I
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-15 September 2003
it
S t'enario 2- 100-foot Setback
C;antainment of flood waters at a distance of 100 feet from the stream also would prevent flooding of
b lilding sites and is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly lower flood state elevations than
S I�enario 2 (see Appendix B).
3 0.2.2 Impacts of the Continued Industrial Use Alternative
I : pacts associated with the continued industrial use alternative are assumed to be similar to current site
c ditions. If additional buildings were constructed,they would replace impervious pavement and the net
i i�pervious surface would remain the same. The extent of the floodplain on the site would be the same.
B li cause there are buildings within the 100 year floodplain, the assumption is that they will be flooded
' J en such events take place. Impacts of flooding on uses contained on-site would depend upon ground
fl;o or uses and whether existing and new buildings are flood-proofed by raising the floor area above the
' fl m od elevation.
11
3:2.2.3 Cumulative Impact
mutative impacts of development of other sites in the vicinity are not expected to impact water
r; ources on the site or change the impacts produced by the proposal.
3 .3 Mitigation
2.3.1 Operational Impact Mitigation
S to Hydrology
1 etention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge
' emption in the 1998 KCSWDM(King County 1998);however,water quality treatment is required.
c'he proposal's reduced impervious surface will decrease surface runoff and increase stormwater
ii�filtration and groundwater recharge. Decreasing the amount proposal could be enhanced by the use of
pervious pavements on driveways, parking areas and sidewalks, using tree and brush cover to provide
ditional interception of rainwater,and infiltration of roof drain discharges.
tormwater Discharge
I I
4e proposed stormwater drainage system indicated in Figure 3.2-4 is sized to convey the 100-year, 24-
I ur storm with the water quality ponds in their overflow conditions. Its operation and maintenance
could conform to City of Renton and KCSWDM requirements (King County 1998). If mitigation
easures were properly implemented, adverse stormwater discharge impacts are not expected. The
llowing brief description of the proposed conveyance system is based on the Technical Information
eport for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (TIR) (Otak, Inc. 2002). Appendix D of the TIR provides
t'e preliminary calculations showing that the stormwater conveyance system meets the 1998 KCSWDM
ection 4 Stormwater Conveyance Standards(King County 1998).
i'ry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 --
Fi aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-16 September 2003
' f
'
mwm
.....// COR-2 ZONE
...m .�,.,..,�.
7
�.y
I .— —11—:17 1::-) ••••• 11.--.r... —...... v..-. ..f. (1.7.. —1. tr— „:111--"" —7 4/.
1 112:17 ,LI 22 t-::!ft-- 1' " 1 1„ 15 I " 13 I 13 11 l'..z.10.. 71. 3' 7 l'.4"5 :I "...' i
r:, jY
STREET fy
I.
OHW—�, ,: 9
o..Y �. �. _ l
�,(
Tract„C„ A - ✓ /, >. ""
? PUBLIC LAND Open ■ !9✓� ✓ +. ✓ -�_\ ���/ ^ / t2'/
Space ° �''•� -
� / 0 ( vaII eat
f• �' /
� `
LAKE 1. ' // ' f ! .//'L- : � ,
WASHINGTON t; . 7 4. / yOHW f4, \// f
a t, // A'cici
I L -b %` ; I
_ =
, ,,, — lit ,s... . i . ,, i. i I/ il‘�a f
, , ;...,,,*„ /,",.; vs,...- ,../47/ , i
PUBLIC LAND -'\// �/ 'lr ; J f7 //
J J �m,�
� � ✓. /�kfi / i''"
L ll jr
. r ,
-mom . ,/"."\;‘)'N.......4.: - .>4. ,
r�/ \___ . ___-- - v.� ,e-,„. , f4 j// / ,.
, _ .P MAY CREEK �� `! , // I �/
a" � .- _ J
, DELTA /
% ✓` - rr I• .
' °s
-1-/_ Xf24
e -............._.....
—_ , -tea,-° ' ,r „it_ - N 40TH ST
a� r
I '
I ,
Parametrlx DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-03
1
i SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.2-3
Flood Plain
0 100 200IW Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
i
.
i I
r
r
U` ('''--.-.. ., \ .'4C- _/ 't
i—
i I " ®° ii
- 11 of ��� �� �� � 7 I ®.� �! , I J / a <
„ , imI I ml I j I ,, aIn a _ l
• illlitt\ -,ftilVI 7721.-_-7-2_-_-.17P--jj.._—:: - _itc - 7'/,/,', i //I
_.
!-Ia.4/0
2 ,,--''. / N , i r
- 7 ,„ k 7,3 d . . / ' //
i___ t .,...., �� �, \/ r-___—,. ly 1 = , r
' ' Ar, I -lie erQ 1.::1 r /\ / '-*/
-- TAJ
II I::.
,__ �ii ,; ..- ..,,,. _ �: ,g / /
1i ! (sPa� a . \ % - /a.
h\ r) P. 'IlL__..W.'-2\\„. ' A%000... .00. ..e.1 ,..- \ i„/: "5/ / /
ai,• ' ! J\\ r ; / 2
' 1 MMv'
? 'r"4Z1 :'' /'i\-1/:1.\/\
`' Wpt OU ,'% /�f r,. ' � J Vjf//
.' 11 \\ 1�l i t' r1 1 I r 1\ / 47
1 0
(J
•
•
LAKE :;/ %/ f 1/'fl ./ Q,
WASHINGTON }1 l I . :�r ,t. k /1/ 7
, \f"/ '"' '/ *
....._\\.12V. OM\ • i,J,or I, 4- , -4 -\-"'i 'Ilr -
WM' ' i • `"/ 7-- i /
.'•4 - ' ' ' ' ' litiP'i 171c-- , ''' //7////////
it/11 `, 404,-**,;; / 1 yve (/ /// / /
/// \' ''. viV- **A- 1.-,-,-,„ta . 27 ,/vic // /2
r 7' \ to,„,,,' ,/ , A*,4.4..,,,,, ,__ ,
, ,,,4,7 ,o. , \,. //,,o/tcvir .. _.,„ i / / ,
//Ay**. tor ‘, /0 , /
i . ii,.. 0-4.,,,/,'" ifiVit-4t* ,: ,;?'""2/
\ . ....,,,..-,:- .::2-2•2,-- 24,(-./^/t940, *i z `> \
i0,4# \ . •tir, /
MAY CREEK 1. „ , / //
DELTA _
n � J✓ a\ / ,/ ° f f _
' .20........v__._...'-___�.w•;.:_....__.�,.. sxr_ _
%
� �
/- wfi
LEGEND
/Yw.!CtS2 — Flow path
'ft!! 7`t``ea- <: , '� /j % �;' , N 40TH ST
7J - At Basin bounder
Source: Otak Basins,Subbasins and Site Characteristics Map,Figure 3
Parametrix DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-04
Figure 3.2-4
SCALE IN FEETPAI
Proposed Water Quality Treatment
and Stormwater Drainage System
o 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Discharge to Lake Washington
Following water quality treatment, water quality treatment ponds would be discharged directly to Lake
Washington through separate 18-inch diameter pipes (indicated as WQ1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4).
Discharge rates for the large pond would range from 2.5 cfs during the 6-month,24-hour storm to 8.0 cfs
during the 100-year, 24-hour storm; for the small pond,these figures would be 1.6 cfs to 5.0 cfs(Raedeke
Associates,Inc. 2002).
Adjacent Upstream Drainage
An existing bypass storm drain line would be replaced with another line with a capacity adequate to serve
the developed offsite N 40th Street basin.
Mitigation for Floodplains and Flooding
Potential flooding and floodplain mitigation measures could include the constructing of levees or
constructing the proposal on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-year flood level as presented
above under Scenarios 2 and 3. The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1.0 foot
above the ground surface during the 100-year flood. Therefore, the levee or fill should be at least 2lee_t
above the existing_ground elevation, to provide 1 foot of freeboard for the top of the levee or the lowest
occupied floor of residences as required by RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. These mitigation measures could protect ;
The development-from flooding and reduce the chance of the stream migrating to a new location.
Dredging at the mouth of May Creek could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation
measures.
As an additional mitigation measure, all existing bridges could be replaced with bridges that would not
restrict the 100-year floodplain.
Reduction in floodplain storage capacity resulting from fill placement or levee construction would have to
be mitigated. In general, these impacts could be mitigated by providing compensatory storage at the
project site or a location immediately upstream. This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by
removing an equivalent volume of historic fill adjacent to the stream at an elevation greater than the bank
and less than the 100-year floodplain elevation.
The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 3.2.1.3 and Appendix
B. However, because the site is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating, potentially
aggradation would continue, with deposits that would reduce the capacity of the stream bed over time.
This would result in greater floodplain depths that would eventually exceed the above estimates. This
could be compensated for to some extent, by increasing the height of the levee or the elevation of the
bottom floor of residences. An additional option is utilizing the wider 100 foot setback from the stream,
which would provide additional flood storage to compensate for the reduction in conveyance capacity. -
Mitigation for Water Quality
City of Renton standards require that runoff from pollution generating surfaces be treated. The proposed
design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before it is discharged (see Figure 3.2-4). The
facilities' operation and maintenance would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM (King
County 1998) requirements. If mitigation measures are properly implemented, adverse water quality
impacts are not expected. The following description is based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary
Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-19 September 2003
lL-
r
p
The drainage area west and north of May Creek would drain to Water Quality Pond WQ1 in Tract B. The area would include the residential area of 4.54 impervious acres and 4.92 pervious acres, and Streets E I [I
and F that connect the site to Ripley Lane and have a drainage area of 0.89 impervious acre.
Approximately 8,811 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per 1998 KCSWDM Section 6.4.1. The ri '
elevation for the top of sediment storage would be 19.0 feet, and the design water quality surface I ^ II
elevation would be 21.0 feet. Calculations for the water quality volumes are contained in Appendix C of
the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002). The measured volume for the preliminary.
WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900 cubic feet. Following water quality treatment, water would. 9
discharge directly to Lake Washington(indicated as WQ 1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4).
1
The area south and east of May Creek would drain to smaller Water Quality Pond WQ2 near the mouth of
May Creek. The area would include residential areas, and an access road to Lake Washington Boulevard R
North for a total drainage area of approximately 2.20 acres, 1.87 acres of which would be impervious.
The required water quality volume for this drainage area would be 9,036 cubic feet, or 11,026 cubic feet "
if the water quality surface elevation were set at approximately 20.0 feet. Following water quality
treatment,water would discharge directly to Lake Washington(indicated as WQ2 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4).
The possible increased temperatures of stormwater discharged from the water quality treatment ponds I,
during summer months could be mitigated with dense bank cover around the edges of the proposed
ponds. ..� -m ,i
pon s
1 �l^
1
Mitigation for Maintenance Activity p 1
ri Maintenance of the water quality ponds would be private, and would conform to City of Renton and 1998
KCSWDM (King County 1998)requirements(King County 1998). Impacts caused by sediment removal G
from the ponds could be decreased if maintenance was scheduled during periods of little rain. Impacts { ,
from the possible use of pesticides could be reduced with an Integrated Pest Management Plan,_as -I
described in the Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001). The potential for pollution to stormwater
runoff would be reduced by the implementation of the following BMPs: I i
• Installation of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of ° -
ystormwater in landscaped areas —"'---'_! . y/ °t 1 f
• Prevention of disposing of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems
• The practice of mulch-mowing
• Disposal of grass clippings,leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation by composting, if feasible 1 a�r
If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not expected. I ;�
3.2.3.2 Construction Impact Mitigation 1
ii
BMPs for sediment control should be implemented using the standards outlined in 1998 KCSWDM, 4
Appendix D. Impacts resulting from construction activities would be minimized through implementation I 91
of an appropriate SWPPP, including a risk assessment and an approved Temporary Erosion and Sediment 91 iI
Control (TESC) Plan. If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not I
expected. Specific elements of the SWPPP should include the following(Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002):
• Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing,the limits should be marked. 9�
• Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans should install a stabilized construction . _:
entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel
construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock. ,I
1
I�
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-20 September 2003 I 1
II InI Ir
• Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis, it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site
under construction. A detention pond may be used to control flows during construction.
} • Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment should be
removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met.
—' • Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Both
temporary and permanent groundcover would be part of the construction plans.
• Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows
} until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in place.
• Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt laden
water.
• Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would be
stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would require
protection.
I
4yf • Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials and
demolition debris, would be handled. This would include maintenance of construction
equipment,fertilizers,application of chemicals, and water treatment systems.
L
• Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations
would be discharged into a controlled system.
• Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and
installed construction BMPs, as well as their removal at the end of the project.
• Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion control.
It would cover phasing,training,coordination,monitoring,reporting, and contingency planning.
Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows(Raedeke Associates,2002):
• Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and April 30, because
these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest.
• In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of
bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake
Jj Washington and May Creek,respectively.
I
3
• The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum location for a
TESC pond. Most stormwater runoff from the site would be routed to this pond via interceptor
trenches and berms,and later via permanent drainage pipes.
• The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility should remain in an
undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized.
• Stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond facilities to downstream systems should be
controlled and monitored during construction to ensure compliance with established water quality
discharge requirements.
I • Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices
include, but are not limited to, temporary/permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic
covering,erosion control matting, a gravel base for areas to be paved,and dust control.
• Matting, plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures should be specified on
the TESC plan for placement on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-21 September 2003
I
I I
,11 • A monitoring plan should be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction
1- :
1 ! 1 SWPPP should contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background measurements, and
i' l
-, a periodic reporting schedule. The sampling points would be marked on a map and on the
1� ground.
I
l; The Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001) contains additional erosion and sediment control BMPs
that include the following: 1
I
I • Limiting disturbed areas as practicable;
• Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas;
1
• The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure;
1
I 1 •I • Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient terraces;
• Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration, as needed,to reduce turbidity in the site I
i
discharge;
1
• Specialized concrete handling;
1 1 ! • Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals;
• Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and
equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill
1 ' containment features,and a spill clean-up kit;
' • Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction;
1I
1
• Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead;and
1 • Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures.
3.3 GROUNDWATER
Infiltration movement and storage of groundwater depend on surface and subsurface deposits. \`
I Groundwater exists in many types of geologic deposits; however, accessibility to that water and its
11
rovement in the deposits depends on the pore space in the deposits and their connectivity. Aquifers
provide numerous connected voids through which groundwater can travel (e.g., sand and gravel), making
the groundwater accessible. Aquitards restrict groundwater movement because they lack pore space
1 and/or connectivity(Shannon and Wilson 2001).
3.3.1 Affected Environment
The layering sequence of aquifers and aquitards affects vertical groundwater movement. Surface aquifers
'1 allow infiltration of precipitation to the subsurface to recharge the aquifer. Three aquifer systems are 1'
III present in the area of the project site. The local unconfined aquifer is in the alluvium and fill, which is
1 ' mainly silt and sand. Within the alluvial unit of medium to fine sand are discontinuous zones of silt and
peat that may cause localized semi-confined conditions (the second aquifer system). The sand in the
north central portion of the site becomes gravelly, which may represent a channel of May Creek and the
,I
1
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _
raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-22 September 2003
i IIVI
third aquifer system. The base of the alluvial and lacustrine deposits consists of a relatively continuous
silt layer, 5-to10-feet thick. This unit overlies the glacial sand and gravel unit(Hart Crowser 2000).
Depth to water in this area ranges from 3 to 7 feet below the surface. This equates to a 14- to 18-foot
elevation. The aquifer is in communication with Lake Washington to the west and pinches out to the east.
The Seattle Fault may have a significant effect on the local flow system. The soil types at depth on both
sides of the fault are different. The effect of the fault on the aquifer system has not been studied.
The City of Renton began an effort to protect its groundwater supplies that is consistent with the
Washington State Wellhead Protection Program (Chapter 246-290-135(4) WAC) and recommended an
Aquifer Protection Program in its 1983 Water System Plan. Aquifer Protection Ordinance No. 4367 was
passed by Renton in 1993 and Aquifer Protection Areas (APA) were established to protect the quality of
Renton's municipal water supply. Land use and development is regulated by the ordinance in this area.
The Barbee Mill site does not fall into this area. The closest municipal well is southeast of the project
site.
Groundwater Flow
The project site is generally in a groundwater discharge area. General groundwater flow on the site is
west toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site. There is an upward
vertical gradient near the lake (Hart Crowser 2000). Flow in the unconfined alluvial aquifer is most
susceptible to localized change due to placement of fill, cutoff walls, and utilities. Low permeability
pavement and fill will decreases overall infiltration and recharge over the site. The on-site wetlands are
discussed in the wetland section of this report. Bedrock and regional aquifers would probably be
unaffected because their recharge areas are further upland.
The primary water supply aquifer in the area is the City of Renton Well 5A, which lies in an APA south
of the project site. The site is more than 5,000 feet northwest of the well and outside of its 10-year
capture zone. The well is deep and unlikely to be affected by shallow contamination. Due to its distance
from the project,there would likely be little effect on that well.
Groundwater Quality
The water quality impacts likely to occur in the shallow unconfined aquifer would include increased total
dissolved solids from turbid surface water infiltration and contamination from surface spills of chemicals
and petroleum products. There are several groundwater monitoring wells on the Barbee Mill site.
Multiple site investigations have been conducted at the project site and are discussed in more detail in
Section 3.6,Hazardous Materials.
Elevated concentrations of arsenic (0.0086 to 52 mg/L) were detected in the groundwater over the
northern half of the site, with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were
also detected in specific areas. Surface water screening standards were applied to groundwater samples
because the lake is a receptor for groundwater, and it is of higher concern relative to human and
environmental impacts. Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method B surface water cleanup levels,
Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards, Clean Water Act Criteria, and estimated background
concentrations were used as the basis for choosing groundwater screening levels in recent investigations.
Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source. Detections of
hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank (UST) areas.
Groundwater treatment would be part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan for the contaminated soil
on the site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
r Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-23 September 2003
rf1 1
,
Gi oundwater Rights `—
Ecology has issued no Groundwater Rights Certificates in the project area. The closest location is more
than 2,000 feet east on the east side of I-405. The impacts to those with claims are unknown, but would
pr6ably be small to none.
Il l 1
3.�3.2 Impacts
Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water .
supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No
groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site. There are no on-site drinking water wells or other types '
of wells penetrating the deeper aquifers; therefore, impacts to the deeper aquifers would probably be
minimal.
T e saturated thickness of the shallow aquifer fluctuates seasonally in response to precipitation (dry
during low-precipitation months). Because the site is presently almost totally covered with impervious
I surface,the amount after redevelopment would probably not be significantly different.
1 Pilings for a structural foundation can act as a conduit for surface contaminates to migrate to the •
' ; unconfined aquifer. Minimal impacts to the deeper aquifers would be anticipated under this alternative.
C� mulative Impact
1
Goundwater impacts have been determined to be minimal for the proposed redevelopment of the Barbee 11
ti i Mill site; as a result, no cumulative impacts would be anticipated. Impacts to surface water flow,
i interception of runoff by the stormwater conveyance system, and potential infiltration by stormwater
II I I facilities are discussed in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources.
;1 1 Installations of foundation may alter the shallow groundwater flow direction depending on their depth.
Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly altered due to the installation of
1 , foundations. May Creek is located mainly upgradient of the construction area and is discussed in more \
detail in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources. Impact on site wetlands and wetland recharge are
discussed in Section 3.4,Plants and Animals. '
3.3.3 Mitigation
i I No specific mitigation measures are required for shallow or deeper groundwater impacts. Impacts to the ,'
aquifers below the project site resulting from redevelopment activities are anticipated to be minimal.
Although the shallow aquifer is not a valuable water supply source for the community, it is important for
o1 -site and adjacent wetland areas. Removal of the impacted soil and dewatering and treatment of the
1, impacted groundwater during those activities would probably improve groundwater quality with respect
t' arsenic.
,
S allow groundwater could potentially be encountered during installation of subsurface utilities or other ;
in the groundwater could intrusive activities. Because the shallow aquifer table is likely to be low during the portion of the year
when precipitation is minimal, chanceto encounter ld be minimized by conducting �=
intrusive activities during the dry season(late spring through late summer and early fall).
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
This section discusses impacts on terrestrial plants and animals as well as aquatic species. Additional
detailed discussion is found in Appendixes D and E.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
i Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-24 September 2003
3.4.1 Affected Environment
Vegetation Communities
Non-native vegetation and managed lawn areas dominate the existing shoreline and riparian
vegetation in the project area. Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is limited because buildings
and paved areas associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington, and to between
5 and 25 feet of the waters' edge along most of May Creek.
Along the east bank of the stream,just below the BNSF bridge, there is a forested buffer of red alder and
black cottonwood trees and a shrub layer dominated by willows. Small areas of alder occur south along
the east bank. Below the concrete bridge, the east bank is also predominantly managed lawn with some
shrubs. Substantial areas along the east bank are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canary-
grass.
The west bank of May Creek is characterized by a narrow riparian buffer, which is dominated by lawn
grasses and non-native herbaceous plants. In places along the west bank, paved surfaces extend to within
5 to 10 feet of OHW and the riparian vegetation averages less than 25-feet wide along the stream
(Raedeke Associates 2002). Some trees and shrubs do occur along the west bank, but they are scattered
through the managed lawn areas, are relatively low growing and, in general, are too far from the stream
bank to provide significant shade to the stream.
In general, with the exception of the small forested area near the BNSF bridge, the riparian buffer
vegetation likely does not provide significant shade and/or leaf litter to the stream. The lack of shade is
due to the presence of riprapped banks which prevent riparian shrubs from growing close to the water,
non-native weeds such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canary-grass, and the large areas of managed
lawn that line the stream in the project area.
The Lake Washington shoreline in the project site also contains extensive unvegetated areas of riprap,
indicated in Figure 3.4-1, which precludes the development of dense shrub or forested vegetation along
the edge of the water. The portion of the shoreline east of May Creek is managed lawn. The shoreline
west of May Creek has recently been cleared as part of dredging operations and consists of disturbed soils
that have a sparse cover of annual weeds. Further to the north, sheet pile bulkheads and riprap are present
up to the log loading area of the sawmill. South of the sawmill log entry building, the shoreline is
retained by a log bulkhead with shallower water. Most of the shoreline is cleared, but it supports some
soft rush and the invasive shrub, Scot's broom,which grow in the spaces between the riprap rocks and log
bulkheads. A dock extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore north of the
, existing sawmill building. Numerous pilings and log booms associated with the mill have been installed
in the lake and extend several hundred feet out into Lake Washington at two different points.
For the shoreline and riparian areas, the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) database does
not have records for rare plants or high quality habitats in the vicinity of the project.
1
A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was
required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification.
94-2-00196. The majority of plantings do not appear to have survived or established a stable vegetation
community. Additional discussion is provided in Appendix D.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-25 September 2003
I At
71 2
OHW--Jo I ---' .,--') 1 i /(/
i'FJ ��
�_ � oow �orv_mmwa
> \ ////
I PIER 1 a f
NI
� / /
• • • ti�...y.� -- f/
• • •7 FF"'W
•
• • •® [ r. ir) ,,_....______-_____\ ,,a ?' 'fig/ /
LOG V' ' 4 /7
RAFT rl� �1 i i '� u6 /
.7
,,,__________ /..,.//
, ___,,,-,_,,, , /
,...
, / ..f,
,, ,
i „ , __<„, _,i2„, . .,,
..,,
, ,„--,,,...„ i / ,
4,,/
\ .,, „
\ \ �ID' ' ,, ,
r7 f , d f/ _/!�
` ' `, / ;aF�.0,7 Tx®'_0 r4-1 ! / /�'`°/
LAKE ,�/ ,-; t �$ /
WASHINGTON vt 7 °n"-°°X Org �,C 1i1` i 7 '''i HA ���
s,1 a.I' t
L _ 1� l , �lrril lf t l'i ! r' / /�
/ifi itki i ./ , ,f:l.: fi -----.......
7 , ,/, _„/_____-----4,7,_ ,,,,f/4Y /
: •. , \ y / \,,,,
OW
• • 61 \5 ',,.. _,..i.4,1` \•••eff / I
MAY CREEK111' /
,_ DELTA dI".... Y tr. M1 V'" -
/ /
•
yam....-_____.___.__ _._.___..__....
" — —_ �_ � ---- N 40TH ST
F
t._
Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-01
! '1
— BROKEN ASPHALT
SCALE IN FEET "IrliN SHEET PILE BULKHEAD Figure 3.4-1
I
NO LOG BULKHEAD Existing Shoreline Protection
CCCrt RIP RAP
, o 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
• • • . LOG PILES
Wildlife
Limited habitat for wildlife is provided in upland vegetation in the narrow corridor along the riparian
zone of May Creek and along the BNSF railroad right-of-way on the eastern boundary of the site.
Species known or expected to use the riparian habitat area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese,
northern flicker, spotted towhees, white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows, red-winged
blackbirds, tree swallows, black-capped chickadees, house fmches, American crows, muskrats, and
possibly Pacific treefrogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May Creek limits its value as a
habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to use the project site portion of the
- creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project site.
Habitat for a variety of waterfowl, as well as potential foraging areas for gulls and other predatory birds,
is provided along the Lake Washington shoreline and aquatic areas. The low level of current activity on
the site, as well as the presence of the log rafts and pilings on the lake, likely enhance the lake habitat in
the area relative to other near-shore portions of Lake Washington where human activity levels are higher.
Two wildlife species of special interest, the osprey and the bald eagle, are known or are expected to use
the project site vicinity, as described further below.
Mammal use of the project site and surrounding area can be presumed by studies of the May Creek
corridor and other habitat in the Lake Washington Basin. Surveys of May Creek and other riparian
habitat in the Lake Washington basin indicate a diversity of small mammals, such as voles and mice,
which are common in mixed vegetation communities. These species provide forage for nesting and
migrating raptors, including red-tailed hawks, barn owls, and owls. Introduced mammal species include
the Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray squirrel, among others. House cats and off-
leash dogs from adjacent residential areas likely cause disturbance to native and introduced mammals at
the site. Forest-dwelling mammals such as deer are commonly observed in the May Creek drainage and
have been observed to swim from the delta area to Mercer Island.
Osprey
The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site.
The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996 (Raedeke Associates 2002). During a site visit on
April 8,2003,the birds were observed both on the nest and in the vicinity.
The osprey is not listed as threatened or endangered but is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and RCW 77.15.130. It is unlawful to hunt,take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, ship, transport, or
export any migratory bird,part,nest, or egg.
Ospreys are fish-eating birds that occur along lakes and rivers. The birds build large nests of sticks on
snags or on living trees, and also readily nest on human-made structures including power line towers,
light poles, and similar structures (Poole 1989). On the coast, osprey nests are usually adjacent to, if not
over, water, whereas on inland lakes and waterways, nests are usually more distant (i.e., up to 14
kilometers but typically within 3 to 5 kilometers)from foraging areas(Poole 1989). The majority of nests
in Oregon and California studies were within 1 km of large lakes and rivers (Zarn 1974; Vana-Miller
1987).
Ospreys generally arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. Pair bonding persists
from one year to the next, and the same nest site may be used over successive years (Ryser 1985). Most
migratory ospreys lay 2 to 4 eggs from late April to early May and incubate them for 5 to 6 weeks(Burns
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-27 September 2003
1974; Poole 1989). Young fledge when they are about 2 months old (Burns 1974; Cadman et al. 1987).
They return to the nest for feeding and roosting for another week, and can be found nearby for sometime
thereafter
reafter(Cadman et al. 1987).
Bald Eagle
N p bald eagle nest sites are located on the Barbee Mill site. The two closest nest sites are approximately
1 mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near
the project site; however, use of the actual project site is unlikely, due to lack of suitable large trees for
perching and roosting.
Bald eagles are federally and state listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald
Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has
ben proposed for federal de-listing and state down-listing to sensitive.
B Id eagle habitat consists of open water areas with abundant prey (i.e., fish and waterfowl) and nearby
1 ge trees for nesting,perching, and roosting(Stinson et al. 2001). Habitat quality is also associated with
freedom from human disturbance. However, eagle sensitivity to disturbance varies, and eagle use of
u ban areas with significant human activity is not uncommon.
territories as earlyas December(Stinson et al. 2001 . Each eagle
Bald eagle pairs arrive on their nesting ) g
pair maintains an active nest and often alternate nest(s) within its territory, and successful nests may be
uWed over several successive years (Buehler 2000). Clutch size is usually two and, in western
ashington, young hatch by late April after approximately 35 days of incubation (Stinson et al. 2001).
Yung eagles fledge around 11 to 13 weeks of age, usually during early to mid-July in Washington.
E tgles nesting in Washington, as well as fledglings, leave their territories in early fall and migrate north
t British Columbia and southeast Alaska, where salmon runs provide prey concentrations. Adults
g nerally return to their Washington breeding grounds by January, while juveniles usually return several
months later. Bald eagles wintering in Washington State generally arrive from October to December and
leave between January and April. These wintering birds nest in British Columbia, Alaska, the Northwest
Tbrritories, and the Yukon.
Wetlands
Two small wetlands.(Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3) occur largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along
the eastern edge of the property (Raedeke Associates 2002), and small portions of these wetlands extend
onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands are Category 3 (City of Renton) palustrine emergent
NA.etlands (David Evans 1997). Wetland hydrology is provided by surface runoff on the site, runoff from
east of the site (via culverts under the BNSF tracks), and shallow subsurface flow through the BNSF
railroad bed (Raedeke Associates 2002). Both wetlands and buffer areas have been regularly mowed, as -
part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also to maintain access to water
utilities.
Specific functions likely provided by the wetlands on this site include some sediment retention and
limited-water storage. Both wetlands, due to their small size, limited buffer area,and periodic disturbance
associated with mowing,have low species diversity and probably provide minimal wildlife habitat.
Aquatic Habitat
Aquatic habitat in May Creek and Lake Washington has been substantially altered by dredging operations
conducted by the Barbee Mill Company since the 1950s. The relocation of May Creek to flow south
city of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-28 September 2003
rather then west across the site, and associated fill and riprap has eliminated most natural stream
functions. Dredging operations that annually removed about 2,000 cubic yards of sediment from the
mouth of May Creek which served to prevent deposition of sediments in the May Creek streambed, and
has prevented formation of a delta at the mouth of the stream. The most recent dredging in Lake
Washington was implemented for removal of bark and other materials deposited by log storage (Harza
2000,Meridian 2001). Additional discussion of aquatic habitat is found in Appendix E.
The shoreline of the Barbee Mill site reflects the extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington
that have occurred over the past century. The modifications that have taken place have simplified the
nearshore habitat and reduced structural diversity. The removal of shoreline vegetation on the site is
typical of much of the lake shoreline that has been replaced by residential and commercial development.
Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing Lake Washington shoreline is lined with bulkheads
that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers
- extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline
vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to
simple (vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant
community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat(USCE 2001).
Near-shore landscapes on Lake Washington provide suitable habitat conditions for Chinook salmon, bull
trout, and other aquatic species where natural habitat forming processes and functions are less altered.
Native trees and shrubs growing near the water provide leaf litter, terrestrial insect food sources, and
eventually woody debris along the shore and in the water. Native emergent vegetation in shallow water
increases the complexity and diversity of habitat in the near-shore zone. The shoreline vegetation helps
maintain and develop natural processes that establish a shoreline supporting the food web and provides
crucial in-water habitat.
Lake depths along the margins of the site are largely related to past dredging of the mouth of May Creek
and the log handling area. The shallowest depths of the lakebed are encountered adjacent to the existing
sawmill north of the log handling area and are 3 to 4 feet below OHW. The greatest depths are about 12
feet in the vicinity of the log dump and sawmill loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill.
Substrate in the project area is a mixture of silt and fine sand with occasional patches of gravel (Meridian
2001). Where observed, gravel was mostly located in very shallow water (less than about 0.5 meter),
whereas silts were the dominant substrate in deeper water.
Fish Species Use
May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline support five species of salmonids, including Chinook
salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout(KCSWP 1995). Of
these species, Chinook salmon are federally listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)
and coho salmon are considered a candidate for listing as discussed below. Sockeye salmon, winter
steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout are identified by WDFW as priority anadromous and resident fish
species (WDFW 2003). Resident rainbow trout are also a priority species that may occur in the project
area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are a USFWS species of concern that have been found within
King County and may also occur near the project site(WDFW 2003).
_ ESA-Listed Species
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
On March 24, 1999, NOAA Fisheries listed Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily
Significant Unit (ESU) as threatened under the ESA of 1973 due to drastic decreases in abundance
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-29 September 2003
i
1
compared to historical levels (Federal Register 64:14308-15328). Puget Sound Chinook salmon stocks ' -'
halve shown long- and short-term negative trends in abundance that are attributed to the effects of forest
practices, urbanization, and agriculture (Myers et al. 1998). These land uses typically cause habitat
degradations that include stream blockages, stream bank instability and modifications, increases in 1 J
sedimentation, widespread removal riparian vegetation and large woody debris, loss of stream shading,
alteration of flow regimes, rerouting of streams, and loss of estuarine and near-shore habitat(Myers et al.
1998). Harvest and negative genetic effects of hatchery releases of Chinook salmon are also considered
faI tors of decline(Myers et al. 1998).
Chinook salmon have a wide variety of life-history strategies that vary based on the length of freshwater
Id salt-water residency times (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound stocks of Chinook salmon, including
1 -'
th se found in Lake Washington and its tributaries, are summer and fall run stocks that generally exhibit
a "ocean-type" life history pattern where juveniles typically migrate to the marine environment during
1 th first 3 months after emergence from stream gravels (Myers et al. 1998); however, chinook juveniles
h ve been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended periods of time
', ( arza 2000). Juvenile Chinook salmon spend anywhere from several months to a year in estuary and
1' ' nLr-shore areas prior to migration to the open ocean (Myers et al. 1998). After 1 to 4 years in the open
o ean,Puget Sound Chinook salmon return to spawn in summer and fall. Chinook salmon spawn in areas
o clean gravels and cobbles, and generally in the mainstreams of rivers(Myers et al. 1998).
ost juvenile Chinook salmon that use habitat within the project vicinity originate from the Cedar River.
T e Cedar River stock is a native, naturally spawning population without supplementation from hatchery
st cks that is considered a depressed stock (WDFW 1994). Adult Cedar River stock Chinook salmon '
e ter Lake Washington from late June through September, with peak numbers occurring in late August.
S awning in the Cedar River occurs from mid-September through mid-to-late November, with peak
s awning occurring in mid-October (WDFW 1994; City of Seattle 2000). Fry emerge from February
t ough March.
Tile distribution of juvenile Chinook salmon along the Lake Washington shoreline has been demonstrated
be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Highest densities of juvenile Chinook salmon have been
found in areas with small to fine substrate (sand/gravel) during day and night, and in areas having a
gl'adual slope of less than 20 percent (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002). From February to March, Chinook
salmon commonly used overhead structures during the day, but rarely at night. In contrast, Chinook
salmon generally do not appear to use overhead structures later in the spring during the day or night
(Tabor et al. 2002). During the day, Chinook salmon are often found in aggregations, whereas at night
t ey have been found to be inactive on the bottom in shallow water, close to shore.
woody debris and overhanging vegetation are commonly used by Chinook salmon in March and April,
bit are used less progressively from May into June (Tabor and Piaskowski 2002, Tabor et al. 2002). It is
ai this time that predators such as smallmouth and largemouth bass move into shallow waters, often
u ilizing such cover and other overhead structures.
ile May Creek does not have a self-sustaining Chinook salmon population, some individuals believed
t be strays from the Cedar River do use May Creek for spawning and rearing (Lucchetti 2002).
S awning surveys conducted in 1976 and 1977 found adult Chinook salmon population densities in May
reek of 1 and 7 fish per mile, respectively. Spawning surveys conducted in 1983 did not find Chinook
s lmon in May Creek, while surveys conducted in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities of 1 fish per mile
( arza 2000,Foster Wheeler 1995). In 1999, 6 live Chinook salmon and 4 carcasses were spotted in May -
reek at approximately River Mile 0.5 (Meridian 2001).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-30 September 2003
From March to June of 2002, the May Creek delta and the lower 278 meters of May Creek (all on the
Barbee Mill site) were snorkel surveyed to assess juvenile salmonid densities (Tabor et al. 2002). Few
Chinook salmon were observed in the channel, convergence pool, and delta area of May Creek. In that
study, densities of Chinook salmon did not greatly differ between delta areas and lake reference areas
(Tabor et al. 2002).
Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
On July 25, 1995, the NOAA Fisheries added the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU for coho salmon to
the candidate species list based on several risk factors that may necessitate the future listing (Federal
Register 60:38011-38030). Risk factors include artificial propagation, high harvest rates, habitat
degradations, observed declines in adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions (Busby et al. 1996).
Habitat degradations include activities such as logging, agriculture, development, and stream blockages.
Coho salmon are an anadromous species that typically have a 3-year life cycle. Adult coho salmon start
returning to the Lake Washington basin in late August and continue through mid-November. After
J entering Lake Washington, adult coho salmon may, if necessary, remain in the lake for up to several
weeks until river flows are adequate for upstream migration. The majority of spawning in Lake
Washington basin streams occurs from late September through mid-January (Harza 2000, R2 2000).
Spawning generally occurs from in gravel substrates of tributary streams, and fry emerge from gravels in
early March to mid-May (Johnson et al. 1991; Harza 2000; R2 2000). The stream distribution and
abundance of coho salmon is likely influenced by water temperatures, stream size, flows, channel
morphology,vegetation type and abundance,and channel substrate size and quality.
Coho salmon runs in Lake Washington are heavily supported by hatchery production. Therefore, it has
been difficult to fully determine the status of naturally spawning coho salmon populations in the region.
However,recent trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline
in populations that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor
ocean conditions(Harza 2000,Fresh 1994,WDFW 1994).
The use of Lake Washington by coho salmon is poorly understood, but juveniles are known to use May
Creek and the shoreline of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Barbee Mill project area (WDFW
2002a). Spawning surveys of May Creek conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found that peak coho
salmon densities in the lower reaches of May Creek to be 23, 5, and 55 coho salmon per mile respectively
(Raedeke Associates, 2002) Subsequent surveys conducted in 1992-1993 found densities of only 2 adult
fish per mile (Harza 2000, Foster Wheeler 1995). In more recent fish surveys conducted near the mouth
of May Creek, juvenile coho salmon were found in May Creek on the project site and also in Lake
Washington in close proximity to the mouth (Harza 2000). However, juvenile coho salmon are not
generally known to reside in lakes for extended periods of time prior to seaward migration. Therefore,
most use of the Lake Washington shoreline by juvenile coho salmon occurs primarily in April and May
during seaward migration.
Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus)
On November 1, 1999, the USFWS issued a final rule listing the bull trout as a threatened species under
the ESA throughout the coterminous United States (Federal Register 64:58910-58933). Thirty-four
subpopulations were identified within the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. According to Quigley et
al. (1997), the distribution of bull trout has been reduced to approximately 44 percent of its historical
range. Key factors in the decline of bull trout populations include population fragmentation, watershed
and habitat impacts(sedimentation,reductions in stream shading, altered flow regimes),hybridization and
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-31 September 2003
i
competition with non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and harvest by anglers (Quigley et al.
1997).
B I
11 trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history forms. Bull trout have more specific habitat
requirements than other salmonids species, and bull trout spawning and rearing is generally restricted to
u4disturbed relatively pristine cold streams, often occurring in headwater reaches (Rieman and McIntyre
1993). These streams have stable channels with abundant cover in the form of large wood, undercut
bqnIks, large boulders, and clean substrates used as spawning and rearing habitat (WDW 1992).
Migratory adults frequently use lakes, reservoirs, larger rivers, and saltwater coastal areas for feeding
and/or migration(Federal Register 64:58910-58933).
1!
C ld-water temperatures are particularly critical factor for bull trout. The maximum water temperature
cgnsidered to be suitable for bull trout is 8° to 10°C for spawning 2° to 4°C for egg incubation, 4° to °
i 10°C for rearing, and 10°to 12°C for migration(USFWS 1998). Areas where water temperature exceeds
15°C (59°F)are thought to limit bull trout distribution(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).
1 , Migratory bull trout begin spawning migrations as early as May, and bull trout spawn from August
through December when water temperatures are decreasing. As is typical of most salmonids, spawning
o4curs over gravels and cobbles with good intragravel flow of water or groundwater inflow. Juvenile bull
trout use shallow backwater or side channel areas, and move to deeper water sheltered by large organic
d bris,vegetation, or undercut banks as they grow.
Due to the habitat requirements of bull trout, it is highly unlikely that bull trout would be present within
the project vicinity. No bull trout spawning has been documented within the Urban Growth Area
boundary (Lucchetti 2002), which includes the project vicinity. The only confirmed bull trout stock in
die Lake Washington watershed is the Chester Morse Lake population, which is restricted to the upper
Cedar River watershed (WDFW 1998). Bull trout have, however, been sighted within Lake Washington
a�d its tributaries over the past 20 years(Harza 2000; USFWS 1999; WDFW 1998). The origin of these _
f h is unknown, though these fish may originate from anadromous populations outside of the Lake
11 I ashington Basin(Harza 2000;USFWS 1999;WDFW 1998).
l
Other Fish Species
Other species known to occur in the project vicinity include yellow perch(Percaflavescens), smallmouth
bass (Micropterus dolemuei), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), northern pikeminnow
(Ptychocheilus oregonensis), black crappie (Pomoxis migromaculatus), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis ,
g bbosus), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), brown
, bil llhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), longfm smelt (Spirinchus
t IhI--aleichthys), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) shiner (Notropis spp.), and prickly sculpin
(cottus aspen)(Meridian 2001). In snorkeling surveys conducted in March and August of 2000,the most
a undant species observed in Lake Washington near the project site were yellow perch, and juvenile
sthallmouth and largemouth bass (Harza 2000). Other species observed in 2000 included northern
pikeminnow, three-spine stickleback, and speckled dace. Though no salmonids were observed in these
studies, they were conducted during months when migrating juvenile salmon would not be expected to
occur. In May 2001, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, yellow perch, and three-spine
stickleback were observed (Meridian 2001). Most fish were found in water depths less than 2 meters ' `
(about 6 feet) along the shoreline. Typically, these fish were associated with overhead and underwater
lover in the existing dock,boathouse, and submerged logs.
d ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-32 September 2003
Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the evaluation of proposed projects with a federal nexus to evaluate
impacts on habitat of commercially managed fish populations. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been
defined for the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish
for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (NMFS 1999). NOAA Fisheries has further
clarified the definition:
NOAA Fisheries has recently proposed EFH for Pacific Coast salmon, including Chinook salmon,within
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (NMFS 2000) that address construction/urbanization
impacts upon salmon habitat. Among numerous types of non-fishing activities that may affect EFH,
should BMPs fail,those applicable to the project area are those that would:
• Alter sediment delivery to,and quantity in streams and estuaries.
• Alter water flow,quantity,timing,temperature,or chemistry.
• Alter the amount or types of nutrients or prey.
• Discharge pollutants,nutrients,or contaminants.
Critical Habitat
The designation of critical habitat for listed species was required under Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA.
The ESA defined critical habitat in Section 3(5XA) as "the specific areas within the geographic area
occupied by the species, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection."
NOAA Fisheries designated critical habitat to include all marine,estuarine,and river reaches accessible to
listed Chinook salmon in Puget Sound (Federal Register 65:7764-7787). On April 30, 2002, the U.S.
District Court vacated the rule designating critical habitat for 19 ESUs of salmon and steelhead on the
West Coast, including the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU. NOAA Fisheries is currently
reconsidering the designation of critical habitat. An analysis of the effects of the project on critical
habitat, as defined under the vacated rule, has been included in this EIS in the event that critical habitat is
re-designated before this action is fully implemented. This analysis may be relevant in determining
whether initiation of consultation will be necessary if critical habitat is re-designated.
Currently,NOAA Fisheries has not determined critical habitat for Puget Sound coho salmon as they are a
candidate species and their status has yet to be determined (Federal Register 60:38001-38030). A
perspective on potential habitat definition is provided in the NOAA Fisheries proposal that critical habitat
for Oregon Coast coho salmon should include all freshwater waterways and substrates below
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several
hundred years) and several dams that block access to former coho salmon habitats (Federal Register
64:24998-25007). Should Puget Sound coho salmon become listed or proposed for listing, Lake
Washington and May Creek in the general vicinity of the project site would likely be considered critical
habitat.
The critical habitat designation was deemed "not determinable" for bull trout due to the meager
understanding of the biological needs of bull trout (Federal Register 63:31693-31710). A critical habitat
designation is generally expected within 2 years of the proposed rule, but it is not known when this
designation will be made for the Puget Sound bull trout DPS.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-33 September 2003
3.4.2 Impacts
3.4.2.1 Impacts of Subdivision and Building Construction
Vegetation Communities
Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the
majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will
remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation consisting largely of shrubs and grasses below the
existing lower office parking lot. The extent of impacts will depend on bridge design and construction
methods. It may be possible to maintain existing or enhanced vegetation beneath the bridge if the bridge
deck is high enough to allow light penetration and water is provided by precipitation or irrigation.
Wildlife
The existing osprey nest on the sawdust tower will be displaced by removal of the structure. Mitigation is
discussed below.
Impacts on existing wildlife communities during construction would depend on duration of construction
and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road
construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for bridge or other foundation construction could be a
substantial, although temporary disturbance. If pilings are required for building foundations, and the
construction of residences occurs over several years, the impacts on sensitive wildlife could lead to
avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat
generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals currently using the creek as a corridor
are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife
populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and
other hours when construction is not taking place.
The effects of human activities on waterfowl may be greater along the portion of Lake Washington
adjacent to the project site. Use patterns may change during construction. Nesting activities almost
certainly will not occur near very high noise levels such as impact pile driving.
The high noise levels associated with construction may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the
sawdust tower from relocating in the vicinity.
Wetlands
The northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the adjacent
Street C and the town homes will eliminate existing buffering vegetation below the Renton code
minimum of a 25-foot buffer area for a Category 3 wetland (as indicated in figure 3.4-2). The roadway
constructed adjacent to the wetland is in a fill section and is proposed to be supported by a low retaining
wall. Construction impacts likely will extend approximately 10 feet from the edge of improvements and
therefore encroach within about 10 feet of the wetland. The buffer area remaining after construction will
be approximately 20 to 22 feet wide at its smallest dimension. The buffer area is currently mowed grass
with encroachment by stored soil.
The southernmost wetland will experience permanent displacement due to roadway construction of an
area of about 10 feet by 40 feet, with construction disturbance of up to another 10 feet(see figure 3.4-3).
Modification of the drainage system in the area to serve the new development likely may affect the source
of water to recharge the wetland, resulting in potential loss of the total wetland area of 1,712 square feet.
If portions of the wetland were retained, all of the buffer area on the west side of the wetland would be
eliminated.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-34 September 2003
_ i II 1
111111111111111 11 I / t ! - 0„.,
0
'1m V, "1 11111V /
i GI war
,, ,,/ ORTHERLY _-._ __-- __.-�._ .
me i
1
• i 0 } `
t F! t'i • 04
\
15 ? i
5 i
. , s \ „ . ! \ / 1 i 1 4./ 1
" 00 ` ' , 4` .�• r %\ ��I i 1 / ' / `% r
�%: , i .*/
y� 1 1 51 10 !! /
. /7 113 I 1 1/ illd , ,I", / /I I Jr/
-- _,, .fir
KEY MAP �. \ ° ��2 _ ,,1,0.i \ /4' /� />! ,4�/ /
�_,,,
/ /
I # 11 ) /
I
..:,
,..
II . - / �i ..„,. � f� / ,�v /
4
j4 > _110` Ii7 4 11, WETLAND/ d ;i ter'�� / ���,:�� / r � h BOUNDARY
/ of `, 109 /' A.
P /7 i 1/ Of
-r \ •
�,\ , 0 Ai 5ETBAC
[' ! y/ /
11
.,� 106 � ' �)�ir
�/, r PROXIM T AREA
1
/ �;' ,, / / F CONSTRUCTION `,,
.\ - •• / /�f// / DISTUR AF CE
/ /
/i
-�" l 4/ / / /
104 "7�- / /47/ / 4()
- 0 3 // / / ,
/"/ / cy
S.,,,,.. , Al / /47/
jar , /_,,,a// i %,y
/--, 7 ----,,,w/ 0
Nr
�/
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-02
SCALE IN FEET „� WETLAND Ur
3.4-2
Northerly Wetland
0 25 5I0 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
--1o5
11111111111111111 1 I - --
MI ��� 11111 _. --_\ 104
A: ik-.. ..._____,., ,,,,,, /
:/.41117-Aa/4/://
j / .`� f (77Niip:s:il
1041r> /f4��
P, ;�,
SOUTHE �1. —
,,... ,.
„4„. , ...... .i.-0',... -4 0 3' l--- --- .--, /
/ . * NI'''. .' __, r - - -32- 4...I'Z''..4--
ONO
* ;Si #.. ..% . 110
,.„,,, 7.......\ .. 4. ,
...
0 ,Pb, ''', ;11:if
,...... ij ,,,,„ ___ ,•...
-_,:.,.
..„, .41 , ,..,..:N
of, 19k \ \I\0\\? i ihi Iri., \ '1‘(' ‘1'
vVE'rLAND .-•• 101 f KEY MAP / .-4f % / l /.et-
�i�
/; / Al "lip Nfr, Ale.
t
,,e8 .7' 1 06\
/ // (<, di
„.,./ ,, . /4( . /•
c/' 7
�:'' , g c' I
:N,\ / / / /
/i
" :A f j �� WET iloa li
t/ 4
\\ ,tee - f�/ / J+
l \ ` - ,,/ j
< - 4/
/ / ) 25BACKI5J f / )# /,
/
i d/ / \\ If
_....„,
ii )/,\,,/ 0i/II
/ .,„„,
,. c.) , ,,i, *
.,,
j'/7fC// / , � / ( .io•
.' i / , Il
; :
�___. , s'` N 40TH ST
I i, , ; ///
/7'- , ,/
/ /
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01 T14F-3-4-03
SCALE IN FEET ark w „_ W Figure 3.4-3
WETLAND Southerly Wetland
0 25 50IW Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Aquatic Species
Direct impacts on aquatic species relate to the extent and duration of the construction activities, whether
fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate habitat modifications that result from
the project. Direct mortality or disturbance may result during installation of the stormwater treatment
facility outfalls and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge if they are below the water level
of May Creek
Erosion and sedimentation from construction of subdivision infrastructure, such as roads, bridges,
stormwater treatment facilities, and utilities, may discharge to water. Increased sedimentation may
adversely affect aquatic species and habitat in the short-term. Suspended sediment originating from this
site is likely to contain higher levels of contaminants than from more natural landscapes. High turbidity
can reduce feeding rates by young salmonids (Gregory 1994; Gregory and Northcote 1993). Young
salmon and bull trout may avoid the site because of increased turbidity which may reduce total food
resources available to stocks (Bisson and Bilby 1982). High concentrations of suspended sediment may
also delay or divert spawning, and extremely high concentrations can cause spawning salmon to avoid an
area(Spence et al. 1996).
The magnitude of impacts will, however, likely be related to design considerations and the application of
} appropriate BMPs for erosion control as outlined in the Water Quality section. An important
consideration will be limiting construction, especially in-water construction, during periods when use of
the vicinity by listed or sensitive aquatic species is minimal (as prescribed by WDFW,NOAA Fisheries,
and Ecology),and if other appropriate BMPs are employed.
3.4.2,2 Impacts of Development and Use of the Site
Vegetation Communities
Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume after the sawmill is closed and the need
for dredging to maintain depth for log storage and movement has ended. The delta will take a substantial
amount of time to fill in the deepest dredge of up to 12 feet. The long term effects of delta deposits is
likely to be similar to the Coal Creek delta in Bellevue about two miles north of the site where the delta
has expanded considerably since development of the Newport Shores residential area in the early 1960s,
resulting in extensive upland and shallow aquatic habitat(King County 2003).
The proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the
waters edge to about 100 feet, with the average distance being about 60 feet. A stream buffer is
designated on the project conceptual landscaping plans, but specifics of proposed plant species and
densities of planting are not specified. This open space will substantially expand the area of potential
indigenous vegetation on-site.
In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acres of publicly-owned land between the inner and outer harbor
lines will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from
the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet
along Lots 23-28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. The existing
sawmill and related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more
natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads, and replanting of the area to provide a buffer of
indigenous native species.
-- The proposal includes creation of 38 lots directly fronting on May Creek,with 300 feet of road parallel to
May Creek and a 120-foot long roadway and bridge crossing the creek. Twenty-four lots are proposed
along the Lake Washington waterfront. Of those, eight front on the public land managed by DNR,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-37 September 2003
leaving 16 with direct private lake frontage. A setback of 25 feet from the building line is proposed for
these lots. The lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline propose either a 10 foot or a no building
setback. The 25-foot shoreline building setback has no proposed landscape treatment in current plans. It
is likely that common residential landscaping typical of lots in Renton would be applied,without specific
conditions of approval. One would expect primarily lawn and ornamental plants. Extensive soil
amendment likely would be required for fill soils to support landscaping.
A 280-foot wide Open Space parcel is proposed adjacent to a portion of the publicly owned shoreline and
contains a water quality pond that takes up about a third of the area. An irregularly shaped water quality
tract is located near the center of the site. A water quality pond takes most of the space in the latter tract.
Tle water quality tract and wet pond treatment area that would be constructed as part of the project is
proposed to be planted with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress.
Tip ere are a number of challenges in establishing a community of native vegetation on a site largely
cHaracterized by impervious surfaces, imported fill, and compacted soils. The absence of nearby
communities of native vegetation complicate the provision of seed sources for a natural succession of
plat communities. Revegetation in such a context requires human intervention at every stage of
establishing and maintaining a viable plant community. Specific considerations for establishing such a
community is discussed in the mitigation section below.
Te May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the
creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of
habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could
create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta. (King County
2001).
Wildlife
Human disturbance associated with the residential use would generally have minimal effect on the
existing patterns of wildlife use of the May Creek riparian and upland area. Most of the existing animals
that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals using the
creek as a corridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed.
These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to
nighttime and other hours when human activity is lower. The establishment of greater wildlife
p pulations may be delayed until new communities of vegetation along the riparian corridor have
s fficient time to mature.
P antings of indigenous vegetation in the May Creek open space area would result in an increase in
f'rage, cover, and potential nest sites for wildlife. The creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a
v sual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. Streamside buffers are proposed to be
n owest near the mouth of May Creek with the narrowest area occurring between streets on opposite
j sides of the stream. Streets represent substantial sources of disturbance from vehicle noise and lights and
1 j 1 generally warrant greater buffering. The proposed bridge for vehicular traffic also represents a potential
impediment to wildlife movement along the stream corridor depending upon its design. The hours that
traffic is present will likely be longer with residential development, discouraging wildlife movement that
has to cross the roadway. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project
niay provide additional wildlife habitat, depending on the extent of riparian vegetation along the pond's
fedge and the complexity of the vegetation community. The current proposal for a mix of shrubs and
dwarf ornamental trees provides limited habitat value. The proposed open space area and the wet-ponds,
however,provide the potential for wildlife habitat as discussed in the mitigation section below.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Di aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-38 September 2003
The effects of human disturbance on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the
project site may be greater than to the habitat generalists that use other portions of the project site. The
relatively high level of waterfowl use in the area, as currently observed, may reflect the existing low
levels of human use along the lake's shoreline since closure of the sawmill. Increased human activity and
noise, especially given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings may result in reduced
waterfowl use of the area. The addition of recreational docks and watercraft use would further reduce
wildfowl use.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3-
090-K-14-d). Thewplicant 1 as_not de fined a public access_program. For the purposes of this analysis,
public access facilities are presumed to take one or more of the following forms:
• Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line for general public use. These areas
are about 16 feet wide at lot 24, 20 feet wide at lot 28, and around 80 feet wide at the open space
tract and adjacent to lots 29 and 30.
• A public walkway along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between Lot 29 and
the mouth of May Creek. This would occur within the shoreline building setback area of
proposed lots, which is proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located
directly at the water's edge, to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as
possible.
• Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek,
including use of two of the existing bridges for pedestrian crossings.
Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest impact because:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline likely would be required to maintain the trail at the
shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus
narrowing the potential for establishment of a complex and productive plant community at the
littoral edge.
• Use of walkways is likely to introduce direct disturbance to wildlife species using the area.
• Persons are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and may
disturb plants, especially newly established plantings, or contribute to soil erosion.
Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts on shoreline waterfowl as
discussed in the mitigation section below.
Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads due to the project is not expected to substantially increase as low
speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions.
Osprey
The proposed construction would involve the removal of all existing mill structures, including the
sawdust tower with the osprey nest site. Without mitigation, the birds may or may not find and use an
alternative nesting structure in the vicinity. Increased human activity and noise, as well as the presence of
artificial lighting,may also influence osprey use of the site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
f Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-39 September 2003
B Id Eagle
Tl a proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile
ofi the project site. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to
diturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. Noise levels after construction would be
reduced, however, human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing
conditions. Depending on the sensitivity of individual bald eagles as well as their waterfowl prey, use of
thb project site vicinity by foraging eagles could be slightly reduced.
etlands
e desire of adjacent residents to create an aesthetically pleasing area along the BNSF right-of-way
c.uld lead to mowing or other activities that would impact native wetland vegetation and water quality.
e addition of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides to maintain landscaped areas could potentially
i ,pact both wetlands via surface runoff and pesticide or herbicide drift during application.
A'uatic Species i
T e proposal would decrease the area of on-site impervious surface as the result of removal of existing
a•phalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures on the site. This will reduce runoff,but is likely to have
a, egligible effect on flows in May Creek because the project site encompasses a small proportion of the
o erall drainage area and is located at the very downstream end of the watershed.
Development of the site would result in an associated increase in vehicle use of the site, and associated
pollutants. However, stormwater from streets and other impervious surfaces would be routed to an on-
site treatment facility before being discharged to Lake Washington, as described in Section 3.2 Surface
Water. This may reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants draining directly into May Creek and
L ke Washington.
l uatic species would benefit to some extent from the proposed buffer alongMayCreek. Additional
q P P P
b ffer area would be expected to contribute to riparian functions and the maintenance of existing
s lmonid habitat. However, the proposed buffers along May Creek would fall significantly short of
p oviding full riparian functionality.
The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large 0
oody debris (LWD) recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and
pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate (May
2000, Pollack and Kennard 1998; Knutson and Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993). Buffer width
recommendations for riparian functions from these comprehensive reviews are presented in Tables 3.4-1,
3.4-2, and 3.4-3.
The Tri-County response to NMFS' 4(d) rule for the taking of listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon
si n includes a proposal for a wider stream buffer than that proposed for the Barbee Mill site. For urban
eams like May Creek, the Tri-County response recommends maintenance of a minimum no-touch
bluffer width of 115 feet, plus an additional 65 feet of restricted use buffer beyond the no-touch buffer
(Parametrix 2002). The Tri-County proposal also recommended that these buffers be measured from the
lateral extent of any existing channel migration zone (CMZ). The CMZ concept is based on best
available science as reviewed by May(2000)and in CMZ guidelines developed by DNR(DNR 1999).
1
Based on the recommendations presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3, a buffer width of
alpproximately 50 feet, as proposed for May Creek on the Barbee Mill site,will not provide the full range
of habitat functions and protections that streams require. In addition, the proposed buffer would not
provide for stream channel migration processes that contribute to the formation of instream habitats.
Qity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-40 September 2003
l
Table 3.4-1. Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000)
Range Of Effective Buffer . Minimum
1, Function Widths Recommended Notes On Function
Sediment removal and 8—183 m(26-600 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent sediment
r erosion control removal
} Pollutant Removal 4-262 m (13-860 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent nutrient removal
Large Woody Debris 10—100 m(33-328 ft) 80 m(262 ft) 1 SPTH based on long-term
natural levels
Water Temperature 11 —43 m(36- 141 ft) 30 m(98 ft) Based on adequate shade
Wildlife Habitat 10—200 m(33-656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Coverage not inclusive
a—. Microclimate 45—200 m (148—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Optimum long-term support
1
r_
Table 3.4-2. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths
Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997)
— Function Range Of Effective Buffer Widths(Ft)
`I Water Temperature 35- 151
Pollutant Removal 13-600
Large Woody Debris 100-200
Erosion Control 100-125
Wildlife Habitat 25-984
Sediment filtration 26-300
Microclimate 200-525
I
Table 3.4-3. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths
Identified from FEMAT(1993)
- - Function Number of SPTH Equivalent(Ft) Based on SPTH of 200 Ft.
Shade 0.75 150
{ Microclimate up to 3 up to 600
`` - Large Woody Debris 1.0 200
Organic Litter 0.5 100
Sediment Control 1.0 200
1_
Bank Stabilization 0.5 100
Wildlife Habitat 30—183 m(98 600 ft)
Improvement of some stream habitat functions,however, would be accomplished by the proposed buffer.
Pollutant removal, sediment filtration, and some water temperature regulation (particularly on small
streams) can be improved or provided for by buffer widths as narrow as 35 feet, particularly in areas
having a flat topography as on the Barbee Mill site (Knutsen and Naef 1997). Some additional LWD
recruitment and bank stabilization due to vegetation is likely.
/;
•
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
` Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-41 September 2003
l i
Lake Washington Shoreline
Acuatic species will benefit from resumption of normal delta formation where May Creek discharges into
Lake Washington when dredging operations are terminated. Delta formation can be expected to create
more shallow water habitat throughout the project waterfront, which would potentially benefit all aquatic
species, including juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Additional shallow habitat will be generally
b I eficial by increasing the complexity and diversity of habitat in the nearshore zone.
,
In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63-acre publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines
w 11 be managed as public open space. A variety of measures could enhance natural shoreline processes
in this area including bulkhead removal where shallow water is present. The mitigation section contains
a ditional discussion of this option.
If this area is developed for public access, human activities at or near the shoreline may introduce direct
disturbances to the shoreline and shallow water habitat areas that are not present in an industrial site
where noise is the most constant impact. Disturbance from human activity may include informal access
to,the shoreline that can erode slopes and impact vegetation, as well as wading or swimming in shallow
arleas,which can disturb the use of the shoreline by fish. Mitigation measures that can accommodate both
passive public enjoyment and a productive natural environment are discussed in more detail in the
mitigation section.
25-foot setback from the waters edge is proposed for the 16 lots without direct frontage on Lake
ashington. This limited area would preclude long-term measures to enhance the shoreline environment.
It would not be large enough to establish a vegetation community that would contribute to natural
s oreline benefits. This impact is discussed in more detail in the mitigation section, which outlines
p tential benefits of greater shoreline setbacks. For the lots fronting on Lake Washington, chemical
f rtilizers, herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be used on residential and ornamental
landscaping. The application of these substances can be expected to occur up to the limits of the lot, since
landscaping can extend to the waters edge. Direct application of chemicals to the water can be expected
fiiom over spraying and inadvertent spillage. Runoff containing chemicals can be expected to flow
directly into adjacent waters of Lake Washington. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides affect aquatic
resources through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment, which can increase plant production and
biochemical oxygen demand.
e current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock on the 16 shoreline lots not fronting
p blic land. Under the City of Renton Shoreline codes, docks up to 80 feet long and 12 feet wide could
be constructed. Long-term direct effects to salmonids can occur from docks and piers, boathouses,
pilings and log booms. These structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns, provide ti
refuge for predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, and forage fish
along the lakeshore(Kahler et al. 2000). Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern
portion of Lake Washington generally avoid overhead structures (Meridian 2001; Piaskowski and Tabor
2/000).
Ile proposed 25-foot building setback would likely lead to retention of bulkheads for shoreline
protection. Areas with a deep dredged lake bottom will likely need to retain bulkheads until delta
formation creates shallows that reduce wave energy prior to reaching the shoreline. Where the lake
ljottom is shallower,'natural shoreline processes could be allowed to occur, but these would lead to some
loss of setback area through,erosion. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity
of fish species by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile chinook and coho salmon.
They also prevent the recruitment of sediment into the lake that is necessary for the formation of natural
4'ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-42 September 2003
1 , shallow-water areas that provide refuge, spawning, and feeding habitat for a variety of aquatic species,
and for creating an inhospitable,high-energy environment for juvenile fish.
An additional impact of building close to the shoreline and dock construction is artificial light. Artificial
light reaching shallow areas can adversely affect juvenile salmonids (Simenstad et al. 1999) by causing
delays in migration or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be more
vulnerable to predation (Simenstad et al 1999). Artificial light from adjacent residences and street
lighting, would likely be of lower intensity than the artificial lighting conditions examined by Simenstad
et al (1999); therefore, the extent of change cannot reasonably be determined. Currently, the City of
f Renton has no specific restriction on pier lighting.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program as discussed above for impacts on wildlife.
Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to contribute to impacts:
') • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline is presumed to be required to maintain the trail at the
shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, and
the adverse impacts of bulkheads discussed above.
• The impervious surface of a walkway is likely to introduce a certain amount of runoff directly to
the adjacent surface water. A pedestrian trail is unlikely to attract significant pollutant loads,
however,periodic cleaning of the walkway may result in discharge of soil and other substances.
• People using the trail are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow,
and in doing so,may disturb substrate or directly displace aquatic species by their activities.
Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce these impacts as discussed in the
mitigation section.
3.4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts
As noted above, during the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have
sue,implifed,the nea shore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has
been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the
existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change
shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern
_ of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex
(horizontal fallen trees with branches)to simple(vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to
remove the complex.and diverse plant community and. associated food web from the shallow water
habitat(USCE 2001).
3.4.3 Mitigation - -
Impact mitigation includes the following steps:
1. Avoid the impact.
2. Minimize the impact.
3. Reduce the impact over time.
4. Rectify the impact.
5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
r Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-43 September 2003
�I
I pacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas of the site are
• erent in the permanent change of use to the residential development proposed, and its specific setbacks
. d presumed uses discussed above. The mitigation outlined illustrates opportunities to expand the
b neficial use of the stream and shoreline areas to include more complex plant communities and
a-sociated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse impacts of the proposal.
itigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically Renton Shoreline
Rggulations, which sets forth several requirements as follows: the potential effects on wildlife should be
c.nsidered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the
' e vironment (RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); landscaping should be representative of the indigenous character of
- specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland); the ecological qualities of natural and
d:veloped shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources (RMC 4-3-090-K-6); and
w ldlife habitat should be incorporated into the site(RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
3 4.3.1 Mitigation of Subdivision Construction Impacts
itigation of construction impacts on existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native
bui ffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing.
Staging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native
vegetation. During construction, any cleared or re-graded areas on the site should be kept covered and/or
red-seeded with a temporary cover crop to prevent the establishment or spread of invasive weedy species.
S lective clearing of portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur,
could be combined with vegetation establishment if cleared areas are quickly planted with native species.
Mitigation of construction impacts on aquatic species can largely be accomplished by controlling erosion
arid sedimentation as outlined in the Water Quality section of this Draft EIS. Perhaps the most important
c d nsideration during construction activities is to conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish
aIe generally not present. Staging areas, especially the storage of fuels and chemicals, should be located
a$far from water bodies as possible.
Establishing vegetated buffer areas adjacent to the creek and lake at the plat infrastructure stage avoids
the piecemeal implementation as each lot develops, provides for oversight of the removal of impervious
surfaces at the time existing buildings are demolished, and allows the establishment of an area for
i terception of runoff from building sites.
3.4.3.2 Mitigation of Development and-.Use of the Site
egetation Communities
Project conditions could require residential landscaping to include native vegetation in private lots
fr nting the shoreline, although assuring long-term maintenance given residential preferences for lawn
and ornamental vegetation is a long-term education and enforcement issue. Planting of native vegetation
w thin the proposed 25-foot setback area would provide some habitat, although the quality of the
vegetation community would be limited. Native vegetation will minimize the need for fertilizers,
psticides, or herbicides and reduce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic
organisms in May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition, importing high quality soil material and
Ia,
e suring adequate soil health, prior to installing residential or ornamental landscaping, can decrease the
ned for chemical supplements or controls in landscape maintenance.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
DI-aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-44 September 2003
The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the
creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of
habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could
create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001).
Mitigation measures for installation of indigenous vegetation in the proposed open space area adjacent to
the public shoreline and within the Water Quality tract would enhance the value of the site to wildlife.
Establishment of a viable community of indigenous vegetation on an industrial site presents a number of
challenges. These relate to the degradation of the substrate that supports plants, and to isolation from
existing plant communities that would provide a diversity of species to colonize specific niches and
microenvironments. Plans for restoration of natural vegetation communities on developed sites can be
aided by inclusion of the following concepts:
Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. Site design must reflect the
fact that restored plant associations will evolve and mature over time. A complex vegetation community
that contains as many features of native communities must be created within the restored vegetation
community.
Spacing. Within each target plant community, the patterns of species and their spatial relationships
should be replicated to the extent possible. It is important to develop a design to incorporate trees in the
overstory canopy, trees in the mid-story, shrubs in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer.
Other important components of the ground layer are logs and stumps, which provide habitat for insects
and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and organic matter.
Interspersion. Refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the transitions among
various plant communities. In general, the relationships between patch size, structure, edge, and
dispersion/interspersion in the landscape are the critical factors affecting wildlife value of a system.
Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area between plant communities. Such
transitional areas or "edges" are rich in wildlife, both in numbers of individuals and species, and are
considered important components of functioning ecosystems. Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity
to several habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the amount of edge in a system is extremely
high,the integrity within individual plant communities may be lost.
Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on this site is likely to
include a number of challenges because the existing geology and soils largely consist of a variety of fill
materials, and there is no local community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native
species. Establishment of a soil substrate for indigenous vegetation will require extensive soil
amendment. Persistence of the introduced plant communities will require replacement of specimens that
do not thrive and control of invasive"weed"species.
The provision of a management entity is needed to provide a long term commitment to monitoring
establishment and replanting, to control the impacts of use by adjacent residents or the public, and
possibly to mediate between the interests of adjacent residents and the general public purpose of the
buffer areas. Substantial resources are likely to be required over an extended period of time. Potential
management agencies can include the City of Renton Parks Department; DNR, which has management
responsibility for the public uplands and submerged aquatic lands; WDFW, which has primary
responsibility for managing wildlife and fish resources; volunteer participation by the public using t,
shoreline access; and the adjacent homeowners or a homeowners' association; or cooperative programs
involving all of these agencies. Dedication of buffer areas to public ownership, or a public easement for
- management by a public entity,may be required.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-45 September 2003
The palette for selection of plants for buffer areas in riparian and shoreline areas should be varied and
i clude a variety of plant communities. Native trees include western red cedar, western hemlock, _
Duglas fir, black cottonwood, big leaf maple, Oregon ash, and bitter cherry. Native shrubs and small
trees such as red currant, red elderberry, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, Pacific crabapple, red-osier
d gwood,Pacific willow, Sitka willow,and Scouler's willow red-osier dogwood,twinberry, salmonberry,
P cific crabapple,and bitter cherry.
ildlife
Mitigation of impact of bridge crossings may include greater height to allow penetration of light and
p ecipitation to maintain plants,and vertical and horizontal clearance for wildlife movement.
E tablishing and maintaining streamside shoreline vegetation will provide upland habitat, provide
so eening from human disturbance, and contribute to the enhancement of the food chain provided by
s allow near-shore habitat that has been produced by delta formation. Maintaining some or all of the
e isting log rafts and pilings in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site, would provide perch and
to Ping sites to benefit waterfowl. To avoid conflict with mitigation for aquatic species, pilings in deep
w ter areas are the best candidates for retention.
i
F ncing the open space areas to reduce disturbance from domestic animals will enhance wildlife value.
O prey
O prey mitigation measures could include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in
ui t project site vicinity, as recommended by WDFW and agreed upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
I S rvice (USFWS). A WDFW biologist should be consulted during relocation of the new nest site, which
w 11 occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds. Potential sites for relocation on site include the
ri arian corridor proposed to be established along May Creek.
R search has indicated that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures (Saurola
1 97; Houghton and Rymon 1997). Prolonged exposure to noise during an extended buildout of the site
m y, however, discourage the existing osprey pair from relocating within open space on-site. Potential
m tigation would prohibit the loudest construction noise such as pile driving during the nesting and early
fl dging period of late April to late July.
Mitigation of Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement
11
Avoidance
The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the
proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer, with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for
temporary construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the town homes on Lots 109 through
115 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west. If the roadway and town homes were
shifted enough to provide a permanent buffer dimension of 25 feet, but allow construction disturbance of
th!e existing degraded buffer with future restoration,about eight town home sites could be retained.
The displacement of the wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could be avoided by redesign of
I I this portion of the proposal to place all development outside the 25-foot wide wetland buffer area. This
would involve shifting the access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the
mediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed lots 99 and 100 and require
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-46 September 2003
reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If retained,existing utilities consisting of
water valves and a hydrant should be re-located outside the wetland and buffer.
r"-
Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement
Restoration of the buffer area of the northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of
native vegetation to replace the displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation west of the wetland
is characterized by non-native grasses and fortis,with some areas of red alder and Himalayan blackberry.
Replacement buffer area vegetation would include a mix of native trees and shrub species such as western
red cedar, western hemlock, Douglas fir, big leaf maple,vine maple, beaked hazelnut, salmon berry, and
red currant. Enhancement of the existing wetland vegetation community of the northerly wetland,which
consists of introduced vegetation,could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent
plants.
Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced,together with likely changes
in hydrology, would necessitate replacement elsewhere on site. The City of Renton specifies a 1.5:1
minimum replacement ratio for wetland creation and replacement. The code provides for additional area
in cases where there is uncertainty about the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation;
where there is a significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or
projected losses in functional value(RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e).
The most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the northerly wetland, adjacent to
the proposed May Creek buffer area. Likely constraints for wetland creation in this area that must be
addressed include the following:
• Adequate hydrology through groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a wetland
vegetation community. Surface water runoff from building roofs could provide recharge for the
wetland. (Runoff from streets contains pollutants that can be an undesirable addition to wetland
ecology.) Regrading some of the area north of the existing wetland to lower the elevation may
provide sufficient groundwater hydrology.
• Both wetlands and buffer areas are largely devoid of native species due to mowing. A specific
wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology. The invasive
nature of the existing community of reed canary grass poses a high risk of invasion of the
enhanced and created wetland by weed species. This risk can be addressed by removing the
existing reed canary grass by grading and replacement with dense plantings of native shrubs and
trees.
• Monitoring and enforcement is a critical element of successful wetland compensation. Recent
studies have found that failure of wetland mitigation has been attributed to design, installation,
and maintenance flaws. The single most important cause of failure has been lack of enforcement
(Mockler et al. 1998, Johnson et al. 2000). The location of most of the northerly wetland on
BNSF property will require cooperation to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a single
biological entity.
Aquatic Species
There are a variety of mitigating measures for natural stream and shoreline function that are related
closely to the amount of land devoted to mitigation buffers. For this reason, discussion of mitigation is
covered below under "Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas." This mitigation addresses such
functions as (LWD)recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and pollutants,
regulation of water temperature through stream shading,bulkheads, artificial light and public access.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-47 September 2003
i -
moval of existing in-water structures such as pilings,the existing dock, and log booms would improve
c nditions for juvenile salmonids by reducing the amount of existing cover for predators, such as
s allmouth bass, and by not interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Mitigation of the
a verse impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number of strategies
r ging from avoiding construction of docks, reducing the number of docks, and or through specific
d sign and construction measures.
oidance of the im acts of new docks could be addressed by a platcondition ohibiting_privatdockx
c_ nstructiThis would avoid the potential impacts from use of the docks and from dock shading. Such
ja:prohibition could include the implication that property owners would use commercial moorage at off-
s' a marinas or could provide for alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located at
Ia distance from near-shore habitat. The latter option could include a dingy dock for access to buoys and
fl ats. Such a dock could include the existing sawmill dock at the northern end of the proposed common
ea (that could be reduced in area) or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would avoid
p oximity impacts on adjacent residential lots.
option that would reduce impacts, but not prohibit new docks, could involve shared moorage by two
o more property owners. In such a case docks could be developed at property lines to serve two adjacent
p operties, or a single moorage facility could be developed to serve the entire development. Dock
construction could include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted above,
long-term use of docks is likely to be hampered by delta formation and could lead to requests by residents
to dredge,which would reduce the benefits of natural processes that create shallow shoreline habitat.
Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Areas
More extensive buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities that would support re-
establishment of indigenous elements of the Lake Washington shoreline. Buffer areas would reduce long-
term and cumulative impacts of residential development of the shoreline, and expand the beneficial use
for wildlife and aquatic species.
Two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Lake Washington shoreline and
ay Creek:
,ption A. 50-foot buffer
Under Option A, (Figure 3.4-4) the following design modifications are proposed to slightly increase the
b ffer adjacent to May Creek:
• Re-orienting the turn-around for Street A from the riparian corridor to the interior of the project.
• Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the
proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHW. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces four
proposed town home units to one or two.
F er the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components:
• A 25-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline that would include restoration of the shoreline to a
more.natural condition through:
➢. Elimination of bulkheads,or reduction in height of existing bulkheads
➢ Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and providing substrate for
plantings near the water
Ct ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-48 September 2003
I "
COR-2 ZONE
OHW—__/ ' - ) aIl- - Ily II " � IT "i LT :' II . II . li • 'lI ,,/ / ♦�,
•� f
I
•• — STREET ♦,♦'
50'SETBACK , // ,.///" // """'"II...:.II O..�,/ >
i — J // v/ // II-,-- II iL__ , ,f/
/
l
1 '
Trail"B" ....n., / / //
PUBLIC LAND�4 Tract"C" Water Quality \ \.\\ " / //. —ij ,f
Open ■ \ " \\/ /\ — '%
Space /\ ., — / ../ - / /;
* /:- ty
1 r — — --- V\ At‘ '\ .:// .1 /
• • S,., \- \ u, E O
,.........„ .:,.."- ,..,
440
i MI 4ttir\ of _ ,4".'-'
4"----
0! ��1 ` OHW i''�� ,,./ 2C�
mow \ ,.LAKE I , .. � �� �y
WASHINGTON I f
/,•;
,/ i =-/ , ,/ 44/ 50'SETBACK
44w I/ ,://1 twitiZ.4! , /7,,241' ' f _____________
Aiiima.....6111.111011*111
/ 4417 ' /
i leile .
PUBLIC LAND I/,�� I , j/ *� .l
* .** *71 AZI \ \
MAY CREEK ;, ..•: ,+�
DELTA 4-
Z________ . �J
r • / ,/ / A
____ ___,..,
„,,,,„ ,,,. , Aia,
Ad° At i IF
-7.' a_a ZONE__.._:_...__ _ (LAI ! ,,,, . k _____ —___.._
REVISED 50' SETBACK FROM OHW
88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND
FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES
101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES
Parametrlx DATE 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01-114F-3-4-04
SCALE IN FEET ,IFAIN Figure 3.4-4
I W Option "A" 50-foot Buffer
0 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
` I
> Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors
for adjacent residential development
> Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the
water, with fencing between the trail and waterfront, and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet
on the shoreline with benches or other passive features
• A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, including yard areas and ornamental landscaping would
probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent
lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits, and which also would likely be
fenced for privacy.
This mitigation option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 100, given the
current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building
types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example,
construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high could result in five to seven story buildings that could
accommodate well over 100 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction.
Option B, 100 foot buffer
Option B (Figure 3.4-5) would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek, with specific
changes on the May Creek corridor including the following:
• Elimination of most of the potential for development on the east side of the stream.
• Reduction of the number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15.
• Elimination of most of the development on both side at the mouth of the stream.
For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components:
• A 75-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline
to a more natural condition through implementation of similar but more extensive features as
Option A, including:
> Elimination of bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads.
> More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope.
> Planting a mixture of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees, that
could be accommodated in the wider buffer area, while preserving some view corridors for
adjacent residential development.
> Providing passive public access through a pedestrian frail located 15- to 25-feet from the
water with fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet
on the shoreline with benches or other passive features.
• A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, to include yard area, ornamental landscaping, which
probably would be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to
prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits and which also would likely
be fenced for privacy.
CityRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary o.f r1'Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-50 September 2003
I
II •
jczoNE ./
" >z r / r-- 11— , Ia I —Jr,. -1 I— —I 17 I . , I I , . 11 . . 1
—
}
I ^-
/
—ST' - — - -7f ., /
OHW��., .H n -\ (7:-,C7,---fr7/<7/—,. ail I„ I I „ I I w „ /rt / /
1 100'SETBACK �" i�
� Tract"B" \/ _ of ,',"
1 Water Quality w .'
PUBLIC LAND , S/ /
' : 4lit* 440,,,
f— •. / Tract t�Ctt . � /:' I Open • • xY" /��l � Spacecali1/4„,(1,* _,0
'I j d /
f
, n4 . . . . • • ,•,. ..,,d oNE, ,...,‘
l ' �OHW >' C
x 9
LAKE ` / /, ; • /t„ t,.„ �/
WASHINGTON v / • 1,,,2 ./ 100'SETBACK
fa • t P iw,o l �w�
( r /
/1/
JO
. • .'/ / y,z, 7--
42
PUBLIC LAND • u • j '. °� /� ` /
//# •
yi * ' ,A •
ta, ) 0 /... ,
•
♦f MAY CREEK wm `"~ X 1
DELTA �.,/ `
*,,, --- 7/ y 1 P i
- �
,a y.�. _a=esoxE.__ t ,, vN 40TH ST
-- # 40 . _
REVISED 100' SETBACK FROM OHW
50 BUILDING SITES
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-05
SCALE IN FEET PAN Figure 3.4-5
I W Option "B" 100-foot Setback
o 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Option B would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 69, given the current layout of
townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the
applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with SMA jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of
residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings 70 feet high
could result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 100 units on the 43 lots
outside SMA jurisdiction.
Cross-sections that indicate the building setback are provided for three different portions of the Lake
Washington shoreline.
• Figure 3.4-6 is at proposed Lots 27 and 28 where the existing public land along the shoreline has
a width of about 20 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as
the 50 foot and 100 foot buffer options.
• Figure 3.4-7 is at proposed Lots 29 and 30 where the existing public land along the shoreline has
a width of about 80 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well as
the 100 foot buffer option. The 50 foot buffer option would be accomplished by existing public
land.
• Figure 3.4-8 is at proposed Lots 35 and 36 where private lots would front directly upon the
shoreline. There is no public land at this location. This figure indicates the existing
development, which includes no buildings; the proposed development with 25 foot building
setbacks as well as the 50 and 100 foot buffer options.
The following describes the extent to which these two mitigation options would reduce impacts in relation
to the proposal and each other:
Impervious Surfaces
Impervious surface on-site is reduced to about 60 percent under the proposal. Under Option A, a slight
increase in pervious surface would be provided along May Creek and the pervious area along Lake
Washington would be doubled. The increase in pervious surface under Option B would double along
May Creek and increase four-fold along Lake Washington. Total impervious surface would be reduced
by about 5 percent under Option A and about 20 percent under Option B. The decrease in impervious
surface is unlikely to have a substantial direct impact except along the Lake Washington Shoreline,where
either the 50- or 100-foot setback would allow infiltration of most precipitation and eliminate runoff
entering the lake except under the most intense storm events.
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
The larger width of the buffer areas that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Options A and B
would provide greater structure, or physical complexity, greater spacing, or complexity in spatial
relationships including overstory, mid-story, shrubs, and understory, and greater interspersion, or
complexity and transitions among various plant communities. This could be expected to provide not only
more wildlife habitat, but more complex niches for a greater variety of species and a more complex and
productive food web. A greater separation from human disturbance would be provided that would
encourage species with less tolerance to humans. Benefits would be greater with the greater buffer width
in Option B because of the greater habitat area,the greater buffer from human disturbance, and the greater
potential for complex communities.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-52 September 2003
Public Land Existing Inner Harbor ,.,.�°°"
OHWM Line
Existing
Warehouse
30—
20— OHWM .*
Existing Log Bulkhead
Lake Bottom
EXISTING SECTION
Inner Harbor I
Public Land Existing Line
OHWM Streetq
1 75'
Existing Log I II I Bui high 50' I I I
50'
Bulkhead
I
320 OHWM _ ._.._.I .._,.. ___ ._.......»,.......——J.�. — - _ w J _ _ .� ____ L.-.. _..»_„_ __
`�\\ .((�L 25'Building Setback
`Lake Bottom
PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK
r
I
Public Land Existing Inner Harbor I
OHWM Line r Street q
75
Regraded I I I Builhi�h 50' I I I 50' I
Shoreline I I
L
30— �J A l _ ._...i_ __
—OHWM __ L _ __ __
20—
25'Lawn re-
Lake 25'Revegetatian
Bottom H
50'Building Setback
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK
Public Land Existing Inner Harbor
OHIINM Line Street I
1 75
Bu
ding
Regraded I I I �ilh�h I I 150
Shoreline I t
30- __ _1— _ _ I 1 ._.,__l ._,_. 1_.._
20--OHWM__ —_.__—
M 75 Revegetation Area —.1 25'Lawn 1-.-
Lake
I .
Bottom) 100'Building Setback
200'Shoreline
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK
Parametrix DATE: 08/28/03 08:20am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-06
Figure 3.4-6
SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections
I Lots 27 & 28
0 30 60
Existing Public Land Inner Harbor
OHWM Line
Existing
2
Saw Mill
30-
OHVVM
„ ___,...... —— — —.....-
" 7--,
...1 64 Public Land
. .
Lake
Bottom-7
EXISTING SECTION
r _ ______ 7
Existing Public Land Inner Harbor
( OHWM Line
r_ _ , Street 2
1 I
I
Building 75'
I I
High
Regraded
I BuildingHigh 50'
Shoreline
-\, . ............
30-
I I L L
OHWM
ny.
r 64'Public Land --.1
Lake
Botto 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
PROPOSED SECTION
r _____ ____ 1
Existing Public Land Inner Harbor Street q
--- OHWM Line
I.— — 1
I
1 I
Building 75'
I •.•
Building 50' High
High
Regraded
I I I I I
Shoreline I
L ....1 L L
OHINM
/—7 :1
64'Public Land —1 i
Lake
75' 25'Lawn -.-
Bottom
. 100'Setback
200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK
r ,
. 1
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-07
Figure 3.4-7
SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections
- - _I I Lots 29 & 30
0 30 60
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing
Line OHWM
I
Existing Paved
, 30_ Storage Area
OHWM
20_—.—.—.—.—.—.
— _ _ -�' Rip Rap
Lake Bottom Bulkhead
as dredged —
EXISTING SECTION
7 I
_, Public Land Inner Harbor Existing Line OHWM Street l
i 75
Building 50'
High I I I 50'
Rip Rap
30- Bulkhead
' OHWM Lawn L._......._.. ..._..._ ..._. -....I._.........,_. 1 ._.... ..............._tJ_.�..,..._..
20-:-.-----—L.-= ---'-"-- [. —
ry''' 25'Building Setback
Future Lake Bottom 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction i
Delta as dredged--11
PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing
Line OHWM Street l
I
I— I— 1 75' I
I i
High I I
Building50 50 I
Regraded I I
Shoreline I 1
30- OHWM L I� I - r J
2:1 25'Lawn
Future/ 25'Revegetation Area
Delta H-
as Bottom 50'Building Setback
as dredged
200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
I
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing
Line OHWM Street l
I — ni
75
I BuilHidngg 50' I I 50
Regraded
•
30- Shoreline
OHWM I L .......,......I.—---.-..-.r_ _... ._
20-- —-.- ----
•
Fut
75'Revegetation Area 25'Lawn
ure --.-
Delta 100'Building Setback -
Lake Bottom
as dredged 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
Al TFRNATIVF SFCTICIN WITH 1lf1'SFTRACK
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-08
Figure 3.4-8
SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections
n I Lots 35 & 36
0 30 60 .
_I
j I
There is no proposal in the current application for planting riparian vegetation along the Lake Washington
shoreline. Both Option A and B respond to the Renton Shoreline Master Program that provides general
guidance that landscaping be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway
(stream, lake edge,marshland)and be compatible with the Northwest image(RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
Option A provides little difference from the proposal in buffers along May Creek, except near the mouth
of the creek where the proposal includes setbacks of less than 50 feet.
Option A doubles the setback from Lake Washington, as compared to the proposal. This additional area
provides limited opportunities for establishing a viable community of indigenous vegetation along the
Lake Washington shoreline. A 25-foot wide buffer of native indigenous plantings adjacent to the lake
with a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a planting area that will accommodate
only one or two native trees (at maturity)between the residential lawn area and the shoreline. A 25-foot
buffer of native vegetation would be likely to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively
simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. The presence of public access trails
in the area would also lead to potential impediments to establishing a stable vegetation community
I_.
because of trampling and other disturbance, and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife.
The 75-foot area for indigenous plantings provided under Option B would provide for a much more
varied community of plants on May Creek and at the lake shoreline and would allow regrading to provide
a more natural transition to the waters edge. A greater complexity of vegetation would be reflected in
value to wildlife. The disturbance afforded by public access would be reduced as discussed below.
There is potential for conflict in values between the interests of residents on lots adjacent to Lake
Washington and the benefits of greater buffers. In many cases, homeowners on the Lake Washington
shoreline are likely to desire views of the lake and the distant landscape that would not be accommodated
by typically dense communities of indigenous species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to
develop an effective community of indigenous shoreline vegetation and wildlife habitat because those
communities typically create dense screens, especially native evergreen species. This conflict may be
present to a less extent on lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline where public ownership, as well as
the Shoreline Management Act, supports planting indigenous vegetation as a means of enhancing
environmental values.
With the 25-foot buffer of indigenous planting under Option A, some accommodation of both interests
could be provided by emphasizing groundcover and shrubs in the shoreline with the tree species chosen
for the potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the level of major views. Such species would
potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that would allow some views between trunks, while
providing a leaf canopy that would overhang the lakeshore and provide shade and other desirable
elements. Native evergreens could be located closer to residences and along lot lines or other locations
where view corridors between individual or groups of trees can be provided. Building design that placed
the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would
provide the potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy fences
between the lawn areas and areas of indigenous plantings.
Option B provides few opportunities for view corridors from private lots due to the 75-foot wide buffer
of indigenous plantings. Property owners would likely access public trails and viewpoints to enjoy
unobstructed views of the water. The development of a public trail system along the May Creek and Lake
Washington shoreline may contribute to a perception of these open space areas as a public resource with
value for the community as a whole, rather than being primarily an amenity (or inconvenience) for
adjacent property owners (Sherrard 1996). Such public access can more readily be provided with the
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-56 September 2003
I i
w der setback in Option B with less impact on maintenance of indigenous vegetation and less impact on
a.jacent property owners.
O•tion A could be implemented on the entire public land corridor along the shoreline by DNR, which
mo ages the land as a trustee for the public. The existing leaseholder has certain responsibilities for
r- oval of existing facilities and restoration of the landscape that could be integrated into DNR action.
aintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require designation of a management entity which
c•uld include some combination of the City of Renton, DNR, and the WDFW. Maintenance of plantings
o private lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve long-term enforcement issues in view of
p operty-owner interest in making recreational use of the shoreline, and interest in maintaining views of
- water and a general cultural preference for lawn. Maintaining non-ornamental landscaping on private
to s likely will require extensive public education and enforcement. Providing for management of the
s oreline setback by dedication to the public, or by an easement providing for management by an entity
o er than the individual roe owner, would likelycontribute to better maintenan
ce of indigenous
property rtY g
v:getation.
S earn and Lake Mor.holo
U der Option A, the 50-foot buffer area along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in providing
li• ited opportunities for establishment of vegetation communities that support natural stream processes
s ch as meandering. It is likely that stream bank protections would be maintained to keep the stream in
it existing channel. The major difference would be near the mouth of the creek where delta formation
d a less incised creek provide additional opportunities for stream meandering under the additional
b !ffer area provided by Option A. Option B would double buffer areas on May Creek, as compared to the
p ioposal. This would provide a much greater area for natural stream processes such as meandering.
aintenance of existing streambank protection would be required only in exceptional cases.
O•tion A provides limited area for natural lake erosion and beach formation on Lake Washington.
P i rtions of the shoreline with shallow depth would accommodate removing bulkheads and allowing
e .sion to form a more natural shoreline. Option B would allow considerable area for natural processes
t• occur. In both cases, areas previously dredged would be dependent on delta formation that would take
s veral decades to re-establish shallow depths. Additional discussion is provided below under bulkheads.
P llutant Removal and Sediment Filtration
U der Option A, the 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in its
I! a 'ility to provide natural control of pollutants and sediment in runoff. The two differ near the mouth of
' t le stream where, under the proposal, the buffer width narrows, while under Option A it would provide
l a•ditional area to filter sediments or runoff. On the Lake Washington shoreline, substantial additional
I p„llutant control would be provided by doubling the width of building setbacks and providing an
a•ditional 25-foot buffer area of indigenous plantings. Interception of sediment and chemicals in runoff
•uld be moderately effective with the 25-foot planting area, and very effective with the 75-foot wide
. ea. Extensive erosion control BMPs would be required during the process of removal of impervious
s aces and regrading for initial planting. After initial removal of existing impervious surface and
e tablishment of permanent vegetation, future land alteration would be separated from the waters' edge
b a buffer. It would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was established prior to building I_
c•nstruction.
B th Options would result in a decrease in application of herbicides and pesticides near the shoreline as
c mpared to the proposal where development of lawn areas would be expected to increase chemical
C)ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-57 September 2003
applications. Direct application to water through overspray or spill would be avoided. Infiltration of
waters containing pollutants via direct groundwater input would be reduced by greater setbacks.
Water Temperature Regulation and Regulation of Microclimate
A riparian buffer width of 50-feet as stated in the proposal and Option A would not be sufficient to
provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek through shading, but would
provide some benefits of additional shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level of shading
would most likely serve to prevent or moderate further temperature increases of water prior to entering
Lake Washington that would otherwise occur with no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of
the project site and the short distance of stream on the site, stream temperatures will, however, largely be
affected by habitat and water uses upstream of the project site. The greater buffer area in Option B would
provide more vegetation and shading benefits.
Options A and B would increase shading of Lake Washington shallow water areas and reduce
temperatures increases in area that would otherwise receive direct sunlight as compared to the project's
proposed 25-foot building setback (presuming that few large trees would be planted on private lots and
shading would be negligible).
Indigenous shrubs and trees planted on the lake.shoreline would, in time, grow to provide shoreline
overhanging vegetation and provide temperature moderation of shallow water habitat. The project site
faces largely to the west. The sun angle and height during the summer months will allow shading to
occur in the morning, because the sun rises north of due east after the spring equinox. During mid-day,
the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead, allowing overhanging vegetation to
shade shallow water areas. The sun in the afternoon is also slightly north of west, allowing crown
shading. In addition, the angle of the sun shining through more layers of atmosphere in the afternoon
reduces heat transmittal.
Shading is dependent on the density of vegetation and the size of the tree crowns and would be more
effective with the greater buffer width in Option B.
Large Woody Debris Recruitment
Option A and the proposal would provide for approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek,
which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment, but limited increases in
LWD recruitment would be expected as planted vegetation matured. Short-term mitigation measures
could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat,but this should only be considered a short-term
solution, and the subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows would
have to be carefully considered.
Options A and B would provide s more potential for LWD recruitment on Lake Washington than the
proposal. As with May Creek, LWD could also be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline in the
short term. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon in early spring (through
April);however, it also would provide additional habitat for non-salmonid predators such as bass. Option
B would provide more area for vegetation biomass and would provide greater LWD recruitment potential
for both the creek and the lake shoreline.
Bulkheads
Shoreline protection for residential use on Lake Washington is assumed to be necessary with the proposed
25-foot building setback due to the southeast facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-58 September 2003
1
i
st rms from the south. The current sheet-pile bulkheads on the site were installed at high activity log-
h ndling areas and are not necessary for shoreline protection from wave action. In addition, shoreline
a eas are anticipated to fill in over a period of years with sediment originating from May Creek due to
d'scontinued dredging operations. This will likely provide more shallow area that will dissipate wave
a tion prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will provide accretion of new land waterward
o the existing high water line. Delta formation also will provide shallow water habitat along the
s oreline.
e greater setbacks from the shoreline in Options A and B provide greater potential for removal of -
e isting bulkheads on the shoreline because residential structures and associated lawn areas would not be
eatened. Areas where the lake is shallow, or where it becomes shallower through delta formation,
r oval of bulkheads would contribute to the formation of a more natural shoreline in conjunction with
b o-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options presume that some area is
a ailable for natural processes and may be precluded in areas where a 25-foot building setback is
p oposed. The wider shoreline buffer areas provided in Options B decrease the potential adverse impacts
i o adjacent buildings from shoreline erosion, and provides a greater potential for short-term
1 b oengineering options. Bioengineering options could include regrading the upland portion of the
shoreline and limiting armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle. This would allow for
.re natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure 3.4-9 This may be especially applicable in
1 p I blicly owned portions of the shoreline. Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline
e hancement in areas of public ownership could be coordinated with Washington Department of Natural
I R-sources requirements for removal of existing development on the public lands.
1 i osign Typicals
o tiAvoidne Setback°giS `�
Pawnee Safety 1itca
I and In Case of 8tankeotia . .
1
11 CCtt,ttroct Dria arse Grade$ur
to tetra Seneca
' Aster
1oapoted nation to Reduce
4 ....Surface Vie*!
1* Stx dgtoStabieSt„ge
Jr o e` F9 a tern DraEmegm of Water--i} . b **Ili?"
t tame carricoping waken
i
Ili `'
•�""ai i "°. tiiRllb Antler Stone a6 Stable SktC+.
't Vic r r, ia� ' „r, g 1e3rn Spaces Pitied —
• .". >•+xh i s if*, .' ;za., *, /+ — ''''''® —
IIPE
2.4
- f , .` t - . 1'" mole toe Protection
-0;141 nd ltaicr�- a-.,�:'; +!� re~Jr torum:o
' • °• - ` . ' ertiner Clout:-1'swrs, ,.,. .or
" Not SitcomSStr utt,rte Stitis deli irtttl t - -».F :,r' 3."t i,...'�` Ya.•' - ..° "t,�-
Bank'to Mirumiae % ., : -• .-. _
1 Flanking Eresittn
1 Source: Tri-County 2000
Figure 3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification
I Further options include varying the shoreline from its existing straight configuration to provide inlets and _-
pocket beaches to more closely replicate natural conditions, as indicated in the conceptual sketch in
1 1
CilIty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _
DJ-aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-59 September 2003
I
Figure 3.4-10. After a period of decades, delta formation may result in considerable accretion of new
land and may isolate existing bulkheads inland away from the shoreline.
.. ys d '
tame k rattan Provitta MORO
434 cteeu ,, tar4
tierP w o' Pry#
w ee g ; Y r
VOA! ?v ;! Via,u ff; *Aft Ark
#5 , fir. G�
•
Source: Tri-County 2000
Figure 3.4-10 Shoreline Modification
Provision of pocket Beaches and Other Features
As an interim measure, short of bioengineering, or for those portions of the site where dredging has
created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads,the following measures could be implemented:
• Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads, or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to the
OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side, will reduce the negative impact of
wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also be desirable to
engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small gravel substrate that
provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening period prior to substantial
accretion from delta formation.
• Riprap re-vegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings or
rooted plants,provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including shade, leaf
litter, browse, and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture nutrient-laden
sediments(WDFW 2003).
Residential Noise and Lighting
Noise and lighting impacts on wildlife along May Creek would be similar under the proposal and Option
A as vegetation in the approximately 50-foot wide riparian buffer matures. Option A provides more
buffer area and mitigation near the mouth of the creek.
Along Lake Washington, the 25-foot building setback along Lake Washington will not serve to reduce
residential lighting and noise impacts as compared to the additional buffer areas under Options A and B.
Conditions could prohibit outdoor lighting; however,this would be very difficult to enforce over time and
may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows. The elimination or reduction in the
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-60 September 2003
number of docks discussed above would reduce light from that source. Option B will provide greater
noise and light mitigation because of greater buffer dimensions.
P blic Access Disturbance
U der the current proposal, it is presumed that public access would be provided to meet the provisions of
R-nton's Shoreline Master Program. In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake, public access would
li ely be at the edge of the shoreline to minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation could include setting
b.ck public access from the shore and reducing residential lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation
provided bylarger setbacks, as discussed below.is
U der Options A and B, access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back from the
s oreline along the portion of the shoreline where private lots abut the shoreline. Buffers equivalent to
I j O'tion A could be implemented on most of the public shoreline which ranges from 20 to 80 feet wide.
P blic access could be provided further from the waters' edge along the entire waterfront under Option A
o B. It is anticipated that a trail system would meander 10 to 15 feet from the waters' edge under Option
• and 40 to 50 feet from the waters' edge under Option B. Controlled public access for shoreline
v ewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct
s oreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or re-established
ough delta deposits. The larger setbacks provide greater flexibility in accommodating the requirements
o the Renton Shoreline Master Program for"significant"public access on Lake Washington.
Option B would provide greater flexibility in implementing these features than Option A:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required. This would
provide opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the range or degree of
beneficial use provided by re-establishing indigenous vegetation.
• It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks.
I '
Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the public use and indigenous
vegetation area.
• Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings, which
would limit the amount of runoff reaching the adjacent surface water.
F-ncing between the trail and the shoreline would reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and
e osion from informal pathways.
3 5 TRANSPORTATION
e transportation analysis addresses the impacts of the proposal to the local traffic system. The analysis
as prepared in accordance with City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Sections 4-6-070 and 4-9-070
a thorizing the identification of transportation impacts and the identification of appropriate mitigating
easures and requirements for disclosure of environmental impacts by the State Environmental Policy
ct(SEPA).
3 5.1 Affected Environment
3 5.1.1 Roadway Network
e study area for traffic impact analysis is defined as the area where the proposed action causes the
g neration of additional trips to the street system where an impact to operation, safety, or non-vehicular -
C ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-61 September 2003
L_: circulation may occur. The impacts to the City of Newcastle are included to specifically address the use
of Lake Washington Boulevard and other routes to bypass freeway congestion. The study area is
bounded by Lake Washington Boulevard SE/SE 60th Street to the north, I-405/Lake Washington
Boulevard to the west, and Burnett Avenue (at the approximate alignment of N 27th Street) to the south,
with additional area of qualitative description of potential bypass routes through the City of Newcastle.
Figure 3.5-1 depicts the project area and the study intersections, Figure 3.5-2 depicts project layout, and
Figure 3.5-3 depicts existing year PM peak hour traffic volumes.
The arterials within the study area include Lake Washington Boulevard, I-405, SE 60th Street, SE 64th
Street, NE 44th Street, Burnett Avenue, Ripley Lane, and N 30th Street. The arterials providing direct
access to the project site include Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane (for emergency access).
The following is a description of the arterials in the study area:
• Lake Washington Boulevard is classified as a collector arterial in the project vicinity providing
north-south access from I-405 and other arterials to the proposed site. The arterial is generally
two lanes with a bike lane on both sides. Lake Washington Boulevard has a posted speed limit of
25 mph.
• I-405 is a north-south state highway providing regional access. In the project vicinity, I-405 is
six lanes (two general-purpose and one HOV lane in each direction). The NE 44th Street
southbound and the N 30th Street northbound on-ramps have an HOV bypass lane to the meters.
• SE 60th Street is a two-lane east-west arterial in the City of Newcastle with a posted speed limit
of 25 mph. Sidewalks are present on both the north and south sides of the road. A park and ride
lot is located on SE 60th Street.
• SE 64th Street is a two-lane east-west arterial in the City of Newcastle with a posted speed limit
of 30 mph.
• NE 44th Street is a collector arterial with a five-lane section directly east of I-405, narrowing to
two lanes to the east. It serves several businesses at I-405 and provides access to residential areas
to the east.
• N 30th Street is a two-lane east-west collector arterial west of Park Drive and a minor arterial
east of Park Drive. N 30th Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph.
Burnett Avenue is a north-south collector arterial south of N 30th Street. It begins and terminates at
Lake Washington Boulevard to the north and south. It serves primarily residential land use and has a
posted speed limit of 25 mph.
The traffic operations analysis includes the following intersections indicated on Figure 3.5-1:
1. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 60th Street(impacts on Newcastle)
2. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 64th Street(impacts on Newcastle)
3. Northbound I-405 interchange ramps at Lake Washington Boulevard at NE 44th Street
4. Southbound I-405 interchange ramps at Lake Washington Boulevard-NE 44th Street
5. Lake Washington Boulevard at Ripley Lane
6. Ripley Lane at project north site access(emergency access)
7. Lake Washington Boulevard at project south site access
8. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 36th Street
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-62 September 2003
I
\...)ffErMI
co
"ym. PLEASURE O
° POINT" 7m cn
m
= 0
0
SE 60TH ST H
_ 2 f
SE 60TH ST
SE 0 TH ST
SE 68TH SE 69TH
12
-9
_ , = \
I 9�
rEVUL .
SITE Y.
' E SE 76TH ST
`F�_ /
O av/
QUENDALL /`
44TH co
TERMINALS`tr�r,,�
W
PROJECT e� D
SITE Z
F� © 1 O Z. >
e I • <
• W
N 4OTH _ m
•
2,;l')._ %‘
Ss,
N 36T. ST 1 SE 88TH ST
w „; 4- ARK...:. ,,-r
i`e .
'`•''''
, N 30TH S�1 S'.:;..:_t' ':5.:IVIAYkr',%„ ,tt»"'. <. ;„ 0,, ,,,%,,s.�.,o it-<
zM AP`::: ' ^,4 x,:
),; M
27TH }^<r
NE ST ff'°0" 3zrssi3`. �;.,
N
Gene Coulon. 2 o
-_ Memorial- d m
Beach Park t
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
I frAilk
W Figure 3.5-1
1 = Project Area Map
1
1 "
;; �ref
i / /,'4•1 ; ,
• //'- " ir----
/1? /
7 COR-2 ZONE 1 1 -1
L 'gin-? �i����� l�e���� 4,-,,,,,L---T_____
OHW , f4c1 __
jract"C = _ _ //
tig ill f of
PUBLIC LAND ` OPen' ' —•---- C�� i• /5"/ j//
�" Space �� ��� ���./- �� ///j
, ,- ..t....... , $114);. ;* . ,, .UFF i
i 1 .... , I., ,% • 9 ,/, ,,,,
- LAKE a, flkk,��; :t-= . — �.WASHINGTON i_ � ' / :,,•:14 OHW`� /
:311ES 01: 0 .."\\*,", ) / e
- ..wda—Awiti _ .. fiT AT pi)/6 4, / 01-----_____
, A.,
c,•..,_,(,,,,
PUBLIC LAND}IMv\.i I
8 1. / _ , "X t4.)\i/1//,.#s"-.
/
—1
AY CREEK /' }
DELTA o : i ' _ _____---- f i''\/ I
r._...__ R_R 20 ; . 4 if�N 40TH ST --- - )
7 g/ a r•'�
7
I �•
/____ r / /',
Parametrlx DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-5-02
-11‘SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.5-2
I W Overall Plat Plan
o 150 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
,
0 E Q
I co
r` r--- R 139 Q or, R. 1
cv N 1- - 1
4) + �► 102 R.25 L 4
SE 60th St N ?AA-aKe�aV6 N 30th St
ilr)
0—A a
cp
ca
i 2� ro r- co i A913
Y
J (a
-
0 R ❑ 10
12
O r R \1
--i r N cv co F 9 O T Ts. 37 vow.,
me
+ Y C 2 + co 0
North Access y
SE 64th St Driveway , i
o \ r
,_ w �
���a co 0-A o N ��6 CO tCCO
cv co a) .4. 1 J 6 r a >
n
ir
0 m R29 �7 o c� 11
ico (11 m N 113 m��0 RZ co CO o co E- 154
c 65 NN Zp�9 �a�\Ja 4) + L ir 24
I J Vas-
t
(_ NE 44th St
N 30th St
58 ag j -1'
) cc
178--> `CC 2 167-p o
43 vr rn N A oo � v
�`L 84-� CO
) z
i ® ® R 3 12
co ccoo co m <- 1
r co r 4- 121 °) CON. 3 R 164
�► 1� 181 r F 98
N 36th St
Lake Wa Blvd
n 3,a���d N 30th St
a \� �� 4
119- . 1 E o - N 60Jin
ri
o '� CO co a CO rn r
9 ,�''► 470--> m co
in
i1 co
co z
1
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
j XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-3
40 Year 2002 Existing
PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
I
1 ,
9. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 30th Street
' 10. Lake Washington Boulevard at Burnett Avenue(N 27th Street)
11. Southbound I-405 interchange ramps at N 30th Street
12. Northbound I-405 interchange ramps at N 30th Street
Level of Service under existing 2002 conditions is shown in Table 3.5-2.
3.5.1.2 Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted for the study intersections during the PM peak hour
under year 2002 existing conditions, and year 2007 with and without project traffic. The degree of
congestion or the quality of the traffic operations is rated with a level of service grade; the letters A
through F are used for the rating scale. The letter A represents the best (least congested) conditions and
the letter F represents the worst(most congested)conditions.
The LOS ratings are based on the performance measure ranges identified in the Highway Capacity
= Manual (HCM 2000) published in 2000 by the Transportation Research Board. The delay and LOS
results for the intersections analyzed in the study area are the output of the Synchro software program.
The correlation between the intersection operations,LOS grade, and delay are detailed in Table 3.5-1.
The delay reported for a four-way stop control or signalized intersection is defined as the average control
delay and is calculated by taking a volume-weighted average of the delay of each approach. For two-way
stop control intersections, the delay reported correlates to the approach with the worst operating
conditions.
Table 3.5-1. Corresponding LOS Grade and Intersection Delay
Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Intersection LOS Signalized Unsignalized
Operations Grade Intersection Intersection
Best A 510 510
B >10 and 520 > 10 and 515
r •
°-- C >20 and 535 > 15 and 525
D >35 and 555 >25 and 535
E >55 and 580 >35 and 550
Worst F >80 >50
Source: HCM 2000.
I '
I
i
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-66 September 2003
Table 3.5-2. Level of Service Summary \I
Level of Service(Delay in sec/veh)
Stop Year 2002 Year 2007 Year 2007
In:ersection Control Existing No Build with Project
1. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 60th Street All-way B(14) C (19) C(19) _.
2. Lake Washington Boulevard at SE 64th Street Two-way C(16) C (22) C(24)
3. 1-405 northbound ramps(Lake Washington Two-way F(71) F(>90) F (>90)
Boulevard)at NE 44th Street -
4. 1-405 southbound ramps at(NE 44th Street Two-way C(20) E(38) F(54)
(Lake Washington Boulevard) _
5. Lake Washington Boulevard at Ripley Lane Two-way B(11) B(12) B(13)2
6. Ripley Lane at north site access Two-way A(8) A(8) A(8)1
A(9)2
7. Lake Washington Boulevard at south site Two-way B(10) B(11) B(13)1
access B(12)2
8. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 36th Street All-way A(8) A(8) A(8)
9. Lake Washington Boulevard at N 30th Street Two-way A(10) B(12) B(12) -'
110. Lake Washington Boulevard at Burnett All-way A(8) A(9) A(10) 1
Avenue(N 27th Street)
11. 1-405 southbound ramps at N 30th Street All-way C(15) C(19) C(19) ,
12. 1-405 northbound ramps at N 30th Street All-way C(17) D(26) D(27) ;i
Analysis conducted with all traffic accessing to the south site access onto Lake Washington Boulevard.
2 Analysis conducted with traffic from 50 units(43 percent)accessing to the north site access onto Ripley Lane to and from the north. -1
3.' .1.3 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Network
L.ke Washington Boulevard is striped for a bicycle lane on the shoulder, which results in bicycles,
p-destrians,and disabled vehicle sharing the same space. Lake Washington Boulevard generally has 6-to
8 I oot-wide shoulders,with a ditch and cut section on the east side and a fill section on the west side. In
II th- surrounding neighborhoods, pedestrians are generally accommodated on the roadway shoulder or
v:rge;there is a 4-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side of the I-405 overcrossing at 44th Street.
P;''destrian volumes and comfort are likely to be low near the site because pedestrian walking areas are \
close to traffic. No pedestrians were observed in the site vicinity during site visits. The major pedestrian '
i a action is Gene Coulon Park, approximately 0.75 mile south of the site; there are few other recreation
o commercial attractions for pedestrians in the area.
B cycle volumes are believed to be relatively high in the area because of a continuous bicycle route
p•ralleling I-405. Lake Washington Boulevard is believed to include high numbers of commuters on
w-ekdays and high numbers of recreational bicyclists on weekends. ''1-
ere is no transit service on Lake Washington Boulevard in the project vicinity. The closest transit
s- 'ice is at the Kennydale Park and Ride at Park Avenue North and N 30th Street, and flyer stop at I-405
atiN 30th Street. Routes include:
• Metro Bus Routes 111 and 114 serving Downtown Seattle,Newcastle,and Renton Highlands; '
• Metro Bus Route 167 serving Kent and the University District in Seattle, with flyer stops on I- 1`
405 and SR 167 between the two end points;
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-67 September 2003
• Metro Bus Route 247 serving the Overlake Transit Center in Redmond and the 148th Avenue
corridor in Bellevue and Kent,with flyer stops on I-405 and SR 167 between the two end points;
• Metro Bus Route 342 serving the Shoreline Park and Ride Lot and the SR 522 Route, including
Kenmore and Bothell to the Renton Boeing Plant, with flyer stops on I-405, SR 167 and
Downtown Bellevue between the two end points;
• Metro Route 909 providing DART service between the Kennydale Park and Ride and Downtown
Renton via the Sunset Hill area;
• Boeing Custom Route 952 between the Auburn Park and Ride and Boeing Everett, with flyer
stops on I-405 and SR 167 between the two end points; and
• Sound Transit Route 560 serving Sea-Tac Airport and the Bellevue Transit Center, with stops in
downtown Renton and with flyer stops on I-405 between the two end points.
3.5.1.4 Site Access
The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard
that crosses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. This railroad right-of-way
was acquired by the Northern Pacific Railway in 1908 and included a reservation of a rail crossing for the
entire contiguous parcel that existed at the time, which now includes the Barbee Mill, Quendall
Terminals, and Vulcan properties. There are currently four private rail crossings that serve these
properties. The existing driveway at the Barbee Mill site has a grade of approximately 12 percent
between Lake Washington Boulevard and the railroad, and a gentler grade below the railroad to the
parking lot of the current mill office and bridge crossings over May Creek to the north and south.
The rail line is currently used at a frequency of four trains per day, one local freight train round-trip, and
one round-trip by the Dinner Train; operating speeds for freight trains are 10 mph. The line is
occasionally used for through freight trains when the BNSF mainline down Puget Sound is closed
because of landslides or other reasons. The BNSF has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the
next 5 to 10 years; however, the railroad has discussed use of the line for rapid transit or commuter rail
with Sound Transit, but there are no specific plans for passenger service (Cowles, personal
communication, 2003). In a similar situation, the BNSF line over Stampede Pass reopened in 1996 after
closure for 14 years (Washington State Department of Transportation [WSDOT] 2001). An increase in
service on the BNSF line and use by through traffic would not require approval of local jurisdictions
under federal law governing railroads. The line adjacent to the site has the potential to carry through
traffic because it connects with the BNSF Stevens Pass mainline at Snohomish to the north and connects
to the BNSF mainline to the south in Renton. Until the 1970s, the rail line was used for multiple trains
per day by the Northern Pacific and Milwaukee Road railroads. The rail line connects with the BNSF
Stevens Pass mainline at Snohomish to the north and connects to the BNSF mainline to the south in
Renton. The line is occasionally used for through freight trains when the BNSF mainline down Puget
Sound is closed because of landslides or other reasons(Cowles,personal communication, 2003).
ii
3.5.2 Impacts
3.5.2.1 Future Baseline Street Network
Traffic forecasts for this study were developed using the City of Renton EMME/2-based travel demand
model for the impact-year specified by the City (2007), with adjustments to add approved development
projects. Specific projects in the vicinity, including the Labrador Subdivision, The Bluffs, Tamaron
Point,and Southport,were included in the EMME2 baseline volumes. There are no funded transportation
Co)of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-68 September 2003
i I
improvement projects identified in the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in the
project vicinity. Figure 3.5-4 depicts the PM peak hour impact-year traffic volumes.
3.5.2.2 Project Trip Generation
P oject traffic volumes were estimated using appropriate Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) surveys for
t proposed residential development and the industrial alternative. Development of trip generation for
t e No-Action Alternative was produced to provide a comparison to the trip generation of the proposed
a 'tion and indicates an order of magnitude of trip generation and resulting impacts. Level-of-service
alysis has not been performed for the No-Action Alternative.
e trip generation for the proposed development was based on the ITE Trip Generation equations for ,
1 d use code (210) Single-Family Detached Housing; there is no rate or equation available specifically
f r a duplex development. A wide variety of factors can affect trip generation rates from dwellings
including family size, age of occupants, and family income. Studies of duplex housing have indicated
that their trip generation is analogous to that of single-family detached housing (see: Duplex Trip
neration Rate Study, prepared by Snohomish County Public Works, September 26, 2002). The project
si a also includes units in a shared town home configuration with four to five units per larger structure.
B cause these units are expected to be at or above the floor area size and a price range comparable to
s' gle-family dwellings in the region, the single-family trip generation rate was also used for these
d ellings to provide a conservative estimate.
T e trip generation for the industrial alternative was consistent with the development of the site under
e isting zoning, which includes land use code 130 (Industrial Park). Results from the trip generation
a alysis for the proposed action and No-Action Alternative are shown in Table 3.5-3. During an average
eekday,the trip generation analysis indicates that the proposed development will generate 123 PM peak
h ur trips (79 inbound and 44 outbound) and 1,188 daily trips. For comparison purposes, the No-Action
Alternative, under current land use, would generate 502 PM peak hour trips (105 inbound and 397
outbound)and 3,797 daily trips.
Table 3.5-3. Trip Generation
Independent Weekday
II Land Use Code Variable Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips
Barbee Mill Proposal/Proposed Action 123 total (79 inbound, 1�•
(210)Single-Family Detached Housing 116 Dwelling Units 44 outbound) 1,188
No-Action Alternative 502 total(105 inbound,
( 30) Industrial Park 545,500 square feet 397 outbound) 3,797
ransportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies for the Puget Sound region generally stress the
rovision of facilities, such as High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on major roadways, and additional
ansit service and vanpool capacity, as well as incentives provided by employers. The choice of using
modes of transportation other than single-occupant vehicles for trips involves trade-offs between travel
t me that are affected by multiple factors. One of the strategies relating to residential development is the
provision of higher density development, which provides residential, commercial, and office uses within
walking distance to allow people to fulfill everyday needs without using a car. Uses can be mixed in the
same building or can be located within a certain radius,typically a 0.5-mile walking distance.
ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-69 September 2003
r
J
LI
,4* co co R 148 ct. c Co
r N T F8 N R 1
N r
L- + �► 108 R 25 4 4
3
SE 60th St N` 2� d > N 30th St
p a LaKe�aB\v 24 ('
�_' co
7 O) N_ v�
10— 1- T A
-J
�Ji
h I
❑2 R ID10
M N N 12 R (4°
c0N.ro 4- 9 o r 31
Y1` 2 c (.. .1 o Iroe`t pve
SE 64th St North Access J 4' 6�
w Driveway a) r
0� o La N 6 e \�
2'i N . o "' 1 4�
_Ip
❑3 E N 11
> R c
r 0) o m 38 S
�- 139 �` °co R.2 rn r 01 E- 186
�` J c 85 NN 2'1$ A) + L E ir 30
AC el
NE 44th St LO LO g cr
�/ e a in N 30th St
cc 4 (v. 2 197—).
259 I. o N r "\50 102 Cl)`0
- CO
z
lJ ® R4 12
.1- co co co E- 1
co co F 150 N o ^ g 4 ►t 208
A) + ir 209 A) + L E 110
al
Lake Wa Blvd N 36th St cc
_'
��a0'16 > N 30th St
o
a � m
172� fr 2sd "y E O N N 70J
co
"-
CD nj = co z c0 co r
11 -� v 3� 511 --� o ,—
co
7I U)
tA
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
,� XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-4
Iv Year 2007 No Build
PM Peak Hour Volumes
Other features, such as connections between desirable destinations and safe sidewalks and bike lanes, can
encourage the use of alternative transportation modes and encourage walking or bicycling. The use of
transit can be enhanced by providing safe pedestrian access to bus stops and convenient transit routes that
connect to desirable destinations, as well as amenities, such as bus shelters,which can make waiting more
- pleasant. Facilities that reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, such as limits on curb cuts and
narrower street widths to slow traffic speeds or other traffic calming measures, make for a safer street
environment and generally encourage walking.
For this site, there are no commercial or recreation facilities off site within walking distance.
Furthermore, the development does not include a mix of uses likely to encourage alternative modes of
transportation, and there is no transit service on Lake Washington Boulevard or within walking distance.
There may be opportunities for residents to car-pool or van-pool to common work destinations; however,
the setting and design of the development does not justify reductions in trip generation rates based on
higher than normal use of other transportation modes.
3.5.2.3 Project Trip Distribution
The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic volumes as
output from the EMME/2 model. The distribution is shown on Figure 3.5-5 and indicates that directly
leaving the site, 19 percent of project traffic is destined to the south and 81 percent is destined to the
northeast. To the north, 16 percent will access I-405 to the north, 18 percent I-405 to the south, 25
percent to 44th Street, 9 percent to 112th Street(SE 68th Street), 1 percent to SE 64th Street, 5 percent to
SE 60th Street,and 7 percent north on Lake Washington Boulevard north of SE 60th Street. To the south,
2 percent will access I-405 to the south from the N 30th Street interchange, 2 percent destined to the east
on N 30th Street, and 14 percent continue south on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 30th Street.
-
Two site access points for public roads are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard and one onto
Ripley Lane. As a conservative scenario, the south site access onto Lake Washington Boulevard was
analyzed with all project trips accessing this location. The site access on Ripley Lane has the potential to
be used for northbound trips from the portion of the site with shorter travel distance using that route. A
second distribution was reviewed: routing traffic from 50 units in the northerly part of the site (up to 43
percent of the trips)destined to or from the north would use the north site access onto Ripley Lane.
Traffic destined to or from areas south of the site (15 inbound and 8 outbound trips) likely would use the
southerly access rather than out-of-direction movement to the north. The intersections affected by the
different site access distributions include the intersections of Lake Washington Boulevard with Ripley
Lane and the south site access and the Ripley Lane/north site access intersection; the impacts are
accounted for in Table 3.5-2.
Figures 3.5-5, 3.5-6,and 3.5-7 depict the trip distribution,project trip assignment, and year 2007 PM peak
hour traffic volumes with project trips, respectively. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the increase in traffic
volumes in the project vicinity associated with the proposed development.
h -�
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-71 September 2003
I i
2 0
e- S
_ Q
co
IMEI
b,
5p m
-V PLEASURE o
POINT'`, 7m 7% m
2 .8
_ o
5% ``/`\{\SE 60TH ST 1
2 JIB'
SE / 60TH ST
I ) 16%
1% o
m
SE I64TH ST m
E
n
OI.k' Ns� 9°/
SE 68TH SE 69TH
il-
22%J
7
SITE F, aSE 76TH ST
i
OUENDALL
I LS CO
81/O TERMINA ® W
° F' . , o T" 25%1
PROJECT / Z
_ SITE
Z, >
/1 w
'¢ F
m
19% N 4OTH
•
i1% 18% 2 s�
Y i sF
N%6TH ST SE 88TH ST
•
ta
> la - PARK
Y , ,, 2% I •;�t:':ti:3j.'.,.r.. <�Ma
LC Li, 0! rya•,: � x"" -
m N 30TH ST 'MAY
->. Kw::
• EXIT 6 - :_.' ar.,Pe h .'<'=CREEK;. M>,, ; `
NE 27TH ST n,J;;, ,zs ;}` :'Z.
<9 20% m•.,.,,<
,. \\ z
14%
m
Gene Coulon Z m
Memorial 0 m
Beach Park <
0
I
'L
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
J_
Figure 3.5-5
Nar.,�~ Project Trip Distribution
i
R O Q c/ ❑9
0 o 4- O co o
It. 0
4 R-0 + �► r 0
K.} ^' SE 60th St o o
64 N 30th St
0 / �aKe�a \va
�/ T
O
Ir 0—0" � 0 � ,r-
J O CO CV 6 -J
0—)4
J
r
❑� a R 0 ❑6 10
1 -4- 1 R.
O O I °
_- 0 + CO o e Pve
North Access 'J + gV�
SE 64th St Li, Driveway t , 4 -o k r/
cn n. o o
06 > 0 .-01 it
} , �' J' N r- O O 0 1
1)c"
,i- El R0 ❑7 90 11
m co1
�_ ' r 0 0 c F 20 �) A� 0 0 0 <-4
� o N 0 E K. o
J IC
ca
NE 44th St co m Vd cC
- �e`Na N 30th St
,- � 10-A Va o
vr
11 � cc 4 0 1 --> m
_, 7 v 'Cr o o 0 1 - co
m
-- z
i
® ® RO 12
,_ co 0 0 -4-- 51 co w o ro E- 0 R O
4) + 4) 4 L K. 0
ir0 E' 2
N 36th St 0
Lake Wa Blvd
g\N'a a) N 30th St
in
st
28— >r o E ..4. 0 r'
o Q m �� m
z N O O
8- v 0� 1 -�
m
Cl)
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-6
to PM Peak Hour
Project Traffic Volumes
r
,_
CI 11
R148 /
co co R. 1
,l ,- N °' -4- 8 N
A) + �► � 112 RZ5 ►` 4
N 551 N 30th St
SE 60th St \Nawd m
0�1 vase 5 t t
�� 5� a) . co
a) d' 10� J N
10- r r 2
J
0
R12 © 10 20
L.0 co
,_ N N -4- 10 O rN- It.. 5�
t) + Y /r 2 A) + co t., ;
1.
North Access J y
SE 64th St Driveway m -
a o � •
\a 0 A N ca
D Yis\----4-,(<-.E1
\ 2�J r .4- oo 1
r T
ti__
S 7 cn 11
> R'38 c�Gr ,a.
N N -4- 159 �a 2 Et, A) + F 190
L ro Ar 85 `�N 2'15 a jr 30
-J IC
NE 44th St co coo \.16 cc
e`�a� N 30th St
89--A E �aK 0
225- ir * r' .0 198--o- m
66 vt N N r 0� ua
�g 103
- - Nzoo-
,
® ❑ k 4 111
V
N. co cmm F 1
N. co COr - 201 N � g 4 R. 208
A) + g" 209 A) + _ E F 112
N 36th St tii
Lake Wa Blvdcc
a fg\a cp
in
> N 30th St
E `ti � v
co
200 m 99-- E o co N m 4 T.
0 5 m co 70 z O co r
19-Ili 1- ,�� 512- - r r
m
rn
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
AI
I
XX- PM peak hour traffic volumes Figure 3.5-7
ly Year 2007 With Project
PM Peak Hour Volumes
Table 3.5-4. Project Impacts to City of Renton
PM Peak Hour Volumes
1f
Year 2007 %of Growth
Total(with Attributed to
Arterial Section Year 2002 Project) Project Traffic
Lake Washington Boulevard(north of NE 44th Street-I-405 ramps) 560 705 19
} NE 44th Street(east of Lake Washington Boulevard-I-405 ramps) 585 725 22
Lake Washington Boulevard(between NE 44th Street and N 30th Street) 350 540 12
Lake Washington Boulevard(south of Burnett Avenue) 360 540 9
N 30th Street(between Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405) 490 585 7
3.5.2.4 Future Level of Service
•
Results of the LOS analyses indicate that all study intersections operate with a LOS grade of C or better
'; during the PM peak hour, except the I-405 ramp intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard (NE 44th
Street). The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates
with delay because of heavy approach volumes on the minor legs (north and southbound), and the I-405
southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection operates with delay because
of the southbound left-turn movement. Table 3.5-2 summarizes the LOS analyses results.
3.5.2.5 Impacts on Interstate 405
The impacts on I-405 ramp operations at NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)and N 30th Street
were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS 2000)ramp merge and diverge analysis tool.
n , Under both the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action(in 2007),the I-405 northbound off-ramps to
`--` NE 44th Street and N 30th Street and the northbound on-ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F.
Under both the No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action (in 2007),the I-405 southbound off-ramps to
NE 44th Street and N 30th Street and the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E.
The analysis indicates that the project traffic volumes would have no further impact on ramp operations,
and there is no measurable increase in delay between the No-Action Alternative and under Project
conditions. Table 3.5-5 summarizes the ramp merge and diverge analysis results in terms of LOS and
density(passenger cars per mile per lane).
y l Table 3.5-5. Ramp Merge/Diverge Level of Service Summary
Level of Service(Density pc/mi/lane)
Year 2002 Year 2007 No Year 2007 with
L Interchange Existing Build Project
Lake Washington Boulevard(NE 44th Street)
1-405 southbound off ramp diverge D (33) E(35) E(35)
1-405 southbound on ramp merge D(32) D(33) D(33)
1-405 northbound off ramp diverge D(35) F(40) F(40)
1-405 northbound on ramp merge D(32) E(37) E(37)
N 30th Street
1-405 southbound off ramp diverge D (33) E(36) E(36)
Jr� 1-405 southbound on ramp merge D(30) D(33) D(33)
I�JI 1-405 northbound off ramp diverge D(34) F(39) F(39)
1-405 northbound on'ramp merge D(34) F(39) F(39)
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-75 September 2003
i
3.5.2.6 Site Access
The site is adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. The proposal
i cludes public street crossings at the location of the existing Barbee Mill site private driveway access11
d at the existingprivate drivewaycrossingat Ripley Lane approximately 350 feet north of the
pP
i ersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. (Continuation of a private crossing is
p ecluded by BNSF Railroad practices that limit a new or modified private crossing to a maximum of six
p operties(Cowles 2003b personal communication).)
T e procedure for establishing a public street crossing over a railroad right-of-way in the State of
ashington is governed by RCW 81.53.020 and WAC 480-62-150, and requires approval of a grade
c ossing petition by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. Legislative policy of the
S ate of Washington to requires new highway crossings of railroads to be grade separated, where
p'acticable (RCW 81.53.020). This policy applies to local streets, and feasibility generally includes
c.nsideration of topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors as well as public need for the
c ossing, and reference to guidelines adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration (Nizam 2003
personal communication). The vehicular traffic volumes from this development and the current level of
u e of this rail line do not meet FHWA criteria for grade separated crossings, which generally are
i plemented for very high vehicular or train volumes(FHWA 2002).
1
e decision to provide public roadway crossings of railways may include elimination or consolidation of
e.isting public or private crossings to minimize the total number of crossings. This type of consolidation
ay require property owners in the vicinity to work together to provide a circulation system to serve all
p operties on the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks. The proposed northerly access to the site on to
'i pley Lane would require dedication of a public street over the property to the north.
It may be desirable, however, to ensure that the feasibility of future implementation of a grade separated
r.it crossing is not precluded. The location where existing roadway grades provide the greatest potential
f r overcrossing is near the Ripley Lane intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard, where the
1, r adway is currently above the railroad. An overcrossing at this location, however, would require
s bstantial reconfiguration of the Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane intersection with substantial
c anges in elevation and grade for both roadways.
the proposed at-grade crossing location(at the existing site access),the elevation difference with Lake
ashington Boulevard is approximately 10 feet. Given the 60-foot separation between the road and
r ilroad at that location, a 16 percent grade could theoretically be established. The combination of
1 s dards for roadway approaches and rail crossings may preclude any substantial change in grade
b tween the roadway and the railroad. The guidelines of the American Association of State Highway and
ansportation Officials provide that the roadway surface should not be more than 3 inches higher or
1 wer than the top of the nearest rail at a point 30 feet from the rail (AASHTO 2001). The similar
SDOT Design Manual standard is 3 inches above or 6 inches below (WSDOT 1998, Section 930.03).
The normal standard for a road approach to assure a safe area for cars to wait for entry and for sight
distance is an area 20 to 30 feet in length with a grade not to exceed 6 percent(WSDOT 1998 Fig 930-3).
The buildout of Lake Washington Boulevard, with a center left-turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks,
livrould require most of the right-of-way. This combination of requirements would leave little area for a
c iange in grade between the road and the railroad.
1 The difference in elevation between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard decreases to the north,
with both at nearly the same elevation approximately 400 feet north of the existing site access �.
(approximately 400 feet south of the May Creek bridge). Relocating roadway access to this point
presents few limitations for meeting geometric or sight distance standards on Lake Washington
ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-76 September 2003
i I
1_ Boulevard. It presents several design challenges for the project because the elevation of the railroad is
approximately 20 feet above the elevation of the majority of the site. Specific design issues include:
• The grade of the access roads serving the lots on the east side of May Creek would have to be
I
raised at its northern end to meet the grade of the new access road near the grade of the railroad.
That would involve substantial fill and would likely completely displace the northerly wetland if
the BNSF allowed fill on their right-of-way. If the railroad did not allow fill, retaining walls of
substantial height would be required. The design of buildings also would be affected. Buildings
near the northerly end of the roadway would likely step down from street access at a mid-level
with lower floors at grade. The roadway providing access to the east side of May Creek would be
a dead-end approximately 700 feet long.
• The height of bridge crossings of May Creek would be higher(or fill,where allowed outside the
{ floodplain,would be substantially higher).
• The access road would intersect the loop roadway system on the west side of May Creek at about
Lot 55. This would present few design issues, but would result in a dead-end street about 580
feet long at the southerly point.
• Relocation of access is likely to impact the northerly wetland and would require development of
additional wetland mitigation area.
The proposed crossing at Ripley Lane, which provides access to the site by a roadway constructed over
I the property to the north, has similar, although less severe, grade limitations. The change in grade is
approximately 4 feet on the east side of the railroad and approximately 6 feet on the west side. This grade
change would not allow a 3- to 6-inch change in grade to be maintained 30 feet on either side of the
railroad, nor would the change allow a 30-foot landing at 6 percent grade to be provided at each
connecting street given the 65 foot separation between the rails and the existing pavement of Ripley Lane
and the 70 foot separation between the rails and the roadway on the east side. In addition, widening
Ripley Lane to a three-lane section with a center left-turn lane,bike lanes,,and sidewalks to accommodate
the ultimate buildout of property in the vicinity would move the roadway closer to the rails.
An alternate location that is nearly at-grade occurs at an existing private railroad crossing approximately
200 feet south of the existing Lake Washington Boulevard intersection with Ripley Lane. This location
would be approximately 200 feet north of the Barbee Mill property line and would be accessed from the
site by a roadway, which would be constructed over the property to the north. The existing site access
proceeds at an angle across the railroad right-of-way, which would likely be unacceptable for a public
street. Construction of a roadway at this location could involve potential conflicts with the Ripley Lane
intersection. In particular, the left-turn storage lane, which serves that intersection, might overlap with a
center acceleration lane for left turns out of the site. Potential conflict would increase with greater traffic
volumes as the sites to the north developed and generated additional trips.
Traffic control at railroad crossings involves two basic approaches:
• Passive control. This involves signs and pavement markers and relies on drivers and pedestrians
to recognize that a train is approaching by listening for the locomotive horn, seeing the
locomotive, and stopping with adequate clearance from the rails. Passive control includes
signage and pavement markings that would include, at the minimum, a circular Railroad Advance
Warning sign and pavement markings consisting of a stop bar. Supplemental markings can
include reflecting cross-buck signs, lighting,or stop signs.
• Active control. This consists of signals and gates that are designed to provide warning devices
automatically activated by an approaching train and may include gates that physically exclude
vehicles and pedestrians. Active controls include a range of devices activated by a train's
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-77 September 2003
approach and range from track-side or overhead flashing lights to gates, which are normally '
installed on the approach for both vehicular lanes and pedestrian walkways. Because gates can be
circumvented by cars that drive in the lane for opposing traffic to weave around both gates, quad
gates can be installed to close both the lanes and prevent drive-arounds and to provide greater
security. Employment of quad gates also may qualify for consideration of a"quiet zone" where
sounding of locomotive horns is not mandatory, as discussed in Section 3.9,Noise.
ere is no specific standard for choice of traffic control, but many considerations must be balanced,
irk luding vehicular and pedestrian safety. In addition, the cumulative impacts of additional growth and,
t Ilerefore, additional exposure to accidents, are relevant.
e WSDOT uses general guidelines for screening appropriate control based on many factors. One
c i terion is related to the type of roadway and an exposure factor based on the average daily traffic on the
roadway and the number of trains per day. Based on that general criteria, a two-lane site access roadway
s ing the entire traffic demand of the site would have an exposure factor of 4,400(1,100 ADT x 4 trains
p:r day) and would warrant flashing lights (WSDOT 1998 Figure 930-2). A slight increase in traffic or
n I mber of trains would warrant gates according to this criterion; additional traffic would be likely if
al ditional sites were development to the north. This guideline does not specifically consider pedestrians.
F o r the proposed project, the degree of pedestrian exposure also may be a substantial factor if public
a•cess to the shoreline is provided and integration of a pedestrian circulation system in the area results in
la ge numbers of pedestrians. Other criteria recommended for consideration include sight distance,
s• ool bus use, a history of accidents, and interactions between traffic control devices at nearby
• ersections.
S•ecific to this project, the possibility of higher future use of the train line may justify more stringent
cintrol measures. A potential safety concern is short queuing distance between the rails and traffic
c ntrol at Lake Washington Boulevard. Cars on the tracks may be blocked by cars queuing at the
ersection. The 50-to 60-foot separation between tracks and the intersection provide queuing space for
o to three vehicles. It is possible that a vehicle could fmd itself on the tracks with cars stopped at the
i ersection and a train approaching. Additional lane width to provide a means to escape this situation is
a ery desirable feature. In the case of a quad-gate crossing, a system also may involve sensors to ensure
at outbound gates do not shut with vehicles present. In a case where signalization is present at Lake
ashington Boulevard, preemption of signal phasing likely would be required to allow traffic on the
c oss street to clear the intersection whenever a train approaches.
3 5.2.7 Traffic Accidents and Safety Analysis
e accident history was reviewed for intersections in the project vicinity to identify potential safety
c ncerns. The City provided accident data for a 3-year period from 2000 to 2003. The average accident
r. a in urban areas for a roadway with a collector arterial classification is 4.27 accidents per million
vehicle miles (1996 Washington State Highway Accident Report). The section of Lake Washington
Boulevard from N 30th Street to the I-405 interchange ramps experiences a collision rate of
a p proximately 3.5 accidents per million vehicle miles.
I addition to accident histories, another means often employed to locate intersections with safety
concerns is to calculate the accidents per million entering vehicles. Locations experiencing greater than
1 0 accidents per million entering vehicles indicates a high rate of occurrence. Table 3.5-6 summarizes
t e collision and injury rates and accident types for the study intersections where accident data were
p lovided. The listed intersections experience less than 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles. The
p edominant type of accident that occurs is a right-angle collision at unsignalized two-way stop control
tersections.
C of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-78 September 2003
_ Table 3.5-6. Year 2000 to 2003 Intersection Accident History Summary
Property
Collisions Collisions per Injuries per Damage per Accident Type
Intersection per Year MEV Year Year (%of Accidents)
Lake Washington Right Angle(88%)
Boulevard/NE 44th Street 2.7 NA 1.3 1.7 Approach Turn(12%)
1-405 southbound ramps/NE
44th Street(Lake Washington Right Angle(67%)
Boulevard) 1.0 0.36 0.0 1.0 Sideswipe(33%)
Right Angle(72%)
1-405 northbound ramps(Lake
Washington Boulevard)/NE Sideswipe(14%)
44th Street 2.3 0.56 1.0 1.7 Approach Turn(14%)
Rear End(33%)
, 1-405 northbound ramps/N Right Angle(33%)
30th Street 1.0 0.43 0.3 0.7 Sideswipe(33%)
Rail Safety
The number of railroad safety incidents has declined over the past several decades in Washington State
and throughout the nation. There are basically four types of railroad safety issues:
1. Collisions involving vehicles and trains at highway-rail grade crossings.
2. Collisions involving vehicles or pedestrians and trains within the railroad right-of-way, classified
as railroad trespass incidents.
3. Derailments or railway collisions. Derailments involve one or more units of rolling stock
equipment leaving the rails during train operations for a cause other than collision, explosion, or
fire. Collisions involve any impact of two or more pieces of railroad on-track equipment or
impact between railroad equipment and foreign equipment. Derailment and collision-type
-;-- incidents usually result in very few fatalities or injuries.
4. Hazardous material incidents are regarded as a separate category in order to more closely monitor
the transportation of these products.
Accident statistics are available on-line from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission at
http://www.wutc.wa.gov/web 1/wol/crash.html.
Nationwide,half of train/vehicle fatalities involve at-grade crossings with passive controls and half are at-
grade crossings with active controls. The accident rate at passive controls is presumed to be higher
because crossings with active controls involve locations where vehicle volumes are higher.
The Federal Railway Administration strategy to address train/vehicle collisions includes:
• Targeting funds to high-risk crossings through grants to states;
-- • Installing new technologies, such as four-quadrant gates,at the most dangerous crossings; and
• Developing education and enforcement programs that increase the public's awareness of the
dangers of railroad crossings(CRS,2003).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-79 September 2003
Active controls at crossings are the most effective physical strategy to reduce collisions. For the proposed —
new crossings, the City of Renton, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the
railway must decide the appropriate balance between risk and cost. The risk of collisions with pedestrians
because of trespass on the right-of-way can be addressed by fencing the line adjacent to the site and by Ii
installing warning signage,as well as education programs. j'
Accidents on the rail line adjacent to the site also have the potential to affect the life-safety of residents by
blocking access to the site when trains come to a stop after a collision. Train stopping distance is affected
by the momentum of the train, which is a function of speed and weight, and the reaction time of the
engineer from the time a visual cue is received to the time brakes are applied. For freight trains operating , j I,
on the line presently with up to 10 cars and a locomotive, stopping distance is likely to be in the range of
several hundred feet,depending on the weight of the train. I'
The distance between the proposed road access points is approximately 2,000 feet and would require a I
train length of approximately 25 to 30 cars to block both entrances. If the entrances were moved as ji_.,
outlined above,the distance between the two would be approximately 1,000 feet and could be blocked by
a train 15 to 18 cars long. If the rail line were reopened to long-haul freight trains of between 100 and
150 cars, a train length of 1 to 1.5 miles long could,under a variety of operating conditions ranging from
accidents to operational stops, block both entrances. The potential for operational stops to block the
entrances is low given the lack of switches between south Lake Washington and Bellevue. Under
existing use of the line for local freight service, it is unlikely that freight trains would block both
entrances to the site.
.11
An additional access option that would provide greater separation between access points and reduce the '
potential for blockage would be to develop a continuous frontage roadway on the west side of the BNSF
railroad. This would provide access to the existing crossing at the north end of the Vulcan site a
separation between access points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with
consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points. --
3.5.2.8 Impacts on Adjacent Jurisdictions
The City of Newcastle lies to the northeast of the site and is expected to experience a portion of the
project-generated traffic. Based on the trip distribution analysis, up to 22 percent of project traffic (27
PM peak hour and 262 daily trips) are destined to, from, or through the City of Newcastle. Table 3.5-7
describes the arterial sections affected by project trips, traffic volumes, and the percentage increase in J_
traffic due to the project development.
Table 3.5-7. Project Impacts to the City of Newcastle
PM Peak Hour Volumes
%of Growth
Year 2007 Total Attributed to h'
Arterial Section Year 2002 (with Project) Project Traffic
112th Avenue SE-SE 68th Street(south of Lake Washington Boulevard) 449 506 19
Lake Washington Boulevard(Between SE 60th Street and SE 64th Street) 285 333 15
Lake Washington Boulevard(north of SE 60th Street) 331 381 10
SE 60th Street(east of Lake Washington Boulevard) 231 294 5
I
ti
j
TI--
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-80 September 2003
� I
The Lake Washington Boulevard intersections with SE 60th Street and SE 64th Street operate at LOS C
or better under year 2007 conditions with or without projects traffic; therefore, they are not adversely
affected by the development traffic. Based on the traffic volume forecast from the EMN1E/2 model, it
does not appear that a significant volume of traffic is bypassing the congestion on the I-405 freeway
through the City of Newcastle on Lake Washington Boulevard. The volumes experienced on Lake
Washington Boulevard are in the realm of traffic volume expected for a collector arterial.
A concern raised by the City of Newcastle involves the potential for commuters to use alternate routes
when congestion is heavy on I-405, especially increased use of local streets to bypass congested sections
of the freeway. These routes are most likely to be used by drivers familiar with the local street system
and with designations relatively close to the bypass route. The most likely routes involve:
• Southbound traffic exiting I-405 at Exit 9 (112th Ave SE/SE 60th Street) and using Lake
Washington Boulevard through Bellevue and Newcastle to 44th Street in Renton, or potentially
continuing south on Lake Washington Boulevard to SR 900 and points between;
• Southbound traffic exiting I-405 at Coal Creek Parkway and continuing south to SR 900 or
turning to the west to access final destinations between Coal Creek Parkway and Lake
Washington at SE 60th Street, SE 72nd/69th Street, or SE 89th Streets; and
• Northbound traffic exiting I-405 at Exit 5 (SR900), Exit 6 (SE 30th Street), or Exit 7 (SE 44th
Street)and continuing north along Lake Washington Boulevard to Exit 9; or
> taking the same route from I-405 along Lake Washington Boulevard and connecting to
destinations to the east via NE 44th Street/89th Street SE, or SE 64th/69th/72nd Streets, or
via SE 60th Street; or
> taking the same route and continuing north via SE 60th Street and 119th Ave SE to Coal
Creek, Parkway, and potentially further north via 128th Ave, Richards Road, 116th Avenue
to Bellevue,Kirkland, and beyond.
All of these potential arterial routes have the disadvantage of lower speed limits and intersections
controlled by stop signs or signals. These arterial routes would have longer travel times than the freeway,
except in cases where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. In cases where
multiple stop sign controlled intersections are present, delays at intersections would become substantial if
large numbers of trips divert. If congestion occurs regularly over a long period of time, drivers would
seek out and find alternative routes. Theoretically, those routes would be chosen as alternative routes
until congestion resulted in equal travel times over alternate routes. In practice, drivers regularly making
' - trips with local destinations close to these alternative routes would have experienced the difference in
travel times between congested freeway conditions and local arterials and would choose the faster route
for their normal trips. In cases where freeway congestion seems greater than normal, they may divert to
alternative routes.
The EMME/2 model used to route traffic under future conditions accounts for roadway capacity when
routing trips and achieves a reasonable balance between local arterials and freeways. It does not account
for those occasional situations where accidents or other factors produce higher levels of freeway
congestions. In those cases, all the routes outlined above are likely to experience larger volumes of
traffic, which is likely to result in delays at intersections, especially stop controlled intersections, such as
SE 60th Street and Lake Washington Boulevard. Trips to and from the proposed project are likely to
involve the routes along Lake Washington Boulevard (southbound from Exit 9 to the site or northbound
from Exit 5 to the south). The number of trips potentially diverting to alternate routes from the area in
Renton west of I-450 (including the site) is not likely to be more than the current southbound off-ramp
volumes employing a right-turn movement; rather, it is likely to be considerably less. As a worst-case
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-81 September 2003
.L
scenario, approximately 250 trips would be taken, with project trips totaling approximately 5 percent of I`
that J
total. Given this conservative case, trips on Lake Washington Boulevard at 60th Street would
increase roughly 50 percent. This increase could be addressed in several ways: by planning arterial
improvements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405, or by retaining capacity constraints, i+
such as stop controlled intersections, that tend to increase travel time and may discourage drivers from 111
trying alternate routes. The latter approach tends to similarly delay trips with a local destination. A
possible response to address the potential for diverted trips would include designing future intersection
signalization to provide higher levels of service to local trips turning into local collector streets, similar to
SE 60th and SE 64th Streets,while providing less capacity for through movements.
3.5.2.9 Non-Motorized Facility Impacts and Relationship to Transit
The non-motorized facilities in the project vicinity include a designated bike route (with bike lanes on J
both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard) and some discontinuous sidewalks, primarily on the side `
streets. The need for non-motorized facilities exists because attractions, such as Coulon Beach Park, are
located south of the site and transit stops.
The site is likely to create additional demand for pedestrian facilities as follows:
• Residents of the proposed development are likely to desire to use pedestrian and bicycle facilities _
for circulation within the site to points of interest, such as the publicly owned shoreline along
Lake Washington, and for public access along the balance of the shoreline, if provided,as well as
to points of interest in the vicinity that currently are limited to Gene Coulon Park, approximately C
0.75 mile to the south and nearby residential areas.
• Local residents are likely to desire to use pedestrian facilities for circulation within the site to
points of interest, such as the publicly owned shoreline along Lake Washington, and for public
access along the balance of the shoreline, if provided.
l _
Cumulative effects of the proposed action(in conjunction with development of adjacent properties in the
mix of intensive office, hotels, and residential activity in a master planned development) are likely to
create substantial demand for pedestrian circulation to the high-intensity development from this site and
adjacent residential areas and to shoreline amenities adjacent to this site, including the public land on the I
shoreline adjacent to the proposed development. The cumulative effects of this development are likely to
intensify the impact of demands related to this development, and include the following:
• Demand for additional capacity and comfort for bicycling and pedestrian routes along Lake
Washington Boulevard, which would connect this site (and future mixed-use development in the
sites to the north)with Gene Coulon Park to the south and to transit routes and the Park and Ride
at North 30th Street.
• Demand for safe and comfortable pedestrian routes crossing the BNSF right-of-way and
traversing the site to provide access to public lands along the shoreline and other public access
that may be provided.
• Demand for more convenient pedestrian connections from the site to future development in the
north. As presently configured, all pedestrian connections to the north would be channeled back
to the proposed roadway adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. This will likely be perceived as
out-of-direction travel for residents of the westerly portion of the site and for the general public
who access public land along the shoreline of this site and who wish to access mixed-use
development to the north. This demand can be addressed by providing pedestrian access, which
may also be combined with vehicular access, to the property to the north near the northwest
corner of the site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-82 September 2003
• Demand for bicycle routes through the site will intensify, particularly with routes that skirt the
shoreline and provide access to mixed development to the north.
• Pedestrian demand from school children is likely to be limited to circulation within the project.
The public elementary school serving the site is the Kennydale Elementary School on North 30th
Street just east of I-405. Students from the site would likely be bussed to school and therefore
require pedestrian routes to bus stops within the site. McKnight Middle School and Hazen High
School are also east of I-405 and would likely transport students by bus. Some older children
may occasionally walk home from after school activities.
Effects on transit from the proposed 116 residential units, and as the result of cumulative impacts of
mixed-use development of property to the north, are likely to consist of additional demand for transit
service. Demand for transit service is very elastic and depends largely on the connectivity of the system
to desired trip ends and the frequency and convenience of service. Individuals earning a high income are
expected to live in this project area; as a result,transit use would generally be lower because the residents
have the ability to utilize personal vehicles and are likely to value the flexibility provided. The exception
generally is the demand for transit service to central cities where congestion provides a trip time
advantage for transit and convenience of taking transit is high (TCRP 1995). Transit use in this area is
not likely to be high unless more convenient transit service is provided close to the site, or low travel time
express service to major employment centers is available from the Park and Ride Lot in the area.
3.5.2.10 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts of this development would include traffic and pedestrian demands of future
development of the Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north.
The exact parameters of future development cannot be exactly predicted, but zoning allows a mix of high
intensity uses that can be expected to generate substantial traffic. At a minimum, residential development
of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred more residential units and several
hundred PM peak hour trips.
Additional development would generate a need for additional access points, or geometric and signal
improvements at existing intersections. The mitigation measures section below addresses the number of
additional trips through site access points that would justify channelization of intersections. Other
measures that might be employed to serve cumulative trip generation may include an overpass over the
railroad to serve all development from a roadway system on the west side of the railroad tracks.
The proposed site access points for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat would not specifically restrict
development potential of the adjacent sites, or limit options for developing access to Ripley Lane, which
is likely to be the main access.
3.5.3 Mitigation
Mitigating measures were identified for locations operating at LOS E or F. Signal warrant analyses were
conducted for intersection locations where LOS analysis indicates a need may exist.
3.5.3.1 Mitigation of Vehicular Traffic Impacts
Locations not meeting City operational standards include the 1-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street
(Lake Washington Boulevard) and 1-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street
intersections. The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection
operates at LOS E with 38 seconds of delay under 2007 no-action conditions, and with project traffic,the
intersection operates at LOS F with 54 seconds of delay. The intersection fails primarily due to the delay
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-83 September 2003
ex.erienced at the southbound left-turn movement. The intersection cannot be mitigated with
ch elization improvements alone. A review of the stop control identified that either an all-way stop
co trol (LOS B with 12 seconds delay per vehicle) or a signal (LOS A with 6 seconds delay per vehicle)
wiFuld mitigate the intersection operations. The installation of a signal was not warranted based on the
ve icular volume(see following analysis).
T e I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F
fo existing conditions and year 2007,with and without project traffic. The intersection operations can be
m tigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane (mitigates to LOS
C with 20 seconds of delay per vehicle with project traffic). Another solution is to signalize the
in ersection, which requires no channelization improvements (mitigates to LOS A with eight seconds
d ay per vehicle with project traffic). The intersection met volume criteria for Signal Warrants #2 and
# °
e development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of __
$ 5 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system impacts of new trips
fr m the development that are distributed throughout the general circulation system.
3.5.3.2 Signal Warrant Analysis
S. nal warrant analyses were conducted for the northbound and southbound I-405 ramps at Lake
ashington Boulevard-NE 44th Street under horizon-year 2007 conditions per Section 4C of the Manual
o Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD). The descriptions below summarize the criteria outlined in
- MUTCD for the intersection signal warrant analysis.
•
arrant#1:8-Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A:Minimum Vehicular Volume
This warrant applies to conditions where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for
consideration of signal installation. The warrant is conditioned on a traffic volume threshold for the
minor and major approaches for each of any 8 hours of an average day.
Condition B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic ,
This warrant applies to conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on
a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street.
The warrant is conditioned on a traffic volume threshold for the minor and major approaches for each
lof any 8 hours of an average day.
Combination:80 percent of Conditions A and B
This warrant applies to conditions where both Conditions A and B volume thresholds are met by 80
,percent.
arrant#2:4-Hour Vehicular Volume
This warrant applies to conditions where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to
consider installing a traffic control signal. The warrant is satisfied when the traffic volumes exceed the
plotted curve on Figure 4C-1 from the MUTCD for 4 hours.
Warrant#3:Peak Hour
This warrant applies to conditions where for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street
suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This signal warrant shall be applied
only in unusual cases but is not limited to office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial
complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over
I ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-84 September 2003
a short time. This warrant is conditioned on delay experienced on a minor approach and traffic volumes
r,.
experienced on minor approach and total entering intersection.
I-405 Northbound Ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street Intersection
The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard) NE 44th Street intersection is currently two-
' way stop controlled with at least two-lane approaches along NE 44th Street and single lane approaches
along the I-405 ramps and Lake Washington Boulevard.
Based on the traffic volume forecasts with the proposed development traffic, results of the signal warrant
analysis indicate that the minimum vehicular volume criteria for Warrant#1 (Condition A, Condition B,
and Combination) were not fully met. The volume criteria are met for Warrant #2 and Warrant #3.
Volume criteria for Warrant#1 (Condition B and Combination) are not satisfied for any hour during the
day. The volume criteria for Warrant #1 (Condition A) are met for only 2 hours of the 8-hour
requirement during the day. The hourly traffic volumes for the minor leg approaches meet the MUTCD
criteria for at least 8 hours of a day; however, the major leg approaches reflect only up to 65 percent of
the volume criteria for Condition A and 43 percent for Condition B during the eighth highest hour.
Cumulative impacts of future developments requiring signalization of the intersection based on Warrant
#1 include the generation of an additional 380 vph on NE 44th Street(east and west of the intersection).
The minimum vehicle volume criteria for Warrant #2 (4-Hour Vehicular Volume) are met for the
minimum 4-hours of the day. Additionally, the minimum vehicle volume and delay criteria for Warrant
#3 (Peak Hour)are met for 2 hours during the day(criteria requires to meet one hour of the day).
The signal warrant analysis was completed for the year 2007 without project traffic. The results indicate
Warrants#1,#2, and#3 were not met for the full criteria. Warrant#2 vehicular criteria was met for three
of the required four hours and Warrant#3 criteria was marginally not met.
I-405 Southbound Ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)Intersection
The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street (Lake Washington Boulevard) intersection is currently two-
way stop controlled with(effectively for analysis purposes) single-lane approaches along NE 44th Street-
Lake Washington Boulevard and the I-405 ramps. Under guidelines describe in the MUTCD, the
southbound right-turn volume was removed from the analysis because there is a designated right-turn lane
that operates efficiently at LOS B and with a delay of 23 seconds.
Based on the traffic volume forecasts with the proposed development traffic, the minimum vehicular
volume criteria for Warrant #1 (Condition A, Condition B, and Combination), Warrant #2 (4-Hour
Vehicular Volume), and Warrant #3 (Peak Hour) are not satisfied for any hour during the day. For
Warrant#1, the major leg approaches reflect up to 71 percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and
47 percent for Condition B during the eighth highest hour. The minor leg approaches reflect up to 71
percent of the volume criteria for Condition A and meets the criteria for Condition B during the eighth
highest hour. Cumulative impacts of future developments requiring signalization of the intersection
based on Warrant #1 include the generation of an additional 200 vph on NE 44th Street (Lake
Washington Boulevard)and 60 vph on the I-405 southbound off ramp.
The signal warrant analysis was completed for the year 2007 without project traffic, yielding similar
results(Warrants#1,#2, and#3 were not met).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
} Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-85 September 2003
3. .3.3 Channelization Warrant Analysis
C annelization warrants were conducted for the south site access/Lake Washington Boulevard -
in ersection under horizon-year 2007 conditions per WSDOT standards. The intersection channelization
is lanned for a northbound-shared through-left turn lane, southbound-shared through-right turn lane, and
ea tbound-shared left-right turn lane.
A channelization warrant analysis was conducted for the northbound left-turn movement site access per
th WSDOT design manual, Figure 910-9a(see attached). The northbound left-turn movement totals 15
ve ides during the PM peak hour. The location experiences a total peak hour volume (north and
so thbound approaches) of 540 vehicles. Northbound left-turn movement storage is not needed based on
c bnnelization warrant guidelines. Due to the low volume of traffic maneuvering the northbound left-
, additional background growth on Lake Washington Boulevard would likely not warrant a left-turn
1 e beyond the horizon year based on vehicular volume criteria alone.
additional check of site access channelization was conducted for the AM peak hour (where inbound
d outbound traffic patterns are reversed). The heavier traffic flow is outbound from the site; therefore,
a hannelization warrant analysis was conducted for the eastbound right-turn movement per the WSDOT
d sign manual, Figure 910-12 (see attached). The eastbound right-turn movement totals 12 vehicles
d ring the AM peak hour. A storage lane for the eastbound right-turn movement is not needed based on
channelization warrant guidelines.
I � I
C mulative impacts of developments accessing the south site access may include the need for turn lanes.
T e total volume of traffic needed to warrant the installation of a northbound left-turn lane (given no
c ange in background traffic) is 60 vph (an additional 45 vph). The total volume of traffic accessing the
e stbound approach needed to warrant the installation of an eastbound right-turn pocket is 250 vph(or 45
v h turning right),which is an additional 200 vph on the approach(or 30 to 35 vph turning right).
3 5.3.4 Mitigation for Site Access and Rail Impacts
I pacts of the proposed site access on safety, as well as other impacts, can include a range of potential
easures, including:
• Grade-separated rail crossings, if found to be practicable as directed by the legislative policy in
RCW 81.53.020. This option also could be implemented in the future when properties to the
north develop to mitigate cumulative impacts of development.
• Relocated grade level crossings to meet guidelines for level rail crossings and intersection
approach grades as indicated on Figure 3.5-8. This may place crossings closer together and
increase the potential for blockage of both by a stopped train. This could be mitigated by
connecting the existing access point at the north end of the Vulcan property with this site through
a continuous frontage roadway on the west side of the BNSF right-of way. That would provide a
separation between access points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with
consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points. --
• A variety of crossing controls for grade level crossings,ranging from:
> passive signing and stop bars,
> warning lights and bells,
➢ gated control of approaches, and
> quad-gate control of all vehicular and pedestrian approaches.
ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
craft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-86 September 2003
I i
l?
4.
,j �/( + I
A
A ,iI ` -/ �
- , �
1 , ,
F r 1T —11- 1E -1I— IF 7n -lr 71 -1 1 r 7. COR-2 ZONE
l / / s.....!_1J
_-...
imiL�JLILIL _ILJLJILJIL�Jf LJL/ $ // /
, OH
i- W��< 4:1 ®®�- I II II 1
r Tract"B" // f
-ract" Water L�fJ 4,,
PUBLIC LAND Open Quality ‘41‘...11ra / p
� , Space • •r'f f/
V°
1 — ' ilki)
CIS ,,.. A
LAKE g ��. -1 : . -- q7/ 4,4 �._,
H
WASHINGTON a�J , , • • '' r uH :'' iw ,�.,,,
afti , . , i, •-, /7 , i N
4; , , / ,
PUBLIC LAND / / / NNNN��! *I a` '`
r - a..iii" /, 4.71(.44* /
: / ''',.„, / /
LIMI o \,
7 AY CREEK _„,71/7 _ I
DELTA �`Q' ,; ' -_ FLOODPLAIN /�
i=- R Zoe ,a ..>'N 40TH ST• _.._----- 1
/ i
/ t'
i
L . t pz/ .
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-5-08
SCALE IN FEET 'At Figure 3.5-8
W Alternative Access
0 150 300I Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
• Impacts of increased safety hazards from nearby residents trespassing on the railroad right-of way
can be addressed by:
> Fencing railroad right-of-way, and
> Education programs.
Potential impacts of blockage of both access points to the site and resulting risks due to lack of
emergency vehicle access can be addressed effectively only by grade-separated crossings. This impact is
unlikely to occur with current local freight use of the rail line.
3.5.3.5 Mitigation of Non-Motorized Facility Impacts and Transit Impacts
Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities
and programs that might be implemented in coordination with a variety of parties. Measures include:
• Provision of pedestrian facilities within the site with a design that provides greater pedestrian
comfort through setback from the curb with an intervening planting strip, and/or provision of a
buffer between travel lanes. An on-street buffer might consist of curbside automobile parking or
a marked, dedicated bicycle lane.
• Provision of pedestrian connections to the properties to the north within the northwest portion of
the site to provide convenient access to anticipated future mixed-use development in the area and
avoiding the necessity for out-of-direction movement back to the east to access the site. This
pedestrian connection might be combined with a vehicular connection.
• Provision of public access to public lands along the shoreline and other shoreline public access
that connects to the general pedestrian circulation in the site and to Lake Washington Boulevard.
• Provision of off-street trails within open space along May Creek connecting to the site circulation
system at the northeast corner to provide continuity with the access roadway to the north and
connecting to shoreline public access.
• Provision of pedestrian and bicycle connections to Lake Washington Boulevard and a railroad
crossing providing pedestrian crossing control, such as gates.
• Pedestrian and bicycle improvements to Lake Washington Boulevard consisting of sidewalks, in
addition to bicycle lanes.
• Transit service impacts of the proposal can be mitigated by integrating additional service on the I-
405 corridor to local Park and Ride Lots with adequate capacity for local demand, or by
providing service on Lake Washington Boulevard with other transit enhancements.
All of these measures are likely to contribute to an environment in which choice of alternative modes of
transportation is supported by site design. The multiple issues faced in choosing something other than
single occupant vehicles for trips will also be supported by employer incentives and system
improvements, such as HOV lanes and expanded transit routes, as well as rideshare matching services,
that are included in a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program.
3.5.3.6 Mitigation of Cumulative Impacts
Mitigation of cumulative impacts of this proposal together with expected impacts of redevelopment of
other industrial sites in the vicinity can be mitigated by developing an overall mitigation program. The
mitigation program could ensure that intersections and other improvements are designed to accommodate
future channelization and signal improvements. The circulation system could include provision for a
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-88 September 2003
gr de separated crossing of the railroad and other elements such as a street serving all properties west of
th BNSF railroad served by a minimum number of railroad crossings. Such a circulation system could
include abandonment of Ripley Lane between the railroad and I-405 right-of-ways.
3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3. .1 Affected Environment
e purpose of this section is to identify potential and confirmed hazardous materials that may exist on or
ar and the Barbee Mill site, and assess the environmental impacts of the proposed project design. The
si a is known to contain contaminated soils and groundwater. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has
ben prepared for the site pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and approved by the
ashington Department of Ecology and the City of Renton. Scientific studies applicable to this site
(' eluding the Independent Remedial Action Plan) and available studies for adjacent sites were used as
th primary basis for the analysis.
I '
3 6.1.1 Regulations Governing Hazardous Materials
H zardous materials are regulated at the federal, state, and local level and are classified based on the laws
a d regulations that define their characteristics and use(i.e., hazardous or dangerous wastes, hazardous or
t is substances). Facilities or properties that store or manage hazardous materials or waste in significant
q antities, or have released hazardous materials or waste to the environment, are required to report these
aItivities to both the federal and state agencies that regulate them. In addition, several local agencies
p otect human health and the environment.
F deral
e Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers several programs under a variety of regulatory
a$thorizations, including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive
E vironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA), and the Toxic Substance Control
ct (TSCA). The EPA maintains databases that track sites with potential or confirmed releases to the
e.vironment. RCRA regulates hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that are in
a a tive operation. CERCLA provides a means of discovering and listing hazardous waste disposal sites on
t e National Priorities list, followed by EPA oversight or direct involvement of site cleanup. TSCA
✓ gulates toxic substances, which are a subset of hazardous substances. TSCA was adopted to require
e aluation of new chemical substances and existing chemicals (other than pesticides) put to new uses for
h alth and environmental effects. The EPA maintains files of hazardous waste management for facilities
b sed on notification requirements; defines the type of handling to be performed; and in the case of spills
o accidents, determines whether a release to the environment has occurred.
S ate
Ecology implements state programs that regulate hazardous materials and waste, in cooperation with the
c rresponding EPA programs and regulations; MTCA regulations (Chapter 173-340 WAC) and
1 angerous Waste regulations (Chapter 173-303 WAC) are the principal regulations in this regard.
:cology maintains records and lists of hazardous waste sites, spills,and enforcement actions.
ocal
e Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulates discharges to the air from hazardous materials and waste
sites. Public Health Seattle and King County enforce landfill and waste disposal site regulations. The
ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-89 September 2003
f—�
__ City of Renton municipal code includes regulations pertaining to hazardous and toxic materials,
underground storage tanks (USTs), and activities within wellhead protection areas around municipal
water supply wells.
3.6.1.2 Site Industrial History
1~
Shannon and Wilson (2001 c) completed a search for hazardous materials in the area of the Barbee Mill
site for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange DEIS. Historical and environmental records were reviewed,
which included aerial photographs, city directories, Sanborn maps, and a search of the EPA and Ecology
databases. Historical information was also obtained from Hart Crowser(2000).
_i
The Barbee Mill site (see Figure 3.6-1)was first used as an industrial site in the 1920s by the May Creek
Lumber Company and Railroad, which operated a dock and a railway in the southern portion of the site.
- In 1943, the current site was deeded to Barbee Marine Yards, which built and operated a shipyard to
construct barges, tugs, and other vessels during World War II. In 1945 the ownership of the Barbee
Marine Yard was transferred to Barbee Mill Company. Filling at the shoreline in the 1950s increased the
site area. In 1957, a fire almost completely destroyed the mill and most of the early records were lost.
The mill was rebuilt and operations continued. The area north of May Creek was paved in 1974,
f" including installation of a storm drainage system with three outfalls to Lake Washington. Mill operations
have since been reduced, and only limited cut-line activities are current ongoing.
The database information (Shannon and Wilson 2001c) indicates that the Barbee Mill is a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Information System Small Quantity Generator of hazardous waste, and that
the Barbee Mill site has been entered on Ecology's Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites list due
to confirmed or suspected releases of contamination to the environment.
3.6.1.3 Locations of Hazardous Materials and Related Features
Buildings
The sawmill (A), planer (B) and press/old dry kiln (C) buildings were used as fungicide spray areas
during mill operation (see Figure 3.6-2). An electrical transformer "corral" was located adjacent to the
sawmill. The transformers were replaced in the 1960s without (polychlorinated biphenyl) PCB testing.
There are some small transformers in the sawmill and the planer building that have been checked and
confirmed as PCB-free. Activities in both of the buildings required the use of hydraulic oil grease, oil,
I I and welding supplies. The original boiler for the old kiln is still in operation, and is suspected of having
an asbestos wrap. It is a dual-fuel boiler able to use oil and natural gas.
The shop(D)was used for miscellaneous activities for mill operation and maintenance. The parts wash is
currently water-based and serviced by Safety-Kleen; however, limited amounts of non-chlorinated
solvents were used in the past. The dry kiln (F)building, completed in 1973, is used for lumber storage
and temporary storage for small quantities of waste oil and antifreeze. The area between the shop and the
dry kiln is used for steam cleaning mill equipment. One of the oil/water separators is located in that area.
The stacker(G)operates by means of a hydraulic system and electric motor,and required oil and grease.
A bermed area waste material storage area is located adjacent to the Boise Building (H). Latex paint,
hydraulic oil, saw oil, motor oil, StaBrite P, antifreeze, used oil, grease, and lubricants were used in this
area. The black building (I)has a concrete floor and is used for equipment storage,which includes wire,
motors,metal,paper wrap,and latex paint. The warehouses(J and K)are used for lumber storage.
)
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-90 September 2003
i
/ " 4: ..,
f//i
•
_ • f '`1 J.H. BAXTER /: .
ff / •'>'•. /� 1 (NORTH) ,.f•.
•
11 /
y \\ TER
,:if
, �'
f
.r ;
''' OUENOALL r /�,'� ,
\\\\ (1 TERMINALS `'
\ 1 t, /''' •
- t-f (-\r j fj:t\\'Ce r,:‘, • ' 7 /I/I.^'' ',I..I
;�
_ ; X /'� \
i--.—__
. ,r=ram. ^; (ri I 11LLIE l• _ 1-1
1 4. •r i// /7 .MVUELit T _I L. /"ate---fir- ;;f .�...//�U i '� iil.
o/ek s '. .),',4.1 ''''i ;
,I I
t '`� jll/fsy, i
r'--s it k
,,,4„..„, 1 .y0- , ! ,
i; • , ,
l%
i______._____,___ "— :j=L....
I, .
t_ 0 100 200 400
1 1
SCALE IN FEET
s
Source:Base Map from ThermoRetec,file 24385383
Parametrix Barbee Mill EIS 554-1779-017/01(10)6/03(K)
---- Estimated extent of arsenic impacts to ground water(Hart Crowser 2000) Figure 3.6-1
Site Map with
•- - - - Estimated extent of arsenic and zinc impacts to soil(Hart Crowser 2000)
r- , Adjacent Properties
)j
f' r,. , ..,,,,...'"� /„fr ' i j
�. H_ t ' .1
J
OHW-I -____-- _ f
/ i
..) 1 7 / '// /
1 q Al- i I 4:14
/ 4/
1 \ r- z ,Q,/ ///
.,,, ..., \A
,e,„,. ./ ''/ I //
(al- -\ ‘\\, F-11 / ' : 7 // / //
N>
i , ///// I/ 7 / /,...... /*/. / ' / i
lJ
) / - ----5?„-::::;„!„..-..--,7 / // -4 ''
//I „,<(.------- "7 0 ii"iii /4.4
.rz,-, ✓ yd
/ , ' 1-' //e
LAKE i 1 /
S 1: ," N I ` ' /f�?
WASHINGTON -✓ 1 , e T ;a q i 7 , y
�` Aylli li
\II,11,, •,, /
›. /44//f t
7/i
ii J J f
: 1 - /mi l 4.://,-
/,, ' /////,4,717 • ifr i / ''s ''‘'' '‘),
/// .._,1 \\ ' 1 '. 7/'..• ,/,41,"1 .7,;:::: .....:Iii / /
' 1 7 ( '''''',.„,,,,/
. ,,,--- _____,-..--_,,r.---„,-5---_,-si •, • .' \ s i \ / /
*# 4.*:\ ---, ----„, /
MAY CREEK ~`'
DELTA i,\ 1 . ` <
7 - - - _ f
—
N 40TH ST
L__ ff .
, 4.
Parametrix DATE: 07/25/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3
SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.6-2
I W Building Locations
o goo zoo Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
For a brief period in the late 1940s, the mill used a new experimental arsenic-based compound to treat
pilings in the northeast portion of the facility (see Figure 3.6-2). The mill owns a patent on an
experimental water-soluble compound that contains arsenic trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron
sulfate. Permatox 100 was used for sap stain control until 1978; it contains pentachlorophenol (PCP).
The copper based PQ8 was used for sap stain control until 1988. Since then, StaBrite P has been used for
that purpose. There were three areas on site assigned for spraying.
Underground Storage Tanks
Between December 1989 and February 1990, five USTs were removed from the site. The tanks ranged in
size from 200 to 8,000 gallons and contained diesel, gasoline, fuel oil, and heating oil. Most of the site
vehicles were converted to compressed natural gas after the tank removals. One 2000-gallon above-
ground storage tank containing diesel remains on the site.
Stormwater Outfalls
The stormwater sewer system serves the portion of the site north of May Creek with three outfalls to Lake
Washington. Two oil/water are in line for Outfall 001, which services the central portion of the facility.
Outfall 002 drains the northwest portion of the facility. An additional oil/water separator is in line with
the sanitary sewer on the northeast side of the property.
3.6.1.4 Site Investigations and Discovery of Releases
Soil and groundwater contamination at the Barbee Mill site were first indicated by sampling results from
ThermoRetec (1996) and confirmed in by Hart Crowser (2000). Concentrations of arsenic, zinc, and
petroleum hydrocarbons in excess of cleanup levels were documented in soil and groundwater.
ThermoRetec (1997) collected composite sediment samples from catch basins of the stormwater system
and analyzed these samples for metals, chlorophenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total
organic carbon, and PCBs. Carcinogenic PAHs, PCPs, 2,3,4,5-tetrachlorpenol, and a variety of metals
were detected.
Impacts to Lake Washington sediments from wood waste and chemical use from the Barbee Mill
. operation were investigated by Anchor (2003). The Anchor work concluded that total organic carbon
(TOC) was the only parameter that exceeded Freshwater Sediment Quality Values, and that
concentrations of PAHs and other hazardous substances reported by ThermoRetec were well below
sediment screening levels.
3.6.1.5 Chemicals of Concern and Migration Pathways
( Soil
Soils beneath the Barbee Mill site consist of fill, alluvial, and lacustrine silts and sands, and peat, with
sawdust, wood, and fill. These units are underlain by glacial outwash sand and gravel (Hart Crowser
2000). The silt and peat layers are discontinuous and the sand layers become more gravelly in the middle
of the site.
Screening levels applied by Hart Crowser(2000)for soil were based on MTCA Method A and B cleanup
levels for soil, the default groundwater protection cleanup level, and the Puget Sound background
concentrations for metals in soil. The selected screening levels are not the lowest possible applicable
1 ,
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
? Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-93 September 2003
1
I
II
I
I,
1 le els for soils due to the elevated background concentrations of metals in the Puget Sound. The select
s eening levels were used in the 1999 site investigations with the concurrence of Ecology.
AI senic concentrations were detected in site soils at concentrations up to 830 mg/kg, compared to the soil
ci anup level of 20 mg/kg. Zinc contaminated the soil in the same area as the arsenic and in the
transformer area next to the sawmill, with soil concentrations up to 490 mg/kg (compared to the soil
1 ; cl anup level of 130 mg/kg). The approximate extent of these elevated concentrations of metals in soils _
is shown on Figure 3.6-1 and represents a pathway for migration of contaminants to groundwater.
C ncentrations of metals detected in groundwater at the Barbee Mill site are discussed in the following
s ction.
L w levels of chlorinated phenols were detected in the soils from a few borings in the spray areas, but no ---
d tections exceeded the cleanup levels. No PCBs or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected
i the sampled areas.
roundwater
1 Depth to groundwater at the Barbee Mill site is 4 to 5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater flow on
the site is to the west toward Lake Washington,with a northwest component in the northern portion of the
s'I e. Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, compared to
t e selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L. The groundwater plume extends west and
n rthwest of the source area, with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the adjacent Quendall
T rminals site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below the site cleanup levels. Low
1 els of hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of 1
c lorinated phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. Neither -
P Bs nor VOCs were detected in the areas sampled.
3 6.1.6 Cleanup Approach and Schedule
S i it and Groundwater
1
e remediation program proposed by Hart Crowser (2000) and approved by Ecology (2000) for the
:arbee Mill site is excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil, and pumping and treatment of
g oundwater. Site remediation will include:
• Removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards of soil contaminated with arsenic and zinc;
• Confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base;
j • Dewatering of the excavation area;
• Groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes including prefiltering, oxidation,
precipitation,and adsorption; ,
I' • Discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake Washington;
• Removal and disposal of contaminated soil at a licensed location; -:
• Demolition of building in area to be excavated, and rerouting utilities in the area; .
• Stockpiling soil for loading and stormwater management;
• Backfilling and compacting excavation with clean fill;and
• Implementing a groundwater monitoring program,and groundwater treatment,if indicated.
II
pity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-94 September 2003
1i ,
Sediments
A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington, adjacent to the Barbee Mill site,
was conducted under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program, with input from Ecology. Between 1999
and 2002, approximately 26,000 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris were dredged and stockpiled
on the site. Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total
exceeded the Method B carcinogenic PAH criterion; these sediments are currently being transferred to a
licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County, Washington. The remaining clean sediments stockpiled at the
site are awaiting on- or off-site beneficial reuse. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action
letter for the sediments from Ecology(2003).
3.6.1.7 Potential Impacts from Sites near Barbee Mill
Quendall Terminals
The Quendall Terminals property immediately north of the Barbee Mill (see Figure 3.6-1)was the site of
creosote manufacturing facility that refined coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917
and 1969 (Hart Crowser 1997). The activities at the site contaminated the soil and groundwater with
PAHs,benzene,toluene,xylenes, and other organic compounds. After the refining operations ceased, the
site was used as a storage area for bulk fuel and for log sorting operations. Other than wood waste debris,
investigations did not identify any contamination from subsequent site lease activities.
Detailed studies of the site history and operations have not identified any industrial activities south of the
former May Creek channel (Hart Crowser 1997; ThermoRetec 1996). These studies, in conjunction with
the hydrogeologic system and environmental media chemical sampling data, have lead investigators to
believe that the soil and groundwater contamination occurs from the area of the former creek channel to
the north. Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt,
and the deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high
lake levels has been conducted which shows a consistent east to west groundwater flow pattern beneath
the site in both groundwater zones(Hart Crowser 1997).
The contamination identified on site includes PAHs in the soil, dense non-aqueous phase liquids
(DNAPL), and benzene, naphthalene and benzo-a-pyrene in groundwater (Hart Crowser 1997). Wood
waste is also identified as a contaminant in the offshore lakebed sediments. The area of contamination
has been mapped numerous times, the result of which is consistent with the area of historical site
operations and westward migration to Lake Washington(Exponent 1999) The recommended strategy for
remedation of the Quendall site involves removal of DNAPL affected soil near the shoreline and capping
of the balance of the site to control mobility of contaminants and prevent direct human contact. For
groundwater remediation two DNAPL collection trenches and biosparging are proposed.
As part of the Barbee Mill proposal, a roadway is proposed to connect to Ripley Lane through the
Quendall site. The alignment adjacent to the BNSF Railroad is contaminated at a lower level than the
westerly portion of the Quendall site. Concentrations of benzene, cPAHs, and PAHs have been detected
within the roadway alignment with higher concentrations to the north.
Documented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that flows are primarily east to
west. Contamination from the Quendall Terminals site is not likely to affect the Barbee Mill site.
Groundwater is not likely to flow from the westerly more contaminated portion of the Quendall site to the
location of the proposed roadway to the east.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-95 September 2003
II
J.IIH.Baxter Site
it T e J. H. Baxter(Vulcan) site is located adjacent to and north of the Quendall Terminals site (see Figure
3. -1). This site was a former wood treatment facility from the mid-1950s to the early 1980s (Shannon
Cd Wilson 2001c; ThermoRetec 2000a). The chemicals used on site included creosote and PCP;
c ntaminants are present in the soil, groundwater, and sediment. Dioxins, PAHs, and DNAPL are also
present on the site.
agreement between Baxter and Ecology divided the facility into two properties based on historical use
a 'd contamination. In the south property, contaminated sediment is in Baxter Cove, listed hazardous
w ste (K001) is in the lagoon, DNAPL is present in a former tank area that that will be removed
a cording to the ThermoRetec cleanup plan (2000b). The material will be properly disposed of and the
-as backfilled with clean material and stabilized. Capping the north property is the remedy designed to
p(otect human health and the environment from the low levels of PAHs and PCP in the soil.
D.cumented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that contamination from the J.
I;Baxter site would not affect the Barbee Mill site.
Pin Abode
potential site of contamination was identified at the Pan Abode site (Shannon and Wilson 2001c),
ich is located across Lake Washington Boulevard from the Barbee Mill site (see Figure 3.6-1). Two '
u derground fuel storage tanks were formerly located on the Pan Abode site. Soil and groundwater
s. piing conducted in 1996 indicated potential impacts to soil and groundwater from the former tanks,
h storic use of wood preservatives, and metal slag in shallow fill. Additional investigations conducted in
1!97 concluded that chemicals detected in soil and groundwater did not exceed MTCA cleanup levels.
I I
ocumented site investigations and groundwater flow conditions indicate that contamination from the
P: Abode site would not affect the Barbee Mill site.
3 6.2 Impacts
3'6.2.1 Construction Impacts
se of heavy equipment would create disturbed soil, stockpiled soil, and bermed areas. Dust, erosion,
a d sedimentation are impacts during construction activities that may pose a risk to workers, public
h-alth,and the environment if contaminated soils are encountered.
6.2.2 Project Impacts
he remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the Barbee Mill site to levels suitable for
ture residential use. Removal of the contaminated soil (per the Ecology-approved cleanup plan) is the
f.stest and most effective way to reduce the long-term risk from on-site contamination. Residual risk to
ture residents from on-site soils that would remain at the site is minimal because concentrations of
detected compounds in these soils not proposed to be removed are below action levels. The action levels -
are established based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment.
In addition, contaminated groundwater would be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional
removal and treatment if follow-up monitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels.
The shallow groundwater system at the site would not be used for water supply.
ti
! I
ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-96 September 2003
Construction of the roadway across a portion of the Quendall Terminals site to the north is not likely to
affect contaminant levels or mobility on the balance of that site. It is likely that remediation of
contaminants within the proposed roadway, if required, could proceed independently of remediation of
the balance of the Quendall site.
Industrial use of the site would not alter impacts.
3.6.3 Mitigation
Construction bid specifications for future infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for
encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous materials
contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health safety
precautions, protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with hazardous
material,and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be required as
part of title report to place limits on property transfer,as well as conditions that will allow intrusive work.
The level of contamination encountered within the roadway across the Quendall site could be addressed
by a variety of remediation strategies ranging from removal and disposal, to stabilization in order to
reduce mobility,to isolation from direct human contact. The proposed remediation for this portion of the
Quendall site is capping of the soil (Exponent 1999) Construction of the roadway would provide an
impervious surface that would provide a barrier to human contact with contaminated soil and reduce
infiltration and leaching of residual contaminants from the unsaturated zone into the groundwater. The
City of Renton, may require additional investigation to characterize contaminants within the proposed
right-of-way in more detail and may require preparation of a remediation program to be implemented
prior to roadway construction and dedication. Additional information will be useful in determining a
cleanup strategy that meets the City's objectives for dedicated right-of-way as well as meeting the
requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act.
Any remedial action implemented for the project, including the roadway to the north, must comply with
the following requirements:
• Protect human health and the environment;
• Comply with clean up standards WAC 173-340-700;
• Comply with applicable state and federal laws WAC 173-340-710;
• Provide for compliance monitoring WAC 173-340-410;
• Use a permanent solution to maximize extent practicable, and provide reasonable restoration time
WAC 173-340-360;and
• Consider public concerns WAC 173-340-600.
= 3.7 AESTHETICS
This section describes the character of the existing landscape, the visual impacts of the alternatives, and
the extent to which viewer groups in the study area would perceive the impacts. Photo-simulations are
provided for representative views.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-97 September 2003
3. .1 Affected Environment
3.7.1.1 Methodology, Aesthetics, and Visual Quality
e assessment of visual quality addresses both the character of the visual experience and the impact
u on the viewer. For the purposes of this analysis,visual quality and aesthetics are analogous terms. The
as essment of visual quality is subjective, from the perspective that the human subject perceiving the
visual environment applies personal and cultural frames of reference to discern and evaluate visual
in ormation. There is, however, broad-based agreement in federal, state, and local laws and regulations,
a well as supporting research that establishes general public consensus of what constitutes a desirable
visual environment. This broad-based agreement is the foundation of the process and defmitions put forth
in' the Federal Highway Administration's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects Manual
( A Manual;FHWA-HI-88-054).
V sual character refers to identifiable visual information in a selected view. The existing visual or
a:sthetic environment is described using objective descriptors of attributes (such as form, line, color, and
to re) and specific environmental features. Relationships between elements of the visual environment --'
- described in terms of dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity. Dominance refers to the position of
. individual element, or its extent or contrast among all the other elements of a view. Scale refers to
a.'parent size relationships between an element and the other components of its surroundings. Diversity is
a function of the number, variety, and intermixing of elements in a view. Continuity refers to the
intenance of visual relationships between connected or related landscape features. The integration of
se elements into a complex characterization allows a more complete description of the character of a
v'eIw as a whole.
'sual quality is the assessment of the value of the visual experience of a selected view. This analysis
u 'es FHWA's definition of three descriptors: vividness, intactness, and unity. Vividness describes the
emorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns.
I tactness describes the integrity of natural and human-built visual patterns and the extent to which the
1 dscape is free from encroaching elements or eyesores. Unity describes,the compositional harmony of
t e landscape considered as a framed view, much as one would evaluate a painting or photograph. This
d es not imply that all elements are the same, but that they are arranged in a way that is pleasing or (
i teresting.
fewer response is analyzed in terms of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. These two elements
fork together. Viewer exposure refers to the physical location of viewer, the number of people exposed
t j a view, and the duration of their view. Viewer sensitivity refers to the degree to which a viewer
p rceives elements of the environment and the extent to which those elements are important to the viewer.
iewer sensitivity is affected by the activities in which a viewer is engaged; the visual context; and the
✓ lues, expectations, and interests of the person involved in the activity. Sensitive viewers are generally
✓ sidents of the area and are engaged in elective activities, such as recreation. Moderately sensitive
v ewers are people engaged in other elective activities such as shopping, patronizing a restaurant, or
a ending a cultural or sporting event. Travelers and workers tend to be the least sensitive group because
o the demands of driving and the short time in which they are exposed to visual elements.
3 7.1.2 Methodology, Assessment Procedure
e Barbee Mill site and its environs were visited in order to assess the visual character and quality of ! ?
ill site and to determine viewer groups and viewer sensitivity. The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan
as reviewed for open space, pedestrian/bicycle routes, and recreation plans and policies. The site is
.0,of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 -
I aft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-98 September 2003
_
zoned for use as an office and residential center due to its location at Renton's northern city limit and at a
major exit/entrance ramp from I-405.
Graphical simulations for key views were created to illustrate the probable visual impacts of the proposed
alternatives. Key views were selected to represent a range of views from locations where significant
-- numbers of viewers are present,where representative features of the existing structure and alternatives are
present in important views, and where the visual quality of the views is high. The view selection process
included field reconnaissance to locate significant visual features and landmarks and to assess the
intrinsic qualities of the landscape. The final viewpoints were developed,reviewed, and approved by city
staff before preparation of visual simulations. Viewpoint locations are indicated on Figure 3.7-1.
Photographs for the simulations were taken at a lens focal length (35 mm)that approximates the normal
static field of view of humans at the scale of a standard sheet size at normal reading distance. This does
not reproduce the entire field of view perceived by a human observer, but it does provide an accurate
representation of the scale of a structure in relation to other objects seen from the viewpoint. The
simulations are discussed in Section 3.7.2,Impacts.
Building heights were determined by whether a building is within or outside the line of jurisdiction of the
state Shoreline Management Act. The applicant has proposed maximum height of 50 feet within the area
of shoreline jurisdiction and 75 feet outside of the shoreline area. The area of Shoreline jurisdiction is
shown in Figure 3.7-2. Maximum building height under zoning regulations is up to 125 feet in the COR-
2 district. A 75-foot height was specified by the applicant at as a reasonable maximum for the duplex and
town home residential proposal. For these types of structure, the 50 and 75 foot heights are
conservatively high since it is unlikely that such building types would reach five to seven stories.
3.7.1.3 Existing Conditions
The Barbee Mill property is situated on the southern third of the May Creek delta on the southeastern
shore of Lake Washington. This shoreline had been periodically inundated and subjected to flooding
before the Hiram Chittenden Locks opened in 1916, creating a generally flat shoreline terrain. The
natural shoreline has been replaced by a manmade shoreline created with bulkheads and fill materials for
the length of the property that contains the working buildings. East of present-day May Creek, the
landform steps up to a gently rolling terrace, then rises to become low, rolling hills. Lake Washington
Boulevard and I-405 generally follow the terrace and visually and physically separate the shoreline area
from the residential neighborhoods on the surrounding hillsides. Views of Lake Washington from the
wooded hillsides to the east of May Creek are valued(Renton 2000).
Viewer exposure east of the site is moderately low due to the limited number of viewers, tree screening,
and the distance from sensitive viewers. Residents east and northeast of Lake Washington Boulevard and
I-405 are sensitive viewers; motorists and cyclists on these routes are less sensitive. Viewer exposure
from Mercer Island and Lake Washington is high due to the popularity of boating and the density of
homes on the east side of Mercer Island. These groups are sensitive viewers and have a clear view of the
mill site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-99 September 2003
1
I_�
•
.O e � , i
VULCAN .♦♦ tlr
SITE �.�s�
' SE 76TH ST
•
•
�* i
•
0s QUENDALL
y • ' TERMINALS
yJ 44T
/4 0 fr/f
•
PROJECT F
SITE •
w
, ,
., ,
, .,
. .
. , ,,y , ,
, ,
. ,. , d N OTH
5
t.•
., 'G•`L-
ST
N 36TH .• s
ill
'+
n w
•
w
(3x'''
a•
0
c MAY;T .
I LCREEK ' ,r.;.:,
PARK:°ems
•
. NE 27TH ST
0.
Gene Coulon' '
Memorial. y
Beach Park
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
W Figure 3.7.1
, Viewpoints
•
COR-2 ZONE
•,� � r—�. �_ —1 f—1 of
m ! STREET A — „
OHW-------__ "1 Lt-21 1: " 1 '\ '''/ " -- ,;. ...A-. ' . 7
ITract„B„ c�O -.. ...-
Water Quality Q G'� ' `' % kullir°'�', °'�PUBLIC LAND Tract n ,,cs� `,,. 1�_: - I Open ■ O � •� •� f f
Space • /� /
200'SHORELINE • ', t
a IL Vii �' //a
JURISDICTION ' _ • ,;\ t BUER Q
21=t_i
LAKE „,iO
a . . • 'k - oHW . 1— 1,,,,/ c, M.
3 Lam_ '' .- � � 1 4�' /
WASHINGTON - e . f gWOO Wili " • 1!. N // /
. 7/ ( *:,ii,‘ A , / li
F� i ,• ' E: 71 •' dim' 1 �°• ,� .a �A/ --.-.` _..•-•--._._._..__
ii
/ _� 0 * '. 200'SHORELINE
4 �\ "., " 4`` • e / , t�tt JURISDICTION
PUBLIC LAND ,j c-- �,i , / • ,.
•. m ����t i ' .�� � �u.osaeo l
MAY CREEK F S
DELTA \ . ...., fir. le
411 !
> -,
--�R_a_zDNE___.........y.—...s� y. r ,�,s N 40TH ST
l
/
Parametrix DATE: 06/24/03 FILE: K1 77901 7P01 T1 4F-3-7-02
Figure 3.7-2
SCALE IN FEET 200-foot Shoreline Management
Act Jurisdiction
0 100W 2 0 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
The site is presently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to
the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the mill site are small-scale,
single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the shoreline to
the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with very large structures. The texture
of the mill and the north end of the delta is coarse,with large building footprints and a great deal of open
area. The texture of the surroundings is medium-fine due to the small footprint of the homes and lots.
Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and
slope steeply toward,Lake Washington, creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines. The
area is moderately to heavily wooded, a feature that establishes visual continuity along the hillsides and
lake. Utilities are above-ground in the neighborhoods and along Lake Washington Boulevard. There are
no parks near the project site,but an existing bicycle trail follows Lake Washington Boulevard.
The visual character of the site is industrial with highly diverse structure types and colors. Most of the
mill's buildings are low, boxy, metal warehouses, painted white or aqua. They range in size from small
sheds to very large open-bay storage or production buildings. The old mill warehouse is the only wood
structure remaining from the original sawmill. The 1960s warehouses and shops on the north part of the
site are arranged on a grid, while the new kiln, shipping shed, and a small storage shed are aligned with
the railroad tracks. There are large open areas paved with asphalt between the buildings. The Barbee
Mill water tower (108 feet) and the sawdust collection tower (approximately 60 feet) dominate most
views. The south end of the property is grassy and open with only two structures: the 1960s office
building near the entrance drive and the boathouse at the mouth of May Creek. Trees and shrubs have
been planted along the new May Creek channel. On the waterfront, a wharfing pier extends into Lake
Washington from just north of the sawmill building, and remnants of an older pier are immediately to the
south.
From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to
screening from tall trees. The mill site is visible through gaps in trees, but it generally is not dominant.
The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and is highly
intact because there are no incompatible visual intrusions. Compositional harmony, or unity,varies from
viewpoint to viewpoint, but is generally moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the
lake have moderately low unity and intactness because the large scale, bright color, and uniformity of the
industrial structures on the May Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the
shoreline and surrounding hillsides. The industrial operations on the May Creek delta (including Port
Quendall) dominate the shoreline and disrupt the continuity, and hence the intactness, of the wooded
hillsides.
3.7.2 Impacts
Both developments proposed will affect the visual environment by removing all existing structures and
adding new ones. The visibility of the new development will be determined primarily by the size and
height of the buildings, but color and materials could temper visual impacts as well. Five visual
simulations were prepared (Table 3.7-1) to illustrate the visual impacts of the alternative from key
locations. Depictions of the gross bulk of structures were based on height, building coverage, setbacks
required by city of Renton zoning standards, and specific commitments to height and bulk contained in
the preliminary plat application.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-102 September 2003
II
Ij ,
1
-i
Table 3.7-1. Visual Simulations
V:ew Location Direction j
1 Lake Washington Boulevard,just south of Ripley Street SW 1
2 Lake Washington at 40th Street NW
3 Lake Washington Boulevard at 38th Street,looking northward N 1
4 Lake Washington Boulevard at 32nd Street N '
5 Park Avenue at 40th Street NW
6 Lake Washington near Clark Beach Park on Mercer Island NE
1
T,e following sections discuss the potential visual impacts on the site and possible mitigation measures.
II
I P oposed Subdivision and Residential Development
I 1
e proposed residential development would remove all existing buildings and structures and would
c nstruct duplexes and town homes of four to six attached units. The vertical scale of the proposed
d velopment is about double the height of the majority of existing mill buildings with townhouses up to
7 feet (seven stories) tall outside the 200-foot shoreline boundary and up to 50 feet tall inside the
b undary. Footprints of the proposed townhouses are about 70 feet by 70 feet, or half the size of the
w ehouses. Building density would be much higher than now exists, with only 10 feet between
b ildings and 15 to 35-foot setbacks between street edge and building front. Open space would be
r ained in the form of water quality and stormwater control ponds and approximately 520 linear feet of
p 'blic land on the shoreline. May Creek would be preserved and planted with native and ornamental
tr es and shrubs. A new road would be constructed from the north end of the property to a connection on -
R pley Lane,just north of Lake Washington Boulevard.
F gures 3.7-3 (existing conditions) and 3.7-4 (proposal), illustrate the change as seen by motorists and
c clists on Lake Washington Boulevard near Ripley Lane. The low profile, high diversity, and overall
o o enness of the existing mill site would be replaced by tall, uniform, closely spaced townhouses. The
v sual impact would be moderately high because the height and continuous massing of the new
townhouses would dominate the street and block existing views of the vegetated skyline of Mercer Island
. d glimpses of Lake Washington. The visual character would change significantly since industrial metal
b ildings in the middle ground would be replaced with residential housing in the foreground and
1. dscaping. Visual quality would depend on the site and architectural design, but could be moderate if
1. dscape and architectural designs create a development that has internal unity and coherence. I i
lividness for both existing and proposed views is low because there are no striking or memorable
1
f-atures.
1 F'gures 3.7-5 and 3.7-6 are from a viewpoint near 40th Street and illustrate the impact as seen from the
n'ighborhood due east of the mill. Visual impacts would be similar to those described for views 1 and 2.
F om Lake Washington Boulevard,the distant view of Mercer Island's crest would be lost. Farther up the
i I
1 hi 11 the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings and portions of the existing
v ew of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be retained. This simulation
d.es not show the gateway to the development or landscaping along the roadway, both of which would 1
1 likely be positive contributions to the overall appearance of the site. As with view 1,visual quality could i _
improve if the development achieves unity and intactness through design of buildings and landscaping.
The presence of access roads and buildings immediately adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way and the
limited building setbacks provide few opportunities for softening through screening by trees.
i I
it
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-103 September 2003 1
II , _I
1i i
R!P
,
14—
.tz " aFT w wig'
,,a-
r`,, z• ,' -J. 4 i
t
< _ N°' .s a i'."'"' Si,•
r} ...IAA t. . *'a• te `SY,.+
try.
•
,... # '.li fit. s,:• s
yi u A r
btii x. , 'x+• '+-.i kN ",'S, • ,y<�.w ti
4 ' . ''Ap Y' • .l 4 id' ` . w v
u i�yM_� 4 f' t 4w
•
mill <y, .4 . rwr ' sly �,' . , .ir•. `�s � Pei °
,,i.,, 7" ", ..•. .., ems: a �M
9
�, '�'<l",s.•`, �, yi ..;. �. 'sway .., ..'� �' .
•>"v�s . «�'S�'.a :act-.h = .�
h
/ .G 0, ' r. :*.{ rA 5 '“,; "". ' '§, .� 's b .,,, may.. �E,�^" y `1F9,, 40, ...y `
ar r s ,wr^� • .
E+v tell'- 3. ^ } v.^ f' )�';r t�',' ;'w '>irn 'g . C�^ z .. ...
-,:t.i';': ,•
y :'' .s,T,1...y °A' r'0, ,A r F A. a '.t y F l =v »,. die a �'. Y r' y
•
•
A.
::ik,,,,,,,...ti ,
-.- ,a 4.• r1 �,,,meyy `d"" "f ..r• F'• '�r �. u'� ,M ', '�' xYsr
r ' ,s,'� 4 • Y ' x s ' M. �. [„ t x-s f ! t "` rY 3"`rF '3, .
k �';'.�. .:.,r.rrw� .. �.:.. t"` 7- ;=`- a r;"�' .:� � �-° - , ...x .. �.,;� �,.K.yyYY ,r*..
rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3.7-3
View 1—Existing Conditions as
seen from Ripley Lane
C 0
0 _
E J
O d
N p.
wa itt r1 �� Nam' ii• •' M L 'S,
S 'sp x ` �Ky'i>.r��q�c �yz s,,`�gc,>• Z f� c t '7 r �' �'
r.
";*'sip a fi ,. , 4 i a,4` `;"" } } .", "• �`a ' ^ .; 0
a �'• .. '-*'i'I Fa3 • ...-i W fi ,,4' 4 si V ��i"' -.� #`
'r. t , , x k �r.P, �y .-�.# did,
T .;0 1 y F 1, ��°J�. ij il. '. i
^c • y,,kj, 5.. )�`°C }`r' L • ' d"i '`. J''`•� 4 y'�.' '� 'R+ J-
rA•
;�'.•. •a ,. 'r• , ," a+"4..-1-^ t 'RN�.13'k t,ie'as."' .?�_lR f li+•° +aes°
:,, '+.* ti°,erg rr 'S, ,t •'.%4�' - x^,.` :',,,,.,' t > 'r.s 'e. a''
—„,li.,:,,,s„pl47,..'";,, e'L‘
x 4 t 6• �#a.' ,':M" z.��';"wa .<•;.rs `,i g"f\. te'_'
•
4 s 3 3 �ft f sa •• '` •.
,
' '-, :':-' " '':::::,. '1.:','..',,,,\ ',. '2\; i ? ' ,-'.- '`\:',,-.,1`;,,,'—'7,-*-0.'1., t iti7!:'''''.';''.':..s' `:• '''':' -',.;, .''''''' '''''''.4":,.':*;
r
q•+
. ., tea ,. y, ,�.. e '.' - �.
�1Y' � Y� �,''-'-,: ,•i.°..,:•_.�-,,s s`.,,may?$ +
. i ma w}`. rM „ ,, +'• ;> »" r a - ,,, ,i a,,'' '. • .< , - ' ', , •'‘ "-•:-.''',:,• '''' '.':',_'';', . ',..''_;.0,4 .1' :•''z'.:r...\ •--y—-..,--.-,A-,:-- ,,.;x4:-,---,--2,1',—, .
•
"" ..—..,.__-......M._-..., .,F.,.°-...._.�....._... ....5 vYL-' t e ,'"�1 Z.
T
U
.
4..
4.I .
•
�. r, .. a+ ., ,;• � �f.,,.IW�' '��`.. • '. �v..a "K % w,; Gib xs �,�:, a.,c ,r - -- __- _— _ ___�
sF =Y�S ty ra� N�u ? ;� . . -`3 :�$10��F,',sE 'aa t^
M .: �� 's r ,.x ;� c.. .m s � � .sy :�s,�%.r ,,��," ,, i .�`✓f�'� `M' 3 3
.
J ;:fin k r i. �: •e a ',,c. a r*:a p , 1 ' ':
.,rlie
,. z.7 K ,'w Z �'`G,.� fig , ;A: �. 1 r 3°: e"d . d.
y,.., cr .ate.'. • k �.n^.os da..
•
0
' 1 ,;< t: � /u, Sii
1 L �X°• s"?:. .a'r .�' • ,�} ;'. "tip �' - z �+. �`x
. h;'�> ."{5,` r� < .* �`s`'s £' '1'y 4.,i. 2,'^.-. :3' .� tea. t„ a pia'.•'''. .N`, .
"{ 3''.l •� e $ e1F.< F . f fi ,y d '1 '' 4 ^, ^y'n ;:::,-.,.� �<'v=`,.i.i.'' '� �§ 'q.` ;,'.'>a -. '..v
5..E• :,s�„s. w���'Es k"' +, r� �\:3 � .. � � ,�y04r °".'��' �;�: �, 4.h,� ,a: '� :�, �� ,. W,
,..••
•
.. t > 4, ,,,.`,:i... ' ' • ,'. •.��''. '"r-;°�, s:t. . . ue•;` 'rcx'
•
r r;
' * fie.,� - ,�"-,.,.,,,...,.... �` ;r a. .:r•'z . .. -
4+
t, r.r x�. , .°. ,.x{' n'a 3p3 gF s " v {'; ley. y'rN ° q^ s
� •,+' ...> ,:,.rr=
lit
..►�..M �is -.,��,� ���asaz � �r ✓�� �'� �,rl� ]
K <' �!^ A
yxy s�' ,.:' ,�
'f>'. t
a d•'z� r a 4 arm .„„6 "° f
•
rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3.7-5
D -- View 2—Existing Conditions as
- - seen from near 40th Street
•
1 I
. a)
O
L
4.0 CO
t 3� • a y . l
tx;
241.
II
AWvi ' `.* ':: s • ?>y€ .. . qt r A j ' t 3• y yY '° `3>'+d 'aPay z`' _ + t , 1 x .S r •Y. fr '•#:1 S ..sz ;. r y . Ev; ' ✓ 7 � k,'" •i A s , 4, � . t , a3 i isi" O La S �� � s "r r,.>J 3 1 At .,'a } Y >ttM :i $ = . ,, , ;,„b j ° 5 �, . : ,ia ., ' ,:,,, ,,a ,�'p .; •°°€ sc{, r i a t
•... g' ° jt . jr x h 'AW 3�. YY.,4'1 i `�N,• ki ie o
S .k': «°, • ,x F ,0 ',, y '0 9Q1, jet- s{.- Y k
". =W j✓� ">., 9 °r5�`r"" ;j';,v. �'" �t ; �`£#'s i't3'S�*"xs CO V/
?'" lj f cN * ► are a . _
—- ' � k<_� as t� �k � , sv xa sr , ' . :.lZ' s, � V. � W
:;.:',.:-‘.:.:,1:,:,-, . ‘.....' - ..e••'-'....,',;,. -:-- -;;.-•-•«444=;4.: (*'-=''''' .',,=''...,*'; 04:•• 4..:‘ ,..;°.W? ''''''',4"":•$4 'N'44=7*= '•=, '** 4 4,•1;i:, tel
e • . ' a'« 't ' VY ' €a to ., d
'd PPP v �.Y;�:.�,Via, ` C
r{_ F fir' :..,A.S .s :<a '. , :".•yy
•
' i;' •Pis-A�:' ,Y
e S�J e = ' ,, affi 1 a,8 <' C 4 �,
yIR;Y;: ta.�a' ,,�, C�, o,ete ,��,EM g q; :T .- �� e'" Y p
p`£+�.o, :." ®.,,e 7�i'°> tc,.��a�' xM'.,` a�' -" ."�, 4i• 3 fq; .R'n ° C&,
,,.;; '> e '+ .fir 4'T a> "i' o
•a t ,x' °•a, _ xrasX1€ '..s* a4.s . s r� " 4 s :y g o
""`, 1 J,".°",.^.,M `' _ am . ` r{ S t :§ ",, m
r ;rye ? r
•
•
f a �,,z - ; « as f *174. n,,,;,,;r.,-Pel. '.4...... . .•'..' f+.2.1',1, i• it•:',i, � tip.• r* o
f` w • ,jc' 9 t"', ,i ..+tsr :•r, .a •� F +r r� ��,y.. ,.-; t� m
t o .� ' .r�ks`":. 4 ' "C s*.41' 1”dF#t `x 4'- w4E4• 7 � � ,', Q
Z.
1 s ``.•, t �; t'' •' F i :r A', •: 1.A., Ga ter s
U
1 4
•
•
ar
II
I Fill ures 3.7-7 and 3.7-8 illustrate the potential impact as seen from the neighborhood near 38th Street
so th of the site. This view represents one of the intermittent scenic views of distant hillsides and Lake
ashington presently available from breaks in the tree screen. The visual impact would be moderately _
hi h because the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and
n rth Mercer Island. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington that
is visible. As with views 3 and 4,this illustrates a change in visual quality available to motorists on Lake
ashington that currently enjoy an almost continuous view of the Mercer Island skyline and intermittent
vi ws of Lake Washington. The scale of the proposed buildings become a foreground and middle ground
focus, as compared to the existing sawmill buildings that are lower in elevation and smaller in scale.
V sual quality is likely to be higher than indicated in the simulation because the corridor along May
C eek, which is between 20 and 25 feet wide can support screening and softening trees and other
1 dscaping.
F gures 3.7-9 and 3.7-10 illustrate the potential impact from neighborhoods near 32nd Street. The new
d velopment would have a low visual impact because the site is part of the distant view, and tall trees
o scure the eastern portion of the site. Both existing and proposed views retain the dominant features of
t e Mercer Island skyline and intermittent views of Lake Washington. Because of the small relative scale
, o ll the proposed development in the distance, the visual character would remain essentially the same.
dditional landscaping incorporated into the development isn't likely to change the visual impacts much
b cause of its overall minor role in the view.
F gures 3.7-11 and 3.7-12 illustrate the potential impact from the hillside neighborhood southeast of the
s' e, near the corner of 40th Street and Park Avenue. Visual impacts here would be low to moderate
d pending on the viewer's vantage point because Mercer Island skyline and distant views would not be ,-
o structed, but a portion of the lake and Mercer Island's shoreline would be. The change from an I
industrial operation to a residential development could be perceived as a positive change. The overall
b lk and scale of buildings is not as intrusive as for views from Lake Washington Boulevard,but is likely
1 . tI be perceived as a substantial change from existing conditions. The dominant element in the view will
I ,
r:main the Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington.
I , i j
e most significant visual impact would be from Mercer Island and Lake Washington (Figures 3.7-13
. d 3.7-14). This would be a moderately high impact because the bulk, height, and scale of the
(IL velopmentwould be greater than currently exists and would fill the entire site, although the existing
b ildings provide an almost continuous view from the distance. Construction of new buildings would not
I block views of the dominant element of the distant view, the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual '
i n terest of the lake would remain in the foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase
because of the common design theme of a residential community, as compared to the variety of the
e'isting industrial character. Indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land ,
between` the inner and outer harbor lines, could considerably soften the visual impact of the new
buildings. Docks, if provided for shoreline lots,would be a minor feature and not visible from a distance,
compared to the bulk of the buildings.
NThe view from within the development would likely be that of a dense urban setting. Building heights --
(50 to 75 feet) are greater than road widths (30 to 36 feet), creating a canyon-like effect. The 10-foot
seand limit
setback from the right-of-way and between buildings will add to the sense of enclosure views
rut of the complex. Views across Lake Washington can be had from the 24 shoreline lots and other
r sidents using the shoreline open space. Views of the May Creek corridor with an expanded buffer area ,
ill be provided from about 40 lots. About 48 lots will have front views onto streets, although 20 of I
I ,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
' Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-108 September 2003
- . '4,.'w•,:i•..•;:311W2 '
! -r!
; I
1 I ,
I ! ,
1
fa
I
vs
en
11
I I
C ID
0 0 ,
,
<
IP
11 11 ,
., . .,i,
13 Cn
C .:)
--,
0 •lia
• • ,
,,,,,,, ,,,,:;::::,,'• . . -,-.,-.,,,,,:-.''.,-.--:,•!,•r. ,,,,;',,,..,.;1,13,s,,,!4; tx) L
11
„- ...,,, .:„.„.... „., ••,,„;•.,. ',.:',:ist;k,.e..,..,, •r,•,,,..,,,,,,,,.' fr ,-::::';'''''' '''i;''"'''''''*,..... •i‘i'4w,,s;,,
'••••V3*441i,i'"*"' •-•.,',. : ;'''''':,'•''',:',:,'"aWr,ii<,,,q0 ii$4',,,"" ,• -...' S('''''"n: -:,'':' .-:-- io:,<•,..',1v:I. c co
1 I ... ,A,,,,,„,. c , ,,,, T., 1-,,,T, : ' ;'-:.,::' '''''',;!/'"::',4:,,,'i,i:t :'1„1:d.'"..,.. • ''',:i.4, .',,,tV,Q,f'-':,:kl!'?'..'W!'-•?' l't :"''''''';,:":lg..'• 4' 4''''',.,:'''''''t,4"':i tra
, I lr'4/0'''.'...i,i,',',...„A.s,.* . ",'''''.,":- ' t "%,..,"-' •"; ..- • -.' :;,,,•::"‘k ,-.- 's`.'i,,,2',,:;4-"i'U;"'-'••• '',,,i,t,:"24,it,*,",;.: , .'r•-itis,*1
/...
i I
'",1-",,,•:',':'`,": '2:,Z-..tti ‘5,:, :- ;-,:-,'.= . , ,,-:-.,:, :, .•-::'.'-, . .,.-.'keJ,,,,..',,t,'74,44.4', , :‘', .-H.N,- '.''d! '' i''‘',,i),,i"
is. X E
' )
1 . ,::0:.4,,,,y-t4,-,--1,----0:,.- .,,,,,, ..„•:- '-,. ,,,,..,„,„,,,,,,„,?-.., ,- °i.;..! , ,, ,..%7i.,1%..,,,.. ."C•',',....".A„:'''‘''- ...- '::-sSkr,i-,..'' ':'' 14',-,4-.4‘" , -;:s•...:A"?:: cij WI 0 _
1 :`"i'.'"4,)";•'"' ",'"--,', '"'*$!`,,,‘„,,„,„•,,-is,',-,;,'"•'!: t '"'""‘",":-..-;,,.":...i,"'to':',, ,s`•:.: "•::!:,"-:;-4•,,,,,..,•:1,,,„.;:,.7.11, taio,, 43f,k6,-''''•,o':,f.,.•,;',,,,...' ',"-„,,;1:, t'''''`..4,ic- ..
I u.
1,,w,7, -, , „ ==?,•.„- .• ': -« s—,•' -
j i: '4,"514*$4!•;ift•f*:; '•:, ST'':-• •.' :),..':„'''A 4,,,,-,V,;:!::02' , . '','••!Z,':•?-,00,i''''••`•7::!)i• ,‘,.,,,,,4,•,,,, .•;*,,,‘,•,-.4,-.,•„,. • ,,r..!,„,„ w cr) 4— ,- .
1 1 1'704 4:;4Li10%,:4;.'',';,:'',''''''' '''''''.',, '''-':;!" .[':j<te!';'C';''',2;•;:,,'''';<<L"',.,,, -i'4,4?i'i:.:ii. 'ii "th.:44,:—:%$44',,, ,,;.:,, ,•„i''',..1:7„4„ ,,,,.T.:.-1%,,,A'-'j Sm. ..,,,,
L ' ,,'it" ,,''„,!.‘,:n,:',:,,,'?',:0,;','e4,f,,, . '''''f'),,' .',3:;4*''''',?;tirli7117."" '.. sr:r•:,.3;74,P,Akt:',4:::‘ :,;:::-,..'e•'i''''ItV.': 1-.42:"?'''''' '''.'.„ ' ''.r,',' CD.2
•
'''''''44'.i'' ''''''<ii"A'',,',A:,‘S‘''':'''' ''''''',;-?:'''':ii".,,'''':7":::',:, Y,"";,';':: ::,:''..:4*;fi''''''-'''' ,., '4:q''''''''Si‘‘t' '''IYMJ: i'I''',',,i''''),"'?"7:,f,' „ ,"•";i<, .'''''4'''.''''''':;,'A LE > CaI
I 1•;-, r'' #"'''''„,'''''''i• .'„ ',"'.';i, :"::<,,7A9Iti:::ii*it'ii.,""!,•';,'''''' ' ..." ""r': ,,,,,,,,,Rt.1.',,,*,. , „, 2,,,, ,, ',' a,,,, ' kt,'', , "t
--,
4,,kil,:,,'„.•;•'',-- '''''''7'''''S,','',4';'1,''''''-:'!`)",tt;.1:14t1":, ''- ri4 4'. ,-:::,''.."\*I, ''''' '''`.1t ''",‘'-'':':1,„a,,k,„4'4:'4, '''' ''' '' '';',`
1 i
1 ,
,t1 ''''',1n7,g? ''';•' '''''' , '',440%',7,,,'":;;',1'''''''''' ';' '''.` ''' ' ".' t"hi''''''' , r" - "-. 3, ''''' ''"i4'..'. ....
- •.'i;!''..,, ,
'v . '- • - -'' ' "'..ret.44,,t1A-..,-• •
..„,
,,-:''''' ',41!''',. ..'---.'-',.:::"" ': ‘;•,,,!$':i,":,4‘t.:A%.: -f.1;,,,.., - ,..'1,!':,...,.. ..,Wpk .„,ily.*:,.... t.,.,•=:. „!A:,':,;:,,
--,
'..,.,,,,,-;,'". .1,,.?-,-*....,,,,‘,--,.,,,,,,,, ,,:, „ -.---,,,-. - ,-.',..,p,,,::'t:IS,;".Y,-'''''.,., - % - ;'',...t::..'''',6 'N.:!,,. .-,',:..P:-..:. •,.c.:.--Ilti--7 ',i'.',. -,Y,. -,,ilw
•
,.1,,,z,..,21.-,*,-,,,,,,-;‘, :.-ik,o. ----. --,, f' ;,'*!;'::•:.:*"...."' *-"<i .. „' sit ii•,it,,i.,, ,.;•',1t;i_„::74',Nto,,, ,,, ,,,,,'•••,. -<„,', .,':,,,,,,, •,:„<4
, •
:.;,,, „'w.,:y4,*•,„,- -,, -,'-„,, -,',#,,••41.„i4....4.0,,,i,'-';,t,-‘1*.,..t.-;, . ,:. .,4,,,I, ,4A-4..f,,,,,,,,,tr,-,„ ,,-,..----,,,,,,,N-,.,'„,-•,,,, •,,,,y,'• '.'4 Artil:
. ,
,,, t„-, - •t-••,,,,, •. "•-• '4, ,.t ,,:s. Ice,,,,,,,,t-,,,,,s...„-, : ...--.Vq,:zi:-.w,,,,,,, •,,,,' - •'•-",t,,,-, ' 4.''''-'ilvii:41;. '; :,,•..
''''''4. 1,4', '044,, ,,,,i.,'',' „ . "i:i<iiii • ' . ;,1:r;: ,""*,,,,o0,;,,,tv,,,,,,'1,:+r,"*.,, - '''"'''.,`,:',',z•s. •s,-,`,:,,,,,...,t,,%;410,,,,,,, . ''4"::''NA:=.:•.„. \*. s, li
,...,-,,,,40,,,„,, ,,;-;,,,-W4:, „„''•'''`„ , :,t.r,`':1,,,:!•,-‘44,,'"'Y% ',.1,i' -.;,•,:a4,,, ,,, .' Aitpk:44;,',Z,.. ,.."•,•,,. yVi==*,:4,'„'tAw r%•,$,,,,, ,,,,, :?':‘,,,,.4
',,,;:iit, . 2.,,,:, • -;4:.,. - ,:‘.;;;;-,!,-,'.';',:' / ':,''..v.,:r. '. 1.'."7i.„:„. '; ,e,,,rt-.,;vq‘„- .-,,*.A i:, ',.,,,.-1, 4i=•:::,. ........; *;*,ii*,;.--,-. ,, ' -,''
°f-lci.cpt. .. ' ,‘,,,, - ,,,,-,,,. .'i • ---4-• '.-,..', 1' . 11: 1;$.4.,-.:•.,,,a,t,,,,,,,,,,I t ,,,,,,,,..\?,,,,,,I,,,, ,.,..347,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,,
, .
::,,,,,,,:. ,,,, , . : ,2:,, , , . ,: ,, . . . , ., ,,......--,...,,,,,,...ou: 4,,,,,:*,. .„:„.''',-4'' •i:,,,r,, .D.• ,,';1„..?I'''.,'",li<,..,1
i. i. l'1, 4",.,'*"4:i:<:-,,‘,m,„, • -,""''''' . < . „ ;' ,'' 04A7: ''''''',<Z'-.<VI .,*.•4,,,VS''' ii,Y1*;;4;,4k'''io''''''''''''4,:<A,"":
• , ..i!!<<"4?'';''''', " „:' '• ,'''''i-•-,":';‘,'",":„? ''';t'''',%. .,, , ' „ ;,c,, iii 0, ,,i,,,,,,,,,,;4,it.. t•,,,,i,j;j0;',.,,,-4,-,k-fr-nr.4''' -4-fr,,n;' •<::',,A,.: -
."-:,,,,,,,, ,,,,i,,•••.,,,,,,,. -.-,-'.,:• „ .,... ., ,,. ,' , = :„-..: ,,.‘il,rittz:,-;•,n,,,,,,i:„..... ., , ' .,, ,,,,,,,„1,,,,,„,.,,,, ,,i ,,,,,,,... „,,,,v,„.„.„.„.%
r4i,..,„..i• „*.,,•,,,,i,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,;:,?•;;;, ..•,,,,,,,i,,,,, , ",..,,, 2,,- • ..0.,;:,::::, 404,,,;(0. ‘,k. ••,..;x:,-,.., .,,, i„,,,,*,%-.0,,,, ,24i7,,, •,i-,',-,:,;,4,,,., ...L;',.;,:....,:,,',
...+.14.,...'... .•-•' ...,...„:.;:-‘,,,;:-.,,,.‘..,s::,;,;,,,„'f...,,,:,,,,,.! •‘,„,,,.: f ,-, ,,,..,,,,:-,;;;,„:,,":,..:,,,,: ..i,x•-,.,: ,,,,,,.wit',:„.10.;..t... . .,j: ..yyzy,,',',„,,..,...!..,,,,,...:=.,,, ,:„...4-,,,',,,:: ..;:;.,„i4
, :. , .:4"Z'aW'r, •,-::-..1.::-..:. , ':'''''-:- ' - :-' '', -'',',': ,.:',..;ikt r:,:l. ;,..' ,i ,A-,--,;!!'..-• ':•',,' ,A=',-,',',:z"*.it,:t:.-tie- *.tv! I
. ,
:54,;,,,,1'.4''',',..'1',.' ''''',1‘'$,L :, ''',''‘:•., k:4:' ':„'' ,'''' ,''''C, '•,•:::: AP'ki:...'',.!: ‘i... e27..:' ' , t A:4'4'','' ''ktN;:*,' ,,,,;.7;',. .':',':. „
I . il#1,41.4: '' c ' „t'S, : ,, •''t,',/.47:kl'i ' ','' :1,?:'',,'::::'':::"`'.*:..1. ''. Tr:,i'', '1,,,,',k''',"ik :',A,:•,',°;,:z?,,•'!'. 5.io,„4„: •„,,,A,1::J<',"':':'',4•10
„:'1'4 , ''',11*,0 ;',',,;,:7;,', ,„,c„,„; ",„.$1%!,:-;', ,,,',';'„ ' .' '',"''2,i'''';<<<"<' r"-: '• ,",;, "<",„i'; ,,,I,M7fi::"'.:",,',:. ,,;i'i,',---, •c,,10,;:,•'/'',0: -.4:i,,'",442,t,W,!
. _
''''' ,,,,,lit,ii,;, t,t':'''' '''' .:::,:k'''''"' ': ‘'''' l ''''' '''' ' ''' ''''''S:7'''''.""' ' ; ''' . '' '1*';i''''.I4V4`‘,:i'',z•• ''''''' ',-, „;,;;,,'''''' '',:44.,t;-lit,*'''' !fi'"4",!
,,,;A:, „ ''<„1: '' ,• =,<:', , ' - '•'''''' .:0:;I; 4 2„P4",,v,„„ , q`''; ,',01,<,' ‘;',:',/',1,qtNiv*-1,k,;:,,, 4,,,,,' ',,,,;:i,--,i'''
i'''Ibi-,:e;'-',' ,,',, ; '' ''',<,°;::. ; ' ' - '.' 2: •''''''': ; ;i• .: -'1"' 1 4`••r•x-,, ""t• 3 ILti ALVN "`:‘,,-;'„-4-7, ,, -4".'14'.2 '`‘,7-V.I'
. .:
t" l' ''44:•'k",,"i;',4;•', ,'1 ,,s';•e•"%z•zti;:;",;;;--" '. '' ''','.• : :::•-,''",,•';' ,",•".„ 4;`::!14. 4'',,ts.*A.:..k,,,wt.,-,2,,,-*,...
%,....t.,,o,,,..s, • -•,,": -,‘ .5.
•,,,, :',,,,,,,,,' .4,-, ,,,,,,,,,' ':•,,,, , ,,, ,-.,,,,,,.., ,t,,,,
::',4, '':,,i).v:,‘.7.,‘,,,,:1, r ,!--,•:•'•,.,, ., . '•••7,''';'•:'''‘'''-:': i :.:'•,:044 i'l ..11-••••••',..--,i•A„i,",'''''.,:,.4„,..,','1.:Ce`,.;',:!7'.,:: ' ''‘,
--
4,''-ik:::°°..., '' 't''''t'",'‘,',..'`.t ‘'',",,,' P ',''''''''''' '1: ''„ ,,, ,',;;;',: ,.!:;:i: o,.-,-ISr,,''‘'':,...;• '' t 4",,Fe•rtt,,,Nt,', , , t=i;ft5,::',4-",:;=;:.,=t.,:i:',,a 0,7;4
'' '4,''''','4t",',' ••:,,•,--t$''' 'Y,',,,'', ';',''',,,, ''' , ''''':•,',";''1'',•' !I'', '4';',44., '‘•1•' ';',N, , .; ' ,'i..-.', 4.-vi4,,....:,'.. • -',,,:, .....:
'''' .4'.*\*'''''t ''' ‘.. ' '''', .' - ...',.' - . :; ,,,A,,," ':•..,.....-e,:--,,,:..,,- -:..•,...,,,„ .,.•,,, •,,,„,,;,•„.,T.,..,,,,....„,„ 7,.:::•,,.,,,A F',
i ! A‘tit,,:"ft,,,S ,', • :, ,-%', ,„, gta„,,',°--'' ''''t''''.-• ' ' ,'' '''',, '7,'1,',,,:;,', ''4c,'',','''N' " 1."]'k.i A.CS'A' ‘,,t14,-^-'' ;,,t4,t'4*'ttf! -T.:',Atr-,t::"'"1
, 2i , , 4, t;,, ,t1r ,',1" 1,,,',..'';', tr.,1' , "'''kt',1i,' 1•••.1,1";Z",••••••<ii."..;;;•
' Wi,!, ",''''W="k7S1 ,;;,,„, - :;.•,,,,','<,„'„''. , ;'', , ' '',' , '', '',,,,'1-W 4ita:,,"37...,i-At' ,,,?;" •<',:' :":,: ii'i <" ',"„' ' ',,,
'.'.g,-,.7',:i'y-..,4i,.;!,-, ••;.- , • ',:., •,,• ::„:,,-,.v, .,,,, -11:11: .,..„ ,-,..i.;,, ,,,,,tt,.
,11; •::', ' *''''.:ti,":;*, i'7:-::::, ::•.,''' '' ':‘: '.,':' .7::::i:,hg:t:,..,-Z.TrilIttAY.' 4tAkt-Ilk:''"'":tP„+,, :i ll,''k:::•:;',:1141W
. '''41 t• ' -,„: ,„': --:',',- ,,,,:t:,'`,:;:,",••:,‘----.7:1%"--"`-";',-`' " .- ••:•-'2;,,‘"::.-7=1;:..t,61-,!.„:S;,"!,,:pi,-*,;.‘:I,,f,' --'4,'?;„".:f.A.,:k4.2/2,..4,:' :,t;::,,,it.;,*voro
:° —;,•-.'`,6•:: , ' •‘..,,>,' - -,,,,''''-‘- ‘' , :-:.:,.: -•:;:"•',, - ,,,ti-.,',., , —.41. ..,..,4:—A, / ,., ,...•••k.14,..::: p.,,. •!-.,,a?,,, ,,o,,,, ,,,
i
1% ,:,„,-, ,,,t.-4,1 ,f,-;,,,,J„,2 ,,,,,,,..: .,, -„,,, ,,„;2 i-!:-,',:opos.b,.... •-. ',,--n•A,,,:‘,..-,..,,4,:,0 ,. ---•.-4,• ---.,,,-,,;, s-,,,,4,,,•,o"';‘'.,•-4,T,$,is
..
'04'',V-td't iit',%-''t '',''r'It,''''',,,4' ',-''''',,,:,f;7,.'t 4.2'''',:':: '.' ''''' .''',-, '''Itt A i3,4',< „,.,e, ,,c,' `,,",,,,:; ''',,' 'Ow."4.=, ,i'AV-' , ,i,'„,• ft,-t-,.'''iN4-
. „.\'‘,?.,"` ' ,,,,,:' 10',it( ,'-',•;-:''','''','1r'','S ';:::1,"..',-;'''''`i' ':.'.,., :•<'
..:1.,,,':f*.i.7'tof ',,;,',„,-.,.%,',4,„"7:""".4", -,'' -,,'',,,,,,'W,*-71-k•', .k.,,,'," ,,.',','":At4
; c
00.; -, :*,,,,, t „•,-,-'-'.„:. •-,-t:,-''--;-":": ' " .' ;••,•,'": ",,,-"::::',"'=,!.4"',
)
',,,,, ,'
', . ''• '':zi:•;'.'---,',,,,,,,,,, 'x'.';-•,', 4-4..2,',, '''','*, ,:. . ‘,•• '• '-', *-- .•- . ',„:',,,V:.,-*; P:•;:',Aroti;','1' ','(;:,, ,, ,,f,'';',iiZ.•,."1••,• :ft:2::*itS%
,, I,.'•P" ,,•14Alil .4!*,4' ,-",,,-,;•• •",4: "-',-;',':-..:::,;,•,.;;;.:/-•.•,•,'•",---, :.. ••. ,.-,-•i:ik ••;•,:•t%*::7..:•," 1', '"..„•,**)., ,,,..,,,,,,,,',. iiii:144,,,,A,
,,,,,s--.. -•..,,:.4.,,,, r
4, „..,.,-t,„,,,,,,..,, , ,,,, • ...,,,,. ,..: .,.., -: 4,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,e.f.,,,,••.:••.:• ., ,,,,•-•:- =,..; ',.' . ' ,,,,,,o, -2
' 't',‘ ,s,';',',',',1, ',,,'4'.,'",''',;,,., ,-,:',, , :''cl..,'44:' ;'''',7; ,...N,,A4!... ;ii p--1 ',.',A, =, ,•I• '''',11'.":"" 4ii 0
. .•1:‘,4'-',..'i,--;Z:'..S: .•.:4‘''''••,-'-'' °-- ,•'4-,,, ,-:•',•-• ?:: '''"'' ' ''' ';'•; .i.:.,t,i'.:7',:..:.:?',.;-iltAtc.'14;,,,:46i 'z '•*.:,,,,.,,,,,,',..°„,,'-' 4:. _,. ,;•,',1:ft ....
,,,,''''''• ,'.:; .•-••••• .-,-.47'' 'n',•••': '',.' '-'ri',-.'.f .'.' ,.. .,:',;;;:4;:,,•:441' A‘,,tr,ctl'Aer.,%-,ki:A ;.42413,, ,-,-
:...-_,
I:''., ;a,!'".-.`-' ":°:::,i :',-g;','. .".::',,' ,,,..,,,,,:, ,I..-!'w.;"'.**A• ':.'",ki:',ZiA0 ''.; 1, ,:,:•' ;'4, k'''.' •‘ ,.;;,:-',1-i-<,,,,I$w'I'k --;:"tVii0 g
Iti,,1;+t'i„s4lARt•-'1''',':4',1 t-'fi;?k.0,1i';'';t'''*'7::.-"'.,''.:,:'-•::•tV."' ''",•...',',-,.',,•.i
& ',r;-,7,,.•i'..'-,'.,,.,;",'''';,',.:,"‘',`',,.,,."'.;',•";:,2,:,•''''r-'.,',',.-2':,,,'''k:''k','A7,'":'Qr'•'4'•,•'44,i,-•o".`,•,:c.M.k•".;,,:,,:ti•t'i.;::",0T,::"'[:.14,'-,A,,"k,.Z,k.t,;;i"4„'04.e,,",,.,.:,,'-.,:,1.44,'.,?:':,1:....."'"-',''!,•::;',:,,,'
4
•,.4,•":4,.".,,4•,j*",0X:''*1.'v,'.:',7,'i1r>.;,„.;,,.,'. t A,4:,',.rL,"':,1e':'.,"T,.;,.''N",i';'•.i,v,,f',„:,17.t...2..i;2);,'::,'''..,,i,.",,i,,t.1*4,::i,-t',l;.i1-i',i'.,'1,-,v',7,7-,V"V*.,',•,,•t.r-,4'(.7,k4'-;'-.-::,,ti:,'';2.,',—'•4-%'.-,'-'.",._,.1,1,,7'•'-‘i•,.,;,'4 W,x[*,.4x..:..41.4„''.„'t.,2.;..i.',,.;,t°,,'*'i-''4i'"‘'7,.‘'?1„,'i..."'.,).,.:.',,,',2:,t'-','4'".‘'.''.,.v•.:,'k,,i k'f':,4:•P i'4',<''4',_;.'":::''*•-,;4
* ; 4eN
6 m
.,'•;;'•
i'7C14"ic.•..=a2.6-.-c:D-
-"'
-
i11
,',,,..„-,:.)p -,,./41;:, •:ti'‘,&;,,..„ <„:4•4N'''' .„1r, ,„,;%''''AY:, '',,,',•":1;";,:::.",'.7•::; -: .1. .44,'',2_'<;,,iv--;", ' '' -"'i ': "
.a.•
I, Pf it'`‘c.';,i4::).41 '-','4 • '$;,'',,,,,,ii4.7.Ti.':,:t :Y4 '''' ).'
, .
I 4';','").;'::; .':::, ''','''• •'''S 's '-:'--- -
4-)
co
I
I ! !
------ -----
— )
!'Yi t j Ems .. 3i. •• P PYs ':Ka've+ ', '. >: w?A,<'.' 3 a1 �<:P'a <z,<,.. i°3Y" ,a$, ",..�
:-��' .¢. ".. >�` �•Y'�. '• ,.'�'�zg�,,» +�', max, .. ° �",.� <.,
='�, ,."'s ,:tafin
<fi,
%t4.n 9� ..
sj •
<' ",k&c, mr. fig,., A' "Fy !.(;`.:,.'.z. ^„f
6.;
ryF
.sJ;8"
.;r; . '',,,-.. „. ' 'S
<; a ...';', w. ' .7 „ .rya, .,; ,•�M.
' .
-rr
xy,
a �p
� .� r .."''''T..,'
w <' '.) f „. . .° 'r 4, i' II *may
x�' - "' q'' z `�S s sw . ,:.tii >��s* R ac" # t E� ;,'r�"•':'
a. wx "' �.,w'�• tm' ^' -�"' +�',. c.t ,1,f, A ,ri1''.....!"a.>,r3"" .1' ,.�+.,pie. w,+
.„.)
�. ,� c r y, � a ': b s r� � a Via«. :�• '";�'6. <�� <,
:..... .,;err �; , s ,k7, : } .
i': xt,�` +K- - ; a' ` �.,: '- "� r`" ;„, r; ,a •. .,mot. kt;. i fir' y D?i+�,,, w•z
� fk "v ggit:l,rr, ' .�' >:> s! yy , !pZ ✓;<,y 4t.x.,° " i b )£' 6n .! ,I°3K# ".4` V
->a, V. "y'"` %=''#xi , :..c'. 1�s. ,., �-'",».-» "6`,�. ,� '"�' ,N,t„-'.3 "r�,: .: e5.:: `,'`k-T,q a t £a.,„%;" s•.<
' z-, '. �y � ''• ,' ,r,� h,,,,*A. e'..e'''...Ittii.4 °.,°.,,.,'`.,,i;,* 44,..-..',F44.4.1., ,,,, ...1,4 `' w F .,.'''r`'.�,rfl¢a ¢ 3• �. 9.., 4_. r" ei:r
.r3Y �,�.. {n`'f�f� ' :dam"�� ''' q� �e `J fi� �§�vlo•s.^.. 'Ti,3�i i3 � �• �,e, i�AR;,�� j' � p ° °
»aka „.�_"' mr� *w'^.+.: zx" .< �r ''��<, -����dl�" °�"�°`� '` �'�- a� r sue" z ,�w"' ,� r ,0
". ^ • �, > .a ,, {•`, " q "v- , i, i ' %�"e'. �s> . : <„� KEY`,
,.....r.:
'F":, .. ��d .ry .. -; 43d �'<E`s 8,..,. ./�" :, d V,°a° >x:4„'�tt'.
,1p 3 ✓ "s ,< '�-Y 4 'm '�t:l,�>r ,„:. . y;� ffis A ;, � '"Y '.-. 5 r y5 x "3�w.2•'.
d,- 'A F *R�N Tt .,!.r 5. 'a:h E'r; �T ''b � in .✓8`> � N ma' (
•
'f:' 0.a ,� x y4 aka ." '�` a{ ,z✓ ,
,kt
Parametrix •city of Renton/554-1 n9-017/01(14)6/03(K)
ak Figure 3.7i-8
View 3-Simulation of Development
W Buildings as seen from near 38th Street
. ..,.
'.' . '• ''''''`-'•• ,•.'''', .',i'' ',.'.7.",,,'"4 -,'
.,..
,,,.' .,,'!.,,,,-,',,-,s,1.,ii,',,,-,',,,,,,,,,,,'.4.'•,,,;,.. '',;;, „,f--,,':.;,.',,*,,-,...,--,,,rk,';,;',:-,e,',''''!';, ,i;,'
i);..,:,. . -,-.,., ;''',:.:,,":.,,,,jil,---„,,;,A,•,.,1,,A•..;,,'„':,::'4:r,',,trl,':0::, :,,,''.; :.","'''' ''',"fl 5'1',,: '','''''•::';' 'Wr:':•!' ., ?„",',' ,,,;=.::',•,',"''',. . ',!:''''
''' :4'•::.' : V"`''''"1:';''' ?"f'3';',41•'r:'••:•:''','''')"",.?;i:Are:5;*:"••`":"-:.''"; •': ; ,'Z'' '..',, 1•:•,'•:''•:t• .':''!::,:.''::: ''.,.;‘,,,V;:•?"',',,..•'f•'. ; ,•;.: '••''..•,'„"':':,,,
!",:',.2„)::•,g, :,,.,,,,,,4,,•,,,,,iki,„: y„:,,,,,,,,,,-,,i;-::,,:41,--„, .,,,,, '',,,:,-.„.!--,-',.,. -;,.- ,,1,-,.:„i','";?', „:.••':'''','",:1:'' '''''' ,:",: •',';„'.5"--,,,-`,,i!",,,V-., ;',,',." - '-- ". ' ..; -, ' '.-,v,"„..'4,'- ', '-- ','' -•'.' ,',• ';`:. -:'
','.::::,", ;1,1- j k7',''.•''',:-;.•',.,'k"''•'`"--'; .'''',',i-;‘,„"''''-‘',•,f.t.,"Ni:r .':,'Y-! -?:,,,,l.i'i.,r,..'.,;,,,c-s::5V, :i„,4':.:V',,•.-; A.. vV v„'' „-!•
4; ' c:4,:;;';,;';;';;7:',!,:%'-•i-,'.,-,2',-';,",,','?-.,„:,','::v,,,:,/••:•,;;,;,,,,.,,,,.,g,,,,,,,,i'--,„::i v„,
,,''•1,,,,:'-.;,,,,,,,,,,'..-
* r3A c1/4V ‘ , , '..-', ''-/'•'';- '''''',:r,:,'Z'°'',,'.,'':.-',.,','''°,,,?1,,C:'".(,.•'„."..,.,,':*:;:t•,;:.•,4.,•1:''::.I:•'i'-';-:',',i•,'-.,,:.'':,.,,:.'.,,',;,',`2...-,,1,:,:.,,,:..,','„,.',',,','•:'•;,:'„',-.'/...,.,„."-4,;•1,''„5'-„;„,„,,,.',,",,'::':,'•,•','.,‘"'-:',';,,,'''_:'-•,•'':'''4,-
.^,.
.i..,.;,,!:,;": ,,„;;V- ..'\,:..•‘c.A/,,i'."v,,,,'',- •",...,' ,,..'" ,', . :„ '";t:„''•::':,'--' : ' '':•' '" :2'2''''''‘''„S,:,:,';•';':."'''.'•:''''•;,.;,''': 1 :7'''.",',;,,S,,''''':'''''''i
,i;;;,,,, ,,,i0'4.,'N,',1';'f'2,!:-,.'f ....:' -;,.'y'2.!;-,,'; ''',, -'.; .'!,,; ,'"':,;",',1 ';,;',,;‘,`".„,„ '',", ,,-,V,,"-..'•',..,".,•,',„ :‘ ,„::: ,,, ' ',. , :. ' . ;,",,'".,..v:,,,,,,-: '',,,,.',. : F,,:,-,•,,,.;.,,,.",-.1:1;,::-';" ,v, , '.' 'I
f7',,,.-!; 1' :-.'"""-"'''''','..:!''.'1:-,'.- '' --:' ..1.,', •.', "•%, :,,,i.% .',X,'..,-- •-. ' ':', .,,:'- ', ,-,-, •,;:' ' ,: .,,' ".• -; • ',- .`":,"-' ,..--.1 ::;04,1',,,,',,,,",:. 2--:.,:., ,'' ,,j
''.'.', .,' ,:, ''..;•:,:, :-,",.. -; 'V,!, ' . ' •°°,•.' ,,,.-% •-; :\/';', .. V ,, : ' ''," ':,.;,•.':;', ''',:,-:-„ ' • -,-• --'g • ",^':::' ,'- . '' -:•'2,••=,','N:1 ' :' ,, .• -.-•.,, ,:,=1
' == •= , • -.•=.= '''=',"-,,,,:`,,:,=-,,,' ,•.:.., -,\!•',' .,.1
Nir-T'1:'''''';',';'=.,,1,:'&A''':''' ,==',..it ' ';''''' ''''* '''''''',• !,•""=',' ,,;'''''':::‘,-::: : . ,',i.,-;:', . „,, ':- • ,,'.,..-f'•=•. , ' ,, '2' ',',' ''''- .. •. '•'==';'‘.'Y'::'--''.';':''''.1;';',;':,; '!., ''''.. ,'', - ',:., : '''l
VAZ,Ai;441%4-r;;;+:4Z4t4'''''.,..,:;;,‘ ,''' .\'-',7-.,'" :';',:;*: : " '''''''.; . 'i'..,,; .'' -:'''H ' '• '"' - - -:- .'" ' ' " — -„ ' ' — .2''''' ' ''" - . . ' ' '
54,4Ht'kt-it*,'ti"ZI•ii,4;444;CN,•'_.,,,r''-:,-'."-':;-,, I.':,-''-,'.,,'‘'' 2 '', ...,•, ,, ', ,1'..:•,':::,:!,',;!, v •,'.' J4.-:.'- ... . >-,',-; ;',:.'.:•;':.',',,'';'-;•,?-•„-„•-.,';•,....' ,;','.•:'-.: ,'.''', '‘.:;-.--r''•;-0,,'' '''''''-t‘'t.,-. -,-;.4
3'vtt:;;,;c-.4•414';',''''t• ity•'''''•V-!:-;‘--- %..'1/4tC.,''''''. '-',„'' '.'.' 2 i'i' :I•'.'i,,,.7",,ll.2.«i:: ,;':',,- ::"'.:•• • '''„1,',; '.„ ':-‘,-•'.,- '„,„,„--. :':',„:,,,,:'',';‘•,r::•-- ''-::,','"1:',"'',''';'.-' '';,...'"41:".7.;
P*:;;;,,,,VV.:`,,'''': .,4'A.4.,:.11's.t.';,4t,:•;,4,!*.'''''' ;,,.;'..:;'" ' '-';'•:-i;' ",,".,:,:',.' . ..2 . ;'''';': ;;,': :;i1'''
-,ss.,,„y,
.,-,41 v..:*; -,.. • .4*. "''Og '74,'"* "7'"'N..,„ '"'" - ..-" .,.. .- .:1.--- •-•,;''' ' ,;"'":, ; , „ . , ' '
v,..44.*;:" '''''',41.1.4";*,,,,iiit,*;...-' 1.'‘."..` ..,,;*'''''' " ' t,,.'. .' ,•.„,., ' ',,-7*"7:1777:',,:'‘...'i ' -'-- •,,, . ,,• ' -,' , " :-- '1 ; ' . :''''.',440- -, 4''',/,,,—'vq,"•?• : •• ' '
.w.:•.:•i4k2...„ ri:ii,f-41,u,,,,Af7+'r-3;.,z---:,.., -,,,,,.',0,i7g. :-, 0'.', •:,A.''. '',, . .',",-„:2.- -1-',,,,'''....;••-•„,„- ,2'.:" ,- ,'--,,'-',- .i.)..,r..'.4.14:',14.4!(.. ,•--'''''.."'=-`:*-. - ';.44 0
..4.44 ,!.,,, ii.:4,i1:v-,,,, .."---':=.,,:
. 4,.$ 4,..`4,7, i:g:.tiV.A."."-44: -; ';'-'1",t1'''',.,-,,,,,4,"',:.. ` ,:' '! •Z: ....1.4'.-"rs.,,.: :3'' ''--:,''.''!'-'1!r: .,",--,':!:,,I, '.°--..E4,1,,Vz..-?-,;',:-j,',i4.''.4.,v.:>
~,,i..1,,,wz.,..4.vt*•-:4.zii,to4•'''*tf' ZAt".":04,!,*4‘,;.'7.,:'.-',, I.•.'''':.• .'.:!f.i- :,;:';: ."!\ ‘."..,..f''.v. '7;4*". ',..":.^;.;•1'-4,...,. ' . ' •2':,".!i:''' 'Z:1;I''';'I''7',1'.,,,..'d 4,1";•!..".4,7-':"!II,,,:1/4 r,:':*
.1 z"?..4.44#;-k'".:, .i ik:, ,it,1 Sg.:1'.; •4 !!',•:‘,1‘.7.:,',....,,,‘,..,..1,, ''.! is, „,,.• :„-s..,„- -.,4,,2.-...„*.4.,•:--,,,i.'1,-;!,-.7:q.:4040,,,F•tt,( :fr!.'1.*`...l''.":„.,,,z; :'-'4,:tik,,,N;Ait: 4.-:,.,-;,'..-'..44*'
?i,'-x'Ai-;?,- '.1C-..::: "..4'.A.?..,,r,, - '1, ':„.,,_'''...:-:;,,,,,::,',;.--r--':i;--40'.4,-,,,,.....-Itx.i4 ‘-!.7,:.,--litrii."-, --.'J.24-;-.----.. -.-.-f..1.-:-.<4.r4,6" .,;•rOi-A A—--i'4'''e--"0,?,7.1.!
';'`4„* .,:;:4.0%.1., '* 1$''' 1:44,,e1t1S.N.t41.4e‘1";-,;- %;,..'' :. -1-.. 4.,,..;YATgri,vol :•4-4.'spt,,,,t.-:4.•,.J7 7.7-: '4'7:./:';,•,.... ..v..,,-../...:-e;'--...%44.4?:,,,,,,ti-•:-.1-k4ttr.
:47it--4.A.,,144..•• -", ',..--t,..AA.:4;,,,..,-. .,:.- -..,,-, ..:'•,,,,,:f.*;', -,,,,,,4:' ,:-.,,,,,,t ,,-'-4:Yria.,:1,-.•;i4tilt 7z..:`,.„,,,r:r.1.;a.;',..: ;, .':,,,,,„?,'..0' ,.1,----,-,--=' ,,i",s-:-.---zy--i.;-,,•,:..4Ai.;, =0'41
..7:0. :,,,,,,. .„•;:.:4.„,„. ,. ' ,,,,,,,,,,..,:i1/4. -...5s4.4..r.,,,,,:.., .,,,,„•,.:;:,:.,, :,,,,!.,,ir n,„,,,,,,,,,,,,45.).,„,ii:,,,,"."..4,•"::::,4": 0.4446*-,''-";• ''''N-",‘;',`,:40"•:'7,' 1,)".'g.,,•*,:,•,'/'' • •••:,,•:' - ',, ..• .r,?,47".4.14""tr.': $01!:....-:•••
yli:;-'. - .,:t. 4,,..:' -c-.., ..•,..
ell,
- lr',...• V---;14-4: : ."... :, .;.:, ..:,,,' ''74''''S'''...t 7- ' .). '',.„- he ','%,, ,i1 ' tk-,':e• ''1,1,6,," -'-"
, 4,...,,,to s.,, :,,,.. . , of,„,,,,r•.,,,, .1 ,...r.........•,, .... '''''• :. ,: 4,1.11.,,,',',...,r. .k..:,..,;:-,',:t>.; *-'s,,,,,ty„,,,;;.,-t?„..',,,,„:... .,„,,i",„- ', ,.4• .,.. -1,,,,..,. ‘",.:.,,,!;•.; -...----'.':.ipp,' ./.,te,e,..A.: ''' ' •"4',„
' r.'',-...,;,,m. ,, _ 7,7,-,,NAt • .- - 14,
.„. ...,..._
,, - ifmr ,,,, ,. .• z........--:„. .., . 1.,_.
lit
• '.'", ,,tof..r. a k-1*- '.;.1 4 4-,,,,j0--„, _,t-,-;-,::zik:',,i•• :y,'p,‘,::' '. t;,,,,:•/3,7*-,.,,,,‘A„,-• ::i,,';,,,,, ,,,-:„,,,,,, ,,-.- ‘E:-_.-„„ ,,, ._*,:.,
,„...g,:-.:*. ''.2,....,";.,,,,,,si-,:i.,,,„,1,.. .,-_,, -.4401.---- •,.....:- -,.,.. -ve.)ip f'l ;44"41,,,!','1'.: •:•••,.,,f ,',,,-,•.',1‘,-',• .-‘)*'1' .%,,:,:,':.:1,kf,,,t 1 ;2',,,,,,."'t,:‘,;,?.,,,,-,-,-'-:, ,,,'''2,:;'--1' --'-:, '."::. i ''r.
,.,, ' ''it.'1',:1117,04,4.1._, :1;a'E,':,>4 „amp,''''''' : ,,,,,,..—?:' ',: •L'''1,z'''';';''.4 it:1',,:' '44;;:i.'''51:44,- ...f."::',''‘% ! ...';', '47,$'S''''''','::' 1,''''.''''';':,' '''''''':::'::::;: ;1,, 4: , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,-
t,;`''''''';';'"'47.'ne',. .';''''':2,,,64:: :'':,*' ' '•':.,?.: ,:-‘ ',''22Z-',,,,,,';",•!,,:- '
',;.:,..v:- ',:•12 ',f;,:ci,'..:V ,',,::-..',';',,!4-','-,-.,'4‘,-;'''';it;:i''n';',..'::'''.'''''''' !' :". :. :••'1''''ior.-':',"'i,,-;,-1117.'',z''..Ay--.04-3.,..,:•,:m:„ .•-‘41,,,,,,,,1;.‘„,,,,-i'-:;-*:':,71.54,'-„:,-,,.-.'``".„-,,, ,,,;',,'; ;,‘'t:1•-',,,,7,, ,,:t),.:::,,*,:•14-w,-,,,:,,,,,,,,,:::,
-iw ,',,,,,•+!..:1,-•':' „,::::'—‘,...),,,,,,,,-5‘ -,,, ,‘',.„ -,,"-r,r.:::•,,, :,.1•;s:4'.,:''''''=f4::2,4,'..te„:44.-1,k,-rti,-44,---,:44,L-,--,,,r,j„i-,:,,'‘,T.,,,,,,,,, 7;,,-,,?.„, - - ,,..:,,,,, ,,,,,,:.;2,-,t,,,'-'33t7,,,,,i!,,:-,;:cq,;;,•:::,';,,,,,,• :',.;',''•,;,.-,,,,,,,,,A,
i *• .-• -,:;:,, :;--',/,v,t,„;,,„1,',:.:4;:„,.-:„>;-,_1-7,1.., ly,1,1,,,,..e.,-,;,;.-,' .".,,,,,,,..p-..- .*:412.--,-:‘,,---',T 0,v•,"''. '''".P",%4%4•5,-.'''';!1' '1,44.:-',..,'' ' , ',v-.'.v-,,,--'',:v.---,,,:•g, :: "i.'''' '''',-",•,'-'1,S,:k T -'>:""'''''.!a'',$,"1.",4`
.."- '''' '':'*''''''''' 7;1''''.:i'.,*'''''' ''' l''''''''4,''''':;,;','';';',) ';''. '':,''''''''7,(4,44 ';'...1. .114,"' ,''''''.",''',;,k,,,,Y''':';,'.t.'„ J!",''',*'1''''*'$'.'''''' : '' ' .'.'' , '',,'.; . •.,4,.',,,,•1,-.•':,!1,,,,I.Zii,,,,,,,,,, ',',,V„,, '.',,:,,:,..;;;,..».1",.-.,
rf.:.',,,t,,0',,-,:`,•,x, "-,',:-, 0,1•,,,,,,• ' ''.. ,1?',#,,-,.-,'" „;:.,-'-ti,,--''A.,1,,J,-,,,,,-;-`'..:',i4-•.r •' - '- .-'-:. ,'•,,,,: ..,or ; ,, ,A A --t;,„,,,„,•:- -,06, 1„,r,.•,:.,1. •-,,,,_„,','",(4,,,,,I,A,,,,„i,;*„„,, ,,,,,,,:,,,,,37‘;>1,4,,,,.-„,,A„: ,-1
- -i•-,•• .4,-•,!,,z,, - -,, -zt,,,,'.' .; •: ' ,TP.:'-, " ',''''D'-'-i -''' ''-' - ' ooptegyie,,,- ':':----'-'- '-- ,.>./ii,:=,,•:' •*,.- -. .--...1-;,-,,,-,,,-i'„, aAt. ,, i, .,„-,.....-7-tc„,,,,i
' -'s - '`-' -4,,, ',,,,t-o' •,„, 4.,..1a, -si-ki- fi-,,,b, -,,-,' .-:4-,4... ,,,..t.- ..., . - , .
4,-,,,,,";*;«?,'- '-'el,,, ‘,),!-'--'..- ''.'N' '' '',, " •,- ,i,-1,-er 4, ..•,:,',,,,,"t:•.'i•3,.`',.,^„.;.",..,',.-„,:,-,.,1.. ',,,,,,,T4 wi-,,t,,,,, ,:,,,,„.,„,,,,,,,,,I,,,,k,-,,,„*,,,,,,,,„, , 1,,,. 42vA.,.!;',--1.),-- -,,,-.44v---.i.iii,„,,.-'-',7!,,,,,,,-,•,:l.-
, •••,.,:'••,,-,-, - .--10.kr-,,-a.-.."7.„:•:.ti-- ','.,,-„,4„-,-",',V" --•,,- ,„ 4.AR:rm-i.,,, 5„,t4f :::-:,;.:4.5t,,,';',, I:::•••',41,,;s:,*:,
: • . ,, ,:.,..:',';::NZ-,;'' -':, ,•'-' - ":•;:?1,•''':*,1"..../",..../.'''': .'""4:A'',-:.:t:',1' '...;•*:'': '. '‘,^% '•"•t" . . •''.41,:•,,'."•:V.,Ag•?,,..):•Ih/ ,•••Nfg."..,--",44" :4,4 i!'":,
.,,?;'01, '.: i,;•,''.'2?,, ',,,: .
:. • ,,,- ,•,',.4:.'':, ,., .";.,,,,,‘,2....'''."?,•1!:,4 :i,:•„011,,,-,:. ,::'''' ,',4i4,,:,,,.,.,,•42,„4,:::°'•,..,,,,,,':,•:. •,••.,•.:,:-:„,..,2,-,,,i.,-,0;,-1....,:',......ic,- 17 '.:!,i,...,,,,...:.„,,,,,
r, ,_.,,,t,p,...c.,„ „.:.,. 4- •• ---1 , - • -'-'• ,-
,:°' .,,,,,0 ':',, -- , ,•••••e-----:' •• ,,.*. - - --- ' . , ,-.• •7.7-74,-•:-,,,,,,,,,:,:t.,,,,,,,„ . !,.:.;.-:,,iO4-fsiAif:z4, * --...7,,,,;,-:-;•-i:P",.. ' - - -
4:1', • 4,,,,f,...., 4,7-':°' ,:.f.':::ii-,..,,',,,,•-0,...- , '...., -,','„#•, -,t;• tz,t,,/.-.,.„v'.:', „;:„ ,,,,,,,e:,,-:P, ',,,z&zed,f:i..,-',,i;-;;P>',',',' ''''' ' '''' -
;0'it.';')i:: - ' . „4„.,,,,'„:4-;1*.ttin,,,'!:".,,,!,:,,,i.o .';';--,,'"'' • ' '''""4"74'4'''
.
View-f4r—oE-mxins:elanr..,g3C2on,dndSittlreenest as
rarnetrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3.7-9
;
_ .
— ,
' • —
•
`ne 6 �yyL•r..`,,� ?,�,,,. i°-'.'as,.35' " '9 br, • . .,
,r
3
y'' ., ` Q :
c
� " t
r a=
"e.
::fit"• F
4
w j
• 'S;�^yy.�,��4'^.74 _1 N'.'11..y x ;,71 ' ,-y` a °•u� ".^�..: .}may ,,„7, 4"� YYF'•>•• '+'•'_ •e
G. -
r"
`�.. �d, -*r,P,:4Y • '�.. ir1 �nc2"'t «s"`"� ,,�_ ;y>..' 'i'»!'' ��• •�° .:ti�f". H �f:, •�"r:a°``^ - � "Ms `
�.e: .r6.-t•.. •r "� ,°s: . c. uj-�:nay'"^:' y\" .,- `A
:�� '?s�:' C� :• .�1 a. ' 't'k'y�`�fi,"'- '4..r«.ki vr, +5� .z t,
•
a ")'�••a' ',� + ,c.. sy�1 r 1 r .�+� -.t" �. � � 'a• '�: :+ `� +° r m.x., f.f•-- � �
YgJ,�,., t+Yrf" S �, i.f: w' 4 €' x ,•-- yt' rz. �'9 E �,a `
x^+ 5 . +. y ¥,, ''r'1676 7¥i.'!•�` ., . 4 6. m,�' -+3s 's t;,S, •gr-' yci ::rs ` � '7-7'SF4.x'0VT,A- ->} , t-\.,..
a' t (✓�'- .- �ssk3 '�- - � F r' n" �"Y'' a''`2s » �" s��� `a
• +em s-'C� '''''s. '7"„ryes alx.:E� Y R 4,-.—..-., 11.,;
s--,` e - *•• .ram.."" •w I ;,.,5 ,.1 �3', ,,, 4„. t x "�',•a' .: 77.64; 4;1;1;.T'...- ...,rv .....-".»
1t'4 ' uyW. "3Y` 7`sY t . .�' � ' ,.E n+""Y
1.3•T,r/' ''.:AVA;1 14:',/. ''')..7: 0:1 A.: 'i /:,.. ;.0 A-., . , ::,vb. -..- --
•
.;;;"Alt:'''''*7;44,1',.. .16,,,Fifi... .t7:4:4e47....41:,
�� tt��� �. � �� � U�ls�` �` -'." ,C -* ..Yw ��.' "s `�` �. �.?. r•9'.xw i� : :�,Y'`"'
......, ,,,
,., }. �•k'AE f T .k ��. •� ,.�, , K K ^3 �.'"' h t .r � � �. � a T,Ys ax".KKc%maw"'-s
-A
�'? ,k '.. .s".r G{ -r1.-16...4fd ,.rx r'"r'."�ak_�94..+ `5 f "':^a- : ..sa A.*,{. +e—., y , ±; .q,;-,
'ba
`xti� E,_'�� � r'� : :+. ,F�Fv4� � .._ e',x�'•� -t3r «sc:�.¥"•i.. at^'+ri~�.�El�a.._ _P:...
Pararnetrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3.7.-10
View 4—Simulation of Development
�� Buildings as seen from near 32nd Street
w..
: .. . ......
__^_._. . .. .__ _47-e;=r" --,-,a ,
.u:
:A
'
9
,s L
{
�
t�
r.
arm y
e
.<'a
m°9. "f,�" Ny°<
S"-r x�
-rt
i� „3 vA. ^So-
r'v�.
F i,
,¢`aYH -fix,
�'a
NY a'>�,
„p c ,,F t,���p
+4,....-=�:.v . -• W° /' f kx 4 .. ".
cs
# . �n •_ ax rk , �*vti- t" acv t fir°"e, y�ej c r �' r
_ .x •r' Y+. _ fii x. ,n�`„ 'Si lf �li�S:.:s� a a.� x X11 _r it "n: iy
' .- �, y ' f 4 'tv '' ,.xk ,.. �` `; 5 1 xa.ira �t a' "is 1a F j . e t� °'2,2
X'- �,,,. f�." -
. . :?-- ✓ _� ,x 3. • ;� '• „":_>;r.7... `- CS. `.sue.': � w .,�
X.. a s yYy'.d s" aT .. - ? j: C.''vt 'f -1`:`.` � � — .;� .ram : 1
g
' ,4+ i'3` % 4 r,. 4•, ,�,yAt 3 °? i>..,‘,..;.;,"
;."',?, '"`�'"'"n!"'•' '3: ' r £ . 1.{ } � ��Y.` / J Y't,. s ! _.• a ,"" a '� µa� 't .,.r'a'XI!W> 4Y a ,�Y 'k•s�'€ :.f N 4+f5 ?fff . `�' .rpFiW" '.;,, -41:•,. A .. i'; `" , rx � ST '«�s. }rr, �`ax'}. F y: y �` /`x r, d r 'q, E ,. r i`. �. . u .A'' „�.,j e y ' y#"! ,ro '.i °. '' ":-,A,rfit xt dt F*" '",,='' „t : t' itt . V",, ' '""•:0 > _a. y i i,rak :- f e
€-''t ,x -s . ;tq. y t -„I'gVxw"`•,' h', '""r -°3''.;� .'.:.,«"F,{i,,>x°§Y M�,,,r �� 2 ., k,; 's°'� • �"` :; • .^ ,3
•
a r :`'• • '.is a 4 �r .• . 4 -,;� p..'P• s *�k'`�b as q �" '°ft* Y - '' s '`
,.a' ,air _ 4• .�"€ - rtjliklA 4., ' 't: `s - 1r F ✓'a, Ap -:4y �r:' 'z•. y >° §'`<: �,^ '#'. ' .: �c ` r �•'d',r,, 'ro "
PI
,r''' €'* x, 4F r 'CF" ', '1"' e�' 1' f :r'. t� `• a 1°h `} :,'E'; ,4 5, ,, „ fi; § g ,fix.`r ti- .x�.,. s`' '• w,, a,, w ,
`.`ii°, x «k : y. £ #0,40;^. x:� `.,�i ! wr,p z:" '%" "an s`'y- 'a,t r •rs
l,i 4'
�'. .. F a� �^ -,b^ ak & .� ' ',i; r a �J`1 14`§,;x 1' ' } > k,,f'. ,z49 y ; -
`xa �{"`' -,� t'..i�"".! s-• -3,�`t„.P' A '' ,y' ik- .-%: ;.` A, sf:fit.. xt °ta g',,.:
W
,Att;t6,0,0,440104.,1
,
Zd€�r;+ r �a. �;�''�'r�f� ld' n �+�' �°, �. ° x r1 x� � -i'? '.,,axe x.r"' 'a € � � f � e r �# .4 ��.��, �Y ♦� ��,.,.
� .� '^Y i&*�F°:*�. ,4��'4"���,sT�� ✓,� d.�, .`j'v ff�,,�`C .'��' �r �r`,z ,r. ' '' � � 'C=� rye �"�r�-� t �n ��� �." �� ' y��. �l� �'- .�.. -*;
r5��a�� �'� �"�.7 .••!a .� y„� � �' '� .��`� «lx ��yf,��.� � 0�x.jj ��t 'irG �'°r ja +S '>€)^' �,v��a��'.,'�..' xf .Y7"'�^ wi N`"��z ..
t.
/,-;44,,A
tY F1.,, - 3 -.,, S€ t „,....} r ::, t ' �&`r ta;.j;',,r'a.a _, ,f: f .a ,4 e.' ( , Y ;a-t ,p4, ,•"-"C�'--:rc PjQp
. ��j, F : , , any(,$t s i s} )kl* t'YV ''''' f rT` j` "". i '7� R` /(ft "€,.fi + rxi ":."4�'�
ii
. itrP",'... ;, Z 4,,,i1,4,,S;r::-., . ,-/'?„{. _t•4, _�.s.; Y l.s "t :,may,^5"E,j•+F �t ttax� .9Y §y' '�' § z}} i 3..�4 {t�'.r '�. � .t��i;.''«.+j.S�M i i •^x*;',:• 11 1 . ° , * tie °5'� i.' :� d�. �rf. v S "l 5 �..0�t✓' d ..,f't €°'.kw' t` -'. af'..t-eT't' ...x .:a
rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-047/01(14)7ioa(K)
Figure 3.7-11
N - w-5 xin �
from Park Avestinue nearitions 40th Street
x Syr. >.d." •• d•
c � SaSf
'
L
ap . '3- Y'y", z Y.T./�4, 'R'»'<^ .SzJ. '',�. '�'d""' '/,� „r5s �:Y'eN,/y' t"y,x{
r/`x'
»fi
y.,
�S+
w�,
v;ty+ »r^ .6-
f' s`
• ram'" ry•
t
'3n Y. ei f
,� '3'. ,;E.o �.„'f.�. ,Y. •S. =.A '�1iF'h,4,','2 m:s},.y'r',..r >�
--,,,,S "- r1�. 1 'h " . i' c 01ee .—'4 ca. W :` JB ,r-:,,i.
�' `�� x 1 " � s .a b'a �. �1 � , �. ..r y t x e �..r F. ..,:'�``" h'.;7''>t rz`��c', <"71
'k., 4'Y.' „4 "t�. ..,,i, 9 $ ar„ ,:. +sa, '.i ate t ,w t ,, .4 ;'.. /,.w� ;~ f ,
rE . ', w m "P, r .4 . t • s s a s r n
�' S N
.E3t'� r � k .�„d,'a"*�`"t :. .. Asr?M* *,{ 'c * ..,,y� "' tee ' "..
•
SY 'Y Y I'9 4 5t . 7ZS�. �' "`..--. • '""'�'^' $ '"f r
40i!_P "art art�< � , ,. ,- - f` .. r . 4 , //w '�' .ym, y - V .
� ,ial �`i-�� s�•,,,'��'�.aa �'�� �}�'`+. spa t . ��a� .'�+�t '�`�esg�r��,,rc �'„`'� a?, •?,� ,�.�-a �' 4.a, y z�
•
•✓,�:. 4«s # a ' ', ,;., .... 144.,, J y y ��,3"F "..s� a " ,,s, air :,' .-x,�: t; c .z,,t y.,...., v, .,""'x i:.. 0.v< •,
� ✓ ;it. .,At:'!`, 1 t' t'"• .. - i:bk re�„t».,.+. . a,,cr lily ,,. •vv'r ;s;.q y v i q 'tS• ,:� e • j: € ,t s
I . ,T M ..k^ ,,,,`„+F:' '. Y R ate: .i R •
"..�4 "`: 17
�% 43 ,4 �1 a .1 li
'pc
,� Iv'
s ,s• �, a<^ "° B • ir:•;•§. �l�a t a }„ '.y.b' <{ .;,;l�,Y::., w"fii,°� o ,k� t :,, nli �` Y, .rr .a.
+� ',d� " ;r. 4"zi� ; y .r?= v i' .<€' .Z.�; „s Y . r�,� �m. .fir. �,i.:' .t;it.,„,''
, �'�• :Y; "
i" „,, � '''2 ;,�''roa..i "a a "k'a,;„ir:; -5 i,', ''Ilan :',p, ', ,v i.pi:,-:,
p1ty+ pp t� 3 r�
R ,:::,iv. i s' � .Ti���:a4,' ya'.���ti.�., �.<„!p;�'�t,ar,;,, „ ,.i E, §,�i s'",S t„5?;�,., 8°.� �, }� L`.< '�' �a, �'�P •�..�
n`-E4;' �3:'� , '•.�;.'rA.,° 3s;'VYn�;,.F°i:�Fa,.,., T .tl�",'s•: .`
"�g �' � ^� LTs «` `ri,: b _ Sk 'B'f�',„-',ry, y�,� +Yd''�s "t>f �:�`,, -:�� E �, �,.,
; �` � ,� • t yzi.' ��.,�,a s 1r ''i,q>a.a,-��",c, � -vr� •r�' � ;.
"ds ::L' a 1q ./ ' <.4 3 ,a•+ 1f,4•?`3r?3.',<',a?'.,,,;;$/ r:7° ' P`i y-k'V,q;, .'i • 3 .; .7,�"+a"f p ,"° 4'''P „ -k
My' „ 8 '%'a p3- ^. � e 4aa*xi.:'t� g ' -s� axt a13F ..8 % ?''t „ o " ti" - ;;t iY3I
Vit!,X15`,‘,*,:',',1::,;• '�� : +,• °' ��' Izt `�;'f� xJ t r 4:'i ; �a�:.�;�,� m} t. �� ` <� �,• ;�� s. r! �t; -,'� ,�z�;+»�'.
c:N=ad >�, ...�;,,r ''M r??{"'+? °si'�, ;;a' x�,�,km ��;"'ia' �'�� '`' .c �:)° ��r �'rigi:A2',--
� r �' �",".�,"a ��
_ 2 0„ ,,, es,x ,,,,,z'� ;`v '<.t 'r£ar, a :. 'ry ...? .,..5, '��t1'� '3,' -mi., _,' 4
2$ yik, ' rfr tT�,•),€,, ,"t,,,I ."f ••E ,+t n E. 'i2 " :, +�''a�,.s�, "�'� ;J4 ri4 `` '`¢>f` 3x,.s k vsr.�-Y'' v. ,r$ ! . ' '' �. r r:w>';i'z,:�} Y my� , rl f,►,..i:. 8 ? „,. 4 Y -v.t a . • B'�s"t,.; "` 'w""a
P-s.• •, "4 -• t< 3'� 4.t � 4, . , i,„%.: �. .3 . ' t+.'X; k,Zo? � dl
Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)7/03(K)
Figure 3.7-12
W View 5—Simulation of Development Buildings
as seen from Park Avenue near 40th Street
-77 ,147',-.---S''''7'`'7''''''•''•17- II' A *--..i.• „;....:.41:, - , :,-, ,,,,,,44
.. ,' ,%,f`,.VI.,,f;',.*:',,:•",',';''.,:97,:',:•;`,,%,,1,4 .4,:,,,I,F. .4,„„..! Is 334. ,,;,0%$:;,, ,±_ _____ _ -- - -- -
A-14g."--!:•71-,,,ili',,T„i-‘i'-'4,.,f,'.:' '1':f .-27,!: ';',#.,‘., ...f,,,,,g,..-4.,,,,,—P-.5ti--, 7-77.,,,,,--).77,„,',, .,... 7.,.. '-i,
,, —,,, w.., -4,, "7',-...-:pilitfrizp,ic....,.:,:'' ::: ,:,,,,y,,K,!,,, -,,,,,,-;:w,;.„,:a4i,f1.144. ,1-7,,-;-,-.:-.77,,*,,,,ix--..,,,,,, , ::.,,,,,,:c.:: ,.;,-_:,..--,,,,,,'„,,:.1 .:7,,,,,,, ,,l•-. -,,,,,,,,,, ,,,.,;,.' -v
,,,.
.,,,-- .i.,,, , .:-4,.,-te . , ,,,,, ,-.;,,,,,,fvli,lriv,:', ,-.,, ,,/,,,i- 4,i,,Ir. M.**,'-•"<",A,-,4,,,-,-,- .1 i'-'''1,;*-.",?:',0I'• -„,;•,• iti'-:,,,,',,,-. ,,,,;,:,';''., '',q,-;--,f',•;:,„1.-,:if,..-..",2,;: , ,',4,f',•'"-
#
------ - — 4,„'•,-, :,i.;',,,,::,•?,,:,,''.. 1:,,Z,T4 .,4'..',,4-1,1.:4,-,,,4,,,f 4',,,ts-i-:4fk,i,i. 4.*,,,1-::.: .-fr.:t;..-, ,:),*.,i-1..., 4ftiv„tr,',
f'',',"Ltest.,;,74 ?^ '' .i':1'' -*„;,,,,,r1t,4.fe itv.,'4,..:-.14,,,-v- 4,-,,..1.,,,,A.44°., ,,,.„4, • ,.,..„ ,,. 1.k,7,'Fi. ••• .,.,..-., -";,7,.•-' :,.i,,c- ' ,7'7''' ,;.--.47-4.;/,'':-,'-7 'ff•:',1
' 7 ;4,7 - 7-', -P''','-''-'4,"%, -;*./•4",til*'t•''..<a*v' ,...''44-7,4, ' -4;-01 ;41,,,, ',A, ,-,,,,,‘,. , •,-,..,..,,,,..." ,.-, T...,,,..„,,-,:.,,,,,, 4.....,,,,,.;,,,,,,.,. :,•.; • ,,,
A; „.„:„_, ,, -,,,,, :,,,, ,_tx,, _ 41.-., . ,4?, i,zt -'..,,g.(• -.-y-r -- .,'-•.---.`• •4-f,‘,1“-, '1i, -' ,a. '' -'' ' -,-gt.'f. " • IS-•''
' ,I,'",SI-,''z .44,', , -','Ke''''Ill''' '" ''.• : ,',;:, ''',''-,'f,,.-•',,',,,•:‘,t ,..k4:':^',.,'1, „A„ ::-,„r„.,,,' ;,-.'-'7,, ,',,,i-7-.7....',:p"'.4.,,i7),'" ';', '''''': -",'',:,, ,i, ,,?'"ig •,-;':i
#
ri';•:‘,"," ,' =`'.=tr,,,'-l'',''','* ='';','"'„ •-•': , =-, .•., %,:=1:::„0,01.',‘ •:.--,.e.,‘Fi',,i4,„-,,i,;-,.'.--, i,,',:{-;-,''.).-; ,', -44,:„11:-.: -.,.' .'',,,v .,..,!:.,,,,.t..40 t',?.r,'io-..,;,,,:,.,1',..' l';'', ,,1
., :., -,..,,,,,±, A ;', 4''':::-;--4,,,,,10,.,:144if t f,::,„et,,‘,,,-.,'4,4-,,'- ,' .-.‘,:i.,,.;.7, .,,,,!:,:r,i': (' '' ,, ,-,4gi-'-'-,4x.:1Y'"k-,::?,::::: :.:,.
z
.,„..., ,,,....,,,..„„,,,, . ,, ,,,t; :,,,,,,-.;ie.; ,:,A,fico,/,'v-- .:,,,-,,„, .ff:01,„ . .4.„'•,,, ,,,, ',, 4,,-,,, .,,::.,',Y,-,' •• ''',,,,,,,' '.'','‘,--;/"2:,.."- ', ;
t't-Vt',/ter',44',',';,;'-;" -;,!-.1071,.'44 it,,1 4M.414,„:;- ;,1.1"-,. .,,,t,,,,F,,,..,„Im ..,-p, , .,,4;,,,, ..,- .--:, ,„.. ..,- ,, ,,,, -, :,,,,:,-_, :,i .,.,:-.;
,)1,
,,. .,,,f,';?, :1;Alk•;,1,.4;F, 4..-0.514,41.1,,,0`4,ii....„,';-:":( ',, - ',..?,''.- .':,:.-7" ,,, ., ;t'`,%)4., ", .. ' " ? ,";,-• „'".':,;..-i,' .'.s.‘,;(4,,,,''.4,,,. ';°?;-:4, , ',5•,-': :,,,14 i
/,
Okr4I:Ity,,Z*31Arn::-2,, ni-, ,i. , ,,, '„,:,,,-,:-. ,,,-..-.,-:- ---,,,,,,:-., -.--,:',.....:,,,---,--;,, ,'1 k,:':o:',1' ',:‘X,4-,„",`;*'„;,.!-.,'z„i:..i.-,!;‘,„4:,:!,,7.-,:,-.-'s'i-:-V:;,--,,:.-,',•--.',t-2 2„1,.;..'.,:.,',7:,=;.°,,,\,,.,':A4:,,1z'-,.q:,.',1;,-,,',.-,.,-',,E,,°':'-,.''•,'••;,,.'';.':•''',-.:''::.:-:•,.:.'',''."A.:.*:i''.,,'-,-.:,'.,-:.:..',-,,P;..'.-:',:':,.;7,';,,:,,,,"'‘,,;','',-,',,.,':.-,)':','=',`":."‘'','.',.-",,,.,-,„,,:;,',.-;, ',:„.,",,.',',‘,;::,,',,•-"= ',,';;;;;;'-,-,,':'.,':•:?- „:„: "•'•,..„--,,.,-:,,%':,,;,.,,s;.!,:',1,,-',:,•,•..,.,.7',,,k,,..,:,k:-,. ',',,'''7I,,,,-'„,,-:,f,,:c',::a.,,,!,,-,?,"!;,'..,,..,"--'-,-,,•',-/,-'.,'.::--.;',,,-:,r';,:''.:7';,,,,,-;e';,';-',r,,:•,,,t,.,,:,,,.-,':;.,.,',,:., 2
I1IP , „ . ,, , .: . ,. ,. ., ..,.. , . . .~, • : ,-„, • , .::: .:: , '-,., , :, ,,, :,.1
' ,k,,P•; ',,, - ,• -',.-- -' •:;'-''' ' f*,'-' •17."'"*41•411.,' I ' ;.•,,,--,'.-. ' :-.-:;',.-' :-.4 ,,;'V,..7- .iie „...-.`..," "-.f:,2'• i 2:'; ':'....-- • •.• , ,, '',',',''•.- .: '''''''•.:.'-:, 'z,,,:- . :;',.•'-'!
' •‘'?'1- .s''''.7- ';4---'2''''%:'?'•'•' -'- '-'-'',",;'-'/4-'' ''''';'?:';''1,- ''''''';'--.4V'iP.,,, ,L::;;:-;',,-.. .: •.,..'-:....:?;-..;,-,`,:,';',:;'.„-::-',., "..,i, ' ;',;..- !: :,,',.:::t;;:.!,
2
:„;',7:, ' ',,-;,,,::, , - !,.i'‘,v.,'-:,,,,''s , ,,', „ l' .:!': :,',,,,7,,,•27-1«::.;:,.',,,,•:,f=?,'",=,,' ,,,,:' =,•:";,,",;.V ,;,q' q = -: .; ,,„2_,,,1,.4",",:i:`="=,,,,,,:i-,•: =p;,4:,.. ,4" "!=.''',,2:"=',",:,1
,,,,,,==,.:•',,', •'.' ' ' :,,` .,,', ""'.,z".•';''', '•,,;,2'''.4=.,•1 • ..-"=: = .:-i;',/,:'?''';',.::‘e`• .": .:.:',?;.''''. '''4''';,,,'..,,,';`'::';4,:,'„?",',; , .,,; ':%,,AfiA, •*:=:: „5-,---,;„,f-,&7,ix: ,,i.:,,,,i,.,,,,,,',,, . ,-,f ,'•y J: ;
•l'•47''''''': ' •""4-';''%•:::'; i '"'... "::;' ")%i" ':z1;•''5,,-*,:'%'=4"'•:1?1, • - ',...e‘O'‘::'0:fr ''', ‘Y.-r. 7g.t Yk›,,,,'"V",-!-,
,) • ‘ , 'fAi,4•,•''%-fifig: ''-•,,7,',',,,41,W--,t;"'4'§=if,•i.•=f1'''' '•:...":'''; -.'.=,•=,;'=';',.‘" ..:-..%, " . 1, . itt;le..,, '' .. .
:,i%'i.,,,,.* ,•=',,, •"L Vii;',;;;,,,„,7-4'''',=;f:7 '-',.,74:"•" qt,,A,,c,7%.',: ,'",,,!"4tRW ' /".- ''' "" .! ..,- ''t'7''''.'"'' '-.': :'4:1,12- :*"'!""=;;".5,...., '.f r tee.34.." '..gc /4-:, :,.t.,.. . 7.
,i'',e'; ' ,—", -,..'", ' :-:,.'''•:,4:',.'?::,' i ,,''..4- .. ' '.'.,::.;or'' .c.7%.: At''';'...i..)/1,* ,..4,13'•.°Y.- .!--,71...-.-r-,,,,,,,,.... ,4'1'1 -' . 7,:'
,-, •.- , 11-,,, •-•.. .. - - • : '!".15:"*::"":4,.„,- 1- .- !' :.... ,..•4 % .. •- .;......;:-.tA,*4---f;"%"=,77.it* .2.•,,,;*'%**.t1= <17, 71,,,. •7,.::, -1-e7,.r., :' .. •*•,z•
„. :,,r,,: . , • ',. -1. 'r•= . e...". .....*.7., ".,. 1,-',4,..+7,•,,!,-..* ' , . ,, , • *,:.,,'•''.4.4", ",1,:`,",„,,,,,,,, , '„,.4.*Ha,„„,,•; ..,7 '7 I'''''' **'f'.- 4'--.'.''--''' z ''' .-''7% t7' ' t. 4,*es'*'''',:., ;‹, '.•;,,,;',..'. .A<.•'4
1. ' * . **,.4' .:‘ .- 14 *: . .1. '; '''?'':"::;;44t4i;,,;.,t,^3-. .-;,r•:4.-.ti',777.'Ai;e:. -t:''4':'''' Y$'4;,,,,,,4;:',.n., !,,:,,',. :*:;'''‘i• '''''-If' '.. :7"'r";:"''°'
..r74* ;*:•;1 .:-7, ".:--, - ,r '‘,wo' '.4 f.:r-#iiir%fik,;.17':•, '.,;r7f r""4;;,:'.4.ar 4-;',.,'' :.fi..",M,';',i"','',.•-I-.1:.:e''''';.:• ':-r',-f'.i. 'i'''',:--,''.. ';''' , r:= k:":;"l';'-*"':*'
'''''''''-'q4.7,1"1"te44'7:41.44:4(4477::..,4ii, "T'.",,'1 f v f',.:''''f";';:' :Vill;','41/4'41.4,--i*(4/4 ...-;.,-.•'.;.r.'/- ;,,,t' -:-'7'.",:'It,''- 11f;-.'-`° s''..S.'\'..i`14:i:4-.,:',.".....;',.64• 1-,-•",s,,t::„.4.-''.. :,'-'.„_. t:0;0:.,.i.. „,-*,;%,',f:'' =--
?'''”:"'"*.:,:"4r74't;'',t•"*fe-=tr,.., -,,,,-,4,-.4'74 :k -/,','-',;:-.t...'c't;<-1 •;-,.41.,.,:st-, 11:tt,,44-'4-,0''';, -*:,. • ,'',.,„'. .=:',.,/,':-e.-',„',11,.. ,.%„-,,41, -,•!..-.1..--..-. •.,-,•'_,.;:::_--••••-.--P•.-:- -,--;.-Ti,- -../if&---,.!= -_-_7_
'-'.-'.7-- ,.•-,°-:"-fqtft-_-#:°-;•-•...; ',7,1:',i''*,%,"!-:,-;.-,,%„,.".j.tf:Tokilre.„R,,‘1:14',7 •;":7','',,-''' ;;T".'.4- i..*:-;,,','-';<': :::-.Z;f7`',::''Y 'r',,'',1k ,-':7./.'";'',:'"11'''':, ,..: ::.-s,',:Pt:1"•,' :P:I'*,17
*
CP),,"':**f;)1",..d., , ,iik„..„q;‘, .41,';'rr44AAtirfteVit,4-A.,.:.*fillitff, Ki :wg-r,''S"'',.,' '',;:';‘4-.. -*:--' ‘:47'41"-"', .--v.; 54.14:: :.,44...1 ,„.!',-,',;*,w,-.' ..."-vez.: 1;.,-.7 .";"t)--.°-.7-.2•• ,.,..... ;
itioo**1*,--,14 C..,--0W''."', ---•-' Noi#' '."-.74.''''''71.&.' .r•''''"04 -4,*40'-,--tA,,-vt'•,•,-,..,,,-,; ',`,,,,igigh,,e, ' ,'. '..• "*.f‘ ;,= '...• -4*A47 .* :.'•;7-,:16,,-,1-7. %;;, ,,;'*-.-2'.40,tri-W,....•,,,,tk;N.P".,' •t.t:'--4
le#':?.,lig,i: ,70.1.4%;'4::rttZr<%•.,,,i','''1.0;1...,6",';'''',4,;tellik,401Sei.r.P'...'*,,,,,',,,,ii17 4',,,':''.t..4 A '41;%.*.f,,4,'''''S..V," ','''''.e,,,;',,lf f„ '44,.,,,:.. ''.',f,V,1.*:.',:,..7.115. ,,;:,„,,, .' : '',
,,,,,,,,,,,,;0?A.„,,,.,::Le,;*.f,,,,7v'.',,„',.X.1!;4!,,,It fat`'41. roif'.„'":41.1:Nk1V.,.''''''''44;1140:..,t:.4.,. *. ,. 1.12,.C.,,, ,Iiirrlk,., ,,,i,',p..4,1* *.:**'±4 4'''''" , +.0.4'kt , ':*...... 4..*`.•;. '".:', ''' '4.1 ,*: '''''
4r, ....,75,,,,,,y,„„:„„, .,..,..,,,„lit,,,,,,:.„,„i. ,..„.....4:.4,1„,.....47,..viov, 4, „:,y,,,,_:„,...._...Tettl;,,.:,, ,,,,,,t,,,,tilV4)," VC,4tyz.- igk,.4. :,•.•, ,,o,,, ',sr',, -4-:,. ,1 : ,I.
,,r,„1,-,-, ,,, ,..,,,,-,,,...L.,,'•4,„;,,,,,*,4,.04,.'0,f,4.401,0,7'.*,,;,, ',196,..,4q. 4;7,04;,fi...'''''',I* 7%''''' - ,' ...-.7 0,4:11,10=7:*.1k7A7U. ;*,•iii*17.*444 ' 7`'0,,-. ...f.... -,, ,I., , . ,„..--„,, , .,,„ .,,,,,....., 4.-
k:`'i,',.-"xs4;lt':#41>t,F;;-."c(cc,„,1e3«t.11,,,..,,,;t7, -;:,.."--.,- ::c,”.,,..444 •,t,w,,tr..z", 4.,.„7 ,-:vt-,•"'" ..f..gzmt?„,-:-..,.._-!, 4::.t.;=,-.14.:„...-,-,,,--A,,,wr ,,,02,...e-- 7,4,..,r..,....;..-•„...,,ort,z;,ft
,,,,,,,,, ,,.,-,.' ,7,-,,,,t-- --,,,,,,),-...:43,1t41.4-1., vii:,--,-,..-r.,,, ,,,, :itrz,.;,,,-, . --ir . -,_,.......'.%-.., .. ..-....•..."[,...‹,,:,0 v-;,4,F.t:1.,;.,,,iZt..;.",-*•44..ts..,,:°"=.,,i35'''.AVAt:,;"'"".•'.-Z":':
'"1"',',1:1; `,"..`;',',-,k .-..,,,k,'",0;1 44to* ''„.,,,. W4 C.'. .. trik'-',',.t•-leu "", l•-,.....,..-,*t., - - "'`-: ',.---' ,--, -.4".'10 -47....;=,'N.'„,-,:a...'t,%%,-."0.4,•%7'..,W...**t.4.,4,,7444,,:fV,,,,',',57'7
t, t z
7';:ihAtt.,,,„: 7,i,71" ..---',e4f,„gi:04•0't,','**„*At,'.4-•• *‘.",„- *.'44(f.!';i4.1***-Z,.‘' ,,,Ar•'.****-- '-''''-f. ,,,,it %(°-#74"`"r-4,:**4." 7'.**..71"..0'.1%r*'-•-•• •••••*':-V7"7--.47,....«.ik,7'''' ''"7' ' ';'; 7. - '-'
,,,,,.'47 ,77** ,*7.;-°.:*':'t.774.7*Z-4'-'''' '''44"''-:P.77..T.'-'447tto*Ii*N***''SW•*"."*T. ::::-4,174.vvistrei-,vri;••• .:-tredcr,:t.-,' t...., - •''.."--.•::,7 ..1%,...:4g.- -A.41.4':,.:,:...;;..- :, -., ....
ki;:-.,.:-,--,:-.....v.;•;:*•-4-41-yait,,..-:;%..-,-0.2*,:,,,:,-----,,... --:::."'•:;Lit....,7;,..4,,i,b,_ ,_ .," *".-;.,,,*-.17.,-i,i;,,';;;',7-,:-,7-..,:•;5. -AVitt- .- ..-. --- - -.----..,--:---N.,74,-.... ....,,,_ ,... .!---.--,,.., .
---.-, ,. . „,.:, •-- 42:„, ,- --,..4:4,-,,;•-•;:.,- _...,...7
-., !,.,..ii,,,,,,,,.„,,,,,,,,4z-,,,,-,- ;;,... , , ,.,. gz,:::,-,-s-• . .4%. , ,,. .,-- • __,.,...*.-' --.4.-•N;;.. ii•r4.,t,-•-",-.7...g.,.--'--;
714-4,..,..,,,,4,..4:,,,„1.1.,. ,,:ay:,:. , --. -...--A - - ...„,:- --,.. ,..• -•--.7t--,1.2,1.,7,2-A,(.4,,„,
#--, ,._._.-t ...,. - - - , . .--_, --•.---., ---.4..i„ -1,-... ..,,-...........„---...._,.---- ,,,'.
•
,:',I.i. 1,..., : .',...e., .4*1 "- "* '' .. •N'' ' ' 4,:f 444—%-.,-'';.---.'"*.''- **"• ' • ': -,--; ' • • ,,,,:.„, ::; 4.
.... .,.,„„....4.,..„:, * . . !•,•.",' „,..,., :.,.. , ,...%.' '*.:.,'
.... —
. 4, .'"4.";l' :1±,t;..041.--* * ':**'. ‘".0 Z'''''*`-1:"**ft.• '.`r",* -. .r.:.''' ''''.:";''...".' '''''1.'.* .'- .' '
.t.:,!.......,.., . ... ,...,..1t.:,
.... • . '''
rametrix.City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure 3.7-13
; View 6-Existing Conditions as seen
.
from Lake Washington near Mercer
• 1 Island
1
,
i , , ,
1 , ,
-- , !-- - , [ • ' •- -
1 ,
_ - - - - • , I
, 1 _
, 1
J
CA el
=CO 73
'▪C
▪ CD
'.Yzia.`�! e ` "... ....4?t.°'.Y' ""'9 1a x� 6 f _ y j C
^ .v` 'S>° pa• A`t. ... s £ :a, y P JS c
03
�s��.. .� ����;;. .: 4i'• 'III, 3 sa� x , ' oe F e I•'fir i .}<ti'i. L
tifil:I
;. v:=,3 ` s ^ x..",+.sa:;°�: < a { :;5, g•� .'ia , �r. .z /E�
CD c
f° •„\ti";'..'."^"p=ia.t::�: s ae `� b:'Xf• : ' l ",471 ' ,4;f4p v ay yz :� ii
: :s:: 1;:t: I :
• sy 0
• • ,•= �i'�.r; a' "'"£k; ' €teaco
urd'• r s r > " C
CU
, .
. •, •
...m ,vv, ,,S .. . �• • ir
'^ ° ., 2 "d S • i `iAi E • •,!ei °} t� ,f f 7
co
•; • '`.�°`• :<\;�. ,... - .'`' '`:;eau "` #jE �3 :` a T �, r E J
,,,,,,,,i, .
:,,,
i ems' 3� 4.•...- :°:,= ?.; A ,,,.� ; {
:-,,,,,,,,!, fi,,,,..-111*C7T‘''L",°'-'4‘-'.''''' '! 5NE' ll'Artiri'r,i .:1 '., 13).ma 0
:trik.• ,of :��,'+a"'`H °l\y,< •� r`aax..a d- ^-sP ,� > S �f^' f E EF :"yS (' Iy� V
••`'• ` < � `' �' , •€.k fix 's o-° ,,• • € ,
••
•
..e � k ; - • �LL L.• : .: ' -,`-- v„ . < k �,,�� y£ 4f _,P �,' - , ".U,..�..£.;; • < , • Y°�ti,> t , € F ASEY
,' ‘0
•ii
r
•
3.: ..', . . �� ,':s! y'-•'' r` , '' 1F; � ,9• «ia�`>e-aH • -f.: y, :, �{.:l p >., r • 3 ai a • t� y 3' '� � zl ( #E . y '' , .::fa•.�� } Sa � ' ..'_ ., £4t�f�`'`.. ��:.��� e :. ;k;s,, .; M°A S M H •v'' "• .ms
•
11111
•>�� <,°`.k<�p,r Y.a�e ,� «�; -, �<aL'"° �. .E=�, n �t � �
, � � � :fir i4' r a
m'aea • ',',re a 's'- °:,`9 Em,, € • \ °gq t 'e i 1�C9 �' �` ' r
ye as «a«"`' ;,'4 ' „.-.' 'r :,e •w r m . to a�. z .. ',1; r . . i e,�„��
•
`fi'k ! >amig'Y..:. °a ',44,;;, . °{?:t,„;` ;'' 1, �• .rr� .: .t.�s1ra l4' 3�k ;ti °' :,
t•• v� ,fit s t'}P' q '}� a A s
-- :mt� •im♦ _ - �EYis � tF• �y � £t Pl� t"� 4�.�x�'F{k<��T. i,��� 4 �,�
s.
°�� 1 ie . b b, IN1. • Y i
sr ,1,;'',''�• •,fig y7 ,* a. lwr�. . t„" ty�,> j
Nk
s��'�t� &�}�'• ��; s� � >. '- .: n'�' �` � r� �x�.�i, ��.. `� s?�<{ `ate S
• '., °d='.i«.\"; i �v�:'<4..`k at 'L`ra«>'t F bipy+`��;• ..gn g a a B t 3 <P., A e'A"' v i
T 'kc ''• e •:�''. .,P v7,,---a,s�<� .,,,, rP .'€;bx 1 i ,, ... P r. f c 4• m
aN`:' ..w� -goo,'''• ', :. � - • z" kc >t3s ' '• "� ^nT °. .a • �i,� t' RvR <o
%:nt-s�;ey8 .e. :., ,, ' .r,.e <3Te ',.;i'x•.�•." ,` � ,, 1 .+ a a .'_t o
uay,\>, - �. ,,.».. �a.: .<wx-:,'4 ....i,,I., ;? ih :> 44 r+kT •ctk [rIVA
rn
•
p,8,"r e'.,"yA\iaH;= <ai•ds e»e a�� S 0
cc
'2Y's a � 1 r1•° ;''' � a• ; X �pCkt3° i `� .Ee$ F��(h(rfS.�� IT��y(�.'`4` 7T 0
Y ea,>,°•.3 \>•. •_ x�d°= • MEt.:i"fF l•, v "�Y•:i< il.p .. O
U
c) I)
!.y
1
•
is
i a
1I
III
I � 'I
Ii
1
t ose will have vies of the water quality tract with ponds and proposed low vegetation There are limited
o Iportunities for landscaping in front of the buildings where a 10-foot setback is proposed between the
ewalk and building front. For the most part, however,the only landscaping will be at May Creek and
e stormwater tract. At the latter, proposed shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees will provide limited
v sual relief.
C ntinuation of Industrial Use
T e visual impacts of this alternative would be moderate to high, depending on the infill density and new
b ilding heights. Assuming maximum allowable height and a higher density of buildings that extend
s i uth to the mouth of May Creek, the visual impacts could be similar to those for residential
d velopment, except that the visual character would remain industrial. The simulations approximate a
lly built-out condition. New buildings would probably be similar to the existing metal-siding industrial
rehouses and therefore have a neutral to negative visual impact. If infill construction were limited to
le northern end of the site where operations are now,the visual impact would be less than the residential
p oposal since the new structures would appear to be part of the existing building mass. Vividness,
i actness, and unity all would remain low, contributing to an overall low visual quality. More
1.1 dscaping is required if new buildings are approved, therefore tree screens and restoration landscaping
could be mitigate some of the negative visual impacts although landscaping of the public land along the
it
s oreline probably would not occur.
Far both alternatives, shading and shadow impacts on nearby areas might be slightly greater than existing
c nlnditions because of the density and possible heights of the buildings. The impacts outside the property
•uld not be significant, however, due to the distance of the nearest residential neighbor. Proposed
b ildings would be set back from the shorelines of Lake Washington and May Creek, so new shadowed
c nditions at these locations probably would not be created.
3 7.3 Mitigation
F1r the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic
i pacts could be reduced by a number of strategies ranging from changing building height and bulk to
s ii ecific building design features that that provide visual unity and interest to screening and softening.
C anging building bulk could take several forms. The most obvious would be to reduce building height.
T e proposed 50 foot height within SMA jurisdiction results in buildings that are about 60 percent as high
a V they are wide as seen from the street. Buildings outside SMA jurisdiction are proposed to be up to 70
f:et high, or almost as high as wide. Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce
b n'ildings more in keeping with typical low-rise residential development in the vicinity. It may be
o a served that duplex structures likely would not achieve the full building bulk presumed, since a 50 foot
high four story building on a 40 by 100 foot building site would have a floor area of about 16,000 square
fret. A second means of reducing the appearance of building bulk would be to increase setbacks between
b ildings,either separately or in conjunction with reducing building height. This would produce less of a
c. you effect on streets within the development and present less appearance of a solid mass of buildings
•m outside the development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary building
h 'ight,bulk, and setbacks. This could include a transition in height with the lowest buildings and greatest
s:,11
ltbacks near the shoreline, providing opportunities for buildings further inland to enjoy view corridors
o er and between buildings and presenting less of an apparent wall of buildings when viewed from the
ter or from residential shoreline residences to the south. Another option would be to step building
h-ights from east to west across the site, or maintain lower building heights at the site perimeter with
h'Igher buildings in the center.
I " Ciy of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D iaft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-117 September 2003
The use of common design features, materials and color, as well as landscape design, could provide a
number of features which reduce apparent bulk of buildings including sloping roofs, roof detail such as
gables and eve overhangs and building offsets that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive
wall surfaces. Window detailing can add considerable visual interest and provide both visual unity and
variety, depending on the use of common elements and the variety of size,position, or design provided.
Screening of the buildings on the site would require very large vegetation that would not be expected to
mature for a number of years. Mature vegetation can provide a crown area that is higher than building
roofs, or screen a substantial portion of building walls. The current design, however, does not provide
sufficient area in front, side or rear yard setbacks to support large trees. The design of landscaping for
open space areas could also provide for large species that would provide crown area that could provide
visual relief, as opposed to the dwarf ornamental trees proposed. The major public views of the project
could be softened by landscaping only if substantial landscape areas were provided between town homes
east of May Creek and the BNSF railroad right-of way. Such additional landscape area could result in
reduction in the number of units in that area.
Mitigation under industrial use of the site would probably be less effective because existing structures
would remain. Painting existing structures a color that would blend with the surroundings better than
white and aqua could reduce negative visual impacts. New structures that are taller than the existing
buildings should be designed to be either as unobtrusive or as interesting as possible. A formalized entry
into the site would improve the visual character of site as seen from the roadway.
3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE
3.8.1 Affected Environment
Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have
some shielding, but probably date to the 1960s; many need repair. There are no glare sources on site
because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass.
3.8.2 Impacts
Potential light and glare impacts for both alternatives would be minimized by incorporating preventive
measures in the project design;therefore, low-level impacts would be anticipated. The impact from glare
could be mitigated by careful design and placement of the buildings, especially with respect to windows.
Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street
and/or sidewalk lights, building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater
number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in
an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of
Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to prevent
spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall
brightness at night and would reduce glare. Under Alternative 2 (Continuation of Industrial Use), the
dominant light sources would be building-mounted and pole-mounted security lights. The density of such
lights could increase, but the overall impact would be moderate if modern lamps with shielding and low-
intensity filaments were designed into the project.
The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an
uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level
of ambient light. Impacts from the four other views would be lower since there are already streetlights in
the neighborhoods, and the site is partially screened by tall trees.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-118 September 2003
H adlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade
bei een the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the
roidway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south,
he) dlights generally will point into the bank, which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family
re idences.
' 3. .3 Mitigation
F r both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light
from distance residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast,
s ielded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding
gl e from glass surfaces that might temporarily blind motorists or cyclists.
is project is not expected to generate indirect or cumulative impacts that would be significant after
m tigation.
3. NOISE
3.4.1 Affected Environment
3.•.1.1 Background on Noise Definition and Measurement
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound(EPA 1971).
e human ear responds to a very wide range of sound intensities. The decibel scale (dB) used to
d:scribe sound is a logarithmic rating system, which accounts for the large differences in audible sound
in ensities.` This scale accounts for the human perception of a doubling of loudness as an increase of
11, dB; therefore, a 70-dB sound level will sound about twice as loud as a 60-dB sound level. People
g:' erally cannot detect differences of 1 dB; in ideal laboratory situations, differences of 2 to 3 dB can be
d=tected by people, but such a change probably would not be detectable in an average outdoor
e vironment. A 5-dB change would probably be perceived under normal listening conditions. Sound
le els associated with a range of common noise sources are shown in Table 3.9-1.
en addressing the effects of noise on people, it is useful to consider the frequency response of the
h an ear. Instruments are, therefore, designed to respond to or ignore certain frequencies. The
fr'quency-weighting most often used is A-weighting; it approximates the frequency response of human
hearing and is highly correlated to the effects of noise on people. Measurements from instruments using
th s system are reported in A-weighted decibels or dBA. All sound levels in this evaluation are reported
in A-weighted decibels.
D stance from the source; the frequency of the sound; and the absorbency of the intervening ground,
o,I'structions, and duration of the noise-producing event all affect the transmission and perception of
n ise. The degree of these effects also depends on who is listening and on existing sound levels. The
v. iability in the way individuals react to noise makes it impossible to accurately predict how any one
i o ividual will respond to a given noise; however, when the community is considered as a whole, trends
e erge that relate noise to annoyance. Two main types of health effects may potentially occur from
e `cessive noise: auditory and non-auditory. Auditory impacts are caused by high noise levels that can
p 'tentially damage hearing and produce either partial or total deafness. Non-auditory health impacts
include sleep disturbance and speech interference and may also involve human physiological (other than
hearing damage)or behavioral effects.
Ciy of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-119 September 2003
3.9.1.2 Regulatory Overview
Washington State and City of Renton Noise Standards
The City of Renton has adopted the state of Washington's noise regulation in WAC 173-60-040.
Maximum permissible environmental noise levels are set based on the Environmental Designation for
Noise Abatement(EDNA)land use categories in both the noise source and receiving property.
There are several important variations and exemptions in the noise regulations, including the following:
1. Day/night noise levels are set a standard 10 decibels lower between the hours of 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.
2. An exception is provided for short duration noise levels exceeding the standard, which
provides for exceeding the standards above by one of the following amounts for the following
periods:
a. 5 dBA for 15 minutes in any 1-hour period
b. 10 dBA for 5 minutes in any 1-hour period
c. 15 dBA for 1.5 minutes in any 1-hour period
I 3. The following exemptions from noise regulations are relevant to this project and the
surrounding context:
a. Sounds from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity are exempt
at all times when received by Class B and C receptors (commercial and industrial) and are
exempt when received by Class A receptors (residential) during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10
p.m.).
b. Sounds created by motor vehicles are exempt when regulated by chapter 173-62 WAC.
c. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight are exempt.
d. Sounds from railroad operation are exempt.
e. A variety of emergency and warning devices are exempt.
f. Bells, chimes, and carillons are exempt.
The regulations apply differently according to the use of the site. For industrial use, the maximum noise
level for the residential area across Lake Washington Boulevard from the Barbee Mill site is 60 dBA,
based on a Class C source and a Class A receiving property. For residential use of the site under the
proposed residential use, the maximum noise level is 55 dBA, based on a Class A source and a Class A
receiving property.
Noise levels for individual motor vehicles are regulated by performance standards in WAC 173-62, also
adopted by the City of Renton. These rules set limits on the noise generated by various classes of motor
vehicles. These standards are based on noise levels at specific distances (e.g., 50 feet) from vehicles
moving at particular speeds (e.g., 45 miles/hour). These limits range from approximately 72 dBA to
approximately 90 dBA,depending on the class and speed of the vehicle.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-120 September 2003
1
I
1 Table 3.9-1. Sound Levels Produced by Common Noise Sources '
Thresholds/ Sound Level Subjective Possible Effects on
Noise Sources (dBA) Evaluations Humans(a)
uman Threshold of Pain 140 Continuous exposure to
arrier jet takeoff at 50 feet levels above 70 can ,
iren at 100 feet cause hearing loss in
Loud rock band 130 majority of population
.et takeoff at 200 feet
120 Deafening I
Auto horn at 3 feet I
Chain saw
oisy snowmobile 110
ocomotive Horn
11 pact pile driver
awn mower at 3 feet
oisy motorcycle at 50 feet 100 Very
Loud
Heavy truck at 50 feet 90
Pneumatic drill at 50 feet
ydaytime..... ...P................................................_.._ $�---___..___ Loud
ormal automobile at 50 m h 70
us urban street,
acuum cleaner at 3 feet
— - .._...-._.__.............._........._..._... — --- _ — __.. _ Speech Interference
it conditioning unit at 20 feet ,
-conversation at 3 feet _.................._.._.._.........-......._....._............._._._._.--.._...._._._...__._..._.-_60__........._...._...._._.._ Moderate ______...--.---...__....---.._...__.__.__....__.._..
uiet residential area
Tight auto traffic at 100 feet 50 '
Sleep Interference
Library 40 -
C uiet home Faint
Soft whisper at 15 feet 30
Slight rustling of leaves 20
Broadcasting Studio 10 Very Faint
Threshold of Human Hearing . 0
I
Both the subjective evaluations and the physiological responses are continuums without true threshold boundaries. Consequently,overlaps exist
j among categories of response,depending on the sensitivity of the noise receivers.
(a)Source EPA 1974
The maximum noise levels are indicated in Table 3.9-2.
Table 3.9.2. Noise Levels i-
I
EDNA of Noise Source EDNA of Receiving Property
Class A Class B Class C
CLASS A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA
' CLASS B 57 60 65
CLASS C 60 65 70
'I Source: WAC 173-60-040
.
CI ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 _
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-121 September 2003 1
I j
Noise levels from railroad operations are governed by federal law (the Swift Rail Development Act,
enacted November 1994) that requires that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) adopt rules to
{ regulate railroad crossings. The FRA rules require locomotive horns be sounded upon approaching every
"unsealed" public grade crossing. An unsealed public grade crossing is defined as a crossing without
grade separation, quad gating, or crossing guard with median barrier. The rules also require each lead
locomotive to have an audible warning device that produces a sound level of at least 96 dBA at least 100
feet ahead of the locomotive. The minimum noise level of 96 dBA(with averages between 100 and 110)
ensures that it can be clearly heard and recognized over ambient background noise in a variety of
environments, such as inside an enclosed automobile or truck cab and by railroad employees. In addition,
all major railroads have operating rules that require their engineers to blow train horns at rail grade
crossings as a warning to motorists and pedestrians(FRA 1999).
3.9.1.3 Existing Noise Levels
Existing sources of noise near the site include the following:
• Noise produced by operating the Barbee Mill Sawmill. This mill site is presently a relatively
small noise generator. The main sawmill is operated intermittently to saw the small amount of
unprocessed logs currently on hand. Machinery in the main sawmill building and the planning
building is completely enclosed, which reduces noise levels. The sawmill and planer buildings
are about 800 feet from the closest residences east of Lake Washington Boulevard, which
attenuates noise levels. There is also a fmishing operation for windows and doors located in a
building near the northeast corner of the site about 250 feet from the nearest residences.
• Noise from operation of the Quendall Terminals, located to the north of the Barbee Mill site is
largely from loaders used to store and sort logs. The major source of noise is the operation of
heavy diesel machinery, which generates noise levels from 90 to 100 dBA. The Quandall
Terminals is approximately 500 feet from residences on the east side of Lake Washington
Boulevard and an equal distance from residences to the north on Ripley Lane.
• Noise from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals is
caused by heavy machinery and noise from maintenance of boats. Residences abut that property
to the north.
I
• Noise from arterials in the area is largely related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington
Boulevard,which currently carries about 400 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Noise levels for
residents close to Lake Washington Boulevard are typically 54 to 64 dBA, as indicated in Table
3.9-3.
Table 3.9-3. Noise Measurement Results
Location Noise Measurement
Map Code Street Address Ley Lmax Date Time
1 44016 Lake Washington Boulevard N 55 64 05.11.2000 1:45 pm
55 79 05.22.2003 11:20 am
2 Eastport Shores Apartments, 59 68 05.11.2000 12:20 pm
4100 Lake Washington Boulevard N
3 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard N 54 62 05.11.2000 3:30 pm
4 3940 Meadow Avenue N. 68 71 05.11.2000 2:15 pm
Source: WSDOT 2001
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-122 September 2003
I I
• Noise from the I-405 freeway about one quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady
background daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from
especially noisy trucks. Average noise levels at residents adjacent to I-405 typically range from
68 to 71 dBA, as indicated in Table 3.9-2.
• Noise from train operation includes engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive
j ! horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA
at a distance of 50 feet from the source (Dane 1998). Locomotive horns are sounded at rail
crossings of public streets and at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle
or pedestrians near the tracks. Horns would not be sounded at the existing private driveway
entrances to the Barbee Mill site or the Quendall Terminals site, unless vehicles or pedestrians
were observed in the vicinity. Four trains a day typically use the BNSF rail line to the east of the
Barbee Mill site (Cowels 2003 personal communication). Locomotive horns typically have a
sound level of about 115 dBA. Measures of existing trains indicate average sound levels of about
110 dBA at crossings, 107 dBA 1/8 mile away from crossings, and 101 dBA 1/4 mile from
crossings. Sounding practices of railway engineers typically result in whistle durations from 20
to 40 seconds(FRA 1999).
Sensitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools, nursing homes,
hiispitals,or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site.
.ise levels in the vicinity have been surveyed recently for studies related to I-405 improvements and for
is project. Noise measurements are indicated in the table below. Traffic noise was the dominant noise
s.urce at all locations monitored.
T I e primary source of noise for receptors 1 and 2 is Lake Washington Boulevard. Receptor 3 receives
no ise from both Lake Washington Boulevard and I-405 because of its elevation and direct line-of-sight
e ','Iposure to both roadways. Receptor 4 is located north of the existing noise wall on I-405 and that
fr'-eway is the primary noise source.
39.2 Impacts
3''9.2.1 Construction Impacts
•
D' ring construction of any of the alternatives, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels along
e proposed new alignments and existing access areas due to the use of heavy equipment and the hauling
o construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the type of equipment being
u ed, and the amount of time it is in use. Table 3.9-4 displays ranges of noise produced by typical
c i;nstruction equipment.
i � I
I addition to the noise levels associated with these typical types of construction equipment, construction
o this site may require driven or drilled pilings for deep foundations due to the loose delta deposits in the
a. The depth of foundations would depend on the depth to cohesive geologic deposits that could
s I pport foundations without risk of settlement or failure. Generally,the depth to consolidated deposits is
eatest in the westerly portions of the site.
P le driving is potentially the greatest source of noise and vibration generated from construction activities.
T ere are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce a high
1; el of vibration for short periods(0.2 second)with sufficient time between impacts to allow a building's
rasonant effects to decay before the next vibration event. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this type
o source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver,which can operate at different frequencies,vibrates the pile
i to the ground.
Cty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-123 September 2003
I _ ,
As shown in Table 3.9-4, sound levels 50 feet from construction equipment exceed the levels
recommended for residential land uses. The residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly
site boundary and are separated by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the
site west of May Creek is a minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. Construction noise is exempt
between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. from the maximum permissible sound levels specified in the noise codes of
Washington State(WAC 173-60)for residential receiving properties. Construction noise impacts to most
existing residences are likely to be moderate because of distance attenuation. The likely exception is
access roadway and bridge construction impacts on existing dwellings along Lake Washington
Boulevard. The greatest noise impacts are likely from pile driving. The greatest impacts would be
experienced by occupants of the initial dwellings constructed on the site from foundation pile driving over
the build-out period.
Table 3.9-4. Typical Construction Equipment Noise(dBA)
Construction Estimated Leq Types of Range of Noise Levels
Activity 50 feet 350 feet Equipment 50 feet 350 feet
i
Clearing 83 6$
Bulldozer ; 77-96 60-79
Dump Truck 82-94 65-77
Scraper 80-93 63-76
Grading 75-88 58-71
I
Bulldozer 77-96 60-79
Paver 86-88 69-71
Paving 72-88 55-71 -.._.._.—
Dump Truck 82-94 65-77
ti Building Construction 85-90
Impact Pile Driving i 90-105
Vibratory Pile Driving j 85-95
Source:EPA 1971
FTA,Noise and Vibration Technical Report,1995
3.9,2.2 Rail Noise Impacts
Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a distance of
50 feet from the source. This would impact the residents on the east side of May Creek, next to the BNSF
tracks. Locomotive horns sounded at the rail crossings of the proposed public streets will result in noise
levels of 110 dBA at crossings, 107 dBA 1/8 mile from crossings, and 101 dBA 1/4 mile from crossings.
The creation of public road crossings would make horn sounding mandatory and would, therefore,
increase the frequency, as compared to current discretionary sounding. At the current frequency of four
trains per day,the impacts to most residences on and off the project site would likely be slight, especially
because most existing trips are during the day or in the early evening for the Dinner Train. If train
frequency became more frequent in the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant
annoyance along the entire rail line on the east side of Lake Washington, which is generally a residential
area from the south end of the lake to where the railway crosses I-405 in Bellevue. The BNSF has no
plans to increase rail service on this line in the next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service, however, does not
require approval of local jurisdictions under federal law governing railroads.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-124 September 2003
3. '.2.3 Transportation Noise Impacts
No ise impacts from increases in traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard related to regional growth and
ter.s from the project are within the range of traffic volumes and noise impacts previously studied for the
I-1 05 interchange at 44th Street. Future projected noise levels in Table 3.9-5, below, indicate that
in i reases in noise would range from 1 to 5 dBA. A change of 3 dBA is generally is the threshold at
w ich a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons.
, !
N o ise levels from traffic on Lake Washington are still well below the levels of 67 dBA for residences that
th Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a noise impacts (FWHA 23 CFR 772).
e increase in noise at 3940 Meadow Avenue N is related primarily to I-405 traffic. The level of impact
o i traffic from this project on I-405 would not produce a detectable noise impact.
3.4.3 Mitigation
3.9.3.1 Construction Impact Mitigation
S ii to and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
Construction noise, however, can negatively affect people living nearby. The noisiest activities, such as
p'I a driving, could be restricted to start later and end earlier.
A variety of relatively simple and inexpensive practices could reduce the extent to which people are
air ected. For example, construction noise could be reduced with enforcement standards requiring
fflers on equipment. Practices such as turning off equipment when idle could also reduce noise.
S'ationary equipment could be placed as far away from residential receptors as possible. Portable noise if
b� iers could be placed around equipment, with any openings directed away from the residential
r-ceiving property. These measures would generally provide an approximate 10-dBA reduction in sound
. d would be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and similar equipment
at would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels. Substituting
h ldraulic or electric models for pneumatic impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills, and pavement
b eakers would also reduce construction noise.
T e effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible
d pth(depth may be limited on this site the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would result
less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place concrete
c be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is installed
u ing an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal,thus eliminating
e need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and the need for
1.teral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction. 1
3 9.3.2 Rail Noise Impacts
I e FRA proposed regulations to allow designation of a "quiet zone" that would make sounding of
1 o comotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than mandatory. The regulations have not
y-t been adopted; however, they provide some indication of the likely range of measures that might be
taken if locomotive horn noise became a problem because of increased use of the rail line.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
raft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-125 September 2003
Table 3.9-5. Noise Modeling Results
Modeled Peak Hour Leg(dBA)
Location 2000 Existing 2025
1 44016 Lake Washington Boulevard N 55 58
2 Eastport Shores Apartments,4100 Lake Washington
Boulevard N 62 63
3 3901 Lake Washington Boulevard N 54 59
4 3940 Meadow Ave. N. 68 71
Source: WSDOT 2001
The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application by a local
community if at-grade rail crossings are improved to decrease the likelihood of automobile or pedestrian
conflicts at rail crossings. To accomplish this, rail crossings would have to be improved to meet a
"sealed" status to "fully compensate for the absence of the audible warning provided by the locomotive
horn." This would require that all approaches be controlled by four-quadrant gates, median-divided
barriers incorporating gate arms long enough to block all lanes and prevent driving around the gates.
Gates would also have to block the sidewalks. FRA estimates the cost of a quad-gate installation to range
from $200,000 to $1 million, depending on whether it is associated with traffic signals and based on the
number of lanes of roadway and the number of rails(FRA 1999).
3.9.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Unavoidable adverse noise impacts include the residual noise from construction,trains, and use of the site
that cannot be reduced to acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described below. The most
_k substantial unavoidable adverse impacts would occur from impact-driven pilings for foundations, if less
noisy alternatives should prove infeasible because of the character of geologic deposits.
3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
( This section considers potential historical and cultural resources at the Barbee Mill site, discusses
probable impacts on these resources, and suggests mitigation measures. A brief history of the Barbee
Mill site and an inventory of existing buildings and structures are provided. The analysis presented here
draws upon previously recorded investigations, in particular the following documents: Archaeological
and Traditional Cultural Places Assessment (LAAS 2001), Cultural Resource Assessment JAG
Development, King County, Washington (LAAS 1997), and Historical Resources Discipline Reports
(BRA 2000). These reports (completed for other development proposals) were in-depth and
comprehensive investigations into the significance of possible cultural and historic resources at the
Barbee Mill site. The Renton Historical Society and Museum was contacted, resulting in a telephone
ate,
interview with Mr. Stan Greene,a researcher for the Society.
3.10.1 Affected Environment
3.10.1.1 Applicable Regulatory Compliance
Prehistoric and Native American resources are protected by federal and state laws, regulations, and
guidelines. Washington State laws addressing cultural resources are the Archaeological Sites and
Resources Act(RCW 27.53)and the Indian Graves and Records Act(RCW 27.44). Under these acts,the
agency is responsible for making a reasonable and good faith effort to identify Indian Tribes that attach
significance to this site. To comply with this act, Parametrix contacted the State Historical Preservation
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-126 September 2003
I
I ' '1
I O f ce (SHPO) by letter, on behalf of the city of Renton, to solicit existing information on historic and
c tural resources on site. Similar letters were sent to Tribes that may have an interest in the site to solicit
th-•ir input. The SHPO (Dr. Robert G. Whitlam) responded with a voicemail message acknowledging
' re'1 eipt of the letter. Letters describing the proposed action were sent to the Duwamish, Kikiallus,
M ckleshoot, Snoqualmie, Suquamish, and Tulalip Tribes.
3.10.1.2 Historical Background of Barbee Mill Tract 'I'
I
e Barbee Mill property was once part of a larger (160-acre) parcel purchased around 1875 and owned
1 b J.Madison Colman. In 1903,the Northern Pacific Railroad Company acquired a right-of-way through
th- property along the eastern edge and built the railway in 1905. Barbee Marine Yards, Inc., a ship and
b.i ge building company, purchased the southern third of the Colman property in 1943. The Barbee Mill
C(�impany, Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property, retaining the
sa ill operation but abandoning the ship building business. At that time,there were numerous sawmills
o.ierating on Lake Washington, but the number had dropped to thirteen by 1950. Today the Barbee Mill
is e only active sawmill remaining.
A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except the Barbee water tower and the wooden mill
w ehouse. The mill was completely rebuilt in 1959 and incorporated these two existing structures. The
w•ter tower, built in the 1930s, was purchased in 1943 and was barged from the Seattle-Renton Mill `'
Company in Bryn Mawr by Barbee Marine Yards. The mill warehouse, also known as "the black
b lilding," was constructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the
ij
years, including replacing windows and the sliding door.
H storic Resources
I
ITie HRA report,Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange(2000),
ws undertaken to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,which contains the
c i teria for determining if properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A
p operty may be eligible for listing if it is at least 50 years old and qualifies for at least one of the
f•I lowing:
• It is associated with events that made a significant contribution to the area's history.
• It is associated with a significant person.
• It embodies distinctive characteristics of the period's style or method of construction, represents
the work of a master, is of high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entry
whose components may lack individual distinction.
j • It may yield information important in prehistory or history(36 CFR 60.4).
I
B ildings or structures that are less than 50 years old can qualify for the National Register but only if they
e integral parts of districts that meet the criteria for Register eligibility or are of exceptional historical
i portance(HRA 2000,p. 16).
e report covered the three properties on the May Creek delta: Barbee Mill, J.H.Baxter Company, and
e Quendall Terminals. Historic property inventories were completed for the Barbee Mill Warehouse
a o d the Water Tower, neither of which was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
P aces. The mill warehouse and the water tower are associated with the sawmill industry on Lake
ashington,which was important to both the local and Puget Sound economies. This meets the criterion
11
f•r being associated with events that made a significant contribution to the area's history; however, the
s 'rvey indicated that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of the Barbee Sawmill or,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 -
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-127 September 2003
r
r '
of the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that they lack "integrity of
setting or feeling associated with the site" (HRA 2000, p. 1) as individual components because the
original site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. The buildings that now comprise the sawmill
,_ operation are of a distinctly different character from the wood warehouse and are less than 50 years old.
Since the Barbee Mill does not qualify as an historic district, nor is it of exceptional importance, it was
�_ determined that the mill warehouse and water tower were not eligible for listing in the National Register.
1 ' The SHPO concurred with the finding.
A site inventory was conducted in February 2003. For completeness, the structures are briefly described
in Table 3.10-1, below. The list is generally from north to south Locations of structures are indicated in
Figure 3.10-1. Dimensions are approximate,as scaled from the CADD survey drawings.
_.` Table 3.10-1. Structures on Barbee Mill Site
q--; Map# Resource Name Year built Description
1 Warehouse 1970s One-story metal; partial lease for storage 80 x 160 feet
2 Warehouse 1970s One-story metal empty 80 x 140 feet
3 Mill Warehouse 1945 One-and two-story,wood-frame 120 x 80 feet
"The black building"
4 Boise Building One-story, metal, "Cut line"shop where timber trusses were
- made 140 x 95 feet
5 Green Shed One-and two-story, metal,storage of wood from Shop(#4)310
x 40'feet
. 6 Wharfing pier Early 1940s Wooden dock for loading/unloading barge.
7 Sawmill Complex One-to three-story buildings,metal,for unloading, barking,and
(Note: buildings are on slicing logs. Includes shop on first floor,production equipment
DNR-managed area on second floor,and storage for blades and saws on third floor.
outside'inner harbor'line) Total=260 x 60 feet
i 8 Waste Wood Complex Assemblage of conveyor belts, ducts, chipper,associated
machinery and support structures. Includes a small building for
office and rest rooms,and a sawdust collection tower.
Approximately 230 x 200 feet
lL 9 Planer Building One-story, metal 100x 140 feet plus two small rooms
10 Water Tower 1930s 108 feet tall. Transferred to site in 1943. 30-x 30-foot base
11 Old Kiln One-story, metal;dry kiln and cooling shed 160 x 50 feet
- 12 Shed 45 x 35 feet
13 Garage One-story metal 60 x 50 feet
I. 14 New Kiln One-and two-story metal 190 x 45 feet
15 Boxcar Building One-and two-story wood frame with metal siding for loading
wood products onto boxcars for shipping 120 x 40 feet
16 Sheet piling 1960s Constructed dock edge of property
17 Office 1960s Main office building for Barbee Mill 60 x 30 feet
18 Boat House Two-story metal 60 x 30 feet
r
_. r
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-128 September 2003
I
A'l /J.dF
f /+r,i+ r'"' �7 t i t
OHW---______ r1.•
I/„7,:z2.: -A..a„-i-
.---.,,.,,,„..-,ii,,)..,).W.Aqt—az,,,,,r m..+d7m2'le.-tm.N.—i=.'";";--7::/1
,1., \i.r.-i`ir,›-114•1' ii\/A I (isi)1'r
7 4-7—y,7/7 4
-- irf.L , .,._
-I / (� —' ` 5 s/� / f
f f i� -„- /
r 7 ! /
J
1 6\\I----j / p„,.„,/ I I / 7 /
<7 A \ r / ri /
1 tO r------1 /±,,..,,:7-- -;'... ' 7 i / /
.__ cE1-4 ,....-- - /*
1 i /
•
i i 4 t_....._ O "lZ
1
1 , i /I 4(''''''" ,,,
1 \ 14,-,---- ,/,/,://
\C.1---hi ''''\ 7/ . ,
LAKE � ' f , /I /iui1 /
WASNGTON 15 „'///A
1 ' ` j.0 i 'f" •
__ t i f 1 1 `(.rt i i E E /�.
A I /44 1
). / hiii//11 / ,.7el/r/ ///'
.__,,,....- I i/ / /
1/ 16\
7,/ ,7<:,-,1.71—__/, . -7- '' '---,,,, /
i, . /,,,,,,,,2 ii r vx/-- ---,-------z-- .7, / ,
, ,
,,,,, (2 , ,,,i/fr v, ---,, (.,,,,7/ /
\),,, ,..,,,_ _ .,, I' /
, , 47 /
, NNN:; ------7
___„:„..,..., „,, , • , , A
__ \__ _ ,„--- „,,,,, ,_, ,,,,,...„,„,, , .. A, ,,,,,,„ / \...,
._..,...„.„....
,7
MAY CREEK rr \�ti,,,. ' r` 77 %
DELTA * -/ v'�-, ' ," / / ' -
:‘,7,----- ..,,,,de (7-if .7/ 1 i I / /
N 40TH ST
/ I�<<
Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-10-01
SCALE IN FEET gib .Figure 3.10-1
NOBuilding Locations
o ioo 2lo Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
3.10.1.3 Cultural Resources
Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding hunter-fisher-gatherer
cultural resources is near the original location of May Creek(LAAS 2001;LAAS 1997),which was at the
north end of the May Creek delta. The original May Creek was the home of the Lake Washington
Duwamish, who knew May Creek as "the place where things are dried"because they gathered and dried
salmon there. As Euro-American settlers began to occupy these traditional gathering and fishing places,
the indigenous people moved or were moved to other locations. The combination of unsatisfactory treaty
terms and the occupation of usual and accustomed fishing and gathering places resulted in skirmishes
between some tribal groups and army troops and volunteers. Apparently the May Creek villagers
remained at their village for several months after the war ended, living in three houses. Eventually most
of the tribe moved to reservations. The USGS surveys of 1860s did not record any Duwamish houses at
May Creek.
Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916, most of the Barbee Mill site was under water, and the
eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened, the shoreline dropped approximately
9 feet. There has been considerable disturbance of the land over the last 100 years for industrial uses and
then for construction of I-405. Material from the upland portions of the site was used as fill to create
usable land for the shipbuilding and sawmill operations. The changing shoreline of in the vicinity of the
May Creek delta is illustrated in Figure 3.10-2.
No cultural resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified
anywhere on the delta, but it is possible that some remains exist in the northern part because of the
historic tribal uses of the original May Creek. Only the northeast corner of the Barbee Mill site, near the
black building, falls into this area. Since most of the site is paved with asphalt, it was only possible to do
shovel probes at the south end of the site. The holes immediately filled with water, indicating that there
are several feet of fill here. This is not unexpected since the shoreline was moved farther to the west by
constructing bulkheads and backfilling, and May Creek was relocated southward twice. Based on the
above findings,the cultural assessment reports indicated that it is unlikely that this site would contain any
intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources, but that the northeast corner had the potential for deeply buried
resources.
3.10.2 Impacts
3.10.2.1 Construction Impacts
Direct impacts on the buildings and site within the Barbee Mill site would occur from the demolition of
existing buildings and construction of new buildings. The buildings have been determined to be
ineligible for listing in the National Register; therefore, there would be no effect on historic resources. It
is unlikely that there are any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources on site, except at the northeast corner
near the black building;therefore,while unlikely,the potential exists for impacts to cultural resources.
3.10.2.2 Operation Impacts
Operation of a development under the Barbee Mill development plan would not affect cultural or historic
resources.
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-130 September 2003
_
.... .. Shoreline Boundary
V 1 0
„.....,
14
'. .. ' 1 - •• _t
' .• .... "alt,-t ilk, • . "- •
(United StatesSuryeyor General 1864) I;: t 0 ., .
„ ., ,i 1!f.,. .tx 0 .,.;', :' r --H, ::
'- May Creek ' ' 1 '. * \'' ' i, '' ---•-•
(United States Surveyor General 1864) / ::*‘, :::,,ii, ',. :-.?, 1864 Wagon Road t
. 1 , •
Trail .. . ' . .I/ .- .1 '14.-
(United SatesSurvayor General 1884) • .' if e0.1113 -- ''.1,'',
,, , ,. 1. .1 l'ira • :;:: '. 2,---4\17.. •
Shoreline Boundary ,, , .",./../..,,.. a t'i.
(United States Corps of. ngirisera 1920) .'",•,—...1:Q, i ' •-lk ..-
,-7 ,•;,,,,," ,,,,,,, .,! 1. hi a -1 ...••••••,•...,--i, , Mey.:Oree.li ,_.;., -:-:!•-',..,-----''A i..„4. rgl, :. '''t . •
(OnitOd:$.tittei.4krmy corps of Engineers,1944 •''•,-'' ''-i4'o,'iif• ' li.:,, fl 1, •• ' ' H. .1,1
'!sm.mem!ow Fanner Rellroad‘ , -,,,,,,, „ir ....., or .ip .. :,,,,.,,,,, -,-- .0 IP
(tkite;d1StateS,A0yr!Orps..of.Engineers 1920) ! •\.• 1 ..1:`" - „,,,tr .)1 ' A. ' ' $
'.....• SN...*,,xdeen, .,.... '. 0
(_ . • ' ' 1 PresentMay'Creek, •' "r..Z.,..,— -; •'.•.1 ,9-- -• 4,-• . . -,
9 Marsh.
•
.si,,,..,:‘,..„. „4, ..._. , :-.1c,, - • . , „.,....
. „.. ..•, -- (itnitett•States MO Corps ofgngineers•1920) :.,,, ..• .0 .-,1 (tr .e .. ,• . 0 _ :'1 _
1 , • • • 4$0'.7 I -
0.4- •':,-.1, .• 0 't7 11 :11
. , - ,.;lr.,.47,/ ir C .. ,'' i 1.
/I • 170 Shoreline.'''. .:i.,44.:LI, . .,z) '.,-Prki .. /,'•„l'
I, Lk'. A,Nri. P.,.. ;I- ,/, 'AI t7
.. .s.
i'-: f ..-.'''- ", '' .-- ,I .. • . , 1 ...",'or- • 4,: ,,,i*•• ,. q.,..,e.g..' / , .•'; '';
vf ..,' •., ; '' 1 '-
, 'j .. ''''‘`, V7 Vil°it*'' • 1
.14.° .' 1 C
..
. . • ,,:ir i. x,, r!' , •-'
1864:Shoreline $.1 , . 11.-'. / .A. 4•!', .,.• .vz.r....,t,:.....s.,---- •
--,. . ., , , . ,, , ,4 • c
..• ,- ,--.-..--,\. - ti--,----- .j, .e..? ,,, •AQi;..if., ., Q .-,;,(.,,,..,,,,;t '''r] I t •a ,,....
,
. , . ''''''''' -`.,..\\.1 .-<.-ifi.. . /rr 4 -i''114.',,,*• — 7''!'- ':'.'it' V 1 1 /
•-
- ,
, t:,:i14141-
, ,* I. .1,2 ., y‘i.y •:,1,i, ..":''''' ,i A`e-1" ,:', A'''. . . _ •
E .
..1...,' it . •N• ieff,efti.;.:.%,....,,h.. .k.oit.- ''''IT.,,,t.
. -, 1 . • • • . . . k.,22.)(sijlfgetii.71 ,:,;"•'"?'t
. . . •'..,...°... . 1
i .. ...._,
-...r... • - : 1, ,i
„._ . . •,,i(. -., .,..!!....."7 •- , . ., :....j.,,::,,,,.*•;ii ..,,,?,,.,,,„', .,,: , ,, ,.,, , 1 . ,,,,,, ,,,:,_ _
—....,..411.........„; ?..,...z. ,..7..ty,'k •, , ...ir',.., ,AA s. : :':,,,,,,.!,,,,,,42,,, -, • • : ,,, .. . . . .. •,..
'..-...
..- .--- i I:.i , I:.1 i,...._.i. . 4 • ,t-4-,,,--,.,,,-,:. :,':".. n .:. :iitl , ' . . „
,--'• 1. : co .. . , , ,,,.....; . .
, 7 ,t., ,.-_,,,,. „,,.. . , ..„.." .. ,,:, 1 0 if.,,,., Of. 1 • 1 -. • - . . ..- ;I : i ; i - • • • ' i t---- y, ,• - -• . V )11., .
•L,,, ,
• May PreaK , A?
4 • T6 . I . •ti ' y — i r '".i. •
‘ ' ,. . - ..J. . . P . ...-, . ' • in 1920''.:, c? - t..„ 3. t ."
, ---, •
•
. • •
l,,''' . • .. • ;*!.- ' • - --%.,...citng. it'
, -, Marsh in.1920., • • .... .i'.4(•i.. .'. ,4, -, -,4..4. ,.. •. . • •
.„...2 ... -.Ir;a A.s a , . , k • . :- i,
c) :... .,$i '• . .4 •,,,,,,_?:.K...": C.":"1 ii \ r\ 0, •...,....
\ • - • .
•• . .,. : . , 1.:, , • ,. .. .
• -I "frt, ' ' •
• .1%,
, •%,,,
. \ '•' - , % • i -, "''( • • . . , , . 1,4 .ait . 0 in ,. 6.43
--'` • -'''''."--'1‘.\\* ill % . ft * -1'864 1 • .
.-...,.-4.A.,,x...-,-,v, ••, , ! , .--,-• . . . -6.-,,,-t,,,,
- 4/A1 . •L V "A" rt .'.
1 :•.,‘.\ • - ..:t
. : ,../ ':1,0". ...-74. ./4?-„,/.,-;,• ', 4 1.864 Trail: i •:[,, ..May Creek.
0 ,
' 41 RI 1997 .a
f . ' •• , Z
; .
i
' \ .
)
. UtiW.Yrr,4 ' 1 • fl''''t
N , '
/ - . • ''. .. q
i 1 /it'' i 1/2:se .,-.' ..: . .' . - .... -.1,:ig • ,' .1.,' j:i 0
a-. 1, •
A - SOO .1000
, ,,,/, ily-11.f."---7. -:,,. ..,-. ,...,- ..- ,,L,.:c....:-.:::_t. ,• 1_, ? 1
•f :cl it .. .. ' , , ,-t.- ,^-7,..„."..=,, :AMC - .
:A., , '.' * .I\1 'Feet.
i "' i/4: •74 47 - ' .,...,,, ' ,k .
• ' 1.‘)
; 1000 feet=i 305 nietere
. . .. ... 4- •tn.A' . '.,
,..1,,,,-, .,4 / : , / .
'i ‘, ..i. c y .....- e - - sc AT.. Bate Map froni USGS BelleVue South,
.. ..
'Washington,.1988:
Parametrix Barbee Mill 554-1779-017/01(09)6/03(K)
. PAI Figure 3.10-2
, 40 Lake Washington
Shoreline Changes
3.10.2.3 Indirect Impacts
Indirect or cumulative impacts on cultural or historic resources within or near the site would not occur
under this development plan.
3.10.3 Mitigation
3.10.3.1 Historic Resources
Lake Washington's shoreline sawmill industries were an important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American
settlement history. Although the original mill from the 1940s no longer exists,the modern Barbee Mill is
' the last of the mills on Lake Washington; development of this property would offer an opportunity to
commemorate the industry's history. An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed
development could present information about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as
well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. The display
could build on a brief description of the geologic history of this portion of Lake Washington and a history
of the Lake Washington Duwamish people who once lived on or near May Creek and its delta.
3.10.3.2 Cultural Resources
An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the
site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction,
the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from
their vicinity. The foreman would also contact Dr. Robert G. Whitlam, Washington State Archaeologist
(360-586-3080), who would assist in determining whether the archaeological deposits contained
information important to understanding the history of the area and whether such deposits should be
recorded.
There are no unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural or historic resources due to this development plan.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 3-132 September 2003
i
4. REFERENCES
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2001. Guidelines for
geometric design of very low-volume local roads (ADT<400). Prepared by American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. Washington,D.C.:American Association
} of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Atwater, B. F.; Moore, A. L., 1992, A tsunami about 1000 years ago in Puget Sound, Washington:
Science,v.258,no. 5088,p. 1614-1617
Berger/Abam. 2002. Alaskan Way Seawall Report. Submitted to Washington State Department of
Jj Transportation. Seattle, WA. Beger Abam Engineers. July 2002.
Bisson, P. And R. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:371-374.
Bucknam, R.C., Hemphill-Haley, E., and Leopold, E.B. 1992. Abrupt uplift within the past 1,700 years
at southern Puget Sound,Washington: Science,V.258,p. 1611-1614.
Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America. No. 506
(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North American,Inc.,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.
Burns,T.S. 1974. Wildlife situation report and management plan for the American osprey. Coordinating
Guidelines for Wildlife Habitat Management No. 1. Hamilton, MT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture,Forest Service,Northern Region,Bitterroot National Forest. 6 pp.
Busby, P.J, T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V.
Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington,Idaho, Oregon,and
California. U.S.Department of Commerce,NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261 pp.
Cadman, M.D., P.J. Eagles, F. M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario. University
of Waterloo Press. 617 p.
Chrzastowski, M. ca. 1983. Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington
Ship Canal,King County,Washington. Department of the Interior,USGS OFR 81-1182.
City of Renton. 1999. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted February 20 1995, amended
October 25, 1999.
City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities.
April 2000.
Cowles, 2003, Mikael Cowles, Right-of-Way Agent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, phone
communication, 05-20-03
CRS 2003, Congressional Research Service,Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues,
Issue Brief for Congress, Order Code IB10030, March 12, 2003,
http://hutchison.senate.gov/Transportation3.pdf
1
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 September 2003
C_,
ili I
Dane County, Wisconsin. 1998. Dane County, Wisconsin, Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, Dane
County Regional Planning Commission, Madison, WI. Available at
http://www.co.dane.wi.us/rail/crfs/fmal/html/chap5.htm
D.vid Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development
Property. 14 pp. plus appendices.
I. i
' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Quick facts on Lake Washington
status. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/kwash.htm.
I � i
I
' (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1999. Lake Washington Water Quality.
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/wash.htm.
(Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Forest Practices Base map
information for T24N, RO5E, S32. Transmitted to Raedeke Associates, Inc. and received on
August 14,2002.
E ology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington. Publication Numbers 99-11 through 99-15. Washington State Department
of Ecology,Water Quality Program,Olympia,WA. August 2001.
E ology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. The 303(d)List of Impaired and Threatened
Waterbodies. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html, last updated
August, 2002, accessed on December 4, 2002. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water
Quality Program.
E tranco, Inc. 2001. I-405/NE 44th interchange project waterways and hydrologic systems report.
Prepared by Entranco,Inc. for the City of Renton.
E ponent. 1999. Noson,L. Draft Cleanup Action Plan for the Quendall Terminals Property,November
1 99
F deral Highway Administration. 1981 reprinted 1989. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.
FHWA-HI-88-054.
F MAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an
ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and
Interior. Portland Oregon.
F=IWA 2002, Federal Highway Administration Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade
Crossings, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group,November 2002
Fbster Wheeler. 1995. May creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and
City of Renton. August 1995.
I �
VIA (Federal Railroad Administration). 1999. (Federal Railroad Administration), US Department of
Transportation, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Technical
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Rule for the Use of
Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,December, 1999
F esh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. Lake and Reservoir Management
9(1):148-151.
C ty of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
D loft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 September 2003
FTA. 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual. DOT-T-95-16.
Furniss,M.J.,T.D.Roelofs, and C.S.Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: W.R. Meehan
(ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.
Golder. 2002. Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site
Development,Golder Associates,April 4,2002
Golder. 2003. Supplemental Letter on Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility
Barbee Mill Site Development, Golder Associates,May 5,2003.
Greene, S. 2003. Renton Historical Society and Museum. Telephone interview with Stan Greene,
Researcher,May 2003.
Gregory, R.S. 1994. The influence of ontogeny, perceived risk of predation, and visual ability on the
foraging behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon. Pages 271-284 in Stouder, D.J., K.L. Fresh, and
R.J.Feller, editors. Theory and application in fish feeding ecology, University of South Carolina
Press,Columbia, South Carolina.
Gregory, R.S., and T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, Planktonic, and Benthic Foraging by Juvenile
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Turbid Laboratory Conditions. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:233-340.
Hart Crowser. 2000. Independent Remedial Action Plan,Upland Areas,Barbee Mill Co. June 16,2000.
Revised September 6,2000.
Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Mill aquatic habitat and fish population survey. August
2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates,Inc.
HCS (Highway Capacity Software). 2000. Highway Capcity Software Version 4.1c. McTrans Center.
University of Florida.
Heaton, T.H. and S.H. Hartzell. 1987. Earthquake hazards on the Cascadia subduction zone. Science,
236, 162-168.
Houghton,L.M. and L.M Rymon. 1997. Nesting distribution and population status of U.S. ospreys 1994.
Journal of Raptor Research 31:44-53.
Houston, S.C. and F. Scott. 1992. The effect of man-made platforms on osprey reproduction at Loon
Lake, Saskatchewan. Journal of Raptor Research 26(3): 152-158.
BRA(Historical Research Associates,Inc). Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th
Street Interchange. May 2000
http://vvww.ce.washington.edui—liquefaction/html/main.html
International Osprey Foundation. 1992. Design for osprey nesting platforms. Available at
http://www.sancap.com/osprey/Platform.htm
Jacoby, G. C.; Williams,P. L.;Buckley,B. M., 1992, Tree ring correlation between prehistoric landslides
and abrupt tectonic events in Seattle,Washington: Science,v.258,no. 5088,p. 1621-1623.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 September 2003
Jo son, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991. Status review for
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle,
WA. 95 pp.
Jo son, P, D Mock, E Teachout, A McMillan. 2000. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation
Study:Phase I,Compliance. WSDOE, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 00-06-016.
Johnson, S.Y., Dadisman, S. V., Childs, J.R., and Stanley, W.D. 1999. Active tectonics of the Seattle
fault and central Puget Sound, Washington- Implication for earthquake hazards, Geological
Society of America Bulletin,July 1999. V. 111;no.7 p. 1042-1053.
Kahler, T., M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and
other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. Report to
the City of Bellevue,Bellevue, WA.
Karlin, R. E.; Abella, S. E. B. 1992. Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound region recorded in sediments
from Lake Washington: Science. v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1617-1620.
King County. 1991. Executive Proposed Basin Plan for Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound. King
County. Surface Water Management Division, Seattle,WA. July 1991.
King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water
Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department -
Surface Water Utility.
'ng County. 1998. Surface Water Design Manual. King County, Department of Natural Resources,
Seattle, WA. September 1998.
4 ing County. 2001. Final adopted May creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton.
April 2001.
4 ing County. 2003. King County Streams Monitoring Program, Coal Creek (Site 0442). Available at
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/w1r/waterres/streams/coal_intro.htm
utson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats:
riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
AAS. Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington. March 27, 1997.
arson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS). Appendix R: Archaeological and
Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Discipline Report. May 2001
e Universityof Washington Press,
R. 1999. Landscaping for wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. gt
Seattle,Washington. 320 pp.
I loyd. 1994. May Creek Corridor Revegetation Plan,Lloyd and Associates Inc.,March 10, 1994.
oyd and Associates. 2003. Stormwater pollution prevention plan for the Barbee Mill Company,
stormwater discharge permit: S03-000718. Prepared by Loyd and Associates, Snoqualmie,
Washington,for the Barbee Mill Company,Renton,Washington.
ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
craft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-4 September 2003
�I I
Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth
areas: methods and findings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002.
r
Madabhushi. 2001. Modeling of Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading, Proceedings of NSF International
Workshop on Earthquake Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering, Cleveland/Ohio/USA/8-10
November 2001. http://ecivwww.cwru.edu/civil/xxzl6/proceeding/paper/Madabhushi.pdf.
Martin. 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117,
Guidelines for Analyzing and mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California
Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, March 1999.
http://www.scec.org/outreach/products/liqreport.pdf.
May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Kitsap
County Natural Resources Department.
Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001. Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population
Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment. June 25,2001.
Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Second Edition.
Upper Saddle River,New Jersey:Prentice Hall.
Mockler,A, L Casey, M Bowles,N Gillen, J Hansen. 1998. Results of Monitoring Wetland and Stream
Mitigations in King County. King County DDES,Renton,Washington.
MRSC. Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of
Washington. hllp://www.mrsc.org/mc/ toc/wac.httn, last updated November 18, 1997.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington.
Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope, G.J.Bryant,D.Teel,L.J.Lierheimer,T.C.Wainwright,W.S. Grant, F.W.
Waknitz,K.Neely, S.T.Lindley,and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35,443 pp.
Nizam. 2003. Ahmer Nizam, Railway Safety Division. Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission,phone communication. 05.13.03.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. Office
of Habitat Conservation.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Appendix A: Description and identification of
Essential Fish Habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon.
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. January
1999. Available at the PSMFC website at: http://www.pcouncil.org/.
Noson,L., Qamar, A., Thorsen, G. 1988. Washington State earthquake hazards. Olympia, Washington:
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1988.
Obermeier. 2001. Paleoliquefaction Studies in Continental Settings: Geologic and Geotechnical Factors
in Interpretations and Back-Analysis, Stephen F. Obermeier et al, US. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 01-029. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofO1-029/.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-5 September 2003
O I OT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002. Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction
Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon. Final Report. Oregon Department of
Transportation Research Group. http://www.odot.state.or.us/tddresearch/reports/liquefaction3-
6.pdf.
O ak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County,
Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002.
P.'rametrix. 2002. Biological review of the Tri-County model 4(d)rule response proposal. Prepared for
the Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. April 19,2002.
Piaskowski,R. and R.Tabor. 2000. Nocturnal habitat use by juvenile Chinook in near-shore areas
of south Lake Washington, a preliminary investigation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western
Washington Office. Available at:http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/fish/docs/piaskowski-report.pdf.
Pollack, N.M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to
protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. The Bullit
Foundation,Washington Environmental Council,and Point-No-Point Treaty Council.
Poole, A.F. 1989. Ospreys: a natural and unnatural history. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press. 246 p.
Q igley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment for ecosystem components in the
interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume 3. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. 1,057- 1,713 pp.
' Resource Consultants. 2000. Tri-County urban issues ESA study guidance document. Prepared on
behalf of the Tri-county Urban Issues Advisory Committee. February 2000.
edeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological Assessment for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, Renton,
Washington. Prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington for the Barbee Mill
Company,Renton,Washington.
edeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological assessment: Barbee Mill preliminary plat, Renton,
Washington. August 26,2002.
such 1997, EPOLLS: An Empirical Method for Predicting Surface Displacements Due to Liquefaction-
Induced Lateral Spreading in Earthquakes Alan F. Rauch, PHD Dissertation, Civil Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, May 5, 1997
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-219182249741411/unrestricted/Chp03.pdf
enton, City of. 1998. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Sensitive Areas Ordinance - 4835. City of
Renton Planning Commission.
Tenton, City of 1999. N. 40th Street Meadow Avenue N. stormwater system improvements drainage
report. City of Renton PlanningBuilding/Public Works Department Surface Water Utility.
I ' Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull
trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,
Utah. 38 pp.
Cp of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Daft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-6 September 2003
I' -
Ryser,F.A. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. Reno,NV:University of Nevada Press. 604 p.
Sandercock, F.K. 1991. The life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395-445 in C.
Groot and L. Margolis (eds.). Life history of Pacific salmon. University of B.C. Press,
Vancouver,B.C.
Saurola, P.L. The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: a review of population trends and
their causes in Europe. Journal of Raptor Research. 31:129-137.
Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of imperviousness. Watershed protection Techniques, 1(3):100-
111.
Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Geology and soils Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon
&Wilson,June 2001.
Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Groundwater Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon &
Wilson,June 2001.
Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon
&Wilson,June 2001.
Shannon&Wilson. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report,I-405/NE 44th Interchange Shannon&Wilson,
June 2001.
Sherrard, David. 1996. Managing Riparian Open Space. Environment Development, American Planning
Association,January/February 1996 http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/pdf/nature.pdf
Simenstad, C.A., J.R., Cordell, R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler, B. Nightengale, and J.A. Schafer. 1999.
Ferry terminal impacts on juvenile salmon migrating through Puget Sound near shore
environment. Puget Sound Notes. 42:9-12.
Snohomish County. 2002. Duplex Trip Generation Rate Study, Snohomish County Public Works Dept,
Traffic Analysis and Data Management Group,Everett,WA, September 26,2002
Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to
salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation. Corvallis,
Oregon. 356 p.
Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald
eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,Washington.
Tabor, R. A. and R. M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic
systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2001. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Lacey,Washington,April 2002.
Tabor, R. A. J. Scheurer, H. Gearns, and E. Bixler. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook
salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2002. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,Lacey,Washington,December 2002.
ThermoRetec. 2000. Feasibility Study and Cleanup Action Plan. JH Baxter North Property.
ThermoRetec,April 5,2000.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-7 September 2003
Tri-County. 2000. Tri-County Urban Issues ESA Study: Guidance Document APPENDIX I, Salmon
Recovery in Urban Settings, Salmon Recovery Problems and Potential Habitat Enhancement
Techniques. (R2 Resource Consultants et al.2000).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. Lacey,
Washington.
U:S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Draft summary for bull trout in Lake Washington.
November 23, 1999.
.S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/. National Seismic Hazard Map.
Assessed on April 8,2003. -
SCE. 1992. Bearing Capacity of Soils. Engineering and Design Publication Number: EM 1110-1-
1905, US Army Corps of Engineers, 30 October 1992. http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-
docs/en -manuals/em1110-1-1905/c-l. df.
g p
SCE. 2001. Endangered Species Act Guidance for New and Replacement Piers and Bulkheads in Lake
Washington, Lake Sammamish and the Ship Canal, Including Lake Union, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District, Special Notice, October 25, 2001.
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/ACF22.pdf.
SDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2003. The Urban Forestry Manual USDA Forest
Service, Southern Research Station,http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/pubs/ufmanual/
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/ . National Seismic Hazard Map.
• ssessed on April 8,2003.
ISEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment
and Operation,Building Equipment,and Home Appliance,NTID300.1, 1971
2002. University of Washington Soil Liquifaction Web Site. Department of Civil Engineering.
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
ana-Miller, S.L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: Osprey. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological report 82(10.154)46pp.
ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead
Stock Inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and
Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, Olympia,Washington. -
ashington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. 1998 salmonid stock inventory: appendix,bull trout
and Dolly Varden. July 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington.
ashington Department of Natural Resources(DNR). 1999. Forests and fish report. Unpublished report
by Washington Department of Natural Resources,Olympia, Washington.
ashington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Bull trout/ Dolly Varden management and recovery plan.
Washington Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, Washington.
Report 92-22. 125pp.
i'ity of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
raft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-8 September 2003
-
Washington State Highway Accident Report. 1996. WSDOT Accident Report.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_andZIP Files/StateHwyAccidentRpt.pdf.
Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon
utilization, Volume I, Puget Sound region. Washington Department of Fisheries: Olympia, WA.
704 pp.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2001. I-405/44th Interchange
Reconstruction Project,Draft Noise Technical Report,January 10,2001,Parsons Brinckerhoff
- WSDOT 2001a. Washington State Department of Transportation. East-West Passenger Rail Feasibility
Study: A Preliminary Analysis Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation.
HDR Engineering,Inc. The Resource Group Transit Safety Management. May 2001.
WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation). 1998. Washington State Department of
Transportation,Design Manual, 1998. Olympia, WA.
Yount, J.C. and Gower,H.D. 1991. Bedrock geologic map of Seattle 30' x 60' quadrangle, Washington:
US Geological Survey Open File Report. 91-147,37p. 4 plates scale 1:100,000.
Zarn, M. 1974. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species; Osprey Pandion haliaetus
carolinensis. USDI Bureau of Land.
s— .
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 4-9 September 2003
5. DISTRIBUTION LIST
City of Renton Federal Agencies
City Manager US Environmental Protection Agency
Community Development Services US Department of Fish and Wildlife
Public Works,Traffic NOAA Fisheries
Public Works, Surface Water Management Non-Government Organizations
Public works,Development Services Renton Chamber of Commerce
Fire Renton Historic Society
Police King County Audubon Society
Local and Regional Agencies Washington Environmental Council
King County Dept. of Development and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Environmental Services Libraries
King County Metro Transit Renton Public Library
King County Surface Water Management King County Library,
King County Dept. of Transportation Bellevue Regional Library
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Seattle Public Library
Tulalip Tribes
Media
City of Newcastle Seattle Times
City of Bellevue Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Eastside Journal
Puget Sound Regional Council South County Journal
State Agencies Renton Reporter
Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic
Development
Department of Ecology
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Transportation
Office of Archaeological and Historic
Preservation
Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission
Department of Natural Resources
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Draft-Environmental Impact Statement 5-1 September 2003
APPENDIX A
Scoping Determination
BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SCOPING DOCUMENT
Uti�Y �.A
City of Renton
Development Services Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SLOPING DOCUMENT
In roduction 1
D scription of the Proposal 1
Project Site 1 -'
Proposed Action ... 1
Relationship to Remediation Process 2
Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals 3
A ternatives Chosen for Analysis 4
E S Approach 4
E ements of the Environment 4
Natural Environment 5
Built Environment 7
F nal EIS 12
1
I I _
P oject Name/Number: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
File No. LUA-02-040, ECF, PP
L-ad Agency: City of Renton
R sponsible Official: Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
do Jennifer Henning
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
' P oponent: Barbee Mill Company
Alex Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira, Senior Planner
Development Services Division, P/B/PW
Renton City Hall-6th Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
(425) 430-7270/ (425)430-7300 fax
1I
INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton has requested comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat proposal. Both public and agency
scoping meetings regarding the project have been held. Comments submitted in writing
or given through testimony have been considered and incorporated into this document
where appropriate. All comments received during the scoping period are contained
within the official land use file and are available for review.
This scoping document provides a description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
as well as those elements of the environment identified for consideration and analysis in
the EIS.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
Project Site — The 22.9-acre site is located on the west side of Lake Washington
Boulevard North between North 40th Street and North 44th Street and abuts Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way along the eastern boundary. The property
contains 16 buildings, some of which are currently utilized for limited lumber operations
with the remaining buildings unused and in disrepair. Existing development within the
vicinity of the site includes predominantly detached single family housing located within
the Residential —8 (R-8) dwelling units per acre zone.
The property is situated within the Center Office Residential (COR-2) zoning
designation, which is intended to provide for a mix of intensive commercial, office and
residential activity in a high quality, master planned development that is integrated with
the natural environment. Stand-alone residential development is also permitted in the
zone provided the required density of a minimum 5 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) is
satisfied.
The site is located within 200 feet of the Lake Washington and May Creek shorelines
and is, therefore, subject to the City's Shoreline Master Program. The property is
relatively flat with approximate grades ranging from 0.5% to 4% to the west for areas
north of May Creek, from 1% to 7% towards May Creek and Lake Washington on the
south side of the creek, and from 7% to 35-40% along the banks of May Creek. The
City's Critical Areas Maps designate the property as containing potential high seismic
hazards, steep slopes (15%to 25%) and flood hazards.
Proposed Action — The applicant is requesting to subdivide the subject site into 115
residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 square feet to 7,336 square feet. The
proposal would result in a net density of approximately 8.35 dwelling units per acre (22.9
gross acre site — 9.13-acres combined sensitive areas and public roadways = 13.77 net
acre —* 115 units/ 13.77 net acre = 8.35 du/ac).
The lots are intended for the development of townhouse units — most of which would be
constructed as duplex structures along with some 3-unit, 4-unit and 5-unit structures to
be located on the southeast side of May Creek. Lot lines will be located along common
walls with separate units on each lot. The shoreline fronting lot lines would extend to the
inner harbor line.
Scoping Document A-1
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
L ndscape,;roadway, utility improvements and four utility/open space tracts would be
established with the plat. With the exception of the existing building located on the
shoreline (within Department of Natural Resources lease land), all buildings would be
demolished as part of the project and lumber operations would be discontinued.
Access to the project would be provided via an existing 60-foot wide access easement,
which would be dedicated to public right-of-way, from the Lake Washington
Bolulevard/Ripley Lane intersection through the abutting property on the north side of the
si The project would provide 42-foot wide internal public roadways throughout the
m'=jority of the project with a 32-foot wide roadway proposed on the south side of May
C eek. Private streets and driveways are also proposed in specific locations within the
pl-t•
In,order to provide connection to the secondary access point at the southeast corner of
th'- property, a bridge crossing over May Creek (at the location of one of the three
e isting bridges) would be necessary. Installation of new foundations for the proposed
b dge may require work below the ordinary high water mark of May Creek and if so,
would require approval of a variance from the City's Tree Cutting and Land Clearing
R,I gulations prior to the installation of required plat improvements. An additional existing
b I dge is proposed to be utilized as a pedestrian crossing.
T e western boundary of the site includes approximately 1,900 lineal feet of Lake
ashington shoreline — for which a 25-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark
would be maintained. No other alterations or improvements to the lake shoreline are
in luded with the proposal. In addition, May Creek bisects the property extending
southeast through the site from Lake Washington Boulevard to the May Creek Delta
w thin Lake Washington. The project would provide a buffer from the May Creek
ordinary high water mark ranging from 50 feet to 100 feet in width and would restore
c rrently impervious areas to native vegetation within the buffer area. All mature trees
to ated within the May Creek buffer area are proposed to be retained.
T e project applicant has also identified two category III wetlands with associated -
b 'ffers within property boundaries — one adjacent to the southeasterly property line near
t e end of street C (aka "northerly wetland") and another at the southern edge of the site
n ar the south end of street C (aka "southerly wetland"). The applicant is requesting to
b ffer average the minimum required 25-foot buffer for the northerly wetland. In
addition, approximately 400 square feet of the southerly wetland is proposed to be filled,
With enhancements to the northerly wetland and buffer area proposed in order to
itigate for loss of wetland area.
roject construction would require extensive grading and excavation activities
throughout the site for the removal of existing asphalt areas and the creation of new
b ilding pads, roadways, and utilities. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at
a' proximately 32,000 cubic yards of excavated material and 38,000 cubic yards of fill
IIlIlIaterial to be imported to the site. In addition, approximately 18 trees would be
removed as part of on-site grading activities.
Relationship to Remediation Process — The Barbee Mill Company has proposed an
dependent remedial action plan (IRAP) pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act
TTCA) to the Department of Ecology in order to perform excavation and removal of
proximately 21,500 cubic yards of arsenic contaminated and elevated zinc level soils
( hose exceeding MTCA method A levels) that are contained within the uplands portion ---
f the property. The environmental investigations and proposed remedies for the
arbee Mill site are documented in the following report:
coping Document A-2
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
• Independent Remedial Action Plan, Upland Areas, Barbee Mill Company, Renton,
Washington prepared for the Barbee Mill Company dated September 6, 2000 by Hart
Crowser, Inc.
The IRAP was reviewed and determined to be acceptable by the Department of Ecology
on September 12, 2000. Subsequently, the City of Renton conducted Environmental
(SEPA) Review and issued a Special Fill and Grade Permit for the remediation project
on September 9, 2002. The permit will remain valid for a period of 4 years with the
requirement for either an extension or new permit upon expiration.
Although the approved remediation is anticipated to occur concurrently with site
preparation activities for an approved development project, some analysis regarding the
intended clean-up levels and the appropriateness of those levels for the proposed
residential development will be necessary in this EIS.
Licenses, Permits and Necessary Approvals — The following permits and approvals
will likely be required for the redevelopment of the site:
• City of Renton: Preliminary Plat Approval
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Approval
Level II Site Plan Approval
Level I Site Plan Approval
Shoreline Variance Approval, if applicable
Wetland Buffer Averaging and Compensation Approval
Street Modification Approval
Railroad Crossing Access Approval
Site Preparation, Demolition, and Construction Permits
Final Plat Approval
• King County: Shoreline Permit for DNR lease lands
• Washington
Department of Ecology: Hazardous Waste— No Further Action Letter
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Approval
Shoreline Variance Approval, if applicable
Water Quality Certification
• Washington
Department of Fish &Wildlife: Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
• Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission: Approval of Railroad Crossing(s)
• US Army Corp of Engineers: Section 401 and 404 Permits, if necessary
• US Environmental
Protection Agency: CERCLA/MTCA Clearance
• All other applicable licenses and permits necessary to allow the redevelopment of
the site under the proposed action.
Scoping Document . A-3
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
I
A L TERNATIVES CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS
In addition to the proposed action described above, the following alternative will be
c nsidered in the EIS:
Now Action — Continuation of some form of industrial use of the property (the specific
in.ustnal activity on the site may change over time, but on an overall basis would remain
cs'nsistent with its character). Some form of clean-up would likely occur per the
a proved IRAP, but the specific cleanup plan and the timing of remediation would likely
b:I different and extended.
E S APPROACH
E S Re•uired — The lead agency has determined that this proposal could have
significant adverse impacts on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement
(:IS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared.
T e EIS is intended to address all probable significant impacts that would occur as a
r suit of redevelopment to the site. The EIS is intended to provide a sufficient level of
d tail and analysis such that further environmental review under SEPA will not be
n cessary.
Tie EIS will build upon previous environmental documents prepared for the site and
c imprehensive planning efforts conducted by the City of Renton. Some of the
d cuments that will be consulted and incorporated, as appropriate, into the analysis of
t e EIS include:
• Proposed Land Use Element of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft and
Final EIS (January 1992 and February 1993).
• City of Renton Draft and Final Comprehensive Plan Supplemental DEIS and FEIS
(December 1994 and February 1995).
• Port Quendall Preliminary Plan Draft and Final EIS (September 1981 and February
1982).
• May Creek Basin Current and Future Conditions Report(August 1995).
• Barbee Mill Dredging, Determination of Non-Significance — Mitigated, LUA-02-067,
ECF, SP, SM (August 2002).
• Barbee Mill Soils Remediation, Determination of Non-Significance — Mitigated, LUA-
02-069, ECF, SP, SM (September 2002).
E, EMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
T e lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS. Direct,
i direct and cumulative impacts as a result of construction and operation of the proposal
a d alternative will be identified and evaluated for each of the following elements of the
e vironment. Mitigation measures will also be identified, as appropriate and warranted.
T e items discussed within both the natural and built environment categories have been
p leliminarily listed in order beginning with those that should be studied most extensively,
ftIllowed by items requiring lesser levels of analysis. Although the analysis of the less
s gnificant items will likely be minimal, it is necessary due to the inability to fully ascertain
the breadth of such impacts based on the information provided. Therefore, the
coping Document A-4
arbee Mill Preliminary Plat
identification and disclosure of those potential impacts as they specifically relate to the
proposal, along with associated mitigation measures as warranted, will be contained
within the EIS.
Natural Environment
Earth —A site specific analysis of soil, geologic and hazard conditions will be prepared.
This analysis will build upon the data provided in previous documents. The discussion
of existing conditions will address the soil and geologic characteristics of the site and
the sequencing of the geologic strata that underlie the ground surface and the offshore
area. Any limitations of the site's soils for grading and for support of structures and
roads will be described. Applicable maps and cross sections will be provided.
In addition, a discussion of applicable geologic hazards as established by the City's
Critical Areas Maps with emphasis on the site's potential as a seismic hazard area.
Seismicity of the region will be discussed and will include a description of some of the
larger historic earthquakes that have affected the area, as well as the potential for the
site being affected by larger earthquakes that have occurred at times that pre-date
settlement of the area.
The potential for earthquake-induced landslides or liquefaction will be addressed. The
susceptibility of the site's soils to erosion and sedimentation, and existing sediment
discharge problems at the mouth of May Creek will also be described.
Appropriate design of the foundations and other supporting structures, as well as
anticipated building construction methods for development of the site will be described.
The general nature of these types of building foundations will be discussed in order to
provide a baseline for evaluating potential impacts of construction.
An evaluation of the anticipated impacts of proposed construction at the site will be
conducted. Impacts associated with cuts and fills that would be constructed in
association with access roads leading to the site and general site grading will be
addressed. The quantities and depths of cuts and fills will be estimated, and any need
for import/export of material identified. The potential for erosion and sedimentation
impacts will be evaluated; specific emphasis will be placed on any potential impacts to
May Creek. Any potential slope stability impacts will be defined for steeply sloped
areas along May Creek. Finally, any risks of construction and building placement
associated with potential seismic events (liquefaction) will be addressed. Mitigation
measures which may be relevant to minimize impacts on the site will be identified.
Soil and sediment contaminant sources and levels that exist on site will be identified
based on information generated as part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan
(IRAP) prepared in accordance with the MTCA and as approved by the Department of
Ecology (refer to the Toxic and Hazardous Materials section of this scope for further
discussion).
Plants and Animals: Shoreline and Wetland Habitat — Existing upland habitat
conditions and values on-site will be described. An analysis of existing on-site wetlands
will be performed with functions and values of the wetlands and their habitat
relationships to May Creek and/or Lake Washington to be described. This analysis will
build upon data provided in previous documents and field confirmation of present
conditions.
Scoping Document A-5
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
I ,
An assessment of the proposed shoreline buffer areas of Lake Washington and May
reek will be provided relative to any upland habitat value and identified critical habitat
a leas. Potential impacts to upland habitats and any identified wetlands from project
c nstruction and post-development will be addressed, including potential impacts from
i creased erosion, water quality changes and increased human activity. In addition,
a alysis of cumulative impacts from reasonably expected unrestricted landscaping and
f ture applications for residential use docks from the lake fronting lots. Cumulative
i 'pacts from future use or alterations of the DNR-owned uplands will also be addressed.
pportunities for enhancement of resources will be examined, particularly in light of
e isting conditions.
Plants and Animals: Fisheries — Aquatic and riparian habitat along the Lake
ashington shoreline on, and adjacent to, the site will be characterized in terms of
fi heries habitat and functions. A plan view and side view maps of shoreline fisheries
h bitat will be prepared. The examination of existing biological activity, as well as the
c ndition of the near shore lake bottom sediments, will build upon existing studies. This
d ta, together with the assumption of fish use, will be used to characterize existing
c nditions.
P 1 tential impacts on fisheries resources from both construction and operation of the
p oposal will be assessed. Such impacts could include effects on critical habitat areas
d e to potential increases in erosion/sedimentation during construction, changes in
ter quality conditions, the influence of in-water structures (docks, bulkheads) on ;_
s lmon/predator interactions, dredging-related impacts and increases in lighting on
s Imon migration. Mitigation plans and/or opportunities for habitat enhancement and the
a equacy of the proposed shoreline buffers will be examined.
Water Resources: Stormwater Draina•e / Runoff / Floodin• — Existing drainage
p:tterns, runoff rates and volumes will be described, with particular attention to peak
fl ows to May Creek. Drainage sub-basins within the site will be located. Specific
fl oding and sediment discharge problems at the mouth of May Creek will be addressed.
P•st-development runoff patterns, volumes and flows would be estimated. Potential
i pacts to May Creek and each surface water discharge location will be evaluated,
i cluding possible increases in erosion and sedimentation due to construction.
Ao ditional analysis of the upstream drainage basin for existing and future developed
conditions will be conducted to address the potential need for upsizing existing culverts.
A alysis of detention, water quality and compensatory storage for filling within the
floodplain will be included. In addition, options for alleviating sedimentation problems at
t e mouth of the creek will be examined, specifically addressing the continued dredging
o the creek relative to potential flooding impacts and expansion of the 100-year
floodplain into developed areas. The appropriate design of bridge foundations located
mthin the floodplain will be discussed. The relationship of the proposed drainage
system to the adopted surface water drainage standards will be assessed, and the need
fcr any mitigation identified.
Water Resources: Groundwater — Groundwater levels on-site and immediately
adjacent to the site (Lake Washington) will be described based on past and current
investigations. The direction of groundwater flow will be documented. The contribution
of infiltration on-site to groundwater and surface water resources will be described. Any
I 1
Soping Document A-6
8 rbee Mill Preliminary Plat
potential impacts to groundwater quality conditions will be assessed. Measures to
mitigate any identified groundwater impacts will be addressed.
Groundwater contaminant sources and levels that exist on-site will be identified based
on information. generated as part of the Independent Remedial Action Plan (IRAP)
prepared in accordance with the MTCA and as approved by the Department of Ecology
(refer to the Toxic and Hazardous Materials section of this scope for further discussion).
Water Resources: Water Quality — Existing water quality conditions in lower May
Creek and Lake Washington will be described based on available data and previously
conducted studies. An assessment of the current conditions of any wetlands, seeps or
swales will be performed. Surface water contaminant sources and levels that exist on-
site, if any, will be described based on information generated as part of the IRAP. City of
Renton plans, policies and regulations relevant to shoreline areas, wetlands, surface
water quality management and use of Best Management Practices will be identified.
Water quality impacts during construction and post-development will be assessed,
including potential impacts resulting from erosion and stormwater pollutants typical of
urban runoff. Potential impacts to May Creek, Lake Washington and any wetlands will
be addressed. Post-development water quality composition will be estimated using
existing literature, with consideration of the effect of proposed water quality treatment
facilities. Predicted changes in water quality for May Creek and Lake Washington will be
compared to relevant standards. Opportunities for mitigating any identified impacts will
be described and examined.
Air Quality — The analysis of air quality impacts will be not be requirerd. Construction-
related air quality impacts during demolition and construction, such as the potential for
generation of dust during site grading activities, will be mitigated by normal conditions of
approval .
Built Environment
Transportation — An overview of existing conditions within the study area will be
provided. A description of the local arterial network, including Lake Washington
Boulevard, Ripley Lane, Park Avenue North, Burnett Avenue North and WSDOT 1-405
facilities at the NE 44th Street and NE 30th Street interchanges will be included.
Existing trips associated with current on-site uses will be discussed with levels of service
at nearby intersections to be analyzed.
There are several transportation issues regarding the proposed development that will be
addressed, including impacts to the existing roadway network, impacts to the Burlington
Northern Railroad and availability of public railroad crossings, access to the 1-405
freeway, impacts from increased trips through and on Newcastle streets, and cumulative
traffic impacts of the proposed development and existing, as well as future, land uses.
In addition, safety, pedestrian and non-motorized facilities, emergency vehicle access,
transit impacts and the design of the railroad crossing(s)will be addressed.
Trip generation and distribution will be determined for the Proposed Action and
alternative and will build upon previously conducted studies. The City's transportation
model would be used to determine trip distribution. The City's transportation model will
also be used to determine future year (year of opening for the proposed development)
traffic forecasts for the roadway network surrounding the project site. Future year
forecasts will include traffic generated by pipeline and approved development identified
Scoping Document A-7
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
I I
by the City. The future year forecasts will be used as baseline traffic for the
tdtermination of traffic impacts related to the proposed development. The roadway
, , work will be analyzed for the project during the p.m. peak hour based on a level of
s rvice (delay) analysis. The level of service analysis will include project-impacted
in ersections, including site access locations.
Al, propriate mitigation will be identified for vehicular traffic impacts, and will include
o tions for trip reduction through Transportation Demand Management (this could
in'i lude options for mode split, peak trip spreading, etc.). Potential increases in mode
s lit to transit; HOV and non-motorized travel will be explored. Mitigation would also
a dress, where appropriate, design of railroad crossings pursuant to WUTC and BNRR
r quirements, as well as safety and emergency vehicle access. The proposal's
p rticipation in planned off-site improvements, and additional improvements not currently
p nned, will be evaluated relative to mitigation.
T xic and Hazardous Materials — The site is known to contain contaminated soils —
p imarily contaminated with arsenic and zinc. An Independent Remedial Action Plan
p rsuant to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) has been approved by the Department
o Ecology and the City of Renton (file no. LUA-02-069) that would bring soil conditions
u to residential standards. The IRAP has not yet been implemented on the site.
Discussion of timing of the intended clean-up as it relates to site development
p separation will be included in the EIS.
1 I addition, analysis of contamination levels on adjacent properties and compatibility with
t e proposed residential development will be completed. This analysis may build upon
t 'e on-site analysis conducted for the site but must specifically address the compatibility
a; d appropriate proximity of the proposal with heavily contaminated properties abutting
t 'e site.
esthetics Li•ht and Glare — Existing aesthetic qualities and scenic resources of the
s°te and the surrounding area, including Lake Washington, will be identified. The
i dustrial character of both the upland and marine portions of the site will be described.
description of the general view shed to the site, which includes surrounding residential
( o the north and east), 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard, and portions of the West
ill (unincorporated King County), Mercer Island, Newcastle and Lake Washington itself,
ill be included. Photos from these representative viewpoints will be provided to visually
dl cument existing conditions.
he potential impacts to views from these areas from redevelopment of the site will be
aluated. The proposed uses, heights, design, and shoreline features will be
c nsidered relative to existing uses. Visual impacts of the proposal during the different
phases of redevelopment, as seen from selected viewpoints, potentially including from
ake Washington and Mercer Island, area parks and roadways, and representative
fisting residential areas, will be evaluated. Visual representations such as view
corridor maps, conceptual drawings, photo simulations, computer simulations, or other
it ustrations will be used in this analysis.
he change in aesthetic character of the site from industrial to residential will be
valuated, particularly relating to design, scale, intensity and compatibility with the
urrounding aesthetic character. Any additional mitigating measures to reduce any
isual impacts of the proposal that are not included in the proposed design and are
arranted will be evaluated.
coping Document A-8
arbee Mill Preliminary Plat
I '
Existing sources of light and glare emanating from the industrial use of the site will be
identified. The potential impacts of light and glare from redevelopment on surrounding
land uses (especially residential uses to the north and east); residences across the lake
on Mercer Island, and from Lake Washington itself will be addressed. An assessment of
the impacts of night lighting on fish habitat will also be discussed (integrated with
Fisheries analysis). Measures to mitigate impacts from light and glare will be identified,
as appropriate.
Noise — The analysis of noise related impacts will include relevant federal, state, and
local sound level criteria will be identified and discussed for impacts of the project on
surrounding uses. Construction noise will be evaluated by specific construction activity
and phase (i.e., pile driving, excavation, etc.), using published sound levels of
construction noise. These sound levels will be adjusted to represent the actual
distances to potential receptor locations in the neighborhoods surrounding the project
site.
Potential means for mitigating any identified traffic and other noise impacts will be
discussed. Pertinent regulations covering construction noise, and potential constraints
on the timing and duration of construction noise events, will be identified, as warranted.
Land and Shoreline Use—The Land Use analysis will not be analyzed.
All issues related to land and shoreline use will be analyzed separately as part of the
permit review and approval process. The permit review will consider relevant issues
including conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and related plans, ordinances or
regulations and will discuss the general consistency or inconsistency of the proposal.
with the City's Zoning Code, and Office/Residential zone provisions, the proposal's
relationship to other applicable standards/regulations (i.e., Critical Areas Regulations)
and he relationship of the proposal to the City's Shoreline Master Program.
Public Services and Utilities: Fire Police and Emergency Medical Services — This
element will not be analyzed.
The proposal would add new residential units to the City that would increase the
capacity demand of the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. This is an adverse
impact that can be mitigated by the applicant through paying a Fire Mitigation Fee.
Payment of the fee would be required prior to the recording of the plat.
Public Services and Utilities: Parks—This element will not be analyzed.
It is anticipated that future residents of the plat would generate additional needs for park
and recreational facilities. The proposal does not include the provision of on-site
recreation areas to meet the full park demand of future residents of the proposed plat.
This is an adverse impact that can be mitigated by the applicant through paying a Parks
Mitigation Fee. Payment of the fee would be required prior to the recording of the plat.
Public Services and Utilities: Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste — This element
will not be analyzed.
It is anticipated that future residents of the plat would generate additional needs for utility
services including water and wastewater. Impacts of the proposal will be met through
the utility services capital improvement and financing program and may include on and
off-site improvements, utility hookup fees or other charges.
Sco in
P 9 Document A-9
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
� I
I
P blic Services and Utilities: Stormwater — Stormwater impacts will be analyzed as !-
part of the Water Resources element.
P blic Services and Utilities: Schools—This element will not be analyzed.
TIe project will have a marginal impact on schools, but is within the growth projections
anticipated by the current plans by the Renton School District to construct new facilities,
o 'make facility improvements, including transportation services.
Historic and Cultural Resources — The analysis of historic and cultural resources will
b utilize existing information resources. Cultural resource records and reports on file at
th State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be researched, along with
r ports, maps, photographs, etc. available at the University of Washington and State
iraries. Consultation with appropriate tribal sources will be conducted. Based on
th se sources, and with consideration of the recent industrial use of the site, any areas
o I potential cultural or historic sensitivity will be highlighted. If the potential does exist,
p Itential impacts from construction and operation of the proposal will be assessed.
M asures to mitigate any potential impacts will be identified, as appropriate.
S cioeconomics Po ulation Housin Em to ment — This element will not be
a 'alyzed.
T e projected growth is within the general future forecasted population, housing, and
e ployment characteristics for which the city has developed its Comprehensive Plan
aid facilities plans.
I i
I I
FNALEIS
en the Draft EIS is completed, it will be issued and made available for public and
a ency review and comment. Comments received within the designated comment
p riod (usually thirty days)will be incorporated into a Final EIS, together with appropriate
r=sponses to those comments. Final action on the proposal will not be taken prior to the
is.uance of the Final EIS.
I . I
I I
' I
oping Document A-1 0
arbee Mill Preliminary Plat
I �' I
MICROFILMED
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 2
Appendices B - E
Prepared for
City of Renton
Renton,Washington
•
Prepared by
Parametrix
5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200
Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350
(425)822-8880
www.parametrix.com
August 2003
Project No. 554-1779-017
APPENDIX B
Floodplain Analysis Technical Report
t '
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix B
Floodplain Analysis Technical Report
Prepared for
City of Renton
Prepared by
Parametrix
5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE,Suite 200
Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350
(425)822-8880
www.parametrix.com
August 2003
Project No.554-1779-017(01/06)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Li 1. INTRODUCTION B-1
2. METHODOLOGY B-3
2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS B-3
2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY B-3
2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS B-3
• 2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport B-4
•
2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling B-4
2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS B-5
2.4.1 Hydraulic Model B-5
2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping B-10
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT B-12
3.1 HISTORIC DELTA B-12
3.1.1 Channel Morphology B-12
3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION B-12
3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN B-13
3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions B-13
4. IMPACTS B-14
4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 —50-FOOT SETBACK B-14
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2— 100-FOOT SETBACK B-15
5. MITIGATION B-16
6. REFERENCES B-17
ATTACHMENTS
A Hydraulics Support Documents—Results
B Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents
1
I
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-i August 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LI T OF FIGURES
B-1 Project Vicinity B-2
B-2 Barbee Mill Reach Existing 100-year Floodplain Based on Future Flow Rates B-11
LILT OF TABLES
B-1 Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows B-3
B-2 Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results B-5
, B-3 Summary of Bridge Geometry B-6
B-4 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness B-7
-
B-5 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness B-8
B-6 Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages B-9
B-7 Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results B-9
I ,
B-8 Increases in 100-Year Floodplain Depth with Setbacks B-15
1,
}
Ci n of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
, Ball bee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-ii August 2003
i I
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
cfs cubic feet per second
EIS environmental impact statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
i ! HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN
mm millimeters
RM river mile
USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
WSE water surface elevation
'�r
y ,.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-iii August 2003
•
1. INTRODUCTION
•
This floodplain analysis was undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
_ redevelopment of the Barbee Mill site (Figure B-1) on Lake Washington to accommodate approximately
115 residential units. As part of the sawmill operations, the May Creek Delta, which is adjacent to the
111 site, has been periodically dredged since the mid 1950s to maintain water depth for storage of logs in
Lake Washington adjacent to the sawmill and to reduce site flooding. These dredging operations
artificially increased the gradient of the stream and deepened the channel at the mouth. Periodic dredging
is expected to end as a result of replacement of the sawmill with residential development. Ending
dredging is expected to result in aggradation and delta formation at the mouth of Mill Creek. This
-- floodplain analysis was conducted to evaluate the geomorphological aspects of the stream and the
floodplain, and to estimate potential floodplain and flooding impacts associated with proposed
development alternatives.
Two different approaches were used in this evaluation. Sediment equations were used to predict changes
in delta levels (aggradation/degradation) due to changes in dredging operations. In addition, a floodplain
analysis was performed to map the extent of the 100-year floodplain under estimated future delta and
channel elevations and flow conditions.
� f
J-_
1! J
Ciry of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-1 August 2003
2
5
405 522
DUVALL
202
REDMOND
KIRKLAND
202 203
520
SEATTLE Lake,/ BELLEVUE
1Nashingfon,;:::• .,,
z ,.. 90
ISSAQUAH
" �,. NEWCASTLE
900
RENTON PROJECT
405 SITE
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01
Figure B-1
W Vicinity Map
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
I
} 2. METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology used to characterize the affected environment and to evaluate
potential floodplain and flooding impacts of the proposed alternative.
2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS
The hydrology of May Creek is typical of Puget Sound Lowland Streams located in an urbanizing watershed
(King County 1995). As part of the Current and Future Conditions Report (King County 1995), a
Hydrologic Simulation Program — FORTRAN (HSPF) hydrologic model was prepared for the May Creek
- watershed. The HSPF model was used to predict flow rates for the 100-year return frequency event at the
mouth. Some measured flows were used to calibrate the model(Table B-1).
Table B-1. Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows
Description Flow Rate(cfs) Method
Mean Annual Flow 25.6 Measured
1990 Flood Event 598 Measured
FEMA 100-year Flow(FEMA 1996) 870 Modeled
Current 100-year Flow(King County 1995) 835 Modeled
Future 100-year Mitigated Flow(King County 1995) 1,059 Modeled
Source: King County(1995).
' Peak flood flow discharges have increased an estimated 30 to 50 percent in the May Creek canyon and
mouth (King County 1995). As shown in Table B-1, the HSPF predicted flow rates under future mitigated
conditions are higher than existing and historic flow rates for the same return frequency storm event. This is
due in part to the ongoing and predicted future development and urbanization of the May Creek watershed,
which results in an increasing amount of impervious surface area within the watershed.
1
2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY
Based on review of existing and historic topographic maps of the area and a site visit conducted in April
2003, the proposed alternative is located on the May Creek Delta. The May Creek Delta is a depositional
area that extends underwater in Lake Washington approximately 3,000 feet and extends upstream to
approximately river mile (RM) 0.6. However, I-405 and the railroad bridge limit the upstream extent of the
delta. The delta has been building over approximately the last 13,600 years (King County 1995). The 1897
United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps show the delta as a wetland area, and historically the May
Creek channel would have migrated throughout the delta area. The low gradient of the stream in the project
area is influenced by Lake Washington.
2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
The frequency and duration of the increased peak discharge rates has increased sediment transport rates,
which are influenced by the magnitude, duration, and frequency of flood flows and the supply of sediment
' available to transport. The May Creek channel adjusts to increased flood flows by bank and bed erosion
creating a wider channel.
CityRenton
o.f 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-3 August 2003
n ;
I '
2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport
Cons ruction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington water level by nine feet
I to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel, which caused
incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek Delta. This shifted the main
deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. Subsequent placing of fill material and
the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel, resulting in high ground similar
to levees along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. These levees concentrate
flow n a fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream ";r
ener is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill over the west bank, the flood height could
only et a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill across the delta toward the lake. This, along
with he relatively low gradient caused by the lake backwater effect(and the presence of bridge foundations),
woul limit the sediment transport capacity during flood events.
Aggr dation is expected where the May Creek channel flows across the delta because of the abundant
upstr am sediment supply, increased peak flows to transport the sediment, and the low gradient across the
delta Historic dredging operations have annually removed an estimated 2,000 cubic yards of sediment at the
mout of May Creek downstream of the lowest bridge,where a river mouth bar would naturally build (King
Co 2001).
Ag dation at the mouth leads to a backwater condition upstream that controls the flow gradient and
sedi lent transport capacity of the delta channel. With regular dredging at the mouth, the backwater effect
woul be temporarily lessened, and some short-term incision upstream would be expected.
I _
Wi ut dredging, the river mouth bar would remain and expand laterally, and the channel would adjust by
agggr (ding. In addition, the expanding bar would eventually limit (or block) flow at the channel mouth,
caus ng flows to shift to either side and further distributing the sediment. Wind and boat-wake-formed
way s would further redistribute the river mouth sediment along the shore. The waves would also limit how
high the river mouth bar could build. The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few
feet Ibove the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the Delta would be equal to the
wint,r lakes level(el. 16.9),which is approximately 1 ft higher than the existing channel bottom.
Survys of the May Creek channel on the delta conducted in 2002(Otak 2002)indicate that the bed elevation
has Incised approximately 2 feet upstream of the main bridge, and about 0.5 foot downstream of the main
brid 'e relative to the survey conducted in 1993 (INCA 1993). These differences indicate the potential for
grad I changes in the lower May Creek channel. A grade control structure at the stream gage at the BNSF
brid"e controls the upstream incision, but lateral migration and bank erosion of stored alluvium are the main
sour'e of the gravel and cobbles present within the project area.
I 2.3. Sediment Transport Modeling
Bas Id on field observations, there is a transition in the bed surface substrate from sandy gravel to sand
within the proposed alternative stream reach. Flood flows can easily transport the sand through the May
Creek channel, until the transport is influenced by the lake backwater effect(lower bridge). However, based
on &liment transport modeling and literature information(Andrews 1993), gravel and cobbles would not be
expcted to be so easily transported to this point(Table B-2).
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbe Mill EIS-Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-4 August 2003
' I -
Table B-2. Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results
Mobile Particle Size(cm)
Flow Rate Cross Section 4a Cross Section 9a
25 cfs(mean annual flow) 0.01 1.0
I} ` 2-year flow(391 cfs) 4.8 5.3
589 cfs(1990 flood) 4.5 7.0
1,058(100-year flow) 3.4 12.0
Source:Andrews(1983).
a
See Figure B-2.
The predicted mobile sediment size at cross section 4 decreases at greater flow rates due to backwater from
the lowest bridge (Attachment B). During the largest floods, the gravel and cobbles move and form a layer
in the delta deposits beyond the river mouth. This layer is typically covered by sand during base flows and
jI small magnitude floods,giving the May Creek Delta layering.
Limited surface samples and pebble counts were obtained in the vicinity of the May Creek Delta as part of
this analysis (Attachment B). Surface samples collected from the upstream end of a channel bar are
considered to be representative of the sediment that is transported in the May Creek canyon and delivered to
the delta(Attachment B). Based on this sampling, it was estimated that sand makes up about 24 percent of
the river alluvium. The sand is derived from the stored alluvium along the channel and from erosion
occurring further up May Creek Valley.
ti—
A surface pavement of coarser material is indicated by pebble count Sample MC-4 (Attachment B). The
surface pavement varies across the channel and along the channel, but the upstream Sample MC-4 and the
pavement pebble count across the delta channel are both considered to be typical of the surface substrate.
When May Creek stream flow reaches Lake Washington,backwater effect flow velocity is lowered,resulting
in a substrate composed of sand (Attachment B). This sand is typical of the lower river starting
approximately 75 feet upstream of the last bridge and extending into Lake Washington.
2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS
The proposed alternative study area extended from Lake Washington (RM 0.00) upstream to the railroad
bridge (RM 0.22). The floodplain associated with the future 100-year mitigated flows was mapped in this
location to evaluate the potential for flooding on the site, and to evaluate potential setback alternatives. The
100-year floodplain is defined as the area inundated during a storm event with a 100-year return period, or
the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation in any given year.
2.4.1 Hydraulic Model
The floodplain associated with May Creek in the study area was mapped using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model
(USACOE 2001) and Parker sediment equations. HEC-RAS uses a one-dimensional energy equation to
calculate water surface profiles using steady flow equations (USACOE 2001). The model has basic data
requirements for geometric data and steady flow data. Geometric data used for the study area reach included
river system schematic data, cross section geometry and downstream reach lengths, bridge data, and energy
loss coefficients. The steady flow data included flow regime, boundary conditions, and discharge
_ information. The basic data requirements are discussed in detail in the following sections.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-5 August 2003
I
2.4.1c 1 Geometric Data
Rive' System Schematic
The Ludy reach included a total of 1,125 lineal feet of channel. The river stationing for the model started at
I the c,nfluence of May Creek and Lake Washington(RM 0.0), with the stationing increasing in the upstream
direc ion.
Cros,1 Section Geometry and Downstream Reach Lengths -
Ch. el cross sections define the flow area of the river. Cross sectional data includes ground station and
elev. ion points that define the channel and overbank areas. The cross sectional geometry was developed _
usin_,a topographic survey conducted by OTAK(OTAK 2002). Vertical datum for the mapping and HEC-
RAS mi odel is NAVD 88/91. '
I
' For :ach cross section, the left and right bank stations were assigned to demarcate the boundary between
ma' channel and overbank flow areas. The bank stations for each cross section were determined using ,
I note- made as part of the OTAK survey.
1 The .eometry data between Sections 2 and 9 were manually modified to account for overbank flow on the
no ern bank (Figure B-2). The survey data indicated that the northwest bank (levee) was the high point
and it at the land generally sloped down from this point to the lake. To more accurately represent flooding
condo Lions, the cross sections were extended to the northwest at an elevation equal to the bank elevation.
1 , , This reduced the amount of flood storage provided in the overbank area, and more accurately represents -
, ' floo.' g conditions at the site.
, I
Cros. sections were spaced between 5 and 188 feet apart to represent reaches with different geometric
chanicteristics. The model contained a total of 22 cross sections(Attachment A).
Brid,.es
The lower(farthest downstream),middle, and upper(farthest upstream)bridges were modeled in HEC-RAS.
Bride geometry was surveyed in the field to a tenth of a foot vertical and horizontal. This information was
veri''t ed using the results from a previous study(Table B-3)(INCA 1993).
Table B-3. Summary of Bridge Geometry
' Bridge Opening Low Chord Height High Cord Bridge Deck
Width(feet) (feet) (feet) Width(feet) ,- 1
Low-IL Barbee Mill Bridge 18.2 20.8 23.0 14
Midd a Barbee Mill Bridge 40.6 23.3 25.0 4 1
Upp=r Barbee Mill Bridge 28.0 23.8 27.0 38
i ' A n:w bridge is proposed for the site; however, no design information was provided, so it was assumed that
the iridge would not hydraulically confine the 100-year flow.
Ene'gy Loss Coefficients
r _!
The model evaluates energy losses using Manning's roughness coefficient for frictional losses, contraction
and !xpansion coefficients for transitional losses, and bridge coefficients for entrance and exit losses.
City o.1 Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barb a Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-6 August 2003 ;
i
1
Manning's Roughness Coefficient
Manning's roughness coefficients were estimated for the channel and floodplain using pebble counts, field
observations, and the USGS methodology for estimated hydraulic roughness (USGS 1989). Pebble counts
were performed at two sites within the study reach by measuring at least 100 particles for each site and are
generally representative of the overall stream roughness (Wolman 1954; Leopold 1970; Bunte 2001). The
results of the pebble counts indicate that the stream has a very course gravel substrate in the upper portions
of the site and a sandy substrate in the lower portion of the site,downstream of the lowest bridge.
Overall channel and overbank roughness values were estimated for the model using the equation from the
USGS methodology(USGS 1989):
H n=(nb+nl+n2+n3+n4)*m
Where:
nb=Base value;channel substrate
n1=Degree of irregularity
n2=Cross section variation
n3=Obstructions
n4=Vegetation
m=Degree of meandering
The USGS methodology has subcategories for each variable (nb, n1, n2, n3, n4, and m) based on the general
7 ^ characteristics of the stream or floodplain. Each subcategory has a range of roughness coefficients. The
appropriate subcategory for the study area channel and floodplain were selected using field data and
observations(Tables B-4 and B-5).
r-
L Table B-4. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness
Range
{ Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035
ni Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005
n2 Alternating occasionally The main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005
ns Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 0.000 0.004
percent of the cross sectional area
na Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01
m Minor Sinuosity=1.04 1.0 1.0
n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.032 0.059
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-7 August 2003
Table B-5. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness
9 9 p 9
Range
Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035
ni inor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in 0.001 0.005
many locations
nz la
n3 egligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the 0.000 0.004
floodplain
I n4 mall The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations 0.001 0.01
with minor shrubs and grass adjacent to the
channel
m la 1.0 1.0
n llanning's Roughness Coefficient 0.03 0.054
The high values from the USGS method for the channel correspond with the FEMA 1996 roughness values
of 0.)6, so this value was used for the channel. A roughness coefficient value of 0.026 was used in cross
sections 3, 2.3, 2.25, 2.15, 2.1, 2, 1, and 0, because the channel is predominately sand substrate in this
location (USGS 1989). The FEMA estimate of the floodplain roughness was 0.07,which is higher than the
USGS value. The FEMA value was used to estimate floodplain roughness because it is more conservative.
Exp.nsion and Contraction Coefficients
HE III RAS uses expansion and contraction coefficients to estimate energy loss between cross sections due to
chan:es in cross sectional geometry. The calculation is based on changes in velocity head. The study reach
was odeled using a contraction coefficient of 0.1 and an expansion coefficient of 0.5, which are the values
reco mended in the user manual for gradual transitions(USACOE 2001).
Ent ance and Exit Loss Coefficients
Ene : loss is common at bridges that confine the channel and floodplain. For this reason, the expansion
and ontraction coefficient were modified at cross sections immediately upstream and downstream of each
brid;:e. The contraction coefficient was modified to 0.3 for the cross section upstream of each bridge and the
exp. sion coefficient was modified to 0.5 at the cross section downstream of each bridge. These are the
HE 11-RAS recommended values for bridges(USACOE 2001). •
2.4.P.2 Steady Flow Data
Disc arge rates for the future mitigated 100-year return frequency event, which was estimated using the
' met Iod summarized in Section 3.1, was used in the HEC-RAS model. A subcritical flow regime was used
for iI is analysis, which is applicable to calculations for water surface profiles greater than or equal to the
criti al depth.
The water surface elevation at the downstream boundary of the hydraulic model was estimated using
US• COE Lake Washington water surface elevations (WSE)measured at the Ballard Locks. The USACOE
WS on the day of the survey was 21.52 feet, and the OTAK surveyed WSE was 18.43 feet. This
diff:rence, which was due to differences in vertical datum, is 3.09 feet. This information was used to
con left the winter lake level to the project datum to accurately represent the lake WSE during a period in
whi h a 100-year storm event is likely to occur(November to February). The USACOE regulates the lake
City Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barb-le Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-8 August 2003
r-�
level, and in the winter the elevation is approximately 20 feet. This estimated elevation was converted to the
project datum,resulting in a downstream WSE of 16.9 feet being used for the modeling.
2.4.1.3 Calibration
The model was not specifically calibrated using a series of measured data. However, anecdotal information
during the 1990 event indicated that the water level nearly reached the top of the bank,but did not flow over.
This 1990 event was modeled,with the model predicting similar results(Table B-6).
Table B-6. Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages
Cross Section 1990 Flood Elevation Levee Elevation Difference
(feet) (feet) (feet)
8 25.6 26.5 0.9
7 24.9 25.3 0.4
6.75 24.0 25.0 0.9
6.7 24.0 25.0 0.9
6 23.3 24.5 1.2
5 22.6 23.8 1.2
4.4 21.9 23.0 1.1
FEMA mapped a 100-year floodplain associated with May Creek on the site; however, the FEMA study did
not extend to the mouth of the creek. The FEMA map begins at the upper Barbee Mill Bridge
(approximately RM 0.14)and has a 100-year flood depth of approximately 4.5 feet. The FEMA map shows
a 100-year flood depth of approximately 3.5 feet at the upstream project limit, which is immediately
downstream of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The FEMA map indicates that the existing 100-year
floodplain varies in width and is located to the south of the Burlington Northern railroad spur line that
L services the Barbee Mill. The HEC-RAS model was also run with the FEMA 100-year flow rate to calibrate
the results(Table B-7).
Table B-7. Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results
1�! Depth(feet) Width(feet)
Cross Section FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Differencea FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Difference
11 3.5 6.6 3.1 50 36 14
5 4.5 5.9 1.4 70 52 18
a Depth in the HEC-RAS model was measured from the thalweg,which may explain the difference.
I-
As shown in Table B-7 the HEC-RAS model results for the FEMA 1995 flow rate are similar in width. By
comparing the HEC-RAS results to the FEMA 1995 flow (using the right bank elevations), the HEC model
indicates that the flood stages only exceed the bank in one location, which is due to the influence of the
bridge. This may not have been evaluated in the FEMA model. Therefore, it was concluded that the HEC-
RAS model accurately reproduced the results of the FEMA 1995 floodplain, and the increased floodplain
extent is due to an increase in the 100-year return frequency flow rate(previously discussed).
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-9 August 2003
1
i.i
2.4. i 4 Model Limitations _
Dep Oition of sediment and build-up of bars and bed elevations is a natural feature of deltaic systems. The
HEC RAS model did not simulate sediment transport and the potential influence this would have on flood
level . The buildup of the delta was estimated using the methods discussed in Section 2.3. Results from this
anal Ilsis were modeled using HEC-RAS to simulate flood levels under future conditions.
2.4. Floodplain Mapping
The , oodplain depth during a 100-year return frequency flow was calculated for May Creek in the proposed
alte ative reach. The resulting floodplain width was interpolated between cross sections. The floodplain --
' widt on the north side of May Creek(right bank)was estimated to extend to Lake Washington(Figure B-2).
ii '
I11 1
,I'
I � �
1 ,
I - ,
i
City c f Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
I Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-IO August 2003
r
� /,,\, j/ /,)•
J , , /1 , f:'•'f
i ,...----.
, , �i`I ,,,,,
._
..- _
,,,,_,..„,„,„„,„,•,,,,,,,,,„:„ .. ,„...„,_,_________, r
.7 A/
•
/ r { ( � / /
/ //
i/1K; 1 ,,, '‘,\j ,„„,-''''' \ \ /r /
II I �. �' LIMITS OF FLOODPL�►IN f / /
1 /. 14
!, 1 } / 7k // / 4 /
41, i Via !
0 i 7
N., 7 I/ 7 / i
L. �_=�, - %,4)/ri/ r. j gip,
);),
...„,i . _ ,
r:
1 \ ,,-- --- -,7 C I
i -S6.75 , // / /,
‘ /4 l'y /
LAKE i i Rs�s%. A4e% i_ == I i. , i` j LIMITS OF
WASHINGTON ' 1 y' RS,,� ? f 1';: / r FLOODPLAIN
E ,. /f
j I 1 a j!i ' ), /•t J MAY CREEK
1
\ R f RS4.35 " `//� /
\' . S. RS 4.25 /
7 / ' ,\\. ; Ili)/ 1 .4 .e.
_ ..,,,, 4,;, i , ,f,
K7 /fre` q i 9i _ t
�. " 1� ,,� IDLE RIDG �� --
j j/ RS 2.1 , /
/
ffi 0
GF
-------�-..-.�.._i � .:.;' . "/
/ IN4OTHST
1 , LOWER BRIDGE
Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-B-02
Figure B-2
4 Ala 100-YR FLOODPLAIN Barbee Mill Reach
W NO SCALE —•••—• MAY CREEK CENTERLINE 100-yr Floodplain
j RS# RIVER STATION IN HEC-RAS MODEL with Future Flowrates
ii_'
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The May Creek watershed drains the foothills of Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, and Newcastle Hills.
This study focuses on the lower portion of May Creek including the delta, from Lake Washington to the
Railroad Bridge.
3.1 HISTORIC DELTA
The May Creek Delta is a depositional area that extends underwater in Lake Washington approximately
3,000 feet and extends upstream to approximately RM 0.6. However,I-405 and the railroad bridge limit the
upstream extent of the delta. The delta has been building over approximately the last 13,600 years (King
County 1995). The 1897 USGS quad range maps show the delta as a wetland area, and historically the May
Creek channel would have migrated throughout the delta area. The low gradient of the stream in the project
area is influenced by Lake Washington. Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered
Lake Washington's water level by 9 feet to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May
Creek's lower channel, which caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May
Creek delta. This shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake.
3.1.1 Channel Morphology
Subsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the
channel,resulting in high ground similar to levees along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to
the east bank. These levees concentrate flow in the fixed'single uniform channel, and increase the sediment
transport capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill
over the west bank, the flood height could only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill
across the delta toward the lake. This, along with the relatively low gradient caused by the lake backwater
effect (and the presence of bridge foundations), would limit the sediment transport capacity during flood
events.
Historic activities at the Barbee Mill site have affected the geomorphology of lower May Creek by
unnaturally confining it. In addition, since the 1950s Barbee Mill has been dredging approximately 2,000
cubic yards of sediment per year from the mouth of May Creek to allow the mill to continue its operations
(Kind County 2001).
3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION
Alluvium in the lower May Creek channel consists of cobbles, gravel, and sand. The channel substrate is
typically sub-round. Based on field observation of the channel, in the proposed alternative reach, there is a
transition from course sandy gravel in the upper portion of the site to predominately sand in the lower
portion entering Lake Washington.
The May Creek floodplain within the proposed alternative site has very little vegetation, as it is primarily
covered with asphalt associated with the Barbee Mill. Some small shrubs, grass,and alders are located along
the tops of the high banks. Trees,understory vegetation, and large woody debris,which are a critical part of
the formative process for'stream channel substrate, streambanks, and floodplains, are lacking at the proposed
r- alternative site.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
''~ Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-12 August 2003
1 t
I
i III
3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
Approximately 1,125 feet of May Creek within and adjacent to the proposed alternative study area was
mod=led using the hydraulic model HEC-RAS (USACOE 2001). HEC-RAS was used to calculate
flood is lain widths and depths for the 100-year future condition flow rate flood event. In general, the 100-
year 1 oodplain width and depth are influenced by the three existing bridges, and the predicted 100-year
floods lain would cover most of the proposed alternative site downstream of cross section 9 (Figure B-1;
Atta ent B).
3.3.1, Hydraulic Restrictions
Hydrlulic restrictions occur in locations where topographic features, fill, and/or structures encroach on the
,, flood slain. In general, as the floodplain becomes more confined, flood depths increase and the erosive
pow, of the stream increases. Hydraulic restrictions can be either natural or man-made.
I I 1 3.3. y 1 Natural Hydraulic Restrictions
Natu al hydraulic restrictions are defined as locations where the 100-year floodplain is equal to or greater
than e channel migration zone and the channel sinuosity is controlled by the valley. Because the proposed d
alte lative site is located on the delta of May Creek, which consists of alluvial sediments deposited by the
strea ,there are no natural hydraulic restrictions in this reach.
3.3. .2 Man-Made Hydraulic Constrictions
' With the proposed alternative study area, three bridges cross May Creek: Lower, Middle and Upper
Barb le Mill Bridges. The fill and structure at each bridge locally confines the 100-year floodplain. In
addit on, as previously discussed,the banks along most of the proposed alternative reach have been built up
with ill and are armored with riprap,which confines the creek to a single channel. --.
1
City o'Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbe Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-13 August 2003
4. IMPACTS
Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many
factors, including the erosive force of the river,the nature of the material protecting the proposed alternative
development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three
proposed alternative scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from
the thalweg of May Creek)were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate
of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995 — see Table B-1). The existing condition assumes the existing channel
configuration, delta elevation(which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three
bridges. The three proposed alternative scenarios all assume that dredging has been discontinued (thus
allowing the delta to aggrade at the mouth of May Creek). The river mouth bar would probably not build
much more than a few feet above the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the Delta
would be equal to the winter lakes level (el. 16.9), which is approximately 1 ft higher than the existing
channel bottom. The three proposed alternatives also assumed that the existing middle bridge has been
replaced with a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the individual proposed
alternative scenarios assume the following:
r ,k • Scenario 1 —No setback and no levees or fill;
• Scenario 2—The proposed alternative is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot setback
from ordinary high water;and
• Scenario 3 —The proposed alternative is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot setback
-, from ordinary high water.
The proposed alternative within the 100-year floodplain is susceptible to flooding, erosion, and sediment
deposition due to natural channel processes in a delta. The degree of potential impacts to the proposed
alternative is difficult to quantify due to the stochastic nature of events that result in deposition,flooding,and
channel migration.
There is a strong correlation between development within a floodplain and the level of impact to the stream.
Stream and floodplain hydraulics would be affected in locations where the proposed alternative would
encroach on the floodplain and/or stream channel through the construction of fill or levees. Fill and levees
within the floodplain would impact the hydraulics of flood flows and could reduce the amount of overbank
storage and increase water surface elevations,which in turn could result in upstream and downstream erosion
and flooding. In addition, stopping annual dredging operations would result in bed aggradation, which
would likely increase floodplain elevations. Impacts to aquatic resources resulting from sediment transport,
sediment deposition,and scour are addressed in the Fisheries Technical Report.
4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 —50-FOOT SETBACK
Under Alternative 1, existing constrictions on the floodplain and encroachment into the floodplain resulting
from the proposed alternative would result in slightly increased flood stages at most of the cross sections in
the model (Table B-8). The project would be constructed with a 50-foot setback from the top of the stream
bank, and it was assumed that the development would be built on a levee that would be high enough to
protect against flooding during a 100-year flood event.
It was assumed that the project would remove the existing middle bridge and replace it with a bridge that
would not restrict the 100-year floodplain; and it conservatively assumed the other two bridges on the site
would remain with no modifications. The proposed alternative condition also assumes aggradation of the
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
- Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-14 August 2003
i 1
strea channel near the mouth (Attachment A). Increases in flood stages result in increased channel scour
and lank erosion,which could result in impacts to habitat and water quality.
Table B-8. Increases in 100-Year 1 Floodplain Depth with Setbacks
100-year Floodplain Depth 2(feet) j
Proposed Alternative Scenario°
1 Cr'.ss Existing No Setback/ 50-foot Setback with 100-foot Setback with
Section Condition3 No Levees or Fill Levees or Fill Levees or Fill
I� 1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
0 6.6 6.8 7.0 6.9
l § 7.4 7.7 8.0 7.8
1 ' 6.4 6.4 7.8 7.6
''I I
8.0 8.1 9.1 9.0
5.9 6.0 6.6 6.5
1
6.7 6.6 7.0 6.8
5.1 5.9 6.5 6.3
5.9 6.9 7.5 7.3
I
3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 ,
2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
1 Future 100-year mitigated flow(King County 1995)
2 As measured form May Creek's thalweg.
3 Assumes existing channel configuration,delta elevation,and three bridges.
(Assumes dredging discontinued and that the existing middle bridge has been replaced by a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain. ---I
The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 2.3. However, because
the ite is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating,potential aggradation would continue
and oodplain depths would eventually exceed the above estimates.
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2-100-FOOT SETBACK
Alte, ative 2 is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly less than Alternative 1 (see Table B-8).
I
I
1
,
•
',
City, Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
' Barb e Mill EIS-Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-15 August 2003
1
5. MITIGATION
Potential flooding and floodplain mitigation measures could include constructing levees or constructing the
proposed alternative on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-year flood level (King County 2001).
The model predicts an average maximum floodplain depth of 1-ft above the ground surface during the 100-yr
flood. Therefore,the levee or fill should be at least 2-ft above the existing ground elevation, to provide 1-ft
of freeboard as required by RMC 4-3-050.I3.a. More detailed analysis would need to be performed to
evaluate a design. These mitigation measures could protect the development from flooding and reduce the
chance of the stream migrating to a new location. Also, continued dredging at the mouth of May Creek
could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures. In addition, all existing
bridges could be replaced with bridges that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain.
However, potential impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction would have to be mitigated
to reduce impacts to the stream. In general, impacts associated with fill placement and levee construction
y�l could potentially be mitigated by providing compensatory storage. To provide the greatest benefit to the
stream, compensatory storage should be provided at the project site or at a location immediately upstream.
This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by removing an equivalent volume of historic fill adjacent to
a— the stream at an elevation greater than the bank and less than the 100-yr floodplain elevation. Unless
sufficient mitigation measures are implemented and maintained, significant unavoidable flooding and
floodplain impacts could occur.
r—,
_
Tfl
9 _
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-I6 August 2003
6. REFERENCES
Andrews, E.D. 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river material: Geological Society of
America Bulletin 94:1225-1231.
Bunte, K. and S.R. Abt. 2001. Sampling frame for improving pebble count accuracy in coarse gravel-bed
streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(4):1001-1014.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map, King County,
[- Washington and Incorporated Areas,Panel 664 of 1725.
Ii�' INCA Engineers Inc. 1993. May Creek Basin Plan Surveys for EBASCO Environmental,King County,and
L _ City of Renton. Job No.930120,3/23/93,by R.G.Hilliard and M.J.DuBray.
King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water
Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department- Surface
Water Utility.
King County. 1999a. Chapter 21A-24, rules and regulations of the department of development and
environmental services, sensitive areas; alteration within channel migration areas. Department of
Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington.
King County. 1999b. Channel migration boundary reassessment study guidelines. Department of
Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton.
April 2001.
King County and City of Renton. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Condition Report. Prepared by
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. Prepared for King County Surface Water Management
Division and City of Renton Surface Water Management Division.
Leopold, L. 1970. An improved method for size distribution of stream gravel bed. Water Resources
Research 6(5):1357-1365.
Otak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County,
Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002.
USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. Hydraulic Engineering Center- River Analysis System
(HEC-RAS) Version 3.0.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis,
California.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural
Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper 2339.
Wolman, G.M. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river bed material. Trans.American Geophysics Union
35:951-956.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
r Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix B-Floodplain Technical Report B-17 August 2003
Attachment A
Hydraulics Support Documents — Results
•
•
�I_
•
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=11 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 10
07-- —.06--34 It .07 34 .07--.06 >�< .07
Legend Legend
32 WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 WS 100-yr Future MI
WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
30 WS 1990 Flood 30 WS 1990 Flood
II
Ground . Ground
v �, v0
c 28 1 Bank Sta 28 Bank Sta
as
' 26 = m 26 }r, .r.
24 a �. 24 W p .0
22 22
20 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80, 100 120
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=9 River=May:Creek Reach= 1 RS=8
32-< .07 Vic=-.06 + .07 30 .07d . It .07
Legend 6 Legend
WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996
30- WS FEMA 1996 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
28- • • i.
:Ground Ground
�, �. 26 ® 0
C. Bank:Sta. �. < Levee
�������� , Bank Sta
w3` w 24
4.
24 .-
.. 22
22- - ,<
0 .20 40 60 . 80 . :. 140 . 120 140: 0. 100 200,`,;,. 300;,,. 400- , .500 . : . 600
Station(ft) „"Station(ft)::,
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=7 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=6.9
¢.0731 1 .07 d .¢.07� I" .07
28- 0 Legend 28. 6 Legend
- 6
i ♦
WS-FEMA 1996 WS FEMA'1996
26 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26-1 WS 100-yr Future Mi
■ WS 1990 Floodii
a W5 1990 Flood
Ground Ground
24-1 0 ! v 24- "` Ineff
o - x. a 2 -
Bank Sta m Bank Sta
W 22- - M 22-
20- -, 20-
181 . • ., . , , , , , • , . , , 18^ T r
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=-6.75 River=May Creek. Reach= 1 RS=6.7
28 0'0 1( .07
1 .07 I Legend 28-7-6 d Legend
-7 6 -7 6
WS 100-yr Future Mi - WS 100-ye Future Mi
26- WS FEMA 1996.: 26:. WS FEIVIA 1996
WS 1990'Flood ; ` .. ' WS 1990 Flood
■ Ground, : ■ Ground
247 ._'' ;V 24,. ;2;, 0
Levee. .. .: . Levee
o. m 6
.•z. :Ineff. *§ ;y" Bank Sta
• m' ,.
..Bank Sta 'u.. ,22- ;,
-.3r;
20- 20 0
18 :18 , . , r • , . ,.• • . r , . r . • , • r • ,
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Station(ft) Station(ft).
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6 River=May Creek Reach= 1 . RS=5
.07 ') 07>.; .07
28 7 6 .
:Legend, 30 6 Legend
WS 100-yr Future Mi 28 WS 100=yr Future Mi
26 WS FEMA 1996 •WS FEMA.1996_
WS 1990 Flood 26 WS_1990 Flood
�. . s..
• Ground Ground
24 I El a 3
c Levee. 24 • Levee.
6
s Bank Sta Bank Sta .
Ill 22 w 22 ,
20
20
18
1
18 16 1 , 1 ' l
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River= May Creek Reach=1 RS=4.4 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.35
J.
.07 >I J. .07
28 0 6 • Legend 28 07 6 Legend
a
26 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26: WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
24 WS 1990 Flood 24- •-WS 1990 Flood '
.. - ■
.Ground Ground
22- .1 22- �i
- •
Levee 7 Levee
o p. - o
T Bank Ste Ineff
m20-
w 20 w - Bank Sta
18- 18-
16- 16-
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 . '100 . 200 ' . 300 ,400 500 600.
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=4.25 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=4.2
.07 .07
7I6� - Legend . . .. 28 7�6 Legend
WS 100-yr Future Mi ' " WS 100-yr Future Mi
26 WS FEMA 1996 26 WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
24 Ground 24 Ground
v ' G. . . v. n Q
o lir Levee . , . .il!. Levee
22 ineff i 22 1 .Bank Sta
w Bank Sta w "
20 , 20 a�+'
A
kk
18 . 18
'1
16 16 , ...
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft) -
River=May Creek Reach.=1 RS=4 River=May Creek. Reach= 1 RS=3
.07 > .07
28".�6� Legend 34' 0"2 Legend.
WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 6 WS'100-yr Future Mi
26 " WS FEMA 1996 3U" WS FEMA 1996
WS:1990 Flood WS;1990 Flood'
24 . ......- 28 �.
Ground;. :: Ground:,
levee; 26 Levee
22 M ,ij Bank Sta 1 Bank Sta
iu m 24
ur
20 • 22 .a.
20 1 ...
18 :
18
16 16
0 200 • 400 600 800 1000 ' 1200 1400 • ' 0 200 400 600 ' " 800 1000 1200 1400
Station(ft) Station(ft).
EXi4,-rfr t.• errs r icigs MAY I.N. 2003
River=
May Creek Reach=1 RS=2.3 River=May Creek Reach=.1 RS=2.25
24 li 014.. .07-) .- - 24 d 07
4.2 . Legend . Legend
6 WS-100 yr Future Mi ; . WS 100-yr Future MI
22 WS FEMA,1996- 22 r WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood- I WS 1990 Flood
Ground •Ground
20 Ci. . "A'
20 w.l
Levee_ c Levee
o �.- o A
} Bank Sta y Ineff
_ N e
w 18 J 18 Bank Sta
16 16
14 14
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=2.15 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=2.1
It .07 .07 d
24 20 Legend 24 2 Legend
6 6
WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 100-yr Future Mi
22 WS:FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood . WS 1990 Flood
ii I . .
Ground • illi Ground
20 ill L1 Y 20 II 17
c Levee c Levee
o A _o p
al Ineff > Bank Sta
0 e d
W 18 Bank Sta W 18
1616
14 14
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
• River='May.Creek_ Reach=.1: 'RS=2 River=•May,Creek '•Reach 1 , RS= 1 •
26 •
-.07)o . • .07 24. 07 026 -- .07-=— .
2 Legend Legend. .
•
6 S-100- rFute, i _,2 -,WS1990 Flood . •
24 •
. .:, W$,FEMA'1998 WS 100-yr Future Mi •
ru WS 1990 Flood 20 - • •W$"FEMA 1996 •
Ground 18 . Ground •
Levee- ;, Bank Sta
0 20 • =° 16 s �`
co y Bank Sta > y: ,r
- 14 ,. •
18 , !fi
16 10
14. 8 •
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 .0 50 100 ' 150 200 250 • 300 350 400
Station(ft) Station(ft) .
,
HEC-RAS ReitfPlan:17-. ,Riyer::Mayk,Creek` Reach:4=: .•, `" . . . . .. 3 ;
EkistirigConcliticiir►�;�G.�.orAeirry�gti9� � . '�•,.. .��: •"'‘. . . ... . . ... . . ._ '�::
°Ft fiver Staj >• ..;, • :11TOO:
bescriptir FlowA.read th
11 598 1990-flood • 22;0 27:6 .. ..;.5;6 • '' 5.9. ::101 5• 30 4
11. 1;059 100-yr Future,. 22.0 29:0 7.0 7.3 1:5:1:2`:_ 42.2,.,
11 870 FEMA 1996 22:0 ., • 28.5. 6:6 6.7 133:5 36.2
10_ 598 21.4 - 26.7 514 6.3 94:5 28:9 •
10 1,059 -21.4 ' 28.0 6.6 8.0 135.4•,._ ' ',36:6
10 870 2.1.4 27.7 6.4 7:0 127:1
9 598. 20.3 26.5 62 4:4 137.2 . . .: 31:1.'
9 1,059 '20.3 27.7 7:4 : 5.9 199:6 81 3:•":. •
9.. . . 870 . .. " 20.3' : : " 27.5 7.2 5.0 186:5 72:7 :
8 598 20.0.. 25.6 • 5.6 .4.1 176.4 77.1
8. 1,059 20:0. 26.5 6.4 5.4 257.4. ',11.0.7
8 870 20.0 . • 27.3 7.3, 2.7 652.4 '_ 489.4
7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 1352 36.7. .,
7 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 7445 :. 558:3
7 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 1.7 1 262 8 : 600.0
6.9 598 1.8.3 24.8 6:5 5.5 1326::. :: .35:3.
6.9 1,059 18:3: 26.4 8:0.`" 3.7 7261;; •.5579 :.
6.9 870 18.3 '•;27.3 8:9 ' 1.7 . 1,252 8. 600:0
6.8 Bridges ,
6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6. 4.7. . 1:37.6 42:1`:
6.75 . 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.1 . 61,66 ;. 5897
6.75 870 . 18.4 • 24.9 6:4 5.8
6.7 598 18:4' 24.0 5.6 4.2. 160.6 42.2
6.7 1,059 18.4. "..25.3 . 6.9 3.8 647.5 . 589:7:':':
6.7 870 18.4 24.9 6.5' 5.2 202:5 58:6
6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.5 50.9
6 1,059 18.4 24.3 5.9, 7.2 173.2. : 54.7' '
6 870 18.4 24.2 5.8 6.1 169.0 . 54.4
5 598 1.7.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 143.7. 48.6.::
5 . 1,059 17.5 24.2. 6:7.. •. 3.5 . 876.4 1:,471..1
5 870 17.5 23:5 5.9 . 5.3' ':188.8 " 52.0:..:
•
4.4 598 15.3 21.9 : 6:6 5.9. 130.4 49:4.
4.4 1,059 15.3 23.2 7.8 8:0 . 297.5, 560:6'
4.4 . 870 ' 15.3 . 22.8 7.5 6.5 179:0 53:8
4.35 598 15.3 21.7 6.4 6.4 116.1 48.5 ' .
I
I ,
=RAS 'lair ,pl.M ._1:; w ,' ;:>;.: >:
M!i~C;, P aii ,7:y River May.Crka 'Reacl w1:`•':mY ,4
<�,
Existi,ng,,xGoiitiitiaris�Geaina rjt'�g�0'I� . .�� .,-.y •i��o-'"' .� -•" .•: .: .. NV
,} S«?d .A#ea.� �S>;' at :.�� .% .,H G ri'":
a,.% /!�.y`
T:1J
rg
1
•�;tla
�r
I o-' o° -
�. ..-,A.i ofr• a,3+.
• River 8ta� .�> �°]'otal: �-t3escri"`tiiiri:':Min-C�i`E1 IAtS:� E1ev De���#�`::.�1lei.Ciitl��, t=liv��Area �=1IVicl4i'V..
:R cis' 'ft:`.: ° ft ft, F ft/.s ;` s" t"t
-'i 4:35 -1;059 «15:3-•' ,,•-:..-. .23.1 •.7.8:.•:•:"......7:5':`, .' ::;..;:�174.5`-- ; �•560.6"
' 14:35. _ . - 870' - .153 . 22.5 ,,'-':-•'<7 2 ,., :, .,7'2:; ......:;150 8' - .:52:5-.
' 43 • . . Bridge'
' " • .!425. 598 . . .::16.7 . '• 21:62, - 4:9-.: : '3.2 - ' :108:2 - • ' 45..1 .
.1.
F. ; , • ".14.25" ' 1,059 . • - 16:7. 23.0 • ': .6:3' ' -• -7:4 - 165:4. . . : .'63.4. ..
14:25. 870 - 16:7 22:4 5.7 . 7.1 141':6 ' 48:1 ,
N . 1 4.2 598 - • 16.7 • 21.6 -':4:9: 6:0' ' 1.16.8' :'.45.0•, '
, I '4.2- 1,059 . - 16.7 - 23:0: • 6.3:.. ..-::-,7.1 185.0 .53.3- -I
I1 { 4.2. 870 - 16.7 22:4 :.` : • 5.7 .'6.8; . 155.7 48,1: ,
�. 4 598 17.5 21.1 ' 3.6 • '.6:0 - 101.1 38.4 ,
4' 1,050. . 1.7.5 22.6" ..5.1 :6.9 167.1 . • •52.5
4 870: 17:5. 21.9•. - 4:5 ' 6.8' . : 135.1 '43.7
1 1' I 3 598. . • 16.3 . • 19.9 . .-- ... 3.7 7.7 '- 79..3.' , 3:4.7_ 1
i i ' I 3 1,059 - 163 ' 22.2 ,- .5:9 ' 7.1 ' 1.87:0, - '55:3 •
11' i 3 870 . 16.3. ' •21.3. ; - :-5.0: " " 7:4•' .159.5 '5.1:7 • . l
.• 12.3: _. . . .598 14.9. 19:9 5:1 • 6 7<. . :101..7: . -.28.6. •.. ,
'2.3 1,059 • ' . ' . •14.9 21:8 -- -6:9.. - ,'. 8:2: ' ,., ..157:7., .. ,.;..,:32,7.. . .
I ,: ' • i. '2:3, • 870 • 14.9 •. 21--.1' :: 6:2.. 7:6, .. ,'1:36:2 '• ;:•3;1.2 - ,
11 2.25' ' 598 14.9 19.9., : 5.0 : -::-.6-.8 . ... '100;9 -:28:6 _
12.25. - . 1,059 14.9 :21:7 -• 6:9:' - 8 2 - 156 2 :: '•:32:6'
I. 2.25 . 870 14.9 .'.'21.1 .. . • 6.2 ' .,7.6 .. 135:9. •-.31.2. . !
,
!! 22 Mult Open !
, r
r
I I 12.15 ' 598- ' ' 15.5 1.9:2 : . .3.7 ; ° 8.3 .80.1' ' .30.0 ,
j I'2.15- 1,059 - 15.5': 20.5.'' ' . . 5.0: . 9.9:• .121.6 '. .32.3, -
LI,
' Hi 2.15' 870 15.5 20:0 4.5 •9.3 105.3 .31.4
p
,
'. 2.1 598 - 15.5 .18:8 . : ' 34 • - .9:2 71.1 :: 29.5 ' --
I - 1 2.1. ' 1-,059 15.5 . 20:1 - 4.6 • 1.1.1.: - 107.9. • ... 31.5 '
I I! "2.1 ' •870. . . 15.5 19:6' . ' 4:1 - : 10.4 . :: 93.3.-; • 30.7'
. : !.. .2 . '598 16.0: 18.7 2.7 . 7.7 77:7 42.2
1!1. 2 ..• . 1,059. • 16.0 - ' 19:6- ` • 3:6 , 2 . '9.2 : 1:16.4 ' ': 44:1 -
2 ••870' - ..16:0 . 19:3:''.. - 3:3: 8.6 • 1.00:9. ' . 43.4 ! ,
`) 1 598 14.7 -16:9 22 - • 1:4• • 495.5 1.76:7 - ,
1 1,059 • '14.7 16-.9' '2.2. ' 2.4 495:5 176:7 !
1 870 14.7 ' 16.9 • 22 2.0 .-. 495:5 . 176.7
I -
Ilige-RA5 Nit:Plan 17:; gl'ilak,I: 1144-::Oreek .130a6h: V;i,:$:::,. --.;.,:: ::.., ‘.'°':::::,:::::,,,,,,,,,;•: -.:',;.:,::,: : ','!,, :,',.,., ,,,,,- :, ,,':,,.',,,,,:',,,'::,:,:'„,:-_,:,,,
[Riiiiti$*1 Conditions,Addre01:401A0 No Middle Bridge Geometry,=-7:g.09::‘,
lop
:lili‘ieri,:.‘5,ta,.s'.-: ;44',tatal Description Miri:01E11,At.:$. :Ele*, -,,:',,f‘:)3:01$6 ;:c •-Ate1:01:01::: FloiiiAfea,,'.. VicftW,-,;
(c,f.WE-:,::: `',;,,,':M::::,:,:-,,,, -'n• ,:4'.i(ft).4::;' ,,i';',,„:(1) (ft),' '',.',',:;,-Vtis:Yr 4 '-,(4cik,ft),;.':'':',;:,7Ifti:pi:::;:z
11 598 19904100 22.0 27.5 : ' 5.6 ::: 5,9(,:".::"'.:::..1 0,15':.'' , ...':30.4' '
11 1;059 100-yr Future. 210 " 29:1 7.1 7.2 r::: : 156i2:,:-. 43:0-
11 870 FEMA'199`6 220 28.5 66 67 1335: ': : ..'352
10 • 598 21.4 . 26.7 54 6.3 ,: :945 : , 29.0
10 1;059 . .21.4 28.2 6.8 7.7, .,14Z9 : : 38:8
10 , 870 . 21.4 27.8 :6.4 7.0 1272 "352
9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 44 : 1373 .: : ; 311
9 1,059 , S 20.3. ' 28.0 7.7. 5.5 228,Z , -114:6
9 870 20:3 27.5 7.3 5.0 : :138.5„, ;: 74.1
8 598 20.0 ' 25.6 5.6 4.1 : „1765'::. .s' 77.1 :
8 1,059 - 20.0 26.5 6.4 .6.3 258.6 , 482.0
8 870 20.0 27.4 7.3 2.5 685.0 ', , 490,5
7 598 . 18:3 24.9 .6.6 5.4 135.3 36.7
7 , 1,059 : 18.3 26.4 8.1. 31 754;4 558;5
7 870 133 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 : 600.0
6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 r 1321..-. 36.3:'
6.9 1,059 . 18:3: 26.4 8.0 31: : ,7365::'
6.9 870 183 27.3 9.0 1::6 .:. ,1303;2: :,'5660:0
6.8 Bridge . :
6.75 598 ' : 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 .: 1377
6.75 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.0. 6385: .: 58911 :
6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7' 1753 : 593::
' 6.7 598 .. 18.4 24.0 56 4.2 1601 .42.3 :
• 6.7 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 3.7 669.3 5891
6.7 870 18.4 25.0 6.5 5.1 207.3 : 602
6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0
6 1,059 18;4 24.4 6.0 , 7.0 178.1 55.0 '
6 870 18.4 . 24.4 6.0 5:8 " 178.2 55:0
5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7' 144.5 48.7
5 1,059 17.5 '. 24.1 6.6 4.2 6,87.0 1470.9 .
5 870 17.5 23.9 0.3 4.6 :'358:.6 ' 1470.5
4.4 598 153 21.9 6.6 5.8 : 1323 49:6 '
4.4 1,059 15.3 24.0 87 3.6. . 754:9 : 561.1
4.4 870 15.3 238 8.5 3.4 .6749 561..Q
4.35 598 15.3 21.8 _ 6.5 6.1 127:0 49.1
1 ! .
1,
111071.34s,'Pie11:Riek,17•‘,:igiet-tMekOre,01, 'Reec,11:14..;.4, ,::::;:4°:
}PrOP0e4.11:46n11ifkiltle;Aqgre11eiiiin-en11140:.Nli111114::BridOetPeaFil046r7,460ilik:„-:„17,;‘,tm. :43„i;',
•;'.3''''';'' : ' ';'";4"itl:'%i,i6:Z''':'::.' :', '';:::';'-'n",jT''';.'4:;',,,;4-.,,:::: '-':':"-*,;',:': 1'...1,,,4,.'; '' -'4'. ;,','..:•:V,:,', „:‘., -::!If's l''',-i-,.,'%4I;T:altt-i:T ,
;',' ,e, ,,':‘ ,‘' ', =.:'4':
Ri)i.er;Ote:',": :4441:i>ter,. .110e0riOtiervIIVIe;rch:"El WISFIPV:.. ?De011** NetoQ111* Flow Area .rniii,10:11bi1
4 (dfe) --,::''`.'S.';'',:c!''.4i.:,;:':K°:-.4:1,'2-; ' '''''1:qt11;':''''', . ‘,;:' (11M: '.:1,',',' (ft):7'''7',:', 01.i),:,,,:.; R( cf ft).1`,3:, lftrE
4.35 1,059. ,' " 1.53 23.9 8.8 . '37 . -,.,'.,. -..74,2i.3.:". ': ':::;'.::50.1.1A
4.35 . 870 • ' . 15.3 :23.8 ' 8.5 - 3.4 . ::064.1, : ',501.0 !
II 4.25 598 , ' 16.7 21.8 5.1 56 127.1 :' :458 _
I 4.25 1,059 , ' 16.7 23.9 , 7.2 4-.1 - 024.7 555:6:
I I 425 870 " ; ' 16.7 23.7 7.1, .. 3.8 :„ " 550.9 555.5
1
, 1
' I 4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 , 45,6
, I 4.2 1,059 , , 15.7 23.9 7.2 , „ 4.2 ' 611.3 - 555:6
I ' ! 4.2 870 .. 16.7 23.7 71 3.9 534.2 „ 555.5
r 4 598 . 17,5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2
, .
1 i 4 1,059 „ 17.5 23.4 5.9 : ;. 5.8 , 220:3 127:1
4 870 , 175 23.5 6:0 4.4 364.2 1286.3
„ 1
,I 3 598 : 16.3„ 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 '51,2 :
I .. 3 1,059 . 16.3 23.2 69 5.7 245.4 61:5 1 "
3 870 : 16.3 23.3 7.0 , 4.5 254.6 : • 63.7.
, II
2.3 598 . * 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 :101 3 -; :.:. 29:8'.
S I 2.3 1,059 ' 15:9- 22.4 6-.5 ,8.5 156.5 : 35.'.7
2.3 870 ' ; '159 • 229 70 6.4 176.1 . " - ' 459• 1 . '
0.0 • • : -' ,.• ! i
, 1 2.25 598 , . 15.9 .207 : 4.8 7.0 ' 1002 • ' 29.7
; .
2.25 1,059 , ; 15.9 22.4 6.5 8.4 , ; 1545 35.7 . ;
1 II 2.25 870 ".15.9. 22,9 7.0 6.4 •-: 175.7 45.5
III, 2.2 Mult Open • ,
2.15 598 15.9 , 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31,0
Il 2.15 1,059 , 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 ' 124.6 33.3
" II 2.15 870 :15.9 20.6 4.7 9:1 109.0 32:4
.
I 1 2.1 598 15.9, 19.5 3.6 9.2 730 30.3
, 1
2.1 1,059 15.9 ' 20.7 4.8 . 11.2 110.4 32A
I; 2.1 870 :15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.6 31.6
i 1 I 2 598 . 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.5 41.8
11 2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 : 115.3 ' 44,0
2 870 .- 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 ' 100.5 , ' 43.1
I
'1 1 1 598 . • ,14.7" 16.9 22 1.4 4955 , 1763
1 1 1 I 1 1,059 ' : 14.7 ' 16.9 , 2.2 2.4 495,5 176,7
, i I 1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 '2.0 495.5 176.7 1 s
, .
i
I ;
. , 1
I f
1
r i ,
I ' .
HEC-RA$ 'PI ". .an:,:Plan 1"7 �R�ver�iUfay=Creek".:';Reacli �;1
Proposed,:Conditions,Aggredation.,anid,Ke Middle:Bridge :60:#t":Setback°>Geometry=g 1t0 °-.2-;
<..
IRiv r r ti :iltl. Elev e .Sta: . :;c�•-r�tai'."',�:pesc �pto. ;t�ir�CtiAAI��. . s
_ a (ft) ft ft" f#!Y s.::ft
11 598 1990-fiood 22:0 27:6 5:6 5 9. :. '-101 5:.' .'. .30,4:% g
11 1;059 100-yr Future ; '22:0 . 29.1 7.1 .71 15,56 435
11 870 FEMA 1996 • 225 28:6 67 6:5 • 137:2 1 36:8
10 : 598 21.4 " 26.7 5.4- 6:3. 94.5 28..9
10 - 1,059 21.4 28.4 7.0 7.3 1,51.1 ' 42.1
10 870 -21.4. 28,0 6.6. 6.6°• 136 1 36:7
9 - .598 20,3 26.5 6.2 4.4- 137.2 . 31,1
9 1,059 20.3 ' 28.3 8.0 ' 5,0 " -246:9.. ' 83:2.
9. 870. . .. • ..20.3 27.8 7.6 . 4,6. 212:8 • 82,8
8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 . 4.1. 176.1. 76:9
8 1,059 „ - 20.0 27.8 7.8 3.6 ` 370.3 103.0
8 870 ' '20.0 27.5 7.4 3.2 334.3 93.9
7 598 1.8.3 24.9 6:6' 5.4 1365 36.6
7 1,059 . ' 18.3: 27.5 .9.1 .5.0 ' 36210, 126,9
7 870 18.3, 27.1. 8.8 4.6 31:8.3 126,9 .
6.9 598 18:3" . 24:8 6.5 5:5 132:7 35.3
6.9 - 1,059. ' 18:3:. 27.4 . . 9.1 . "5.1 354.9 126:9.
6.9 870 18:3, 27.1 8.7 4.7 312:4 126:9
6.8 Bridge.'
6:75 598 18:4 24.0. 5.6 4,7 137.7 . 42,1.
6.75 1,059 . 18.4 • 25:5 ' 7.1 6:1 219:5" ' . . 84.1 . '
6.75 870 .. 18.4' 24.9 6.5 5.8 177.2 . 78,5
6.7 598 , 18.4.. 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42,3
6.7 1,059• 18.4 25.5 '7.1 5:4 • 256:8 84.2
6.7 870 . .18.4 '24.9 6.5 5.1 208.8' 80.3
6' 598 .18.4 . 23.3 4.9 .5.7 '122.8 51.0
6 ' . 1;059. . 18.4 " 25.0 6.6 " 5.8" ' 236.9 106.8
6 .870 18:4 24.3 5.9 5.9 ' " 174.2 54.8 '
5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144:5 48.7
5 1.;059 . " ' .17.5 24.5 ' 7.0 . ' 4:9 276.4 98.2
5 870 " • " 17.5: ' 23:6 6.1 5,1 198:2 ,,.... 53:5
4.4 598 15.3: 7 21.9 6.6 5.8 132:7 49.6
4.4 1;059 . " =15,3 ' . 24.2 8.8 ' 5.6 , '272.1' ' 71:0.
4.4 870 ', 1.5.3 23.0 7.7 , '6.6' 188:5 ' . 70,3
4.35 . 598 ,15.3 . 21.8 6.5 . . 6.1 .'127.0 : 49.1
. -
i . , , ., . • ... . .... . . . . .. - , ,
I li0:;;R:Aa',,J Plan i PIO et;47:‘‘.01',ii,et'...j..11:11.:4)A,Ci*Iiki,.J.RoOM1:1;:‘:j;.:,.';,Ji`,j'a. -241.i'.:;..j:••;',;•,.:J..';.,.".j',:', ',';'.:4d'jjJ.;:,',2Z-..''',.,j..,; ',j,'
.. '
IRkiiiittiObitalitlitiptis;:MgiedAtiiiiiiiiiiiigo'Dittddleatibib‘i.;500'S:etjtiekkOitflOttft#,. 1"0:?;„:',!!.;i',',:::::,
1 ,!.i -‘4. ::-'-,,!;C;?;," ,:--;;'-'J''75;:ri.f,l';',:.?:::;';"2,'5:,::; ft:.*4..i,,:i,447,:-,.:44,g;;,;;•I'':';'• ';;?'''•i'k-'4'', : . ';:: f''-';Aii :;;:':''''''' '.:;,;--.24'::,,';''';',";i'•';f:!i,3,6;%:::-. 4ti'2,:' 1 ;
L 10 4: .ireii- t, . .`, i;,!.,!„ :i 4 46:41i;„;J:ioier,i0ii.,i,ii-t",yfiniii'46`;,Ef.Mt,,•-:1 . 00-tif:li--.-'1)!`i-6Iiii,41.';`,l‘i.:61.,dtint:- Klo,*=Aii AJj,tilliffi11:.
1 . ''..jj';:j1;: ',:-.- --.-.::'::.•' "' OIC:f§rt-j:J.J.j"Ji.:4-2-';.:: ',..,4,',2‘:::. .:: -':-.(It)1'7':, `:‘!.1 .'=:(f0$1:'"-;',,':','"4#0:';'ill'' %;:kftl:$1,!::.,;,! -::- le.4-.:#) :‘,, i=:-:"S (It)f .:'i'.`,`k;
li4.35 - ' :j jt;059 j' . 'J.: 1 1.5.8 244 - -• 8.8.:j- jj ' "5:0;‘::'-' :,j'--"•":269''.3•(:,:jj'.,j• ''''''''."ij 717-.0-:!--
4.35 870 • . 15.3 22.9 j.: (7:6' ' 6.4185j:1...,j j.j.: ' 58..5
, '11
4.25 ". - .598 " J 167 21.8 5.1. . .5:6 . ..127:1 ' 45:5.
4.25 - .-' 1,059 : : • : .16.7 24k 1 j :. :7.4 j • . . 5.4 I•. ::259. 5 " • :.79:7
': ; : : , 4.25 : . . :.870. • • •' . 16.7 229 ,-• •'62 .-;, • 5,9 . • '1,81.1 ::52.4 ,,, • -: !
. . .
. , , . ..• .: , : .
4.2 '.: 598 , , 16.7 21.7 51 :: •• - 51 124.1 '456
l• ' '
i - ' . I '. 4.2 :. • 1,059- , • - ' . 16.7 24.1 , ' -, •'7.4: '. • 5,5 257.2,' '797
...
42„ .:,870 • 10.7 ' 22.9 6.2 ' ,'-6.0: . • :1787 . . 51.8
;• . .
:i• , 1 !, , . . - - ;' •• 0:0:-2 .-
. . ,
1 ; • • .,
;I : 1 :4 • : 598' ' : - 17.5. 21:4 4.0., - 5.4;- ' 114.2 40.2
•1 - ::4 ; '1,059 ; : . - 17.5 23.9 ' 6.5 - -;4.8 273.2 93.5 H
4 .870 ' : • 17.5 22:6 5.2 5.6 169.9 53.2
!I
- -
! ; . 3. ' - . •598' : •. • 16.3. 21.1 4.9 . ;5:3 132:9: 51.2 I,
.,
- . 3 1,059 - 16.3 c!..•:-23-.8. 7.5- 5.1 . --284.4:- 703 • j .j, -
j J • ' j 3 870 j - 16.3 .j :22.4 • 62 J •5.5" , '2027 • 56.:,5
1jjj -j • ` 2.3 598 ' ' 15.9 . 20.7 4,8 6.,9 j• . 101,3 . '.29.8
2.3 : 1;059 ' ' 159 `,'. .23.1 7.2 ' . 7:7: '.. :188.7:: 2,80i0
23 ;. '::875•. 15.9. :2-. 21.8 5.9' - 7,7 137,3'; . 32.7
, . . .
225 ,'- -' 598: , : - - 15.9 20.7
4.8 ; : -. TO . 1002- :- :. .297
2.25 : -• 1,05,9 : • ' 15.9 23.1 • 7.2:2 . .. 77 1857. • . . :790 '
1 ! 2.25 , : 870 " ; - • 15.9 21:8 ', 5.9 - 7.7 : :1362. •,.:. .,32.7 j1' . • j-
i i • .
j j1 jj • j 2.2 ''Mult open , .. , .
. ,
2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 . 8.0 84:9 31:0
- 1 ,2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 '9.8- 1246 ' 33.3 J ;
2.15 H870 - 15.9 20.6 4.7 " . 9:1 : 109:0 32A
i 2.1 598 _ 15.9 19.5 ' .3.6 : 9.2' - 72.8 '30.3• ,- ,
I i• :1, 2.1 -• - 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 .. : 11.1 • 110.4 32 A
, I, , I
1 , ' L 2.1 . ., ' 870 , • . 15.9 • 20.2• ' 4.3 . . • 10.5 :-95.6 31.6 •--
.2 598, . :. 16.7 : 18.9 . 2.2 . 7.7 77.4 ' 41.8
2 . 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0
2 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 • .100.5 43.1 1. -
- 1.-- • • , , I
I : 1 --: 598 . 14.7• 16.9 2.2 1 A- 495.5 176.7
•i '1 - 1,059
1 870 14.7 16.9. . 2.2 . : ":2.4' , 4955- :. .176.7 : •
14.7 16.9 2.2 , 2:0 :4955 176.7
1 1
1 _.
I • • :
1 , ;
1 !I
HEC-IRAS°Pla PIan22:'Rivtr Ma Creek:'f
Proposed Conditions,Aggredatiori-:and.No Mi ldle=Briag+e�100=ft Setback:3eometry=g:06 Ma'"> ° ,°� i_
^?.a1: "•ems•: - .,
Ri ,er:�St. �,C�•Tritai: escr ptia Nlin:,Cl.f�t :S.-�EIe �G1ep. t = • �':V�1:Chril.•;�.�Flririr'�irea�::.Tcp.ltUidth;
(fit),. ..,, (ft}:` ....° N(Ills},;`. <.. {e+ :'ft�` ;(ft),? . .a
11,.. 598. . '19904floo4 22.0 27.6 5:6 , • 5 9':::: :1:0:1:5-,. :"30 4" •
11 1 059 • 100-yr Future 22:0 29.1 7.1' 7:2 1'53.7 43.2. •
11. 870 FBMA:1996 22.0 28,6.. 6.6 6.6' 135:8 36i6
10 598 21.4 26.7• 5.4 6.3 `...94.4 28:9
10 1,059 •21.4 28.2. : 6.9 7:6.: 14'4:5 39:5
10 870 21-.4 • 27.9 6.6 6.7 : 133:5 36:2
9 598 . . 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4. • :: 1,37.1.. • 31..1
9 .1,059 20.3" 28.0 7.8:.. 5.4: 235.1". . 11:4.6.
9 . 870 : 20.3 27.8 7.5 4.8: 205.2 " 896 ,
8 .598. :20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1' ,: • 175.8 '" 76;8
8 1,059. :20.0 27.6 7.6 . `3.6 . .412.E 146.0 •
8 870 20.0 27.4 7.4 • 32 382:4 1.42.6
7 598 183 24.9 . 6.6 5.4-. 135.7 3fi:5 •
7 1,059 1,8.3 27.3 9.0 4.5 449.9 '176 9. • .
7 870 18.3 27.2 8.8. • 3.9 414:4 176:9
6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5. 5.5 1324 35 2•
6.9 1,059 . - :1:8:3 27.3 8:9 4.5 4336: ` :'1:7.6:9
6.9 870 18.3 27..1 8:8 .4 0 40,9:0 :1.769•
6.8 . Bridge' ,
6.75 598 : 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137:5 : 42:0
6.75 .1,059 . . .. 18.4 25.4 . 7.0,. 5:81 261.7 134:1•
6.75 870. 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7 " 197.3 128.1
6.7 • 598 ' , '18:4 24.0 5.6 4.2. • 160:7 ". . 42.3
6.7 1,059." 18.4 25.4 7.0 , . 5.2 ' 298.8 . 134.1
6.7 870 '18.4 24.9 -.6.5 5.0.. . . . 229.7 . : .129.7
6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7: 122.8 51.0
6 1,059 . . . 18.4 24.9 6:5 5.9 : 243.4 ." .156.5 .
6 870 . . . '. .18.4 24.3 . 5.9 6.0 172.0 54.6
5 598 1.7.5 22.6 5.0 4:7 144.5 48:7
5 1,059' .17.5 24.4 6.8 5.0 291..6 . 148.0
5 870 . 17.5 23.6 6:0 . -5.1 . " :, .194:7 52:4
4:4 " 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5:8 132.7. : 49.6
4.4 1,059 ' . 15.3 24.0 . 8.7 5.6'. 31.5.7 ' 121.0
4.4 870 • 15.3 23.0 7.6 6.4 , , 187:4 . 60.5
4.35 598 . . 15.3 21.8 .6.5 6.1 " . 127:0 49:1
FKO,:P:Ak.,$'4::1P,Jert::,,,Pleii:'2Z-1.1-31v-dr :MaY1:=0,telek1,;',1RIOAat,1 '=„'',; ,,': ,1,4:'''„ •1:-'.: ,•:;,::,;:1,,,A ; ::'-':.!:..:;.,:,,,..k4-,': ,..i,,-,*,',:-. ..T•-:,:iz‘z,,,:::!',::-‘,.::::!,,Tii':',..,-..:,,,$ i _ '
' . Ptcto:A-ofci*Olticii*A0diteddtiOmOttNillitelOWIEfirOig 0';A0014t$ettliatt(;46iirriatiy";#4:06 - :
‘:11:',.Piiiti:79": .-';,,,:‘,„-,•,'C-11,,Y•1:-;,;::'''';:','?2:;.:,,i': ';';,:,':',•, ?-1. ...;.,: ;:';:::.,,,-..., ::‘ ;=,,,,-..:: :::'''::::;:-;"''''' ,''' '''..;',t2,'.::.'-i:,:2 :- . ''',:t;i-,1:...' ;,-;::•4!.,i 'l:.,.', 2,.:;:;::- ,;:.:-.==2.:':'''' '.;i:', 1'4',4'4,'-,§',ili''''',;;:!:''; '; ' ‘
FR:liei-iie :4,,Ift'ithi'i kr.)6 ,4iiiii-aii, Man:.0.6':Ell, ',,,A0y.:Eto,;1::.:1,14:fei4iiir, ?.=;,,:v.,oif. iiiiii.1 Flowy:; 400a.-,,;-,'7,f4p;:tiviiiiii;
(.00) -:::::.:., :;.---i,:y:::-:::,,,,-„ ,,. ..,.-.:,.. ..--.;:,-,:,,(ft):,,:: .,'4!,;,5: 64:.„,-':: f:f.;'2,-=,(ft) --z`;4-; 'otip),4::;:::,: ,,,;..,=::',Ticifty,;J:,-2,::,
io5 . 1;059: . : . ' 15.3 240 '' 8.7= - -.• ' '51.: i''';'f-' ';' -4';=311h.0'''''-::::: ''....-':1120I9'... : .--
,
'; I 4.35 ' 870. ' 15.3 ..• ': 22:9 • ' 7:6. ' ' 6,4 .. •:.. : '185.5: .; -
-0:0.: • : ‘ • '- • .
4.25 598 -16:7 ' ' ' . 21.8 " . 5.1' ' ' 5.6 127;1 .45.8
4,25 1059 ' '16.7 • 23.9 ' ..:. .:73',' ':,-• - 55 ' 299.5 . :129 .
4.25 • ;870: . • 167 ; 22.9 ''4' ';6.2 ..' :'. ' 5.9 1812 ' .524
. ,
4.2 598. . , - 167 21:7 .: .: : 5:1: ':: 5.7 ' ' 124.1 . 45:6'•
4.2 '.1,059 ' . 16.7' :. 23.9 - 7.2': - , 5.5 .294.7 . : 129.5
ir : 1
0 . 4.2 870 - : , :. ' :: 1.6.7 229 • 6.2 : '. 6.0 ' - 1787 ' 51.8
1, : . . , • -
- : •
4 598- :' , - 17.5 . 21.4 : • -40 : ,5.4, 114.2 '402
. 4 1,059 . ; .. 17.5 - • .218 ' :. 6.3; ' .:, 5.0 ' 277:4 143.0'
4 870 . . 17:5 -_, 22.6 . 5.2 5.6 ' 169.9 53:2
;; - •
3 598. ' ' 16.3 ' 21.1 4.9, - : . 5.3 132.9 51.2
,
I 3 1,059. : 16.3 23.6 : 7.3 1:': :',- 5.3 . .2702 57:2
I .
3 870' , ' . 1,63 , 224 . 62 , ::'• ''.5.5 ' • 202,7 56.5 .. 1
I
, .
I I
! ' . 2.3 598 - 15.9 ,207 4.8= :.:'. . 6.9. - 103 29:.8 !, 1
1: 1 2.3 1,059 ': „. ' 15,9 • '22.9 ' :,-. i 7:0!:: .:. :,`1,,,..' 7,8 ' • 1760 , 458
2.3 870. ' • : • 1:59 „21.8 ::. . 5.9''. '.: :- 7.7 .1373 : . 321
2.25 598 , •' ' 159 ' 20.7 ,- 4.8.:. ',,,',, --T.(), - 100,2 , " 297
1 .1 2.25 • 1,059 ' '. .15.9 -- ; . 22.91, -,- '' 7:0- :' ' 79 . .:1741 45.1
2.25 , 870 .: • - .159 ' .:- 21.8:' 5.0:-: :, - '.77 136.3 - . 327:
., .
.
2.2 'Mult Open . , .
1 1 : -
, ' 1 215 , 598 15.9 19.9• .„4.0 ' , 8.0 ::84.9 31.0 ,f
' I 2.15 1,059 ,, 15.9 , '21.2' " 5.3: . :-' ' 9:8 '124.6 33:3,
I . 2.15 870 . . 15.9 ' 20.5, , 4.7 .''.1 ; 9.1 • 109:0 1 i ,
' 32.4
, I 2.1 598 159 19.5 - 36 '9.2 : 72.9 30.3
II 2.1 1,059 . ' ' . 15.9 20.8' , . 4:7-• ' - 11.2 110.4 32.4 1: ,
2.1 870: . : :• 15.9 20.-2 ' '4.3 - '10.5 95.5 31.6
1 ' 2 598 - , 16.7 189 - 2.2 , • : 7.7 ,: . 77.4 , 41.8
2 1,059 16:7 19:7 3.0' I '9.2 • 115.2 44.0
2 870 . 16.7 .19:4 2.7 ': •: ,.'8:7, 100.5 ' .43.1 .
. .
i
1 598 , .
: 14.7 , 16.9 22- : - , IA .' " 495:5. 176:7
' 1 1 1,059 . 14.7 , 16:9 2.2 -.': ' 2.4' : ' 495.5 176,7
1 i 1 870 :14.7 16:9 2:2 2.0 495.5 176.7 ; 1-
' '
: 1
1 ,
L '
1
Attachment B
Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A
Grain Size
(mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002
Percent 0 0 0 0 2 19 30 29 11 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cumm% 0 0 0 0 2 21 50 79 90 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
%,Finner 100 100 100 100 98 79 50 21 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A
100
90 +
80
_ 70
60 _._.....
u 50.;
a 40 --- -- 30 29
30 19
20• 1-1
10 0 0 0 0 2 3 7 0 0
2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A
100 I I I I
90 - I i
I I t250
j }
a.a440 .
30 '
20 + f
100
10000 1000 100 10 1
Grain Size(mm)
11
.I: !
, I ,
l'! ,
H '
ay Creek Subpavement MC-113
i' i Sample Date: 9/27/01 ,
Volume , •' -
.1 i
„ 't! Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent I ;
(mm) (m1) Percent Retained : .Finer
may„Creek
•
. Pu0PaYen19: -: . '. I
, , 1 75 :0 0.0 0.0 :•' 100.0_ ' : •,,
50 soo 40;9 f. '40.9 :.' 59:1•
,.
25 640, 29.1 - 70:0 .30.0
c i . . 115 270 123 "'..=.82.3, : 17.7
9.5 '80 ,r ,3.6 : ' •5869 , ': .. .14.1
?: .,!
55 2.5 :„ 88.4 ‘: :..11.0 HI
I
335- 50 2.3 90.7 9.3
55 .2.5 93.2 ; e.8
I
.i
„1 0.85 20 OA 94A :••: 5.9 "
[ , ! •0.425 " 25 1.1 ;95.2•,' '' 4.8 • '
0.075 95 • 4.3 . " 995 '0:5
': . ! Wash -y'; 0.01 • 10 0,Z •; 100.0 - :- 0.0 . i 1
sum • * 2200
f•• -
I 1 ' - , •
1 r 3
1 1 ' May Creek Subpavement MC;•1B •„ ! 1
„r 45 40:
. ,! .--'
S
.40";-,.." , .'Imilym: .
• „
35
6.,i
, !'
30 : ,i0.5t-oc•
1 •
, '
I'll ' 1 1 24).20 .
'o.„ i :.,
123
. •
1
,'75 50 25 12:5 9.5'. 6.3. 3:35 • 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.075 Washah
, ,
Grain Size(mni) . .,
P May Creek Subpavement MC-1B •
'il I
!., 100
,
! 1 90 ;-
„
1 1 , „t3
. , C
it: 60 -
: . .
, '5
0
.11 „ -0 40
2.. „
*:II
a. 30 : • .
•
. ,
li 1 20
, - --^-•-•1r-- : ; 1 1
'
Ili 10 0 • ' •...41 -- , * i:. f141
1
1 100 10 1 • 0.1 0.01
. 1 Grain Size(rrim)
I I 1
, :•,.II -
1 „
•I 1 „I i
„..i I
I !
May Creek Sample MC-2
Sample Date: 4/25/03 .`
Volume;:.
Grain Size Retained ` Cumm.% Percent
(mm). ;•.:1ml) : ;Percent Retained Finer
May CreeK;
•
Sample MC
;:.:..1`.7;•i.: 0 ;0.0 0.0 ..:: 100.0
0.85 : '21.49:;:'.':';0.9 • .. :0.9 99.1
0.425 :.:,.429.36::>'.::`'18:2 :..::. 19.1 80:9
;0.3 .:`'826.64: 35:1. :54:2 '45:8
0:106 . = 345.51. 14.7 97.9 2:1
0.063: ..:r;•;29.24 :::: .:1:2 :::.:; 99.2 0.$
Pan 0.01 19.59 0.8 `•:100.0 0.0
sum ,•. `235732
Pan . .
May Creek Sample MC-2
35:`
20 eee� � 14:7;
Q-.15 • k .r
0.0 • 1 .` ri„�
1.7 ` 0.85 0.425 ;: .=.0:3: :0 21 0.106 0.063'1''' ` Pari
Grain Size(mmj
May Creek Sample MC-2
90.
80
� 70 •
m 50"
a: 30
20..
1: 01 Pan'
Grain Size(mm)
{
1 ,
1 .
I i
)
i
I , ,
11, M.;y Creek Subpavement MC,;•S
I 1 Sample Date: 5/25,03
i 1 _
Grain Size. Volume Cumm.% Percent
II 11 (mm) Retained(m1) Percent Retained Finer ::
1, may,t,4reeK ,
1 Subpavement
[ ''. Plit',3., •
75 ' ' 0 0.0 0.0 100.0
50 110 3.5 3.5 96.5
25 : , 1060 33.9 374 62.6
. Y
12.5 ••• ' " 610 19.5 - 569 43.1 1
; 9.5: : ; ;120 3.8 60.7 39.3 ,
, , 1
-
!,1 1 0.3 '.- .136 •4'.2 -. 64.9 35.1 ;
• 3.35 : : -.•220 7.0 71:9 28.1
I 1 .
I, .1 1:7 •, ' 160 " 5:1 77.0 23.0 '
„0.85 ..' s, 200 , 6.4 - : 834 16.6 :•,.,.1 ,,,
9.6 93.0 70
'0:075 H..': '. ;205 • 6.5 99.5 0.5
,1
11 Wash 0.01 .• .. •: : 15 f 0.5 100.0
0.0
sum : •'',3130 :
.,
1 ':i --'
May Creek Subpavement MC-3 • .
,...i i
l ' i 40 . .
,
- , :
35 33.9 , ii:
II
' ,,,S7:-.•.195 . .".1
!I 1 8 20 ' '''•'' ' . 0, ; I
i 1 . a• 16
=.1
1 0 7.0
11 : g 4 6:4 4,,,,.. 0.5 ., •„ "
g - "
r.3t,-,..:.-5.... .47.,./.L..-w-4........ •'!..,,,-t.*.;,,,.t-if. :.,•:3r 8...,., 42 r
v„ i*•/,:,,..„..--.1..1.:4.;:,,4-.„,',7,,:,w4,7-,,;%4,,7,.,,,Y... 0.0 ?CI
JJ 1 75 50 25 12.5 9.5 ,6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85. 0425 0.075 Wash
Grain Size(mm)
1 ;I
I, li I
II May CreekSubpavement MC-3 I 1
1, 100 a
,,
i.
90 --\
..I
II
I., 80 •:•: . 1
I.i 70
o
1..
1, L.,: 60 .:
ca
li ..
1 I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 .sf,
1,
I 1 Grain Size(mm)
'i -.••••i
1 ..
. 1 I •,.,sl
1 i -
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4
Grain Size
(mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.1250.062"0.031 0.002
Percent 0 0 0 0 0 13 27 39 10 4 7 00 0 00 0 0
Cumm% 0 0 0 0 0 13 40"80 89 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
%Firmer 100 100 100 100 100 87 60 20 11 7 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0', 0
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4
100
90
80
70 .
d 60
50 39
30 . .. .. 27.. ! .
i•
20 • 13 ti°' Y 10
10 0 0 .. 0 0 0 " - 4 ��," .., 0 0•
2048., 1024. " 512• 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 ." '2 1 0.5. .
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek"Surface Substrate MC-4
'100 _ ■ a a a
aW40 - •
30
20
10
10000 '1000. • 100
Grain Size.(mm) •
APPENDIX C
Water Resources
I
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix C
Water Resources
Prepared for
City of Renton
Renton,Washington
Prepared by
Parametrix
5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200
Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350
(425)822-8880
www.parametrix.com
August 2003
Project No. 554-1779-017
1 .
[ C. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
C.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This technical appendix addresses impacts of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat located in the
City of Renton adjacent to Lake Washington, at the mouth of May Creek,as indicated in Figure C-1.
C.1.1 Studies and Coordination
This section of the Draft EIS includes a discussion of existing streams and other waterways, hydrology,
floodplains, and water quality. These analyses provide a basis for assessment of impacts on wildlife,
aquatic resources, and endangered species. This section has been prepared based on review of existing
data, a peer evaluation of the technical studies provided by the applicant, and qualitative evaluation of
likely impacts. Proposed mitigation has been evaluated for the potential impacts identified.
Surface Water Bodies •
May Creek
The proposed alternative site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May Creek
discharges to Lake Washington (Figure C-1). The May Creek basin encompasses a 14-square-mile area
located in KingCounty, southeast of Lake Washington between the Cedar River, Coal Creek, and
tY, �
Issaquah Creek drainages. The basin lies primarily within unincorporated King County, but the western
and southwestern portions of the basin(approximately 12 percent of the total area) are within the City of
Renton (King County 1995). The May Creek watershed consists of residential, open space, agriculture,
• and commercial land uses(King County 2001). During the past several decades,the lower portions of the
watershed have undergone intensive residential development while the upper two thirds of the watershed
have retained a mix of rural residential,small farms,and some forest areas(King County 2001).
Currently, the amount of effective impervious surface coverage within the basin is 7 percent. Under,
current zoning, full build-out would result in an increase of effective impervious surface to 12 percent
(King County 2001). Over the past several years, annual dredging at the mouth of May Creek in Lake
Washington has been conducted by the Barbee Mill Company to remove bark debris from mill operations
and to remove sediment transported from the upper reaches of May Creek.
The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site
(Figure C-2). Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is
armored with riprap. The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet.
The stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches; hence the stream's ordinary high water mark
(OHWM)is only slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002).
Lake Washington
Lake Washington, the largest lake in King County and the second largest in the state, receives its main
inflows from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers. Lake Washington drains approximately 472 square miles.
The basin containing Lake Washington is a deep, narrow glacial trough with steeply sloping side slopes.
The lake's average depth is approximately 108 feet with an average water volume of 2,350,000 acre-feet.
Most of Lake Washington's surrounding watersheds are urban in nature; 63 percent of the watersheds are
developed (DNR 1999). The lake connects to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Lake Washington
•
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-2 August 2003
1 �
, ----
,
.
v _
__ __.
--- , ,
____
- i l'.%?'•• . -- "' -
Z'-'------''* —zT";•':*1;-"6 7!*7:::"; --'';'.3: ' 'II' A
SEATTLE
::;,'' • :::: .
f.;
/0/ , 2. i'-f• .
- Lake : .
,
Washington
„ „
. -., -. : -,,,,,, 'i ,- -., . ,- eillH 11ELLEVUE
A-mite r
.
i • ''" , . •,
MERCER „.•:--•ei" -.101, " ', f4) , . '
ISLAND „ '•- ' -19W4 '' '' ..
--•,',. • '-",' ' 4 : "', -',- '
lit4IN•
,1 ..'';','••
,..•' '''''''z.01— . ,
-'1'.( .54', 4 : 1 r .i4 4 •,-(a, ...'.'..-;-"TLI:,
- - ,.C,,,,, ,-':,,' ,.4,1 '',' : ;r1•*1-'''--‘1;•,i,"'?':*..,V4..,
..,,s...49 ISSAMJAH
‘. - ,',.. .-, ,',,, •-; --
- ,,, • A ,,,'? ',"`":'•",;;'^, ,,,4- "—..."7,;;;•;:r,:, ,
,, „ , , ,„,-- ..-•,„ i>> ,;,4rroPil„,.‘4"4--,- ,„,',/ •V:".,,,,;':,.
1;'','' '''''"4';'''/•,.,,';,''!,>./',..,*"'W •''.;i';''i;.,1'4'•,(4.:•';etl':'.>'s, - . '' ' s
'•' „ ,„ 47# ; ..',.., ::;„:;;;•;'"ici*,1*;,,;0;,,,,,,,'::4';f:' ;;',4'"'1;47.,t,'iik;:bi;';:j',:i4t 7,,,,,, •.... 4 ‘ , '....la
' , . '•. :.;„,:: ,*::, ' "c!f*:;': - '''''''''Y' ''; i41/K•''.$;',,;{:,':";',• ,.??..,Nr4y/4.,...; .,',':i• :>: ;
,'• \ • '1'4‘' Q°P". *
.. .
iii: 4.3
lif .t•-..
: -
1r li ...:
RE...
99
TV LA
.....e c--.)
,z4
Date of map,October 1998
Pa rametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure C-1
o 1 2 Miles May Creek Basin
/villa
Vicinity Map
lap
mmm ,.
` _ v
SYMBOLS
r
ii,y>. _ �, % . PASSABLE - BARRIERS-IMPASSABLE
,i I !,`tiw. _ .mot .c;
1.'4
ts: (j} - tiiia_ Palls t�tt
j' 7 1n Cascades
V ...;� '.
, • .
� r Log Jams \,' *E J
ti >;:» 1
[ ;.,p 3: p f p,eca o \`—r/ Dams
,, , 3:1 `z%.''sal c
2
y1 , E :::
.. -(-.Ca/Z.r ) eii Salmon Hatchery
Y
C i �e .X <7.>4 Fish PCssage Facility
m y t72
d,- G Stream Osage
Cr
ete.... ,,,t?. . CT
o tp Str2anj 'MrIk
' • `�r`. a7 l� '' •
'< .0 44-4 -��L_ - CIr p, Reference. .Paint.
wIII Coo/
.. f- +d:SITE
:„�''�•r�• {fir1 cz,„ \5.4:\ r1.�••
411
`e`er Apr ��� "ems
1';t.; C.. s
a3�`` r d (5 r29r. c5; .
;:;q ., ;; s O C^ Lei CI
??y�y, ;}•a i,Xi"+ sew 0 B'
3: aY�,
Q Er`
t 1/2 0, I_M I L E 13
+<,t t«b
♦�►4°'�4:b
in 4 SCALE: 1". I MILE
m 4�'b*sb
�`44b:0 4,� 1
d,. ...t 4O4ii:�i+j1j#;y4f,- ;se- Renton ''f'
4i♦• 4`44t4.,dta,.►'i,�. :SOU I TH `-''
''' '�''`.'+`**•: LAKE WASH! N G T N
10. 4,444♦b*f 441 '
I♦e.****,g♦,,b;4 DR A) NAGES /.,,
Source:Washington Department of Fisheries(1975)Washington Streams
' and Salmon Utilization map,Volume 1.
Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)6/03(K)
Figure C-2
1110 May Creek Location
and Stream Type Map
,
r '
Ship Canal. The Ship Canal provides the only discharge from Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington.
Construction of the canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington's water level by 9 feet to its present level.
On-site Wetlands
Two palustrine emergent, persistent (PEM1) wetlands were identified within the railroad right-of-way
adjacent to the eastern property boundary (David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997; Raedeke Associates,
Inc. 2002). Small portions of the two wetlands (less than 1,000 square feet total) extend onto the Barbee
Mill Property. Both wetlands are managed as lawns(Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002).
Classification of Water Bodies
May Creek
May Creek is identified as tributary #0282 in WRIA 08. May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake
Kathleen and flows westerly 8.6 miles to Lake Washington (Williams et al. 1975). May Creek flows
approximately 1,000 feet from I-405 in a southwesterly direction through the Barbee Mill site and outlets
ti
into Lake Washington near the south end of the site.
The portion of May Creek located on the Barbee Mill site is classified as a Type 1 stream (DNR 2002,
Figure C-2), based on its size and anadromous fish use. King County classifies streams under three
different categories. Class 1 streams are those that have been inventoried as Shorelines of the State under
King County's Shoreline Master Program. Class 2 streams are smaller than Class 1 streams, and either
flow year-round under periods of normal rainfall or are used by salmonids. Unlike Class 1 and 2 streams,
Class 3 streams are intermittent or temporary during years of normal rainfall and are not used by
salmonids(King County 1991).
Lake Washington
The project site lies along approximately 1,700 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. The Lake
7_ Washington Basin, known as WIRA 08, is comprised of waters funneling into Lake Washington and
hence through Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal to Puget Sound at Shilshole Bay
(Williams et al. 1975).
On-site Wetlands
The two small portions of wetlands located on the Barbee Mill site have been highly disturbed by human
activities and meet criteria for a City of Renton Category 3 rating(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002).
Water Quality Classifications
May Creek
The water quality classifications of the tributaries located on site, as well as those downstream receiving
I waters, determine the nature and severity of the potential impacts and the type of on-site water quality
treatment measures necessary to mitigate the potential impacts. May Creek is listed as a Class AA
(extraordinary) water under State Water Quality Standards WAC Chapter 173-201A. Water quality of
Class AA waters markedly and uniformly exceeds the requirements for all or substantially all uses. The
uses of Class AA waters listed under WAC 173-201A include domestic, industrial, and agricultural water
supply. Also, these waters provide migration, rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat for salmonids,
clams, oysters,mussels, crustaceans, and other shellfish(e.g., crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops), as well as
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-5 August 2003
I
wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide recreation (primary contact recreation, sport fishing, -
01
' boatingIli , and aesthetic enjoyment), commerce, and navigation. Any water listed as Class AA must meet
certain water quality criteria for fecal coliform bacteria; dissolved oxygen; total dissolved gas;
I temperature; pH; turbidity; toxic, radioactive, or deleterious materials; and aesthetic values set forth in
WAC 173-201A(MRSC 1997).
L ke Washington
Lie Washington is listed as Lake Class under State Water Quality Standards(WAC Chapter 173-201A).
W1 ter quality of Lake Class waters should meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all
usi'JII s. The uses of Lake Class waters listed under WAC 173-201A include domestic, industrial, and -
aTncultural water supply. Also,these waters provide migration,rearing, spawning, and harvesting habitat ,
foi salmonids, clams, oysters, mussels, crustaceans, and other shellfish (e.g., crabs, shrimp, crayfish,
scl illops), as well as wildlife habitat. In addition, these waters provide recreation (primary contact
I re reation, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment), commerce, and navigation. Any water listed
ag Lake Class must meet certain water quality criteria for fecal coliform bacteria; dissolved oxygen; total
dii solved gas; temperature; pH; turbidity; toxic, radioactive, or deleterious materials; nutrients, and
' ailsthetic values set forth in WAC 173-201A(MRSC 1997).
L e Washington serves as a valuable natural resource to all King County residents. On the whole, the \I'
1 lace's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It offers good
raring habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife, provides multiple recreational opportunities,
1 s pports varieties of resident fisheries, and acts as a beautiful focal point for the surrounding communities 1'
I (II NR 1999). Although the water quality of Lake Washington is considered very good, natural runs of
LL, e Washington sockeye, coho, and chinook salmon, and steelhead trout appear to be declining, —
hiI,wever. The reasons for these declines are still not fully understood(DNR 1998). r
I I,'can Water Act Listing
1
e section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State
I a being impaired in the 1998 listing under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for zinc, copper, lead,
aiid fecal coliform bacteria (www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/links/impaired_wtrs.html) and
www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/303d/w8a-303d.pdf). Specific information on the 303(d) I
li tings include:
• Zinc is listed based on two excursions beyond the criterion collected by King County Surface
Water Management(KCSWM)at the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington in 1994.
• Copper is listed based on one excursion beyond the criterion collected by KCSWM at the mouth
of May Creek at Lake Washington in 1994.
• Lead is listed based on three excursions beyond the criterion collected by KCSWM at the mouth _
of May Creek at Lake Washington in 1994.
• Fecal coliform is listed based on 27 excursions beyond the upper criterion out of 92 samples (29
' percent) collected at King County station 0440 (May Creek River Mile 0.1) between January
1991.and April 1997.
identified Management Strategies
II
I The May Creek Basin Action Plan(King County 2001) (hereafter referred to as the Action Plan) outlines
1n action plan for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin. It provides a set of actions to: 1)
I I reduce the threat of flooding to homes; 2) make infrastructure improvements that will facilitate storm
1
I Pity of Renton 554-1779-017
II 3arbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-6 August 2003
i1
flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce erosion; 3) protect and enhance fish and wildlife
habitat and water quality in the basin; and 4) take reasonable steps to prevent existing problems from
becoming worse in the future. Primary basin-wide recommendations contained in the Action Plan
include:
• Establish and enforce requirements for runoff retention/detention, forest retention, and water
iM
qualities facilities for site development.
• Develop basin stewardship and community coordination and participation through creation of a
May Creek Basin Steward.
• Establish a monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of implemented actions.
The Barbee Mill site is contained within the regional subarea identified in the Action Plan as the Lower
Basin Subarea,which extends from the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington upstream to River Mile
3.9, above the Coal Creek Parkway S.E. crossing. Primary recommendations for the Lower Basin
Subarea specific to the Barbee Mill site area include Recommendation No. 10: Facilitate Permitting for
May Creek Delta Dredging. The Action Plan notes that sediment deposition occurs naturally in the May
Creek delta, and that increases in erosive storm flows associated with basin clearing and land
development have increased the need for dredging to allow the mill to continue its commercial operations.
Dredging was estimated to be approximately 2,000 cubic yards per year. Dredging will have to be
undertaken more frequently in the future to maintain adequate access for the mill operation, particularly
as a result of increased sediment transport as further development occurs in the basin.
Furthermore,the Action Plan notes:
"In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future,
opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance
dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been
undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need
for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved
habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of
environmental and economic benefits. Any major redevelopment project also should
consider opportunities for acquisition and restoration/preservation of riparian lands
adjacent to the May Creek Park system. Until funding for such a project becomes
available, continued dredging is the only viable alternative for maintaining commercial
operations at the mill. Such dredging has no downstream impacts, and the impacts on
channel habitat are localized and minimal. This recommendation recognizes the need for
dredging to continue until a long-term solution can be identified and funded, and that
even a long-term solution likely will include some need for ongoing maintenance
dredging."
C.1.2 Existing Drainage
Impervious Surface Areas
a i Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious
surface in the form of pavement and various buildings associated with the mill operations (Raedeke
Associates,Inc. 2002). Mill facilities and pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. An existing
bulkhead extends along the majority of the Lake Washington shoreline owned by the Barbee Mill. A
dock extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore midway between the northern
property boundary and the mouth of May Creek. Numerous pilings and log booms associated with the
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-7 August 2003
I I
II \,
mill extend from the shore for several hundred feet out into Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc.
20012).
Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May Creek. The southernmost of the three bridges is a single
lane wooden structure located at the mouth of May Creek. The bridge provides vehicular access to
so�lthern portions of the mill. The middle bridge is a narrow foot-traffic only wooden structure located
approximately 200-feet upstream from the mouth of May Creek. The northernmost bridge is a two lane
c crete structure that provides the primary access for the mill(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002).
��Conveyance and Stormwater Discharge ,
The Barbee Mill site consists of three stormwater collection areas and outfalls associated with the
aii ndustrial activities,and non-point discharge drainage areas not associated with industrial activities (Loyd
d Associates 2003). The following outfall drainage information is based on information contained in '-_
th Barbee Mill Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)(Loyd and Associates 2003).
Ngrth Outfall �-
T e north outfall discharges stormwater collected from the north side of the Barbee Mill site. The north
o tfall drains approximately 40 percent of the facility's industrial activity area, which primarily contains
p 1 vement and storage buildings. With the exception of minor amounts of lubricants, no chemical usage
o curs in the northern portion of the site. A petroleum product storage area is located within this area;
h wever, this storage area is covered and bermed. A wash area is located near the east side of the facility I
n,�rth of the dry kiln. The wash area drains to an oil/water separator that is not connected to the storm
d I ain system.
e north outfall does not have an oil/water separator at the terminus of the storm drain system at Lake ,}'
ashington, although numerous catch basins exist within the storm drain system that provide for settling _
o potential windblown dust and debris. Because the entire north outfall drainage area is paved, and
' dustrial activity is minimal in this area, there is very little accumulation of dirt or debris in the catch
b)l sins.
11)(iddle Outfall
The middle outfall discharges stormwater collected from the central portion of the facility near the
I slawmill. The middle outfall drains less than approximately 10 percent of the facility's industrial activity
area. This outfall has an oil/water separator to trap residual hydraulic oil or other petroleum product
(brincipally lubricants) from the sawmill area. Because the sawmill operates on an infrequent basis, the
I potential is small for oil and grease from heavy equipment to enter the storm drain system. The storm
I I drains, catch basins, and the oil/water separator are cleaned periodically to maintain flow and to minimize
I I the potential for oily residues to reach Lake Washington.
south Ou fall
I!
I The south outfall discharges stormwater from southern portions of the site. When the sawmill is
operating, this area may have considerable activity. The south outfall drains approximately 50 percent of
tie facility's industrial activity area. The storm drain system consists of a series of catch basins and lines
terminating at an oil/water separator at the south outfall adjacent to Lake Washington. The catch basins, /,
storm drains, and the oil/water separator are periodically cleaned to assure that the stormwater collection ,
I system is operating properly. Because the sawmill is operated on an infrequent basis,the primary activity
Ii 1
ity of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-8 August 2003
! I�
occurring in this area is the temporary storage of bark and wood debris derived from dredging in Lake
Washington.
Non-Point Drainage Areas
Portions of the site are not involved with industrial activity and are non-point drainage areas (Loyd and
Associates 2003). These include the southern portions of the facility adjacent to the east shoreline of May
Creek, and primarily consist of facility offices and an employee parking lot. There is no industrial
activity associated with the May Creek corridor.
Wetlands
The northernmost of the two wetlands on the Barbee Mill site, drains via a ditch that connects the
northern portion of the wetland to May Creek. The southerly wetland seeps into ditch that connects to an
approximately 150-foot-long storm drain pipe that flows to Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc.
2002). See Section 3.4 and Appendix D.
Adjacent Upstream Drainage
A drainage basin located in the neighborhood near North 40th Street between I-405 and the BNSF
railroad drains towards the Barbee Mill site. Under existing conditions, stormwater is conveyed in a
southerly direction along the east side of the railway where it flows through a crossing 24-inch diameter
concrete pipe to the west side of the railway embankment. It daylights into a surface ditch that is
approximately 4 feet wide and 1 foot deep, then enters a 15-inch diameter drain line which carries the
water across the Barbee Mill site and discharges to Lake Washington(Otak,Inc.2002).
C.2 IMPACTS
C.2.1 Impacts of the Proposed Alternative
The proposed alternative involves removing the existing Barbee Mill Company facilities, including all
buildings, asphalt surfaces, and other associated structures. The proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
would include the construction of 13.07 acres of new impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious
areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area on the 22.9-acre site. New impervious surfaces would
include rooftops, driveways, walkways, and stormwater facilities. The proposed project would reduce
existing impervious surface coverage on the site from approximately 85 percent down to about 57 percent
(Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). This would be accomplished through the removal of existing asphalt
and concrete surfaces and mill structures. New pervious areas would include residential yards, and
setbacks from Lake Washington and May Creek. The development of the site will be governed by the
RMC and the COR2 zoning which is designated for this property(Otak,Inc. 2002).
The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington and 40 lots adjacent to May Creek.
The project proposes that all residential structures to be constructed along the Lake Washington shoreline
would maintain a 25-foot setback, as required by the City of Renton (1998) Shoreline Master Program.
The project also proposes an average buffer of greater than 50 feet for May Creek that would range from
a minimum width of about 20 feet at the Tract F roadway to a maximum width of approximately 100 feet.
Setbacks from May Creek would be planted with native species to provide forest cover for the stream
'i (Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002).
A new local access bridge would be constructed over May Creek and would require the removal of an
existing middle bridge. Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be necessary and is
City of Renton 559-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-9 August 2003
11
,
I
, p
I ' I 1
III presumed to include no work within the OHWM of May Creek. The new bridge would be approximately
42-feet wide and include sidewalks. One of the other existing bridges would be retained and converted to
II foot-traffic-only use.
SI ormwater Discharge
Unmitigated development can substantially alter a natural hydrologic system. Typically, the most NI
i
apparent hydrologic and hydraulic impacts are related to removal of vegetation, compaction or removal of
soils, and increases in impervious surface areas, such as buildings, streets, parking lots, driveways, and
sidewalks. These changes can result in increases in the volume, velocity, frequency, and duration of ,' I
st�rmwater runoff. Changes in the hydrologic regime can result in increased flooding and frequency and
' dII ration of high stream flows, leading to erosion, channel scouring, and loss of hydraulic complexity. In ,
al dition, less stormwater may infiltrate,resulting in a decrease of groundwater recharge.
' e proposal would result in a reduction in impervious surface area,which should reduce stormwater run-
of velocities and volumes from the site to May Creek and Lake Washington. This could lead to more r~
stable flow regimes and decreases in peak flows during storm events (Schueler 1994). Scouring of the
II May Creek streambed could be less likely to occur and could lead to an increase in stream habitat
11 c 9mplexity (Schueler 1994). In addition, reduction in impervious surface area could increase the amount
o,stormwater infiltrating to groundwater at the site. \ ,
A previously discussed,the drainage basin located in the neighborhood near North 40th Street between I-
4 5 and the BNSF railroad drains towards and across the Barbee Mill site. Under developed conditions, j
II s bypass lin is to be redesigned so that it has capacity to convey runoff from the developed, offsite
basin. The line's outfall location will remain the same for existing and developed conditions (Otak, Inc.
I 2402).
Impacts to Water Quality
1
De gradation of surface water quality can result from new development when increases in stormwater
pollutants, such as associated with runoff from roads and parking lots, or increases in erosion and
sediment transport due to uncontrolled runoff, result in higher discharges of contaminants to sensitive r
receiving waters, such as lakes, streams, and wetlands. If not properly mitigated, potential stormwater
I , pill llutants from a developed site can include oil and greases, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus),
to is organics (e.g., pesticides and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons), metals, and suspended solids
II (articulates). In addition, long detention periods in stormwater detention ponds and water quality
I I treatment ponds can increase water temperatures through sun exposure.
I Water quality treatment for the proposed alternative is required under King County Storm Water Drainage
11 Manual (KCSWDM) Core Requirement No. 8 (King County 1998). Under proposed conditions, I
I stormwater would be routed to stormwater treatment facilities before being discharged to Lake
Washington. The proposed stormwater treatment facilities are described in Section 3.2.3, Mitigation
Measures. Proposed treatment of stormwater would be an improvement over current conditions for the
site as sediments and pollutant loads to Lake Washington would likely be reduced. In addition, the
I ; p roposed reduction in impervious surface area (relative to existing conditions), and the proposed May
Creek buffers,which would be restored to pervious conditions and would be enhanced with supplemental `'
plantings of native vegetation to restore the proposed buffer to a forested condition,would likely result in
an overall beneficial effect due to water quality improvements(Raedeke Associates,Inc.2002).
I' Floodplains and Flooding
I See Appendix B.
c y of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources -10 August 2003 ,r
II
it
r�
Maintenance Activity Impacts
Landscape maintenance could include use of fertilizers,pesticides, and/or herbicides. If used,these could
potentially affect biological activity in receiving waters if not removed by water quality treatment or
otherwise mitigated. In addition, sediment removal from water quality treatment ponds could result in
increased turbidity in stormwater discharges, particularly if the maintenance were performed during wet
periods.
Construction Water Quality Impacts
Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings located on the
property, removal of asphalt, excavation, and backfill for utilities and water quality ponds, and grading
for road construction. Infrastructure construction would include approximately 38,000 cubic yards of fill
for road and lot construction and 32,000 cubic yards of excavation from the water quality ponds and
underground pipes. Large earthmoving equipment probably would be used on site to clear the property.
Soil excavation, grading, and removal of vegetation during construction can expose soil that potentially
could be eroded and transported with stormwater runoff. Removal of topsoil and compaction can
decrease stormwater interception and infiltration, which can increase rates of surface water runoff. On-
---, site use and maintenance of construction equipment, construction staging areas, storage and use of
chemical products, and on-site wastes generated during construction activities can produce pollutants,
includingpetrochemicals e. oils, gasoline, and degreasers), concreteproducts, sealers, and paints, and
( g•,
wash water associated with these products. If not properly mitigated, surface waters can be impacted by
the construction-related sediments and other pollutants.
C.2.2 Impacts of the Continued Industrial Use Alternative
Impacts associated with the continued industrial use alternative were assumed to be similar to current site
conditions since the existing structures would remain, as would all existing impervious surface on the site.
r-- If triggered by new construction, appropriate mitigation measures conforming to applicable local, county,
j ti and state guidelines would be required.
C.3 MITIGATION
ti
C.3.1 Operational Impact Mitigation
Site Hydrology
Detention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge
Exemption in the 1998 KCSWDM (King County 1998); however, water quality treatment is required
under KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8—Water Quality(King County 1998). Table C-1 summarizes
the design basis for the proposed alternative(Otak Inc.2002).
_
I
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-Il August 2003
1
, I
. I
1
Table C-1. Basis for Stormwater Design (Otak, Inc.2002)
i 1 Water Quality Pond Capacity
Required Provided
Treatment Design Standard Device Design Criteria (cubic feet) (cubic feet)
i
R I noff Control KCSWDM1 NA Lake Washington 0 0
Direct Discharge
I 1 Exemption
I Runoff Treatment Basic Basic Three Times Runoff Pond No. 1 Pond No. 1 56,902
j1 Wetpond From Mean Annual 48,811 Pond No. 2
Storm Pond No. 2 11,026
I 9,523
1 1 -
, 1998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
2 Direct Discharge Exemption—Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control
I
The proposed alternative would reduce the amount of impervious surface relative to the existing
condition, which should decrease surface runoff and increase stormwater infiltration and groundwater _
recharge.harge. Decreasing the amount and/or the effect of the proposed alternative's impervious surface could
p l tentially be enhanced by the following methods:
• The use of porous(pervious)pavements on driveways,parking areas, and/or sidewalks; `"
• The use of tree and brush cover in proposed parking lot landscaping areas to provide additional
interception of rainwater;and
1 • Infiltration of roof drain discharges.
S ormwater Discharge i,
e proposed stormwater drainage system (Figure C-3) is sized to convey the 100-year, 24-hour storm
1 .th the water quality ponds in their overflow conditions. Operation and maintenance of the proposed ,
srmwater drainage system would be designed to conform to City of Renton and KCSWDM
requirements. If mitigation measures were properly implemented and maintained, adverse stormwater
Tcharge impacts would not be expected. The following brief description of the proposed conveyance
1, 1 sstem is based on the Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(TIR) (Otak,
1 I lie.c. 2002). Appendix D of the TIR provides the preliminary calculations showing that the storm water
i , conveyance system meets the 1998 KCSWDM Section 4 Stormwater Conveyance Standards.
Storm Drains to the Water Quality Pond WQ1
I
1?ree storm drain lines (Lines 1, 2, and 3) would collect flow from the area north of May Creek. The
pipes were designed to convey the 100-year flow rate without overtopping the rims. The 100-year design
flow rates at selected catch basins were determined by using the Rational Method. The King County
Backwater model (KCBW) was then applied to the storm drain lines extending upstream from Water
Quality Pond WQ1 to catch basins D, G, and J. The backwater elevation during overflow operation in
' Water Quality Pond WQ1 was assumed to be 21.5 feet, 0.5 foot above the water quality surface elevation.
I'
Storm Drains to the Water Quality Pond WQ2 \:
�Ine 18-inch trunk line (Line 4)would serve the area south of May Creek. Water surface elevations were i
determined at selected catch basins using program.
the KCBW The tailwater at Water Quality Pond WQ2
during overflow condition was assumed to be 20.5 feet. The preliminary conveyance calculations are
provided in Appendix D of the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc.2002).
1 ,t
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-12 August 2003
Discharge to Lake Washington
Following water quality treatment, water from each of the two water quality treatment ponds would be
discharged directly to Lake Washington through separate 18-inch diameter pipes (Figure C-3). The
discharge pipes would outfall to an invert elevation approximately 0.5 foot below the mean-lower-low-
{ water (MLLW) for Lake Washington (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). Discharge rates for the larger of
the two ponds would range from approximately 2.5 cfs during the 6-month, 24-hour storm to
approximately 8.0 cfs during the 100-year, 24-hour storm, and water velocity at the pipe outlet would
range from approximately 1.4 feet per second during the 6-month/24-hour storm to approximately 4.5 feet
per second during the 100-year, 24-hour storm (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). Discharge rates for the
- smaller pond would range from approximately 1.6 cfs during the 6-month, 24-hour storm to
approximately 5.0 cfs during the 100-year, 24-hour storm, and water velocity at the pipe outlet would
range from approximately 0.9 foot per second during the 6-month, 24-hour storm to approximately 2.8
feet per second during the 100-year,24-hour storm(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002).
Adjacent Upstream Drainage
L
An existing bypass storm drain line would be removed and replaced with another line that would have a
capacity adequate to serve the developed offsite basin in the North 40th Street neighborhood between
d_-
I-405 and the BNSF railroad. The preliminary conveyance calculations are provided in Appendix E of
the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002).
Mitigation for Water Quality
KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8—Water Quality requires that runoff from pollution generating
surfaces be treated (King County 1998). The water quality treatment is necessary because more than
5,000 square feet of pollution-generating impervious surface area would be created at the site. The
proposed design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before discharging it to Lake
Washington(see Figure C-3).
'
Operation and maintenance of the proposed water quality treatment facilities would have to conform to
City of Renton and 1988 KCSWDM requirements. If mitigation measures were properly implemented
k_1 and maintained, adverse water quality impacts would not be expected. The following, which briefly
describes the proposed water quality treatment, is based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
li
(Otak,Inc. 2002).
The drainage area north of May Creek would drain to Water Quality Pond WQ1. The area would include
I the residential area consisting of approximately 4.54 impervious acres and 4.92 pervious acres (Table C-
2). It would also include Streets E and F, which connect the site to Ripley Lane. These streets have a
drainage area of approximately 0.89 impervious acre. Approximately 48,811 cubic feet of wetpond
volume is required per 1988 KCSWDM Section 6.4.1. The elevation for the top of sediment storage
would be 19.0 feet, and the design water quality surface elevation would be 21.0 feet. Calculations for
the water quality volumes are contained in Appendix C of the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
(Otak, Inc. 2002). The measured volume for the preliminary WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900
Ij�,tl cubic feet. Following water quality treatment, water would discharge directly to Lake Washington (see
Figure C-3).
t___'
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-13 August 2003
1 _ i
\ ' 4 4 fit i 1ip ' t
� , , �� . Ilan"
pI �I- -iI TT -
JJLL " LJ� �( 1,7441 l ,
—.41 4 L,/,,LI _J _J L__;114_;_liiii#V ,t / /
Jf, T
a .
\/ LEI L / 4
1-- -i 1".1\ !L\'\---7------ . 11--- 1
\ `--.'-; f
I ry I I, /\ �/
\ . .. /1/4' * /_-\ -----/ ,7/
<e \t'��•",� .�-„41• 7lp d'( 7
i . \\iilltirr/ /\\.
? , I Iva A< ..\\"I>,..„::•W 0 --c \ . .\••••...„..,,.../,7 ./0, I
VVQ•1 0---r,.g mla-_,_„_'g"_,\,i_e.,‘.
'1:/:"7'.•,i;',
/-/
- ;III.__ �, ✓\<',,/1 i\l • ,, ,-' ' r..-:.....-s' ..-' 'ri',i
• 6i1/ /,r•4/
/ 2!
l-1 \\i\,v•P
\ i / yam' .. ; -- c�
,•,'l,
,1/,I 1,,,
y.,,;
:„..//hs
—, w 7 „1s, y,i f,r
LAKE ` ` ;, ,� <;. 1�`JJ/ ,J//ty,
WASHINGTON ` 3 ` , , ., ,ie q / , / /
/�
- t • , Ili / ,i
;-- IIV.('' -- :if 4; . 1,;.1 iti-N" ,i; // / //
, ,* ‘, 40,iO4. ,i ,,, K;if 74 ' /—
fm '' /i///,',0 .4.—' '''•v_.., -,_,,/,-/
/2,1 ‘‘"\ \''\ •Ifil 444421), --i), /
!,_ ,,,7( ,\* iiHil 7 , I: $. f74:14,,,,, .4, -/ / 7// \
• �{�� \,
ff MAY CREEK �. � �� c
DELTA � � f s _.fr1)./
t�� s
O i r � '��\!L �1_,___ / � . �.P „.J s \ LEGEND
•'^sexy i Flowp h
s 2 0 ._. ,. N 40TH ST
at
�� `"'"—' Basin bounder
Source: Otak Basins,Subbasins and Site Characteristics Map,Figure 3
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-04
Figure C-3
SCALE IN FEET Proposed Water Quality Treatment
W and Stromwater Drainage System
n 100 2I0 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Table C-2. Contributing Areas for Water Quality Pond No. 1
Developed Area
Impervious Pervious Total
Land Use [Acres] [Acres] [Acres]
Residential Lots 4.92 4.54 9.47
Water Quality Pond Tracts 0.36 0.99 1.35
Onsite Roadway 2.89 0.00 2.89
Offsite Roadway 0.89 0.00 0.89
Total Area WQ1 9.06 5.53 14.60
Source: Otak,Inc. 2002
The area south of May Creek would drain to smaller Water Quality Pond WQ2. The area would include.
residential areas, streets, and an access road to Lake Washington Boulevard North for a total drainage
area of approximately 2.20 acres, 1.87 acres of which would be impervious (Table C-3). The required
water quality volume for this drainage area would be 9,036 cubic feet. The pond shown on the plan sets
would have a water quality volume of approximately 11,026 cubic feet if the water quality surface
elevation were set at approximately 20.0 feet. Following water quality treatment, water would discharge
directly to Lake Washington(see Figure C-3).
Table C-3. Contributing Areas for Water Quality Pond No. 2
Developed Area
Impervious Pervious Total
Land Use [Acres] [Acres] [Acres]
Residential Lots 1.07 0.27 1.34
Water Quality Pond Tract 0.03 0.08 0.11
Onsite Roadway 0.75 0.00 0.75
Offsite Roadway 0.12 0.00 0.12
Total Area WQ2 1.97 0.35 2.32
Total Area WQ1 and WQ2 11.03 5.88 16.92
Source: Otak,Inc. 2002
The possible increased temperatures of sormwater discharged from the water quality treatment ponds
1 f during summer months could be mitigated with dense bank cover around the edges of the proposed
ponds.
Mitigation for Maintenance Activity
The water quality ponds would be privately maintained and would require preparation of an operations
and maintenance manual for the final design (Otak, Inc. 2002). Maintenance would have to conform to
City of Renton and 1988 KCSWDM requirements. Guidelines provided in the operation and maintenance
manual should be implemented once operations begin and should be updated, as needed, on an ongoing
basis. Impacts caused by sediment removal from the proposed water quality treatment ponds could be
decreased if the maintenance activity were scheduled during periods of little or no rain. Impacts from the
possible use of pesticides for landscape maintenance could be reduced or avoided with an Integrated Pest
Management Plan, as described in the Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001). This source control
BMP outlines control of fertilizer and pesticide application, soil erosion, and site debris and includes the
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix C-Water Resources C-15 August 2003
i
i 1
u e of pesticides/herbicides only as a last resort. Measures listed as part of this BMP include the
following:
• Installation of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of
1 stormwater in landscaped areas;
• Prevention of disposing of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems;
1
• The practice of mulch-mowing; and
• Disposal of grass clippings, leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation by composting, if
feasible.
i e of the above BMPs would reduce and/or eliminate the need for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, �_
d,therefore,would reduce the potential for pollution to stormwater runoff.
I mitigation measures were properly implemented and maintained, adverse impacts from project-related
m intenance activities would not be expected.
C 3.2 Construction Impact Mitigation
1 1 B V113s for sediment control should be implemented according to the standards specifically outlined in
1 98 KCSWDM, Appendix D. Impacts resulting from project related construction activities would be .
1 �I'nimized through implementation of an appropriate SWPPP, including an approved Temporary Erosion
1, I d Sediment Control (TESC) Plan. If mitigation measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts
I fr m project-related construction activities would not be expected. The SWPPP should provide a careful
1 a sessment of the risk to May Creek and Lake Washington. The risk assessment would integrate site- ='
r ated elements, such as slope, soil types, geotechnical stability, groundwater, off-site sources of water
flowing into the construction area, and proximity of site stormwater discharge to critical areas. Specific
elements of the SWPPP should include the following measures(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002):
• Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing,the limits should be marked.
This element is one of the first steps in most normal construction plans.
' • Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans should install a stabilized construction
entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel
construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock. A wheel
wash would be required for plans that propose winter grading.
• Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site '
under construction. A detention pond may be needed to construct and use to control flows during
1 construction.
• Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment should be
removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met. `
• Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Time _
periods of allowed exposure would depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent
groundcover would part of the construction plans. 1.
• Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows
II •
until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in place.
1; I
:1 • Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt laden
1 water.
II
'
C�{ty of Renton 554-1779-017
B bee Mill EIS-Appendix C-Water Resources C-16 August 2003
-- • Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would be
stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would require
protection.
• Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials and
demolition debris, would be handled. This would include maintenance of construction
equipment,fertilizers,application of chemicals,and water treatment systems.
• Control Dewatering: The water from dewatering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations
would be discharged into a controlled system.
• Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and
installed construction BMPs, as well as their removal at the end of the project.
• Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion control.
It would cover phasing, training, pre-construction conference, coordination with utilities and
contractors, monitoring, and reporting. It would provide for notice of problems, revisions during
construction, and contingency planning. One of the most important elements in project
'—' management is planning for contingencies based on the risk of exposure during phases of the
development. Ongoing planning throughout the life of the project would be essential.
JI
Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002):
• Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited between October 1 and April 30 because
these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest.
• In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and construction of
bridge footings should be conducted during WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake
Washington and May Creek,respectively.
• The first cell of the proposed stormwater facility is designated as the optimum location for a
TESC pond. Most construction stormwater runoff from the site would be temporarily routed to
this pond via interceptor trenches and berms. Later in the project, stormwater would be routed
via permanent drainage pipes.
• The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility should remain in an
undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized.
• Stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond facilities to downstream systems should be
a ; controlled and monitored during construction to ensure compliance with established water quality
discharge requirements.
• Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices
include, but are not limited to, temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic
covering, erosion control fabrics and matting, and early application of a gravel base on areas to be
ti paved,and dust control.
`�..w • Matting, plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures should be specified on
the TESC plan for placement on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. Plans would make
j1
provisions to prevent concentrated flows from being routed over slopes.
A monitoring plan,with independent testing, should be part of the quality assurance plan for compliance.
The construction SWPPP should contain a plan for stormwater sampling locations, background
measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule should, at a minimum, require
sampling during every storm event in the wet season that would generate runoff, as well as site inspection
condition reports on the installed BMPs. The monitoring and sampling would be done in a professional
City of Renton 554-1779-017
yr Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-17 August 2003
I
manner consistent with current sampling protocols and reporting requirements. The sampling points
would be shown on a map and marked on the ground.
The updated Ecology Manual(Ecology 2001)requires the use of grass-lined channels in place of unlined-
ditches, which are allowed under 1998 KCSDWM. Also,the Ecology Manual does not allow the use of
filter fabric alone as a storm drain inlet protection measure. The Ecology Manual contains additional
ersion and sediment control BMPs that would help to mitigate impacts described in this Draft EIS
(Ecology 2001). These BMPs include,but are not limited to,the following:
• Limiting disturbed areas as practicable;
• Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas;
I ; • The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure;
I. • Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient terraces;
• Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration, as needed,to reduce turbidity in the site
discharge;
• Specialized concrete handling;
• Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals;
• Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and
equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill
containment features, and a spill clean-up kit;
• Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction;
• Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead; and
' • Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures.
I I�
I
I ' I
' I
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-18 August 2003
ACRONYMS
L_ APA Aquifer Protection Area
BA Biological Assessment
✓ BMP Best Management Practice
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
C i cfs cubic feet per second
CMZ channel migration zone
COR Center Office Residential
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
DPS Distinct Population Segment
Ecology Washington Department of Ecology
EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS environmental impact statement
-"
i EPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
I-405 Interstate 405
KCBW King County Backwater
KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
KCSWM King County Surface Water Management
Leq A-weighted energy equivalent
LWD large woody debris
mg/L milligrams per liter
mllw mean lower low water
mm millimeter
- mph miles per hour
MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
City of Renton 554-1779-017
jr Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix C-Water Resources C-19 August 2003
i C
1
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OHW Ordinary High Water I
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
I
I RMC Renton Municipal Code
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl ,
PCP pentachlorophenol
PHS Priority Habitat and Species
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RMC Renton Municipal Code
ROW Right-of-way
SHPO State Historical Preservation Office
SMA Shoreline Management Act
j SPTH Site-potential tree height
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ;-
TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
TIR Technical Information Report
TOC total organic carbon _'
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
F I1 USGS U.S. Geological Survey •
I' UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compound
'' I ; WAC Washington Administrative Code
,1 WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
N WDOE Washington Department of Energy
, . WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
I
d
I1, '
I
City of Renton
554-1779-017
1 Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix C-Water Resources C-20 August 2003
I
APPENDIX D
Terrestrial Plants and Animals
I ,
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix D
Terrestrial Plants and Animals
Prepared for
City of Renton
Renton,Washington
Prepared by
Parametrix
5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE, Suite 200
Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350
(425)822-8880
www.parametrix.com
August 2003
Project No. 554-1779-017
D. PLANTS AND ANIMALS
This technical appendix addresses impacts of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat located in the
City of Renton adjacent to Lake Washington, about a quarter mile south of the Kennydale interchange on
Interstate 5,as indicated in Figure D-1.
D.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Non-native vegetation and managed lawn areas dominate the existing shoreline and riparian
vegetation in the project area. Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is limited because buildings
and paved areas associated with mill operations extend to most of the shore of Lake Washington and in
most areas along May Creek to within 25 feet or less of the water. The shoreline generally is riprapped as
indicated in Figure D-2. A relatively narrow band of riparian vegetation occurs along the banks of May
Creek as it flows through the southeastern portion of the site(King County 1995;Raedeke 2002).
' = A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was
required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification
94-2-00196. It has been partially implemented, as indicated below. The plan provided for planting of
about 4,000 shrubs and small trees in an area of about 52,000 square feet, a density of about one plant per
14 square feet, or about 3.5 feet on-center. The majority of plantings do not appear to have established a
stable vegetation community.
The west bank of May Creek is characterized by a narrow riparian buffer, which is dominated by lawn
r- grasses and non-native herbaceous plants. Dominant species in these managed lawns are non-native,
weedy species and include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea),
red fescue (Festuca rubra), bentgrasses (Agrostis spp.), and a variety of herbaceous weeds such as
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and selfheal (Prunella vulgaris). In places along the west bank, paved
surfaces extend to within 5 to 10 feet of the OHWM and the riparian vegetation averages less than 25 feet
wide along the stream(Raedeke 2002). Some frees and shrubs do occur along the west bank,but they are
scattered through the managed lawn areas, are relatively low growing, and in general are too far from the
stream bank to provide significant shade to the stream. Trees and shrubs are a mix of native and non-
-- native species such as red alder(Alnus rubra),black cottonwood(Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa),
Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana), Pacific willow (Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra), Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus discolor), and red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea). Large portions of the riparian buffer along
the west bank are dominated by the non-native noxious weeds Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass,
and Japanese knotweed(Poplygonum cuspidatum). In recent years,the Barbee Mill Company has planted
additional shrubs and small trees to improve shrub cover in the buffer(Raedeke 2002). Species such red-
osier dogwood, Scouler's willow, Pacific willow, twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), and red-flowered
currant(Ribes sanguineum)have been planted into the managed lawn area along the stream. For the most
part however,these shrubs are located away from the stream edge.
Along the east bank of the stream,just below the BNSF bridge,there is a forested buffer of red alder and
black cottonwood trees and a shrub layer dominated by willows. Small areas of alder occur south along
the east bank. Below the concrete bridge, the east bank is also predominantly managed lawn with some
shrubs. Substantial areas along the east bank are dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed
canarygrass.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-1 August 2003
ir
_..
' )
405 S522)
4
,____
el
‘_ _
,,_.,
,,,,,. .
,,,„„
DUVALL
202
1
', /
REDMOND
" _; - KIRKLAND
'w',: .a " 202
• 203
20
SEATTLE .' "Lake. BELLEVUE :,
-wAliirigforr`
j;,
90
.
ISSAQUAH
V
�� NEWCASTLE
900
RENTON PROJECT
405
SITE
i
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01
Figure D-1
. . Nip Vicinity Map
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
I A
I ( r )
OHW� f
1
i C
I
,�-- 1772 //
PIER "., ( �•/
i \ / �
• • •
1 / rf
• • • ilaj
` ��i _
• • •7
.7/ \ N'sr /
` LOG I 5 t 4 t' rrA
:74.'''.:::%'-iv''
,__,
• • •ca [(C\I"2 ----- ..---
:47„:„.„:_„,,,,,:--".- w
I / , „,,,0:71,,,WV ,,,,-• 47 / /1 /„ 1/74,err'" _. • 4 I
LAKE 0 00 1 t a-- _f
i y/WASHINGTON ,o °* tll�lt.;?t� ! , ��r /.r I
7.'�� la'p ,ler r/ v) r
t�11 r 0/t.J, 5 ,^ , ,b,
t
i•&t ill / * / _ - -
ft
(
j" f 1/ r '
7---„„,
00,4J . ..•,„,..
_ ., \,. (-) gr 10
... i Zi '''',,
yl
l
•• •• ••i \ ,,,/
/
MAY CREEK �. e`A1 1 �rf
DELTA dI a� ; - _. . :/r, �_.._—. l
y 'r'�r 1 /
} t
_
I
' -11 , /-_,.4--, - N40THS
._ ,
e....f ,..,
1
i f- -I ir '9,
r „, , ,
1 .0, .,.///
, , ,,,,-...- ,
, ,
/ 1 ,f. i,.,,,,,,,,",,..,/ ,..,..,
,,
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-01
CD BROKEN ASPHALT
SCALE IN FEET lArk SHEET PILE BULKHEAD Figure D-2
—B— LOG BULKHEAD Existing Shoreline Protection
0 100 200 C.D O RIP RAP Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
6 • • • LOG PILES
ti
In general, with the exception of the small forested area near the BNSF bridge, the riparian buffer
vegetation likely does not provide significant shade and/or leaf litter to the stream. The lack of shade is
due to the presence of riprapped banks which prevent riparian shrubs from growing close to the water,
non-native weeds such as Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass, and the large areas of managed
lawn that line the stream in the project area.
The lower portion of the west side of the May Creek corridor(below the first bridge)was designated for
replanting in the 1994 plan with low plantings of native shrubs at the shoreline and extending inland
consisting of a mix of willows, dogwood, and mock orange shrubs. The area below the lower bridge
along the west side of May Creek has a relatively sparse understory of willows and other shrubs;
however, a few red alder have established in riprap along the creek and Douglas fir recently has been
planted at spacings of about 20 feet behind the bank. The area from the lower bridge to the upper bridge
_ was designated for intensive plantings of willows in annular spaces in rockeries, with plantings of shrubs
and small trees designed to reach a height of 25 to 30 feet. Surviving plants in this area are very sparse
between the lower bridge and the footbridge, where new riprap appears to have been recently installed.
Between the footbridge and the lower bridge, little understory is present along the streambank,however a
few red alder have established in riprap along the creek and recent plantings of Douglas fir has recently
been planted in the grassed area between the stream and pavement. The west side of the creek north of
the upper bridge also was designated for relatively dense plantings of shrubs. Current vegetation in this
area varies from riprap with little or no vegetation cover to areas with some overstory of alder and fairly
dense understory near the stream. The eastern bank from the upper bridge to the BNSF railroad is the
most densely vegetation portion of the site with fairly dense alder and understory adjacent to the stream to
a distance about 200 feet north of the upper bridge. The west side of the stream between the upper and
lower was designated for intensive plantings of willows and shrubs with a goal of reaching a height of 25
to 30 feet. This area is largely grass with a stand of very young alder near the footbridge and a stand of
40- to 50-foot-high Douglas fir near the lower bridge. The lower portion of the May Creek below the
lower bridge and adjacent to the existing boathouse was to be planted with shrubs and vine maple.
Vegetation in this area consists largely of grasses. The stream bank appears to have been recently
riprapped.
The Lake Washington shoreline in the project site also contains extensive unvegetated areas of riprap,
which precludes the development of dense shrub or forested vegetation along the edge of the water. Most
of the shoreline vegetation is managed lawn or disturbed area. Managed lawn areas are dominated by
lawn grasses such as fescues and bluegrass (Poa spp.), weedy non-native herbaceous species such as
dandelion,English daisy (Bella perennis), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), and reed canarygrass.
Significant parts of the delta consist of disturbed soils that have a sparse cover of annual weeds. Along
the immediate shoreline, soft rush (Juncus effusus) and the invasive shrub, Scot's broom (Cytisus
scoparius), grow in the spaces between the riprap rocks.
The Lake Washington shoreline south of the log loading area, including a small area of public land
waterward of the inner harbor line,was designated for low plantings of native shrubs consisting of a mix
of willows, dogwood, and mock orange shrubs. This area appears to have been cleared as the result of
dredging and related spoil piles dating from 1999 to 2002.
For the shoreline and riparian areas, the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) database does
not have records for rare plants or high quality habitats in the vicinity of the project.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-4 August 2003
I,_
,
U land Habitat
U land vegetation is limited on the project site due to the narrow corridor along the riparian zone of May
C -ek and along the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern boundary of the site. Most of the
project site is occupied by buildings and paved surfaces associated with the Barbee Mill Company
op-rations on the site.
W idli e
T is section describes wildlife use of the riparian, shoreline,and upland habitats within the project site,as
w;11 as wildlife use of the adjacent open water habitat,Lake Washington. The narrow strip of low-quality
I I ri•arian vegetation along May Creek, the shoreline lawns, and the small patch of upland vegetation near
th creek provide limited habitat for wildlife. Species known or expected to use the area include killdeer,
m llards,Canada geese,northern flicker, spotted towhees,white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows,house
spa ows, red-winged blackbirds, tree swallows, black-capped chickadees, house finches, American
cro ws, muskrats, and possibly Pacific treefrogs. The low quality of the riparian habitat along May Creek
1. its its value as a habitat corridor,although some species, such as deer, are known to use the project site
po ion of the creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the project site.
A d jacent to the project site, Lake Washington provides habitat for a variety of waterfowl, as well as
p o ential foraging areas for gulls, and other predatory birds. During a site visit on April 8, 2003,wildlife
o'served on the lake included double-crested cormorants,hooded mergansers,American wigeons, scaups,
b ffleheads, and common mergansers. The limited human presence and activity of the project site, as
w 41 as the presence of the log rafts and pilings on the lake, likely enhances the lake habitat in the area,
re ative to other nearshore portions of Lake Washington where human activity levels are higher. Two
w ldlife species of special interest, the osprey and the bald eagle, are known or are expected to use the
project site vicinity,as described further below.
M: mal use of the project site and surrounding area can be presumed by studies of the May Creek
c. idor and other habitat in the Lake Washington Basin. Surveys of May Creek and other riparian
h. •itat in the Lake Washington basin indicate a diversity of small mammals, such as voles and mice,
w i ich are common in mixed vegetation communities. These species provide forage for nesting and
m grating raptors, including red-tailed hawks, barn owls, and owls. Introduced mammal species include
th- Norway rat, opossum, house mouse, and eastern gray squirrel, among others. House cats and off-
le sh dogs from adjacent residential areas likely cause disturbance to native and introduced mammals at
' th- site. Small mammals such as mice and voles are most likely to be successful in urban and suburban
a ri a arian corridors because their rapid reproductive rates allow them to persist despite frequent
di turbance. Aquatic species, such as the beaver, muskrat, and river otter, are less frequent in urban
s .reline areas because their forage habitat requirements are larger (Larrison 1976). Forest-dwelling
m:mmals, such as deer, are commonly observed in the May Creek drainage and have been observed to
s im from the delta area to Mercer Island. Muskrats were observed on the site during field visits in April
2102.
O prey
T e osprey has no state of federal listing status but is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
th RCW. The Act makes it unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, purchase, ship, transport,
o export any migratory bird, part, nest, or egg; and under the RCW 77.15.130, it is a misdemeanor to
d stroy the eggs or nests of protected species, including the osprey.
Ci of Renton 554-1779-017
i B bee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-5 August 2003
1
Ospreys are fish-eating birds that occur along lakes and rivers. The birds build large nests of sticks on
snags or on living trees, and also readily nest on human-made structures including power line towers,
light poles, and similar structures (Poole 1989). On the coast, osprey nests are usually adjacent to, if not
over, water, whereas on inland lakes and waterways, nests are usually more distant(i.e., up to 14 km but
typically within 3 to 5 km) from foraging areas (Poole 1989). The majority of nests in Oregon and
California studies were within 1 km of large lakes and rivers(Zarn 1974;Vana-Miller 1987).
Ospreys generally arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. Pair bonding persists
r from one year to the next, and the same nest site may be used over successive years (Ryser 1985). Most
migratory ospreys lay 2 to 4 eggs from late April to early May and incubate them for 5 to 6 weeks(Burns
1974; Poole 1989). Young fledge when they are about 2 months old (Burns 1974; Cadman et al. 1987).
They return to the nest for feeding and roosting for another week, and can be found nearby for sometime
thereafter(Cadman et al. 1987).
The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site.
The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996(Raedeke Associates 2002). During a site visit on
4--_ April 8,2003,the birds were observed both on the nest and in the vicinity.
Bald Eagle
Bald eagles are federally and state listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald
Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery, the species has
been proposed for federal de-listing and state down-listing to sensitive.
Bald eagle habitat consists of open water areas with abundant prey (i.e., fish and waterfowl) and nearby
large trees for nesting,perching, and roosting(Stinson et al. 2001). Habitat quality is also associated with
freedom from human disturbance; however, eagle sensitivity to disturbance varies, and eagle use of urban
areas with significant human activity is not uncommon.
' Bald eagle pairs arrive on their nesting territories as early as December(Stinson et al. 2001). Each eagle
pair maintains an active nest and often maintains an alternate nest(s) within its territory; successful nests
; may be used over several successive years (Buehler 2000). Clutch size is usually two, and in western
�_. Washington, young hatch by late April, after approximately 35 days of incubation (Stinson et al. 2001).
Young eagles fledge around 11 to 13 weeks of age, usually during early to mid-July in Washington.
{ Eagles nesting in Washington, as well as fledglings, leave their territories in early fall and migrate north
to British Columbia and southeast Alaska, where salmon runs provide prey concentrations. Adults
generally return to their Washington breeding grounds by January, while juveniles usually return several
months later. Bald eagles wintering in Washington.State generally arrive from October to December and
leave between January and April. These wintering birds nest in British Columbia,Alaska, the Northwest
Territories,and the Yukon.
r
No bald eagle nest sites are located on the Barbee mile project site, and the two closest nest sites are
approximately 1 mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the May Creek delta and along Lake
Washington near the project site;however,use of the actual project site is unlikely, due to lack of suitable
1 large trees for perching and roosting.
Wetlands
Two small wetlands(Figures D-3 and D-4)occur largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the
eastern edge of the property (Raedeke 2002), and small portions of these wetlands extend onto
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-6 August 2003
i
/ r f../7 l\� fr '
,
f of
L_. -- a- ,r. uniVi/ , 0 /.
- re. f ,
ir ,.//' ( i . -, 4
Milc2c;
-4,-/\ '
i t.� , jar:^ _.-_ -R i -, / i
/ i ,
rr_ s, �� `v / t ,,,i \4,- ,w /4? All-,u,,J / I
. 9- 1 11 /
eJs i ; / t t }1 5 C/ 1i (1 i\ii, , , ,.fir; /i. 4_1
\ I i 1 1. • ;_, : i * / /
. Mr ‘./. \\ \A r ', -I( 1,,..- , / / _. , ,, , /
•
- / \ 1 re V/ . /
/ /
KEY MAP \ , 112 y. le._ , 4...?/Ari /
\
,-- , 0'14 \A \/7 siTO°Ak .1,-"7 ,;(- ,i, -% „ir
g , \N\ .,_ / /
N�11 =
i ! t , ��
Al / ift „--y tk-j 1 lk /_ I 1 .." :".;-,-/ . if / /WETLA D
/ i •-'''-7 A„;zr „if BOUN6AR
if
---/ ' -- / ,L/ / /
tii ‘, \ // A
\\ \108 Li/ fr/ /ETBAC
t
\ -Y /�ir /
,� j r 106 ' / �� / / PPROXIM T AREA
+,/
/ ' / /OF CONS R TION
� / l
/ �2 .�,'l /
/ ,/ DISTUR A E
i 1 l • r r
ty / /*/ / 7 7-
p / .,,, i
' / / 4y3T / f / o
. ... / / �4
1*---; . N #// >% Y0/, /
/ / /
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-02
SCALE IN FEET Figure D-3
W WETLAND Northerly Wetland
0 25 50 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
iti
/ \ .1--7 --1-05 i / 111/
,,,,,..„
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiill - if / ( '
, 1 ir /i i r- i 7-1,1, ,„..„----- , ____ /
IMl dr imi immimplij - /// ,, -I, ---- _,,, 104
it.-..,... ......-----, •...,,,, /
IN 1 /
i v mo e•'' I )01' • 4&.7`, _ -----'•• ''''"-- / /
IF 47 r? •
1•:.6.:. -'' -- ----- ___
• • flp 'lit,' ----,,,, /
. . /2..4_
,A,..-4,... .. . „... ,- .
i . . ,..,__
41P.,Ah.
/ If C%-• --- ' - ---3-.?>' eift-- ,„ /
/ / g / efr %r74\ -
,-*A,,,o.,.
/... 4',/ 00 .')'
-0' / / s 431'
0 '
11110111 'I i 'I/ f, .4, ,*".
s4
'NOW iti
-- „...
'' / -4,...t..
EP '\ \'..e fri i it-A/
I .41. 1 •FP's„ --..•
171.
oh / 1 \ \ ,,,/\
/ #/,
e.,z......-
0 1.,
souTHER0r7/7 ---___ 7 ,
r ' / 1, _•L A 4,
‘ ,,,,,,v-0 , .„, i ilk • ,s', 447 N•4r
\ 4.0 •• \ \ - 4.,'•
• / v4Fa . I/ kt- /4r \ N74 4 co \ 1 S'
V:4. • .//\\
99,
• * \ ,
•,:•:•\
•,, Air ,A6-
, 4 ' / 1
' . . \' --------4._ ,c fr /
/ I /
1_ \ *,•!.. \ V WET . 0••-•. / / ''''
/ \ . "il'1, \ ,/
''":1'14.. ..-',. / /„.., .....„,1/..1r \ / /
7 \ IIL ''--S...\.....'-'--7,-4-' n• ' 1
-•ZZ4•41a-ii,Zio /
/ / A,_ , / \ i 4° '
• i \ N,swir / i
/ „.. .,,.._,Nr ----4 -f— • _, .,4.,„ _N_ /
/ - spiz. ___i_ / L Ao„, --254TBACK 0
dc
k / 0
'•- / 6 ,„!.,-.'-^1.--::::'--14„ ' (e vyfr
\\ ' „ / `•-•.*S- edp4/ NN
ii /1 1 S•
/ '
)
/1. , 40: 74/1,/ ,/,//7 *t
97_ ,
/47 // " , ,ii r ,/ ke
ii\pi4,1110, /7 r oy,,
J7 ,
,? 1 ,fr
--- ________, ,, e
, 1
•e/i / /, // 'V/ N 40TH ST
/ .77 ,i,„,/
,,..„.., , 1i /1 xj.„4/ /
1 1/// .,/
i1/ /,
//
/ /
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-03
SCALE IN FEET Alk — —
_u, WETLAND Figure D-4
1 Nur Southerly Wetland
0 25 50 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
it
i4
II
the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands were classified as Category 3 (City of Renton) palustrine
{ emergent wetlands (David Evans 1997). These two wetlands are dominated by non-native herbaceous
vegetation, in particular reed canarygrass,tall fescue,velvet grass(Holcus lanatus), bentgrasses, creeping
buttercup, and a variety of native sedges and rushes, such as small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus),
dagger-leaf rush (Juncus ensifolius), and sawbeak sedge. Wetland hydrology is provided by surface
runoff on the site, runoff from east of the site (via culverts under the BNSF tracks), and shallow
subsurface flow through the BNSF railroad bed (Raedeke 2002). Both wetlands have been regularly
mowed, as part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also to maintain access to
water utilities.
The buffer areas around the wetlands are characterized by turf-grass lawns,railroad right-of-way(ROW),
or a narrow fringe of young red alder,Himalayan blackberry, and willow. A portion of the buffer for both
wetlands on the site is the BNSF railroad track and ROW.
Two Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)wetlands are mapped to the north of the project area on WDFW
maps. These wetlands are classified as forested, scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands associated with May
Creek and its tributaries; however, these wetlands lie to the north of the project area and are not
associated with the lower reaches and delta area of May Creek on the project site. General wetland
functions include wildlife habitat, critical groundwater recharge, additions of organic matter to stream
food webs, nutrient cycling, sediment trapping and other improvements in water quality. In addition,
wetlands are valued for their ability to provide floodwater storage capacity that attenuates floodwater
peaks downstream. Specific functions likely provided by the wetlands on this site include some sediment
retention and limited water storage. Both wetlands, due to their small size, limited buffer area, and
periodic disturbance associated with mowing, have low species diversity and probably provide minimal
wildlife habitat.
D.2 IMPACTS
D.2.1 Impacts of Subdivision Construction Impacts
Vegetation Communities
Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the
majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will
remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation consisting largely of shrubs and grasses below the
existing lower office parking lot. The extent of impacts will depend on bridge design and construction
methods. It may be possible to maintain existing or enhanced vegetation beneath the bridge if the bridge
deck is high enough to allow light penetration and water is provided by precipitation or irrigation.
Wildlife
Impacts on wildlife during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of
disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts
for pile driving for bridge or other foundation construction could be a substantial, although temporary
disturbance. If pilings are required for building foundations, and construction of residences occurs over
several years the impacts on disturbance sensitive wildlife could lead to avoidance of the site over the
entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of
human activity. Addition, animals using the creek as a corridor are already adapted to the high levels of
human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife populations may develop some tolerance for
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee MiII EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-9 August 2003
hi 'h noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and other hours when construction doesn't take
pl ce.
T e effects of human activities on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the project
sit may be greater. Use patterns may change during construction. Nesting activities almost certainly
wi 1 not occur near very high noise levels such as impact pile driving.
T e high noise levels associated with construction may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the
sa dust tower from relocating in the vicinity.
� rl
W tlands
e northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of Street C and
th townhomes it serves will eliminate existing buffering vegetation below the Renton code minimum of
a 5-foot buffer area for a Category 3 wetland. The roadway constructed adjacent to the wetland is in a
fill section and is proposed to be supported by a low retaining wall. Construction impacts likely will
e i end approximately 10 feet from the edge of improvements and therefore encroach within about 10 feet
o the wetland. The buffer area remaining after construction will be approximately 20 to 22 feet wide at
it- smallest dimension.
e southernmost wetland will experience permanent displacement due to roadway construction of an
ar-a of about 10 feet by 40 feet, with construction disturbance of up to another 10 feet. Modification of
th- drainage system in the area to serve the new development likely will remove the source of water to
re harge the wetland, resulting in loss of the total wetland area of 1,712 square feet. If portions of the
wetland were retained, all of the buffer area on the west side of the wetland would be eliminated.
1).2.2 Impacts of Development and Use of the Site
Vegetation Communities
S veral natural and human processes are expected to influence the long-term impacts of the site on plant
a d wildlife communities.
Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume after the sawmill is closed and the need
t I maintain depth for log storage and movement has ended. The delta will take a substantial amount of
ti e to fill in the deepest dredged areas that are up to approximately 12 feet in the vicinity of log dump
d sawmill loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill. The long term effects of delta deposits is
li ely to be similar to the Coal Creek delta in Bellevue about two miles north of the site where the delta
h s expanded considerably since development of the Newport Shores residential area in the early 1960s,
r suiting in extensive upland and shallow aquatic habitat(King County 2003).
e proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the
aters edge to about 100 feet and averages about 60 feet. A stream buffer is designated on the project
c nceptual landscaping plans, but specifics of proposed plant species and densities of planting are not
s ecified.
I addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acre of publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor
l'n es will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from
t e northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet
a ong Lots 23-28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. The existing
s'wmill and related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more
ity of Renton 554-1779-017
arbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-10 August 2003
natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads and replanting the area to provide a buffer of
indigenous native species.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program, which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3-
090-K-14-d). The applicant has not defined a public access program. For the purposes of this analysis,
public access facilities are presumed to take one or more of the following forms:
• Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line for general public use. This area is
about 16 feet wide at Lot 24, 20 feet wide at Lot 28, and around 80 feet wide at the open space
tract and adjacent to Lots 29 and 30.
• A public walkway along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between Lot 29 and
the mouth of May Creek within the shoreline building setback area of proposed lots, which is
proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located directly at the water's edge,
to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as possible.
• Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek,
including use of two of the existing bridges for pedestrian crossings.
The proposal includes creation of 38 lots directly fronting on May Creek with 300 feet of road parallel to
May Creek and a 120-foot-long roadway and bridge crossing the creek. Twenty four lots are proposed
along the Lake Washington waterfront. Of those, 8 front on the public land managed by DNR, leaving 16
with direct private lake frontage. A setback of 25 feet from the building line is proposed for these lots.
The lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline propose either a 10-foot setback or no building setback.
A 280-foot-wide Open Space parcel is proposed adjacent to a portion of the publicly owned shoreline and
contains a water quality pond that takes up about a third of the area. An irregularly shaped water quality
tract is located near the center of the site. A water quality pond takes most of the space in that tract.
The vegetation plantings associated with the project, specifically those along May Creek that range from
20 to 100 feet, averaging about 50 feet, would provide an area for an enhanced community of native
riparian vegetation and related habitat. The lack of specific restoration plans precludes evaluation of the
potential effectiveness of such a buffer area. Establishment of a community of native vegetation on a site
largely characterized by impervious surfaces, imported fill, compacted soils, and in the absence of nearby
communities of native vegetation to provide seed sources for a natural succession of plant communities
requires human intervention at every stage of establishing and maintaining a viable community of
indigenous vegetation. Specific considerations for establishing a similar community are discussed in the
mitigation section below.
The May Creek Final Action Plan recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve
habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan
also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the
opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001).
The water quality tract and wet pond treatment area that would be constructed as part of the project is
proposed to be planted with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress(Chamaecyparis obtusa
gracilis). This native of Japan and Taiwan typically grows between 6 and 12 feet tall at maturity. It is
primarily an ornamental with irregular spreading branches that give an interesting appearance. This
proposed plant community has limited habitat value although the area pond and upland area has the
potential for an indigenous plant community and wildlife habitat as discussed in the mitigation section
below.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-11 August 2003
'
,
1 T e 25-foot shoreline building setback has no proposed landscape treatment in current plans. It is likely --
th.t common residential landscaping typical of lots in Renton would be applied, absent specific
co ditions of approval. One would expect primarily lawn and ornamental plants. Extensive soil '
. endment likely would be required for fill soils to support landscaping. I
ldli e
1
H man disturbance associated with the proposed project would generally have minimal effect on the
e isting patters of wildlife use of the May Creek riparian and upland area. Construction of residences
c� Id take place over several years time and high noise levels associated with construction may disrupt
use of resident wildlife and wildlife using the stream as a corridor. Most of the existing animals that use
th area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals using the creek as
a orridor are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These 1
I w ldlife populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels,or may limit their use to nighttime ,
a d other hours when construction doesn't take place. The establishment of greater wildlife populations
'I , m y be delayed until after construction on the site ceases. This also would be expected to coincide with
th time period needed to establish new communities of vegetation along the riparian corridor.
T e effects of human disturbance on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the
project site may be slightly greater than to the habitat generalists that use other portions of the project site. I
Tlh e relatively high level of waterfowl use in the area, as observed during the April site visit, may reflect
the existing relatively low levels of human use along the lake's shoreline at the project site. Increased
I human activity and noise, especially given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings,may result
i reduced waterfowl use of the area. The addition of recreational docks and watercraft use would further
r-'duce wildfowl use. The impacts of public access will depend on the location, width, and use character
o the public facilities. Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest
i pact because:
I • Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline likely would be required to maintain the trail at the
shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus
narrowing the potential for establishment of a complex and productive plant community at the
littoral edge.
• Use of walkways is likely to introduce direct disturbance to wildlife species using the area;
I
• Persons are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and may
disturb plants,especially newly established plantings, or contribute to soil erosion.
P-destrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts on shoreline waterfowl. The
,I lil elihood of users leaving the trail can be reduced by fencing and controlled public access for shoreline
ii v ewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas at the shoreline.
1
','sk of wildlife mortality on the roads is not expected to substantially increase because of the project, as
11 11 w speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions.
I
he vegetation plantings associated with the project, specifically those along May Creek, would result in
. increase in forage, cover, and potential nest sites for wildlife. The creekside vegetation would also 1
elp to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the completed project site. Streamside buffers
e proposed to be narrowest near the mouth of May Creek with the narrowest area occurring between
I ' treets A and F on opposite sides of the stream. This represents one of the greater sources of disturbance
om vehicle noise and lights and is provided the least buffer. The Street D bridge crossing also
rl presents a direct disturbance to wildlife movement along the stream corridor depending upon its design.
The hours that traffic is present will likely be longer with residential development, discouraging wildlife
ity of Renton 554-1779-017
arbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-12 August 2003
movement that has to cross the roadway. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as
part of the project may provide additional wildlife habitat, depending on the extent of riparian vegetation
along the pond's edge and the complexity of the vegetation community. The current proposal for a mix
of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress has limited habitat value. The proposed open space area
and the wet-ponds, however provide the potential for wildlife habitat as discussed in the mitigation
section below.
The May Creek Final Action Plan recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek to improve
habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan
{ also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the
opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001).
Osprey
The proposed construction would involve the removal of all existing mill structures, including the
sawdust tower with the osprey nest site. Without mitigation, the birds may or may not find and use an
alternative nesting structure in the vicinity. Increased human activity and noise, as well as the presence of
artificial lighting,may also influence osprey use of the site.
Bald Eagle
The proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile
of the project site. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to
disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. After construction, noise levels would be
r reduced, however, human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing
conditions. Depending on the sensitivity of individual bald eagles as well as their waterfowl prey, use of
- the project site vicinity by foraging eagles could be slightly reduced.
Wetlands
Maintenance of residential landscaping could potentially impact native wetland vegetation and water
_ quality. Addition of fertilizers for residential lawns and gardens, as well as the use of pesticides and
herbicides to maintain landscaped areas could potentially impact both wetland and aquatic wildlife via
surface runoff. In addition,pesticide or herbicide drift during application could impact aquatic organisms
in May Creek or Lake Washington and non-target plants or animals in the stream or shoreline buffer
areas.
D.3 MITIGATION
Impact mitigation includes the following steps:
1. Avoid the impact,
2. Minimize the impact,
3. Reduce the impact over time,
4. Rectify the impact,and
5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact.
Impacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas of the site are
inherent in the permanent change of use to the residential development proposed with the specific
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-13 August 2003
s:tbacks and presumed uses discussed above. The mitigation outlined illustrates opportunities to expand
e beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas to include more complex plant communities and
a sociated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse impacts of the proposal.
' l
itigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically Renton Shoreline
R gulations, which sets forth several requirements as follows: the potential effects on wildlife should be
c nsidered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the
e vironment (RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); landscaping should be representative of the indigenous character of
e specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland); the ecological qualities of natural and
d veloped shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources(RMC 4-3-090-K-6); and
ldlife habitat should be incorporated into the site(RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
I ligation of Subdivision Construction Impacts
itigation of construction impacts to existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native
b ffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing.
S .ging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native
v getation. During construction, any cleared or regraded areas on the site during construction should be
k.pt covered and/or reseeded with a temporary cover crop to prevent the establishment or spread of
i asive weedy species. In particular, in portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed
c. arygrass already occur, clearing should be done as quickly as possible to completely remove these
s ecies and the area should be replanted with native species.
'ttgation of Development and Use of the Site
getation Communities
P•oject conditions could require residential landscaping to include native vegetation along the shoreline,
a ough assuring long-term maintenance given residential preferences for lawn and ornamental
getation is a long-term maintenance and enforcement issue. Planting of native vegetation would
p ovide some habitat, although the quality of the vegetation community within a 25-foot setback area
•uld be limited. Native vegetation will minimize the need for fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides and
r=duce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife, native vegetation, and aquatic organisms in May Creek and
L= e Washington. Use of native plants,plants suitable for the specific site conditions, or drought tolerant
d disease resistant horticultural varieties could further minimize reliance on chemical fertilizers and
p sticides. Designing the residential landscapes consistent with Integrated Pest Management principles
c. also minimize use of chemical controls. In addition, importing high quality soil material and ensuring
a'equate soil health, prior to installing residential or ornamental landscaping can decrease the need for
c emical supplements or controls in landscape maintenance.
itigation measures for installation of additional vegetation in the proposed buffer area along May Creek
1 a le addressed below in discussion of mitigation through alternative buffer areas.
"ildlife
lil
aterfowl, cormorants, and other birds would benefit from maintaining the existing log rafts and pilings
• Lake Washington,adjacent to the project site,which provide perch and loafing sites.
I I
i I
C of Renton 554-1779-017
B bee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-14 August 2003
II
Osprey
Osprey mitigation measures are described in the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared by Raedeke
L_-' Associates (2002). In summary, mitigation measures will include relocation of the osprey nest to an
artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity, as recommended by WDFW and agreed upon by the
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A WDFW biologist will be consulted during relocation of the
new nest site,which will occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds.
Research has proven that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures(Saurola 1997;
Houghton and Rymon 1997). As of 1994, regional data indicated that approximately 64 percent of
ospreys in the United States nested on artificial structures, particularly artificial structures erected
specifically for the birds(Houghton and Rymon 1997). A study in Saskatchewan showed that the overall
breeding success improved from 45.9 percent in natural trees to 62.9 percent in human-made platforms
(Houston and Scott 1992). The International Osprey Foundation (1992) and Link (1999) provide
recommendations for construction of osprey platforms.
Potential sites for relocation on site include the riparian corridor proposed to be established along May
Creek.
�-i
Mitigation of Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement
Avoidance
The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the
proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer, with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for
temporary construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the townhomes on Lots 109 through
- 115 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west. If the same setbacks from May Creek
were maintained,this would shorten the depth of the lots, which range from 85 to 104 feet in depth to 60
to 75 feet. These lot depths are more typical of dimensions of proposed duplex lots such as lots 99 to 102.
The result of such modification would likely be the creation of four to six duplex lots instead of the eight
townhome lots proposed. If the roadway and townhomes were shifted enough to provide a permanent
buffer dimension of 25 feet, but allow construction disturbance and restoration, eight townhome sites
could be retained.
The displacement of wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could be avoided by redesign of
this portion of the proposal to place all development outside the 25-foot-wide wetland buffer area. This
would involve shifting the access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the
- immediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed Lots 99 and 100 and require
reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If retained, existing utilities consisting of
water valves and a hydrant should be relocated outside the wetland and buffer.
Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement
Restoration of buffer area of the northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of
native vegetation to replace the existing vegetation displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation
west of the wetland is characterized by non-native grasses and forbs, with some areas of red alder and
Himalayan blackberry. Replacement vegetation would consist of nursery stock of trees and shrubs to
provide at least a 25-foot buffer around the western edge of the wetland on the project site. This
replacement vegetation would include a mix of native trees and shrub species, such as western red cedar,
western hemlock, Douglas-fir, big-leaf maple, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, salmon berry, and red
currant.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-15 August 2003
I I
•
E i hancement of the existing wetland vegetation community of the northerly wetland, which consists of
in oduced vegetation, could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent plants.
S b species such as twinberry, red-osier dogwood, and willows such as Sitka, Scouler's, and Pacific
w How could be densely planted around the edges of the wetland. In the central, lower portions of the
w-tland that tend to be wetter, native grasses, sedges and rushes such as slough sedge, small-fruited
b Il ush and dagger rush would provide increased diversity and water quality enhancements. Only a small
p•rtion of this wetland occurs within the project site however,most of the wetland is on the BNSF ROW.
y wetland enhancement would require the cooperation of the BNSF railroad.
Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced,together with likely changes
in hydrology, would necessitate replacement elsewhere on site. The Cityof Renton specifies a 1.5:1
P P
m nimum replacement ratio for wetland creation and replacement with the provision for additional area in
c es where there is uncertainty as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation;
si:nificant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or projected losses in -
fu ctional value(RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e).
0 a most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the northerly wetland adjacent to
th- proposed May Creek buffer area. This area is north of the area proposed for development and could
b: used to replace wetland area lost by filling the southern wetland, as well as to enhance the northerly
w-tland. A wetland mitigation plan has not been proposed by the applicant. Likely constraints for
wetland creation in this area that must be addressed include the following:
• Adequate groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a wetland vegetation
community. The existing hydrology supports the existing northerly wetland. There is currently
no indication that surface water or groundwater resources are present that would support a larger
wetland area. It is possible that surface water runoff from the proposed roadway or from building
roofs could provide recharge for the wetland. Surface water runoff from streets contains
pollutants that can be an undesirable addition to wetland ecology. Roof runoff generally avoids
such pollutant; however, any runoff source is subject to interruption during low rainfall months
and is a less reliable source to sustain wetland vegetation than groundwater. In addition,much of
the project area exists on fill and removing fill and regrading some of the area north of the
existing wetland to lower the elevation may provide sufficient groundwater hydrology,along with
surface runoff,to ensure adequate hydrology to support additional wetland area.
• If hydrology is adequate, it is likely that regrading would be required to provide an area to hold
surface water or tap groundwater. Grading will remove existing vegetation and soils, requiring
soil amendment and replanting of both wetland vegetation and appropriate buffer area.
Replacement wetland areas would be planted with a mix of native shrubs, sedges, and rushes,
while the buffer area would be planted with a mix of native trees and shrubs. The specific
wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology and soils
following regrading, however, the wetland would likely be planted with species such as Pacific,
Scouler's and Sitka willow, salmonberry, twinberry, red-osier dogwood, slough sedge, small-
fruited bulrush, sawbeak sedge, dagger rush, hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) and northern
mannagrass(Glyceria borealis).
• The degraded character of the existing vegetation within the northerly wetland should be
addressed through enhancement plantings. The invasive nature of the existing community of reed
canary grass poses a high risk of invasion of the created wetland by weed species. This risk can
be addressed by removing the existing reed canarygrass by grading and replacement with dense
plantings of native shrubs and trees. The location of most of the northerly wetland on a different
property may render enhancement and weed control measures problematic. The degraded
li condition of both existing wetlands,however,makes enhancement desirable, if the cooperation of ,-
I �
I
C ty of Renton 554-1779-017
B,rbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-16 August 2003
I I �
the BNSF railroad can be gained to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a single biological
entity.
• Monitoring and enforcement are critical elements of successful wetland compensation. To ensure
successful establishment of a new wetland, there should be a monitoring program, qualified
reviewers, and the performance of a bond to cover the necessary costs of control of invasive
species and possible replanting is an important measure to ensure successful establishment of a
wetland replacement. Recent studies at King County(Mockler et al. 1998)and Ecology(Johnson
et al. 2000) have found that 79 percent of County mitigations, and 65 percent of Ecology
mitigations, failed to meet assessable performance standards. Failure has been attributed to
design, installation, and maintenance flaws. The single most important cause of failure has been
lack of enforcement.
In this case, the provision of the proposed buffers along May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline
have varying degrees of impacts, as compared to existing conditions and provide some degree of
mitigation of some adverse impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat.
Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas
The scientific information cited above suggests that greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of
vegetation communities. These buffers could support reestablishment of indigenous elements of the Lake
Washington shoreline,which would reduce long-term impacts of residential development of the shoreline
and expand the beneficial use for wildlife. Concepts related to the restoration of natural vegetation
communities include the following:
Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. It is not always desirable,
feasible, or even possible to replicate the natural structural complexity of target plant associations. A
mature, forested riparian corridor or lake shoreline cannot be instantly created or restored, but a young
sapling community can be planted that will develop into a mature system over time. Site design must
reflect the fact that restored plant associations will evolve and mature over time. To replicate structural
complexity, several elements must be addressed in the restoration design. These include spacing, patch
size, interspersion, and persistence. It must be understood that natural succession within a vegetation
community is generally not possible within a restored vegetation community in an urban setting. The
complex interactions with existing stands of vegetation are not present in fragmented or isolated stands of
vegetation. Sources of seeds from existing stands of vegetation may not be available; therefore, a
complex vegetation community that contains as many features as native communities must be created
within the restored vegetation community.
Spacing. Within each target plant community, the patterns of species and their spatial relationships
should be replicated to the extent possible. It should be noted if species tend to grow in clumps or
clusters of multiple specimens or if each specimen is represented singly. Patterns within communities
should be distinguished and replicated to the extent possible. Patterns of vertical stratification should also
be replicated. Many communities are composed of species with different vertical growth patterns. It is
important to develop a design to incorporate trees in the overstory canopy, trees in the mid-story, shrubs
in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer. Other important components of the ground layer
are logs and stumps, which provide habitat for insects and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and
organic matter.
Interspersion. The structural patterns within the overall targeted vegetation and wildlife community must
also be replicated. Different animal species have different requirement for optimum patch size.
"Interspersion" refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the transitions among
various plant communities. Plant community types are distributed throughout an ecosystem in spatial
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-17 August 2003
arrangements that range from simple to complex. Simple patterns often present an orderly progression of
establishment of plant communities in concentric rings or linear bands. More complex patterns of plant
communities may be a reflection of the maturity of the system. In general, the relationships between
patch size, structure, edge, and dispersion/interspersion in the landscape are the critical factors affecting
wildlife value of a system. Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area
between plant communities. Such transitional areas or "edges" are rich in wildlife, both in numbers of
individuals and species, and are considered important components of functioning ecosystems.
Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity to several habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the
amount of edge in a system is extremely high, the integrity within individual plant communities may be
lost.
Of special concern for establishment of vegetation communities in an urban setting are the adjacent land
uses and the degree of disturbance from those uses, ranging from noise and light to disturbance and
predation from domestic cats and dogs.
Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on this site is likely to
include a number of challenges because the existing geology and soils largely consist of a variety of fill -'
materials and there is no local community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native
species.
The persistence of newly established indigenous plants will require long-term management both to
monitor and replace plantings that die prior to establishment, but also to control invasive "weed" plants
and to monitor plantings to identify those that are most suitable to the site and most likely to be
sustainable over the long term.
Establishment of a soil substrate for indigenous vegetation will require:
• Removal of existing impervious surfaces including pavement and foundations of buildings
within the restoration area;
• Removal of contaminated soils, and amendments to restore an appropriate soil chemistry, which
may be needed because remnants of building materials and leachates from cement and asphalt as
well as chemicals used on site that can affect soil pH and other parameters of soil chemistry. '+
• Reducing the existing compaction of underlying fill. Compacted soils have soil aggregates that
are broken into smaller particles, reducing the amount of pore space in the soil, which hinders
aeration, water infiltration and results in low soil oxygen and poor water drainage. All of these
factors retard root growth and jeopardizing the health of new plantings. Given the character of
the existing fill and weight of buildings, lumber and vehicles used on the site, reducing
compaction is likely to require:
> Deep plowing with a plow or backhoe when the soil is dry to break up compacted soils, or
holes can be drilled to provide drainage and better root penetration;
➢ Rototilling and disking to break up compacted soil aggregates(Miller 1997).
• Mixing compacted fill with fully composted organic mulch is beneficial in improving the soil
structure (up to 50 percent volume of soil may be needed) and is also necessary to provide soil
microbes and invertebrates that are largely missing in urban soils and provides a very limited
food source and results in a poor food web and unhealthy soil. __I
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-I8 August 2003
Persistence of the established communities will require replacement of plantings that die or are replaced
by invasive "weed" species. Several strategies are available, each with associated advantages and
disadvantages. In most cases,a mix of strategies is appropriate.
• Overplanting may compensate for lack of knowledge about appropriate communities in a
particular setting as well as compensation for the normal mortality of installed nursery stock. In
most cases, a survival rate of between 60 percent and 80 percent is specified in planting plans. It
also may be appropriate to plant a mix of species at densities in excess of final expected densities
of mature specimens to allow competition between various species to establish an appropriate
species mix. It is not always possible for a landscape designer to discern the soil and other
conditions that will favor species in a particular site. Overplanting also may be used in an attempt
to compete with invasive species. This strategy is often inappropriate because invasive species
by their nature are more aggressive and overplanting can retard the establishment of desirable
species through excessive competition for resources.
• Irrigation is likely to be required for a period of 2 to 3 years until plants are established,
especially during the typical Puget Sound drought period of July—August.
• Monitoring and intervention to replant specimens that die, or actively remove invasive species.
The extent to which existing non-native species can be removed or suppressed prior to replanting
would be a benefit in reducing initial competition. Ongoing control of invasives as a major
component of a successful the project because of the aggressiveness of invasive plants and the
lack of existing plant communities on the site that might indicate an appropriate mix of new
plants. Control of invasives is likely to require a long-term management commitment, including
an initial 3 to 5 year establishment period and a longer-term monitoring and replacement period
to identify plant communities that fare well and to continue to eradicate new infestations of
II invasives. This will be required for both upland areas and newly formed delta deposits that will
be colonized both by species on-site and a variety of local ornamental plants common on the Lake
Washington shoreline.
The provision of a management entity for areas of restored buffer areas is likely to be a critical factor in
successful establishment of a viable community of native plants and associated terrestrial and aquatic
species. Management will require a long term commitment to monitoring establishment and replanting
successful plant communities,removing invasive weed species, controlling the impacts of use by adjacent
residents, or the public using trails through the area and possibly mediating between the view and animal
control interests of residents and the general public purpose of the buffer areas. Substantial resources are
likely to be required. Potential management agencies can include the City of Renton Parks Department
and DNR, who has management responsibility for the public uplands and submerged aquatic lands,
WDFW, who has primary responsibility for managing wildlife and fish resources, volunteer participation
by the public using shoreline access, and the adjacent homeowners, or a homeowners association, or
cooperative programs involving all of these agencies.
Mitigation of bridge crossings may include greater height and width to allow penetration of light and
! - precipitation to maintain plants and to provide for animal movement between the waters edge and bridge
abutments to maintain the migration corridor.
Vegetation species planted in the riparian and shoreline buffers would be basically the same under the
different buffer-width scenarios. Some important considerations for buffer plantings to enhance the
beneficial functions of buffers include dense plantings of native trees and shrubs to maximize sediment
i4 retention, water quality, and nutrient cycling functions. In addition, planting a variety of species with
different life-forms (e.g., groundcovers, short and tall shrubs, small and large trees) enhances the
structural diversity of the buffer, which increases the habitat quality for wildlife. Finally, planting a
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-19 August 2003
variety of different species ensures that there are a variety of food sources available for wildlife. Buffer
planting plans for the riparian area should include native trees, such as western red cedar, western
hemlock, Douglas-fir, black cottonwood, big-leaf maple, Oregon ash, and bitter cherry. Native shrubs
and small trees such as red currant, red elderberry, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, Pacific crabapple, red-
osier dogwood,Pacific willow, Sitka willow, and Scouler's willow should be planted in the buffer.
The shoreline buffers could be planted with lower-growing species to provide some views of the water,
but should include the three native willows and shrubs such as red-osier dogwood, twinberry,
salmonberry, red elderberry, Pacific crabapple, bitter cherry, beaked hazelnut, and vine maple. These
species can provide some shade and cover along the shoreline, as well as providing sources of organic
material to the food web of the lake,and food and cover for terrestrial wildlife.
Two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Shoreline and May Creek:
Option A, 50-foot Buffer
Under Option A, (Figure D-5) the following design modifications are proposed to slightly increase the
buffer adjacent to May Creek:
• Reorienting the turn-around for Street A to project to the interior, rather than into the riparian
corridor.
• Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the
proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHWM. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces four
proposed townhome units to one or two.
For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components:
• A 25-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline that would include restoration of the shoreline to a
more natural condition through:
➢ Elimination bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads.
> Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and providing substrate for
plantings near the water.
> Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors
for adjacent residential development.
> Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the water
with fencing between the trail and waterfront with viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the
shoreline with benches or other passive features.
• A 25-foot area for adjacent residences, including yard areas and ornamental landscaping would
probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent
lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits, and which also would likely be
fenced for privacy.
_I
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-20 August 2003
COR 2 ZONE
_ 17, g:I ,oI , 1 1 I II�` 91Ig1l�s11 1 I�- � f�-
OHw�_f'l a�11� I1 „ I`, " 1 _ I_ _ II " ' 11a I! a Il • al l ,� /
a !l
5 1 a 9 STREET ' — !0 '
50'SETBACK / m ^�- I I
!
f_. �� / ` // L — I 1 m- II` - 1L' "/
v - -� — 1 //
1 I Aa /
Tract"B" 9 / l .,/ '/
■ Water Quality \\\ j/ /\ � �/ �I/ `•�f PUBLIC LAND Tract"C" y
� ' Open 9\ \\ • /
Space \\- , .. ao \ / 1/ /
- - - - �.\\i y:ytl \ °°�% ' / 1,: � �—g—I � 7 i\\ Q\ �` ��/ ,>o �, \v / U;,FE_ Q::--f:/7":-2:::::
,;MI ,\\' •••••.----,..0 • -•,„.:v / A' ro
op `�1 • Wil ' // //,'�"� O ' j/,Ao' _// /LAKE 1 \ / / Q
WASHINGTON - - ��\ 7' �/ j/ Q,_ 40 50'SETBACK
Tif I /1/. M. /7 ,.//
, 1 . . ,*'/'‘ lat ' ty
PUBLIC LAND , -/ �.. \ , // \\ ,ly
) ,ApAy ,
f.\- • ---- - . •••••-•,, „..." ti ltes/ i
88 villil'tdMAY CREEK ` �d
DELTA
abile'' . ` 1
`/.., R fl.ZONE 1 s l / :t+mn>.'.X
REVISED 50'SETBACK FROM OHW
88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND
FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES
101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-04
SCALE IN FEET ,Ak Figure D-5
n I lir Option "A" 50-foot Buffer
0 goo zoo Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
I
The following likely differences in impacts exist between Option A and the Proposal:
The large width of the buffer area that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Option A would
provide a greater degree of roughness and,therefore,would provide increased sediment retention,nutrient
cycling, water quality improvements, and organic matter inputs to the stream and lake than the Proposal.
In addition, Option A would provide slightly more riparian habitat and a greater distance from human
disturbance then the original project design. Consequently, Option A would create better conditions for
riparian-associated and aquatic wildlife(i.e.,muskrat,riparian songbirds, and waterfowl).
The provision of a 25-foot-wide buffer of native indigenous plantings adjacent to the lake shoreline under
Option A with a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a very limited strip for
reestablishment of native vegetation communities. The presence of public access trails in the area also
would lead to potential impediments to establishing a stable vegetation community because of trampling
and other disturbance, and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife. The creation of a more natural
edge at the lakeshore would be the feature that differs most from the probable bulkheaded shoreline under
the proposal. A much more varied community of plants could be established at the shoreline with
regrading to remove or reduce the height of existing bulkheads because of the presence of water and the
favorable environment provided for a wide variety of vegetation. That complexity would be reflected in
value to wildlife. The potential value of revegetation, however, is limited by the narrow width of the
buffer, which provides little opportunity for complexity in transitions to upland plants. A 25-foot buffer
of native vegetation would be likely to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple
and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges.
The potential for conflict for areas exist where lots are proposed along the shoreline. In many cases,
homeowners are likely to desire views of the shoreline that would not be accommodated by typically
dense communities of indigenous species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to develop an
effective community of indigenous shoreline vegetation and wildlife habitat because those communities
typically create dense screens, especially native evergreen species.
One strategy that may serve both goals to a certain extent would be to emphasize groundcover and shrubs
in the shoreline with the tree species chosen for the potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the
level of major views. Such species would potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that
would allow some views between trunks, while providing a leaf canopy that would overhang the
lakeshore and provide shade and other desirable elements. Native evergreens could be located closer to
residences and along lot lines or other locations where views corridors between individual or groups of
trees can be provided.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-22 August 2003
i
1
-- �COR-2 ZONE • / . .
_- r �!
v r / 1-- �- ,I l o -11- ,1 F -i I- I- -11 r- —I f— -
' l
I /�� 7� IH
OHW� , r / 74/ „100'SETBACK — cA m ) I I ` �/7
I Tract"B" \/
—
,
Water Quality C;N°' /
i PUBLIC LAND ♦ Tract"C" •
. . �
, Open " /
•
', yr I Space V
�/ • " !\-- C: -1 . 44 ''\
till*
". -.11t* •
7/
• ' n g /
\,''''', ..0.0611
• ///7e// 0%IE/ J�
. 19 • • " • • ,/,•' !"'" i i / q)
• �� I -�'
--;1 I'.'"> • jr 1 /
03 J �, OHW ,,
co
LAKE �. • / ' °' '•-
WASHINGTON ! 4_V/ _100'SETBACK
\ II/
'/ • 1'' V
PUBLIC LAND •
03 wu�' • %� • , S1
*7 , V • t 4 V
4
/ ----
/ \�� / 7! / / N
/ MAYCREEK v „ = ,."• /
DELTA °° / 1
1 _
. o-g r H
•`=- R-_R_ZONR TA____""; " 'F r N 40TH ST
-- _. 1 ..,..r._ -s ,,.I . -
REVISED 100' SETBACK FROM OHW
50 BUILDING SITES
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-05
SCALE IN FEET Figure D-6
W Option "B" 100-foot Setback
0 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Option B, 100-foot Buffer
Option B (Figure D-6) would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek, with specific
changes on the May Creek corridor including the following:
• Elimination of most of the potential for development on the east side of the stream.
• Reduction of the number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15.
• Elimination of most of the development on both sides at the mouth of the stream.
For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components:
• A 75-foot-wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline
to a more natural condition through:
> Elimination of bulkheads,or reduction in height of existing bulkheads.
> More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope.
> Planting a mixture of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees, that
could be accommodated in the wider buffer. area, while preserving some view corridors for
adjacent residential development.
> Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 15 to 25 feet from the water
with fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the
shoreline with benches or other passive features.
• A 25-foot area for adjacent residences to include yard area and ornamental landscaping, probably
marked by the subsurface containment walls that would likely be needed to prevent lateral
spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits and also likely to be fenced for privacy.
The following likely differences in impacts exist between Option B and the Proposal:
The greater width of the buffer area along May Creek planted with trees and shrubs under Option B
would provide a greater degree of roughness and, therefore, would provide increased sediment retention,
nutrient cycling, water quality improvements, and organic matter inputs to the stream and lake than the
proposal. The additional 50 feet of trees and shrubs under Option B would also enhance these functions
relative to Option A. In addition, Option B would provide more riparian habitat and a greater distance
from human disturbance than the original project design or Option A, and consequently would create
better conditions for riparian-associated and aquatic wildlife (i.e., muskrat, riparian songbirds, and
waterfowl).
The provision of a 75-foot-wide buffer of native indigenous plantings adjacent to the Lake Washington
shoreline with a 25-foot area devoted to lawn adjacent to building sites would provide a more complex
plant community and greater buffering for to the most productive natural edge at the lake shore. The
larger depth of the buffer provides substantially greater opportunities to establish more complexity in
transitions to upland plants and more potential to allow plant communities to develop that have more
upland transitional areas or edges for a greater variety of wildlife habitat. The location of public access
trails further from the lake shoreline would provide less disturbance to the lakeshore, which is the most
sensitive element of the plant and wildlife community.
The potential conflict for views of the shoreline by adjacent residents would be greater with the larger
buffer area. The width of the buffer would substantially impair the potential for direct views. With such
a buffer width,the primary visual access to residents may be provided by public access trails provided to
the buffer area and associated shoreline viewpoints.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-24 August 2003
+-I
ACRONYMS
APA Aquifer Protection Area
BA Biological Assessment
BMP Best Management Practice
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CMZ channel migration zone
COR Center Office Residential
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
DPS Distinct Population Segment
Ecology Washington Department of Ecology
EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS environmental impact statement
EPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
I-405 Interstate 405
KCBW King County Backwater
KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
KCSWM King County Surface Water Management
Leq A-weighted energy equivalent
LWD large woody debris
mg/L milligrams per liter
mllw mean lower low water
mm millimeter
r_ mph miles per hour
MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
City of Renton 554-1779-017
r Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-25 August 2003
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OHW Ordinary High Water
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RMC Renton Municipal Code
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCP pentachlorophenol
PHS Priority Habitat and Species
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RMC Renton Municipal Code
ROW Right-of-way
SHPO State Historical Preservation Office
SMA Shoreline Management Act
SPTH Site-potential tree height
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
TIR Technical Information Report
TOC total organic carbon
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compound
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDOE Washington Department of Energy
WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation -,
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix D-Terrestrial Plants and Animals D-26 August 2003
APPENDIX E
Aquatic Species
' I
i
1 �
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix E
, r Aquatic Species
, r.
Prepared for
City of Renton
Renton,Washington
la
Prepared by
Parametrix
5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200
Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350
(425)822-8880
www.parametrix.com
August 2003
Project No. 554-1779-017
? E. AQUATIC SPECIES
} E.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This technical appendix addresses impacts of the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat located in the
a ' City of Renton adjacent to Lake Washington, about a quarter mile south of the Kennydale interchange on
Interstate 5,as indicated in Figure E-1.
May Creek
The Barbee Mill site lies at the western edge of the May Creek basin, where May Creek discharges into
Lake Washington. The May Creek basin encompasses a 14-square-mile area located in King County,
southeast of Lake Washington,between the Cedar River, Coal Creek, and Issaquah Creek drainages. The
basin lies primarily within unincorporated King County, but the western and southwestern portions of the
basin(approximately 12 percent of the total area)are within the City of Renton(King County 1995). The
May Creek watershed consists of residential, open space, agriculture, and commercial land uses (King
County 2001). During the past several decades, the lower portions of the watershed have undergone
intensive residential development, while the upper two thirds of the watershed have retained a mix of
rural residential, small farms, and some forest areas (King County 2001). Currently, the amount of
effective impervious surface coverage within the basin is 7 percent. Under, current zoning, full build-out
of the basin would result in an increase of effective impervious surface to 12 percent of the total basin
area(King County 2001).
May Creek is identified as tributary#0282 in Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) 08 (Williams et al.
1975). May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly 8.6 miles to Lake
Washington. On the project site, May Creek flows approximately 1,000 feet from I-405 in a
southwesterly direction through the Barbee Mill site and discharges into Lake Washington near the south
end of the site. The stream was rerouted to flow to the south, parallel to the Lake Washington Boulevard
and the BNSF railroad some time after 1950. Historic maps and photos show the stream flowing at
various locations generally in a more direct westerly direction through delta deposits.
{_ti May Creek has a mean annual flow of 25.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the portion of May Creek on
the project site is classified as a Type 1 stream(DNR 2002)based on its size (>20 cfs mean annual flow)
and anadromous fish use. King County classifies streams under three different categories. Class 1
streams are those that have been inventoried as Shorelines of the State under King County's Shoreline
Master Program and May Creek within the project site is listed as a designated Shoreline of the State
(Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-18-210). Class 2 streams are smaller than Class 1
streams, and either flow year-round under periods of normal rainfall or are used by salmonids. Unlike
Class 1 and 2 streams, Class 3 streams are intermittent or temporary during years of normal rainfall and
are not used by salmonids(King County 1991).
Three bridges cross the on-site portion of May Creek. The southernmost of the three bridges is a single
lane wooden structure located at the mouth of May Creek. The bridge provides vehicular access to the
southern portions of the Barbee Mill site. The middle bridge is a narrow, foot-traffic only wooden
structure located approximately 200-feet upstream from the mouth of May Creek. The northernmost
bridge is a two-lane concrete structure that provides the primary access for the mill.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix E-Aquatic Species E-2 August 2003
I
2
r
le.
405 522
%CO
DUVALL
202
c7---- -
REDMOND
KIRKLAND
q 202
203
520
' N`L` k BELLEVUE %`;%;::
SEATTLE '
y=', Lae"-;;,; .:�
Washington-;;:'>' : etc,ter,;:
4
Jo
90
ISSAQUAH
41
TI NEWCASTLE
900
RENTON PROJECT
'c
c
405 SITE
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01
i-`
Figure E-1
W Vicinity Map
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Within the project site, May Creek is approximately 10 to 20 feet wide, and the channel gradient is less
than 1 percent. The stream channel is incised approximately 12 inches; hence the stream's OHWM is
only slightly wider than the wetted width of the stream (Raedeke 2002). Riffles and glides characterize
the creek northward from the northernmost bridge to the eastern property boundary. Riffle substrate is
redominantly cobbles and gravel that may provide some spawning habitat for a small number of adult
salmon and trout. Fine silts and sands are the primary substrate downstream from the southernmost
bridge. Only three pools were observed during the April 8, 2003, field visit, two were associated with
bridge abutments and another was associated with some woody debris upstream of the furthest upstream
bridge. Substrate in the deeper pools in the northern on-site reaches of May Creek consisted of fine silts
and sands. Water depth during the April 2003 site visit varied from greater than 30 inches in pools and
about 8 to 16 inches in the riffles and glides.
Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap.
Both east and west sides of the stream bank are armored with riprap at the mouth of May Creek in the
vicinity of the southernmost bridge and portions of the west side of the stream are armored with riprap
between the southernmost and northernmost bridges. Riprap is placed intermittently along the east and
west banks of the creek from the northern bridge to the eastern site boundary(Figure E-2).
Under current conditions, May Creek buffers are sparsely vegetated on the west side of the stream. In
most cases, buildings and paved areas on the west side are 25 to 50 feet from the edge of the water. On
the east side of the stream, the site is largely undeveloped between the BNSF railroad and the stream
north of the existing bridge. This portion of the stream is fringed by red alder trees that overhang the
stream; however, the width of the buffer in this area averages approximately 30 feet and includes only a
single row of trees directly adjacent to the stream. Existing buffers along the lower half of the east side of
the stream consist primarily of lawn and the majority of the on-site portion of the stream is poorly shaded.
Scattered clumps of shrub vegetation and small trees are interspersed throughout the southern portion of
the buffer. These areas have developed primarily as a result of recent buffer enhancement efforts by the
Barbee Mill Company; however, shrubs and trees are small, located approximately 5 to 10 feet from the
stream edge and do not provide substantial stream shading. Impervious surfaces (pavement, buildings,
and other structures) cover approximately 85 percent of the project area and extend to much of the Lake
Washington shoreline on the project site.
Over the past several years, annual dredging at the mouth of May Creek in Lake Washington has been
conducted by the Barbee Mill Company to remove bark debris from mill operations and to remove
sediment that is transported from the upper reaches of May Creek and deposited in the lower reaches of
May Creek and the delta area in Lake Washington at the mouth of May Creek. Dredging operations
annually removed about 2,000 cubic yards of sediment from the May Creek Delta, which has served to
prevent aggradation of the May Creek streambed, thereby maintaining the extent of the floodplain. A
detailed floodplain description and analysis is found in the Floodplain Analysis Technical Report
(Appendix B)of this Draft EIS. Recent surveys found that bark removal operations have been successful
in improving substrate conditions in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site (Harza 2000; Meridian
2001).
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-4 August 2003
I
It
,
------ , _____,,
OHW am
/� - k. �--
1 ( r"1J
I 4) ':ate \,
6
- x
1
,-- 1--- \ /////
40
PIER 1- - 11 1 "
1
• • •if \
‹) c67-`1 r____) V / /
) • • •mr \131/) ,p ,..;•-•-•
,y TA
/idea
COG) +�� ram2
V 7.- ../A fi
a© a/ <
AF
II1 '-' \''''\ ) /1:"..7' ,---,;(:.'''. 7 / 11 //A-Sey
: ‘.-4„
LAKE �'� � � C9
- WASHINGTON �I� � �I I I` i k_
f
1 / I % Jt f / A� j,
It lb.)/ t� t V�(
/4 / ii-1/'
••4„T/ff k '6// , — .::'/ i'ss"-,„,,,,,,,,,,./
- \.. e i , , ; / - e, ‘ /
i —..--7 . ..
7
MAY CREEK / ip. / .------'--.- / // / '''.,
- DELTA _ 1 ----
fr/ x i /
_....--.--___. _ __._ N 40TH ST
f f ,
f
�� /t �'h; , .r , / .
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-01
CD BROKEN ASPHALT
- SCALE IN FEET SHEET PILE BULKHEAD Figure E-2
Ur —B— LOG BULKHEAD Existing Shoreline Protection
0 i00 2I0 � RIP RAP Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
• • • • LOG PILES
• • • •
Lake Washington
Lake Washington, the largest lake in King County and the second largest in the state, receives its main
inflows from the Cedar and Sammamish rivers. Lake Washington drains approximately 472 square miles.
The basin containing Lake Washington is a deep, narrow glacial trough with steeply sloping side slopes.
The lake's average depth is approximately.108 feet,with an average water volume of 2,350,000 acre-feet.
Most of Lake Washington's surrounding watersheds are urban in nature; 63 percent of the watersheds are
developed (DNR 1999). The lake connects to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Lake Washington
Ship Canal. The Ship Canal provides the only discharge from Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington.
Construction of the canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington's water level by about 9 feet to its present
level.
Lake Washington serves as a valuable natural resource to all King County residents. On the whole, the
lake's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It offers good
rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife, provides multiple recreational opportunities,
supports varieties of resident fisheries, and acts as a focal point for the surrounding communities (DNR
1999).
Nearshore landscapes on Lake Washington provide suitable habitat conditions for chinook,bull trout, and
other aquatic species where natural habitat forming processes and functions are uninterrupted. Chinook
and other juvenile fish migrate along the shoreline. Shallow water can provide protection from larger
predatory fish. Native trees and shrubs growing near the water provide leaf litter, terrestrial insect food
sources, and eventually woody debris along the shore and in the water. Native emergent vegetation in
shallow water increases the complexity and diversity of habitat in the nearshore zone. The shoreline
vegetation helps maintain and develop natural processes that establish a shoreline supporting the food
web and provides crucial in-water habitat.
During the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have simplified the
nearshore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has been replaced by
residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the existing shoreline
is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change shallow water
substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different pattern of shade from
that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex (horizontal
fallen trees with branches)to simple(vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to remove the
complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water habitat (USCE
2001).
ti
The Barbee Mill project site lies along approximately 1,700 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. The Lake
Washington Basin, known as WRIA 08, is comprised of waters funneling into Lake Washington and
hence through Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal to Puget Sound at Shilshole Bay
(Williams et al. 1975).
Riprap and bulkheads(consisting of either logs or metal sheet pile)reinforce virtually the entire length of
the Lake Washington shoreline on the project site. Riprap extends northward along the shoreline for
approximately 150 feet from the mouth of May Creek(Figure E-2). Beyond this extending to the north, a
reach of shoreline approximately 100 feet in length (the former log-loading area) is reinforced with a
sheet-pile bulkhead, as is the area where logs were loaded into the sawmill. Large pieces of asphalt and
other debris are falling into the water in the log loading area. Beyond the extent of the sheet pile, the
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—AppendixE—Aquatic Species E-6 August 2003
entire shoreline is reinforced by log or riprap bulkheads to the northern extent of the project property
boundary.
A dock extends approximately 50 feet into Lake Washington from the shore north of the existing sawmill
building. Numerous pilings and log booms associated with the mill have been installed in the lake and
extend several hundred feet out into Lake Washington at two different points.
Lake depths along the shoreline are largely related to past dredging of the mouth of May Creek and the
log handling area. The shallowest depths of the lakebed are encountered adjacent to the existing sawmill
and are 3 to 4 feet below the OHWM. The greatest depths are about 12 feet in the vicinity of log dump
and sawmill loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill. An aquatic habitat survey of Lake
Washington around the May Creek delta and shoreline within the project area revealed that high densities
of elodea (Elodea canadensis), Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.), and curly-leaf pondweed
(Potamogeton crispus) occurred in shallow (less than about 3 meters, or 9-feet deep)near-shore portions
of the project area during the summer months (Harza 2000). The highest abundance appears to be in
depth of 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) whereas very few macrophytes were found in depths greater than 5
meters (15 feet). Abundance of plants is low in the winter. Substrate in the project area is a mixture of
silt and fine sand with occasional patches of gravel (Harza 2000). Where observed, gravel was mostly
located in very shallow water (less than about 0.5 meter), whereas silts were the dominant substrate in
deeper water.
Fish Species Use
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species data indicate that May Creek supports five species of salmonids,
including chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), sockeye salmon (O.
nerka), winter steelhead (O. mykiss), and resident cutthroat trout (O. clarki). Of these species, chinook
salmon are federally listed as threatened under the Environmental Species Act (ESA) and coho salmon
are considered a candidate for listing. Sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout are
identified by WDFW as priority anadromous and resident fish species. Resident rainbow trout (O. ,
mykiss) are also a priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey (Lampetra
tridentata) and river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) are federal species of concern that have been found
within King County and may also occur near the project site.
ni
ESA-Listed Species
There are three fish species that are present, or may be present, within the Barbee Mill project vicinity
that are either federally listed or a candidate for listing under the ESA. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)Fisheries has identified the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant
Unit (ESU) of chinook salmon as a threatened species. NOAA Fisheries has also identified the Puget
Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU of coho salmon as a candidate for listing under the ESA. Coho salmon have
been considered in this Draft EIS to preclude additional analysis should coho salmon become listed in the
future. In addition, the USFWS has identified Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) as a federally threatened species that occurs within the project
vicinity.
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
On March 24, 1999,NOAA Fisheries listed chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU as threatened under
the ESA of 1973 due to drastic decreases in abundance compared to historical levels (Federal Register
1999a: 14308-15328). Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks have shown long- and short-term negative
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-7 August 2003
trends in abundance that are attributed to the effects of forest practices, urbanization, and agriculture
(Myers et al. 1998). These land uses typically cause habitat degradations that include stream blockages,
stream bank instability and modifications, increases in sedimentation, widespread removal riparian
vegetation and large woody debris, loss of stream shading, alteration of flow regimes, rerouting of
streams, and loss of estuarine and nearshore habitat (Myers et al. 1998). Harvest and negative genetic
effects of hatchery releases of chinook salmon are also considered factors of decline(Myers et al. 1998).
Chinook salmon have a wide variety of life-history strategies that vary based on the length of freshwater
and salt-water residency times (Myers et al. 1998). Puget Sound stocks of chinook salmon, including
those found in Lake Washington and its tributaries, are summer and fall run stocks that generally exhibit
an "ocean-type" life history pattern where juveniles typically migrate to the marine environment during
the first 3 months after emergence from stream gravels (Myers et al. 1998); however, chinook juveniles
have been found to delay seaward migrations by rearing in Lake Washington for extended periods of time
(Harza 2000). Juvenile chinook salmon spend anywhere from several months to a year in estuary and
nearshore areas prior to migration to the open ocean (Myers et al. 1998). After 1 to 4 years in the open
ocean,Puget Sound chinook salmon return to spawn in summer and fall. Chinook salmon spawn in areas
of clean gravels and cobbles,and generally in the mainstems of rivers(Myers et al. 1998).
Chinook salmon use shoreline areas of Lake Washington from January to July and the distribution of
juvenile chinook salmon has been demonstrated to be related to slope, substrate, and depth. Highest
densities of juvenile chinook salmon have been found in areas with small to fine substrate (sand/gravel)
during day and night, and in areas having gradual slope (less than 20 percent Tabor and Piaskowski
2001). From February to March, chinook salmon commonly used overhead structure during the day, but
rarely at night. In contrast, chinook salmon do not appear to use overhead structures during the day or
night (Tabor et al. 2002). During the day, chinook salmon are often found in aggregations, whereas at
night they have been found to be inactive on the bottom in shallow water,close to shore.
Woody debris and overhanging vegetation are commonly used by chinook salmon in March and April,
but are used less progressing from May into June (Tabor and Piaskowski 2001, Tabor et al. 2002). It is at
this time when predators such as smallmouth and largemouth bass move into shallow waters, often
utilizing such cover and other overhead structures.
Most habitat used by chinook salmon within the project vicinity occurs along the Lake Washington
shoreline. Lake Washington is a major migration corridor for chinook salmon and is also used for rearing
juveniles. Most juvenile chinook salmon that use habitat within project vicinity originate from the Cedar
River. The Cedar River stock is a native, naturally spawning population without supplementation from
hatchery stocks that is considered a depressed stock (WDFW 1994). Adult Cedar River stock chinook
salmon enter Lake Washington from late June through September, with peak numbers occurring in late
ti
August. Spawning in the Cedar River occurs from mid-September through mid-to-late November, with
peak spawning occurring in mid-October (WDFW 1994). Fry emerge from February through March
(Harza 2000,City of Seattle 2000).
Chinook salmon are known to use May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline in the vicinity of the
Barbee Mill project site. While May Creek does not have a self-sustaining chinook salmon population,
some individuals believed to be strays from the Cedar River do use May Creek for spawning and rearing
(Lucchetti 2002). Spawning surveys conducted in 1976 and 1977 found chinook salmon population
densities in May Creek of 1 and 7 fish per mile, respectively. Population surveys conducted in 1983 did
not find chinook salmon in May Creek, while surveys conducted in 1992 and 1993 found peak densities
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-8 August 2003
1
of 1 fish per mile (Harza 2000, Foster Wheeler 1995). In 1999, 6 live chinook salmon and 4 carcasses
were spotted in May Creek at approximately River Mile 0.5 (Meridian 2001).
From March to June of 2002, the May Creek delta and the lower 278 meters of May Creek (all on the
Barbee Mill site) were snorkel surveyed to assess juvenile salmonid densities (Tabor et al. 2002). Few
chinook salmon were observed in the channel, convergence pool, and delta area of May Creek. In that
study, densities of chinook salmon did not greatly differ between delta areas and lake reference areas
(Tabor et al. 2002).
Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus) !
On November 1, 1999, the USFWS issued a fmal rule listing the bull trout as a threatened species under
the ESA throughout the coterminous United States (Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933). Thirty-four
subpopulations were identified within the Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS. According to Quigley et
al. (1997), the distribution of bull trout has been reduced to approximately 44 percent of its historical
range. Key factors in the decline of bull trout populations include population fragmentation, watershed
and habitat impacts(sedimentation,reductions in stream shading, altered flow regimes),hybridization and
competition with non-native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and harvest by anglers (Quigley et al.
1997).
Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life historyforms. Bull trout have more specific habitat
�' r3' P
requirements than other salmonids species, and bull trout spawning and rearing is generally restricted to
undisturbed relatively pristine cold streams, often occurring in headwater reaches (Rieman and McIntyre
1993). These streams have stable channels with abundant cover in the form of large wood, undercut
banks, large boulders, and clean substrates used as spawning and rearing habitat (WDW 1992).
Migratory adults frequently use lakes, reservoirs, larger rivers, and saltwater coastal areas for feeding
and/or migration(Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933).
Cold-water temperatures are particularly critical factor for bull trout. The maximum water temperature
considered to be suitable for bull trout are 8 to 10 degrees C for spawning 2 to 4 degrees C for egg
incubation, 4 to 10 degrees C for rearing, and 10 to 12 degrees C for migration (USFWS 1998). Areas
where water temperature exceeds 15 degrees C (59 F) are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman
and McIntyre 1993).
Migratory bull trout begin spawning migrations as early as May, and bull trout spawn from August
through December when water temperatures are decreasing. As is typical of most salmonids, spawning
occurs over gravels and cobbles with good intragravel flow of water or groundwater inflow. Juvenile bull
trout use shallow backwater or side channel areas, and move to deeper water sheltered by large organic
debris,vegetation,or undercut banks as they grow(Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933).
Due to the habitat requirements of bull trout, it is highly unlikely that bull trout would be present within
the project vicinity. No bull trout spawning has been documented within the Urban Growth Area
boundary(Lucchetti 2002),which includes the project vicinity. The only confirmed bull trout stock in the
Lake Washington watershed is the Chester Morse Lake population, which is restricted to the upper Cedar
River watershed(WDFW 1998). Bull trout have,however, been sighted within Lake Washington and its
tributaries over the past 20 years(Harza 2000;USFWS 1999; and WDFW 1998). The origin of these fish
is unknown, though these fish may originate from anadromous populations from outside of the Lake
Washington Basin(Harza 2000,WDFW 1998,USFWS 1999,Federal Register 1999b:58910-58933).
-I�
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-9 August 2003
Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
On July 25, 1995, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) added the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia
ESU for coho salmon to the candidate species list based on several risk factors that may necessitate the
future listing (Federal Register 1995:38011-38030). Risk factors include artificial propagation, high
harvest rates, habitat degradations, observed declines in adult size, and unfavorable ocean conditions
(Busby et al. 1996). Habitat degradations include activities such as logging, agriculture, development,
and stream blockages.
Coho salmon are an anadromous species that typically have a 3-year life cycle. Adult coho salmon
returning to the Lake Washington basin in late August and continue through mid-November. After
entering Lake Washington, adult coho may remain in the lake for up to several weeks if necessary until
river flows are adequate for upstream migration. The majority of spawning in Lake Washington basin
streams occurs late September through mid-January (Harza 2000, R2 2000). Spawning generally occurs
in gravel substrates of tributary streams, and fry emerge from gravels in early March to mid-May
(Johnson et al. 1991; Harza 2000; R2 2000). After emergence,juvenile coho salmon rear in freshwater
for 1 year, migrate to the ocean, and return within 5 to 20 months to spawn. The stream distribution and
abundance of coho salmon is likely influenced by water temperatures, stream size, flows, channel
morphology,vegetation type and abundance, and channel substrate size and quality.
Coho salmon runs in Lake Washington are heavily supported by hatchery production. Therefore, it has
been difficult to fully determine the status of naturally spawning coho salmon populations in the region.
However,recent trends in both hatchery and wild escapements in Lake Washington are showing a decline
in populations that may be attributable to urbanization, high harvest rates, habitat degradation, and poor
ocean conditions(Harza 2000;Fresh 1994; WDFW 1994).
Use of Lake Washington by coho salmon is poorly understood,but juveniles are known to use May Creek
and the shoreline of Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Barbee Mill project area. Spawning surveys
of May Creek conducted in 1976, 1977, and 1985 found that peak coho salmon densities in the lower
reaches of May Creek to be 23, 5, and 55 coho salmon per mile respectively (Raedeke Associates, Inc.
2002). Subsequent surveys conducted in 1992-1993 found densities of only 2 fish per mile (Harza 2000;
Foster Wheeler 1995). In more recent fish surveys conducted near the mouth of May Creek, juvenile
coho salmon were found in May Creek on the project site and also in Lake Washington in close proximity
to the mouth(Harza 2000). However,juvenile coho salmon are not generally known to reside in lakes for
extended periods of time prior to seaward migration. Therefore, most use of the Lake Washington
shoreline by juvenile coho salmon occurs primarily in April and May during seaward migration.
Other Fish Species
Other species known to occur in the project vicinity include yellow perch (Perca flavescens), smallmouth
bass (Micropterus dolemuei), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), northern pikeminnow
(Ptychocheilus oregonensis), black crappie (Pomoxis migromaculatus), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis
gibbosus), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), brown
bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), longfm smelt (Spirinchus
thaleichthys), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) shiner (Notropis spp.), and prickly sculpin
i_. (Cottus aspen) (Harza 2001). In snorkeling surveys conducted in March and August of 2000, the most
abundant species observed in Lake Washington near the project site were yellow perch and juvenile
smallmouth and largemouth bass (Harza 2000). Other species observed in 2000 included northern
pikeminnow, three-spine stickleback, and speckled dace. Though no salmonids were observed in these
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-IO August 2003
studies, they were conducted during months when migrating juvenile salmon would not be expected to
occur. In May 2001, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, rainbow trout, yellow perch, and three-spine
stickleback were observed (Harza 2001). Most fish were found in water depths less than 2 meters(about
6 feet) along the shoreline. Typically, these fish were associated with overhead and underwater cover in
the existing dock,boathouse,and submerged logs.
Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the evaluation of proposed projects with a federal nexus to evaluate
impacts on habitat of commercially managed fish populations. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been
defined for the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish
for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (NMFS 1999). NOAA Fisheries has further
added the following interpretations to clarify this defmition:
• "Waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties
that are used by fish, and may include areas historically used by fish where appropriate;
• "Substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated
biological communities;
• "Necessary"means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species'
contribution to a healthy ecosystem;and
• "Spawning,breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity"covers the full life cycle of a species.
NOAA Fisheries has recently proposed EFH for Pacific Coast salmon, including chinook salmon, within
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (NMFS 2000). Any reasonable attempt to encourage
the conservation of EFH must take into account actions that occur outside of EFH, such as upstream and
upslope activities that may have an adverse effect on EFH. Chapter 3, Section 3.2.5.5 of Amendment 14
(NMFS 2000b) addresses construction/urbanization impacts upon salmon habitat. Construction projects
can significantly alter the land surface, soil, vegetation, and hydrology and adversely impact salmon EFH
through habitat loss or modification. Among numerous types of non-fishing activities that may affect
EFH, should BMPs fail,those applicable to the project area are those that would: _
• Alter sediment delivery to,and quantity in streams and estuaries;
• Alter water flow,quantity,timing,temperature, or chemistry;
• Alter the amount or types of nutrients or prey; and
• Discharge pollutants,nutrients, or contaminants.
The use of BMPs during construction will avoid and minimize any potential effects upon salmon EFH.
Examples of BMPs, as stated in the NMFS EFH guidance (2000), include avoiding ground disturbing
activities during the wet season; minimizing the time disturbed lands are left exposed; using erosion
prevention and sediment control methods; minimizing vegetation disturbance; maintaining buffers of
vegetation around wetlands, streams, and drainage ways; avoiding building activities in areas of steep
slopes with highly erodible soils; and using methods, such as sediment ponds, sediment traps, or other
facilities designed to slow water run-off and trap sediment and nutrients.
City of Renton
554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-11 August 2003
� I
Critical Habitat
On April 30, 2002, the U.S. District Court vacated the rule designating critical habitat for 19 ESUs of
salmon and steelhead on the West Coast, including the Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU. The
designation of critical habitat for listed species was required under Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA. The
ESA defined critical habitat in Section 3(5)(A)as"the specific areas within the geographic area occupied
L by the species, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection."
r- Before the rule was vacated, NMFS (2000a) designated critical habitat to include all marine, estuarine,
and river reaches accessible to listed chinook salmon in Puget Sound. NOAA Fisheries is currently
reconsidering the designation of critical habitat. In the event that critical habitat is redesignated before
this action is fully implemented, an analysis of the effects of the project on critical habitat, as defined
under the vacated rule, has been included in this EIS. This analysis may be relevant in determining
whether initiation of consultation will be necessary if critical habitat is redesignated.
if Currently,NMFS has not determined critical habitat for Puget Sound coho salmon as they are a candidate
species and their status has yet to be determined. Recently,NOAA Fisheries proposed that critical habitat
for Oregon Coast coho salmon should include all freshwater waterways and substrates below
longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several
hundred years)and several dams that block access to former coho salmon habitats(NMFS 1999). Should
Puget Sound coho salmon become listed or proposed for listing,then a definition of critical habitat similar
-; to that of Oregon Coast coho salmon critical habitat is conceivable. Lake Washington and May Creek in
the general vicinity of the project site provides both spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and
would be considered critical habitat under the definition proposed for Oregon Coast coho salmon.
The critical habitat designation was deemed "not determinable" for bull trout by USFWS (1998) due to
�.r the meager understandingof the biological needs of bull trout. A critical habitat desig
nation g is generally
r expected within 2 years of the proposed rule, but it is not known when this designation will be made for
the Puget Sound bull trout DPS(USFWS 1998).
E.2 IMPACTS
The determination of impacts to fish species and aquatic habitat due to construction and implementation
of the proposed alternative is based on the ecological health of the species and cumulative impacts that
threaten survival,the seasonal use of the project area by fish species, the existing site conditions, and the
design of proposed alternatives. Impacts can include direct mortality, disturbance, degraded water
quality,and habitat degradations.
Because of the relatively similar life history requirements of chinook and coho salmon, impacts resulting
from project construction and implementation would likely be similar for both species. In general, the
proposed action alternatives have some potential to impact the habitat of chinook and coho salmon during
either construction or implementation, but mitigations should improve the overall condition of the site
over time. Habitat for other aquatic species should also be improved over time as mitigations promote
more natural stream and lakeshore conditions on the project site over time relative to existing conditions.
Short-Term Subdivision Construction Impacts
The direct impacts of the project are related to the extent and duration of the construction activities,
whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate habitat modifications that
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-12 August 2003
result from the project. Initial construction of subdivision infrastructure, such as roads, bridges,
stormwater treatment facilities, and utilities, would potentially cause some disturbance from the
demolition of existing buildings and clearing of existing impervious surfaces, which would make the site
susceptible to erosion and accidental discharges of sediment and pollutants to surface water. The impacts
on May Creek of constructing the proposed bridge is likely to be related to design, specifically the setback
of abutments or bridge supports from the stream.
Increased sedimentation and in-water disturbance may adversely affect aquatic species and habitat in the
short-term. Suspended sediment originating from urban landscapes contains higher levels of
contaminants than from more natural landscapes and high turbidity can reduce feeding rates by young
salmonids (Gregory 1994; Gregory and Northcote 1993). In addition, young salmon and bull trout may
avoid increased turbidity when lower turbidity water is available (Bisson and Bilby 1982). High
concentrations of suspended sediment may also delay or divert spawning, and extremely high
concentrations can cause spawning salmon to avoid an area(Spence et al. 1996).
The magnitude of impacts will, however, likely be related to design considerations and the application of
appropriate BMPs for erosion control as outlined in the Water Quality section. An important
consideration will be conducting construction efforts during periods when use of the vicinity by listed or
sensitive aquatic species is minimal,as discussed in the mitigation measures. In general, impacts to listed
fish species can be minimized if in-water work is done during the time of year when fish are not present
(as prescribed by WDFW,NOAA Fisheries, and Ecology),and if other appropriate BMPs are employed.
Direct mortality or disturbance may result during installation of the stormwater treatment facility outfalls
and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge below the OHWM of May Creek. In general,
impacts to listed fish species can be minimized if in-water work is conducted during the time of year
when fish are not present (as prescribed by WDFW, NOAA Fisheries, and Ecology), and if other
appropriate BMPs are employed.
Short-to Medium-Term Impacts of Development and Use of the Site
The proposal includes a 25-foot building setback from the OHWM along the Lake Washington shoreline
for the 22 lots with potential shoreline frontage, or that are adjacent to public land less than 25-feet wide.
The land ownership for 16 shoreline lots is proposed to extend beyond the OHWM of Lake Washington
to the inner harbor line.
It can be reasonably assumed that development of these lots would be typical of most residential
development and would include landscaped lawns, shrubs, and small trees. In addition, it is assumed that
bulkheads to prevent shoreline erosion would be installed, consistent with common shoreline building
patterns on Lake Washington, along with the recommendation that containment walls are likely to be
needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits.
Impacts of future development of duplex and townhome residences is likely to result in construction-
related temporary erosion and sedimentation impacts that can be addressed as outlined in the Surface
Water section of this Draft EIS.
Impervious Surfaces
The proposal would decrease the area of on-site impervious surface as the result of removal of existing
asphalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures on the site. Although a specific plan is not included in
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-13 August 2003
the current application, it can be expected that setbacks from May Creek that are proposed to be an open
space tract would likely be replanted with native species to provide forest cover.
_ ' The Lake Washington shoreline, however, is proposed to be retained as part of individual building sites
and planting as lawn and ornamental landscaping can be expected adjacent to the lake. A reduction of on-
site impervious surfaces is likely to have a negligible effect on flows in May Creek because the project
site encompasses a small proportion of the overall drainage area and is located at the very downstream
end of the watershed. For the lots fronting on Lake Washington, runoff from lawn and impervious
surfaces such as patios are expected to sheet flow directly into the lake. This will result in additional
runoff directly into the lake, as compared with existing conditions, but more importantly will result in
erosion and sedimentation from construction, as well as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides from
residential lawn care.
Development of the site would result in an associated increase in vehicle use of the site, and it would
likely increase the amount of pesticides and herbicides running off the site from lawns. However, under
the current application, stormwater would be routed to an on-site stormwater treatment facility before
being discharged to Lake Washington as described in Section 3.2 of this Draft EIS. Establishment of
vegetated setbacks and stormwater treatment would likely reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants
draining directly into May Creek and Lake Washington from the project area. Therefore, the biggest
impacts to May Creek flows and water quality will continue to originate from upstream of the project site.
Vegetation
The proposed buffer (approximately 50 feet) along May Creek under the current proposal would be an
improvement over existing conditions in some areas, and would be expected to contribute to riparian
functions and the maintenance of existing salmonid habitat. However, the proposed buffers along May
Creek would fall significantly short of providing full riparian functionality.
The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large
woody debris (LWD) recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal of sediments and
pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate (May
2000). The required width of the buffer to maintain these functions varies with stream size and the ability
of the channel to migrate; therefore, a wide range of recommended buffer widths is common among
studies. However, none of the reported studies recommend 0 width, nor do the studies recommend the
equivalent of more than several site-potential tree heights (SPTH). A SPTH is the height of a mature tree
that can be expected on any given site. In western Washington, a SPTH may range from 50 to 250 feet,
based on a 300-year period of growth. Pollack and Kennard(1998)recommend that a buffer width of one
SPTH of 250 feet on all perennial streams would be required to reasonably provide a full range of riparian
functions and not contribute significantly to loss of salmonid habitat. May (2000) and other extensive
reviews provide detailed summaries of buffer width sizes necessary to achieve stream and riparian
functions(Knutson and Naef 1997;FEMAT 1993). These studies generally conclude that one SPTH will
provide a reasonably full range of riparian functions. Buffer width recommendations for riparian
functions from these comprehensive reviews are presented in Tables E-1,E-2,and E-3.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-I4 August 2003
Table E-1. Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000)
Range Of Effective Buffer Minimum
Function Widths Recommended Notes On Function
Sediment removal and 8—183 m(26—600 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent sediment
erosion control removal
Pollutant Removal 4—262 m(13—860 ft) 30 m (98 ft) For 80 percent nutrient removal
Large Woody Debris 10—100 m(33—328 ft) 80 m (262 ft) 1 SPTH based on long-term
natural levels
Water Temperature 11 —43 m(36—141 ft) 30 m(98 ft) Based on adequate shade
Wildlife Habitat 10—200 m(33—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Coverage not inclusive
Microclimate 45—200 m(148—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Optimum long-term support
Table E-2. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths
Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997)
Function Range Of Effective Buffer Widths(Ft)
Water Temperature 35—151
Pollutant Removal 13—600
Large Woody Debris 100—200
Erosion Control 100—125
Wildlife Habitat 25—984
Sediment filtration 26—300
Microclimate 200—525
Table E-3. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths
Identified from FEMAT(1993)
Function Number of SPTH Equivalent(Ft) Based on SPTH of 200 Ft.
Shade 0.75 150
Microclimate up to 3 up to 600
Large Woody Debris 1.0 200
Organic Litter 0.5 100
Sediment Control 1.0 200
Bank Stabilization 0.5 100
Wildlife Habitat --- 30—183 m(98—600 ft)
The Tri-County response to NMFS's 4(d) rule for the taking of listed Puget Sound chinook salmon
includes a proposal for a wider stream buffer than that proposed for the Barbee Mill site. For urban
streams like May Creek, the Tri-County response recommends maintenance of a minimum no-touch
buffer width of 115 feet, plus an additional 65 feet of restricted use buffer beyond the no-touch buffer
(Parametrix 2002). The Tri-County proposal also recommended that these buffers be measured from the
lateral extent of any existing channel migration zone (CMZ). The CMZ allows for natural channel
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-15 August 2003
migration processes to occur and promotes floodplain connectivity,which is integral to the formation and
maintenance of stream habitat (May 2000). The CMZ concept is based on best available science as
reviewed by May(2000)and in CMZ guidelines developed by DNR(DNR 1999).
Based on the recommendations presented in Tables E-1,E-2, and E-3, a buffer width of approximately 50
feet, as proposed for May Creek on the Barbee Mill site, will not provide the full range of habitat
functions and protections that streams require (Knutson and Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993; May 2000). In
Lz
addition, the proposed buffer would not be measured from the CMZ, which would provide for stream
migration and habitat formation. But some stream habitat functions may be improved. Stream habitat
functions such as pollutant removal, sediment filtration, and some water temperature regulation
(particularly on small streams) can be improved or provided for by buffer widths as narrow as 35 feet,
particularly in areas having a flat topography as on the Barbee Mill site (Knutsen and Naef 1997) and
some additional LWD recruitment and bank stabilization due to vegetation is likely. Therefore, a fully
functioning riparian stream buffer would not be achieved under the current proposal and substantial
improvements to instream habitat are unlikely.
- Lake Washington Shoreline
The Lake Washington Shoreline is proposed to be developed into 24 duplex lots. Eight of these lots
would not have direct access on Lake Washington because of intervening public land between the inner
and outer harbor lines,which is 15 to 20 feet wide across lots 23 to 28 and about 80 feet wide across lots
29 and 30. An open space tract about 200 feet in length is proposed adjacent to public land on the
shoreline.
The relatively narrow 25-foot setback would preclude long-term measures to enhance the shoreline
environment through establishment of a vegetation community more consistent with a natural vegetation
community for aquatic species. This impact is discussed in more detail in the following Mitigation
Section,which outlines potential benefits of greater shoreline setbacks.
Chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are generally associated with residential and ornamental
landscaping. The application of these substances can be expected to occur up to the limits of the lot, since
landscaping can extend to the waters edge. Direct application of chemicals to the water can be expected
i- - from over spraying and inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing chemicals can be expected to flow
directly into adjacent waters of Lake Washington. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides affect aquatic
resources through direct toxicity or by nutrient enrichment, which can increase plant production and
oxygen demand.
In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63-acre publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines
will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from the
northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along
Lots 23-28, and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract, Lots 29 and 30. Facilities for public
enjoyment of the shoreline are presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment, including trails,
benches, and interpretive facilities. This would include removal of the existing sawmill and related
structures bulkheads on the parcel,which would allow for the formation of more natural shoreline habitat
for fish species over time,particularly for juvenile chinook salmon, as discussed under long-term impacts,
and mitigation below. If this area is developed for public access, human activities at or near the shoreline
may introduce direct disturbances to the shoreline and shallow water habitat areas that are not present in
y_ an industrial site where noise is the most constant impact. Disturbance from human activity may include
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-16 August 2003
informal access to the shoreline that can erode slopes and impact vegetation, as well as wading or
swimming in shallow areas,which can disturb the use of the shoreline by fish.
The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock per developed lot. For the current
application, this would result in 16 docks up to 80 feet long and 12 feet wide. Under the City of Renton
Shoreline codes,that would potentially impact the migration and feeding patterns of juvenile salmonids as
well as provide habitat for predators of juvenile salmon. Currently, there are numerous pilings, a large
raft of logs, and an existing pier. The addition of more docks would further impact juvenile salmonids in
the project vicinity.
Long-term direct effects to salmonids can occur as a result of nearshore permanent shading such as that
created by overhead piers, boathouses, and log booms. The establishment of these structures can disrupt
normal migration and feeding patterns, provide refuge from predators and reduce the production of
aquatic vegetation, phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore (Kahler et al. 2000). Recent
research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the southern portion of Lake Washington tend to avoid
overhead structures(Meridian 2001;Piaskowski and Tabor 2000).
Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of fish species and continued effects
from the retention or replacement of existing bulkheads can be expected. As summarized by Kahler et al.
(2000),bulkheads act to:
• Disrupt the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile chinook and coho salmon,
• Prevent recruitment of sediment into the lake necessary for the formation of natural shallow-
water habitat that provides refuge, spawning,and feeding habitat for a variety of aquatic species,
• Promote bulkhead toe or lateral shoreline erosion,and
• Create an inhospitable high-energy environment for juvenile fish.
Artificial light cast from overhead piers can also adversely affect juvenile salmonids (Simenstad et al.
1999) by causing delays in migration or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles
would be more vulnerable to predation (Simenstad et al 1999). Artificial light intrusion into Lake
Washington would also occur from adjacent residences and street lighting, in addition to overhead pier
lighting. This source would likely be of lower intensity than the artificial lighting conditions examined by
Simenstad et al (1999); therefore, the intensity of artificial lighting expected from the current proposal
may have some affect on salmonid behavior, but the extent of change cannot reasonably be determined.
Currently,the City of Renton has no specific restriction on pier lighting.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program, which requires "significant" public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3-
090-K-14-d). The applicant has not defined a public access program; therefore, for the purposes of this j
analysis, it is presumed to take one or more of the following forms:
• Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line is presumed for general public use.
This area is about 16 feet wide at Lot 24, 20 feet wide at Lot 28 and around 80 feet wide at the
open space tract and adjacent to Lots 29 and 30.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-17 August 2003
• A public walkway is presumed along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between
Lot 29 and the mouth of May Creek within the shoreline building setback area of proposed lots,
which is proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located directly at the edge
pf the water to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as possible.
• Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek,
including use of two of the existing bridges for pedestrian crossings.
The impacts of public access will depend on the location,width,and use character of the public facilities.
Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest impact based on the
following:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline would be required to maintain the trail at the shoreline
edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing
the range or degree of beneficial use provided by reestablishing vegetation.
• Use of walkways is likely to introduce a certain amount of runoff directly to the adjacent surface
water. A pedestrian trail is unlikely to attract significant pollutant loads, however, periodic
cleaning of the walkway may result in discharge of soil and other substances.
• People using the trail are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow,
and in doing so,may disturb substrate or directly displace aquatic species by their activities.
Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts of the loss of the opportunity
to reestablish shoreline vegetation. The tendency for users to leave the trail can be addressed by fencing
and controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas at the shoreline,
with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be
created or reestablished through delta deposits.
Impacts of Long-Term Development and Use of the Site
The major expected long-term change in conditions at the site are expected from resumption of normal
delta formation from sediment carried by May Creek after the termination of the dredging that has
traditionally taken place on the site to facilitate loading and storage of logs in the water.
Past dredging has resulted in near-shore depths of about 12 feet in the vicinity of log dump and sawmill
loading areas to the south of the existing sawmill. This compares with the existing water depth of 3 to 4
feet on the west side of the sawmill.
_ As described in the Floodplain Analysis Technical Report(Appendix B) of this Draft EIS, aggradation is
expected where the May Creek channel flows across the delta because of the abundant upstream sediment
supply, increased peak flows to transport the sediment, and the low gradient across the delta. Historic
dredging operations annually have removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of sediment at the mouth of
May Creek downstream of the lowest bridge,where a river mouth bar would naturally build(Barbee Mill
1999).
Aggradation at the mouth leads to a backwater upstream that controls the gradient and sediment transport
capacity of the delta channel. With regular dredging at the mouth, the gradient and backwater would be
temporarily lowered until the floods filled in the channel. Following dredging, some short-term incision
upstream would be expected. Without dredging, the river mouth bar would remain and expand laterally
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS-Appendix E-Aquatic Species E-18 August 2003
and the channel would adjust by aggrading. Subsequent increases in flood stages would result in
increased channel scour, bank erosion, and likely impacts to habitat and water quality that may not be
compensated for by a riparian buffer width of 50 feet, as proposed.
In addition, the mouth of the bar would block the channel mouth, causing flood and low flows to shift to
either side, further distributing the sediment. Wind and waves created by the wake from boats would
further redistribute the river mouth sediment along the shore. Waves would also limit how high the bar at
the mouth of the river could build. The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few
feet above the typical winter lake level. The deposition of sediment to form a delta and the redistribution
of sediment can therefore be expected to create more shallow water habitat throughout the project
waterfront, which would potentially benefit all aquatic species, including salmonids, such as juvenile
chinook or coho salmon. Additional shallow habitat will be generally beneficial by increasing the
complexity and diversity of habitat in the nearshore zone and reestablish a shoreline supporting the food
web and providing in-water habitat.
If docks are developed to serve new residential lots, and the existing boathouse to the south of the
proposal is retained, delta formation can be expected to reduce water depth and the usability of the docks
over time. This is likely to result in a desire on the part of residents to extend docks, with resulting
impacts of additional cover for juvenile salmonid predators and potentially greater disruption of salmon
migration routes. Residents may also choose to institute dredging, which would deepen shoreline areas, __
thereby reducing the habitat benefits potentially provided by the natural creation of more shallow water
habitat due to aggradation of May Creek sediments along the shoreline.
E.2.1.1 Cumulative Impacts
As noted above, during the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have
simplified the nearshore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has been
replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the -
existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change
shallow water substrates. More than 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington, introducing a different
pattern of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from _
complex (horizontal fallen trees with branches) to simple (vertical smooth pilings). The result of these
actions is to remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow
water habitat(USCE 2001).
The proposed residential subdivision provides some benefits from increased buffer areas on May Creek,
however these buffers are not sufficient to provide for a wide range of riparian functions. The proposed
residential development on the private shoreline of Lake Washington would continue the pattern of
bulkheads and docks and preclude improving the beneficial use in respect to aquatic resources. The
proposal is likely to continue the trends that have resulted in degradation to terrestrial and aquatic habitat
that is illustrated by the decline of salmon species.
E.3 , MITIGATION
Impact mitigation includes the following steps:
1. Avoid the impact,
2. Minimize the impact,
3. Reduce the impact over time,
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-19 August 2003
4. Rectify the impact,and
,r 5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact.
Provision of the proposed buffers along May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline have varying
degrees of impacts, as compared to existing conditions, and provide a degree of mitigation of some
adverse impacts on aquatic resources.
Impacts that consist of narrowing the range or degree of beneficial use of the shoreline are inherent in the
permanent change of use to the proposed residential development, with the specific setbacks and
presumed uses discussed above. Mitigation that will illustrate opportunities to expand the beneficial use
of the shoreline to include greater benefits for aquatic species is outlined below.
Mitigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically City of Renton
Shoreline Regulations. These regulations require that the potential effects on water quality, water and
land vegetation,water life, and other wildlife (including, for example, spawning areas, migration, natural
habitats, and feeding) be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have
detrimental effects on the environment(RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); and require a provision that landscaping be
representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, and
marshland) and shall be compatible with the Northwest image. The ecological qualities of natural and
developed shorelines also require recognition and preservation as valuable resources(RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
Unique features and wildlife habitats should be preserved and incorporated into the site(RMC 4-3-090-K-
6).
Mitigation of Subdivision Construction Impacts
c Mitigation of construction impacts can largely be accomplished by controlling erosion and sedimentation
as outlined in the Water Quality section of this Draft EIS. Perhaps the most important consideration
during construction activities is to conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish are generally
not present.
Mitigation of Impacts of Short-to Medium-Term Development and Use of the Site
Impervious Surfaces
Currently, the Barbee Mill site is approximately 85 percent impervious surface. Converting the site to
residential development would convert a substantial portion of the site to pervious surface in the form of
lawns as well as the proposed open space. This would improve infiltration where extensive areas are
provided,however,the 10-foot building setbacks from streets and other buildings and the 25-foot setback
from Lake Washington do not provide appreciable areas for infiltration. Mitigation could be provided by
providing greater areas of pervious surfaces. This could either reduce the number of units, or the unit
count could be kept constant with utilization of larger or taller buildings as allowed by current zoning.
Vegetation
A 50-foot vegetation buffer along May Creek will enhance riparian function for May Creek. Some
functions provided by streamside vegetation may not provide much benefit to the site because many
habitat variables (e.g., water temperature and flows) are largely controlled by conditions upstream of the
project site. Some functions of vegetation, such as sediment and pollutant filtration, are expected to be
controlled by stormwater management. The proposal currently contains no specific revegetation
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-20 August 2003
proposal. Mitigation, including establishment of greater revegetation areas, is included in Section 3.2.1.3,
above.
There is no proposal in the current application for planting riparian vegetation along the Lake Washington
shoreline. The Renton Shoreline Master Program provides general guidance stating that landscaping is to
be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge,
marshland) and compatible with the Northwest image. The scenic, aesthetic, and ecological qualities of
natural and developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources (RMC 4-3-
090-K-6). Landscape practice for residential lots has not required native plantings, low fertilizer, or
herbicide plantings, or plantings designed to provide shading or further habitat values. The project could
be conditioned to require revegetation of the publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines
and of private lots to provide shrubs and trees that would, in time, grow to provide habitat and other
values, such as shading. Maintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require designation of a
management entity. Maintenance of plantings on private lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve
long-term enforcement issues in view of property-owner interest in making recreational use of the
shoreline, an interest in maintaining views of the water and a general cultural preference for lawn.
Maintaining non-ornamental landscaping on private lots likely will require extensive public education and
enforcement. Providing for management of the shoreline setback by an entity other than the individual
property owner likely would contribute to better maintenance of non-ornamental vegetation.
Erosion Control
Under the current proposal, approximately a 50-foot vegetated riparian buffer would be established along
May Creek. This buffer would provide an additional measure of streambank stabilization and control of
bank erosion; however, some natural erosion can be expected during high flow periods. No vegetation
buffers are proposed along the Lake Washington shoreline within the proposed 25-foot building setback,
which may be occupied by lawns or patios or other residential). Erosion from construction sites would
migrate to the lake over the 25-foot buffer unless substantial BMPs were implemented and maintained.
BMPs for water quality are discussed in Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources. Maintenance of existing
bulkheads or construction of new bulkheads would effectively control shoreline erosion from wave
action.
Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration
A 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek is expected to provide some natural control of pollutants and
sediment runoff; however, it is expected that most control will be attained by stormwater management
(see Section 3.2, Surface Water Resources). On the Lake Washington shoreline, additional pollutant
control could be accomplished by adding surface water interception to the 25-foot buffer area between the
shoreline and building setbacks. This would involve technical feasibility issues because of the difficulty
of achieving gravity drainage from these areas to treatment ponds due to the flat site, but it would add
runoff from these areas to water quality treatment facilities.
Water Temperature Regulation
An estimated riparian buffer width of 50 feet would not be sufficient to provide properly functioning
water temperature regulation of May Creek because of shading, but would provide some benefits of
additional shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level of shading would most likely serve to
prevent or moderate further increases in water temperatures prior to water entering Lake Washington that
would otherwise occur with no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of the project site and the
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-2I August 2003 —
short distance of stream on the site stream temperatures will, however, largely be affected by habitat and
water uses upstream of the project site.
There will be little effect on Lake Washington water temperatures from the project's proposed 25-foot
setback where private lots abut Lake Washington. It is assumed that little shoreline vegetation would
occur in the setback under existing Renton land use regulations, and shading on private lots would be
negligible.
The project could be conditioned to require revegetation of the publicly owned land between the inner and
outer harbor lines and of private lots to provide shrubs and trees that would, in time, grow to provide
some shoreline overhanging vegetation and provide some temperature moderation of shallow water
habitat. The project site faces largely to the west. The sun angle and height during the summer months
will allow shading to occur in the morning, because the sun ruses north of due east after the spring
equinox. During mid-day, the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead, allowing
overhanging vegetation to shade shallow water areas. The sun in the afternoon is also slightly north of
west, allowing crown shading. In addition, the angle of the sun shining through more layers of
atmosphere in the afternoon reduces heat transmittal. Solar radiation in the spring and winter will be from
the south and will shine under overstory vegetation during those periods; however, the intensity of solar
radiation is less than those periods. Plantings of overstory at or near the shoreline will contribute to less
total daily solar exposure during the summer and provide some water temperature mitigation for the
shallowest near-shore habitat that is most likely to experience elevated temperature, solar exposure, and
provide some mitigation
Large Woody Debris Recruitment
The current proposal would provide for approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek,
which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment. Mitigation measures could
include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat, but this should only be considered a short-term
solution and the subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows would
have to be carefully considered.
Little vegetation is expected along the Lake Washington lakeshore except for along the publicly owned
land, and LWD recruitment would be minimal. As with May Creek, LWD could potentially be placed
along the Lake Washington shoreline as habitat. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile chinook
salmon in early spring (through April); however, it also would provide additional habitat for non-
salmonid predators such as bass.
Regulation of Microclimate
Regulation of microclimate would not appreciably improve under the current proposal and effective
mitigations that would provide the benefits of microclimate control are highly unlikely.
Herbicides and Pesticides
Application of herbicides and pesticides associated with the development of lawn areas would be
expected to increase under the current proposal. It is assumed that on-site stormwater treatment facilities
would be able to treat all water leaving the site prior to discharge into May Creek or Lake Washington,
but due to the proximity of the developable lots along the shorelines, infiltrated waters containing
pollutants may enter Lake Washington and May Creek via direct groundwater input.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-22 August 2003
Bulkheads
Shoreline protection on Lake Washington is assumed to be necessary on the site due to the southeast
facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and storms from the south. The current sheet-pile
bulkheads on the site were installed at high activity log-handling areas and are not necessary,for shoreline
protection. In addition, shoreline areas are anticipated to fill in over a period of years with sediment
originating from May Creek due to discontinued dredging operations. This will likely provide more
shallow area that will dissipate wave action prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will
provide accretion of new land waterward of the existing high water line. Delta formation also will
provide shallow water habitat along the shoreline.
The removal of existing bulkheads on the shoreline would allow for the formation of a more natural
shoreline in conjunction with bio-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options
presume some area available for natural processes and may be difficult to install in areas where a 25-foot -
building setback is proposed. The wider shoreline buffer areas provided in the public lands between the
inner and outer harbor lines provides the potential for bioengineering options that could include regrading
the upland portion of the shoreline and limiting armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle
allowing more natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure E-3.
Further options may be explored of varying the shoreline from its existing straight configuration to
provide inlets and pocket beaches to more closely replicate natural conditions, as indicated in the
conceptual sketch in Figure E-4.
11
Design Typicals
A+dequateSotbackof Sue' clines
-4.to Avoid OverignOng aartk
and PardeeSafety Factoe.,
kt Mee qt Sank*Ream •
Conettato Seats knit Gr e+Surface
to Control Swim
laif4tooted Vegetation to Reduce
ie $uncoi Srotioi4
Aograde tm MAW Slope
y ■j • provide Bete Rratmage el'Water
owe cueitappinstT tv
1i
� Stable Arm ee Starke an Stable Slop
",�, + 1
y w1MSes Mind
r
may«
• . . . • ••+ /•••1 Jp � k 1P�^ Stable Toe Pro•ecFn
• •Sirs4N Pete.'eritiG e•illotb 7a •'';r l i'Ol.tt1HCAA3R` —-�
•
Not Shown«Struseutk Bade lied into M Y;4 ti •� ab,..� y i
Samoa Minunize rmo a fo.. >.•ti" :r..
Flanking-Erasion " • .
•
Source: Tri-County 2000
Figure E-3 Bulkhead Modification
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-23 August 2003
,�-` 6
C.> z
FtVm id ':.t9 F4€E1!POW
Large Boulders tarovbd4 yab1tst
end Protect Beaches
• � koffe)Arcs, A,
y * ,re?
i p ar k
tlI�t.W f� t r c a,#. P.Ax sr / Jr y'i�a7 r"• i�t i r•_ tS
got -aoktititagh%
Source: Tri-County 2000
Figure E-4 Shoreline Modification
Provision of pocket beaches and other features
Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline enhancement in areas of public ownership
could be coordinated with Washington DNR requirements for removal of existing development on the
public lands.
As an interim measure, short of bioengineering, or for those portions of the site where dredging has
created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads,the following measures could be implemented:
• Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads, or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to the
OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side will reduce the negative impact of
wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also be desirable to
engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small gravel substrate that
provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening period prior to substantial
accretion from delta formation.
• Riprap revegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings or
rooted plants, which provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including
shade, leaf litter, browse and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture nutrient-
laden sediments.
• Add small gravel substrate along the shoreline that is more suitable for juvenile salmonids.
In-Water Structures
Removal of existing in-water structures such as pilings and log booms would improve conditions for
juvenile salmonids by reducing the amount of existing cover for predators, such as smallmouth bass, and
by not interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Therefore, any measure to reduce the
number of overhead structures within the project site would likely benefit juvenile salmonids. Mitigation
Ciry of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-24 August 2003
of the adverse impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number of strategies
ranging from avoiding construction of docks, to reducing the number of docks, to specific design and
construction measures.
Avoidance of the impacts of new docks could be addressed by a plat condition prohibiting private dock
construction. This would avoid the potential impacts from use of the docks and from dock shading. Such
a prohibition could include the implication that property owners would use commercial moorage at off-
site marinas or could provision of alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located at
a distance from nearshore habitat for boat moorage and recreation. The latter option could include a
dingy dock,for access to buoys and floats. Such a dock could include the existing sawmill dock at the
northern end of the proposed common area, or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would
avoid proximity impacts on adjacent lots.
An option that would reduce impacts, but not prohibit new docks, could involve shared moorage by two
or more property owners. In such a case, docks could be developed at property lines to serve two
adjacent properties, or a single moorage facility to serve the entire development. Dock construction could
include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted above, long-term use of docks
is likely to be hampered by delta formation and could lead to requests by residents to dredge that would
reduce the benefits of creation of shallow shoreline habitat.
Residential Noise and Lizhting
Under the current proposal, it is anticipated that noise and lighting effects along May Creek will be
reduced over time as an approximately 50-foot riparian buffer is established; however, a 25-foot setback
along Lake Washington with no replanting requirements will not serve to reduce residential lighting and
noise impacts. Conditions could prohibit outdoor lighting; however, this would be very difficult to
enforce over time and may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows. Discussion
below of greater setbacks and more effective vegetation buffering has the potential to reduce this impact.
Public Access Disturbance
Under the current proposal, it is presumed that public access would be provided to meet the provisions of
Renton's Shoreline Master Program.
Access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back from the shoreline where public land is
present ranging from 20 to 80 feet wide. Setbacks would allow runoff from the pathway would be
infiltrated or filtered by soils and plantings established adjacent surface water. Fencing between the trail
and the shoreline could reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and erosion from informal pathways.
Controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the
shoreline with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments
might be created or reestablished through delta deposits.
1
In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake, public access would likely be at the edge of the shoreline to
minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation could include setting back public access from the shore and
reducing residential lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation is provided by larger setbacks, as
discussed below.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-25 August 2003 -
Mitigation to Impacts of Long-Term Development and Use of the Site
The resumption of normal delta formation is largely expected to produce beneficial impacts as discussed
above.
There are no readily available mitigation measures for potential adverse impacts of extension of docks or
resumption of dredging to maintain usability of the existing boathouse and residential docks that may be
constructed. Avoiding construction of new docks in recognition that an area of delta formation is not an
appropriate location for moorage is the most effective means of avoiding future impacts.
Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Area Width
The scientific information cited above suggests that greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of
riparian functions on May Creek and would provide for reestablishment of natural elements of the Lake
Washington shoreline, which would reduce long-term impacts of residential development of the shoreline
and expand the beneficial use in respect to aquatic resources. Greater buffer areas also would provide the
opportunity to provide public access and other use of the shoreline with fewer tradeoffs for aquatic
resources.
The following two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Shoreline and May
Creek:
Option A, 50-Foot Buffer
This is generally consistent with the proposal for May Creek. Specific changes on the May Creek
corridor include:
Design modifications to increase the buffer slightly are proposed adjacent to May Creek:
• Reorienting the turn-around for Street A to project to the interior rather than into the riparian
corridor.
• Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the
proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from the OHWM. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces the
number of townhome units from four to one or two units.
For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include two components:
• A 25-foot-wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline
to a more natural condition through:
> Elimination of bulkheads or reduction in height of existing bulkheads.
> Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient above the OHWM and
providing substrate for plantings near the water.
> Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors
for adjacent residential development.
Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the water with
fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with
benches or other passive features.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-26 August 2003
L
JCOR-2 ZONE
r — /, t � n%I I N3A�1'l I '''"°9�I ''''''l I'''''4I I N''''''0 l I'''''°9I I'°'90 sl I �0 sl I m gl a YA 4 '1
OHW n) III III III II_ II „ „•II ,° ° I1 ° ' HH ° ° Il ' ' I
a — _ STREET - // '
i
50'SETBACK °s � � // ,.//„ „ // .a..,.,s .„sI I <,�sl i`9/I �;' f
- ' Tract„B„i d I-- - --1 / , / L._ 1 _ _ _ _ L ___ / ,;,,/
\ a J s // g/ s/*/
Water Quality "/� ��!
PUBLIC LAND ,' Tract"C" ,\\ / ° / gyp If
�� Open ■ / A . \\/ /\N/ — / /
Space \l N. �/ / 1
, V\ _-\ \ '\
, .wu-eaa 9 / x V o /// A
l/ • %g / ! S EE JO
, WA_ %\.,/ ,,,-,-,, ,
f L OHW / C�
i "� f �
LAKE 1"u\ / '" /Au. ` A 7 y/
WASHINGTON g 1�� I r j„
/ f/ , \�, ,,,'��f jc., 50'SETBACK
111111111"��� / 'I ,fie / , ___ _______
I lib /* 1 ,:',' 9:2'7/ // ,
44
, . .,... . ‘', ilk , / , ,,,,,,
,./ ,,, . .,./.,
PUBLIC LAND— �\ ,l, , \ F ,E�'
t'''
` `ice • !4 it* .+®r r,,��i((
/\__ • ----- • ,,, , /
e At/ < `
MAY CREEK + y it Jr
DELTA
- * **.// - form r-----
_ ' u'al,///1/..1 ` ,,, ,
2_._..__-.R,ELZONE_..___.........� .`.. „r'k!" / A :�ro:�s:'"Tki AATLI CT
/ . '"j, ' / !
REVISED 50' SETBACK FROM OHW
88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND
FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES
r 101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-04
Figure E-5
WVSCALE IN FEET Fi g
I Option "A" 50-foot Buffer
o 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
• A 25-foot area for adjacent residences to include yard area, ornamental landscaping, and that
would probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to
prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits and would also likely be
fenced for privacy.
This option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 100, given the current layout
of town homes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the
applicants proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA)jurisdiction and 70
feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment
buildings 70 feet high could result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 100
units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction.
Likely differences in impacts between Option A and the Proposal include:
Impervious Surfaces
The current proposal and Option A will have similar setbacks for May Creek, and there will be little
difference in impervious surface or its effects on habitat or water quality.
The setback for the Lake Washington shoreline, however, would increase from 25 to 50 feet, including a
25-foot vegetated buffer, which would potentially double the impervious surface area which likely would
be large enough for natural infiltration of most precipitation, providing for support of vegetation in the
setback area and reducing total runoff from the site somewhat. The additional area would provide for
other potential mitigation, as outlined below.
Vegetation
A minimum 50-foot vegetation buffer along May Creek would provide additional area of buffering
vegetation at a few additional areas where the proposed buffer narrows and would provide a limited
amount of riparian function for May Creek. The mitigation provided by intensive plantings of native
vegetation discussed in EIS Section 3.4.1.3, and Appendix D, Terrestrial Plants and Animals, would
apply. Overhanging streamside and lakeshore vegetation would provide cover for fish, particularly
salmonids, such as chinook salmon, that have been found to associate with such cover (Tabor and
Piaskowski 2001). Several effects of landscape and riparian vegetation, such as microclimate control,
will,however,not be improved.
With a 50-foot buffer, evenly split between residential ornamental plantings and a 25-foot natural
planning area, the general policy in the Renton Shoreline Master Program for landscaping representative
of the indigenous character of a lake edge could be established with fewer conflicts with property-owner
desires to control the character of residential lawns, patios and ornamental plantings. The provision of a
25-foot revegetation area adjacent to the water would provide limited opportunities to establish native
plantings as discussed in EIS Section 3.4.1.3, and Appendix D, Terrestrial Plants and Animals. The
immediate waters edge could be planted with shrubs and trees that would, in time, grow to provide habitat
and other values, such as shading. Some conflicts with the interests of adjacent property owners to enjoy
views of the water would be present, depending on the intensity of indigenous plantings and the design of
residences. Opportunities to provide view corridors between tree plantings and could be explored.
Building design that placed the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages
on the first floor would provide the potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow
visibility over privacy fences between the lawn areas and areas of indigenous plantings. Maintenance of a
separate privately controlled area on lots with the 25-foot-wide section adjacent to the water with a public
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-28 August 2003
easement or dedication for vegetation management (and public access) would make enforcement of
planting and maintenance requirements more effective.
Erosion Control
Under Option A,the buffer along May Creek would be similar to the current proposal and afford a similar
level of protection as described for the current proposal, except where the current proposal contains a
narrow buffer adjacent to access roadways near the mouth of the stream where Option A would provide
additional area to filter sediments.
Along the Lake Washington shoreline, an additional 25 feet of vegetated buffer area would provide for a
greater setback of construction from the water. Extensive erosion control BMPs would be required during
the process of removal of impervious surfaces and regarding for planting. After initial removal of
existing impervious surface and establishment of permanent vegetation, future land alternation would be
separated by a buffer which would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was established prior to
building construction.
Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration
Pollutant removal and sediment filtration along May Creek will be similar under Option A as under the
current proposal.
The provision of a 25-foot buffer area of restored vegetation would provide limited pollutant removal as
discussed above. The provision of an intervening area of more natural vegetation not subject to fertilizer
and pesticides would result in some interception of those chemicals from infiltration of sheet runoff and
would also largely eliminate over-water drift or accidental spillage.
Water Temperature Regulation
A riparian buffer width of 50 feet on May Creek would have approximately the same benefits as the
current proposal, as discussed above with some potential benefits in areas where current buffers narrow to
approximately 20 feet. As discussed above,mature vegetation in a 50-foot buffer may not be sufficient to
provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek due to shading, but would
provide some additional shading as vegetation matures over time.
The 50-foot setback, split between residential lawn and a revegetation area would provide greater
potential for planting of shoreline shrubs and trees that would provide shading of near-shoreline areas
through overhanging vegetation and especially in the summer when the sun angle is overhead and would
not penetrate overhanging branches.
A 25-foot buffer of indigenous plantings at the shoreline would allow substantially greater shading than --
plantings that could be accommodated in an area of residential lawn.
Large Woody Debris Recruitment
The 50-foot buffer options, like the current proposal would provide for approximately a 50 foot vegetated
buffer along May Creek which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment.
Mitigation measures could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat, but this should only be
considered a short-term solution and the subsequent effects on channel migration due to the redirection of
flows would have to be carefully considered.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-29 August 2003
r
Establishment of a 25-foot buffer of larger vegetation, such as native trees, would provide little
opportunity for LWD recruitment along the Lake Washington shoreline. As discussed above for the
proposal, LWD could potentially be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline as habitat. This would
likely provide habitat for juvenile chinook salmon in early spring(through April); however, it would also
provide additional habitat for non-salmonid predators, such as bass.
Herbicides and Pesticides
Application of herbicides and pesticides would be expected to be reduced under Option A compared with
the current proposal because less area would be developed as lawn under Option A due to the additional
25-foot vegetated buffer along Lake Washington, which would eliminate lawn and ornamental
landscaping at to the waters edge and would provide a 25-foot buffer from the waters edge for infiltration
and filtering of surface runoff containing herbicides and pesticides. Due to the proximity of the
developable lots to the shorelines, however, infiltrated waters containing pollutants may enter Lake
Washington and May Creek via direct groundwater input.
Bulkheads
The additional setback of buildings from the shoreline would allow additional area for regrading the
shoreline to a more natural grade and allow more space for natural shoreline processes to occur with
bioengineered shoreline protection measures without endangering buildings. This would make
bioengineered solutions as outlined in the previous section more feasible.
In-Water Structures
The same mitigation measures described above for the proposal, involving the removal of existing in-
water structures, such as pilings and log booms,would be appropriate mitigation with a larger buffer area.
Under Option A,however, it is anticipated that individual docks would not be developed.
Public Access Disturbance
Under Option A, public access could be provided further from the waters edge. It is anticipated that a
trail system would meander 10 to 15 feet from the waters edge. The larger setback accommodates the
requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for "significant" public access on Lake
Washington with less potential impact than accommodating the access within a 25-foot setback. As under
the current proposal,the following mitigative effects would apply under Option A:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required and would allow
of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation,thus narrowing the range or degree of beneficial
use provided by reestablishing indigenous vegetation.
• It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks.
Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the public use and indigenous
vegetation area.
• Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings directly to
the adjacent surface water.
Fencing between the trail and the shoreline could reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and
erosion from informal pathways. Controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-30 August 2003
enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific
locations where beach environments might be created or reestablished through delta deposits.
Option B, 100-Foot Buffer
This proposal would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek. Specific changes on the May
Creek corridor include the following:
• Eliminating most of the potential for development on the east side of the stream.
• Reducing the number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15.
• Eliminating most development on both sides at the mouth of the stream.
For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include two components:
• A 75-foot-wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline, which would include restoration of the shoreline
to a more natural condition through:
> Elimination of bulkheads or reduction in height of existing bulkheads.
> More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope above the OHWM.
> Planting of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees that could be
accommodated in the wider buffer area, while preserving some view corridors for adjacent --
residential development.
> Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 15 to 25 feet from the
water, with fencing between the trail and waterfront with viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet
on the shoreline and benches or other passive features.
• A 25-foot area for adjacent residences to include yard area and ornamental landscaping, and that
would probably be marked by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to
prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits, and would also likely be
fenced for privacy.
This option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to 70, given the current layout of
townhomes. The existing zoning, however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the
applicants proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA)jurisdiction and 70
feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment
buildings 70 feet high could result in five- to seven-story buildings that could accommodate more than
100 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction.
Likely differences in impacts between Option B and the Proposal include:
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-31 August 2003
1
COR-2 ZONE - '
r-__!,2' L L _JL _JL __IL __IL __IL_ __H__ __H___ __I L., y /
r
100'SETBACK , — — \/ \,7 "7 L I I ——// �`/
Tract"B" •
� �~
Water Quality °' °' '�/
PUBLIC LAND 0 Tract"C" • ��\,: ® ,,i / '
I OpenZ '\ % . • / t�f I
Space "
i NOM . '''\ . .,`"/// i / / ',...
"" BU:FEI3 f ,z)/
• . • . - - • ,, e'.:151'?' is; ,.4. //427/
: v
.,
� p
J L • AOHW , 1 , ` �of
LAKE �, , / / " 1 17 , i.e
WASHINGTON v J/i /,,, / / / / 100.SETBACK
/ ) ‘ I: i .• ii. Z.''," // i -------------
, : \ • It • t:
d / l /
PUBLIC LAND u •
• / \ " l'� f / o
I /\._ . . .r: . .":7 1 , ('4**---- \
l MAY CREEK mom ` -,-- .
DELTA K fit /
LT,
� ' ®,i, '
-_._______._R=asoNE._,__. ! _ _ N 40TH ST
a
*./..-
am +, �;7 i
REVISED 100' SETBACK FROM OHW
50 BUILDING SITES
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-05
SCALE IN FEET IA& Figure E-6
Option "B" 100-foot Setback
o �o0 2I o NO Option
Mill Preliminary Plat
Impervious Surfaces
Option B would increase the setback along May Creek by a distance of 50 feet, thereby reducing the
potential area of impervious surface. The setback for Lake Washington would increase from 25 feet with
no vegetation retention requirement to 100 feet, including 75 feet of replanted vegetation directly adjacent
to the shoreline. Combined, this would potentially reduce the impervious surface area. The impervious
area likely would be large enough for natural infiltration of most precipitation, providing for support of
vegetation in the setback area and reducing total runoff from the site somewhat. However, as previously
described, there will be little effect on May Creek flows and habitat due to the reduction in impervious
surface due to the location and size of the project site relative to the rest of the watershed.
Vegetation
A minimum 100-foot vegetation buffer along May Creek would provide substantial additional area of
buffering vegetation and riparian functions such as erosion control, pollutant removal, sediment filtration,
water temperature regulation, and LWD recruitment for May Creek as described above. The mitigation
provided by intensive plantings of native vegetation discussed in EIS Section 3.4.1.3, and Appendix D,
Terrestrial Plants and Animals, would apply. Overhanging streamside and lakeshore vegetation would
also provide cover for fish,particularly salmonids, such as chinook salmon(Tabor and Piaskowski 2001);
however, some effects of landscape and riparian vegetation, such as microclimate control, will not be
improved
With a 100-foot buffer, split between residential ornamental plantings and a 75-foot natural planning area,
the general policy in the Renton Shoreline Master Program for landscaping representative of the
indigenous character of a lake edge could be established with fewer conflicts with property-owner desires
to control the character of residential lawns, patios and ornamental plantings. The provision of a 75-foot
revegetation area adjacent to the water would provide limited opportunities to establish native plantings as
discussed in Section EIS Section 3.4.1.3, and Appendix D, Terrestrial Plants and Animals. The
immediate waters edge could be planted with shrubs and trees that would, in time, grow to provide habitat
and other values, such as shading.
Some conflicts with the interests of adjacent property owners to enjoy views of the water would be
present, depending on the intensity of indigenous plantings and the design of residences. Opportunities to
provide view corridors between tree plantings could be explored. Building design that placed the main
living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would provide the
potential for visual access over,shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy fences between
the lawn areas and areas of indigenous plantings. Maintenance of a separate privately controlled area on
lots with the 75-foot-wide section adjacent to the water with a public easement or dedication for
vegetation management (and public access) would make enforcement of planting and maintenance
requirements more effective.
Erosion Control
Under Option B, an established mature 100-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek is within the range of
effective buffer widths for streambank stabilization and erosion control, as outlined in Tables E-1, E-2,
and E-3 (May 2000; Knutson and Naef 1997; FEMAT 1993), whereas the 50-foot buffer options,
including the current proposal, is not. Some natural erosion can, however, still be expected during high
flow periods.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-33 August 2003
Establishment of a 75-foot buffer along the lakeshore would provide substantial additional area to control
construction erosion and sedimentation, although removal of impervious surfaces and regarding for
planting would require extensive erosion control BMPs.
Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration
As with erosion control, a 100-foot buffer along May Creek is within the range of effective buffer widths
for pollutant removal and sediment filtration functions as outlined in Tables E-1, E-2, and E-3. In
contrast, the 50-foot buffer under the current proposal and Option A are generally not effective at
providing fully effective pollutant removal and sediment filtration functions.
Establishment of a 100-foot buffer on Lake Washington, split between a 25-foot residential lawn area and
a 75-foot area for reestablishment of indigenous vegetation, would also allow for effective pollutant
removal and sediment filtration.
Water Temperature Regulation
A vegetated buffer width of 100 feet is within the range of effective buffer widths for providing stream
shading and control of water temperatures where as the 50-foot buffer under the current proposal and
Option A is not(Tables E-1,E-2, and E-3). Stream temperatures will be greatly affected by habitat and
water uses upstream of the project site,but fully functional shading would have the potential of reducing
water temperatures on the project site,thus improving habitat for salmonid species.
The 100-foot setback, split between a 25-foot residential ornamental landscape zone and a 75-foot-deep
area revegetated with indigenous species would provide greater area for planting of larger trees. This
would provide more extensive summer shading from two sources:
• Greater tree height and density would block morning and afternoon sun.
• Overhanging shrubs and trees planted near the shoreline can provide extensive shading,
especially in the summer when the sun angle is overhead and would not penetrate overhanging
branches.
Large Woody Debris Recruitment
The additional 50 feet of vegetated buffer required under Option B would provide a riparian buffer of 100
feet along May Creek which has been identified as a minimum recommended buffer width for providing
effective LWD recruitment in western Washington assuming the buffer consists of mature forest(Tables
E-1, E-2, and E-3). Therefore, while fully functional LWD recruitment may not be achieved with a 100-
foot buffer depending on vegetation characteristics, Option B affords recruitment potential that
natural levels more closelythan either of the 50-foot buffer options alongMayCreek.
approaches p
Herbicides and Pesticides
Application of herbicides and pesticides would be expected to be more reduced under Option B compared
with the current proposal or Option A because less area would be developed as lawn under Option B,
which would eliminate lawn and ornamental landscaping at to the waters edge and would provide a 75-
foot buffer from the waters edge along Lake Washington and a 100-foot buffer along May Creek for
infiltration and filtering of surface runoff containing herbicides and pesticides. Due to the proximity of
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-34 August 2003
the developable lots to the shorelines,however,infiltrated waters containing pollutants may enter Lake
Washington and May Creek via direct groundwater input.
Bulkheads
withthe As Option A, additional setback of buildings from the shoreline,would allow additional area for
regrading the shoreline to a more natural grade and allow more space for natural shoreline processes to
occur with bioengineered shoreline protection measures without endangering buildings. This would make
bioengineered solutions as outlined in the previous section more feasible.
In-Water Structures
The same mitigation measures described above for the proposal, involving the removal of existing in-
water structures such as pilings and log booms would be appropriate mitigation with a larger buffer area.
However, under Option B, as with Option A, it is anticipated that individual docks would not be
developed.
Residential Noise and Lighting
Residential noise and lighting would be reduced by moving the sources of noise and light further from the
streambanks and shorelines by an additional 75 feet under Option B. In fact, direct artificial lighting
would likely be virtually eliminated after replanted vegetation matured over time. Therefore, any impacts
from direct lighting on migration or habitat use by migratory sahnonids would also be minimal.
Public Access
Under Option B,public access could be provided even further from the waters edge than under Option A.
The proposed trail system could meander further from the waters edge in-between lake access points.
The larger setback accommodates the requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for
"significant" public access on Lake Washington with less potential impact than accommodating the
access within either a 25- or 50-foot setback. As previously described for the current proposal, the
following mitigative effects would apply:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required and would allow
of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation,thus narrowing the range or degree of beneficial
use provided by reestablishing indigenous vegetation.
• It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks.
Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the 75-foot public use and indigenous
vegetation area.
• Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings directly to
the adjacent surface water.
Fencing between the trail and the shoreline could reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and
erosion from informal pathways. Controlled public access for shoreline viewing from boardwalks or
enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific
locations where beach environments might be created or reestablished through delta deposits.
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-35 August 2003
ACRONYMS
APA Aquifer Protection Area
BA Biological Assessment
BMP Best Management Practice
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CMZ channel migration zone
COR Center Office Residential
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
DPS Distinct Population Segment
Ecology Washington Department of Ecology
EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS environmental impact statement
EPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
I-405 Interstate 405
KCBW King County Backwater
KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
KCSWM King County Surface Water Management
Leq A-weighted energy equivalent
LWD large woody debris
mg/L milligrams per liter
mllw mean lower low water
mm millimeter
mph miles per hour
MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-36 August 2003
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OHW Ordinary High Water
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RMC Renton Municipal Code
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCP pentachlorophenol
PHS Priority Habitat and Species
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RMC Renton Municipal Code
ROW Right-of-way
SHPO State Historical Preservation Office
SMA Shoreline Management Act
SPTH Site-potential tree height
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
TIR Technical Information Report
TOC total organic carbon
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
USFWS U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compound
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDOE Washington Department of Energy
WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program -
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
City of Renton 554-1779-017
Barbee Mill EIS—Appendix E—Aquatic Species E-37 August 2003
f Final Draft
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
r Appendix B
Floodplain Analysis Technical Report
Prepared for:
City of Renton
L
k_Y•
'I, Para metrix June 2003 Revised March 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
j ! 1. INTRODUCTION B-1
2. METHODOLOGY B-5
2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS B-5
2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY B-5
2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS B-5
2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport B-5
2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling B-6
2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS B-7
2.4.1 Hydraulic Model B-7
2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping B-11
2.5 IMPACT AND MITIGATION EVALUATION B-11
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT B-15
3.1 HISTORIC DELTA B-15
3.1.1 Channel Morphology B-15
3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION B-15
3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN B-16
3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions B-16
4. IMPACTS B-17
4.1 SCENARIO 1 —NO LEVEES OR FILL B-17
4.2 SCENARIO 2—50-FOOT SETBACK B-17
4.3 SCENARIO 3— 100-FOOT SETBACK B-18
4.4 PROPOSED BRIDGE B-19
5. MITIGATION B-21
5.1 MITIGATION SCENARIO 4 B-21
5.2 MITIGATION SCENARIO 6 B-21
6. REFERENCES B-23
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-i March 2004
LIST OF FIGURES
B-1 Project Vicinity B-3
B-2 Barbee Mill Reach Existing 100-year Floodplain Based on Future Flow Rates B-13
LIST OF TABLES
B-1 Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows B-5
B-2 Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results B-6
B-3 Summary of Bridge Geometry B-8 -,
B-4 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness B-9
B-5 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness B-9
B-6 Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages B-11
B-7 Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results B-11
B-8 Increases in 100-Year'Floodplain Depth with Setbacks B-18
ATTACHMENTS
A Hydraulics Support Documents—Results •
B Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents
C Manning's Roughness Coefficient Documentation
D Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation
E Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-ii March 2004
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
cfs cubic feet per second
EIS environmental impact statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN
mm millimeters
NAVD North American Vertical Datum
RM river mile
USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
WSE water surface elevation
yr year
f .
I--
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-iii March 2004
1. INTRODUCTION
This floodplain analysis was undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
proposed redevelopment of the Barbee Mill site (Figure B-1) on Lake Washington to accommodate
approximately 115 residential units. As part of the sawmill operations, the May Creek Delta, which is
adjacent to the site,has been periodically dredged since the mid-1950s to maintain water depth for storage
of logs in Lake Washington adjacent to the sawmill and to reduce site flooding. These dredging
operations artificially increased the gradient of the stream and deepened the channel at the mouth.
Periodic dredging is expected to end as a result of replacement of the sawmill with residential
development. Ending dredging is expected to result in aggradation and delta formation at the mouth of
May Creek. This floodplain analysis was conducted to evaluate the geomorphological aspects of the
stream and the floodplain, and to estimate potential floodplain and flooding impacts associated with
proposed development alternatives.
Two different approaches were used in this evaluation. Sediment equations were used to predict changes
in delta levels (aggradation/degradation)due to changes in dredging operations. In addition, a floodplain
analysis was performed to map the extent of the 100-year floodplain,under estimated future delta and
channel elevations and flow conditions.
-I
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
I Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-1 March 2004
I _
I
• 2
5
, /
405 5222
U :,-,
fbNa�,�b',
'i'i DUVALL
, -
it?w.a. 202I
'+NLV�y T tza
ih
`' �,- REDMOND
sai- a;r; ''r�.r.. KIRKLAND
4 off` 203
SEATTLE .1;s°3 .ktx``' BELLEVUE
::Lake:...„ ,3 ,fv. �,t,..a,t
si Wastingtonis;.t' ,4,4-e c,.`
A.,b .'hft li:i, t3v a yoe
•; x` sf:" ISSAQUAH
'v,r= V e Ga
r re AD
,,,,€"s x,,..4 1 NEWCASTLE
4 4 .:.
''= -;{a 900
t+;rat:-'��-�.
RENTON PROJECT
, SITE
405
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01
Figure BA
W Vicinity Map
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
{ 2. METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology used to characterize the affected environment and to evaluate
potential floodplain and flooding impacts of the proposed alternative.
2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS
The hydrology of May Creek is typical of Puget Sound Lowland Streams located in an urbanizing watershed
(King County 1995). As part of the Current and Future Conditions Report (King County 1995), a
Hydrologic Simulation Program—FORTRAN (HSPF) hydrologic model was prepared for the May Creek
watershed. The HSPF model was used to predict flow rates for the 100-year return frequency event at the
mouth. Some measured flows were used to calibrate the model(Table'B-1).
Table B-1. Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows
Description Flow Rate(cfs) Method
Mean Annual Flow 25.6 Measured
1990 Flood Event 598 Measured
FEMA 100-year Flow(FEMA 1996) 870 Modeled
Current 100-year Flow(King County 1995) 835 Modeled
Future 100-year Mitigated Flow(King County 1995) 1,059 Modeled
Source: King County(1995).
Peak flood flow discharges have increased an estimated 30 to 50 percent in the May Creek canyon and'
mouth (King County 1995). As shown in Table B-1, the HSPF predicted flow rates under future mitigated
conditions are higher than existing and historic flow rates for the same return frequency storm event. This is
due in part to the ongoing and predicted future development and urbanization of the May Creek watershed,
which results in an increasing amount of impervious surface area within the watershed.
2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY
The geomorphology of May Creek within the project area was determined based on review of existing and
— historic topographic maps of the area and a site visit conducted in April 2003. The proposed alternative is
located on the May Creek Delta.
2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
The frequency and duration of the increased peak discharge rates has increased sediment transport rates,
which are influenced by the magnitude, duration, and frequency of flood flows and'the supply of sediment
available to transport. The May Creek channel adjusts to increased flood flows by bank and bed erosion
creating a wider channel.
2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport
Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington water level by nine feet
to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel, which caused
incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek Delta. This shifted the main
deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. Subsequent placing of fill material and
the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel,resulting in high ground similar
to levees along each bank, with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. These levees concentrate
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-5 March 2004
i
flow in a fixed single uniform channel,and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream
energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill over the west bank, the flood height could
only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill across the delta toward the lake. This, along
with the relatively low gradient caused by the lake backwater effect(and the presence of bridge foundations),
would limit the sediment transport capacity during flood events.
Aggradation is expected where the May Creek channel flows across the delta because of the abundant
upstream sediment supply, increased peak flows to transport the sediment, and the low gradient across the
delta. Historic dredging operations have annually removed an estimated 2,000 cubic yards of sediment at the
mouth of May Creek downstream of the lowest bridge, where a river mouth bar would naturally build (King
County 2001).
Aggradation at the mouth leads to a backwater condition upstream that controls the flow gradient and
sediment transport capacity of the delta channel. With regular dredging at the mouth, the backwater effect
would be temporarily lessened,.and some short-term incision upstream would be expected.
Without dredging, the river mouth bar would remain and expand laterally, and the channel would adjust by
aggrading. In addition, the expanding bar would eventually limit (or block) flow at the channel mouth,
causing flows to shift to either side and further distributing the sediment. Wind and boat-wake-formed
waves would further redistribute the river mouth sediment along the shore. The waves would also limit how
high the river mouth bar could build. The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few
feet above the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the Delta would be equal to the
winter lakes level(el. 16.9),which is approximately 1 ft higher than the existing channel bottom.
Surveys of the May Creek channel on the delta conducted in 2002(Otak 2002)indicate that the bed elevation
has incised approximately 2 feet upstream of the main bridge - Id about 0.5 foot downstream of the main
bridge relative to the survey conducted in 1993 (INCA 19931 and. hese differences indicate the potential
for grade changes in the lower May Creek channel. A grade co • structure at the stream gage at the BNSF
bridge controls the upstream incision,but lateral migration and bank erosion of stored alluvium are the main
source of the gravel and cobbles present within the project area.
2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling
Based on field observations, there is a transition in the bed surface substrate from-sandy gravel to sand
within the proposed alternative stream reach. Flood flows can easily transport the sand through the May
Creek channel, until the transport is influenced by the lake backwater effect(lower bridge). However,based
on sediment transport modeling and literature information (Andrews 1993), gravel and cobbles would not be
expected to be so easily transported to this point(Table B-2).
Table B-2. Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results
Mobile Particle Size(cm)
Flow Rate Cross Section 4a Cross Section 9a
25 cfs (mean annual flow) 0.01 1.0
2-year flow(391 cfs) 4.8 5.3
589 cfs(1990 flood) 4.5 7.0
1,058(100-year flow) 3.4 12.0
Source:Andrews(1983).
a See Figure B-2.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-6 March 2004
The predicted mobile sediment size at cross section 4 decreases at greater flow rates due to backwater from
the lowest bridge (Attachment B). During the largest floods, the gravel and cobbles move and form a layer
in the delta deposits beyond the river mouth. This layer is typically covered by sand during base flows and
small magnitude floods,giving the May Creek Delta layering.
Limited surface samples and pebble counts were obtained in the vicinity of the May Creek Delta as part of
this analysis (Attachment B). Surface samples collected from the upstream end of a channel bar are
considered to be representative of the sediment that is transported in the May Creek canyon and delivered to
the delta (Attachment B). Based on this sampling, it was estimated that sand makes up about 24 percent of
the river alluvium. The sand is derived from the stored alluvium along the channel and from erosion II
occurring further up May Creek Valley.
A surface pavement of coarser material is indicated by pebble count Sample MC-4 (Attachment B). The
surface pavement varies across the channel and along the channel, but the upstream Sample MC-4 and the
pavement pebble count across the delta channel are both considered to be typical of the surface substrate.
When May Creek stream flow reaches Lake Washington,backwater effect flow velocity is lowered,resulting
in a substrate composed of sand (Attachment B). This sand is typical of the lower river starting
approximately 75 feet upstream of the last bridge and extending into Lake Washington.
2.4 - FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS
The proposed alternative study area extended from Lake Washington (RM 0.00) upstream to the railroad
bridge (RM 0.22). The floodplain associated with the future 100-year mitigated flows was mapped in this
location to evaluate the potential for flooding on the site, and to evaluate potential setback and mitigation
alternatives. The 100-year floodplain is defined as the area inundated during a storm event with a 100-year
return period, or the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation in any given year.
2.4.1 Hydraulic Model
The floodplain associated with May Creek in the study area was mapped using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model
(USACOE 2001) and Parker sediment equations. HEC-RAS uses a one-dimensional energy equation to
calculate water surface profiles using steady flow equations (USACOE 2001). The model has basic data
requirements for geometric data and steady flow data. Geometric data used for the study area reach included
river system schematic data, cross,section geometry and downstream reach lengths, bridge data, and energy
loss coefficients. The steady flow data included flow regime, boundary conditions, and discharge
information. The basic data requirements are discussed in detail in the following sections.
2.4.1.1 Geometric Data
River System Schematic
The study reach included a total of 1,125 lineal feet of channel. The river stationing for the model started at
the confluence of May Creek and Lake Washington(RM 0.0), with the stationing increasing in the upstream
direction.
Cross Section Geometry and Downstream Reach Lengths
Channel cross sections define the flow area of the river. Cross sectional data includes ground station and
elevation points that define the channel and overbank areas. The cross sectional geometry was developed
using a topographic survey conducted by OTAK (OTAK 2002). Vertical datum for the mapping and NEC-
RAS model is NAVD 88/91.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-7 March 2004
4
For each cross section, the left and right bank stations were assigned to demarcate the boundary between
main channel and overbank flow areas. The bank stations for each cross section were determined using
notes made as part of the OTAK survey.
The geometry data between Sections 2 and 9 were manually modified to account for overbank flow on the
northern bank (Figure B-2). .The survey data indicated that the northwest bank (levee) was the high point
and that the land generally sloped down from this point to the lake. To more accurately represent flooding
conditions, the cross.sections were extended to the northwest at an elevation equal to the bank elevation.
This reduced the amount of flood storage provided in the overbank area, and more accurately represents
flooding conditions at the site.
Cross sections were spaced between 5 and 188 feet apart to represent reaches with different geometric
characteristics. The model contained a total of 22 cross sections (Attachment A).
Bridges
The lower(farthest downstream),middle, and upper(farthest upstream)bridges were modeled in.HEC-RAS.
Bridge geometry was surveyed in the field to a tenth of a foot vertical and horizontal. This information was
verified using the results from a previous study(Table B-3)(INCA 1993).
Table B-3. Summary of Bridge Geometry
Bridge Opening Low Chord Height. High Cord Bridge Deck
Width(feet) (feet) (feet) Width(feet)
Lower Barbee Mill Bridge 18.2 20.8 23.0 14
Middle Barbee Mill Bridge 40.6 23.3 25.0 4
Upper Barbee Mill Bridge 28.0 23.8 27.0 38
A new bridge is proposed for the site; however,no design information was provided, so it was assumed that
the bridge would not hydraulically confine the 100-year flow.
Energy Loss Coefficients
The model evaluates energy losses using Manning's roughness coefficient for frictional losses, contraction
and expansion coefficients for transitional losses, and bridge coefficients for entrance and exit losses.
Manning's Roughness Coefficient
Manning's roughness coefficients were estimated for the channel and floodplain using pebble counts, field
observations, and the USGS methodology for estimated hydraulic roughness (USGS 1989). Pebble counts
were performed at two sites within the study reach by measuring at least 100 particles for each site and are
generally representative of the overall stream roughness (Wolman 1954; Leopold 1970; Bunte and Abt
2001). The results of the pebble counts indicate that the stream has a very course gravel substrate in the
upper portions of the site and a sandy substrate in the lower portion of the site, downstream of the lowest
bridge.
- I,
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-8 March 2004
II
I �
Overall channel-and overbank roughness values were estimated for the model using the equation from the
USGS methodology(USGS 1989):
n=(nb+nl+n2+n3+mein
Where:
nb=Base value;channel substrate
ni =Degree of irregularity
n2=Cross section variation
n3=Obstructions
n4=Vegetation
m=Degree of meandering
The USGS methodology has subcategories for each variable (nb, ni, n2, n3, n4, and m) based on the general
characteristics of the stream or floodplain. Each subcategory has a range of roughness coefficients. The
appropriate subcategory for the study area channel and floodplain were selected using field data and
observations (Tables B-4 and B-5).
Table B-4. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness
Range
Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035
ni.. Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005
n2-• Alternating occasionally he main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005
- n3 Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 0.000 0.004
p-rcent of - r•s - '••- .
na Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01
m Minor Sinuosity=1.04 1.0 1.0
n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.032 0.059
Table B-5. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness
Range
Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035
ni Minor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in many 0.001 0.005
locations
n2 na
n3 Negligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the 0.000 0.004
floodplain
na small The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations with 0.001 0.01
minor shrubs and grass adjacent to the channel
m na 1.0 1.0
n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.03 0.054
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report . B-9 March 2004
The high values from the USGS method for the channel correspond with the FEMA 1996 roughness values
of 0.06, so this value was used for the channel. A roughness coefficient value of 0.026 was used in cross
sections 3, 2.3, 2.25, 2.15, 2.1, 2, 1, and 0 because the channel is predominately sand substrate in this
location (USGS 1989). The FEMA estimate of the floodplain roughness was 0.07, which is higher than the
USGS value. The FEMA value was used to estimate floodplain roughness because it is more conservative.
Attachment C provides a complete summary of Manning's "n" values that could be used to represent
potential mitigation scenarios where large woody debris and riparian plantings could increase the channel
and floodplain roughness.
Expansion and Contraction Coefficients
HEC-RAS uses expansion and contraction coefficients to estimate energy loss between cross sections due to
changes in cross sectional geometry. The calculation is based on changes in velocity head. The study reach
was modeled using a contraction coefficient of 0.1 and an expansion coefficient of 0.5, which are the values
recommended in the user manual for gradual transitions (USACOE 2001).
Entrance and Exit Loss Coefficients
ji
Energy loss is common at bridges that confine the channel and floodplain. For this reason, the expansion
and contraction coefficient were modified at cross sections immediately upstream and downstream of each
bridge. The contraction coefficient was modified to 0.3 for the cross section upstream of each bridge and the
expansion coefficient was modified to 0.5 at the cross section downstream of each bridge. These are the
HEC-RAS recommended values for bridges(USACOE 2001).
2.4.1.2 Steady Flow Data •
Discharge rates for the future mitigated 100-year return frequency event, which was estimated using the
method summarized in Section 3.1, was used in the HEC-RAS model. A subcritical flow regime was used
for this analysis, which is applicable to calculations for water surface profiles greater than or equal to the
critical depth.
The water surface elevation at the downstream boundary of the hydraulic model was estimated using
USACOE Lake Washington water surface elevations (WSE) measured at the Ballard Locks. The USACOE
WSE on the day of the survey was 21.52 feet, and the OTAK surveyed WSE was 18.43 feet. This
difference, which was due to differences in vertical datum, is 3.09 feet. This information was used to
convert the winter lake level to the project datum to accurately represent the lake WSE during a period in
which a 100-year storm event is likely to occur (November to February). The USACOE regulates the lake
level, and in the winter the elevation is approximately 20 feet. This estimated elevation was converted to the
project datum,resulting in a downstream WSE of 16.9 feet being used for the modeling.
2.4.1.3 Calibration
The model was not specifically calibrated using a series of measured data. However, anecdotal information
during the 1990 event indicated that the water level nearly reached the top of the bank,but did not flow over.
This 1990 event was modeled, with the model predicting similar results(Table B-6).
FEMA mapped a 100-year floodplain associated with May Creek on the site; however,the FEMA study did
not extend to the mouth of the creek. The FEMA map begins at the upper Barbee Mill Bridge
(approximately RM 0.14) and has a 100-year flood depth of approximately 4.5 feet. The FEMA map shows
a 100-year flood depth of approximately 3.5 feet at the upstream project limit, which is immediately
downstream of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The FEMA map indicates that the existing 100-year
floodplain varies in width and is located to the south of the Burlington Northern railroad spur line that
services the Barbee Mill. The HEC-RAS model was also run with the FEMA 100-year flow rate to calibrate
the results (Table B-7).
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-10 March 2004
Table B-6. Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages
Cross Section 1990 Flood Elevation Levee Elevation Difference
(feet) (feet) (feet)
8 25.6 26.5 0.9
7 24.9 25.3 0.4
6.75 24.0 25.0 0.9
6.7 24.0 25.0 0.9
6 _ 23.3 24.5 1.2 5 22.6 23.8 1.2
4.4 21.9 23.0 1.1
Table B-7. Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results
Depth(feet) Width (feet)
Cross Section FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Differencea FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Difference
11 3.5 6.6 I 3.1 50 I 36 14
5 4.5 5.9 1.4 70 I 52 18
a Depth in the HEC-RAS model was measured from the thalweg,which may explain the difference.
As shown in Table B-7 the HEC-RAS model results for the FNMA 1995 flow rate are similar in width. By
comparing the HEC-RAS results to the FEMA 1995 flow (using the right bank elevations), the HEC model
indicates that the flood stages only exceed the bank in one location, which is due to the influence of the
bridge. This may not have been evaluated in the FEMA model. Therefore, it was concluded that the HEC-
RAS model accurately reproduced the results of the FNMA 1995 floodplain, and the increased floodplain
extent is due to an increase in the 100-year return frequency flow rate(previously discussed).
I .'
2.4,1.4 Model Limitations
Deposition of sediment and build-up of bars and bed elevations is a natural feature of deltaic systems. The
HEC-RAS model did not simulate sediment transport and the potential influence this would have on flood
levels. The buildup of the delta was estimated using the methods discussed in Section 2.3. Results from this
analysis were modeled using HEC-RAS to simulate flood levels under future conditions.
I
2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping
The floodplain depth during the future 100-year return frequency flow was calculated for May Creek in the
proposed alternative reach. The resulting floodplain width was interpolated between cross sections. The
floodplain width on the north side of May Creek (right bank) was estimated to extend to Lake Washington
(Figure B-2). The existing floodplain is described in the affected environment section and was
considered the existing condition for this analysis. L/
2.5 IMPACT AND MITIGATION EVALUATION
The HEC-RAS model was used to evaluate potential impacts associated with a range of development and
mitigation scenarios.
• Scenario 1 - Development would occur on the site as proposed with no levees or fill would be
constructed to protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS-Floodplain Technical Report B-11 March 2004
I i
The middle bridge on the site is removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the
floodplain.
• Scenario 2—Development would occur on the site as proposed. Levees or fill would be constructed
at a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development
from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site is
removed and replaced with a bridge that does hot affect the floodplain.
• Scenario 3—Development would occur on the site as proposed. Levees or fill would be constructed
at a 100-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development
from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site is
removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain.
• Scenario 4-Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be
removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect
the floodplain; dredging operations would be discontinued.
• _ Scenario 5 -Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be
removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect
the floodplain. Levees or fill would be constructed at a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water to
confine the stream and protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be
discontinued.
\• Scenario 6-Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be
removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect
the floodplain. The existing channel cross section would be modified to create a floodplain bench;
dredging: 0tohld
be discontinued.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-12 March 2004
7
r
4
I / !-- 4
Y✓
I /
_._ ._____4
,„,
r 2 /
/9/
....„....,..._ „,..., ..,. _ 1 / g
,..r.-7-------
, )
i-- .e,/,);4
. ,
t \ x• / j /
' 1 y /1 S? I I ,
I i
ice_ �' r/ r�. / �O
i .• \ LIMITS OF FLOODPLAIN 7 � / A,
1/ , / ,O�/
L�i, /// / / Rio /1
C \ ) / Rs,f 11/
c//4/...\Nri
#06, z,„-:// 9S-'--v-.:---7:„, -,1 i,i ' i ,--' •-..
I I RS 6.75 �,f `1 ' `., / / 1, / 1
R
LAKE i I ,%' {b°� � / LEA /, LIMITS OF
WASHINGTON 1 y '�N RS �. I � / ' FLOODPLAIN
1 ` i / /
f 1 t / r� if// /AY CREEK
///) tRS' RS 4.35• RS4.25 / 7// i r /
��`sd v\k e/ s 4.4 /` y /
N^ `' ' / `��r.,. if,
UPPER BRIDGE,„ / //
," • / ( ''..,,,,
_,,,�./'r ,g�'.Vim` . / 4, / i /
\\-- • . ...--,( -i.r41. \/,,,./__‘./ 7,1/7,,,BRID EN \--\,,_,,,.„...„ /
" { / /
, t ; i ,
..,, __*._41,7 ! 7://1 '' is. i / i ./
"r N 40TH ST
o
1 0,11)A , LOWER BR
IDGE
r j
Parametrix DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-B-02
Figure B-2
100-YR FLOODPLAIN Barbee Mill Reach
NO SCALE —--•—•••— MAY CREEK CENTERLINE
100-yr Floodplain
���
�iI RS# RIVER STATION IN HEC-RAS MODEL with Future Flowrates
•
3. 'AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The May Creek watershed drains the foothills of Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, and Newcastle Hills.
This study focuses on the lower portion of May Creek including the delta, from Lake Washington to the
Railroad Bridge.
3.1 HISTORIC DELTA
The May Creek Delta is a depositional area that extends underwater in Lake Washington approximately
3,000 feet and extends upstream to approximately RM 0.6. However, I-405 and the railroad bridge limit the
upstream extent of the delta. The delta has been building over approximately the last 13,600 years (King
County 1995). The 1897 USGS quad range maps show the delta as a wetland area, and historically the May
Creek channel would have migrated throughout the delta area. Under natural conditions, streams generally
form a number of distributary channels in the delta(USACOE 1994). The low gradient of the stream in the
project area is influenced by Lake Washington. Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916
lowered Lake Washington's water level by 9 feet to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of
May Creek's lower channel, which caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic
May Creek delta. This shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake.
3.1.1 Channel Morphology
Subsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the
channel,resulting in high ground similar to levees along each bank, with the west side being lower relative to
the east bank. These levees concentrate flow in the fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment
transport capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill
over the west bank, the flood height could only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill
north and west across the delta toward the lake. This, along with the relatively low gradient caused by the
1 lake backwater effect (and the presence of bridge foundations), would limit the sediment transport capacity
during flood events.
Historic activities at the Barbee Mill site have affected the geomorphology of lower May Creek by
unnaturally confining it. In addition, since the 1950s Barbee Mill has been dredging approximately 2,000
cu ards of sediment per year from the mouth of May Creek to allow the mill to continue its operations
( nd Cinnty 2001).
3. CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION
Alluvium in the lower May Creek channel consists of cobbles, gravel, and sand. The channel substrate is
typically sub-round. Based on field observation of the channel, in the proposed alternative reach, there is a
transition from course sandy gravel in the upper portion of the site to predominately sand in the lower
portion entering Lake Washington.
The May Creek floodplain within the proposed alternative site has very little vegetation, as it is primarily
covered with asphalt associated with the Barbee Mill. Some small shrubs,grass,and alders are located along
the tops of the high banks. Trees, understory vegetation, and large woody debris, which are a critical part of
the formative process for stream channel substrate,streambanks, and floodplains, are lacking at the proposed
alternative site.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-15 March 2004
3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
In general, the 100-year floodplain width and depth are influenced by the three existing bridges, and the
predicted 100-year floodplain would cover most of the proposed alternative site downstream of cross section
9 (Figure B-1; Attachment B).
•
3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions
Hydraulic restrictions occur in locations where topographic features, fill, and/or structures encroach on the
floodplain. In general, as the floodplain becomes more confined, flood depths increase and the erosive
power of the stream increases. Hydraulic restrictions can be either natural or man-made.
3.3.1.1 Natural Hydraulic Restrictions
Natural hydraulic restrictions are defined as locations where the 100-year floodplain is equal to or greater
than the channel migration zone and the channel sinuosity is controlled by the valley. Because the proposed
alternative site is located on the delta of May Creek, which consists of alluvial sediments deposited by the -
stream,there are no natural hydraulic restrictions in this reach.
3.3.1.2 Man-Made Hydraulic Constrictions
Within the proposed alternative study area, three bridges cross May Creek: Lower, Middle and Upper
Barbee Mill Bridges. The fill and structure at each bridge locally confines the 100-year floodplain. In
addition, as previously discussed, the banks along most of the proposed alternative reach have been built up
with fill and are armored with riprap, which confines the creek to a single channel.
•
Ci o Renton 554-1779-017 02.02
n' f !
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-16 March 2004
I - I
4. IMPACTS
- I
Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with'the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many
factors, including the erosive force of the river, the nature of the material protecting the proposed alternative
development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three
proposed alternative scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from
the thalweg of May Creek) were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate
of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995 — see Table B-1). The existing condition assumes the existing channel_
configuration,delta elevation(which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three
bridges.
The three proposed development scenarios all assume that dredging has been discontinued(thus allowing the
delta to aggrade at the mouth of May Creek). The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than
a few feet above the typical winter lake level,for this analysis it was assumed that the delta elevations would
be equal to the winter lakes level (elevation 16.9), which is approximately 1 foot higher than the existing
channel bottom. The three proposed alternatives also assumed that the existing middle bridge has been
replaced with a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the development scenarios
assume the following:
• Scenario 1—No levees or fill;
•
• Scenario 2 — The proposed development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot
setback from ordinary high water; and
• Scenario 3 — The proposed development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot
setback from ordinary high water.
c 4.1 SCENARIO 1 —NO LEVEES OR FILL
Under Scenario 1, the proposed development within the 100-year floodplain, as mapped in the affected
environment section, is susceptible to flooding, erosion, and sediment deposition due to natural channel
processes in a delta. The degree of potential impacts to the proposed alternative is difficult to quantify due to
the stochastic nature of events that result in deposition (channel aggradation), flooding, and channel P�
migration.
4.2 SCENARIO 2—50-FOOT SETBACK
Under Scenario 2,a levee or fill would be constructed at a 50-ft setback to protect the proposed development
from flooding. It was assumed that the development would be built on a levee or fill high enough to protect
against flooding during a 100-year flood event. This would confine flood flows to a narrow corridor and
result in slightly increased flood stages at most of the cross sections in the model (Table B-8). There is a
strong correlation between development within a floodplain and the level of impact to the stream. Stream
and floodplain hydraulics would be affected in locations where the proposed alternative would encroach on
the floodplain and/or stream channel through the construction of fill or levees. Fill and levees within the
floodplain would impact the hydraulics of flood flows and could reduce the amount of overbank storage and
increase water surface elevations, which in turn could result in upstream and downstream bed erosion
flooding, lateral instability, which results in bank erosion, and channel avulsion, which occurs when the
stream leaves the main channel and forms a new channel in another location. In addition, stopping annual
dredging operations would result in bed aggradation, which would likely increase floodplain elevations.
Impacts to aquatic resources resulting from sediment transport, sediment deposition,and scour are addressed
in the Fisheries Technical Report.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02) _
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-17 March 2004
It was assumed that the project would remove the existing middle bridge and replace it with a bridge that
would not restrict the 100-year floodplain; and it conservatively assumed the other two bridges on the site
would remain with no modifications (the potential benefits associated with the removal and/or replacement
of these bridges is discussed in the mitigation section). The proposed alternative condition also assumes
aggradation of the stream channel near the mouth (Attachment A). Increases in flood stages result in
increased channel scour and bank erosion,which could result in impacts to habitat and water quality.
Table B-8. Increases in 100-Year 1 Floodplain Depth with Setbacks
100-year Floodplain Depth 2(feet)
Proposed Alternative Scenario 4
Cross Existing No Setback/ 50-foot Setback with 100-foot Setback with
Section Condition3 No Levees or Fill Levees or Fill Levees or Fill
11 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.1
10 6.6 6.8 7.0 6.9
9 7.4 7.7 8.0 7.8
8 6.4 6.4 7.8 7.6
7 8.0 8.1 9.1 9.0
6 5.9 6.0 6.6 6.5
5 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.8
4 5.1 5.9 6.5 6.3
3 5.9 6.9 7.5 7.3
2 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0
1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
Future 100-year mitigated flow(King County 1995)
2 As measured form May Creek's thalweg.
3 Assumes existing channel configuration,delta elevation,and three bridges.
Assumes dredging discontinued and that the existing middle bridge has been replaced by a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain.
The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 2.3. However, because •
the site is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating,potential aggradation would continue
and floodplain depths would eventually exceed the above estimates.
As discussed in the affected environment section, the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The
Army Corps of Engineers Manual (1994) discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge
increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of allowing flood
flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels, the levees can lead to upstream
degradation (bed erosion and downcutting) and downstream aggradation (sediment deposition and flatter
slope). In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can require periodic raising,particularly if
the river is confined artificially to a single channel" (USACOE 1994). In addition, the potential for channel
avulsions upstream should also be evaluated(USACOE 1994).
4.3 , SCENARIO 3 -100-FOOT SETBACK
Scenario 3 is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly less than Scenario 2(see Table B-8).
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS-Floodplain Technical Report B-18 March 2004
4.4 PROPOSED BRIDGE
The main bridge proposed to access the site was independently evaluated (Attachment D). In general, the
proposed bridge does not span the floodplain and would result in some backwater effect during high flows.
This bridge was modeled assuming the modified channel mitigation scenario, and still results in some
overtopping of the right bank during the 100-yr storm event. It is likely that without the modified channel
the bridge, as proposed,would result in more flooding.
I '
I\ _
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-19 March 2004
«<THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY>>>
•
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-20 March 2004
5. MITIGATION
Potential flooding mitigation measures to protect the proposed development from flooding could include
constructing levees or constructing the proposed alternative on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-
year flood level as discussed in the Impacts Section (King County 2001). The model predicts an average
maximum floodplain depth of 1-foot above the ground surface during the 100-yr flood. Therefore, the levee
or fill should be at least 2-feet above the existing ground elevation,to provide 1-foot of freeboard as required
by RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. More detailed analysis would need to be performed to evaluate a design. These
mitigation measures could protect the development from flooding. Also, continued dredging at the mouth of
May Creek could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures. In addition, all
existing bridges could be removed or replaced with bridges that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain.
However,potential impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction would have to be mitigated
to reduce impacts to the stream. In general, impacts associated with placement of fill in the floodplain and
levee construction could potentially be mitigated by providing compensatory storage. To provide the
greatest benefit to the stream, compensatory storage should be provided at the project site or at a location
immediately upstream. This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by removing an equivalent volume of
historic fill adjacent to the stream at an elevation greater than the bank and less than the 100-yr floodplain
elevation. Unless sufficient mitigation measures are implemented and maintained, significant unavoidable
flooding and floodplain impacts could occur.
As part of this analysis two mitigation scenarios were further evaluated:
• Scenario 4-remove or replace the existing bridges with bridges that span the floodplain, and
• Scenario 6-modify the existing channel cross section to create a floodplain bench.
' 5.1 MITIGATION SCENARIO 4
Scenario 4 would remove the bridge at Station 6.8 and replace the bridges at stations 4.3 and 2.2 with bridges
that do not encroach on the floodplain. Under this scenario May Creek would still overtop the right bank and
flood flows would spread out over the floodplain and flow to Lake Washington. Therefore, the proposed
mitigation scenario of just removing and/or replacing the bridges would not protect the proposed ,
deTo merit from flooding and a levee and/or fill would be needed. Potential impacts associated with a
levee at a 50-ft setback were evaluated in Appendix E as Scenario 5. As stated above, levees and fill that
confine the floodplain have additional impacts to the stream such as increased flood stages, erosion and
scour. Detailed hydraulic information for this scenario is provided in Appendix E.
5.2 MITIGATION SCENARIO 6
Scenario 6 would include a floodplain bench, in combination with removal and/or replacement of the
existing bridges. It was assumed that none of the bridges would encroach on the floodplain. The proposed
bench would be a flat area adjacent to the right bank approximately 16 to 25 feet wide and would be
constructed at an elevation approximately equivalent to the bankfull elevation of May Creek, (between 1 and
4 feet below the existing grade). It would be constructed by removing material, likely historic fill, from the
floodplain. This would provide additional capacity for flood flows and would reduce shear stress and flood
elevations, which would reduce bed and bank erosion (Attachment E).
In addition, the modified channel cross section would contain the 100-yr future mitigated flows; therefore,
during large flood events floodwaters would not escape the channel to the north. This would protect the
development from flooding, but could have long term effects to stream morphology. In addition, as
previously discussed, in a delta levees may not provide long-term flood protection due to channel
aggradation.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-21 March 2004
As discussed in the affected environment section, the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The
Army Corps of Engineers Manual (1994) discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge
increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of allowing flood
flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels, the levees can lead to upstream
degradation and downstream aggradation. In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can
require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel"(USACOE 1994).
In addition, the potential for channel avulsions upstream should also be evaluated (USACOE 1994).
•
•
•
_i
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report B-22 March 2004
6. REFERENCES
Andrews, E.D. 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river material: Geological Society of
America Bulletin 94:1225-1231.
Bunte, K. and S.R. Abt. 2001. Sampling frame for improving pebble count accuracy in coarse gravel-bed
streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(4):1001-1014.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map, King County,
Washington and Incorporated Areas,Panel 664 of 1725.
INCA Engineers Inc. 1993. May Creek Basin Plan Surveys for EBASCO Environmental,King County, and
City of Renton. Job No. 930120, 3/23/93,by R.G.Hilliard and M.J.DuBray.
King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water
Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department-Surface
Water Utility.
King County. 1999a. Chapter 21A-24, rules and regulations of the department of development and
environmental services, sensitive areas; alteration within channel migration areas. Department of
Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington.
King County. 1999b. Channel migration boundary reassessment study guidelines. Department of
Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton.
April2001.
King County and City of Renton. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Condition Report. Prepared by
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. Prepared for King County Surface Water Management
Division and City of Renton Surface Water Management Division.
Leopold, L. 1970. An improved method for size distribution of stream gravel bed. Water Resources
Research 6(5):1357-1365.
Otak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County,
Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002.
USACOE(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1994. Engineering and Design-Channel Stability Assessment
for Flood Control Projects. Engineering Manual 1110-2-1418.
USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. Hydraulic Engineering Center -River Analysis System
(HEC-RAS) Version 3.0.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis,
California.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural
Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper 2339.
Wolman, G.M. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river bed material. Trans.American Geophysics Union
35:951-956.
ATTACHMENT A
Hydraulics Support Documents — Results
I 1 1 I
_
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 11 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 10
.07-- —.06 07 1 .07---+--.06 )]a .07
34 34
Legend
Legend
32 WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
30 WS 1990 Flood 30 WS 1990 Flood
■
■
Ground Ground
0 28 Willigl
Bank Sta g. 28 •
Bank Sta
m72„ Vann
m
lL 26 Et. �,_ a. 26 �'r"r -�
C d x?} w �, .k Y4T
\i „I F 5
24 tiL4 24 �V�O,
22 .22
20 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=9 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=8
32 It--.07 �< .06 �< .07 .130 .07�0 1( .07
Legend 6 Legend
WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996
30
WS FEMA 1996 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
■ •
-I Ground Ground
- • V 26 Mr
pp Bank Stagy, Levee
26- „f ,L x �1 a s" •
> = }cis
as
as
fry_ Bank Sta
w L �'; ',---?-24 w 24
_ a.,
24- t ; 7.
,-. €
r 22
{"
t
20i i 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=7 River= May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6.9
<.07)1 .07 <_ .07 >I
28- 0 28 07�0�
6 Legend 6 Legend -
♦ ♦ ]
•
WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
•
• r i WS 100-yr Future Mi
26 WS 100-yr Future MI 2B-
- • WS 1990 Flood - • WS 1990 Flood
u4 . -
- Ground 4,14
a 24- v 24_ Ground
•
c u Levee c - I Ineff
o - ,; •• O
;,; Bank Ste > �^ Bank Sta
w 22- '~ w 22- t.
r -
P
ic
fi.
•
20- 20-
6 _
1 1 .
18, , , , . . . I 18 i •
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6.75 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6.7
28 0 0 .07 Legend 28-�I6� .07 d Legend
•
WS 100-yr Future MI - WS 100-yr Future Mi
26 I WS FEMA 1996 26- WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood - _ WS 1990 Flood
IIIGround Ground
24 C g 24 ❑
Levee - .
c i•'<� c Leveeis Ineff do - a'
Bank Sta
>
Ill 22 ,. Bank Ste w 22- ;,
20 20- r •
f..-.
18 18
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=5
t .07
28 0 I 07>.< .07 >{
7 6 Legend 30
6 Legend
WS 100-yr Future Mi 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi
•
26 WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood 26 •
WS 1990 Flood
Ground Ground
g 24 I ^ F 0
c Levee c 24 - Levee
o
Bank Staet 0
Bank Sta
Ili22 w 22
20
20 )
i 18
18 16
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.4 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.35
•
I < .07 ( .07
28 6 Legend 28 8 Legend
26 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
24 WS 1990 Flood 24 WS 1990 Flood
• ■
Ground
=IF: Ground
22 III
Levee g 22
c o PI
�, 0
Levee
0
al Bank Sta• m c ! Ineff
w 20 ( w 20 rl •
Bank Sta
18 ? 18
16 1 16
14 14
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.25 River= May Creek Reach= 1 RS=4.2
28 O I O 07 28 0I 0I� .07 yl
7 6 Legend 7 6 Legend
•
•
WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 100-yr Future Mi
26 WS FEMA 1996 26
WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
24 • •
Ground 24 Ground
x C v r'
c Ems`' Levee ow Levee
22 a • 22 III •
a) .ff Bank Sta
w 'R, Bank Sta w
20 20 c'
t R
r3
18 18
i
16 16
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=4 River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=3
I .07 ).1 < .07
28 0 Legend 34 0 0
Legend
r Future Mi 32 6
WS 100-
Y WS 100-yr Future Mi
26 WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
30
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
24 Ground 28 Ground
Le-
vvee - 0
c 26 Levee
• •
is 22 Bank Sta A Bank Sta
io 24
w 0 w
20 I 22 8
18
18
16 16
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Station(ft) Station(ft)
•
ow
CRO ELM ED
Preliminary
Technical Information Report
Barbee Mill
Preliminary Plat
King County, Washington
Submitted to:
Barbee Mill Company
4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N
PO Box 359
Renton,WA 98057
Prepared by:
Otak, Inc.
620 Kirkland Way
Kirkland,WA 98033
Otak Project No. 30209
April 4, 2002
0
Preliminary
Technical Information Report
Barbee Mill
Preliminary Plat
King County, Washington
Submitted to:
Barbee Mill Company
4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N
PO Box 359
Renton,WA 98057
Prepared by:
Otak,Inc.
620 Kirkland Way
Kirkland,WA 98033
1' wAof , Otak Project No. 30209
c4
V •�1
,\ %1
AL
041 o¢l Zpo April 4, 2002
Table of Contents
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Technical Information Report
April 4, 2002
Section 1 —Project Overview
Section 2 —Preliminary Conditions Summary and Conditions of
Approval
Section 3— Offsite Analysis
Section 4—Flow Control and Water Facility Analysis and Design
Section 5— Conveyance System Analysis and Design
Section 6— Special Reports and Studies
Section 7— Other Permits
Section 8—Erosion and Sedimentation Control Analysis and Design
Section 9—Bond Quantity Worksheet, Facility Summaries
and Declaration of Covenant
Section 10—Maintenance and Operations Manual
Figures:
Figure 1 —TIR Worksheet
Figure 2—Vicinity Map
Figure 3—Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics
Figure 4—Soils Map
Appendices:
Appendix A—Soils Descriptions
Appendix B —May Creek Floodways
Appendix C—Water Quality Pond Design
Appendix D — Conveyance Calculations
Section 1 — Project Overview
This project involves developing a preliminary plat for 22.9 acres on the Barbee Mill
waterfront site in Renton, Washington. The site is located between Lake Washington
Boulevard N. and the Lake Washington shoreline near the NE 44th Street/I-405
interchange in north Renton. The owner, the Barbee Mill Company, is proposing the
development of 112 lots for townhomes on the site. The development of the site will be
governed by the Renton Municipal Code and the COR2 zoning which is designated for
this property.
The project lies within Section 32 in Township 24N, Range 5E, in King County,
Washington. See Figure 2— Vicinity Map for the overall project location.
Site Drainage Characteristics
Refer to Figure 3 —Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics for subbasin locations.
Drainage water from the developed site will discharge to Lake Washington after
treatment in water quality ponds.
Soils
The site soils in the project area were identified by USDA Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) Soil Survey for King County (see Figure 4—Soils Map). The site consists of
Norma series soils, identified as a SCS Hydrologic Soil Group D soil. Norma soils are
alluvial soils which are underlain by till soils. See Appendix A—Soils Descriptions.
The following figures are included in this section:
Figure 1 —TIR Worksheet
Figure 2—Vicinity Map
Figure 3—Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics
Figure 4—Soils Map
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 1
otak
}];\p ject\30200\30209\T1R\pplat040302\le,t.wpd
Section 2 — Preliminary Conditions Summary and
Conditions of Approval
Conditions and Requirements are yet to be established by the City of Renton for the
preliminary plat application.
,
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 2
otak
H:\project\30200\30209\TTR\ppint0.10302\te<t.xpd
Section 3 — Offsite Analysis
There are no significant offsite drainage issues on the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat.
The Burlington Northern Railroad bordering the site on the east intercepts any
significant upstream drainage. Streets "E" and"F" connect the residential site to Ripley
Lane. Drainage from these streets is collected and conveyed via proposed storm drain
lines to the water quality pond WQ1.
The site outlets into Lake Washington, which has a High Water Mark of approximately
19.5 feet. (Reference: Land Title Survey of South Parcel for JAG Development, Renton,
WA Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. 11/6/96 Sheet 2 of 3). The finished grades of the site
have been set accordingly to provide adequate conveyance and prevent flooding. This
high water mark on the Roed & Hitchings plans compares to published Lake
Washington Ordinary High Water Marks (OHWM) of 15.13 feet (NGVD 1929).
May Creek flows in a southwesterly direction through the site and outlets into Lake
Washington. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) shows the 100-year flood level
ranging from 21 feet (NGVD 1929) at Section A to 23 feet (NGVD 1929) at Section C.
See Appendix B for delineation of 100-year floodways. May Creek does not appear to be
a flooding risk since it is well contained within its banks. There are three existing
stream crossings that do not obstruct the creek and will be maintained for the future
development. The stream buffer, however, will be increased to 50 feet.
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 3
otak
H:\project\30200\30209\TTR\ppint0d0302\te,t.npd
Section 4 — Flow Control and Water Quality
Facility Analysis and Design
Flow Control and Detention
Detention ponds are not required for this project because the site qualifies for the Direct
Discharge Exemption in the 1998 King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
(KCSWDM). The site discharges to Lake Washington, a major receiving water listed on
page 1-29, Table 1.2.3.b.
Water Quality
KCSWDM Core Requirement No. 8— Water Quality requires that runoff from pollution
generating surfaces must be treated. The proposed design includes two water quality
ponds to treat runoff before discharging to Lake Washington. The water quality
treatment is necessary because more than 5,000 square feet of pollution-generating
impervious surface area will be created at the site.
The drainage area north of May Creek will drain to water quality pond WQ1. The area
includes the residential area consisting of approximately 8.02 impervious acres and 4.89
pervious acres. It also includes Streets "E" and"F" which connect the site to Ripley
Lane. These streets have a drainage area of approximately 0.89 impervious acres.
Approximately 47,301 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per the KCSWDM
Section 6.4.1. The elevation for the top of sediment storage will be located at 19.0 feet
and the design WQ surface elevation will be located at 21.0 feet. See Appendix C—
Water Quality Pond Design for calculations of water quality volumes. The measured
volume for the preliminary WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900 cubic feet.
The area south of May Creek will drain to a smaller water quality pond WQ2. The area
includes residential areas, streets and an access road to Lake Washington Boulevard
North for a total drainage area of approximately 2.18 acres, of which 1.93 acres is
impervious. The required water quality volume for this drainage area is 9,210 cubic feet
as shown in Appendix C. The pond shown on the plan sets has a water quality volume
of approximately 11,026 cubic feet when the water quality surface elevation for Pond
WQ2 is set at approximately 20.0 feet. Following water quality treatment, water will
discharge directly to Lake Washington.
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 4
otak
H:\project\30200\30209\T1R\pplat040302\text.wpd
Section 5 — Conveyance System Analysis and Design
The storm drainage system (Figure 3—Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics) is
sized to convey the 100-year/24 hour storm with the water quality ponds in their
overflow conditions. The following briefly describes the conveyance system for the
preliminary plat.
Storm Drains to the Water Quality Pond WQ1
Three storm drain lines (Lines 1, 2 and 3) collect flow from the area north of May Creek.
The pipes were designed to convey the 100-year flow rate without overtopping the rims.
The 100-year design flowrates at selected catch basins were determined by using the
Rational Method. The King County Backwater model (KCBW) was then applied to the
storm drain lines extending upstream from water quality Pond WQ1 to catch basins D,
.G and J, respectively. The backwater elevation during overflow operation in Pond WQ1
was assumed to be 21.5 feet, 0.5 foot above the water quality surface elevation.
Appendix D provides preliminary calculations to show that the storm water conveyance
system meets the 1998 KCSWDM Section 4 stormwater conveyance standards.
Storm Drains to the Water Quality Pond WQ2
One 18-inch trunk line (Line 4) serves the area south of May Creek. Water surface
elevations were determined at selected catch basins using the KCBW program. The
tailwater at Pond WQ2 when in the overflow condition was assumed to be 20.5 feet. See
Appendix D for preliminary conveyance calculations.
•
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 5
otak
}S:\project\30200\30209\TTR\pplato 10302\text.n pd
Section 6 — Special Reports and Studies
A geotechnical report was prepared by Golder and Associates, Report to Barbee Mill
Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site Development dated August 9, 2000
(revised on December 18, 2001). This report was developed for a previous site proposal
developed by Triad Associates. That proposal is summarized in the Barbee Mill Property
Preliminary Storm Drainage Report dated July 10, 2000.
There is a category 3 wetland located adjacent to the site boundary within the railroad
right of way. The wetland was determined to have an area of 6,151 sf in a wetland
study by David Evans and Associates, Wetland Determination Report on the JAG
Development Property dated May 1997. This wetland was field verified by Raedeke
Associates in March 2002 and was found to have a slightly larger area of approximately
6,250 sf.
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 6
otak
\PMed\30200\30209\77R\pplet040302V ezt.ayd
Section 7 — Other Permits
The expected permits for this project are:
• Preliminary Plat Approval from the City of Renton
• SEPA Threshold Determination from the City of Renton
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from the City of Renton
• Clearing and Grading Permits form the City of Renton
• Building Permits from the City of Renton
• HPA from the Department of Fish and Wildlife
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 7
otak
H:\p.J..\30200\30209\TIR\ppin10d0302\texl.wpd
Section 8 — Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Analysis and Design
Best Management Practices
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment control shall be implemented
according to the standards specifically outlined in 1998 KCSWDM, Appendix D. An
expanded description of the following standards will be provided with the final design
for this project:
• Clearing Limits
• Cover Measures
• Perimeter Protection
• Traffic Area Stabilization
• Sediment Retention
• Surface Water Control
• Dust Control
• Wet Season Construction
• Construction Within Sensitive Areas and Buffers
• Maintenance
• Final Stabilization
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 8
otak
H:\project\30200\30209\T1R\pp]at040302\tezt.wpd
li__I
Section 9 — Bond Quantity Worksheet, Facility Summaries,
and Declaration of Covenant
Bond Quantity Worksheets
Bond Quantity Worksheets will be provided with the final design.
The worksheets will provide an estimate of construction quantities and an estimate of
improvement costs for each project.
Declaration of Covenant
A draft Declaration of Covenant will be provided with the final design.
Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch
A Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet will be provided with the final design. It will
summarize the design parameters and will show a plan view of the water quality ponds.
•
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 9
otak
fl:\project\30200\30209\TIR\pplot040302\text.wpd
Section 10 — Maintenance and Operations Manual
The water quality ponds are to be publicly maintained and will not require the
preparation of an operations and maintenance manual.
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 10
otak
H:\project\30200\30209\TIR\pplat040302\text.epd
co
King County Department of Development and Environmental Services
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part I PROJECT OWNER AND Part 2 PROJECT LObATION AD
:
Project Owner Project Name
Barbee Mill Co.
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Address Location
4101 Lake Washington Blvd. N., PO Box 359
Renton,WA 98057 Township 24 N
Range 5 E
Phone
425-226-3900
Portions of Sections 32
Project Engineer Government Lot 1
Dan Dawson, PE
Company Otak, Inc.
Address/Phone 620 Kirkland Way
Kirkland,WA 98033/425-822-4446
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT Part 4 0'00 REYIE*SAl*PEROT'S:
• Subdivision UPD • DFW HPA • Shoreline Management
O Short Subdivision 0 COE 404 • Rockery
O Grading 0 DOE Dam Safety 0 Structural Vaults
O Commercial 0 FEMA Floodplain 0 Other-
O Other 0 COE Wetlands
Part 5T' SITE:0011;111/10NITY;MO DRAINAGE BASIN • ,
Community
City of Renton
Drainage Basin
May Creek/Lake Washington
Part 6 SITE CHARACTEIISTICS
, t
O River 0 Floodplain
I Stream May Creek • Wetlands
O Critical Stream Reach 0 Seeps/Springs
O Depressions/Swales 0 High Groundwater Table
O Lake Lake Washington 0 Groundwater Recharge
O Steep Slopes 0 Other
, „ „ . , • e
Part 7 SOILS , , • :
Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities
Norma Sandy Loam 0 to 2% Slight 1 to 3 fps
Part 8 DiE1-001VIONt'LltOPOS .
REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT
• RMC 4-4-130 Stream • 50'buffer from high water
• RMC 4-4-130 Lake II 25'buffer from high water
• RMC 4-4-130 Wetland • 25'buffer from wetland
O 0
O 0
O 0
O Additional Sheets Attached
Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS i?;'• „ '
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION
• Sedimentation Facilities • Stabilize Exposed Surface
Stabilized Construction Entrance
III Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities
III Perimeter Runoff Control
Clearing and Grading Restrictions II Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris
▪ Cover Practices II Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities
II Construction Sequence II Flag Limits of SAO and Open Space
Preservation areas
• Other:Silt/Water Quality Pond
0 Other
Part 10' SURFACE'WATER BYSTEM
O Grass Lined 0 Tank 0 Infiltration Method of Analysis
Channel
O Pipe System 0 Vault 0 Depression
Compensation/Mitigation
O Open Channel 0 Energy Dissipater 0 Flow Dispersal of Eliminated Site
Storage
O Dry Pond 0 Wetland 0 Waiver
MI Wet Pond 0 Stream 0 Regional
Detention
Brief Description of System Operation Drainage water will be conveyed to a water quality pond. It will
discharge to Lake Washington without detention.
Facility Related Site Limitations
Reference Facility Limitation
'Paif 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Part 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS
O Cast in Place Vault 0 Drainage Easement
• Retaining Wall 0 Access Easement
Rockery>4'High
O Native Growth Protection Easement
O Structural on Steep Slope
MI Tract
O Other
O Other
Pad 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
I or a civil engineer under my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were
incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided
here is accurate.
Rtr—er-Od 4 f4/ 02
Signed/Date
•XREFFL�ST
1 'Ned
C209R270
Figure — Vicinity Map
ii
0209R500
C209E130
SEAL
9BI90
' ILK
MATCHLINE — LOWER RIGHT 0' 40' 80' 160' o
J 7-77 COR-2 ZONE_ _,
..
• ,.. o.
_/,,,,. ,, ,
__ __
,, u,
,, // / //,,--- ,.. z
/ I � \./ 1 1 I I I, ,— --, 7- -71 r- I I I I 1 r� — 1 E [11L74'
/ / / /\ 21 \ 20 I 1 11 11III r— I I I /-- 1 1 // \ 16114I �♦ / j ; '
` \ / �JL I I II I II 11 5 11 4 1 31 I 2 / / / /, / 7-
\\ , ``J1 113 1112I 111110 9 8 7 I � 6 II I I / /� /♦♦ / / �O� ,/• id& , /. [ } wm
�� 23 ` ,p/� ram'''' �-- 1 11 1 II I L---J L-J__J L— /i /♦ / /. , LAKE 0 .'. i!
I > / J L I J L J �.� / '♦I WASHINGTON I ;i r h W
24 f / STREE0.°' \•� / .� S _ i / / /,• / /I T B o, ;STREET A ,..n/' / /'/*♦ /( (' Jv 1 1 r` � —�-� r// / / /. / /25 j 1 1 - 1 - 1 169 170 1177 1 1 r----, 1 `08 ,r I I I I I 1'O • :'/4,♦ / / ; IM.
0 � o
a L-_- I I I I 172 I I 1 1 . ' I I I I I i 64�✓//,///I♦ / % �`. r.,0
��I 26 I L- I -JI i 1173 741 I ( I III / :/ / /♦ // .w•"a `LI Ii
I I II 75 \ - \ 59160 1161 621 p.3 I //6 / /♦♦ / cam'LFD
ml I _JI I 1 Ie/ / /,♦ / /
L— 7---WAN. , -
r' I aIIIIII / w T '
��a r- I --1 I / r---, �/ ./ ,s / / , , ,;., • q
s r— -1178 1771 i76 58 I /' ' �i♦/ /c / `: z y \� I
e
•
wi r n -�I80 179 i 1 I i ✓/' �\ ��I /r a,♦,// {� 3 .• Qe�. �: P \ '�.
ilir
:.:, I a _,181 •I 1 I K� `�\ se� •♦/// / < -.t viz.z..-a/';° 7�=1r •i
s to r I 1182 1 I �K. /\ / // I vmx.ri' oita tri a183I IIo.., _�`� \\ \\ 55 / • ///// % II♦ /a/ _ `/� . _ � UCO
W' _--I I I V .3 \ \ 54 v • / %• / ♦ -4'/.,.•f � ill11 C4
\ 27 I r- I 1 I 84 I ¢�$ i \ 1 1\ 53 \ / • // �" / ,♦ / 7./.,.a mp t jl W L 7 o m
• I---- 1861 85 I / '/ \ \\ 1 \\ // •/ i ♦) / �� ..,.•-,.:•.7 ,•- t� oi'
I 28_ I I I/ \49 \50051 \ ,/•// •
,♦♦ / ,y LLxi. t. E 1'-.'''... tq fi • W R.otro
L--__-, 1 1 /) '^\ \ \ _,\�_ 1 �' • �. //%' ! ,♦ / 500' 0' 500' 1000' W n '
�/ I 1 I, /e" , \\ 48\ \�� mac,/ / / / _��= 0 I� CO
29 -I 1�/ 9q` n�� ,,.�,9 % G`ri� / % ♦�G /°/ SCALE IN FEET
- o kf
w j -- 1 > — . /' ///
VICINITY MAP
KE II -- _ i� �` � y / i� % ��WASHINGTON E' 1 1 32 j 1 44 \'N/ % �
e.
w `_33--\I 43 / / / %/ • < \`\110`1\ // ♦�// 4
// / Z
♦/
itii
Asa ^pl , `\.' 8' //I ♦ / /'/' ,
� .
/ \/ ♦/ 04
rg
El 1-4
.7.7•7., \/'''\\\\\\:38/ /7...•
.//..,/,//i,()// . .i(..: : _:/, fir //// 0:::#':;:,7:' ' II
L / vvv40 v / // /\ ) / • /�� �./ . / �i//
41 ♦ / _
/ . ./ • Y / ii,ci ,4
I/ / ts, 97 4 ;74./ CO ••••4 III 5
f ,...t,7 > „...1 <4 5-
/e.r.„,,,,--tYi
' /�\5 r N*i .,',
o a,, ,..__.__-. '
//5/
.SS�Cj�� Incorporated
/-) ... -
/ / {;�yv
-- E • a/ Twln \ /'91/ // I
♦� - ....w�x/ MAY CREEK
/ �O 620 Kirkland Nay 1100
' / / %:\ \/ / ♦I/ / -_
,dKukland,We 98033
• tera �' I I♦// \ -aro ran ♦`�� sf ♦♦• �y Internet: 001.0 o,olt
/ ..__.__..._.._...__..........._. Project No.
r, R-8 ZONE �'°Y •
♦♦♦' N 40TH STREET
W MATCHLINE — UPPER RIGHT Figure 2
/ 7- Sheet o.
/
" — (CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551 Sheet 1 of 1
SEE DRAWINGS )
ich .
?4,64 ,
-Rtfolt
3
glif ,19001
;--7-- .. - • • •. . .
‘-- P 1 . 1 • • Newport " -
Shores ' lif vi ••?••L• ;:.i :11 Eiilir•t I.
i5 v: •
(1--Iiii„,- . .... .. . ..•::.,: : 1 ;.4.,*:::- Ur• ....
•.. NC9 • •
••
. III
11 . " . '.....
' • •
c-71__..,{. • '• 4
I Kgd.IIIIIIIIIIII.ADiftAIIII : •
AgD •
•
•
KpID
- • •2_,r..._:
:i 11 :.:Illie 4;41° 11.."-E•
..
• . 11.„ IN ...10
• _.
..m, LJklvlai...
/trestim. KpD.4.1 C1-:::--":. . :. . if i .' .:\\' • ..,
4/1 l ..":•'\ . : I :
, ....
----C-<---- „ .--- —,5. --. _,....e
, KpB --9) .I. . • I iffs5
/ ..4 : . , :At.:•ii.iti li
_.„ Ltotto
: 040, ji KpB
)77.:
- .
%.__r\_, ,,:_____1. j[S :,,.:•;,•.:,i,,,....,:c
1.. ‘`---,__- ' P 47-14%* littip .„ - ) ) er‘• :1-e:e.,:h,a
,1 /0 ' -...• I .S.' -V i- .• ,-- • --, D. sland, •:r,. / I
. :...r" .. Bm•:1.,. Dahl\ ' ,,[ i,',,:.,.:,::'1' ...
).24: 4.• , 6.
ack IIIIII
t • Ples6're B ,..,/,// (:). ;.;f3 I itIV• 1.1
PoInt 21 / 7 :..: :,, _.. Is :m•
.. .
. ,I itt •,.
• Is . • I rest wirffii it;
Park : Pc ft
. AmC - • - ..
Miik-- .. • • . • .
7 _lik
willo w • : II I . . •.
,, ti AgC iii'.. t, . . •
I*: .11 AkF illi • „
ii : BM • . . 1 ..:' 0,
IKpD . ""29 'I I' .2".P. • •AgC • '=, .,...B ' ' --11'`m. wi-
\I 9
il i • .. '2
<??2• : : 0 AgC Al •r
in" • ki. • i I :::: ....i.",P..in,;. ..,...1:
0 —1 'Newpoll It
Hills ---
____
ill AgB •
I a
Olt InA i i • . ------
Golf Course 1111
1 , C.' •- ' • •• Evi31 40')
.1
7=. --• ,, Kp De ..(-, !
AmB
gB Air
. .
•.ttli
, 1 ,
/- ..• .2/ . . I q t . • "hi
EwC • BM '. • XI-es' '44,11 pC ..k• -9
j ..%
m'III La eridge Sch i 109 •'. 1:0
• -6,-' I
i.,". .4./ .411111 *
_ ___7t;,:, ,,,a,..._A . _____-_ :,_-.. !..., __ L OvD
I'sb
Aidif< ; :17,,,/ r tri.. AgD . . •• .. ... . ,i
..
I .:7,i.
0 .
.
BMA
... D 1
605
r /Ill':
.:,-;..,\• 1 \ KpB
• •
(1---) 1 " \
Aji .....„...it,„.. ...11: .....--...... ..,„. ......:: ..... .. .., .,.,,
.• „,,... - /pi' ' •v__,••• ..: •:. k .. :AgC
h Point " rmillii.iirriE. ii\cl',\ii r Ilk Agc, IN i. . • . k 6-.„,z1/4 ,
1 --.. : :J.: -:- ' 1. '... .. ...• . 4._____„,,Or
1I• • :•.:.: ..I " . ):. ,. ....El:3 ' ---"00- \ ' ------,.; 0
Itennydalel • . •-• .. • I : • S . ..— :...AdVir- '''' ... .N.
; •
AkF I •••-'-.... viri
"• . •InC
AkF
l'iiiii ';:••,...:.:.".::11:3 ... I * ._
AgC
•
Coleman Poin pale:: ...: 1.• - . . •-71;;, --- GRAVEL :
.. ..., . I .1-... • J -- , . PIT I : •
• •. :
.0 I i 5.111M•In•A• •i I. . " AkF
•• I CI. ' •• • ,
Nxi$7._..tr,mic, __e . T-7- ... .•
-,1?- _------&---- r9 - ' •• EvB 1
.,:-- - BM.:
BV\A•pe. ARD • ii ''' —•--L----------P—'7.:-.. ,1 BM 111 /-•,
-- N. - / . . ,1 z '
• • •• I m ',' Figure 4—Soils Map
__. -- , • • - :I- Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 04/04/02 i
,...,. • • . ,,_
'. ' 11 . •": — -
_ . ,..,.
-47 I II•,-., - -
\ ):;;..„--fb.t 1 %‘, II AmC
' -----
.,.,,. •
. „.:?:.:,: .. a .• ' 11' _„ „ -1!. - , _
c�
•�
Appendix A — Soils Descriptions
dry; massive; slightly hard, very friable; medium, subangwlar blocky structure; hard,
nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; neutral. friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic;
common roots; medium acid; clear, smooth
The A horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown boundary. 17 to 21 inches thick.
to very dark brown. The C horizon consists of layers C1--29 to 42 inches, dark grayish-brown (1OYR 4/2)
of silt loam, very fine sandy loam, sandy loam, and grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) silt loam and
loamy sand, and sand; the thickness of each layer thin lenses of very fine sandy loam, light
varies. Mottles occur at a depth below 30 to 40 brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; massive; slight-
inches in some places. ly hard, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic;
Some areas are up to 25 or 30 percent inclusions common roots; slightly acid; clear, smooth
of somewhat poorly drained Briscot, Oridia, and Wood- boundary. 10 to 15 inches thick.
inville soils; and some are up to 10 percent the C2--42 to 60 inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/3) silt
poorly drained Puget soils. Total inclusions do not loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry;
exceed 30 percent. massive; hard, friable, sticky, plastic; com-
Permeability is moderate. The effective rooting mon roots; medium acid.
depth is 60 inches or more. A seasonal water table
is at a depth of 3 to 4 feet in places. Available The B and C horizons are mostly silt loam and
water capacity is high. Runoff is slow, and the very fine sandy loam and have lenses of silty clay
erosion hazard is slight. The hazard of stream over- loam and fine sandy loam. The C horizon is dark
flow is slight to severe, depending on the amount of grayish brown, grayish brown, or dark brown.
flood protection provided. Some areas are up to 5 percent included poorly
This soil is used mostly for row crops. Capabil- drained Puget soils; and some are 10 to 15 percent
ity unit IIw-1; woodland group 2o1. the somewhat poorly drained Oridia and Briscot soils.
Also included with this soil in mapping are areas
of the poorly drained Woodinville silt loam and a
Nooksack Series few areas of a Woodinville silty clay loam. Included
soils make up no more than 15 percent of the total
The Nooksack series is made up of well-drained acreage.
soils that formed in alluvium in river valleys, Permeability is moderate. The effective rooting
under a cover of grass, conifers, and hardwoods. depth is 60 inches or more. A seasonal water table
Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual precipitation is at a depth of 3 to 4 feet in places. Available
is 35 to 55 inches, and the mean annual air tempera- water capacity is high. Runoff is slow, and the
ture is about 50° F. The frost-free season is about erosion hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a mod-
190 days. Elevation ranges from about sea level to erate to severe hazard.
S00 feet. This soil is used for row crops and pasture and
In a representative profile, the soil is very for urban development. Capability unit IIw-1; wood-
dark grayish-brown, dark grayish-brown, and grayish- land group 2o1.
brown silt loam to a depth of 60 inches or more.
Nooksack soils are used for row crops and pasture Norma Series
and for urban development.
The Norma series is made up of poorly drained
Nooksack silt loam (Nk).--This nearly level soil soils that formed in alluvium, under sedges, grass,
is in long, narrow areas that range from 5 to about conifers, and hardwoods. These soils are in basins
300 acres in size. Slopes are less than 2 percent. on the glaciated uplands and in areas along the
Representative profile of cultivated Nooksack stream bottoms. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The
silt loam, 1,800 feet east and 500 feet south of the annual precipitation is 35 to 60 inches, and the
west quarter corner of sec. 4, T. 24 N., R. 7 E.: mean annual air temperature is about 50° F. The
frost-free season is 150 to 200 days. Elevation
Ap]--0 to 2 inches, very dark grayish-brown (1OYR ranges from about sea level to 600 feet.
3/2) silt loam, grayish brown (1OYR 5/2) dry; In a representative profile, the surface layer is
few, fine, faint, dark yellowish-brown (l0YR black sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil
4/4) mottles; weak, thin, platy structure; is dark grayish-brown and dark-gray sandy loam and
slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky, non- extends to a depth of 60 inches or more.
plastic; many roots; slightly acid; abrupt, Norma soils are used mainly for pasture. If
smooth boundary. 2 to 3 inches thick. drained, they are used for row crops.
Ap2--2 to 11 inches, very dark grayish-brown (1OYR
3/2) silt loam, grayish brown (1OYR 5/2) dry; Norma sandy loam (No).--This soil occurs as strips
weak, coarse, prismatic structure; slightly 2S to 300 feet wide. Slopes are less than 2 percent.
hard, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; Areas are level or concave and range from I to about
common roots; slightly acid; abrupt, smooth 100 acres in size.
boundary. 8 to 10 inches thick. Representative profile of Norma sandy loam, in a
B2--11 to 29 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) pasture, 725 feet east and 50 feet north of the
silt loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; south quarter corner of sec. 31, T. 20 N., R.
weak, medium, prismatic structure and weak, 7 E.:
20
Appendix A
otak
Ap--0 to 10 inches, black (10YR 2/1) sandy loam, thick. The next layer is yellowish-red sphagnum
dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) dry; moderate, peat that extends to a depth of about 60 inches.
fine, granular structure; slightly hard, very Orcas soils are used mostly as wildlife habitat
friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic;
many roots; slightly acid; abrupt, smooth Orcas peat (Or).--This level or slightly concat
boundary. 10 to 12 inches thick. soil is in irregularly shaped areas that range frc
B21g--10 to 30 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) 2 to about 10 acres in size. Slopes are less that
sandy loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) percent.
dry; many, medium, prominent, yellowish-red Representative profile of Orcas peat, under wi]
(SYR 4/8) and brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles, very cranberries, 600 feet north and 650 feet west of t
pale brown (10YR 7/4) and reddish yellow east quarter corner of sec. 8, T. 24 N., R. 6 E.:
(7.5YR 6/8) dry; thin platy structure; hard,
very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; 0i1--0 to 6 inches, dark reddish-brown (SYR 3/2)
slightly acid; clear, wavy boundary. 19 to 24 sphagnum peat, very pale brown (10YR 7/3) ell
inches thick. soft, spongy; many roots; extremely acid;
B22g--30 to 60 inches, dark-gray (SY 4/1) sandy clear, smooth boundary. 6 to 8 inches thicl
loam, light gray (SY 7/1) dry; common, fine, 0i2--6 to 60 inches, yellowish-red (SYR 5/6, 4/6,
prominent, strong-brown (7.5YR 5/6) and 4/8) sphagnum peat, very pale brown (10YR 7,
reddish-yellow (7.5YR 6/6) mottles, yellowish dry; soft, spongy; few roots; extremely acic
brown (10YR 5/8) and pale brown (2.5Y 7/4) dry;
massive; slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky, The Oil horizon ranges from dark reddish brown
nonplastic; few roots; slightly acid. reddish black. Only slight decomposition has oc-
curred. The 0i2 horizon is uniformly sphagnum pet
The A horizon ranges from black to very dark that ranges from dark reddish brown through yelloo
brown and is as much as 15 percent gravel. The B ish red to very pale brown.
horizon commonly is sandy loam that in places is Some areas mapped are up to 20 percent include
stratified with silt loam and loamy sand. It is as Seattle and Tukwila mucks, and some are up to 5 pc
much as 35 percent gravel in some places. The B cent the wet Bellingham soils.
horizon is mottled gray, dark gray, and dark grayish Permeability is very rapid. There is a water
brown. table at or close to the surface for several month
Some areas are up to 5 percent included Seattle, each year. In areas where the water table is con-
Tukwila, and Shalcar soils; and some are up to 5 trolled, the effective rooting depth is 60 inches
percent Alderwood and Everett soils, at the slightly or more. In undrained areas, rooting depth is
higher elevations. In the area northwest of Auburn, restricted. The available water capacity is high.
in the Green River Valley, there are areas of Norma Runoff is ponded, and there is no erosion hazard.
soils that have an organic surface layer as thick as This soil is used mostly as wildlife habitat.
12 inches in some places. Also included are small Capability unit VIIIw-1; no woodland classificatic
areas of Norma soils that have a silt loam surface
layer.
Permeability is moderately rapid. The seasonal
water table is at or near the surface. In drained Oridia Series
areas, the effective rooting depth is 60 inches or
more. In undrained areas, rooting depth is restrict- The Oridia series is made up of somewhat poorly
ed. The available water capacity is moderately high drained soils that formed in alluvium in river
to high. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is valleys. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual
slight. Stream overflow is a severe hazard in precipitation is 35 to 55 inches, and the mean ann
places. al air temperature is about 50° F. The frost-free
This soil is used mostly for pasture. Drained season is about 200 days. Elevation ranges from
areas are used for row crops. Capability unit IIIw-3; about 0 to 85 feet.
woodland group 3w2. In a representative profile, the surface layer
dark grayish-brown silt loam about 9 inches thick.
Orcas Series The subsoil is grayish-brown, dark grayish-brown,
and gray silt loam and silty clay loam that extend
The Orcas series is made up of very poorly drained to a depth of 60 inches or more.
organic soils that formed in sphagnum moss and small Oridia soils are used for row crops and 'pasture
amounts of Labrador tea and cranberry plants. These and for urban development.
soils are in basins on the undulating, rolling
glaciated uplands. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. Annu- Oridia silt loam (0s).--This gently undulating
al precipitation is 35 to 60 inches, and the mean soil is in irregularly shaped areas. Slopes are
annual air temperature is about 50° F. The frost- less than 2 percent. Areas range from 10 to more
free season is 160 to 180 days. Elevation ranges than 200 acres in size.
from 100 to 500 feet. Representative profile of Oridia silt loam, in
In a representative profile, the surface layer is pasture, 850 feet north, 620 feet east of the
dark reddish-brown sphagnum peat about 6 inches southwest corner of sec. 12, T. 22 N., R. 4 E.:
Appendix A
otak
Appendix B May Creek Floodways
•
'o determine if flood insurance is available,contact an insurance agent or
all the National Flood Insurance Program at(800)638-6620.
1111
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET •
500 0 500
1----1
•
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
•
FIRM •
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
•
PANEL 664 OF 1725
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX
KING COUNTY.
UNINCORPORATED AREAS 530071 0664 F
RENTON.CITY OF 530088 0664 F
MAP NUMBER
53033C0664 F
MAP REVISED:
' x MAY 16, 1995
•
Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Appendix B
otak
•
LEGEND
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED
:^:.::::�; BY 100-YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A No base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined.
ZONE AH Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas
of ponding); base flood elevations
determined.
ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet
flow on sloping terrain(; average depths
determined.For areas of alluvial fan flooding. e
velocities also determined.
ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood by
Federal flood protection system under -
construction; no base elevations determined.
ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action);no base flood elevations determined.
ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave
action); base flood elevations determined.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year
flood with average depths of less than
1 foot or with drainage areas less than
1 square mile; and areas protected by
levees from 100-year flood.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-year
floodplain.
ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are
undetermined.
UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS
Identified Identified Otherwise
1983 1990 Protected Areas
Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special
Flood Hazard Areas.
Flood Boundary
Floodway Boundary
Zone D Boundary
Slat 7al%f Boundary Dividing Special Flood
Hazard Zones, and Boundary
• "w Dividing Areas of Different
Coastal Base Flood Elevations •
Within Special Flood Hazard
•
Zones.
Base Flood Elevation Line;
513 Elevation in Feet. See Map Index
for Elevation Datum.
OO Cross Section Line
Base Flood Elevation in Feet
(EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone.
•
See Map Index for Elevation Datum.
RM7X Elevation Reference Mark
•
• M2 River Mile
Horizontal Coordinates Based on North
97°07'30", 32°22'30" American Datum of 1927 INAD 27)
Projection.
• NOTES
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program;
it does not nece' arity identify all areas sehiect to floodino.uarticularly from
local drainage
Special Flood Appendix B
ota k
Coastal base f
the effects of
from those
even wine nlanninn
• JOINS PANEL 0675
t (n , ZONE X 0
1-
w
N -r
I_
LIMIT OF '+0 111). 1—[1.1
co
p
DETAILED STUDY �, K- • _-•-
,,� w
....„,„ , .:„..„
•
<,
ZONE X ;��;-M _
OCO © w
May Creek %`, ZONE AE
0
0
...) 0 iiiii,
O r► $
�� pOP RM210 A� ZONE X
�� ,.> N 40TH STREET QD v_*,i ;
Q i
¢
Q� O c�
0 �Qr MEADOWTpNORH II•
O o
F�Q it 470 p w r NORTH 38TH STREET z D
/ Z w
w Z
Q if w
z
NORTH 37TH STREET
EF"
o 152 o
NORTH ( TH STREET Q z
Lj
z
li
�, ¢ NORTH 36TH STREET }
/ 0� NORTH 36TH STREETS 32
z
/-9Z KINI_ NORTH 35TH STREET 3 • 6 UNINCORI
9/0cc 0
¢ pLij Ogib �` O
NORTH 34TH STREET
6j . :
tz:
w May
z
D NORTH 33RD PLACE r� Creek
m • ZONE X
72NORTH 33RD STREET ZONE X 1,1
ti STREET
id© f r O
Q NORTH 32ND
2 77 p
NORTH 32ND STREET ZONE
w ? r
al
NORTH < 31ST STREET c�'�
I �P�
ZONE A %,
N.
CIO
NORTH 30TH STREET NORTHEAST 30TH ZONE X
•
I
STREET
AZ.
22 `-
H .1 \ NORT Note: Datum 1929 NGVD s
Appendix B
Scale: 1" = 500' otak
IAIC11 ITu •lorU nl Art I 1 I I I NI- 7oTL1 • _.
_ /
ii`1'I FLOOD
I •L \//. ; . A).... ...,-,;,iiir, ,
INSURANC -.. '-°. :„— .... -----J-b-,e,,
E.__ A r .,i.. •. . iiir' ,12.- ' ' --
0110
STUDY . .,.,.....,,
ii**41,,i-jr"4\,* „
,, (17--.7.48:4 iliklim ..... • •Iy s. le,-
, ._ ,
r, .
.„,...„ . F _ _....
......
•
w.
>,a''.
/ '% �'
Nia
KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
VOLUME 1 OF 3 •
COMMUNITY COMMUNITY
NAME NUMBER
AUBURN,CITY OF 530073
BELLEVUE,CITY OF 530074
BLACK DIAMOND,TOWN OF 530272
BURIEN,CITY OF 530321
CARNATION,TOWN OF 530076
DES MOINES,CITY OF 530077
DUVAL,TOWN OF 530282
ENUMCLAW,CITY OF 530319
FEDERAL WAY,CITY OF 530322 '
ISSAQUAH,CITY OF 530079
KENT,CITY OF ' 530080
KING COUNTY,
UNINCORPORATED AREAS . 530071
KIRKLAND,CITY OF 530081
LAKE FOREST PARK,CITY OF 530082
NORMANDY PARK,CITY OF 530084
NORTH B Y OF 530086
(:12 •
PACIFIC,CIry ITY OF OF 530086
REDMOND,CITY OF 530087
RENTON,CITY OF 530088 -
SEATLE,CITY OF 530089
SEATAC,CITY OF 530320
� SKYKOMISH,TOWN OF 530236 ll
11, SNOQUALMIE,CITY OF 530090
TUKWILA,CITY OF 530091
WOODINVILLE,CITY OF 530324
•
•G��cY`er'MgN9 • REVISE®:MAY 16,1995
c
,�v4 o F
, , ` a fs .:
a dl Federal Emergency Management Agency
y o�_: Appendix B
otak
i
FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
SECTION MEAN REGULATORY WITHOUT I WITH INCREASE
CROSS SECTION DISTANCES WIDTH AREA VELOCITY FLOODWAY FLOODWAY
(FEET) (SQUARE (FEET PER
FEET) SECOND) (FEET NGVD)
May Creek
A 0.14 34 158 5.5 21.0 21.0 21.5 0.5
B 0.16 60 239 3.6 21.8 21.8 22.2 0.4
C 0.24 42 99 8.8 23.3 23.3 23.3 0.0
D 0.25 42 110 7.9 25.7 25.7 25.7 0.0
E 0.31 31 121 7.2 29.0 29.0 29.2 0.2
F 0.39 40 150 5.8 32.5 32.5 33.0 0.5
G 0.46 28 87 10.0' 35.8 35.8 35.8 0.0
H 0.52 23 123 7.1 40.0 40.0 40.6 0.6
I 0.57 45 165 5.3 41.8 • 41.8 42.5 0.7
J 0.63 31 89 9.7 45.3 45.3 45.3 0.0
K 0.78 33 133 6.5 55.2 55.2 55.2 0.0
L 0.94 79 143 6.1 64.7 64.7 64.7 0.0
M 1.09 33 113 7.7 76.4 76.4 76.6 0.2
N 1.25 39 128 6.6 85.4 85.4 85.4 0.0 .
O 1.36 32 89 9.6 93.1 93.1 93.2 0.1
P 1.39 40 172 4.9 95.6 95.6 96.0 0.4
Q 1.41 33 90 9.5 95.8 95.8 95.8 0.0
R 1.42 33 111 7.7 96.4 96.4 96.4 0.0
S 1.46 30 95 8.9 99.8 99.8 99.9 0.1
T 1.54 22 91 9.3 106.8 106.8 106.9 0.1
U 1.56 8 68 ' 12.5 112.2 112.2 112.2 0.0
✓ 1.61 • 43 283 2.9 114.2 114.2 115.1 0.9
•W 1.74 27 81 9.9 120.9 120.9 • 120.9 0.0
X 1.83 38 170 4.8 125.0 125.0 125.7 0.7
Y 1.96 52 101 8.0 135.8 135.8 135.8 0.0
Z 2.02 42 130 6.3 140.4 140.4 140.5 0.1
b
b
�� 1
� Miles Above Mouth
11, 11
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTAGENCY FLOODWAY DATA
KING COUNTY, WA
AND INCORPORATED AREAS MAY CREEK
.a
ELEVATION (FEET NGVD)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0
,
1.
." 1--+ r- .._....' 1 4 ;.-.1. •-I ' j__i..-�-4 1 •'..;.a'..}.__ I. .1...�. 1 .1_Y_..i r-�- ! I I _ I. 1 f i-'4-I__ '�..i...l...l_''� {
...I...I I I " { 1 1 1. L. • ` I ' 1 •1 I , ..r.. j....... '_1 1- ..1._,--i-�._._..1......_._y._. .i_..I_. :..1 _:_
•
•
,-..............1.., !--- \) I ....,. : '-'..;-1 I .t- ROE' 1) I - 1 R1OA�D
1. I j_1
L.,....._ _
{... ::_L:--- t (P F AT-E;RO
AD)
., .L.1.. ,. :......:... .1 _ I 1 •. i i : 1.• : t 4 - 4.4 .1 _. .I - i_4. - ' i i--a-, ..,._.. ,j 1
�_ 1. i i .. ' + . , 1I � •
� I � 4- i � r. ' J
� 1..... . -I- -1- { , _. -ii. 1.. .; 1__ i....J...Li I - _ .. __..J__ _t... .,_ _I_..1..� •' !_ �..: f .I _i._;..-
OI t : 1 ; i ', 1. .---1_.._�• , y 1I L 1t___ 1 _- 1 i t f I , I_t__1 _
N ...1 I , I i 'I .'..t 1 I {.. ,..1. I 't a i, 1 I
n. il+\ .. .1. .; :. ..1 t---=1 L ! ! ':;:._ . ...,. ._i_{._ _ �.1J..�i 1-:IN.
,N 0RT 1 ERN RAIL . ..i.
;
I I � - - = T N ROq -
� �'
•
1. ; 1......'. I I\I j.. I. LA14E+W 1 HI JG O I
I" ,
_ 8 I:�LEV -I
.:.:.I . .i 4_4' . ..+..,I.... :..J-'__.. -__'.._1. ! .J-. ..I .1 _ .I. _1 _HI
A ,- , - ' - I--1- - +._ _.I • -' - --i.._ 1I ,_iII '...1. -T_ i..i /..1. ---t: ___.!...1.._ - ' .� * ..�-
_,_...: 1 ,_ ,__i_ l._.,_.. A . 1 1-- 1. 1___ l ,". ._I 1 1 I . I ! t _1 ..1 -
.. I .I 1 t- .i.. . i .t..+.. I �j.i.. I t.----1.._L.-:.. _!_ _1 1 .4 1 _
I 1 -'
I
1
1.
, • f
•
_.: :. .,._1. :..1...1_....�...;-.-.;_-'..1__ ._- 1 .'.__1_.. , -.1-..! '' .., ..1.I 1 --I•_ --1.I I---I J t--1.
• I _.--fir•---'_.:_.,__:.-'- --;-.� I ' . H-I- i i �!.. -1-i _-- - - ..1-H-.l.-L ...1 1. :
1 1 4.4-:
'
lu 1
' i ; I I ! 1 .,1._.,_.,.. !.. .1.. _.,,. .J�_ .i�. J_. _ 1.._''�..1._. _ _ __ ..-i... 1 1 -I ' --,-'.�-1.'._l. ;
i
: I
I
11y- 11
'.._! _1. ...1 I , 1 �, i I I I ; 1 ; 1 1 I i..'. ..1 r i....l.. .. _ _ ..��i ---I-
.-1�-;---,._..,..-'- -{ -•-- - :�: � �-T--"t'----{-' -1'�--
1. I . - ._.;...., I ._.._1.._..... ...•.....1 1 _1...! ./._ _.1._.:__ • : 1 1
_1_... _.......,.' ., .!..__..... ....._._._.. .._. .... ,; : _..... ; � . ; TATff N1'GIHIW- Y 4db
I !
1 i , J...j..-:....
•
,_--, : . -I. .L. .. I.-I.-1.......L. -•1 ..I V-.. :..1_ ; . ...1.- I 1-.._'....I..4..._--:..1'' 1 . 1 7_..1_
�. I H
J1.. ;"...1 ,._,..1...._.;_,. .. ..1 ..._.... ' 1 __:._ ... . ' ..... .... ...I _ I I , 1.. .,I_ , , I , 1 I ' I I I
1 ,.
•
O -
' 1
' 1 �1_ _ t � i ., I. .1. 1
i
1'
r , ' 1 , , : � I I I i I � i-•...I'_ - ,...:._.1...{.._1--- ..:{..1 _- ~�-' -_• "-i-'1...1 -- - -. (._.,._.`.�_L.J -�:
-1.4.: ,._ 1._:._1-..: 1. J. . 1_ 1 1 1 i 1.. i.. ..L_ jl I_._
• •I • � • 4
. L : y • i-I_ 1 I ! 1' 1. _� 1...1 T .L..i. _.._ -;-�_..1 -f...t.. '1- ..j_..`_ _1..1_..f....!-_f_.-_1
- 1 -I�
--'I • ...... ..:.. . ----1 1._. _ f ... ,_ 1 _.i I i - 1 -I4-1 ij. 1 1 j--.;.. ...1.- _ .._..t-
I
f�
l. t
t-
D I i I , ; ..�._!.--`- --t'--1--_�.._t_.+._i_.. 1..._t.I �. - --- - -
'
1 .1.
I 1... I f
i 1 ' ,,_t_ 1-;- 1 .1 . .1. 1 ._ 1..1, _,1 1 �_..,. _1.__.6 1.
I I 1 ' � `_, , , I 1 : I r-. !- ;. ..i. .-+- -I--- - -.1-1-1.--r-1. _ ..1..l._,... 1_..1...1_. �_i... {.
1 , 1 I I I I : ! y + 1- -�, • ..1. .;....!-i-"--� -a-•_..i. .i-�-i. _ I _'__ ._.1'--•
_
...L 4..4 .....t._-- 1--;.;- . L..•...-. 1...,_•--t- -� , !.1 4-I -1,--,:-. 1. I-1- 4_1. 1 ' I
' I
1 .1
D ! • ! :.«__ _I 1 1 1 !...., Ni, 1 , 1 ! t ? 1 1 • r... .t_ _.t._1 }_ ._.
Z J I I I I 1 .... i : I �' -; - -' - - 'r- ---.,._.j_._1 ...��..J- ..i_1� _ � _ J
J_. J--.; 1 -r-
I I
I
o 1 I_..1. 1 t ( .,�, 1_-_ I ..�.._{..1- .i_ .J_...1....'.` _ I.j.. _L_4._ __ _ __ ;____i__,,_,__,_ _ __
1 {
m I , I � I I } { � ..;. 1 ..;. � 1 V. - -• - i.__'t...',-,f__L•.. ._,_.�_j._._i...i.._.--1�•-_I .:i.:-1_ y..-._ 1 ..1.
1
r '
- $'-j-'- i- ; '--i--+ ;�-`- '1'-1-'-i-. -1"-�- ;-" { - -,-'L-.\ _. ' .�__• _ .i_..!...:.....:._I__ __ � ..�__l__I �--'i. _ ___� � �I' 1
J ' • I .I1
Zr 1- 1_ . . ...,._ i
1
'
I • 1
,
',._1_..1.._ t . t I1 1t ' IIIi .4 , : I ! i-J ... t_l. �_.y... ;-..1. ,_i
1 ; , , I ; ! 1 I • I • 4\ -1 4- i---1 ,'-i--. - _4...-..j_.1_4.f_ _'--I -.-�- - -J,- -....{_...F....._1.--
I
•
m -i I • , , III . I I 1 ; I I I , I ' ( ; 1 ...j._l - +--I---t" �r.-i-. ,_ _ r. ..-''--;....�
'
•
•
'--.: ' 1 I.. _.11..
> • .-----,-1--!-CO CO ..:_l_:. -_'-`-+- '__'-1-' � t ! --! t� {_;_` 1 1_ '-�1 j.•�_, ; .___! 1 I l ! I 1 1 ! I r-. 1 t�_ l--_}--+--;-t---� -1 -�--i--
a'_1 - _
l I I I I
1 1 ._1..._. .1_., - -...._1..._......I 1 1•-'1 ' ii ,..J._ \:..: .. I ' .i:.._. _.� ! i I --r-.1_.1_.;._.ir..
t I I , I-1-1-, )1 ; I i 1 I' , ',-- ::'.-i-.._'j� +'_}._(l �I: I- f._ �:._,_.�_.
-a I
I 1 i... i 1' r • 1
..I.._i ,...., • ,...i--"-I..1. ,.-....,.-1-_......-}-. _t 1..1.... l.�__ ..i._..' L - - 1 i-i.. _1 ; 1 , 1.... i ..L. .. �_.
k.
g H-.j..i..-.;..,_.. - .i-'----.' ri............__L.i ...J....i._;._.1_.1... .. ._. .-1 1 \I` 1 F,. i i i _i_..
1 1 � 1 I ! 1... 1 . I - -- � I. ;...i.._ 44 '--;-. , -•;--'--1-�'-j-- i--I-�-}--i-......'.
O -.«_.,.._1..1...,..i,. ._...._...1...1--1-.-. -a-- - - .1-'-- -.1_.1..._1.... .-.y...4_.1. - -- -..i.. __ I ...I.. . ....I I_I 1.1. - 1_-' - - ! - --- -- '
--1--i_...1_... 4._.,__+... . .__ ....1. _•1... _, !_ ; .1 1 -` i ; ,-... 1 1.,_1.._l._. _ ,- _ 1. 1__.i I
c I J
".4_I 1 I L-.1- 1...l. i.--1-- ' i -- ' 1 1..-' I j - ; 1 I ,-r 1 1 1--T--- '--I--.. ._I .: �_..I._.-..-1_..! - -. -
-+ .......- - 1- -.ice_ 1.._;__1._. _ �, I I t-`- - ' .
I 1 f•'I ; 1 r-.! ,_... ....1. _.,...1..___... -1__�_ _._i._.J--1 _I_- - .._1.... _ _+..1._.1.'_1- -_
= t, I I 1 I i I I `_1.! L. 1 r
_ ,...r....i.._i.._.....1._ ._....L. --+--�- -+--� ' �- -1--' -' - - - !- -- - '--1--' ------ I_ ! "1�- .f_• 1 ? `- '
t 1 1 : 1 1._ I I . ..{_.i.:.1. 1.. ! I. i....I-i t. 1 _,_ ..._ 1 1 1.._f..
I
1 I
, I I
--I--'1- - -I._i_-',.....-- 1--1.-- .__1-._. I I - 1_ I } •.' 1 , i ! . . i. ..i. I j 1-i 1 f { '
I
I I
i
I I I
_1..-. _,._.;L_1.,_1...,....._.L._._.._J...L.......} I '1"- ' -'--'--J- -- -1-1.- -'L- ' -L......!-- -- - � -- 1-� ! I 1.. ' i .._,_..{........ 1 I i
I I .L....... ! I I I I I -, � ,. ....: i_1_..;'.-!. T--"� .-'t - _...�:.:......._1 1 --- -_-' --�---�-.
L........._.,_..._. --'- •_. -..._..�__:....1_4_1--•. ..1.......1_.i._1.- 1 IL !
1 - 1I� 1 I 1 ; � ! 1 ; I I i 1 !. _ �..1.__ «_.f.iHiL:
i- ._aH
mo' , I . I �. ._ _-I-�-.-- � .t-"-t}- - --1___ ; _+ �1_� �_ __ .. - r_:---I__ i:_ -i--I1 I I
1 � I I__I_._.._....« ..-__ I 1 ..._t_..__:_. I 1 - I ...,.._._I. 1 1. 1......;_! { J }T. - ;-
I {-- � { ! r i__.1 ._.....1..;..^ .I - _ i.....,- - - ..,.___ _ 1-4 -i- ;�- -1'_ __1-_f-.i.....�. . ; _1.-1:-- - -
I7 �! t
...>_-^-- + !--I •1 --1. _L.. .i_1._._ _ ..1.-:_! _--4.. _ 1 1.i-.1..I-_l-_;_. .1_.,.T I �. I._ _'1
..A ._.}....._l._' L. _ 1 y_-�_ I_ I 1 I I . 1-' ' 1 1 , ( - i I t •I , -1--.._-1. ._i 1._.__ _ +...1._.
+ : {' ! _. ..; -+ 1 ? 1- + ;-,... 1 .f:_..r i 1. �.1. ._�. j_ k, ! f
• _ I i I 1 ! 4_4_-�_ ' I I ' I ' ; i ; -__,•_.i.-.I-1- i.! ' ._L_L_l_! - ' 1\t I i' �-; -......1.__-r-(-, -j-�-- ----t'- - --1--{--}--�._i_..
0 .._;..A..1.._i-;-"1-'I--=-'-_._ ' I 1 1 1 �....I I 1 1 i I I ' l 1 1 !
i
t
I._.1.._,...l.....!_. . ,.__lam _...L-1 -` •I --I '-.1...I 1.-1_. .i.....;.._._.1._1 ._+. _,.._\_ - - 1 1 1 --I ..I-
: I : } 1 -t 1 ; ..
f I i y
.._!._J... _.I-.,.-"-"-1'--'1....... ._J._-1-_.l I::i._..._i._f _ -:1 J .�. ., 1 f t + I _i.. ...... It
1
1 I" -_ .-.1--1 1 i.i...,.....1.. _�. y...j, _..i . ..L.. I I_.: �J r: j- 41-J
T
1
, . , I I J
, I
..!• _......1...!_L-1_ 1. .1._...1...{- -i_.. �..4.4...I _-' -- L' �J.._....1-- --'\ I -I- -I-I I-I.-1 - -1--
-4_ '1-_1_..1...1__1 1._i_L..1.. 1 1-1- I _ _..1.....1..,1.I I 1 -1 1 , }- '.. ' L,_,__, ..,._,.,..,. , I
,4 1
{' 1
..._�._.,. _i..I_ i_1: .1_...1.1r_r _.1 --i ..a_.� -_..f._T.1!_ 1 ! 1 ____
1. L' Il_t 4- } 1`---i i..
.. ,-" ' 1 1 ! i 1- '-- -1-- ' ..1 __I'_.j- "_}_ -i I F ;-i_-1... y...i_
,
1._. 1
1 1.
i. j
7; ?.1_.,._ _L...,'.._._(._.a_1_.a_.a..i j + 1...._ !_i. . I.I.! 1....' j I I_1 1rt ,. J_,-.1-t. �. T 1 1_1. -�--.
i
� I 1 J • I I i--.._1..1.� L: I I _1 J - -- -f..'.7----I_._�_-4---1---
-1. -'I1-•-•-+ -- - -,-_-{-_i...i.-1--1 i-'j --!-`--..1....1..
I
11
N , ! Ir l �
I t I
I
i I
_-1__._ :_1..._i.-1._�+ .• .i. _ ._1 _: 1- .....1 ;...� _ .i_ _1_t..l...._l.._}.��...1-'' � - - _- - i -+-.:_i__.-L-!- I-
i
i
..-
l._ i
- - r
- _i. I
1 I I I I I_ �I I 1 i I
I ! ! �1
I
-`r
r-
i
t II �1
m h1 I -i t �.:.. :
I
_. J
J .� Z i 11 , i � I I ''�.�_.-� 1 i- ..L... -i- y I�1 1 1 `
nN cn to ............... ,..--:--.,..........,.!..�_+ ...1._ _( - I -1-, ...1.-1
•Fri a.. ..._� 1 I _ 1 ! --{ r
1
na 0y m 1 ,I_, .' ; , 1 1.. + 1-L1 ! l I l- T1 I ,.._'
EA D m m -< 1 r--4-7 I -i 1 I I ;. ---
W
I
:
W D m D D D D }._I 1 a: 1 { 1 ! 1 }..r__...4 1--1..,..!. ; t. 1- r Y-1.-a' , . i _- - --
1,70 77 1 ! ...f . L_.I:..i.' '1 i_ i_+. : {,. � ..J_i
0 -.1 m 91 m33 73 T .�.._ I I 1 -, _- - - --
..1 - I
a Z OO r
O i1 ' -
t
b 0 0 O i - _ 11 I . 1 ! ...' i 1,kJiILLLLIHLLH1 _.a_I I I 1- {. .1._.y I ,I •
il
' Hii±ijt
•
0 el
JCD
J
7C COA ® 0 0 O O 0
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD PROFILES
o KING COUNTY, WA
co
AND INCORPORATED AREAS MAY CREEK
Appendix C — Water Quality Pond Design
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Wetpool Volume
WQ1
Step 1 - Wetpond volume factor,f:
f =30� , Based on the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP).
Residential area:
Step 2 - Rainfall for the mean annual storm, R: Impervious area =8.02 ac, pervious
u .,.... ...,x,._ =4.89 ac
R>I=>047 , 1998 KCSWDM Fig 6.4.1A(p. 6-69) Streets E and F:
Impervious area=0.89 ac, pervious
Step 3 - Runoff volume of the mean annual storm,Vr: =0.0 ac.
Vr=(0.9A;+0.25At9+ 0.10Atf+0.01A0)x(R/12)
where: A;= area of impervious surface including pond,sf 'Ar,` =8 91 Acre
Atg=area of till soil covered with grass,sf A tj ` 489` Acre
Atf=area of till soil covered with forest,sf A;44 Acre
Ao=area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest,sf 'A : 0:0i Acre
A tot := Ai +Atg+Atf+AO A tot= 601128 sf
V r = 15767 (cu.ft.)
Step 4- Wetpond volume,Vb:
Vb := f•Vr
V b = 47301 (cu.ft.)
Check actual pond volume, V := 56902 using 3 foot WQ depth
Appendix C
otak
Project: Barbee Mill Plat 4/4/02
H:\project\30200\30209\waterres\WQvolume98.mcd
Barbee Mill Plat Wetpool Volume
WQ2
Step 1 - Wetpond volume factor,f:
fY 30 , Based on the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP).
Step 2- Rainfall for the mean annual storm, R: Residental Area: Impervious
area= 1.78 ac, pervious=0.25
Acess road: Impervious=0.15
R := 0:47 , 1998 KCSWDM Fig 6.4.1A(p. 6-69)
<.. �.•.. h:,. acre, pervious=0.00 ac
Step 3- Runoff volume of the mean annual storm,Vr:
Vr= (0.9A,+0.25At9+0.10Att+0.01A0)x(R/12)
where: Ai= area of impervious surface including pond,sf . iy�}41t93 Acre
Atg area of till soil covered withgrass,sf ti5 Acre
is= � .g•v �5>�
Atf=area of till soil covered with forest,sf A3 ij.„!i Acre
Ao=area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest,sf 0:0 Acre
A tot := Ai +Atg +Aff+Ao A tot= 94960.8 sf
V r = 3070 (cu.ft.)
Step 4- Wetpond volume,Vb:
Vb := f•Vr
V b = 9210 (cu.ft.)
Check actual pond volume, V ;= 11026 using 2 foot WQ depth
i
Appendix C
otak
Project: Barbee Mill Plat 4/4/02
H:\project\30200\00209\waterres\WQ2volume98.mcd
Water Quality Pond 1
CELL 1
ELEV AREA VOLUME VOLUME
CHANGE SUBTOTAL
FT SQ FT CU FT CU FT
Bottom 17.00 0515a322 0 0
Top of Sediment 18.00 fklPZ;i‘ 0 0
19.00 Ni'1,7,666,4: 16,382 16,382
,
20.00 26259 18 948 35,330
,,.
21.00 T--,22,91;3=F' 21,572 56,902
Water Quality Pond 2
CELL 1
ELEV AREA VOLUME VOLUME
CHANGE SUBTOTAL,
FT SQ FT CU FT CU FT
Bottom 17.00 :883' 0 0
Top of Sediment 18.00 !.T; '883 : 883 883
19.00 ":::-A411 1,137 2,020
20.00 ';:2%259 9,005 11,025
-
Appendix C
30209\WaterRes\WQPondvol.xls ota k
. 6.4.1 WETPONDS—BASIC AND LARGE—METHODS OF ANALYSIS
FIGURE 6.4.1.A PRECIPITATION FOR MEAN ANNUAL STORM IN INCHES(FEET)
ST 1.0/ LA 1.2
ST 1.0 LA 1.0
ST 1.1 ._ ,F .3, I,A 0.8 LA 0.9
._ J ''�.` r .. .,j.,-•i,is_- -\: i
,s.',:• ":•J':';LIT',,/-1,./.r:-,-1:•,i".,, . ..: ,C.%''',/,',F:.i.,7-1,-;--7-s..4 f'1..11.- •
• t% "/ .1 r, - ,' /[▪ `'I'- �'• • //'' `` 1
l / ri i -- r i's1, xr'„,No•f rY'r x,q.a:; i▪ f" saw' .. ... _:
'� . a � - -rr r °% ! .\ • ' !y a ��iw , ;r � ` .irr{1 '• ��f j I __�' •":.SM '. _ / _ ,Q'::ra:
J• „ t
^ ".___......t.. i'' .,.� " ' `i v ? - -.,.•tS � Q( 7 •'r
Q
Sdr , Ie \
9 ..�. �
0.54" 7-'7:0'1.1 o i l'_•,.:,,, • .-,', \'. • . _ .• -4 .
(0.045' ) '�� °;
0.47" \\
Incorporated Area ------
c--! River/Lake 0.47" -' �;
Major Road (0.039') 0.52" — . _._
(0.043' 0.65"
NOTE:Areas east of the eastemmost isopluvial should use 0.65 _• 5 6" (0.054' )
inches unless rainfall data is available for the location of interest (0.047' )
24 The mean annual storm is a conceptual storm found
by dividing the annual precipitation by the total number
of storm events per year
result,generates large amounts of runoff. For this application, till soil types include Buckley and
bedrock soils,and alluvial and outwash soils that have a seasonally high water table or are underlain at
a shallow depth (less than 5 feet)by glacial till. U.S. Soil Conservation Service(SCS)hydrologic soil
groups that are classified as till soils include a few B,most C, and all D soils. See Chapter 3 for
classification of specific SCS soil types.
Appendix C
1998 Surface Water Design Manual otak
6-69
Appendix D — Conveyance Calculations
-
i
- Areas
Preliminary Calculation of Areas for Barbee Mill Plat
' ^
VVQ1 1lX5 OJ}O 0.0 1.05 O]}O 1.05
1 1.07 0.58 0.48 1.65 1.10 0.58
2 1.97 0.58 0.48 2.56 1.53 1.03
3 1.47 0.50 0.48 1.97 1.20 0.78
4 0.45 0.05 0.48 0.51 0.29 0-21
5 0.35 0.26 0.48 0.61 0.55 0.06
G 0.66 0.36 0.48 1.01 0.84 0.17
7 1.03 0.31 0.48 1.34 0.95 0.39
8 1.31 0.36 0.48 1.67 1.17 0.50
9 0.33 0.15 0.48 0.48 0.38 0.10
10 0'26 0.24 0.80 0.49 0.44 0.05
11 0.28 0.14 0.80 0.41 0.38 0.06
1� O.71 O.42 O.80 1.13 O.S8 0'14
� �
13 0.00 0.16 0f0 0.15 O.15 0.00
14 0.00 0i33 0.80 0.33 0.33 CLOO
15 OOO O5G O80 O5G O5G O
. . . . � .DO
Note
48%impervious area was assumed for single family housing
8o%impervious area was assumed for multi family housing
�
�
�
�
'
'
|
_
Appendix
` 30309\VVaterReo\RaUona|-SHN_03_22_02 otok
Barbee Mill Line 1 &2
Runoff Computations Using Rational Method (Preliminary)
Barbee Mill Plat
Reference: 1998 KCSWDM
Equations(Section 4.3.3) Definitions
R=return period(years) 100 PR=Total precipitation for R-year, 24-hour storm(inches) 3.85 - 25 yr 100 yr
OR=LIRA A=subbasin area(acres) From isopluvial maps(Figures 3.5.1 C to F3.5.1 H) aR _ 2.66 2.61 •
iR=aRTc-bR aR,bR=coefficient(Table 4.3.3.B) 2.61 OR=Flow for individual basin(cfs) bR 0.65 0.63
IR=PRiR C=runoff coefficient(Table 4.3.3.A) 0.63 QT=Total flow for sequential basins(cfs) PR 3.35 3.85
To=Max of Tpipe+Tc prey,6.3,or Tt se=slope of flow path(ft/ft)
Tt=U60V iR=unit peak rainfall intensity factor Tc=time of concentration for sequential basins(minutes) , ,
V=kR(so)°5 , IR=peak rainfall intensity(inches/hour) Ti=time of concentration for individual basin(minutes)
kR=values for T,(Table 4.3.3C) V=average velocity across land cover(feet/second)
L=flow length(feet)
•
,. __ s.. x• ....... f' ,. «s ♦. r._.< .. .. _ ., wn ,'s.,M .+.'T_W,.`,a_. t S:e•
.t .s F t _ .. ♦ ., ! 8. 1" E r .... ..... :.:...:r, 't�'�iri �,j. �„? `:'� ,.it:;,.
€
„
� ,,_ Pi b Calc�iatioris;
� culati s.
u ��
, .. _>,<, �.Basin Cai on � � ,. ,.. >, < ..�.,,,... t.- _<•,.,.
I.II1 _ >, w a 4° € •
_. _ .,a ,.:-_ 3.- � b;. „��;:_ R?`a i'7 P "Y s {{
, y
„ .e. -«. .. .,. ._ .,. . v .,> <.. ,. ,,, <a--♦ ,.,. � _... s Yam; '.`',-%
< .. ,. { .. > ..E ,\ <,,.._ ,,a < �, .... •. . . a.r.a .3.a _ m.k<, $ n� =»£ is<:'.e< -jt''-`,.` C;£i;«
.P `C. F .' 1,<F-,3±•.,> _x .. •� ,, �. as ♦<... ." .♦., >x. � .< . .,,1 _.•,.... ) .,$, ,} M�y .N, '"`u
, .. .. .. <. ,..< ... ..tee ,-, _• .. w.. _ e .. . ,.: ._.& r < _a?+_'a 4i'�;a�`a,.'--...,.?`S:�_a.>,^y,.,. <__,.., _<. d.a•w.<.<�.>"�. . s. ...,. . .<r;�; e '>.'�P�S�,ra r,.< -
._ .t.,. ,> ,. t _, ,♦ .,_ .. ..__. <_vA,, a. , ,,. .> .,,,t= .< ^3�'.�':arr-,..».tt« <. > `�<.., a ,t_ �.�' <_ ._.,_._.
.. � . ,? > e ♦ . .. -a ,.. �.. . ...>c..«3v tt.. ,n .,...p, ., s_..sS_::'P. eF^.• -<s, ...__..._,...< n-- .♦ < ';� ,
� t., lmpenr3ous ,_�.,,��,... ,}t,,,Pervwus. _ _._, „� „ �}< .,,, -., .<.,,... ,�: ,t>. �:; >:. .:.;..3, ,�� <-;�;,",;
Basin Cl Al C2 A2 C0 <,,,,rc • kR < .• _ s, V L Tt TO IR IR A OR Or • Lpipe . n D . Spipe Vfull Of Qt_Qf Vpipe Tpipe To CB
15 0.90 0.561 0.25 0.000 0.90 20.00 0.0030 1.10 300.70 4.58 6.30 0.82 3.15 0.56 1.591 1.591 150 0.012 18 0.0030 3.53 6.23 0.26 2.52 0.99 14
14 0.90 0.328 0.25 0.000 0.90 20.00 0.0030 1.10 460.00 7.00 7.29 0.75 2.87 0.33 0.849 2.440 460 0.012 18 0.0030 3.53 6.23 0.39 2.83 2.71 _ 3
3 0.90 1.203 0.25 0.763 0.65 20.00 0.0030 1.10 350.00 5.33 10.00 0.61 2.36 1.97 2.999 5.439 405 0.012 18 0.0030 3.53 6.23 0.87 3.51 1.92 2
2 0.90 1.529 0.25 1.027 0.64 20.00 0.0030 1.10 535.00 8.14 11.92 0.55 2.11 2.56 3.442 8.881 436.5 0.012 24 0.0030 4.27 13.42 0.66 3.95 1.84 1
1 0.90 1.096 0.25 0.556 0.68 20.00 0.0030 1.10 422.00 6.42 13.77 0.50 1.93 1.65 2.167 11.048 375.8 0.012 24 0.0030 4.27 13.42 0.82 4.19 1.50 WQ Pond
WQ1 0.90 0.000 0.25 1.047 0.25 7.00 0.0170 0.91 50.00 0.91 15.26 0.47 1.80 1.05 0.472 11.520 117 0.012 24 0.01 7.80 24.51 0.47 6.57 0.30 Lake WA
1
P C t
-Basin Cak:u ations �
F -,..,,',:::,:;`,1',.'
j
- ,, _... ..._. _ • .... ... < .. . to I .. ..> _. R
_
S t, • :L,
I - 1 I I I I I I '1'';:": :.--''''''''''
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
Sum Area 4.716 3.392 8.109
Total 8.109
Ql= 11.520 cfs
�4*« cT t.
�',rt� _ rP Calculations
1 1 -t e-2 Basin:Calcu at ons Lt -t. pe g {
mpe ..,
Basin Cl .A1 C2 A2 Ce kR- so V L Tt TO IR IR A OR QT Lpipe ri D Spipe Vfull Of Qt_Qf Vpipe Tpipe To CB
6 0.90 0.843 0.25 0.169 0.79 20.00 0.0020 0.89 149.90 2.79 6.30 0.82 3.15 1.01 2.523 2.523 0 0.012 18 0.0020 2.88 5.09 0.50 2.46 0.00 5
5 0.90 0.551 0.25 0.057 0.84 20.00 0.0020 0.89 305.30 5.69 6.30 0.82 3.15 0.61 1.609 4.133 269.2 0.012 18 0.0020 2.88 5.09 0.81 2.81 1.59 4
4 0.90 0.295 0.25 0.210 0.63 20.00 0.0020 0.89 269.90 5.03 7.89 0.71 2.73 0.51 0.869 5.002 256 0.012 18 0.0020 2.88 5.09 0.98 2.96 1.44 1
QPii4':-, < >. a..... _. > k. . ,_ , «va. .- tv3 :-,z, .. "Y'n�!A�i.
.>,rwr;
. .. ,.,,_ ..., .,„__„� „. R y._r. ,., .< , ;;;.'-'4 s �., 'a.. P 'a culatiio s=.
`'C
I„aiera �• �.'
� . ... ..... ...r. _ t<,. .... _ _ .. .><.(,,.,.,<,, � :as„< ;a•,`; •:S` wts^s'5. .•C .SS"�` a. nax
<.. _ „ P o .'-'4,'.-.;:':''.
1 _ 4
<
-.. <. ..._ i. �. .. .. .: . .. `< .>. a s.t ., •'r:'. .fit,.
t , <
I
1 I 1 I I ,I _j_` j- �. .T I I~ a1.. h. bl3 �I-� _I I �I I I I» I I I
I Sum Area 1.689 0.437 2.126
Total 2.126
Qr= 5.002 cfs -
I
Appendix D
otak
-- 30209\WaterRes\Rational-SHN_03_22_02
Barbee Mill Line 3&4
Runoff Computations Using Rational Method (Preliminary)
Barbee Mill Plat
•
Reference: 1998 KCSWDM
Equations(Section 4.3.3) Definitions
R=return period(years) 100 PR=Total precipitation for R-year, 24-hour storm(inches) 3.85 25 yr 100 yr
QR=CIRA A=subbasin area(acres) From isopluvial maps(Figures 3.5.1 C to F3.5.1 H) an 2.66 2.61
iR=aRT,-bR aR,bR=coefficient(Table 4.3.3.B) 2.61 QR=Flow for individual basin(cfs) bR 0.65 0.63
IR=PRlR C=runoff coefficient(Table 4.3.3.A) 0.63 QT=Total flow for sequential basins(cfs) PR 3.35 3.85
T,=Max of Tpipe+Tc prey,6.3,or Tt so=slope of flow path(fUft)
Tt=U60V IR=unit peak rainfall intensity factor T,=time of concentration for sequential basins(minutes)
V=kR(so)os IF,=peak rainfall intensity(inches/hour) T,=time of concentration for individual basin(minutes)
kR=values for T,(Table 4.3.3C) V=average velocity across land cover(feet/second)
L=flow length(feet)
•
to _ _.,.....,._ �_ .., .,_„_,. . .. «� ti. ., a..., .,. - .;�--�'?:
, < eett Basin/'��.Iculat an < . < <. ... ,. _. _ _„ . =_;,.�r ":.�;-�,
i
e .r, .<. ,. ,. FY _ _ ,.. VG �'� - is Linea; ,.,;,,i_ P!�
< _ - m t a t .i ,i - ,• - _ .<. ,f,.,t r „ a,s. r -_s,c, x x n,.., ~��.• ^� _ _ _
w - f , L,. v .._ < „f`. f `i. _ ry _ z ... _ < .a. .. .r � «n ._ _ x�� y�'i:�sr.m-n,,;
:�1- ',l a �:l„i � - L<,
3 Y�
:L{
...c: .. t ..-,., zr .. r. :- .. t y. x _. ., a _. ... .. _ t .,, ... jc;,::,;:
pe
,. ,na , _ r.. .. „ .... .. .... .-y:S--mT}'r':' _ • .. ._ , -. _ '{.�"�• si.�,l•'_. , _ v .. �.:1*<• .-.... _,��-�,x.; ---
Basin Cl Al C2 A2.. • C, -kR . ,s, V L Tt T. { IR IR A OR QT Lpipe . n D Spipe Vfull Of Qt_Qf Vpipe Tpipe To CB v
9 0.90 0.377 0.25 0.101 0.76 20.00 0.0050 1.41 138.80 1.64 6.30 0.82 3.15 0.48 1.148 1.148 48 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 . 0.14 2.78 0.29 8
8 0.90 1.168 0.25 0.505 0.70 20.00 0.0050 1.41 297.10 3.50 6.59 0.80 3.06 1.67 3.607 4.755 304.2 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 0.59 4.08 1.24 7
7 0.90 0.950 0.25 0.387 0.71 20.00 0.0050 1.41 310.30 3.66 7.83 0.71 2.75 1.34 2.615 7.370 210.9 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 0.92 4.59 0.76 4
a
;::Pi Caicutafiiohs"."
Later is a ., < , . ....... :.... .. . . .. ..:..<. ...... > ... >� -
. > < -,: '.>:,r'"r'.,.x,..s. a�1,,..a.'e'--••:�"..-<^'SS.. `-3 :t a,v.+L. i ::.�:^ ,,.^e.:,.a• '::
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I- I T I f, I :.
Sum Area 2.494 0.993 3.487
Total 3.487
Ot= 7.370 cfs
U ne4. 4- ,. .r.• 3ve, ., < :',1,;!';‘'. 1 s ;t,. .P.. ...,n >.. ..rc waaBasin.0 alcua nC. ., ... - . _ .<.4` .d<'
. "
:i
i p'
- tip PiIze.i
C atula# s=':{,',f '
gt. .mly rvous. t . _. _ ° ernou n N 1,xe" ,• ,. _ '_z . :. ">, ,' ,.' Basin Cl Al C2 A2 C. kR , so V L Tt T. In in A OR QT Lpipe n D Spipe . Vfull Of Qt_Qf Vpipe Tpipe To CB
13 0.90 0.148 0.25 0.000 0.90 20.00 0.1690 8.22 106.79 0.22 6.30 0.82 3.15 0.15 0.419 0.419 106.79 0.012 18 0.1690 26.47 46.78 0.01 7.64 0.23 12
12 0.90 0.990 0.25 0.142 0.82 20.00 0.0050 1.41 382.90 4.51 6.53 0.80 3.08 1.13 2.855 2.855 546.7 0.012 18 0.0050 ' 4.55 8.05 0.35 3.56 2.56 11
11 0.90 0.358 0.25 0.056 0.81 20.00 0.0050 1.41 216.70 2.55 9.10 0.65 2.50 0.41 0.841 3.697 158.9 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 0.46 3.81 0.69 10
10 0.90 0.442 0.25 0.052 0.83 20.00 0.0050 1.41 192.30 2.27 ! 9.79 0.62 2.39 0.49 0.982 4.678 133.2 0.012 18 0.0050 4.55 8.05 0.58 4.06 0.55 WQ2
r. �p
:,-- �. .:P Ca cu at ans t s as Calcu ns. - ;'�'"�La eras 8 in iaho t�. ._Iry
«F t _
P
,. a.. , r, > .s, .. xr... .. ..:,.t.x.; iG `..t• m.�ir..:_ tC�+,. a+��.•�;'•
._.-. . .. . pia,. ,. s , .. ,� ..... ...,_ .._ _ .- ... < .. ,t.-. _%'�.' .,, ... `i�,J:,,tt
. .. , ,_ .,... .. < _.. .a.,x< . .. .. -s ,. fz x. ... _ .., ::f" .. _.x:�l'S...' > T.�� -a ..r, ..< f. .,. " _. :.. ,,....,n s y5.,.:„:.i.,F ... «
,sx •.:v';n '.t:. �•.,t. e ":a..,,. .. ;�..a, `-;._ =...M-. x L � ,_y^. -°.nt"
I I 1 I . nI I I I I I I h_- . l I I _I I J I I I 'I,,••, : . x ,�: xM,''^ I, _ d..e,;:1
Sum Area 1.791 0.250 2.041
1 Total 2.041
Qt= 4.678 cfs
Appendix D
30209\WaterRes\Rational-SHN_03_22_02 otak
Barbee Mill Backwater
BACKWATER CALCULATIONS (Preliminary)
Barbee Mill Plat
Submerged Critical Velocity Specific Head- Head- Total
Inlet Outlet Pipe Full Full Depth Barrel Tail- Friction Entrance inlet depth at Head @ Entrance Exit Water Water Approach Bend Junction Head- Inlet
Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Pipe Manning Barrel Pipe Pipe Design of flow Barrel Velocity Water Head Hydraulic Threshold of flow Critical Critical Head Head Outlet Inlet Velocity Head Head Water Rim Rim
PIPE SEGMENT Elev. Elev. Length Slope Diam. Coeff. Area Capacity Velocity Flow in pipe Velocity Head Elev. Loss Grade line Equation in pipe depth depth Loss Loss Control Control Head Loss Loss Elev. Elev. minus
From To L S D n A QF VF ad dd Vd Hv TW HL HGLE 'Qd/AD°.5 2d, Vc HC 3HE Hx HWo °HWI 5HA 5HB 'Hj HW (Rim) HW Elev.
CB CB (FT) (FT) (FT) (%) (FT) (SF) (CFS) (FPS) (CFS) (FT) (FPS) (FT) (Fr) (Ff) , (Fr) (FT) (CFS) (FT) (Fr) (Fr) (Fr) (Fr) (Fr) (FT) (Fr) (Fr) (FT) (Fr)
Line 1
1 WQ1 20.10 20.00 50 0.20 2.0 0.012 3.14 11 3.50 11.0 2.00 3.52 0.19 21.50 0.10 _4 21.60 2.49 1.17 6.15 1.76 0.10 0.19 21.88 _ 21.98 0.10 0.01 0.02 21.90 23.00 1.10
2 1 20.50 20.10 376 0.11 2.0 0.012 3.14 8 2.55 8.9 2.00 2.83 0.10 21.90 0.40 22.30 2.00 1.05 5.82 1.58 0.05 0.10 22.45 22.16 0.44 0.60 0.12 22.72 24.00 1.28
3 2 23.50 20.50 437 0.69 1.5 0.012 1.77 9 5.35 5.4 0.91 4.76 0.35 22.72 2.37 25.09 2.51 0.89 5.34 1.33 0.18 0.35 25.62 24.92 0.51 0.03 0.18 25.32 26.50 1.18
14 3 26.50 23.50 301 1.00 ' 1.5 0.012 1.77 11 6.45 2.44 0.53 4.39 0.30 25.32 1.39 _ 26.70 1.13 0.59 4.37 0.89 0.15 0.30 27.15 27.40 0.10 0.03 0.05 27.39 29.50 2.11
15 14 28.00 26.50 460 0.33 _ 1.5 0.012 1.77 7 3.69 1.59 0.57 2.60 0.11 27.39 0.74 28.13 0.74 0.48 3.93 0.72 0.05 0.11 28.29 28.72 0.12 0.01 0.07 28.67 31.00 2.33
29.00 1.5 4.00
Line 2 ,
4 1 20.53 20.10 215 0.20 2.0 0.012 3.14 11 3.50 5.0 1.04 2.92 0.13 21.50 0.30 21.80 1.13 0.79 5.04 1.18 0.07 0.13 22.00 21.74 0.12 0.15 0.02 22.05 23.50 1.45
5 4 21.00 20.53 270 0.17 2.0 0.012 3.14 10 3.26 4.1 0.97 2.63 0.11 22.05 0.30 22.36 _ 0.92 0.72 4.80 1.07 0.05 0.11 22.52 22.09 0.16 0.01 0.05 22.41 - 24.50 2.09
6 5 22.00 21.00_ 256 0.39 1.5 0.012 1.77 7 4.04 2.5 0.68 3.14 0.15 -22.41 0.60 23.01 1.16 0.60 4.40 0.90 0.08 0.15 23.24 22.92 0.12 0.01 0.06 23.20 25.00 1.80
23.00 1.5 3.50 _
.Line 3
7 4 21.00 20.53 63 0.75 1.5 0.012 1.77 10 5.58 7.4 1.09 5.33 0.44 22.05 0.43 22.48 3.41 1.03 5.76 1.55 0.22 0.44 23.14 22.71 0.21 0.01 0.05 23.00 - 24.00 1.00
8 7 21.50 21.00 211 0.24 2.0 0.012 3.14 12 3.81 4.8 0.96 3.07 0.15 23.00 0.32 23.32 1.07 0.77 4.98 1.15 0.07 0.15 23.54 22.67 0.20 0.01 0.09 23.44 25.00 1.56
9 8 22.50 21.50 304 0.33 2.0 0.012 3.14 14 4.48 1.1 0.53 2.35 0.09 23.44 0.27 23.72 0.26 0.38 3.49 0.57 0.04 0.09 23.84 23.07 0.07 0.00 0.04 23.82 26.00 2.18
23.00 2.0 4.00
Line 4
10 WQ2 19.67 19.00 133 0.50 1.5 0.012 1.77 8 4.57 4.7 0.91 4.07 0.26 20.50 0.53 21.03 2.16 0.82 5.14 1.23 0.13 0.26 21.41 20.96 0.26 0.01 0.04 21.21 23.00 1.79
11 10 20.46 19.67 159 0.50 1.5 0.012 1.77 8 4.57 3.7 0.79 3.82 0.23 21.21 0.55 21.77 1.71 0.73 4.85 1.09 0.11 0.23 22.11 21.59 0.33 0.45 0.06 22.28 28.00 5.72
12 11 23.20 20.46 547 0.50 _ 2.0 0.012 3.14 17 5.53 2.9 0.64 3.51 0.19 22.28 1.10 23.37 0.64 0.60 4.38 0.90 0.10 0.19 23.66 24.09 0.13 0.17 0.06 24.20 , 29.00 4.80
13 11 23.73 23.20 107 0.50 1.5 0.012 1.77 8 4.57 0.4 0.37 2.12 0.07 24.20 0.11 24.32 0.19 0.25 2.81 0.37 0.03 0.07 24.42 24.09 0.07 0.09 0.04 24.48 35.00 10.52
24 _ 1.5 4.50
Note:
I 1)OF/AD"<3.5 =>unsubmerged inlet contol condition.
2) Determined from trial and error method of solution to Q2b=gA3,or from DOE drainage manual(Pg.III-2-39,Figure III-2-19),
An approximate solution is calculated for circular pipes by D„=0.420(Qd)o.s/D025)
3) Entrance loss coefficient is from DOE drainage manual(Table III-2.3,pg III-2-21), Ke=0.5
4) Constants for inlet control eqns from FHWA charts. See DOE drainage manual(Table III-2.6,pg.III-2-31). Using FHWA Chart 1,Monograph Scale 1:
K M c Y
0.0098 2.0 0.0398 0.67
5)Set the upstream approach velocity head'to zero,if the upstream pipe is significantly higher or lower,than the entrance to this pipe
6) Bend Head loss coefficient is from DOE manual(Figure III-2-5,pg.III-2-12).
This coeff is structure specific,vary Kb at each structure. If you assume pipes are not installed exactly linear in alignment,upto 10 degrees of deflection Kb= 0.05
7)Junction headloss coefficient is from DOE manual,Kj=(Q3/Q1)/(1.18+0.63(Q3/Q1))
i
.
Appendix D
Project: Barbee Mill Plat otak
Otak No.: 30209
r By. SHN
Ex,srf^A ('viv,,ITi chi s MA'/ I'! 2003
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.3 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.25
0 24 0 07 d Legend 24 00 .07 Legend
22
16 WS 100- Future Mi 6
3 WS 100-yr Future Mi
22 WS FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996
IWS 1990 Flood I WS 1990 Flood
•
Ground Ground
20 o 'a" 20 ,„�.
c Levee c Levee
o -_,
A
Bank Sta Ineff
w 18 m 7� •
w 18 t,' Bank Sta
I .
kr
16 f 16
14 14
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.15 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.1
It 07 )1 . •It .07
24 2 Legend 24 2 Legend
6 6 •
- - WS 100-yr Future Mi - - WS 100-yr Future Mi
22 WS FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
Ground i! Ground
20 i 20 0
Levee Levee
• m Ineff Bank Sta
8 • m
i 18 Bank Sta W 18 -,
t�FswQ f�:�
16 1 16 Y
14 14
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
6—
EX15T mi[X COM)i" c;y•tS MAY 1144za
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 1 .
07 .It .07 24
26 .07 �� 026— — —.07 �
2 Legend
6 Legend
• WS 100-yr Future Mi 22 WS 1990 Flood
24 WS FEMA 1996 WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS 1990 Flood 20 WS FEMA 1996
■
22 ol
Ground :I:
Ground
C• o Le ee o "t 4 m �3 GrounBank-S a
20 .11
y Bank Sta• .; F.
ry ,;
w03 IIIiii w VRAZtIlitt-
18 14 --
16 `
10
14 8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station(ft) Station(ft) '
fillim vi1R-4,1(4'.41i!
, s I 0..lrild.411:"I q'ir,Vtia' Unqitsi,
kP.;44.,r,s4;.fi ,,gal
,- P''''':::'"2:-;:l. --:"::::::, '-•.:A,‘
frn,",,,-,...7,',:.4-6...1J' ,01,-'iv A pz.'-;f:' -•„q Pf4rViOg-34-tkr 5-:`.!-. 1'l'gue.-"'NZt t'4;`,:: ;'''''P le 71b ,';',..7
:•),.:31.1943sDin -:'di le
.,::,,,,fa 1,4-Ad.:,,,!:pii lib k;;0,' Pais
11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4
11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.0 7.0 7.3 151.2 42.2
0 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.5 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2
10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 94.5 28.9
I I - 10 1,059 21.4 28.0 6.6 8.0 135.4 36.6
-
10 870 21.4 27.7 6.4 7.0 127.1 35.1
9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.2 31.1
1 .
9 1,059 20.3 27.7 7.4 5.9 199.6 81.3
9 870 20.3 27.5 7.2 5.0 186.5 72.7
I '
8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.4 77.1
8 1,059 20.0 26.5 6.4 5.4 257.4 110.7
_
' '' 8 870 20.0 27.3 7.3 2.7 652.4 489.4
7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.2 36.7
_
7 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 744.5 558.3
_ 7 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 1.7 1,262.8 600.0
. _ .
6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.6 35.3
I; 6.9 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 726.1 557.9
6.9 , 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 1.7 1,262.8 600.0 _.
6.8 Bridge _
_ _
6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.6 42.1
6.75
1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.1 616.6 589.7
6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.4 5.8 171.6 58.1 -'
6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.6 42.2
1 _
6.7 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 3.8 647.5 589.7
6.7 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.2 202.5 58.6
_ . .._ .
6 598 , 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.5 50.9
_ 6 1,059 18.4 24.3 5.9 7.2 173.2 54.7
6 870 18.4 24.2 5.8 6.1 169.0 54.4
! , 5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 143.7 48.6 .
5 1,059 17.5 24.2 6.7 3.5 876.4 1,471.1 7
I , 5 870 17.5 23.5 , 5.9 5.3 188.8 52.0
1 .
4.4 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.9 130.4 49.4
_
297.5 560.6
4.4 1,059 15.3 23.2 7.8 8.0
4.4 _ 870 15.3 22.8 7.5 0 6.5 179.0 53.8
4.35 598 15.3 21.7 6.4 6.4 116.1 48.5
f
, <
, t
E
d
s '
fS r r; e,r J ti F . ki F ( 1 'i 7i 'f;tli�7xi F�'�Y' �i ,r JaF�W y (`�.'tYQ' ,h t rE{� /.1 t�-',0, :4 k-. �' F49 yiNF'�
%?(2A U�r D 8 9 a! > r. S ..-.Ji ,};i_.a:F {i;r icy S7 a h.�..=... t,.k Y FS. .i ;
�r_qq{.� ��j,may- �'}�+ (� ..s r i p
�„� �) 'L41� f.�',S�l:1.���1�'lrl3-l��w.��i._. ,,'flr-e�"� � t n - .7I.� ..c_.�.I a, � �+ �� tk 5
S'..rj �Fx;.r yr 1,a-. A "n1, +r 3 St-tyl ,�fl�7 3 7 f4,f Jt#1 t, , Jrr.,t a4'...n+r :��-snt{? 1"t r 9'f7 -.'f F� tfi j+P� r i i w ,i ! o o gI S:?
1 tGr rl 7,,.r`=.".;�y .��1 '7��,'�,-'7'7��}%'�tN..c��t`a,�r�+;�i'i.....�k SN�� :..! xti yz p{r,iPt +�' ;5.��.�4�S � ?jl�r�'irt,�,r; ,. 1�, �a3� t.Yt ,.r.,. �C a t. �'t q
r! ,; a`S L�°l,Afra,r a7 v-'h-^/`:` °j' ° i°El r. _ . `yr`)' n F' �5 C 3rt , o m y it
(ff ! ., � n �, ) i an l � f �nl„ h1dna 'J >rK7'� "nn' 1
wppd�A?it ln��ks{.;��`�rr 31 "t ((�� '-�SrJ fl�,�Fr.u�i 6"d'tt,Fix trt4,7 a, e'V51t.� �..��. E 1%1 � r �ti' al{.(� } 1$ r�-kr p. � � J t �,., is i41 �i
r,il!.i t t)glow d F e a 6! ? Y t Y.. i ,/ y t l�LCr>-fn. s x /(J1 ) 1. 7 � Li i, �-nn{' ar
r3��>< .l: sv..,�� l��:e�.t S�. li=..-(�,.,Y� clot"'=€_ .ta9�,.a��aa�,..t.�11�.�rNrryr I i,1 .ftiihc���rr ��tS 3 Y�;^41�,- 1 4ze�,i..?r3.l4��-"rG_��,,...� iaz��" .l ili I!
4.35 1,059 15.3 23.1 7.8 7.5 174.5 560.6
4.35 870 15.3 22.5 7.2 7.2 150.8 52.5
4.3 Brid•e -----.
4.25 598 16.7 21.6 4.9 6.2 108.2 45.1
4.25 1,059 16.7 23.0 6.3 7.4 165.4 53.4
4.25 870 16.7 22.4 5.7 7.1 141.6 48.1
4.2 598 __ 16.7 21.6 4.9 6.0 116.8 45.0
4.2 1,059 16.7 23.0 6.3 7.1 185.0 53.3
4.2 870 16.7 22.4 5.7 6.8 155.7 48.1 1
4 598 17.5 21.1 3.6 6:0 101.1 38.4
4 1,059 17.5 22.6 5.1 6.9 167.1 52.5
4 870 17.5 21.9 4.5 6.8 135.1 43.7 r
3 598 16.3 19.9 3.7 7.7 79.3 34.7
3 1,059 16.3 22.2 5.9 7.1 187.0 55.3
3 870 16.3 21.3 5.0 r 7.4 139.5 51.7
2.3 598 14.9 19.9 5.1 6.7 101.7 28.6 [ -`
2.3 1,059 14.9 21.8 6.9 8.2 157.7 32.7
2.3 870 14.9 21.1 6.2 7.6 136.2 31.2
2.25 598 14.9 19.9 5.0 6.8 100.9 28.6
2.25 1,059 14.9 21.7 6.9 8.2 156.2 32.6
2.25 870 14.9 21.1 6.2 7.6 135.9 31.2 1'
2.2 Mult O•en ---- -
2.15 598 15.5 19.2 3.7 8.3 80.1 30.0
2.15 1,059 15.5 20.5 5.0 9.9 121.6 32.3
2.15 870 . 15.5 20.0 4.5 9.3 105.3 31.4
2.1 598 15.5 18.8 3.4 9.2 71.1 29.5
2.1 1,059 15.5 20.1 4.6 11.1 107.9 31.5 -I
2.1 870 - 15.5 19.6 4.1 10.4 93.3 30.7
2 598 16.0 18.7 2.7 7.7 77.7 42.2
2 1,059 16.0 19.6 3.6 9.2 115.4 44.1
2 870 16.0 19.3 3.3 8.6 100.9 43.4
1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 r 1
1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7
1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7
L
1
--/TATT,TA 77--liriF,m,:p:piiyik-06)--mv, w.„..17,,,,,,;(
I , b'tfTt'o7jit°.f'at-391WjAWPWait "Willt11 Ii:O -01111f0 - 41.2:1ai'Iii.;-41 'ilEff,01ZE,
,,,,,..r,,V.,T4f.4.1.',.;`,1'Z''--71 e'rr,"r-V',Z,r.47:Ft•.75.4VirklVe(1,11741;,,,,W±,z,T,,,i P"77-Aitnielti-A;"f.r4F,'"'114.:4,,IP3i.fril7441,:ctIrlifg1777,1,r(115,
R4.Rerr-NvZ7A;C,iv4'11!t2:,,b41, 11 ,,,IgiirtIJI`16: PY:i;Fi'Y.':`,".f:,,:,111 ,ArAW:VtilDri-,,Pf;b,:11,1Z,',11A.41:19,,!,V;Y,-;142,
417410ra1:4""q61P 1-115 -Virdig'T1 Wit eVt-'1110 ,-- .,. 4:5;Wiagiv, TT.17,wp,3-4-; , ,, A = ,141
wiiaMOYA' !g`igl 'qz ifoRtiAtio'il lettl ti)•,,,-q,ii,'w ,mo,v ont:1 ,,,11‘m t.fr It i,,,,:oks! 11,:„g', VN:110,':74
11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4
11 ' 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.1 7.1 7.2 153.2 43.0
I 11 MI FEMA 1996 22.0 28.5 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2
1 10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 -94.5 •
10 1,059 21.4 28.2 6.8 7.7 142.9 38.8
10 870 21.4 27.8 6.4 7.0 127.2 35.2
9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.3 31.1
9 S . 20.3 28.0 7.7 5.5 228.2 114.6
9 870 20.3 27.5 7.3 5.0 188.5 74.1
I '
8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.5 77.1
• 8 1,059 20.0 26.5 6.4 6.3 258.6 482.0
8 870 20.0 27.4 7.3 2.5 685.0 490.5
7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.3 36.7
7 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.1 3.7 754.4 558.5
7 870 18.3 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 600.0
6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.7 35.3
6.9 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 736.5 558.1
6.9 870 18.3 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 600.0
i
6.8 Bridge
6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.7 42.1
6.75 1,059 • 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.0 638.5 589.7
, - 6.75 870 . 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7 175.7 59.7
- 6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3
I l' 6.7 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 3.7 669.3 589.7
6.7 870 18.4 25.0 6.5 • 5.1 207.3 .5
6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0
6 1,059 18.4 24.4 6.0 7.0 178.1 55.0
6 870 18.4 24.4 6.0 5.8 178.2 55.0
5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7
5 1,059 17.5 24.1 6.6 4.2 687.0 1470.9
•
5 870 17.5 23.9 6.3 • 4.6 358.6 1470.5
I
4.4 598 • 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6
4.4 1,059 15.3 24.0 8.7 3.6 754.9 561.1
4.4 870 15.3 23.8 8.5 3.4 674.9 561.0
4.35 • 598 15.3 21.8 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1
r
gr '`,rzt r-i-no �i { n` r. y v14 Cs (+fit '_y*�-'�.-,7i�3,�'�. �S :4,. ip wa; 3i."^µ° `�st '��r t e a' z y L:
'�71 �7a �.�� ��'A.�...I�AuS 1 . 3a� :r an a.�t r r €S 1 x � S lr �, Sr<
r"- }1'(�,��^( ^z. ,j�y��?, '1'f '� ¢(tr^ _.,�.�Yf,1'r -ate f,.{� ;��r�, L ,�r...1 � r
fp )p X �i p.:_:QX��A�J n x{- Q 2-J,M1 6:t.�9 ,41 C "t0 A !_.;,Mpl1"T--' g�.T - it"M` {;•Nr.,tils. fpv f Zl.�,h:: ,LL, ,u
�Y 5 - ,- � a 65r N " 4i S a { r :.'!:T {A 11,#1 a- i 2 yE � IW0'�' yi AAe ; j00 < 1 11 � , s 1vj) • f w " 1 � r �" X 1 , p
17�t�j�'�r�.,�L<sp�x� �St � z e3i� ol iF�,31l,e S'91> �.L�'>"o�.^.�y IV ry a 1 f S.- x ,n F f,t ,�-fr' r-�)� -�Y e g rY V r,.
4.35 1,059 15.3 23.9 8.6 3.7 742.8 561.1 4'
4.35 870 15.3 23.8 8.5 3.4 664.1 561.0
4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8
4.25 1,059.. 16.7 23.9 7.2 4.1 624.7 555.6
4.25 870 16.7 23.7 7.1 3.8 550.9 555.5 ':
4.2 598 16.7 L-21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6
4.2 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 4.2 611.3 555.6
4.2 870 16.7 23.7 7.1 3.9 534.2 555.5
4 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 !'
4 1,059 17.5 23.4 5.9 5.8 220.3 127.1 '
4 870 17.5 23.5 6.0 4.4 364.2 1286.3
3 598 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 •
3 1,059 16.3 23.2 6.9 5.7 245.4 61.5
3 870 16.3 23.3 7.0 4.5 254.6 63.7
2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 101.3 29.8
2.3 1,059 15.9 22.4 6.5 8.5 156.5 35.7 I
2.3 870 15.9 22.9 7.0 6.4 176.1 45.9 l
0.0
2.25 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7 1
2.25 1,059 15.9 22.4 6.5 8.4 154.5 35.7
2.25 870 15.9 22.9 7.0 6.4 175.7 45.6
2.2 Mult O•en ----
2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0
2.15 1,059 15.9. 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3 p i
2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1 109.0 32.4 ,'
I
2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 73.0 30.3
2.1 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 11.2 110.4 32.4
2.1 870 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.6 31.6
2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.5 41.8
2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.3 44.0 '
2 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 - 8.7 100.5 . 43.1
1 . 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7
1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7
1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 - 495.5 176.7
I
4
1 .
f
1 TiffMtVVW,R6A-SIWIY=1141/Wgr_rfaMIlkatrtAlian'A kLIPNNiVn.tNIN,illIfettg'611 F;IftfiLt)-5;r°,t'-°-°1 °AO) !,(42-0,9_491:93,0t4itanNtam2rig.wz.1„ka:sallipA„...wm_,,,Lijil qt,,:.,._.
-,w--;;Folotoiomt7,1,-,m--;--t5w5e,gse,1:140$ka.-1:0V.,741,..mcio tvic,,z;:0,:,w,,'..4m,,e,31,14;,P-RT:e 1354:40.P.Et
,ittt,lg. •;:,'1,,Yit ,L2 1,6'141U):'4-,'":
I :;‘tin-Vatt$101!11M1011TriM:FIV,10-+%ItA kV 1 itt Q' 'ffRI4i1ZA,ik". 4etV 1943P:0%11 q'4 k ,,G qftic.iirt9.3,,w -a vim . i
ALV.X;115-417VRIzi,VNV;11VVAKQggntaif'WA-:;' 04.11.P:MtiViefatailailMMIDai
11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4
11 1,059 100- r Future 22.0 29.1 7.1 7.1 155.6 43.9
,
i 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.6 6.7 6.5 137.2 36.8
H 10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 94.5 28.9
1 , 10 1,059 21.4 28.4 7.0 7.3 151.1 42.1
10 870 21.4 28.0 6.6 6.6 136.1 36.7
9 598 20.3 26.5 ' 6.2 4.4 137.2 31.1
9 1,059 20.3 28.3 8.0 5.0 246.9 83.2
9 870 20.3 27.8 7.6 4.6 212.8 82.8
, •
+ ,'
- 8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.1 76.9
8 1,059 20.0 27.8 7.8 3.6 370.3 103.0
8 870 20.0 27.5 7.4 3.2 334.3 93.9
7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.0 36.6
7 1,059 18.3 27.5 9.1 5.0 362.0 126.9
7 870 18.3 27.1 8.8 4.6 318.3 126.9
6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 ' 132.7 35.3
6.9 1,059 18.3 27.4 9.1 5.1 354.0 126.9
6.9 870 18.3 27.1 8.7 4.7 312.4 126.9
6.8 Bridge
6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.7 42.1
, -
6.75 1,059 18.4 25.5 7.1 6.1 219.5 84.1
, .
! - 6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.8 177.2 78.5
6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3
, q 6.7 1,059 18.4 25.5 7.1 5.4 256.8 84.2
6.7 870 18.4. 24.9 6.5 5.1 208.8 80.3
6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0
6 . 1,059 18.4 25.0 6.6 5.8 236.9 106.8
6 870 18.4 24.3 5.9 5.9 174.2 54.8
5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7
5 1,059 17.5 24.5 7.0 4.9 276.4 98.2
5 870 17.5 23.6 6.1 5.1 198.2 ,53.5
1 .
4.4 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6
4.4 1,059 15.3 24.2 8.8 5.6 272.1 71.0
,I 4.4 870 15.3 23.0 7.7 6.6 188.0 70.3
4.35 598 15.3 21.8 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1
1 ,
R_ 1�., )_,r y f"` S r•1 a l i 4v�^�`yin 1 kh, '} CG 1� c [�' isi�'�� "s.G jM��.1 i r�.v zcE n ,. 1f' j I oliS�yvft,,..' ac` r r I}r� „ :?_�'N r, i, I
79 �,.J{ItU� '� r..df�`�71.(�I'aU�f [ t t.f' �, �� - .I�
�,,y-o-T t,� (L. �.gi ,y' v 7 y9��, {.'S'7'¢�' '.}4 r `�' -is T ;"• v
1`�i.il.°- °I ° ,:�.IlS1.I:.�(l� f ° ° °� t4,,,5!'lA.°l3ti +�iJ�kk°t i4M
� :r•n_..�� tk :', e]1�71 ifg)Ll7n'.�.°lA. .I,,;.f!�..i.,, S ° o �Y 1
L c , c a y,, T ,
+t7� r rtt�.JuY 1'��ryt'.{fis; }'.!.j:":r' �,.(} I�' Y,i-:{P f S};JJ}i'il?r t`F tlyv"� .§I 1.15 ;14 e:t'.v.,sf �.�,d 'r4 tl.rr�' ,y/��7r•�rdy���} f rl.�yf"a7J rl y�ic i'i:l/�y,°u.� WINy. ,
lin,lii�f.rl iv ,to I) l �+�r••_,_S 7f;;R,rYd, .f ,m" 3�,,Jt1.lr7d�f:l t Y v7�`4iri'l�J1 1 :r iIM,.`!•'Jt' ...{'R.mL� J r � �i 'jai '.`�.:� ,
.)uyaS.Yus.i'a �t �:W. �% L...larc L;<..r� t�»��
4.35_ 1,059 15.3 24.1 8.8 5.6 269.3 71.0
4.35 870 15.3 22.9 7.6 6.4 185.1 58.6 ,
0.0 --- g
4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8
4.25 1,059 16.7 24.1 7.4 5.4 269.5 79.7
4.25 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 5.9 181.1 52.4
4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 1
4.2 1,059 16.7 24.1 7.4 5.5 267.2 79.7
4.2 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 6.0 178.7 51.8
0.0 --- .
4 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2
4 1,059 17.5 23.9 6.5 4.8 273.2 93.5 ,
4 870 17.5 22.6 5.2 5.6 169.9 53.2
3 598 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 ,
3 1,059 16.3 23.8 7.5 5.1 284.4 70.3
3 870 16.3 22.4 6.2 5.5 202.7 56.5
2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 101.3 29.8
2.3 1,059 15.9 23.1 7.2 7.7 188.7 80.0
2.3 870 15.9 .. 21.8 5.9 7.7 137.3 32.7
2.25 598 15.9 20.7 '4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7
2.25 1,059 15.9 23.1 7.2 , 7.7 185.7 79.6
2.25 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 136.3 32.7
2.2 Mult O•en --- -
2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0
2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3
2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1. 109.0 32.4 1
2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 . 9.2 72.8 30.3 ,
2.1 ' 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 11.1 110.4 32.4
2.1 870 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.6 . 31.6
2 598 16.7 18.9 . 2.2 7.7 77.4 41.8 '
2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0
2 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 100.5 43.1
1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7
1 1,059 14.7 16.9 . 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7
1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7
",
,
,
i i , vitto, - P.7 T 92,19,VW' .L'IrSifite40',11,11P:;12.*P 335"fr,.!;,31U'i. ::t,,N;;gr4:4W.:1411k.'4A 1::,';LY,14'-'31'1-7,
I ' lial.2414P-i `11.'GiAlajt-i),!ii.tdrattlf tiValitall 4016S1A. iNot.t: _if,
kiklifi,k0 4*.i, 6-:2414,43 00-:'1/2,:i11.;!rk;$,iie,PV: fittgi•g1,414V0-0 !.M.Aittkilt ,4011-4%.1-1if,
gtet:itri ',V,'1, ',ty0 1 1811-116-1. ',li, WSM);`4 9 z,:311,, Afcth e %.iiii;;Joi,071., Tlt-o`Itt.V.iiik.i'
,113 waiNgi w, z,.-.f,-IA._,,y 7.10174':$1,„,lid iy‘,,tor p 0,11.,A p,1440.0t74 V 411 i'V ?!1250 Iiiri!t'l'r::''''Iii!,R 6S2,'g.4 0,$!. POO
11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4
• '
', 11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.1 7.1 7.2 153.7 43.2
1 j 11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.6 6.6 6.6 135.8 36.6
I c 10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 94.4 28.9
1 11 10 1,059 21.4 28.2 6.9 7.6 144.5 39.5 .
10 870 21.4 27.9 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2
+ •1 1 9 598 20.3` 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.1 31.1
9 1,059 20.3 28.0 7.8 5.4 235.1 114.6
9 870 20.3 27.8 7.5 4.8 205.2 89.6
8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 175.8 76.8
8 1,059 20.0 27.6 7.6 3.6 412.6 146.0
1 i. 8 870 20.0 27.4 7.4 3.2 382.4 142.6
JJ
7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 135.7 36.5
7 1,059 18.3 27.3 9.0 4.5 440.9 176.9
7 870 18.3 27.2 8.8 3.9 414.4 176.9.
6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.4 35.2
6.9 1,059 18.3 27.3 8.9 4.5 433.6 176.9
6.9 870 18.3 27.1 8.8 4.0 409.0 176.9
6.8 Bridge
, ..
6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.5 42.0
, 6.75 1,059 18.4 25.4 7.0 5.8 261.7 134.1
1 6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7 107.3 128.1'
6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3
JI 6.7 1,059 18.4 . 25.4 7.0 5.2 298.8 134.1
6.7 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.0 229.7 129.7
' I
6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0
6 1,059 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.9 243.4 156.5
6 870 18.4 24.3 5.9 6.0 172.0 54.6 _,
1 1
J _
5 598 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7
5 1,059 17.5 24.4 6.8 5.0 291.6 . 148.0
5 870 17.5 23.6 6.0 5.1 . 194.7 52.4
4.4 598 15.3 21.9 .6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6
4.4 1,059. 15.3 24.0 8.7 5.6 315.7 121.0
, I
4.4 870 15.3 23.0 7.6 6.4 187.4 60.5
4.35 598 15.3 21.8 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1
! 111 w.
J _
,
1
1
. ,
•
fAIMIK:',,MOROMIMMI-2104-folAVOWiliMVAMAg3 0;',AiziWARn174,40kAlsi-V Ipv.lve,,ApAll
`1 4iqTArairdM:14-trigNATriglirEMV-WaroMilialrWIWW.'fad;X:Trf,-aiirmv.lf,,,:
agtiLKOVV44 Aff;'?,,?iff:',V-49 Ff-,YMVOI*M R\RIR, irii,VAPV fa,M1M"'ttiK,Atrirg0.0 ,
A:(44110Atillate,110,41t0- :',A,[0.-_--ailktVld Ith ii.iti Ph*?if:A!'[11101,5, OTS, ,
1
OZZ,;;,gil kg alms swaptraiittviagol oikliD)ribit LiCISIGLAT,EntileVsilkOnfiak a kiiimatzt
4.35 1,059 . 15.3 24.0 8.7 5.7 310.0 120.9
4.35 870 15.3 22.9 7.6 6.4 185.5 59.0
0.0
4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8
4.25 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.3 5.5 299.5 129.5 ' 1
4.25 870 • 16.7 22.9 6.2 5.9 181.2 52.4
4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6
4.2 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 5.5 294.7 129.5
4.2 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 6.0 178.7 51.8
4 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2
1)1
4 1,059 17.5 23.8 6.3 5.0 277.4 143.0
4 870 17.5 22.6 5.2 5.6 169.9 53.2•
3 598 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2
3 1,059 16.3 23.6 7.3 • 5.3 270.2 67.2
3 870 16.3 22.4 6.2 • 5.5 202.7 56.5 )1
I 1
•2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 101.3 29.8
2.3 1,059 15.9 22.9 • 7.0 7.8 176.0 45.8
2.3 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 137.3 32.7
2.25 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7 )
2.25 1,059 15.9 22.9 7.0 7.9 174.7 45.1
2.25 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 136.3 32.7
2.2 Mult 0.en 1
t, 1
2.15 598 • 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0
2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3 I 1
2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1 109.0 32.4 1
2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 72.9 30.3
2.1 1,059 15.9 20.6 4.7 11.2 110.4 32.4 I 1
2.1 870 • 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.5 31.6
2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.4 41.8
2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0
2 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 100.5 43.1
. 1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7
1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7
1 870 14.7 • 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 1
1
- i
ATTACHMENT B
Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A
•
Grain Size
•
(mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002
Percent . 0 0 0 0 2 19 30 29 11 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cumm% 0 0 0 0 2 21 50 79 90 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
%Finner 100 100 100 100 98 79 50 21 10 7 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A
100 -
90
80
70 ;
i 60 •
P. 50 `.
c. 40 . 30 . zy
30
20 `. ly
� it 7
10 ; 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A
100 . ■ i --■ --■
90
80 ;
•
70 ; — -
;60 '
a 40
30
20
10 `
0 ` ■
10000 1000 100 10 1
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Sample MC-2
Sample Date: 4125/03
Volume
Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent
(mm) (ml) Percent Retained Finer
may Creek
Sample MC-
2
1.7 0 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.85 21.49 0.9 0.9 99.1
0.425 429.36 18.2 19.1 80.9
0.3 826.64 35.1 54.2 45.8
0.21 685.49 29.1 83.3 16.7
0.106 345.51 14.7 97.9 2.1
0.063 29.24 1.2 99.2 0.8
Pan 0.01 19.59 0.8 100.0 0.0
sum 2357.32
Pan
May Creek Sample MC-2
40
35.1
35
30 •
.. • 29.1
r7-7 -111111111111111111111.1
t 25 ' • - '
2'2 20 11.111.111,1
w EMI 11111111.1111-'7, . ! •:1 14.7
ra- 15 • • -
, •
10 11. =MI
5 11111.11111,, •
•
0.0 I.9 , 1 •
. 0.8
1.7 0.85 0.425 0.3 0.21 0.106 0.063 Pan
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Sample MC-2
100
90
80
• 70
60
E 5 0
• 40
a. 30
20
10
0
1 0.1 Pan
Grain Size(mm)
I
' 1
1
j May Creek Subpavement MC-1 B
Sample Date: 9/27/01
Volume
Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent
(mm) (ml) Percent Retained Finer
May Creek
Subpaveme
75 0 0.0 0.0 100.0
50 900 40.9 40.9 59.1
25 640 29.1 70.0 30.0
12.5 270 12.3 82.3 17.7
9.5 80 3.6 85.9 14.1
6.3 55 2.5 88.4 11.6
3.35 50 2.3 90.7 9.3
1.7 55 2.5 93.2 6.8
, ! 0.85 20 0.9 94.1 5.9
0.425 25 1.1 95.2 4.8
0.075 95 4.3 99.5 0.5
1 Wash 0.01 10 0.5 100.0 0.0
sum 2200
May Creek Subpavement MC-1 B
45 ,s
40 __
35 , , •!;
=I; 29.1
30
a)25 c. I., -,•:
i ((,
t 20
1 a15 i
10 El' ; 15
II 36 43
0 a.,-_ Mac
75 50 25 12.5 9.5 6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.075 Wash
Grain Size(mm)
i May Creek Subpavement MC-1 B
100 -
90
j 80
m 70
it 60 -
d 50
V 40
ea. 30
i 20 •
10
0 ...*
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size(mm)
f
1
May Creek Subpavement MC-3
Sample Date:5/25/03
Grain Size Volume Cumm.% Percent
(mm) Retained(ml) Percent Retained Finer
May creek
Subpavement
MC-3 i
75 0 0.0 0.0 100.0
50 110 3.5 3.5 96.5
25 1060 33.9 37.4 62.6
12.5 610 19.5 56.9 43.1
9.5 120 3.8 60.7 39.3
6.3 130 4.2 64.9 35.1
3.35 220 7.0 71.9 28.1
1.7 160 5.1 77.0 23.0
0.85 200 6.4 83.4 16.6
0.425 300 9.6 93.0 7.0
0.075 205 6.5 99.5 0.5
Wash 0.01 15 0.5 100.0 0.0
sum 3130
ii
May Creek Subpavement MC-3
40
35 33.9
30 ,~ 1
.. 25 �,
a 20 19.5
n. 15 ='. ----11111111111111111111111
`I
10 a 9.6
3.8 4.2 r 5 1
5 - II {
75 50 25 12.5 9.5 6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.075 Wash
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Subpavement MC-3
100 ♦ -
80 -
a 70
= 60
c 50 -
40
a 30
20 - -
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4
Grain Size
(mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002
Percent 0 0 0 0 0 13 27 39 10 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cumm% 0 0 0 0 0 13 40 80 89 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
%Finner 100 100 100 100 100 87 60 20 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
•
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4
100
90
80
70 `.
d 60 `.
u 50
a 40 27
30
20 . 7
10 : i .
:: ... F :
0 I i I I I
2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek•Surface Substrate MC-4
100 - ■ ur-= -o
90
80 '.
70
• ,60
u _u'40
• 30
20 __ 10 10 =
10000 1000 100 10 1
Grain Size(mm)
•
•
•
i 7
1
ATTACHMENT C
Manning's Roughness Coefficient Documentation
Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness
Orginal w/Floodplain Bench
likely mitigation
Range Range
Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.035
n1 Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005
n 2 Alternating occasionally The main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005
n3 Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 percent of the 0.000 0.004
cross sectional area
n3 Minor obstructions generally occupy less than 15 percent of the 0.005 0.015
cross sectional area
n4 Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01 0.002 0.01
m Minor Sinuosity=1.04 1 1 1 1
n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.032 0.059 0.037 0.07
k t e`Anal, ..V -g -- %
�Ualue�a;IsieLl�ll�l '[�`��-yam.�{/S,rs�fo�r�t�e�C_h�nn� �'""� ��.��"�` .�_�.,r�` = ��� � c fix• ,�,... i? _ r
.,� :ti- �� "�:.'uTig•5��..��..,-3 -e '� !���,.�e'C. OIG�"-?�'��fi ~�v. �`� Zj't-
•
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS-Floodplain Technical Report Attachment C March 2004
Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness
Orginal w/Floodplain Bench
likely mitigation
Range Range
Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm • 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.035
n1 Minor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in many 0.001 0.005
locations
ni Moderate has more rises and dips than minor-some hummocks or 0.006 0.010
sloughs may occur
•
n2 na
n3 Negligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the - 0 0.004
floodplain "
n3 Minor Obstructions occupy more than 15 percent of the 0.005 0.019
floodplain
n4 small The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations with 0.001 0.01
minor shrubs and grass adjacent to the channel
n4 large 8 to 10 yr old willow or cottonwood with some weeds and 0.025 0.050
brush
m na • 1 . 1 1 1
n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.03 0.054 0.064 0.114
1%reitardinthaFAM Ialiti a 1a`a la ri` ` e°; ,- r' : it - : , - 7
•
City of Renton 554-1779-017(01/06)
Barbee Mill EIS-Floodplain Technical Report Attachment C March 2004
ATTACHMENT D
Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation
ATTACHMENT D
Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation
Attachment D is a summary of the modeling results prepared b e .• on February 13, 2004. Under
Plan 29, which is their proposed conditions model for the 10t +od, the bridge proposed at cross
section 4.01 would cause backwater that would result in the s u =- overtopping the right bank at cross
sections 4.325, 4.555, 4.775, and 5. Therefore, additional mitigation such as fill or a levee would be
required to protect the proposed development from flooding. In addition, the proposed bridge does not
have 3 feet of vertical clearance between the low cord and the water surface elevation of the 100-yr flood
as required under Renton Code.
City of Renton 554-1779-017(02.02)
Barbee Mill EIS—Floodplain Technical Report Attachment D March 2004
Memorandum
9a
To: Jenna Friebel, Parametrix
From: Robert Schottman, PE, PhD
620 Kirkland Way,#100 Russ Gaston, PE
Kirkland, WA 98033 •
Copies: Campbell Mathewson, Matt Hough, PE
Phone (425)822-4446
Fax (425)827-9577 Date: February 13, 2004
Subject: Barbee Mill—HEC-RAS Modeling
Project#: 30209
During our meeting on February 5, 2004, a few questions were raised regarding the HEC-
RAS modeling that Otak performed for May Creek. These included
• Increased velocities for proposed conditions,
• Appropriateness of Manning's roughness factors and
• Differences between water surface levels for Otak and Parametrix existing models.
Increased velocities for proposed conditions
First, it was noted that the velocities for proposed conditions (HEC-RAS Plan 29) are higher
than those for the existing conditions (HEC-RAS Plan 18) and that flow areas were
somewhat smaller for the proposed conditions. Modeling results are summarized as
Figure 1 —Plan Layout and Table 1—Modeling Results for Existing and Proposed
Conditions. Four plans are included:
• Plan 17—Parametrix Existing Conditions Model
• Plan 18—Otak Existing Conditions Model
• Plan 29—Otak Proposed Conditions Model
• Prop_High_n —Proposed Plan 29 with increased roughness factors
For existing conditions, the flow areas are generally larger for the cross sections upstream
of Cross Section 7, primarily because the existing bridge at that location produces deeper
water upstream of the bridge. The proposed removal of that upper bridge will allow the
water surface levels to fall and will produce higher average velocities for the proposed
condition. The slope of the energy grade line upstream of the upper bridge steepens when
the bridge is removed.
In contrast, the slope of the energy grade line flattens for the cross sections immediately
upstream of the proposed roadway. There, we find lower velocities and larger cross-
sectional areas after the proposed channel modifications.
Appropriateness of Manning's roughness factors
The final choice of roughness factors will occur during final design based on the ultimate
channel/overbank design. We believe that the proposed n values are ap
propriate p p based on
H:\pt•oj ect\30200\30209\Admi n\Corresp\DEI S\Friebe1021309M.doc
Jenna Friebel, Parametrix
Page 2
Barbee Mill—HEC-RAS Modeling February 13, 2004
the USGS methodology for roughness determination. Channel roughness is influenced by
several factors with the primary variable being the roughness of the channel bed material
itself. We observed the channel stream bed material to be gravelly, an observation
supported by Parametrix's pebble counts. The gravelly channel creates a base roughness of
approximately 0.028. Other variables that increase the channel roughness are surface
irregularity, variation in shape and size, obstructions to flow, vegetation relative to flow
depth, and degree of meandering. The U.S. Geological Survey method for estimating stream
roughness factors incorporates all of these factors as shown in the attached sample
calculations.
In previous modeling, we roughened the proposed channel to account for the presence of
some woody debris and plantings within the buffer. We have summarized four HEC-RAS
plans to determine the effect of a roughened channel on our predicted water surface'
elevations. Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 summarize the assumed n-values for different plans. The
modeling results in Table 1 show that increasing the channel and overbank roughness
factors causes water levels to rise.
Figure 2—Stream Profile shows the resulting water surface profile for the four plans.
Both of the proposed plans give lower water surface elevations than do the plans for the
existing conditions. Figures 3a—3h—HEC-RAS Cross Sections shows the 100-year water
levels for all plans. The plan using the higher roughness factors predicts that water levels
will rise above the existing ground along the right overbank. Note that the adjusted
roughness factors appear to be conservatively high based on Chow's method for assigning n '
values.
Differences between water surface levels for Otak and Parametrix existing models
Earlier modeling showed nearly two foot difference between water surface levels for the
Parametrix existing condition (Plan 17) and the Otak existing condition model (Plan 18).
Rechecking the model shows that a HEC-RAS optimization feature associated with lateral
structures was not operating properly. The lateral structure in the Otak model allows water
to sheet flow to Lake Washington. Flows in the downstream channel are reduced
accordingly. The model was rerun and the difference in water levels was reduced to 0.7 foot
at Cross Section 8 as shown in Table 1. At the upstream end of the reach (Section 11), the
water surface elevations match within 0.01 foot.
Reference:
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 2339.
H:\project\30200\30209\Admi n..Corresp\DEIS\Friebe1021304M.doc
•
•• 11
1 !
, •• • 10
9
I---'
E,
-1••• 8
c-)
)
(1)-- 6.75
• 6
V
5.........
• 4.55*
„...•;„. 4.1
• • 3.9
3.45"
' 3
•• 2.53333*
ma&
21*
•• 1.8*
• •
••• •••• 1.4*
• •
•
Barbee Mill Figure 1.
•
tzl
0
0-
m May Creek at Barbee Mill Plan: 1)Plan_29 2/13/2004 2)Plan 18 2/13/2004 3)Plan 17 2/13/2004 4)Prop_High_n 2/13/2004
to
30.,f—.. -- - -- May Creek 1 z{
, Legend
WS 100-yr Future Mi:Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29
28 �. WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18
I WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17
• ■
Ground
wv
26 : '1�j' .I ::
.
I l l -
•
I
I
20
•
{
-
i • •
? i i
. i i
18 i
I
•
1 I
i . I I
in N i!'j in I j ••
..�.N. N M, C7: c� 4 7_ 4 4 tn;, ( ( (0 (' O) Q
C 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
co Main Channel Distance(ft)
' 1
tzJ
A
1
Cr
r0 WY C.e..0 8.N..2ui Plan. 1)p7n_19 2/121200a 2)Plan II 771172004 0)Plan 17 2/10/2001 4)PlapHly/_n 2/13/2004 Mai C!.LL.t Bubes MA plan 1)PIen29 7113.0071 2)p4n la 711372004 2)P1an17 211372004 4)Propll/Hn 211372014
re RS=11 RS=10 Copy XSEC 11(poor survey data)
0 .07 P-55oa .07 1 I 1 _
til 07 07
40r Legend 40 6 Legend
WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18
35 i WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 29
Ground 1
° Ground
Bank Sta ° I
Bank Sta`_.__.___ _____ __.I
r
n o
30iI 30
W tu
i
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station(ft) Station(ft)
y ..k.l Berber.Ma Plen, n Plan 20 2713/2004 21 Plan la 2/12/20071 3)Plen n 7r1012004 a)Pmp_ugn n 7/1372001 Orley Creek el Bathes 390 Plan: 1)Plan_29 2/1372004 2)Plan 1e 2/13/2004 3)114,117 27134004 a)Prap Hlah n 27104004
RS=9 RS=8
R-.07 40 .07---4.067i0_-.07-7{
40. Legend 40_ --- Leged_ -'I
I WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 - WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 I
I WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High n - WS 100-yr Future Mi•Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17
•
351
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29
Ground
. Ground
•
°
Bank Sta -
Bank Sta
I
s
o
•m 30 0
m 30
tu W
I II
25- 25
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 200 50 100 150 200 250 300
WStation(ft) Station(ft)
1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 1
a
y
Q'
MeY Craae a1 B&0..400 Plan; 11 Plen 29 2/12 2004 2/Plan 18 1132004 0)Wen 17 2/10/2004 4)Pm0_H/0 n 2/10/2044 M.YC,aah elBvbes 444 Plan: 1)Plen_29 2/112004 2)Wan 10 2/112004 0)Plan 11 2/I012004 al Prop NO n 2/1120111 A
ro RS=7 RS=6.9 Copy CX 7 for US Bridge
r<- .07 --r ..1-- .07—0 •<—.07—I .06 T .07
1
Legend —'-...------._...
I 8 Legend
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 1
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17
35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_Hlgh_n 35-
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29
� WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 29
Ground Ground
•
Bank Sta . •
Bank Sta
30. r 30- '— --
1
i
)
Li) — — w
•
25' --- 25-
\ '. ,,_,_
•
20; - 20-
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station(ft) Station(ft) ,
14YC,4ea el Barbee 14a Pun: 11 Wan 20 2/102004 21 pan 18 2/112004 2)Pun 11 2/13/2004 4)Prop Kph n 1112004 MayC,aah!aortas 1.21 Wan: 1)Wen 29 220/200a 2)Pun 18 2/122004 0)Wan 12 2/11I004 4)P,ap_nIgl,n 2.I3/2004
RS=6.75 RS=6.7
00f.0641—.07--,;;1 1<,07+.06+11--.07---)41 — • _—
Legend Legend
i WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n - WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17
35' WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18
.
•Ground
•
Ground i
Bank Sta °
Bank Sta
E 304 r 30-
0
a'r
25 25
20: 20
f0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 ' 250 300
Cl,Ql„ Station(ft)
Station(ft)
1 in Horiz. = 120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 2
•
l
t
A
0
Cr
M.7 Croke.el a.m..M01 Pion: ))P149_29 2)11200e 2)Plan II 211312004 3)Plan 17 2/13)2004 /)PRP1009n 2/1312004 M.7Greek ela.rbea ML Raw I)194.-29 2r1212009 2)Ran0 2/13/2004 2)Ran 17 2r12R004 4)Prop_Hlynn 2/1312004
to RS=6
.- f RS=5
E —.07----_.._71409}1— �
.07 I .07 >�C.U6+� .07— -I
I Legend ---- --
t-... Legend ____..___,
ti WS 100-yr Future MI•Prop_High_n 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_Hlgh n
35- WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 WS 100.yr Future Mi-Plan 18 .
Ground 30 Ground
• •
Bank Sta
30 1 Bank Sta
a
c
)0 °1 25
w
251
1 -
20
20-
•
050 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station(ft)
Station(ft)
Ma70m.1 el au0e.M0 Olen. 1)914922 2r112004 2)44.410 2)32004 3)P..V 2r12,2999 4)PmP_M90_4 1nM200a May Creek el Bu0.a M0 Plan: It Mon 29 2/11,2004 2)Ple9m 21112004 2)Ran 12 2/13)2004 4)Prep M9nn V1212004
RS=4.775'
RS=4.55'
>j .07 01<.00-n .07
I Legend
Legend
35 WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29
Ground Ground
•
i Bank Sta
Bank Sta
30 I
30
i
•
25- LT.,
•
V_______.
20 I 20 ir
rJ I
1
l
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
r3 - Station(ft) - Station(ft) .
1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft - 3
•
tv
a
1
O•
(p u.Y Cr...0.7.1. Pt.. II P0,29 113/200. 3)Plan le 2/13/2004 3)Man 17 1110004 4)Prap_1112/n 11312004 44.YCr.ee al Bue.a hW Pl.. 1)Pl.nfe 1 04 43/20 3)Plan le 2/13/3004 3)PI.n17 2113/ H 2004 4)ProP .Ohn 3/112004
m RS=4.325•
. RS=4.1
! Legend 4—07-.0b�3--.07—el __ _
~l I Legend
35 il WS 100-yr Future MI-Prap_High_n 35- WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n�
1 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29
1 .
Ground Ground
1 Bank Sta • a
Ineff
0
30 I 30- Bank Sta
•
o c
w 25' w 25
I
i
. I
1
1
20, 20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
. Station(ft) Station(ft)
13.Y Creak.l e.e1aa M9 M. 1)P.n n 71112004 2)Plan 1e 1113/2004 3)P4n 17 3/112004 4)Prnpfr A_n 213,1004 12.C..al Buhae M0 Pun 1)Plan_29 11121)04 2)Pan le 3/13/3004 3)Plan 17 2132001 4)PmP—all.n 3/1312004
RS=4.01 BR Proposed Access Bridge RS=4.01 BR Proposed Access Bridge
a 04 1'4.040;1 .04 •r .04— .043-r--.04
Legend i
Legend
35. WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop High n 35
WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n
i WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29
Grond
au Ground
a
lneff inelt 1
• •
30 Bank Sta 30 Bank Sta
z g
7.44
'`^a x,._.tx 533'�rn a�i 7iat 'af,-..40
w 25 -74i4".t`,M."..� e; pi 25 t�'' i=..0
li I I1IIME
i 20 20 ,
a4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Rom.. Station(ft) Station(ft)
1 in Horiz.=120 ft ' 1 in Vert.=8 ft 4
i
a
Cr
(0 May Creek al Barbee M0 Near n Plen-29 21n2004 T Plan 1e 2/132004 3)Plan 12 2132004 l)P1aD 1U9h_n 2111-2001 May Gael at Bubo.W Maw 1)Plan_29 v132004 2)Plante 2/132004 31 Ten 17 v1Y30U4 4t P10P_nqh_n v102001
lb RS=3.9
RS=3.45'
�1 4 .07 ->a.06>%1 .07- r .07—+03al< .07-42
I Legend --------Legend..-_ - --I
•
e" 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_Hlgh n 35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 29 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29
Ground
Ground
Ineff Bank Sta
a _______
30- Bank Sta 30
r •
o a c
al251 ' m
w 25
i
20
Ilk
20
IF
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station(ft) Station(ft)
WVCMet Barbee.. Plan. 1tP1n_28 2/13n204 2)Plen IP 211.001 3)Ram 17 1/I3I2004 1)P1op_nlpil_n 2/132004 May cm...n.Ae.eeo Ten: 11P1en_29 7.,13 2Man le v1Y3004 4)Plen 17 v1111W1 4)Prop jlipA, v1YSW4
RS=3
RS=2.76666'
.07 .035 -.07H
Legend
Legend
351 WS 100-yrFuture Mi-Plan 17 35 .
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 Ground
a
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18 Bank Sta
30- Ground 30
i
Bank Sta
-52
o t c
I 'm
v >y
w 25 i w 25
' ../..
I.
20- Y0
..,...„.
..,,,
I
_.,
•
CiD
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
(O Station(ft) Station(ft) .
1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 5
ti
a
'1
Q'
Wry creek al0er0ee AMl Plan n PIanJO 2113/2004 21 Plan 14 2/10/2004 2)Plan 12 2/12/2004 4)P2P_11Ig1 n 2)3/20W
CO
WyGaak el sane.1.4,9 PWI: 1)Plan_29 7/I11004 2)PYn 10 7/13I 00• ])Plan 17 2/13200a .4)Prop_Npl, 71112004
CO RS=2.53333' RS=2.3 Aggredatlon
R.07 0n.03S0n-•-.07--7j 1.r.035<—.07H
j Legend 7 Legend
35 1 WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n 35 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17
•
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18
l Ground WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n
Bank Sta WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29
301 • 30 Ground
Bank Sta
0 0
II
W 25 W 25
•
INIIIIM
201 20
. .
..
,• , r " . " . . , •
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 ^
Station(ft) Station(ft) •
ey a creel el •1E•e 1k0 1)wen 6161,79 2/1072004 21 Plan 10 2/1012004 2)Plan 17 2/102004 4)Pray H n ly11 2/IL2004 MM.yCnek al eubea 1.40 Plan: 1)Ple6_20 2/131004 2)Km 18 2/12 2064 ])Plan 17 2/10I2004 4)PropJlye n 211]/]004
RS=2.2 BR Footbridge RS=2.2 BR Footbridge
rc Ay)0354<• .07 - 14.073-.035- —.07—r
'g. Legend r.__._-- _'_Legend_._. .. —1
351 WS 100-yr Future Mt-Plan 17 35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17
•
WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop HIgh_n • WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29
JI WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29 WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18
30.j Ground 30_ Ground
•
• .
Bank Sta - •
Bank Ste
r i z
. O • c
m 0)
w 25- w 25-
I
20- 20- RN
Si
(75 0 l 50 T 100 150 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station(ft) Station(ft)
1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 6 .
to
a
y .
Cr
M.r Gesell el ea/bee WI a Pi.n 29 a/112004 2P.I.A 10 111200. al PI.n❑ 2/1120 4 41 RlP Hl h n 111200. '
rb vi.n May et e.,baeta0 Mew It Pl.n 29 11120W 21 Ran II 2/112We 3)Pie.I) 2/n2004 .)R.P_NipAn 2/n/200.
In RS=2.1' RS=2 Aggredation
k-.07 r}e-.035.t.....07---h 07— .035 07 -1 -
Legend
— _
ti. 1egen`i i
35y WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 29 35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 - WS 10.0-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future Mt-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 17
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18
•
30' Ground 30- Ground
•
l Bank Ste - Bank Sta
1 c
0
w 25: m
to 25-
II
1 •
20- 20-
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Station(ft) Station(ft)
Maly Creak.l Babe.tag Plen: 1)1,1e11_29 2/13/2004 2)Men 1a 2/10n004 31Plen17 2/112006 4)P/oe_e14A_n 2/112004 kley Creak.IB.Nn Mel P.n I)R.n29 2/11R004 2)Rao to 2/112004 01 P4n 12 2I13I2004 41 Prop HIpA_n 1112001
RS=1.81 RS=1.61
I f4—.07—o4—.035 >je .07—•I
Legend . Legend
•
35 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 35- WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 I
WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n
Ground
I • Ground
•
Bank Sta °
Bank Sta
3011 30- ,
o c
.m
w 25- lu 25-
�,,
20I 20- _
•
I
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
uO l Station(ft) Station(ft)
1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 7
. .
CV ..
A
.1
O.
44),Cres0 eillelbera 0441 Nur 1)9)44_29 3/1343004 a PI.IS 3M/3004 3)94)4)2 341343994 4)9,49_00_4 40342904 4441Cree4 41 Bub.449 Nam I)Plen_39 2/13/2004 3)Pt..,le 2/13/3004 3)Ran 17 2113/2004 4)4,49_190 A 2/13/2404
CZ
. et RS=1.4'
RS=1.2*
., 07 I-‹ 035 ,.,
Legend 14—.07 + .035 )1-, .07
d
.
I '''' '• --Ciifend•
1
,..... 35• . WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29 35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29
.....,
WS 100-yr Future MI•Prop_High_n 1
WS 100-yr Future MI•Prop_High_n l
i .
Ground
Ground
1 •
Bank Sta
•
. Bank Sta
30 30-
' .
E
:e
g •
§ .
3 >''
25 (-11 25-
u.I
20
20-
. .
•
. ........,------r-
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station(It) Station(ft)
May Cr.el 84.44 MA Ran. I)Men 29 3./13,2004 2)Plan 19 2/13,2694 3)Ran 17 2/13/2004 4)Pm:Q.90,4 2113/2004
RS=1 XSEC F
.035— + .07
Legend
•
35- WS 100-yr Future MI-Prop_High_n
i WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan_29
•
WS 100-yr Future MI-Plan 18
Ground
A• Ineff
30•
• Ban;Sta
E I
. .
B .
?. .
'th' 25- •
20-
1
l _
si
CO
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
P— Station(ft) .
1 in Horiz.=120 ft 1 in Vert.=8 ft 8
- ,
_— _
Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
11 Plan29 1059 28.1 2.86 7.24 3.98 49.86 677.52 331.63 62.38 0.57
11 Plan-18 or*. 1059 29.03 2.2 7.26 0.72 19.02 1039.51 0.47 42.66 0.58
11 Plan 17 PAI)t 1059 29.04 2.2 7.24 0.73 19.26 1039.23 0.51 42.85 0.58
11 Prop_High_n 1059 29.08 2.24 6.02 2.67 67.9 674.23 316.87 83.43 0.44
10 Plan 29 1059 27.34 4.19 7.87 4.43 176.68 468.03 414.29 61.82 0.61
10 Plan 18 1059 28.1 2.19 7.8 0.18 13.22 1045.78 0 37.69 0.64
10 Plan 17 1059 28.15 2.19 7.71 0.31 14.06 1044.93 0.01 38.46 0.63
10 Prop_High_n 1059 28.37 3.07 6.46 2.94 188.75 459.95 410.3 86.03 0.46
9 Plan_29 1059 26.93 1.72 5.51 3.1 8.32 776.3 274.38 61.78 0.42
9 Plan 18 1059 27.87 5.62 1.05 1022.49 36.51 105.05 0.42
9 Plan 17 1059 27.94 5.53 1.04 1017.35 41.65 114.02 0.41
9 Prop_High_n 1059 27.93 1.41 4.46 2.47 12.3 744.88 301.82 65.28 0.31
8.65384* Plan 18 1059 27.42 4.52 1.12 796.6 262.4 349.82 0.35
8 Plan_29 1059 25.82 2.74 5.95 3.21 70.32 687.38 301.3 66.09 0.45
8 Plan 18 1059 27.2 0.36 4.12 1.97 0.29 747.38 311.32 117.07 0.32
8 Plan 17 1059 26.51 6.08 0.82 959.55 99.45 482.06 0.5
8 Prop_High_n 1059 26.68 2.38 5.45 1.83 85.93 727.27 245.8 111.48 0.38
7.66666* Plan 18 997.12 27.1 1.28 4.1 1.73 20.48 697.71 278.93 123.18 0.3
7.33333* Plan 18 901.23 27.02 1.4 3.98 1.49 50.68 604.93 245.62 129.37 0.27
7 Plan_29 1059 25.06 3.27 6.59 3.49 121.24 614.12 323.64 62.66 0.48
7 Plan 18 775.55 26.79 1.09 4.95 1.85 62.62 611.71 101.22 99.5 0.32
7 Plan 17 1059 26.38 1.58 3.72 0.95 74:15 433.89 550.96 558.24 0.25
7 Prop_High_n 1059 25.88 2.71 5.63 2.72 132.09 597.46 329.45 69.75 0.38
Barbee Mill
k:\project\30200\30209\waterres\hecras\roughness_sensitivity.xls 1 ota k
•
Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude# Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
6.9 Plan_29 1059 25.04 2.38 5.5 2.86 43.54 791.4 224.05 60.28 0.4
6.9 Plan 18 729.84 26.73 2.03 5.16 1.89 95.34 547.47 87.03 54.01 0.33
6.9 Plan 17 1059 26.34 2.12 3.75 0.94 92.42 436.07 530.51 557.8 0.25
6.9 Prop_High_n 1059 25.83 1.93 4.71 2.38 47.5 770.1 241.4 63.3 0.32
6.75 Plan_29 1059 24.93 2.05 5.51 2.75 24.59 822.25 212.16 56.92 0.39
6.75 Plan 18 729.84 24.42 6.19 2.22 681.81 48.04 42.96 0.48
6.75 Plan 17 1059 25.3 4.1 0.95 609.92 449.08 589.71 0.29
6.75 Prop_High_n 1059 25.71 1.69 4.77 2.32 27.19 800.55 231.26 59.49 0.32
6.7 Plan_29 1059 24.93 2.08 5.15 2.68 27.42 791.07 240.51 66.93 0.38
6.7 Plan 18 729.84 24.5 2.11 4.68 1.65 34.5 651.79 43.56 51.28 0.36
6.7 Plan 17 1059 25.29 1.73 3.82 0.88 37.58 611.13 410.29 589.69 0.27
6.7 Prop_High_n 1059 25.69 1.75 4.55 2.02 31.55 792.32 235.13 78.62 0.32
6.46666* Plan 18 729.84 24.37 2.54 4.81 1.51 84.5 609.67 35.68 62.9 0.39
6.23333* Plan 18 729.84 24.17 2.73 5.18 1.23 117.83 599.53 12.49 64.06 0.43
6 Plan_29 1059 24.48 2.56 5.76 3.15 174.11 566.69 318.2 83.72 0.43
6 Plan 18 729.84 23.86 2.72 5.76 118.19 611.66 52.98 0.49
6 Plan 17 1059 24.27 3.76 7.28 207.93 851.07 54.61 0.6
6 Prop_High_n 1059 25.18 2.24 5.04 2.25 202.74 556.64 299.62 100.56 0.35
5 Plan_29 1059 24.09 2.5 4.7 2.2 197.69 590.26 271.05 95.59 0.33
5 Plan 18 729.84 23.19 2.33 4.77 1.61 80.47 639.6 9.77. 50.95 0.39
5 Plan 17 1059 24.41 1.45 2.69 0.55 83.09 455.06 520.85 1471.43 0.19
5 Prop_High_n 1059 24.59 2.28 4.48 1.24 209.83 607.09 242.08 190.96 0.3
4.775* Plan_29 1059 23.98 2.67 4.88 1.93 194.84 596.53 267.63 116.34 0.35
4.775* Prop_High_n 1059 24.46 2.28 4.49 1.42 191.89 591.76 275.35 165.61 0.31
Barbee Mill
k:\project\30200\302091waterreslhecras\roughness sensitivity.xls 2 otak
- - - C --- - - - - ----- I-- -- - - -- - -- -- -- - ---- - -- - --- '----
Table 1 - Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
4.55* Plan 29 1059 23.88 2.53 4.88 2.11 169.99 582.79 306.22 111.7 0.35
4.55* Prop_H7igh_n 1059 24.3 2.18 4.59 1.64 169.06 587.62 302.32 143.42 0.32
4.4 Plan 18 729.84 22.68 2.09 5.63 2.53 21 543.73 165.11 52.51 0.41
4.4 Plan 17 1059 24.34 1.01 2.7 0.86 16.86 335.18 706.96 561.36 0.17
4.35 Plan 18 729.84 22.55 2.37 5.99 2.98 22.48 564.83 142.53 52.64 0.44
4.35 Plan 17 1059 23.67 2.87 6.64 3.82 37.14 749.22 272.64 560.94 0.45
4.325* Plan_29 1059 23.78 2.51 4.83 2.43 154.65 563.17 341.18 95.71 0.35
4.325* Prop_High_n 1059 24.13 2.28 4.72 1.92 158.79 584.13 316.08 117.15 0.34
4.25 Plan 18 729.84 22.47 5.81 2.72 632.93 96.91 48.39 0.46
4.25 Plan 17 1059 23.47 6.6 3.61 863.09 195.91 555.16 0.48
4.2 Plan 18 729.84 22.47 2.59 5.55 2.45 36.86 604.03 88.95 48.37 0.44
4.2 Plan 17 1059 23.59 2.44 5.23 0.99 52.35 697.96 308.68 555.31 0.37
4.1 Plan 29 1059 22.98 5.45 7.73 5.41 143.4 774.98 140.62 69.63 0.61
4.1 Prop_High_n 1059 23.33 4.87 7.29 4.83 139.91 781.67 137.42 71.64 0.56
4.01 Bridge
4 Plan 18 729.84 '22.24 1.88 5.18 1.4 13.12 707.7 9.02 47.99 0.45
4 Plan 17 1059 23.11 2.4 6.07 1.27 31.78 1003.04 24.18 74.61 0.48
3.9 Plan29 1059 22.09 6.09 8.96 6.54 130.72 774 154.28 66.59 • 0.76
3.9 Prop_Hi_gh_n 1059 22.97 4.9 7.39 5.19 135.49 768.93 154.57 71.55 0.57
3.66666* Plan 18 729.84 21.97 1.68 5.55 0.89 16.79 711.86 1.19 44.21 0.49
Barbee Mill
k:\project\3020000209\waterresthecrastroughness_sensitivity.xls 3 otak
Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
3.45* Plan 29 1059 22.0.6 1.97 7.22 2.66 69.82 731.71 257.46 76.71 0.6
3.45* Prop_High_n 1059 22.79 2.31 4.94 2.95 116.53 580.86 361.61 80.86 0.38
3.33333* Plan 18 729.84 21.83 1.3 5.63 22.93 706.91 46.66 0.49
3 Plan_29 1059 21.99 1.7 6.45 2.35 74.9 748.66 235.44 86.94 0.53
3 Plan 18 729.84 21.81 1.04 5.35 41.01 688.84 53.93 0.44
3 Plan 17 1059 22.87 1.39 6.03 95.07 963.93 58.26 0.46
3 Prop_High_n 1059 22.52 2.12 4.67 2.77 123.12 604.61 331.28 90.01 0.36
2.76666* Plan_29 1059 21.73 1.72 7.36 2.55 40.15 797.91 220.93 76.89 0.62
2.76666* Prop_High_n 1059 22.25 2.21 5.44 3.09 72.74 660.47 325.79 80.11 . 0.43
2.53333* Plan_29 1059 21.48 1.87 8.04 2.76 20.16 818.15 220.7 66.56 0.69
2.53333* Prop_High_n 1059 21.91 2.38 6.19 3.48 34.37 694.56 330.08 69.11 0.51
2.3 Plan_29 1059 21.06 1.76 9.21 3.1 5.34 842.42 211.25 59.31 0.83
2.3 Plan 18 729.84 21.67 0.95 5.72 1.11 12 694.7 23.14 32.48 0.41
2.3 Plan 17 1059 22.51 1.21 7.25 1.22 20.18 1004.46 34.36 37.25 0.49
2.3 Prop_High_n 1059 21.31 2.33 7.51 4.13 8.54 733.9 316.56 60.31 0.66
2.25 Plan 18 729.84 21.69 1.41 5.54 1.84 17.99 674.33 37.53 32.53 0.4
2.25 Plan 17 1059 22.52 1.19 7.19 1.66 20.03 996.47 42.5 37.33 0.48
2.2 Bridge
2.15 Plan 18 729.84 19.86 1.74 7.91 2.98 6.26 691.91 31.68 31.19 0.72
2.15 Plan 17 1059 20.52 1.42 9.88 2.57 7.15 1016.59 35.26 32.31 0.83
2.1* Plan_29 1059 20.05 1.7 ' 9.71 1.31 2.55 1054.25 2.2 41.78 0.99
Barbee Mill 4
k:\project\30200\30209\waterres\hecraslroughness_sensitivity.xls ota k
r
Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
2.1* Plan 18 729.84 19.35 2.03 9.26 3.11 5.35 698.78 25.72 30.33 0.91
2.1* Plan 17 1059 20.05 1.59 11.14 2.45 6.35 1023.24 29.41 31.51 0.99
2.1* Prop_High_n 1059 20.05 1.19 9.75 0.92 1.77 1055.7 1.52 41.74 0.99
2.05* Plan 18 729.84 19.32 0.08 7.99 0 729.84 39.39 0.92
2 Plan_29 1059 19.68 1.47 9.3 1.25 1.32 1056.99 0.69 44.85 1
2 Plan 18 729.84 19.13 7.64 729.84 43.13 0.9
2 Plan 17 1059 19.58 9.18 1059 44.14 1
2 Prop_High_n 1059 19.68 1.03 9.31 0.88 0.92 1057.6 0.48 44.84 1
1.8* Plan_29 1059 19.46 1.2 8.28 0.83 0.77 1058.02 0.21 53.72 0.93
1.8* Prop_High_n 1059 19.46 0.84 8.28 0.58 0.54 1058.31 0.15 53.72 0.93
1.6* Plan_29 1059 19.38 0.99 7.23 0.58 0.56 1058.36 0.08 62.69 0.82
1.6* Prop_High_n 1059 19.38 0.69 7.23 0.41 0.39 1058.55 0.06 62.69 0.82
1.4* Plan_29 1059 19.26 0.81 6.57 0.45 0.35 1058.61 0.04 71.82 0.76
1.4* Prop_High_n 1059 19.26 0.56 6.57 0.31 0.25 1058.73 0.03 71.82 0.76
1.2* Plan_29 1059 19.12 0.61 6.16 0.34 0.16 1058.82 0.02 80.86 0.74
1.2* Prop_High_n 1059 19.12 0.43 6.17 0.24 0.11 1058.88 0.01 80.85 0.74
1 Plan_29 1059 18.95 0.35 5.97 0.25 0.02 1058.97 0 89.49 0.74
1 Plan 18 729.84 17.01 6.51 . 729.84 177.08 1
1 Plan 17 1059 16.9 2.06 2.42 810.45 248.55 176.65 0.39
1 Prop_High_n 1059 18.95 0.24 5.97 0.18 0.02 1058.98 0 89.49 0.74
Barbee Mill
k:lproject13 0 2 0 013 02 0 91waterreslhecraslroughness_sensitivity.xls 5 otak
Table 2 -Plan 17-Parametrix Existing Conditions ,
Manning's n Values
River Station Frctn (n/K) n #1 n#2 n#3 .
1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
2 10 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
3 9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
4 8 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
5 7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
6 6.9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
7 6.8 Bridge
8 6.75 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
9 6.7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
10 6 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 ,
11 5 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
12 4.4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
13 4.35 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
14 4.3 Bridge
15 4.25 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
16 4.2 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
17 4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
18 3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
19 2.3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
20 2.25 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
21 2.2 Mult Open
22 2.15 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
23 2.1 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 ;
24 2 n 0.07 0.026 • 0.07
25 1 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
1 1
Barbee Mill
k:\project\30200130209\waterres\hecraslroughness_sensitivity.xls 6 ota k
Table 3-Plan 18-Otak's Existing Conditions
River Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3
1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
2 10 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
3 9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
4 8.65384* n 0.07 0.06 0.07
5 8 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
6 7.95 Lat Struct
7 7.66666* n 0.07 0.06 0.07
8 7.33333* n 0.07 0.06 0.07
__ 9 7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
10 6.9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
11 6.8 Bridge
12 6.75 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
13 6.7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
14 6.65 Lat Struct
15 6.46666* n 0.07 0.06 0.07
16 6.23333* n 0.07 0.06 0.07
17 6 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 ,
18 5 , n 0.07 0.06 0.07
19 4.4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
20 4.35 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
21 4.3 Bridge
22 4.25 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
23 4.2 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
24 4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
25 3.66666* n 0.07 0.049 0.07
26 3.33333* n 0.07 0.037 0.07
27 3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
28 2.3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
29 2.25 n 0.07 0.04 0.07
30 2.2 Mult Open
! ! 31 2.15 n 0.07 0.04 0.07
32 2.1 n 0.07 0.04 0.07
33 2.05* n 0.07 0.04 0.07
34 2 n 0.07 0.04 0.07
35 1 n 0.07 0.04 0.07
Barbee Mill •
Ic\project\30200V302091waterres\hecras\roughness_sensitivity.xls 7 otak
Table 5-Proposed Plan Having Higher Roughness Factors 1
River Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3
1 11 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
2 10 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
3 9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
4 . 8 • n - 0.1 0.08 0.1 .
5 7 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
6 6.9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
7 6.75 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
8 6.7 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
9 6 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
10 5 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
11 4.775* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
12 4.55* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
13 4.325* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
14 4.1 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
15 4.01 Bridge _I
16 3.9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
17 3.45* n 0.1 0.08 0.1 -
18 3 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
19 2.76666* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
20 2.53333* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
21 2.3 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
22 . 2.2 Bridge
23 2.1* n 0.1 0.035 0.1
24 2 n 0.1 0.035 0.1
25 1.8* n 0.1 0.035 0.1
26 1.6* n 0.1 0.035 0.1
27 1.4* n 0.1 . 0.035 0.1
28 1.2* n 0.1 0.035 0.1
29 1 n . 0.1 0.035 0.1
Barbee Mill 9 otak
k:lproject1302001302091waterreslhecrastroughness sensitivity.xls
•
Sample Calculations For Estimating Manning's n
Reference: USGS (U.S. Geologic Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply
Paper 2339.
The following calculations serve as the primary design basis for determining Manning's n values for
the existing and proposed channels. They support n values in the following ranges:
Existing channel 0.035 < n <0.045
Proposed Channel 0.060 < n <0.075
Overbank 0.065 < n <0.075
These roughness factors will be adjusted during final design.
Existing Stream Channel: River Station (RS) 3.9 to RS 11
1. Channel bed material: Coarse gravel n 0 := 0.028
2. Surface Irregularity: Minor(slighly eroded banks), n 1 := 0.005
3. Var. in Shape& Size: Minor n 2 := 0.003
(Occasional shift from large to small section),
4. Obstructions to flow: Neglig. ( < 5%section area), n 3 := 0.002
5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Low(Flow> 2 x Veg.), n 4 := 0.005
6. Degree of meandering: Minor(Sinuosity < 1.2), m := 1.00
n := m•(n0+ n1 + n2 + n3 + n4) , n = 0.043
River Station (RS) 1 to RS 3.9
Stations downstream of RS 3.9 should have lower n values based on the sandier channel bed
materials and the regularity and smoothness of the channel. These values are not as
important because flow in that reach are heavily influenced by tailwater conditions near Lake
Washington.
Barbee Mill 30209\waterres\hecras\MANNINGS.MCD otak
By: RWS 02/13/04
Proposed Stream Channel: River Station (RS) 3.9 to RS 11
1. Channel bed material: Medium Gravel n 0 := 0.028
2. Surface Irregularity: Uniform channel in good condition, n 1 := 0.002
3. Var. in Shape& Size: Occasional shift from large to small n 2 := 0.010"
section),
4. Obstructions to flow: Appreciable (additional woody debris n 3 := 0.015
5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Small (Flow>2 x Veg.), n 4 := 0.005
6. Degree of meandering: Minor(Sinuosity < 1.2), m := 1.03
n := m•(n0+ n1 + n2+ n3 + n4) , n = 0.062 -
Proposed Overbanks: River Station (RS) 1 to RS 11
1. Channel bed material: Gravel (d50—2.5"), n 0 := 0.02
2. Surface Irregularity: Minor(slighly eroded banks), n 1 := 0.01
3. Var. in Shape &Size: Minor n 2 := 0.00
(Occasional shift from large to small section),
4. Obstructions to flow: Minor( < 10% section area), n 3 := 0.015
5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Small (Flow>2 x Veg.), n 4 := 0.025
6. Degree of meandering: Applicable (1.2 < Sinuosity< 1.5), m := 1.00
n := m•(n0+ n1 + n2 + n3 + n4) , n = 0.07
Application of Roughness Factors
Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the Manning's n values used in the HEC-RAS modeling. Table 2 shows
results for the existing channel, Table 3 for the proposed channel and Table 4 for a
conservatively rough channel.
Barbee Mill 30209\waterres\hecras\MANNINGS.MCD otak
By: RWS 02/13/04
ATTACHMENT E
Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results
ATTACHMENT E
Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results
Mitigation scenarios for the 100-year flood were evaluated independently of the proposed
development scenarios using HEC-RAS. Each of the mitigation scenarios assumes that the dredging
operations have been discontinued and that the existing channel has aggraded as discussed under
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 in the Impact Section. A brief description of each scenario and a qualitative
summary of the modeling results is provided below.
• Scenario 4: Aggradation of the channel due to discontinuation of dredging operations, remove
existing bridges at stations 2.2 and 6.8, and assume that the bridge at station 4.3 would be
replaced with a bridge that spans the floodplain. Under this mitigation scenario,the stream would
still overtop the existing right bank and flow onto the floodplain.
• Scenario 5: If the proposed development floods under Scenario 4, then a levee at a 50-ft setback
from the stream would be evaluated. A levee at a 50-ft setback from the stream could be used to
prevent the site from flooding. This would result in increased flood stages, and potentially
increase scour and erosion.
• Scenario 6: Aggradation of the channel due to discontinuation of dredging operations, OTAK
modified channel configuration, and the bridge at Station 4.01 is assumed to span the floodplain.
Under this mitigation scenario the stream would remain in the confined channel during flood
flows and the site would not be inundated. This scenario would benefit the stream by reducing
flood stages, scour and erosion. However, confining the stream could have long-term impacts as
discussed in the Impacts and Mitigation Sections of the report.
• Scenario 7: If the proposed development floods under Scenario 6, then a levee at a 50-ft setback
from the stream would be evaluated. This mitigation scenario was not evaluated because under
Scenario 6 the site would not flood.
1
HEC'RAS RiverMayCrook Raaoh 1 Profile: 1OO'yr Future NU
O= 1O0-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,05Ods
�� --------'----- L
�eyu�
- M�r�%�a��������AV�U QHAR -MI-71W EYNONiA
�������
11 P�an17 ExCondm�AggnodaUon 22O 291 . | --22-- 72 ~--`~~'�~~~~�~�~~~�~~°==��~=°��"=�°�,===�"=�
' ' '�/ ^' . o./ 3.3 2.5 1582 43.0
11 P|an0i Goenaho4No8,�geuNoLevee 22.0 29.0 7.0 2.2 7.3 0.7 3.3 2.5 151-'4 423
'
11 P|anU2 3oenoho5 Levee��5O'� 22.0 28.0 7.0 2.2 7.3 0.7 3.3 2.5 151- 42-
'4
11 P|anO3 Scenario Mod. Chni 22.0 20.1 0.1 2.9 7.3 4.0 3.2 2.0 184 62
11 Plan 29OTAK Ol7\K Bridge 8D4.01 22.0 28.1 6.1 2.9 72 4.0 3.2 2.0 194.3 62.4
10 Plan17 ExCondw/Ag0mdation 21.4 28.2 6.8 2.2 77 03 3.8 3.1 142.9 38.8
10 Plan 01 Scenario 4No Bridges NoLevee 21.4 28.0 0.0 2.2 8.0 - 4.1 8.5 130.2 36.7
10 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50'ft 21.4 28.0 6.7 2.2 7.0 ' 4.0 ' 3.4 137.0 30'9
1O Plan 03 Scenario 0 Mod. Chni 214 27.3 0.0 4.2 7.8 4/4 3.7 2.3 1844 61'7
10 Plan 29Ol7\K Ol7\K Bridge @4.01 21.4 27.3 6.0 4.2 7.9 4.4 3.7 2.2 195J 01.8
'
9 Plan1T ExCondw/Ag8nedoUnn 20.3 28.0 TJ - 5.5 1.0 1.9 0.7 2282 114.6
9 Plan O1 Scenario 4No Bridges NoLevee 20.3 27.7 7.5 - 5.8 1.1 2.1 1.0 202.3 85.2
u PianO2 Scenario 5 Levee @5U-ft 20.3 27.8 7.5 - 5.7 12 2.0 1.0 207.8 82.7
D Plan 03 Scenario Mod. Chni 20.3 28.0 6.7 1.7 5.5 31 1.8 1.3 233.3 01.7
8 Plan 28O77\K Ol7\K Bridge @4.01 20.3 20.9 6.7 1.7 5.5 31 1.8 1.3 234.2 01.8
O Plan 17 ExCondw/AggrodaUon 20.0 20.5 0.5 - 0.1 0.8 2.3 0.3 258'0 482J0
�
0 Plan O1 Goonar4NnBhdQeeNoLovee 20.0 20.0 0.0 - 4.6 1.0 1.3 0.8 437.8 ' 482.9
n P|anU2 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 20.0 27.0 6.9 0.2 4.5 2.4 1.3 0.8 288'7 85.8
8 P|anO3 800nadoO Mod.ChnL 20.0 25.8 ' 5.72.8 0.1 3.3 2.1 1.4 231'1 65.8
8 Plan 29Ol7\K Ol7\K Bridge @4.01 20.0 25.0 5.8 2.7 6.0 3.2 2.1 1.3 235.1 00'1
7 PlaniT ExCondw/AggreduUon 18.3 28.4 8.1 1.8 3.7 1.0 0.7 02 7544 558'5
7 P|anO1 Scenario 4No Bridges No Levee 18.3 25.1 0.8 4.4 91 3.0 4.8 2.9 143.7 30.5
7 P/anO2 Suenaho5 Levee V�50-� 18.3 25.3 7.0 ' 4.4 9.0 1.3 4.6 1.5 153.0 78.7
7 P|onO3 Scenario 8Mod. Chn|. 18.3 24.9 0.0 3.4 6.0 3.8 2.7 1.7 213.3 02.1
7 Plan 29OTAK Ol7\K Bridge @4.O1 18.3 25.1 0.7 3.3 6.0 3.5 2.5 1.5 223.1 62.7
0.9 Plan 17 ExCnndw/AggnndaUon 18.3 28.4 8.1 2.1 3.7 0.9 0.8 0.2 736.5 558.1
6.9 P/an0i Scenario 4No Bridges NoLevee 18.3 24.4 0.1 4.8 10.6 4.7 6.8 4.6 118.6 32.6
6.9 P(unO2 Scenario 5 Levee @5O'ft 18.3 25.1 0.7 4.4 9.2 3.1 4.0 2.9 142.3 39'0
6.9 P|anO3 Scenario 6 Mod.Chni 18.5 24.9 6.4 2.5 5.7 2.9 1.9 1.2 231.2 59.7
0.8 Plan 28OTAK DT8K Bridge*g4.Oi 18.5 25.0 0.5 2.4 5.5 - 2.9 1.7 1.2 240.6 60.3
' ^ -
- -
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi - .
Q= 100-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,059 cfs
c! k".x T•Sw -. .,„^ ''" .4.x.. r0`�+ ---''�` ^cs"`tl4' k z k �`,'S�k 4..a' W-X,- Phee
iver � rev° : �.. x; n=Ch••EI 4W Si vP,-- ��,;� . � � R- :e1�C�Li�L �. R,19� �'����A..�e��rt�.l._.w� o '��t
a--r._ ta'-I?la!?�K , ,$,Desarii`jtio. : .l ,L `I , 's. _ ; `. MOM .�n , .
d.a��. ,_, ._.-�',���- � __.,_R._ �rr.�-'�.� . � :_. ..N� ���. (ft)���'_(�#�.'.�,Nx(�)�,A�>��s�� ;�` ._(##%s,�.� ��"';( �r Ib�s Ib s �s�`°' ,
68xist n g B 9e aiag a- + w r- -1 ;@ g?Hit,'' ^ W- BM=- ,a r;.. - c;" ' _nr x -
a
6.75 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 24.0 5.6 - 4.1 1.0 0.9 0.2 137.7 42.1
6.75 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 25.3 6.9 1.8 3.9 0.9 0.9 0.2 . 634.9 589.7
6.75 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 25.4 7.0 2.5 5.5 1.6 1.7 0.8 251.8 84.1
6.75 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 18.4 24.8 6.4 2.1 5.7 2.8 1.9 1.2 228.7 56.4 •
-
6.75 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.9 6.5 2.1 5.5 2.8 1.7 1.1 238.4 56.9
6:7 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 25.3 6.9 1.7 3.8 0.9 0.8 0.2 669.3 589.7
6.7 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 25.2 6.8 1.8 4.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 617.3 589.6
6.7 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 25.4 7.0 2.5 5.5 1.6 1.7 0.8 247.7 84.0
6.7 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.8 6.3 2.2 5.4 2.8 1.7 1.1 244.9 66.3
6.7 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.9 6.5 2.1 5.2 2.7 1.5 1.0 256.6 66.9
6 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 24.4 6.0 3.8 7.3 - 3.4 2.5 178.1 55.0
• 6 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 24.7 6.3 3.0 5.4 0.6 1.8 0.1 478.8 1,495.2
6 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 24.8 6.4 3.4 6.2 0.8 2.4 1.0 214.5 106.3
6 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.1 5.7 2.7 6.5 3.5 2.5 1.3 238.2 81.8
6 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.5 6.1 2.6 5.8 3.2 1.9 1.1 267.6 83.7
•
5 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 17.5 24.1 6.6 1.5 2.7 0.6 0.4 0.1 687.0 1,470.9
5 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 17.5 23.8 6.3 3.0 5.8 0.3 2.0 0.1 299.4 1,470.4
5 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft. 17.5 24.1 6.6 2.9 5.5 1.0 1.8 0.8 236.8 97.5
5 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.5 23.6 6.0 2.7 5.3 - • 2.7 1.6 1.0 281.7 84.2
5 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.5 24.1 6.6 2.5 4.7 2.2 1.2 0.7 327.8 95.6
4.775 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 23.4 5.8 3.0 5.6 2.6 1.8 1.0 273.0 89.9
4.775* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 24.0 6.4 2.7 4.9 1.9 1.3 0.6 333.6 116.3
4.55 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 23.2 5.7 3.1 5.7 2.7 1.9 1.1 267.4 89.5
4.55* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.9 6.3 2.5 4.9 2.1 1.3 0.7 331.5 11.1.7
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
Q= 100-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,059 cfs
•
,µj p..3 ,,aid- .5., -t- .=��,��'" ` ',.,ti. __.' r1* W ` vt, = ,. - .t �' :IMI
'm; :•'�' F" '�_ IILI
.. _-rtklllvei ai;Y?T. 'r a:ye ,,,.K. iptYa,�: ��` .. 4�. ,s>.ga '4-ks.--4 .`-l:. l _,..,.pr.td, ; 4 x. .nlc i ti`E^'ems. •t: � � M EEf A l { a , •el�CFi, .. '�1/e e n:' -�. :�K - �.1�.-_,...�.nl�:.�.�.,�911�� h�� ivEloY.�Ayea��T,o'p',�idt�;
Tow `r5',•i;.o� =�'�' _ ,.. �:.j.. ,:1t2�.��?LC:v's �•�'•.nti° - ..[e;r:-- -- s� - - - - -
LIERMI �--)v �� ):�:�: (ff!s� r� ftf'_ -�;;� � )�. �(��/sq����1_�%Xsq ��' MI .�,"�-�r.(f1:)��•
4.4 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation _ 15.3 24.0 8.7 1.0 2.7 0.9 0.4 0.1 754.9 561.1
4.4 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.3 23.7 8.4 1.8 4.7 1.1 1.3 0.2 586.3 560.9 •
4.4 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.3 23.5 8.2 2.5 6.8 2.8 2.6 1.3 223.6 70.6
•
4.35 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.3 23.7 8.4 2.9' 6.6 3.8 2.5 1.7 560.9
4.35 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.3 23.4 8.1 2.4 - 6.4 1.1 2.3 0.3 419.3 560.8
4.35 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.3 23.4 8.0 2.6 7.0 2.8 2.8 1.3 215.3 70.5
•
4.325 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.6 23.0 5.5 3.0 5.8 3.1 2.0 1.2 254.0 81.6
4.325* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.8 6.2 2.5 4.8 2.4 1.3 0.8 318.8 95.7
4.25 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 23.9 7.2 - 6.6 3.6 2.5 1.9 624.7 555.6
4.25 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 23.1 6.4 3.2 6.9 3.0 2.8 1.8 191.0 54.7
4.25 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 23.2 6.6 3.2 6.9 2.1 2.8 1.3 203.2 78.7
4.2 Plan 17 Ex Cond wl Aggredation •16.7 23.9 7.2 2.4 5.2 1.0 1.6 0.2 611.3 555.6
' 4.2 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 23.0 6.4 3.3 •7.0 3.1 2.9 1.8 188.0 54.0
4.2 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 23.2 6.5 3.3 7.1 2.1 3.0 1.3 196.4 78.6 •
4.1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.6 ' 22.8 5.2 3.3 6.1 3.7 2.3 1.6 227.6 68.4 •
4.1 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.0 5.4 5.5 7.7 5.4 3.6 3.2 152.5 • 69.6
4 01F.P4- Psed-=O TA ER cl g M IUM FRE MIE agil Ali:gi��� WAWA
- h ^��:��ss `� �: ��F�"_` _� #�. ,.a ��t f �,,�-�s ,�.: ��-
��_ ��+.r�„� -
4 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 17.5 23.4 5.9 2.4 6.1 1.3 2.2 1.2 220.3 127.1
4 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 17.5 22.9 5.5 2.5 6.3 1.9 2.4 1.7 186.1 57.1 •
4 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 17.5 22.9 5.5 2.5 6.3 1.9 2.4 1.7 186.0 57.1
•
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi •
Q= 100-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,059 cfs
�*`�x�'n-=aa.�: _,'�; .�'�.�'-'.-�x�� .F' �-���"a�a�,y '�"i',t�-�},._dc: ;:.; :3,,;,._a nny::�. Yeay :a.-r;",-z F,.� - :� �,
_k ,.}"c a"', 2, %w,r ..,,i„: _ .t .. P - ' rji •y W tic}'r"".. 14' ';^,�'c ti "-"s .f. va.,z:.RM1 �,„ . i
ti
;..,�x -_ a a s :, �a ` ._�ix.5--- � _42 c C :' ,ears 'Bear -.;
as m .Essr = � tiY a -r rr' ,. ,, ,. �t -v, E
Rive 27,--l r: k, . gailli i z;Mtn ChtE 0.01$ E Depth, dl L ft Chnl r WOW. ,
�Y....�....�_ �_ .._.� ,�xel��!9ht:`� _. �`,. To"faL w;F�aw�f�ea ��,op�,�,+ iltl1
(%"5�4 �:�� ."'..°Ti.'-'2:.ra�+,--- _.>';�Y; ..' �.X _*'y�-� -�:.y�q'i7.ai�c;�,t_-x•s-.,:Fi,•,:__�>�i..i; __"T� "-3ii�.:' -_ '-�2C - -_ .Y".- MOW MAW_ _
tSa•:Pian.V e`en`:icon tE x �.Y = _ S. M •r- - .
a..�..f._,1_....._ _....tip,,..�-��:�..�u.vP_. , .��-���.:��.�.-�.�:���e��(f�): :�.a�»�,3(ft)a1���,x,�ft},��__' .(if/s} �:��,� ��ftls� Wrap �W2 M�),`��.
3.9 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.4 22.5 5.1 3.2 5.9 3:8 2.1 1.5 234.8 68.8 -
- 3.9 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.4 22.1 4.7 6.1 9.0 6.5 5.0 4.5 131.5 66.6 -
3.45 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.1 22.0 4.9 2.0 7.3 2.7 1.1 0.8 232.0 76.6
3.45* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.1 22.1 4.9 ' 2.0 7.2 2.7 1.1 0.8 . 233.7 76.7
3 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.3 22.9 6.6 1.4 . 6.0 - 0.4 0.3 245.4 61.5
3 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.3 22.6 6.4 1.4 6.3 - 0.5 0.4 214.8 57.3
3 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.3 22.6 6.4 1.4 6.3 - 0.5 0.4 214.8 57.3
3 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 16.9 22.0 5.1 1.7 6.4 2.3 0.9 0.6 .:261.1 87.0
3 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 22.0 5.1 1.7 6.5 2.4 0.9 0.6 260.5 86.9
2.767 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 21.7 4.8 1.7 7.3 2.5 1.2 0.8 219.1 76.9
76666* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.7 4.8 1.7 7.4 2.6 1.2 0.8 218.4 76.9
2.533 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 21.5 4.6 1.9 8.0 2.8 1.4 1.0 . 193.4 66.6
53333* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.5 4.6 1.9 8.0 2.8 1.4 1.0 192.5 66.6
' 2.3 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 22.4 6.5 1.2 7.3 1.2 0.5 0.3 156.5 35.7
2.3 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 21.4 5.5 1.8 10.4 2.1 1.2 0.9 121.8 31.5
2.3 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 21.4 5.5 1.8 10.4 2.1 1.2 0.9 121.9 31.5
2.3 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 20.8 3.9 1.9 10.1 3.3 2.4 1.7 146.1 58.2
2.3 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.1 4.2 1.8 9.2 3.1 1.9 1.4 162.5 59.3
-2.25 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 22.4 6.5 1.2 7.2 1.7 0.5 0.4 154.5 35.7
2.25 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 20.9 5.0 2.0 11.6 2.3 1.6 1.2 107.6 30.3
2.25 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 20.9 5.0 2.0 11.6 2.3 1.6 1.2 107.5 30.3
•
2.15 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 21.2 5.3 1.4 9.9 2.6 1.1 0.9 124.6 33.3 _
2.15 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 21.1 5.2 1.6 10.1 2.5 1.2 1.0 123.6 33.1
2.15 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 21.1 5.2 1.6 10.1 2.5 1.2 1.0 123.7 33.1
HEC-RAS River:May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
Q= 100-yr Future Mitigated flows= 1,059 cfs
r_��kr- �"' C.,�. �. ' � a '.'� .,�s�.:-s;�.R 6_ �" �.saSl .,a .�='.;=
..u. _:� r: .='?�; ��,�� ,�:,�_?�,4 .a -�K,.4F':.,::l,c �-`� t._ a,4' i,;;„ic,•,ati�`w _t��'.-�.r- �-<�:.`y,,_ .: :a��.:�r, ,:..�:x. t ;'�- ,.•r,.ta
:�.�r::-'t�' _ �t- �.�•+._,�r .r.,�-"a} ,�� ,-5c-.,..->f`�:,y"45i'-.'`�' - .t.�r�:� .-yJ....`_ .�'' „�^ 5�. ,�r��pi`.�:_ .-�-,.�;� ...� -
�M� N,�. ��, ter- �- •;�;�. �;� -�w .;� ��. ��=' ,: '�; �,�. .�_` r�. ear{_ S,.ear �,
-...r�: ;fit.� Y� „.�.-:"7 .c '�'^. ,..,.,� �,.-�x its±±,r.�:a,�;�;r.:.' = `.a �s� '•�a�;s�� ;�, ''�" [� t. ,,���; `.N�'3 �`r� _1
E�. - ���:�•c�.°�i�-�..�'<�'=.,A_` .�'�;�,-'� ,,, ��'..�Y. *C:.,".�.+�*mini
.L�,7, ��,._ „�'''',,�-...�.��""'�o., „- �.K e.,� --.�.`� �cv-.-�3.�;,,r`�iic �y-;,,�.a.:w=�;p L.c• ,' � -
RNeF_ 1 C - Tyr. ,C, .. rY ta° �a x,�..s e ,.-y* =�-•a Z, ;i_ �''._or. a _ 3,"_ -.,,F. a r,y _ -'
�:•.. :,�..:.,,_ �:,:��r��..w •.� �:�.�,��.:� ����;�;v .�� �N1in=,Cfi EI�1N�:S ;E1e��De•th �V'e�Lefh:.Ve-Chnl��.Vel .�• � z�;
�:, sa->�: _w- R�'��� _Ghan "Total .�A, T'�" Nall
t
�.,- €.� _ _�.. _...._1? �J,..�_ ..,�-� .�,z.. _,L.�>,...>rc�. _ ...�;, �r ��,Fto� reap�.,;aP 1�G�h.
-r'r... �:r�5c-��'.�� �c;"'!,.. _,y��.y.-�'•° :s:x= ,:;.��r�t�r',��' - '2.. ;'S ,v _:X *z: r�s _ _ NORM
_ _ _ _
, �.Sfa Pfah-���y - Descn•t�on��-:-- :�. - '�,� � .=caSt..�.wow`�;s.' mm�.,,�, �- 't a �ss '�_;"3 SWIMS F ��s"
�:.:� � ,�. � >_ �,,. `y�j}, -�(ft)` �(ft) r ftls• t��,{}�� { �}`x�16�s.(�7..�`, I�6s���it. s'=� ft,_
��A&......._. ...__...rv._ .-::5:'.t^.'"*?5;...r,3+a,_.r.-.........I]-_.._.Fne..�:_.!� _ Ip,.:ftK's::r:il�.:`xi e:'...:«YG:'�.:£'S.:ti.(}r),.nK.+G�e'k�at=.._ _ .. ?�.'°.. i - (•.}'S"� L��.Y`e�'w( � ��J'n'.'�. `tZ,t /�`�� ) Q
2.1 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 20.7 4.8 1.6 11.1 2.5 1.5 1.2 110.4 32.4
2.1 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 20.7 4.8 1.7 11.1 2.8 1.5 1.3 110.5 32.4
2.1 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 20.6 4.7 1.7 11.2 2.8 1.5 1.3 110.3 32.4
2.1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 20.1 3.2 1.7 9.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 111.7 41.8
2.1* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 20.1 3.2 1.7 9.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 111.7 41.8
2 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 19.7 3.0 - 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.3 44.0
2 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 19.7 3.0 - 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.3 44.0
2 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 19.7 3.0 - 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.2 44.0
2 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.7 2.8 1.5 . 9.3 1.3 2.2 2.0 115.1 44.9
2 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.7 2.8 1.5 9.3 1.3 2.2 2.0 115.1 44.9
1.8 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.2 8.3 0.8 1.8 1.7 -1 127.8. 53.7
1.8* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge 16.9 19.5 2.6 1.2 8.3 0.8 1.8 1.7 128.7 53.7
1.6 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.0 7.3 0.6 1.4 1.4 145.3 62.6
1.6* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.0 7.2 0.6 1.4 1.3 147.2 62.7
1.4 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.2 2.3 0.8 6.7 0.4 1.2 1.2 158.1 71.7
. 1.4* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.3 2.4 0.8 6.6 0.5 1.1 1.1 161.7 71.8
1.2 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 18.7 1.8 - 7.6 0.2 1.7 1.7 139.8 79.3
_
1.2* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.1 2.2 0.6 6.2 0.3 1.0 1.0 172.2 80.9
1 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.1 2.4 - 0.1 0.2 495.5 176.7
1 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.3 0.3 235.3 88.0
1 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.3 0.3 235.3 88.0
1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.5 0.5 235.3 182.8
1 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.0 2.1 0.4 6.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 177.4 89.5
MICROFILMED
BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT
MITIGATION DOCUMENT
Prepared by:
City of Renton
Planning/Building/Public Works - Development Planning
August 16, 2004
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator
August 16, 2004.
Dear Reader:
Attached is a copy of the Mitigation Document for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat.
In May 2002, the Barbee Mill Company submitted a Land Use Master Application (LUA
02-040) for a Preliminary Plat. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee
issued a Determination of Significance on November 5, 2002..The City of Renton, in
accordance with the State.Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process, issued a Scoping
Notice on November 27, 2002. On December 10, 2002, a public scoping meeting was
held to receive written and oral comments on the proposed scope of study. A Scoping
Document was issued .on January 10, 2003. _A Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) was issued by the City, of Renton Environmental Review Committee on
September 2, 2003. A public hearing was held on September 23, 2003. The public
comment period for the DEIS closed on October 8, 2003. The Final EIS was issued on
May 3, 2004.
The impacts described in the. Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS and FEIS) and other information on file with the City of Renton are the
basis for the mitigation measures established in the Mitigation Document. This
Mitigation Document is designated by the City of Renton as the first decision document
for the proposal. The project is also subject to preliminary plat,.site plan, and shoreline
reviews.
Upon issuance of this Mitigation Document, a twenty (20) day appeal period commences.
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-680 and RMC 4-8-110.E.4.a.iii, the adequacy of.the Final EIS
and the Mitigation Document may be appealed. Appeals must: 1) state specific
Objections of fact and/or law; 2) be submitted in writing by 5:00 p.m. September 7,
2004; and 3) be accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. Appeals must be addressed to
Fred J. Kaufinan, Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, Renton Municipal Building, 1055
So. Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055.
If you have questions or require clarification of the above, please contact Susan Fiala,
Project Manager at(425) 430-7382.
For he Environmental Review Committee,
efr
Gregg Zimmerman
Administrator,Planning/Building/Public Works
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 P. E 1V T O N
AHEAD O F THE CURVE
R V E
This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer
,
Summary Table of Mitigation Measures
A. Earth, Soils and Geology
Al. The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during clearing, grading and
site construction.
A2. A deep foundation system for building construction shall be utilized;OR
A3. Ground improvement measures shall be installed;OR
A4. Containment Walls shall be provided to prevent lateral spreading;OR
A5. Comparable engineering design.
B. Surface Water Resources
131. The project shall include the construction, operation and maintenance of water quality facilities
designed according to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
B2. The residences and other structures shall be constructed with the lowest floor one foot above base
flood elevation.
B3. New vehicular bridges shall be built to span the floodway or floodplain to avoid restriction of flows
during regulatory flood events.
AND provide a final engineering design consistent with one or a combination of B4,or B5,or B6:
B4. Contain the 100-year floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space corridor of
approximately 50-foot width on each side of the stream by enhancements to the existing stream
channel, removal and replacement of bridge crossings, and/or placement of fill outside of the
established stream buffer edge. The floodplain delineation and any necessary stream / buffer
improvements shall be based on hydraulic modeling at the time of final engineering design.
B5. Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open space corridor and
providing additional storage volume(i.e.a flood terrace excavated on the west side of the stream).
B6. Provide a wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and flood storage to
reduce channel scour and compensate for future increases in flood elevations because of sediment
deposited in the stream channel.
C. Groundwater
Cl. Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site as outlined in the
Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16, 2000 and/or pursuant to an
alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards.
C2. Evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is complete and perform
groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup
standards.
D. Plants and Animals
D1. Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity.
• D2. Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during
construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging and access areas away from buffer
areas.
D3. Clear to completely remove existing invasive species in buffer areas and re-plant with native
species consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee
Mill Preliminary Plat approvals.
D4. Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to
maintain vegetation.
D5. Plant open space and buffer areas with native vegetation consistent with preliminary landscaping
mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat.
D6. Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement.
D7. Use native plants in residential landscaping to minimize the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or
herbicides.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
D8. Limit wetland displacement to the extent practical by designing changes in the proposal to place
development outside the wetland and buffer.
D9. Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement on site.
D10. Compensate for loss of buffer through buffer-width averaging and enhancement of the existing
buffer vegetation.
D11. Either: a)Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established(where the
lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks); OR b) Remove
bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in
conjunction with greater building setbacks);OR c)Provide plantings in rip-rap.
D12. Reduce the elevation above OHWM of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more natural shoreline
plantings.
D13. Preserve those pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from the near-shore
habitat that is important for juvenile salmonids.
D14. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive and
complex communities of indigenous vegetation.
D15. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of mature canopy from
indigenous vegetation to provide summer shade and to intercept light and glare.
D16. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive
communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer disturbance and allow public access further from
the shoreline. The first thirty-five (35) feet from the ordinary high water mark shall be vegetated
with native plant or grass species as appropriate. The remaining fifteen (15) feet may be
landscaped as appropriate to be utilized as a yard area.
D17. Either: a) Prohibit docks and require the use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near-
shore habitat; OR b): Reduce the number of docks through shared moorage, AND THEN; c)
Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration.
D18. Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than residents such as
the homeowners association or a similar entity.
E. Transportation
El. Site access (railroad crossings) shall occur in the vicinity of existing at-grade crossing locations
with roadway improvements reviewed and approved by the WUTC and BNSF. Pre-cast concrete
crossings shall be utilized.
E2. Provide active control for the two (2) railroad crossings designed with cantilever and gates and
warning devices automatically activated by train approach as required by BNSF and the WUTC.
Further, the City and future developer(s) shall work together with BNSF during the design of
roadway improvements to determine any other appropriate railroad crossing solution(s).
E3. A traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings shall be
provided.
E4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new
average daily trip associated with the project. The fee shall be paid prior to the recording of the
final plat.
E5. The on-site roadway system shall be constructed per the details and specifications provided by the
approved Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat.
F. Hazardous Materials
Fl. The applicant shall remove contaminated soil as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan
Uplands Areas dated June 16,2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable
Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards.
F2. Th applicant shall evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is
complete and shall perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve applicable Model
Toxics Control Act cleanup standards.
F3. The applicant shall address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals
through appropriate removal, stabilization, or isolation, consistent with requirements of the Model
Toxics Control Act.
F4. A contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan shall be provided.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
ii
G. Aesthetics
G1. Apparent building bulk shall be reduced by design features, materials and color, including sloping
roofs,roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets.
G2. Relative building bulk may be reduced by screening through large vegetation.Additional setbacks
for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings may be required.
H. Light and Glare
H1. Shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection shall be incorporated.
H2. Buildings shall be designed and sited to reduce or eliminate glass surfaces that might produce
glare from sun reflection.
I. Noise
11. The pile holes shall be pre-drilled to the maximum feasible depth (depth may be limited by the
character of deposits).
12. If feasible given soil conditions, less noisy pile installation methods, such as vibrating piles into
place,cession-type piles,auger cast piles or other methods shall be used.
13. Noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, welding machines, pumps, and
similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background
noise levels shall be provided.
14. At-grade rail crossings that meet a "sealed" status to qualify for possible Federal Railway
Administration (FRA) designation of a "quiet zone" for locomotive horns shall be provided with
public railroad crossings.
J. Historic and Cultural Resources
J1. An interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site reflecting the lumber
economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area shall be provided by the developer.The design and
location shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services prior to recording of the final
plat.
J2. In the event archaeological deposits are found during construction, work is to stop and the
Washington State Archaeologist is to be contacted by the developer/contractor(s).
K. Public Services
K1. The applicant Shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the
recording of the final plat.
K2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid prior to the
recording of the final plat.
K3. Public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek shall be provided and
incorporated into the preliminary plat. The applicant shall work with City of Renton staff to
determine the location and design of the public access.The system may include a soft surface trail
along May Creek,sidewalks,and an open space tract adjacent to Lake Washington.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
iii
Introduction and Purpose
In order to meet SEPA requirements, the Environmental Review Committee for the City of
Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on September 2, 2003 and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement on May 3, 2004. These documents are referenced herein as the
Draft EIS (DEIS)and Final EIS (FEIS).
The purpose of the Mitigation Document is to establish specific mitigation measures, based upon
significant impacts identified in the DEIS and FEIS. The mitigation measures apply to the
proposed preliminary plat.
Use of Terms
The subject site may be referenced as `Barbee Mill" or "site" or "subject site" in this document.
This document includes mitigation measures that are tied to the approval of site plans, termed
Level 1 or Level II site plans. City regulations require a "site development plan" for development
in the Center Office Residential (COR) Zones (RMC 4-2-120.B and 4-2-120.C). Site plan
regulations are found in RMC 4-9-200!
SEPA Requirements
State regulations(Washington Administrative Code 197-11)and local regulations(City of Renton
Title 4, Chapter 9) govern the development of mitigation measures to address identified
environmental impacts.The primary regulatory chapters are cited below.
WAC 197-11-060, titled Content of Environmental Review states in part, that agencies shall
"carefully consider the range of probable impacts, including short-term and long-term effects,"
including"those that are likely to ariselor exist over the lifetime of a proposal"or, in some cases,
continue beyond the life of the proposal.
WAC 197-11-330, titled Threshold Determination Process requires, in part, that the responsible
official take into account the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of a proposal when
determining whether a proposal has significant adverse impacts. In reaching a decision, SEPA
states that the responsible official shall not balance whether the beneficial aspects of a proposal
outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather shall consider whether a proposal has any probable
significant adverse environmental impacts.
WAC 197-11-768 titled Mitigation.This section defines mitigation as:
1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid
or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action;
S. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute resources
or environments; and/or
6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-1-
WAC 197-11-660(1) Substantive Authority and Mitigation. Decision-makers may impose
mitigation measures designed to mitigate the environmental impacts, subject to the following
limitations:
a. Mitigation measures or denials shall be based on policies,plans, rules or regulations
formally designated by the agency;
b. Mitigation measures shall be related to specific, adverse environmental impacts
clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal and shall be stated
in writing by the decision maker;
c. Mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished.
d. Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an
applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its
proposal. Voluntary additional mitigation may occur.
e. Before requiring mitigation measures, agencies shall consider whether local, state
or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant
impact.
f. If, during project review, a jurisdiction's development regulations or comprehensive
plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, or in other applicable local, state or
federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific
adverse environmental impacts of the project action under RCW 43.21C.240, the
jurisdiction shall not impose additional mitigation under this chapter.
Mitigation Document
Based upon the DEIS and FEIS, this Mitigation Document identifies mitigation measures
established under SEPA rules to address specific impacts identified in the DEIS and FEIS.
Numerous state and local regulations will govern development of the subject site and application
of those regulations will also serve to mitigate certain significant adverse environmental impacts.
Additional consistency review under the site plan review, preliminary plat review, shoreline
permit and other permit approvals will be required.
Provided below for each element,of the environment analyzed in the DEIS and FEIS are: 1)
References to text for Affected Environment and Impacts sections within the DEIS and/or FEIS;
2)Mitigation Measures; and 3)Discussion of mitigation measures.
A. EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY
Refer to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, pages 3-1 through 3-7 for a
detailed discussion of the Affected Environment and Impacts. The mitigation
measures established below address identified impacts.
1. Earthwork, Erosion, and Sedimentation
Mitigation Measures:
Al. The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during
clearing, grading and site construction.
Discussion:
Site work should be phased to minimize the amount of exposed soils to the areas
that are under construction. To control erosion during construction, contractors
would use Best Management Practices (BMPs) and standard mitigation measures
approved by Ecology's Stormwater Manual (Ecology 2001) and by the City of
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-2-
Renton surface water management regulations. Soil and Erosion Control Plans
would be in place prior to construction. By effectively using construction BMPs,
erosion, sediment-laden runoff, and dust would be controlled, and adverse
impacts would be reduced.
A variety of best management practices, as listed below, should be included as
part of the overall BMP program for the project to limit erosion and
sedimentation:
a) Prepare comprehensive erosion, sedimentation and spill control plan to outline how the
site would be managed for erosion and other hazards. It would cover appropriate
measures for each phase of site development, training, pre-construction conference,
coordination with utilities and contractors, monitoring, and reporting. It would provide for
stockpiling of erosion control material on site. Monitoring of water quality and notice of
problems may be appropriate. Provisions for contingency planning and revision to the
plan should be provided.
b) Land disturbing or grading activities should be limited or prohibited between October 1
and April 30, because these are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is
greatest.
c) Delineate and mark clearing limits, limit the amount of the site opened for disturbance at
any time.Limiting exposure is especially critical close to water bodies.
d) Buffer zones should be provided around wetland areas, May Creek, and the Lake
Washington shoreline. Where possible, existing vegetation should be maintained as a
buffer. A barrier should be placed along the creek and wetland areas to protect them
from construction activities and prevent construction equipment or stockpiling within
those areas.
e) All exposed and non-worked soil shall be stabilized by use of BMPs. Time periods of
allowed exposure would depend on the season. Both temporary and permanent
groundcover would part of the construction plans,including:
i. Soils should be stabilized at the end of each day based on weather
forecast. Applicable practices include, but are not limited to, temporary
and permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic covering, erosion
control fabrics and matting, and early application of a gravel base on
areas to be paved,and dust control.
ii. Protect cut and fill slopes from erosive flows and concentrated flows and
establish temporary and permanent cove.
fl A stabilized construction entrance or other method should be installed to prevent
sediment transport. If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed, geo-textile
fabric shall be installed under the rock. A wheel wash would be required if wet season
grading occurs.
g) Temporary stormwater control should be provided,which may include:
i. Detention for runoff from a site under construction.A detention pond may
be designed to contain runoff from the worst-case storm event expected
during construction.
ii. Protect existing drainage inlets from sediment and silt-laden water.
iii. Stabilize channels and outlets of temporary and permanent conveyance
systems to prevent erosion during and after construction.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-3-
iv. The water from dewatering systems for trenches, vaults, and foundations
shall be discharged into a controlled system. Treatment may be required
for sediments or pollutants.
h) Control pollutants from waste materials and demolition debris, construction equipment,
leakage of fuels,fertilizers,application of chemicals,and water treatment systems.
i) In-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and
construction of bridge footings should be conducted during Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) prescribed in-water work period for Lake Washington and
May Creek,respectively. _
j) A monitoring plan, with independent testing, may be appropriate as part of the quality
assurance plan for compliance including a plan for stormwater sampling locations,
background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule. The reporting schedule
shall, at a minimum, require sampling during every storm event in the wet season that
would generate runoff,as well as site inspection condition reports on the installed BMPs.
2. Seismic Hazards
Mitigation Measures:
Prior to submittal of building permit application(s),the applicant shall provide
supplemental geotechnical analysis to determine the appropriateness of the following:
A2. A deep foundation system for building construction shall be utilized,OR
A3. Ground improvement measures shall be installed, OR
A4. Containment Walls shall be provided to prevent lateral spreading, OR
A5. Comparable engineering design.
Discussion:
Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented for varying levels of the
presumed extent of liquefaction, with varying levels of risk. The following three
basic strategies were identified as potential design alternatives (as necessary) by
the applicant's geotechnical engineer:
Using a deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the
dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits.
Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic
compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential.
Containment walls to mitigate the hazard of lateral spreading(Golder 2002).
The use of foundations would likely involve piles drilled or driven to dense
deposits not subject to liquefaction. The most reliable foundation system would
be founded on the dense glacial till. Shallower pile-supported foundations might
be acceptable with appropriate geotechnical evaluation and design
considerations.
Piles driven through a weak, potentially liquefiable, soil layer to a stronger layer
would not only have to carry vertical loads from the superstructure, but also
would have to be able to resist horizontal loads and bending moments induced
by lateral movements if the weak layer liquefies. Sufficient resistance could be
achieved by piles of larger dimensions and/or more reinforcement. In addition,
it is important that the piles be connected to the cap in a manner that allows
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-4-
some rotation to occur, without failure of the connection. If pile connections fail,
the structure may fail due to overturn forces.
Stone columns are a densification measure with the added advantage of
providing drainage. They are routinely placed by sinking a vibrofloat or probe
into the soil using a water jet to the required depth.
While adding additional stone to backfill the cavity, the probe is raised and
lowered to form a dense column. A system of closely placed stone columns
provides areas of compacted soils not subject to liquefaction. In addition, stone
columns may prevent the build-up of excess pore pressures in a soil, which
would otherwise lead to liquefaction by reducing the effective stress between soil
particles. This effect, however, is not the most important one, since time for a
positive effect of the drainage is limited to the duration of the earthquake,which
means that in this short time, any drainage into the column only affects a rather
limited zone near the column perimeter but never the whole soil volume. This is
especially true for sands with a silt content of above 12 percent since the drainage
effect becomes negligible (Madabhushi 1999).
Jet grouting is an additional means of stabilizing soils in place. Cement grout is
the most common stabilizer used. The soil improvement is installed through a
drilled hole from the existing ground surface down to the desired depth. A rod
containing a jet is inserted into the hole and grout is pumped at high pressure.
The grout penetrates the existing soils, enhancing the strength of the soil matrix.
The jet is rotated while being drawn out of the hole, forming a column of
improved soil. Numerous columns at close intervals can be used to create a block
of improve soil. The columns can also be interspersed with cells of unimproved
soils surrounded by jet-grouted columns, thus creating an area of improved soil
without having to treat the entire area (Berger/Abam 2002).
Deep dynamic compaction involves the use of impact energy on the ground
surface to create dense and compact subsurface soils. Weights typically ranging
from 10 to 30 tons are lifted with standard, modified, or specialty machines and
dropped from about 50- to 120-foot heights. Freefall impact energy is controlled
by selecting the weight, drop height,number of drops per point, and the spacing
of the grid. In general, treatment depths of up to 35 feet may be achievable in
granular soils. The major limitations of the method are vibrations, flying matter,
and noise (Martin 1999).
For small pockets of liquefiable soils, building foundations can be designed and
constructed to tie all elements together to make the foundation move or settle
uniformly. Such a foundation design is useful for bridging over areas of local
settlement to adjacent stronger ground. The strength of such a foundation also
reduces failure from shear forces induced by differential settlement(UW 2002).
The extent to which stone columns,jet grouting or other soil improvements can
resist the load applied from the untreated deposits located behind the treated
area depends on a number of factors. Such factors include the area of liquefiable
soils applying the load, the area and depth of soil improvements and the
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-5-
materials used. In many cases, soil improvements are used in conjunction with
retaining structures to contain lateral movement due to liquefaction.
Containment structures to control lateral spreading present significant structural
challenges due to the depths to consolidated materials in the range of 60 or more
feet and the extremely high forces likely to be bear upon such structures if large
areas of deposits liquefy. In addition, such structures must extend below the
liquefiable deposits to prevent lateral movement of the entire structure. One
-retaining structure option is installation of secant pile walls. These are walls
formed from shafts drilled into the earth. The walls consist of reinforced concrete
shafts spaced on a regular interval and spanned by columns of unreinforced
concrete which fill in the gaps. The first step of installation generally involves
drilling shafts to be filled with unreinforced low strength concrete. Primary
shafts to be reinforced with steel and higher strength concrete are drilled
between and cutting into the sides of the unreinforced shafts. The process is
repeated resulting in a wall composed of circular shafts joined together.
(Berger/Abam 2002)
It is likely that an area of considerable width would be required for soil
improvement and retaining structures between building sites and Lake
Washington.
Mitigation of impacts on streets and utilities pose more challenges because they
are extensive linear facilities. Although these facilities could be built on deep
foundations, the cost is generally a limiting factor. Ground improvement
measures along road and utility corridors can provide some reduction in shallow
liquefaction potential that may reduce slumping, but would not address lateral
movement.
Construction of utility pipelines can involve materials of additional strength to
resist breakage from minor displacement together with sections of flexible line to
allow displacement without breakage. In addition, having emergency backup
facilities for fire flow or domestic supply can mitigate the adverse impacts of
system failure during a seismic event by providing temporary facilities for fire
fighting and water supply.
The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important
factors in determining appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally, public
facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable seismic mitigation because those
facilities have a high investment cost,high replacement and repair cost, and high
social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency
access. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of
reliability because of the potential for loss of life. Commercial and industrial uses
may receive lower levels of seismic protection because the potential loss of life
may be less due to population density, and also the fact that workers are in an
active state and awake so they can exit failing buildings. Extensive, geotechnical
investigation to further document underlying deposits will be needed to assess
risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on a detailed
understanding of the extent of area affected, the population at risk, and specific
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-6-
building type, size and location. Additional environmental review may be
required at that time.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton Uniform
Building Code (RMC 4-5); City of Renton Grading, Excavation and Mining
Regulations (RMC 4-4-060)
B. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-8 through 3-14 for the Affected Environment
subsection. Refer to the Final EIS for the Impacts subsection, pages 3-14 through
3-22.The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts.
9. Pollutants in Surface Water
Mitigation Measures:
B1. The project shall include the construction, operation and maintenance of water
quality facilities designed according to the 1998 King County Surface Water
Design Manual.
B2. The residences and other structures shall be constructed with the lowest floor one
foot above base flood elevation.
B3. New vehicular bridges shall be built to span the floodway or floodplain to avoid
restriction of flows during regulatory flood events.
AND provide a final engineering design consistent with one or a combination of the
following:
B4. Contain the 100-year floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space
corridor of approximately 50-foot width on each side of the stream by
enhancements to the existing stream channel,removal and replacement of bridge
crossings, and/or placement of fill outside of the established stream buffer edge.
The floodplain delineation and any necessary stream/buffer improvements shall
be based on hydraulic modeling at the time of final engineering design.
B5. Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open
space corridor and providing additional storage volume (i.e. a flood terrace
excavated on the west side of the stream).
B6. Provide a wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and
flood storage to reduce channel scour and compensate for future increases in
flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel.
Potential flooding mitigation measures to protect the proposed development
from flooding are presumed to include the constructing of levees or constructing
the proposed development on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-year
flood level as presented under Scenario 2. The model predicts an average
maximum floodplain depth of 1.0 foot above the ground surface during the 100-
year flood. Therefore, the levee or fill should be at least 2 feet above the existing
ground elevation, to provide 1 foot of freeboard for the top of the levee or the
lowest occupied floor of residences as required by RMC 4-3-050.I.3.a. These
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-7-
mitigation measures would protect the development from flooding. The analysis
presumes discontinuation of dredging at the mouth of May Creek as a
conservative scenario. Continued dredging could, however, be combined with
one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures to increase stream capacity
and reduce flooding. Dredging of the delta is associated with adverse impacts
on aquatic habitat.
Mitigation of impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction to
reduce associated upstream degradation (bed erosion and downcutting) and
downstream aggradation (sediment deposition and flatter slope) includes three
mitigation scenarios which are described below:
Bridge Removal - This scenario would remove the existing bridges and replace
them with bridges that do not encroach on the floodplain. This would reduce
potential impacts such as backwater and increased flood stages and/or increased
scour and erosion. Under this scenario, floodplain modeling indicates that May
Creek would still overtop the right bank and flood flows would spread out over
the floodplain and flow to Lake Washington. Therefore, this mitigation scenario
alone would not protect the proposed development from flooding, and a levee
and/or fill would still be needed. As stated above, levees and fill that confine the
floodplain have additional impacts to the stream such as increased flood stages,
erosion and scour. Detailed hydraulic information for this scenario is provided in
Appendix E.
Compensatory Storage -This scenario would include a floodplain bench or terrace
(in combination with removal and/or replacement of the existing bridges with
bridges that would not encroach on the floodplain as discussed above). The
proposed bench would be a flat area adjacent to the right bank approximately 16
to 25 feet wide and would be constructed at an elevation approximately
equivalent to the bank full elevation of May Creek, (between 1 and 4 feet below
the existing grade) as shown in Figures 3.2-5 through 3.2-9 illustrated in the Final
EIS. This would provide additional capacity for flood flows and would reduce
shear stress and flood elevations,which would reduce bed and bank erosion and
benefit the stream(see Appendix E).
In addition, the modified channel cross section would contain the 100-yr. future
mitigated flows; therefore, during large flood events floodwaters would not
escape the channel to the west. This would protect the development from
flooding,but could have long-term effects to stream morphology.
A modification of this scenario was analyzed by the applicant with placement of
the main bridge for vehicular access to the site near the stream bank at ordinary
high water. This bridge location would interrupt the floodplain bench and would
result in some backwater effect during high flows. A bridge at this location
would reduce the effectiveness of the floodplain bench and result in some
overtopping of the right bank during the 100-yr. storm event,necessitating levee
construction.
Additional Setback - Levees or fill could be constructed at a distance of 100 feet
from the existing stream instead of the proposed 50 feet. The approximate
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-8-
location of the levee on the west side of the site is indicated in Figure 3.4-5 as
illustrated in the Final EIS. This mitigation scenario would reduce the impacts
associated with construction of a levee or fill at 50 feet. However, this mitigation
would still require construction of a levee or fill to contain the 100-year flows in
the channel and protect the development from flooding,and would have impacts
similar to those discussed under Development Scenario 2, but reduced in scope
because of the greater flood storage. This mitigation scenario could be used in
conjunction with mitigation strategies of bridge removal and compensatory
storage,described above,to provide additional benefits to the stream.
Water Quality - City of Renton standards require that runoff from pollution
generating surfaces be treated. The proposed design includes two water quality
ponds to treat runoff before it is discharged. The facilities' operation and
maintenance would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM (King
County 1998) requirements. If mitigation measures are properly implemented,
adverse water quality impacts are not expected. The following description is
based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002).
The possible increased temperatures of stormwater discharged from the water
quality treatment ponds during summer months could be mitigated with dense
bank cover around the edges of the proposed ponds. Several recommendations
include:
a) Use of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of
stormwater in landscaped areas (See additional discussion of remediation of the
soil/plant community in the Section 3.4.3 in the FEIS).
b) Prevention of discharge of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage
systems.
c) The practice of mulch-mowing.
d) Disposal of grass clippings,leaves,sticks,or other collected vegetation by composting,if
feasible.
Best Management Practices for sediment control during construction shall be
implemented using the standards outlined in 1998 KCSWDM, Appendix D.
Impacts resulting from construction activities would be minimized through
implementation of an appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), including a risk assessment and an approved Temporary Erosion and
Sediment Control (TESC) Plan. If mitigation measures are properly
implemented, adverse impacts are not expected. Specific elements of the SWPPP
should include the following (Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002):
e) Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing, the limits shall be
marked.
fl Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans shall install a stabilized
construction entrance(or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads).
If a standard gravel construction entrance is proposed,geo-textile fabric shall be installed
under the rock.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-9-
g) Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis, it may be necessary to detain runoff
from a site under construction. A detention pond may be used to control flows during
construction.
h) Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment shall be
removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met prior to
discharge to Lake Washington.
i) Stabilize Soils:All exposed and non-worked soil shall be stabilized by use of BMPs. Both
temporary and permanent groundcover would be part of the construction plans.
j) Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and
concentrated flows until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in
place.
k) Protect Drain Inlets:All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt
laden water.
!) Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would
be stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would
require protection.
m) Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials
and demolition debris,would be handled.This would include maintenance of construction
equipment,fertilizers,application of chemicals,and water treatment systems.
n) Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches, vaults, and
foundations would be discharged into a controlled system.
o) Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned
and installed construction BMPs,as well as their removal at the end of the project.
p) Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion
control. It would cover phasing, training, coordination, monitoring, reporting, and
contingency planning.
Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows (Raedeke
Associates,2002):
q) Limit land disturbing or grading activities between October 1 and April 30, because these
are the highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest.
r) Limit in-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and
construction of bridge footings to the WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake
Washington and May Creek,respectively to minimize impacts on aquatic resources.
s) Route stormwater during construction to a holding pond for sediment control. The first
cell of the proposed stormwater facility is proposed by the project engineer as the
optimum location for a TESC pond. Most stormwater runoff from the site would be routed
to this pond via interceptor trenches and berms,and later via permanent drainage pipes.
t) The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility shall remain
in an undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized.
u) Control and monitor stormwater released from the on-site TESC pond during
construction to ensure compliance with established water quality discharge requirements.
v) Stabilize soils at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices
include, but are not limited to, temporary/permanent seeding, sodding, mulching, plastic
covering,erosion control matting,a gravel base for areas to be paved,and dust control.
w) Install matting, plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures on all
slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-10-
x) Monitor water quality throughout the construction period.A monitoring plan shall be part
of the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction SWPPP shall contain a
plan for stormwater sampling locations, background measurements, and a periodic
reporting schedule.The sampling points would be marked on a map and on the ground.
The Ecology Stormwater Manual (Ecology 2001) contains additional erosion and
sediment control BMPs that include the following:
y) Limiting disturbed areas as practicable;
z) Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas;
aa) The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure;
bb) Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient
terraces;
cc) Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration,as needed, to reduce turbidity in
the site discharge;
dd) Specialized concrete handling;
ee) Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals;
ff) Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and
equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill
containment features,and a spill clean-up kit;
gg) Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction;
hh) Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead;and
ii) Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures.
If mitigation measures such as bridge removal or excavation of a floodplain
bench or terrace were implemented, additional Best Management Practices to
control potential discharge into surface water shall be implemented, such as silt
curtains within the stream adjacent to the construction area. More stringent
protection of cleared areas and assurance of establishment of revegetation, or
non-floatable erosion control measures shall be implemented prior to the time of
the seasonal flood hazard.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); 1998 King County Surface
Water Design Manual;2001 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual
C. GROUNDWATER
Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-22 through 3-24 for a detailed discussion of the
Affected Environment and Impacts. The mitigation measures established below `
address identified impacts.
1. Groundwater Contamination
Mitigation Measures:
Cl. Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site
as outlined in the Independent Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-11-
16, 2000 and/or pursuant to an alternative plan that achieves applicable Model
Toxics Control Act cleanup standards.
C2. Evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil remediation is
complete and perform groundwater remediation as necessary to achieve
applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards.
Discussion:
Removal of the contaminated soil and dewatering and treatment of the
contaminated groundwater during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site
would improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic and other
contaminants. No specific mitigation measures are required for shallow or
deeper groundwater impacts. Impacts to the aquifers below the project site
resulting from redevelopment activities are anticipated to be minimal.
Although the shallow aquifer is not a valuable water supply source for the
community, it is important for on-site and adjacent wetland areas. Removal of
the impacted soil and dewatering and treatment of the impacted groundwater
during those activities would probably improve groundwater quality with
respect to arsenic.
Shallow groundwater could potentially be encountered during installation of
subsurface utilities or other intrusive activities. Because the shallow aquifer table
is likely to be low during the portion of the year when precipitation is minimal,
the chance to encounter groundwater could be minimized by conducting
intrusive activities during the dry season (late spring through late summer and
early fall).
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); State of Washington
(WAC 173-340)
D. PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Refer to the Affected Environment section in the Draft EIS,pages 3-24 through 3-
34. For the Impacts section, refer to the Final EIS, pages 3-16 through 3-25. The
mitigation measures established below address identified impacts.
Mitigation Measures
D1. Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site
vicinity.
D2. Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from
disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging
and access areas away from buffer areas.
D3. Clear to completely remove existing invasive species in buffer areas and re-plant
with native species consistent with preliminary landscaping mitigation plans
approved as part of the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat approvals.
D4. Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight
and precipitation to maintain vegetation.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-12-
D5. Plant open space and buffer areas with native vegetation consistent with
preliminary landscaping mitigation plans approved as part of the Barbee Mill
Preliminary Plat approvals.
D6. Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement
D7. Use native plants in residential landscaping to minimize the use of fertilizers,
pesticides, or herbicides.
D8. Limit wetland displacement to the extent practical by designing changes in the
proposal to place development outside the wetland and buffer.
D9. Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement on site.
D10. Compensate for loss of buffer through buffer-width averaging and enhancement
of the existing buffer vegetation.
D11. Either: a) Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-
established (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with
greater building setbacks); OR b) Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation
stabilization (where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with
greater building setbacks); OR c)Provide plantings in rip-rap.
D12. Reduce the elevation above OHWM of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more
natural shoreline plantings.
D 13. Preserve those pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from the
near-shore habitat that is important for juvenile salmonids.
D 14. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of
more extensive and complex communities of indigenous vegetation.
D 15. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of
mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer shade and to
intercept light and glare.
D16. Provide 50 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow establishment of
more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer disturbance and
allow public access further from the shoreline. The first thirty-five (35) feet from
the ordinary high water mark shall be vegetated with native plant or grass species
as appropriate. The remaining fifteen (15) feet may be landscaped as appropriate
to be utilized as a yard area..
D17. Either: a) Prohibit docks and require the use of mooring buoys or floats at a
distance from near-shore habitat; OR b) Reduce the number of docks through
shared moorage, AND THEN; c) Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or
materials that allow light penetration.
D18. Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than
residents such as the homeowners association or a similar entity.
Discussion:
Impacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and
shoreline areas of the site are inherent in the permanent change of use to the
residential development proposed. A major contributor to the beneficial use of
the shorelines are the specific setbacks and presumed uses discussed above. The
mitigation outlined below illustrates opportunities to expand shoreline buffer
areas an implement other specific measures that increase the beneficial use of the
stream and shoreline areas to include more complex plant communities and
associated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse impacts of the
proposal.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-13-
Mitigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations,
specifically Renton Shoreline Regulations, which sets forth several requirements
as follows: "the potential effects on wildlife should be considered in the design
plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the
environment" (RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); "landscaping should be representative of the •
native character of specific types of waterways (stream, lake edge, marshland);
the ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines should be recognized
and preserved as valuable resources" (RMC 4-3-090-K-6); and "wildlife habitat
should be incorporated into the site" (RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
Subdivision Construction Impacts - Mitigation of construction impacts on
existing vegetation shall include protecting the existing native buffer vegetation
along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier
fencing. Staging and access areas shall be designed to avoid buffer areas that are
dominated by native vegetation. During construction, any cleared or re-graded
areas on the site shall be kept covered and/or re-seeded with a temporary cover
crop to prevent the establishment or spread of invasive weedy species.
Construction of the proposed bridge presents a substantial potential for impacts
to May Creek. These impacts will depend upon the design of the bridge;
specifically how close abutments and fill structures are to the stream and how
well erosion control measures are implemented. Selective clearing of portions of
the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur, could
be combined with vegetation establishment if cleared areas are quickly planted
with native species.
Mitigation of construction impacts on aquatic species can largely be
accomplished by controlling erosion and sedimentation as outlined in the Best
Management Practices (BMP) identified in the Water Quality section of the FEIS.
Perhaps the most important consideration during construction activities is to
conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish are generally not
present. Staging areas, especially the storage of fuels and chemicals, shall be
located as far from water bodies as possible to reduce potential for accidental
spills.
Implementing a revegetation plan for the buffer areas adjacent to the creek and
lake at the plat infrastructure stage avoids piecemeal implementation as each lot
develops, provides for oversight of the removal of impervious surfaces at the
time existing buildings are demolished, and allows the establishment of
vegetation cover for interception of runoff from building sites.
Development and Use of the Site
Vegetation Communities -Project conditions could require residential landscaping
to include native vegetation in private lots fronting the Lake Washington
shoreline, although assuring long-term maintenance given residential
preferences for lawn and ornamental vegetation is a long-term education and
enforcement issue. Native vegetation will minimize the need for fertilizers,
pesticides, or herbicides and reduce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife,native
vegetation, and aquatic organisms in Lake Washington. In addition, importing
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-14-
high quality soil material and ensuring adequate soil health, prior to installing
residential or ornamental landscaping, can decrease the need for chemical
supplements or controls in landscape maintenance.
The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001) recommends restoration of
conifers adjacent to the creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize
streambanks,and improve the complexity and diversity of habitat. The plan also
notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could
create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the
delta (King County 2001).
Establishment of a viable community of native vegetation on an industrial site
presents a number of challenges. These relate to the degradation of the substrate
that supports plants, and to isolation from existing plant communities that
would provide a diversity of species to colonize specific niches and
microenvironments. Plans for restoration of natural vegetation communities on
developed sites can be aided by inclusion of the following concepts:
Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. Site
design must reflect the fact that restored plant associations will evolve and
mature over time. A complex vegetation community that contains as many
features of native communities must be created within the restored vegetation
community.
Spacing. Within each target plant community, the patterns of species and their
spatial relationships shall be replicated to the extent possible. It is important to
develop a design to incorporate trees in the overstory canopy, trees in the mid-
story, shrubs in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer. Other
important components of the ground layer are logs and stumps, which provide
habitat for insects and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and organic
matter.
Interspersion. Refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the
transitions among various plant communities. In general, the relationships
between patch size, structure, edge, and dispersion/interspersion in the
landscape are the critical factors affecting wildlife value of a system.
Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area between
plant communities. Such transitional areas or "edges" are rich in wildlife,both in
numbers of individuals and species, and are considered important components
of functioning ecosystems. Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity to several
habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the amount of edge in a system
is extremely high,the integrity within individual plant communities may be lost.
Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on
this site is likely to include a number of challenges because the existing geology
and soils largely consist of a variety of fill materials, and there is no local
community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native
species. Establishment of soils for native vegetation will require extensive soil
amendment. Persistence of the introduced plant communities will require
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-15-
replacement of specimens that do not thrive and control of invasive "weed"
species.
The provision of a management entity is needed to provide a long term
commitment to monitoring establishment and replanting, to control the impacts
of use by adjacent residents or the public, and possibly to mediate between the
interests of adjacent residents and the general public purpose of the buffer areas.
Substantial resources are likely to be required over an extended period of time.
Potential management agencies can include the City of Renton .Parks
Department; DNR, which has management responsibility for the public uplands
and submerged aquatic lands; WDFW, which has primary responsibility for
managing wildlife and fish resources;volunteer participation by the public using
shoreline access; and the adjacent homeowners or a homeowners' association; or
cooperative programs involving all of these agencies. Dedication of buffer areas
to public ownership, or a public easement for management by a public entity,
may be required.
The palette for selection of plants for buffer areas in riparian and shoreline areas
shall be varied and include a variety of plant communities. For the purpose of
this analysis, it is presumed that the Renton Shoreline program requiring
planting of native vegetation will include native trees such as western red cedar,
western hemlock,Douglas fir,black cottonwood,big leaf maple,Oregon ash,and
bitter cherry, and native shrubs and small trees such as red currant, red
elderberry, vine maple, beaked hazelnut, Pacific crabapple, red-osier dogwood,
Pacific willow, Sitka willow,Scouler's willow,twinberry, and salmonberry. Such
plant communities also would enhance the wildlife habitat of the landscaping
around the water quality ponds and reduce the potential need for herbicides and
pesticides near these waters.
Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement
Avoidance- The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be
avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the
wetland buffer, with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for temporary
construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the town homes on
Lots 109 through 115 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west.
If the roadway and town homes were shifted enough to provide a permanent
buffer dimension of 25 feet, but allow construction disturbance of the existing
degraded buffer with future restoration, about eight town home sites could be
retained.
The displacement of the wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could
be avoided by redesign of this portion of the proposal to place all development
outside the 25-foot wide wetland buffer area. This would involve shifting the
access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the
immediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed lots 99 and 100
and require reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If
retained, existing utilities consisting of water valves and a hydrant shall be re-
located outside the wetland and buffer.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-16-
Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement- Restoration of the buffer area of the
northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of native
vegetation to replace the displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation
west of the wetland is characterized by non-native grasses and forbs, with some
areas of red alder and Himalayan blackberry. Replacement buffer area vegetation
would include a mix of native trees and shrub species such as western red cedar,
western hemlock, Douglas fir, big leaf maple, vine maple, beaked hazelnut,
salmon berry, and red currant. Enhancement of the existing wetland vegetation
community of the northerly wetland, which consists of introduced vegetation,
could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent
plants.
Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced,
together with likely changes in hydrology, would necessitate replacement
elsewhere on site. The City of Renton specifies a 1.5:1 minimum replacement
ratio for wetland creation and replacement. The code provides for additional
area in cases where there is uncertainty about the probable success of the
proposed restoration or creation; where there is a significant period of time
between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or projected losses in
functional value (RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e).
The most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the
northerly wetland, adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Likely
constraints for wetland creation in this area that should be addressed include the
following:
a) Adequate hydrology through groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a
wetland vegetation community. Surface water runoff from building roofs could provide
recharge for the wetland. (Runoff from streets contains pollutants that can be an
undesirable addition to wetland ecology.) Regrading some of the area north of the
existing wetland to lower the elevation may provide sufficient groundwater hydrology.
b) Both wetlands and buffer areas are largely devoid of native species due to mowing. A
specific wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology.
The invasive nature of the existing community of reed canary grass poses a high risk of
invasion of the enhanced and created wetland by weed species. This risk can be
addressed by removing the existing reed canary grass by grading and replacement with
dense plantings of native shrubs and trees.
Monitoring and enforcement is a critical element of successful wetland
compensation. Recent studies have found that failure of wetland mitigation has
been attributed to design, installation, and maintenance flaws. The single most
important cause of failure has been lack of enforcement (Mockler et al. 1998,
Johnson et al. 2000). The location of most of the northerly wetland on BNSF
property will require cooperation to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a
single biological entity.
Wildlife- Mitigation of impact of bridge crossings may include greater height to
allow penetration of light and precipitation to maintain plants, and vertical and
horizontal clearance for wildlife movement.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-17-
Establishing and maintaining streamside shoreline vegetation will provide
upland habitat,provide screening from human disturbance,and contribute to the
enhancement of the food chain provided by shallow near-shore habitat that has
been produced by delta formation. Maintaining some or all of the existing log
rafts and pilings in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site, would provide
perch and loafing sites to benefit waterfowl. To avoid conflict with mitigation for
aquatic species, pilings in deep water areas are the best candidates for retention.
Fencing the open space areas to reduce disturbance from domestic animals will
enhance wildlife value.
Osprey-Osprey mitigation measures could include relocation of the osprey nest
to an artificial structure erected in the project site vicinity, as recommended by
WDFW and agreed upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A
WDFW biologist shall be consulted during relocation of the new nest site, which
will occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds. Potential sites for
relocation on site include the riparian corridor proposed to be established along
May Creek. Research has indicated that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use
artificial nesting structures (Saurola 1997; Houghton and Rymon 1997).
Prolonged exposure to noise during an extended buildout of the site may,
however, discourage the existing osprey pair from relocating within open
space on-site. Potential mitigation would prohibit the loudest construction
noise such as pile driving during the nesting and early fledging period of late
April to late July.
Aquatic Species - There are a variety of mitigating measures for natural stream
and shoreline function that are related closely to the amount of land devoted to
mitigation buffers. For this reason, discussion of mitigation is covered below
under "Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas." This mitigation addresses
such functions as LWD recruitment, bank stabilization/erosion control, removal
of sediments and pollutants, regulation of water temperature through stream
shading,bulkheads,artificial light,and public access.
Removal of existing in-water structures such as pilings, the existing dock, and
log booms would improve conditions for juvenile salmonids by reducing the
amount of existing cover for predators, such as smallmouth bass, and by not
interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Mitigation of the adverse
impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number
of strategies ranging from avoiding construction of docks, reducing the number
of docks, and or through specific design and construction measures.
Avoidance of the impacts of new docks could be addressed by a plat condition
prohibiting private dock construction. This would avoid impacts from use of the
docks and from dock shading. Such a prohibition could include the implication
that property owners would use commercial moorage at off-site marinas or could
provide for alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located
at a distance from near-shore habitat. The latter option could include a dingy
dock for access to buoys and floats. Such a dock could include the existing
sawmill dock at the northern end of the proposed common area (that could be
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-18-
reduced in area) or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would avoid
proximity impacts on adjacent residential lots.
An option that would reduce impacts,but not prohibit new docks, could involve
shared moorage by two or more property owners. In such a case docks could be
developed at property lines to serve two adjacent properties, or a single moorage
facility could be developed to serve the entire development. Dock construction
could include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted
above, long-term use of docks is likely to be hampered by delta formation and
could lead to requests by residents to dredge,which would reduce the benefits of
natural processes that create shallow shoreline habitat.
Alternative Buffer Areas-More extensive buffer areas provide for a wider range of
vegetation communities that would support re-establishment of natural
characteristics of the Lake Washington shoreline. Buffer areas would reduce
long-term and cumulative impacts of residential development of the shoreline,
and expand the beneficial use for wildlife and aquatic species.
One conceptual scenario (Option A)is proposed for expanded buffer areas on the
Lake Washington shoreline and two (Options A and C) are examined for May
Creek:
c) Re-orienting the turn-around for Street A on the west side of May Creek from the riparian
corridor to the interior of the project to maintain the 50-foot setback.
d) Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where
the proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHWM. A 50-foot setback in this area
reduces four proposed town home units to one or two.
e) The entire 50-foot setback would be revegetated with native plant species.
For the Lake Washington shoreline, this option is presumed to include the
following two components:
fl The outer 25-feet adjacent to the shoreline would provide a vegetation buffer that would
include restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through:
v. Elimination of bulkheads,or reduction in height of existing bulkheads.
vi. Limited re-grading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and
providing substrate for plantings near the water.
vii. Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline, while preserving
some view corridors for adjacent residential development.
Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15
feet from the water, with fencing between the trail and waterfront, and
viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet on the shoreline with benches or
other passive features.
g) The inner 25-foot area dedicated to the use of adjacent residences, including yard areas
and ornamental landscaping would be oriented to intensive residential use. It would
provide few benefits to the adjacent shoreline except for distance attenuation of noise
and other proximity impacts. This area probably would be used by the subsurface
containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-19-
liquefiable alluvial deposits. It is also likely that this area would be fenced for privacy from
the 25 foot area of indigenous plantings and public access along the shoreline.
This mitigation option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to
about 100, given the current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning,however,
allows a variety of residential building types. Within the applicant's proposed
height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) jurisdiction and
70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For
example, construction of apartment buildings to the proposed height limits
would result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over
115 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction.
Cross-sections that indicate the building setbacks for Option A are provided for
three different portions of the Lake Washington shoreline as illustrated in the
Final EIS.
Option C, Flood Terrace and Reduced Planting in May Creek Buffer - The applicant
has developed a third mitigation strategy (Option C) that is shown in Figures 3.4-
5A (illustrated in the Final EIS) and analyzed below. Option C applies only to the
May Creek corridor. Differences from Option A include:
On the west side of May Creek, the turn-around for Street A retains the original
proposed orientation towards the exterior of the project,resulting in a setback of 25-
feet from Ordinary High Water. The setback narrows to about 20 feet further south
toward the mouth of the creek.
On the east side of the May Creek the original proposed configuration of Tract F and
the adjacent townhomes is retained resulting in a setback of 15 feet at the narrowest,
with setbacks varying up to 30 feet further to the south toward the mouth of the
creek.
The 50-foot setback along the May Creek corridor north of the proposed bridge
would consist of 35-feet of native vegetation and 15-feet of lawn and other managed
landscape vegetation. It is unclear from the proposal who would manage this area,
since it is outside of the residential lots.
- Buildings on the residential lots are proposed to maintain a 10 foot setback, resulting
in the setback from the stream in this area consisting of 35 feet of native species and •
25 feet of lawns and other residential landscaping. The lot layout and number of lots
is the same as the proposal
—1 A flood terrace would be excavated along the west side of the May Creek corridor
from about Street A to the property line to the north. This terrace would extend 30 to
40 feet from the existing OHWM and would be three to five feet deep. The result of
the flood terrace would be an increase in capacity to convey flood waters as
discussed in Section 3.2.3, above.
Impervious Surfaces - Impervious surface on-site is reduced to about 60 percent
under the proposal. Under Option A, a slight increase in pervious surface would
be provided along May Creek and the pervious area along Lake Washington
would be doubled. Total impervious surface would be reduced by about five
(5%) percent under Option A as compared to the proposal. The decrease in
impervious surface is unlikely to have a substantial direct impact except along
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-20-
the Lake Washington Shoreline, where the 50 foot setback would allow
infiltration of most precipitation and eliminate runoff entering the lake except
under the most intense storm events. Option C has the same amount of
impervious surface area as the proposal.
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat - The buffer area in Option A (50 foot buffer)
would be planted entirely in native vegetation. The larger width of the buffer
areas that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Option A would
provide greater structure, or physical complexity, greater spacing, or complexity
in spatial relationships including overstory, mid-story, shrubs, and understory,
and greater interspersion, or complexity and transitions among various plant
communities. This could be expected to provide not only more wildlife habitat,
but more complex niches for a greater variety of species and a more complex and
productive food web. A greater separation from human disturbance would be
provided that would encourage species with less tolerance to humans.
The Renton Shoreline Master Program, which provides general guidance that
landscaping be representative of the native character of specific types of
waterways (e.g. stream, lake edge, marshland) and be compatible with the
Northwest image (RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
Option A provides little difference from the proposal in buffers along May
Creek, except near the mouth of the creek where Option A increases setbacks to
50 feet in areas where the proposal includes setbacks that range from 15 to 30
feet.
Option A doubles the setback from Lake Washington, as compared to the
proposal. This additional area provides limited opportunities for establishing a
viable community of native vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline. A
25-foot wide buffer of native plantings adjacent to the lake and a 25-foot area
devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a planting area that will
accommodate only one or two native trees (at maturity) between the residential
lawn area and the shoreline.A 25-foot buffer of native vegetation would be likely
to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple and
homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. The presence of public
access trails in the area would also lead to potential impediments to establishing
a stable vegetation community because of trampling and other disturbance,
and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife.
There is potential for conflict in values between the interests of residents on lots
adjacent to Lake Washington and the benefits of greater buffers. In many cases,
homeowners on the Lake Washington shoreline are likely to desire views of the
lake and the distant landscape that would not be accommodated by typically
dense communities of native species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to
develop an effective community of native shoreline vegetation and wildlife
habitat because those communities typically create dense screens, especially
native evergreen species. This conflict may be present to a less extent on lots
adjacent to public land on the shoreline where public ownership, as well as the
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-21 -
Shoreline Management Act, supports planting native vegetation as a means of
enhancing environmental values.
With the 25-foot buffer of native planting on Lake Washington under Option A,
some accommodation of both interests could be provided by emphasizing
groundcover and shrubs in the shoreline with the tree species chosen for the
potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the level of major views. Such
species would potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that would
allow some views between trunks, while providing a leaf canopy that would
overhang the lakeshore and provide shade and other desirable elements. Native
evergreens could be located closer to residences and along lot lines or other
locations where view corridors between individual or groups of trees can be
provided. Building design that placed the main living and entertainment
quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor would provide the
potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow visibility over
privacy fences between the lawn areas and areas of native plantings.
The 25 foot buffer in Option A could be implemented on the entire public land
corridor along the shoreline by DNR,which manages the land as a trustee for the
public. The existing leaseholder has certain responsibilities for removal of
existing facilities and restoration of the landscape that could be integrated into
DNR action. Maintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require
designation of a management entity which could include some combination of
the City of Renton, DNR, and the WDFW. Maintenance of plantings on private
lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve long-term enforcement issues in
view of property-owner interest in making recreational use of the shoreline, and
interest in maintaining views of the water and a general cultural preference for
lawn. Maintaining non-ornamental landscaping on private lots likely will require
extensive public education and enforcement.
Providing for management of the shoreline setback by dedication to the public,
or by an easement providing for management by an entity other than the
individual property owner, would likely contribute to better maintenance of
native vegetation.
Option C proposes a 50-foot buffer on May Creek consisting of 35-feet of native
vegetation, and 15-feet of managed landscaping. This is less than the native
vegetation area in the applicant's original proposal The 30 percent reduction of
the width of native vegetation on May Creek (with respect to the proposal and
Option A) substantially reduces the ecological complexity and potential to
provide riparian habitat functions. The narrowing of the total buffer width to a
minimum of 25 feet on the west side and 15 feet on the east side near the creek
mouth further reduces the riparian functionality in those areas.
In the short term, construction of the flood terrace on May Creek in Option C
would remove all of the existing riparian vegetation on the west side of the
stream and would degrade riparian habitat.
Construction of the flood terrace would also likely introduce sediment into May
Creek in the short term,unless appropriate BMPs were used.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-22-
Upon re-establishment of native vegetation, however, the flood terrace may
provide an environment more suited to riparian vegetation dependent on ample
water supplies because of decreased distance to the groundwater table. This may
result in a plant community composed of more willow, cottonwood, red osier
dogwood, and similar species. The 35-foot width of the area designated for
native plantings, however, provides limited area for establishment of large
trees that provide stream shading or potential large wood recruitment. About
one-quarter of the width of the 35-foot native vegetation buffer area on the
west side would be on the 3:1 slope providing a transition from the flood
terrace to existing grade.
This slope would present few constraints for re-establishing vegetation, but
would only accommodate one or two native trees (at maturity) between the
managed landscape area and the streambank. A 35-foot buffer of native
vegetation would be likely only allow plant communities to develop that were
relatively simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges.
In comparison, the area of the site that currently has the most heavily vegetated
buffer located on the west side of the stream north of the northerly bridge is
about 60 feet wide. It generally contains a single row of mature cottonwood trees,
smaller trees such as willow,and a dense understory.
Option C is identical to the applicant's proposal on Lake Washington where a 25
foot building setback is proposed with no proposal, and little opportunity to re-
establish native vegetation.
Stream and Lake Morphology- Under Option A, the 50-foot buffer area along May
Creek would be similar to the proposal in providing limited opportunities for
establishment of vegetation communities that support natural stream processes
such as meandering. It is likely that stream bank protections would be
maintained to keep the stream in its existing channel. The major difference
would be near the mouth of the creek where delta formation and a less incised
creek provide additional opportunities for stream meandering under the
additional buffer area provided by Option A.
Option C would provide an area within the flood terrace that would allow the
stream to re-establish some additional instream habitat-forming and floodplain
processes, such as meandering and channel migration, due to the removal of
existing bank protections. However, the 20 to 25-foot width of the terrace would
limit the extent of these processes. If the stream did meander to the west, the 35-
foot native vegetation buffer would be reduced and provide less buffer between
the stream and proposed residences. The overall potential to re-establish more
natural stream processes would be somewhat better than under Option A. Near
the mouth of the Creek where the Option C buffer is 15 to 30-feet on the east side
and 25 to 35-feet on the west side, there would be fewer opportunities to re-
establish a natural stream morphology as compared to the 50 and 100-foot
buffers under Options A and B.
Option A provides limited area for natural lake erosion and beach formation on
Lake Washington. Portions of the shoreline with shallow depth would
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-23-
accommodate removing bulkheads and allowing erosion to form a more natural
shoreline.
Option C is the same as the proposal for the Lake Washington shoreline and
provides no mitigation of impacts of the proposal.
Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration - Under Option A, the 50-foot vegetated
buffer along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in its ability to provide
natural control of pollutants and sediment in runoff except near the mouth of the
stream. -
Option A differs from the proposal near the mouth of the stream where, under
the proposal, the buffer width narrows, while under Option A it would provide
additional area to filter sediments or runoff.
The Option C 35-foot buffer of native vegetation provides a moderately effective
width on the west side of the stream of about 25 feet of level native vegetated
area within the stream terrace for removal of pollutants and sediment by
overland filtration. The slope at the edge of the terrace is unlikely to provide any
pollutant removal because of the velocity of surface water moving across the
slope. The slope may contribute to erosion due to surface water movement. This
slope is also likely to speed the velocity of surface water flows across the
remaining 25 feet of flood terrace, reducing its effectiveness. For much of the
proposed 35-foot buffer, there is no native vegetation beyond the excavated
floodplain terrace.
Fertilizers,pesticides and sediment from the managed landscape zone is likely to
be filtered less effectively than either the proposal where the entire buffer would
be vegetated, or under Option A that would have a wider buffer area than
Option C.
On the Lake Washington shoreline, substantial additional pollutant control
would be provided by Option A, which doubles the width of building setbacks
and providing an additional 25-foot buffer area of native plantings. Interception
of sediment and chemicals in runoff would be moderately effective with the 25-
foot planting area. It would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was
established prior to building construction.
Option A would result in a decrease in application of herbicides and pesticides
near the Lake Washington shoreline as compared to the proposal where
development of lawn areas would be expected to increase chemical applications.
Direct application to water through overspray or spill would be avoided.
Infiltration of waters containing pollutants via direct groundwater input would
be reduced by greater setbacks.
Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington as compared to
the proposal and can be expected to have the same impacts from chemical
fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides that can be expected to be applied up to the
waters edge and lead to over-spraying, inadvertent spillage, and runoff
containing these chemicals.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-24-
Water Temperature Regulation and Regulation of Microclimate-A riparian vegetation
buffer width of 50 feet on May Creek as in the proposal and Option A would not
be sufficient to provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of
May Creek through shading, but would provide some benefits of additional
shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level of shading may serve to
prevent or moderate further increases of water temperature prior to entering
Lake Washington that would otherwise occur if there was no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of the project site and the short distance of
stream on the site, stream temperatures will, however, largely be affected by
habitat and water uses upstream of the project site.
Option C would provide even less shading potential since a reduced native
vegetation buffer width of 35 feet would not support the same number or density
of mature trees as would a 50-foot buffer.
Option A would increase shading of Lake Washington shallow water areas and
reduce temperatures increases in area that would otherwise receive direct
sunlight as compared to the project's proposed 25-foot building setback
(presuming that few large trees.would be planted on private lots and shading
would be negligible).
Native shrubs and trees planted on the lake shoreline would, in time, grow to
provide shoreline overhanging vegetation and provide temperature moderation
of shallow water habitat. The project site faces largely to the west. The sun angle
and height during the summer months will allow shading to occur in the
morning,because the sun rises north of due east after the spring equinox. During
mid-day, the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead,
allowing overhanging vegetation to shade shallow water areas. The sun in the
afternoon is also slightly north of west, allowing crown shading from trees along
the shoreline and inland. In addition, the angle of the sun shining through more
layers of atmosphere in the afternoon reduces heat transmittal. Shading is
dependent on the density of vegetation and the size of the tree crowns.
Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have
the same effects as the proposal.
Large Woody Debris Recruitment - Option A and the proposal would provide for
approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek, which would be
inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment, but limited
increases in LWD recruitment would be expected as planted vegetation matured.
Short-term mitigation measures could include the addition of LWD to provide
fish habitat, but this should only be considered a short-term solution, and the
subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows
would have to be carefully considered.
Since Option C has the least amount of native landscape, it can be expected to
provide the lowest LWD recruitment potential on May Creek of all the options.
Option A would provide more potential for LWD recruitment on Lake
Washington than the proposal or Option C. As with May Creek,LWD could also
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-25-
be placed along the Lake Washington shoreline in the short term. This would
likely provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon in early spring (through
April); however, it also would provide additional habitat for non-salmonid
predators such as bass.
Bulkheads - Shoreline protection for residential use on Lake Washington is
assumed to be necessary with the proposed 25-foot building setback due to the
southeast facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and storms from
the south. The current sheet-pile bulkheads on the site were installed at high
activity log-handling areas and are not necessary for shoreline protection from
wave action. In addition, shoreline areas are anticipated to fill in over a period of
years with sediment originating from May Creek due to discontinued dredging
operations. This will likely provide more shallow area that will dissipate wave
action prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will provide accretion
of new land waterward of the existing high water line. Delta formation also
will provide shallow water habitat along the shoreline.
The greater setbacks from the shoreline in Option A provide greater potential for
removal of existing bulkheads on the shoreline because residential structures and
associated lawn areas would not be threatened. Areas where the lake is shallow,
or where it becomes shallower through delta formation, removal of bulkheads
would contribute to the formation of a more natural shoreline in conjunction
with bio-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options
presume that some area is available for natural processes and may be precluded
in areas where a 25-foot building setback is proposed. Bio-engineering options
could include regrading the upland portion of the shoreline and limiting
armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle. This would allow for
more natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure 3.4-9 as illustrated
in the FEIS. This may be especially applicable in publicly owned portions of the
shoreline. Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline
enhancement in areas of public ownership could be coordinated with
Washington Department of Natural Resources requirements for removal of
existing development on the public lands.
Further options include varying the shoreline from its existing straight
configuration to provide inlets and pocket beaches to more closely replicate
natural conditions, as indicated in the conceptual sketch in Figure 3.4-10 as
illustrated in the Final EIS. After a period of decades, delta formation may result
in considerable accretion of new land and may isolate existing bulkheads inland
away from the shoreline.
As an interim measure, short of bioengineering, or for those portions of the site
where dredging has created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads, the
following could be implemented:
h) Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads,or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to
the OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side, will reduce the negative
impact of wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also
be desirable to engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-26-
gravel substrate that provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening
period prior to substantial accretion from delta formation.
i) Riprap re-vegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings
or rooted plants, provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including
shade, leaf litter, browse, and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture
nutrient-laden sediments(WDFW 2003).
Residential Noise and Lighting- Noise and lighting impacts on wildlife along May Creek would be similar under the proposal and Option A as vegetation in the
approximately 50-foot wide riparian buffer matures. Option A provides more
buffer area and mitigation near the mouth of the creek. Option C, with a 30
percent reduction in the width of the buffer area devoted to native vegetation,
can be expected to provide a reduction in effectiveness in blocking light. The
limited effectiveness of vegetation in providing noise buffer would likely result
in little difference in noise attenuation between Option C and Option A.
Along Lake Washington, the proposed 25-foot building setback along Lake
Washington will not serve to reduce residential lighting and noise impacts as
compared to the additional buffer areas under Option A. Conditions could
prohibit outdoor lighting; however, this would be very difficult to enforce over
time and may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows.
The elimination or reduction in the number of docks discussed above would
reduce light from that source. Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake
Washington and would have the same effects as the proposal.
Public Access Disturbance - Under the current proposal, it is presumed that public
access would be provided to meet the provisions of Renton s Shoreline Master
Program. In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake, public access would likely
be at the edge of the shoreline to minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation
could include setting back public access from the shore and reducing residential
lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation is provided by larger setbacks, as
discussed below.
Under Options A, access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back
from the shoreline along the portion of the shoreline where private lots abut the
shoreline. Buffers equivalent to Option A could be implemented on most of the
public shoreline which ranges from 20 to 80 feet wide.
Public access could be provided further from the waters' edge along the entire
waterfront under Option A. It is anticipated that a trail system would meander
10 to 15 feet from the waters' edge under Option A. Controlled public access for
shoreline viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the
shoreline with the potential for direct shoreline access at specific locations where
beach environments might be created or re-established through delta deposits.
The larger setbacks provide greater flexibility in accommodating the
requirements of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for "significant" public
access on Lake Washington.
Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have
the same effects as the proposal. If a public access trail were placed in the
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-27_
managed landscape area, impacts on May Creek would be similar to Option A,
except near the mouth where the buffer width is reduced.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); Environmental
Regulations (RMC 4-3); City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations
(RMC 4-3-090)
E. TRANSPORTATION
Refer to pages 3-61 through 3-89 of the Draft EIS for the Affected Environment
and Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified
impacts.
Mitigating Measures:
El. Site access (railroad crossings) shall occur in the vicinity of existing at-grade
crossing locations with roadway improvements reviewed and approved by the
WUTC and BNSF.Pre-cast concrete crossings shall be utilized.
E2. Provide active control for the two (2) railroad crossings designed with cantilever
and gates and warning devices automatically activated by train approach as
required by BNSF and the WUTC. Further, the City and future developer(s) shall
work together with BNSF during the design of roadway improvements to
determine any other appropriate railroad crossing solution(s).
E3. A traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to reduce
crossings shall be provided.
E4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00
per each new average daily trip associated with the project. The fee shall be paid
prior to the recording of the final plat.
E5. The on-site roadway system shall be constructed per the details and
specifications provided by the approved Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat.
Discussion:
Site Access and Rail Impacts-Impacts of the proposed site access on safety, as well
as other impacts,can include a range of potential measures,as follows:
a) Relocated grade level crossings to meet guidelines for level rail crossings and
intersection approach grades as indicated on Figure 3.5-8 as illustrated in the Draft EIS.
This may place crossings closer together and increase the potential for blockage of both
by a stopped train.This could be mitigated by connecting the existing access point at the
north end of the Vulcan property with this site through a continuous frontage roadway on
the west side of the BNSF right-of way.That would provide a separation between access
points of about 3,600 feet. This access option could be combined with consolidation of
existing rail crossings to reduce the number of vehicle train conflict points.
b) A variety of crossing controls for grade level crossings, ranging from: warning lights and
bells,gated control of approaches, and quad-gate control of all vehicular and pedestrian
approaches.
c) Impacts of increased safety hazards from nearby residents trespassing on the railroad
right-of way can be addressed by: Fencing railroad right-of-way, and education
programs.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-28-
Potential impacts of blockage of both access points to the site and resulting risks
due to lack of emergency vehicle access can be addressed effectively only by
grade-separated crossings. This impact is unlikely to occur with current local
freight use of the rail line.
Mitigation of cumulative impacts of this proposal together with expected
impacts of redevelopment of other industrial sites in the vicinity can be mitigated
by developing an overall mitigation program. The mitigation program could
ensure that intersections and other improvements are designed to accommodate
future channelization and signal improvements:The circulation system could
include provision for elements such as a street serving all properties west of the
BNSF railroad served by a minimum number of railroad crossings.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton
Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527; City of
Renton Street and Utility Standards (RMC 4-6); State of Washington -
Transportation(RCW 81.53) and (WAC 480-62)
F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Refer to pages 3-89 through 3-97 of the Draft EIS for Affected Environment and
Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts.
Mitigation Measures
F1. The applicant shall remove contaminated soil as outlined in the Independent
Remedial Action Plan Uplands Areas dated June 16, 2000 and/or pursuant to an
alternative plan that achieves applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup
standards.
F2. Th applicant shall evaluate the need for groundwater remediation after the soil
remediation is complete and shall perform groundwater remediation as necessary
to achieve applicable Model Toxics Control Act cleanup standards.
F3. The applicant shall address contaminants from the proposed roadway through
Quendall Terminals through appropriate removal, stabilization, or isolation,
consistent with requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act.
F4. A contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan shall be provided.
Discussion:
Construction bid specifications for future infrastructure and buildings shall
address the potential for encountering impacted soil and groundwater. A
contamination response plan and hazardous materials contingency plan shall be
developed. It is to include specific worker and public health safety precautions,
protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with
hazardous material, and treatment and disposal options foi' these materials.
Restrictive covenants may be required as part of title report to place limits on
property transfer,as well as conditions that will allow intrusive work.
The level of contamination encountered within the roadway across the Quendall
site could be addressed by a variety of remediation strategies ranging from
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-29-
removal and disposal, to stabilization in order to reduce mobility, to isolation
from direct human contact. The proposed remediation for this portion of the
Quendall site is capping of the soil (Exponent 1999) Construction of the roadway
would provide an impervious surface that would provide a barrier to human
contact with contaminated soil and reduce infiltration and leaching of residual
contaminants from the unsaturated zone into the groundwater. The City of
Renton,may require additional investigation to characterize contaminants within
the proposed right-of-way in more detail and may require preparation of a
• remediation program to be implemented prior_to roadway construction and
dedication. Additional information will be useful in determining a cleanup
strategy that meets the City's objectives for dedicated right-of-way as well as
meeting the requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act.
Any remedial action implemented for the project, including the roadway to the
north, must comply with the following requirements as stipulated in WAC 173-
340:
a) Protect human health and the environment;
b) Comply with clean up standards WAC 173-340-700;
c) Comply with applicable state and federal laws WAC 173-340-710;
d) Provide for compliance monitoring WAC 173-340-410;
e) Use a permanent solution to maximize extent practicable, and provide reasonable
restoration time WAC 173-340-360;and
i9 Consider public concerns WAC 173-340-600.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); State of Washington
(WAC 173-340)
G. AESTHETICS
Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-98 through 3-117, for Affected Environment and
Impacts.The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
G1. Apparent building bulk shall be reduced by design features, materials and color,
including sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and
building offsets.
G2. Relative building bulk shall be reduced by screening through large vegetation.
Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings would
be required.
Discussion:
For the proposed subdivision and residential development, reduced visual
quality and negative aesthetic impacts can be reduced by a number of strategies
ranging from changing building height and bulk to specific building design
features that that provide visual unity and interest to screening and softening.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-30-
The use of common design features, materials and color, as well as landscape
design, can provide a number of features which reduce apparent bulk of
buildings including sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs
and building offsets that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall
surfaces. Window detailing can add considerable visual interest and provide
both visual unity and variety,depending on the use of common elements and the
variety of size,position,or design provided.
Screening of the buildings on the site would require very large vegetation that
would not be expected to mature for a number of years. Mature vegetation can
provide a crown area that is higher than building roofs, or screen a substantial
portion of building walls. The current design, however, does not provide
sufficient area in front, side or rear yard setbacks to support large trees. The
design of landscaping for open space areas could also provide for large species
that would provide crown area that could provide visual relief, as opposed to the
dwarf ornamental trees proposed. The major public views of the project could be
softened by landscaping only if substantial landscape areas were provided
between town homes east of May Creek and the BNSF railroad right-of way.
Such additional landscape area could result in reduction in the number of units
in that area.
Mitigation under industrial use of the site would probably be less effective
because existing structures would remain. Painting existing structures a color
that would blend with the surroundings better than white and aqua could reduce
negative visual impacts.New structures that are taller than the existing buildings
shall be designed to be either as unobtrusive or as interesting as possible. A
formalized entry into the site would improve the visual character of site as seen
from the roadway.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton
Development Standards (RMC 4-2);City of Renton Landscaping(RMC 4-4-070)
H. LIGHT AND GLARE
Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-118 through 3-119, for Affected Environment and
Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
H1. Shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection shall be incorporated.
H2. Buildings shall be designed and sited to reduce or eliminate glass surfaces that
might produce glare from sun reflection.
Discussion:
For both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights shall be used to reduce
the visibility of light from distance residential areas and limit spillover light. The
City of Renton recommends using downcast, shielded lights for urban areas. In
addition, architectural design of buildings shall consider avoiding glare from
glass surfaces that might temporarily blind motorists or cyclists. This project is
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-31 -
not expected to generate indirect or cumulative impacts that would be significant
after mitigation.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); City of Renton
Development Standards (RMC 4-4-075)
NOISE
Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-119 through 3-126 for the Affected Environment
and Impacts and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. The mitigation measures
established below address identified impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
I1. The pile holes shall be pre-drilled to the maximum feasible depth (depth may be
limited by the character of deposits).
12. If feasible given soil conditions, less noisy pile installation methods, such as
vibrating piles into place, cassion -type piles, auger cast piles or other methods
shall be used.
I3. Noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors, welding
machines, pumps, and similar equipment that would operate continuously and
could contribute to steady background noise levels shall be provided.
I4. At-grade rail crossings that meet a "sealed" status to qualify for possible Federal
Railway Administration (FRA) designation of a "quiet zone" for locomotive
horns shall be provided with public railroad crossings.
Discussion:
A variety of relatively simple and inexpensive practices can reduce the extent to
which people are affected. For example, construction noise could be reduced
with enforcement standards requiring mufflers on equipment. Practices such as
turning off equipment when idle could also reduce noise.
Stationary equipment could be placed as far away from residential receptors as
possible. Portable noise barriers could be placed around equipment, with any
openings directed away from the residential receiving property. These measures
would generally provide an approximate 10-dBA reduction in sound and would
be especially appropriate for compressors, welding machines, pumps, and
similar equipment that would operate continuously and could contribute to
steady background noise levels. Substituting hydraulic or electric models for
pneumatic impact tools such as jack hammers, rock drills, and pavement
breakers would also reduce construction noise.
The effect of impact pile-driving can be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the
maximum feasible depth (depth may be limited on this site the character of
deposits). Vibrating piles into place would result in less noise impacts. Cassion-
type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place concrete can be
installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,
which is installed using an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is
pumped during withdrawal,thus eliminating the need for steel pipe casing. This
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-32-
option may also be limited by local soil conditions and the need for lateral
strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction.
Rail Noise Impacts - The FRA proposed regulations to allow designation of a
"quiet zone" that would make sounding of locomotive horns at public road
crossings discretionary rather than mandatory.The regulations have not yet been
adopted; however, they provide some indication of the likely range of measures
that might be taken if locomotive horn noise became a problem because of
increased use of the rail line.
The FRA proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA
upon application by a local community if at-grade rail crossings are improved to
decrease the likelihood of automobile or pedestrian conflicts at rail crossings. To
accomplish this, rail crossings would have to be improved to meet a "sealed"
status to "fully compensate for the absence of the audible warning provided by
the locomotive horn." This would require that all approaches be controlled by
four-quadrant gates, median-divided barriers incorporating gate arms long
enough to block all lanes and prevent driving around the gates. Gates would also
have to block the sidewalks. FRA estimates the cost of a quad-gate installation to
range from $200,000 to $1 million, depending on whether it is associated with
traffic signals and based on the number of lanes of roadway and the number of
rails (FRA 1999).
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070)
J. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Refer to the Draft EIS, pages 3-126 through 3-132 for Affected Environment and
Impacts. The mitigation measures established below address identified impacts.
Mitigation Measures
J1. An interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the site
reflecting the lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area shall be
provided by the developer. The design and location shall be reviewed and
approved by Development Services prior recording of the final plat.
J2. In the event archaeological deposits are found during construction, work is to
stop and the Washington State Archaeologist is to be contacted by the
developer/contractor(s).
Discussion:
Historic Resources - Lake Washington's shoreline sawmill industries were an •
important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history. Although the
original mill from the 1940s no longer exists,the modern Barbee Mill is the last of
the mills on Lake Washington; development of this property would offer an
opportunity to commemorate the industry's history. An interpretive display in a
public place within the proposed
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-33-
• •
development could present information about and show images of the historic
industrial use of the site,as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy
and shipbuilding heritage of the area. The display could build on a brief
description of the geologic history of this portion of Lake Washington and a
history of the Lake Washington Duwamish people who once lived on or near
May Creek and its delta.
Cultural Resources- An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and
construction work near the northeast corner of the site, close to the black
building. If intact archaeological resources- were encountered during
construction, the construction foreman must direct work activities that could
further disturb the deposits away from their vicinity. The foreman would need to
contact the Washington State Archaeologist (360-586-3080), who assists in
determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information
important to understanding the history of the area and whether such deposits
should be recorded.
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); Archaeological Sites and
Resources (Chapter 27.53 RCW)
K. PUBLIC SERVICES
As stated in the Scoping Document for the Environmental Impact Statement,
Public Services was not an element specifically analyzed. However, the proposal
would add new residential units that would increase the demand for Fire
Services and residents that would generate additional needs for park and
recreational facilities. The mitigation measures established below address
identified impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
Kl. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be paid
prior to the recording of the final plat.
K2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The fee shall be
paid prior to the recording of the final plat.
K3. Public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington and along May Creek shall be
provided and incorporated into the preliminary plat. The applicant shall work
with City of Renton staff to determine the location and design of the public
access. The system may include a soft surface trail along May Creek, sidewalks,
and an open space tract adjacent to Lake Washington.
Discussion:
Public access is discussed in section "D. Plants and Animals". To reiterate, the
Shoreline Master Program requires the provision of public access on Lake
Washington. Additionally, May Creek is a part of the continuation of the
Mountain to Sound Greenway of which the public access trail is to be
constructed along in order to connect to the existing trail system.
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-34-
Policy Nexus:
City of Renton Environmental Review (RMC 4-9-070); Parks Mitigation Fee
Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance 4527; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913,
Ordinance 4527; City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090; Ord.
4716)
_ I
Mitigation Document Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
-35-
MICROFILMED
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared for
City of Renton
Renton,Washington
Prepared by
Parametrix
5808 Lake Washington Blvd.NE,Suite 200
Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350
(425) 822-8880
www.parametrix.corn
May 2004
Project No. 554-1779-017
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
CITY OF RENTON
Plenning;Building/PUblidWorks•DepartmCnt
104317 Kr:otker-Whetkr Muyor • • "6ng.Zimmorman.le.E::;AOininistroor
. . „
•
May 3;2004
•Dear Readk
:Attached is-a copy of the Final Environmental Impact IStaternentTEISYfor The Barbee
Mill Preliminary
In May 2002 the Barbee Mili ComPahy,Submitted..e.t.arid UaMester,Application-,(L
.02-040) for.0 Preliminary Plat. The City:Of ReritenlErivironmental,RevieW Committee•
•issued a Determination.of Sienificance on November 5 2002 The City of RentOn, in.
accordance yirith the.,State,Environmental Poficy.Aot(SEPA) prpcess;-,IbSued a,Seeping
NotiCa.,Ori..NOVenibef.21.,',2062, •On December 10;'2052., a public:sOoping meeting was
iield,tb:.i'eceive Written,and oral comments on the proposed scope of study;A" copin'g'
- Doconieht:WaS:isstied on January 1 o, 2003 A.Draft EnvironmentallmPacl Statement
(0t1 ) .was issued by the City of Renton' Environmental Review demmittee.,on
September 2 2003 A public hearing was held on.Septeniber:23;- 2063..1-he public
cciMment"peribd'for the.DEISolosed'on.,Qckiber 8,0063,
. . . . . . .
The'Finat'ElS':a0gments:the Draft EIS by Providing additional researati,publishing and
answering comment letters received on the Draft and making correCtiOns,The Draft,EIS.
should be referred to for:te):thot revised in this Final EIS
Purs Ont.to.pFPArbles'.(WAC 197-11),follqWing,the'Issuance the seven day.
waiting period wilt baestablished (May 4*-throUgh May'1 b„ 0,4)-duting•Whiph...hO actions
on the:Proposed: liMinary plat Will be.made.
pre,
. .
Upon issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS):41-iere will be a
twenty:(20)a4::.6006.61.por10.,..Any•.aPpeal must lje..based.on the-adeqUeci,britikDratt
.and Final EIS; Under the City of Renton Municipal docte::(RMg-'4,8L.f.10:.;E.44iii); an
appeal ofthe'FE'S muSt be made tothe Heeling-niarniner.The-appeal,peried Will-.end
on May24 •..2004 at500pm
Actions taken':-'based„upon-the Final EIS, Mitigationi'Document;:Site Plan and
Preliminary Olat),May,alsolbe-aPbealed,OurSilant the applicable prOVIsieri .Of the Renton
Coda and state law
. ,
If.you haya•i4uestIons:orequirer 'clarification'of the,abeve, please,'contapt:Susan:Fiala,
Project-Mariager•.0t.(425)439!7.382:
The
City of RentOn•appreciates your interest and thanks you for your ParticiPatibri.
i Fort e:EnyirOntneritel,keVieW•POrnmittee;,
•t
_regg.Zim1 rm ri ,•• • •
.Adifilnistrater,-Planning(Building/Public Works
•
i:955•Sit)14 Grady Way-Renton Washington 98055 RENT-0 N:.:
(E),nspw•wo,lins rrbFri", ii 61;
rii
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement May 2004
•
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
FACT SHEET
Name of Proposal Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Description of Proposal Preliminary Plat approval for subdivision of a 22.9 acre site into 115
residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet. The site is
! on Lake Washington. May Creek flows through the easterly portion of the
site. Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two
- connection points to Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-
grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway. A
new bridge crossing of May Creek is proposed. Utilities include water,
sewer, and storm drainage, including water quality treatment facilities. An
open space area of approximately 30,000 square feet would abut publicly
owned lands along the shoreline. A buffer area is proposed along May
Creek ranging from 20 to 100 feet. Displacement is proposed for portions
of the southern wetland that lies largely within the BNSF right-of-way.
Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland.
Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include
construction of 115 duplex and town home units using shared walls
between property lines.
Location of Proposal 4101 Lake Washington Boulevard NE
Renton,WA 98056
Proponent Barbee Forest Products Inc.
Proponent Contact Campbell Matthewson
Century Pacific,LP
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle,WA 98101
(206) 689-7203
Lead Agency City of Renton
Contact Person Susan Fiala
(425)430-7382
Approval and Licenses • Preliminary Plat Approval
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
• Variance and/or Modification from Critical Areas provisions for
displacement of wetland areas and wetland buffer area averaging
• Plat Street and Public Facility Engineering Plan Approval
• Clearing and Grading Permit Approval
• Site Plan Review
• Approval of public crossing over railroad and/or street
modification for access to the development by Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement i May 2004
•
Approval and Licenses • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project
(continued) Approval
• Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits
• Washington Department of Natural Resources aquatics lease
termination assessment and restoration order
• King County Demolition Permits for removal of existing sawmill
buildings within public aquatics lease area
Authors and Principal Parametrix Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Boulevard NE, Suite 200
Contributors Kirkland,WA 98033-7350
(425) 822-8880
Date of Issue Draft EIS: September 2,2003
Final EIS: May 3,2004
Date of Action on Spring 2004 •
Applications
Location of Background City of Renton
Information Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
(425)430-7200
Parametrix Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE
Suite 200
Kirkland,WA 98033 •
(425) 822-8880
$ 10.00 Final EIS
Cost of EIS $ 15.00 Draft EIS
$ 15.00 DEIS Technical Appendices
$ 5.00 CD version of DEIS
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement ii May 2004
I
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i` VOLUME 1 — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COVER LETTER •
FACT SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
ACRONYMS vi
1. SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 ALTERNATIVES 1-1
1.1.1 Proposal 1-1
1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site 1-1
1.2 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY 1-1
1.2.1 Affected Environment 1-1
1.2.2 Impacts 1-4
1.2.3 Mitigation 1-4
1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES • 1-5
1.3.1 Affected Environment 1-5
1.3.2 Impacts 1-6
1.3.3 Mitigation 1-6
1.4 GROUNDWATER 1-7
1.4.1 Affected Environment 1-7
1.4.2 Impacts 1-7
1.4.3 Mitigation 1-7
1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 1-7
1.5.1 Affected Environment 1-7
1.5.2 Impacts 1-8
1.5.3 Mitigation 1-10
1.6 TRANSPORTATION 1-11
1.6.1 Affected Environment 1-11
1.6.2 Impacts 1-12
1.6.3 Mitigation 1-13
1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1-14
1.7.1 Affected Environment 1-14
1.7.2 Impacts 1-15
1.7.3 Mitigation 1-15
1.8 AESTHETICS 1-15
1.8.1 Affected Environment 1-15
1.8.2 Impacts 1-16
1.8.3 Mitigation 1-16
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement iii May 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE 1-17
1.9.1 Affected Environment 1-17
1.9.2 Impacts 1-17
1.9.3 Mitigation 1-18
1.10 NOISE 1-18
1.10.1 Affected Environment 1-18
1.10.2 Impacts 1-18
1.10.3 Mitigation 1-19
1.11 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 1-19
1.11.1 Affected Environment 1-19
1.11.2 Impacts 1-20
1.11.3 Mitigation 1-20
2. ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 PROPOSAL 2-1
2.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE 2-4 ,
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATING MEASURES 3-1
•
3.1 EARTH, SOILS,AND GEOLOGY DEIS pages 3-1 to 3-7
3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3-1
3.2.1 Affected Environment DEIS pages 3-18 to 3-14
3.2.2 Impacts 3-1
3.2.3 Mitigation 3-5 _
3.3 GROUNDWATER DEIS pages 3-122 to 3-24
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS 3-16
3.4.1 Affected Environment DEIS pages 3-124 to 3-34
3.4.2 Impacts 3-16
3.4.3 Mitigation 3-25 1
3.5 TRANSPORTATION DEIS pages 3-161 to 3-89
3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DEIS pages 3-189 to 3-97 '
3.7 AESTHETICS DEIS pages 3-198 to 3-118
3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE DEIS pages 3-118 to 3-119
3.9 NOISE DEIS pages 3-119 to 3-126
3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES DEIS pages 3-126 to 3-132
4. REFERENCES 4-1 j
5. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT 5-1
6. COMMENT LETTERS.RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT 6-1 j
7. DISTRIBUTION LIST 7-1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement iv May 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDICES
A Scoping Determination(Bound with Draft EIS Text)
Volume 2 —Appendices B —E (Distributed with Draft EIS Text)
B Floodplain Analysis Technical Report
C Water Resources
D Terrestrial Plants and Animals
E Aquatic Species
F Revised Floodplain Analysis Technical Report(Bound with Final EIS text)
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1-1 Vicinity Map 1-2
1.1-2 Local Vicinity Map 1-3
2.1-1 Preliminary Plat 2-2
3.2-3 Floodplain 3-4
3.2-4 Proposed Water Quality Treatment and Stormwater Drainage System 3-7
3.2-5 Floodplain Terrace Mitigation Option 3-9
3,2-6 Floodplain Terrace, Cross Section 3 3-10
3.2-7 Floodplain Terrace, Cross Section 4.1 3-11
3.2-8 Floodplain Terrace, Cross Section 6 3-12
3.2-9 Floodplain Terrace, Cross Section 9 3-13
3.4-4 Option"A"50-foot Buffer 3-34
3.4-5 Option`B" 100-foot Setback 3-35
3.4-5A Option C,Variable Setback with Two Management Zones 3-36
3.4-6 Cross Sections Lots 27 &28 3-37
3.4-7 Cross Sections Lots 29 and 30 3-38
3.4-8 Cross Sections Lots 35 & 36 3-39
3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification 3-45
3.4-10 Shoreline Modification Provision of Pocket Beaches and Other Features 3-45
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures 1-20
3.4-1 Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May(2000) 3-22
3.4-2 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997) 3-23
3.4-3 Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified from FEMAT(1993) 3-23
6-1 Barbee Mill Draft EIS Comment Letters 6-1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement v May 2004
I
ACRONYMS
APA Aquifer Protection Area
BA Biological Assessment
BMP Best Management Practice
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second _
CMZ channel migration zone
COR Center Office Residential
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources
DPS Distinct Population Segment
Ecology Washington Department of Ecology
EDNA Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIS environmental impact statement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
I-405 Interstate 405
KCBW King County Backwater
KCSWDM King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
KCSWM King County Surface Water Management
Leq A-weighted energy equivalent
LWD large woody debris
mg/L milligrams per liter
mllw mean lower low water
mm millimeter
mph miles per hour
MRSC Municipal Research Center of Washington
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
• I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement vi May 2004
I i
-' NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OHW Ordinary High Water
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RMC Renton Municipal Code
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCP pentachlorophenol
PHS Priority Habitat and Species
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RMC Renton Municipal Code
ROW Right-of-way
SHPO State Historical Preservation Office
SMA Shoreline Management Act
SPTH Site-potential tree height
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
TIR Technical Information Report
TOC total organic carbon
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
VOC volatile organic compound
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDOE Washington Department of Energy
WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmenta 1 Impact Statement vii May 2004
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
i
li
1. SUMMARY
1.1 ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives are analyzed in the Draft EIS,with additional analysis in the Final EIS of impacts on
Surface Water Resources and Plants &Animals.
1.1.1 Proposal
The 22.9 acre project site is located on Lake Washington, in the City of Renton(as shown on Figure
1.1-1). May Creek flows through the easterly portion of the site. Construction and dedication of public
streets is proposed with a new bridge crossing of May Creek.
The proposed subdivision and related site development include subdivision of the site into 115 residential
lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet; construction and dedication of public streets with two
connection points to Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)railway;with one bridge crossing of May Creek; construction of
utilities; provision of an open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet that would abut publicly
owned lands along the shoreline; a buffer area averaging about 50 feet in width along May Creek; and
displacement of wetland and buffer area in two wetlands.
Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include construction of 115 duplex and town
home units. Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence of a specific
proposal for shared moorage. Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline to protect
buildings and associated private lawn area.
Public lands consisting of about 29,000 square feet lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line are
presumed to be developed in the future as public open space. Facilities for public enjoyment of the
shoreline are presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails,benches, and
interpretive facilities.
1.1.2 Continuation of Industrial Use on the Site
This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site,with different uses than the existing
sawmill. The following assumptions have been made: no construction of public roads, the existing
driveway access would continue; existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses and new
structures would be developed for a total of 545,000 square feet of building area.
1.2 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY
1.2.1 Affected Environment
The site is underlain by glacial deposits consisting of recessional till and outwash. Till is a very dense
mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposited at the base of a glacier and compacted by the tremendous
weight of the glacial ice. Outwash generally consists of sands and gravels deposited by melt-water
streams as glaciers receded to the north from the Puget Sound region. These glacial units are overlain by
alluvial (stream-deposited)and lacustrine (lake-deposited)geologic strata, including peat, silt, and sand,
as well as imported fill materials. A portion of the soils in the north-central part of the project site have
been contaminated by sawmill operations and are slated for removal, in accordance with a cleanup plan
approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-1 May2004
. 2
IP
405 522
5 4
. ..
. .
DUVALL
. 202
k .
REDMOND
KIRKLAND
s- " 202 203
520
SEATTLE Lake BELLEVUE• y
'r
Washington, v�Pp
z 90 1
0
CC
ISSAQUAH
'1 NEWCASTLE
900
{7
RENTON PROJECT
405 SITE
Parametrix DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-1-1-01
Figure 1.1-1
W Vicinity Map
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
•
--,, ,. lir,,..,r, ,.,,
. . .
.:..:2.: .... . , ..
., . . .. . . .. . ,,....„ f___.
, _ .,.; ,., leilirsit it, ,, ..!. ,
- T f' .s.,:,,. ,
1 t �'- RE
?STET
.•...r.. ..:._..._...........„... ,
SITE
I1 N .. •\
p
O
CJ1^
1'.
Z
i
C
-
LcxKF:WAS.t'iENG'I'GN-:
.ram
v.
F' I
- N ,
) ...110:,•inAfit)r#t....:#
,N 1,e°.„, 4gINM-inME
M1fti.1,11-t1-"-..„s,
•m - �1.
11. 1.r.
0,0. 0:0'i1.d 1li,1:
2•' ,
�o
r
,-,;'
� ♦ J
1
. .°s
R
: : 4ft ,'
f'
L® iio
iI
mgII1 CITY fi
iJ' RENTON '•''.
0.7:
..,_..............,..
.:
..:„..iii:I.111,41 114, ....,..7...:.:_; limo 4441, ...:1,_,,ms
,•404 . 2.1. ,50.- t. ' . ---, ._ i..... „ _
m __.. Ito
,,,.,A.: 110_ ..,7•.". --.'-NI ':. .;
,.., A11111111111LT/4 7 -,
•
isieri Nit ukoAri ‘ ‘.....
.. ,.
,-. ........ .4,i,___ Er
1>" , , •,_,.. .
Parametrix City of Renton/554-1779-017/01(14)B/03(K)
At
MOCity Limits Figure 1.1-2
•
Local Vicinity Map
The southernmost splay of the Seattle fault is located along the northern boundary of the Barbee Mill site.
The May Creek basin area is considered to have a high, long-term seismic risk potential (i.e., for large
events with recurrence intervals longer than 100 years)because of known earthquake epicenters in the
region. Seismic hazards in the May Creek basin are primarily related to seismic-induced landslides,
ground breakage of unconsolidated sediments, and liquefaction. The greatest damage in a future large
earthquake would occur on the May Creek delta.
1.2.2 Impacts
Construction impacts include clearing, grading, excavating, and filling portions of the site. Vegetation
would be cleared within the construction footprint, and existing buildings would be demolished on the
site prior to grading.
This project may cause erosion, sediment-laden runoff, and dust on the shoreline of Lake Washington and
along May Creek. If a terrace for floodplain compensatory storage is constructed adjacent to May Creek,
there will be higher risks of erosion resulting in sedimentation of May Creek.
Liquefaction during an earthquake is a risk on the site due to the fills and alluvial soils that underlie the
surface. Localized loss of soil cohesion from seismic induced liquefaction could result in foundation
subsidence with associated shear forces causing structural failure in buildings and bridges as well as
localized cracking or subsidence of roadways and scattered breaks in utility lines. Lateral movement
could result in slight to substantial ground movement. Slight movements typically produce cracks and
fissures in overlying deposits, causing building structure failure through increased shear strain. Greater
lateral movement of several meters can cause buildings to compress to the point of buckling or being
pulled apart. Roadways may experience slight to severe cracks, and fissures;utilities may be broken in
numerous places. This site is at risk of severe dislocation because it is close to the lakeside,which results
in a lack of a confining geologic boundary. That,together with the gradient provided by lake depth could
result in movement of portions of the site to the west.
It is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings,roads, and utilities due to the
complexity of the factors affecting liquefaction, and the limited geologic information about the site
developed to date.
There is also a risk of a seismic-induced landslide involving movement of a large land mass. This risk
cannot be readily assessed given the lack of detailed information about both the underlying geologic
deposits and the severity of a seismic event that might trigger such an earth movement.
1.2.3 Mitigation
To control erosion during construction, contractors would implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and standard mitigation measures included in Ecology's Stormwater Manual and City of Renton surface
water management regulations. Erosion control plans should be in place prior to construction.
Mitigation for seismic hazards can be implemented by:
• A deep foundation system that would transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the
potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits.
• Ground improvement measures, such as stone columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the
liquefaction potential.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-4 May2004
• Containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduce the hazard of lateral
spreading,particularly near the shoreline.
The character of the facility and the population exposed to risk are important factors in determining
appropriate mitigation strategies. Generally,public facilities such as bridges justify the most reliable
seismic mitigation because those facilities have a high investment cost,high replacement and repair cost,
and high social and economic cost of loss due to lack of access, especially emergency access, and
economic loss. Residential land use also generally receives mitigation with high levels of reliability
because of the potential for loss of life. Extensive, geotechnical investigation to further document
underlying deposits will be needed to assess risks and develop appropriate mitigation strategies based on
a detailed understanding of the extent of area affected,the population at risk, and specific building type,
size and location. Additional Environmental review may be required at that time.
1.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
1.3.1 Affected Environment
The site lies on the shore of Lake Washington at the western edge of the May Creek basin where May
Creek discharges to Lake Washington.
The lower reach of May Creek flows southward through the southern portion of the Barbee Mill site.
Much of the bank along both sides of May Creek within the Barbee Mill property is armored with riprap.
The on-site portion of May Creek varies in width from approximately 10 to 20 feet.
Under State Water Quality Standards,May Creek is to be protected for the following designed uses:
Salmon and trout spawning; non-core salmon and trout rearing and migration;primary contact recreation;
domestic; industrial and agricultural water supply; livestock watering;wildlife habitat; harvesting;
commerce and navigation;boating and aesthetic values(Ecology 2004).
The section of May Creek lying within and adjacent to the Barbee Mill site is listed by Washington State
as being impaired for zinc, copper, lead, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Lake Washington's water quality is extraordinary for a large lake surrounded by urban developments. It
offers good rearing habitat for juvenile salmon and other wildlife,provides multiple recreational
opportunities, supports varieties of resident fisheries,and acts as a focal point for the surrounding
communities. Although the water quality of Lake Washington is considered very good,natural runs of
Lake Washington sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout appear to be declining. The
reasons for these declines are still not fully understood.
The May Creek Basin Action Plan outlines an action plan for correcting adverse conditions in the May
Creek basin. It provides a set of actions to(1)reduce the threat of flooding to homes; (2)make
infrastructure improvements that will facilitate storm flow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce
erosion; (3)protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and(4)take
reasonable steps to prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. The Action Plan notes
that: "In the event that the mill property on the May Creek delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to
enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored."
Under current conditions, approximately 85 percent of the Barbee Mill site is covered by impervious
surface in the form of pavement and various buildings associated with the mill operations. Mill facilities
and pavement extend to the shore of Lake Washington. The site contains three stormwater collection
areas and outfalls associated with the industrial activities, and non-point discharge drainage areas not
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-5 May 2004
associated with industrial activities. The 100-year floodplain covers approximately half of the site west of
May Creek.
1.3.2 Impacts
The proposed project would reduce existing impervious surface coverage on the site from approximately
85 percent to about 57 percent. The proposed reduction in impervious surface area would reduce
stormwater run-off volumes from the site to May Creek and Lake Washington. In addition,reduction in
impervious surface area could increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater.
Water quality treatment for the proposed alternative is required under City of Renton codes. Preliminary
plans include treatment of stormwater that would be an improvement over current conditions for the site.
Flooding impacts for the site were assessed based on the presumption of cessation of dredging at the
mouth of May Creek because deeper water conditions would no longer be needed for log handling and
storage. Another reason for stopping dredging is the benefits of the shallow water and emergent habitat
provided by normal delta processes. With the formation of a natural delta,the 100-year floodplain would
cover a substantial part of the site.
The proposed development is within the May Creek floodplain. Construction of the proposal would
require structures to be protected from floodwaters through fill or a levee. Potential impacts of containing
'the floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space area with a width of about 50 feet include
increases in the base flood elevation,potential bed scour and bank erosion and downstream aggradation,
sediment deposition and flatter slope. In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can
require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel."
1.3.3 Mitigation
Construction impacts would be minimized through implementation of an appropriate Temporary Erosion
and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan.
Operation and maintenance of the proposed water quality treatment facilities to conform to City of
Renton requirements would reduce adverse water quality impacts from pollutants in runoff.
Impacts related to construction of the floodplain through fill or levees to avoid flood damage to the
portions of the proposed development located within the floodplain inchde:
• Removal or replacement of the existing bridges on the stream with new bridges that span the
floodplain, and therefore do not obstruct floodwaters.
• Provision of compensatory storage at the project site. This may include excavation of a
floodplain benches/terrace on the west side of the stream within the Barbee Mill site by removing
historic fill adjacent to the stream.
• Construction of levies or fill at a greater setback,providing greater flood storage. Analysis was
performed for placement of levees at a 100-foot wide setback from the stream.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-6 May 2004
1.4 GROUNDWATER
1.4.1 Affected Environment
The project site is primarily a groundwater discharge area..General groundwater flow on the site is west
toward the lake with a northerly component in the northern portion of the site.
Elevated concentrations of arsenic have been detected in the groundwater over the northern half of the
site,with minor concentrations of zinc. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)were also detected in
specific areas. Groundwater impacts from metals are believed to come from an in-place soil source.
Detections of hydrocarbons and their constituents were located in former underground storage tank(UST)
areas. An Independent Remedial Action Plan has been approved for the site that calls for removal of the
contaminated soil on the site and groundwater treatment.
1.4.2 Impacts
Impacts to the local groundwater system would probably be minimal under the proposal. The water
supply for the new development would originate from an offsite source through the City of Renton. No
groundwater would be withdrawn for use on site.
Small amounts of groundwater recharge from pervious surfaces,the stormwater conveyance system,and
potential infiltration by stormwater facilities are likely to be minor compared to groundwater from up-
gradient sources such as May Creek. Groundwater interflow with Lake Washington may be slightly
altered due to the installation of foundations.
1.4.3 Mitigation
Removal of the contaminated soil and dewatering and treatment of the contaminated groundwater during
Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site would improve groundwater quality with respect to arsenic
and other contaminants.
1.5 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
1.5.1 Affected Environment
Shoreline and riparian vegetation on the site is currently limited because buildings and paved areas
associated with mill operations extend to the shore of Lake Washington and to within 5 to 25 feet of May
Creek. A small portion of the site on the east side of May Creek near the BNSF Bridge includes
substantial upland vegetation adja cent to the riparian zone of the stream. Invasive species such as
blackberry also reduce habitat value of the riparian zone. A revegetation plan for the May Creek corridor
and portions of the Lake Washington shoreline was required in 1994 as a condition of Washington State
Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification for dredging operations,but the majority of plantings
do not appear to have survived and have not established a stable riparian and shoreline vegetation
community.
Two small wetlands are located largely within the BNSF railroad right-of-way along the eastern edge of
the property and small portions of these wetlands extend onto the Barbee Mill Property. Both wetlands
have been regularly mowed, as part of landscape maintenance for the mill entry and office area and also
to maintain access to water utilities.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-7 May 2004
Species known or expected to use the area include killdeer, mallards, Canada geese,northern flicker,
spotted towhees,white-crowned sparrows, song sparrows, house sparrows,red-winged blackbirds,tree
swallows,black-capped chickadees,house finches, American crows, double-crested cormorants,hooded
mergansers,American wigeons, scaups,buffleheads,and common mergansers. Mammals and
amphibians on the site include voles and mice,the Norway rat, opossum,house mouse, and eastern gray
squirrel, muskrats, and possibly Pacific tree frogs. The low quality of the existing riparian habitat along
May Creek limits its current value as a habitat corridor, although some species, such as deer, are known to
use the project site portion of the creek to move between Lake Washington and habitats upstream of the
project site.
The Barbee Mill site contains an osprey nest on the sawdust collection tower near the center of the site.
The nest has been active every year since 1995 or 1996. The osprey is protected under the Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act,which makes it unlawful to hunt, take, capture, kill,possess, sell,purchase,
ship, transport, or export any migratory bird,part,nest, or egg. It is also protected under State of
Washington laws.
Two bald eagle nest sites are approximately one mile from the site. Bald eagles may forage along the
May Creek delta and along Lake Washington near the project site; however,use of the actual project site
is unlikely due to lack of suitable large trees for perching and roosting. Bald eagles are federally and state
listed as threatened, and the birds are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to large-scale recovery,the species has been proposed for federal de-
listing and state down-listing to sensitive.
May Creek and Lake Washington support five species of salmonids, including Chinook salmon, coho
salmon, sockeye salmon, winter steelhead, and resident cutthroat trout. Resident rainbow trout are also a
priority species that may occur in the project area, and Pacific lamprey and river lamprey are federal
species of concern that have been found within King County and may also occur near the project site.
There are three fish species that are present, or may be present,within the Barbee Mill project vicinity
that are either federally listed or a candidate for listing under the ESA. Chinook salmon is a threatened
species. Coho salmon is a candidate for listing under the ESA. The Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct
Population Segment(DPS) of bull trout is a federally threatened species that occurs within the project
vicinity.
1.5.2 Impacts
The existing osprey nest will be removed during demolition of mill buildings. The proposed project
would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile of the project site.
Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the
majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will
remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation and may permanently preclude revegetation because
of shading and drought conditions. The stream crossing also may restrict animal movement. The
northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained; however, construction of the access street
will reduce buffer dimensions below the Renton code minimum of 25 feet. The southerly wetland will
experience partial displacement due to roadway construction and modification of the drainage system in
the area.
The open space area along May Creek would result in an increase in forage, cover, and potential nest sites
for wildlife. Creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the
completed project site. The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed as part of the project is
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-8 May 2004
proposed to be vegetated with a mix of shrubs and non-native dwarf hinoki cypress,which will result in
limited habitat value.
The proposal includes creation of 16 lots with direct private lake frontage. A building setback of 25 feet
from Ordinary high water(OHW) is proposed for these lots. Vegetation in these areas is presumed to be
lawns and ornamental landscaping. Chemical fertilizers,herbicides, and pesticides can be expected to be
applied up to the waters edge and lead to over-spraying,inadvertent spillage, and runoff containing
chemicals. All of these will directly affect waterfowl and aquatic species through direct toxicity or by
nutrient enrichment which can increase plant production and oxygen demand. Human disturbance along
Lake Washington, given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings and recreational docks and
watercraft use,would reduce wildfowl and aquatic species.
The proposed buffer along May Creek would be an improvement over existing conditions. A 50-foot
width(Options A and C)would fall significantly short of providing full riparian functions. The primary
functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large woody debris
(LWD)recruitment,bank stabilization/erosion control,removal of sediments and pollutants,regulation of
water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of mic roclimate. The required width of the
buffer to maintain these functions varies with stream size and the ability of the channel to migrate.
Impacts on wildlife during construction would depend on duration of construction and the extent of
disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road construction. Noise impacts
for pile driving for foundation construction could be a substantial disturbance over several years and
could lead to avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are
habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. These wildlife populations may develop some
tolerance for high noise levels,or may limit their use to corridors during nighttime and other hours when
construction doesn't take place. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due
to disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. After construction,human activity levels
and noise are expected to be greater than under existing conditions and result in reduced use by foraging
eagles. The high noise levels associated with ongoing building construction for several years may
discourage the osprey currently nesting on the sawdust tower from relocating in the immediate vicinity.
Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume with the cession of dredging. The long-
term effects of delta deposits result in extensive shallow aquatic habitat. The proposal includes setting
aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the water's edge to about 100
feet and averages about 50 feet. In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acre of publicly owned land
between the inner and outer harbor lines will be managed as public open space. The existing sawmill and
related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more natural
shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads and replanting the area to provide a buffer of indigenous
native species.
Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads is not expected to substantially increase due to the project due to
low speed limits that would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions.
The direct impacts of the project to aquatic species are related to the extent and duration of the
construction activities,whether fish species are rearing or migrating at that time, and the immediate
habitat modifications that result from the project. Initial construction of subdivision infrastructure would
potentially cause some disturbance,which would make the site susceptible to erosion and accidental
discharges of sediment and pollutants to surface water. The impacts on May Creek of constructing the
proposed bridge is likely to be related to design, specifically the setback of abutments or bridge supports
from the stream.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-9 May 2004
Bulkheads are expected to be needed for shoreline protection of residences on Lake Washington because
the proposed 25-foot building setback provides little area for natural shoreline processes without
potentially threatening buildings. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of
fish by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile salmon,preventing recruitment of
sediment into the lake necessary for the formation of natural shallow-water habitat, and generally creating
an inhospitable high-energy environment for juvenile fish.
The analysis assumes the construction of one individual dock per developed lot for up to 16 additional
docks. New docks, as well as the existing boathouse and existing pilings and log booms, create
permanent near-shore shading. The establishment of these structures can disrupt normal migration and
feeding patterns,provide refuge from predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation,
phytoplankton, and forage fish along the lakeshore. Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in
the southern portion of Lake Washington tend to avoid overhead structures. Residents with docks may
also desire to institute dredging,which would deepen shoreline areas,thereby reducing the habitat
benefits provided by the May Creek delta.
Artificial light from buildings close to the shoreline, street lighting,and piers can also adversely affect
juvenile salmonids by causing delays in migration, or a change in migratory routes into deeper water
where juveniles would be more vulnerable to predation.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program,which requires"significant"public access on Lake Washington. The
applicant has not defined a public access program. It is presumed that this would take the form of a trail
adjacent to the water on residential lots,which would contribute to the need to bulkhead the shoreline and
lead to direct human disruption of waterfowl and aquatic species.
•
1.5.3 Mitigation
Osprey mitigation measures can include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in
the project site vicinity. Research has proven that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting
structures. Noise from construction of residences for several years, including pile driving for foundations,
may limit the willingness of osprey to relocate in the immediate vicinity.
Mitigation of construction impacts to existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native
buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction. Staging and access areas
should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native vegetation. In portions of the site
where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur,clearing to remove these species would
be beneficial if the area is replanted with native species.
Mitigation for loss of vegetation at bridge crossings and possible restriction of animal movement may
include sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight and precipitation to maintain plant
communities and provide for animal movement.
The displacement of wetland area for the southerly wetland and buffer area for the northerly wetland
could be avoided by design changes in the proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer. If
impacts are not avoided, compensation by wetland creation could be located north and west of the
northerly wetland adjacent to the proposed May Creek buffer area. Design would be required to address a
variety of parameters including hydrology, soil amendment,plant selection, and maintenance. Mitigation
of impacts to lost buffer area could include enhancement of the existing wetland and buffer vegetation
communities.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-10 May 2004
Adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic species of residential landscaping can be reduced by choice
of species and by maintenance practices that minimize the use of fertilizers,pesticides, or herbicides..
Enforcing restricted planting choice or use of chemicals on private lawns and landscaping is,however,
difficult in the long term.
Mitigation for adverse impacts to May Creek can be accomplished through alternative buffer areas
involves three conceptual plans that vary in setback widths from 50 to 100 feet. Both Options A(50-foot
setback)and B (100-foot setback)would be planted with native vegetation. A larger buffer with native
vegetation planted not only provides the capacity for mature canopy overstory, but also creates greater
ecological complexity. Greater buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities and
support a wider range of wildlife and aquatic species. The establishment and persistence of native
vegetation on this site is likely to require long-term management both to monitor and replace plantings
that die prior to establishment,but also to control invasive plants.
The 50-foot setback of Option C is segmented to include 15 feet of managed landscape,reducing the
amount of natively planted buffer to 35 feet and represents a potential increase to impacts on May Creek.
Generally,managed landscapes used as a buffer are not functionally equivalent to buffers with native
vegetation because managed landscapes tend to receive chemical additives (e.g. fertilizers,pesticides,and
herbicides) and generally lack canopy overstory from large trees needed for large woody debris and
stream temperature regulation.
For the Lake Washington shoreline;both the 50-and 100-foot buffer options are likely to reduce impacts
such as the introduction of fertilizers,herbicides, and pesticides from residential landscaping. Increased
buffers would provide additional vegetation and wildlife habitat. Greater opportunities would be afforded
for replacement of bulkheads with more natural condition with limited regrading to provide a more
natural shoreline gradient and provide in-water substrate. Planting more extensive and complex
communities of native vegetation would contribute to a more productive food chain through shading,
recruitment of large woody debris, and other processes. The greater setbacks would reduce impacts from
lighting and direct disturbance from public trail access by allowing greater setbacks from the shoreline.
Some of the mitigation through larger setback areas could be implemented on the public land between the
inner and outer harbor lines,which varies in width between 20 and 80 feet. Extending setbacks to private
shoreline frontage will allow greater benefits along a continuous shoreline corridor.
Mitigation for the adverse impacts of bulkheads can include relocating bulkheads landward of OHW,to
allow natural shoreline conditions to reestablish, or utilize vegetative stabilization instead of bulkheads or
riprap. Where bulkheads are not avoidable, design to provide for plantings,. These options have limited
application under the proposal because of the 25-foot building setback and the depth to the lake bottom in
dredged areas but can be more readily implemented with greater buffer areas.
Impacts of future construction of docks can be addressed by prohibition and use of mooring buoys or
floats at a distance from near-shore habitat, or a reduction in docks through shared moorage. Impacts on
near-shore habitat can be reduced by narrower docks or materials that allow light penetration.
1.6 TRANSPORTATION
1.6.1 Affected Environment
The site is currently accessed by a single private driveway entrance from Lake Washington Boulevard
that crosses the adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe(BNSF)railroad right-of-way. There are
currently four private rail crossings that serve properties in the vicinity located west of the railway.
City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-11 May2004
All intersections in the study area are stop-sign controlled and all operate at Level of Service(LOS) A or
B, except for the I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard) at NE 44th Street that operates at
LOS F and currently meets warrants for signalization. The I-405 interchanges at 30th Street and 44th
Street both are currently at LOS D for ramp merge/diverge operation.
Existing pedestrian,bicycle and transit facilities in the vicinity are limited to a bicycle lane on Lake
Washington Boulevard. Pedestrians are accommodated on roadway shoulders. The nearest transit
service is at the Kennydale Park and Ride near 30th Street and I-405.
1.6.2 Impacts
Future baseline conditions without the project were developed using the City of Renton EMME2
transportation demand model for the 2007 year of full development. The forecast includes general traffic
increases from growth in the region as well as specific approved projects in the vicinity.
The duplex and town home units on the site are expected to have trip generation typical of single-family
dwellings. The distribution of project trips was based on existing and future growth patterns and traffic
volumes with 81 percent of project traffic routed to the north, and 19 percent to the south. Traffic further
splits to trips oriented to I-405 and trips routed on local arterials.
Two site access points for public roads site access are proposed, one onto Lake Washington Boulevard
and one onto Ripley Lane to the north of the site. Both access points cross the BNSF railroad.
Consideration of grade-separated crossings will be required pursuant to RCW 81.53.020. The
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission is charged with approval of new public rail
crossings and will evaluate grade separated and at-grade crossing options based on topographic,
operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the crossing. The proposed access
points have substantial constraints in meeting geometric criteria for rail crossings.
Project traffic contributes up to 22 percent of the year 2007 traffic growth on Lake Washington
Boulevard,with a lower contribution to arterials further from the site.
All study area intersections are projected to operate with an LOS C or better during the PM peak hour
with the exception of the I-405 ramp intersections with Lake Washington Boulevard(NE 44th Street).
The I-405 northbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection operates at LOS F
in current conditions,the 2007 baseline and with the project, due to heavy approach volumes on the minor
legs (north- and southbound). The I-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)
intersection operates at LOS F with the additional trips from the project due to the southbound left-turn
movement.
The I-405 ramp merge and diverge operation for the northbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th
Street, and the northbound on ramp from N 30th Street operate at LOS F under both the year 2007
baseline and with the project. The I-405 southbound off ramps to NE 44th Street and N 30th Street, and
the northbound on ramp from NE 44th Street operate at LOS E under the year 2007 baseline and with
project trips. The analysis indicates the project traffic volumes will have no further impact on the ramp
operations.
Project trips routed through the adjacent City of Newcastle contribute about 20 percent of the 2007 traffic
volumes on 112th Avenue SE at 68th Street and less on other arterials. There is no change in Level of
Service on affected interchanges from the project as compared with the 2007 baseline conditions.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-12 May 2004
A concern raised by the City of Newcastle is the potential greater use of alternate routes when congestion
is heavy on I-405 and commuters use local streets to bypass congestion sections of the freeway. Potential
alternative arterial routes,however, generally have longer travel times than the freeway, except in cases
where the freeway experiences extreme congestion over long distances. The impacts of diverted trips
include trips from throughout the local community, of which the project is a small part. Diverted trips can
be addressed,by planning arterial improvements to accommodate the diversion of trips from I-405,or by
retaining capacity constraints, such as stop-controlled intersections,that tend to increase travel time and
may discourage drivers from trying alternate routes.
Vehicular and rail crossing safety is unlikely to be substantially changed by traffic demand of the project.
Pedestrian demands on the discontinuous pedestrian facilities in the area could lead to additional
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.
Cumulative impacts of this development will include traffic and pedestrian demands of future
development of the Quendall Terminals and Vulcan sites on the Lake Washington shoreline to the north.
At the least,residential development of the type envisioned for this site would lead to several hundred
more residential units and several hundred PM peak hour trips and would generate a need for additional
access points, or geometric and signal improvements at existing intersections.
1.6.3 Mitigation
At the I-405 southbound ramp/(Lake Washington Boulevard)NE 44th Street intersection, an all-way stop
control or a signal would mitigate operation at LOS F. The installation of a signal is not warranted based
on the 2007 projected vehicular volumes.
The I-405 northbound ramp (Lake Washington Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection operations can be
mitigated with an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound right-turn lane. The intersection
also meets volume criteria for signal warrants.
The development is also expected to contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee of
$75 per net daily trip generated by the project. This will mitigate general system.impacts of diffuse new
trips from the development on the general circulation system.
Geometric limitations of the proposed rail crossings can be mitigated by moving the crossings to locations
where Lake Washington Boulevard and the rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some
impacts on grading for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek. Relocation also would reduce
separation between crossings and increase the potential for both to be blocked by a stopped train. This
could be mitigated by connecting this site with the at-grade crossing at the north end of the Vulcan
property.
Safety at railroad crossings involves three basic approaches:
• Grade separation, which removes potential vehicle train conflicts,but is more expensive;
• Passive control for at-grade crossings, involving signs and pavement markers and relying on
drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping with adequate
clearance from the rails;
• Active control of at-grade crossings,which consists of signals and gates designed to provide
warning devices automatically activated by train approach and may include gates that physically
exclude vehicles and pedestrians.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-13 May 2004
The City of Renton and the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission will evaluate crossing
options based on topographic, operational, safety, and economic factors and the public need for the
crossing. Consolidation of existing private crossings may be required.
Mitigation of non-motorized impacts and transit impacts include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities
and programs that would provide safe pedestrian circulation.
1.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1.7.1 Affected Environment
As part of lumber processing,various substances were used on the site to treat wood including arsenic
trioxide, copper sulfate, zinc sulfate, and iron sulfate and pentachlorophenol. Underground storage tanks
(USTs)with petrochemical fuels were located on the site. A variety of solvents and industrial chemicals,
fuels and lubricants have been utilized in sawmill operations.
Soil and groundwater contamination documented at the Barbee Mill site includes arsenic at
concentrations up to 830 mg/kg (compared to the soil cleanup level of 20 mg/kg) and zinc in
concentrations up to 490 mg/kg(compared to the soil cleanup level of 130 mg/kg). These elevated
concentrations of metals in soils present pathways for migration of contaminants to groundwater. Low
levels of chlorinated phenols have been detected in the soils from a few borings but do not exceed the
cleanup levels. No polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs)were
detected.
Lake Washington sediments adjacent to the site contain total organic carbon(TOC)that exceeded
Freshwater Sediment Quality Values. Concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and other
hazardous substances are well below sediment screening levels.
Arsenic concentrations in groundwater were detected at concentrations up to 61 mg/L, (compared to the
selected groundwater cleanup level of 0.008 mg/L). The groundwater plume extends west and northwest
of the source area,with a small portion of the plume indicated beneath the nearby Quendall Terminals
site. All the zinc detected in the groundwater was well below site cleanup levels. Low levels of
hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater in the former UST areas. Concentrations of chlorinated
phenols below cleanup levels were detected in the groundwater from the spray areas. PCBs or VOC were
not detected in areas sampled.
A remediation plan for the Barbee Mill site was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology in
2000 under the Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA) includes: removal of an estimated 21,500 cubic yards
of soil contaminated with arsenic and zinc; confirmation sampling of the excavation sidewalls and base;
dewatering of the excavation area; groundwater treatment of the water using multiple processes, including
prefiltering, oxidation,precipitation, and adsorption; discharge of treated water to sanitary sewer or Lake
Washington; removal and disposal of contaminated soil at a licensed location;backfilling and compacting
excavation with clean fill; and implementing a groundwater monitoring program and possibly an ongoing
groundwater treatment program.
A cleanup of sediments from the near-shore area of Lake Washington,next to the Barbee Mill site,was
conducted between 1999 and 2002,under the Ecology Voluntary Cleanup Program. This effort removed
approximately 26,000 cubic yards of sediment and wood debris that was dredged and stockpiled on the
site. Sediment stockpile sampling determined that approximately 8,000 cubic yards of this total exceeded
the MTCA Method B carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbon(PAH) criterion. These sediments are
currently being transferred to a licensed disposal facility in Kitsap County,Washington. The remaining
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-14 May 2004
clean sediments are stockpiled at the site. The Barbee Mill Company received a No Further Action letter
for the sediments from Ecology(2003).
Potential impacts from sites in the vicinity of Barbee Mill include the Quendall Terminals property
immediately north of Barbee Mill,which was the site of a creosote manufacturing facility that refined
coal tar and oil-gas tar residues for 52 years between 1917 and 1969. The activities at the site
contaminated the soil and groundwater with PAHs,benzene,toluene,xylenes, and other organic
compounds. A public right-of-way is proposed through the Quendall Terminals site to provide access to
Ripley Lane. A remediation plan may be required to be implemented for that portion of the site prior to
constructing a roadway.
The Vulcan(J.H. Baxter) site is located next to and north of the Quendall Terminals site. This site was a
former wood treatment facility from the mid 1950s to the early 1980s. The chemicals used on-site
included creosote and pentachlorophenol(PCP). Contaminants present in the soil,groundwater,and
sediment of the site include dioxins, PAHs, and dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL).
Groundwater flow patterns have been mapped within both the shallower alluvial sand and silt and the
deeper sand and gravel. Regular monthly water level monitoring during periods of low and high lake
levels has been conducted. The monitoring shows a consistent east-to-west groundwater flow pattern
beneath the site in both groundwater zones. These studies indicate that contaminants from the sites to the
north will not flow onto or impact the Barbee Mill site.
1.7.2 Impacts
The remediation project is designed to reduce contaminants on the site to levels suitable for future
residential use. The remediation program is assumed to be the first step of site redevelopment. Residual
risk to future residents from soils that will remain at the site will be minimal,because concentrations of
detected compounds in these soils left in place are below action levels. The action levels are established
based on current knowledge that they are protective of human health and the environment.
In addition, contaminated groundwater will be cleaned up during soil dewatering and by additional
removal and treatment if follow-up monitoring determines that residual levels are above cleanup levels.
The shallow groundwater system at the site will not be used for water supply.
1.7.3 Mitigation
Construction specifications for future plat infrastructure and buildings should address the potential for
encountering contaminated soil and groundwater. A contamination response plan and hazardous
materials contingency plan should be developed. It should include specific worker and public health
safety precautions,protocols for handling materials suspected to be hazardous or contaminated with
hazardous material, and treatment and disposal options for these materials. Restrictive covenants may be
required as part of title report to provide notice on property transfer as well as conditions that will allow
intrusive work.
1.8 AESTHETICS
1.8.1 Affected Environment
The site is currently a working industrial landscape surrounded by hillside residential neighborhoods to
the east and Lake Washington to the west. The neighborhoods surrounding the Barbee Mill site are
small-scale, single- and multi-family structures. Large, single-family homes with private docks line the
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-15 May 2004
shoreline to the south of the site. To the north are other industrial operations with large structures.
Hillside residential developments are built on the grid pattern so some streets are perpendicular to, and
slope steeply toward, Lake Washington, creating panoramic views of the lake and distant shorelines.
From the eastside hills, the site is either partially visible or not visible at all from most locations due to
screening from tall trees. Where the Barbee Mill site is visible through gaps in trees, it generally is not
dominant. The view of Mercer Island across the lake from the shoreline or the hillsides is memorable and
is highly intact. Compositional harmony, or unity,varies from viewpoint to viewpoint,but is generally
moderate to high. Views of the site from Mercer Island and the lake have moderately low unity and
intactness because the large scale,bright color, and uniformity of the industrial structures on the May
Creek delta contrast strongly with the residential areas along the shoreline and surrounding hillsides.
1.8.2 Impacts
This proposal would remove existing industrial development. Proposed building density would be much
higher than now exists, with 10 feet between buildings and 15-to 35-foot setbacks between street edge
and building front. Open space would be retained in the form of water quality and stormwater control
ponds, and public land on the shoreline ranging from 20 to 80 feet wide.
Views of the site from Lake Washington Boulevard would transition from the site being a minor part of
views from the vicinity to 32nd Street,to increasing dominance as the site is approached. The extent to
which the proposal dominates views is a function of its relative size and the extent to which views retain
the dominant features of the Mercer Island skyline and views of Lake Washington. As one comes closer
to the site,the new buildings dominate the scene and would block the view of Lake Washington and the
Mercer Island skyline. The major change in the character of the view is the extent of Lake Washington
that is visible. For closer views,the height of buildings and the overlap between buildings present an
apparent wall that blocks views of the lake in the middle ground.
For viewers farther up the hill, the impact would be less because the viewer could see over the buildings,
and portions of the existing view of the vegetated Mercer Island skyline and Lake Washington would be
retained.
The visual impact from Mercer Island and Lake Washington would include a line of buildings that fill the
entire site. Construction of new buildings, however,would not block views of the dominant element of
the distant view,the skyline of the hill to the east. The visual interest of the lake would remain in the
foreground. The intactness and unity of the view may increase because of the common design theme of a
residential community, as compared to the variety of the existing industrial character. Incorporation of
indigenous landscaping along the waterfront, especially in the public land between the inner and outer
harbor lines, could considerably soften the visual impact of the new buildings.
Views from inside the proposed development would likely be that of a dense urban setting in contrast to
the low intensity residential use in the vicinity. This would be especially pronounced in the interior of the
site where building heights of 50 to 75 feet with 10-foot setbacks between buildings, as well as a 60-foot
separation between buildings across the street from one another,would create a canyon-like effect.
1.8.3 Mitigation
For the proposed subdivision and residential development,reduced visual quality and negative aesthetic
impacts could be reduced by a number of strategies.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-16 May 2004
One strategyis change to h buildingbulk,which could take several forms. The most obvious would be to
g
reduce building height. Reducing building height in proportion to width would produce buildings more in
keeping with typical low-rise residential development in the vicinity. A second means of reducing the
appearance of building bulk would be to increase setbacks between buildings. This would produce less of
a canyon effect on streets within the development,and present less appearance of a solid mass of
buildings from outside the development. A third strategy for reducing building bulk would be to vary
building height,bulk,and setbacks.
Common design features,materials, and color, as well as landscape design, could reduce apparent bulk of
buildings. These include sloping roofs,roof detail such as gables and eve overhangs, and building offsets
that would reduce the appearance of blank or extensive wall surfaces. Window detailing can add visual
interest and provide both visual unity and variety.
An additional mitigation strategy is screening the buildings with large vegetation. Vegetation planted on
site,however,would not be expected to mature for a number of years. The current design also does not
provide sufficient area in front, side or rear yard setbacks to support large trees. Mitigation would consist
of providing larger areas for planting around buildings in conjunction with the design of landscaping for
open space areas to provide for large species. The major public views of the project could be softened by
landscaping only if substantial landscape areas were provided between town homes east of May Creek
and the access road on BNSF railroad right-of way. Additional landscape area could result in reduction in
the number of units in that area.
1.9 LIGHT AND GLARE
1.9.1 Affected Environment
Lighting at Barbee Mill consists of building-mounted lamps and pole-mounted lamps. These lamps have
some shielding,but probably date from the 1960s;many need repair. There are no glare sources on site
because none of the structures are highly reflective or contain glass.
1.9.2 Impacts
Under the proposed residential development, light sources on the proposed site would include street
and/or sidewalk lights,building-mounted lights, and interior lights. There would likely be a greater
number of sources in the proposed development than currently exist at Barbee Mill,which could result in
an overall increase in ambient or diffuse brightness. Streetlights would most likely conform to the City of
Renton's policy of directing exterior lighting away from nearby properties and wildlife habitat to reduce
spillover or glare. Downcast, shielded lamps with low-intensity filaments would reduce the overall
brightness at night and would reduce glare.
The most significant light and glare impacts would be to viewers on Mercer Island because there is an
uninterrupted view of the whole site. Light from street lamps and interior lights could create a high level
of ambient light. Impacts to residential areas in the vicinity would be lower since there are already
streetlights in the neighborhoods, and the site is partially screened by tall trees.
Headlights from cars leaving the site on the proposed driveway will point uphill because of the grade
between the railroad and Lake Washington Boulevard and potentially impact residences in line with the
roadway. As cars reach the level landing at Lake Washington Boulevard and turn north or south,
headlights generally will point into the bank,which forms the front yard of adjacent multi-family
residences.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-17 May 2004
1.9.3 Mitigation
For both alternatives, source shielding for exterior lights should be used to reduce the visibility of light
from distant residential areas and limit spillover light. The City of Renton recommends using downcast,
shielded lights for urban areas. In addition, architectural design of buildings should consider avoiding •
glare from glass surfaces.
1.10 NOISE
1.10.1 Affected Environment
Existing sources of noise near the site includes noise from operating the main sawmill intermittently,
operation of Quendall Terminals located to the north of the Barbee Mill site, which stores and sorts logs;
and from miscellaneous operations on the Vulcan property north of Quendall Terminals, as well as noise
from arterials in the area and I-405.
Noise related to traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard is typically 54 to 64 dBA. Noise from
the I-405 freeway approximately one-quarter mile from the Barbee Mill site provides a steady background
daytime noise level in the vicinity with occasional peaks of louder noise from especially noisy trucks.
Average noise levels at residences adjacent to I-405 are typically 68 to 71 dBA.
Noise comes from train operations, including engine exhaust, steel wheels on steel tracks, and locomotive
horns. Typical noise levels from engine exhaust and wheel noise range between 85 and 90 dBA at a
distance of 50 feet from the source. Locomotive horns are sounded at rail crossings of public streets and
at other crossings where engineers identify a need to warn vehicle or pedestrians near the tracks.
Locomotive horns typically have a sound level of about 115 dBA.
Sensitive noise receptors in the area are all residential uses. There are no schools,nursing homes,
hospitals, or similar sensitive receptors near the proposed site.
1.10.2 Impacts
During construction,there would be a temporary increase in sound levels due to the use of heavy
equipment and the hauling of construction materials. The increase in noise levels would depend on the
type of equipment being used, and the amount of time it is in use.
In addition to the noise levels associated with typical construction equipment,use of driven or drilled
pilings for deep foundations may be required. There are essentially two types of pile drivers: impact and
vibratory. Impact pile drivers produce regular loud thuds. The typical noise level at 50 feet from this
type of source is 101 dBA. A vibratory pile driver vibrates the pile into the ground and produces lower
noise levels over a sustained period.
The existing residences closest to the site are 170 feet from the easterly site boundary and are separated
by the BNSF railroad right-of-way and Lake Washington. Most of the site west of May Creek is a
minimum of 350 feet from existing residences. The greatest noise impacts will occur to residents
occupying homes on site while construction is ongoing on other buildings.
Noise impacts from traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard are expected to be in the range of 1-5 dBA.
This noise increase results from growth in regional trips as well as trips from the project. A change of 3
dBA generally is the threshold at which a change in noise levels is noticeable to most persons. Noise
levels from traffic on Lake Washington are projected to remain well below the levels of 67 dBA for
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-18 May 2004
residences that the Federal Highway Administration defines as the threshold for a substantial noise
impact.
The creation of public road crossings would make train locomotive horn sounding mandatory and would,
therefore,increase the frequency. At the current frequency of four trains per day,the impacts to most
residences on and off the project site would likely be slight. If train frequency became more frequent in
the future, locomotive horn noise could be a more significant annoyance along the entire rail line on the
east side of Lake Washington. The BNSF railroad has no plans to increase rail service on this line in the
next 5 to 10 years. Increase in service,however, does not require approval of local jurisdictions under
federal law governing railroads.
1.10.3 Mitigation
State and local regulations exempt construction noise during daytime hours. A variety of relatively
simple and inexpensive practices would generally provide an approximate 10 dBA reduction in sound and
would be especially appropriate for compressors,welding machines,pumps, and similar equipment that
would operate continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels.
The effect of impact pile-driving could be reduced by pre-drilling pile holes to the maximum feasible
depth(depth may be limited on this site by the character of deposits). Vibrating piles into place would
result in less noise impacts. Cassion-type piles that are drilled with a steel jacket with cast-in-place
concrete can be installed with lower noise levels. An additional option would be auger cast pile,which is
installed using an auger with a center pipe through which concrete is pumped during withdrawal,thus
eliminating the need for steel pipe casing. This option may also be limited by local soil conditions and
the need for lateral strength in an area subject to soil liquefaction.
The Federal Railway Administration(FRA)has proposed regulations to allow designation of a"quiet
zone"that would make sounding of locomotive horns at public road crossings discretionary rather than
mandatory. The proposed regulations would allow designation of a quiet zone by FRA upon application
by a local community if at-grade rail crossings meet a"sealed"status to fully compensate for the absence
of the audible warning provided by the locomotive horn.
1.11 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
1.11.1 Affected Environment
Barbee Marine Yards,Inc., a ship and barge building company,was established on the site in 1943. The
Barbee Mill Company,Inc. was formed in 1945, and it purchased the Barbee Marine Yards property,
retaining the sawmill operation but abandoning the ship building business. The Barbee Mill was the last
active sawmill remaining on Lake Washington. A fire at the mill in 1957 destroyed all structures except
the water tower and the wooden mill warehouse;the mill was completely rebuilt, and additional structures
have been added since then.
The oldest building on the site is the mill warehouse. Also known as the black building, it was
constructed in its current location in 1943 and has had minor repairs performed over the years. This
building and the water tower were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. The historic survey concluded that these structures—standing alone—were not representative of
the Barbee Sawmill or, on the whole, of the Lake Washington sawmill industry. The survey stated that
they lack"integrity of setting or feeling associated with the site"as individual components because the
original site context was lost when the mill burned in 1957. As Barbee Mill does not qualify as an
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-19 May2004
historic district, and it is not of exceptional importance, it was determined that the mill warehouse and
water tower were not eligible for listing on the National Register.
Previous cultural assessment studies have shown that the likely area for finding cultural resources of
hunter-fisher-gatherer societies is near the original location of May Creek, which was at the north end of
the site. Before the Hiram Chittenden locks opened in 1916, most of the Barbee Mill site was under
water, and the eastern edge was a shoreline marsh. After the locks were opened,the shoreline dropped
approximately 9 feet. Because of extensive disturbance for industrial use, it is unlikely that this site
would contain any intact hunter-fisher-gatherer resources;however,the northeast corner has the potential
for deeply buried resources.
1.11.2 Impacts
As part of redevelopment of the site, all existing industrial buildings will be removed. The lack of
national, state or local listing of the buildings results in limited authority to require preservation of
privately owned structures.
1.11.3 Mitigation
An interpretive display in a public place within the proposed development could present information
about and show images of the historic industrial use of the site, as well as indicating how it reflects the
lumber economy and shipbuilding heritage of the area. Lake Washington's sawmill industries were an
important part of Puget Sound's Euro-American settlement history.
An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the northeast corner of the
site, close to the black building. If intact archaeological resources were encountered during construction,
the construction foreman would direct work activities that could further disturb the deposits away from
their vicinity. The foreman would also contact the Washington State Archaeologist who would assist in
determining whether the archaeological deposits contained information important to understanding the
history of the area and whether such deposits should be recorded.
Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Earth,Soils,and Geology
Erosion and sedimentation --Implement Best Management Practices(BMPs)for erosion control prior to
construction
Liquefaction Construct buildings on a deep foundation system,such as pilings,that would
transfer the building loads to the dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable
alluvial deposits
Install ground improvement measures,such as stone columns or deep dynamic
compaction to reduce the liquefaction potential underlying roads and utilities
Provide containment consisting of ground densification treatment to reduced the
hazard of lateral spreading,particularly near the shoreline
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-20 May 2004
Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Surface Water
Erosion and Sedimentation Implement an appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC)
Plan
Pollutants in Surface Water I Construct,operate and maintain the proposed water quality treatment facilities
Flooding • Contain the 100-year floodplain within the proposed May Creek open space
I corridor of approximately 50-foot width
, Construct residences with the lowest floor one foot above base flood elevation
Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing existing fill within the open
space corridor and providing additional storage volume. One means of
accomplishing this is a flood terrace excavated on the west side of the stream.
This mitigation has the potential to contain the floodplain within the proposed
May Creek open space corridor.
Provide a wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide additional conveyance and
flood storage to reduce channel scour and compensate for future increases in
I flood elevations because of sediment deposited in the stream channel
Remove and/or reconstruct existing bridges to reduce the restriction to
floodwater flow
Build new bridges to span the floodway or floodplain to avoid restriction of flows
during flood events.
Groundwater
Groundwater Contamination Remove contaminated soil during Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site
Provide ongoing treatment of contaminated groundwater,if monitoring after soil
removal indicates, pursuant to Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site
Plants&Animals
Removal of Osprey nest Relocate the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in the project site
vicinity
Removal of existing vegetation I Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along May Creek from �Mm.
disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing and locating staging
and access areas away from buffer areas
Existing invasive plant species in Clear to completely remove invasive species and re-plant with native species
buffer areas
Loss of vegetation at bridges Design bridges with sufficient height and width to allow penetration of sunlight
and precipitation to maintain vegetation
Loss of vegetation in flood terrace Plant open space area with native vegetation
(only Option C)
Restriction of animal movement at I Design bridges with sufficient height and width to provide for animal movement
bridges
Lack of habitat value of residential I Use native plants in residential landscaping
landscaping
Surface water pollution from Use native plants in residential landscaping to minimize the use of fertilizers, —
fertilizers, pesticides,or herbicides pesticides, or herbicides
with resulting impacts on wildlife and I Provide greater setbacks(50 to 100 feet)from surface water with native
fish vegetation to reduce overspray,spillage and runoff that carries pollutants into
water
Wetland and buffer displacement I Avoided wetland displacement by designing changes in the proposal to place
development outside the wetland and buffer
I Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement elsewhere on site
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-21 May 2004
Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Compensate for loss of buffer through buffer-width averaging and enhancement
of the existing buffer vegetation
Bulkhead impact on aquatic species Remove bulkheads where natural shoreline conditions can be re-established
(where the lake is shallow, on public lands or in conjunction with greater building
setbacks)
Remove bulkheads and rely on vegetation stabilization(where the lake is
shallow,on public lands or in conjunction with greater building setbacks)
Providing plantings in rip-rap
Reduce the elevation above OHW of sheet pile walls and rip-rap to allow more
natural shoreline plantings
Loss of waterfowl habitat through Preserve those pilings and other in-water structures that are at a distance from
removal of pilings and other in-water the near-shore habitat that is important for juvenile salmonids
perching sites
Lack of large woody debris(LWD) ' Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
recruitment - establishment of more extensive and complex communities of indigenous
vegetation
Elevated shoreline water Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
temperature I establishment of mature canopy from indigenous vegetation to provide summer
shade
Light and glare impacts on wildlife ' Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
and aquatic species ; establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to
intercept light and glare
Direct disturbance of wildlife and I Provide 50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake shoreline to allow
aquatic species from residents or establishment of more extensive communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer
public using public access facilities disturbance and allow public access further from the shoreline
Impacts of docks on juvenile ? Prohibit docks, require use of mooring buoys or floats at a distance from near-
salmonids shore habitat
Reduce the number of docks through shared m oorage
Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials that allow light
penetration
Difficulty of ensuring maintenance of Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation by an entity other than
shoreline vegetation residents
Transportation
Increase transportation demand from ' Provide demand management programs including improved transit and carpool
trip generation facilities and service and on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would
provide safe pedestrian circulation to these facilities
Intersections not meeting City of Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 southbound ramp/NE 44th Street(Lake
Renton level of service(LOS) Washington Boulevard)intersection through an all-way stop control or a signal.
standards A signal is not warranted based on the vehicular volumes
Mitigate LOS impacts at the 1-405 northbound ramp(Lake Washington
Boulevard)/NE 44th Street intersection with an all-way stop control and the
addition of a northbound right-turn lane or a signal. The intersection meets
volume criteria for Signal Warrants
Geometric limitations of propose Move the site access to locations where Lake Washington Boulevard and the
railroad crossings rails are at about the same elevation. This would have some impacts on grading
for on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek
Potential safety impacts at railroad i Provide grade separation,which removes potential vehicle/train conflicts,but is
crossings j quite expensive. This may be implemented in the future to mitigate cumulative
I impacts of development of adjacent properties
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-22 May 2004
Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Provide active control designed to provide warning devices automatically
activated by train approach and may include gates that physically exclude
vehicles and pedestrians
Provide passive control involving signs and pavement markers and rely on
drivers and pedestrians to recognize that a train is approaching and stopping
with adequate clearance from the rails
Provide for consolidation of existing rail crossings to reduce the number of
conflict points
Provide for a traffic circulation system to serve properties west of the railroad to
reduce crossings
Increased pedestrian/vehicle Include a mix of on-site and off-site facilities and programs that would provide
conflicts safe pedestrian circulation
Diffuse impacts of new trips on the Contribute to the City of Renton Transportation Mitigation Fee
circulation system
Hazardous Materials
Soil and groundwater contamination Remove contaminant from the Barbee Mill site through Model Toxics Control Act
cleanup
Address contaminants from the proposed roadway through Quendall Terminals
through appropriate removal,stabilization,or isolation,consistent with
requirements of the Model Toxics Control Act
Encountering contaminated soil Provide a contamination and hazardous materials contingency plan
during construction
Visual Impacts
Building bulk and scale will dominate Reduce building bulk by reducing building height
near views of the natural features of Reduce building bulk by increasing setbacks between buildings
Lake Washington and the Mercer
Island skyline Reduce building bulk by varying building height,bulk,and setbacks
Reduce apparent building bulk by design features, materials and color, including
sloping roofs, roof detail such as gables and eave overhangs and building offsets
Reduce relative building bulk by screening through large vegetation. This
mitigation would not take place for a number of years until vegetation matures.
Additional setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed plantings would
be required
Light and Glare Impacts Incorporate shielding for exterior lights in fixture selection
Design buildings to avoid glass surfaces that might produce glare from sun
reflection
Provide additional buffers with dense vegetation to block light and glare
Noise
Construction noise impacts Restrict hours of construction to reduce noise impacts during hours when nearby
residences would be most sensitive
Noise from pile driving Restrict construction hours of pile driving
Pre-drill pile holes to the maximum feasible depth(depth may be limited by the
character of deposits)
Require less noisy pile installation methods,if feasible given soil conditions,such
as vibrating piles into place, cassion-type piles,auger cast piles or other
methods
Construction noise from stationary Provide noise barriers around stationary equipment such as compressors,
equipment welding machines,pumps,and similar equipment that would operate
continuously and could contribute to steady background noise levels
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-23 May 2004
Table 1-1. Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures (continued)
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES
Noise from locomotive horns ; Provide at-grade rail crossings that meet a"sealed"to qualify for possible
Federal Railway Administration(FRA)designation of a"quiet zone"for
locomotive horns
Historic and Cultural Resources
Loss of existing buildings Provide an interpretive display with images of the historic industrial use of the
site,as well as indicating how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding
heritage of the area
Potential disturbance of -r An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and construction work near the
archaeological resources northeast corner of the site,and if deposits are found, consult with the
I Washington State Archaeologist in determining whether the archaeological
l deposits contained information important to understanding the history of the area
and should be conserved
Public Services
Cumulative impacts on parks and Provide parks and fire mitigation fee for cumulative impacts(see Appendix A)
public services
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 1-24 May 2004
2. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives are proposed to be analyzed.
2.1 PROPOSAL
The current proposal of the applicant contains the following:
1. Features of the proposed preliminary plat and site development that allow division of the site into
lots include the following (Figure 2.1-1):
• Subdivision of the site into 115 residential lots ranging in size from 1,847 to 7,336 square feet
is proposed.
•
• Construction and dedication of public streets is proposed with two connection points to Lake
Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane and two at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe (BNSF)railway. Roadway width is proposed to be a 36-foot-wide road surface and
a 42-foot right-of-way for all roads.
• One vehicular bridge crossing is proposed over May Creek. One existing bridge is proposed
to be retained for pedestrian use.
• Storm drainage water quality treatment facilities for the portion of the site west of May Creek
consists of a water quality pond with a capacity of approximately 56,900 cubic feet.
• A stormwater water quality treatment pond to serve the portion of the site east of May Creek
is proposed,with approximately 11,000 cubic feet capacity.
• An open-space area of approximately 30,000 square feet is proposed. It would abut publicly
owned lands along the shoreline administered by the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). Approximately 6,500 square feet of this site is proposed for storm drainage facilities,
which would leave a net area of approximately 23,500 square feet. The applicant has not
developed a proposal for public access to this area.
( • A buffer area of approximately 20 to 100 feet and averaging about 50 feet is proposed along
May Creek. Specific planting plans have not been proposed.
• Displacement is proposed for portions of the southern wetland, which lies largely within the
BNSF right-of-way. Approximately 400 square feet of wetland area would be displaced,
together with associated buffer area, to accommodate roadway access to seven lots.
Mitigation for this displacement is proposed to take place within the northerly wetland.
• Wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the northerly wetland, which is also primarily
within the BNSF right-of-way. Buffer averaging will reduce the wetland setback below the
minimum code standard of 25 feet to accommodate road access to serve eight lots. This
would require approval of a Critical Areas Variance.
• Public sidewalks are proposed for both sides of public streets.
• No walkways,trails, or public access are currently proposed along the May Creek corridor or
the shoreline.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 2-1 May 2004
I
I
A
f/
t/ / j% f
`/ ) ,/
f/ j/
f
i `l/ if " "
\\--,/// /2 — ,{----, =-- ,
/%''';-4 //,'//17-'- \ \‘ '‘'\
COR-2 ZONE e
2111. ..`.... / /7- i 1
T-,--., 11, Maw q Eng _/ , /
(WO 1 i 1 \ . ;
• .v, // , 1r)
"wag / ,
yy F �III���ME /
S r I � { s®. .
j Tract"B" 4Ir,Y /`ract'C Water /;71:://
'�
Open ' Quality, IPUBLIC LAND P Y // f I
�;2`.v:'Space \; . /
\ '4'„ I- tl. / #0,2440\„. • *%' U�FER '
\,-.1.- , /44, . „,-;,/ ONEr I
, P---% yis -. . . . .;,., /// �,
LAKE / _ �y
WASHINGTON Nt. 04\77:2)"nlivv.7/
ice. I//I itTAF ' 1 - -----
PUBLICCVP/ / i 44 '• / f NiNiN, ,
LAND k4 j:�y. .\Ar •` ~
• . \ z, / it ,,N, ,"7 /7(
)-- —2'''''t,„,,.,,,,,
Ail
Asa
�
k��/ "0-
' -N,
AY CREEK �
DELTA , ,
— _- _' /
R_41,14 N 40TH ST
ti
1 ter
t ¢'` f
1 , -,,, _/ ff`.
.w°
•v/
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-2-1-01
SCALE IN FEET lAt Figure 2.1-1 I_
Overall Plat Plan
0 150 300 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
2. Features to be developed as part of build-out of the site include the following:
• Construction of 115 town home units utilizing shared walls between property lines. The
majority of units are within duplex structures. Two structures with four units and two
structures with five units are proposed east of May. Creek. Note: Existing zoning does not
limit use to residences and does not limit residential building type to town homes. Future lot
owners could propose apartment buildings or other uses that meet dimensional and density
standards. These building types are not part of this proposal and are not analyzed in this
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Future proposals would undergo separate
design and environmental review.
• On-site structures would be governed by dimensional requirements in the existing zoning,
which is Center Office Residential 2 (COR-2) and Shoreline Urban Environment designation:
> Front, Rear, and Side setback: No specific standard is contained in the COR-2 district,
which specifies setbacks are to be determined through site plan review.
The proposal includes the following setbacks for duplex and town home units:
— Street setback— 10 feet
— Rear lot setback— 10 feet
— Side lot setback—5 feet
— Shoreline Setback: 25-foot minimum
➢ Height: 125-foot maximum under COR-2.
— The proposal includes a maximum height of 50 feet within the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Management Act, which extends 200 feet from the line of Ordinary High
Water (OHW). A 50-foot-high building would be up to 5 stories high, assuming a
standard ceiling height of 7.5 to 10 feet.
— Maximum height outside of shoreline jurisdiction is proposed to be 75 feet. A 70-
foot building would be up to 7 stories high.
• Docks are presumed to be developed to serve each shoreline lot in the absence of a specific
proposal for shared moorage.
• Bulkheads are presumed to be developed along the shoreline for lots with building setbacks
of 25 feet from the Ordinary high water (OHW). This reflects common shoreline building
patterns on Lake Washington.
• Foundation types for buildings are presumed to consist of deep foundations to transfer
building loads to underlying dense glacial soils. The depth is currently unknown, pending
more detailed geotechnical investigation in the future.
3. Washington Depaitinent of Natural Resources (DNR)managed lands: Features presumed to be
developed on public lands lying between the Inner and Outer Harbor Line and administered by
the DNR as trustee for the public, are presumed to be public open space. This applies to
approximately 520 linear feet extending from the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The
width of this public land is approximately 20 feet along Lots 23 to 28 and approximately 80 feet
along the open space tract,Lots 29 and 30. Facilities for public enjoyment of the shoreline are
presumed to be developed for limited passive enjoyment including trails,benches, and
interpretive facilities.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 2-3 May 2004
1
1
This presumed use of public lands is consistent with management goals in the Revised Code of
Washington(RCW)79.90.450 and 79.90.455 to:
(a) Foster water-dependent uses i
(b) Ensure environmental protection
(c) Encourage direct public use and access
(d) Promote production on a continuing basis of renewable resources
(e) Generate income from use of aquatic lands in a manner consistent with the above goals
Note: The public land between the inner and outer harbor lines is not within the incorporated city
limits of Renton,which follows the Inner Harbor Line.
2.2 CONTINUATION OF INDUSTRIAL USE ON THE SITE
This alternative presumes continuation of industrial use on the site,with different uses than the existing 1
sawmill. For this alternative,the following assumptions have been made:
• No construction of public roads will occur on the site. The existing private driveway access
would continue.
• Existing structures would be retained and adapted to new uses.
• Existing non-conforming structures within the shoreline setbacks would be retained,
including structures on public lands administered by the DNR.
• New structures are assumed to be developed under zoning conditions that allow major
modifications, production increases, or expansions of existing use only with a Hearing
Examiner conditional use permit(Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-2-080,Footnote 23).
> New structures approved under a conditional use permit would meet all minimum
shoreline and stream setbacks.
> Restoration landscaping would be provided within minimum shoreline and wetland
setbacks, if required, in association with the approval of new buildings.
> All impervious surfaces on site would remain, except for shoreline and stream buffer
areas, which may be revegetated, if required, in association with the approval of new
buildings.
> If triggered by new approved construction, stormwater treatment for water quality would
be implemented to meet current codes, which would result in somewhat larger, open
stormwater treatment areas, due to the larger impervious area.
> Perimeter landscaping, and parking lot landscaping associated with new buildings,would
meet current codes.
• Specific presumed building area and uses on site include:
> Building Floor Area: 545,025 square feet
Warehouse: 272,500 square feet
Light Manufacturing: 218,000 square feet
Accessory Office: 55,000 square feet
> Parking Area: 220,000 square feet
818 (based on pro-forma sheet) spaces
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 2-4 May 2004
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATING MEASURES
The Impacts and Mitigating Measures Subsections of Sections 3.2 Surface Water Resources and
Section 3.4 Plants and Animals have been revised
3.1 EARTH, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY
This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages
3-lthrough 3-7 of the Draft EIS.
3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
3.2.1 Affected Environment
The Affected Environment subsection has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Please refer to pages 3-8 through 3-14 of the Draft EIS.
3.2.2 Impacts
This Impacts subsection has been revised. Please refer to this text rather than the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement text for Subsection 3.2.2 on pages 3-14 through 3-22.
3.2.2.1 Impacts of the Proposal
The proposal involves removing the existing Barbee Mill facilities. The proposed.Barbee Mill
Preliminary Plat and future construction of residences would include the construction of 13.07 acres of
new impervious areas and 5.74 acres of new pervious areas for a total of 18.81 acres of developed area on
the 22.9-acre site. Existing impervious surface coverage would be reduced from 85 to 57 percent
(Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002). The site plan includes 24 shoreline lots adjacent to Lake Washington
and40 lots adjacent to May Creek. Eight of the lots along the lake front on intervening public land that is
waterward of the Inner Harbor line. This strip of public land varies from 16 to 80 feet wide. Sixteen lots
front directly on Lake Washington with no intervening public land. Residential structures along the
lake's shoreline are proposed to maintain a 25-foot setback from the waters edge. The proposed buffer
for May Creek would range from a minimum width of about 20 feet near the existing bridge close to the
mouth of the creek to a maximum width of 100 feet for a short distance north of the northerly wetland.
The average width is about 50 feet. A specific landscape plan for the May Creek buffer area has not been
proposed. For the purposes of drainage analysis,it was presumed to be restored with native vegetation.
(Raedeke Associates,Inc. 2002).
A new bridge for a two lane public street would be constructed over May Creek and would require the
removal of the existing middle bridge. Installation of new foundations for the proposed bridge would be
necessary and is presumed to include no work within the OHWM of May Creek. The new bridge would
be approximately 42-feet wide and include sidewalks.
Stormwater Discharge
The proposal would reduce impervious surface area, leading to reduced stormwater run-off to May Creek
and Lake Washington. It could also increase the amount of stormwater infiltrating to groundwater.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary 55 -
Plat 4 1779 017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-1 May2004
•
Impacts to Water Quality _
Degradation of surface water quality can result from new development when increases in stormwater
pollutants,or erosion and sediment transport,,result in higher discharges of contaminants to receiving
waters. If not properly mitigated,potential stormwater pollutants from a developed site can include oil •
and greases,nutrients,toxic organics,metals, and suspended solids. Long periods in stormwater
detention ponds and water quality treatment ponds can increase water temperatures through sun exposure.
Water quality treatment for the proposal is required under King County Storm Water Drainage Manual
(KCSWDM) Core Requirement No.8 (King County 1998). Stormwater will be routed to treatment
facilities, described in Section 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures before being discharged to Lake Washington. —'
The reduction in impervious surface area and the proposed, enhanced May Creek buffers will also provide
beneficial effects due to water quality improvements(Raedeke Associates,2002).
Maintenance Activity Impacts
Landscape maintenance could include use of fertilizers,pesticides, and/or herbicides, and potentially
affect biological activity in receiving waters if not removed by water quality treatment or otherwise
mitigated. Sediment removal from water quality treatment ponds could result in increased turbidity in
stormwater discharges,particularly if the maintenance were performed during wet periods.
Construction Water Quality Impacts
Demolition and earthwork for the project would involve removal of all existing buildings, as well as
excavation and backfill for contaminated soils remediation. Excavation and fill would be required for
utilities and water quality ponds, and road construction grading as well as construction of dwellings after
completion of subdivision. Infrastructure construction would include approximately 38,000 cubic yards
of fill for road and lot construction and 32,000 cubic yards of excavation from the water quality ponds
and underground pipes. These activities can expose soil that could be transported with stormwater runoff,
and soil compaction can decrease stormwater infiltration, increasing surface water runoff. Use and
maintenance of construction equipment, on-site wastes can produce pollutants. If not properly mitigated,
surface waters can be impacted. Any work required in or adjacent to the OHWM of May Creek could
also have temporary water quality impacts due to erosion and/or sedimentation.
Floodplains and Flooding
Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many
factors,including the erosive force of the stream,the nature and location of levees or fill used to protect
the proposed development from flooding, and the mitigation provided. Potential impacts were evaluated
by comparing two development scenarios to the existing condition using the future 100-year mitigated
flow rate of 1,059 cfs(King County 1995). The existing condition assumes the existing channel
configuration, delta elevation(which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and the three
existing bridges. The assumptions for each scenario are summarized below:
Scenario 1—Development with no levees or fill
Development would occur on the site as proposed with no levees or fill used to protect the development
from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site would be
removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain. The 100-year floodplain as
mapped for the existing conditions would cover about half of the site west of May Creek, as indicated on
Figure 3.2-3. The higher eastern bank would limit the extent of the floodplain on that side of the creek.
The almost level topography on the west side of the creek would result in extensive but shallow flow to
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 May2004
the west,potentially flooding 25 buildings and the southerly roadway providing access to the site as
indicated in Figure 3.2-3.
Scenario 2—Levees or Fill Constructed at a 50-Foot Setback
Construction of levees or fill to protect new construction from flooding is required by Renton codes. For
this analysis, it was presumed that levies or fill would be installed at the edge of the May Creek open
space area. For floodplain modeling,this was placed at a distance of 50 feet from the existing stream.
This would contain the 100-year flows and protect the development from flooding.
This would result,however, in impacts to stream and floodplain hydraulics by reducing overbank
storage. This would increase water surface elevations up to about 1.5 feet in some areas.
The reduction in storage capacity also could result in bed scour and bank erosion. In addition,the Army
Corps of Engineers Manual(1994)discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge increasing
effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel,instead of allowing flood flows to
escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels,the levees can lead to upstream degradation
(bed erosion and downcutting) and downstream aggradation(sediment deposition and flatter slope). In
addition,levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can require periodic raising,particularly if the
river is confined artificially to a single channel"(USACOE 1994). The potential for channel avulsions
upstream should also be evaluated as part of engineering plan review of the proposal.
Bridges
The proposal would remove the existing middle bridge across May Creek and replace it with a new
bridge. The existing bridge affects the hydraulics of the floodplain; however, it was assumed that the new
bridge would be designed to comply with the City of Renton regulations and that floodplain hydraulics
would not be affected. If the new bridge was constructed in a way that would influence stream
hydraulics,potential impacts such as backwater and increased flood stages and/or increased scour and
erosion could occur.
3.2.2.2 Impacts of the Continued Industrial Use Alternative
Impacts associated with the continued industrial use alternative are assumed to be similar to current site
conditions. If additional buildings were constructed,they would replace impervious pavement and the net
impervious surface would remain the same. The extent of the floodplain on the site would be the same. It
was assumed that any existing or proposed buildings within the 100-year floodplain would be susceptible
to flooding. Potential impacts of flooding on uses contained on-site would depend upon ground floor uses
and whether existing and new buildings are flood-proofed by raising the floor area above the flood
elevation. Potential impacts to the stream and floodplain could occur if fill and/or levees are used to
protect existing and/or new development on the site to support continued industrial uses. Impacts could
be similar to those discussed under Scenario 1 and 2, above.
3.2.2.3 Cumulative Impact
Cumulative impacts of development of other sites in the vicinity are not expected to impact water
resources on the site or change the impacts produced by the proposal. Future off-site development
resulting in increases in impervious surfaces within the watershed was accounted for by using the
predicted future developed flow rates for the 100-year floodplain analysis.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 May2004
i
, Ialww=
COR-2 ZONE
— I ‘
r r
-,, ;"-,,-,r.--„ •-•,.lz-.11 7 11171.-1 It')-, I i ,-. i
. •, . . m., .:,,,
STREET — ti,
) . k - ___;\ i - - - — --7 , 1 -
i-a -..'t ••-.7 - .-''' 7-- [.... t. ,..t.... ... • /
OHW--__ I "/ .7 ‘ , 1 1 / / ,.0/
1 ..;,:... ,.. , / , 4, , ,.. ..... 1 L„ . 1 . . . ./ /
,_ _ 1 .1_ _ __i - - - - - - //
.,V .;\/
F --.•-... ) i
- !,
Tract"C" r,, °A.-As •
lo
PUBLIC LAND I Space s t--- . ' .......r'''• ' " 1/ / /
,., / c3.
...... .
. c--- .2. .. ..•y\ . ,,••-• A .
....., ,.., ... . „ . . . . /, ,, •
1,
, , ,
_
„....
, ,/ , ../.\... ,..._ __ •
.,. . • _7„. , 0 E -...)
,,,,i'2••••.'.'- if ' 4, i•, .. ..2 1" .Y ,.. ,.. *. ' -z-
- x. • — .-/ ---''sr • t J 1
41 ilIlllrrL- r-:---- 2•&1---:-----__:,:--,--,,-.5 . • i / 0
i'• 1
.g, / d 1--- '
• - ,,.
gil L_ _-= .;/.., /. ---45,:' . • - - -OHW ) , fi
WASHINGTON 1 . . ... 4, "1" rlP
4 /h trn"
)
r4 .... -CL:. , ‘Ilaira• /4(f . 4i:-.14414k* /I I/
• • it / &
illiii_ d_ Illai t- 't 411) 7- . f
..• • ! (,.. . i ,, is. ,/ ,,f /
, .m..
4 •`•• ,„,"" :.--.‘ ./"..„,„0::. 884,;,, .... ,,,,, „... ,
14.
PUBLIC
ti\b\,,.0 .1....> ;444:-. /2,...... (
1 ,
,.;,..\\.‘1V4,h,."' / / i
/ \-- - ---- . .(4i41/4kip.::: ,
i MAY CREEK I 1
/ DELTA 7.4-41-00:Nt:--- ...,* 44t /
.„.. tiz / • i l'''
411\
' '
4*,/- ,,,7 ..(A*..r
40 .1, ,
......R,a.ZONE _9 .4' .- ''' /e x l' '' N 40TH ST
e I
. LEgra,... ....... —i
I
I i
Parametrlx DATE: 07/01/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-03
SCALE IN FEET ,Ir'N Figure 3.2-3
I Ilar Flood Plain
0 100 200 Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
! !
3.2.3 Mitigation
3.2.3.1 Operational Impact Mitigation
•
Site Hydrology •
Detention ponds are not required for the project because the site qualifies for the Direct Discharge
Exemption in the 1998 KCSWDM (King County 1998); however,water quality treatment is required.
The proposal's reduced impervious surface will decrease surface runoff and increase stormwater
infiltration and groundwater recharge. Decreasing the amount of runoff could be enhanced by the use of
pervious pavements on driveways,parking areas and sidewalks,using tree and brush cover to provide
additional interception of rainwater, and infiltration of roof drain discharges.
Stormwater Discharge
The site is proposed to be served by a stormwater drainage system indicated in Figure 3.2-4 that is sized
to convey the runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour storm from all impervious surfaces on the site, including
future residences. The conceptual proposal includes water quality ponds for treatment of pollutants in
runoff. Its operation and maintenance would be required to conform to City of Renton and KCSWDM
requirements (King County 1998). If these proposed facilities are properly implemented, adverse
stormwater discharge impacts are not expected. The following brief description of the proposed
conveyance system is based on the Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
(TIR) (Otak, Inc.2002). Appendix D of the TIR provides the preliminary calculations showing that the
stormwater conveyance system meets the 1998 KCSWDM Section 4 Stormwater Conveyance Standards
(King County 1998).
Discharge to Lake Washington
Following water quality treatment,water quality treatment ponds would be discharged directly to Lake
Washington through separate 18-inch diameter pipes (indicated as WQ1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4).
Discharge rates for the large pond would range from 2.5 cfs during the 6-month,24-hour storm to 8.0 cfs
during the 100-year,24-hour storm; for the small pond,these figures would be 1.6 cfs to 5.0 cfs (Raedeke
Associates, Inc. 2002).
Adjacent Upstream Drainage
An existing bypass storm drain line that crosses the eastern portion of the site between proposed lots 99
and 100 would be replaced with another line with a capacity adequate to serve the stormwater discharge
from the developed offsite N 40th Street basin.
Mitigation for Floodplains and Flooding
Potential flooding mitigation measures to protect the proposed development from flooding are presumed
to include the constructing of levees or constructing the proposed development on fill at an elevation
above the estimated 100-year flood level as presented above under Scenario 2. The model predicts an
average maximum floodplain depth of 1.0 foot above the ground surface during the 100-year flood.
Therefore,the levee or fill should be at least 2 feet above the existing ground elevation,to provide 1 foot
of freeboard for the top of the levee or the lowest occupied floor of residences as required by RMC 4-3-,
050.I.3.a. These mitigation measures would protect the development from flooding. The analysis
presumes discontinuation of dredging at the mouth of May Creek as a conservative scenario. Continued
dredging could,however,be combined with one(or both) of these potential mitigation measures to
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-5 May 2004
increase stream capacity and reduce flooding. Dredging of the delta is associated with adverse impacts on
aquatic habitat as discussed in Section 3.4.
Mitigation of impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction to reduce associated upstream
degradation(bed erosion and downcutting) and downstream aggradation(sediment deposition and flatter
slope) includes three mitigation scenarios:
• Remove or replace the existing bridges with bridges that span the floodplain;
• Modify the existing channel cross section to create a floodplain bench or terrace; and
• Provide a 100-ft setback from the existing stream.
Mitigation through Bridge Removal
This scenario would remove/replace the existing bridges with bridges that do not encroach on the _
floodplain. This would reduce potential impacts such as backwater and increased flood stages and/or
increased scour and erosion. Under this scenario,floodplain modeling indicates that May Creek would
still overtop the right bank and flood flows would spread out over the floodplain and flow to Lake
Washington. Therefore,this mitigation scenario alone would not protect the proposed development from
flooding, and a levee and/or fill would still be needed. As stated above, levees and fill that confine the
floodplain have additional impacts to the stream such as increased flood stages, erosion and scour.
Detailed hydraulic information for this scenario is provided in Appendix E.
Mitigation through Compensatory Storage
This scenario would include a floodplain bench or terrace (in combination with removal and/or
replacement of the existing bridges with bridges that would not encroach on the floodplain as discussed
above). The proposed bench would be a flat area adjacent to the right bank approximately 16 to 25 feet
wide and would be constructed at an elevation approximately equivalent to the bankfull elevation of May
Creek, (between 1 and 4 feet below the existing grade)as shown in Figures 3.2-5 through 3.2-9. This
would provide additional capacity for flood flows and would reduce shear stress and flood elevations,
which would reduce bed and bank erosion and benefit the stream(Appendix E).
In addition, the modified channel cross section would contain the 100-yr future mitigated flows;therefore,
during large flood events floodwaters would not escape the channel to the west. This would protect the
development from flooding,but could have long-term effects to stream morphology.
As discussed in the affected environment section,the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The I_
Army Corps of Engineers Manual(1994) discusses additional problems with levees in delta settings, such
as discharge increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of
allowing flood flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels,the levees can lead to
upstream degradation and downstream aggradation. In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream
reaches "can require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel"
(USACOE 1994). Also,the potential for channel avulsions upstream should also be evaluated(USACOE
1994).
A modification of this scenario was analyzed by the applicant with placement of the main bridge for
vehicular access to the site near the stream bank at ordinary high water. This bridge location would
interrupt the floodplain bench and would result in some backwater effect during high flows. A bridge at
this location would reduce the effectiveness of the floodplain bench and result in some overtopping of the
right bank during the 100-yr storm event,necessitating levee construction.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-6 May 2004
1 ,
lfI tY i r
t
•
h
. 111INIF 71, :IL- 71 r —lir -1F 11 T'I I :‘ I ' I r/d/4 t /1/
limi - I 1 . 1....c lij ,. I ,%,1 i,, I „
__IL: _its,/ / /
II tl I 1
1 wIr—' i--7 -- --' <MIA( ItEi j
Lv I Ihk AVIS-7 ,Mill EMI :7/ i/
11117L1\\*
_ v .. ,
./im." ......_ ,..),,,,,,--/-„ , . 1, /7 , 7 /
'r '4'1 ' _<-" /7 - -4 --/ / /
21:>1'
4v- -/ - / 7
, \ Oa . 4 ,.. s __ , ,,,.. , 4 ,
, ,_ ,,,,
/ i<., ,\, , ,, ,
‘.„.• . _____..„ „, s \., , ,_ , ,,,,,,—,—,-,
,,/ / /
./' /, ! f
\.\p"..,79 %// / ,„
t r < - ,,y-.. „<-
� ., I �� jam;- / ?
- 7,-- 77// / f
C j
ill
III- l'''''' All . \ � ","fs ..�= ", ,� ) / ,1/45
LAKE i,, r / 1 1/' . 4/
WASHINGTONop, �s •fj;,jjiJ 1 'VIM\ , l i ,f
` �71 1 !+
7/7 49/
' 1 ;�7&kJØI
� ` r 7 v' _ _ _// .,, ,,-/ /
m 1i1 f
y /-
IA /7,N ••.j.4"-If.. .„ / /
40I,k 40)„, ,/ , ,7,/oieltiratit, __. ,,,,,/ / 2---.,
'A' . A.\'\- 7/,,, 40P\44'. ,-44.or ,,e-4/i/ (
(• (,Alk, o...-, /11., 7„,41-et-',,,:-i 7 _ ‘ -\\
\‘‘, . ____,,,.....-,,..„:„,-..-...-_-_-,---„ /7110, ire ----,,,7t --/ >\
/ MAY CREEK 7� �!t • \ V
DELTA , ' �,' r, �:
-- 020 +/ � r: ��/"`- ,,-/j r 1 LEGEND
=`d's—• -�. Vim. J — Flow path
-
- P" • , ,., / K tf' Fw N 40TH ST
i , _" / /". Basin boundar
Source: Otak Basins,Subbasins and Site Characteristics Map,Figure 3
Parametrix DATE: 07/02/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-2-04
Figure 3.2-4
SCALE IN FEET Proposed Water Quality Treatment
and Stormwater Drainage System
0 100 200 WirBarbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Mitigation through Additional Setback
Levees or fill could be constructed at a distance of 100 feet from the existing stream instead of the
proposed 50 feet. The approximate location of the levee on the west side of the site is indicated in Figure
3.4-5. This mitigation scenario would reduce the impacts associated with construction of a levee or fill at
50 feet. However,this mitigation would still require construction of a levee or fill to contain the 100-year
flows in the channel and protect the development from flooding,and would have impacts similar to those
discussed under Development Scenario 2,but reduced in scope because of the greater flood storage.
This mitigation scenario could be used in conjunction with mitigation strategies of bridge removal and
compensatory storage, described above,to provide additional benefits to the stream.
Mitigation for Water Quality
City of Renton standards require that runoff from pollution generating surfaces be treated. The proposed
design includes two water quality ponds to treat runoff before it is discharged(see Figure 3.2-4). The
facilities' operation and maintenance would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM(King
County1998)requirements. If mitigation measures are properly implemented, adverse water quality
q g P P Y � P � q tY
impacts are not expected. The following description is based on the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary
Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002).
The drainage area west and north of May Creek would drain to Water Quality Pond WQ1 in Tract B. The '
area would include the residential area of 4.54 impervious acres and 4.92 pervious acres, and Streets E
and F that connect the site to Ripley Lane and have a drainage area of 0.89 impervious acre.Approximately 8,811 cubic feet of wetpond volume is required per 1998 KCSWDM Section 6.4.1. The
elevation for the top of sediment storage would be 19.0 feet, and the design water quality surface
elevation would be 21.0 feet. Calculations for the water quality volumes are contained in Appendix C of
the TIR for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(Otak,Inc. 2002). The measured volume for the preliminary
WQ1 pond design is approximately 55,900 cubic feet. Following water quality treatment,water would
discharge directly to Lake Washington (indicated as WQ1 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4).
The area south and east of May Creek would drain to smaller Water Quality Pond WQ2 near the mouth of
May Creek(see Figure 3.2-4). . The area would include residential areas, and an access road to Lake
Washington Boulevard North for a total drainage area of approximately 2.20 acres, 1.87 acres of which
would be impervious. The required water quality volume for this drainage area would be 9,036 cubic
feet, or 11,026 cubic feet if the water quality surface elevation were set at approximately 20.0 feet.
Following water quality treatment,water would discharge directly to Lake Washington (indicated as
WQ2 Outlet in Figure 3.2-4).
The possible increased temperatures of stormwater discharged from the water quality treatment ponds
during summer months could be mitigated with dense bank cover around the edges of the proposed
ponds.
Mitigation for Maintenance Activity
Maintenance of the water quality ponds would conform to City of Renton and 1998 KCSWDM(King
County 1998)requirements (King County 1998). Impacts caused by sediment removal from the ponds
could be decreased if maintenance was scheduled during periods of little rain. Impacts from the possible
use of pesticides could be reduced with an Integrated Pest Management Plan, as described in the Ecology
Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001). The potential for pollution to stormwater runoff would be reduced
by the implementation of the following BMPs:
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-8 May 2004
r
,/„.;„:_,,,._,,,,,
/ • ,Afr-2?. ;
.. i
ST�.FT__
i .
- - Tom_ - / \ R /
_ STREETA r/1 /
TRACT"C" TRACT"B' m 83 �a7'j
«/% / . !
W '''''.411,1111141".z•••••--/ fri:0/1 , ///
fri
% --- sliFLeel 8 ,if ,/ /
1 tg 4 V 57 +to//7/1 /// /
u •i.�.r. ( &,fie\. / '//yC iff /://
j%r '
CC I
xl %��PyGSACT"D" f< if �/
iv /2
z i /l I, 6 . lg. ,:';" * (/J /J 6
1/7 AIIIMINIOR ;••' '••,,z'L-zr . // to • ----•-•---____
411111111"11111444,kii„.41411)/". ttil ihill%;ce" fri' ///
:, . /77/*%5‘171111tS7 ---/ :/ 17/7/ - ''''''' / /
« 5 46- a
^ ///` J /, ' fA // N>N
fig
�
N \ , /
/MAYCREEK -i / ` � N77 // /
/ DELTA �� �✓
I
#6.4V411)/% / r • / v
• R'�'
d
, i /j P��l
Parametrix DATE: 03109/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-5
A LEGEND Figure 3.2-5
„ „ Floodplain Terrace
'S;,Asi,, APPROXIMATE TERRACE
0 20o Mitigation Option
_� :�;�,��,�' FLOOD BENCH 9 P
S IN FEET Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
0
33- CO
4-
0
W
31-
30 \ I o
La
gl
29-
•
27: \\
•
26 \5 25- � I i
0 \
24 J'--— —
23: \ r
22
\ v 100-yr WS P
�
21- EAST �\,.. / WEST
• 20 j-
DOMING GRADE
19- BANKFU WS. v /
18 MCA!( . . .S.p 1 ` E
/
\\ / PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
17-
_ i !
16
15-
_ t
14 0 • 20 40 60 80 - • • � 100 • • • 120 140 • • • 1i60
Station (ft)
Parametrix DATE; 04/14/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-6
Figure 3.2-6
Scale:Horiz:1a=20' Floodplain Terrace
Vert:1a=4' Cross Sections -Section 3
__ Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
1
i I ! i 1
31 i i 7? 1 I I i ; I I j
W 1 I ! 1 '' I 1
T
lal I ! 1 1 I 1 I 1 3•Is-I.
I
29 8 I I 1 8
I {
E I
;
i II
j 1 ?
1
27 —'-1,` { , I I 1
I 7 I ;
I
j I ; I
25 i 1\ ! I j I ? ;
I
I i
\ 1
23 I i 100-n WS l — i — —1_ 1
i
t. I. ,. ES
EAST I '
21 ' /{ 1 ' YY T
I I \ I j I ;
20 --.._._....-'--"-'----"---'--__....-._._DOSING:GRADE_..--'--}. 1
._._.. .__-___......_`......._...._.........__._...----._...._.. I _._................._ ..._.......__._.. {
I I BANKFULL WS (PROPOSED 0HW)Q_ I .........._..----....__.-_-__.'..._-. �... I
I
I
19 I I I /
i�EAN ANNUAL WS_ p/ i I
....._. I I i -- 1 i
1 1 I 1 �'y ; ..._.....-.....__.i_._..._ "-PROPOSED FINISH'GRADE
17 1 I
1 I I ' I I I , I I I
I I
16 I '20 40 6I0 a'0 160 1 R1 1 d0
Station (ft)
Parametrix DATE: 04/14/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-7
Figure 3.2-7
Scale:Horiz: 1"=20' Floodplain Terrace
Vert:1"=4'
Cross Sections - Section 4.1
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
32
I I. . i
_...I. 1 I
I 1 i
31 lE1 1
f I i I
t •
IRLd I 1 1 i I 1
29 I I I I I I ! �1
28
I i I I l
1 i I 1 i I i
27 I 1 ' 1
P. I I
—` 1
I '
v 1\025 I, - 1
1 p.t0 0—Yr WS i — —
_..I 1 1 T _ i -— I i 1
23 'EASTI \ , i WEST
I 11 ;_ I 1 11
1 1 1 j t BANKFIILL WS p I ! i
21 1 EXISTING GRADE I �(PROPOSED OHW)— / I j 1
I 1 PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
�MAN ANNUAL WS _ =
I I I I --/ l 1 1 I
1840 60 80 100 120 1'0 1.0
Station (ft)
Parametrix DATE: 04/14/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-8
Figure 3.2-8
Scale:Horiz:1^=20' Floodplain Terrace
Vert:1^=4' •
Cross Sections -Section 6
-- -- — Barbee-Mill Preliminary Plat
-
•
32
w
31- °o=
a m
30 \ o
29- \
28 _ _--
27- 1 . _� - 100-Yr WS. 0 ` r -- -r.. : _
9 26-
EAST ` I WEST
Lu? 25 I
24 EXISTING GRACE 1r (PBANKFULL ROPOSED OS -v J
I
23- ' )
\-PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
LMEAN UAL WS,v_/
22
21-
200 20 40 60 80 - 100 120
Station (ft)
Parametrix DATE 04/14/04 FILE: K1779017P02T02-F03-2-9
Figure 3.2-9
Scale:Horiz:1°=20' Floodplain Terrace
Vert:1°=4' Cross Sections - Section 9
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
� I
• Use of engineered soil/landscape systems to improve the infiltration and regulation of stormwater
in landscaped areas (See additional discussion of remediation of the soil/plant community in the
Section 3.4.3)
• Prevention of discharge of collected vegetation into waterways or storm drainage systems
• The practice of mulch-mowing
• Disposal ofgrass clippings, leaves, sticks, or other collected vegetation bycomposting, if feasible
p PP� g > g
If mitigation measures are properly implemented, substantial adverse impacts as a result of routine
maintenance would not be expected.
3.2.3.2 Construction Impact Mitigation
BMPs for sediment control during construction should be implemented using the standards outlined in
1998 KCSWDM,Appendix D. Impacts resulting from construction activities would be minimized
through implementation of an appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP),including a
risk assessment and an approved Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC)Plan. If mitigation
measures were properly implemented, adverse impacts are not expected. Specific elements of the SWPPP
should include the following (Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002):
• Delineate and Mark Clearing Limits: Before clearing or disturbing,the limits should be marked.
• Establish Construction Access: All erosion control plans should install a stabilized construction
entrance (or other method of preventing sediment transport onto the roads). If a standard gravel
construction entrance is proposed,geo-textile fabric should be installed under the rock.
• Detain Flows: Based on a downstream analysis,it may be necessary to detain runoff from a site
under construction. A detention pond may be used to control flows during construction.
• Install Sediment Controls: If runoff from the construction site occurred, sediment should be
removed from the water. The water quality standards would have to be met prior to discharge to
Lake Washington.
• Stabilize Soils: All exposed and non-worked soil should be stabilized by use of BMPs. Both
temporary and permanent groundcover would be part of the construction plans.
I -
• Protect Slopes: Cut and fill slopes would be protected from erosive flows and concentrated flows
until permanent cover and drainage conveyance systems were in place.
• Protect Drain Inlets: All storm drain inlets would require protection from sediment and silt laden
water.
• Stabilize Channels and Outlets: Temporary and permanent conveyance systems would be
stabilized to prevent erosion during and after construction. Culvert outlets would require
protection.
• Control Pollutants: The plan would indicate how all pollutants, including waste materials and
demolition debris,would be handled. This would include maintenance of construction
equipment, fertilizers, application of chemicals, and water treatment systems.
• Control De-Watering: The water from de-watering systems for trenches,vaults,and foundations
would be discharged into a controlled system. ,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-14 May2004
• Maintain BMPs: The plan would provide for inspection and maintenance of the planned and
installed construction BMPs,as well as their removal at the end of the project.
• Manage the Project: The plan would outline how the site would be managed for erosion control.
It would cover phasing, training, coordination, monitoring,reporting, and contingency planning.
Some specific BMPs recommended for this project are as follows (Raedeke Associates,2002):
• Limit land disturbing or grading activities between October 1 and April 30,because these are the
highest rain fall months when the risk of erosion is greatest.
• Limit in-water work for the installation of the stormwater treatment pond outfalls and
construction of bridge footings to the WDFW's prescribed in-water work period for Lake
Washington and May Creek,respectively to minimize impacts on aquatic resources.
• Route stormwater during construction to a holding pond for sediment control. The first cell of the
proposed stormwater facility is proposed by the project engineer as the optimum location for a
TESC pond. Most stormwater runoff from the site would be routed to this pond via interceptor
trenches and berms, and later via permanent drainage pipes.
• The area designated by the second cell of the proposed stormwater facility should remain in an
undisturbed condition until the site has been completely stabilized.
• Control and monitor stormwater released from the on-site TESC pohd during construction to
ensure compliance with established water quality discharge requirements.
• Stabilize soils at the end of each day based on weather forecast. Applicable practices include,but
are not limited to,temporary/permanent seeding, sodding, mulching,plastic covering, erosion
control matting, a gravel base for areas to be paved, and dust control.
• Install matting,plastic sheeting, or other approved slope stabilization measures on all slopes
greater than or equal to 3:1.
• Monitor water quality throughout the construction period. A monitoring plan should be part of
the quality assurance plan for compliance. The construction SWPPP should contain a plan for
stormwater sampling locations,background measurements, and a periodic reporting schedule.
The sampling points would be marked on a map and on the ground.
The Ecology Stormwater Manual(Ecology 2001) contains additional erosion and sediment control BMPs
that include the following:
• Limiting disturbed areas as practicable;
• Immediate stabilization of construction roads and parking areas;
• The use of polyacrylamide as a cover measure;
• Erosion prevention techniques such as surface roughening and the use of gradient terraces;
• Construction stormwater chemical treatment or filtration, as needed, to reduce turbidity in the site
discharge;
• Specialized concrete handling;
• Providing appropriate on-site storage for fuels and chemicals;
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-15 May2004
•
• Minimizing the risk of soil contamination during construction by restricting fueling and
equipment maintenance to a designated staging area with an impermeable surface, spill
containment features, and a spill clean-up kit;
• Providing appropriate disposal facilities for wastes generated during construction;
• Designation of a contractor erosion and spill control lead; and
• Advanced budgeting and creation of a force-account for TESC measures.
If mitigation measures such as bridge removal or excavation of a floodplain bench or terrace were
implemented, additional Best Management Practices to control potential discharge into surface water
should be implemented, such as silt curtains within the stream adjacent to the construction area. More
stringent protection of cleared areas and assurance of establishment of revegetation, or non-floatable
erosion control measures should be implemented prior to the time of the seasonal flood hazard.
3.3 GROUNDWATER
This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages
3-22 through 3-24 of the Draft EIS.
3.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS
This section discusses impacts on terrestrial plants and animals as well as aquatic species. Additional
detailed discussion is found in Appendixes D and E. of the Draft EIS
3.4.1 Affected Environment
The Affected Environment section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Please refer to pages 3-24 through 3-34 of the Draft EIS.
3.4.2 Impacts
This Impacts subsection has been revised. Please refer to this text rather than the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement text for Subsections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 on pages 3-34 through 3-61.
3.4.2.1 Impacts of Subdivision and Building Construction
Vegetation Communities
Construction of subdivision infrastructure will have limited impacts on plant communities because the
majority of the site is unvegetated impervious surfaces. The proposed bridge crossing of May Creek will
remove portions of the existing riparian vegetation consisting largely of shrubs and grasses below the
existing lower office parking lot. The extent of impacts will depend on bridge design and construction
methods. It may be possible to maintain existing or enhanced vegetation beneath the bridge if the bridge
deck is high enough to allow light penetration and water is provided by precipitation or irrigation.
Wildlife
The existing osprey nest on the sawdust tower will be displaced by removal of the structure. Mitigation is
discussed below.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-16 May2004
Impacts on existing wildlife communities during construction would depend on duration of construction
and the extent of disturbance from interruption of the riparian corridor during bridge and road
construction. Noise impacts for pile driving for bridge or other foundation construction could be a •
substantial, although temporary disturbance. If pilings are required for building foundations, and the
construction of residences occurs over several years, the impacts on sensitive wildlife could lead to
avoidance of the site over the entire construction period. Most animals that use the area are habitat
generalists that are tolerant of human activity. In addition, animals currently using the creek as a corridor
are already adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed. These wildlife
populations may develop some tolerance for high noise levels, or may limit their use to nighttime and
other hours when construction is not taking place.
The effects of human activities on waterfowl may be greater along the portion of Lake Washington
adjacent to the project site. Use patterns may change during construction. Nesting activities almost
certainly will not occur near very high noise levels such as impact pile driving.
The high noise levels associated with construction may discourage the osprey currently nesting on the
sawdust tower from relocating in the vicinity.
Wetlands
The northernmost of the two wetlands is proposed to be retained;however, construction of the adjacent
Street C and the town homes will eliminate the buffer below the Renton code minimum of a 25-foot
buffer area for a Category 3 wetland(as indicated in figure 3.4-2). The roadway constructed adjacent to
the wetland is in a fill section and is proposed to be supported by a low retaining wall. Construction
impacts likely will extend approximately 10 feet from the edge of improvements and therefore encroach
within about 10 feet of the wetland. The buffer area remaining after construction will be approximately
20 to 22 feet wide at its smallest dimension. The buffer area is currently mowed grass with encroachment
by a stockpile of stored soil.
The southernmost wetland will experience permanent displacement due to roadway construction of an
area of about 10 feet by 40 feet,with construction disturbance of up to another 10 feet(see figure 3.4-3).
Modification of the drainage system in the area to serve the new development likely may affect the source
of water to recharge the wetland,resulting in potential loss of the total wetland area of 1,712 square feet.
If portions of the wetland were retained, all of the buffer area on the west side of the wetland would be
eliminated.
Aquatic Species
Direct impacts on aquatic species relate to the extent and duration of construction activities, aquatic
species use at the time of construction activities, and the extent and nature of habitat modifications that
would result from the project. Direct mortality or disturbance may result during installation of the
stormwater treatment facility outfalls and the installation of bridge footings for the new bridge if they are
below the water level of May Creek
Sediment may be discharged into May Creek and Lake Washington as a result of construction of
subdivision infrastructure, such as roads,bridges, stormwater treatment facilities, and utilities. Increased
sedimentation may adversely affect aquatic species and habitat in the short-term and long-term.
Suspended sediment originating from this site is likely to contain higher levels of contaminants than from
more natural landscapes. High turbidity can reduce feeding rates by young salmonids (Gregory 1994;
Gregory and Northcote 1993), and juvenile salmon and bull trout may avoid the site because of increased
turbidity(Bisson and Bilby 1982). High concentrations of suspended sediment may also cause spawning
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-17 May 2004
salmon to avoid an area,thereby delaying or diverting spawning runs using May Creek(Spence et al.
1996).
The magnitude of impacts will,however, likely be related to design considerations and the application of
appropriate BMPs for erosion control as outlined in the Water Quality section. An important
consideration will be limiting construction, especially in-water construction,to periods when use of the
vicinity by listed or sensitive aquatic species is minimal (as prescribed by in-water work windows
accepted by WDFW,NOAA Fisheries, and Ecology).
3.4.2.2 Impacts of Development and Use of the Site
This subsection assesses impacts of the development of 115 townhome units on the site and future use of
these residences.
Vegetation Communities
Delta formation at the mouth of May Creek is expected to resume after the sawmill is closed and the need
for dredging to maintain depth for log storage and movement has ended. The delta will take a substantial
amount of time to fill in the deepest dredge of up to 12 feet. The long term effects of delta deposits is
likely to be similar to the Coal Creek delta in Bellevue about two miles north of the site where the delta
has expanded considerably since development of the Newport Shores residential area in the early 1960s,
resulting in extensive upland and shallow aquatic habitat(King County 2003).
The proposal includes setting aside a buffer area along May Creek that varies from about 20 feet from the
waters edge to about 100 feet,with the average distance being about 60 feet. A stream buffer is
designated on the project conceptual landscaping plans,but specifics of proposed plant species and
densities of planting are not specified. This open space will substantially expand the area of potential on-
site native vegetation compared to existing conditions.
In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63 acres of publicly-owned land between the inner and outer harbor
lines will be managed as public open space. This applies to approximately 520 linear feet extending from
the northerly property line to proposed Lot 30. The width of this public land is approximately 20 feet
along Lots 23-28 and approximately 80 feet along the open space tract,Lots 29 and 30. The existing
sawmill and related facilities would be removed,which would allow opportunities for provision of a more
natural shoreline habitat through removal of bulkheads, and replanting of the area to provide a buffer of
native plant species.
,
The uses directly adjacent to May Creek and Lake Washington may have a number of direct and indirect
impacts on the character of vegetation and habitat. The proposal includes creation of 38 lots directly
fronting on the proposed May Creek open space area,with an additional 300 feet of road parallel to May
Creek and a 120-foot long roadway and bridge crossing the creek. Twenty-four lots are proposed along
the Lake Washington waterfront. Of those,eight front on the public land managed by DNR,leaving 16
with direct private lake frontage. A setback of 25 feet from the building line is proposed for these lots.
The lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline propose either a 10 foot or a no building setback. The
25-foot shoreline building setback has no proposed landscape treatment in current plans. It is likely that --,
common residential landscaping typical of lots in Renton would be applied, without specific conditions of
approval. One would expect primarily lawn and ornamental plants. Extensive soil amendment likely
would be required for existing compacted soils to support landscaping.
A 280-foot wide Tract"C" Open Space parcel is proposed adjacent to a portion of the publicly owned
shoreline and is proposed for a water quality pond that takes up about a third of that area. An additional -
irregularly shaped Tract"B"is located near the center of the site and is almost entirely occupied by a
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-18 May 2004
water quality pond. The upland portion of Tract`B"is proposed to be planted with a mix of shrubs and
non-native dwarf hinoki cypress. Tract B is proposed to be planted with turf and ornamental shrubs and
trees.
There are a number of challenges in establishing a community of native vegetation on a site largely
characterized by impervious surfaces, imported fill, and compacted soils. The absence of nearby
communities of native vegetation complicate the provision of seed sources for a natural succession of
plant communities. Revegetation in such a context requires human intervention at every stage of
establishing and maintaining a viable plant community. Specific considerations for establishing such a
community is discussed in the mitigation section below.
The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the
creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, increase shading, and improve the complexity
and diversity of habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May
Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta.
(King County 2001).
Wildlife
Human disturbance associated with the residential use would generally have minimal effect on the
existing patterns of wildlife use of the May Creek riparian and upland area. Most of the existing animals
that use the area are habitat generalists that are tolerant of human activity. Animals using the creek as a
corridor have adapted to the high levels of human activity in the May Creek watershed in the vicinity.
Most of the corridor,upstream of Lake Washington Blvd.,however,is contained in buffer areas that
average about 300 feet in width. These wildlife populations may have developed some tolerance for high
noise levels and other disturbance, or may limit their use to nighttime and other hours when human
activity is lower. The establishment of greater wildlife populations on-site may be delayed until new
communities of vegetation along the riparian corridor have sufficient time to mature.
The proposed setbacks of approximately 50 feet for most of the May Creek corridor as indicated in Figure
2.1-1 are greater than existing vegetated setbacks on the sawmill site. However the use of the areas
adjacent to the stream during sawmill operation generally was for log and lumber storage. The major
processing functions of the sawmill were 300 to 500 feet from the stream. The presence of 38 residential
structures directly fronting on May Creek at a distance of 15 to 80 feet will introduce a more constant
source of daytime disturbance. Residential pets also will provide potential disturbance from barking dogs
and potential predation(especially of amphibians,birds, and small mammals by free-roaming cats). The
portion of the stream corridor potentially most impacted by the proximity of residences and roads is near
the mouth where the closest proposed residence on the east side is 15 feet from the edge of the stream and
on the west side where building setbacks are from 35 to 60 feet south of Street A. The buffer area
downstream of the proposed bridge location is proposed to be 15 to 35 feet from the edge of the stream.
This narrow buffer area provides limited opportunities for attenuating proximity impacts such as noise
and nighttime lights and is likely to have little habitat value and be an impediment to movement of larger
terrestrial species.
Plantings of native vegetation,which is presumed for the entire proposed May Creek open space area,
would result in an increase in forage, and cover for wildlife compared to existing conditions. The
creekside vegetation would also help to serve as a visual buffer from human activities on the completed
project site.
The proposed bridge for vehicular traffic also represents a potential impediment to wildlife movement
along the stream corridor, depending upon its design. If the bridge design does not provide sufficient
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-19 May 2004
setback from the edge of the stream and sufficient height,the movement of large mammals such as deer
would be restricted. Construction of bridge abutments at the ordinary high water mark(OHWM)would
force all terrestrial species to climb and cross the road,which would substantially impede animal
movement along the stream corridor and substantially reduce the habitat value of the buffer area by
impeding access to it. The hours that traffic is present will likely be longer with residential development,
discouraging wildlife movement that has to cross the roadway.
The stormwater detention pond that would be constructed near the center of the site may provide limited
wildlife habitat, depending on the extent of riparian vegetation along the pond's edge and the complexity
of the vegetation community. The current proposal for a mix of shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees
provides limited habitat value. The potential for wildlife habitat can be enhanced as discussed in the
mitigation section below.
The effects of human disturbance on waterfowl along the portion of Lake Washington adjacent to the
project site may be greater than to the habitat generalists that use other portions of the project site. The
relatively high level of waterfowl use in the area, as currently observed,may reflect the existing low
levels of human use along the lake's shoreline since closure of the sawmill. Increased human activity and
noise, especially given the limited proposed 25-foot setbacks for buildings may result in reduced
waterfowl use of the area. The addition of recreational docks and watercraft use would further reduce -
waterfowl use.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program which requires"significant"public access on Lake Washington (RMC 4-3-
090-K-14-d). The applicant has not defined a public access program. For the purposes of this analysis,
public access facilities are presumed to take one or more of the following forms:
• Use of the public shoreline waterward of the inner harbor line for general public use. These areas
are about 16 feet wide at lot 24,20 feet wide at lot 28, and around 80 feet wide at the open space
tract and adjacent to lots 29 and 30.
• A public walkway along the Lake Washington Shoreline for about 700 feet between Lot 29 and
the mouth of May Creek. This would occur within the shoreline building setback area of
proposed lots,which is proposed to be 25 feet. Such a public walkway is likely to be located
directly at the water's edge,to reduce privacy impacts on the private residences as much as
possible.
• Public walkways or trails are presumed to be developed through the buffer area along May Creek,
including pedestrian crossings.
Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to have the greatest impact because:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline likely would be required to maintain the trail at the
shoreline edge. This would result in loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation,thus
narrowing the potential for establishment of a complex and productive plant community at the
littoral edge.
• Use of walkways is likely to introduce direct disturbance to wildlife species using the area.
• Persons are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow, and may
disturb plants, especially newly established plantings, or contribute to soil erosion.
I "
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-20 May2004
Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce the impacts on shoreline waterfowl as
discussed in the mitigation section below.
Risk of wildlife mortality on the roads due to the project is not expected to substantially increase as low
speed limits would minimize potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions.
Osprey
The proposed construction would involve the removal of all existing mill structures, including the
sawdust tower with the osprey nest site. Without mitigation,the birds may or may not find and use an
alternative nesting structure in the vicinity. Increased human activity and noise, as well as the presence of
artificial lighting, may also influence osprey use of the site.
Bald Eagle
The proposed project would have no effect on nesting bald eagles, since no nest sites occur within a mile
of the project site. Construction activities may affect bald eagle foraging in the vicinity, due to
disturbance to the eagles, as well as to their waterfowl prey. Noise levels after construction would be
reduced, however,human activity levels and noise are expected to be greater than under existing
conditions. Depending on the sensitivity of individual bald eagles as well as their waterfowl prey, use of
the project site vicinity by foraging eagles could be slightly reduced.
Wetlands
The desire of adjacent residents to create an aesthetically pleasing area along the BNSF right-of-way
could lead to mowing or other activities that would impact native wetland vegetation and water quality.
The addition of fertilizers,pesticides, and herbicides to maintain landscaped areas could potentially
impact both wetlands via surface runoff and pesticide or herbicide drift during application.
Aquatic Species
May Creek
The proposal would decrease the area of on-site impervious surface as the result of removal of existing
asphalt and concrete surfaces and mill structures on the site. This will reduce surface runoff,but is likely
to have a negligible effect on flows in May Creek because the project site encompasses a small proportion
of the overall drainage area and is located at the very downstream end of the watershed.
Development of the site would result in an increase in vehicle use of the site, and associated pollutants.
However, stormwater from streets and other impervious surfaces would be routed to an on-site treatment
facility before being discharged to Lake Washington, as described in Section 3.2 Surface Water. This
may reduce the amount of sediment and pollutants draining directly into May Creek and Lake
Washington as compared to existing conditions.
Aquatic species would benefit to some extent from the proposed buffer along May Creek. Additional
buffer area would be expected to contribute to riparian functions and the maintenance of existing
salmonid habitat. However,the proposed buffers along May Creek would fall significantly short of
providing a full range of stream habitat forming functions and processes.
The primary functions of stream buffers that are beneficial to fish species include provision for large
woody debris (LWD)recruitment,bank stabilization/erosion control,removal of sediments and
pollutants,regulation of water temperature through stream shading, and regulation of microclimate(May
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-2 I May 2004
1 I
2000,Pollack and Kennard 1998;Knutson and Naef 1997;FEMAT 1993). Buffer width
recommendations for riparian functions from these comprehensive reviews are presented in Tables 3.4-1,
3.4-2, and 3.4-3.
• The Tri-County response to ESA 4(d)rule that was issued by NMFS for the taking of listed Puget Sound
Chinook salmon includes a proposal for a wider stream buffer than that proposed for the Barbee Mill site.
For urban streams like May Creek(i.e.within the designated urban growth area [UGA]) ,the Tri-County
response recommended maintenance of a minimum no-touch buffer width of 115 feet,plus an additional
65 feet of restricted-use buffer beyond the no-touch buffer(Parametrix 2002). The Tri-County proposal
also recommended that these buffers be measured from the lateral extent of any existing channel
migration zone(CMZ). The CMZ concept is based on best available science as reviewed by May(2000)
and in CMZ guidelines developed by DNR(DNR 1999). Channel migration zones are typically located
in lower floodplain and delta areas such as the mouth of May Creek within the proposed project site.
Based on the recommendations presented in Tables 3.4-1, 3.4-2, and 3.4-3, a buffer width of
approximately 50 feet, as proposed for most of the May Creek corridor on the Barbee Mill site,will not
provide the full range of habitat functions and protections that streams require. The buffer width of 15 to
35 feet south of the proposed bridge will provide very limited habitat and stream functions. In addition,
the proposed buffers would not allow stream channel migration and floodplain processes that would
support the formation of instream habitats on the Barbee Mill site.
The proposed buffer,however,would provide some limited improvement of certain stream habitat
functions. Pollutant removal,sediment filtration,and some water temperature regulation(particularly on
small streams)can be improved or provided for by buffer widths as narrow as 35 feet,particularly in
areas having a flat topography as on the Barbee Mill site(Knutsen and Naef 1997). Some additional
wood recruitment and bank stabilization due to streambank vegetation is likely. However, at a minimum
it would take many decades for any large wood to become established along the streambanks and be
available for recruitment into the stream channel
Table 3.4-1. Riparian Buffer Functions and Appropriate Widths Identified by May (2000)
Range Of Effective Buffer Minimum
Function Widths Recommended Notes On Function
Sediment removal and 8—183 m(26-600 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent sediment
erosion control removal
Pollutant Removal 4-262 m(13-860 ft) 30 m(98 ft) For 80 percent nutrient removal '_-
Large Woody Debris 10—100 m(33-328 ft) 80 m(262 ft) 1 SPTH based on long-term
natural levels
Water Temperature 11 —43 m(36-141 ft) 30 m(98 ft) Based on adequate shade
Wildlife Habitat 10—200 m (33-656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Coverage not inclusive
Microclimate 45—200 m(148—656 ft) 100 m(328 ft) Optimum long-term support
1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-22 May 2004
I I I
Table 3.4-2. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths
Identified by Knutson and Naef(1997)
Function Range Of Effective Buffer Widths(ft)
Water Temperature 35-151
Pollutant Removal 13-600
Large Woody Debris 100-200
Erosion Control 100-125
Wildlife Habitat 25-984
Sediment filtration 26-300
Microclimate 200-525
Table 3.4-3. Riparian Functions and Appropriate Widths
Identified from FEMAT (1993)
Function Number of SPTH a Equivalent Width(ft) Based on SPTH of 200
ft.
Shade 0.75 150
Microclimate up to 3 up to 600
Large Woody Debris 1.0 200
Organic Litter 0.5 100
Sediment Control 1.0 200
Bank Stabilization 0.5 100
Wildlife Habitat --- 30—183 m (98—600 ft)
a SPTH=site potential tree height which is the maximum height of a mature tree that can be expected to occur on
any given site.
As described in Section 3.2.2.1 and Appendix B,the proposal would remove the existing bridge across
May Creek and replace it with a new bridge. The existing bridge affects the hydraulics of the floodplain;
however it is assumed that the new bridge would be designed to comply with the City of Renton
regulations and that floodplain hydraulics are not affected. If the new bridge would influence stream
hydraulics,the potential impacts such as increased scour and erosion could occur.
Lake Washington Shoreline
Aquatic species would benefit from normal delta formation where May Creek discharges into Lake
Washington after dredging operations are terminated. Delta formation can be expected to create
additional shallow water habitat throughout the project waterfront more typical of the natural Lake
Washington shoreline,which would potentially benefit many aquatic species,including juvenile Chinook
and coho salmon.
In addition, it is presumed that the 0.63-acre publicly owned land between the inner and outer harbor lines
would be managed as public open space. A variety of measures could enhance natural shoreline
processes in this area including bulkhead removal where shallow water is present. The mitigation section
contains additional discussion of this option.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat - 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-23 May 2004
I �
If this area is developed for public access,human activities at or near the shoreline may introduce direct
disturbances to the shoreline and shallow water habitat areas that are not currently present. Disturbance
from human activities may include informal access to the shoreline that can erode slopes and impact
vegetation, as well as wading or swimming in shallow areas,which can disturb the use of nearshore areas
by fish. Mitigation measures that can accommodate both passive public enjoyment and a productive
natural environment are discussed in more detail in the mitigation section.
A 25-foot setback from the waters edge is proposed for the 16 lots without direct frontage on Lake
Washington. This limited area would not be large enough to establish a vegetation community sufficient
for providing natural shoreline habitats and would preclude many opportunities to enhance shoreline
habitats. This impact is discussed in more detail in the mitigation section,which outlines potential
benefits of greater shoreline setbacks. For the lots fronting on Lake Washington, chemical fertilizers,
herbicides,and pesticides can be expected to be used on residential and ornamental landscaping. The
application of these substances would likely occur up to the limits of the lot,which would be the waters
edge. Some direct application of chemicals to the water can be expected from overspraying and
inadvertent spillage. Runoff containing chemicals can be expected to flow directly into Lake
Washington. Fertilizers,herbicides, and pesticides affect aquatic resources through direct toxicity or by
nutrient enrichment,which can increase plant production and biochemical oxygen demand.
The current proposal assumes the construction of one individual dock on the 16 shoreline lots not fronting
public land. Under the City of Renton Shoreline codes, docks up to 80 feet long and 12 feet wide could
be constructed. Long-term direct effects to salmonids can occur from docks and piers,boathouses,pilings
and log booms. These structures can disrupt normal migration and feeding patterns,provide refuge for
predators, and reduce the production of aquatic vegetation,phytoplankton, and forage fish along the
lakeshore due to shading(Kahler et al. 2000). Recent research indicates that juvenile salmonids in the
southern portion of Lake Washington generally avoid overhead structures (Meridian 2001;Piaskowski
and Tabor 2000).
The proposed 25-foot building setback would likely lead to retention of bulkheads for shoreline
protection. Areas with a deep dredged lake bottom will likely need to retain bulkheads until delta
formation creates shallow areas that reduce wave energy prior to reaching the shoreline. Where the lake
bottom is shallower,natural shoreline processes could be allowed to occur,but these would lead to some
loss of setback area through erosion. Bulkheads have been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity
of fish species by disrupting the migratory and rearing behavior of juvenile Chinook and coho salmon.
They also prevent the recruitment of sediment into the lake that is necessary for the formation of natural
shallow-water areas that provide refuge, spawning, and feeding habitat for a variety of aquatic species,
and for creating an inhospitable,high-energy environment for juvenile fish.
An additional impact of building close to the shoreline and dock construction is artificial light. Artificial
light reaching shallow areas can adversely affect juvenile salmonids (Simenstad et al. 1999)by causing
delays in migration or a change in migratory routes into deeper water where juveniles would be more
vulnerable to predation (Simenstad et al 1999). Artificial light from adjacent residences and street
lighting,would likely be of lower intensity than the artificial lighting conditions examined by Simenstad
et al(1999);therefore,the extent of change cannot reasonably be determined. Currently,the City of
Renton has no specific restriction on pier lighting.
Public access along the shoreline is presumed to be developed pursuant to the requirements of the Renton
Shoreline Master Program as discussed above for impacts on wildlife.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-24 May 2004
Walkways directly adjacent to the shoreline can be expected to contribute to impacts:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline is presumed to be required to maintain the trail at the
shoreline edge. This would result in the adverse impacts of bulkheads discussed above, and the
loss of opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation..
• The impervious surface of a walkway is likely to introduce a certain amount of runoff directly to
the adjacent surface water. A pedestrian trail is unlikely to attract significant pollutant loads,
however,periodic cleaning of the walkway may result in the discharge of soil and other
substances into the water.
• People using the trail are likely to leave the trail where beach or shallow water conditions allow,
and in doing so, may disturb substrate or directly disturb aquatic species and shoreline habitat
Pedestrian walkways set back from the shoreline would reduce these impacts as discussed in the
mitigation section.
3.4.2.3 Cumulative Impacts
As noted above, during the past century, extensive shoreline modifications on Lake Washington have
simplified the near-shore habitat and reduced structural diversity. Most native riparian vegetation has
been replaced by residential and commercial development. Today, approximately eighty percent of the
existing shoreline is lined with bulkheads that reduce the remaining shallow water habitat and change
shallow water substrates. Over 2,700 piers extend into Lake Washington,introducing a different pattern
of shade from that produced by shoreline vegetation and changing the underwater habitat from complex
(horizontal fallen trees with branches)to simple(vertical smooth pilings). The result of these actions is to
remove the complex and diverse plant community and associated food web from the shallow water
habitat(USCE 2001)with a range of adverse impacts on resident and anadromous species.
3.4.3 Mitigation
Impact mitigation includes the following steps:
1. Avoid the impact
2. Minimize the impact.
3. Reduce the impact over time.
4. Rectify the impact.
5. Compensate for the unavoidable impact.
Impacts that narrow the range or degree of beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas of the site are
inherent in the permanent change of use to the residential development proposed. A major contributor to
the beneficial use of the shorelines are the specific setbacks and presumed uses discussed above. The
mitigation outlined below illustrates opportunities to expand shoreline buffer areas an implement other
specific measures that increase the beneficial use of the stream and shoreline areas to include more
complex plant communities and associated wildlife populations as well as mitigate specific adverse
impacts of the proposal.
Mitigation has also been viewed from the perspective of local regulations, specifically Renton Shoreline
Regulations,which sets forth several requirements as follows: "the potential effects on wildlife should be
City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-25 May 2004
considered in the design plans for any activity or facility that may have detrimental effects on the
environment"(RMC 4-3-090-K-2-a); "landscaping should be representative of the native character of
specific types of waterways (stream, lake edge,marshland); the ecological qualities of natural and
developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources"(RMC 4-3-090-K-6);
and"wildlife habitat should be incorporated into the site"(RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
3.4.3.1 Mitigation of Subdivision Construction Impacts
Mitigation of construction impacts on existing vegetation should include protecting the existing native
buffer vegetation along May Creek from disturbance during construction by erecting barrier fencing.
Staging and access areas should be designed to avoid buffer areas that are dominated by native
vegetation. During construction, any cleared or re-graded areas on the site should be kept covered and/or
re-seeded with a temporary cover crop to prevent the establishment or spread of invasive weedy species.
Construction of the proposed bridge presents a substantial potential for impacts to May Creek. These
impacts will depend upon the design of the bridge; specifically how close abutments and fill structures are
to the stream and how well erosion control measures are implemented. i
Selective clearing of portions of the site where Himalayan blackberry or reed canary-grass already occur,
could be combined with vegetation establishment if cleared areas are quickly planted with native species.
Mitigation of construction impacts on aquatic species can largely be accomplished by controlling erosion
and sedimentation as outlined in the Best Management Practices(BMP)identified in the Water Quality
section of this FEIS. Perhaps the most important consideration during construction activities is to
conduct in-water work during the time of year when fish are generally not present. Staging areas,
especially the storage of fuels and chemicals, should be located as far from water bodies as possible to
reduce potential for accidental spills.
Implementing a revegetation plan for the buffer areas adjacent to the creek and lake at the plat
infrastructure stage avoids piecemeal implementation as each lot develops,provides for oversight of the
removal of impervious surfaces at the time existing buildings are demolished, and allows the
establishment of vegetation cover for interception of runoff from building sites.
3.4.3.2 Mitigation of Development and Use of the Site
Vegetation Communities
Project conditions could require residential landscaping to include native vegetation in private lots
fronting the Lake Washington shoreline, although assuring long-term maintenance given residential
preferences for lawn and ornamental vegetation is a long-term education and enforcement issue. Planting
of native vegetation within the proposed 25-foot setback area would provide some habitat, although the
quality of the vegetation community would be limited. Native vegetation will minimize the need for
fertilizers,pesticides, or herbicides and reduce adverse affects on terrestrial wildlife,native vegetation,
and aquatic organisms in Lake Washington. In addition, importing high quality soil material and ensuring
adequate soil health,prior to installing residential or ornamental landscaping, can decrease the need for
chemical supplements or controls in landscape maintenance.
The May Creek Final Action Plan(King County 2001)recommends restoration of conifers adjacent to the
creek to improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of
habitat. The plan also notes that the prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could
create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta(King County 2001).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-26 May2004
Establishment of a viable community of native vegetation on an industrial site presents a number of
challenges. These relate to the degradation of the substrate that supports plants, and to isolation from
existing plant communities that would provide a diversity of species to colonize specific niches and
microenvironments. Plans for restoration of natural vegetation communities on developed sites can be
aided by inclusion of the following concepts:
Structure. Refers to the physical complexity within each plant community. Site design must reflect the
fact that restored plant associations will evolve and mature over time. A complex vegetation community
that contains as many features of native communities must be created within the restored vegetation
community.
Spacing. Within each target plant community,the patterns of species and their spatial relationships
should be replicated to the extent possible. It is important to develop a design to incorporate trees in the
overstory canopy,trees in the mid-story, shrubs in the understory, and herbs forming the ground layer.
Other important components of the ground layer are logs and stumps, which provide habitat for insects
and amphibians, and are a source of nutrients and organic matter.
Interspersion. Refers to the degree of complexity of patches within a system or the transitions among
various plant communities. In general,the relationships between patch size, structure, edge, and
dispersion/interspersion in the landscape are the critical factors affecting wildlife value of a system.
Where spatial complexity is high, so is the amount of transitional area between plant communities. Such
transitional areas or"edges" are rich in wildlife,both in numbers of individuals and species, and are
considered important components of functioning ecosystems. Transitional edges offer wildlife proximity
to several habitat areas and structural variety; however, if the amount of edge in a system is extremely
high,the integrity within individual plant communities may be lost.
Establishment and Persistence. The establishment and persistence of vegetation on this site is likely to
include a number of challenges because the existing geology and soils largely consist of a variety of fill
materials, and there is no local community of mature native vegetation to provide for succession of native
species. Establishment of soils for native vegetation will require extensive soil amendment. Persistence
of the introduced plant communities will require replacement of specimens that do not thrive and control
of invasive"weed"species.
The provision of a management entity is needed to provide a long term commitment to monitoring
establishment and replanting,to control the impacts of use by adjacent residents or the public, and
possibly to mediate between the interests of adjacent residents and the general public purpose of the
buffer areas. Substantial resources are likely to be required over an extended period of time. Potential
management agencies can include the City of Renton Parks Department; DNR,which has management
responsibility for the public uplands and submerged aquatic lands;WDFW,which has primary
responsibility for managing wildlife and fish resources;volunteer participation by the public using
shoreline access; and the adjacent homeowners or a homeowners' association; or cooperative programs
involving all of these agencies. Dedication of buffer areas to public ownership, or a public easement for
management by a public entity, may be required.
The palette for selection of plants for buffer areas in riparian and shoreline areas should be varied and
include a variety of plant communities. For the purpose of this analysis, it is presumed that the Renton
Shoreline program requiring planting of native vegetation will include native trees such as western red
cedar,western henilock,Douglas fir,black cottonwood,big leaf maple, Oregon ash, and bitter cherry,and
native shrubs and small trees such as red currant,red elderberry,vine maple,beaked hazelnut,Pacific
crabapple,red-osier dogwood,Pacific willow, Sitka willow, Scouler's willow,twinberry, and
salmonberry. Such plant communities also would enhance the wildlife habitat of the landscaping around
the water quality ponds and reduce the potential need for herbicides and pesticides near these waters.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-27 May 2004
Mitigation of Wetland and Buffer Area Displacement
Avoidance
The displacement of buffer area for the northerly wetland could be avoided by design changes in the
proposal to place development outside the wetland buffer,with an additional area of 10 to 15 feet for
temporary construction disturbance. This would require redesign of the town homes on Lots 109 through
115 to move the proposed access road 12 to 15 feet to the west. If the roadway and town homes were
shifted enough to provide a permanent buffer dimension of 25 feet,but allow construction disturbance of
the existing degraded buffer with future restoration, about eight town home sites could be retained.
The displacement of the wetland and buffer area of the southerly wetland could be avoided by redesign of
this portion of the proposal to place all development outside the 25-foot wide wetland buffer area. This
would involve shifting the access road currently proposed at the property line west about 40 feet in the
immediate vicinity of the wetland. This would displace proposed lots 99 and 100 and require
reconfiguration of other lots for a net loss of two building sites. If retained, existing utilities consisting of
water valves and a hydrant should be re-located outside the wetland and buffer.
Compensation, Restoration, and Enhancement
Restoration of the buffer area of the northerly wetland disturbed by construction would require planting of
native vegetation to replace the displaced vegetation. The existing buffer vegetation west of the wetland
is characterized by non-native grasses and forbs,With some areas of red alder and Himalayan blackberry. —
Replacement buffer area vegetation would include a mix of native trees and shrub species such as western
red cedar,western hemlock,Douglas fir,big leaf maple,vine maple,beaked hazelnut, salmon berry, and
red currant. Enhancement of the existing wetland vegetation community of the northerly wetland,which
consists of introduced vegetation, could be accomplished by planting a mix of native shrubs and emergent
plants.
Compensation for the area of the southern wetland proposed to be displaced,together with likely changes
in hydrology,would necessitate replacement elsewhere on site. The City of Renton specifies a 1.5:1
minimum replacement ratio for wetland creation and replacement. The code provides for additional area
in cases where there is uncertainty about the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation;
where there is a significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; or
projected losses in functional value (RMC 4-3-050-M-11-e).
The most likely candidate area for wetland creation is north and west of the northerly wetland, adjacent to
the proposed May Creek buffer area. Likely constraints for wetland creation in this area that must be
addressed include the following:
• Adequate hydrology through groundwater and surface water supply is critical to sustain a wetland
vegetation community. Surface water runoff from building roofs could provide recharge for the
wetland. (Runoff from streets contains pollutants that can be an undesirable addition to wetland
ecology.) Regrading some of the area north of the existing wetland to lower the elevation may
provide sufficient groundwater hydrology.
• Both wetlands and buffer areas are largely devoid of native species due to mowing. A specific
wetland planting plan would depend on a detailed evaluation of site hydrology. The invasive
nature of the existing community of reed canary grass poses a high risk of invasion of the
enhanced and created wetland by weed species. This risk can be addressed by removing the
existing reed canary grass by grading and replacement with dense plantings of native shrubs and
trees.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-28 May2004
Monitoring and enforcement is a critical element of successful wetland compensation. Recent studies
have found that failure of wetland mitigation has been attributed to design, installation, and maintenance
flaws. The single most important cause of failure has been lack of enforcement(Mockler et al. 1998,
Johnson et al. 2000). The location of most of the northerly wetland on BNSF property will require
cooperation to ensure the entire wetland is managed as a single biological entity.
Wildlife
Mitigation of impact of bridge crossings may include greater height to allow penetration of light and
precipitation to maintain plants, and vertical and horizontal clearance for wildlife movement.
Establishing and maintaining streamside shoreline vegetation will provide upland habitat,provide
screening from human disturbance, and contribute to the enhancement of the food chain provided by
shallow near-shore habitat that has been produced by delta formation. Maintaining some or all of the
existing log rafts and pilings in Lake Washington adjacent to the project site,would provide perch and
loafmg sites to benefit waterfowl. To avoid conflict with mitigation for aquatic species,pilings in deep
water areas are the best candidates for retention.
Fencing the open space areas to reduce disturbance from domestic animals will enhance wildlife value.
Osprey
Osprey mitigation measures could include relocation of the osprey nest to an artificial structure erected in
the project site vicinity, as recommended by WDFW and agreed upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service(USFWS). A WDFW biologist should be consulted during relocation of the new nest site,which
will occur while the birds are on their wintering grounds. Potential sites for relocation on site include the
riparian corridor proposed to be established along May Creek
Research has indicated that ospreys will quickly adapt to and use artificial nesting structures (Saurola
1997; Houghton and Rymon 1997). Prolonged exposure to noise during an extended buildout of the site
may,however, discourage the existing osprey pair from relocating within open space on-site. Potential
mitigation would prohibit the loudest construction noise such as pile driving during the nesting and early
fledging period of late April to late July.
Aquatic Species
There are a variety of mitigating measures for natural stream and shoreline function that are related
closely to the amount of land devoted to mitigation buffers. For this reason, discussion of mitigation is
covered below under"Mitigation Through Alternative Buffer Areas." This mitigation addresses such
functions as LWD recruitment,bank stabilization/erosion control,removal of sediments and pollutants,
regulation of water temperature through stream shading,bulkheads, artificial light,and public access.
Removal of existing in-water structures such as pilings, the existing dock, and log booms would improve
conditions for juvenile salmonids by reducing the amount of existing cover for predators, such as
smallmouth bass, and by not interfering with production of aquatic food resources. Mitigation of the
adverse impacts of residential dock construction and use can be addressed by a number of strategies
ranging from avoiding construction of docks,reducing the number of docks, and or through specific
design and construction measures.
Avoidance of the impacts of new docks could be addressed by a plat condition prohibiting private dock
construction. This would avoid impacts from use of the docks and from dock shading. Such a
prohibition could include the implication that property owners would use commercial moorage at off-site
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-29 May2004
� I
marinas or could provide for alternative moorage facilities such as mooring buoys or floats located at a
distance from near-shore habitat. The latter option could include a dingy dock for access to buoys and
floats. Such a dock could include the existing sawmill dock at the northern end of the proposed common
area(that could be reduced in area)or a new, smaller dock more centrally located that would avoid
proximity impacts on adjacent residential lots.
An option that would reduce impacts,but not prohibit new docks, could involve shared moorage by two
or more property owners. In such a case docks could be developed at property lines to serve two adjacent
properties, or a single moorage facility could be developed to serve the entire development. Dock
construction could include narrower width or materials that allow light penetration. As noted above,
long-term use of docks is likely to be hampered by delta formation and could lead to requests by residents - '
to dredge,which would reduce the benefits of natural processes that create shallow shoreline habitat.
Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Areas
More extensive buffer areas provide for a wider range of vegetation communities that would support re-
establishment of natural characteristics of the Lake Washington shoreline. Buffer areas would reduce
long-term and cumulative impacts of residential development of the shoreline, and expand the beneficial
use for wildlife and aquatic species.
Two conceptual scenarios are proposed for expanded buffer areas on the Lake Washington shoreline and
three are examined for May Creek:
Option A, 50-foot buffer
Under Option A, (Figure 3A4-4)the following design modifications are proposed to slightly increase the
buffer adjacent to May Creek:
• Re-orienting the turn-around for Street A on the west side of May Creek from the riparian
corridor to the interior of the project to maintain the 50-foot setback.
• Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the
proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHW. A 50-foot setback in this area reduces four
proposed town home units to one or two.
• The entire 50-foot setback would be revegetated with native plant species.
For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components:
• The outer 25-feet adjacent to the shoreline would provide a vegetation buffer that would include
restoration of the shoreline to a more natural condition through:
> Elimination of bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads
> Limited regrading to provide a more natural shoreline gradient and providing substrate for
plantings near the water
> Planting of a mix of native vegetation on the shoreline,while preserving some view corridors
for adjacent residential development
> Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 10 to 15 feet from the I
water,with fencing between the trail and waterfront, and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet
on the shoreline with benches or other passive features
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-3 0 May2004
• The inner 25-foot area dedicated to the use of adjacent residences, including yard areas and
ornamental landscaping would be oriented to intensive residential use. It would provide few
benefits to the adjacent shoreline except for distance attenuation of noise and other proximity
impacts. This area probably would be used by the subsurface containment walls that are likely to
be needed to prevent lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits. It is also likely
that this area would be fenced for privacy from the 25 foot area of indigenous plantings and
public access along the shoreline.
This mitigation option would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 100, given the
current layout of townhomes. The existing zoning,however, allows a variety of residential building
types. Within the applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet with Shoreline Management Act(SMA)
jurisdiction and 70 feet outside, other types of residential units could be constructed. For example,
construction of apartment buildings to the proposed height limits would result in five to seven story
buildings that could accommodate well over 115 units on the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction.
Option B, 100 foot buffer
Option B (Figure 3.4-5)would approximately double the buffer width for May Creek,with specific
changes on the May Creek corridor including the following:
• Elimination of the turn around for Street A to maintain the 100-foot setback. This would displace
most of the potential for development fronting May Creek below the proposed bridge on the east
side of the stream.
• Additional setbacks on the east side of May Creek near the mouth of the stream where the
proposed setback narrows to 15 feet from OHW. A 100-foot setback in this area reduces the
number of lots fronting the stream from 19 to 15.
• Elimination of most of the development on both sides at the mouth of the stream.
• The entire 100-foot setback would be revegetated with native plant species.
For the Lake Washington shoreline,this option is presumed to include the following two components:
• The outer 75-foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline,would include restoration of the shoreline
to more natural condition through implementation of similar but more extensive features as
Option A, including:
➢ Elimination of bulkheads, or reduction in height of existing bulkheads.
➢ More extensive regrading to provide a more natural shoreline slope.
> Planting a mixture of native vegetation on the shoreline, including more large trees, that
could be accommodated in the wider buffer area, while preserving some view corridors for
adjacent residential devebpment.
> Providing passive public access through a pedestrian trail located 15- to 25-feet from the
water with fencing between the trail and waterfront and viewing areas every 100 to 150 feet
on the shoreline with benches or other passive features.
• The inner 25-foot area dedicated to the use of adjacent residences,would be the same dimension
and would accommodate the same uses as Option A. This would likely include yard areas and
ornamental landscaping. The subsurface containment walls that are likely to be needed to prevent
lateral spreading of potentially liquefiable alluvial deposits could be located in either this area or
the 75 foot wide buffer adjacent to the shoreline.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-31 May 2004
Option B would reduce the number of units on the site from 115 to about 69, given the current layout of
townhomes. The existing zoning,however, allows a variety of residential building types. Within the
applicant's proposed height limits of 50 feet within SMA and 70 feet outside, other types of
PP P P � jurisdiction
residential units could be constructed. For example, construction of apartment buildings to the proposed
height limits would result in five to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over 115 units on
the 43 lots outside SMA jurisdiction.
Cross-sections that indicate the building setbacks for Option A and Option B are provided for three
different portions of the Lake Washington shoreline.
�
• Figure 3.4-6 shows proposed Lots 27 and 28 where the existing public land along the shoreline
has a width of about 20 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well
as the 50 foot and 100 foot buffer options.
• Figure 3.4-7 shows proposed Lots 29 and 30 where the existing public land along the shoreline
has a width of about 80 feet. This figure indicates the existing and proposed development as well
as the 100 foot buffer option. The 50 foot buffer option would be accomplished by existing
public land.
• Figure 3.4-8 shows proposed Lots 35 and 36 where private lots would front directly upon the
shoreline. There is no public land at this location. This figure indicates the existing
development, which includes no buildings; the proposed development with 25 foot building
setbacks as well as the 50 and 100 foot buffer options.
Option C, Flood Terrace and Reduced Planting in May Creek Buffer
The applicant has developed a third mitigation strategy (Option C) that is shown in Figures 3.4-5A and
analyzed below. Option C applies only to the May Creek corridor. Differences from Options A and B
include:
• On the west side of May Creek,the turn-around for Street A retains the original proposed j
orientation towards the exterior of the project,resulting in a setback of 25-feet from Ordinary
High Water. The setback narrows to about 20 feet further south toward the mouth of the creek.
• On the east side of the May Creek the original proposed configuration of Tract F and the adjacent
townhomes is retained resulting in a setback of 15 feet at the narrowest,with setbacks varying up
to 30 feet further to the south toward the mouth of the creek.
• The 50-foot setback along the May Creek corridor north of the proposed bridge would consist of
35-feet of native vegetation and 15-feet of lawn and other managed landscape vegetation. It is
unclear from the proposal who would manage this area, since it is outside of the residential lots.
Buildings on the residential lots are proposed to maintain a 10 foot setback, resulting in the
setback from the stream in this area consisting of 35 feet of native species and 25 feet of lawns
and other residential landscaping. The lot layout and number of lots is the same as the proposal
,
• A flood terrace would be excavated along the west side of the May Creek corridor from about
Street A to the property line to the north. This terrace would extend 30 to 40 feet from the
existing OHWM and would be three to five feet deep. The result of the flood terrace would be an
increase in capacity to convey flood waters as discussed in Section 3.2.3, above..
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-32 May 2004
Impervious Surfaces
Impervious surface on-site is reduced to about 60 percent under the proposal. Under Option A, a slight
increase in pervious surface would be provided along May Creek and the pervious area along Lake
Washington would be doubled. The increase in pervious surface under Option B would double along
May Creek and increase four-fold along Lake Washington as compared to the proposal. Total impervious
surface would be reduced by about 5 percent under Option A and about 20 percent under Option B as
compared to the proposal. The decrease in impervious surface is unlikely to have a substantial direct
impact except along the Lake Washington Shoreline,where either the 50-or 100-foot setback would
allow infiltration of most precipitation and eliminate runoff entering the lake except under the most
intense storm events. Option C has the same amount of impervious surface area as the proposal.
Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat
The buffer area in Option A(50 foot buffer) and Option B (100 foot buffer)both would be planted
entirely in native vegetation.
The larger width of the buffer areas that would be planted with trees and shrubs under Options A and B
would provide greater structure, or physical complexity, greater spacing, or complexity in spatial
relationships including overstory, mid-story, shrubs, and understory, and greater interspersion, or
complexity and transitions among various plant communities. This could be expected to provide not only
more wildlife habitat,but more complex niches for a greater variety of species and a more complex and
productive food web. A greater separation from human disturbance would be provided that would
encourage species with less tolerance to humans. Benefits would be greater with the greater buffer width
in Option B because of the greater habitat area, the greater buffer from human disturbance, and the greater
potential for complex vegetation communities.
There is no proposal in the current application for planting riparian vegetation along the Lake Washington
shoreline. As indicated above, impacts of the proposal were assessed based on the presumption that
native vegetation would be planted within the entire May Creek buffer. This is consistent with the Renton
Shoreline Master Program,which provides general guidance that landscaping be representative of the
native character of specific types of waterways (e.g. stream, lake edge,marshland) and be compatible
with the Northwest image(RMC 4-3-090-K-6).
Option A provides little difference from the proposal in buffers along May Creek, except near the mouth
of the creek where Option A increases setbacks to 50 feet in areas where the proposal includes setbacks
that range from 15 to 30 feet
Option A doubles the setback from Lake Washington, as compared to the proposal. This additional area
provides limited opportunities for establishing a viable community of native vegetation along the Lake
Washington shoreline. A 25-foot wide buffer of native plantings adjacent to the lake and a 25-foot area
devoted to lawn adjacent to residences provides a planting area that will accommodate only one or two
native trees (at maturity)between the residential lawn area and the shoreline. A 25-foot buffer of native
vegetation would be likely to allow plant communities to develop that were relatively simple and
homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. The presence of public access trails in the area
would also lead to potential impediments to establishing a stable vegetation community because of
trampling and other disturbance, and would be an additional disturbance to wildlife.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-33 May 2004
I
1 _.COR-2 ZONE W
y
r� asr , - .age ,,. °,® � .�,,m s� gl <,'s� ,��� s�OHW 2.=j -j -- I- ,. I�`° ° I__I._ „ 11 ° ' II ' ' II , II ' 1I
I € STREET — f'
,../-:,,
// .--7' I ' 111
50'SETBACK '.._. ,'._.3w g iir
` m �. / \.,....,.9 I W sl I . / ;/
—77
� /
Tract„B„ \ / �7/ . .,, /// ' s/j�' •
PUBLIC LAND '•Tract"C" Water Quality \V
" / ` . / =/// / /� :.. Open ■ / \\/ /\\/ — „/ N�
Space \ . \ ,/
%;.\\/ ce \V ° //
12— � - \ / �� f BU FE O
l / • ,. %g -- //72, ir E v
Ar
Jam,....
0,4i I / f OHW /��; /� ���
/ /1 / 4/, i.
LAKE �;\ f NI: ,�WASHINGTON . ' ,.7 ! .�ei ,, 50'SETBACK
WM/ I }/I .l' LW // 1
PUBLIC LAND �/ \ / j`\ / //
r "5-4...(' ---..04°# _______ /*- ."/„.: 40 4° •:,,,j
\__. , ----- . ----- AT 147 %41tV-
MAY CREEK `. `Ate „ ' � •
�
DELTA " \ , i //
""° r a'/ C
r,..1.,a .--_R-a_20NE.._..._—._...r,.11_ `..15 A j{F '' x f- s.' '"hI A i1TL1 CT
REVISED 50'SETBACK FROM OHW
88 DUPLEX BUILDING SITES, 13 FOUR AND
FIVE-PLEX BUILDING SITES
101 TOTAL BUILDING SITES
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01T14F-3-4-04
SCALE IN FEET Figure 3.4-4
Option "A" 50-foot Buffer
o 100 2I0 W Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
COR-2 ZONE
•
/
{ ( z ` p' ,,
1 .
t__-] L_ _J L_ _J L_ __I L- / /
,/
OHW i n ! i� //,,m /7�� 1>° ° „ II „ �, //// ,`/
/ [ — _/ ",
100'SETBACK — — \/ \// V
L ° I I - // f
Tract"B" — /
Water QualityqVir °' °J //
PUBLIC LAND �.°' '��
�\ / Tract"C" � �-_ � �/
•
I Space / i °//, J % /
` P /
. • _
/ ///��// BUFFER!Q
10NEf/,
g, -.--1 1-0-> . ./r----z-,_-_-_ -<4 . • 1 it. / e /
re • !li I/ OHW • i / i A9
' 1 , /7 /fLAKE %, /„, ,
/ ri
"' ��. 4100'SETBACK
WASHINGTON �J i
,%i
, ,,.for` //v/Vr - _________-._._I
LAND //„ • /"' /V /
PUBLIC • ¢ 7 off, / `�
41 ' , i/ .../.6' /
jf ' •
/\___ . ___-- • ' ,c. / I ,." ;--
/ MAY CREEK a- °` � _/� s• ,, /1
DELTA / k�"�j^3,J:. , .t`
/,...____ * \„-- 7/ N,
I sj... >,
'.• __.....__...RWe_.zoNs___.. ..< .ikr,'r / ' , ' N 40TH ST
j
/ pry ` - —
REVISED 100' SETBACK FROM OHW
50 BUILDING SITES
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01 T14F-3-4-05
SCALE IN FEET tlik Figure 3.4-5
U Option "B" 100-foot Setback
o 100 200 Ur Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
//:/"
�
%j
f
,/, ___.,_,
/ f
J Z. /c
__ \ ;Z •
°. / )/2( i ,
L-a I L_ �� _I L _J L I L _Ii _ L- —I L /" /2J/// '_I L;
,S(/ / /STREET A_ r �
C - , ,
�,� <'/ LA -II - -II - �j/ , 1/,
I / N ��
- -7 7/ g /i // /
TRACT°C° TRACT"B° / l
cn 41Wl°
.._jf
?:eri::'. //I // // ,
-4 l 'L . / 1 /" /
44‘ \/ , #-5"....:./.-,...: : cr' // ,/ 41,(
— —.7- .is•Iej -s,
1‘1%124*'1;. 4,;' /' / '''''',,,,,,,
. .:•::::--:4:-,.:. .4, /1 / /
\. ailial .... Jan.._,; j
•Juj r m :::,),,;-,-, "w./.-.7,-,-,.... :7„;.., :.,..:),.. / // /
r,I . ilibk\
1 — L., TRACT �`. /
Ln
L --' i:il ,..e.:N10) / ? P. //'
\-- --.---\ 1-Wii.:.-ii; 4.-::v.:§cok.q0( //v///eV ,
....*016 :ii:'.:415.Qi ,0 - ,t,/ / //49 ---------- - ..._____
/ :. , AWIlif.,..,47.')IfiiiNi /-;,./;/ / is-• ,,
/ NNI H
y�Q�' �'r, ro . / ! / 1
/
,30.:;,.:,;,/,'iie," - ,,,„, ,i7 / ( --,„ 1
— � 4 s Mgr ^ . f /il_ii—___.7'
/ MAY CREEK .9���! a^. y f ! J / /
/ DELTA /
--I //1/
4, a, /` 1. / `mot
1:10,i /1/ N. -........__
..-_.._�_...._._.._.—._ ii t OIL -_.. 1 4 4,4,2
/, . _ _ _ _
l l% ..__. -__ ___. _..___�. . _ _ .. . �
_
----c- ;Ay)
Di
1
Parametrix DATE 03/09/04 FILE K1779017P02T02-F03-4-5A
A LEGEND
-•-`.: Native Landscape Area- Figure 3.4-5A
N ::: Buffer Plantings limited to
0 Native Trees,Plants and Grasses Option "C" -
SCALE IN FEET Managed Landscape Buffer Area- Barbee Mill Preliminary Plan
.............. Buffer Plantings may include Lawn 1
and other managed Landscape Materials 1
Public Land Existing Inner Harbor
OHWM Line
Existing
Warehouse
30-
I OHWM
20-—• - ,_._.._,..._..�....-._-_
— Existing Log Bulkhead •
Lake Bottom
EXISTING SECTION
I-
I
Public Land Existing I
OHWM r,LI Street 1 I ,
75'
Existing Log I I Building 50' I I I
50'
Bulkhead
30- \Ir_—IL_ _ _ - _ _I--1 _ -,I I
20--0H
—..-\. _..--L
J 25'Building Setback
Lake Bottom
PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK
Public Land -Existing Inner Harbor
OHWM Line Street q
1 75'
Regraded I I I Builhingi9h 50' I I I 50' I
Shoreline \f,_ I 1 -
30- OHWM L _I 1 1 'll
20--• •
—
"]--E. 25'Lawn i
Lake i 25'Revegetation
Bottom -I
50'Building Setback
•
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK
T _____ _ _,
Public Land Existing Inner Harbor I
OHWM Line P Street q
75
I Building
Regraded • I I 50'high I I 160I
I It
9 '
-' Shoreline
I
L
30- _`
, OHWM
_ __l_ ___ _ I_ _ 1
..... _ _
75'Revegetation Area —►{ 25'Lawn 1-4-
Lake
Bottom 100'Building Setback
200'Shoreline
- ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 08:59am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-06
Figure 3.4-6
SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections
Lots 27 & 28
0 30 60
I I
Existing Public Land Inner Harbor
OHWM Line
II
I Existing I '
Saw Mill (((
30—
OHWM _._..,
20 •—1 -1
64'Public Land
Lake —-
Bottom
EXISTING SECTION r
I
Existing Public Land Inner Harbor .—
OHWM LI a Street I I
II Building 75'
Building 50' High
Regraded High
Shoreline I I
3°— L
20—— _ _ _ — p l — — — — _.._._,_. �._ —
OHWM _ —
+— 64'Public Land —.1
Lake
Bottom - 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
PROPOSED SECTION
r II
i
Existing Public Land Inner Harbor Street
OHWM Line r --
—
Building 75'
I I Building
High 50' I High
Regraded I I
Shoreline
30— _J OHWM .--. --.
20--'_— — :1
64'Public Land -
Lake 75' 25'Lawn
Boltomi
100'Setback
200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
I
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 100'SETBACK
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01TO2F-3-4-07
Figure 3.4-7
SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections
Lots 29 & 30
0 30 60
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing
Line OHWM
I
I Existing Paved
30— Storage Area
OHWM
-,.,.. •
....--. � Rip Rap
Bulkhead
�..-. Lake Bottom
as dredged
EXISTING SECTION
IPublic Land Inner Harbor Existing
Line OHWM Street t
{ I I 75'
I i I Building 50'ih I I 50'
Rip Rap
30— Bulkhead I
OHWMLawn L._....,w. ......._._....._ �. _.._.I—... ._.... 1 ...... ........_.__.l._..._.._._.
25'Building Setback
Future Lake Bottom 1 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction �{
Delta as dredged J
PROPOSED SECTION WITH 25'SETBACK
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing
Line OHWM Street
i75'
Building High 50' I I I 50'
Regraded I
Shoreline - i l� —I m..._..._ _ _I...
30-
OHWM
2:1 25'Lawn
Future — 25'Revegetalion Area
Delta
Lake Bottom 50'Building Setback
as dredged
200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
ALTERNATIVE SECTION WITH 50'SETBACK
Public Land Inner Harbor Existing
Line OHWM Street q
. I
75'
I BuilHding igh 50 I I 50'
1 • Regraded
1 30— Shoreline
OHWM I_— .._ ....—..._.. ._._...—r� —
20--.—.=.—.--
•
3:1
"""' 75'Revegelation Area —..- 25'Lawn f—
Future
Delta 100'Building Setback •
Lake Bottom
as dredged 200'Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction
Al TFRNATIVF RFC:TIf)N WITH inn.SFTRAC:K
Parametrlx DATE: 07/24/03 09:01am FILE: K1779017P01T02F-3-4-08
Figure 3.4-8
SCALE IN FEET Cross Sections
I Lots 35 & 36
0 30 60
I I
Option B which provides a 100-foot area for native plantings on May Creek and 75-feet on Lake
Washington would provide for a much more varied community of plants on May Creek and at the lake
shoreline and would allow regrading to provide a more natural transition to the waters edge. A greater
• complexity of vegetation would be reflected in value to wildlife. The disturbance afforded by public
access would be reduced as discussed below.
There is potential for conflict in values between the interests of residents on lots adjacent to Lake
Washington and the benefits of greater buffers. In many cases,homeowners on the Lake Washington
shoreline are likely to desire views of the lake and the distant landscape that would not be accommodated
by typically dense communities of native species. Retaining views may limit opportunities to develop an
effective community of native shoreline vegetation and wildlife habitat because those communities
typically create dense screens, especially native evergreen species. This conflict may be present to a less
extent on lots adjacent to public land on the shoreline where public ownership, as well as the Shoreline
Management Act, supports planting native vegetation as a means of enhancing environmental values.
With the 25-foot buffer of native planting on Lake Washington under Option A, some accommodation of
both interests could be provided by emphasizing groundcover and shrubs in the shoreline with the tree
species chosen for the potential to grow with a large leaf canopy above the level of major views. Such
species would potentially allow removal of lower limbs at maturity that would allow some views between
trunks,while providing a leaf canopy that would overhang the lakeshore and provide shade and other
desirable elements. Native evergreens could be located'closer to residences and along lot lines or other
locations where view corridors between individual or groups of trees can be provided. Building design
that placed the main living and entertainment quarters on the second floor with garages on the first floor
would provide the potential for visual access over shrub plantings and would allow visibility over privacy
fences between the lawn areas and areas of native plantings.
Option B with a 75-foot buffer of native plantings on Lake Washington provides few opportunities for
view corridors from private lots due to the 75-foot wide buffer of native plantings. Property owners
would likely access public trails and viewpoints to enjoy unobstructed views of the water. The
development of a public trail system along the May Creek and Lake Washington shoreline may contribute
to a perception of these open space areas as a public resource with value for the community as a whole,
rather than being primarily an amenity(or inconvenience) for adjacent property owners (Sherrard 1996).
Such public access can more readily be provided with the wider setback in Option B with less impact on
maintenance of native vegetation and less impact on adjacent property owners.
The 25 foot buffer in Option A could be implemented on the entire public land corridor along the
shoreline by DNR,which manages the land as a trustee for the public. The existing leaseholder has
certain responsibilities for removal of existing facilities and restoration of the landscape that could be
integrated into DNR action. Maintenance of shoreline plantings on public land will require designation of
a management entity which could include some combination of the City of Renton,DNR, and the
WDFW. Maintenance of plantings on private lots adjacent to the shoreline will likely involve long-term
enforcement issues in view of property-owner interest in making recreational use of the shoreline, and
interest in maintaining views of the water and a general cultural preference for lawn. Maintaining non-
ornamental landscaping on private lots likely will require extensive public education and enforcement.
Providing for management of the shoreline setback by dedication to the public, or by an easement
providing for management by an entity other than the individual property owner,would likely contribute
to better maintenance of native vegetation.
Option C proposes a 50-foot buffer on May Creek consisting of 35-feet of native vegetation, and 15-feet
of managed landscaping. This is less than the native vegetation area in the applicant's original proposal
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-40 May2004
The 30 percent reduction of the width of native vegetation on May Creek(with respect to the proposal
and Option A) substantially reduces the ecological complexity and potential to provide riparian habitat
functions. The narrowing of the total buffer width to a minimum of 25 feet on the west side and 15 feet
on the east side near the creek mouth further reduces the riparian functionality in those areas.
In the short term, construction of the flood terrace on May Creek in Option C would remove all of the
existing riparian vegetation on the west side of the stream and would degrade riparian habitat.
Construction of the flood terrace would also likely introduce sediment into May Creek in the short term,
unless appropriate BMPs were used.
Upon re-establishment of native vegetation,however,the flood terrace may provide an environment more
suited to riparian vegetation dependent on ample water supplies because of decreased distance to the
groundwater table. This may result in a plant community composed of more willow, cottonwood,red
osier dogwood,and similar species. The 35-foot width of the area designated for native plantings,
however,provides limited area for establishment of large trees that provide stream shading or potential
large wood recruitment. About one-quarter of the width of the 35-foot native vegetation buffer area on
the west side would be on the 3:1 slope providing a transition from the flood terrace to existing grade.
This slope would present few constraints for re-establishing vegetation,but would only accommodate one
or two native trees (at maturity)between the managed landscape area and the streambank. A 35-foot
buffer of native vegetation would be likely only allow plant communities to develop that were relatively
simple and homogenous with few upland transitional areas or edges. In comparison, the area of the site
that currently has the most heavily vegetated buffer located on the west side of the stream north of the
northerly bridge is about 60 feet wide. It generally contains a single row of mature cottonwood trees,
smaller trees such as willow,and a dense understory.
Option C is identical to the applicant's proposal on Lake Washington where a 25 foot building setback is
proposed with no proposal, and little opportunity to re-establish native vegetation.
Stream and Lake Morphology •
Under Option A,the 50-foot buffer area along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in providing
limited opportunities for establishment of vegetation communities that support natural stream processes
such as meandering. It is likely that stream bank protections would be maintained to keep the stream in
its existing channel. The major difference would be near the mouth of the creek where delta formation
and a less incised creek provide additional opportunities for stream meandering under the additional
buffer area provided by Option A.
Option B would double buffer areas on May Creek, as compared to the proposal. This would provide a
much greater area for natural stream processes such as meandering. Maintenance of existing streambank
protection would be required only in exceptional cases.
Option C would provide an area within the flood terrace that would allow the stream to re-establish some
additional instream habitat-forming and floodplain processes, such as meandering and channel migration,
due to the removal of existing bank protections. However, the 20 to 25-foot width of the terrace would
limit the extent of these processes. If the stream did meander to the west,the 35-foot native vegetation
buffer would be reduced and provide less buffer between the stream and proposed residences. The
overall potential to re-establish more natural stream processes would be somewhat better than under
Option A and substantially less than Option B. Near the mouth of the Creek where the Option C buffer is
15 to 30-feet on the east side and 25 to 35-feet on the west side,there would be fewer opportunities to re-
establish a natural stream morphology as compared to the 50 and 100-foot buffers under Options A and B.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-41 May 2004
I �
Option A provides limited area for natural lake erosion and beach formation on Lake Washington.
Portions of the shoreline with shallow depth would accommodate removing bulkheads and allowing
erosion to form a more natural shoreline.
Option B would allow considerable area for natural processes to occur. In both cases, areas previously
dredged would be dependent on delta formation that would take several decades to re-establish shallow
depths. Additional discussion is provided below under bulkheads.
Option C is the same as the proposal for the Lake Washington shoreline and provides no mitigation of
impacts of the proposal.
Pollutant Removal and Sediment Filtration
Under Option A,the 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek would be similar to the proposal in its !.
ability to provide natural control of pollutants and sediment in runoff except near the mouth of the stream.
Option A differs from the proposal near the mouth of the stream where,under the proposal,the buffer
width narrows,while under Option A it would provide additional area to filter sediments or runoff.
Option B would provide the greatest amount of pollutant removal and sediment filtration due to greater
buffer width.
The Option C 35-foot buffer of native vegetation provides a moderately effective width on the west side
of the stream of about 25 feet of level native vegetated area within the stream terrace for removal of
pollutants and sediment by overland filtration. The slope at the edge of the terrace is unlikely to provide
any pollutant removal because of the velocity of surface water moving across the slope. The slope may
contribute to erosion due to surface water movement. This slope is also likely to speed the velocity of
surface water flows across the remaining 25 feet of flood terrace,reducing its effectiveness. For much of _
the proposed 35-foot buffer,there is no native vegetation beyond the excavated floodplain terrace.
Fertilizers,pesticides and sediment from the managed landscape zone is likely to be filtered less
effectively than either the proposal where the entire buffer would be vegetated, or under Options A and B
that would have a wider buffer area than Option C.
On the Lake Washington shoreline, substantial additional pollutant control would be provided by Option
A,which doubles the width of building setbacks and providing an additional 25-foot buffer area of native
plantings. Interception of sediment and chemicals in runoff would be moderately effective with the 25-
foot
planting area.
Option B would provide the greatest pollution control along Lake Washington through an effective 75-
foot wide buffer. Extensive erosion control BMPs would be required during the process of removal of
impervious surfaces and regrading for initial planting. After initial removal of existing impervious
surface and establishment of permanent vegetation, future land alteration would be separated from the
waters' edge by a buffer. It would be beneficial if the shoreline vegetation buffer was established prior to
building construction.
Both Options A and B would result in a decrease in application of herbicides and pesticides near the Lake
Washington shoreline as compared to the proposal where development of lawn areas would be expected
to increase chemical applications. Direct application to water through overspray or spill would be
avoided. Infiltration of waters containing pollutants via direct groundwater input would be reduced by
greater setbacks.
i !
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-42 May 2004
Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington as compared to the proposal and can be
expected to have the same impacts from chemical fertilizers,herbicides, and pesticides that can be
expected to be applied up to the waters edge and lead to over-spraying, inadvertent spillage, and runoff
containing these chemicals.
Water Temperature Regulation and Regulation of Microclimate
A riparian vegetation buffer width of 50 feet on May Creek as in the proposal and Option A would not be
sufficient to provide properly functioning water temperature regulation of May Creek through shading,
but would provide some benefits of additional shading over time as new vegetation matured. This level
of shading may serve to prevent or moderate further increases of water temperature prior to entering Lake
Washington that would otherwise occur if there was no streamside vegetation. Because of the location of
the project site and the short distance of stream on the site, stream temperatures will,however, largely be
affected by habitat and water uses upstream of the project site.
The greater buffer area in Option B would provide more vegetation and shading benefits on May Creek at
maturity of vegetation because of more extensive native plantings and greater tree crown height and
density.
Option C would provide even less shading potential since a reduced native vegetation buffer width of 35
feet would not support the same number or density of mature trees as would a 50-foot buffer.
Options A and B would increase sha ding of Lake Washington shallow water areas and reduce
temperatures increases in area that would otherwise receive direct sunlight as compared to the project's
proposed 25-foot building setback(presuming that few large trees would be planted on private lots and
shading would be negligible).
Native shrubs and trees planted on the lake shoreline would,in time, grow to provide shoreline
overhanging vegetation and provide temperature moderation of shallow water habitat. The project site
faces largely to the west. The sun angle and height during the summer months will allow shading to
occur in the morning,because the sun rises north of due east after the spring equinox. During mid-day,
the sun ranges from directly overhead to slightly north of overhead, allowing overhanging vegetation to
shade shallow water areas. The sun in the afternoon is also slightly north of west,allowing crown
shading from trees along the shoreline and inland. In addition,the angle of the sun shining through more
layers of atmosphere in the afternoon reduces heat transmittal.
Shading is dependent on the density of vegetation and the size of the tree crowns and would be more
effective with the greater buffer width in Option B.
Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have the same effects as the
proposal.
Large Woody Debris Recruitment
Option A and the proposal would provide for approximately a 50-foot vegetated buffer along May Creek,
which would be inadequate for providing natural levels of LWD recruitment,but limited increases in
LWD recruitment would be expected as planted vegetation matured. Short-term mitigation measures
could include the addition of LWD to provide fish habitat,but this should only be considered a short-term
solution,and the subsequent effects on channel migration resulting from the redirection of flows would
have to be carefully considered.
Option B with a 100 foot vegetation buffer would be within the lower ranges of appropriate widths
for LWD recruitment on May Creek as identified by Knutson and Naef(1997).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-43 May2004
Since Option C has the least amount of native landscape,it can be expected to provide the lowest LWD
recruitment potential on May Creek of all the options.
Options A and B would provide more potential for LWD recruitment on Lake Washington than the
proposal or Option C. As with May Creek,LWD could also be placed along the Lake Washington
shoreline in the short term. This would likely provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon in early spring
(through April); however, it also would provide additional habitat for non-salmonid predators such as
bass. Option B would provide more area for vegetation biomass and would provide greater LWD
recruitment potential for both the creek and the lake shoreline.
Bulkheads
Shoreline protection for residential use on Lake Washington is assumed to be necessary with the proposed
25-foot building setback due to the southeast facing aspect and the prevailing direction of winds and
storms from the south. The current sheet-pile bulkheads on the site were installed at high activity log-
handling areas and are not necessary for shoreline protection from wave action. In addition, shoreline
areas are anticipated to fill in over a period of years with sediment originating from May Creek due to
discontinued dredging operations. This will likely provide more shallow area that will dissipate wave
action prior to reaching the shoreline and in the long-term will provide accretion of new land waterward
of the existing high water line. Delta formation also will provide shallow water habitat along the
shoreline.
The greater setbacks from the shoreline in Options A and B provide greater potential for removal of
existing bulkheads on the shoreline because residential structures and associated lawn areas would not be
threatened. Areas where the lake is shallow, or where it becomes shallower through delta formation, - -
removal of bulkheads would contribute to the formation of a more natural shoreline in conjunction with
bio-engineering shoreline protection options. Bio-engineering options presume that some area is
available for natural processes and may be precluded in areas where a 25-foot building setback is
proposed. The wider shoreline buffer areas provided in Option B decrease the potential adverse impacts
on adjacent buildings from shoreline erosion, and provides a greater potential for short-term
bioengineering options. Bio-engineering options could include regrading the upland portion of the
shoreline and limiting armoring to the lower wetted portion at a shallow angle. This would allow for
more natural shoreline processes to occur as shown in Figure 3.49. This may be especially applicable in
publicly owned portions of the shoreline. Opportunities to implement bulkhead removal and shoreline
enhancement in areas of public ownership could be coordinated with Washington Department of Natural
Resources requirements for removal of existing development on the public lands.
Further options include varying the shoreline from its existing straight configuration to provide inlets and --,
pocket beaches to more closely replicate natural conditions, as indicated in the conceptual sketch in
Figure-3.410. After a period of decades, delta formation may result in considerable accretion of new
land and may isolate existing bulkheads inland away from the shoreline.
As an interim measure, short of bioengineering,or for those portions of the site where dredging has
created deep water adjacent to existing bulkheads,the following measures could be implemented: :-
• Removal of sheet-pile bulkheads,or in the alternative, lowering the concrete cap close to the
OHWM and providing a graded slope on the landward side,will reduce the negative impact of
wave reflection and provide an area of soil to support revegetation. It may also be desirable to
engineer filled areas waterward of the OHWM to place sand and small gravel substrate that
provides suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids in the intervening period prior to substantial
accretion from delta formation.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-44 May 2004 I
i
Design Typicals
4$dequate Setback al Structures •
to Avoid Gwt7lasiting Barak
enat Wavide Safety Factor
is ca of Sank Cagap e , -
Cabatri>act Brain and Grade Surface
to Comet Surtaae
Water •
, c Weit•Raated Wegetatioa to Reduce
Y Surface£ramie!!
' €iegredr to Stabt}r5[ap.
•
PtQ k e tar thatroage 0
1 water.
".r : ,1.- IMMO fsvertnppina Waves
I ;*,�,
�0 i ; habits Ararat Stone an Stalale dope
•" cps-,,74.. �c ,' .r '•• ±_1 . ;" r wp� a Yritlh Spaces�'{t1ed
iw t a
c}..1:b � , a. : may
•' [kid,' - 1.. r ' ry.`f:,, « ,+ + .08,1•� Statita�a4 _.
• • • •''�. s ,�r ' f1*:V � F Protection
I yer-, , tar Str c re
' •' •.. - .' • ' Gravel r a Cloth:-7`.•,,s.:r�•'•s'a'4►
Nat Shown:Strudcrr8 Ends 7 ieti into a a t :;.sue.-: '. -
Bankto Minimize Damage icatli . - tire.,:_ :..
Flanking Erasion - ,
Source: Tri-County 2000
Figure 3.4-9 Bulkhead Modification
•
a a ,� .
Ealating Riprap
ReposItl•,Ns..t4 POO point .
Large Boulders Provide Habitat -
and prcatect Bombes
' ,k12'2,,R. ' " ''a'' Cr() 4;I 1.3s
•, .- je 5}' 1.1,i.4 .)4` '•,y"a 'ram-:�•,+••
Ivr ;; �,' i R}E•:' 1iYP
1r1N1(1►d .. .
Source: Tri-County 2000
Figure 3.4-10 Shoreline Modification
Provision of Pocket Beaches and Other Features
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-45 May 2004
,
• Riprap re-vegetation by filling the voids in the riprap with soil and installing plant cuttings or
rooted plants,provides more favorable habitat features for fish and wildlife, including shade, leaf
litter,browse, and additional roughness to slow overbank flow and capture nutrient-laden ,
sediments (WDFW 2003).
Residential Noise and Lighting
Noise and lighting impacts on wildlife along May Creek would be similar under the proposal and Option ! !
A as vegetation in the approximately 50-foot wide riparian buffer matures. Option A provides more
buffer area and mitigation near the mouth of the creek. Option B would provide greater noise and light
mitigation because of greater buffer dimensions. Option C,with a 30 percent reduction in the width of
the buffer area devoted to native vegetation, can be expected to provide a reduction in effectiveness in
blocking light. The limited effectiveness of vegetation in providing noise buffer would likely result in
little difference in noise attenuation between Option C and Option A.
Along Lake Washington,the proposed 25-foot building setback along Lake Washington will not serve to
reduce residential lighting and noise impacts as compared to the additional buffer areas under Options A
and B. Conditions could prohibit outdoor lighting; however,this would be very difficult to enforce over
time and may not be as large a source of light as light from building windows. The elimination or
reduction in the number of docks discussed above would reduce light from that source. Option B will f
provide greater noise and light mitigation because of greater buffer dimensions.
Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have the same effects as the
proposal.
Public Access Disturbance
� f
Under the current proposal, it is presumed that public access would be provided to meet the provisions of
Renton's Shoreline Master Program. In areas of private lots adjacent to the lake,public access would
likely be at the edge of the shoreline to minimize impacts on residents. Mitigation could include setting
back public access from the shore and reducing residential lawn area. Additional flexibility for mitigation
is provided by larger setbacks, as discussed below.
Under.Options A and B, access consisting of trails and other facilities could be set back from the
shoreline along the portion of the shoreline where private lots abut the shoreline. Buffers equivalent to
Option A could be implemented on most of the public shoreline which ranges from 20 to 80 feet wide.
Public access could be provided further from the waters' edge along the entire waterfront under Option A
or B. It is anticipated that a trail system would meander 10 to 15 feet from the waters' edge under Option
A, and 40 to 50 feet from the waters' edge under Option B. Controlled public access for shoreline
viewing from boardwalks or enclosed areas can be provided at the shoreline with the potential for direct
shoreline access at specific locations where beach environments might be created or re-established
through delta deposits. The larger setbacks provide greater flexibility in accommodating the requirements
of the Renton Shoreline Master Program for"significant"public access on Lake Washington.
Option B would provide greater flexibility in implementing these features than Option A:
• Armoring or bulkheading the shoreline to protect the trail would not be required. This would
provide opportunities to establish shoreline vegetation, thus narrowing the range or degree of
beneficial use provided by re-establishing native vegetation.
• It would reduce privacy impacts on the private residences by providing greater setbacks.
Residents could fence the 25-foot residential use area from the public use and native vegetation
areas.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-46 May2004
• Runoff from the pathway would be infiltrated or filtered by native soils and plantings, which
would limit the amount of runoff reaching the adjacent surface water.
Fencing between the trail and the shoreline would reduce damage from trampling of vegetation and
erosion from informal pathways.
Option C does not change buffer areas along Lake Washington and would have the same effects as the
proposal. If a public access trail were placed in the managed landscape area,impacts on May Creek
would be similar to Option A, except near the mouth where the buffer width is reduced.
3.5 TRANSPORTATION
This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages
3-6lthrough 3-89 of the Draft EIS.
3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages
3-89 through 3-97 of the Draft EIS.
3.7 AESTHETICS
This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages
3-98 through 3-118 of the Draft EIS.
3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE
This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages
3-118 through 3-119 of the Draft EIS.
3.9 NOISE
This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages
3-119 through 3-126 of the Draft EIS.
3.10 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section has not been revised from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer to pages
3-126 through 3-132 of the Draft EIS.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 3-47 May 2004
4. REFERENCES
Changes in references are noted in underlined format.
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2001. Guidelines for
geometric design of very low-volume local roads (ADT<400). Prepared by American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. Washington, D.C.:American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Atwater, B. F.; Moore, A. L., 1992, A tsunami about 1000 years ago in Puget Sound, Washington:
Science,v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1614-1617.
Berger/Abam. 2002. Alaskan Way Seawall Report. Submitted to Washington State Department of
Transportation. Seattle,WA. Beger Abam Engineers. July 2002.
Bisson, P. And R. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:371-374.
Bucknam,R.C.,Hemphill-Haley,E., and Leopold,E.B. 1992. Abrupt uplift within the past 1,700 years
at southern Puget Sound,Washington: Science,V. 258,p. 1611-1614.
Buehler, I .A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America. No. 506
(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North American,Inc.,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Burns,T.S. 1974. Wildlife situation report and management plan for the American osprey. Coordinating
Guidelines for Wildlife Habitat Management No. 1. Hamilton, MT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture,Forest Service,Northern Region,Bitterroot National Forest. 6 pp.
Busby, P.J, T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V.
Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington,Idaho,Oregon, and
California. U.S. Department of Commerce,NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261 pp.
Cadman,M.D.,P.J. Eagles, F. M. Helleiner. 1987. Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario. University
of Waterloo Press. 617 p.
Chrzastowski,M. ca. 1983. Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington
Ship Canal, King County,Washington. Department of the Interior,USGS OFR 81-1182.
City of Renton. 1999. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Adopted February 20 1995, amended
October 25, 1999.
City of Seattle. 2000. Final Cedar River watershed habitat conservation plan. Seattle Public Utilities.
April 2000.
Cowles, 2003, Mikael Cowles, Right-of-Way Agent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, phone
communication, 05-20-03.
CRS 2003, Congressional Research Service,Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues,
Issue Brief for Congress, Order Code IB10030, March 12, 2003,
http://hutchison.senate.gov/Transportation3.pdf.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-1 May 2004
Dane County, Wisconsin. 1998. Dane County, Wisconsin, Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, Dane
County Regional Planning Commission, Madison; WI. Available at
http://www.co.dane.wi.us/rail/crfs/final/html/chap5.htm.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1997. Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development
Property. 14 pp. plus appendices.
DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Quick facts on Lake Washington
status. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/kwash.htm.
DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 1999. Lake Washington Water Quality.
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/wash.htm.
DNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Forest Practices Base map
information for T24N, RO5E, S32. Transmitted to Raedeke Associates, Inc. and received on
August 14, 2002.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington. Publication Numbers 99-11 through 99-15. Washington State Department
of Ecology,Water Quality Program, Olympia,WA. August 2001.
Ecology(Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. The 303(d)List of Impaired and Threatened
Waterbodies. Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.html, last updated
August, 2002, accessed on December 4, 2002. Washington State Department of Ecology,Water
Quality Program.
Entranco, Inc. 2001. 1.405/NE 44th interchange project waterways and hydrologic systems report.
Prepared by Entranco,Inc. for the City of Renton.
Exponent. 1999. Noson, L. Draft Cleanup Action Plan for the Quendall Terminals Property,November
1999.
Federal Highway Administration. 1981 reprinted 1989. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.
FHWA-HI-88-054.
FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an
ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and
Interior. Portland Oregon.
FHWA 2002, Federal Highway Administration Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade ,
Crossings, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group,November 2002.
Foster Wheeler. 1995. May creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared for King County and
City of Renton. August 1995. !,
FRA (Federal Railroad Administration). 1999. (Federal Railroad Administration), US Department of
Transportation, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Technical
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Rule for the Use of
Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,December, 1999.
Fresh, K.L. 1994. Lake Washington Fish: A Historical Perspective. Lake and Reservoir Management
9(1):148-151.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-2 May 2004
I
FTA. 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual. DOT-T-95-16.
Furniss,M.J.,T.D.Roelofs, and C.S.Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: W.R. Meehan
(ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.
Golder. 2002. Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility Barbee Mill Site
Development, Golder Associates,April 4,2002.
Golder. 2003. Supplemental Letter on Report to Barbee Mill Company on Geotechnical Feasibility
Barbee Mill Site Development, Golder Associates,May 5, 2003.
Greene, S. 2003. Renton Historical Society and Museum. Telephone interview with Stan Greene,
Researcher,May 2003.
Gregory, R.S. 1994. The influence of ontogeny, perceived risk cf predation, and visual ability on the
foraging behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon. Pages 271-284 in Stouder, D.J., K.L. Fresh, and
R.J. Feller, editors. Theory and application in fish feeding ecology,University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia, South Carolina.
Gregory, R.S., and T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, Planktonic, and Benthic Foraging by Juvenile
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Turbid Laboratory Conditions. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:233-340.
Hart Crowser. 2000. Independent Remedial Action Plan,Upland Areas,Barbee Mill Co. June 16, 2000.
Revised September 6, 2000.
Harza Engineering Company. 2000. Barbee Mill aquatic habitat and fish population survey. August
2000. Prepared for Lloyd and Associates,Inc.
HCS (Highway Capacity Software). 2000. Highway Capacity Software Version 4.1c. McTrans Center.
University of Florida.
Heaton, T.H. and S.H. Hartzell. 1987. Earthquake hazards on the Cascadia subduction zone. Science,
236, 162-168.
Houghton, L.M. and L.M Rymon. 1997. Nesting distribution and population status of U.S. ospreys 1994.
Journal of Raptor Research 31:44-53.
Houston, S.C. and F. Scott. 1992. The effect of man-made platforms on osprey reproduction at Loon
Lake, Saskatchewan. Journal of Raptor Research 26(3): 152-158.
HRA(Historical Research Associates,Inc). Historical Resources Discipline Report for the I-405/NE 44th
Street Interchange. May 2000. http://www.ce.washington.edu/-liquefaction/html/main.html.
International Osprey Foundation. 1992. Design for osprey nesting platforms. Available at
http://www.sancap.com/osprey/Platform.htm.
Jacoby, G. C.;Williams,P. L.; Buckley,B. M., 1992, Tree ring correlation between prehistoric landslides
and abrupt tectonic events in Seattle,Washington: Science, v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1621-1623.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-3 May 2004
Johnson, O.W., T.A. Flagg, D.J. Maynard, G.B. Milner, and F.W. Waknitz. 1991. Status review for
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle,
WA. 95 pp.
Johnson,P, D Mock,E Teachout, A McMillan. 2000. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation
Study: Phase I, Compliance. WSDOE, Olympia,WA. Publication No. 00-06-016.
Johnson, S.Y., Dadisman, S. V., Childs, J.R., and Stanley, W.D. 1999. Active tectonics of the Seattle
fault and central Puget Sound, Washington- Implication for earthquake hazards, Geological
Society of America Bulletin,July 1999. V. 111; no.7 p. 1042-1053.
Kahler, T., M. Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A summary of the effects of bulkheads, piers, and
other artificial structures and shorezone development on ESA-listed salmonids in lakes. Report to
the City of Bellevue, Bellevue,WA.
Karlin, R. E.; Abella, S. E. B. 1992. Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound region recorded in sediments
from Lake Washington: Science. v. 258,no. 5088,p. 1617-1620.
King County. 1991. Executive Proposed Basin Plan for Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound. King
County. Surface Water Management Division, Seattle,WA. July 1991.
King County. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water
Management Division aid the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department -
Surface Water Utility.
King County. 1998. Surface Water Design Manual. King County, Department of Natural Resources,
Seattle,WA. September 1998.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton.
April 2001.
King County. 2003. King County Streams Monitoring Program, Coal Creek (Site 0442). Available at
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/w1r/waterres/streams/coal_intro.htm.
Knutson,K.L. and V.L.Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats:
riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
LAAS. Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development,King County, Washington. March 27, 1997.
Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited (LAAS). Appendix R: Archaeological and
Traditional Cultural Places Assessment Discipline Report. May 2001.
Link, R. 1999. Landscaping for wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press,
Seattle,Washington. 320 pp.
ti
Lloyd. 1994. May Creek Corridor Revegetation Plan,Lloyd and Associates Inc.,March 10, 1994.
Loyd and Associates. 2003. Stormwater pollution prevention plan for the Barbee Mill Company,
stormwater discharge permit: S03-000718. Prepared by Loyd and Associates, Snoqualmie,
Washington, for the Barbee Mill Company,Renton,Washington.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-4 May2004
4
Lucchetti, G. 2002. Assessment of Chinook salmon and bull trout habitat in tri-county urban growth
areas: methods and fmdings. King County Department of Natural Resources. April 2002.
Madabhushi. 2001. Modeling of Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading, Proceedings of NSF International
Workshop on Earthquake Simulation in Geotechnical Engineering, Cleveland/Ohio/USA/8-10
November 2001. http://ecivwww.cwru.edu/civil/xxz16/proceeding/paper/Madabhushi.pdf.
Martin. 1999. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117,
Guidelines for Analyzing and mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California, Southern California
Y g g q
Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, March 1999.
http://www.scec.org/outreach/products/liqreport.pdf.
May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Kitsap
County Natural Resources Department.
Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2001. Cugini Property May 2001, Aquatic Habitat and Fish Population
Survey and Joint-Use Dock Biological Assessment. June 25,2001.
Miller, R.W. 1997. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. Second Edition.
Upper Saddle River,New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mockler,A,L Casey, M Bowles,N Gillen, J Hansen. 1998. Results of Monitoring Wetland and Stream
Mitigations in King County. King County DDES, Renton, Washington.
MRSC. Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of
Washington. http://www.mrsc.org/mc/ toc/wac.htm, last updated November 18, 1997.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington.
Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope, G.J. Bryant,D.Teel,L.J. Lierheimer, T.C.Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W.
Waknitz,K.Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35,443 pp.
Nizam. 2003. Ahmer Nizam, Railway Safety Division. Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission,phone communication. 05.13.03.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. Office
of Habitat Conservation.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Appendix A: Description and identification of
Essential Fish Habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon.
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. January
1999. Available at the PSMFC website at: http://www.pcouncil.org/.
Noson,L.,Qamar,A.,Thorsen, G. 1988. Washington State earthquake hazards. Olympia,Washington:
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1988.
Obermeier. 2001. Paleoliquefaction Studies in Continental Settings: Geologic and Geotechnical Factors
in Interpretations and Back-Analysis, Stephen F. Obermeier et al,US. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 01-029. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/0fO1-029/.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-5 May 2004
• 1
ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). 2002. Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction
Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon. Final Report. Oregon Department of
Transportation Research Group. http://www.odot.state.or.us/tddresearch/reports/liquefaction3-
6.pdf.
•
Otak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County,
Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002.
Parametrix. 2002. Biological review of the Tri-County model 4(d)rule response proposal. Prepared for
the Tri-County Salmon Conservation Coalition. April 19, 2002.
Piaskowski, R. and R. Tabor. 2000. Nocturnal habitat use by juvenile Chinook in near-shore areas of
south Lake Washington, a preliminary investigation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western
Washington Office. Available at http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/fish/docs/piaskowski-report.pdf.
Pollack, N.M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to
protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. The Bullit
Foundation,Washington Environmental Council, and Point-No-Point Treaty Council.
Poole, A.F. 1989. Ospreys: a natural and unnatural history. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press. 246 p.
Quigley, T. M., and S. J. Arbelbide, tech. eds. 1997. An assessment for ecosystem components in the
interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume 3. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. 1,057 - 1,713 pp.
R2 Resource Consultants. 2000. Tri County urban issues ESA study guidance document. Prepared on
behalf of the Tri-county Urban Issues Advisory Committee. February 2000.
Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological Assessment for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, Renton,
Washington. Prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington for the Barbee Mill
Company,Renton,Washington.
Raedeke Associates, Inc. 2002. Biological assessment: Barbee Mill preliminary plat, Renton,
Washington. August 26,2002.
Rauch 1997, EPOLLS: An Empirical Method for Predicting Surface Displacements Due to Liquefaction-
Induced Lateral Spreading in Earthquakes Alan F. Rauch, PHD Dissertation, Civil Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, May 5, 1997 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-
219182249741411/unrestricted/Chp03.pdf
Renton, City of. 1998. Renton Municipal Code Title 4, Sensitive Areas Ordinance - 4835. City of
Renton Planning Commission.
Renton, City of. 1999. N. 40th Street/Meadow Avenue N. stormwater system improvements drainage
report. City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Surface Water Utility.
Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull
trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,
Utah. 38 pp.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-6 May 2004 •
Ryser,F.A. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. Reno,NV:University of Nevada Press. 604 p.
Sandercock, F.K. 1991. The life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 395-445 in C.
Groot and L. Margolis (eds.). Life history of Pacific salmon. University of B.C. Press,
Vancouver, B.C.
Saurola, P.L. The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: a review of population trends and
their causes in Europe. Journal of Raptor Research. 31:129-137.
Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of imperviousness. Watershed protection Techniques,
1(3):100-111.
Shannon&Wilson. 2001. Geology and soils Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon
&Wilson,June 2001.
Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Groundwater Discipline Report. 1-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon &
Wilson, June 2001.
Shannon & Wilson. 2001. Hazardous Waste Discipline Report. I-405 /NE 44th Interchange. Shannon
&Wilson,June 2001.
Shannon&Wilson. ,Hazardous Waste Discipline Report,I-405 /NE 44th Interchange Shannon&Wilson,
June 2001.
Sherrard, David. 1996. Managing Riparian Open Space. Environment Development,American Planning
Association, January/February 1996 http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/pdf/nature.pdf.
Simenstad, C.A., J.R., Cordell, R.M. Thom, D.K. Shreffler, B. Nightengale, and J.A. Schafer. 1999.
Ferry terminal impacts on juvenile salmon migrating through Puget Sound near shore
environment. Puget Sound Notes. 42:9-12.
Snohomish County. 2002. Duplex Trip Generation Rate Study, Snohomish County Public Works Dept,
Traffic Analysis and Data Management Group,Everett, WA, September 26,2002.
Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to
salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation. Corvallis,
Oregon. 356 p.
Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald
eagle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,Washington.
Tabor, R. A. and R. M. Piaskowski. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook salmon in lentic
systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2001. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Lacey,Washington,April 2002.
Tabor, R. A. J. Scheurer, H. Gearns, and E. Bixler. 2002. Nearshore habitat use by juvenile Chinook
salmon in lentic systems of the Lake Washington basin, Annual Report, 2002. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,Lacey,Washington, December 2002.
ThermoRetec. 2000. Feasibility Study and Cleanup Action Plan. JH Baxter North Property.
ThermoRetec,April 5,2000.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-7 May 2004
i f
Tri-County. 2000. Tri-County Urban Issues ESA Study: Guidance Document APPENDIX I, Salmon
Recovery in Urban Settings, Salmon Recovery Problems and Potential Habitat Enhancement
Techniques. (R2 Resource Consultants et al.2000). I
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Bull trout interim conservation guidance. Lacey,
Washington.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Draft summary for bull trout in Lake Washington.
November 23, 1999.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/. National Seismic Hazard Map.
Assessed on April 8,2003.
USCE. 1992. Bearing Capacity of Soils. Engineering and Design Publication Number: EM 1110-1-
1905, US Army Corps of Engineers, 30 October 1992. http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-
docs/eng-manuals/em1110-1-1905/c-l.pdf.
USCE. 2001. Endangered Species Act Guidance for New and Replacement Piers and Bulkheads in Lake
Washington, Lake Sammamish and the Ship Canal, Including Lake Union, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District, Special Notice, October 25, 2001.
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/ACF22.pdf.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2003. The Urban Forestry Manual USDA Forest
Service, Southern Research Station,http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/pubs/ufmanual/.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/ . National Seismic Hazard Map.
Assessed on April 8,2003.
USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1994. Engineering and Design - Channel Stability
Assessment for Flood Control Projects. Engineering Manual 1110-2-1418.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment
and Operation,Building Equipment, and Home Appliance,NTID300.1, 1971.
UW 2002. University of Washington Soil Liquifaction Web Site. Department of Civil Engineering.
University of Washington, Seattle,WA.
Vana-Miller, S.L. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: Osprey. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological report 82(10.154)46pp. _I
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead
Stock Inventory. Washington Department of Fisheries,Washington Department of Wildlife,and
Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes,Olympia,Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. 1998 salmonid stock inventory: appendix,bull trout
and Dolly Varden. July 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington.
Washington Department of Natural Resources(DNR). 1999. Forests and fish report. Unpublished report
by Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia,Washington. L
I j
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-8 May 2004
Washington Depaitinent of Wildlife. 1992. Bull trout/ Dolly Varden management and recovery plan.
Washington Depaitiuent of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division, Olympia, Washington.
Report 92-22. 125pp.
Washington State Highway Accident Report. 1996. WSDOT Accident Report.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_andZIP Files/StateHwyAccidentRpt.pdf.
Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon
utilization,Volume I, Puget Sound region. Washington Depaitiuent of Fisheries: Olympia, WA.
704 pp.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2001. I-405/44th Interchange
Reconstruction Project,Draft Noise Technical Report,January 10,2001,Parsons Brinckerhoff.
WSDOT 2001a. Washington State Department of Transportation. East-West Passenger Rail Feasibility
Study: A Preliminary Analysis Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation.
UDR Engineering,Inc. The Resource Group Transit Safety Management. May 2001.
WSDOT(Washington State Department of Transportation). 1998. Washington State Depatluuent of
Transportation, Design Manual, 1998. Olympia,WA.
Yount, J.C. and Gower,H.D. 1991. Bedrock geologic map of Seattle 30' x 60' quadrangle, Washington:
US Geological Survey Open File Report. 91-147, 37p. 4 plates scale 1:100,000.
Zarn,M. 1974. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species; Osprey Pandion haliaetus
carolinensis. USDI Bureau of Land.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 4-9 May 2004
1 7
5. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
Comments received on the Draft EIS have been summarized below. In many cases, similar comments
from different commenters have been summarized as one comment.
Responses below generally indicate where the response has been addressed in additional text added to the
Final EIS,or was previously addressed in the Draft EIS, or may indicate why the issue raised by the
comment does not change conclusions in the Draft EIS, or in some cases, that the issue raised will be
addressed in other phases of the permit review process.
General Responses
A A number of comments addressed the merits of the proposal, or indicated a preference for,or
opposition to, alternatives or mitigating measures, or opinions on the legal basis for implementing
mitigation.
COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett,Mark Hancock, Jan Hicking,King County Wastewater
Treatment Division, Cyrus M.McNeely,Muckleshoot Tribe, City of Newcastle, Sarah C.Nicoli,
Port Quendall Company(PQC),Larry Reymann,Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation,Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Natural
Resources,Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
RESPONSE: The purpose of the EIS is to provide information on environmental consequences to
decision makers. Comments that do not address the adequacy of the environmental information and do
not indicate a need to change the content of analysis in the EIS do not require a response in the Final EIS.
Comments relating to potential conditions of approval relate to the decision-making phase of the
proposal. All comments will be available to the decision makers in reaching a decision on the proposal.
The decision making process must include consideration of environmental impacts as documented in the
Environmental Impact Statement,but also will include a balancing judgment that includes social,
economic and other requirements and considerations of policy as outlined in WAC 197-11-448.
B Comments were received on elements of the environment not included in the EIS.
COMMENTERS: Jan Hicking, Sarah C.Nicoli
RESPONSE: The City of Renton limited the scope of the EIS to elements of the environment likely to be
experience significant adverse impacts pursuant to WAC 197-11-408. These comments are not been
responded to because they are already addressed in the Scoping Document in Appendix A of the Draft
EIS. They will,however,be available to the decision makers in reaching a decision on the proposal and
may be relevant to other criteria of approval.
C The applicant provided comments that reiterated aspects of the proposal or reiterate the content of
the EIS analysis. In some cases these comments are combined with assertions of conformance to
existing codes or other commentary.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: In those cases where analysis was based on accurate information, comments are not further
responded to. The EIS is not intended to contain an analysis of the application of Renton codes,but
rather to assess impacts of the proposal.
a :
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-1 May2004
D Some comments request additional information,but did not suggest that additional information
was critical to adequate disclosure of impacts.
COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett,Muckleshoot Tribe, City of Newcastle,Port Quendall
Company(PQC) .
RESPONSE: Where information is not readily available, and is not essential to understanding the impact,
or in cases where information can be provided and issues resolved in the design or engineering stage of
the project, additional information has not been provided in the FEIS.
E Comments were received from different parties requesting both more and less analysis of
cumulative impacts. --
COMMENTERS: Applicant,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: Cumulative impacts are appropriately discussed pursuant to WAC 197-11- 060(c) and(e)
in order to understand how the project impacts relate to impacts of other development to the extent that a)
cumulative impacts may result from this project, in conjunction with others, that are greater than impacts 1_
of the proposal alone, and b)the proposal may foreclose options for the productive use of the environment
pursuant to WAC 197-11-440(5)(c)(vii) and(6)(c)(ii). Cumulative impacts do not include impacts of
other development where impacts of the proposal are on discreet resources, and combined impacts are not
likely to be substantially different in character or magnitude.
F. Minor corrections and clarification were provided in comments.
COMMENTERS: Applicant,Greg Fawcett,Mark Hancock,Jan Hicking,King County Wastewater
Treatment Division,Cyrus M.McNeely,Muckleshoot Tribe, City of Newcastle, Sarah C.Nicoli,
Port Quendall Company(PQC),Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources,
Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
RESPONSE: Minor corrections noted were not sufficient to change the conclusions of the DEIS
regarding impacts and mitigation. Revision of the DEIS text is not required.
Specific Comments and Responses
Comments below are organized by chapters and subsections of the EIS. Within a section, comments are
arranged in the order the issues are discussed in the DEIS text.
Similar comments by more than one commenter are summarized and responded to as a single comment, pl
as provided by WAC 197-11-560(2).
Section 1: Fact Sheet and Summary
1.0-1 Federal permits are likely for bulkheads and the stormwater outfall.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The FEIS Fact Sheet is revised to list permits required for the proposed subdivision and
subsequent approvals of single family development including such features as single family bulkheads. -
It is expected that the stormwater outfalls required likely to be covered under an Army Corps of
Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit rather than an individual permit.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-2 May2004
Section 2: Alternatives
2.0-1 The applicant requests restatement of Applicant's Objectives as: "The Applicant's objective is to
construct a low-density townhome project that complies with applicable city codes."
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: This specific wording is not contained in the applicant's Project Narrative dated
September 13, 2002. The substance of the applicant's objectives, as included in existing application
materials, is included in the Description of the Proposal on page 2-1. The applicant's current restatement
is consistent with the understanding of objectives that guided the DEIS content.
2.0-2 Other alternatives, including office use or mixed use allowed by existing zoning, should be
analyzed.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe, Sarah C.Nicoli,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: A mix of other uses, in addition to residential, is not consistent with applicant's objectives
as provided for in WAC 197-11-440(5)(d). Such an alternative could be included as a"No Action
Alternative"to illustrate development that might occur if the proposed development did not proceed,
however such an alternative would not necessarily have a lower environmental cost or level of
environmental degradation and therefore would not meet the criteria of WAC 197-11-440(5)(b). There is
reference in the text to the potential to utilize the zoning potential to develop other types of housing and
maintain the same unit count if May Creek and Lake Washington shoreline buffers are increased.
2.0-3 The stream, and shoreline buffer options and access route options described as mitigating
measures should be described in the Alternatives Section.
COMMENTERS: Applicant,Muckleshoot Tribe, Port Quendall Company (PQC)
RESPONSE: The buffer options and rail crossings are discussed as mitigation measures for specific
identified impacts. They are not proposed as alternatives because they have been developed in response
to specific impacts. They do not change the use or design of the proposal as a duplex and townhome
subdivision, although they change the number of units. Mention is made of the possibility of changing
building type to maintain the same total number of units. This is an option under existing zoning and is
relevant information. The applicant is ultimately in control of whether to maintain a development
objective that may result in loss of units, given the flexibility provided by the existing zoning.
2.0-4 It is difficult to distinguish between elements of the proposal and elements presumed as part of
the analysis.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The elements of the proposal are described in Section 2. Specific presumed elements of
future buildout are enumerated. Elsewhere in the text, specific elements of the proposal are identified as
well as potential elements that may be required by conditions of approval pursuant to Renton codes and
policies.
2.0-6 Clarification of the number of lots fronting on Lake Washington was requested.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: A total of 24 lots front to the southwest toward Lake Washington. According to the plat
maps and survey provided by the applicant, 9 of those lots have intervening public land located beyond
the property boundary at the inner harbor line. The applicant has stated in DEIS comments that the public
land in the vicinity of Lot 92 was removed during recent dredging operations. That information has not
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-3 May2004
been confirmed by survey. Either 15 or 16 lots have direct frontage on Lake Washington with no
intervening public land.
2.0.7 Clarification was requested of the proposed setback from the water for lots with direct frontage
on Lake Washington.
COMMENTERS: Applicant,Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: In the absence of an alternate proposal by the applicant,the EIS presumes that setbacks
from the Ordinary High Water Line will be the zoning minimum of 25 feet as indicated on DEIS and
FEIS page 2-3.
2.0-8 Assessment of the potential ecosystem functions of the Tract C for stormwater detention facilities
was requested. 1
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: A stormwater pond is proposed. Details of other uses are not specified in the proposal. -+
Some open space uses are presumed as discussed in Section 2.1. The DEIS on page 3-38 and FEIS page
3-20 indicate that the proposed mix of shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees provides limited habitat value.
Mitigation of installing indigenous vegetation is discussed on DEIS page 3-45 and FEIS page 3-27.
2.0-9 Clarification of the future use of the DNR managed public land along the shoreline was requested
includingprovisions for access to this land and the compatibility with use if restoration
t3' adjacent
P
to natural and aquatic habitat occurs.
COMMENTERS: Greg Fawcett,Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC),Washington
Department of Natural Resources
RESPONSE: Open space use is presumed as described on DEIS and FEIS page 2-3. Land use is not an
element addressed in the EIS,however aquatic impacts are addressed. Provision of access will be
addressed during permit review.
2.0-10 What is the basis for the presumption that bridge abutments will not be located within the
Ordinary High Water of May Creek?
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: Although conceptual plans have not been developed,the stream is not wide and
construction of a span length outside of the stream banks is a reasonable presumption of future
requirements given Shoreline Master Program WDFW Hydraulic Permit Approval policies and I
regulations and City of Renton Critical Area Regulations (RMC 3-4-010-I-4)that prohibit encroachment
in the floodplain that results in any increase in flood levels,or produces an adverse impact on the property
or adjacent properties.
2.0-11 Construction of new bulkheads should not be presumed. Existing bulkheads should be presumed
to remain.COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: As discussed on DEIS pages 2-3,3-42,and 3-58,and FEIS pages 3-24 and 3-44,existing
bulkheads are presumed to be retained in cases where a 25 foot setback from the water is maintained.
Because the entire shoreline is not currently protected by sound bulkheads, and because bulkheads are a
common feature of residential development on Lake Washington in Renton and because bulkheads tend
to deteriorate and require replacement over time,construction of new bulkheads is an appropriate
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-4 May 2004
assumption for future actions related to the proposed residential development. Retention of existing
bulkheads are presumed in impact analysis. Removal or alteration is discussed as mitigation.
2.0-12 Are drainage facilities proposed to accommodate offsite drainage from the Pan Abode property,
Lake Washington Blvd. or I-405?.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: Site drainage facilities are proposed to serve the proposed development only. Other sites
would discharge to surface water in proximity to those sites and would be responsible for mitigation of
any impacts on receiving waters pursuant to Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030.
2.0-13 The option of one access point to the property should be examined as an alternative because the
applicant does not have control over the proposed northerly access point.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The applicant has proposed the northerly access and will be responsible for obtaining
dedication and constructing the roadway. The City staff has determined that a single access to a public
road from a development of this side is not a reasonable alternative because it does not meet Renton code
requirements and does not provide adequate emergency access.
2.0-14 Derivation of the amount of industrial use in the No-Action Alternative should be explained.
COMMENTERS: Applicant,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: Discussed on DEIS page 2-4.
Section 3.1: Earth, Soils and Geology
3.1-1 Analysis should be based on foundations required to support single-story townhomes.
COMMENTERS: Applic ant
RESPONSE: The EIS analysis is based on the proposal as defined by the applicant,which is not limited
to single story structures. The applicant specified building heights of 50 feet within the shoreline and 70
feet outside the shoreline.
3.1-2 The applicant claims that public land at the north side of the May Creek delta is not accurately
depicted.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: This public land is shown on surveys submitted by the applicant. If this information is in
error, it should be corrected in revised application material. The applicant should also document that the
Department of Natural Resources, as trustee for these public lands, approved the removal of this public
resource.
3.1-3 The applicant provided a variety of characterization of the Golder Associates geotechnical
information in relation to liquefaction and appropriate mitigation.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: As stated in the DEIS, adequate geotechnical investigation has not been performed to fully
assess existing soil and geologic conditions on site. It is not possible to adequately assess the potential
extent or severity of liquefaction without considerable additional geotechnical investigation. In the
absence of such information, speculation about design parameters for foundations or containment of
lateral spreading is premature. There is currently little basis to determine appropriate foundation pile
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-5 May2004
depth on most of the site. Given the lack of information,the DEIS necessarily provides an assessment of
the range of risks. Further assessment and development of specific design approaches is appropriate for
the design stage of the proposal. ,
3.1-4 The applicant suggests deletion of mention of the Seattle Fault because it does not cross the site.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: As indicated in the DEIS page 3-2 the Seattle Fault is in close proximity to the site,if it
does not directly cross the site. The proximity of this feature is relevant to the risk of seismic activity.
The text appropriately includes the location of this fault in the assessment of seismic risk.
Section 3.2: Surface Water Resources
3.2-1 State Water Quality Standards have changed by WAC 173-201A effective August 1,2003.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The August 2004 revisions State Water Quality Standards provide for classification based
on aquatic species utilizing the waters. There is little substantive difference in the new classification and
the former classification of Class AA waters.. The conclusions about the extent to which water quality
standards are complied with are not changed by the revision in classifications.
3.2-2 Function of the storm drainage outfall in relation to future delta deposits is not analyzed.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: Absent a specific proposal, detailed impact analysis is of function is not possible.
Assurance of adequate hydraulic function is largely an engineering issue. The general impacts of the
outfall on aquatic species is discussed on FEIS page 3-40. i
3.2-3 The conclusion that future stormwater contaminants will be reduced is not substantiated.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: A comparison of the existing stormwater treatment facilities on site and the treatment
facilities required by Renton codes substantiates the FEIS page 3-2 conclusion that contaminants will be
reduced.
3.2-4 Benefits of reducing impervious surfaces should be acknowledged.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: The reduction in impervious surfaces and reduced stormwater runoff is referenced in the
DEIS including page 3-14 and in the FEIS pages 3-5,3-8,3-21, 3-28 and 3-46. ;
3.2-5 Questions were raised regarding potential adverse impacts,including flooding,that may occur on
properties upstream from the site as a result of discontinuation of dredging or the proposed May
Creek stream buffers.
COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett,Port Quendall Company(PQC) ;
RESPONSE: The DEIS analysis does not state that any actions on the Barbee Mill property relating to
dredging or other aspects of stream management on the site will affect properties upstream of the Lake
Washington Blvd.Bridge. The gradient of the stream and the presence of an in-stream structure at the
railroad bridge as part of a gauging station generally indicate that it will not. The analysis examines
effects of discontinuation of dredging on the floodplain on capacity of the floodway as it affects the extent
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-6 May2004
of flooding on the site. In general,the aquatic sections of the DEIS attribute overall positive impacts to
ceasing dredging.
3.2-6 Support was requested for statements regarding stream aggredation over time as well as the
effects of levees on channel migration.
COMMENTERS: Applicant,Muckleshoot Tribe
RESPONSE: The Final EIS addresses aggradation and migration on page 3-13 and further discusses
stream migration in terms of aquatic resources on Final EIS page 3-22. The Final EIS contains additional
background information on stream aggradation as it relates to stream morphology,referencing the
USACOE Engineering Manual EM 110-2-1418 October 31, 1994. This document discusses deltas as
features that"occur on flat slopes where a river discharges into still water and deposits its sediment load.
Under natural conditions the river splits into a number of distributaries,whose bed levels rise over time as
the delta extends into the water body. Flood control levees adjacent to deltas can require periodic raising,
particularly if the river is confined to a single channel. The potential for channel avulsions upstream of
the works requires consideration. The effects of the different options for stream buffer areas on stream
migration and resulting impacts on aquatic resources are addressed on FEIS page 3-20, 3-24, 3-41 and
• 3-43.
3.2-7 The need for compensatory storage to protect upstream properties from flooding was questioned.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: An additional mitigation measure of including compensatory storage in the form of a
floodplain bench or terrace is analyzed in the Final EIS based on a concept proposed by the applicant. As
• indicated in the response to comment 3.2-5, the presence or lack of compensatory storage on the Barbee
Mill site will not affect upstream properties. In addition,provision of an alternative 100 foot wide stream
corridor dimension is examined as mitigation for impacts on a number of elements of the environment.
The alternative setback dimensions have different stream and flood conveyance capacity. This capacity is
examined in terms of the extent to which they protect the proposed development from flooding and reduce
scour and bank erosion. The two options for stream setbacks, and the option for compensatory storage
were examined in terms of increases in flood elevations on-site (primarily cross sections 3 through 8).
Reduction of flood elevations would reduce local flooding and would reduce the potential for localized
bed scour and bank erosion. The applicability of the"compensatory storage"requirements in RMC 4-3-
050.I.6.a. will be determined at the time of permit review.
3.2-8 The adequacy of analysis of floodplain flows upstream and downstream of bridges was
questioned.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: The HEC-RAS User's Manual defines ineffective flow areas as areas in which water will
pond and velocity will be close to zero. The model includes this water in storage calculations but does
not account for it in the active flow area calculations; as a result the water surface elevations would be
higher if the floodplain is defined as an ineffective flow area. Based on field investigations and site
topography,which indicate that if May Creek overtops the existing levees water will sheet flow northwest
to Lake Washington,it was assumed that the floodplain northwest of the stream would not be an
ineffective flow area. Additional modeling was performed for the Final EIS that analyzes the removal Of
existing bridges. In addition, analysis performed by others is referenced which addresses the impacts of
bridge construction near the line of ordinary high water.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-7 May 2004
I
, 1
3.2-9 Was the cross sections of levees analyzed?
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: The boundary of the setback was modeled as a levee. The design parameters of a levee or
fill have not been developed and do not affect the analysis of flooding.
3.2-10 Was NAVD datum properly converted in analysis of FEMA study results?
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: Section 2.4.1.2 describes how the water surface elevations of Lake Washington measured
by the USACOE was converted to the project datum. Information on the lake level was downloaded from
the USACOE website on 4/22/03 (USACOE 2003).
3.2-11 Dredging should be acknowledged as a management option.
j
COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett
RESPONSE: Dredging is discussed as a management option on DEIS page 3-12 and 3-19 and FEIS
page 3-5. •
3.2-12 Access to floodplain model information was requested.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
{
RESPONSE: The modeling performed for this project is a public record and available from the City of
Renton.
Section 3.3: Groundwater
3.3-1 No impact on local or regional groundwater resources should be expected.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: As stated in the DEIS page 3-24,impacts on groundwater used for domestic water supply
are not expected from the project.
Section 3.4: Plants and Animals
3.4-1 Additional information resources on wildlife and aquatic species should be referenced and used in
the analysis.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: These references have been reviewed. The results are consistent with the analysis in the
EIS and do not change the assessment of impacts.
3.4-2 The applicant asserts that proposed removal of two bridges will compensate for the addition of a
bridge.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: Until the width and height of the proposed bridge are approved in final form,it is unknown
whether removal of existing bridges will fully mitigate the impact. Removal of the existing bridges is
noted as a mitigating measure. Removal of existing bridges in analyzed in the Final EIS in terms of
mitigation of increases in floodplain elevation and other impacts related to restricting the existing
floodplain by the proposed development.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-8 May2004
3.4-3 Analysis of the proposed May Creek buffer and other aspects of the proposal,as well as
alternative buffer widths should be analyzed for a variety of ecosystem parameters.
COMMENTERS: Applicant,Muckleshoot Tribe, Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: Analysis in the DEIS and FEIS text addresses effects of proposed buffers, as well as
mitigation options for impacts on water quality, flooding,terrestrial species and aquatic species.
Analysis is based on functions provided by various buffer widths. Specific reference is made to the
functions provided by the buffer widths in the proposal. Additional mitigation is described in terms of
how different buffer widths provide additional habitat and aquatic functions. The extent to which the
proposed buffers limit long-term productivity of natural systems is an impact pursuant to WAC 197-11-
440(6)(c)(ii) and(6)(d)(iii), even if proposed buffers are greater larger than existing.
3.4-4 The FEIS should discuss how riparian buffers on May Creek will improve water quality if the
stormwater is routed to Lake Washington only.
COMMENTER: Muckleshoot Tribe
RESPONSE: The majority of stormwater from the site is proposed to be routed to Lake Washington.
This includes all the storm water for the portion of the site west of May Creek. The 22 units on the east
side of May Creek are proposed to utilize a detention pond near the mouth of May Creek and discharge to
the south at the confluence of May Creek and Lake Washington. The effectiveness of riparian buffers on
May Creek on providing riparian functions such as moderating water temperature,pollutant removal,
large woody debris recruitment, microclimate moderation and wildlife habitat is largely determined by
width and vegetation community. The mitigation options presented in the Draft and Final EIS for
additional width and re-establishment of native vegetation are more relevant to buffer function that the
location of the drainage outfall.
3.4-5 The applicant requests a number of clarifications of current use of the site by wildlife.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: The current use of the sawmill site by wildlife is of limited applicability to impacts of the
proposal on wildlife because the physical characteristics of the site will change substantially. Existing
wildlife use does not add relevant information to potential impacts,it does not warrant additional
discussion.
3.4-6 The reference to work by Knudson and Naef on buffer function may not be appropriate for urban
streams.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe
RESPONSE: The work by Knudson and Naef analyzes buffer function based on in-stream resources
utilized by aquatic species. From the point of view of a fully functioning ecosystem, this information is
relevant to the impact on aquatic resources. The question of what an appropriate set of functions to apply
to an urban stream is a decision-making function that balances aquatic resource needs with other goals.
3.4-7 How will modification of the drainage system in the southerly wetland change hydrology?
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: As stated in the FEIS on page 3-17, excavation for the roadway is likely to intercept
groundwater and may drain water that currently moves slowly through the soil.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-9 May2004
3.4-8 The applicant asserts that proposed buffer width is not reduced near the mouth of May Creek,
rather the OWW mark changes.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: Buffer areas measured from the edge of the water are proposed to be less near the mouth of
May Creek. Buffer areas described in the report are all land areas. Generally speaking,buffer areas are
measured from the resource being protected and in this case are measured from the edge of the stream.
Water area can't reasonably be considered a buffer for a water resource.
•
3.4-9 The EIS should discuss how the proposed setback and future vegetation along Lake Washington
compares to the 1994 401(c)permit 94-2-00196 and discuss why the permit was not enforced.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe
RESPONSE: The status of past permit conditions is not directly relevant to impacts and potential
mitigating measures identified in the EIS. Issues regarding enforcement of past permits are not directly
relevant to potential impacts. Conditions of past permits,however, may be relevant in imposing
conditions of approval for the project.
3.4-10 All of the reasonably foreseeable dock alternatives should be analyzed in terms of the potential to
interfere with the Muckleshoot Tribes fishing in the area.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe
RESPONSE: The presumed most conservative case discussed in the EIS is individual docks at the
maximum dimensions allowed by Renton codes. Other dock options are discussed as mitigation for this
case. The maximum dock length does not extend as far as the existing log-boom on the shoreline used
for log storage while the sawmill was in operation and would have less impact on fishing access.
' I
3.4-11 Existing docks and boathouse are more likely to provide habitat for predators rather than
salmonids. -
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
I I �,
RESPONSE: The DEIS page 3-42 and FEIS page 3-24 make this conclusion.
' I
3.4-12 The impacts of docks and bulkheads on aquatic resources should be fully analyzed, including
construction impacts. The adequacy of mitigation measures for docks, bulkheads,and
homeowner access to the water are not evaluated.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The impacts of docks,bulkheads and other features of the proposal, and features of future
use of the land within the subdivision,are assessed in the DEIS and FEIS in terms of effects on a variety
of ecosystem functions,based on best available scientific information. Mitigation measures are identified
which avoid or reduce the structures or activities that cause impacts. The exact effect of the proposal and
mitigating measures on the resource cannot currently be completely assessed. Specific methodologies to
exactly evaluate the impacts that result from specific structures and activities and specific mitigation
measures generally are not available because the aquatic resource affected is complex and not fully
understood. Impacts and mitigating measures are assessed from the perspective outlined in the ! I
cumulative impact assessment on DEIS pages 3-29 and 3-43 and FEIS page 3-25 that the degradation of
the complex ecological community of Lake Washington and the continued operation of existing
bulkheads and other structures constitutes an adverse impact by continuing the degradation of the a,
resource with resulting impacts on aquatic species,including endangered species. The assessment of
construction impacts of docks or bulkheads is premature, since the purpose of the assessment of impacts
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-10 May2004
• ' f
is to compare the impacts of many, few, or no docks or bulkheads developed to serve the future residents.
The question of"adequate"mitigation is a permit decision that must include consideration of
environmental impacts but which also will include a balancing judgment that includes social, economic
and other requirements and considerations of policy as outlined in WAC 197-11-448.
3.4-13 Construction impacts of existing bridge removal and new bridge construction are not adequately
addressed.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: Construction impacts are addressed on DEIS pages 1-8,3-5, 3-14, 3-21, 3-34, and 3-37 and
FEIS pages 3-17 and 3-22. The existing and proposed bridges do not involve in-water abutments;
therefore construction during low water periods is likely to have similar impacts as other construction on
site. Additional discussion of potential impacts of excavation of floodplain benches is included in the
Final EIS and applies generally to construction near the water.
3.4-14 Chemical runoff may adversely affect aquatic resources as well as water quality.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: Addressed on DEIS page 1-9, 3-42, and 3-44 and FEIS pages 3-24 and 3-26.
3.4-15 The buffer areas width that ought to be provided for a properly functioning upland corridor for
May Creek is not described.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The decision on what ought to be provided is a permit decision that balances a wide range
of values. The DEIS and FEIS provides a description of different functions accommodated by various
buffer widths.
3.4-16 What impacts will delta formation have on salmon entering May Creek?
COMMENTERS: Applicant, Greg Fawcett
RESPONSE: Delta formation is expected to have no impacts on salmon movement up May Creek.
Salmon have evolved to successfully transit a variety of natural barriers such as deltas and waterfalls.
Channels through deltas of similar streams are adequate for salmon migration.
3.4-17 The ditch that flows from wetlands to May Creek should be assessed for salmonid habitat.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe
RESPONSE: The DEIS does not address salmonid use of the ditch providing outfall of water from the
wetlands because no viable passage or habitat exists in the ditch.
Section 3.5: Transportation
3.5-1 Compliance with the Renton Transportation Concurrency Standard should be addressed.
COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The City of Renton has determined that this determination will take place as part of permit
review rather than through the environmental review process.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-11 May2004
•
3.5-2 The City's Level of Service standard should be confirmed to be LOS D.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The City of Renton concurrency standard is contained in the Comprehensive Plan and does
not rely on individual intersection LOS alone. The concurrency standard relies on more complex mobility
measures on major corridors.
3.5-3 The viability of the proposed northerly access should be discussed. If this access is not available,
traffic impacts will change. Impacts of a single access point should be analyzed because the
applicant does not control the property to the north.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The proposal submitted by the applicant includes two access points. It is the responsibility
of the applicant to obtain rights-of-way to implement the proposal. If the proposal is changed in the
future to propose one access point, supplemental analysis may be required. A single access point is not a
reasonable alternative or mitigation measure to be considered by the City of Renton pursuant to WAC
197-11-440(5)(b)because one access point would not have a lower environmental cost or decreased level
of environmental degradation due to the potential adverse impacts on emergency access to the site.
3.5-4 Location of both access points north of May Creek should be considered.
COMMENTERS: Larry Reymann
RESPONSE: Providing two access points to the site from the north is theoretically feasible from a
geometric road layout point of view. It also would reduce impacts on May Creek by eliminating the
bridge crossing. It is not,however, considered a"reasonable alternative"because doing so would require -
a roadway through the westerly portion of the site to the north. The owner of the Barbee Mill site does
not control the site to the north. In order to be considered a"reasonable alternative"pursuant to WAC
197-11-(5)(b)(iii)the City must have the authority to implement through requirements imposed as permit
conditions. The city does not have the authority to impose conditions on this application that would
require actions to take place on the site to the north. The applicant,however, could voluntarily.propose
such an option, if the right-of-way could be obtained.
3.5-5 Some projects trips should be routed through the northerly access point.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: As indicated on DEIS page 3-71,two distribution scenarios were analyzed. A conservative ! !I
scenario routed all PM peak hour trips through the southerly access. A Second distribution routed trips
from the northerly 50 units,43 percent of PM peak hour trips,through the northerly access. Table 3.5-2
provides LOS results for both scenarios for the intersections affected by the difference in distribution.
3.5-6 AM Peak Hour analysis should be provided at selected intersections.
COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle
RESPONSE: The City of Renton has determined that AM peak hour analysis for this project is not
warranted for the following reasons. Project AM peak hour trips are likely to be predominantly home-
based work trips and are likely to primarily access I 405 at North 44th Street where right turn access to
freeway ramps is available with few capacity constraints. Other primary routes are likely to be on Lake
Washington Blvd.to the south. Trips oriented to the north are not likely to substantially impact the
intersection at Lake Washington Blvd. and 112th Avenue SW. That is reported by the City of Newcastle
to operate at LOS F. Detailed AM peak hour operational analysis provided by Mirai Associates indicates
that current AM peak hour volumes are heaviest on the Lake Washington Blvd.northbound(or nominally
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-12 May 2004
eastbound) approach and the northbound approach from 112th Avenue SE. The capacity constraint
results from the stop sign on the northbound(or nominally eastbound)Lake Washington Blvd. approach
that makes a left turn. This intersection has very complex operating conditions due to the five
approaches. The current LOS F operation could be improved to LOS C by stop control on all approaches
(except the southbound free right turn). The City of Newcastle proposed signalization of the intersection
in the future should solve the LOS problem. The high northbound approach from 112th Avenue SE,that
connects to SE 69th Way, indicates that a substantial portion of the demand experienced by this
intersection is from City of Newcastle residents to the east accessing I-405 and other elements of the
regional transportation network. A substantial contributor to northbound trips on Lake Washington Blvd.
is City of Newcastle residents routed from destinations to the east on SE 76th Street. The approximately
ten trips from this development(in the base distribution)that might be routed through this intersection
will not affect Level of Service. Overall, impacts from trips generated by the 115 proposed residential
units in this development are likely to be a minor contributor to AM peak hour congestion compared to
the approximately 3,000 existing housing units in Census Tracts 247.02 and 250.01 (between I-405 and
Coal Creek Parkway) that produce the primary source of AM peak hour congestion on local roads east of
I-405.
3.5-7 The 9%of trips distributed to 112th Ave. south of Lake Washington Blvd. should be distributed
to SE 76th/116th Street.
COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle
RESPONSE: A different distribution of these 11 projects trips is not likely to result in a difference in
impacts to intersections on either 112th Avenue SE/SE 68th Street or SE 76th Street/116th Avenue SE.
In addition, SE 76th Street has severe grades not encountered on the alternate route,which may favor
choice of 112th Avenue SE/SE 68th Street as the preferred route, despite the shorter distance of the SE
76th Street option.
3.5-8 Project trip distribution east of I-405 should be further described and analyzed. Potential trip
assignments suggested by the City of Newcastle include additional trips routed on SE 76th Street
to Coal Creek Parkway. The 25% of trips distributed to 44th Street east of I-405 should be routed
over Lincoln Ave./Monterey Pl./88th/89th to Coal Creek Parkway,including analysis of the Coal
Creek Parkway/89th Pl. intersection.
COMMENTERS: Applicant, City of Newcastle
RESPONSE: Trips distributed east of I-405 consist of 25 % of project trips distributed to the east and
22%of non-freeway oriented trips distributed to the northeast. This distribution result from the City of
Renton EMME/2 travel demand model. These PM peak hour trips are predominantly home-based work
trips with a component of home-based-other trips (that may include shopping, school related trips,
recreation and a variety of other purposes). Trips routed to the east total 25% of project trips,which total
31 vehicle trips. Routing of home-based-other trips to the immediate east is supported by a substantial
concentration of commercial land use in the vicinity. Routing of other trips to the east may be related to
school,recreation and other trip purposes. It is likely that these trips are distributed to a variety of
destinations. It is unlikely that all of these trips make it to Coal Creek Parkway several miles to the east.
It is unlikely that routing a portion of the 31 trips to this route would change the level of service at the
intersection of Coal Creek Parkway and SE 89th Place given the planned intersection improvements that
are scheduled to be completed prior to buildout of the Barbee Mill site.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-13 May2009
I -
1
3.5-9 Consolidation of private rail crossings could change traffic circulation in the area.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: All properties west of the BNSF rail line access either Ripley Lane or Lake Washington '_
Blvd. Consolidating railroad crossings will result in access to the same roadways with no change in
circulation because alternate routes are not available.
3.5-10 Grade separation of crossings of the BNSF railroad presumably would result in elimination of the
southerly access point to the Barbee Mill site.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: As discussed in the DEIS on page 3-86, a grade-separated crossing could be implemented
initially with this project,or in the future to mitigate cumulative impacts. If implemented in the future,
the safety goals of grade crossing would be available to all users west of the railroad tracks and potential
impacts to emergency access would be reduced. This does not,however,mean that some grade level
crossings would not be retained for general circulation and redundant emergency access.
3.5-11 Ramps at 1-405 Exit 9 should be analyzed.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The project routes 9 trips through the stop controlled intersections at the I-405 ramps and
112th Avenue SE. It is unlikely that this number of trips would affect intersection Level of Service. The
City of Bellevue has not requested analysis of theses intersections,which are within their jurisdiction.
3.5-12 A queuing analysis should be performed in the vicinity of 44th Street/I-405 ramps.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: LOS F conditions are predicted. Queuing analysis is redundant in this case.
3.5-13 Impacts on Park Ave.N. and 40th Street should be analyzed.
COMMENTERS: Cyrus McNeely
RESPONSE: The 4%of project trips distributed to the N 30th Street/I-405 interchange total 5 PM peak
hour trips and are not likely to be noticeable on local streets. In an area with a grid street system,such as
this area,multiple routes are available. Local streets,however generally have longer travel times because
of road conditions and stop signs. If some trips should choose Park Avenue rather than North 30th Street
and Lake Washington Blvd. as the route to the Barbee Mill site,the small number of total trips is not
likely to be noticeable on this local street.
3.5-14 The applicant prefers multi-family trip generation rate for the proposed duplexes.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: As discussed on DEIS page 3-69,the single-family trip generation rate is more appropriate
for the specific character of the proposed use based on specific studies of duplex trip generation.
3.5-15 Did LOS results at NE 30th/I-405 change during the DEIS process?
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: No.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-14 May 2004
3.5-16 What is the basis of the intersection accident standard of 1.0 accidents per million entering
vehicles?
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The 1.0 accidents per million entering vehicles standard for a high rate of accident
occurrence is noted in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Planning Handbook. As
such, it is a standard or guideline generally recognized by the profession. The purpose of the
standard/guideline in this case is to distinguish background accident levels from accident rates that
indicate a possible roadway deficiency that may contribute to accidents and may be corrected by changes
in configuration, signage, traffic control or other roadway improvements.
3.5-17 The applicant asserts that adequate separation can be provided between the alternate access point
shown and the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd. intersections.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: The adequacy of intersection separation cannot be resolved until the City reviews final
engineering plans. The DEIS is accurate in identifying a potential problem in the alternative access points
that may or may not be mitigated by design options.
3.5-18 Additional analysis of the road crossings on railroad traffic should be provided.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The number and design of road crossings is not likely to affect the amount of rail traffic,
speeds,or other parameters of use of the rail line. This is likely to be largely determined by the needs of
the railroad for local and through capacity.
3.5-19 Additional data on rail accidents and train use on this line was requested.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: According the US Department of Transportation,Federal Railroad Administration,13
accidents have occurred since 1977 on the portion of the line between NE Park Drive in Renton and I-90.
All accidents were train/vehicle collisions. Five(5) of the collisions occurred at the crossing of Mountain
View Avenue North. Train use is as reported on DEIS page 3-68: four trains per day, one local freight
train round trip and one round-trip by the Dinner Train.
3.5-20 The applicant describes alternative standards that might be considered as the basis for approval of
proposed rail crossings and proposes alternate interpretations of existing topography.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: Analysis of rail crossings in the DEIS is based on survey information provided by the
applicant. Additional topographic information developed since release of the DEIS has been reviewed.
This additional information confnlib the conclusions in the DEIS of potential impacts analyzed in
reference to adopted standards. The AASHTO standards are designed to both protect the public,and
protect the railroad. The applicant can propose variance from those standards,however,it is unlikely that
variance from these standards would be approved by the City of Renton,the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission and the BNSF railroad for a new public crossing unless equivalent
performance and safety is achieved. The public road crossing will serve a variety of users of this
residential area,including school busses. The standard for a level area is designed to ensure that vehicles
do not become "high-centered"on the tracks. Such an occurrence would block local traffic and constitute
a vehicle train collision hazard. The proposed rail crossings will not meet the City of Renton maximum
15%road grades for the road approach to Lake Washington Blvd. with a 30 foot level area on each side
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-15 May2004
of the railroad track. The availability of alternative roadway locations that meet accepted standards will
be considered in reaching a decision on new public railroad crossings.
3.5-21 Additional analysis was requested of the criteria for various control systems for rail crossings and
the relationship to trip generation from the site and safety issues for vehicles, pedestrians,and
trains.
COMMENTERS: Applicant,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The criteria for deciding appropriate crossing facilities involves many factors, as discussed
on DEIS pages 3-78 to 80 including use by school busses,residential traffic and pedestrians. The
character of the users may be as important as traffic volumes. In addition, analysis addresses the
likelihood that this roadway will be used for trips originating in the land to the north when they are
redeveloped in the future since the roadway will connect to those parcels.
3.5-22 Analysis of construction traffic haul routes, including mitigating measures to restrict hauling
route was requested.
COMMENTERS: Mark Hancock, City of Newcastle
RESPONSE: Construction hauling routes are governed by local jurisdiction designation of truck routes.
There is little basis for presuming that construction traffic will access the site from other than the 1-405
interchanges at 44th Street and SR 900. Local jurisdictions such as the City of Newcastle and the City of
Renton can avoid truck impacts on sensitive routes by enforcing truck route regulations.
3.5-23 Additional assessment of trip diversion from I-405 was requested.
COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The analysis on page 3-81 adequately describes the general problem of traffic diverting
from I-405 to parallel local streets. As noted,the project would be a small percentage of local residents
who might potentially divert to local streets from I-405. There are approximately 3,000 existing housing
units in Census Tracts 247.02 and 250.01 between I-405 ands Coal Creek Parkway south of SE 60th
Street and north of May Creek. These residents access the regional arterial system via I-405 and Coal
Creek Parkway. As the DEIS points out,there are a variety of strategies local jurisdictions can use to
either encourage or discourage diversion of trips on roads parallel to 1-405 with a variety of impacts on
local mobility.
3.5-24 How were 8-hour volumes obtained for signal warrant analysis? Does Renton's traffic model
provide 24 hour data?
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: The City of Renton EMME/2 travel demand model is a PM peak hour model. I-405 ramp
data includes 24-hour count data. A proportional adjustment was applied to PM peak hour projections
modeled to derive 24 hour volumes for warrant analysis.
3.5-25 Various interpretations of appropriate parameters for assessment of cumulative transportation
impacts are offered by various commenters. The applicant suggests that assessment of
cumulative impacts is speculative. Port Quendall Company(PQC)requests analysis of
reasonable development of the remainder of the COR-2 zoned area.
COMMENTERS: Applicant,Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The DEIS addresses cumulative traffic generation from the perspective of the long-term
circulation needs in the area. In this case,the range of potential development that may be expected under
current zoning is not remote or speculative. A complete Level of Service analysis of the combined trip
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-16 May2004
generation of the COR-2 parcels in the vicinity,however,was not performed. Previous analysis
undertaken by the City as part of the I-405/NE 44th Street Interchange Project assumes redevelopment of
the Port Quendall site. This analysis documents substantial transportation impacts as well as the scope of
facilities needed to serve the land uses anticipated under near maximum allowed densities. The current
analysis focuses on the operational impacts of the Barbee Mill proposal. The purpose of the cumulative
impact analysis included in the DEIS is to examine whether the proposed circulation plan will fit into
future circulation needs in the area. The potential impact analyzed is whether the proposed circulation
system will narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment by precluding future transportation
network improvements pursuant to WAC 197-11-440(6)(c)(ii).
Section 3.6: Hazardous Materials •
3.6-1 Distinguish between 1) groundwater removal during soil removal, and 2) future ground water
remediation that may be required based on monitoring.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: The DEIS text accurately describes the groundwater remediation options that may be
implemented under the IRAP on DEIS page 3-96.
3.6-2 Change text to indicate completion of sediment disposal.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: The completion of sediment disposal can be noted by decision makers without revision of
the DEIS.
3.6-3 The site will be cleaned up to residential cleanup levels. No restrictive covenant will be required.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: The requirement for a restrictive covenant will be determined based on the actual cleanup
performed. The need for a restrictive covenant cannot be determined at this time.
3.6-4 Information in Dept. of Ecology files on the properties to the north should be incorporated in the
analysis.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: This information was reviewed and utilized in DEIS analysis.
3.6-5 Risks to residential use of the site from contaminants on the site and on parcels to the north have
not been adequately analyzed.
COMMENTERS: Port Quendall Company(PQC)
RESPONSE: The DEIS analyzes the potential impacts of contaminants from the site on pages 3-89
through 3-94 and addresses contaminants from parcels north of the site on pages 3-95 and 96.
I i
3.6-6 Remedial action for the roadway north of the site should not be discussed because it is not known
if such a plan will be required by the Washington Department of Ecology.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: Since a cleanup plan has not been approved for the property to the north, over which a new
roadway is proposed,the DEIS appropriately discusses the range of remediation options that may be
warranted.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-17 May2004
3.6-7 Will arsenic and other contaminants become airborne and affect nearby areas, including materials
blown off trucks while being transported?
COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle
RESPONSE: Avoidance of air entrainment is a standard requirement of remediation plans that can be
readily implemented. In a similar manner, control of blow-off material on trucks is readily addressed by
covering loads and is not a likely impact.
Section 3.7: Aesthetics/Light and Glare
3.7-1 Why were no viewpoints selected from the City of Newcastle to the east?
COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle
RESPONSE: Viewpoints to the east of I-405 were evaluated,however detailed visual simulations were
not provided because the relative prominence of the existing mill and the proposed buildings are a minor
element of views because of the distance and the elevated perspective from viewpoints east I-405. The
view simulations provided from Park Avenue to the east in Figure 3.7-12 provide a general idea of the
character of the development as seen from the east. A similar character of views will be available from
the distant east in Newcastle,but the relative prominence will be much lower due to distance. Due to
elevation, the buildings will not be skyline features. . The scale of proposed buildings would not obstruct
views from Newcastle of Lake Washington,territorial views of Mercer Island, or distant views of the
Olympic Mountains. The photos submitted by the City of Newcastle taken from a distance of about 2,500
feet from the site show the existing sawmill at about the same relative size as in DEIS Figure 3.7-12,
which was taken from Park Avenue about 600 feet from the site. This indicates that the field of view in
the Newcastle submittal is much narrower than the normal static human field of view and the relative
prominence of the site is exaggerated. The mitigating measures for views discussed on pages 3-117 and
3-118 are applicable to distant views,but would provide less mitigation, since impacts at a distance are
less.
3.7-2 Blank boxes in photo-simulations exaggerates visual impacts. I
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: In the absence of a specific design proposal,the bulk of the proposed building footprints
and the building height proposed by the applicant is depicted. This provides a conservative case. Had the
applicant provided a detailed proposal,more focused analysis could have been provided. The building
locations simulated are based on the building footprint defined by proposed setbacks in the plat
application. The building height is based on parameters specified by the applicant of a maximum 50 foot I
height within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act and 75 foot height outside SMA
jurisdiction as specified on DEIS pages 2-3 and 3-103.
3.7-3 Heights proposed are less than the 125 feet that zoning would allow.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: That is clearly stated in the Description of the Proposal on DIES page 2-3.
Section 3.8: Light and Glare
3.8-1 Light and glare impacts to the City of Newcastle should be considered.
COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle
RESPONSE: Light and glare impacts on land directly to the east are discussed on DEIS page 3-118.
Light and glare impacts of the site on land in Newcastle east of I-405 would be similar in character but of
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-18 May2004
less intensity than the impacts discussed for nearby viewpoints. The residential buildings on the site also
can be expected to have lower levels of impacts because of limited height and scale. In addition, as
residential buildings,it is likely that pierced windows will predominate rather than substantial areas of
glass as on office buildings. Impacts of the intervening freeway and interchange lighting at I-405/44th
Street, as well as the lighting for commercial uses east of I-405 are greater in intensity. These light
sources are likely to be the major glare source in views to the west for properties to the east of the site in
Newcastle. The mitigating measures outlined for light and glare are likely to be equally applicable to
light viewed from a distance as for closer viewpoints covered in the analysis.
Section 3.9: Noise
3.9-1 Noise from pin-piles suggested by the project geotechnical engineer would be less.
COMMENTERS: Applicant
RESPONSE: No specific proposal for types or depths of pilings can be supported given existing
geotechnical information. The range of noise levels, and mitigation discussed in the DEIS is reasonable
given the lack of a specific design parameters.
3.9-2 Noise from construction truck traffic in and around Newcastle should be discussed.
COMMENTERS: City of Newcastle
RESPONSE: As indicated in the response to comment 3.5-22, construction hauling routes are governed
by local jurisdiction designation of truck routes. The City of Newcastle Transportation Element Policy
TR-OP-4 designates principal arterials as truck routes. The two principal arterials designated are Coal
Creek Parkway and Newcastle Coal Creek Road. Neither of these roads provide access to the Barbee
Mill Site. There is little basis for presuming that construction traffic will access the site from other than
the I-405 interchanges at 44th Street and SR 900. There is no reason for trucks to use the east-west
roadways through the City of Newcastle connecting Coal Creek Parkway and Lake Washington Blvd. All
of these roads either are circuitous or have grades that discourage truck use. There is only a remote
possibility that residents of the City Newcastle will be affected by noise from construction haul routes.
Local jurisdictions such as the City of Newcastle can avoid truck impacts on sensitive routes by enforcing
truck route regulations.
Section 3-10: Historic and Cultural Resources
3.10-1 The Muckleshoot Tribe requested receipt of the full cultural report.
COMMENTERS: Muckleshoot Tribe
RESPONSE: Background information consisting of previous cultural assessments prepared for the
property and vicinity were transmitted to the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program. Additional
comments were not received.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 5-19 May2004
6. COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the following section are
- organized by date received.
The numbers in the margins indicate the number of the response in the previous section.
Table 6.1 Barbee Mill Draft EIS Comment Letters
Letter No. Commenter Date received
1 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission 9/11/03
2 Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program 9/11/03
3 Jan Hickling 9/12/03
4 Larry Reymann 9/12/03
5 Cyrus McNeely 9/22/03
6 Public Hearing 9/23/03
7 King County Wastewater Treatment Division 9/26/03
8 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 9/29/03
9 Mark Hancock 10/01/03
10 Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 10/03/03
11 Greg Fawcett 10/07/03
12 Sarah Nicoli 10/07/03
13 Port Quendall Company 10/07/03
14 Washington Department of Natural Resources 10/08/03
15 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 10/07/03
16 Applicant 10/08/03
17 City of Newcastle ,10/08/03
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-1 April2004
I
• .••
'41IFR
STATE Of WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1300 S.Evergreen Park O.S.W.,P.O.Box 47.if0• Olympia,Withington 98504-7250,
(360)664:1160 • ITV(360)
ClrYogfirrp '
September 9,2003 Saj °IV fv°
912,1„
Ms.Susan Fiala
City of Renton
/PO)
;
Development Services Division
1055 S.Grady Way
Sixth floor
Rat*,WA 98055
Subject: Barbee Mill Draft:Environmental impact-Statement
Dear Ms.Fiala
. Washington Utilities and Transportation CommiSsion(WUTC)Staff have reviewedthe
draft environmental impact statement for the city of kenton's Barbie Milt development
'propOSai;and would like to submit the following comments.
As ispointed out in:Seedort'l.6 ofthe dectunent;the construction ofpublic.railroad
crossings in Washington requires prior approval from WUTC per RCW 81,15;02Q. Jn
A general,the Commission seeks tii limit the number of railroad crossings in Washington to'
those that are essential to a community and are not redundant With respect to reasonable '
alternative access'across the tracks.Since the transportation options listed in the 1 I
document consist of MultiPlerailitiad:proSitt scenarios,it maybe in the project's best
interest to discuss the options on site with Commission Staff and representatives ofthe
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company,. Consultation with all Pattiesprier to
any one option being plOpOsed:Weitid give the city the opportunity to hear all sides and
concerns before*flies any petitions with the Commistion. Prior agreement by all parties
would also elintinate:a0 paStibility of a formal heating on the matter.
Please contact Alunerllizam at(360)664,1345 to coordinate any such meeting or to
discuss Wtrit's role in railroad crossing'safety. Thank you for the opportunity of
comment On the proposal.
Singer*,
Carole-I.Washburn
Seeretttry
-
m.attsa..
554-1779-017
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
April 2004
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-2
•
•
DE
YELop
rtyniT nl1LO hflYCa
City of Renton September 10, 2¢p
Development Services Div. r 17 2003
Susan Fiala RECEr r�11
Dear Ms. Fiala: •
Thank you and the City Of Renton for the opportunity to continue the input
from the Kennydale Community regarding the Barbee Mill Development. As
we have said in previous meetings; we share the concerns about the
increased traffic this development will generate from the 44' St Exit on
405 into Kennydale, and believe that, in addition to other measures,
3.5-4 locating both entrances into the development North.of May Creek will
appreciably mitigate this impact. Our main concern however, is for the
natural habitat along May Creek and the Lake Washington shoreline that will
be forever changed by this development.
•
We have hiked along May Creek and monitored the wildlife there, especially
the,Sockeye, Coho, and Chinook salmon runs, for decades now, and done
what we canto assist them in their struggle to survive and reproduce. We
have witnessed deer and the Osprey that live at the mill raise theiroffspring
.arid thrive. We-believe strongly that these creatures' survival depends on
A .public-involvement and awareness of their well being, and that to realize this
it is essential that citizens have access to May Creek and the Lake
Washington shoreline that could be walled off by this development.The
:changes:this development will bring to the unique,natural,environment this .
site represents should not just'maintain wild habitat, but:enhance it, If what
is left of wildlife habitat here.is managed'prudently, these considerations will
not the,Barbee Mill Development,.but tangibly increase its value.
• In the six years I was Packmasterfor St:,Anthony's.Cub Scouts,and,.in the
years since as anactive.inember.of the Kennydale Neigborhood Association,
and' Block Watch'Captain.*our neighborhood, 'have,discussed the-
ongoing'development inKennydale with'a great many residents.here. The
overwhelming majority.of our neighbors agree-,..as we.-do,that the greatest
legacy we could leave our children's children would bea Park on the last
undeveloped shoreline in our area.A third jewel in the crown that Newcastle •
and Coulon Parks represent would benefit countless citizens for generations
to come. As we work toward that goal, it is of paramount importance'not to
let the Barbee MITI Development block the public's access to May Creek and
the Lake Washington shoreline.,
Thank ou.for your consideration,
Larry an Cir eymann 1313 No. 38th St enton; WA 98056
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-3 April 2004
_ 1
r
MUCKLESHOOT ._
INDI
i CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM i• eta i. .
' a: 4. 39015 172nd Avenue S.E.•Auburn,Washington 98092-9/63 ` i . ` ' 1
Phone: (360).802-2202 FAX: (360)802-2242.
Septeiriber 4;2003 - - 1
City ofRenton Vet• ' '
Development Services DivisionN!`p
Attn::SusanFiala Ptiv
/
1055 5outh'Grady'Way,Sixth Floor • - • Sip.1 f - •
Benton,WA98055
< FI{I
4.i 3 ,;s=m :f"R Ti,aitie`e Mrlikompan'y;LUA 02-U4Q•EIS; — _. ----,- n .: _ ,
' Dear Ma...Fiala,
On'behalf of the Cultural Resources Committee,I have reviewed the following,• •
information sent regarding placement of the:Barbee Mill Company and have.the
3.10-1 following comments.We-are unable to consult on this project as required by Section 106
of the National Historic'Preservation Act.The DEIS documents sent to this department •
does not-•provide A iidiit R°`PYedse send us ApperidikIti for our review.Without a
complete cultural survey report we are unable to review impacts.
The.Cultural Resources:Program does not represent.the Wildlife.Program and the - .
Fisheries Program which are separate departments under the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.If . .
needed,please contact these departments for their input:on this project. . ,
We appreciate the effort;to coordinate with theMuckleshoot'Tribe prior to'site
preparation;The destructive nature of construction excavation can often destroy a site • -
and cause`delays and:unriecessary expense for the contractor.Ifydu:have any questions,
please contact ine at360-802-2202,extension 103. -
.
Sin' ely, .
l r
Donna Hlogerhuis, turd' ,Specialist Specialist
` Cc:IVZelissa'talvert;Wirdlife and Culture Director'.. •; ' '
- "':11ob.Wliitlam,SHPO" .. t - •,, -..:.- I• —,
•
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement . Page 6-4 April 2004
_I
I
• R .
I . .::: _ . -,,-;,-, , ; „ , alfoloa _._
�: `f7nl. . . cirrourrra---
I". : .k.. :_ Lie '--:,-. - . S .: K)
"
CY\Lill_thoLA,Ae2csa,,_',,, a_0(stcy)_________.
, s Libri-,,, .....k .'....icik-,:-:*0-4,10e0N,..,,„ _
..: .
,..._.. ..
. .
B. ____ __. i_....Tee,- ':cxce...,` 0,6. o �!p� Q:n•CA., _
11 oo.L 'i aff m e.9n-S. .( i _
. �nV S.
- ` ce . . -
_ ..... .:az s'it_-(0-01 _ o
. ------ I a ©..cc u...i ;. -i, ++ t . v 5 .
...__.cl ur . f. ? ,-pie(
-,_____-- -.Q. _i_ a c!. o; N_ . Far
. __.._ ___. _t_ f-_ �l °r fi .off a e: _,_t ,luc ,rkf
i.,.,,.. A..hti.:;9. '. a :_ _ n
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-5 April 2004
•
al
II
L-_.-
I ,
� • vwtS ., #E . ___
=K• � RAii, i f K en. ,Ll1
�
t
l tl pc v
e sc
•
' - '"-2r t _'S.
,ice..,
4
'.
•
i___._.
1
I . 1 1
I
•
i
i f
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-6 April 2004
September 19,2003 ,
•
Cyrus M McNeely
3810 park Ave.Na.
Renton,WA 98056
Dear Ms.Fiala:
I have read portions of the Draft EIS for the Barbee Mill proposaland have comments regarding traffic and
impacts in the area Specifically,note that on page A-7,Tranipertation, of the'Scoping document there is
indication that Park Ave No.is to be included in the analysis. It seernslhatthit Wasn't done because both"
Park Ave.No.and 40th No.are virtually ignored in the document. " •
3.5-13
North 30th to Park Ave.No.,to No.40th,to Lake WA Blvd to the No.44th interchange is now,and will
certainly increasingly become a popular northbound 1.405 by-pass route Park Ave.No is wider,
straighter and smoother than Burnett,with no stops between No.30th and No.40th.it is a quicker way than
Burnett to get from 1-495 Exit 6 to the project site; Certainly some drivers going to and corning from the
site will use this"go-around".routinely,some when they know there it congestion cinI-405 and still others •• ,
legitimately enroute to the Renton Hilands and points between. Park Ave;Na and NO.40th-should both
absolutely be included in the"Prole&Trip Distribution"and analyzed for
impacts and needed mitigation.
F Minor point on Pg 3-62; Project site is bounded by".:1-405/Lake,Washington Bhjd to the
Should be"east"?
Thank for opportunity to comment Reach me at(425)255-5937;cmikeathom©aO1.corn.
CyrusM.'("Mike")McNeely •
gO
.aarr
ELOP''-‘1Etw-
1:0 offy
2403
tt.0
seCEINED
l'hursdag Septantre08,2003 Amides OnlIpm Coligmatiam • Pagel 1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-7 April 2004
i
I
Barbee Mill DEIS
September 22,2003:Public Hearing
Jennifer: Thanks,well,goodevening and:thankyou for coming to the public hearing for -
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Barbee Mill
Preliminary Plat. My name is Jennifer Henning,I'm the Principal Planner with
the Development Services Division here at the City of Renton. And I'in pinch
hitting tonight for the project manager on our team,SusanFiala-who's out'of the
office. I'd,like:to introduce anothermember of my staff,Andree DeBauw,who
•
is our Recording Secretary:tonight. Andree is-also the sergeant at arms and as
you get up to speak tonight,'because there are quite a few signed up,you'll have
• about five minutes to speak,And Andree's got great little timer hera that will
startblinking. When you have two minutes left it will blink yellow and then it
will go red when'your tune is up.:So we'd like to have you try and contain,your
comments within about five minute period if at all.possible.
We also have Campbell Mathewson here tonight. He is the applicant for the '
Cugini family and he is considered:the•applicant.for this project proposal. Robert
• Cugini is also here representing as:the owner property,and David Sherrard,is the
• project manager for Parametrix which is our consultant team.that prepared the
EIS for the Cityof Renton.
Okay so lets go through a'-few logistics. We have exhibits on the boards mounted
•over on the side of the mom. It shows-the proposal which is to subdivide the
twenty=three:acre piece of property along Lake Washington-into individual lots
where there would be built townhomes and also four and five=plex.structures:
We'have a vicinity map,arid:that's'mounted on the side.And;then there are two
other exhibits which.showsome alternative ormodifiedproposals that are
suggested in Environmental Impact_Study: So please feel free to review
these. At any tiitleyou'can get up and'wander around,and'look at those.
•
Next,.we have a sign-up sheet in the back of the.room;near the door as you came
in. This is for.anyone who.would wish:to,speak totiight'or testify, Don't wony if
• you are not signed up right now. If you chooseto speak later on in the evening.
- we can take you after we:have taken everyoneelse:in order.
For those who, to speak to
night onight could•you please come to the podium when
it's your tun,say your name,Spell your last name;and give,your mailing address
s4 that our records are complete. Anyone Who testifies will-be made a party of :_
record on the.development application andyou'll receivenotification of
• 'decisions that are made along the-way. • ,—
For those of you that haven't attended an-EIS.heating before,this is not really _
intended to be interactive. Thisis not where yeu get'your comments responded
to unless they are procedural'in nature:-We merely-are here to collect your-
comments and to catalogue those and they will be addressed the.FinalEIS.
document. So the Draft-EIS document which-is this ttvo•voluthe set,hard copy
or a CD-Rom,together'with responses to your comments end to,the comments
I
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-8 April 2004
_ Q
I '
received via letter from agencies and other interested parties,that together
constitutes the entire EIS.
So what I'm going to do right now is to recap the proposal and process to date.
Then we'll open the hearing for public testimony.
•
The EIS or the Environmental Impact Statement was required by the City of
Renton because the City determined that the proposal was likely to have a
significant impact'on the environment:We needed the study in order to assess
the-impacts and to propose:ways:in which those impacts could either be
• eliminated;or diminished,.below a level of significance. •
•
So'the•City issued a Determination•of Significance in November of last year.
This was•after evaluating the application. And we'.d had the application-for about •
six;months at.that point.andwe were doingquite a few studies..The
Determination of Signifcance.was issued by the Environmental'Review
Committee,that's the environmental,:ah,the responsible official for the City of
Renton.'And_then,we startedtaking comnients!onwhatthe scope of.this
document should be.Velattaptiblic scoping.meeting inDecember of last year. •
After we had the public scoping meeting We'started.looltingfor a consultant to
prepare the document And,weultimately,selected Parametrix from Kirkland,
Washington to be the City's consultant of the.preparation of the.document And
David Shetrarciis here tonight as•the project manager. And he may be filling in a
•fevr gaps,asi.need.along the:way,.•tonight,:; -t
So Parametrix commenced their work.on'the EIS•in.February. They were all
over the site;They were.evaluatingthe habitat They were evaluating the
• shoreline.They.:were evaluating.*-land-use and the aesthetics,the utilities
systems,thetfldudplain,all the natural and'built environment systems arid many
of the transportation issues.:The Draft EIS:Ywas then prepared and:issued.on
September 2:2Q03a..We are in themidst of a30'day comment period which
• began with,thessuance of that EIS:This COrninent period will end next
•Wednesday; ctober 14: That:is:tuiless we'eceive requeats from agencies or
3 others for;an d'dditional,15:day erttension to dlutieOmmettyperiod.s As I
•mentioned,•anybody who±on meaiitthtOnigl t will be•made<a party,of record and
you'll be ree tvingreceiving,not}ce;lpn!anyideeisions•associated with this
• application.
• I've.shown you the printed version of the EIS. If you don'thave a copy,they are
available for purchase in our.Finance Department for$15:00 each volume or you
• ean•get the entire thing on a CD-Rom.for$5.00. If we need to mail it to you,we
also charge postage and there istax.applicable to both. Also the EIS is available
at the public libraries here in Renton,the main branch and,also the Highlands
branch.
•
Okay,so let's get down to the nuts and bolts. The project site is about.23 acres.
It's in the Kenneydaie neighborhood. Roughly;it is bounded by Lake
Washington on the west,NE 40`1'Street on.the south,exit 7 or NE 44111 on the
north,and the Burlington Northern SanteFe railroad tracks and Lake Washington •
Blvd.on the cast. It part of...It's currently the Barbee Mill. It's been used as a
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-9 April 2004
•
•
•
•
•
sawmill for many many years,probably since the 1930's,Robert,is that about
right?
Robert Cugini: No,it was moved to that site,in 1945. •
• Jennifer: 1945,so it's been used as a sawmill for a very long time. There are vacant j
properties M.the north indifferent ownership and those are not part of this
• application. May flow through-the site. It's roughly in the center of
the site at the eastern boundary then flows to the,if you look at this boundary,
' excuse"nie this map up on the overhead projector,you can see in blue,from the '
• -center of the site on the,eastern-border,down to the southwest,that's May Creek ! --
flowing through the site. The zoning designation for this property,even though
it's an industrial use the zoning designation is what we call COR which is !
Commercial,Office,Residential. It's intended for mixed-use residential
developmentp combined'with office buildings ('
and.commercial. However,it does
• • allow for stand-alone residential development at lower densities and that's what
this proposal is. This,proposal is'sulidivide the property into 115 lots. These
would:be developed with 115'residential structures,:primarily duplexes,but also 1
some town homes that have four and five units. Thelots would range in size,
from 1,847 square feet'up to 7,336 square feet. The project also consists of the
construction-of public streets and a couple of at-grade railroad crossings to get
• • onto the site. In.the.EIS,we made a number of assumptions,and those
. • assumptions were to allow us to analyze the project because we had to look at
. what we considered to be the worst case scenario and have full disclosure of the
- environmental impacts. So for example,we knew the-property was being ,-
subdivided and we knew there would be some residential structures on it,,but we
couldn't tell you exactly what the height of#hose was; The zoning allows heights
. up to 7S feet and the Shoreltine•Program Of theCity allows heights of up to 50
.•
feet in.the shoreline area. So we looked.at,the;potential for some very tall
structures;even,though it's likely that would never'occur,but we•had to look at
that. We also had to'assuine that there would be individual residential docks for, i
• , ' each home.along waterfront,along the:Lake Washington waterfront'and that
• would be.for`16 harries. Even though,that's not necessarily part of the proposal
,. because it warn t disclosed,Nye had to'make that assumption. In addition,the
EIS:analyzed'a 25_foot setback-from take Washington;'thatis a setback to the
residential•structure,•and that'.s'what the:Shoreline"Master Program currently
• allows However`,there are a'couple alternatives with greater setbacks that the
EIS;looked•at:that are•kind of the current thinking initerms of protecting the
salmon andhabitat;.andthat would be fora 50 foot.an11000 foot setback,'and
.those are some‘rhawings.tliat are shown on white posterboards over.on the side.of
the room. The"50 foot setback would resultin fewer units;a.total of 101. A 100
foot setback would result in only 50 building sites'(50)building sites. So the EIS
assumed that the level of development of the site of the 115.units,but it also had
to look at alternatives. So the.alternative we chose to Jook at was What we call '
the`;`no project"alternative;which is continuation ofexistmg industrial use of the
• site."So it assumed:there might<bc some reuse Of the existing buildings and that ,
•
some sera of ridestrial'deyelopinentwould continue.
.
. i
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-10 April 2004 i
'
I
•
Okay,having said all that,we're just about 6:15 P.M. I'm going-to grab the sign
up sheet and we'll open the public comment portion of this public hearing.
Andrea is-going to serve as a recorder and we're going to•call the speakers,to the
podium in the other you are signed up. And should you wish to.testify and are
not-signed Up,then we'll have an opportunity for you to do that.
•
•And our first speaker is Mr:Greg Fawcett.' ' •
•
Greg Fawcett: -oh;okay.i which way does this face,this•way over here?'Are you okay here?
.Jennifer • 'Um,yeah'yoit can speak to us: "
Grog Fawcett: -Oh:. • . . - • •
.Jennifer: You don't need to speak to the audience. Okay? Thank you.
Greg Fawcett: My name is Greg Fawcett and my mailing address is-PO Box 402,Fall City,WA
• 98024..Forgive me for speaking quickly but I wanted to-go through,some of the
issues that nail. I'm-51'ycats old. I grew up in Kennydale,went to school in
Rei ton,,graduated from Haien in 1971:'I completed my B.A.degree at the
University of Washington';mid then went on to getiny doctorate at the University
iif Washington in 1981._MY-family currently owns'property in Kennydale,and
inybrother and my mother acid my son currently just live a few blocks away
front theproposed Barbee sitar:Our tinily has owned property iii Kennydale
since 1875,prior to the inegrl,orration of the City of Renton and when
Washington was a tern tary.*''°'
I'waiited to'use the liiiiited'dine available:to try to help educate people in the
room regarding the growth acid population and its impact on land usage and how
tltataf ects.everybody°in this room and in this country, In the United States we:
l ii�o'a net increase of 2'0the population every year:on average. It's a matter
ofreebrd with the miikt re'Cent''tlnited States Census,and also'the Washington
Sta"te,'Growth Management Act Mast people.consider.a 2%o growth rate increase
to'belnmdest yetin60"yearsi}tattneatns°tlie population will double:
wa' :: r:
This groWth in popuhifidn'is 2ibthurg new. In fact if-has been stable for nearly
300yeafs lit this cotmtty since 1700. Many in.this.rooin will witness the
doubling of the popula'tion`in;their lifetimes: To those that.say how can this
hapiien'or what ki d ofworld ill'this.be if that occurs,all you need to.do.is look •
bank 50brears:'Andtnlact`tlii area and'in.this region has:Mare than doubled in
the)*50:years.• .• . ..
Those that-sit orf the Council are very welt aware of The Growth Management
,tt;ct or theterm"msnagenierit-growth",or the new-buzz phrase"Smart Growth".
Opp*tonight in fairor of the proposed Barbee Mill development. Not because
p.._
it degrades.the environment,`but because it provides housing•for a rising
population in arrurban area and whose net effect will be to decrease the damage
to the-environnient for future.generations.
And let me begin to explain why that is a benefit to the enviiomiment. If we do:
not mote fully develop urban areas that already have existing infrastructure
•
•
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-11 April 2004
I {
J_1
•
•
including roads,ut lities,.density of population,then economic pressure for a
growing populationto sprawl increases to outlying regions. This ensuing,sprawl
will.on balance create-greater environmental damage. Every acre that we set
aside in urban areas as open.space,or as.protected,.puts increasing pressure for •
sprawl in.areas further•away from the existing urban areas.
If we limitthe areas to support housing this acts to drive up the cost of housing
for those who live•iri the urban areas. hi-a recent article.in the Seattle Times"the
cost per-square footfor housing in Seattle is four times the cost in outlying -
areas". My question is whatis that family going to have to do without to pay.for
this increase in housing? Are they going.to have to do without health insurance,
. prescription,medication. Are theygoing to have to do without the ability topay .
.for their children's higher education,or retirement,or-quality of life? What are
•
people going to.have to-do.without to pay for this increased cost Of housing?
As we restrict development in urban areas this acts to drive up the cost'of all real
• estate in those areas. The rise in cost for real estate drives up the cost for all
goods'and services.that each of us in:this room depend on. I would ask again,
what are we going to.have to do.without to pay for this increase in:cost?
If you do not want to support growth in the City of Renton and use the
environment as your mantra then just embrace the inevitable sprawl that will •
result and explain to your children how you protected the.environment by
promoting'spia*l. -'
I would-be-remiss if I did not.offer at least some possible solutions. I think one
'idea'would.be to evaluate properties for development on a case-by-case_basis. In-
other words,just as you would consideran individual for a job.based•not on their
class,or race,but rather onhis or her individual characteristics;so must we
consider:individual properties.;Where is can be demonstrated that considering all
-the factors a specific.parcel can-offeron balance greater good to the area then:the
summation of those factois should'precedence and override a single existing
restriction,or regulation:This concept would be truly a"Smart,Growth"'
concept.
•
Another:concept;would.be•a,tiaiisfer.of development credits:where by
neighboring property owners.like myself that have similar zoning or whatever,.
would'Pll-their credits•to'a developer to more intensely develop properties to,a
greater density above existing zoning allowances, Many other cities,the Cityof
Seattle,thc City of Redmond,and Rung County already have such ordinances in
Place.
I would be•happy to discuss in-more detail how to transfer development credits-so
it would'be'a win for the environment,'a win for the City,arid a win for future
development. Thankyou verymuch.
Jennifer: Thank you:Mr,Fawcett. Our next speakeris•Torsten Lienau. Leen-ow? You're
not,you're;going to:forego spealdng? Okay,thank.you, Our next speaker is Mr.
•Ro,bert Cugini.
•
{
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-12 April 2004
•
I t
•
•
• Robert Cugini: Robert Cugini,PO Box 359,Renton,WA 98057. I at Robert Cugini. I'm one
of the owners of the Barbee Mill property. My family has been in Renton since
1904 and we are excited about the chance to finally redevelop our industrial site
• into something that is much more compatible withthe existing neighborhoods.
Our project represents about the least dense;least impact project that could be
proposed for the site. As many of you know,there has been proposals in recent
years that would have takenfull advantage of the 125 foot heightlimitand
increased traffic by thousands of cars per day. We're excited about the fact that
our project generates minimal traffic,protects views,andis a significant
environmental improvement overthe existing industrial use.:We look forward to
A working with the City'and our neighbors to bring-this.projeot to completion.
Thankyou foryour time in the recent montlis`with all the-work on this project
and for the opportunity to"corimient this evening: Thank you:
Jennifer: Thank.you Mr.Cugini. Our next speaker is Mr.Campbell Mathewson.
f ,
Mr.Campbell: No thanks,I thought you were supposed to sign in. '
Jennifer: Okay:•Alright Mt.Emmett Pritchard. ••
Mr.Pritchard: Same for me.
Jennifer: Okay. Mr.Don West•
Mr.,West: It's the same'for me.
•
Jennifer: Okay. Mr.Jim Johnson.
Mr:Johnson:• 'Same here. •
Jennifer; Okay. Howabout Matt Hougu..IsMatt interested in speaking?'Okay. Fritz
Timm." •
Fritz Timm: My name is Fritz Timm. I'm the.Senior Development Engineer with the City of
Newcastle. Mailing address is 13020 S.72"'Pl.,Newcastle,WA 98059. I want - .
to express the City'of Newcastle's.appreciationfor allowing us a Period of
comment..We have in the record a series of comments the project. We
went through the EIS and identified a number of locations where we felt that the
impactsinaynot have adequately addressed oar comments;;possibly through.
misinterpretation of what our comments indicated..With'me is Mir City Traffic
Engineer,Mr.Dave Engar and he also will be'expressing some more specific
issues related to traffic. With respect to other comments thatwe had put on the-
record;,noise,dust,light and glare,these issues were primarily concerned with:
3.5-22 respect to'the height of residences of Newcastle along lake Washington Blvd:
and further to the south because they're directly impacted bythe project. 'Our
3.8-1 feeling is that the issues as they're impacting the City of Newcastle.should be
.more specifically addressed. Again that relates'specifically to noise,dust,.liglit
• 3.9-2 arid glare. And if there's specific questions that the teat has Wittrespect to
those,we plan on submitting fonnal-comments a little later.in the month.
3 •
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-13 April 2004
•
•
•
Jennifer: Thank you Mr.Timm. So as I understand it,a letter is forthcoming from the.City
of Newcastle.
•
Mr.Timm: Yes ma'am
Jennifer: Thank you. The next party signed up is Caryatid Yvonne Pipkin. ,
. Mr.Pipkin: Yeah we had no comment because.we thought that was just a sign-up sheet.
Jennifer: Okay. Thankyou. How about Jolm Houtz?
John Houtz: No.
Jennifer: No?Alright,Mr.Chuck Wolfe
Chuck Wolfe: My-name is Chuck Wolfe: I'm with the law firm of Foster,Pepper,and
Shefelman in Seattle..We represented.the Port Quendall Company for many
years:The°Port Quendall Company;as some ofyoukaow,owns the Baxter,
Properties,the fernier-Baxter Properties to the north and the•Pan Abode
Properties to the east of the subject property. And we will be submitting
substansive•comments atalater time..Quite frankly,.we've got the EIS under.
review right now and we'd lie to take this opportunity:if possible,to request I
• induction.of the 15.day statutory exception or extension;rather,I'm sorry. ;
Because of the precedential nature of this development on the Port Quendall
Coinpanyproperty,the complexity of the issues,and the fact that our clients in
the past have studied many ofthese issues;we'd like to see some prior studies
better integrated in-the current document and have specific identification of those
opportunities-underway. And.that's-all fortonight:Thankyou. ,
Jennifer.__ Okay,thank you Mr.Wolfe. So-as`I understand,you're'requesting an extension
of the comment period. If that does oecur,all parties would be notified that the
comment period has been;extended:;But we have not made that decision as•of
tonight.
Mr.Wolfe: I.understim4that ifyou're unable to make that determination-prior to October 1
then•ivewduld prefer:October le'or so.
Jennifer: 'Okay;Thankyou. And for the-record,I understand Miss DeBauw says that we
don't have;your address but.we do have it on:the sign up sheet, Could you verify.
1111 Third Ave.,#3400,:Seattle,WA 98101. Is thatcorrectMr.Wolfe.(he
. verified). Okay,drank you: Our next speaker is Dave Engar.
Dave Engar: Good My name.is Dave Enger: I'.m employed,by Transportation •
Planning:Inc. Our address is 2223.112th Ave::NE;.Suite.101,,Bellevue,:WA
98004:,As Mr.;Tim n mentioned I'm The Traffic Engineering Consultant for:the
City of Newcastle.;AndI.wiIlbe.submittinga.letter With our comments onthe
review of the.transportation section that will attached,to`the City ofNewcastle's-
letter to be submitted a little later before the.deadline. I have reviewed the
Transportation Section of the Draft PAS and-appreciate•thatit does address.some
of the comments that were'mentioned in our,in myApril.1,2002letter which
was attacheg to the;City.of Newcastle letter that was submitted in December
•
•
- t
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-14 April 2004 i
I -'
regarding scoping for this project. However,there are a few additional issues
and.some additional analysis and discussion that we think should be included in
the EIS.
The first of those is that a general correction should be made that several of the
streets that are mentioned in the Transportation Section toward the north end of
the study area are actually in the City of Bellevue and,not the City of Newcastle.
hi particular,southeast 64'h Street and all of the.streets to the north are in
Bellevue because the city limits between Newcastle and.Bellevue runs along the
south edge of.64t Street,west of 112th Ave.SE. There are several references
and tables that refer to those streets in Bellevue.
Regarding'the project trip distribution..shown on Figure 3.5-5 in the
•
• Transportation Section I have three concerns regarding that figure. The first is •
that the figure shows no site generated traffic on SE 76's Street,which runs up the
hill into Newcastle. Secondly,the figure shows about 9%ofthe site generated
3.5-7 trips using'112th SE,sonth of Lake Washington Blvd.,which appears to be to
high. Trips that would travel between that area in Newcastle,kind of northeast of
the Barbee Mill site up in the vicinity of SE 6S`"Street and 112'"Ave.SE,trips
between that area and the Barbee Mill site would probably use SE 76t'Street
• rather than the.112"'Ave./Lake Washington Blvd.route just because the SE 76th
Street route is probably`about a half-mile shorter and a more direct route. And
'that needs to be taken into consideration in the EIS. So that 9%of the trips that's
shown on 1121 probably most of that really shouldbe shown on 76'k Street
instead. . • ' .
Mythird•concern about the trip generation or trip distribution rather,for the
• project;shown on.Figure 3.5-5 is•regarding the 25%of the site generated trips
• 3.5-8 that:are shown NE 44's Street,east of Lake Washington Blvd.•We•think that the.
trip distribution needs to be extended'to show where that 25%is expected to go.
• Now I Would expect that some of those trips would be distributed to the
.Mct)onald's•and the other,commercial developments right in that area of NE 44's •
Street but I would expect that most of those trips would probably continue on up •
the hill into Newcastle;along the Lincoln Ave./112th PI.SE route. And.probably
many-of those Would continue on'on SE 88,th Street and 89`h P1:;.all the way to
Coal Creek Parkway. So we think the trip distribution needsto be extended at
least to Coal Creek Parkway to.tlat intersection,at'that 8,9t Pl.
The City of Newcastle is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and
as•partof that effort they've done art extensive analysis of the intersections city-
wide during the a.m:and p.m.peak hour and looked at levels of service. And
one of the levels of service concerns is a Level of Service F that's been identified
at that SE S9"'P1/Coal Creek Parkway,intersection: So,we think that this Draft
EIS'•for Barbee Mill needs to include a trip distribution to that intersection and
•
p
ossible identification of any impacts and anyotential mitigation:
• p
The City of Neweastle's Comprehensive Plan process has also identified a Level
3.5-23 of Service F condition at the Lake;Washington:B1vdil12"'Ave:SE.intersection
during the a.m,peak hour. We think that's largely because of traffic using Lake
Washington Blvd.and 112th Ave:SE as an alternate route to I=405,'particularly
northbound during the moaning peakbour.'There's some long back-ups at the
•
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-15 April 2004
stop sign at Lake Washington Blvd.as you try to turn left on 112ib Ave.SE. We , -
had mentioned-in our scoping request letter last year that we wanted,that we
would like to see an analysis of the a.m.peakhour at that intersection. That was
riot included in this Draft EIS and we think that is still needed,particularly in
light of this Level of Service F condition.
Finally,we would like to see the EIS include an analysis of construction traffic
impacts: Apparently there is no discussion in the Transportation Section
currently. EIS should identify and discuss truck haul routes for construction
materials and wastes. Measures to mitigate construction traffic impacts such as
3.5-22 potential haul route restrictions,restrictions on haul hours of operations,weight,
• limits oversized routing,etc. Other potential Mitigation measures are
related to construction truck traffic;include,pavement condition,monitoring,and
restoration,plans for transportation of hazardous materials,truck washing,load
covering,spill prevention and.clean=tip,and related issues. Again,we will be j
submitting written comments in the near future. Thank.you.
Jennifer: Thank you Mr.Engar. The last person have on my sign-up list tonight is Ms.
MaicieMarxwell. ;
Ms.Maxwell: (She was inaudible,but declined).
Jennifer: Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience.who would care to provide oral
comments tonight on the Draft EIS for the Barbee Mill proposal? If so,now is
your chance. Okay;well with that I will close the public hearing. I'd like to
thank you all for your interest and for your attention tonight. Anyone who signed
up as.you'came in;Or if you'd.like to give us your name and address,as-you leave
will be'made"a party of record. If the comment,period is.extended,you'll be
notified:.The Final-EIS typically takes.about 60 days to prepare once the
comment period for the Draft-EIS is complete. So'you can expect to see the
RcsP to;Comment document issued in about two months-from the end of the
onse,
comment period.'So thank you very much. Staff will be here and the.EIS
consultant will behere;the applicant and owner for several.minutes if you'd like
to catch us and discuss anything. Thank you.
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-16 April 2004
i
.27 f)
sca `
(t,„,*
o' BARBEE MILL DEISPUBLIC.HEARING
cl a SEPTEMBER 23,2003
NAME((ease print steady) ADDRESS/PHONE/E-MAIL CHECK HERE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK$/�
a 1.D.
Y
y� ,i>r r z Eawc ,�` 1 d....gox Lio F�.l! C:.'i. wi} 9 go a q
3 2 Y +IieP%4 4 Irihe..co en
v,;1 oes- tit Lz e j 4 . (c� 4 Ai ,i4-e, 2' O BeI/ yuct iv4 1's'n04- c 2s..4sz).a33s
(A.,..4
a
pk(/ I" s I s°i '%", . Sin z re...: 5:e5 Q-A, 9,p/0 /
{r''' ,4144,0 O R 5?:f( 7`t PT (4 0 .9T` c G I,C. 9 (ow
6.b bpin 1J`tc d ' 22.yto,ti i,\E teolm . Ms. 2R.vt, ,.ott.tt� a g 3
m ,.
�
(.// ;fil Z;Pk ii,s an 3 92/ /l-CA 44v4. SE", (1iAom e J ,V.4 9 ,290
V
✓/ An- 71 411 . "ba7 /l'8�/a i' aly 4*0a 4,444w, cam- 9 33
9.Vv ie--rr .- I //*/,-e.: 13 02o S e` �L- .Pc..;a.c..0 L •r '- 7 ro$ 7 LJ
10. ,
v4C,Asz.-1 k Nvu or►r- PI PXr sJ A )a o N. .1s&4 ST• t2Tq'fa,j vs 0. ,
it. .
6 TZ 6809: '4Zc�ice(' t:.'ts_,12 y, 96ossa .
12. fc:tl f el P er 4 s e ,
�/_�( Qc .
-cu 1 .. tit ( T> d.�,,, ,e. €34C0 r.„ f.p erilot ` Po-Fc C 0
TRb,wspo i4A77.,-1 f1-amiN4 s. F-Aa ar:cat04 //4 c, V
�-+►�- 9'1-23 1 1:''4.4. NE/ .. .-,44-`,J o( .,-,11i
tea— �.' r• b o .cr Li 67(P
is.
u
bay
tie Those who sign in wilt automatically be made a Party-of-Record for the project. Page of
00
o --.
A V
,
l
Ki
ng
Treatment Divistan .1
Department of Natural Resources
Ku%Street.Cente'r
201 Soetb Jackson Street
SeattleAR 98104-3855
September 26,2003 .
Susan Fiala
City of Renton •
PlanningButlding/Public Works Department - .
1055 South Grady Way •
Renton,WA 98055 .
RE .Barbee Mill'Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat j
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. King Cotirity's Eastside Interceptor,Section•4,is .
located within the Barbee:Mill Preliminary Plat site(please see tlte:attached figures). In order " ,
to protect this wastewater facility;.King County,is requestingthat the Agency do the following:
• Submit construction°drawings for the project to Eric Davison in the Design,:Construction and
AssetManagement Program,Civil/Architectural Section.Brie can be contacted et(206)6.84-
i 5-2 p 1707.Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King
County staff can assess the projects iinpacts. Drawings should be sent to: ,
. I
Eric Davison,DCAM,Civil/Architectural Section .
King County Wastewater Treatment Division. •
201 South Jackson""Street,KSC-NR..0508. • 1
Seattle;WA 98104-3855 {
• Please.contact Eric Davison at(206)684-1707 a minimum of 72houts.prior to commencing,
any constructionin order to allow staff time to arrange fora KingCounty inspector to be on -i
the site during construction. 1
Thank you ortumt for the oppyto review and comment,onthis proposal. If you have questions,1, '
. .can be reached at(206)•684-1227. i
Sincerely, i
Barbara Questad -
" Brivironlnental Planner
Enclosures '
cc: Eric Davison,DCAM,Civil/Architectural Section
Pam Elarde,Supervisor,Right-of-Way Unit,Planning and:System Development .
CLEAN WATER—A SOUND INVESTMENT '
I '
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-18 April 2004 --
1
, - • - - ,
_ .
•
•
. .
, . ., -
. .
• ,,•.II.—
, _ • • . .
. . .
.. -
- . . — • . •
•
1 ••
.. .
,
'...., .,'..,..' . ,... ,,...,
' ' 4 :: - • '•.-. -• -•• *--•'•"- -1,'?-tr'.•17Pr.,::•••''''',.:'-'•;i:‘,.;.../1; •43-77=„ , '•7174:7177VS7.1r1•71, '-'41e41,-; •irrgl7,174t"7,7=,„,,54:7" . - ..-^, .- ..., ....;'"•.•..... ,.. •..,, .•; , -V,,,,..-:'•,,,,';, •,.; ,.. ' , •••' .•
' , '.:".,.......',•;,'".•'.-i-',.... ..'r ::,.V.1:1••••,04,...:.it,•"/..„.;".,,:f.Yt,,,,-..,:,....!•--Y","'1,..,?,::.',".,',.7'.:":,',:f.i•-.:,-;•••,e,:,•<:v•t'F.,,,!•;:.•::•-•;-..,511,•,-;,'•::: ::--,:,•:,,.,:..-;•.....:::•:;„ ...:. ,. . .- •-•• • • ; . ,.. ,,,, !„.: •
.• : •• - •.• ...1.' ''.4‘;',i.a,,,,:.:!-; •-•::,:•-"••?--,:-"ffre414:-..t.1•-•.7.-.'-!:,-.,,,,q,....:7,..,:4,‘:.;'S';':-.:•,::•;./,:-%';•,..,•,•-. :.:.1„':;-,:',-"i,,-.F.';'';','•;'r ii.:'i‘•,:.,4z. .?•flit-'.'-"trs;.;',..-3•;-...'....-4-,;,...-/••."•"f. . ; ••• •', • „ . .', • . . •'.2'01 •
.• ..
, '•.
• ''''' ' •"..:;.-''''''''..^:: :•:•;:',...„‘:!•;t4;1;i;•:-T-..-0•,!!•;;;;11),.:.:;c4.1.V.'.•.1:':.'5: .:4....';!..t.-•::',..7:..-:'•t.---,•1:13;:•=r•.';';:i;;..";4.;'... ),..'.'7-4-,•;,,r.'.•3•;::.•;:;.:'':•-•;;!-...?'‘<5,'-••:•.. . ..'-.f.....-,:',' .
• .-•.• •-"•'....-:•";;',',.•,...,, -;...:-:xi•,,,;:r5-4-,-2.....‹...,%•,,.;.;,,,,i.._:..,,, .,;;.. ,,,„,;`,,t.,:,.;...,7., •„.,,y.•,..;,4,5.'it.••.-.. ,4,:i;.0.;,,••:':'?; ...:`,•-•'•":•,•;;;;.1.j.,-....•-t,:;,;•, :,,,,',..:•,, , •s. ..,• , .. .
• ' 6.8 g '
. •
. .
" , ' .."•'.,;:,::.,.. • ',,'',:'-'..••;..:...: ..i.,-:"..',-;;;,.:,,,;;;:•t,,;,,,,,.,FS,-,0;.,:4icr.,....,,:,,,,i...-...:'.1,.:4'1,i...-';',.-,77.-V.,;;,,,:,, t.:74.::,-.;r-.'.-....,,..AZ.:,',...'li.:,,'•;'.:•'? .!..z.,,-..:.:::::-,i-::-.%,' •- . . * • ''' 0.12 .
. .
.... . . — •..,--.,•........,.....- :...,....•:-.:...-; ,,..2..,,--#4,,,,,..il--:-..,-,s:±:;?:„..!„.;.....4-;:._,.,;.::.;•,?..:....;-%..,----. 2,,:i.:;.t.;...-&.!;!-?..;..,.....1'.7-‘,7-....,..1....;•,...rt'..--.;.!:;.1:• .r-• - :-. .• ... ,
. .
. . .•-•. ..•••,?'..-,:,...,'..•••,.--2-x---+-,-----:41•••••=---,,t--,,,:iit;.-••-•-••••-, -;•:• ...,4;:•,!.."::4;4.7-4, ,..,-.-77.1:.:-....,•,.. -•,-,'",!'.,::",:,..7:',',
. ''''• '',.'•7-",,•'•T'.- -e'.4.°§44,a,;:l'''.4.':'!-'.1 :> -'•.',?-1.'.;!:'",,ii,K'4-:‘,,','..,',--'2',2.1,,,,.....,..:,;;;;•,.;',1-',-,....»-A-,%:.'..-.,:-.: ,''.'r•z-r,z--•-• , , ••. ...;„..
• ....- tr.!g' •
. .. •
„... .:,,-,. „;.„ ...'. R4: •.::- :''.„.:'... ''''...,..:...; ,-;;.."=-'‘'.','-:.:z .•--... . -
. „ . . ...
•" ,.
_........______.0.—._, ).x...,•
.:-... ....
•
. . , .
_ .
... : .,,-- . .. .• ,.,...,.. --•.:„• „ „.. . . ...?;?. . .:'...2, -.'
-':',. : '7. / - .•'.• - - •- :. -.• • -..: "TM ..vociWiff Al iif199POLIT911 ' 8.5"11 .'
' -• - .,. • ''',,,,T;'7,-',?...?„,4,&=..,-...,,,-,,:.7-7.,::.'
,. •. '
f.t.,..., . 'SEITTLE::-011ES-1191:Imo ti ' .• ',T,'''6. •
" - :-,.":::°'••:•.;':.'.'•?:.',,,:,.;: . .•• • • • • '',:.3'.:. •. :- '• -. "• . •• ,99911411Tif T4.-16E01,10'
...
, .
,
. .
,, , .• . - • :,.';',7,.:....?:. "'.i'`'.1";:: ..,.•••-•:: . • ' ' tt4PLETitt$ Or ilt PTA Hob'
•
•
. -,, •„.••,-,,,,..:,.,;:::•..7Y,,,,....•,,,,'. /:;=.::.•• .,
.. . . T-MAI'CRE.5.,CRCASSING
1.107E:
.,),..trrA•SERVICR- 1./-9.9e 5Ais.a.u.,coxsr.42re....1',:." ..;„.., ' • '• • I • ''''
. . , snetiCruR,E•Jcz,4,1Y6- • .1ra, %92 • sosr•fiva.cavraim ,
V .
FOR'C0115fRUCTIOPI 4114/7"5
Vigri.IN \.,, ,
- " • ' "
,...,
e..er..z/prit.v4: ., • .
••• ' .,..•
., p.....4e,e44 TELSPAVIVO
/ CA.114E.sersAwc. ,PeRai.Eatii ')<,(••' •. -' l' . ' . ."•••.•.-- •-• '•:•I
c• _eyoZe._,L,„,.oks.w...;\ •1 _, _ , --,.!.\„,. . .. ,. ,...,._,.1
. ,
[.:. •' -\.'"'‘''?' -\''''' /-,....,_ A.-,......,44,07,1, ,.... • •,...........-, ,_ 7. •,.,I-1 (I , .,1(,.._\ --,r
/ : ••\;,...";-:..,
'... • ._.'‘•10,",,,• .....mr._ , . ,•,,,„ ...-...4.%,_
•. ' .•.,......---7. 1-7119:70W: ••••••-i - .---=--2117,..--=-7-...-----'.±.=r!... ---- - --;--...,---...- --- — _,t----4,0 _... _.....„......_____._
!?',., •. - ---,--,... . ,,-.=----, ---..., ..--.._....:,--.17,_--. ‘-'------- i, , 11,...-...1:1::,=,'„:727.----,__7...."- ----t.‘ ft-' ' • ' • C7":":7+='1,,- 't.: ^7-:7'T-.1,(1)%A. ;.
,• -;-:::-‘4F=7:451111WITA,.. '---- '' '...,-_'-----,-^2,-'-‘-=.•,'''-..Z.---.... .--1- :tit.... -1- • -.,---=,<,:: .... .....; ' , ,,F.h.. - ,
-.----„, • ---,... .•...,/,,,__-7...:_,_,,,.•,,........--....,,,,‘,..,,,,,,t,:-......_._...2?..ith-,,,,•: : •
i.:.• ,.....::.,.., .....,..._,..,.,.....„.szt.ke.„„„, .... , , , _-_-••-•••.: ---,----.7we,r —..._...,•-r-,...-7,--- - Aro- s,--7-7.:7-.-7_,..---..--5.„....-- `..,--......._ ..,.‘,.,---ska..; 3"•'7••--:;,•,;g,---7•11-7--...7--,-..-7-" :,..*"... ....-2:- ...' :'••: •••.•
.:'L..-'- - 11.?''' • '- -"'' • ' -- — ,-, ._,-_-_-- ..
, ..... ..is
•'. .•7.7.-:-.4 talS, ..---- -,--- •'''-"--- • •"7- •'-`"---- . --.. - -7.,a2 .• .7--......a----."'
. :.•• .• .,_ 4 4,75.J,4,: ilfr,,"":,..:.:"<:.,111144....r'•41.....,.....,,%,,•Z;;;14 .1..........:''''., 11,‘ . 44'1.11111"1.7111.;„,. :::‘,4/kfrt'-'•^---,.41.0---- .1.-•:\.:),:tge,x(ses '4'''h.Cri'----,,,,),::::).I7.-.:2,'..4." '.•':;.4..' ':,.._...._1. ....1-71:-.::::1.:1S,..:''.1:•::'..!:'7.1-1-. ., :(i•. ., 77:7i.
' •'•. ''• eri V•• • • ••-- • 4iNg 7 __.<,..
. .
•,..•••• .• .• .,- ,-- - • z ,v - ,••••Th. .....,,,mx.70,.,.....,,,,,,),- ')`,Z,7fecLu.,.'s+ 414-..,,....'M--:-L''..'.
... • • \ ' - • :} ' '. •All,k-• ) -'k.--,--' ',:g"rdr u.*747N 4,4 , \,, -47' •^.''' ZIPAINetlarE.,C77,1AAV A\ YZIMV. .,"' .• • •';', ..',f '-'4, '' ....‘ ;.-'''/. 3‘ .'' •'.,''
'SCAL ,NORI 0 TAL •a.00c an,II. L p•10.... ": ,AND 51.0e.W 70 New cut,,I,RP . .. .•- ,
ij• , 74.2.4f.:-.•:T.:241'4...1..-:-. 7:1-, . .... . ''''':- t ..7....!-- .-....... ...-
t-,
MAI "r:DMIMUMWELIMME/
WZP-M, ..AN__51. .,_.._. .7.-z-
01.•;lig,-. .. _- ....7:4..-:..... _-12-
EMI'. ---.. WE= .. .....- -:•••
..._. ........... „.__..... . . ... . .
.,. .,....,:•-a.,„ -...}-....,-.i....2_,..s-IL - ;':•.-•.,:-.--,..7.--__ ,.._,...-_-:-4,,.:7;-:.— XIMEN ...._.. ,---__
:WW1-c:----•tilhiE---filEralan''''1:'7=1•;:TILli ••• --'•-='•-•"-• --- • •
' . 1 4 •— -•-• w- •'•-• Kam tone--t-------L----aa•u- - -,----,-,.-*- -•_.,..T.,--,.... ....:.,:t.L.-;--z:-..-....-L4- 1-,:::71-f•--..I.,:-/..,... • .•
. .••••, .
. sir • c...."...:-...m„ra • . - __....,.-S 7-.7-: -:.• 47-22 7777 'IEz: -...'f--1• -•---A-- . • -- -- 7:-. ..c..,,,,•-e.;1 - . ..--;7 . •if --. 7;---:--7.,.I .•
-::.• : ....9...,:.:'•:,..•••'. :, :=1-.:•-•r..,::, ..._:,„ ..-,,•1 ..:.—amv--,--. .., --.--..,......_,-..7.7. -•--•;4: • •;, •....—;;--, 7-faismits--li--- 9•Iglieier.... . ,0:3,7saVr•...-- •-r•-•- - .--- -::--, - •rn- •• •.'
-.---• .-"---:7=:-......t• mei— ii Iv-iv-di:7,i iy Aff....„..,'11,; t''--Mit='----.1„.- 7....,--,- mr,--m-sk,... -4,,-,Qftga-,.,. —........-r--..„--m, .-,...-4Nras'' -..w,elaii 11 6. "*..,,,...1;;;...W.e..,..1.4;;;Yoweitz;i1,05,..r.rarare;;;;;•,:"...;V...79;KJAIToli-lor Zar-7/"."Zeoi I igiMrati.t.:Cce.4I,..bari.rwege..ezraZt.ciisratfAXigWeAll4.411M111-191ffllail:WANEW: ..r.". afar./..001,Ar.r,Fraftr.r.....a....i..at.....;:aa.. .. t......4.7,7T........7.:...,:f : •,, . ..:
-
..,:..-Z..-.--L. - •..:::; .7.,-...,,:.,--,-:„..!.,...1; 2..--4.....:: , '.•,.
;" .27-•''77.1':-S42C.-110•011d1=1 :1 7 5--:;:-''' 7.-.T.:T...1:.:7•.qji.",..-;7";ErallathqrtiMM .... ..-E-:._'. ......---..
‘.
)1
• ', .
, ":,'.` :.-''.7.•' -:„^7 7' - '" -' - ''''''+ '-'.1----' .7-1:1- V* I\=, Ji' • 1.-hlibi- P.;r+i '4'; ":":":":.::-.L:-4:74-•'•TeVz'r. ''t,.'..541"-44- • ' :-
.._,..... .. . .., ....... . . .. . .... .. . .
• ' • • ••• 2-&.e..z......t.4•• '' ^l•
.."1'.--.:"..._:.__''''••—77 -..... .4-2.::,---.E.1-1..,-.:-:,:•-::: ' :•- - -„f4,..95,f,-,"5,.1,_.1-•-•-.: „I.. .....--=.: .:::::•.:.7---• .,---ri44,e,,,Zei, -•••••••_ -,..=-'•----F,•-••• ,_-__I----•--4-,.7.:,--;;S.';•"•';'...,:4•-• ,-(:k-;:.---• - .• :1-;....,
, ; 'L'...;'",.....,_":''''7.7......„."-...:!,r",±L-......'';1"...:::.'.'• ",•I Zfr.. 7:2-"'•7••• ,..-..-._ . ___.1.. ...-••=,-7==----7-7---!:7' -7:1-'" .,....1-1:-.. 125 _ !IA:::...,...„;_•,_.--_,,,,i61, Titut,,/ .. ... .._, , ,..,„. ... . .
----rill- 1--1--- ..--7'.-:-_,__- s-L--•--."--- -:--7-1-'•=1. at...- -.1...I=•=...•_.17.2,•:-.. ...j.. -...,74":••:•-:.._ _.'.::.-...- .. ......i. .. •-• . - , • • ..., 1, zi,,,•••••••ii;P---;:•-,-.,-: -4 .''' .. •1. ;,,"A.^1
•
rocc,..,.:....:-. •.-s.N„„'4' ,k*-• - ,-. ',1'•
• .-.:.1: ..--1.......T-.:::......=......,=.•:........:::.-....=-77........:.........,....,::......'..t.,-.---.•.-.....:....... ' I r.,--1- •--1- ',. 7•••.: ...t-,....4..:••et- !.....,_-7-7,4"......,,-.: ••. •••-:• - -,..----71-1--7.-FE.: 4:..'•:1'..= A 7: 7',•:-:A7.....1-.•:,9,..7,-...t.:-.:- ..,_...--..-i. .-_::.•::-.`.,f.-',:ii
awro .E9A00 , .vat co -ri.,a0 -tr.....4., • 4.744%..1 . . ..ifeca • ..I.S100• . ,S6i0.7 - . 35W....!
. .. ....,,,... .. .
. .
-14EIROPOLITAN;6401NEERS •--.- -• MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE . • 1...,"kRzoa Rinl°14. STSIDE AfitiRt
•_1:•• .110/1
, ...
-1,EA. • £ :-:06:flot1:2.4::,.iffip.`4.:,- ,.
• ":,.:. 'caTT i.....,...C11..0.21./.. C•fln.1);maid,
t ,-;a•at-triit...Lk amt;.i.paaal, , a'am.ma.,aasaamirta n."7-4.76Ld'er..17"".'.."'"... &1='°4...."-"2., "...",.,'"' 44:-'141..‘tr,"°"2'; '."ap2iorKi?..„,,,4,40t,,tg,' ...',... sy'r E.14. '''. ' . STATION•2710, ..;STAXIQN.'40 i.:.,•'.ti.
• •
i -
.. .
„ .
• ' - '''•:':','`.-• : • • • 1 ri
.. . . .
.•
, . •
• •
. • .'.> . , ... ••,** .*.murr ..,!styl ,44 .•,:,I,,. .1.77,,..."713rt.:i7.., •ci•-.."!,:i.,,:,ffSf•V•f*t!•:;7r,•11A77.7•17.,?1•5 ,r7r2,:w. 4,74'-r•' -•''-'7,...'"•','5''''''''''-'".: '-• • '•''' 'L.'''. '•)''''''. ''*: '-- ' ,''. ':'•• 4 . •
. .
_ 4,'
•• •
„ • .:,..,.:;',;q,..4,....,;.,,'.,...,,,, : ,,,,,.$+•_,,,..... ..;.v;,".::.i-i,:4..,..-..,••:.‘r•'•,,,•'!!, ::?::.,:i:.;L;•,,:t.I'...i,..i..::,.:*,'•,;., :igit.':X17.1.,?-:'"..;:;i• .':•••ii-•',..•,•:.?.:: - .• •'''. ''' ,.. .. .
**- ,• ..'„',,;;,. %-;•.,.:.,,:. ,zi,'.,:.i'.•,.:%,:ffiil-V."..•.Z:.,'...1:',1°, ..",'!.:5 " ;.''.. '''.1. ''''t':'.-.f,jr,t•t.2."`I 'M.;.-:, ;./2."1,:ji ,t',',' Y.2-4••• / ,.' ••^,•- t''. '',k' . :.' ::. .'.,...'. .' 1 . ., "-,E g •
.• .• .
. .
' "'• ..: . . ''.'''''' -:'•..':'':''';'''.,•:.A..et,-,1,-;•",•7.:".•z•.;',i.,--.5.;:••••••:...-.••,?: ••••••••••••••:•,••.•••;:.•••••••••,•. 1-,,,,,:,.:.-,...4.,•-,,,,...1.-y.• •:. ,••;-. -; -;•.,.,.: ..,,,,. ,.... •
•
. .„,,,.....„..,, ;,...,..,,,,,, ,,,,,,,.. .7...,......,..,,,„-•!::::..,,,,,-;„.„,.....?:$..4,-;,4,-...„.:0•4.A .i:.--4.4,--.4-‘::',1-••ri,'",•-/c-:•'••••-':- •' " •;,',••-•'- ~"." • ' •
. •• • ..: ••.-&.••,,,....,....;,. . ,---,.,,,...:•,,,-. .......4...4,,,wE„...,,•',..,"•5,2..;,,,,',....•;,..,..- .;1.-;:=::..•....,,V,,wi:',,c,, 2c.,-1-•w•••.•,••••••=-....",C,•:;,..,,,v.:4,,,. -.,...'•'''',.'1..:'..,...'.. .• . . . .• , ::..' :.,..• ' t... .
• :. ..; V-1'4.-.
• 2. .. ,;,.. :.....2,••••••.-,,....f.,:t.,-41:,<:.,,,;',•-:.....4,-,.;,;.:-..:;-&,,,e•-2°.,gF,a.•,.1,WAr--,X.,,,.....::,..,%:•:-.. .,,,,,,,..,7,t, ,•.:••-„:•-•1 • • , .: ..,•-m..,.....-. .... •. ..•.:.,., og..,
. • u.
• ‘ ., '.....-- •,,,.;:,...„,.,;;,0,--,;,,KreA.V•:•4.; ; ;i.'•:,4--.,,L-;.•-:'',,.-t7,'.:‘,-,:'°-'Atvii•.Y.7,.....:,...7CF'•‘•''...1;;.;, ...7.;rZ.Z.L'..,•' .'`',"•''''....4'.....'f' ' et,,, .
. ...- . ,
. . [.. .
'•.',,•,,..,•, ,,..,..;:,:2.,142,,,,,,••,;,,X:frf!,,,,,,,;;;,,,,,.., •S1,,..... ,,,2'!•:,,,,,i4.7.,,,,,;•, ..•.:4•1k,:••••:•,•1.••••...-.:.,-.-:-.,„.•-.,.7..••,•:: i=',, ,••,,,,,•„",-,F;f7=r; .• . . a
.. .
------0...------.
,• , .
. .
...
• • ex al
• -..-I,,.: *t Dif t?•?"'I ''.'''' '';'''',•%'''::'''-''' ''ili:ft.!:•-,' ''.;••.:-:•. ...--,k' ';--:' '.'-'. .-- .1-:•-i-41"•••. ' ginc-tor,lovivillist ti•:-.""'•.'•I':f.•,.
..„. . , . ' ."'.•:`,."•;.-;•;Z•..,-,:•ktst7i,C•'••••:.,7!.`..':•''.. ..." ''•' ': - • ' ' ;'''- ? ' :'''''•". ' - .- - • ' ' '
• -.• ' • ••-'• .•••••::: :••••••;','Z';'-'-,-,'".'•• "•,'•,- •• - - ': • •• •-•,'•,..•;•, • -- .;:- :'•. ',: •,.. -, . ,filitiREE.••14.1.,:.gataf• si •• -:ce..' . .
, .
... •
. . . ... .. • . ' • -..1.11::
.. .. .
-.. . ,• • • • k tat PlOblit;'tr rts tot ma
.• • , • .
- •- -
NOM.
,.;v4rew saws'• . :se A•ra4,.=Mir Aare:,'• ..• '•.'.:i I • v•• ''. I" •r•
,:',,,.: :. . . 71,742=24.45Th's;;;•-•• .141„rco.9.z., '.. 4,7tOrwa crevrer.:m
frge CONSTRVCTION LIMI95::".-i-.•,:.,7---,1'.7*''R.,4.
'(...-
'0 r.P.M•L.5,4<5•.,:1..9_,M5,..5Y_9E_5_0S_:5,._5.a • ;PA- -,
OWG
..- Ezor 9
. •.
2-.:•-.,......:.:.:.:..I.,. . • .......••••-,'I.• ..,. ,.ii/.: •, . •\&e•„ ,, 111,4,444.r,. /•••... .,,.-,,,,-.. ".., ,,.,•:... -,..t.rr...... .>•-••-•-_, • .. , _, _„,.......,_ '',Nty • L..,,...7_,., ._
N
. . „ •
. .. . ..
. ....,.....„.....„..„ ,„
k;v.-.' • ...z..:•..:1--:.•': - - • 4*,,,„ ------ -•••.....,:----,..--7--;',.7-'47..-5; --- -,••••,-Ra,,,,a_..-rk.-........-,---,-•' --::F.-•.' - -.. .:•-•64- --,--'-A4=.- — - ---..j'-'' - -7----4'41vii=-..'
•••• • ' •• -±-4 rt.-11..7.---, --,--;;: ...,-, --,-,._„:.t.-1,,,,,....,_.:=:,,,, ,,w57.,„:„:,,, ,..,....;„ _,.,..._,... , ,..:- ....,.,.-: =L... .,,..y.:...... ..z--".7 .,,.7..4-7.,t-...,.,=....,EFT....52... --7,,,,,,...,- -1•1.K.-...--4:
-----•,.._ A- . .• •••,,,•. -N4stiz.c.,1 •\• ....zt- -------.---;•...ir,,,'''-zs.:-4.-•.••,_-' '''"------• ---r------37 - .I/AW-;' •• .
:.----.4... ,4 rt. ,...-,.7.--..,4,-..__ --•--.-,..-.----:..:;---,-.....---- —• • ,'""*".. ..,.'
rit,,',•:,-.,'':.:i..,,- ..• '7...-‘7:'/1011112g .... ----..,L-1°•'• ...--,A,, ..2,........• ...4,..080411-1.,_... 0';'. ....... LIW.4:'iitialtrai ''''.:: , , :-.-- '..-',--..'• ""r::-L.,--- '' ..- --•:=: -••••i.i". -'-'' '•• ••;'
i,•::.:.-.,.,....', .,.',--411111111eNEROl_ MILIZZEgriCamaximarmilliat. , ,,, ram rrror.
' t;:l.:.,./'.‘-'-.7'-'-'-'''..': ';..,*'ililLtPrk-Z----- - '2.17.tr---7--: '''•..'- •-,-. , .-_- -,--•:. •_.,„_—t'...-7.-,.‘.- 2--:77---'.1,47'. 'r-_..,,..4g71%, Ar,77:.... ..__.- .,.• ... "2"."............. arra mr.--.":'...." 7'ill. ':.:':.'.•:.'.''.$4.,. 4.4 0sia.t VT ) -;. ' . '124:!!*!*-./4.4A.,,,"4 '. •' -17 - :''17's .C\NIMIIIFT-.7' -.. ''' "r:7 -1,‘''kl,X,,,.::-'''''' .,....‘'1 11. -,•:,-,r 1--c. -1-,,,,..:1- , ':'•-±-5.-Ttrt,....t,,s
It
ii..iv,' •-..f. •,.:....,,,•,..gx,...., ,...• ,,,,,,
•••• N.4;-,=''' d'S:N',.:• . ( - :-."--.'"' ---...j.,' - .;;.1.1.41:••,..e-'''S IN--''''--. .•,\ '',,, 117,•.:‘' :17044V----g-7- \\)x M.W;A'c r •-•,,, • 7.," „. - - •• -.,., ,i. •
• i•. • •".••‘......•",c ;'. • : 0....0.e---,.., --,---..,...--n.'•. -- ,„.„,,,,,:zii:.4....,. :;,,..,.'— : • \ -•,;-,. ..„..7•1Jr•-•5,-, .. .i 14.... '',"a 34r'• 4',E
A., . , ." '• i ' ' '.. r'''.- "'•,- •N' '\N.,—--.---'7:.. ',APP.0970 ‘ :Val4•."‘il:r1.11 ,,:ler:421;::H:,...,. ' 7 I ill ,I.,.,. . ,,... .. ..,... . .
.. - , ,., . Vr4k'. '• 'P.m.: ' ' '-' •: 'CALI ;.,.0'li• '1"4.t.0.0. fR AL 0.,i0V 7', firgaVYlikik-Cta* V ' , t
' .• - .'• ..- •. .. ',...• .. •,, ..." ,
;`.
. .- •ZF.Z•VgMtMPA;ragr,MinEW_EMISMM;MINMgllgnl .. NWZZ==r=N- . • — .,.. ,:05WE 'E=A .'— l----Lift=_=Et•WiW.5•11Mitalti -dVt.*_755. 1•1WS.7-=Mi_MLNI/WMMATffilt_i_ergEMIWILetnpe•mittAlitt.._.,_...•!...m)_==,,,,,,M2..._a•t ktlatlf--.= .,. . ...,
.....7-.1.KINERIMMI= 414==itiNINIAX==iVinW,W1 ...===-- 7=11WW11011112WAINft=lifii..-====..afitigeawamiamplimm.-...... ,. -.!:
..
. . . _
--.. :. .,-:-,Pnn,-T-C'''.-Zrfa—S_W-EEEG.;MN, MERpm=a5gM NIEMBENIEffilffir_..OMMEEAMEAWINEUMENSE.••.. •'
'-- • ,ZititigA faer•111 MMELltIS=5,'ff•NdigigNAg EffilltiAMMENE,x:1;':.*;*.- :• i,...W7/-"----211111MILM M PIE M „WO:.:::i. :•• t.LeIrssaFa..?u....-7_,i;,-,-•-,. .,.;7,..Vali Ma rii.„.F_WW:...::: :',:...MEM MEfir Rts• da PA in: .ENEWArceM, ifiii*,: "witcaVe=-WM.s=mcalllikzot7,44_ 0 Offl);:- ='-'1......:..... ENI • ..' '
.,, . '''''.. .'--L,1 • .... ...........-..•....^.,.114, 1==1' ,=. ;,.-10.13 go. e. •• • •, ,,,„,,Licagn *.I 5 tasu=i
csizi= .-•,•••ita-..=, 6.m.r .eft --. Now--E12.. ._. • -, ...,-11 -•--7.,.:=
'''•'-,' '7-7'-i•-•-,--''- 1.--''•-Wil .....,Pri, , .....: la' :t3=. Eirl=n2BEVE ""I.W-'7.:' .i:r•i.45i. ::r4VEIRI*IalEi:=M5a. NM= met =2:•-,• --.--
....... .....,..... ............... ......................00m .
,•••• ". .", .a...::"-=-k.:,,i.L.,!,;;;:11 11-,....„:-/,'„..4.14",,...,,,,,,.„.'7,..:.,..,,r.,,..L,......„..,„„z„Hzti... j..LEF-JE.„_N=II,r,,,,,,,=r),.,,m2rWe-Wamfm'g. .,,,,- ,.....4,11, ..._431 :01#M_ =.r._..!IJ..„.,.13Ijff'r.jr.m•"S.,,..f..r.e..........„..,.......,.r,-..daIMIp........riL4.....R•o-..r..g,-......•:,"qear.r.r.-"zr.o.zr.,cur.tgvm.z.•.:10-,,t....,r.....,........:.......,,•,...,.............rwrsjia•Ee. ,. ..• , _..
WM
;--1. fa,'••''''.1::$42r-Ai ALOTMOIMITAREENZESIME. -EM
)
°.:2-'Min Man .1101EREardi'-;.,;WA•:••-,•if'•••,...:+..nro F.1.-... ..'
iTatiFia- 111.___AMI-A. vaaNSIMMIUMS ak.MGZ-...11oPOoWmn•konmvwr•r •............. ........
•
, . . -- „„ •-•-;•:-/Atourarter.r lii,..,,,, .
. • 7i AtrArr--....r.-__ 412141-:;'';'.... .T.-1•:••••422........4-.Z,'::•:-.J7••-•1;L:-..p.:;:---7:'-T-'•I'T'''74=-.•:' '341':••'14.'-'•''' -='-f-'=•••••• 7..• , P''''.1141:11"Ir.- '- 1 -51-..-i:.--r-AI'v's"ViDrt- t7:17--- •• •• ' ' ^ '3::: fitrrelAgitattegiri ........
, •• •Trn:---r"••••••1 '- • ezzuirsrvi.—F: '.7::...•': lt4.:•...-. •••: -.. „ ...
-- •••••••la.-F.,,,',LIE:'1,':',:.,4i-:- -:
' • 0- ;Va.'s,/- 1 • 1
•
• -' .--- Krr.r ES
' '•• • • =.-z•-....:111: •••1 .-......1'.7-:--7.:-1-.1.---...... .,.... --...:-; " " :.... -I.-.. -4-1-.-„-..,......:-.....--L.• '1-.1....••••-,..-,4._.;•:-•:. •--.•i• .„. --..... . •,z...-...! .„,E-••:.; Ke t.,.,E:grffla•-_,..:t..::....;...25,114110_14t) ....._....,..*
._ 1 _ . .._. _ ,_.......r.:... L______,:1-±-.:1._,.F. =„si.=,.,._,_::.:i....a=ar.;_7-._-::::-F-r-_-_,_,.=.,.. ...L„,_-„z_----- , --,-12 41INKEN ME
--4,-,--4,....,:.
7-7774,.,o ...7.2,5--qqp,-.._...„..:2.141_ ,1.42,141:•:,z.,... .)
.17450.: . 1.24,..,, .
. . . . ,
. 1,11,16P202 C.,, REN'MN.' EASTSIDE itiTgltetp..r0R-it-Eoparc4...,
• ..... ,
' •um:4i'rivr •• MATROPOLITAN•ENGiNEERS . , ; MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN. SZATTLE ,
SYSTEM ION 1,"?'.f..8".garitiki 411 . . .... .. .
... c•,.....:.1'NIL invor,ta..41 CA.I.Owell. [WV 41.0 tolkull. ...„..4.V. .,..... efri.,441...........taitia..... .....+noevra..4W.4,014,..td,,iir.r044...aVe4f1."Mr- 0 Ncyro . ;,Iiitigosicr• ,.. • • •....•..STIST----. .::.-••••.-.,--,••.',...d.,,,...•..!L ' '•-T,'-ii.9
•,• ....,•;.4,rrio .1.1..,...,pe..14.# .,..tex...sso...cs. ..••,..•=,.•••,,.... ;;;,••••,•p,,,,,,,....... . <•_••.......,,p,,,,_••,,, __............, „m•••,....,••.........,,,,•• _,.. ...
__ _ __ ____,__ • ,
-..... -..., 1
----
, -
1 I
•
•
•
. . • . , , -
•
. , .
' .
' • . ' . •• , .
,
. . .. . . . ..
•
•
. , - -.• ,•,- „..., - . . ,., . , .
• • •••'• ..." -• : • '• • ,- '''.•..• -......-,.r..,,-,.. .1.;•:11,,:r-'1•-s..:;"`4,1e7zilr --siZ,„.r =--1„;""?.."••••44.7e,'S--....•."; ?•':.-•• ' '....,I '.•-I'',.;'.-,--7 ••••-1'..1[;:•...-.',..,4•:,:e.",I,,,'",:...;.-...„;...,'-".3"•::::•••••-•,'':'..- ','::'.••'''' - •.': -
. ...•••••••••'.,',:.7-::.7.-:,.,Vw7r,-;.',,--,;,=k,.:--„%tr-.;,-;-61-^:s.,,:.,,;,„--,•3„1,.. ...,1....., T.,:-,..,..-1z-.:•:.„..t.t'zi....3:41,:.,:-.,..,'.7.,,, .........:::.4•,-,....,,,.„..•:.-.•• ,". ".,;.: '...'• . ,: ' • . ,, z:.
-'.;'.•, ••',,,,...:-.i 7 f''',"..,:t»,,,S-'=--,,:,,...‘-'-`,.'Z',i,..,..;fr!,....--,?.v.,t--;.t•..„'...-...''..'ili...',-, ,'•••',I,g..,`,•Le••*.4•:•?:?•••••FA5,•••...•,•••I'...I..I-',;•••••••••-r,,...:!..'I.'''.••••'••',7,'''' '.', .•:- , -.•' ' , - '' '8V
,. • . ,
' •••.''. . ,r .,..•:•......".2• .•••,••,:....1,.„.•;.:1,,••:•I,-•••• •••.,TViz?.. .;-:II•••,...4p.,•••••••;`,;•.‘I,•.t.-,,I;';•••••••..•.I. ';•Al:.',•••?.,-^.kiL''',4Z,IICI'...;-......•••••• ••:' ,"••••'.'7•••;;I''''''•'''••''''" •'' • "••••'-: . . ';'' FI'°0
., .
• • cA fii
. .••. ••••,' .., •••:.''L1••;••••::: 4S•;',":;,,,::'.-;• •• 4•;-'1,:.„-...;•'.,•,e..:...-t.e.E....r..,*.i,'.,...•'.:1•'.,!•: Vt.:;--f:'•.',1•:-;;;;/,' ,;••/•••:=2::,i;•;;;'.•,-.'''',...., •••.: '''•,.‘,‘,„ .- , ' ' ' ''' •
• ,rTIL " • , .
:.,, ...e.„.,,,,,.-.•;.,:rz.!:‘_--...!,..4t•s;;;..!••-„,'i.:...,•!..,ti,..i;'.,g::,,,,,,,;.-?7,5' 1,'”.7.1,-.7'.'."4:.•';:p•!4•.•?:,•fr,:-;”....cle.s.;:',...••••.7-,:',..-......,•:4:::•,',,a':::-'7'... ''.'''•' '''•,,.-1"...,:-.,-;.,'"• .•
. .,. .,.••••,, ir,.,*3,t,',,,, .
., r . ' 'F"I ''''...':'••••• .'•••-•'T,-Ii./"A'''.••,•••••:•,.•f•,4,,IL•I•:',:%;;;.••• •,,,,•••••-•••4"...-Zie•••,•r-I••••,•••11.,1•••••••‘.....••;,.,,,,„.,.• .,.; .....,„,.,.• ,,., ,...,,...,..;.,1 •
' 4'• ' • •• .,5.,:.-....:•,,,-:•-;q:::,2.G..?-124-. ,,,:g.:3;si,;,;:l.,,...:.•:,0,-.„•:-'..'i,.,•-: ;•••--.'':.-....i.','••.:41..,;:,-.',::::,5.;',1;:,'-:'::'!'":,'',,'''•';',.,.c:••s•--..2•;:r:'' .,..-',. •• ... tt-i.- .
•'. ••• . ...• .. ., •• • . •..
. -••. ,,;-;i.:•':..-'''-',•.',:-••;i-i,f;','.':','-:,...g-S'' '.-.Z1:4,1;.'.fig,'"•/••:;.'-'.. ..,',,r1.:::::-...:',.::2.:;,......i-,',.,Alif.•-'-c.‘:.-:-.".:,;:,....,,.:J.:.:'. ...,, • •.,- • - . ... .....,- •-• ---. ..
. ......• ,, :
•
, -• . .
. . r. . . .
... . . .
•
. . •77----.-.--y.,-,.- ---...,:,....4A---4-__.:;---,-.4L:,..:..._,"-.,-:-- -• • :...z.L.,:::.4.=-4,41-,i....‘_,..-'.-• -1.71.-7.:7 ,',.,-,'2..•' - 1. ' .:'•:. ' :-:-..,.,,,,...`.. ... • . '... &1 LI'
. . 4. - . , ..,, .....t.„, ,,.,....,,.:,..-..i.,,....i':-.4.•••••••,••-e.••••••„•••I•.,'•••;:•G.••••••5'77:7•7'•--7777.. ....-..•••;.••• ,•,.t.p.....:.• •••:•.,. f-',Z•--••*••.-.-.'.•."',- -.•-• .: .:••• •',•'''•••!. ."TR rioioorrAtirr.or MiTOOPOIVIAO . ., o,,,‘.1•
.... . & , .
Ii', . • ' ••••••7-',":2•."":-':;.,:,••,:::,2.•!pr.•:„;,-!;q",...',7,,,..1:,%:•,.:C:,;"'!;,-;.-4,•;,..-,7,..-...,•••'.-....••••.• .•'...;.•f.,".E..1:.........,•:,:?,.,:••4',-,,,• ..: ,,,••--,4.. ...... <;••••••: ...-'• •.!, ,...;; ;.•,--..•.: •.. .. sutra fidts. lot:riroOP4T 'a.
!•,' - • ...i.‘••• • • . : •-.1:...,•,...•••••••.•,•-•..., ..c4,•,:z..;-vvyl•;':!,,,,, ••••,--,--,:i-,--,••• •••-'---:-.•e •z•••:-;:•'i;-v ----r- -1eY:''.:''•i!''1•••';:4.-'-,••••.-" '''. ., -.. •-,. -• -, ,•
-OUP11,11ft lg. lecirooir OR. ''.! ``.g.: •
'':'• • ';',',, •', ' ' COilifitOESS OF TOE.-DATA .$HOWO : :1,3 •
• • "- •:';,,=• •.,....'-,----,;,'i-C. ,-.1.• 'Ai;.•:•::";'',',-,•..- ',• .•f,. .4•-„...•••- ,,i,*...„„.,77.•'':.,...,••-•:,..-,,,''?•;;X ::,,•".„-L-...a,,,,...:-.I.:;..>".L'.';-..7,.,.....:.•
'•,'•:7,.;.:,Pr.''vi,.: •
431,E7;:j .',.':. ; ,.::,-:::,....., 1Ef4rrt-g.-&1-E-i•Sr - a4taii,a,!4Z-2.., ,..,::...,.•..-'..411--i..°.11,..:..... : • ,• '•
••,•-.-•••• ,„ph.,.....,,i,-,e...V,.*.-i4o41A,air-Si•••••••:,-•-•-•••••••,,,.....st,•,,,,- ,
• \ -• EXZSTTASO CONTOUR' I' --VA14;m",,g•A'S•EULATV'WO.. AO.'•'. .-T-'44.4-44--it""C.°35ll' ' '
NOTC, Go •
' ' ` • - • 510Er TO,DRAIM TO MEW,•. . .
fOR CONSTRUCTION IMMT1, .
: .4 •`...64•Nsetholtraer r asap' ,,,Ar:•!yOW6..„
Sropm WATER',MET • .....,,_ 4--,_ • ••, '•::::•••:--:.'••- , 4.N•a.ice. ••• '''‘ „., ''.-..S--•zt"---..I.--, ---• '
• -• _....,/,-..,,,i,•,./?,•2 r OlVg$Nr,,........,/, ,.,\.. /..„..s,
• " ' -- ,}. . .- ---.-------: .., , .'-
...,,, ss , . .
• , --.N\„.•\(--,• • - ....,:i9,41,-.,.. - ..
. .....,...,.....,_.,_:..._ , , „\...,.
' 3'IQL - k. ,?•'' -AAA' ••••• ••• .. .,,
'•"''''' --- ,,,•:'''''''"'••••••'7,•••••;',,•.11.."‘Af' - • .,,,44.\.._v_zr:.14.\,..,......__:•,,,,,g)., • :\,::,,..4rirr cuivelr .. ,-..<. •,..._. .,.,, . ...---,... 'I, - 'c'\,,..,....,„.,,,,____ _.--,.... .. •..,,,,.....,,
• --'• • ;=-... ?'-':-..:."--,e. ---‘--,-- --::-''•-.'''-,%•;la 7
v::... ' '.--7---, •• '.- ' =1----:-'''',,, "-:. --......_.‘......-, >„,-;'.....-' " 1>1' . -,. ,.-4.::•---",/^,V. ... •• ..
__,_--- -,- •., .....L.,_
----
- '':-- ''''"'• ' --i`-...''"-cv'r" '-----------2--"i•--7-7:-.4'-''' ± ..,.,,,..„„
•. . ,:., :-....,k;:-.-..-...7.-.72.:-€,-; ,,....,-_-_--A-a...'•-'4S44444---- 4' ' 4t . '.4 ----
.:''• •..., ''''::'--'r."-'4'.--..74 ...=.42. -. .- .,,,..L.----::::-,7:::-.-..,--.;-'-'44.1-4----'-'44 -:::- --.....-:;t .,.E -4:4-a-Ilat,"„:;;',,.T.,-:.,7-4,---.4-7.4,-.CA..-7--......-- .-4=.,44Z---: , -..--4,--A..„,:,a.....7-:1--.•-• ._7,,..--7:..--i-..F.::: ;Z71.: 44::;-:::;4 4.-._.,,,.-Cr•---- ,4''26-4r.. - 144- '..... 191591:44gF.1.11:Ligitif -'..4:,:.4,• :
-4.•-•,:if."..7.7T r.1-4,..‘:4"-..=.4.- ;4- ..'''';'..-- "...-.4.7--'72-77CV4:747';..- -.-'4'--___”: --74- fia-elfellifir
;-:•:' "'= --..,--',3•74:-ce'•'.-.":::.z".--_._ ,-::----- . , „'''' -, - -•-.. • .-,,--,-. .. ,....,..\-.Z .'''-z'---..- :-':.541-;•,.--,i--='--•'-'.-''"---_ ::'..;-. .........,,.,..,.-
1;.;• . ,-4-i.,7-----•:•-;••--,.,.-...-,.,_,-- - • \„...a.-.,..,, motAff-t,-.7.7-;:77--','.
,?..,. - ',.-----,-s•:::•-,;77. ---.---- .,- -., 't;.?..K.,',..z.f.:14.',1'4,----;--,--.7.'''--=':7;.:,-,:et------1,- :.,,,''A- ''.-.,--_,__ .,---.-.:“14--,.i.-:. -,7.,:.<.*:-,,••• :••t:T.;'•••'..,:c•-'' '':•,,i7,-•:-"'1 •••t'.•'-.7-•`"•':',7-'•;;I.••• • ' "'•"-!.-2. - _r‘-,=1.-•, :. .;-•^Xe00"PW. ''';11 ,..l•,.... i. ..:"..f:,j:3,..,•, r,.',
:.',.'.• ,: ''Lrfrtl.--,741'. e4:1.7.4 ••. -• '''''•' -' --'- ''-'• ":'''''t?' ---:'''''''''''S-.75•77-'. '5.-----''---L.:: ':--;7---:-.. -).._. • - • ''''1...-•'::- '''''''Vr seer---Mi 0-•5.MS15..."4:. .4"4tia70;4.,•::•.'s.-:'•• '- " '..4. • • - •I,••'8•"•.P '• , •-•••••L•=----,arir-,••„••• j .1, • - ---I--• , , .,..-:•-z...„7,.,,,,,.,,,,---':
. .,I, . , •!--••••= -••• ••• --.•"."--• -.'-'' -81, • •1, .sm'ILIYX OS • • .,..- __ ..,.. _ .
•
r 'I•'-' '•, • ...\ . • • ...'.! '•' 41.•1 • ‘, -' ."---• '11".Veicv.-41. Re//- --eir-riVe:44rA *,...,,,:\ • -mtv.__v. .." ".' ' 'ffif-Vi*._..' •
>1.7•:-••:---- 1--• ,, ' ':1-.0.F-StrreR
EVE INLET:Otif:TO Rr .OrA.ARYAGAISI. \\< . -j•'9.0442S' : .
:4'4. w• . .-44 '% .74 •'••EXIST e-..-He cricaar.45-4...N. IPS.ez_d...0,9 t...." iis.,,. '• imwx:.,1;Av.% 5/4.2rfra44.1"2 c: '''''',,.:'--: .....',-.e-e:..';,.,",,,.•i,t,..„.__H---'40:-..-.1,tv,:l',.1,-:::---.--..,
i' \•
•••= •• : - ..,,,/1-...,:,
:'.;-:;,.........-•. -.‘- '',5-,,,-.•" : .. k-.....,, -.\•:::::_::::::::• \ ,i•k\.,\ see Dom-.-I 5(!, 4. .
• SCALE.N NIZON AlNI*.1/ NTI7AL.f.T. 0.4 I . ...... _
...--- .. -....., .
.--•'E- -- _ .-•...1,.,, •=1,...,,, , .-77 7-...„..,.... . ...,ei„,,,,_.___....._i_„,:,„_.,_.,,„,;_,./:.:. ,,,.:.,.-_ ...,._L .2. : 1 ,.4....,.., ".........)...-.-....... - iiite.,:.---:.,,,..i.4itawatm,_ :f:7:47-T'..,::--.."...i.. .175,;"771.,.....:.i
- '''':: - .:-..4:L'.';•T.:a...L.. 4-77.7--.'....-...:::177.•
BE
_.... • -,,,, •• .-......1 ------•.=-•••=-••?..77.-2.1-44:1 -,7:,-.7.-a......-.2' -i:... .:-.1..-4:=72,_74.::::- 44'.14.117:1,--•!..*44,.._ ....§14 4:::...„...„,..3?,..._,::,,„: ...., ,
. "-r'-'^-- - 'LC.--- '---.:- •- -.IC.--...--..-2--4.- - -•%.,. ....._ -74,..-71C-..4.--1.--"-,1-4..4"-a-..C..;.::..'•:.:.r... _:........,,....4,,c,,. .- ...•':-.4•Lie4i-,Fcz,1 wao.•••••••r. ,,,, ••. .
PQAL
. • 7--4.:':'''• - ..-Lr.". 7.;:-.',..-....÷-.--:- ._..:7----
WIPIPP"."---'7'7' '7:7' •-- 7-....:',-;•2•'-'74:2,-*:":4---'=--iJ7.--.z..fz.1.-L.-.._, .- 7 4 77.77-.....7-.:.7-IN7-1!..''.7ii...-7-.mir,.=';':''''.::...11. 'L2-.Tjf--:i.;;.,..,,;,... _,,, . , ;
-......-.-....---. ....- ....z.7 .„,._..:.'ill........:4-..,...fir 4 -•„ trize.;......,..:6 :17 :._.,,....
___ ,1 re •-.1.... -
-.--2,
- --t--- - -tilgt ARO: ' •
,. . ...,......_.............
-1 ' •-4 .:•-•' .
• - • •
.6 7.:.•LI-t-•-:,-•:--.::_.•-•:-.-- .••••_-.•Z.z- --•--•.:., '=.••••••..IL'.------'',.•.:.•-.L.:-.r. In.:•-•...-....- .--t•T'.:•-••-••••:7.• ,_. _ .. ,...„, . I..,.., ., ...„..._....:., ...,i....; ,.......,:„......„4 ,,t,, eeas,,,,,.,,,, .„,.., • ,,,., ;„....
.,,'.•.: -- -..-•.-.::_i.:,---'--:4------. :.--..- - -7.-1,...---- •;•7 ---•7...=•-....17 iCixio'§g•-• - ...-,ii!1--- -:- •.FA, _.77,,' ' •' ' -i-.... -,---- --- -T.3 1::-:--- ..7.--I'--.', re> • •
:',.' • m '2.---i'L:j-:-.'•'-'1:.±.''--••-•: -----7 74''."------4; : "-.''-. .--. - :4-'-'.-----' ---l'-.:k-3. -- -' 7:-. -4'- : -14.:4-1-'. -:-.:•' --•'-7 4'7-' .7.174-.'7''2:1-.17..lt•F:.4--7-;::.,7 7 Z.•..._4. , ,....j.,,,:/..,,,:j1 .4-.4...,:i.VE14. :'.1:',;1,4',,:.'4„--.7.' . :,':,.
-_.., . ... -
•
•
. .:.. ..
':• • ' 4;t.4-.-4-4''11"--:4- '''': 7--... ..:•4 '- 4=7---:''-'" .--- -6- --I' • '•44-.7.=..L---v-- --'.4.•''.--'-- -=-1TH:r ::' . '4 INIFG:'R ...„'7.1.7:-!.....:,==.•.:,.....L._.-74,..._:::-.1...,,.....
i•-• ---•-;-'• -•,----. ----'-'••••7•:- .7.-'•-.....• ':'• -.:. =4,,-..7:-.7.-t.:Z.:.:::•-;.•..•..„;: ..:•.. . , .-
. .= - 7--<tit.* •ocl.rm- .1 - ..1--- -,- co'•''.0. -• : ,•`
". .. ----- : --.' •• ••--71 -:•-•'• 7•-•r•-;,I,-'• 4,---..a:..-.,-;-::,....?-.:......:7.T...---...--..:...'...•.:-..:-`--'...---...- ...... .::::7.:..z.-:-....-.....-. .. t-... , ..e,‘,, . , ;,.,...,,,,,
„..-:..,,,,.. , ,4.:4•74'7'.....,-,--t-......,:j.,..7-- ... -,-„,,,i-E.,,--. , , i,---7::::::::F. .7--",-,-.L;"'I.-.:17 ...4.-.4"...:: ...•.-.*:•:.••=--,-,•,....---.)-- .-.••••-•••-----
•• ••
/NCO ., 49000. 19000 Rart:C. MOD 22100 21.0a, . .pf+40 rsiC0 AciAz ., , 1
• .
.
IrVe LIE T ROPOLITAN ENGINEERS ' . '.. MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN •SEATTLE., ., ,..
.' ..:;;,,,,,R•S 02 G.11.
• .t...,,. _ .r..1•44 ,6,e+.....141.4.84'11-44....''' '' $R,E'.N.VO•H.• . EAS.T•sID EiNTE:R6.Ep.tpa-.s tc1on.4: ra4...c.,i
' 1 . 641 . , SM 4tiE4. . : sTATIoNI4T0oAtiao ;7 : •
r_.-i,,,it,..,r,i,
. •
...... , i
•
. 7 I
�1-S'TATgo .,..
fi .i.__� A
y Wt3
J'.' Y
.y.,rena d° —_
•
State of Washington' •
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Region 4 Office:item MITI Creek Boulevard-Mill Creeks Washington 98012-(425)775-1311
' September 29,2003
Susan Fiala . ' I
Senior Planner
• Development Services Division
6`s F.loor;Renton CityHall
.1055 South Grady Way
Renton,.WA 98055 '
Dear Mrs.Susan Fiala: •
SUBJECT: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement. City
of Renton,WRIA's 08.0282 and 08.6007. Project location:Barbee Mill,4101
• :Lake Washington Boulevard North East,Renton,Washington 98056. .
•
As previously mentioned at.the:December 2002 meeting,the.Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife requests the City.of Renton to pleaseinclude and evaluate the following
'possibilities for the Barbee Mill project site.
. ,_ , Include the pedestrian°walkway.over May Creek to be attached to the Street D bridge.
3.5-2© This,will allow the removal of the current proposed walkway bridge. Bridges have a
negative impact on fishlife and habitat by constricting the channel,,shading;exotic
species:using these structures'forhabitatanti cover for predation on salmon and trout.
• •All vialku ays in the proposed buffer areas along May.Creek.and Lake Washington should
be placed as far landward as passible. Dead end paths`can be constructed to May Creek
3.5-25 for viewing. Split.rail fencing shouldbe installed along the walkways and trails to help
.promote the survival antigrowth of surrounding vegetation. Moving the,walkways back •
will allow the replacement of existing concrete ari_d riprap bulkheads with natural sloped
bioengineeredbulkheads(vegetation,large woody debris,and a few large rounded .
boulders). The Lake_Wasbington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed Near Term Action
Agenda For Salmon Habitat Conversation Paper,.dated August 2002,cited the loss of
.channel complexity,degradation of riparian conditions,and altered hydrology and flow in
May,Creek as a significant factor for the decline.of the:salmon populations.
`Page_3.42,the current proposal assumes the construction Of one individual dock on the:16
Shoreline lots notfronting.public:land: Under the City of Renton,Shoreline codes,docks up to 80
feet long and 12 feet wide could be constructed.,I_believe itisimmportant for the applicant and/or
future home owners to realize they Will he required to ieteive.permits for the State and Federal
agencies as well:
.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-22 April 2004
p S I
Susan Fiala
Scptember:29,2003
Page 2
As the Area Habitat'Biologist for this area I believe we have the opportunity to enhance fish life
and habitat while creating a environment that the public and prospective homeowners will enjoy.,
If you have any questions,please contact me at(425)649-4423.
Sincerely,
StewartReinbold
A:rea.Habitat Biologist •
SB:Susan Fiala 092903
cc: Rich Costello
• David Brock
Rich Johnson
•
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-23 April 2004
?-4
MARK.HANCOCK. pe %"
PO BOX 88811 �y�n
SEATTLE,WA 98138. '�'� E
October 1,2003
livid&liivcred
Ms.Susan Fiala
Senior Planner
Development Services Division
Renton City Hall,eh Floor
1055 S.Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
•
RE: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS;LUA 02-040 •
Dear Ms.Fiala:
I have one area of concern regarding the proposed Barbee M4Sll project DEIS. While the -
impacts during construction were discussed.in.a number of.the:stiady areas,I did not find
a discussion about construction traffic impacts or mitigation: This is a concern for those
of us who live in the adjacent"lower Kennydale"neighborhood because of the extent:and
duration of the proposed project,combined.with the extra traflic•we already suffer
through from.the 1-405 commuters who cut through our•neighborhood to avoid the
freeway.congestion. I would like,to see the FEIS address these issues,and propose
:mitigation measures that would be added to the Anal project approval conditionsto •
protect our neighborhood. This-can be done without burdenin� the project.
'
g . , g p j
There is a very real possibility of significant and long-term construction traffic through
the'adjacent neighborhood streets:-
I) It has already happened. A couple months ago the Barbee.iemediation project used
3.5-22 our streets as'a gravel truck"turnaround." They ran tandem gravel trucks one -
morning off Lake Washington Boulevard,;up 40th south on.Park,down 38t4-Street,
and back north on Lake Washington Boulevard(apparently an easier approach to the -
• site,or away;to line up the trucks going in): Ipersonally witnessed this.
2) The Barbee submittal states that they will'cut throughtthe neighborhood. Ia their
"Construction Mitigation Description (stamped in by the City 04/05/02),they state:
"All Materialswill be hauled to,or from the site from the south via Lake Washington
Boulevard,NE Park Drive and I-405. Flagmen.will be.employed to direct traffic•in
the event larger trucks are unable to operate within existing•traffic.lanes." (underlines
are mine) Note thatthe north is not even mentioned,and to use Park it will•be
necessary to also pass through at least two numbered east/west residential streets.
There are 14;public and4private streets that connect to Parkbetween 30th and 40 '
(I doubt the developer would put out that.many"flaggers), Also note that Park-to-40th
is.a shatter route to the site from 30th than Burnett or take Washington.Boulevard.
i ,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-24 April 2004
• 3) The biggest concern is the gravel trucks. The SEPA checklist states that 38,000 cubic
yards of fill material will be brought in,and there will be 32,000 cubic yards of
excavation. Since truck/trailer rigs will carry from 20 to 30 c.y.per trip,that would
represent 1300 to 1900 truck trips for the fill alone(add to that another 1100 to 1600
trips if the excavation material is hauled off site).
4) Add to that the trucks hauling off the demolition material. And then all the new
building construction supplies,and their employees. Most of this will come from the .
south,where the contractor material warehouses and offices are;and the affordable
A housing is for the employees.
5) There is incentive to cut through the neighborhood in the morning coming to the job.
The 1-405 northbound lanes are nearly at a standstill most mornings,and it is quicker
to get off at 30th(instead of going on to 44th),and cut through the neighborhood to the
Barbee site.
Why is this important?
1)- This is a residential neighborhood. It already has significant extra traffic from-drivers
who cut through to avoid I-405 congestion. Peace and.quiet is difficult enough now.
2) There is no need for any Barbee-related construction traffic to pass through the
neighborhood. All of it should use the 44th Street interchange(not 30'h),which is
directly adjacent to the Barbee site.
3) Safety is an issue. There are plenty of school kids out in the mornings and
afternoons. The neighborhood is a popular area forpedestrians and bicyclists.
You also have to'be careful.just backing out of a driveway because.of the I-405
cut-through.drivers speeding up and down our streets(why add to that?).
4) These are residential roads,not designed to take the loads of the,gravel trucks;(both in-
terms of weight on the asphalt,and turning radius at corners), This also'raises the
economic issue of extra wear-and-tear on the roads(and safety.again).
5) With extra traffic,especially trucks,,there are also the issues of noise,air;quality and
vibrations as they rattle by'our homes.
What should mitigation measures be?
1) As noted above there is-no need for any construction traffic to pass through,our -
neighborhood,and it Will not inconvenience the proposed project:to.direct all traffic:
A to'the 44t°Streetinterchange.
2) -The City should require a haul route map from the developer,that requires all trucks
(esp.,for demolition:and fill/exeavation material)to use the 441 interchange only:
3) There should be`No Trucks"signs on Park. If the traffic still increases on Park,then
additional stop signs and/or-speed bumps should be considered to..discourage.its use.
4) If-30a'Or Burnett have similar problems,then similar measures should be considered.
5) When the project jobsitettiformation/rules handout is done for.workers/contractors,it:
should include language'telling workers'not to cut throughthe neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration of the above.
Sincerely,
Mark Hancock •
.•
.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-25 April 2004
• )e• •
• DEVELOPMEIVrpi
,11,7kgo.
ern"OFREArr.WNG
OCT 0 3 ,093
4 asm
STATE or WASHINGTON RECEIVED
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION
1063 S.Capitol Way,Suite 106•Dlympia,Washington 98501 •
(MailhigAddréss)PO to*48343•Olympia,Washington 98504-8343
Phone(360).5116-3065 (360)586.3067 Web Site: wwiy.oahp.wa.gov
October 1,2003
Ms.Susan Fiala
City of Renton
1055 S.Grady Way
Sixth Floor
Renton,WA 98055
In future correspondence please refer to:
Log: 100103-04-K1
Re:Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Barbee Mill.Site.
•
Dear Ms.Fiala,
Thank you for contacting the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation(OMIP).The.aboveIeferenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the
State Historic Preservation Officer My review is based upon documentation contained in
your communication.
; -
The Draft PIS for the Barbee Mill site Preliminary Plat mikes references-tea
Determination of Eligibility for liatinglipowtheNatiotial Register of Historic Places that
was apparently made on structures found at the mill site. ThiS'Offieehps been Unable
to find where that deteriffiliiatiorijiasbeen made. If the previous determination is more
• than,five years old,a new determination of eligibility should be sought We would
suggest that both the water tower and black warehouse be surveyed as individual
cultural resources,and that Determinations of Eligibility be sought from this office on
those two structures We strongly suggest,that in any case,the-Water tower be preserved
on-site as an icon to Rentoies saWmilling past.
Regarding possible;atibsurfacearehaeological deposits,we concur that ground disturbing
.
actions should be monitored by aprafessional archaeologist.;A monitoring plan should-
fr‘ be prepared prior to the activities to?ouiline the monitoring and discovery protocols If •
archaeological deposits are observed Work should cease in the vicinity of the find,and •
the 0Altp,City of Renton and the affected Indian Tribes notified immediately. If
deposits cannot be avoided,they would need to be assessed for significinee, This would
require a permit from OAHP per 120y 27.53 and DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
• C"PFRPRON
Oct
RECEIVED
0
554-1779-017
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-26 April 2004
•
•
•
•
Ms.Fiala
October 1,2003
Page.2
•
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Please contact me if you have
any questions.
Since ly;
Russell Holter
Preservation Design Reviewer
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
360-586-3083
cc Donna Hogerhuis
Cecile Hansen.
Charlie Sigo
•
•
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-27 April 2004
i
•
10/07/2003 10:43 4252229574 FAi CETT DENTAL PAGE 01
•
•
•
October 7, sERVICEZ
tME RAN
Ms.Susan Fiala OF
Senior Planner 01 2143
Development Services
Renton City Haii-Oth floor • i1 ;��'` C��11
1055 South Grady Way �>:�:V t:.�VGV
Renton WA 96055 -
Re:Bar-Bee Preliminary Plat
•
Dear Susan,
.and myfamilyhave a concern regardingthe Bar-Beeproposal and apparent failure for
.1� . ppa
future dredging of the Mouth of May:Creek.Our concern is that without future dredging of the
Creek our property directly upstream will be negatively impacted due to increasing hydrological
impacts from ever increasing back pressure due to silt and debris aceumulatian.t would like to
3.2-5 propose that the historical dredging continue with the new Bar-Bee development perhaps through
a homeowners association pact.
White I favor providing housing for the future,t feel that•the Fawcett Family's property should not
have to bear the negative consequences end'inhibit our family s ability for future development of
single family homes:adjacent to Mey Creek.Continued occasional dredging may have a positive
impact on the.Par flee site by allowing smaller stream buffers,end without the need for '
installation oflevies,
-
f;am.also aware:that property owners upstream lathe May Creek Basin have raised the issue
3.4-16 with King County with,regards to the positive benefits of dredging the Creek from a'Fish,and
drainage benefit.Perhaps it would be of benefit-to query Mr.David-Irons(King County •
Councilman)and get his opinion on dredging the Creekand how both people,and fishwould
benefit 1 do=know that continued Slitetiort Is,an.impedimei t to spawning of Salmon.As.1 am sure
you are aware careful and:timelydredgingwculd beta benefit to providing Improving habitat for •
the Salmon. •
•
• In summery.I would appreciafe.some balance,and how our family Wilmot have to bear the brunt
of water backing up onto our property as a;result.of the current proposed Bar Bee development.I
A would.aiso like you to• address,the Increasing negative hydrological impacts onto our property
end what possible redress that is available,to our family.
Sincerely,
Dr.Greg Fawcett M tp -
FeliC.ity,WA 98024 I.
425-222 701 f. 00
e•mail....fawcettenwiink.com
ss
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-28 April 2004
C
V-Y F
O
9
4£j 1.6.
D
e/zoi A�
kit.) AAA:A A2.1.4.- boxcar del --3 D 4/°.4.),1- -v`i
6 C : ,,
5.17 ilu.,fLi ‘ .
VIP-4C '": 2'4 , V
/ 1 61 i•I' "'elt:1 7.7 4 3Q - 16€4-r-'i '
Btsc2cdp i'> = _. ....,• ',// : aa..
, .
, i . y,_,K„), -r- • Nr
/ :L le/Lki'L .
`, , , atr y -
a
ali-
r , t,7 , ,, , ...L., .
.--4 a../YL.-- , . , ‘OLL.-
jj,zLexat:ee 6444.' cL, dtw-ete--a4
_Wf,,,,,,,j a.,,,,......,
-1-- ' ---72,6_,
aczei
4.4114,
. Gei-e-e • :Z, ,,iie_id&
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-29 April 2004
1 ,
i
,
,./\
FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFELMAN P.L.LC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
0
,Dhtc Phone
(206)447-2901
. ,
Direct Facsimile.
• October 7,2003 (206)749-2035
If-Mall
WolfC(gfoster.com 1
, .
VIA FACSIMILE AND 04,
•HAND DELIVERY- -
044-tivz.
Ms.Stsan Fiala,Senier Planner OCi• -'4411t7r414z4 J , ,
Renton.City Hall,6th Floor, , 81
1055 South Grady Way
• Renton,WA 98055 wit
Ret Draft EIS Comments,Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Application
irsr THINE;
AvslivE
' Dear Ms.Fiala: . • suite 400 r
_j
, " : SIZATTL14.
We.are,writing on.behalf of our clients, Vulcan Inc. arid the Port Quendall lw"hing"n
Company (collectively, 'PQC"). As you are aware, PQC owns three properties 911Koz..32.99
. within the COR-2 Zone-in Renton,knOwn as the"North I.E.Baxter property,"the Telephone
"South J;II.Baxter property,"and the Tan Abode propertit.(therTQCPropertier).
. These:properties are located north and east, respectively,. of the Barbee Forest iFia,:s,'Irih oa ,
PSaitett,The.("Barbee)preperty..PQC representatiVes were:present in:Renton:City
Hall atAhodraft environmental impact statement,("DEIS').public?cotnrrient.hearing WW9.POSTER.CONI
on Ilia evening of September 23. - •. . .
. .
. ---
. ,
• PQC has royiUyveitthu,p EIs for the Barbee Mill pteliminarY plat.application
. I
(the"Application"or Project')and provides the following comments On theDIS.
Thomajor thrust of these.comments follows directly from Mir December 16,2002
E• tOOpthg-cothrOgrit lettei. The goals.and potential develnpnient,of.ir// areas Zoned
:---)
COM:("COR-2 Area")should have been analyzed in the DEIS'.to.account for the
3.5-25 larger environmental and develOpmeiicontext in which the*glee-as situated.. .'! ANviloandx. —
Alas it'd
.. ,
. . .
. . -
. .. . 900714.ND
, . .
A. • Incorporation-of Previous-Comments : 0.eso.
.
• ... ,
SEATTLE
'We provide this letter in addition to our May 39,2002,.$eritember 26;2002
and December -16, 2002 comment,letters, which we attach and request;be
incorporated'herein. As noted in these previous letters, the City has the legal
authority,if not mandate,to insure that the?reject's direct and cumulative r*pieta
do not constrain-Me development.poteritial of the PQC Properties or:have negative
. . !supons.oz
* . .
. !
. ;
• City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-30 April 2004 1
i
•A
4
October 7,2003
Page 2
impacts on the surrounding environment in the COR-2 Zone.
B. SEPA Requires A Thorough Consideration of,Project-Impacts and'Mitigation
Measures.
SEPA requires the City.to provide a detailed statement on major actions:that significantly
affect the quality of the human environment. The detailed statement must include 1) the-
environmental impact of the proposed action;2)any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
of the proposed action; 3) alteniatives to the proposed action; and 4) any irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of resources which would occur•if the proposed action were
implemented. RCW 43.21C.031(1)(c).
As explained below, the DEIS falls short of SEPA's requirements because it does not
adequately identify Project impacts or how'those ithpacts might be mitigated bellow the level of
E significance. Additionally, without a cogent discussion of the Project,cumulative impacts, and
• proposed mitigation measures,it is impossible to determine the Project.would resnit:in
.an irreversible commitment of resources toward mitigation measures that would not integrate
with(or even preclude)future development of adjacent properties.
•
C: Overview.of.1Jnanalyzed Impacts and PQC Property Development
In our comment letter dated May 30,2002(attached:hereto),we listed certain potential.
impacts within.the scope of the Project s environmental review, In our December 16, 2002
comment letter (also attached),,we specifically requested that the El&:analyze all:of these
potential impacts in addition to the transportation issues disco sed in Section D, below.
Notwithstanding this request,these'issues remain largely unanalyzelin the DEIS;particularly
from a cumulative impact perspective: .
1. Cumulative;and otherProject impacts to Lake Washington shoreline habitat and
fisheries from combined build-outs on the Barbee Mill,Quendall Terminals and
E Baxter properties: [Our previous letters have described the development-enabling
activities undertaken and in process on the POC properties,including cleanup of
environmental contamination. In addition,given theProject'sproposed
treatment of nearshore areas(i.e. "hardscape"rather than revegetation Or
substantial habitat improvement),the DEIS should have examined the likely,
future shf'of mitigation responsibilities along the Lake Washington'shoreling to
other CO.R-2 area properties:.and the resuliin development constraints).
•
2. Accommodation of offsite drainage from the Pan Abode property; Lake
2.0-12 Washington Boulevard and Interstate 405. Will drainege:corzyeyances be possible
through the Barbee Mill property,or must diseharges'occur on May.Creek
s04003$G2
•
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-31 April 2004
' i
--j
li
,•
October 7,2003
• Page 3
ti
.. adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard? From a COR-2 areawide perspective.
May Creek impacts Will be reduced if Pan Abode development peak flows do not
need to drain through May Creek The DEIS fails to explain whether the pipe
•
2.0-1 2 redesignlbtpass discussed'at pages'C-9 and C-10 of Appendix C will
accommodate:1)future Pan Abode peak_lows as a-mitigation featurefor May
Creek,or 2)fi;lure drainage needs of COR-2 area transportation improvements). --
• • 3. Cumulative and Other Project'impacts to May Creek habitat and wildlife from
E development of the Pan Abode and Barbee Mill properties.'(See-discussion,under
. Section C 2 above and Andrew C.Kindig's attached analysis at-Paragraphs 19
• • and 20). .
4. Cumulative and other.Project impacts to Lake Washington water quality front
E • Barbee Mill property development in conjunction with.development of adjoining
properties.and construction and post-construction activities'associated With any
road system-improvements. (The DEIS does not appear to.contain any such '
-iivant f ed analysis)..
5. -Cumulative and other.Project impacts to wetlands andd-stonnwater within the ,
E - COR-2 Zone from any access and roadway-improvements,which could constrain-
. " access options and natural resources,on adjoining properties:')The DEIS fails'to
3.5-25;. acknowvledge offsite road improvements and wetland impact):
As noted, our previous ,letters have described the development-enabling activities
` undertakenand in proemon. the PQC' properties,, including: cleanup. of.environmental
contamination. The.first portion of the South Baxter cleanup was:completed-iri a:timely fashiori
in late October 2002. The remainder of the South Baxter cleanup will be completed in-the spring
and summer of 2004. As evidenced by-the Ecology Consent Decree,the-cleanup was initiated
3.6-4 with redevelopment of the properties,*mind. The DEIS ignores the.redevelopment attributes of
the South-Baxter cleanup and the requirement to fully consider the associated."of record"
• documents.
• D. Specific Issues that Require Further Analysis
• 1. Transportation
• As_described more fully in the attached analysis by David Markley Of Transportation.
. Solutions; Inc,,the'transportation section of the DEIS should:include:an analysis of.all of the
roads in. the area (particularly the Ripley LanelLake Washington Blvd, :intersection (the
E "Intersection")), under reasonable development assumptions for the remainder of the entire
• COR-2 Area. --
•
. 50400198.02 _-
.
I '
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-01'17
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-32 April 2004
1
1
i
rr
•
•
•
October-7,2003
Page 4
It is'recognized byall patties involved that the Intersection and the I-405 interchange will
3.5-25 inhibit future development in the COR 2 Area. It is crucial that the final EIS analyze the effect
of full.build-out of the COR-2 Area,.so that proper mitigation can be identified and implemented:;
The DEIS's vague-reference to an undefined future `overall mitigation program" to cure the
Project's traffic impacts reflects an:inadequate analysis of environmental impacts.1
1.. Site Access: There•are two proposed site access points..The DEIS fails to explain the
3.5-3 viability of the proposed northerly'access point: If the northerly access is not viable,
it will change traffic patterns and project impacts. Moreover, the DEIS traffic.
3.5-5 I analysis (Fig: 3:5-6) shows no vehicular traffic titilizingthe northerly access. The.
• DEIS fails to.adequately address Project.traffic (or traffic that would be generated
3.5-25 ( from other properties)that would utilize the northerly access.
2. Scope of Analysis: ,The analysis does not include the ramps'at I-405 Exit9,which.
had nearly twice as Much projected traffic.volume than the North 30a'/I-405 ramps,
3.5-11 • which were:analyzed in•the DEIS. Am-peak period traffic conditions should also be
included for all 1405 interchanges and the road network between the site and I-405
along Lake Washington Boulevard.
3.5-121 3. Traffic•'Operation Impacts:• The DEIS does not address queuing along Lake
Washington Betilevard/NE.40 Street in the vicinity of the 1-405'interchange. •
•4. 'Transportation Coneurrency: The DEIS does not address whether the project Will
3.5-1 .meet transpot'tation concurrency compliance as required by the Growth Management
Act.
5...Rail Crossing: The=railroad crossing`s that will provide access to the Project are a
second.transportation:issue;.and the DEIS clearly suggests that mitigation of railroad
• crossing issues may require use,of PQC.property2. The City has indicated:that its
3.5-18 1 :code requires the crossings.to be accessible to pedestrian as well as vehicular traffics
The DEIS should more fully examine the impacts to railroad.traffic of the new
crossings as well as the safety issues inherent in,mixing,pedestrians, vehicles, and
3.5-21 •trains in.the same location. Furthermore,.as noted in Our December`16,,2002 letter;
• there is•soine,question as to whether the southern railroad crossing Will'be acceptable'
3.5-3 I to the City.4 The DEIS should examine;as an alternative,the iMpact'Ofhaving.only
one.access point"to the Project
•
•
1-DEIS;page 3-88-89.
2 DEIS,;page 3-86.
3 Memorandum from 7uliaita Sitthidet to Lesley Nishihara,October 7,2002,page 2.
• 4 This is because Barbee's easement over the railroadat that point is revocable upon 30-days notice,See.City of
Renton Environmental Review Committee Staff Report!Determination of Significance,November 5,2002,page 10.
•saaoaw.ai
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-33 April 2004
•
October 7,2003
Page 5
6. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Analysis: The.DEIS traffic discussion fails to '
consider the cumulative.impacts of other potential development in the COR-2 Zone.
Given the unique topography, rail crossings, current condition of I-405 and other -
3.5-25 constraints,the lack of a proper cumulative'impacts analysis limits the utility of the
DEIS in shaping mitigation that Will adequately address.the Project's impacts and the
Project's.relationship to other potential development in the area. For example,
Section 3.5.3.4 Mitigation for Site Access and Rail Impacts states that the proximity
of the relocated grade crossings, which could both be:blocked by a stopped train,
"could be mitigated by connecting.the existing access-point at.the north end of the.
Vulcan property with this site through a continuous.frontage roadway on the west.
side of the BNSF.right of-way" Thus, although the DEIS acknowledges the PQC
Properties when it is convenient to do so to minimize the Project's impacts,the DEIS
fails to, address future development of the PQC Properties, which will play a
significant role in shaping the major improvements that will be required for area-wide
solution to the traffic issues raised in:the DEIS.
•
2. Shoreline,Water Quality,Flooding and Other Natural Resource Issues
As set forth in the attached.letter from.Andrew C. Kindig, the EIS fails to present a
com:lete analysis of the impacts of the develo ment iriehrdin cumulative im acts,.on the Lake
P Y ' P P . � g , P I
Washington'shoreline and May Creek,and to clearly associate those iinpacts with the mitigation
necessary:.to minimize or avoid them. As Mr,,Kmdig_.indicates,reference'to past studies of the
3.4-1 project area is incomplete, We concur with Mr, Kindig that,the DEIS structure.results in
difficulty°interpreting the specifics of the current proposal and the various mitigation options.
We also concur with his general statement that where;mitigation options are listed:in the DEIS,
evaluation•oflevels of impacts and mitigation adequacy".'are by'and large absent.
3. Soil Contamination
Soil contamination is another.issue that did not receive adequate'scrutiny in the DEIS.
As indicated in the Determination of Significance; the.site :is known to; contain soils
contaminated with arsenic and zinc.s The Queridall Terminals property to the immediate north is
3.6-5 also known.to •contain contaminated soils and. groundwater,, and .cleanup negotiations are
underway with the Department of Ecology The DEIS fails to adequately account for the
Project'a placement of residential dwellings,in close:;proxiinity'.to this contamination and the
associated,proposal to site'-a road across the contaminated`•Quendall Terminals property.
Moreover,.:there is to acknowledgement regarding,the.partial unity of;ownership between the
Quendall Terminals property and the Barbee Mill property Or the fact that no Cleanup Action
Plan has been finalized or approved for the,Quendall Terminals property..Given that no cleanup
plan has been finalized, let alone approved or implemented, it'is premature.for the DEIS to
51d.at 4:
50490398,02
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-34 April 2004
I �
•
1
•
•
October 7,2003
Page 6
assume'that the Quendall Terminals property will be available for road construction or that it will
not.impact the proposed neighboring residential development.
• Finally, there is a.substantial amount of COR-2 Aiea information contained in the
3.6-4 I Department of Ecology record,for the ongoing'Baxter property site remediation and in,previous.
comprehensive studies of potential development alternatives and transportation improvements of
3.5-25 I the COR 2 zone. This information.is readily available from the Department of Ecology and
other sources,including the City. .It does not appear that this information was.fully reviewed and
incorporated,as appropriate,within the shoreline,critical area,and Native American sections of
the DEIS.
"Thank you for the opportunity to commenton the DEIS. Please keep us informed of your
further review activities and determinations. •
• Sincerely yours, • •
•
• • "CharlesR.Wolfe •
Enclosures •
.cc: Ada NI:Healey;Vulcan,Inc.
Steve VanTil,Vulcan,Inc. ' •
Clint Chase,Vulcan Inc.
•
•
•
•
p400I98,03
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-35 April 2004
I •
•
•
I
'
•
•
•
•
•
I
. 1
LETTER OF MAX 30,2002
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-36 April 2004
•
•
1 FOS"T.Eic :;PEPPER & SHEFELM.r>.Z rLLC
A T T 0 R H Y T 5 A T L A W
•
•
Direct kb",
(206)447-2901
May 30,2002 • . • infect Facsimile
' (206)741-2033
E-bldl
• Ms.Lesley NiShihara R'.lrc®a ruler-t.m
• ' Project Manager,Development Services Division .
City.of Renton
Planning/Building/1'ublic Works Department
• 1055 South Grady Way,eh Floor .
Renton,WA 98055
Re: Comments,Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
• Dear Ms.Nishihara: -
•
We•are tivriting on.behalf of our clients,Vulcan Inc.and the Port Quendall iv;s7iDE
, • Company("P.QC"). PQC owns,three properties within the COR 2 Zone in Renton, s.rne J;00
known as the"North III.Baxterproperty,"the"South J.11.Baxter ro r "and the- SsATTta
P ) t� Y, 1Vathtn:f°s
•
• ' "Pan Abode property?' These properties are located north and east,respectively,of - 9 a io,-3.99
the above-referenced'development proposal..
'Teltpsane
• . We have provided similar comments to those set out below under rior., t"`}"' 44°°
Pr .i? Fa cal.mile
Barbee Mill development proposals..We provide this letter in response to Iite:May ix*4 i,i 9a°i,
16,2002-Notice of Application,.given the Wide range of issues subject to.analysis lvebtue'
iinderRCW,58.17:110;.associated SEPA review and the ongoing potential for ' .*w•so:::x:p4i,
•
• significant enviionmental.impacts lathe areas of transportation and natural
resources,.including potential impacts to May CrreekandLake Washington,,,When
considered on a'cumulative and concurrent basis,these potential-impacts-may
constrain the development potential of adjacent COR-2 Zone properties. -
•
• • Background•- •• •• ' •.
As noted in the attached February.12,2002 letter to City Attorney Alas;,
Lawrence.J.Warren;PQC acquired the Baxter and Pan Abode properties to develop .
medium,and,high-densitycommercial,residential:and,retail uses. The Baxter "70'7/1»D
properties-are"cuireritiy'containinated;and cleanup work(pursuant to'Consent °r.`z°'
Decrees with:theDepartment of Ecology)is expected to commence later this year. ssATTiI
In the fixture,-the Pan Abode property.will likely be Used for hotels,restaurants'or • .m..hi.sioA
,highway-ririented retail
10aibing,O.
The.ConsentDecrees are of record in King County Superior Court and reflect
, . • a multi-year regulatory review and negotiation process to facilitate development.
so729521.02
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-37 April 2004
•
I
• 1
1
i
i
• Ms.Lesley Nishhara
Environmental Review Committee "
May 30,2002
Page.2
The attached letter to Mr.Warren.deseribes'the anticipated redevelopment of the Baxter _
properties as described in the Consent Decrees,as well,as Renton's long history of
comprehensive planning for the COR 2 Zone. The letter.alsorequests that development. -,
agreement negotiations commence'with regard to the development activities to follow the
imminent cleanup work. . .
• Cumulative and Concurrent Impact Analysis -
Given the,development-enabling activities under the Consent Decreesandthe anticipated-
development to follow,it is.clear..that the SESPA and Preliminary Plat review(as Well as any
pending site Plan and/or shoreline application review)for the Barbee-Mill PreliruinaryPlat(the
"pending Barbee Mill reviews')must also examine the cumulative.and.concurrent impacts of :
development on the Baxter and Pan Abode properties. .
Any'environmental or land.use,review of area.propertics.should assure that sufficient.
transportation capacity will_be available to serve all properties within the Colt 2 Zone on a fair
and consistent basis. Accordingly,the pending Barbee Mill reviews should examine bow the-
ciwiulative impact of combined build-outon the Barbee,Baxter,Pan Abode-arid Quendall_ •
Terminals will affect,ingress and egress from I.405,,and how the circulation.between these•
. properties may affect circulation on local streets. Potential trip:generation must be addressed on __
an.areawide basis in orderie,fairly allocate:development capacity_betweeri.properties:
In addition,.the following additionalcumulative and copeurr•ent impact issues must be, ,
examined-and analyzed within:theppending'Barbee'Nlill reviews: , -
L Cumulative impacts to LakeWashington shoreline habitat and fisheries from combined _
build-outs on the Barbee Mill;Quendall Terminals anOtaiterproperties: ,
2. Accommodation of offsite drainage from the Pan Abodeproperty;Lake Washington •
Boulevard and Interstate 405; Will drainage Conveyances be possible.through the Barbee.
Mill property,or must discharges occur on May Creek adjacent to:LakeWashington -
. Boulevard? -
•
3. Cumulative impacts to May Creek habitatand wildlife:frorn development of the Pari,Abode
and Barbee Mill properties. • ' !
4. Cumulative impacts to Lake Wasl ingtou:water,quality front Barbee Mill-property
development in conjunction.with.development of adjoining properties:and;construction and
. post-construction activities associated Withianyroad systeria,impiovemoots: ,•
w3 .� --
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-38 April 2004 '-)
• Ms.LesleyNishihara
EnvironmentalReview Committee -
May.30,2002
• Page 3 . :
5. Cumulative.impacts to wetlands and stormwaier within,the COR 2 Zone from any access and
roadway improvements,which could constrain access options and natural resources on
adjoining properties.
S• pecific OnsiteJiupiets;
• We also•believe that reviewing agencies should consider a range of specific onsite•
impacts arising from the development of the Barbee Mill property. We are aware ofthe
.following issues and impacts from studies conunissioned for Vulcanlnc.and-PQC regarding
• development of theBaxter acid Pan Abode properties: . .
I. Offshore wood waste'cleanup,as well as related water quality and fisheries issues for species ,
• listed as threatened under the Pndangered Species Act. •
2. Lake Washington shoreline issues,including reconstruction of the bulkhead,debris removal,
•shoreline enhancement or restoration,and related water quality,habitat,and,fisheries issues. .
' . . , ,3. Impacts of any over-water construction(if proposed),including related fisheries and habitat
issues.
• • 4. Issues related to•inipacts of light,human disturbance to lakeshore fish habitat. •
5: .Issues related to•wildlife,including salmon,trout,long-fin smelt,bald eagle and osprey nest
6. Issues related to Mucklesboot Indian Tribe.fishing,grounds. .. •
7. Stormwater treatment and discharge issues,including water quality impacts'to 1:alce
Washington. • ' • • .
• 8. Issues related to impacts.on MayCreek and Lake Washington fronton-site construction;'
assurance of adequate buffers.pursuant to federal,state.and local regulatoryrequirements.
9. Issues related to wetlands management,impacts and mitigation if fill takes place. •
$om 23.0 -
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-39 April 2004
I
I 1
• I
• Ms.l:,esleyblishihara -
EnviroximentalReview Committee • • >
May 30,2002 .
• Page 4 .. . . .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please include us on the
circulation list for all firther coinmunications'relative to the pending Barbee Mill reviews.
. •
• Very truly yours,
j
.Charles R.Wolfe
•
Enclosures
• cc: Rod Stevens,Vulcan Inc. • . . j
•
. i f
• .
•
• I
^ •
• •
•
•
wsns».02 •
'I ,
, I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-40 April 2004 _1
I
•
•
•
•
04.
410
Cl0> Q
o
0
LETTER OF SEPTEMBER.26,2002
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-41 April 2004
I f
•
FQSTE_. PEPPER & SHEFELM•A • A..LC
-
ATTDA NETS AT LAW
Direct Phone
(206)447.2901
Direct For,I,.ire
(206)149.1035
September 26,2002
E-Matt
WoifC®rost,r.com
•
DEYEt.OPMfN EPt A 41NG
VJA FACSIMMILE AND Gt7Y tJF REN ft�A1
HAND DELIVERY
' SEP.3,11Z0D2.
Ms.LesieyNishihira
Project Manager;Development Services Division RECEIVED•
City of Renton
Planning/Building/Public WorksDepartrnent -
1055 South Grady Way,6th Floor
Renton, tlis
WA 98055 vEt Tamp _
AvzNv:
• Sattc 3600
Re: Comments,Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat,Revised Notice StATTLA Washington
Dear Dear MsNishilura: 9 8 20 t-3 s99
Telephone
WO.:.are writing on behalf of our clients, Vulcan Inc. and the Port Quendall °b)4 i 44 9
Company(collectively,"PQC")."PQC owns three"properties within the COR-2 Zone: F{so6).{°ert,ntt7a
� •g7oo
in Renton,'known-.as the "North J.H. Baxter property•,' the "South I H. Baxter 1Vebstte
property,"and the'Pan Abode property"(the"PQC Properties"). These properties. Wwe-YomTEA.co i j
are located north and east, respectively, of the Barbeee Forest Products, Inc:
(`Barbee")property:
Background.
We,provide this letter in addition to earlier comments on file,and in;specific•
response to the September12,2002 Revised Notice of Complete-Application•for the
Barbee Mill preliminary plat application (the "Application"or'Project"). When AAlNCckD A1 -
considered.onacumulative and concurrent basis,the Project's potential impacts may
constrain.the development potential of the PQC Properties and have negative impacts POATLA'TiD
on the surrounding environment in the COR 2-Zone, As we Steteit in;our comment c4s8^p l
letter dated May 30;,2002 (attached hereto),the potential cumulative impacts subject SEATTLA
to environmental review are as follows: ,racbrwgtaa
1. :Cumulative impacts to Lake Washington shoreline habitat and Sro,AN■
dr:4 fisheries from combined build-outs on the Barbee Mill,Quiendall, Wa,brns,an
Terminals and Baxter properties:
•
:0346525.01 ..
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-42 April 2004
•
•
September 26,2002
Page 2 •
•
2. Accommodation of offsite drainage from the Pan Abode property,Lake
Washington Boulevard and Interstate 405. Will drainage conveyances be possible
through the Barbee Mill property,or must discharges occur on May Creek
adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard?
3. Cumulative.impacts to May Creek habitat and.wildlife from development.of the
Pan.Abode and Barbee Mill properties.
4. Cumulative impacts to Lake Washington.water quality from Barbee Mill property •
• development in conjunction with development of adjoining properties and •
construction and post-construction activities associated with any road system
improvements.
5. Cumulative impacts to wetlands and stormwater within the COR-2 Zone from any
access and roadway improvements,which could,constrain access options and
• natural resources'on•adjoining properties.
PQC'Property Development-Enabling Activities
Since 1996, FQC'has actively pursued development-enabling activities for the Baxter
properties with the Department of Ecology, other state and.federal agencies, and the City: In
May Of 2000,the.King County Superior Court entered Consent Decrees for the North and South
Baxter properties as negotiated by PQC and the Department:of Ecology., In 2002,,PQC
completed the associated permitting process for.the South Baxter property with the U.S.Army
Corps'Of Engineers. The clean-up required under the South Baxter Consent Decree.has.begun
(please see the attached Daily Journal of Commerce article and,photographs of work in progress)
and will enable eventual development of the property.by PQC or its successor: Our May 30,
2002 letter and.previous correspondence have consistently described•the.potential for area-wide
development in the COR-2 Zone and the Multi-year regulatory review and negotiation process
which_stand behind the North and South Baxter Consent Decrees: As-you are aware;the Consent
Decrees'describe'with some particularity a potential development of the Baxter properties—two
68-foot tall'office buildings'of approximately 200,000 square,feet each(please see the attached,
• South,Baxter Content Decree excerpt).. • '
Permits Required-for the'Project
The Revised Notice of Application indicates that several public'approvals are needed for
the Batbee•Projedt, including: SEPA review, Hearing Examiner Preliminary Plat Approval,
Hearing Examiner Variance Approval, Shoreline Substantial Development Approval;; and
Administrative Street Modification Approval. The Project will also require a Level 1 Site Plan]
. arid a Level2 Site Plan 2 and will likely require related.approvals from state and federal agencies.
•
RMC.,§4-9-200B(1). •
2 RIvMC.§4-9-200B(2).
SOW-U.0i
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-43 April 2004
•
September 26,2002
Page 3
• •
Because decisions on all of these permits must be made in light of SEPA's broad requirements,3
the City:should request information now, through SEPA, that will be needed:for all future
Project-related decision-making. For instance,the review criteria for a Level 1 Site Plan include
conformance with the comprehensive plan;mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses;safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation;and (for CUR properties only)
harmonious-development with adjacent sites.4
In addition,access to the Barbee property must necessarily.cross a Burlington Northern
Railroad line,and Barbee proposes to have two such crossings. One of the crossings is a new
crossing. The second crossing appears to be the railroad crossing that cuire,itly connects the
• Quendall Terminals property (directly north of the Barbee property) to Lake Washington
• Boulevard. It is not clear from our review whether the Project's use of these railroad crossings
has been formally negotiated,and the railroad crossing issue is not addressed.in Barbee's traffic
impact analysis. In addition,it is not clear whether Barbee has considered the implications of
road construction over the contaminated Quendall Terminals property, and whether the
Department of.Ecology has been consulted in this regard. Finally, a new vehicle bridge is
proposed as part of the subdivision's road structure: This bridge will cross.'May Creek, a
salmon bearing waterbody,and will require construction activities below May Creek's ordinary
high water mark.
•
Legal Authority to Require Further Environmental Study
Under SEPA and the Subdivision Statute,the City.;inay allow Barbee to Drily use an
equitable portion of the area's traffic capacity, and to limit. the prospective:development's
contribution-to cumulative impacts on natural resources within the COR=2 Zone. In this regard,
• SEPA provides the City the ability to require a land".nae permit applicant to:sgpply information
that is reasonably sufficient to•allow the City to make an,informed environmental.decision 5 In
•
addition,.the Washington State subdivision statutes asks-the City to determine if the proposed
subdivision,provides appropriately for the.public health,safety,and:general welfare and serves
the public interest.1 As we noted in our May:30,`2002 letter,because of these'laws,the City
•
needs to diligently address a wide range of cumulative, concurrent, and onsite:environmental,
impacts raised by the Barbee Application: City attention-is necessary because,the Project will
potentially constrain probable future.development elsewhere,;in the CQR-2 Zone :and will
• 3 'RCW'§43.21 C.030 requites that the"policies;regulations,.and laws of the state of
Washington shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in[the
State Environmental Policy Act]."
4 RIM§4-9-200B(1).
5 WAC 197-1.1.-335. •
6 RCW§§5837.010 et seq.
7 RC'W§•58.17.110.
•
3034652%Ot 1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-44 April 2004
•
September 26;2002
Page 4
•
potentially result in a 115-lot subdivision that is located on the shore of Lake Washington,
alongside May Creek,and that has limited and shared vehicle access.
• Allowing the Barbee Project to capture the remaining development capacity in the COR-
2 Zone is not supportive of Renton's general welfare or in the public interest since it'would
. severely stunt the development of the PQC Properties, properties for .which the Renton
Comprehensive Plan targets specific and high-profile development.
• The Subdivision Statute has at least two applicable provisions. First,the Statute requires
the City to "assure conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of the
comprehensive,plan...."$ The Renton Comprehensive Plan(the"Plan")calls for a coordinated
development of an•office/residential. "center" on the'properties west of the railroad tracks
(including the.Barbee and PQC Properties). "The intention is to create a compact;urban
development with high amenity values that is'agateway to the city.."i Plan Policy LU-I30 states
that the proposed development plans of the'properties should be coordinated. The properties are
'all zoned Commercial Office Retail(COR-2)and are.the only in the City zoned COR-
• 2. Taken together,the Center Office Residential section of the Plan's Land Use Element and the
Gateway,.section of the':Plan's Comm unity•Design Element show that the City desires •
coordinated development over and fill development of all of the COR-2:properties. lit other
words,the Plan,coupled With the added authority of the Subdivision Statute,gives The City the
ability to insdre that each of the'COR-2 properties is developed:in such a way that none of the
properties,have environmental impacts that constrain the•development of the other properties.
•
The second applicable Subdivision Statute provision requires the City to inquire into and
formally find that the,proposed subdivision provides appropriately for the public health;safety,
and general welfare and;serves the public-•interest.10 In this case,Renton has implicitly decided
,that the public interest and;the general welfare Renton's citizens is best served by coordinated
development'of all of the COR ,properties: Without a frill analysis of the indirect,,direct,and
cumulative environmental:impacts of the Project,it might be difficult for the City to determine if'
the Barbee subdivision will hinder'.this public interest goal:
Under SEPA,the:City may require a land.use permit applicant to provide"information
reasonably sufficient'to allow the City.to make an informed environmental•decision.tt The
' City's SEPA deeision'must include an analysis of indirect,direct,and cumulative impacts of the
Project: ' , •
•
8 ROW§.58:11.100.
9 Renton Comprehensive Plan'Objective LU-U. .
iv ROW§58.17.110.
11 WAC 197-11-335.
"S03463441
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-45 April 2004
•
September 26,2002
Page 5
•
One of the indirect impacts of the Barbee Project will be the impact on future
transportation patterns at the Intersection. As explained in our May'30,2002,letter and above, • -
the City has reason to believe that the PQC properties,could be developed in the foreseeable
future.12 The City, because it cannot deny PQC or a successor reasonable development of its
properties,will have little choice but to permit future developments that will effect the Ripley
Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard intersection (the"Intersection"). If the City allows a
:Barbee development that uses a.disproportionate share'of the remaining Intersection traffic
capacity,then the City might be forced to either deny PQC or a successor reasonable use ofits
property or be forced to spend,significant sums of money improving the Intersection. Either of• -
these is a potential,indirect impact of the Barbee";proposal, and the City may currently have
insufficient information to evaluate their likelihood.
A seminal Washington-Supreme Court case.that provides a basis for this impacts analysis
is.SAYE v. B'othelLi3 In SAVE, the Court found that the City of Bothell had undertaken
inadequate SEPA review in its.decision to permit a large shopping center. The flaw in Bothell's
environmental review was that it had'hot looked.-at the impacts of the development on areas
;outside of Bothell's city limits,that is,:the surrounding communities. The,court found that"the
' • .zoning body must serve the Welfare of the entire.affected community."14 Under this decision, •
Renton is compelled to examine the effects of the Barbee proposal on.neighboring properties,
including those properties'development potential.,
In this situation, the potential..cumulative impacts of the Barbee Project are also
extensive. "Cumulative impacts" include impacts that arise.because:a development sets a
precedent for future actions.15 The Barbee development will:seta precedent for future actions.
'The-Barbee and•PQC properties are:very similar in location and potential use and are zoned tile'
satrne. If the City allows Barbee to realize 90%.of die.development potential of its property,the
City wilt'have difbculty justifying a decision.to allow PQC.or a successor,because of lack of
traffic capacity or other environmental' .capacity,; to only realize 30%. of its properties'
development potential. In.other words, the amount of traffic generation and environmental
. impact that the City allows Barbee sets a precedent for the amount of traffic generation and
environmental.impact that the City should allow the PQC properties. These cumulative impacts
include'cumulative impacts to Lake Washington shoreline habitat and fisheries;:accommodation
of offste drainage from the Pan Abode property,-Lake Washington Boulevard, and Interstate
12_PQC has kept the City well-informed of potential development.See letter from Chuck Wolfe
to•Lawrence L Warren,February 12,2002;letter from Chuck,Wolfe to City.of Renton
Environmental Review,Comnmittee,April 2,2002 and letter.from Chuck Wolfe to Leslie
Nishihara,City of Renton Development Services Division Project Manager,May 30,2002.
13 SAVE v.Bothell,89 Wn.2d 862(Wash.1978).
14 Id._at 869.
15 WAC 197-11-060(4)(d).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-46 April 2009
i
September 26,2002
Page 6 '
405; cumulative impacts to May Creek habitat and wildlife; and cumulative impacts.to Lake
W ashington'water quality and wetlands within the COR-2 Zone.
. This cumulative impacts analysis is supported by Hayes v Yount, in which the Supreme
• Court upheld a decision of the Shoreline Hearings Board to overturn a shoreline substantial
development permit 16 The Court held that the Hearings Board had'properly ruled that the
County had not adequately considered the cumulative impacts of the.development. In particular,
, the Hearings Board found that;although-the development in question,which involved;the fill of
Wetlands;would not have a significant adverse environmental impact,;it would set the precedent
for future similar developments that, taken'together, would have significant environmental `
impacts.17 This cumulative impacts analysis was recently re-affirined by the:Supreme Court in
Buechel V. Department of Ecology.18 Under these decisions, Renton has the.clear ability to
, require sufficient,information and studies and to consider the precedential value of the Barbee
Mill,proposal.;
- The cumulative impacts that an applicant may be required to study also:include impacts '
that are more extensive than the impacts thatthe applicant could be required to mitigate. In other•
' words,the applicant may be'.required to study the cumulative impacts of properties That are not
owned by theapplicant.19 •"
Barbee's Supplemental Preliminary Plat Documentation
As discussed.above;one of the major cumulative of the Barbee Project will be on
the Ripley Lenel ake Washington Boulevard`intersection. Barbee's Final Traffic Impact
Analysis does not contain an analysis of the cumulative impacts on the Intersection under the,
assumption:that the:PQC Properties Will be'developed,'as was requested by the City on.June 3,
2002, As indicated above;development of the'PQC:Properties'has been.firmly enabled'and
should be;included in Barbee's traffic'analysii.`., " ; '
. Barbee'has`also submitted a'biological,assessment(the."Barbee BA'), prepared by
Raedeke Associates,.Inc. The Barbee BA may not,provide the City with the full amount of _ '
information that it will need to assess the direct;indirect,and cumulative impacts of the Project.
•
For instance, the:Barbee BA.does'not reference the PQC:Biological "Evaluation (`BE')
completed for the neighboring Baxter Properties as part of the Baxter Property Consent Decree
process. The PQC BE is.a•public document and was readily available for Raedeke Associates to
I 'review.• In sparliaular,,the shoreline analysis in the*PQC BE is extensive and references.area
s shoreline conditions..'A further area..that is:li tl :analyzed in the Barbee BA'is short-term.
gll Y .
i 76 Hoye svYU:int,;87'Wil...2d"280'(Wash.19'6).''
17 Id.. at 287-288. .
•
1a Buechel v.Department of Ecology;,125.Wn.2d 196,189{Wash.1994). ,
• 19 WAC 197-11-060(4)(e).
, i •
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-47 April 2004
. •-•
, .
, •
September 26,2002
• Page 7 II i
•. • .. . .. .„ .
:construction impacts,especially in•light•ef the:fact,that Barbee prOpoSes construction of a bridge
for Street D that wilt require work below theordinary high water mark of May Creek.
Thank you for the opPortuitity to Corrunenton Barbed'a'Application,and please keep•us 1 ,
informed of your further reView activities and detennitations. :
. 1
. • -•. • . Sincerely yours,
. .• : . . , ,
. • . . , . .. .
II
-• .Charles R.Wolfe Enclosures
, , 1
,
cc: Ada Kflealey,Vulcan lit. • . I
.
Robertj,Collier,Vulcan 1.1M. ,
;
, ,, '
Clint Chase;Vuicarilit . ,e •
i .
.
Lawrence L Warren;Baq. • ' '. i , i
, .
. , .
. . .
' •
. ! ,
• • "
,.
. ,
. .
. ,
, .
. • • , 1
. .
. . .
. . .
•
• . • - ,
i , 1
, . • .
• ,
• . 1
I i
. ,
. ,
. •
•
.• • 1
,
, . 1
104632191
1 1
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-48 April 2004 —[
; {
•
;141,,14
. ; t 3 ii1iIi
i Fv"
4 1.
f 3" d' tiw# � p�V k k Cq ��r aI ¢ § , Zia -"rc 4 kti t! 1-,,,:..-- ; ^
irk 4 A.,t'Aile3 ti, VI 4.t.p.t'' P' ''.' 1 1.i,IN \‘,, '%,. ''t,i'ri kediF4‘. ).k..%, .>".,17:1 .. ' '
44
$ + `�''�P 2x :.}, :'v .t' l` ^� "`'� ''"S 4q d `k' ...,S yam,- �` +,R
•
e y''?2{ , AA•'r���rn 1 ,i ' .. 6 kw. Y'tt d t, :sta"""e .... l oN.- r- t'
x ,th h
y! .,7... , it, 1, ,.• L T r .. a": J os.,
a41t t 3Y i pA 3+ �x�g ,-�`},;(.•y +t.,�', 'Y 7 § may{ ,§. s',� Y Ss
17,E r-^t f +� t r Y$j tV i
a �`
% cx it �b' «,,, • ...,1„.:..,... a 1i *, � s 1T'' r1.4- -,. ''#....`'4.c{, '� 1: r7�.
+,e^� •., ,Fq 1'+ifFJ •- � e Nn, siX '�'A •" �'f; ;:•'�,,.,t fit ¢" },.,y' • 1.
.:4***,4WK Til' .."0,0,� ,A �,iti�:.3 � , .`1�""�' ckv �' t ., 4'I i•'- yid'• .a, VV Tt' �.�,}a 'A�..44 4,.
' ;'SY ex,....% t '{jkFS,�'�;`a'Y� y' -...tr.".
AA,"^ .* ( „ 4,47 44��iiii''''+r„;5
A. li
� d :a 3 ' `4' ^'ar 11, yf .",*;; �. ,.ea ,ram
p 4'4r!`jftc$+ ' ,- F t�,-. Vatii:
„r. tr`# �y$us�� , �p 11''.'r B r^- ♦ k +- , s,, ._, ,, .. _
'.' A r t213 a t
;y' :1 -1' P4,;6,,YC ,47/i ifir Y ") .`'�'Y l^a 'sj .
q� . .. r sg4* ''' s •*. x ; om T Pi f -
7` ' xs - 'i:" f .;iy''- k' 7 5 i 44 A4.1 3 t �¢�q/yG^_���•'{ ,
j 1 t , r' i}TeA t
4b ! ) ,jli .�q;��k,�x�'''.:.'ns' V3 "*4 ji.�"„`4`t �r'1tt4..4 f 4 . i >417'
r ,tee ta. a t
li'-,.:4%rl.i1Xa,.',-..,'..,.-.Ih.4',.y-;l1 i--,
kgg.*.. f J tti e.,Gi,- "f '71,,:ii tt:k :1 i!..� 4'sp•4 ',y ..
':;,j'�r .yjj' `7vr'@• ti.Ny' ksP ..C'' A� •l x t ri `N(?2-
41:4,1i(4,1:LP-04ii.1.
4 .�1,0,iti i $,+b >, z? ,11, i, Syr =. I 4 a .4.444.1'4 ,#•��
a + i4,',.v`''••^"Pi'.. .W L w'. Fr� '` }a J'^' .. 1 i�ate. t'
r t ror Sa
jJ ,: '�•a9�F�<a u •rY /�a M q' ''' i v;t. �ti�°. . .a, R�+...• •., x M,
t� i >..i; j R' 3 1,r aiF 1 x 1 • ,.. ,.., R a.,'- ��J.i,:*$ x
44
•�§, •, 4J ...tauT,ya k,,t;'�ef•"° 4v. q -`, T. J� ''�t :l�sM. 1 ,..,p',4 a 0"�•r"J+�ri'*.44s � 'p
•
j °"j!�}� -q ti i '• •>+{ t ki" t'i`+•L Y,' a ""r•C.�`B , J +A
, 1; d;x , J " '^ 6`,2''.�f.FVS*4*Witt
'e4 i1nta" ... ,'• J' ! .o *"�-• , r :to...b 4i.
:..; � _:�
A iri 9rtt,£ F rcrt .":' !G #Y. -i. {:xXp'. �" '�`. _ s' t ae' .lt+�r *.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-49 April2004
-i
•
•
s II f K, 1 ••t , r • •
,;, t I
1 ,•,, ,,41° < ,, 7 c. 4. ? A'' fir. �"'�s
+liyy.. 't►"t`T�` 'Y '�. ` :' t w gars A x, z. % �. ti4"
� • i ij 1 : .a 5
e ' 1 qk.x a t ! ,�-e; Ti EA r t - y ,- J.
k
7i.,„ 'Myi; di it }",,"�,fd% l v 3'f� z. ` wt`5 `"+. ,j, '.e _--
•i.�',*f"i z +- 2..,^4� ^shy # "�`l l' ° e
} 'Y rtik l R3 i" ,i �n
•
li .yr` } a 1, 7` « ka a `�j ' h� r � . t - ; �}, � ..
," zq' a`- ' .),-•
`" k-s'+ y,••s, 1`k['��4,,z;• Pt ''*-•:•i r,• ,' y'`• f F '»4
t K w"alp t _
k' �, 3 _�6,Y 4; i �Zk %5, 't' z•t I 1 ,_ '. 'i. f' e' i-.t .. 1
w. �� ,„s .✓5� j. .�,is{ hit` ? a ' 1 �t A - ., �A � t ti' a. -
_;' 4 1!C;, eq• fi�4+`}�.. ,fft *'�s.n '1t.`y q a `4.,:y' k @� ty�'t
e}MT'
`kS � f . �tl + { i' ; s tl..H.. t. 3 -,l.fi ,,,. ' a { )� f t 1'a `
�5 �! `t `` k J' S r • zc r ,,s r,, i zil\i ..)),If.'1-T),!;), •, ) R.a- t.iii,Jk'£ I!
ill
m
4 ° S .+ `4 4 •)1,
! ``' ,, q1 • i 4.•?s}q >v .'a 'y, t-. ,,1 4•4LR ;{�f y,si (it * , $c.'?,'r1 • a}p' • T' C'.k - �+ _'
"'4. ,�'�'} � y �'.'` 3# t �ty �"% 1 � it +a z r ,!,s I
y.T �'{°�.,�. , wS's. "tit �. T s t c 4 %y 1 i !,+' f k 4 i .iic,:
E h!"^+'# ti3, ' 14,14 ( • /t # , 17� -, p'¢,.1,, T' 4 ta',s - 5. f 7, " fii -
`4 ,3.�� `4,k1 4 , T7 i �"F v .. �.."r `E' ,�f. .J+ 4"�t4 t C k
'` �, `:a•'` �1{s 9' ! 3`" 4 ' t {ai "f T4 'S. < 1 ,-+d *'" ri • ! 1 iR ' .
i=1�e,� ''�t .-" ' b -4a , t T d,'M • "fix --1 . SS� ., Vu,�
Ti P i�i Y ��' k ? r ! 3 ( ter+ •k.�f.w.� C '
•
}i �,4t `.a t ct1,4 - %qt '. t .^sY f �' 1 -+ �.
•'%, 41' Iii, -, �-3z .(a`h q 'Writ�T• 6X.r ,k , - �. ' £`� y "sh•y..
r„,-4.5 ‘.. IA. c tirAl ,,,. kote....it:4:. .,,V,74'i,Nif: ' ,'.1.-',2V,T,t,,ir/-. '.. '-. I, .,.r.,
T. „0„ ' ,.•.• qr !lig,.ik.,' ,1';',*1., ..,.:*;)5, '•41TI.:4-At,‘• ;444- ,
•
R' +s•• fi Cf" e*;'�f`' 1,, .; aH x � g ( { i1 ,'"44.
fY !! 11 }'y' f f f(, S ! ; sit`
'y. . ,v, r �r " Es*Vor «,. q •y,; 're f- S tii;.:d; >', a ! ih .+ 1
%
ss'. i;..f y' '" y,4 's * i S iy..,,'' ,r,.: a i t y..0y� i:3 r., T F - L.
•
.e 8 Y:A cry • s • :i :
° " 113, ,-,, ,yy. —
4 i.
1
1
,, ,„,. ,,,, „„ . ..,, ,4,,,,.0 •:;, ••,,.., ',. , L:-ri-'..'. • ,-.1'1..'1:-: „*.',1 '',,.7 ,
��>i ., f # .`�17 C i 't f t s'! a ' 'w4 fit 'c ''J(§.° '. "q'i . ! '',a
-11
; - A� ! t 7 1 •.fit" ;-,g Itt,
s, i, !
�? .. '4y';fl t -,` } s t e Pax .-. ,. ; . d.,�f° '
4 Y Si f A s ,,E.1, P...ri..4 i
�Y� jQ�.S� ;� : 'yy�. ��• `. p r�?w�, � K:.itl� A'd� �,:..9'�4�v- w i
•rf ° t�.£�Ly,' �` ,.+`+a ,:{Y _ q}' fie: $ L ty -;5•a �3>y Su ,}1�F0` :
*d %' g er • �` �f. ,t � 1,,.. t f .r' ' yy` yy� y,. r :Y%,,i ,'�4 1 I-
f k 7NM!��]& '. ".'S t . ` ..F.m, ,,r °�jd 01,1, ;it :- ,tii, �t�...b £...._
. dpt '14 „Ala . a. d i �.- .. •�' 'y �1`'9 l.S YS. FF fi F"•`F1'f,^%.G"S � Ci'4L'M@ "�`
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-50 April2004
I I
I
t
•
•
I `
I
I I
t
1
.' a y,(n3w, g r}�y 0 T c<,,,S ^<�i.
—
'h . arq -t,ivr.4` x ,U Y,Y
7F-111..,r,x"Ite'''"""er it• ' ''-`-#1) "
•
� :
dg
i�`S�:Sd�L.> ti ,.., r.f! ? �Sfy"r;?'
4 ?`i L, Y
X ,
�.. >, 7:``�31t- 4:1, s•ir}e 4;1 r ,'.-.``
"6" 6 ,:
ems',_,,+•-;,. �� "`-r�s-. ' _;i
•
•
•
•
r
554-1779-017
City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-51 April2004
•
I
•
t,�E�, i.t.i`.*,i,""f 3 11Y '�,.'.ti�T 7w
sr "`r. ir�vart :TIf.-C'.�tiL p�F ,, a3 aY r j d..
t�' s}� �}
,,�.,w it r� t -..tpJ. 41 �... IJ?��.,-�,j- _ -
.Tz tX cy-; v4ha' `T-i.^',S ; ii,' s '... fi'kla
-, ,c ` ,
41*';; , 4--5 . r4
i
c fE;r' x' ,, r
i
1
I
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779 017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-52 April2004
! ,
!--,
•
•
-! ,
•
'1,e1. •triZ,yr(4...
;, . ..e30-,-1,A,,,Tizkt, AYP . .-••••• ••,'•: , , -•.- .._. .
. i,---,
2 c).6-L. •
: 1
. . •
•
,..
. .
,
;:...-,,: --,—..„,..,..,eetr..-:.:0•1•,•••;„.;-'•,•
,--•„ .••••- •. ••••••, • ,„ ,• „ ., , ,.:,,•, .,*.43:,.. .,^i:vw.;'."''is,',., ,;.--i',....---41:,:ii)*9-y,:41,1,.i.
Port-'-' v--'"endaII
Q,......u„. .:,e:•„:.i.,„..:-a:„.,...11.-:•,•••,,,i,••„.:.„..,.::.60tri•mtii•frailiituOl`'-:-''''''• •!•,••?!..-
, ,,,.• „ ., .,.. „ „,..„,
'',..•., •
: ce..vrt th6Spfitdier4IfIdiA,,pAltill.liol:.-":;!,
1,Ilarb0-Mill s sjte„..which sitOttLit,4,`...-:,,.
.• ..-'•-;':'::,:,',‘:„C,,,, •.„.',er,-.•.,4, 'Az'-,:,....„,,•i.P,„ . 'I. ., .::,..•.,.:..,,:••:..„:e•.',,.•;.,•: i„::-n
By JX00.8,* 161Tor.t4esa1e- ep.a,.r.t, .ie n....i,.e'.....rpt..... 2.,,,,k,t-I•litue„ann,110:Th6.010.w...,.;..
....
. .,,,,... ,..",,,..;64-teore'c:oltl'it.ge'ilistortlint' r.10011,1 tombiallill dotirtiz:..•.,,,,,-,,,
kiiit isiate Editoi',.':...:,'••E!ccilitgY it.iiteti':AllOrs f..vmitAllY,'-.., ",,,. '7,•...I3,oi-t,Qstiini41•Co's.. IO',.111ztiP".;
'..).',"1'1,.,-,„ : •..,. -•.%:,!.. , I4 i.41.4ttliktt OotriPtlY tittrirre.m„L'ifi'.." •: .
"..',I#iorki'alpil.clawm1466.1ilkOgliat..•,q.,,
..:ii.,..- 17.,6tkin';`:P o rt:44P'6\41 1,'"6.., -,t'-:..tri' gith0..lagtitoilitell Pet(v'n11....14P,,s',,.. .',..,
d ,the II,S;Army ot"ps q . „agtneer ,°. . ''1,1)teinikatioti to ..$04.'ilt0.,,'akt4
,,,tbdugh AllOtiiptAtOman/4k..ha!i..%.,L...
, ',Omits t 9 stttit:thirl001:WP--.• ' ,. . • -..‘,' -'',- •‘-•i'.' ' - ' ':"..z,-'4,i.:" ' -1) ..,*1 al.-s.iSitit-iiiiatiete,..
• 11Ottet6iiiititiltive'vtt.t5f..0‘6.9iit :1•1o•s,.§111.1ancr.,i..‘.,,,,,.., ,. - •--,- .,-,...,. .' 17:._.,,...".4.4i,„V.., .- gift'., •- it, ty:Ia.,' ,,...„
..._. .
econDITtm,
;.e(trkilAith.eV-4,6iciPi)Tigt4,14.1Y-P16,..c...,i4-19P? ti t .,iitid, - .:4:4,.....eting...:df, ,.;.p.roi r.... ,,„...,..,
' • ' ' ''"*' ,-'llevart nte.nt admints a oc.:. .
•:,tutitprn,LaleiNatPlifg10.4,.A 1-r,. . -. P-• Lilt.co.---ii 6 isbil,-a' :" ••f,--beattl-4. .-'' ' . '-' •'- ",:.;.-":-
:iliti711,:th'odOntINUIY,Sbitl,,fteklet*;-t.fort,Suejg„. f ik,,, Mr,: - .- ., , ,A.'Werct•,glictilatO,tat*i.ahrs..;.,.i.is,,, ,
.,-7.?ityp..tk,:iiiii?.1Atm.11-„,$(1.1.i-,, 'cim ' Oa'- • -' - -It ilisthimethosole:- .. PC:'•ininittet that AllititeliAtte` genti',1.',f..
,j*titivlite,tiiiiit*OtkolicAtE.,,,:-:',ory;lo.W.).G.a.-.t..:,._. .,,, :,, , he liviTs hid pitt aiitfeitetsfor'Alyny .,.......,,
, le' Inv that rattnntitnerat.,:-,; -.„
P3-1i.fit`eitii4aidekt:flir'311C9r42: ',FTWil.."t'''''' itt; 'kti,laiirs--'.,,, •;:fek•41-aink:l'e4tort4otl,i#4tetattif,,......-?,1§,crstbutlig,oN:iiirm4,:074*- ,...::, • ;•..,4,24-,..1.!..tlq,,, ,,r,,,7,.. ,.._, . -,kinil..ttiat Port,t/pentlallte4tkAttik-'„;;.;.:!,k46,1k-c*Z•I'lik`Itgo_14.01,15 -014".".:.1f4,1iititthbrti!ttltictl01;.tt t.1.%,,r_ ,,,,,..!.,.....ei• ,..1.7ing:4.clipll'JO 4,';.NI! •1-4 -14..,4,;.:W
' iiigt.ifficktat4>rtgAfrAii,7-,w-mqf.:At-..,:pot1::Q.0,?:1-41,11:ukik,...:.. ? .... LE:i4koleiitibl!,of tht.},ptOpertit,'.,..-;:.-.7.:...,,,,....
:''''7`.:tOart:.610113i.atti011ifgr)?rtlItietii:.'7:,t.`,.
i1144.131.64*ti),,Aff:1,417; .'AI)Fli,g_ao.t.d..!1.TO.de,yllorp,Itirdia,..at2„....,:,,,..f. z,,,,,,..,
.4'1'
tjVIV4 ir...::6Piat 106'45'011'1*''''.4,'W:13f:PIP4i-- ..,‘,
At .6-7r1Ph'°' - R ' 't311°:"I'4:1;NIT!'“.q11;.°11-1-tifite'lle-..,4'':2:'• . ‘t.'i,P,114 4 Z7-t.'idthiliirtia':.: .-
1
.AX4;''' '',XPlig 130 .;' ' :1(''''001C ilbr°:),Ptqfg.te,..1.,.. -,' L,',7.,.;.?.,:',".: -,,Y.-KPYIP P. ,.!1),i''' • .:,' .„..••'.,:.:t;''''
,fcg!'''. :1•• 1 prOe e*'•.31trien0;1454•01.pel;',P404it'ilt:10f.'.•'' '''.,;''
i
I‘-ktitne,,d6eiopatifit:II, olt.E 4,
.t..4.„,,.., 1. 1 . ,0- . - - 4,.44,...-,;.-if..-so -11i-flagzt.,.. ,••.,'':'ll'ir,:>
.ee: >, `':--(srti,) =,;,:is A - „I t lk•L•l'P.), 0 r;FLA.•,''' 41 ,.. ''"'' 'e-: "'.'.';':: ii::'';•Nitz6-,Stpitii.&di:,'lakibit ''
Y1):.J1,i'l
4.4:4.;,1, -,,, ,,,..•.11,...1.41.1.#1, rV,,,....,It 4, >ift,i An ,ffill tiii yo, ,,.,:.,,.,
''''.`42;e4:;liilt00;•tit•h*WilltlIKIIMP:g•,'‘
, .:?2,::T72'.. ' . , Of ill .a 4 J:Iliaief,z3Miltip ..„41 ..,4;:-;:.••,:`,. ,•,..."0.."*Jyti(Ptlitgdor141,1.: 14 ':•.•-,::
,,,,:::% : ii:. ,,•' ' ' 5,i? '1, —••,.. - ) '-0.-fr -,P;t:''''''.'-‘-'"".... -',..-,,,•••,,:W., kp;14.6.*:°_,;1;::''''':'•:::-'""1'4.?,,,e.'':''',';',.,'::;;iz...!:
7,',,tia dr -II ' V.:''z'.'.Li',,,,`::-.-.:.,?,,I,'..411W , , bo..,m,.). ,,,,,,-..
::7314V49111./' lIffl" 148461#11' ' ilit1413:14T,-‘,1..i....;. .-
: .the•ii&*Itii°,1,sti:`,,Wz%1M7.9jBh 1.11!%s4A.P;' ' ',- ',. ,"-*'• , °,10ifirei.'tiikeil.„it::fo,'.41tf;,:,:,Vii::.:-.:'
1 1.*kitit'ie.gttltito4igi.tlitaWgik Iiiilli.on,Oqtyp..k.k.211,f+C,,,9ntitils,' t,,,'-‘0PPItatlii',ii tti,Pilit403(tPln4L-444../:E,-
1?;:ditirs'eoltitiril„-laati4t,k.: ::0,fItlef:•.'''',:',.'.4.'''..e.41,tio.rd.04.1ia.401!•.FiS9Yri.0-=' - ''.4,;;distlissr631.bbilitox'.Wfet4Otit)5,/..-„,
.. „. -
vf.fr#Willineo dealr.
roiQuenditifeci..7S'„:11i.4-(ti.T .
...?•:',,.,.
-.1"i'.• tricitientittikateali.4,ip IpTh'er,04;,....„;,;:.....
,..1--.•:•::-.Prifie,TI•te:Weitkilivi4*Iiral.igr'1:": '
il1e60,6-iote:•-•-ahlt.':iitiltt'...-r
. • , titaddarciptielfoIflogik.e4:112001.1.0t!....,i7:.
-1,idetaie-pfitions,;•Ogblifil said .::!: !•,-,
. .,.`0.4.' Ivellabb'efe141 c'47k
....
t200("2107:651q't3r 1.)y;it• fl`„•,d,
:;,:•-i,:-).e.aids::,tom.:' • , --•• ...,.
.. ,
:•,,,.:,.
. ,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-53 April 2004
1
. - -• ' .-.-- ..' . '- - - • iireflY11> - • .: ..
-r • ,- . • . • ' Ga5'lj ei'Si+dif4.841 ...
• ':Supeliar Catin Clf•A
5 PO4 , - •
IN THE•SOPERIORCOURT OF TIJE'STATE OF WASI lNGTON, - -
7• . . •• INAND FOR KING COUNTY ;
' 8 -STATE OP WASHINGTON'DEARTIv1ENT 4F • • - • • . . . 1
• ECOLOGY;
9. .NO 0" 2 " .1•1.717 9' '$KN7
Plaintiff;
10 PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER CONSENT
-. v:- • . • DECREE ' .
POI •QUENDALL COWAN'',a Washington "RE:"SOUT,EI in BAXTER • .
12. .corporation; ' .PROPFRTY/RENTON - • .
.13 Defendant.
" •14 ' ; •
f •
16.` • " , , -
17 •_ -
•
1$
g "
2U
21' " . .
• 22 • • - • •
,
• • 1. .. - i--
24 •
25. •
' •
25' - '
✓✓✓ PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER AT'LQRNEYGB?EItALOPWAS'NWGTON
Ecology Division
CONSENT DECREE PO Box 401r7. - .
So B uth axter - ()Irv*WA 93504.0117` '
FAX.060)438,7743
.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-54 April 2004
. . ,. ,.:. . . „ " , • •
• •
. .
. .
. .
-:- .
". „.,....:,‘., .,•.:~Property would act•a§security for certain South•Baxter Property cleanup obligations. Upon`entty Of
.; 2 this Consent Decree;Consent Decree No.88 2-21599-5 shall be superseded.and'of no further forte
3 and effect,and the May 6, 1992 Renton-Baxter Security Interest Agreement'will be released and of •
4- .no further force and effect: Comprehensive summaries of project area historical information,records
- • 5 :and enviranniental.data have been provided in the Draft Remedial Investigation Report(Woodward'
• 6, _Clyde;-1990)conducted pursuant'to the 1988 Consent Decree;and iti multiple documents prepared
1 • • - 7 •by TherinoRetec Consulting Corporation from 1997 to present. .
•
. 1V. DESCRIPTION.OF PROPOSED PROJECT • .
•
•
9 p acquireProperty(along 41. Defendant ro ses to the:South Baxter g with the North(
10
Baxter Property)to facilitate eventual commercial;urban residential,and/or retail development,
" 11.
f _ • either independently or as the northern portion of the potential Quendall Landing Development
• 12 •
Projecf("Project"),including adjacent properties,ivhich could ultimately result in between
• ' 13• .
' approximately 400,000 and 3.0 million square feet of development at the north end of Renton. The
14 -
'South Baxter Property,'along with the North Baxter Property is anticipated to include approximately
15
400,000 sq.ft,of development. "
16
42. In 1989,the•City of Rentonbegan workon.development of a Comprehensive Plan
17 ,-
• ,• affecting the Property and surrounding properties. Between 1990 and;1993,extensive public
ia,
i hearings and,meeiings were held,and notification.was provided to.impacted property owners and the
'19.
general public concerning•Comprehensive Plan land use alternatives and proposed Renton Zoning
20 .
1 • 21.
Code arinendments.
1 - 43: In addition,in 1996 and 1997,'an Environmental Impact Statement("EIS")seeping.
- 22
. • . process was conducted in association with proposed development of the Facility. This EIS seeping
{ •- 23,,
process involved significant public participation,including mailings,formal comment,and
• 24,
1 meetings.
25.,.
"
} 26 '
• 'PROSPECTNEPURCHASER 9 AfTARNEYGE4114OFWASHI1IGION
Ewlogy,D'+Yision
• CONSENT DECREE Po.rso.oiye i
1 - 'South Baxter O Pu;wA 93n(40 t7
FAX(3601438.7743
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-55 April 2004
,-----,
. ,
I
.. .... .
. .
.. . , .: • :' . •
. • . .
• . .
. , -:, -• '
. , , . , • . " , I
. . .
. . .. . .
. . :,•!'' ^ I
. - •
`34T,I
:,jif . 1 ; 44.i Any property development will be completed in accordance with theRentorr
. . . .. , .
• .- 2.. .Cemprehensive Plan and'area-wide zoning-Center Office Residential designation: Subject to the - 1
• • 3 : requirements of the Baxter MitigationAnalysis Meinorandura;SuCh development will include ' : '---
.
4' -permanent public access to shoreline at the Baxter PropertY. ' • . , • • :.•51 . 45. AnY residential townhomes or condominiums on'the South:Baxter Property Wilt he •
' ' 1
.. .
' 6: .built:I.:firer structural:concrete parking or other sttuctttres,placing the first occupied floor at least one . I ' -'
.. -7 level above the-soil. , :• . ,• — .
• '. '8' . 46: Two office.buildings(approximately 200,000,square feet each)and associated •- I '_ ,
parking mai,'be located on the South Baxter Property. The proposed buildings are anticipated to-be '
10: five stories,or approximately.68 feet tall..Parking may be leCatedas the first floor ale office • , ; _
.11 building or as separate structures. . ,
. I . . .
, 1
. • - 12 47. The.development would be designed to take advantage of the desirable location of '
.13 the South Baxter Property and Will minimizeadverse environmental impacts. Redevelopment will
-..' -. 14. -facilitate.permanent public access to the shoreline(through a gravel walking ft-Zinn:the inland edge
15 of Shoreline enhancements and observation Stations);,create a connection to existing recreational.*
. . I .. _.
-16:: trails,and'create,transportation and parking improvements„
. • 17 ' 48. Development of the South Baxtei•PropertYis-eXpeeted to crate a signiffcent number-
1,8. of well-paying jobs and spur development in the north eminfRenttin. Substantial,tax revenues
19 would be generated to benefit Renton and the state of*a.liitigton7. . 1
. 1
. 20 • 49., , Defendant has complied with the State Environmental Policy ("SEPA").
„ . • ,21.i environmental review requirernents.for the proposed remedial actionsin be Performed:„ Coloor has 1
1
: . . .. . . .
22,• been established as•the agency lead pursuant to SEFiA.•The SEPA Mitigated Determination of
23 .NOnsignificanee and Envireinmental Checklist are attached as Attachment 4.
• 1 1
' A . . . 1
'25 , " • . ,., .i ,
i,
- •
,. • ) .26 ' . '
- _. .
.
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER
• - HY _ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHiNGTON
' 'CONSENT DECREE . • ,- Ecology Diyision • ,
,
FO Box 40117
-
.South Baxter . Olympia;WA 96,504-oi Ir.
. . .: .m4360)438,7:741 ,
. . ..
. . .
. . ..
L--
1 ----
r
1
. . City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779- 17
' Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-56 April 2g04 1 -
-- .
. .
. .
... .
• .
. .
. , ••• . • ',' . .
. .. '...
'.'.. -.. ..: •. . , " •
, .
. . .
, `. , •., . .
. , . . •
. .
. .
1,. •• ,
-•::•,-.'` . . • • . V. WORT<TO ilt.PEAV. GRMED
. . . .
. 2 50. Upon the Effeetive Date of this Defendant will perform the Cleanup Action
. . .
Plan described in Attachment B,including all attachments thereto,according.to the schedule
4 provided therein-. Defendant shall submit as:built doomnentatien to Ecology to verify construction of
.,•, ‘ , . -
the cleanup and mitigation-nail:Ms.reqUired bY the Cleanup Action Plan: Cleanup activities include"
. . . ..
6 sonrce.temediation,site grading to facilitate site redevelopment,soil capping,wetland mitigation, .. .
: . . .
and-con.firmatiOnal groundwater monitoring:Source remediation includes removal of NAPL from
. ,
welts-(13AX-14),sedithent and soil excavation and Off-site treatment Ur disposal,and in situ soil
-- 9 mixing(Stabilization).-SourcereMediatiOn activities will.occur at prescribed locations according to
. , in the Clearrup.Action Plan. Coordination between site cleanup and redevelopment would minimize
disruption to the surrounding community,. As such,the actual-schedule for site cleanup may vary to
, .
• 12, facilitate this coordination. . • • . - • :. •
. 13'. 51. Defendant agreeinot to perform any remedial actions for the release of Hazardous •
. , -•. .14. Substances covered by this bectvg,other than those required by.this Decree,unless the parties agree .
• is .to amend fife Decree tof cOveriliese actions. All work conducted Under this'Deereeshall beidone in
, 16;S aCcordancemith Chapter-173-346WAC onlessOthenVise provided herein. All work conducted • -
,..
17 pursuant to this Decree thall be done pursuant to the cleanup level's Specified in the Cleanup Action
,--
Plan(Attachntent13). ' - '
19. 52: Defendant agrees to.record the Restrictive Covenant(Attachment C)WitlitheOffiCe
•
,--
1 ; .20 of the King County Recorder:14)0i completion of the capital portion of the cleanup Action.Plan,and
• 21 :.'shall.proVideEcologYwitlipieof Of such recording within thirty(30).days.of recording. .
. .
' .
, . 22 • - - VI ECOLOGY COSTS . .. „
; _i • -
.. -
, . 23 53. -Defendant agrees to pay all oversight costs incurred by Ecology pursuant-to this
. , .. 24 Decree: The oversight payment obligation shall not include costs already pnid,pursuant to the
; .
„ . .
.25 ',Prepayment Agreement entered:between Ecology and JAG Development Inc,dated October 2,ipg , •
• . _,) 26 1 Theoversight costs required to be paid under this Decree shall include work performed by Ecology
. ..
: •PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER 11 ATTORNEY GiatfiliL Of WASPIDIGION
. .' CONSENT.DEtREE • Ecology Division
; , PO Box 40117
SOuth Baxter- • Olympi,WA 985040117
. , • . PAX(360)438.77,43
: .
. .
' . .
:-!
, .
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
( t Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-57 554-1779-017
April 2004
,
,
I
:• ' .., .
. .
:S,•:" • . - •
.i. . • " . . . . s I 1
^ • . . .
• ' . . ''
,,,,• .. .:-, , , • „ . .
. ,
•!--.?..,•;"7.)•;.. . 1 107.' Hike Court withdraws its consent,this Decree shall be nitll and void at the option of
.-:...:•::..-: -.. -
N-,,,,,,rF .. ., • .
-• •g. ay party, 6ccochtiaiiyitig Complaint shall be diimitied without costs and without prejudiee.
. . „
3 in suchan event,no party shall be bound by the requirements of this Decree.
._ . .
' • • 4: XXXL SEVERABILITY 1 1
... ,. . •
-'-5 • 198. If MY section,subiection;sentence;or Clause of this Agriement is found to'be illegal,
••• . 6 invalid,or unenforceable,such illegality,invalidity,or=enforceability will not affect the legality,. • i 1
. •
1, validity,or enforceability of the Agreement as a whole or of any other section,subsectinn,sentence,
•• .8 or Oause. : . . , 1
. .
. - .
9• . XXXII. EktilECTIVE DATE
10 10. The Effective Date of this Decree is the fmal date When both thisDecree•has been
. . I
. .- ,11 ; entered.bythe Court and the closing of the property purchase is completed as defined in the Property
• • 12 Purchase Agreement between Port Quendall Companyand,I.H.Baxter 4 Co.
'11 SO OIMERED thii i&/7'day of • /1w-21_ .2000. '
, . c„.., •
0 . i4. . . .
s ,
. . ,
,s. .. .
.
• . 'Judge,King:County Superior COurt
, •
16 .
ei• -•-•,-,'to••••,,),•••••••;.4“--y.,...,..-. p P.O.TOO.- '
. —•
The undersigned parties•enter into this Prospective Ptitchaser Consent Decree en the date '
17: ' ,
. 18
siledied Wow. ,. -.. .
,
. ,
• ,,, PORT QUENDALL COMPANY,a ' ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE • ,
I
.. 1 7•' W.4011ngtOli C01170tAiOn
J '
BY.:' I • AlCe//ei•049—BY: . 71rericr: e'' z*,1,..ii ,
21. 'Herne, Aegy r:. infl,ei-Ar
n Pate: /177"12 242co PrintedName: 71 001.f.< 6 /171tit6j/ i
Date: /Y/ef• ,,c .7640
23 . -
. ./ .
•
• •• . DEPitiamENT OP ECOLOGY
. • .. .
24
- . .
, • - Ety:
-
.
Printed Name: 1
• 25• Date: çfiç
..-• . 26: . , . •
.
... ) , .
' PROSPECTIVE PURCHAgER 27 ATTORNEY'GEBERAL OF WASHINGTON '
- CONSENT DECREE
Ecolory Divisiox . 1
• • PO Box 401 y7 I
South Baxter Olympia,WA 9850O-0117
. • .
. . FAX(360)433-7143
• .
, ••
. 1
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
1
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-58 April 2004
1 I
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
m �,,.p
•
•
• . LETTER OF DECEMBER.16,2002 •
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-59 April 2004
I
l
•
FOSTER PEPPER & SHEFEL.MhN PLLC
ATTORNEYS` . -PAT L A T
4` • •
•
direct.Phone
December 16,2002 (206)447.2901•
tnleeb Facsimile
(206)749-2035
VIA'FACSIMILE AND r-atan
HAND DELIVERY Wotrc@teater.com•
--!
LesleyNishTira,Project Manager
Renton City'Ilall,6`b Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
I I �
Re: EIS Scoping Comments,
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Application
rail TatRn
Dear Lesley: AvaNvt
Saite3400 --'
-We are writing on behalf of our clients,Vulcan Inc. and.the Port..Quendall- SSAY,rst.
Comtpany(collectively,"PQC'). PQCowns three properties within the COR-2 Zone Washington
in Renton, known as the "North J.H. Baxter property, the "South Jill. Baxter 9F:o:-1:9y
property;.!,and the Abode.property"(the"PQC Properties"); These properties Tsrephn:,e I
are located north and ,east, respectively, of the Barbee:Forest Products, Inc. (Y00447-4400
(Sal-heel property. A PQC representative was.present'in Renton City.Hall at the F&C,r,Atre
(xo,6)5477970o I ,
EIS.pirblie scoping Meeting Otte evening of December 10. webslo _ }
WtaW.a 9 RT**.COM --
PQC supports the City's' decision •to require an environmental impact
. statement(PIS")for the'Barbee.Mill preliminary plat application(the"Application"
or"Project")and provides.comments belOw on the'scope.:of the EIS. The,major
thrust of the;these comments is that the goals and potential:development,of all areas
zoned COR-2 ('COR-2 Area') Will have a prominent role in land:use decision-
making for the Project;therefore; to enable the City to engage in cogent decision- -
Making;the.ElS should be carefully designed to account for the larger environmental
and development context in Which=theProject'is situated. AHCt�OIACR
Ataaha.
Incorporationof Previous Comments, 7o.71.AN a
r i I
Oregon ! -
We-provide this,letter in addition to our earlier comment'letters, which We-
request be incorporated-herein. Our letter dated September 26,-2002 (attached SRATTLR
Weabintton !
hereto),provides a thorough analysis of the City's.legal authority to consider COR-2
Area'goals and development when undertaking land;use decision-making for the s.oc,�tx I -i
.Project. As.noted,the City has the legal authority,if not mandate,to'insure that the Wash'e4t°"
Project's'direct and cumulative impactsdo.not constrain the development"potential'of '
606261202 --
j I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-60 April 2004
I �
•
•
•
December 16,2002
• Page 2
the PQC Properties or have negative impacts on the surrounding_environment in the COR-2
Zone. In short, the letter explains the City's legal authority to require the EIS to be scoped
broadly to include a thorough analysis of potential cumulative impacts.
In our.cotantent letter dated May:30,2002 (attached hereto),we listed certain potential
•
cumulative impacts within the scope of"the Project's environmental review. We request that the
Barbee Mill EIS include analysis of all of the potential cumulative impacts'.raised in that letter,as .
summarized below:
1. Cumulative impacts to Lake Washington shoreline habitat and fisheries from
,combined build-outs on the Barbee Mill,Quendall Terminals and Baxter
properties. .
• 2.. - Accommodation of offsite drainage from the Pan Abode property,Lake
Washington Boulevard and Interstate 405. Will drainage conveyances be possible
•
through the Barbee Mill property,or must discharges occur on'May Creek
adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard?
3. ' Cumulative impacts to May Creek habitat and wildlife from development of the:
. • Pan Abode and Barbee Mill properties; , •
' 4. .Cumulative impactsto Lake Washington water quality from Barbee Mill property
development in conjunction with development of adjoining properties and .
construction and post2construction activities associated with any road system
improvements. .
5. Cumulative impacts to Wetlands and stormwater within the COR-2 Zone from any
access and roadway improvements,which could constrain access options and•
natural resources on:adjoining properties:. - ,
•
To the degree possible-based•on the general nature of the pending•appication,the.Barbee'
EIS should also•contain analysis,Of'the potential specific onsite;impacts that were listed in.our
May 30;2002,•latter.t
l:Specific onsite impacts listed in May 30,2002;•letter:
1. Offshore wood.waste cleanup,as well as related water quality and fisheries issues for species listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. '
2. Lake Washington shoreline issues,including reconstruction of the bulkhead,_debris removal,shoreline
enbancementor restoration,and related water quality,habitat,and fisheries issues:
3.•Impacts of any over-water constiuctian(if proposed),including related fisheries and habitat issues. .
4. Issues related to:impacts of light,•human disturbance to lakeshore fish habitat.
5. Issues,nelate,d to wildlife,including salmon,trout,long-fin smelt,bald eagle and osprey nest.
•
6. Issues related to Muckleshoot Indien•Tribe•fishing grounds. •
`- 7. Stormwater treatment and discharge issues,including water quality impacts to Lake Washington.. •
. 8..Issues related to impacts onIylay Creek an Lake Washington from on-site construction;assurance of
• adequate buffers pursuant to federal;state and local regulatory requirements:
9. Issues related to wetlands management,impacts and mitigation if fill takes place.
•
•
10358618.02 •
City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-61 April 2004
• � f
{
•
December 16,2002
• ,. Page 3
• Our previous letters also described the development-enabling activities undertaken and in
process on the PQC properties,including clean-up of environmental.contamination, The first
portion of the South Baxter cleanup was completed in a timely fashion in late October. The.
remainder of the South Baxter,cleanup will be completed in:the spring and summer of 2003:
PQC isparticularly sensitive to the possibility that the Project will be developedin a manner that
••
limits the development potential ofPQC's properties.
Scope of the EIS
• PQC generally concurs with The Committee's.EIS"areas of discussion"as listed in the
Notice of Determination of Significance issued for the Project, as well as recommendations"
within the Environmental Review Committee Staff Report ("Staff Report")'of November 5,
2002. All EIS Sections should include,a thorough and detailed analysis of the COR:2 Area
.environment. This analysis should figure most prominently in the following EIS Sections:.
• ' transportation; water'resources; land,use;.shoreline.and critical areas; socioeconomics;. and:
public services and utilities... It is within the legal authority of the City to require analysis of
these,COR-2 Area issues,and the City will find this analysis to lie of utmost importance for•
future decisionmaking.ori the land use permits,required:by the Project.
•
In particular,the transportation section of the EIS:should contain an analysis of all afire
roads in the,area, but.particularly the Ripley Lane/Lake Washington Blvd.intersection,(the:
"Intersection"), under reasonable development assumptions for the remainder of the entire.
COR-2.Area It is recognized by:all parties involved-that the Intersection and the I-405-
interchange will inhibit future development in the COR 2 Area.As the Staff Report implies,it is;
crucial that the City hilly understand the effect of fultbuild-out of the COR 2 Area,so that can
properly and ,equitably.:apportion the Project its;share on tie. 2 Area's• development`
•
potential. At the December 10 EIS moping meeting, this.point`•was also made by Project
neighbors from the Kennydale neighborhood.
The railroad crossings that will provide access to.the Project are a.second transportation,
issue.. The City has indicated that its code requires the crossings to be accessible to pedestrian as
• well as;vehicular traffic 2 The EIS should examine the,impacts to railroad traffic•of the new
• crossings as well as the safety issues,inherent in'mixing:pedestrians,.vehicles,and trains in the.
same location. Furthermore,there is some question'as•to whether the southern railroad crossing,
will be acceptable to the City,3 The'EIS should.examine,.as an alternative,the impact ofliaving
only.one access point to the Project .
•
{
.2 Memorandum from Juliana Sitthidet to Lesley Nrsh�7iara,betober:7;2002,;page 2.
3 This is because Barbee's easement.over the railroad at that point is revocable.upon 30-days notice, See.City of
.Renton Environmental Review Committee'Staff ReportlDetermination'of Significance,November 5,2002,page 10.
5033$6t&02
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-62 April 2004
•
December 16,2002
Page 4 -
•
As,various Kennydale neighbors carefully noted on December 10, the shoreline and
critical areas section of the.EIS will play a particularly important role in further permit
decisionmaking. We concur with the conclusions reached by Andrew C. Kindig in his letter
detailing his review of die Biological Assessment submitted by Barbee.. The EIS should contain
a complete analysis of the impacts of the,development, including cumulative impacts, on the
Lake Washington shoreline and':May Creek. This analysis.should be based on the assumption
'that the PQC properties wilt be developed. In particular, the development of the Pan Abode
property will potentially impact May Creek Thus, as stated in our May 30.letter,the Project
impacts on May Creek should be analyzed in tandem with potential future Pan Abode impacts on
May Creek. The same analysis holds true for the shoreline section: the future•build-out of the
Baxter properties'should be.included in the'analysis of the Project's impacts on the Lake
Washington shoreline.
Soil contamination is another issue that should receive particular scrutiny in the EIS. As
indicated in the Determination of Significance,the site is known.to contain soils,contaminated
with arsenic and zinic:4 The.Quendall Terminals:property to the immediate north is also known
to contain contaminated soils and groundwater,and cleanup negotiations are underway with,the
Department Of Ecology. As noted.in the Staff Report,further analysis and consideration of the
proximity and levels of adjacent contamination should be set forth in the'ETS.
•
` Finally,-as Mr:Kindig noted in his letter;there is a substantial,amount of COR:2 Area
information contained in the Department of Ecology record for the ongoing Baxter property site
remediation. This information is readily available from the Department of Ecology The Barbee
EIS drafters should review and incorporate portions of this record, as,appropriate,within the
shoreline,critical area,and Native American sections.•
Tha ik you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the ProjectEIS. Please keep
us.inforrned of your further review.activities.and determinations.
Sincerely yours,
cee,„ae :
Charles R.Wolfe.
Enclosures
cc: AdaM.Healey,Vulcan Inc.
Clint Chase,Vulcan Inc.
4 id.at4.•
5033808
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-63 April 2004
• If
•
•
•
•
. �
irt%tve
fDCTj !
ii.. , .x
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, INC.
DEIS REVIEW LETTER
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-64 April 2004 �+
•
• •
•
ISId '
Transpo Intions,Inc. •
k
8250.165th Avenue NE September 29,2003
Suite i00
Redmond,WA 98052.5628
T 425.883.1134
F 425-887.0898
www.tsinw.com
Charles R.Wolfe
Foster Pepper and Shefelman,PLLC
1111 Third Avenue,Suite 3400
Seattle,Washington 98101-3299
Subject: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat—Draft Environmental-Impact Statement
Dear Mr.Wolfe,
Thank you for.asking Transportation Solutions,Inc.(TSI)to review.the transportation
element of the Barbee Mill,Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement.This
review is intended to examine'impacts and mitigation related to the proposed preliminary
• . plat;both alone and in context of the other.COI-2 zoned properties in the area. We
understand these properties include the Baxter properties and the Pan Abode property-
which are collectively owned and managed by your.client;Port Quendall Company.,
These.properties are intended-tube redeveloped with some combination,of a-mixed-use
development that could the potential for as much as 400,000 square foot of office
space on the Baxter properties alone.
,Background and Qualifications'
As you TSI is n transportation consulting firm that specializesJ,in;short-range
transportation planning and traffic operations.engineering. A majority of our-practice
involves analyzing the environmental impacts associated with private and public.,
development proposals..,Our staff combines over:sixty years,of experience.and 600 such
analyses. Traffic impact.analyses have been performed.on projects.that range from small
single-family developments to:complex,phased public and institutional projects
'including universities,-planned recreational developments and stadia. This experience:
has provided'us with a comprehensive understanding of the State Environmental Policy
Act(SEPA).and the.application of these policies to analysis of transportation conditions
associated with new-development. We have not been involved with the analysis or
review of traffic issues,for your client's property or other COR 2 zoned property in this
area.prior:tothis review.
Approach -
Our review of.this analysis-included a review of the Draft Eiivironmental:Impact
Statement and other EIS;scoping.correspondence. The.transportation element and the
project description were our focus in the DEIS.. We assurrie.this document contained.all
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-65 April 2004
f
ii
1
s.,
,
Tramps . .,[" moons,inc.
: i
of the technical analysis since a separate technical report was not included in_the
appendices as were technical reports for the floodplain,water resources,terrestrial plants
and animals and aquatic species. We first examined the overall approach to"the .
transportation analysisand then addressed individual assumptions,analysis, ,__,
documentation,and findings in this analysis.
Overview
We found the.general approach used in evaluating the transportation impacts to follow
generally acceptable analysis methodology for evaluation of the impacts Of an individual -,
development project '
Despite an adequate general approach,we found.several assumptions,and internally
inconsistent comments that leave the ultimate impacts and,more importantly,their _-
mitigation•uncertain and unresolved.Many of these issues related to-Me cumulative
impacts'of off-site road"improvements and most particularly,effective and equitable. '
resolution of the rail crossing. We believe these items should be addressed with more
detail so.that the applicant,the City,other affected public agencies like the Washington
State Departmentof Transportation,and Port Quendall Company understand the extent of
the impacts of this:project, More importantly,these issues:need to be,understood to . ,
ensure suicient'certainty that mitigation measures will be implemented in order to be in
place to sufficiently off::set.the identified impacts. 1 f
Specific Concern's
1
As.noted above,the analysis lefta number of questions that seemedto be uirresolved. j
Some issues may be simply explained while others may require additional analysis:. 1 _--
1
Site Access—.There are several aspects of the site,access that raise,questions that'warrant I
clarification or analysis. The site plan'shows two•access.pointsoverthe Burlington i
NorthetiRailroad The_southerly access connects'directly with the.project via a bridge J
over May Creek.'Thenortherly access appears to extend north across:an adjacent private.
property. The only reference•as to how this-might occur was found in Paragraph 3 of j 1
section.3.5:2:6 which indicates"The proposed northerly access to:the site on Ripley Lane
would require dedication of a public street-over the property to.the:noiih:" `Sonic' •
explanation of how.this-northerly access.is viable should beprovided if the proposal.
f actually calls.for two access points: I could not find any-reference to an agreement.for ,
3.5-3 the use of the property to thenorth for the purpose of a public:road. If there is such•an i . I
agreement it should bee documented. If such access is not available,an analysis
describing how a single.access to-the proposed plat-is compliantwith•city emergency' '
vehicle access requirements;for'aplat of this size and configuration,and`should include 1
review by the City Fire:Marshall. • ' ' - ,
Charles R.Wolfe Page 2 September 29,2003
.
I
1
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-66 April 2004 , 1
i
•
J '
•
Transpo owl `o utions,Inc.
•
If the northerly access is to be used by the Barbee Mill plat,then it seems logical that •
3.5-4 some of the traffic generated by the project should use the access. The traffic assignment
shown on Figure 3.5-6 shows that no vehicular traffic is using the northerly access. The
travel time for.some of the northerly residences will be shorter that use of the southerly
access. There does not appear to be any use restriction to this northerly access
considering the applicant proposes these streets to be public roads.
Since.all the roads are'proposed to be public roads,we assume the northerly access will.
be shared with:properties to the north It therefore seems logical that some reciprocal.
A ' access between the northerly,properties and the Barbee Mill southerly access will be
involved. A cumulative impact of the shared and cumulative use of these access points
by the northerly properties should therefore be examined,particularly in relation to the
operation of the site'access at"Lake Washington Boulevard.
Scope of Analysis;The traffic operations analysis included the intersections shown on
Figure 3.5-1. If the intersections at the N 30th Street/I-405 ramps were examined with 4%
3.10-1 of the project traffic(see Figure 3.5-5),then it seems logical that the ramps'at Exit 9.
(Lake Washington Boulevard)should also be examined since that location serves altnost
twice the volume(7%). The criteria for identifying study area intersections should be
described•and uniformly applied:
We assume.the,city's traffic impact analysia guidelines focus on the afternoon peak.
traffic period since that was the only time period amlyzed. Since congestion in the
vicinity:of I 405 interchanges during morning commute periods is well documented,it
seems appropriate that.AMpeak period traffic conditions also he analyzed,at bast for the
B intersections at 1-405 interchanges and the road network between the site and Ii405 along
Lake Washington Boulevard.
Although specific plans for the development of the.other COR"2 zoned properties have
not been established,some general assessment of the development potential on;the Baxter •
3.5-13 Sites was identified by the Department of Ecology as being up to 400,000 square feet of
offiice.space. Because traffic volumes for such development could be substantial and are
likely to have patterns that arc different from those of the Barbee Mill development,the
cumulative impacts of this potential development should be analyzed even though it is
not an•officialpipeline-projecct.'This analysis is significant because the mitigation
• necessary to.offset the cumulative impacts could be substantial.,I;f mitigation-is not
F• shared equitably,it could reduce or foreclose development of the remaining COR 2
properties. .
• Traffic Operations Impacts—As part Of the level-of-service impacts,it seems
• appropriate that the project.and cumulative analysis'show a queuing analysis along Lake
A Washington Boulevard/NE 44th Street in the vicinity of the I-405 interchange. Since
• several of the intersections are very closely spaced in this area,a queue from one
•
Charles R.Wolfe Page 3 September 29,2003
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-67 April 2004
,
I
TI y
'franspo ;, {st an%Inc. ,
intersection could preclude ingress or egress in the vicinity of Ripley Lane/Lake '
Washington Boulevard. I
1i
We assume the City's level-of-service standard is to have intersections operate at LOS D
3.5-22 orbetter. This should be confirmed and included in the report. -
j
Transportation Concurrency-We could not find any reference to Transportation �_
3.8_1 Concurrency compliance. Under the Growth Management Act;sach'compliance is
necessary. We suggest such a quantitative analysis be included in thee'transportation
• analysis. .
Rail-Crossing-The discussion of the rail crossing was very confusing. The project
proposes two public rail'crossings;one'poteiitially located atone'of two alternate I
southerly access points and the'other to the north across.a private parcel for which the I
applicant apparently does not have any access.agreement or public road. The rill -
'crossing.discussion goes on to suggest that the Burlington Northern Railroad.will likely
consolidate the private crossings that exist today and that the State Legislature desires, 1
. crossings to be grade-separated. These BNRR'and WSDOT praetices-are.consistent with
our experience on other projects: The discussion suggests that grade separation could .
result in consolidation of the private access,points,which presumablycouldinvolve
eihriination of the southerly Barbee Mill access. Such access consolidation could ,
3.9-2 substantially change travel patterns for'the Barbee Mill Property other properties in
the immediate area. i
Alone,the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat does not apparently warrant,a grade separated j I
crossing. Yet the discussion implies that a grade-separated''crossing is likely at some 1 -!
future date and the most feasible location is"near Ripley Lane' The discussion indicates
that such a grade crossing would require a substantial reconfiguration of the Lake ,
Washington.Boulevard/RipIy Lane intersection.•We presume some`similarly.substantial
' modification would,'need fo occur on the west side of the Burlington Northern.Railroad ,
tracks: This would seem.to adversely impact client's property'and severely'reduce
s their developinerit pote•ntial due toacquisition•of right of way,for the:grade separated ,
portion of the crossing.on the'west side of the Burlington Northern,Railroad.tracks. The 1
proposed mitigation:that,rail crossing;issue'.can he resolved with a crossing"at the.north.
3.5-8 endof the Vulcan property' assumes your client agrees with this plan=`Like ttie northerly
site access issue addressed above,we believe.some'agreement:with..yo`ur client for such a !
crossingshould be in. lace.before'the a licant. r ses:srich Mitigation.:Suicethe,
p. pP p� . . '. .. � i l
Barbee.Mill,Plat.is intending to access Ripley Lane as.part of their`proposal;.it:seems
appropriate that a:much more definitive plan for•consolidated rail crossings,be e.plored
and formal application'with die.WUUTC'be`tnadeLbefoie env rc n ntal review is
completed:'More portantly;wehtlieve•a mor'e'iiefiii ti_ve miriitigation plan be developed
particularly if a'gtaile-'separated crossing is even '``'
l
Charles R.Wolfe Page 4 September 29,2003
i
1
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-68 April 2004 -
I
Tampa i fi 3`0 utions;Inc. •
Accidents and Safety—The discussion indicates that vehicle crashes were reported at
only four intersections in the study area over the past three years. This seems like a very
limited number of accidents. Was there some arbitrary cut-off point? We would be
3.5-23 interested in the basis for the intersection accident standard of 1.0 accidents per million
entering vehicles.
Rail Safety—This discussion refers to types of accidents and to a website but never
indicates if there has been an accident in the immediate vicinity of the_site or at other
3.5-22 locations along this rail line that have similar vehicle volumes. Additional quantitative
information about crash history and the typical length,of the trains now using this line
instead of providing hypothetical examples is recommended.
Cumulative Impacts—This qualitative discussion does not provide the level of analysis
that seems consistent with the COR-2 zoning and only refers to the minimum potential
when suggesting the vehicular.impact. As disclosed,"Additional development would
generate a.need for additional access points,or geometric and signal improvements at
3.5-25 existing intersections." Given that cleanup activities are underway on your_client's.
property,it seems'reasonably likely that development to the level reported in,the
Department of Ecology decree will occur in the foreseeable future. This would seem to
justify such cumulative analysis: Without such a cumulative-analysis,it is likely that
available capacity is;usurped by the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat which limits.,the
amount of additional development that can occur without major improvements:
Mitigation—'The.mitigation analysis does a very good job of illustrating how the Barbee
Mill Preliminary Plat alone is in compliance with design standards and warrants. The
3.5-25 approach states and implies that other major improvements are'necessary ,As indicated
above,considering that the effect of this mitigation could be.to..substantially change
access:serving this entire area,particularly the property west of the Burlington Northern
railroad,a comprehensive.and more definitive cumulative analysis seems warranted.
-Possibly'more'significant is the potential for the cost;of the,more major improvements
(e.g:traffic signals,•intersection widening,freeway ranip modification,and reconstruction
of interchanges)to render redevelopment of your client's property financially
A impractical. Such:major improvements can be.contrasted with-the types of mitigation
proposed by the applicant(e.g.,stop signs and lane extensions).
There are general references to a sharing of costs through some future agreement: Our
experience.suggests that post development cost sharing agreements never work as
intended.,Ari approach that does work and which could be considered is for the Barbee
A Mill Preliminary Plat to prepare a comprehensive analysis Of traffic impacts and
mitigation. This could include a phased mitigation and implementation plan with a
latecomer's agreement so Barbee developers are reimbursed for any disproportionate
mitigation costs. Such a corresponding commitment orpredictable mechanism for •
sharing the cost of the necessary mitigation is absent Considering the significance of the
Charles R.Wolfe Page 5 September 29,2003
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-69 Apri12004
I �
TS' •
l
TranspoF, talons,toe.
poteritiatmitigation,it seems appropriate that these issues be addressed concurrent with
the Barbee"Mill Preliminary Plat.
I trust this provides you and your client with a better understanding of the implications of
thetransportation.analysis presented in the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft
Environmental Impact Statement If you.have other questions,I welcome your call.
Sincerely,
Transportation Solutions,Inc.
I �
•
David D.Markley -
Principal
- Copy:Clint Chase,Vulcan•
j1
j I�t
t _
I ` I
I �I
Charles R.Wolfe Page 6 September29,2003
' Ali
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-70 April 2004
i i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O' j
oC •
lol'�' ,,7
A.C. KINDIG& CO
DEIS REVIEW LETTER
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-71 April 2004
1
z - �
A.C. Kin4ig & Co.
P NVlKONtiSEhTALCCiJSL1LT,NG, ;
32501 Bellevue-Redmond Road,Suite 210
Bellevue;Washington 98005-2509
Tel 425 638 0358 Fax 425 455-8365
September 25,2003
Project No.199
Mr-.Clint Chase
Vulcan Northwest
505 5th Avenue S.,Suite•900 -
Seattle,WA'98104
RE: Barbee Mill DEIS Review
' � I
Dear Clint,
This letter is my review of the DEIS for the Barbee Mill. Preliminary Platby
Parametrix,dated September,2003. .Previously,I had reviewed the Barbee Mill
Preliminary Plat Biological Assessment prepared by Raedeke Associates,Inc.on
August 20,2002,which included review of the Environmental(SEPA)Checklist
received by Renton on April 5,2002 and,Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Permit
Review:Plans prepared:by.Otak;I uorporated,dated August 27,.2002. That.prior
review was::prepared for the City of.Renton(dated,October 21,•2002), Some
elements of this review draw from or copy text from my prior review,where still
relevant to the current proposal as described in-the DFJS: For convenience,this
letter contains My complete review of the DEIS,and there is no need to reference
back:to the October 21,,2002 revieiv.
This is an independent.review of.the IRIS as requested by Vulcan Northwest.
My:review perspective assumes the SENA documentation'needs to be.technically -
sufficient to support permitting decisions and environmental review obligations
of the;.City of Renton for this project This review includes consideration of -
biologicnlly-baSecf cumulative impact issues that I perceived to be interrelated
with or dependent upon the proposed project. —r
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-72 April 2004
•
•
•
4
Mr.Clint Chase
September 25;2003
Page 2
•
Project Summary-Key Features for the Review
Based on the DEIS,:the action alternative,named Proposal("current proposal of the
applicant") includes the following actions that were important to my
consideration(see page 2-1 of the DEIS):
1. Termination .of mill operations and associated activities, including
dredging of May Creek.
2. Demolition and'removal of "the existing Barbee Mill facilities, including all
buildings,asphalt surfaces,and other associated structures"(DEIS AppendixC
page C-9). This exdudes one of two existing bridges over Mill•Creek,to
be improved as a pedestrian crossing,and existing docks and a boathouse
at the southern-most portion of the property(DEIS,Figure 2:1-1).,Note:the
DEIS indicates two existing bridges would be retained for pedestrian use on page
3-39;I assumed the latter to be an error since a second pedestrian bridge.is not
•
shown in Figure 2.1-1 reflecting the parent proposal,.and demolition of a second
bridge is described on page C;10 in Appendix C and on page 3-14 of the DEIS). .
3. Grading of the.site.as needed for plat.improvemenis and the construction
of 115 residential homes.
4. Creation of 24,residential lots, bulkheads or armoring.along 16;to 17
residential lots fronting Lake,Washington (DFTS page I-9),and tip to 16
private docks.along:Lake_Washington with 25-foot building setbacks in
the following three.categories: •
a. 16residential lots extending out into Lake Washington to the inner
harbor line;which is Ate Washington State Department of Natural
Resources.(DNR)ownership boundary(lots 31 through 44,91,and
92, DEIS: Figure 2.1-1), including one individual. dock .per
developed Jot for.up to'16,additional docks (DEIS..;page 1-9 and
• page 2.3);all 16 lots are expected to require bulkheads for shoreline
protection due to the 25-foot proposed building setback(DEIS page
1-9 and page.,2-3); and no restrictions to lot landseaping to the
water's edge are proposed; .
b. 8. lots extending toward the Lake Washington shoreline but
terminating at.the inner harbor line which traverses.uplands at this
location;.leaving DNR-owned uplands between the shoreline and
the residential lots(lots 23 through 30);and
c. Lot 23,which includes one corner extending into Lake Washington
but is excluded from the lots that could support private docks by
AC Ktndig 6z Co.
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat - 554-1779-017
•
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-73 April 2004
•
•
• .Mr.Clint Chase
September 25,2003
Page 3
•
the DEIS (which specifies up to 16 docks only); however the
Lakeshore portion of this lot is assumed to also require bulkheads
' • _ for shoreline protection per the DEIS'(page 1-9).
5. Creation of a public walkway "directly at the water's edge" of.the Lake
• Washington Shoreline for'700 feet between Lot 29 and the mouth of May ;
Creek,requiring bulkheading orarmoring(DEIS page X39);
6., Creation of Tract C "open•space", also extending towards the Lake
Washington shoreline but terminating at the DNR ownership boundary,
leaving DNR,owned,uplands between,the shoreline and Tract C The
applicant has not defined a public access program or description of use for
Tract C,but-the DEIS presumes public access,is developed through this
area to the Lake Washington-shoreline through Tract C
7. Presumed "Use of the public "Lake.Washington) shoreline waterarard of the
inner harbor line for general public use"(DEIS page 3-S9).
8. Creation of "public walkways or trails...presurned;..through•the
buffer area
along:May Creek"(DEIS pages 3=39;same use described on page:2 3); Note:
•
this is counter to'the last bullet on page 2 1 of the DEIS which.says no trails,
walkways or public access are currently proposed.along the May Creek corridor or
• .the shoreline-it is assumed the analysis on page 3-39 is':a correct reflection of the
proposal:
• 9. Creation of a May Creek buffer averaging about 50 feet and ranging from
20 to 100 feet planted with native species to provide forest cover (DEIS
Appendix C page C-9);
101 Construction of two new stormwater outfalls from stormwater quality
treatment ponds, discharging to:.Lake Washington at.an invert 0.5 feet
. below the MLLW'of the lake (DEIS Appendix,C page C-13). ,The water
quality Bond serving the area north of May Creek would discharge to
Lake Washington through.the Tract C.open space and' '(presumably)
through-the public lands to the lakeshore by easement(WQ1 outlet shown
in:Figure 3.2-4). The second new outfall would discharge to Lake
Washington at the southern end of'the mouth of May Creek(WQ2,outlet
• shown in Figure 3.2-4).
A.number of.possible mitigation actions are describedthroughout the.DEIS,
however it appeared that none of the mitigation actions beyond the averaged 50-
ffoot huger'of May Creek and stormwater treatment per the King County Design
MManual requirements were partof the current proposal.
•
A.C.kincJig&CCi.
•
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-74 April 2004 -
;
i
•
Mr.Clint Chase
September 25,2003
Page 4
•
•
• It is evident that Parametrix found it necessary to make some assumptions about
land-uses where they were not otherwise,provided for their analysis. This
,included for example, presumptions about use of 'public lands along Lake
Washington,activity in Tract C,activity in the May Creek corridor,and planting
of the May'Creek buffer'With native vegetation(see page 3-13 of the DEIS). I
assumed the DEIS'presumptions reflect best understanding of the current
proposal. .
DEIS_Iteview Comments `
•
1:',The structure:of the DEIS made'it very difficult'to understand what
comprised the current;proposal. `A full description of the proposal was
• scattered through the various chapters and appendices: A sir unary of
A affected e•nvironment, impacts, and mitigation (Chapter 1) preceded
•summary description of the two:alternatives(Chapter 2):. The proposal,as
described in Section2.1,was'elaiiorated in.many separate sections of the
DES;.:'.and ''in. some cases the elaboration was contradictory (as for
example;-trails rin the May Creek buffer): This'Made it difficult'to know
• What'the`appliicant ivas specihra'tly proposing,.and what Parainetrix had
• presumed.the applicant Was proposing. With no distinction, it was
. necessary for this reader' to assume the. proposal included all
presurriptionSthat-h ay Have'been added by Parametric to be parts of the
current proposal. •
•2. The stkucture;of'the DFLS made it impossible to evaluate`whether_many of
the:mttigatioir'Options-were::proposed"by the applicant to minimize or
A avoid impact, or'Were suggestions by Parametrix how"to mitigate that
Were notpi iposed.bytheapplicant
3. •Where '1W-4k-den options .were:listed,.for example various means to
rslirsiitiiiz 'I al e`Washington shore•impacts by limitations to private docks,
Homeowner'access to the water,and alternative means to avoid the need
for' idldiead4 construction, they 'usually` included e •evaluation Of
A mitigation adequacy. •No evaluations of :impacts'and ,the, level of
mitigation-to cfiirip+ nsate"for:those impacts were provided•for most of the
natural e,elements Exceptions':were.Means to.avoid•on-site (but
not off=site)fleoding once dredging ceased,and;propper functioning of the
planted May Creek corriddr.
•
4. With:regard to affected environment:descriptions,the DEIS would benefit
• from reference and use of,several documents pertaining to-assessment of
AC notify Co;
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-75 April 2004
Mr.Clint Chase
Septenib,er 25,2003
(
Page 5
federally listed species on.or adjacent to the subject property,but within. , 1
the Action Area defined in.the BA. These included documents pertaining
to various remediation and redevelopment proposals,for the Quendall
Terminals.and Baxter properties.to the north of-the subject site, and to
:environmental assessments prepared for reconstruction of the 1-405 and
NE 44th Street interchange to thee*of•the subject site. Review of these
documents could Strengthen the EIS, particularly with regard to
assessment of the Lake Washington shOreline context,habitat,.arid use,by
•listed These documents are the following;
•. Associated 'Earth Sciences, Inc. May 11, 2001. Environmental
Assessment. Discipline.Reports font Water Quality, Fisheries, and
Plants:and Animals rfor thel:I-405/igE 44th Street Interchange Project,
Renton,WA:
• Associated Earth Sciences,Inc. February 17,2000.-Mitigation.Analysts
Memorandum tier thel Quendall and Baxter Properties,RentoniWA.
3.2-5 • Associated Earth-Sciences,Inc. January.3,2001. Biological Evaluation
fferl Remediationof,the South Baxter Property,Renton,WA.
• Beak Consultants-Incorporated. 'June 19,1997. Port Quendall Project
Mitigation Analysis-Memorancium. ,
• . Mucklealioot Indian Tribe. 1997: :Draft Summary of Lake Washington
studies completed by the Muadeshoot Indian Tribe in:the vicinity of
the Port.Qtrendall:Project(referenced and summarized in Beak 1997):
Two. of these documents summarize information on May Creek from.
agency contacts.and.field work between 1996 and 2000,.:and all are
relevant •to. the subject property vicinity arid the. Lake Washington
shoreline For example,habitat in the May Creek channel from the Lake
Washington:,confluence is described.:M:detail in the 1-405/NE,44th Street
report,including interaction between the,zip-rap along the Charuiel:banks
and.scour.. This same report also more thoroughly.describes the Lake
Washington:shoreline Than the DEIS. The Barbee Mill shOriline 'is
described .from field reconnaissance in the Beak '1997,report, The
• Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(1997), described lake shoreline.composition in • !
the project vicinity, which Beak (1997,)-used to put the project area.in •
perspective in terms of lakeshore habitat Value Both of these reports:give
the resultS of juvenile r.hinix,krearing use surveys of the Lake Washington
shoreline at the project,site 'Lower.May Creek is considered..a locally
Significant.resource area by king County because of the, relative high • !,
A.C.&milk&Co. ,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-76 April 2004 j
•
•
Mr.Clint Chase
September 25,2003
Page 6
habitat value of the reach from RM 0.1 to RM 23.9 to the Lake Washington
system to spawning sahnonids. •
5. The DNR-Owned-lands adjacent to Lake Washington currently have mill
structures upland and over water,a wooden dock,wood and other debris •
at the shoreline, pilings and dolphins extending to the outer harbor line,.
3.4-16 and bulkheads. Some demolition is assumed,because of the presumption
• of public access to the water on the DNR-owned'lands,however the extent
of-that upland and/or in-water demolition is not described or postulated
except to note that a Washington Department of Natural Resources.
aquatics lease termination assessment and restoration order would be
required(DEIS page ii): It is not clear that a DNR restoration order would
' .be compatible with.a trail iminediately along the lake shore as Parametrix
• presumed. If,for example the DNR restoration order seeksa return of the
shoreline to natural and useable aquatic.habitat, there is no analysis:of.
how the adjacent:residences.or Tract C may affect the objectives of.the
restoration order.
6. There is no firm'description of the proposal for Tract C "opera space"
function or its future.use•as part of;the project,'exept,that it would
contain a stormwater pond(Figure:3.2-4).. The DMS does assume a public
access/recreation. area would 'be. provided :at the take'Washington
A shoreline,'and Tract Cia the only open area that could"support such a
purpose.-Does,for"example,Tract C providefor putilictaccess through the
1:7NR property 'to'include the, present,null dock extending into Lake
Washington? If this is the intent of'the:project;r it would`be reasonable:for
=the DEIS'_to evaluate•associated impacts and'uses to cumulatively assess
related impacts.to.theLake Washingtonsshoreline .Lots'71.'tli`rough 90 are:
alt;',orient ed:to"views'of Lake,Washington through,opens space.Tract C,.
which suggests;that disposition Of The adjacent.DNR:uplands'at;the Lake
Washington shoreline is art important c6nipotient of the project=-;:
7. The BA (Raedeke;2002)::described the need,-for°cons# uchozi'>>of'bridge
abutments`+iithin thekordinary..high.water m,ark-"(ollwis1))of Mak Creek.
The'DPIS..:indicates'cOnstrdctioii of'the:tOw Traffic bridge is presumed to
includeno t'i>ol*rt ithiit.tlie'O.HC%VM'of Ma, Creek" T utust assume the latter Is
B true date;tq`an update:in plans: :P t'this ge"of pla g`it is ibt unusual
to4lacktdetailed`cOnteltilalt�plarts;far cor°istructiori;of.4Wbridgeland the
two ziew stone rater`•.outfatk tol.LAke Washington.; Fld*ever;'more of a
conceptual?'plant rfor'.these structures (tyohd disclosure'oft their need)
needs to be provided to Parametrix and described in the 'EIS for
-ACkindlg&Co.
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-77 April 2004
•
' I
Mr.Clint Chase
September 25,2003
Page 7
•
evaluation. Without it, there was no means for the DEIS to reasonably
address the scale of impacts or feasibility of construction to avoid impacts
from installation or maintenance Of these structures.
8. The Construction Water Quality Impacts section of Appendix C, Water
E Resources (page 0i1), does not address the construction of the new
bridge,over May Creek,the demolition of two bridges over May Creek,
construction of up to 16 residential docks, or construction Of the
3.5-25 bulkheads presumed necessary along the property's• Lake Washington.
shoreline.
9. The southern Storniwater pond is located in a sandy delta area at the
mouth of May Creek, where the lake is very shallow and subject to
deposition*44 May Creek.sediments., Presumably,this outfall could be
subject to obstruction by deposits after dredging of May Creek is
. terminated. The DEIS•did not evaluate how far into the lake the outfall
from WQ2 outfall:might•need to extend to avoid burial from sediment 1 -
delivered by May Creek to the delta area(and how constructed),or other
E • maintenance such:as:dredging at this outfall that may be required if the
outfall terminates at.tlie lakeshore at.minus 0:5 feetMLLW.It may be that
discharge velocity from the•pond is expected to keep the outfall clear and
cut a channel through'any deposits that may accumulate at the current
shoreline,but that not.evaluated.
E 10.The Aquatic'Species Report(Appendix.E)does not evaluate construction
impacts beyond control;of upland erosion on fisheries. Assessment of the.
2.0-12 construction activities described in(8)above are not included.
11.A federal permit:may:be necessary for bulkhead construction,and other
in-water work, depending on the.nature.and location of the proposed
2.0-12 designs .for .structures, including stormwater utilities if they' extend
beyond the OWHM. If so,it is not included.under Approval and Licenses
in theFact:slieet'.
12::An HPA would be:required for the Washington State Department of Fish
Wand Wildlife's: review and include WDFW conditions as that
;agency deemed;warranted. 'It is:worth noting that WDFW in the past
cited an in-work window June.16 through January 314 for south Lake
E Washington,to protect juvenile.salmonids. However, the,combined
windows for Work in south:Lake Washington recommended,.by. the
National Marine Fisheries Service and.;the US Fish and Wildlife Service are
more restrictive. Where the Services approval under Section 7
consultation'under,the Endangered Species Act was sought for a.U.S..
A.C.Kindly&Co.
r i
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-78 April 2004
•
Mr.Clint Chase
September 25,2003
Page 8
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Nationwide 38 permit at the nearby
South Baxter property,in-water restoration work is restricted to August 1st
through December 31g. The Corps's current guidance for the project site
E area is a work window from July 16th through December 31n 1 It Would be
reasonable for the DEIS to evaluate whether the more restrictive window
requested by USFWS' and NMFS for a nearby project is-prudent or
reasonable for the proposed action, or if the Corp's recommendation is
reasonable for the proposed project's bridge, bulkhead and outfall
canStruCtion. .
13.The reductions.in impervious surface contributions to non-point drainage
'reaching May Creek would have some calculable reduction in May Creek
-velocities, however the realized reduction relative to total flow in,the
creek and total contributing basin is unlikely to be measurable, or
3.5-25 meaningful'in the sense that it offsets other impacts, especially in the.
lowest portion of May Creek where water level'and hydraulics are:
influenced-by Lake Washington. There are no flowing streams through
which site drainage flows between Lake Washington and Puget Sound,so
'the,reduction in impervious surface from the existing Mill to'future
• "residential'land uses makes no difference except to the portion of the site
presently contributing'flow to May Creek, where it is not likely to be
•
measurable. It is certainly true that there would be no'adverse effects
• 'frain a reduction in impervious surface. ' '
14.The DEIS (arid'Appendix C) assumes that water quality'would be
improved as a.result of•the provision of water quality treatment ponds
Where.no water quality treatment was previously offered:- Basic Menu,
3.6-4 water quality';treatment from the,King County' Surface Water Design
Manual is inferred without,supporting analysis to avoid adverse'impacts.
This=may be fine for seine or all contaniitiants:in stormwater However
absent an analysis this conclusion applied to all contaiztiitants is
conjecture:"It`'does seeln common sense that,residential land use with
treatment.should.have'less of a=water quality'impact than industrial land
use wit x o treatment ''However",the DEIS only_examined the issue as a
change,fir nape vious 'surface,•land 'use, and treatment;and did not
•
r U S.Army Corps of Engineers. May 30,200I: Programmatic Biological Evaluation for the State of
Washington for Salmonid.Species Listed Apr Proposed by theNational Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.•
Fish and Wildlife Sen ico tinder the Endangered Species Act Regulatory Branch;Seattle eistrict
Appendix D-2(updated,Ma}?19,2002)"Approved Work Windows for Waters within National Park
Boundaries,Columbia River,Snake River,and Likes.
A.0 Kindly z Co.
City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-79 April 2004
t l
1
•
Mr.Clint Chase
September 25;2003
Page 9
consider the nature of the change in land use and contaminant sources.
The SI;PA Checklist submitted for the project indicated the mill supports
approximately 12 employees. This is a very low level of industrial
activity. Mill activities include use of vehicles and consequently some
contaminant sources. However,the proposal is estimated to create 1,188
average weekday daily trips(DEIS Table 3.5-3),so the traffic volumes.and
E motor vehicle access to the site is greatly increased over current mill
Operations. Vehicles are a major contaminant source to stormwater
runoff. Landscaping and pets will also contribute contaminants to
stormwater that are not likely prevalent in current mill runoff. The net
result of a changed set of contaminant sources offset by treatment in a
pond, versus the existing condition, is difficult to judge in this situation
without more work than the EIS provided. I do not disagree with the
contention that residential development can be adequately treated to
prevent water quality impacts, but found no basis to agree or disagree
with the DEIS contention that it would necessarily be an improvement
evercurreint conditions or that the treatment proposed would be sufficient
to avoid impacts at the two discharge locations: A quantified Water
;quality analysis would benefit the EIS analysis.
15:The state water quality standards used in the DEIS are outdated. The
water quality classifications of waters have changed under WAC 173-
E '201A adopted July 1,2003 and effective August 1,2003. This should be
:corrected in the FEIS
16..the DEIS;concludes That the,approximately 50-foot averagedbuffer width
:for May Creek restored to a forested condition would 'full significantly
.short of providing full riparian functionality"(DEIS-Appendix E,pageE.-14)
and provides analysis that concludes the proposed:buffer "Mould not
;provide the full range of habitat functions and protections.that streams require"
3.5-25 !though it;would be an'improvement-over the existing condition (DEIS
Appendix E, page E-16)., However,there is no assessment as to what a:
;proper functioning upland corridor width ought to be for May Creek.
Consequently, it cannot be evaluated whether, Options A or B:
(modifications to'May Creek and Lake Washington shoreline'proposals
Iescribed,on pages 3-48 to 3-52)are sufficient. Under.Option B.a possible.
.1.o Moot corridor width for May Creek would occur, which may be.
;sufficient'for riparian function and,fish,habitat purposes. Option A,
proposed for the same purpose,makes no consequential improvement to:
the May Creek corridor beyond the Proposal, and. thus reziiains
AC1074/g LC,Co.
t
r
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-80 April 2004
. , 4
Mr.Clint Chase •
September 25,2003
Page 10
inadequate to provide meaningful riparian fUnctiOn according to the DEIS
analysis. Tables E.1.through E-3,on page E-15(DEIS Appendix E)give the
3.5-3 appearance of indicating that even a 100-footwidth is insufficient.(See also
cciniment 19 below;a 100-foot alternative is suggested along May Creek us-one
possible way to lessen flooding impacts).
17.One part of the DEIS consideration for accepting a 50-foot averaged width
is that'it would be reforested and bean improvement over the existing
buffer-width and vegetation(page E-20).'However,this does not take.into
3.5-5 account whether the improvement is sufficient to offset flatteries impacts
from increased human activity and disturbance;near May Creek, and
'alterations to Lake'Washington,including docks and bulkheads and new
Stonnwater,outfolls. If it does', not &fiction well, the long term
improvement may not realize any practica.offset,,tb'impacts the project is
determined to require.
18.There are 25-foot Minimum residential building setbacks',proposed for the
'LokeyashifigtonShorelinecOnsiatent'withthe currently adopted Renton
•Shoreline Master'Program, but no buffers along.Lake Washington are
proposed... .Residential lots 'that abut-the lake- and not DNR:owned
3.5-25 uplands extend out into'the lake Waterward-of the OHWIVL'The DEIS
concludes the proposal is likely'to continue the trends Talong Lake
Washington'that have resulted in degradation to terrestrial and aquatic habitat
that is illustrated by the decline Of admen species'.[DEIS Appendix'E,,page E.
19. if this is'true'and unmitigated, it represents'a fatal flaw with the
current proposal that,Shobld'*nife reconsideration.•: No.specific set of
mitigation.actions,are .0010sed to prevent_or ininiirilze this. adverse
inipaeffreni'Occurring,Olthotigh many suggestions are offered."'A clearer
linic9e8f impacts to mitigation necessary to'=oddreSs'theiliv,.S•ptild'greatly
assist the reader to inidergtan4 the 13kOpoialinid Warrantedniiigation.
19.If diedgthg is discontinued in Mift..reekqie.i.S.':fice4d-0.ier&i*of the
Proposal), analysis in Appendix tf:ciYik-4144:sediment dein6dbn and
blnidup,bf*da elevations and bars Would.6itextd•ihel&yeakiihiOdplairi
3.5-1 1 onto'about of the residential deglisnentlo--the'north of
May cctele0yo.i. .Tigoio$:2-3y:.-,If this is true and urOttigatt4,,it.:4;a fatal
flaw'of4hetprOPoSahs thopRrs'reiva*a*:niiit'gadOn nie661-i.es and
deriiredlyolaftetnitiiies: a 504666ethaaetovayet4k with
leVees-aildfitifarteiditins'•ta'the one e'i'dminglihii dee'ki'a&titildi6nain,but
a full spanof the: 3N!.. .thol.,§eteoili41641:90-foot
setbatk triil'OlaiCfeelt with.le,m4-ridiot,' V''icnno'EtsiuM411ofrfor the
A.C.gimpy,frza
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-81 April 2004
i
I f
Mr;Clint Chase
September 25,2003
Page-11
bridges(Alternative 2) (Appendix B,page B-14 to B-16;and described as
Scenarios 1 and 2 on page 3-15 of the DEIS). Alternative 1 would raise the —
flood stage up to 1.6 feet; Alternative 2 would raise the flood stage to a
slightly lower degree(DEIS pages.345 to.3:16). There was no analysis on
3.5-12 how this may affect upstream properties affected by the existing
floodplain, (for example, the Pan Abode property), except to say that
impacts Of,levee construction would in turn need to be mitigated by
compensatory storage,best placed at the upstream end of the May Creek
corridor through the site (page 8-16). Without.levee construction and
3.5-1 compensatory storage provision, significant"and unavoidable flooding
:and floodplain impacts would occur. The plan as it exists would need to
be modified to prevent these adverse impacts.
20.Given the nature of the adverse impacts to flooding,adverse impacts to
the Lake Washington shoreline,and minimal function expected.from a 50=
foot,averaged restored corridor around May Creek that the DEIS
described; the"Proposal as is would have significant adverse impacts.
3.5-18 Option.B:as described on page 3-50 is the only means suggested by the
DEIS to offset the most serious impacts, and would appear.to require•
project re-design or development of another alternative. Other mitigation
suggestions 'throughout the document should be evaluated and either
made part of a proposed package of mitigation, or identified as other
possible mitigation. The need for each-mitigation element and its ability
to minimize or avoid impacts should be presented•forclarity.
Sincerely,
Andrew C.Kindig,PhD.
Principal --
AC Kndig t:Co.
•
.a: Klr7d19&Co.
I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
• Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-82 April 2004
t® WASHiNGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF • DOUG SUTHERLAND
Natural Resources Commissioner of Public Lands
•
ElfCITY poF AE O Nib
OCT 08 2003
October 6,2003 RECEIVED
•
•
•
Susan Fiala,Senior Planner
Development Services Division
Renton City Hall 6s'Floor
1055 South Grady Way
• Renton,WA 98055
Subject: Comments for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS •
Dear Ms.Fiala: ••
Thank you for providing the Washington Department of Nattiral Resources,(DNR)with,a copyl
of the Draft Environmental impact Statement for the Barbee.Mill.Prelimina y Plat. Jam pleased
•
to be able-to offer comments on this document from the perspective of theDNR. As the
proprietary manager of state-owned aquatic lands,the DNR charged with four main'tasks;
related to those lands—encouraging public use and access;fostering water-dependent uses;
ensuring environmental protection;and utilizing renewable resources(Revised Code.of -
•
Washington RCW 79.90.455). The DNR has the obligation to develop and determine uses of
State Owned Aquatic.Land(SOAL)that will providethe best benefit for the citizens of•
Washington.
With this in mind,I have compiled a few comments regarding the proposal: - •
One of DNR's interests-related to this project is the filled SOAL-that is locatedwithin'the
• Harbor Area,adjacent,to the Barbee Mill site. DNR retains•its.right to collect fair
compensation for the use ofthis land. Any proposed use of SOAL needs to be authorized
3 5-2 1 by the Department of Natural Resources. This includes but is not limited to,.niitigation,
restoration,recreational development;.development setliacks/buff,ers;bulkheads,docks,
dredging,outfalls,and easements.'For example;if any portion of the 25-foot buffer or
setback includes SOAL,the DNR needs to.be notified And compensated for this use.
Moreover,-if the developer would like to utilize SOAL-for mitigation purposes,they must
first apply and receive approval from the DNR. Mitigation-that takes place on SOAL has
a fee associated with it.
•
•
SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 950 FARMAN AVE N I ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-9282
TEL:(360)825.1631 I FAX:(360)825-1672$TTY:4360)825.6381
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER 0
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 559-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-83 April 2004
I
•
Susan Fiala,Senior Planner
October 6,2003
Page 2
• Another suggestion to consider is increasing the proposed 25-foot buffer. Two of
DNR.goals are to support and encourage public access tb the waterfront and
3.5-3 ensure environmental protection. By creating a larger buffer;both of these
objectives can be accomplished. A larger buffer Will provide an area for the 1
public to access and enjoy the shoreline and will also enhance protection of Lake
Washington and May Creek from.runoff and erosion.
• The DNR property may become landlocked by the development proposal The proposal
should clearly delineate the area to be offeredas a roadway easement betweenthe DNR
3.5-25 property and a public roadway. The design of this easement should be consistent with
Current zoned uses. The proponent may contact me to wOrk on the specific design of the
easement area.
Thank yonfor giving the DNR the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any
questions;please don't hesitate to call me at(360)825-1631.
Sincerely,
Monica:Durkin,Aqua Land Manger
Shoreline bistrictAquatics Region
c: Region File
gi/BarbeeMillComments
,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-84 April 2004 r
I I
1 ••
•
MUCKLESJIUQT INDIAN TRIBE
Aermok
Fisheries Division
TRIBE .._.. .
1 • ,� -
39015-172 Avenue SE•Auburn,Washington 98092-9763
TRIBE
Phone: (253)939-3311 • Fax: (253)931-0752
.
October 7,2003
Ms.Susan Fiala,
• Senior Planner
City of Renton
Development Services Division • •
1055 South Grady Way,Sixth Floor •
Renton,WA 98055
RE:Barbee Mill Company Preliminary Plat Draft Environmental Impact Statement,LUAi 02-040
Dear Ms.Fiala:
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for
the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat(ILA 02-040). This project is within the Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds
and Stations of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Therefore,we are forwarding the following comments in the interest of.
protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty-protected fisheries resources. The Tribe's Wildlife and Cultural Resources
Divisions may also send separate.comments to this project..
• Based on our technical review of the DEIS,our general comments are as follows:
1. The DEIS does not fiiliy analyze all potential alternatives thatcould be developed at the,site. For example,_
the DEIS analyzes the no-action and the 115 lot proposal only;,however,there are three flood controls
3.4-1 scenarios that;were discussed in chapter 3.These flood control proposals would affectthe eventual
development at the site;therefore,they should be treated as separate plat development alternatives that are
fully analyzed in the DEIS. Similarly,there are two"mitigation alternatives"discussed in Chapter 3(i.e,a
50 foot buffer and a 100 foot buffer)both of which modify the number of lots and configuration of the plat.
These alternatives should also be discussed as separate alternatives. We recommend that the Final EIS
(FEIS)include all of the options identified above as full alternatives analyzed"completely.
2. The DEIS contains limited discussion and analysis about the potential for individual docks,joint docks or a•
• marina to be constructed at the site. The DEIS references potential future development of these structures,
3.6-5 but provides limited analysis. As a result,cumulative impacts associated with shoreline and dock
construction and use is not fully analyzed in the DEIS: We recommend that the FELS analyze all of the
' reasonable foreseeable dock alternatives at this site and analyze their site specific and cumulative impacts,
3.6-4 ' which include the potential to interfere with the Tribe's fishing in the area.
• 3. There are discrepancies within the DEIS aa;to how many lots actually front Lake Washington. There are
sections in the lDEIS that suggest the number of lakefront lots are 16,23 or 24. The beginning section
3.5-25 (1.1.1)that describes the action alternative should clarify the number of lakefront lots and be consistent
Within the rest of the FEIS. DEYELt�PtJ►Ei�ptltNG
t;f�Y QF HENTON
+DCT i 7 Z�3
RECEIVE®
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-85 April 2004
•
S,
•
j•
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 7,2003
Comments to the Proposed Plat for Barbee Mili DEIS LUA 02-040 Page 2
4. The DEIS has limited,discussion abbot the two areas north of the Barbee Mill(Baxter and Quendall sites), ; -
E which were previously proposed for one large development. and.the FEIS should discuss the potential. '
development that may occur at these•sites and any pote'ntial'cumulative impacts to Lake Washington and
otherwaterbodies in the vicinity. •
We are also'submitting page specific comments for your review.We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this
proposaL.If you have,any questions about these comments,please.contact tie at(253)876-3116.
Sincerely,
Karen Walter
Watershed and Land Use.Team Leader
Cc: Tom Sibley,NOAAF,Washington ITabitat Branch •
Eric Pentico,WDFW;Region 4
Alice Kelly,DOE,NW Region
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
{
-I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017 j
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-86 April 2004 i
•
Muckieshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 7,2003
Comments to the Proposed Plat for Barbee Mill DEIS LUA 02-040 Page 3
•
Page Specific Comments to the DEIS .
•
A I. .Page 1-8-The new bridge on May Creek Will permanently preclude vegetation growth within its footprint and
associated shoulders. This is an adverse impact to the creek that will require mitigation.
Page 1-9 The DEIS should discuss how the proposed setback and future vegetation along Lake Washington compares
3.4-9 . with the requirements of the.401(c).permit issued for the Mill site. Also in this section the statements retarding
existing bulkhead removal conflict with others made on page 1-1.
Page 1-9 The DEIS.fails to acknowledge that chemical runoff.from the properties may also adversely affect fish and
3.4-14 other aquatic life,not just water quality. See Table,3.4-1 for additionalinformation to support this comment;
3.4-11 Page 1-9 The existing docks and boathouse more than likely provide habitat for predators,not refuge habitat.for
juvenile saitnonids. See statements on page 3-42 regarding the potential forpredator habitat.. "
2 0-7 I • Page 1-9 It is not clear:Why.the 25'setback buffer is used as the distance to analyze the lots'potential impacts to Lake
.• Washington. This value is arbitrary and has no apparent ecological basis. The FEIS analysis should be based on what
the ecosystem functions are"possible at this site,what functions,are present Currently;and how.impacts(from trails;
3.4-12 I., - bulkheads,and docks)to these functions will be avoided per mitigation sequencing.
Page 1-10 In addition to planting native,plants,the Barbee Mill site should include mitigation/restorationmeasures
A such as adding wood or crating refugia/shallow water habitat to provide more immediate benefits than small plants
1 and trees.
Page 1,14 .If one is needed;the.Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division requests a copy of the iemediation plan
A 1 for the proposed roadway across the Quendall site as soon as it is available.
Figure 2.1-1 Overall Plat Plan- The.number'of lakefront lots are shown is 23,however,the DEIS identifies 24 on
2.0-6 • page 3-14 and 16"on E-13. •
Page 2-3_The FEIS:should include an alternative that evaluates the effect of implementing"Office"zoning with no
2 0-2 setbacks(the existing zoning)alongwith the urban environmental shoreline designation.. This alternative should be
compared with the.other alternatives..
Page 24-In section 2.2,the FEIS should diseuss.why the 1994 401(c)permit(9472-Q0196)was never enforced and
3.4-9 ' discuss how this permit affects analysis assumptions. •
.Page 3-13 The FEIS should analyze the potentialfor the ditch that flows from,the affected wetland to May Creek to
' 3.4-17 '_, have salmonids in it and potential adverse impacts to these salmonids and their habitat.
Page 3-14-The FEIS should discuss how riparian buffers on May Creek will'improve water quality if the stormwater is
3.4-4, routed to Lake Washington only.
Page 3-15 As noted previously,the three floodplain options should be presented:and analyzed as full development
2.0-3 '. proposals.
.Page 3-16 Section 3.2.2;3 Cumulative'ltnpacts. The DEIS fails to discuss the potential for developments upstream.of
E.
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-87 April2004
•
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 7,2003
Comments to the Proposed Piet for Barbee moi•DEp LUA 02,040 Page 4
the site to adversely affect water quantity midquality.
Page 3-40.The proposed levee ahem atives would affect channel processes and effectively eliminate•any channel
3.2-6 migration zone more than the proposed buffer widths.
•
.•
Page.3-4l The citation for Knutsen and Nee may not be appropriate for this discussion because their work did not
focus'on Urban streams. Also,it is not elearwhatconstitutes a"Small stream"and if May creek would meet the ,
3.4-6 definition. The statement regarding a 35 foot buffer as being adequate'for water qualityparanieters such as
temperature is unsubstantiated. Finally the last sentence on this page regarding Weed and bank stabilization is
Unclear.
2.0-8 Page.3-42The lot that is identified as"open space'':appears to actually have a stormwater pond on it,which will
tediicaits ability to'proVideecosysteiii functions. •
2.0-7 1 Page 3-42 It is not'clear from the section as tothe setback that is proposed for the lots with direct frontage to Lake
Washington andlow Many of these exist:See also page 3-44.
2.0-6 •
. -
Page 3,50 As noted previously,the mitigation options.diteuised,on this page should he full alternatives analyzed in.
2.0-3 the Fag.
•
• •
•
•
. ,
•
•
•
.•
• • •
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat • 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-88 April 2004
•
ERS
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
ANCHORAGE BELLEVUE LOS ANCELES NEW PORK 'PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO
SEATTLE SHANGHAI WASHINGTON, D.G.
2640 CENTURY SQUARE TEL (206) 622-3150
'THOMAS A. GOELTz 1501 FOURTH AVENUE FAX (206)'628.7699
DIRECT (206) 628-7662 SEATTLE, WA 98101-1688 wives:dwt.com
toingoc[tsedwt.com
I ' 4
erg Q
September 26,2003 Ace r
Susan Fiala VIA HAND DELIVERY
Senior Planner
City of Renton
Development Services Division
Renton City Hall,6th floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton;WA 98055
Re: Barbee Mill Draft EIS—Applicant's Comments
Dear Ms Fiala:
•
Thank you for the. opportunity to comment on.the Barbee Mill Preliminary Nat Draft.
Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS"). For your convenience, this letter selves as a
compilation of the comments provided by the Applicant's development team_including;
• Steve-.Wood CenturyPacific Developer
• • Campbell Mathewson •CenturyPacife Developer
• Matt Hough,PE Otak,'Inc. Project Engineer
• Russ Gaston,PE Otak,Inc. Flood.Analysis
• Bob Schottman,PE,.PIID Otak,Inc. Flood Analysis
• Torsten Lienau,PE HDR •Traffic Consultant
• Toni Goeltz Davis-Wright Tremaine Legal=Land Use
• Lynn Manolopolous Davis Wright Tremaine Legal—Environmental
• Jim Johnson Golder Associates,Inc. 'Geotechnical Engineer
• Robert.Plum,PE Golder Associates,Inc. Geotechnical Engineer
• Emmett Pritchard' Raedeke Associates,Inc. Wildlife;'Wetlands;Plants
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-89 April 2004
Page 2
October 7,2003
After some general comments,comments follow the same numbering system as in the DEIST.
GENERAL COMMENTS
§1 SUMMARY
§2 ALTERNATIVES
§3.1 EARTH,SOILS,AND GEOLOGY
§3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
§3.3 _ GROUNDWATER,_
§3.4 PLANTS AND:ANIMALS
§.3.5 TRANSPORTATION
§.3.6 HAZARDOUS'MATERIALS
§3.7 ; AESTHETICS
§3.8 LIGHT AND GLARE.
§3.9 NOISE.
§3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Barbee,Mill plat application vested with a complete application.on May 3,2002:
Further,any mitigation measures must'have been formally designated by the City Council and
in effect on or before the issuance:of the DEIS on°:September,2,2003. With this background, —
we make the following general comments the EIS:
1. "Net"Analysis, The EIS analysis should keep in mind that there are existing
impacts from the mill use which will be eliminated or reduced as,new impacts are
:incurred with the new project. In other words;it should be a"net"impact analysis. For
3.2-4 example,impervious surface is already at 85%,and will drop to.57°%. The current site
is 85%,or 19:5;acres,impervious surface, The proposed:project would include 57%,or
13.1 acres,of impetidints surface: The net benefit is 6.4 acres. This significant
increase in non=impervious surface should be acknowledged in each section that
evaluates the potential impacts to wildlife,plants,wetlands,etc. This will produce
substantial net benefits-for wildlife,surface.water runoff,,ground water.and other. F
impacts: Likewise,the removal of two bridges,and the replacement.of one,yields a net
3.4-2 benefit of reducing bridges over May Creek`.;Again,this will reduce impervious
surface'and runoff,increase wildlife habitat and similar net benefits..The EIS;.currently
does not properly account for this"net benefit analysis:_Aporouriate'Level of Detail.
There should:be some acknowledgement-that the,application is apreliminary plat and
that much of the detail(e.g:.exact building elevations)is:not required by the city's code
at this stage in the develops entprocess: There could be some discussion that upon
.PreliminaTY plat approval,theAPP cantmust proyuie.final engineering before
receiving finai plat approval.
SEA 1412494v1262664 2
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
6-90
Page Final-Environmental Impact Statement Pa April 2004
Page 3
October 7,2003 • Ea
2. Appropriate Level of Detail. There should be some acknowledgement that the
C application is a preliminary plat and that much of the detail(e.g.exact building
elevations)is not required by the city's code at this stage in the development process.
There could be some discussion that following preliminary plat approval,the Applicant
must provide further engineering before receiving final plat approval. Further,the City
requires additional permits before actual development occurs.
3. Comply with Zoning. There should be some acknowledgement_somewhere in
•
C the document that the project as proposed complies with the underlying zoning. This is
a very low-density project relative to that allowed under the COR2.tone thereby
creating minimal impacts on infrastructure including roads,utilities;views,etc.
• 4. 'Continued Dredging. It is incorrect to assume.cessation of dredging at the
mouth of May Creek. It is our expectation that either the property owner/homeowners
3.2-11 association Will continue to dredge the mouth every few years as has happened for the
last 50 years and/or King County/City of Renton will dredge the mouth as they
currently do for the mouth of the Cedar River. The EIS should at least acknowledge
continued dredging as,one alternative.
•
2 0-7 I 5. Increased Buffers. In regards to buffers,it should be emphasized that the City
of Renton code requires a 25 foot buffer. The project is vested at these 25-foot buffers.
We are not aware of any adopted and designated policy for SEPA purposes:that would
allow any.mandatory increase to 50-feet or 100-feet,even though those are analyzed in
•
A • the EIS. Despite vesting however,the Applicant offers an approximate 50 foot buffer
with the subjectdevelopment proposal. There is no legal basis for any discussion of
any buffer.greater than that offered by the Applicant which is a 100%increase over the
city code requirement.
•
•
6. Bulkheads. The most likely scenario surrounding bulkheads is that the existing
2.0-11 bulkheads remain in glace. This should be acknowledged and analyzed as such.
•
§1. SUMMARY
• The DEIS summary contains a chart with a long listing of various mitigation measures.
The list appears to be a vast,range of ideas for opportunities,.but these do not
A necessarily comply with the requirements for SEPA mitigation measures, Specifically,
mitigation measures must be specifically based upon identified plans,policies and
regulations,and all mitigation measures must be reasonable and capable Of being
accomplished. Many of the mitigation measures in the summary chart are not lawful or
appropriate,mitigation tinder the substantive SEPA standards:
• • :(a).Mitigation measures of denials shall be'based upon policies,plans,rules
or regulations formulated designated by...a legislative body...:as a basis
for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when the DNS or
DEIS is issued.
SEA 1412494v]26266.4 3
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-91 April 2004
•
Page 4
October 7,2003
•
(c) Mitigation measures shall be reasonable and capable, of being
accomplished. WAC 197-11-660(1).
§2. ALTERNATIVES •
•
1,, Bulkheads. The EIS should presume all bulkheads Will be retained and
2.0-11 maintained,and the construction of new bulkheads should not be assumed. [Seepage !
l-1;2-11. •
2. Additional Alternatives The"alternatives" section should be revised to state
that the EIS;actually analyzed several additional alternatives,including niorlificatien of
the proposal with 50-foot buffers and 100-foot buffers, and a proposal with different
2 0-3 railroad crossing;and circulation. For example, the extensive discussion and figures
appearing at DEIS pages 3-.48 through 3-61 deal with different proposed buffers and an
analysis of the impacts of those,additional buffers ,This should'be recognized as.a
distinct'alternative to the:"Proposal." Likewise, the extensive DEIS discussion of
railroad crossings and modified access,and circulation;appearing,at DEIS pages 3-76
through 3-88, °is yet another distinct alternative variant of the "Proposal?'
Consequently,-the *doe proposals really consist•of three alternatives: the
"Proposal,"the"high.tiuffer'alternative"and'dthe"revised.accessr alternative.
3. No!Action:No Build.. in,addition to there:being Several"action":alternatives,
the final EIS`should iecoglir that there are two analyzed"no action"alternatives. The
first is a continuation,of activities at the current level: This would be the literal"no
action",alternative,,and th ere would net be any new.iniPacti to be studied or analyzed:
Second,the EIS:also.analyzes the continuation of industrial uses,.but with a'change.of
uses and some new structures. This could be considered_the'"No New.Build"
alternative. .. • • . • ... '
4. Applicant's'Objective. The EIS should contain an express statement of the
proposal's objectives as -required under WAC 19741440(4): .Specifically, the
applicant's proposal is as follows:
Applicant's .objective is to construct a low-density
2.0-1 townhouse project;that complies with applicable city codes.
•
The'cob.? EIS alternatives to be studied are those which "achieve the proposal's i
objective:' WAC 197-11=440(5)(d): Consequently,several"alternatives"referred to in
the DEIS are not appropriate DEIS alternatives since they do,not meet.Barbee's
objectives.:For exatunle;The DEIS;discusses"construction of.apartment buildings 70
feet high,resultiisg.irifive to seven story buildings that could accommodate well over
100 units on the3 lots outside the SMA jurisdiction,"•Page 3-50(and also on page 3-.
52); This:.DEIS"discussion of apartments or more dense, taller structures is not,
warranted since it does not meet the Barbee's objective.
SEA 1412494v1262664 4
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-92 April 2004
•
•
Page 5 . . 1
October 7,2003
§3.1 EARTH,SOILS,AND GEOLOGY[Comments primarily from Golder Associates]
1. General Comment,— The subject application:is for preliminary plat approval
3.1-1 and,therefore,the exact building structures are unknown at this tine.: The EIS should
acknowledge, for example, that single-story wood-frame townhomes would require
much different(i.e.less)support than a 4-story concrete structure.
2, General Comment - The parcel of land.shown on,the maps, for example,,on
3.1-2 Figure 2,1-1 that shows Public Land on the north side of the May Creek delta, was
dredged.approximately 5 years ago and does not exist as upland property:today. This
area should be removed from all maps.
3. General Comment -;The EIS includes a comprehensive'discussion of a.wide
range of potential impacts and possible mitigation measures. Page 3-3 of Volume I of
the EIS states: ".. The character of the facility and the population,exposed to risk are
3.5-7 important factors in determining appropriate mitigation strategies . ". Golder's
conceptual geotechnical recommendations presented'in its 5/31/03 letter reflect this
concept. This includes pile foundations and offset distances :from the shoreline to
ininimize;potential damage from lateral spreading. These recommendations.represent a
level of risk consistent with the standard of practice forthis type.of development. This
corresponds'to a low probability that under extreme seismic conditions some local
deformation could occur that might impact'some of the strictures. Due in part to the
inherent flexibility of wood structures,the impacts.would:not be life threatening,
A
Wefeel strongly that complete mitigation of all,potential:risks would be.inapPro riate
P
for this development because it is well beyond the current standard of practice.
.4, Foundations Golder concurs with the EIS that most structures_can be
supported on.lightly loaded piles bearing in the compact zone:encountered below a
depth of about 15,to 25 feet.. The piles should be designed for the downdrag forces
induced:.either by post earthquake liquefaction settlements.and/or settlements due to
3.1-3 grade changes in areas of compressible organic layers: 'With.a proper offset from the
sh'oreline,'we feel that the risk of lateral spreading.deformations would be minimal and
•would notrequire designing the piles for high lateral loads.: In'areas where new fills are
required,it may be feasible to use spread footings:provideda minimum of 2 to"4 feet of
structural.fill Underlies the footings. If spread footings are used, the risk of,post
.liquefaction settlements on the order of several inches must be acceptable.
•
5. ;.Liquefaction Mitigation -.Golder feels that suitable.fqundations and.required
3.1-3 , •offsets:Firom the,shoreline will adequately mitigate liquefaction risks: The development
would still be susceptible to localized road and utility damage during;major seismic
A ( -events. Mitigation of these, problems for all roads .and utilities is considered
inappropriate arid not done for these types of'developments: Asan.example,•these
•
SEA 1412494v!26266-4 5
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-93 April 2004
I , 1
,
. ,.
. .
. .
, .
• . .
• Page-6
• October 7,2003 --
. ,
types of risks are routinely accepted by WSDOT,Sound Transit and other agencies in
the Puget'SOund area.
,
6. Lateral Spreading Mitiaation-Golder feels'that a practical offset distance on
the order of the'setbacks reqiiired by the city code:from the shoreline to structures will
3.1-3 minimize the,risk Of lateral spreading damage. This is based in part on the fact that the ,May Creek has built up a substantial delta into Lake Washington resulting in gentle off-
shore,slopes with steep submarine slopes locatedover 1,000 feet Off shore. Obviously,
additional explorations and analysis are required to evaluate the appropriate'Offset for
final deSign, However, we.are confident that the lateral spreading issues can be ,
A I mitigated With an appropriate offsetwithout the expen.se of ground Modification: ;
7. Low Probability Risks-The EIS makes reference to the impacts of movement -
on the Seattle fault,.seismic induced landslides, slide induced waves, and others.
Although these are teelinicallY valid risks,their,occurrence probabilities are so low that
3.1-3 they are not considered in the design of residential,wood,frame.projects. ThuaGolder
feels that it would be inapproPriate and outside the standard of practice to mitigate , -
these risks:
8. Liquefaetiori.,The DEIS is not able to identify'what magnitude of seismic event
would be required to liquefy the on-site sails to-the extent that utilities,residences,or
• other such facilities: would be at:risk of significant damage It makes a general
statement that"..,depending on the area subject to liquefaction, the depth, and the
3.1-3 extent'of lateral movement, damage could:range:from minor to severe" This is an
extremely broad raniging:statement. In fact,this same section of the report goes on to
say, " is difficult to estimate the extent of risk of damage to buildings, roads,and
utilities due,to the complexity of the factors affecting liquefaetiOP..." As such, the
extent to which such potential damage is de:scribed/implied does not seem to be
, ,i • .
reasonable, -.'• • ' .
. . •
. _
9. Iateral,Support. The DEIS recognizt'S,that geeteclinical recommendations have'
been•made'indeiigineering alternatives are available for providing cor*inaientand/or ,
3.1-3 lateral support ta'pri-At.e.'aoila to protect against lateral soil.movement. Although.the i
long-and short-term effectiveness'of these is suggested,it seems to be doubted in the
text of this chapter—again without basia, ' ' • ' .
! ,
10,, -'Soil'Stabilization: •The report cites,a.single-Sour* The 'Oregon Defit. of
TransportatOn,(OPOT 2002)for the statement that'There is uncertainty in evaluating
. , ..
,•,.
3.1-3 the reletiVe effectiveness of', ground, treatment t strategies for ;limiting lateral
deforiciatioria...7 The'full context of this statement is known,but Golder would not
expect IODOT.to be an authority on soil stabiliia*m..for:seismic irapacts. It could
likely be argued with other sources(such asloCal,geeteehniCal Speetalists)that current
engineeriiii practice'and ConatnictiolimetliCds'are.available to Provide.lateral'support
for the existing and proposed conditions for this project,
SEA 1412444vI 26266-3 6 •
•
!
i
I
. City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
• Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-94 • April 2004
. I '
,
•
Page 7 t .
October 7,2003 �!
11. Seattle Fault. Discussions of the Seattle Fault are provided in detail in Section
3.1.1.1. However, that same section also explains that"...topographic expression Of
`4 this fault are not indicated at the project site...and there is no known recent
displacement of sediments shown by borings across the area..." We recommend
deletion of this text since it does not seem to have any relevance to project affects,
impacts,or mitigation measures.
12. Mitigation. Redundant,emergency backup facilities as.suggested by the'DEIS
A
are not warranted given the lack of specific evidence for risk. This determination
should be made at the time of engineering design of the facilities under consideration,
given additional geotechnieal information.
§3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES [Comments primarily ;from OTAK
Engineering]
I. Dredging. The DEIS suggests that adverse impacts and/or significant changes
in the May Creek shoreline condition would result from permanent discontinuation of
dredging operations. First,the sediment is'an'impact'from upstream development,and
not a result of this proposal. This sediment loading is not a consequence of this project.
3.2-5 Second, this statement assumes that there are no future (long-term or short-term)
reductions in sediment loading due to. improved stormwater management and/or
streainbank stabilization at upstream.sources. In addition,it'makes"this Claim with only
the benefit of historical dredging records and not an.actual sediment tra!nsport analysis•
to project future conditions based a,number of variables. Third, this applicant and
proposal cannot be required.to undertake affirmative dredging activities{for the benefit
of upstream owners. .Fourth,the applicant likely would continue dredging operations
subject to obtaining appropriate.permits.
2. Flooding. It seems speculative and there does not appear to be any quantitative
analysis .completed to justify the statement ".,.if the stream is prevented from
3.2-6 - migrating,potentially aggradation would continue,with deposits that would reduce the
capacity of the stream bed over time." Similarly,there,does,not.appear to be any basis
'to say that "An additional option is'utilizing the wider 100 foot setback from the
stream,which would provide-additional flood'storage to compensate for the.reduction
in conveyance capacity." The Applicant does not think'this is a valid SEPA mitigation.
A And in.any event, additional analysis would be,necessary to justify this claim, but it
would also need to be verified that the elevations within the stream buffer zone would
provide"conveyance"'capacity.''Currently,the model shows,these overbank areas as
draining'northwesterly over the project site:
SEA t412494v126266-4 7
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-95 April2004
•
1 I
•
Page 8 �'j''
• October 8,2003
3, BMP. The suggested Gradient Terraces BMP does not seem.applicable to this
A project given the site conditions and proximity to the LakeWashiington_shoreline.
4. Flooding. Table 1 (attached at end of letter) shows a comparison of water
surface elevations for the four options which were evaluated by Parametrix. For future
flowrates of 1,059 cfs,they predict that the water surface elevationwill be 29.1 feet at
C Section 11 for all aggraded conditions. That location represents the upstream extent of
the Barbee Miliproject and is located downstream of the Burlington Northern Railroad •
and Lake'Washington Boulevard.(See FigureB-2 from the HEC-RAS.report), The
documents show that the existing condition withoutaggradation has a water surface
elevation only 0.1 foot lower than the other options."in:'addition, there is no change
. between the 50 feet and 100'feet setbacks•at this upstream location. As such, on-site
flood storage compensation to protect upstream properties from-the slight increases in
floodplain,depth'on the Barbee,Mill;site•due:fill t outside of ariy buffer Width seems
A unnecessary and has no obvious•mitigating;benefit. Clarifications in the HEC-RAS
model could in-fact:result in less variance between existing and developed site
conditions(see discussion of issues below).
• 5. Flow"Conditions. "`It'is unlikely.that small;increases- in the water surface
' I
3.2-5 elevation for-locations adjacent,to the;Barbee Iviill:project;will.affect flow conditions
under the"railroad or for upstream property owners: ; •.FEMA Flood Profiles (Sheet
I09P):show that the-energy grade tine for`rtlie HEC-RAS model'`rises`very,"rapidly for
C cross-sections beyond the upstream end of the;Paratnetrix model: The effective slope
of the:water surface profile froin Section,C to;Section D,under. the Burlington
Northern/Santa"Fe Raijr iad on s li t`109P is approximately 3.7.percent. Section C
;corresponds approximatelyto Section 11,'iri theParaiiietrix model. ..
6. Compensatory Storage. There slioulcl be no`need.for compensatory storage at,
this site.. The temporary storage of flood waters;;occurring under existing,conditions
generally provides protectiom for downstreani.property,owners. There ia no:potential
3 2-7 :for;flood damages for downstream.property'ow>ers for this p liect.since May Creek
discharges,directly to-Lake Washington::after leaviing the Barbee.Mill site and lhere.are.
• no downstream property.owners., hi addition,Lake'Washington'is recognized as a
major'receiving;water:.body with.,adeiliiate:capacity. to:attenuate additional flood
volumes thai may result from'changes in topographic conditions;at the project site,
7: Model: review isbased`on the report's Appendix B and does not
C include a review of the'electronic HEC-RAS files. Review.of t ese electronic files
would confirm eome:of the assun ptions/paranieters of the:model and the validity of its
•
SEA 1412494v126266-4 8
� t
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-96 April 2004
1
.
Page 9
October 7,2003 •
overall conclusions. Access to the electronic model for review could clarify some of
the following issues:
The report's Figure B-2 seems to indicate that flood waters have the
C opportunity to sheet,flow in a westerly direction and discharge to.Lake
Washington without flowing along the May Creek alignment. The
HEC-RAS model is one-dimensional and assumes that water flows
perpendicular to the channel cross-sections. The cross-sections'should'
be adjusted-to account for'the Elows'towvards the west and the model
should recognize`that the flows split before entering Lake Washington.
The report does not discuss the implications of sheet flows towards the
west but does show that flood waters are approximately 2 to 3 feet deep
in the right floodplain for sections 6:7, 6.75, 6.9, and 7. Note that the
1995 FEMA Flood Insurance Study avoids this issue by placing their
first station downstream of the upper bridge.
•
8. Flooding. If short circuiting of flood flows-directly to Lake Washington does
not occur, then the existing and"proposed aggraded" models should be changed to
define ineffective flow areas for the right overbank at Sections 4.4,5, and 6.9. The
model,as now configured,seems to show all water,moving parallel to the May-Creek
3.2-8 channel. The flow seems to occur along the entire.Cross-section,an:unjikely situation
when much of the water in the floodplain away from the channel is likely to be
relatively stagnant. To be effective,.flows need to have measurable flow,velocities.
HEC-RAS manuals provide guidelines for estimating effective flow areas for cross-
sections upstream and downstream of the bridges: Table 2 below shows;the top widths
used in the Parametrix models where the effective flow areas are allowed to expand to
• more than 500 feet. .
•
Table 2—Flow Widths for. Various Models
Top Width for Future FIows'[ftl
Section Exrcting Existing Proposed' Proposed.
Algraded 50'Setback 100"Setback
4.4 560.6 561.1 71.0 121.0.
5 1471.1 1470.9. 98.2 .148.0
6.9 557.9 558.1 126.9 176.9
C Note: The assumption of wider.flow areas causes reduced water surface elevations
for the existing and"proposed aggraded"models.,
•
•
SEA 14124940 262664 9
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-97 April 2004
. .
1 _
•
• .
. ,
1
. 1
----
,
Page 10 Ifi •
,•
October 7,2003 ! [
. i .
•. ' ,
9. Setbacks, The DEIS does not show cross-sections:for the setback conditions
3.2-9 and OTAK is unable to determine whether the setbacks were modeled as levees.
•
10. Bridges., The information'provided;in Appendix B'does not allow OTAK to
3.2-8 evaluate whether bridges are modeled properly. Bridge.cross-see-dons should.be 1 I
provided. The report does not indicate whether bridges overtop during flood events. i
• ,
11. NAVD Datum. 'The DEIS. does not clearly show the':conversion between -
NGVD 1929 datum and the project NAVD 1988&turn, This conversion is necessary !
to allow a comparison of 1995"FEMA elevations using the NOVD 1929 datum and the
3.2-10 current projectelevations using the NAVD88 datuth: A tidebatinn sheet provided by
' 1
the COrps of Engineers for Hirain NI.',Cliittendenlocks-states that 0.00 feet NGVD is
eqtrivalent to 3.58 feet-NAVD88 iui1'6,80 feet COE, As an example,conversion,the
thalweg elevation estimated frorn FIS Sheet!109t) at Section CIS 20.2 NGVD 1929
(23.8'fl.NAVD88)while the thalWegelevation at Section 11 in the HEC-RAS model is i
22,0 ft NAVD$8 The thalweg-8evation.and the shape•of channel may have
Changed since the:time'of-the•FEMA'aurvei,1•The C-Prps,of Engineers web site is: 1 '
httP://Www.nWd-wetsace,atiny:MilitiWs/hh/tidesinpinp94ahtm:• 1 _
I '
§.33 GROINDWATERICornmentskimarily from()tali",
• •
1. Aquifers. Aquifers at the site are described as being local and downgradient of
• regional groundwater reoharge•.areas'•The nearest potential well site(i.e.,valid water ,
C right certificate) s a for-a properly snore than 2;000 feet east of the project site and on
the opposite site of-1405.- City of Renton-NO.3A'is nearly a mile southeast of the I _
' project. Both of these off-site domestic water sources are upgradient and outside of any
3.3-1 • influence of the project site. As such, no impact to local..or.regional groundwater I
sources should be eXpected,as a result of this project.. •. ' ' - I
.. . , .
, • .
.§13.4 PLANTS AND ANIMALS [Comnients pritharfly from Raedeke Associates]
. „
il 1. Page 1-8 1.52,2nd paragraph. It should be noted that the project is removing,
,1
:I 3.4-2 two bridges which Will provide More improved habitat than may be disturbed by the
-one now bridge Crossing. . ,
I '
2. Page 1-9, 1.5.2, Pi par:44h. last sentence. The "liznited proposed 25-foot
setbacks"are pursuant to the Renton Code(and'again page 1-9;6th paragraph). This ,
' 1
q 2.0-7 language suggests thatthe Applicantis soffiehow•deviatiug from something established.
q
- and allowed. This in not correct The Renton City Code-Calls for,a 25 foot buffer•••••• I
exactly as is.being proposed by the Applicant.
N
SEA 1412494v1 26266-4. 10
!.1 ‘
! _
1
. 1 1
! I
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-01 7
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-98 April 2004
. i
•
•
Page II ryS;
October 7,2003 m!
3. $14.3.2,Mitigation through Alternative Buffer Areas. General.Comment: The
DEIS discusses various buffer width alternatives that are evaluated on their ability to
C provide the full level of buffer function. as described in the cited literature is
inappropriate to the scope of a SEPA EIS. The proposed enhanced buffer would
provide a substantial improvement over current site.conditions,and while not providing
100 percent of all.buffer functions, would represent a significant improvement'over
existing conditions. We recommend that the DEIS evaluate the effectiveness,of the
• proposed enhanced buffer for May Creek based on its effectiveness iti mitigating
3.4-3 negative impacts that would result from development of the site'under the current
proposal. .
4. Page 1-9, 1.5:2;7a'paragraph. It should be noted that.the proposal conforms to
C and,:in' fact, surpasses- in many instances, the city code for setbacks from any
waterways.
5. Public Access,Page 1-9, 1.5.2,8a'paragraph,Page 3-39,3-48 56. The DEIS
proposes a range of public access facilities over the site,including uses of publicly
C owned.shorelines,public walkways over the private lots fronting'on.Lake-Washington
and public walkways.or trails along,the privately.owned May Creek buffers. The,
project proposal has access and recreation for.residents on site. Public access on public
lands is not within the applicant's'control or purview. Public access also is provided
through.views and view Corridors. However,the,DEIS discussion-of a public walkway
A over private lots is unlawful and not a reasonable mitigation measure for consideration.
We believe the access-That is provided as•part of the,proposal meets the Renton
Shoreline Master program;
Further a public walkway over private property in this context-violates both federal and
state laws,regarding takings and mitigation measures. There have been,a number of
cases:'declaring;that local government efforts,to compel general public easements,trails•
or open'space,are invalid unless the need,for the public access is directly caused by the.
'impacts.of the proposed project itself This project obviouslyhas not created any need.
A for general public access. -Nollen v. Calif Coastal Comm'n.,:483 U S. 825.(1987)
(pedestrian -beach easement invalid since no nexus or cause from the particular
development);Dolan v City of Tigard,512 U.S:374(1994)(bike/pedestrian pathway •
held invalid since dedication'is not related'to impacts of the proposal);.and lila Verde
• Int'1. Holdings„Inc. v. City of Kamcis, 146 Wn.2d 74Q (2002). •Thirty percent open
space•requirement illegal under state statute requiring dedications to be `a direct result
'of the.proposed development". Barbee Mill's project has.not created,an'public access
problem or lack of a•trail connection. The City cannot.require Barbee:Mill or any other
private property owner to dedicate property for a public trail or other use as a condition
of obtaining development permits with a need for that public access is not"occasioned
by the coristniction soiight to be permitted". Dolan,512 U.S.'at 390:
•
SEA1412494Y1 26266-4 11
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-99 April 2004
Page 12 D
•
October 7,2003 IV
6. &3.4.1,Wildlife..Paragraph 1: Recommend referencing documented source of
information regarding usage of project site by deer.
7. &3.4.1,Wildlife.Paragraph Small Mammals such as voles and mice may use
the project Site; however,usage is likely limited by small area of mixed vegetation
communities present due to majority of project site being used as lumber mill.
Recommend including adiseussion of limitato usage of small mammals under existing
conditions.
S. §14.1, Wildlife. Paragraph '3:—See comment under 'Wildlife, Paragraph
D I 1'above.
9. &3.41.1,Wildlife,Paragraph 3: Recommend referencing documented source
D information regarding-waterfowl*Sting activities along Lake Washington shoreline
within the project site or in the vicinity.
10. §3.4.2.1, Wildlife. Paragraph 3: Ospreys that currently nest on the sawdust
tower:experience regular disturbanee from lumber mill noise and sawdust which is
D blown onto the nest and appear to be acclimated to substantial human disturbance.
Recommend including a discussion of acclimation by osprey using The sawdust tower
nest to human:disturbance.
• ,
11, &14,21,Wetlands.,,Paragraph 2! It is unclear how modification of the drainage
3.4-7 system in the area of the southernmost wetland would result in reduction in the
Sone'of water for the'Vlefland arid thus the potential loss'of the total wetland area of
1,712 square feet.
... •
12. 3.42.2' Impacts of Development arid Use of the Site,Wildlife.Paragraph
Planting a mix of shrubs and dwarf ornamental trees around the proposed stoimwater
A detention pond would be an improVeMent over existing site conditions which is mostly
impervious surfaces. 'Recommend:discussing these plantings in the:context of their
adequacy as mitigation measures for specific impacts rather than as potential impacts
'themselves. • •
•
13. &3,4.2.2 Aquatic Species—General Comment: Proposed enhanced buffers for,
May Creek are discussed as though they are a project impaCt. The proposed buffers are
3.4-3 intended as mitigation measures for project impacts such as potential increased levels
•of noise and light intrusion and Wendel water quality degradation and would provide
higher levels of buffer function than exist under current conditions. Recommend
discussing these proposed buffers fox May Creek in the context of their adequacy as
mitigation measures for specific impacts rather than as potential impacts themselves.
SEA 1412494v1 262664 12
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-100 —I -
Apri12004
I I
Page 13
• October 7,2003
14. §3.4.2.2;Aquatic Species, Paragraph 6: Proposed enhanced buffer for May
F Creek would average approximately 60 feet in width. Recommend changing the.
second line to read,"...approximately 60 feet,as proposed..."
D I 15.§3.4:3.2,Wildlife,Paragraph 5: See Comment 5.
C I 16. Bulkheads. The buffer mitigation"options"presume that existing bulkheads
would be removed —which is not the proposal,
•
17. Bulkheads The report "assumes" the need for shoreline protection for
".,,residential use on Lake Washington..."based on the"...southeast feting aspect and
the prevailing direction of winds and storms from the south: The purpose and
C accuracy of this statement is unclear.The text subsequent to these statements goes on to
suggest that the existing bulkhead provide more-than-adequate shoreline protection.for
residential use. Then,it goes on to state that the bulkheads should be removed. These
are not only conflicting statements,they also seem to have.no relevance:since bulkhead
removal is not proposed.
18. Bulkheads The Bulkhead subsection(and related discussion in previous,portions
of the report) does not appear to describe mitigation for unavoidable impacts of the
proposed project,but rather it suggests"opportunity"for the project to,provide a more
3.4-12 natural shoreline habitat. Unfortunately,that"opportunity"is not.consistent With the
.proposed residential.use of the project site as allowed by.the current!zoning of the
:property. The shoreline restoration appears to have no relevance onthat basis.
.19. Pocket Beaches. The report'suggests/describes'a provision for.pocket'beaches
!and "other" shoreline features at the Lake:Washington frontages.. However, these
3.4-12 features do not.appear.to Mitigate,any, specific project impact. Rather, they are
suggested as an improvement by way of"opportunity"; This seems like a subjective
discussion unrelated to the SEPA evaluation intended by this report.,
20. Buffers. The,report perceives the effective stream buffer.to be reduced near the
3.4-8 Lake Washington.shoreline. However,this interpretation is not a reduetion'in stream
buffer,but rather a regulatory reduction at the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM)Of.
Lake Washington.
21. Buffers. The'current project.proposal.provides for a.minimum;50-feet buffer
from the ordinary high water line(OHWL)of May Creek. It could be argued that the
A "averaged"buffer.proposed at May Creek provides mitigating.benefits equivalent to
those described for'Option A in the DEIS subsections..titled Stream Morphology,
Pollutant Removal and.Sediment 'Filtration, Water Temperature Regulation and
Regulation of Microclimate, Large Woody Debris Recruitment, and Residential Noise.
and Lighting.
•
SEA 14124940 262664 13
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-101 • April 2004
-
Page 14 w 1
October 7,2003 -
•
22. Buffers The suggestion.provided•with this:section that equivalent density could'
be achieved with an.apartment-style product instead of the proposed townhouse plan is
2.0-3 true when considering oy-nl individual dwelling units. However, it is inaccurate in
terms of property valuations and meet nti g the goals of the Applicant The results of
Mitigation Options A and B are'therefore not appropriate considerations as required.
under current SEPA rules. There is significant infrastructure costs necessary to , j
facilitate the improvement of this.property, and:adequate real property valuation is
necessary to offset those.costs. The proposed;Options;o not allow for that. •
23. Buffers The DEIS suggests mitigation Option B, 100-feet buffer widths, in
response primarily to potential channel migration and the premise that increased.buffers
provided improvedwater°quality,habitat,and•public access opportunities adjacent to
A May Creek'and'the:Lake Washington shoreline: There appears to be no scientific or
• technically measured basis`specific to project impacts,to warrant Option B. We would
suggest that the recent publication.King,County Draft CAO: A Review of Wetland
Categories"and Buffers and:Case`Study (Raedeke, et al, February 2003) provides
additional and detailed response appropriate for this type of buffer application.
§3.5 TRANSPORTATION iComments primarily by HDRI
1. Access;An alternate and direct roadway connection to Lake Washington
Boulevard'lathe proximity of the northeast property corner and existing at-grade
railroad-crossingwas previously discussed with the City for,the.project in-lieu of the
Ripley.Lane connection. Preliminary review of this alternate access/crossing showed.
3.5-17 adequate intersection separation to Ripley.Lane at Lake Washington Boulevard: The
DEIS suggests that this alternate access would have potential conflicts with the existing.
channehzation at Lake Washington Boulevard. However;revisions to the'roadway
channelization Would be proposed_to mitigate any such conflicts with the new
accesshinte section design: Adequate intersection separation is provided between the
proposed alteniate acceta ar'trl the existing RipleyL ine:
2. Railroad Crossing:The project proposes tWo roadway access points to the site -
at Or in the proximity of existing private;at-grade crossings of the BNSF railroad from
Lake Washington-Boulevard. .These crossings have safely and satisfactorily'served the
C commercial/industrial uses at the Barbee Mill and Port Quendall.sites tinder historically
higher train volumes than what is currently."in occurrence and that should be anticipated
in the reasonable future-,'The two at-grade crossings proposed,for the site are to be
improved,to:maintain public safety for;single-fainily rite'of the site based on current
City of Renton'road standards,including site distance criteria and safe refuge: The
ultimate desigd'o f the at-grade:ctrossings to the'site will result from the approval of the
City's review cifa specific,detailed design and subsequent petition to the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission(WIJ.TC)in accordance with RCW 81.53.020
• and WAG 480-62-150.
SEA 1412494126266-4 • 14
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-102 April 2004
•
•
Page 15
Effl
October 7,2003 •
Barbee Mill currently has two existing rights to cross the railroad tracks.. First,it has
permanent,crossing,right reserved in a 1908 deed when property was granted to the
railroad. Second,it has a permit from the Northern Pacific Railroad. While both
crossings are currentlyprivate,state law provides a procedure to make these crossings
permanent public crossings by filing a petition with the WUTC_See RCW 81.53. The
applicant anticipates that the City would file such a petition since the Proposal is fully
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning for the site. Under GMA,
the City is required to,provide concurrency to implement its land use designations,
which for the lands Ideated west of the railroad tracks,would mean establishing public
• crossings as allowed understate law. Under the City's code,no more than 6 houses can
be served with a private road. RMC 4-6-060J. Consequently,ilthe City did not
petition the WUTC for public crosssings,then the City would have conducted a major
de facto downzone and forced numerous multiple crossings,i.e. 1 private crossing for
every 6 houses,For the Barbee site,and Quendall and Vulcan,the COR zone would be
meaningless if the.City did not petition for a public crossing to allow the development
that is granted by the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. The City has a precedent with
other property owners of cooperating and implementing zoning by filing WUTC
petitions:
The DDEIS is not accurate in its description of existing grade and elevation conditions at.
the southerly rail crossing. Recent survey data of the site Confirms that there is only
3.5-20 about 8 feet of elevation difference and actually 65 feet of separation between the
• •BNSF tracks and traveled way of Lake Washington Boulevard at this location. This
results;in'a:comparable theoretical grade of 12.5%for this approach. Preliminary
roadway designs indicate that current City of Renton road standards can be achieved
with the at-grade.crossings.
The DEIS is correct that the easterly approach grade'between Lake Washington'
C Boulevard and theB3NSF at the southern crossing does not allow for the 30'"level"
staging area suggested by-AASHTO and WSDOT for at-grade highway crossings. The
30'"level"landing guideline does appear to be achievable on the west side of this
crossing and at:both approaches at the northerly access based on:prelimininy design..
This criteria,however,is only a guideline and there appears(based on preliminary
design and current site conditions)to be adequate separation from the traveled way of
3.5-20 Lake Washington Boulevard.and the BNSF tracks to provide safe refuge for staged
vehicles. The WSDOT standard(Fig.930-3)cited by the DEIS"...to assure a safe
area for cars to wait for entry and for sight distance"likely does not apply to the access
intersections with Lake Washington Boulevard as they are proposed. Lake Washington.
Boulevard has a posted speed of 25 inph in the vicinity of the project,:representing a
35 mph design speed for entering and stopping sight distance.The.current condition of
A these access locations does not suggest any sight distance:deficiencies or .
Vehicle/pedestrian safety hazards. Final roadway design will maintain'adequate sight
distance;refuge area,and signage for safe use by the proposed residential community.
SEA 14124940 262664 15
City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-103 • April 2004
,
Page 16 go
October 7,2003
3. Cumulative Impacts. The-DEIS speculates on cumulative impacts from future
. 3.5-25 development of Quendall Terminals and the Vulcan sites to the north. The DEIS goes
on to say that "additional development would generate a need for additional access ,
points or geometric.:and signal.improvements at existing intersections." First,without
'knowing the*specifics of any future development on those sites,it is not possible to. ..
state that'additional access points or geometries would need to change.
•Second,the DEIS•mistakenly assumes that'cumulative impacts"under SEPA simply-
means things that may happen.in.the vicinity or in a similar time frame. However,
E analysis Of cumulative impacts;from potential development is not'warranted unless the j
City can demonstrate that the future development by other owners is"dependent on
subsequent'proposed development" Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 11 Wn.App. 711
(2002), Examination of an future development's potential impacts is speculative when ,
. "there areno specific.plans to review and.the impacts therefore areunknown." Tugwell
v Kittitas County, 90 Wa.App: 1, (1997): There the Court explained that "the
cumulative impact argument must fail unless the'Dotal.government] can.demonstrate ,
that the[proposedj'project is dependent on subsequent proposed development." .
Cumulative impacts include those effects"resulting from.growth caused by a proposal,
as well as'the likelihood that the.,present.proposal will serve as a precedent for future
E actions. WAC 197-11-060(4)(d) (emphasis added). The DEIS•should acknowledge
that the Barbee Mill plat will not set a precedent nor cause,development of the Quendall ,
or Vulcan sites. ,
4. Roadway Network; Page 3-62, Section 3.5.1.1: A summary description of '
• F Ripley Lane is missing from the belle#ed list.
5. Level of Service Siimmary.Page 3=67,Table 3.5-2: Did the LOS resultsat the
3.5-15 1-405 northbound ramps at N 30th Street change during the DEIS process?
i 6. Trip Generation;Page'3=6 :'Table 3.5-3: How was the 545,000 square feet of
2.0-14
industrial development derived?4. 1
7. " Prolect Trip Generation: 'Page 3-69, Section 3.5.2.2: HDR previously.
3.5-14 commented on•the .use of LUC'1210 single family detached housing.' Without
documented data on trip generation from this.actual site,HDR continues to.recommend j
,: that land code 230,Townliome be'used. ]
8. Project-Trip'Distribution;Rig e 3..71,Section 3.5.2.3: Why would'47%o of this 1
development traffic.:(resisidential traffc),in the,p.m.peak hour be coming from primarily '
•
3.5-8
residential neighborhoods east'of I-405? An explanation of cut-through traffic avoiding
•1-405 was given later'in the document,but:that`would only be a portion of the 47°%. ,
• Should not these trips be primarily a irthig from commercial`land uses?"Could this be a
limitation of the model used?
n5 SBA'1412494v126266-4 16.
,
' City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-104 April 2004
,
•
Page 17 •
October 7,2003 �1!
•
F I 9. Figure 3.5-5: Recommend adding intersection numbers to this figure for easier
reference to the subsequent two figures.
F 10. Future Level of Service,Page 3-75,.Section 3.5.2.4:- The intersection•of N 30th
Street/1,405 NB ramps is also LOS D in the future according to table 3,5-2..
11. Bundled:list at the top of the page,Page 3-77: Recommend either quantifying
F the use,of the word"substantial",or delete it. "Substantial"is too subjective: Also,in
the'second bullet item,please state what the bridge and/or fill is higher than.
12, Site Access,second paragraph,Page 3-78,Section 3.5.2.6: The calculation that
3.5-20 uses 1,100'ADT to justify flashing`lights .is- based on a'disputed trip generation
estimate. Would this still be justified if.LUC 230 were used?
13.. Traffic Accidents and Safety Analysis, third .paragraph Page 3-80,
• D Section 3.51.7: How many times in the last 10.years of other reasonable.time period
has a train,had to stop in this section of the railroad and blocked.the crossings in this
vicinity?
;Traffic Accidents and Safety Analysis, last. paragraph. Page '3-80,
A Section 3.5.2.7: The frontage road concept is not reasonable or feasible since Barbee
Mills cannot„obtain ROW or easements for a frontage road, it-should bestated that a
concept like this would require participation of the properties to the'north as they are
redeveloped,and mouldnot be the responsibility of the Barbee'Mill development.at this
time.
15:.: Impacts'on Adjacent Jurisdictions, Page 3-82,Section 3,5.2.8: HDR believes
that the discussion about diverted I-405 trips is a regional problem, not a problem
A caused-by.this.one,development. HDR believes that.trips from'this development may
divert-from;405'and use local roadways,but that would not happen,if I-405'were not
congested.;;11DR suggests that this be acknowledged as a regional freeway issue,and
that the State is:-planning improvements'to I-405, whether they are in the.2007 tithe
frame or not,and-therefore this is aa'short--teen problem:
-16. - Signal'Warrant Analysis. Page 3-85, Section 325.3.2: No discussion of how
3.5-24 2007 8=hour volumes were'obtained was included in this section. Does Renton's model
provide 24-hour data?
17. Mitigation for Site Access and.Rail Intpacts,fiist•bullet Page.3-86, Section
A 3:5.3.4 How would;Barbee Mill participate at this time? Is the intent of the.second.
sentence to'place responsibility on the future developments, without Barbee Mill
participation?
SEA 1412494v126266-4 17
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-105 April 2004
,
. '
„.....„
.i
Page 18
October 7,2003
_!
A 18. Mitigation for Site Access and Rail Impacts,second bullet Page 3-86, Section
3.5.3.4: same comment as above. '
1
19. Mitigation Of Non-MotOrized Facility Impacts and Transit Impacts,last bullet
. A Page 3-88,Section 3.5.33: Barbee Mill development cannot provide transit service on
1-405 or take Washington Boulevard with connections to total park and ride lots,since 1
that is an agency decision..
• F I 20. RoadwaV'NetWark, Page 3-62, Section 3.51.1: Burnett Avenue should be
bulleted and indented.
21. Pedestrian,Bityele, and Transit Network, Page 3-67, Section 3.5,1.3: In the
F firat sentence,add an"s"to"vehicle"
•
22. Future Baseline Street Network,Page 3-68,Section 3.5.2.1: Make EMME/2 or
F EMME2 c,onsistent throughout document.
: 23. No Action: No Build: The DEIS throughout should refer to the No Action
F alternative and No Build alternative. The No Action is the,industrial development
scenario,whereas the No Build alternative is doing nothing at the project site. At times
this distinction is unclear.
.
1 . 1
24. Site Access, Page 3-76, Section 3.5.2.6: In the second paragraph, second
F sentence,delete the"s"in;"requires"
F 25. •Bulleterl list at the top of the page; Page 3-77: Recommend replacing "dead
end"with"cul-de-sac".
F I 26. Pada 4-80.First Paragraph: 'delete the"s"from"projects"in the tirst.sentetice. 1
1
F I 27. Page 3-85,Fifth paragraph,second sentence:-add a"d"to the end of"describe"..
. .
i §3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS [Comments primarily by Davis Wright..Tremitinej
1. Sections A.4.:1; .11A3, 1.7.1, 1.7,2,- Summary of Impacts and .Mitigating
Measures for Groundwater(p. 1-20), 111 (GioimdWater OualitV),'33.3-..-The Draft
EIS does net accurately describe the groundwater removal and treatment to be 1 '
Completed as,part of The Independent Remedial Action Plan(IRAP). Groundwater will
3.6-1 be extracted during the Soil removal action to facilitate excavation of contaminated soil,
-i This:groundwater will be treated and most likely discharged to the sanitary sewer.
Alter the soil removal action is complete, groundwater will be monitored to evaluate i
the residual groundwater concentrations Based on the results of the groundwater
monitoring program,remedial actions to address'reSidual grontid*ater concentrations
SEA 1412494v1 20266-4 18
s.
li
City of Renlon-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-106 April 2004 fl
Page 19
October 7,2003
will be evaluated and implemented,if necessary. If groundwater extraction is required,
a variety of groundwater treatment methods will be evaluated. The EIS should clearly
distinguish between: 1)the removal and treatment of groundwater during soil removal;
• and 2)the evaluation of groundwater remedies that will only occur if required based on
post-soil.remediation groundwater monitoring.
2. Sections 1.7.1,3.6:1.6(Sediment)—These sections indicate that the sediments
adjacent to the site contain total organic carbon,(TOC)in excess of sediment cleanup
3.6-2 • levels. The sediment removal action is complete and the sediments no longer contain
elevated TOC. Ecology has issued a no further action (NFA) determination for the
sediment These sections also indicate that a portion of the sediments are currently
being transferred to a disposal facility,but disposition of these sediments is complete.
These sections of the EIS should be revised to reflect The current status of the sediment
cleanup work and the issuance of the NFA.
3.. Sections 1.7.3,3.6.3—The site will be cleaned up to residential cleanup levels.
3.6-3 • As a result, no restrictive covenants are required. Any reference to restrictive
covenants should be deleted.
4. Sections 1.7.1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigating Measures;for HIazardous
Substances(p. 1-22).3.6.2.2,-3.6.3 —To the extent a cleanup plan must be developed
before a public right-of-way may be placed on Quendall:Terminals,the cleanup plan
3.6-6 will be developed in conjunction with the Washington Department of Ecology and the
owners of Quendall Ternnals, At this time, it is not known if such a plan'will be •
. required. One likely scenario is that the roadway will be considered:a cap:for•any
contamination. The Draft:EIS should not suggest that:any remedial,action is required,
and it should not discuss any specific remedial.action.
5. Sections 1.4.1, 3.3.1 (Groundwater Quality) -- The second sentence in the
F • second paragraph in each Section should be revised to read: "There is one localized
area of elevated total petroleum hydrocarbons(TPH)in'groundwater at the site."
• 6. Section 3.6.1.3(Stormwater Outfalls)—The word"separators"should be added
F 'after the words"oil/water"in the second sentence.
7. Section 3:6.1.4=- Since petroleum hydrocarbons are not present in site soil.in
F excess of cleanup levels, the phrase "soil and groundwater""at the end:of the.first
paragraph in this Section should be changed to"soil and/or groundwater"
8: ..Section 3,6.1.6(Soil and Groundwater).--The fourth.bullet should be ainended
F to read "Extracted groundwater will be treated."' The last word in the tenth bullet
should be changed to"necessary".
SEA 1412494v1262664 19
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-107 April 2004
Page 20 El
October 7,2003
9. Section 3.6.1.7 (Quendall Terminals), 3.6.3 — The owners of Quendall
F Terminals have notc,ompleteri a feasibility study. As a result,geology hastiot selected
a remedy for that site. Any reference to"recommended strategy"or specific'remedial
measures for the Quendall Terminals site'should be deleted.
§3.7 AESTHETICS [Comments primarily by CenturyPacific]
1, General—Since the application before the City is a preliminary plat which,
3.7-2 pursuant to the city's Code, does not require detailed architectural.:drawings, the
discussion of the aesthetics as tall square boxes is not aactirate, In fact,the use of blank
square boxes exaggerates and misleads the reader nf how thetowithouses will appear.
2. General —The zoning on the site allows 125,foot tall buildings The DEIS
should acknowledge that the heights, voluntarily agreed to by the'Applicant, are
3 7-3.
between 40%and 60%less than what could be built on the site pursuant to the zoning.
This man extremely low density project on 24 acres •• • •
•
§3.8 LIGHT AND.GLARE
C 1. The light and glare impacts seem similaitonónedresidentinldeve1opnient
§:3.9 NOISE [Comments primarily by OTAIC Engineering] ,
1. Pile Driving. The DEIS'states that "...pile driving is potentially the greatest
source of noise and vibration generated froin construction activities." Ili*eYer; the
3:9-1 pm-pile type of supporta,suggested by the project geotechnical engineer for proposed
residential construction do not generate significanknoiae or ground Vibration—certainly
not the 101 dBA level consideredby the report. • „
2. Train horns. Provisions for private Mad erosaings,Of the plIpi!would mitigate
A the need for mandatory horn sounding suggested by the:DEIS fOrpublic crossings at
the.project site. The discussion of train frequency and the associated"annoyance"of
increased soundings seems irrelevant since it Only be a result of increased train
traffic and not a resultant of project propoSal.
§3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES
I. Impacts, Page 1-19, 1.11.2. We agree with yoUr statement that "The lack of
C national, state or lOC41 listing of the buildings results in limited authority to require
preservation,of privately owned'structures." A statement:similar to this aheidd be
SEA.1412494v1 262664 20
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-617
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-108 April 2004 1
Page 21 i
October 7,2003
included in almost every "Impacts" section of.the DEIS,since much of what is
suggested in the Draft EIS is not required or authorized by local,state or national laws.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. If you or Parametrix have any.questions regarding the
Applicant's comments,please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely, •
DAVIS WRIGHT TREM.A.INE LLP
Thomas A.Go
Attachment:Comments on Mitigation Measure chart
cc: Robert Cugini
Steve Wood
Campbell Mathewson
SEA 1412494v126266.4 21
•
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-109 April 2004
•
•
-I
•
Table 1-Water Surface Elevations for Parametrix HEC-RAS Modeling
1990 Flood Conditions: •Flowrate=598 9.01. g.09 9.10 g.06
Existing. Proposed Proposed Proposed
. No Aggradatior Aggradation Aggradation Aggradation 1
Middle Br. No Middle far. No Middle Br No Middle Bridge
Station Location .. 50'Setback 100'Setback
11 D/s of Washington,Blvd. • 27.6 • 27.6 ' 27.6 ' 27.6 I
10 26.7 28,7 26.7 ' 26.7
6.9 24.8 24.8 24.8 24.8 !
6.75 D/s of Upper Bridge 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0.
6 23.3 23.3 23.3 23:3 I
4.35 : 21.7 21.8. '21;8 21.8 I
4.25 ' U/s of Middle Bridge •. '•21.6 21.8 21,8 21.8 I j
2,25 U/s of Lower Bridge , . 19.9 20.7 20.7 20.7
2 18.7 18:9 18,9 18.9
1 Mouth of May Creek • • 16.9 16.9 16;9 16.9 I I
. .
FEMA Study: FEMA Flowrate 1996=870 cfs
g.01 g.09 9.10 g.06 .
Existing . Proposed Proposed Proposed ' .
No Aggradation , Aggradation Aggradation. Aggradation.
3 Middle Br. No Middle Br No,Middie Br No'Middle Bridge
Station .50'Setback 100'Setback . I
. 11. ' 28.5• • 28.5 28.6 28.6
i 10 27.7 27.8 28 27.9
6.9 27.3 27.3 27:1 27.1
6.75 .24.9 24.9 24.9 24.9 i :
6 24.2_ • 24.4 24.3 24.3 1
4.35 22.5. 23.8 22,9 22.9 ,
4.25 23 • 23.7 2219 .22:9
2.25 '22.9 22:9 21,8 21:8 '
2 19.3 19.4 19.4 19.4
1 16.9. ' 16.9 16.9 •16.9
t
Future Condition: 100 Year Future Flow'=1059 cis
901 9..09 . 9.10 g.06
Existing Proposed Proposed .Proposed
No Aggradation Aggradation Aggradation Aggradation •
Middle Br. • No.MiddleBr No Middle:Br No Middle Bridge
Station . 50'Setback 100'Setback ' . '_
11 '29.0 29.1.• 29:1 29.1 -
10 28.0 28.2 28.4 28.2
•6.9 26.4 26.4 - 27.4 27.3
9.75 ' .25:3 25.3 25:5 25.4 ' !
6 24:3' ' 24.4 25,0,.. '24.9 I
4,35. 23:1 23.9 24.1 24.0
4.25 . 23.0 . 23.9 24.1 23.9: 1
2.25 22:4 . .22.4 23.1 22.9 I
2 19.6 19.7 19.7 • • 19.7 I
1 • 16.9 '16.9 . 16.9 16:9
I
Eorlie2 Mill
kymoiea oaaoao aortstdek_ es+r m oiak
. r
.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-110 April 2004 `!
r I
1,
•
•
, , 2_4:I V\ 1111.ffi
...d. i. .. , :_ #
f 1 `
I.
.11----J to 1 \
V .
, 7 ./L! S OF FLOODP IN / ;/i 1 Ailkt-Pl.: -1:\.\)°* .�
•
/r' '1 /
r
• k
i• 11 .1,.(*) . ,<//// il. Adill. ,,,- , c.o.Z"/
. ) ii 1) ,I e
/ 7
/1 / /
FLon ? ,�J t / .!1
1...
RS 6.750, !t.
WASHiKE I Cam) 410, 16. �'1` ,4a } '1 �r�f ; LIMITS OF '
ON / RS k /l'i� ! FLOODPLAIN
t' - j r "`►� f i,/ MAY CREEK
i- /
\\, ' RS4 RS ,2 1 :S. i' J �it>�
( .,
� /` PPER BRIDG
J /I w� / / j
1Y ^2:15 J
LL �iti« l i b
..: �,� R
/ :
....
f N 40TH ST
.— .. rl.
� 4 .;LOWER BRIDGE.. .
ParametrIx MTe;07.'IW/o8 nie'NIY/17POIT1K.-0-o2
Figure B-2
100-YR FLOODPLAIN Barbee Mill Reach
NO SCALE --••-^-•-• MAY CREEK CENTERLINE • 100_yr Floodplain
RS# RIVER STATION IN HEC-RAS MODEL with Future FlowrateS
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-111 April 2004
i ! r
•
?133110AbiN SV3Htl 03LvuO009N1 RI • n.
•
YM'1,1NR0a•JNIM o
S311100d 00011 A9N30V1113W39tlNYWAON391131`431%41303J
•
. } ..•�- rti.{..•.r.f,
� a m ti ' a a
8.
a 1 aas aar■aaa ail a ,... .,,i i 'iT ..• .�.G ' a •pia ■■ aa�_ •
.lr' �..H : t
0 0:0
0
..{-7 r • P ...... 4 � Ap OO . z(�
'' aN�a�� u ■ a ■ ! �• 4#}1•- . . 1y^- ±' } '�- e aJ .O .+ O is
1 It4.' L:16 ( . .4� - r13-•1-4. is a.ggm tag
a�} a �� Gi- �_ 1-1 } ;, y_ag
i
r1tl4 r ►a■ l r a a ■ r �e,.{��1,,r �p.= �}�-t I� a»'; b..Qf $:= Q
G f.*lli 1alaay=a ar-tr.. L.,...,. _. ,1 -y
1 G\ •\ lual� _I 'r '''•4 } « - S -•".'r
1-1'14
4'4
•■ i . 1: - T..i• ---.. .rt. --
1 !GV'0NY a.. WI! 4.4' r I ,
1 ".•-yy•� a► vl i=v a- ' y 't r S 3 it 1t, 1€ .t.;. €. €
� �' ar*, l a ..Y14 r i i,i ! . ! •
t p ,yyy$,.fy y_ }•a.',wino ■�v�,y:i: :r{ i.1 rF.€.#;1',r`.�j..,..€_.)'",, L-;4.a,.; `t 1 i
� .L}.i: "'!' i.ty ■1;a.i.7•+. isi.741 l,s".s-.i.L:�i.i1....� _ «€y
j v..+r3.1..€^r}i.�^ ,��':•jrrw-:- Al }i.i%,.`:., fi..:}•.y}.t,:'hi,.<'[.:s9} ' •r,'r {
t L4111-.: ."S:I'1. f= �M� ;. -44-i- �'..I f i-ii'7�;1'ir1'4... .1 :"'iti'MT`�f_ i pt.:..i... 0 i l 1
r •.m. 1--;.' I i I. H.1 e -h
1-}-:_11: r 1. .a .ail "lurp\11ap1`'1l1'al�aal r$ •r •!:-'r.'4-4 -: 1 G-,#',...€,•'! 4 I.��ri ° l't..." -::{: I
�,�"�.!.�, a \ttt j a ia�131al .'~ „II-filth-TV-' •7';��'� qV4.; S'.}•1,5.'t'� i s.'i i:;';:' ;A f: I
�"�rf N ■Ra-yi�■tVi4��i� } .... I ,r !#�:'•3.4t ar :; t1.-'... is :' :w.: ^
!:,! 1 � \ '� T . •i,-i• 1 -3-}'`M:,i ..;;,1.�a..L..,•I... ;. raj 3_s, r.-j
• sj€ 7 -. 1sd.r. .I{ .1• €
f i^* t} a t v \ 4 \ i.1 1�, t. i rcj } t .[s.("L' I }•r
1T -a ■va al ■ initic �.,,--ri - 11'.�:1'--I3,4,1 i. i.•4.r{ .'•.i.:L:`; • .t
,�f•---rrI 1 •i■aav ■aIta a�{lr�f��)l aall :��iy- #. ,G...1G=i.:--`1.••Y.j..€ST.=-i3 ^,. e�•.•
- IT3 '! ■ ;rlln Yr!•7'r€-4€ i,,-, ; �- ••;-1 , II.•,f.1,'•r Q,
{, •r-rr aaaa : a \'4 �1 " € 1 .I .1 1 a: + ;d...`.... ' , ; - 0 t
-!'' ',�'T'f'a■lffa al■/a16M L 4. ..• •{ .b$•
r- a.■ a\!!Ya aaataa t ri.-i.•�_-HI-•i"i
S` ■ Y•r 41.
t S # otoMfi}Iaa11IraI�a��t�rri A.t -..fy ! t--r•,• •-Y. ;,.{-�f { a/■■a u r�raa..../ anti }r ala 7:1iiL r F' t visa 7w1T _i.Iy�t}� }l WP•t .'-i�i« tI aX '- . )1�*a a '.Ly P.1REaa. t9:r:1..I.'.T'lM.a' '}. >j-r ■llaritil ! 1*111sa g4Mr; • ''.4 t, 1.�,.i;.I I i€ 4 a
j;, --Y3 I Ll 'r W• arretaa 1 ..us.«... m a.
Q aaaaararral ■ a • -• i _
;IL',n i` ' ' a lama 0-- i}.�1a{� f4, i-71- tit "a ;. 1€'.;.. „O.: r
1 r rE 444..•r , '.dj r^' 1 `71€•i " .12 €:1.71" :;-rid, 4z
r.1I : i ...-73, H'{"E r s},.:i.. 3 •z.i. N-i7`1 •1 'y-I3 },�j....•
-rr •
T' �Y.=S.' •rn,r•t.y � .rT�- .y • .��d L.,: . .tag 'ti.;. ''.ii•- }r+ •n
..T'-t�- I r ;. r �'h•1'E:i::'.. :i:� ;Lt.;. �v �; •r;a:.;�'. a{ a •
.�i•. 3IL" i f"-'.. ��°Y,~Fi\'`� .•..•�r,...r :.� tt :
�(r11,14_, 1 i, • \
iun
.l.'-I'�-z;-*- .�.y-•• v aiIll=a_ ..rJ a Ft,M ,{, '�•^.7`-tii-t Li+ N
' _ ; r a i_ yap lU as t ,. SWll'al0 a. -•. iy-.1• S.#•-i-hi;.-,.h,-; rD
ai r- a a , lr u a aa\a■ 1 ,{ I. ., ; ,. c
■a • alga alga taalgaa■aa sa al {-i-•-31 i"" ;"'?= : 1'
', '1''-,rs.', !• ar lfgp�1 'a ;t an ( r i-f-t.L s-�.. ,, -e
rT, Sla �l'algl as r T i, -..-:t-f•.• ^-b'r .. .,..�-'{'k -<i: "In
r ■afirl•t r� "��,".„ r "�-1° ,'may � ��•-. i• -:- •� .• r
to' 1' E1a • al 9.fi, , 4 't s ,�+ • ,..;
1 y ''. € ..ttto ffr.ram.! =y' ;rrE€,-" r•£�H � ..v �Ys = is :
i lgataa _ F aaar •NI I r 4 ..1.�, ry G.•s4^1�:4.:.:. y 1.},W 1` 'O
1. a \a ,: 1un,,,faanala :air } {. •riii t-r-,;• 1 _r 1,.•1 3 7
EN-'-. a t mitt era- r .;t.a I' a- e L.G...s i-' -
yy.l.{ 44" ' arlmalIa ;€_. ar - "f 3 '1 s [_1 1 ,
alb. a alga.. vialvta +aii\�r�ia ■ rr a■y;qy�j;� a�rjt\y 4 rr• -r r , ••t-,.
aa!!]fllliltl ■1frla auaaar.i'muiia a a r'' Tlll*l•lk%tH� 'f _ ,I -L •a.-r v
�11{ ■a to■ aaraaaa■ aavv ! a.rr.h.la0v'r"' `'i ,;..__.1 o
1v111�1 331 atiaai taeaa■ta7f11llu aa3[ # `;.� _
• !ILLiL`amttu�lg'm u a !q6-iai- r i,�' . .-.iia #i .1 j�-€'::+•
j - iar! ra aa 1tv7Gv�a �f � .!.aryv ntu {. r i.
.•1 'r as !w aftr ail iwl iwll .`� r''�wiiaaa a sii�le Y �.R
y 1ri'a �tfl�ta ��!�.��`uila�it �il�rrr dai pat Uu #•-- , • _!' �.'s: �
' i� £;'fii.:i.ra�lifaa�..a. r .a r ■ ik. ,i
r• I ,
A p-14Ti .ra..;ar� ilia ! (frlaar va r 'tea I
4 I. r., , I _
1»414_, .... it {.
1-rt`-c i•firm semi *aim. u ■aa mamma lrlif . , I ',r-.., N
: st -rT lta . a�xita■ ■ria\ tare alga■
, �a�a a�iwvsaaalaaauarasaaa�G tale la.-- . € t1i� }.i t .
-rYf' tt-- ! ■raaria!! riaaaa•11r11aar r! a yr Lr} ^('•j[t T''":'-'• O
a 'f'i u!ta-„!tj>"Ifj�fr ■aa11i1!�mica. !1. T Y 1 1'r' '1" ]t'L...-GG .i- tu'.S;�'
E itil! *s'f ti fl! rf! '�.j�'��^� asw ta`._'1a'.�"u {y r 1. (s ' G_4.'41
1
.} "4-�.-i« = :r.'• ,Or it��j a.-di • ,' 1 n 41-.'i ,---;,.'-1-'*!-r,',-4-'i�-.s,? •1.:t.t.•,-•I 11-er=• J
1?.�1i�.' ,. • i� yf, '.!}•Vila i" r.'.:,1-:'' ''} ` ±t1.1 ,.•i•i 4...-174:-4•#-1a »7= _€.:`- .o
' e
o S • , m . • r 2 a p g e o 1
IaAON3334 aoti ill
I, ... ai
`�3
.
1
City ofRenton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-112 April 2004 __
I
-,
•. '
' .
Tides:North Puget Sound-94A-?limn N.Chin rn Locks hnp:41,ti.ww.ntv(141,ve.• *ce.oriny..iniftpwAhicidestnp/0044.htin
: +
1
' .
. .. ,
,.___ .........:• • , , „ . '.; •
:i 1',i'li'.'''.:','•:::r
- . •
riCi41 Mtym,Regions„.1VOrttrPugef.SoniKtRegion- • • .
94A- Hiram IC ChitttbdOn Locks- ',
,.. . .
Relation Between'Various Batbin Plana
Datum Plane ACM , NGVD .NA'VD138 :' dOi, ; :: 'tali: --' •
Highest Estimated Tide
- .
•
. . .. . _. _
Mean Higher High Water :11.35 5.25 8:83 '.. 1Z0S :
. ,..
Mean Eligh Water 1049 • 439 7,97 ' . 1.119 T ''.:1-.7.47-1 •
Mean(Half)Tick Level • 6.66 f! 0.56 4.14 ii 7:3-6' !. •-5.57 ; ' : , •
'isiaV15 6.10 : -);00 3 513 :I. 0430: ,' ••-6,13,
;Mean Low Water 2.83 ; -327 031' • i. 3,63 ' .4.40 .1• ' •
. .•
Mean Tower Low Water 0,00 , -6.fii
-2,52 • ; 070 • -12.23 .,
Lowest Estimated Tide '
Record Levels(15,11,LW) Leerta i1Ipp 1
_.
Highest Observed Tide ; . ..
Date • 12/15177 ! 1'''''', >Ar.g#1,./Alit& , ,,,.:'.9t4t!g.1%.NO: '• ." ; :• -,,
BA1NWW:'": :*."'''''H!"',
., ..
Lowest.Obs,ervedl'ide -4.60 ; ' , !-:".';';',i'•'(.2.-!.
•:.„;% ;17...,E'.,_tt::,,, '1 - . •
Pate 61/20/51 1 ry. ' '.';':''''t''''• It . ,
Periodfecord L.s-.. '5,,,'Afts,*; ' . • .
o :R
.,-:.
/A • :IOW' qii:, , :,.. , .. .;
Epoch 1960-1978
,-- : .• ; --7. -,,:•-.i".=: ,:......i
Index Gage
. ' - • YlcIltrIT—4'0 .. i .
• All Data 1;I:rovided,IsAbrovi$iott61 • - i - .
{
, ...., .
.,,,•,,-„,,,,....0 ,.,. : .
, . .
. , ,. ..• ,..
},...„..it it Sam!) . . ,
Iasi lipdeite Th s ors uralsot January05.IOW
1 ,
. .
. ,
, .
,-T
• :. ' • • .
., .
. .
.. •1 or.1 .,, • .
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-113 April 2004
•
Arc
s
O
z
BARBEE.MILL'S COMMENTS TO DEIS MITIGATION CHART APPEARING IN DEIS SUMMARY
b Barbee Mill has copied the mitigation chart Mat appears in theDEIS summary at pages 1-20 to 1-23,and added a new right-
o = hand column with Barbee's comments orreach mitigation measure. These comments supplement the comments in the letter
,• itself. As a preliminary matter,:many of"the mitigation measures listed'in the DEIS Su miary are not lawful or appropriate
mitigation measures under the substantive standards of SEPA•-WAC 197-11-660(1):
a (a) Mitigation measures or denial shall be basedupon policies,clans,rules or regulations formally designated by
the legislative body::.as a basis°°"for tie exercise of substantive authority and in effect when the DNS or DEIS.
• is issued. .
(b) Mitigation measures'shall'he related to specific, adverse environmental impacts clearly identified . . . The
decision makers shall cite the agency's SEPA.pelicy that is the basis of any condition...
(c) Mitigation measures shall be,reasonable and capable of being accomplished.
For example, mitigation measures relating to deep foundation systems or ground densification for liquefaction,,dikes for
flooding,aban on docks,public access over private property;and additional buffers exceeding adopted codes do not appear to
be based'upon adopted plans or policies or are not reasonable'and capable of being_accomplished:
IMPACTS _ MITIGATING.MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
•
A Earth,Soils,and
Geology
Erosion and sedimentation Implement Best Management Praetices'(BMPs)for . Applicant will i ouiply With applicable code
erosion control prior to construction requirements.
ba SEA 1412444v126266.4 23
N b
•q V
•• o
R
A
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARGEE COMMENT
Liquefaction Construct buildings on a deep foundation system,such as Based on site-specific analysis, Golder
o pilings,that would transfer the building loads to the Associates proposes lightly loaded piles
�
dense soils beneath the potentially liquefiable alluvial bearing in the compact zone at a depth of 15-
s
• deposits 25: .Disagree on need or appropriateness of
b piles for high lateral loads[See Applicant's
a DEIS comment•letter.at 031J. Request City
to identify any other comparable residential
A project with a deep foundation system.
Further,DEIS's discussion of a deep •
foundation-system is not based on adopted .
code and would not.be.a valid SEPA
condition.
0
Installgroundiniprovement measures,such as stone Foundations(as described above)and offsets
a Columns or deep dynamic compaction to reduce the from the shoreline are adequate and
' liquefaction potential underlying roads and utilities appropriate mitigation. Disagree on need or
appropriateness of ground improvement . '
.measures. [See Applicant's DEIS comment
letter at 0.11 Request City to identify any
• other comparable residential project with
• stone columns or deep dynamic compaction.
Further,DEIS's discussion of ground
modifications is not based on adopted code
and would not be a valid•SEPA condition.
•
Ln
SEA 1412494v126266-4 24.
H
'..1(-.) ...___. ...................._______.,— ,. . — --.,. ....
S. • „ ,
A
tr7
2 .
0 0
Z ,
L. -4. •
IMPACTS MITIGATING:MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
z -4
Provide containment consisting of ground densification 15.40 feet of offset distance of structures
is.' D..• treatment to reduced the hazard of lateral spreading, from the shoreline minimizes risk of lateral
particularly near the shoreline spreading damage. Disagree on need or
..,5 A apprOpriateness of ground improvement
theasyres. (See Applicant's DEIS comment
ET ,
. letter Ot§.3:1]. Request City Widen*any
. other comparable residential project with
: . .
ground densification. Further,DETS'S.
diSCUssion of grottnedensification is not .
based on adopted code and would not a ..
validSEF4conditiort,• '' •
:....,,,, a4!•;•.-!;! i,,.., • ,..„.
..1:,
4 Erosion and Implement an appropriate Erosion and .4Ppilcaniwill comply with applicable code
m • Sedimentation Sediment Control(TESO Plan ' . - requirements
,...
0, Pollutants in&dace Construct,operate the proposed water- :41,,Pitegfir:vill.OrtiPly',00,4ppliOble code'
Water quality treatment facilities requirements.
. .
• .
. _
, . .
, .
. . ..
. .
„ - - -
•
. ,
,.., .
4a .
41. . SEA 1412494v1 26266-4 25
*CI '''.. •
..1.1., • ,
CZ•••••• ,
'11n
A
z4• s
O 3
o
.IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
b .
B. b Flooding Contain;the.100-year floodplain.within.either the The project.currently proposes a voluntary
a Z. proposed May Creek open space corridor,or in increase in:the May Creek stream bu•Zyer. •to
alternative 50.foot or 100 foot wide corridors contained 50 feet. The HEC-RAS model shows no
by fill or levies at least one.foot above base flood levels significant benefit of a 100 feet buffer versus
b the already increased 50 feet buffer in terms
n A of flood plain depth and conveyance: In
•
fact, there is. no change in flood plain
•
depth/water .surface elevation at the most
' upstream, .on:site section between.a 50,feet
• - and 100 feet buffer.. This.further suggests.
• .that increased buffer width (and any. •
.associated floodway storage)is unnecessary
' - and provides no.mitigation benefit to off-site,
upstream properties. The applicant will
acomply with applicable code requirements
with respect to the design and construction of
infrastructure features, fill placement, and -
building construction in designated flood
plain areas.
Construct residences with the lowest floor one foot above. Applicant Will comply with applicable code
. base flood elevation requirements.
•
�`... SEA 1412494v]`26266 4 26
b ''
H
fib
z
1. O
3 �
`0
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT •
A Compensate for flood storage area lost by removing Request City to identzfy any other
v existing fill withiin,the open space corridor and providing comparable residential project where this
additional storage volume mitigation was imposed.Further,DEIS's
discussion ofill removal is not based on
b ,adopted code and would not be a valid SEPA
condition.
b '
00 .
a ,
ti
n ,
SEA 1412494v126266 4 27
z.
ti b
o O ,
4
•
a `Z
o •
o
a
3 b
o • .
o IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
° Provide the wider 100 foot wide corridor to provide Request City to identify any other
oadditional.conveyance and flood storage to compensate comparable residential project where this
R for,future increases in flood.elevations because of mitigation was imposed Further;DEIS's
sediment deposited in the stream channel discussion of 100 foot bu,Jjer system
b contradicts adopted code of 25 foot buffers.
' .and would not be a valid SEPA condition.
A The project currently proposes a:voluntaiy
increase in the May Creek stream buffer to
• • 50 feet. The HEC-RAS model shows no
significant benefit of a 100 feet buffer versus
the already increased SO feet buffer in terms
offlood plain depth and conveyance. In
'o fact,there is no change in flood plain
a depth/water surface elevation at the most
upstream,on-site section between a 50 feet •
e and 100 feet buffer. This further suggests
that increased buffer width(and any
•
associated ftoodway storage)is unnecessary
and provides no mitigation benefit to off-site,
upstream properties. The•DEIS states
• (section 2.4.1.4)that "the HEC-R4Smodel
. did not simulate sediment transport and the
potential influence this would have on flood
levels."As such,a complete analysis has not
been provided to just the claim that
•additional lood storage would be necessary ry
to "...compensate for future increase in flood
elevations because of sediment deposited in
the stream channel."
a SEA 14124940 26266-4. 28
a-1 ti
ti b
N i
O O
O'„
•4. V
'ZI C) e•••••,.... ._•.,.,,.,.,,,,,,,,, . .. . . . ..,..............• ..,—.•.-.--
t'll
2.
Z ,
t'J .
z El
4..";i; 7:4-
Z IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
Iternove and/or reconstruct existing bridges to reduce the 'The proposal calls for the removal of
restriction to floodwater flow -.2biidies,and installation of I new bridge, •.1: : -. ; .
fora net reduction of!.bridge.
6o ' Groundwater .
. . .
A' Groundwater , Remove contaminated'soil during Model Toxics Control SeeApplicant's DEIS commentletter at§3.3
;
Contamination Act cleanup of the site - - :aiiii 3,6 Cleanups are governed and,
reidated bYpOkrind not city:
•
Provide ongoing treatment of contaminated groundwater, See Applidint's DEIS comment letter at§3.3
if monitoring after soil removal indicatesipursuant to and 36 elhanups'are governed and
Model Toxics Control Act cleanup of the site regidated by DOE and not pity.
. ,
..... Plenty&Animals,
1.;
o
Removal of Osprey nest Relocate the osprey nest,to an artificial structure erected APP:iiegritiVilt'cornply with applicable code
in the project site vicinity rgqiiireinerill.. '' • '
Removal of existing Protect the existing vegetation buffer vegetation along Applicant will will comply ivith applicable code
vegetatiop,,, . May Creek from disturbance during construction by requirements '
- erecting barrier fencing and locating:staging and access - "°' -:''"— ' " •
'areas away from buffer areas . ,
. :
. .
Existing invasive plant Clear to'CoinpletelY-rernove invasive species and re-plant Applicant will comply with applicable code
species-in buffer areas with native species .. = • . requirements.
, .
,...
,...
SEA 141204v1 6266-4 29,
•t:, -- .
.., -.4
o o
cz, ..... .
44. -...,
1 1
•
?7 c)
A '
O
3 3
'' O
O
i IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE.COMMENT
A b Loss of vegetation at :Design.bridges:withsufficieit height and width:to to
o allow Request City .identpy any other
o bridges. penetration of sunlight and.precipitation to maintain comparable residential project where this
s vegetation mitigation was imposed. Further,-DEIS's
discussion Of Modified bridge standards is
'Tonot based on adopted code and would not be
FF.. a valid SEPA condition.
A Restriction of animal Design bridges with sufficient height and width to • Request City identffr any other
movement at bridges provide for animal movement comparable residential project where this
mitigation was imposed Further;DEIS's
discussion of mod f ed bridge standards is ..
not based on adopted code and would not be
T:' a valid SEPA condition.
a Lack of habitat value of Use native plants in residential landscaping Applicant will comply with applicable code
residential landscaping requirements See Applicant's DEIS
comment letter at.P.4.
Surface water pollution Use of native plants in residential landscaping can Applicant will comply with applicable code
from fertilizers,pesticides, minimize the use of fertilizers,pesticides,or herbicides requirements. See Applicant's DEIS
or herbicides with. comment letter at 0.4.
resulting impacts on Provide greater setbacks from surface water to reduce .
wildlife and fish oveispray,spillage and runoff that carries pollutants into
water
`^ SEA 1412494126266-4 30 '
a�
b
N b
O O
O+.
li V
7
O. . .
m a
oc IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTI FED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
Ei. b Wetland and buffer Avoid wetland displacement by designing changes.in the Based on evaluation ofalternatives and
a :displacement 'pioposal to place development:outside the wetland and wetland functions,the Applicant proposes a
;. buffer small displacement of the southern,wetland
1 and will compensate consistent with
b applicable code requirements,,and with any
° applicable Corps of Engineers permitting
A process.
Compensate for loss of wetland by replacement 'Applieant.w.ill comply'with applicable code
elsewhere on site .. ' ,requirements,and with any applicable Corps "
ofErigineerspermittingprocess '
•
:Compensate,for loss of buffer through averaging and iffiii.4eipit,ourcomply with applicable code
a enhancement of the existing and buffer vegetation .requirements,and with any applicable Corps
ti of"Engineers permitting pratess., ,.
N
Bulkhead impact on Remove bulkheads whore natural shoreline conditions 0.e.eApplocio,pgis comment letter at§3.4
aquatic species can be re-established(where the lake is shallow,on '(17-20):'Bequest•City to identify any other
public lands or in conjunction with greater building 'comparable residential project where this
setbacks) mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's
;discuission`of bulkhead removal is not based
'on rdopte'd code and would not be a valid
SEPA condition.
1
a SEA 1412494v1 26266-4 31
b --
:t V
ti b
K.)
O O
O 'er
d V
•
o
3 py
a '
El ct
i IMPACTS ' 'IW IGATING:MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN.DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
A b Remove bulkheads and rely on,vegetation stabilization See Applicant.'s DEIS comment letter at j'3.4
a (where the'lake is shallow,.on public lands or in (17—20). Request City to identify any other
g 3 • conjunction with greater building setbacks) comparable'residential project where this
mitigation was imposed. Further,DEIS's
b discussion of bulkhead removal is not based
o on adopted code and would not be a valid
A SEPA condition.
Providing plantings in,rip-rap Request City to identify any other
comparable residential project where this
rrmitigation was:imposed.Further,DEIS's
.discussion of rip-rap planting is:not based on
adopted.crrde and would not be a.valid SEPA
condition.
a
w 'Reduce the.elevation above OHW of sheet pile walls and Request City to identify any other
.•rip-rap to allow more natural'shoreline plantings comparable residential project where this • '
mitigation was.imposed.Further,DEIS's
' discussion of wall or rip-rap removal is not "
•based on.adopted code and would not.he a
valid SEPA condition.
Loss of waterfowl habitat ; Preserve pilings and other in-water structures that are at a See Applicant's DEIS comment letter at§3.4
through removal of,pilings distance front near-shore habitat.important for juvenile (21-24). Applicant will comply with
and Other-in-Water: salinonid§ applicable'code requirements and/or
perching sites directive ofDepartment ofNatural '
Resources.
•
A SEA 1412494v126266-4 32
a .
b
� V
b
1v .
O O
3a V
o
3
A
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARGEE COMMENT
D. , Lack of large woody Provide.50 to 100 foot buffers on.stream and lake :SeeApplicant:'s DEIS comment letter at-§3.4
is 2. debris(LWD)recruitment -shoreline to allow establishment of more'extensive and ,(21 2V). Request City to identify any other'
3 ,• 'complex communities of indigenous vegetation comparable residential project where this
Z, mitigation was Imposed;Further,DEIS's
b A discussion of ail or I oo foot buffers
° .contradicts:adopted ode.of25 foot buffers
. . , ' ;,aiirl`would not beg valid SEPA condition.
Elevated shoreline water Provide 50:to 100 foot buffers on streath and lake `Reguest CIO io identify any.other.
temperature shoreline to allow establishment of mature-canopy from comparable residential project where this
indigenous vegetation to:provide summer shade mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's
.discussion of SO or I00 foot buffers
1 contradicts'adopted code of25 foot bufferso, ... and would not.be a-.valid SEPA condition.
.' Light and glare impacts on Provide:50 to 100 foot buffers on stream and lake "Requ'est City to identify any other
wildlife and_aquatic shoreline to,allow.establishment of more extensive `corrparableresidential project where this
species communities of indigenous vegetation to intercept light mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's
and glare discussion olSO ar IOO foot.buffers
contradicts adopted code of25foot buffers
, and would not be=a valid SEPA condition.
a SEA 1412494v1262664 33.
n H
A i
3�
O ,
Q1
O
ili i IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
O
Direct disturbance of Provide 50 to 100 foot.buffers on stream and.lake See Applicant'iDEIS comment letter at§3.4
a • wildlife and aquatic shoreline to allow establishment of more extensive (21-24). Request City to ident any other
s species from residents or communities of indigenous vegetation to buffer comparable residential project where this
el ' public using public access ;disturbance and allow public"access further from the mitigation was imposed. Further,DEIS's
b facilities shoreline , , , discussion of 50 or 100 foot buffers
a contradicts adopted code of 25 foot buffers
and would not be_a valid SEPA condition.
A Impacts of docks on Prohibit docks,require use of mooring buoys or floats at Request City toldent051 any other
juvenile salmonids _a distance from near shore habitat comparable residential project where this
mitigation:was imposed Further,DEIS's
discussion ofprohibiting docks contradicts
' adopted SMP and would not be a valid SEPA
a condition.
Reduce the number of docks through.shared moorage Request City to identifr any other
comparable residential project where this '
•
mitigation was imposed.. Further, DEIS's
discussion of reduced or shared docks is not
based on adopted SMP and would not be a
valid SEPA condition.
Reduce shading impacts by narrower docks or materials Request City to identify any other
thatallow light penetration comparable residential project where this
mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's
discussion ofnarrow docks or special dock _
materials is not based on adopted SMP and
would not be a valid SEPA condition.
A. SEA l412494vi 26w6=4 34
baL
Z• V
tv b
O
44. V •
a �
m
0 3
cl
a
`° IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN:DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
A
Difficulty of ensuring 'Provide long-term management of shoreline vegetation Applicant will comply with applicable code
3 maintenance of shoreline by an entity other than residents requirements.
nci vegetation
o Transportation
Increase transportation. _.-. .Provide demand management programs including "Applicant will comply.with applicable code
demand from trip ' iniprrAd trans—it and`carpool facilities'and service and -requirements Request City to identify any
A generation " on site and off-site facilities and programs that would other comparable residential project where
provide safe pedestrian circulation to these facilities. ;this mitigationrwas imposed
b :Intersections not meeting ;MitigateLOS impacts'at the 1-405 sorthbound ramp/NE .104uires area widesystein for fair share
a City of Renton level of ;44th Street(Lake Washington Boulevard)intersection contributions. At most;=Barbee Mill would
a service(L,OS).standards ;thr:etigl%an alf: y;steri Ofi ial or signal A,signal is Y be gbligated to pay for only its fair share,
N IRAwar'fante'd based"on the vehicular volumes Mitigate which based on peak hour:trips is minimal.
0, LOS impacts at'the 1-405 northbound ramp(Lake '.Ijequest City to identify any other ,
Washingtonl3oulevard)/NE44th Street intersection with. :comparable'tesidentialpr.oject where this
an all-way stop control and the addition of a northbound mitigation was imposed'-
right-turn lane or a signal.The,intersection meets volume ` '
criteria for':Signal Warrants , ,
Geometric limitations of Move the site access to locations where Lake Applicant Will comply with applicable code
propose railroad crossings .Washington Boulevard and the rails are at about the same requirements.,Ifpublic crossing(s), WOTC
elevation:"This would have some impacts on grading for 'regulations control requiredpublic crossing
on-site roadways on the east side of May Creek features'° .
'na SEA 14t?A94yi,26266.4 35-
?1n
a '
•.• o
2
a
E IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
o Potential safety .impacts at Provide grade separation,which ierrloves potential Applicant will comply with applicable code
a railroad crossings vehicle/train conflicts,but is quite expensive.This may requirements. Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC
be implemented in thefuture to mitigate cumulative regulations control required public crossing
impacts of development of adjacent properties features. This condition is not warranted by
b project traffic contributions and anticipated
o • train volumes
Provide active control designed to provide warning Applicant will comply with applicable,code
devices automatically activated'by train approach and requirements. Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC
may include gates that physically exclude vehicles and regulations control required public crossing
A pedestrians" features.Tins condition is not Warranted by
project traffic contributions and anticipated
'ro - train volumes.. •
o�
a Provide passive control involving signs and pavement Applicant will comply with applicable code
markers and rely on drivers and pedestrians to reccognize requirements..Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC
that a train's and stopping with adequate regulations control required public crossing '
clearance from.the rails features.
Provide for consolidation of existing rail crossing to Applicant will comply with•applicable code
reduce the number of conflict points: `requirements. Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC
regulations control required public crossing
features.
Provide'for a traffic circulation system.to serve Applicant will comply with applicable code
properties west of the railroad to reduce crossings requirements. Ifpublic crossing(s), WUTC
regulations control required public crossing
features.
t-,. SEA 1412494126266-4 '.36
bL
V .
H
a 4
C
e o
3
A
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASITRES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
a
b
Increased , Inabaa mix of on site'aridl Off-site-facilities and " " Applicant:►gill^comply with applicable code
i %. ' pedestrianvehicle programs that would provide safe pedestrian-circulation requirements If public crossing(s), WUTC
•
.57 conflicts regulations control required public crossing
features: , .
° Diffuse ithpactiof new Contribute to'the City of Renton Transportation • ' Applicant will comply with applicable code
trips on the'circulation Mitigation Fee requirements. .
A system
Hazardous Materials - , . ,
b ,,Soil and groundwater ''.'Remove.contaminates,from the Barbee Mill site through 1,57ee Applicant's DEIS comment letter.at,¢3.3
I contamination Model Toxics Control Act cleanup and3;6:_:Cleanups ate governed and
4--„; ,. ,.............,;2 4.,a: regulated by.DOE and not City
Co Address contatainants-frointhe.proposed roadway See Applicant's DEIS commeni'letter at§3.3
through Quendaall:Terminals through;appropriate and 3.`6 ,Cleanups are governed and •
removal,stabilization,or isolation,consistent.with :regulated,by I)OE.and not City.
requirements of the Model Toxics,Controi Act
• aKmp., ., ,,,,,. . «rk . r
Encountering Prtvtde acontaminationandhazardous materials 'See:Appians DEIS comment letter at§3.3.'
:contaminated soil during contingency:plan ,, : and 3.6..Cleanups,are governed and ..
construction 'regulated'by DOE Applicant will comply
with applicable:code requirements.
•
u,
as SEA 1412494y126266.4 37
:1 V
N b
i
r
:
Y O
3
3 O
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
a g .
•
b Visual.Impacts -
•
R ': • • -Reduce.building bulk by reducing building height Request City to identify any other
comparable residential project where this
b mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's"
a discussion.of reduced building height
contradicts adopted code and would not be a
valid SEPA condition. .
A - Reduce building bulk byincreasing setbacks between Request Cityto identify'any other
buildings comparable residential project where this
mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's
o discussion of increased setbacks contradicts
adopted code and would not be a valid SEPA
a
N., condition.
b . . . _ -
Reduce building bulk by varying.building height,bulk, Applicant mill comply with applicable code
.and setbacks requirements .
. Reduce.apparent building,bulk by_design features, Applicant-will comply with applicable code
--materials and color,including sloping roofs,roof detail requirements
'such as-gables and.eave-overharigs and building offsets
Reduce relative building bulk by screening through large Applicant will comply with applicable code
vegetation.This mitigation would not take place for a requirements.
:number of years until vegetation matures.Additional
setbacks for planting areas and a change in proposed
plantings would be required
A
b SEA 1412444v1262464. 38.
`S V
k.'
N i b
O O
O..
-A V
tll
cA
o .
0n
lit
et IMPACTS ` NIITIGATING;MEASURES ID,EN'1JJ IET)IN DEIS BARGEE COMMENT
o
b Light and Glare impacts Incorporate:shielding fiir exterioi lights in fixture - :Applicantwill comply with applicable code
a 'selection requirements.
3 1.
' Design buildings,to avoid glass surfaces that might Applicant will comply with applicable code
b produce,glare.from.sunrefiection - requirements.
' "-'. o ilde a d'Ii tonal`bt f'fens•wit dbiite.vegetation to block' Applicant will comply with applicable code
light:and glare - requirements. .
NoiseA • . . •. ..._ . . ' .
Constriction noise Restrict hours of construction to reduce noise impacts Applicant will comply with applicable code
;o impacts 'during hours when nearby residences would be most • requirements:v: - •
sensitive ..
a
L.o Noise from:pile driving Restrict construction hours of pile driving. Applicaiit,will comply with applicable code
-requirements,s::.. ;•• -
Pre.-dtill=:pile boles to the;maximum feasible depth(depth (pplleant.wiil comply xith applicable code
may be limited by the character of deposits) requirements. • •
Require less noisy pile installation methods,if feasible Applicant will comply with applicable code
given soil conditions,such a§vibrating piles into place, requirements . ,:-
cassiontype piles,auger cast piles or other methods - . •
Construction noise from Provide noise barriers around stationary equipment such Applicant Will,caMply with pplicablecode
stationary equipment as compressors,welding machines,pumps,and similar requirements.. ..
equipirient_that wot�'Ti d'operate`initiituouslyandcould _.-.'"
contribute to steady background noise levels
u,
bS ` SEA 1412494v'26266-4 39
V
N`O ,
_- -
__ —_— ___ _� ___ _—__ -__—_ __ __ I
a ,
o
z
3 A
co
IMPACTS MITIGATING MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN DEIS BARBEE COMMENT
A •
Noise from locomotive Provide at-grade rail crossitigs.that meet a"sealed"•to Applicant will complyy with applicable code
c4 horns qualify for possible Federal Railway Administration requirements:
a �
•
(FRA)designation-ofa"quiet zone"for locomotive horns
llistoric.and Cultural •
b A Resources .
Loss of existing buildings., Provide an interpretive display with images of the Request City to ident j any other
A histaric`i idustrial use of the site,as well as,indicating Comparable'residential project where this
how it reflects the lumber economy and shipbuilding mitigation was imposed Further,DEIS's
heritage,of the area discussion of interpretive dispay is not based
on adopted code and would not be a valid
'' SEPA condition:
000
a Potential disturbance of An archaeologist should monitor the demolition and • Request City to identj any other
archaeological resources construction work near the northeast corner of the site, comparable residential project where this
and if deposits are found,consult with the,Washington mitigation.was imposed. Further,DEIS's
State Archaeologist in determining whether the discussion of monitoring system is not based "
archaeological deposits contained information important .on adopted code.and would not be a valid
to understanding the history of the area and should be SERA condition.
conserved
•
Public Services
Cumulative impacts on Provide parks and fire mitigation fee for cumulative Applicant will comply with applicable code
parks and public services impacts(see Appendix A) - requirements.
d SEA 1412494426266 4 40
ba ti •
H
•
• eY2--o%0
October 8,2003
City of Renton
Development Services Division
ATIN1; Susan Fiala
1055 South Grady Way
Sixth Floor
Renton,WA 98055
•
Re.: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS
Dear Ms.Fiala;
On behalf of the City of-Newoastle, I ern submitting the following comments
including attachments that address our continuing concerns for significant
environmental impacts. City of Newcastle staff has reviewed the applicable
portions of the DEIS prepared by Parametrix and issued by the City of Renton on
or about,September 2,2003. Items of concern include Transportation,Air Water
Animal Environmental Health and Light and Glare:
The City of Newcastle's traffic engineer; Dave Engel-of TPE,.:had requosted:that
both the AM and PM peaks be addressed on specific:routes and at certain
3.5-6 locations., PM peaks were.addressed, however, AM, peaks, were not even
mentioned I would request that:the City of Renton: make the appropriate
amendments to the DEIS:to adequately address.the:concerns of the City of
Newcastle as identified in the copy of the attached letter from Mr. Enger to Mike,
Nicholson on September 30,2003.
Mr.Fritz Timer),Senior Engineer,for the City of Newcastle has alSoreSponded on
the issues and his comments are also attaChed I am alSerequesting,iherewith,
that the EIS address those concerns that he has raised, The address to these
3.5-22 items should be more than a cursory review. Examples of concerns that,have
not been adequately addressed by the DEIS include haal:routes for materials,
being:exported to and from the development site. In the sections on Air and
Environmental Health Lwouid note that dust'from the site and along haul:routes -
could be contaminated with a variety of materials, Le. the fallout plume from the
Asarco Smelter stack covers this area and recent information from;the DOE
indicates the presence of arsenid. When the site is disturbed to what extent will
3.6-7 the applicant mitigate for the arsenic and other industrial pollutants that will
become airborne? Should the eXpOrt of materials from this site be hauled on
routes through the City of Newcastle, what precautions are going to be
implemented to protect these routes from 'blow off' that may contribtite to
degradation of air quality and environmental health? I did riot find an appropriate
CITY 'OF NEWCASTLE
13020 S.F. 72nd Place, Newcastle, Washington 980593030
Telephone:(425)649 4444 Fax (423)649-4363
554-1779-617
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
P
Final-Environmental Impact Statement age 6-132 April 20,04
response to our early questions with regard to haul route and dust issues. Dust
and contamination are addressed only as development site issues and the offsite
impacts are I'm sure inadvertently left out of the analysis. I note with some
interest that is ancillary to the above issues that there is arsenic contamination of
the ground water on site.
When the issue of light and glare or view shed is addressed in the DEIS it is as if
there is not a view of the site from residential properties in Newcastle. It is
almost incomprehensible that the only impacted views are from Mercer Island. I
3.7-1 have attached copies of photos taken from only two locations in the near vicinity
in Newcastle, there could be many more but I think the point is well expressed by
these photos. I am requesting on behalf of the impacted residents and the City
of Newcastle that the DEIS recognize the impact to views not only of Lake
Washington but of the territorial views that in some cases include the Olympic
Mountains. The impact of ambient lighting on the evening and night views
should be considered. Careful attention to conditions with regard to the type of
glazing, non-glare, and placement of structures and reflective materials that may
or may not be used for construction of the project must be a part of the approval
3.8-1 of this project. Please, do not disregard the value added component that view
has for the impacted properties.
The City of Newcastle is not opposed to the development of this site and is on
record with this position. We are, however, advocating for careful, thoughtful and
adequate consideration of the impacts to the neighbors in Newcastle.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment and thank you for your time and
thoughtful consideration of this and the many other comments that you may have
received.
Respectfully Y r
/ 4
/ /I-
Micheal . Nicholson, AICP
Community Development Director
Enc.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental bnpact Statement Page 6-133 April 2004
t
f
1
II
k•
,, it.. ft, 77
;
it
)1 t 1
Y c
A 1 •,,
II • I (,
t f, ,
.l. I Ilk _
i r . • ar N
s' � ' _ -
t. ' f. a . . �!,.
t t 2
/! I. ,k,„
1 r k
■ ,r
**„• l'. • f
1 , ,•�. 1
t
-
..t 1
M. ii
1
t, i i I lir
1 f 1
I .
I.
s
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-134 Apri12004
I 1 lidlt. 7, 4
- 494IIt..•
`♦♦ �IN +
r ft II
f --4 t � %
ft
• r ..rr if.. _ - ..
,.a �V•
_ l _
i ' �l .
f
1
t
1 . --
i;I •- , *, r
I/ c1 s // -
AI' + 4 t
' 1 4 • . -
1,1 • ' / ' i!' $ Ill;
.1 /. 1 • •
'lilj lit it a ..
11�4 42
•i , . i r 1
M
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-135 Apri12004
{ 11111110111 1 11111141Y1':
.,
.1. - .' • - ,.. '.•,it.F:S. - •tr. '.- - , , t'1
et It. it* #0\ . ... • -.:_.‘.. .. ,.,„
. „, ? " r 714
ilp illtilli ," •% , I . .1
4' • t, i r• p,.•`.7
1 ... 1
'�
eib
11
r, 44pit. -4 4
' 4
All
It
� • -
a ...1., ..:0't.,.
NI ♦ L .+ fie^�• � t
i !'. ; •*, to
„4►)P. I
•'
r
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-136 Apri11004
1
w( • !
t f i ,
1
i t•
i *.• i t 1
14.
•t
t •r
i�
t t . -
j '1 ' "°pia.
i ilt ,
r t :,
♦t
•„ . 1
t
, }
•
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-137 April2004
TRANSPORTATION PANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
2223-112"AVENUE N.E.,SUITE 101-BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004-2952
NCTDP K NLgR Pi-Pr..IW.. TELEPHONE(425)455-5320
WM0 H.ENDFK Pt.No.....al. FACSIMILE(425)453-5759
September 30, 2003
Mr. Mike Nicholson
Director of Community Development
City of Newcastle
13020 S.E. 72nd PI.
Newcastle, WA 98059-3030
Re: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS
City of Renton File No. LUA 02-040, EIS, PP, SA-H, SM
Traffic Impacts to the City of Newcastle
Dear Mr. Nicholson:
As we discussed, I have reviewed the Transportation section of the Draft EIS for
the proposed Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat in the City of Renton.
A general correction that should be made in several places in the Transportation
section is that S.E. 64th St. and all the streets to the north(including S.E. 60`h St. and
F the northern segments of Lake Washington Blvd.)are in Bellevue, not Newcastle. The
Bellevue/Newcastle city limits runs along the south side of the S.E. 64`" St. right-of-way
(west of the east right-of-way line of 112t Ave. S.E.). The S.E. 64th St./112th Ave. S.E.
intersection is in Bellevue. However, the Lake Washington Blvd./112t°Ave. S.E.
intersection is in Newcastle. These two intersections are very close together, and
3.5-6 should be analyzed together, as has been done in the DEIS for the PM peak hour.
I have three concerns about the project trip distribution shown on Figure 3.5-5,
the first two of which are related. The first concern is that no site-generated trips are
3.5-7 distributed to S.E. 76th Street_ Secondly, the 9%of the trips distributed to 112t Ave.
S.E. south of Lake Washington Blvd. appears to be too high.
Traffic passing through the S.E. 68t°St./116th Ave. S.E. intersection on the way
to or from Barbee Mill is more likely to use the S.E. 76t°St./116th Ave. S.E. route than
the Lake Washington Blvd./112th Ave. S,E./S.E. 68th St. route. The S.E. 76th St./116th
3.5-7 Ave. S.E. route is about Y2 mile shorter, and would require less travel time for most
users. It appears that most of the 9%should be redistributed to the S.E. 76th St./116th
Ave. S.E. route(perhaps 7%or 8%). A much smaller amount may use the 112t°Ave.
S.E./S.E. 68th St. route(perhaps 1%or 2%).
N300572DE1S1tr
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-138 April 2004
Mr.Mike Nicholson.
Director of Community Development
City of Newcastle
. September 30,2003
Page-2-
My third concern about the project trip distribution shown on Figure 3.5-5 is
•regarding the 25%-of the trips distributed to N.E.440 St,east of Lake Washington
Boulevard. This'is the largest percentage on the edge of the distribution on Figure 3.5-
. 5. I expect that some site-generated.trips would distribute to the businesses in this
area(i.e.'Mcbonalds,etc.). However,it appears that most:of the25%would distribute
. to the.Lincoln Ave. N.E./Monterey PI.N:E./112th FL S.E./114th Ave. S.E:/S.E.•88th
St./S.E.88th Pl./124th Ave: S.E./S.E.89th Pl.arterial route to Coal Creek Parkway
Southeast. The-trip distribution and assignment shown on Figures 3.5-5 and 3.5-6 •
should be extended.to show the site-generated trips expected along.this route. •
As you well know,the,City of Newcastle is in the process of updating its
3.5-8 Comprehensive Plan.-The draft Transportation Element has-been approved, and
formal adoption by the City Council is expected within the next few months. As part of
their work to update the Transportation.Element,Mirai Associates conducted AM and •
PM peak hour analyses of street intersections citywide. The results are summarized in
the draft Transportation Appendix in Table TR-3: Intersection Level:of Service(LOS),-a
copy of which is attached.
Table TR-3 lists.LOS E for.the 2002 AM peak-hour and LOS F for the 2002 PM .
peak hour for the eastbound approach to the Coal Creek Parkway/S.E.89th Pl.
• intersection. Phase II of the City's.Coal Creek Parkway improvement project,which is
currently in the preliminary design stage,would widen and signalize the S.E.89th P1.
intersection. This project is:described in the draft Transportation Appendix in Table
TR-5:Transportation Facility Plan;(2002.—2022);a;copy of which is attached. Besides
extending the trip distribution and assignment to this,intersection,the Barbee Mill
Preliminary'Plat DEIS should Identify any potential impact.(perhaps in terms of site-
generated:.trips;as a percentage of total trips)and.mitigation:,
Table TR-3.elso lists LOS F for both the eastbound and westbound approaches
to the Lake Washing tori'Blvd:!112th Ave.S.E.IS.E..64th St.:intersection during the 2002
3.5-7 AM peak hour:'We'believe'that this'LOS.F on Lake:Washington Blvd.is largely due to
increased traffic volumei;'due to'drivers using the'Lake Washington•Blvd./112th Ave..'
S.E..route to_avoid traffid congestion on 1-405.during the AM peak Period. .In order to
improve the LOS at,the,intersection,Table TR-5'also includes a project to install a
traffic signel-at the intersection:
•
• My April.1,2002 letter to you on the'Berbee Mill Mixed•Use.Development ..
transportation:analysis scoping requested analysis of the AM;and PM peak hours. This
letter was transinitted'.to:tile:City.of Rentoryas en attachment.to your December'11,
3.5-6 2002 letter to the City tifiRenton, However;:this Barbee Mill DE1S•includes project:trip•
• generation during the AM peak hour,but does not include intersection traffic volumes
or analysis for.the AM peak hour. Due to the existing LOS F during the AM peak hour
• N3o0s72DElS#r
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-139 April 2004
i
•
•
•
Mr.Mike Nicholson
Director of Community Development •
City of Newcastle
September 30,2003
Page-3-
at the Lake Washington Blvd./112t Ave.S.E./S.E.64th St.intersection,it is particularly
important.that the Barbee Mill EIS address impacts and potential mitigation during.the
AM peak hour at this intersection. The analysis should include the project-generated
trips see percentage of total trips at the intersection.
My April 1,2002 letter on the Barbee Mill Mixed Use'Development transportation
analysis acoping,also requested that the EIS address impacts mitigation of
construction traffic: This Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat DEIS apparently does not •
address construction traffic. The EIS should identify:and discuss truck haul routes for
3.5-22 construction materials and wastes.Measures to mitigate construction traffic impacts,
such as potential trUck haul route restrictions,restrictions on haul hours of operation,
weight limits,and oversize bed routing should be addressed. Other potential
mitigation measures relatedto construction truck:traffic include pavement condition ,-
monitoring and restoration,plans for the transportation of hazardous materials,truck
washing,load covering, and spill,prevention and clean-up.
•
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
&ENGINEERING, lNC:
• 013--
•
•
David H. Enger,P.E.,P.TO:E.
Vice President
DHE:
•
•
•
•
N300572DEJSSltr
• ✓ I--
I _
II
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-140 April 2004
•
I ',
•
•
•
•
•
-1'°"`) • Table TR-3:,Intersection Level of Service(2002)
• AM Peak Hour PM Peak •
' Signalized Intersections Hour Note
LOS Belay LOS Delay
(sec.) (sec.)
Coal Creek Parkway SE&SE 72nd: B 13 B 16
Place
• Coa(:Creek Parkway SE&.SE 79th Place B 15 .; B 12
, Coal Creek Parkway SE&SE 84th Way A. 9 • C • 25
Coal Creek Parkway SE&SE91st Street B 11 •• A 7
• I11440 tg9•0 0 gli4-14AZAWINtie.LIRETIAWERMFAMAI
116th Avenue SE&SE 76th Street A • •. 9 , A 8
116th Avenue'SE'&SE'ti8th•Street D. :..• : •32 B. 14-
116th Avenue SE&SE 88th Street• - A: 8 . A 8
• 133rd Ave.SE(Newcastle Coal Creek)&"" A 9; B 11
SE•72nd Place _
• 134th Avenue SE:&SE 79th Plae�c�� • 'A ' :;.- : 8 '••.. A. , 8'
___ 112th Avenue SE&Lake Washington. F ' >50.,'• C...•; 23 EB approach
- Blvd F >50 .B 12' WB approach
123rd Avenue.SE(North of SE 69th B 15 B 16 NB approach
Way)&SE 69th Way B 14 C 25 ' SB approach
129th Avenue SE&'SE'69(h Way-
C 16 B 15 NB approach
C. 19 F >50 SB approach
WB approach
Coal Creek ParkwayMay&SE Valley (SE May Valley
F >50 C 15 Road is outside
Road
City or
Newcastle)
.^---". Coal Creek Parkway&SE 89th Place . E • , 43 F >50 EB approach
Bolded cells Indicate the areas where LOS;standard is not being met
tihe LOS shown.is'the LOS far minor approach movement(s)only.
Transit . .
ISing County Metro(KCM)provides public transportation services in the City. Three
routes 114,219 and 240,serve the residential areas, Route 240 provides local service.
•
on Coal Creek Parkway;connecting Bellevue with.Renton. Route 219 is a
community circulator connecting the communities of Factoria,'Somerset,Newport •
Hills,and Newcastle'. Figure TR-4 shows the transit routes and frequencies.
Approximately half of the City is within the Route 925 Dial-A-Ride-Transit(DART)
service.area..,To use this service,a passenger must make a reservation at least two
• - hours before the trip time.
The Newport Hills Park-and-Ride lot is located adjacent to the City along'I-405 at the
Lake Washington Boulevard interchange area:.KCM Routes 111,167,219,247,
280,342,925,952,and 560 serves this,lot.
•
TRANSPORTATION—Appendix-DRAFT TR-5
•
12-0-02
t n
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-141 April 2004
I
1
• I
Transportation •
•
• Facility Plan(2002—.2022)
Based on the 2022 traffic forecasts and the level of service analysis and standards,the
Transportation Facility Plan for 2002-2022 was developed. The transportation
.improvements in the Facility-Plan are described in Table TR-5. ,
Table TR-5r,•Transportation Facility Plan(2002-2022) 1
Project Description Street Priority Estimated
Classification Cost
'
Widen Coat Creek Parkway from:SE 72rid Place to • ,
May Creek Bridge to 4/5-lanes with pedestrian and
' bike facilities,curbs,gutters,and sidewalks. Signals
are included at commercial driveway in the vicinity of .Principal Medal High Priority $14,800,000
NE70th•St.,133rd Avenue NE,SE 84th Way,SE
-- "›. 89th Place and SE May'Valley Road„Replace May , ,
Creek Bridge, (Phase II and Phase ill)-
Inp stall as signal in the CCP commercial area for Principal Arterial 'High Priority , $250,000
Reconstruct 136th Avenue SE from SE 79th Place •- Neighborhood
SE to 135th Avenue SE.with a,curb,gutter,and ConeWor High Priority $3,900,000
sidewalk on one side shared bicycle facilities. ,
•
. ` Maintain the Pavement'Managernent System(PMS)
'and provide street overlays: Oily-wide High Priority at,000uoo •
•
implement Neighborhood Traffic Control Plan. city-wide High Priority $400,000
.Construct a new Transit Center in the vicinity of Coal ,
Creek Parkway/SE 72nd.Place. Cilyavtd'e Fligh Priority s' $8,750,000
+4''I4 �C+P X'S°`�•' x..'Si^�w%,t"i�:Yj--M> •^.;i:ey2tr..t w'5' t� ,};,t�"'h�� .)r'-•'F"r••'--e5^*^a,. ii;C:;:;•=r.w...«.._y..
. . reair't t; 'S�.�','�:4115 it .1:.7.1.�ifil#:!3;:+�'�ie rt'.��'S C;p.....` •.�„P4--i�at,02.>13,,f` t; ;11).,1,47,,.,::;J%_"..•:.:...
install at the;intctionof Lake i
Wrier Arterial Medium Priority r $150,000
-- .a sgna erse
Washington Blvd:and 112th Avenue-SE. , :
-install a signaland add him taxies at the SE 69th o ii
Way/116th Avenue SE intersection MtnorArterial• lJled;um:Pdority 1 . S125,000
install a signal at the SE'69th Way/12 •
9th Avenue SE •Miner merle, .Medium priority�t'' , $125,000
Intersection:
Widen:the,eest side shoulder on Lake Washington i
Boulevard.from SE 64th Street to City limit for Minor Arterial Medium Priority f $500,000
•pedestrians and bicycles. 1
Upgrade And widen,112 h Avenue SE from SE.04th ° 1
Street to.SE,68th Street to,three lanes.and add I
curbstgutters,sidewalks,and bicycle lanes on both MlnorArteriai, Medrcrm.Prionty; $1,600,000
• sides of the•road.• .. .
Upgrade and widen SE 68tkStreet/SE;691h Way, . .. i 1
from 112th Avenue SE to 129th Avenue SE to three Minor Arterial Medium Pdon'ty $s,700,ttoo
lanes and add curbs,gutters,sidewalks;end bike
Janes on both'side's of the roadway. i
-Upgrade 110th Avenue SE from SE 84th.Street to
SE 88th Street'and 112th"Place SE frarri the west •
city limit1 to .16th Avenue SE with bike lanes,curbs; Minor Arterial Medium Priority i $1,000,000.
gutters,and sidewalks..Add tefttum lanes at key • •
intersections. Signalize the,intersection of 116th. .• .
I
TRANSPORTATION—Appendix-DRAFT' TR-9
12•402
I
,
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779 017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-142 April 2004
I
•
. �
1 cA 5`V
CITY OF NEWCASTLE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Nicholson,Director.of Community Development
FROM: Fritz Timm,Senior Development Engineer •
'7
DATE: October 10,2003
RE: Barbee Mill Draft Environmental Impact Statement
•
❑Urgent ❑Action Needed /1 For Your Information ❑Comment
After reviewing,the Draft EIS document.tor the,proposed Barbee.Mill Preliminary
Plat;there are several remaining issues that should be'addressed. Some of
these issues were addressed in prior comments from Newcastle,.but I would;
appreciate efforts to mare completely.address these impacts. •
3.6-7 Under the Environmental•Eleents;Ai
r ir-Section;we.would like to have the_
construction.impacte,analyzed to.include discussion of construction-duet and
construction haul routes on the environment and on the citizens-of Newcastle.-
3.5-22
In:general wind directions_in this area are northeasterly. This brings.dust
generated on the site in.the:direction of Newcastle.. Standard dust control;best
management practices.tend to.be=less than.sufficient to control dust on larger
sites such as this project, Will standard dust,control practices.provide sufficient
protection for Newcastle residentsiand property? Will existing pollutants ihthe
soils on the site be disturbed in•sufficient'quantities.so as to cause.concem for •
Newcastle residents?,:Howwill monitoring be,performed to.,quantifythe
adequate mitigation of the potential impacts from a.project as largeasthis on
Newcastle citizens?`
•
3.6-7 Many of the haul rat tes:that may be in use during construction pass through or •
are directly adjacentto,Newcastle.:Please.address these haul routes•and the
potential hazards that may impact Newcastle citizens: Potential mitigations•
could include dust and contaminant stabilization on site, identificatiorrof haul
routes that avoid undue impacts to.population centers;and requirements to
cover-construction material and debris'hauling:vehicles.
Again;Within the Environmental Elements;Environmental Health Section,we are
concerned about the potential to remobilize existing onsite soils thatcontain
hazardous materials in the form.of dust. In the.same.fashion,we are concerned
about spill protection on.materials hauled through or past Newcastle. As we
have expressed I the past,we are concerned about the potential for construction
noise impacts on Newcastle citizens. The noise analysis.in the Draft EIS-does
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-143 April 2004
Barbee Mill Mixed Use Development Project- EIS Scoping, 'Page 2
• deal with the onsite impacts from noise per the state statutes. However,'we are ,
3.9-2 still concerned about the noise of truck traffic in and around'Newcastle'
generated by'the.Barbee Mill site. Potential mitigations for this issue could
include limits on construction-haul hours.
•
Under the Environmental Eleements,Transportation Section,a very good analysis.
of.The Draft EIS is.included in the letter written by Dave Enger,on,our behalf,
dated September 30th,2003. However,there are a few additional concemsthat•
3.5-6 we would be pleased to have addressed. Dave mentioned our.concern
regarding AM peak:hour.traffic.. Please.address_this concern. We would like to
express.additional concern regarding.the:potential for 1-405 bypass.traffic in
several directions:through Newcastle. Given the current AM peak hour
congestion on 1-405;wefeel:that inost•of not all construction'and long term site
generated traffic will bypass 1-405. This creates significant additional stress on a
transportation system that is already in failure. This bypass is not.reflected in the.
3.5-23 • site generated trip distributions included in the Draft EIS. Bypass routes that
should be addressed'include traffic proceeding north on-Lake Washington
Blvd:/.112th Ave SE,to enter 1-405 at 112t,and also proceeding further north _
through the Newport Hills area of Bellevue,•to the Coal Creek Parkway.
interchange. As drivers become familiar with the congestion'and potential
bypass routes available;'they will make use of them,adding,to the already
significant problems addressed'in Pave Enger's letter.
.If you have any"questions,:pleasefeel free to contact us. •
•
-
•
•
I ' 4
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 6-144 April 2004
i
7. DISTRIBUTION LIST
City of Renton Federal Agencies
City Manager US Environmental Protection Agency
Community Development Services US Department of Fish and Wildlife
Public Works,Traffic NOAA Fisheries
Public Works, Surface Water Management Non-Government Organizations
Public works,Development Services Renton Chamber of Commerce
Fire Renton Historic Society
Police King County Audubon Society
Local and Regional Agencies Washington Environmental Council
King County Dept. of Development and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Environmental Services Libraries
King County Metro Transit Renton Public Library
King County Surface Water Management King County Library,
King County Dept. of Transportation Bellevue Regional Library
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Seattle Public Library
Tulalip Tribes
Media
City of Newcastle
Seattle Times
City of Bellevue Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Eastside Journal
Puget Sound Regional Council South County Journal
State Agencies Renton Reporter
Dept. of Community, Trade and Economic
Development
Department of Ecology
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Transportation
Office of Archaeological and Historic Preservation
Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission
Department of Natural Resources
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017
Preliminary Final-Environmental Impact Statement Page 7-1 May 2004
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
I i
1
I '
APPENDIX F
Revised Floodplain Analysis Technical Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix F
Floodplain Analysis Technical Report
Prepared for
City of Renton
Planning and Building and Public Works
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,Washington 98055
Prepared by
Parametrix
5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE, Suite 200
Kirkland,Washington 98033-7350
(425) 822-8880
www.parametrix.com
April 2004
Project No.554-1779-017(02,02)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. METHODOLOGY 3
2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS 3
2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY 3
2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS 3
2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport 3
2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling 4
2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS 5
2.4.1 Hydraulic Model 5
2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping 9
2.5 IMPACT AND MITIGATION EVALUATION 10
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 13
3.1 HISTORIC DELTA 13
3.1.1 Channel Morphology 13
3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION 13
3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 14
3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions 14
4. IMPACTS 15
4.1 SCENARIO 1—NO LEVEES OR FILL 15
4.2 SCENARIO 2— 50-FOOT SETBACK 15
4.3 SCENARIO 3— 100-FOOT SETBACK 17
4.4 PROPOSED BRIDGE 17
5. MITIGATION 19
5.1 . MITIGATION SCENARIO 4 19
5.2 MITIGATION SCENARIO 6 19
6. REFERENCES 21
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-i Apri12004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF FIGURES
F-1 Project Vicinity 2
F-2 Barbee Mill Reach Existing 100-year Floodplain Based on Future Flow Rates 11
LIST OF TABLES
' I
F-1 Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows 3
F-2 Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results 4
i
F-3 Summary of Bridge Geometry 6 '-
F-4 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness 7
F-5 Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness 7
F-6 Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages 9
F-7 Comparison of 1995 FbMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results 9
F-8 Increases in 100-Year 'Floodplain Depth with Setbacks 16
ATTACHMENTS
A Hydraulics Support Documents—Results
B Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents
C Manning's Roughness Coefficient Documentation
D Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation
E Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results
•
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-ii April2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report I
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
cfs cubic feet per second •
EIS environmental impact statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program -FORTRAN
mm millimeters
NAVD North American Vertical Datum
RM river mile
USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
WSE water surface elevation
yr year
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-iii April2004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
! '
iyi
I
I � ;
!
1 '
1. INTRODUCTION
This floodplain analysis was undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
proposed redevelopment of the Barbee Mill site (Figure B-1) on Lake Washington to accommodate
approximately 115 residential units. As part of the sawmill operations, the May Creek Delta, which is
adjacent to the site,has been periodically dredged since the mid-1950s to maintain water depth for storage
of logs in Lake Washington adjacent to the sawmill and to reduce site flooding. These dredging
operations artificially increased the gradient of the stream and deepened the channel at the mouth.
Periodic dredging is expected to end as a result of replacement of the sawmill with residential
development. Ending dredging is expected to result in aggradation and delta formation at the mouth of
May Creek. This floodplain analysis was conducted to evaluate the geomorphological aspects of the
stream and the floodplain, and to estimate potential floodplain and flooding impacts associated with
proposed development alternatives.
Two different approaches were used in this evaluation. Sediment equations were used to predict changes
in delta levels (aggradation/degradation) due to changes in dredging operations. In addition, a floodplain
analysis was performed to map the extent of the 100-year floodplain under estimated future delta and
channel elevations and flow conditions.
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-1 April2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
i
. 2
5
•
/ 1 -
1 I
405 522 I__f
IV .&,,-' .4
0\.sic..
DUVALL -
:„
:,.;,r,:,. 202
/ ,
•
''�'';':',.:1%.; REDMOND
,,,,,,:,;,,„ws-, -.. ..,T / k ,-- --- _ i
l.ci,.r
•
'fr;' "" i'l','''r KIRKLAND
:" > ,.
I iw , : 203 !
�8.;r 20,,4;x; �g; ryr:,
F
SEATTLE .s.y},',;: utl, :;. ,4,o,!,,, ` i
Lake ,.;t:. .4evor`y,M:
.. :.. Z :�-� 90 ,. . ,
i " .=r ISSAQUAH
,.,,F,X.!= c.) sa
5<F i
`""4'w."�d riL 6 1 NEWCASTLE
S1.Y tII
RENTON PROJECT 1
405 SITE ''1 H
Parametrix DATE: 07/24/03 FILE: K1779017P01TI4F-1-1-01 -
Figure F-1 •
lir • Vicinity Map , I--;
iI Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat'
1
•
2. METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology used to characterize the affected environment and to evaluate
potential floodplain and flooding impacts of the proposed alternative.
2.1 HYDROLOGY AND STREAM FLOWS
The hydrology of May Creek is typical of Puget Sound Lowland Streams located in an urbanizing watershed
(King County 1995). As part of the Current and Future Conditions Report (King County 1995), a
Hydrologic Simulation Program — FORTRAN (HSPF) hydrologic mode 1 was prepared for the May Creek
watershed. The HSPF model was used to predict flow rates for the 100-year return frequency event at the
mouth. Some measured flows were used to calibrate the model (Table F-1).
Table F-1. Summary of HSPF Modeled and Measured May Creek Stream Flows
Description Flow Rate(cfs) Method
Mean Annual Flow 25.6 Measured
1990 Flood Event 598 Measured
FEMA 100-year Flow(FEMA 1996) 870 Modeled
Current 100-year Flow(King County 1995) 835 Modeled
Future 100-year Mitigated Flow(King County 1995) 1,059 Modeled
Source: King County(1995).
Peak flood flow discharges have increased an estimated 30 to 50 percent in the May Creek canyon and
mouth (King County 1995). As shown in Table F-1, the HSPF predicted flow rates under future mitigated
conditions are higher than existing and historic flow rates for the same return frequency storm event. This is
due in part to the ongoing and predicted future development and urbanization of the May Creek watershed,
which results in an increasing amount of impervious surface area within the watershed.
2.2 GEOMORPHOLOGY
The geomorphology of May Creek within the project area was determined based on review of existing and
historic topographic maps of the area and a site visit conducted in April 2003. The proposed alternative is
located on the May Creek Delta.
2.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
The frequency and duration of the increased peak discharge rates has increased sediment transport rates,
which are influenced by the magnitude, duration, and frequency of flood flows and the supply of sediment
available to transport. The May Creek channel adjusts to increased flood flows by bank and bed erosion
• creating a wider channel.
2.3.1 Historic Sediment Transport
Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 lowered Lake Washington water level by nine feet
to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of May Creek's lower channel, which caused
incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic May Creek Delta. This shifted the train
deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake. Subsequent placing of fill material and
the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the channel,resulting in high ground similar
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-3 April2004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
I
' I 1
to levees along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to the east bank. These levees concentrate 1 1
flow in a fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment transport capacity because all of the stream
energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill over the west bank,the flood height could ;
only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill across the delta toward the lake. This, along
with the relatively low gradient caused by the lake backwater effect(and the presence of bridge foundations),
would limit the sediment transport capacity during flood events. ,
, 1
Aggradation is expected where the May Creek channel flows across the delta because of the abundant
upstream sediment supply, increased peak flows to transport the sediment, and the low gradient across the
delta. Historic dredging operations have annually removed an estimated 2,000 cubic yards of sediment at the
mouth of May Creek downstream of the lowest bridge,where a river mouth bar would naturally build(King
County 2001). '
1 1
Aggradation at the mouth leads to a backwater condition upstream that controls the flow gradient and
sediment transport capacity of the delta channel. With regular dredging at the mouth, the backwater effect
would be temporarily lessened, and some short-term incision upstream would be expected. 1
Without dredging, the river mouth bar would remain and expand laterally, and the channel would adjust by
aggrading. In addition, the expanding bar would eventually limit (or block) flow at the channel mouth, , -
causing flows to shift to either side and further distributing the sediment. Wind and boat-wake-formed ,
waves would further redistribute the river mouth sediment along the shore. The waves would also limit how
high the river mouth bar could build. The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than a few
feet above the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the Delta would be equal to the ' I,
winter lakes level(el. 16.9),which is approximately 1 ft higher than the existing channel bottom.
Surveys of the May Creek channel on the delta conducted in 2002 (Otak 2002)indicate that the bed elevation
has incised approximately 2 feet upstream of the main bridge, and about 0.5 foot downstream of the main i
bridge relative to the survey conducted in 1993 (INCA 1993). These differences indicate the potential for ,
grade changes in the lower May Creek channel. A grade control structure at the stream gage at the BNSF I
bridge controls the upstream incision,but lateral migration and bank erosion of stored alluvium are the main I
source of the gravel and cobbles present within the project area.
2.3.2 Sediment Transport Modeling
i
Based on field observations, there is a transition in the bed surface substrate from sandy gravel to sand 1
within the proposed alternative stream reach. Flood flows can easily transport the sand through the May j
Creek channel,until the transport is influenced by the lake backwater effect(lower bridge). However,based
on sediment transport modeling and literature information(Andrews 1993), gravel and cobbles would not be i
expected to be so easily transported to this point(Table F-2). 1 -i
1
Table F-2. Summary of Sediment Transport Model Results
Mobile Particle Size(cm)
i
Flow Rate Cross Section 4a Cross Section 9a
25 cfs(mean annual flow) 0.01 1.0 ,
2-year flow(391 cfs) 4.8 5.3 I
589 cfs(1990 flood) 4.5 7.0
1,058(100-year flow) 3.4 12.0 '
Source:Andrews(1983).
a See Figure F-2. —
1
I
CO)of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) '
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-4 Apri12004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report 1—!
I
l
The predicted mobile sediment size at cross section 4 decreases at greater flow rates due to backwater from
the lowest bridge (Attachment B). During the largest floods, the gravel and cobbles move and form a layer
in the delta deposits beyond the river mouth. This layer is typically covered by sand during base flows and
small magnitude floods, giving the May Creek Delta layering.
Limited surface samples and pebble counts were obtained in the vicinity of the May Creek Delta as part of
this analysis (Attachment B). Surface samples collected from the upstream end of a channel bar are
considered to be representative of the sediment that is transported in the May Creek canyon and delivered to
the delta (Attachment B). Based on this sampling, it was estimated that sand makes up about 24 percent of
the river alluvium. The sand is derived from the stored alluvium along the channel and from erosion
occurring further up May Creek Valley.
A surface pavement of coarser material is indicated by pebble count Sample MC-4 (Attachment B). The
surface pavement varies across the channel and along the channel, but the upstream Sample MC-4 and the
pavement pebble count across the delta channel are both considered to be typical of the surface substrate.
When May Creek stream flow reaches Lake Washington,backwater effect flow velocity is lowered,resulting
in a substrate composed of sand (Attachment B). This sand is typical of the lower river starting
approximately 75 feet upstream of the last bridge and extending into Lake Washington.
2.4 FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS
The proposed alternative study area extended from Lake Washington (RM 0.00) upstream to the railroad
bridge (RM 0.22). The floodplain associated with the future 100-year mitigated flows was mapped in this
location to evaluate the potential for flooding on the site, and to evaluate potential setback and mitigation
alternatives. The 100-year floodplain is defined as the area inundated during a storm event with a 100-year
return period, or the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation in any given year.
2.4.1 Hydraulic Model
The floodplain associated with May Creek in the study area was mapped using a HEC-RAS hydraulic model
(USACOE 2001) and Parker sediment equations. HEC-RAS uses a one-dimensional energy equation to
calculate water surface profiles using steady flow equations (USACOE 2001). The model has basic data
requirements for geometric data and steady flow data. Geometric data used for the study area reach included
river system schematic data, cross section geometry and downstream reach lengths,bridge data, and energy
loss coefficients. The steady flow data included flow regime, boundary conditions, and discharge
information. The basic data requirements are discussed in detail in the following sections.
2.4.1.1 Geometric Data
River System Schematic
The study reach included a total of 1,125 lineal feet of channel. The river stationing for the model started at
the confluence of May Creek and Lake Washington(RM 0.0),with the stationing increasing in the upstream
direction.
Cross Section Geometry and Downstream Reach Lengths
Channel cross sections define the flow area of the river. Cross sectional data includes ground station and
elevation points that define the channel and overbank areas. The cross sectional geometry was developed
using a topographic survey conducted by OTAK(OTAK 2002). Vertical datum for the mapping and HEC-
RAS model is NAVD 88/91.
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-5 April2004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
For each cross section, the left and right bank stations were assigned to demarcate the boundary between
main channel and overbank flow areas. The bank stations for each cross section were determined using
notes made as part of the OTAK survey.
The geometry data between Sections 2 and 9 were manually modified to account for overbank flow on the
northern bank(Figure F-2). The survey data indicated that the northwest bank(levee)was the high point and
that the land generally sloped down from this point to the lake. To more accurately represent flooding
conditions, the cross sections were extended to the northwest at an elevation equal to the bank elevation.
This reduced the amount of flood storage provided in the overbank area, and more accurately represents
flooding conditions at the site.
Cross sections were spaced between 5 and 188 feet apart to represent reaches with different geometric _
characteristics. The model contained a total of 22 cross sections (Attachment A).
Bridges
The lower(farthest downstream),middle, and upper(farthest upstream)bridges were modeled in HEC-RAS.
Bridge geometry was surveyed in the field to a tenth of a foot vertical and horizontal. This information was
verified using the results from a previous study(Table F-3)(INCA 1993).
Table F-3. Summary of Bridge Geometry
Bridge Opening Low Chord Height High Cord Bridge Deck
Width(feet) (feet) (feet) Width(feet)
Lower Barbee Mill Bridge 18.2 20.8 23.0 14
Middle Barbee Mill Bridge 40.6 23.3 25.0 4
Upper Barbee Mill Bridge 28.0 23.8 27.0 38
I '
A new bridge is proposed for the site; however,no design information was provided, so it was assumed that
the bridge would not hydraulically confine the 100-year flow.
Energy Loss Coefficients
The model evaluates energy losses using Manning's roughness coefficient for frictional losses, contraction
and expansion coefficients for transitional losses, and bridge coefficients for entrance and exit losses.
Manning's Roughness Coefficient
Manning's roughness coefficients were estimated for the channel and floodplain using pebble counts, field j -
observations, and the USGS methodology for estimated hydraulic roughness (USGS 1989). Pebble counts
were performed at two sites within the study reach by measuring at least 100 particles for each site and are
generally representative of the overall stream roughness (Wolman 1954; Leopold 1970; Bunte and Abt
2001). The results of the pebble counts indicate that the stream has a very course gravel substrate in the
upper portions of the site and a sandy substrate in the lower portion of the site, downstream of the lowest
bridge.
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-6 April2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
Overall channel*and overbank roughness values were estimated for the model using the equation from the
USGS methodology(USGS 1989):
n= (ri, +n, +n2+n3 +n4)*m
Where:
nb=Base value;channel substrate
n1 =Degree of irregularity
n2=Cross section variation
n3=Obstructions
n4=Vegetation
m=Degree of meandering
The USGS methodology has subcategories for each variable (nb, n,, n2, n3, n4, and m) based on the general
characteristics of the stream or floodplain. Each subcategory has a range of roughness coefficients. The
appropriate subcategory for the study area channel and floodplain were selected using field data and
observations (Tables F-4 and F-5).
Table F-4. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness
Range
Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035
ni Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005
n2 Alternating occasionally The main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005
n3 Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 percent 0.000 0.004
of the cross sectional area
n4 Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01
m Minor Sinuosity=1.04 1.0 1.0
n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.032 0.059
Table F-5. Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness
Range
Variable/Subcategory/Description Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm - 0.028 0.035
ni Minor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in many locations 0.001 0.005
n2 na
n3 Negligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the floodplain 0.000 0.004
n4 small The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations with minor 0.001 0.01
shrubs and grass adjacent to the channel
m 1.0 1.0
n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 0.03 0.054
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-7 April2004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
pir7
'The high values from the USGS method for the channel correspond with the FEMA 1996 roughness values
of 0.06, so this value was used for the channel. A roughness coefficient value of 0.026 was used in cross
sections 3, 2.3, 2.25, 2.15, 2.1, 2, 1, and 0 because the channel is predominately sand substrate in this -
location (USGS 1989). The FEMA estimate of the floodplain roughness was 0.07, which is higher than the
USGS value. The FEMA value was used to estimate floodplain roughness because it is more conservative.
Attachment C provides a complete summary of Manning's "n" values that could be used to represent
potential mitigation scenarios where large woody debris and riparian plantings could increase the channel
and floodplain roughness.
Expansion and Contraction Coefficients
HEC-RAS uses expansion and contraction coefficients to estimate energy loss between cross sections due to
changes in cross sectional geometry. The calculation is based on changes in velocity head. The study reach
was modeled using a contraction coefficient of 0.1 and an expansion coefficient of 0.5, which are the values +,
recommended in the user manual for gradual transitions (USACOE 2001).
Entrance and Exit Loss Coefficients
Energy loss is common at bridges that confine the channel and floodplain. For this reason, the expansion
and contraction coefficient were modified at cross sections immediately upstream and downstream of each
bridge. The contraction coefficient was modified to 0.3 for the cross section upstream of each bridge and the
expansion coefficient was modified to 0.5 at the cross section downstream of each bridge. These are the /
HEC-RAS recommended values for bridges (USACOE 2001).
2.4.1.2 Steady Flow Data
Discharge rates for the future mitigated 100-year return frequency event, which was estimated using the
method summarized in Section 3.1, was used in the HEC-RAS model. A subcritical flow regime was used
for this analysis, which is applicable to calculations for water surface profiles greater than or equal to the
critical depth.
The water surface elevation at the downstream boundary of the hydraulic model was estimated using
USACOE Lake Washington water surface elevations (WSE)measured at the Ballard Locks. The USACOE
WSE on the day of the survey was 21.52 feet, and the OTAK surveyed WSE was 18.43 feet. This
difference, which was due to differences in vertical datum, is 3.09 feet. This information was used to
convert the winter lake level to the project datum to accurately represent the lake WSE during a period in
which a 100-year storm event is likely to occur(November to February). The USACOE regulates the lake -
level, and in the winter the elevation is approximately 20 feet. This estimated elevation was converted to the
project datum,resulting in a downstream WSE of 16.9 feet being used for the modeling.
2.4.1.3 Calibration
The model was not specifically calibrated using a series of measured data. However, anecdotal information
during the 1990 event indicated that the water level nearly reached the top of the bank,but did not flow over.
This 1990 event was modeled,with the model predicting similar results(Table F-6).
FEMA mapped a 100-year floodplain associated with May Creek on the site; however,the FEMA study did
not extend to the mouth of the creek. The FEMA map begins at the upper Barbee Mill Bridge
(approximately RM 0.14) and has a 100-year flood depth of approximately 4.5 feet. The FEMA map shows
a 100-year flood depth of approximately 3.5 feet at the upstream project limit, which is immediately
downstream of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The FEMA map indicates that the existing 100-year
floodplain varies in width and is located to the south of the Burlington Northern railroad spur line that
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-8 ��April2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
i �
services the Barbee Mill. The HEC-RAS model was also run with the FEMA 100-year flow rate to calibrate
the results (Table F-7).
Table F-6. Summary of Modeled 1990 Flood Stages
Cross Section 1990 Flood Elevation Levee Elevation Difference
(feet) (feet) (feet)
8 25.6 ( 26.5 0.9
7 24.9 25.3 0.4
6.75 24.0 25.0 0.9
6.7 24.0 25.0 0.9
6 23.3 24.5 1.2
5 22.6 �-_-_- 23.8 -_- T--�1.2
4.4 21.9 23.0 1.1
Table F-7. Comparison of 1995 FEMA Model and HEC-RAS Model Results
Depth(feet) Width(feet)
Cross Section FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Differencea FEMA 1995 HEC-RAS Difference
11 3.5 6.6 3.1 50 36 I 14
5 4.5 5.9 1.4 70 - 52 I 18
a Depth in the HEC-RAS model was measured from the thalweg,which may explain the difference.
As shown in Table F-7 the HEC-RAS model results for the FEMA 1995 flow rate are similar in width. By
comparing the HEC-RAS results to the FEMA 1995 flow(using the right bank elevations),the HEC model
indicates that the flood stages only exceed the bank in one location, which is die to the influence of the
bridge. This may not have been evaluated in the FEMA model. Therefore, it was concluded that the HEC-
RAS model accurately reproduced the results of the FEMA 1995 floodplain, and the increased floodplain
extent is due to an increase in the 100-year return frequency flow rate(previously discussed).
2.4.1.4 Model Limitations
Deposition of sediment and build-up of bars and bed elevations is a natural feature of deltaic systems. The
HEC-RAS model did not simulate sediment transport and the potential influence this would have on flood
levels. The buildup of the delta was estimated using the methods discussed in Section 2.3. Results from this
analysis were modeled using HEC-RAS to simulate flood levels under future conditions.
2.4.2 Floodplain Mapping
The floodplain depth during the future 100-year return frequency flow was calculated for May Creek in the
proposed alternative reach. The resulting floodplain width was interpolated between cross sections. The
floodplain width on the north side of May Creek (right bank) was estimated to extend to Lake Washington
(Figure F-2). The existing floodplain is described in the affected environment section and was considered
the existing condition for this analysis.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 559-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-9 Apri12004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
2.5 IMPACT AND MITIGATION EVALUATION
The HEC-RAS model was used to evaluate potential impacts associated with a range of development and
mitigation scenarios.
• Scenario 1 - Development would occur on the site as proposed with no levees or fill would be
constructed to protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. I
The middle bridge on the site is removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the
floodplain.
• Scenario 2 —Development would occur on the site as proposed. Levees or fill would be constructed
at a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development
from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site is
removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain.
• Scenario 3 —Development would occur on the site as proposed. Levees or fill would be constructed
at a 100-foot setback from ordinary high water to confine the stream and protect the development
from flooding; dredging operations would be discontinued. The middle bridge on the site is
removed and replaced with a bridge that does not affect the floodplain.
• Scenario 4 -Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be
removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect
the floodplain; dredging operations would be discontinued.
• Scenario 5 -Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be
removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect
the floodplain. Levees or fill would be constructed at a 50-foot setback from ordinary high water to
confine the stream and protect the development from flooding; dredging operations would be
discontinued.
• Scenario 6 -Development would occur on the site as proposed. All of the existing bridges would be
removed. The middle and lower bridges on the site would be replaced with bridges that do not affect
the floodplain. The existing channel cross section would be modified to create a floodplain bench; _
dredging operations would be discontinued.
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) -
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-10 April2004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
1
{/f /4.1 /�/
I i • 'f f Y//,--- l7f/
/x' ` i
l ^' / r i ( r//F /i f!i `i r ,/-r 1 1 / 6, j,/J
`Gfie _ _ t t // �rJIII.
—.. ."._.— •s.^=`�' -—„, -.,_„_,.,. _ %f~ t /'N ;JJ it/1•) / - .`i t ,\• `, _.•_ , - `i I 4%.�'� {/�'�l+/!
/ '' ,/ t 1 '/i /i/,/f//
I I / 1 i +1. /// y,''
Z.( ' i ;n " /i' "/ // /
I
!/° i /I 4 €y U/ /
-- I // J 6 t /'" / /s/ •• / / /
r 1f �,.-.�-- l' i ''' (' f/ f,ar �r•r /�//
, '` LI ITS OF FLOODPL'AIN/ / ,1/ ,/./ hQ 24, ,'
fir._ I s, 1 �;- >.+._- ,� / ��,r
Pc ---•\ ••-.... -- / /' / '5' F,./ 7,1
/ ,
i s /�/ 7 % ,tP j %w > fi ' C
i .... .//i '',...
` t s4W ! vQ-.11",///,;''. ,',., iI I � / • / t' r: t
i ;ry F f / // /1` i \ /RS 6.75 / / . ,: , . X ,` //, // •,%(
I I / // RS/6.74".0!,' 'r. 'r' rYt / // •i/'r
LAKE 1 s ,• , .,,, ( �= r"=� // ,,
=� ,/ .���, ,, 1``1\ ��� X( y /// /;/ LIMITS OF
WASHINGTON 1 /i ,�" �! I RS16:9:I I ` i/. 1 / ' ;/
i /- / /f 'ik, ��x I( , rsu f ,./ FLOODPLAIN
t' / / /# i r l /1 if; /,'% ! MAY CREEK •
IV' } 'i j RS 4.35 t 1'4 ' t �W
r // r/f1 \ 4>ti �sA RS 4.25 /?/I 1}0 i t ` �7 /f/' / V )i • -\ lip iii . ilV ,/•:: iS;(397/ // r -... .,.....,_.....______
/ \ ,, �/
i % 49
0 1 // 7jI3S'4.4 ,',.'/'
i /! J/ /
.p / . 4 --- / 7/
iraAv3 '"ljl�' ; G - - / ///UPPER BRIDGE. ' //r
tRCS 2. t, •"; r •;
\,_ -••- v ,, • • , ` 1 MI• I6DLE,B IR DGE G /
r _ / /
R52.1 ' - '/ \7 / /
f .,./ .�� . . I I f � i
f `�., "
I / ' Z/ , /4/1 ., ,,• 7� \rC /// r ` L_ i
1/
£� _��"�} N 40TH ST
o •
LOWER BRIDGE
,lif,"
Parametrix DATE: 07/D1/03 FILE: K1779017P0IT14F-B-02
Figure F-2
100-YR FLOODPLAIN Barbee Mill Reach
Wi� NO SCALE '—'••'—•••— . MAY CREEK CENTERLINE . 100- r Flood lain
y Floodplain# RIVER STATION IN HEC-RAS MODEL with Future Flowrates
I '
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
,;
11
•
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The May Creek watershed drains the foothills of Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain, and Newcastle Hills.
This study focuses on the lower portion of May Creek including the delta, from Lake Washington to the
Railroad Bridge.
3.1 HISTORIC DELTA
The May Creek Delta is a depositional area that extends underwater in Lake Washington approximately
3,000 feet and extends upstream to approximately RM 0.6. However, I-405 and the railroad bridge limit the
upstream extent of the delta. The delta has been building over approximately the last 13,600 years (King
County 1995). The 1897 USGS quad range maps show the delta as a wetland area, and historically the May
Creek channel would have migrated throughout the delta area. Under natural conditions, streams generally
form a number of distributary channels in a delta (USACOE 1994). The low gradient of the stream in the
project area is influenced by Lake Washington. Construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916
lowered Lake Washington's water level by 9 feet to its present level. This initially increased the gradient of
May Creek's lower channel, which caused incision of the channel into the exposed portion of the historic
May Creek delta. This shifted the main deposition zone of the delta downstream and further into the lake.
3.1.1 Channel Morphology
Subsequent placement of fill material and the addition of streambank riprap on the delta further confined the
channel,resulting in high ground similar to levees along each bank,with the west side being lower relative to
the east bank. These levees concentrate flow in the fixed single uniform channel, and increase the sediment
transport capacity because all of the stream energy is confined to the single channel. If a flood were to spill
over the west bank, the flood height could only get a few feet deeper because additional flow would spill
north and west across the delta toward the lake. This, along with the relatively low gradient caused by the
lake backwater effect (and the presence of bridge foundations), would limit the sediment transport capacity
during flood events.
Historic activities at the Barbee Mill site have affected the geomorphology of lower May Creek by
unnaturally confining it. In addition, since the 1950s Barbee Mill has been dredging approximately 2,000
cubic yards of sediment per year from the mouth of May Creek to allow the mill to continue its operations
(King County 2001).
3.2 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN SUBSTRATE AND VEGETATION
Alluvium in the lower May Creek channel consists of cobbles, gravel, and sand. The channel substrate is
typically sub-round. Based on field observation of the channel, in the proposed alternative reach, there is a
transition from course sandy gravel in the upper portion of the site to predominately sand in the lower
portion entering Lake Washington.
The May Creek floodplain within the proposed alternative site has very little vegetation, as it is primarily
covered with asphalt associated with the Barbee Mill. Some small shrubs, grass, and alders are located along
the tops of the high banks. Trees,understory vegetation, and large woody debris,which are a critical part of
the formative process for stream channel substrate, streambanks, and floodplains, are lacking at the proposed
alternative site.
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-13 April2004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
3.3 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
In general, the 100-year floodplain width and depth are influenced by the three existing bridges, and the
predicted 100-year floodplain would cover most of the proposed alternative site downstream of cross section
9 (Figure F-1;Attachment B).
3.3.1 Hydraulic Restrictions
Hydraulic restrictions occur in locations where topographic features, fill, and/or structures encroach on the
floodplain. In general, as the floodplain becomes more confined, flood depths increase and the erosive
power of the stream increases. Hydraulic restrictions can be either natural or man-made.
3.3.1.1 Natural Hydraulic Restrictions
Natural hydraulic restrictions are defined as locations where the 100-year floodplain is equal to or greater
than the channel migration zone and the channel sinuosity is controlled by the valley. Because the proposed ,I
alternative site is located on the delta of May Creek, which consists of alluvial sediments deposited by the
stream,there are no natural hydraulic restrictions in this reach. -
3.3.1.2 Man-Made Hydraulic Constrictions
Within the proposed alternative study area, three bridges cross May Creek: Lower, Middle and Upper
Barbee Mill Bridges. The fill and structure at each bridge locally confines the 100-year floodplain. In
addition, as previously discussed,the banks along most of the proposed alternative reach have been built up
with fill and are armored with riprap,which confines the creek to a single channel.
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-14 Apri12004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
4. I M PACTS
Flooding and floodplain impacts associated with the 100-year flood event would be influenced by many
factors,including the erosive force of the river,the nature of the material protecting the proposed alternative
development, and the extent of the floodplain. Potential impacts were evaluated by comparing three
proposed alternative scenarios to the existing condition. The 100-year floodplain depths (as measured from
the thalweg of May Creek)were determined for each scenario using the future 100-year mitigated flow rate
of 1,059 cfs (King County 1995 — see Table F-1). The existing condition assumes the existing channel
configuration, delta elevation (which is influenced by the continued dredging operations), and existing three
bridges.
The three proposed development scenarios all assume that dredging has been discontinued(thus allowing the
delta to aggrade at the mouth of May Creek). The river mouth bar would probably not build much more than
a few feet above the typical winter lake level, for this analysis it was assumed that the delta elevations would
be equal to the winter lakes level (elevation 16.9), which is approximately 1 foot higher than the existing
channel bottom. The three proposed alternatives also assumed that the existing middle bridge has been
replaced with a bridge that will not restrict the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the development scenarios
assume the following:
• Scenario 1 —No levees or fill;
• Scenario 2 — The proposed development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 50-foot
setback from ordinary high water; and
• Scenario 3 — The proposed development is constructed behind levees or on fill with a 100-foot
setback from ordinary high water.
4.1 SCENARIO 1 —NO LEVEES OR FILL
Under Scenario 1, the proposed development within the 100-year floodplain, as mapped in the affected
environment section, is susceptible to flooding, erosion, and sediment deposition due to natural channel
processes in a delta. The degree of potential impacts to the proposed alternative is difficult to quantify due to
the stochastic nature of events that result in deposition (channel aggradation), flooding, and channel
migration.
4.2 SCENARIO 2—50-FOOT SETBACK
Under Scenario 2, a levee or fill would be constructed at a 50-ft setback to protect the proposed development
from flooding. It was assumed that the development would be built on a levee or fill high enough to protect
against flooding during a 100-year flood event. This would confine flood flows to a narrow corridor and
result in slightly increased flood stages at most of the cross sections in the model (Table F-8). There is a
strong correlation between development within a floodplain and the level of impact to the stream. Stream
and floodplain hydraulics would be affected in locations where the proposed alternative would encroach on
the floodplain and/or stream channel through the construction of fill or levees. Fill and levees within the
floodplain would impact the hydraulics of flood flows and could reduce the amount of overbank storage and
increase water surface elevations, which in turn could result in upstream and downstream bed erosion
flooding, lateral instability, which results in bank erosion, and channel avulsion, which occurs when the
stream leaves the main channel and forms a new channel in another location. In addition, stopping annual
dredging operations would result in bed aggradation, which would likely increase floodplain elevations.
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-15 Apri12004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
Impacts to aquatic resources resulting from sediment transport,sediment deposition, and scour are addressed
in the Fisheries Technical Report.
I
It was assumed that the project would remove the existing middle bridge and replace it with a bridge that
would not restrict the 100-year floodplain; and it conservatively assumed the other two bridges on the site
would remain with no modifications (the potential benefits associated with the removal and/or replacement
of these bridges is discussed in the mitigation section). The proposed alternative condition also assumes 1
aggradation of the stream channel near the mouth (Attachment A). Increases in flood stages result in
increased channel scour and bank erosion, which could result in impacts to habitat and water quality. -
i
Table F-8. Increases in 100-Year 1 Floodplain Depth with Setbacks
100-year Floodplain Depth 2(feet)
Proposed Alternative Scenario 4
Cross Existing No Setback/ 50-foot Setback with 100-foot Setback with 1
Section Condition3 No Levees or Fill Levees or Fill Levees or Fill
11 7.0 I 7.1 7.1 7.1
10 6.6 I 6.8 7.0 6.9
9 7.4 7.7 8.0 7.8
7 8.0 8.1 9.1 9.0
6 5.9 6.0 6.6 6.5
5 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.8 ,
4 5.1 5.9 6.5 6.3
3 5.9 6.9 _ 7.5 7.3
2 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0
1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
1 Future 100-year mitigated flow(King County 1995)
2 As measured form May Creek's thalweg.
3 Assumes existing channel configuration,delta elevation,and three bridges.
4 Assumes dredging discontinued and that the existing middle bridge has been replaced by a bridge that will not restrict the 100-yearfloodplain. --,
The estimates of stream aggradation are based on the method discussed in Section 2.3. However, because
the site is located on a delta, if the stream is prevented from migrating,potential aggradation would continue
and floodplain depths would eventually exceed the above estimates.
As discussed in the affected environment section, the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The
Army Corps of Engineers Manual (1994) discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge
increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of allowing flood
flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels, the levees can lead to upstream
degradation (bed erosion and downcutting) and downstream aggradation (sediment deposition and flatter '
slope). In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches"can require periodic raising,particularly if
the river is confined artificially to a single channel"(USACOE 1994). In addition,the potential for channel
avulsions upstream should also be evaluated(USACOE 1994).
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-16 April2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
4.3 SCENARIO 3—100-FOOT SETBACK
Scenario 3 is likely to have impacts similar to but slightly less than Scenario 2 (see Table F-8).
4.4 PROPOSED BRIDGE
The main bridge proposed to access the site was independently evaluated (Attachment D). In general, the
proposed bridge does not span the floodplain and would result in some backwater effect during high flows.
This bridge was modeled assuming the modified channel mitigation scenario, and still results in some
overtopping of the right bank during the 100-yr storm event. It is likely that without the modified channel
the bridge, as proposed, would result in more flooding.
•
Ciry of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-17 Apri12004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
•
ji
5. MITIGATION
Potential flooding mitigation measures to protect the proposed development from flooding could include
constructing levees or constructing the proposed alternative on fill at an elevation above the estimated 100-
• year flood level as discussed in the Impacts Section (King County 2001). The model predicts an average
maximum floodplain depth of 1-foot above the ground surface during the 100-yr flood. Therefore, the levee
or fill should be at least 2-feet above the existing ground elevation,to provide 1-foot of freeboard as required
by RMC 43-050.I.3.a. More detailed analysis would need to be performed to evaluate a design. These
mitigation measures could protect the development from flooding. Also, continued dredging at the mouth of
May Creek could be combined with one (or both) of these potential mitigation measures. In addition, all
existing bridges could be removed or replaced with bridges that would not restrict the 100-year floodplain.
However, potential impacts associated with fill placement or levee construction would have to be mitigated
to reduce impacts to the stream. In general, impacts associated with placement of fill in the floodplain and
levee construction could potentially be mitigated by providing compensatory storage. To provide the
greatest benefit to the stream, compensatory storage should be provided at the project site or at a location
immediately upstream. This could be provided at the Barbee Mill site by removing an equivalent volume of
historic fill adjacent to the stream at an elevation greater than the bank and less than the 100-yr floodplain
elevation. Unless sufficient mitigation measures are implemented and maintained, significant unavoidable
flooding and floodplain impacts could occur.
As part of this analysis two mitigation scenarios were further evaluated:
• Scenario 4 -remove or replace the existing bridges with bridges that span the floodplain, and
• Scenario 6 -modify the existing channel cross section to create a floodplain bench.
5.1 MITIGATION SCENARIO 4
Scenario 4 would remove the bridge at Station 6.8 and replace the bridges at stations 4.3 and 2.2 with bridges
that do not encroach on the floodplain. Under this scenario May Creek would still overtop the right bank and
flood flows would spread out over the floodplain and flow to Lake Washington. Therefore, the proposed
mitigation scenario of just removing and/or replacing the bridges would not protect the proposed
development from flooding and a levee and/or fill would be needed. Potential impacts associated with a
levee at a 50-ft setback were evaluated in Appendix E as Scenario 5. As stated above, levees and fill that
confine the floodplain have additional impacts to the stream such as increased flood stages, erosion and
scour. Detailed hydraulic information for this scenario is provided in Appendix E.
5.2 MITIGATION SCENARIO 6
Scenario 6 would include a floodplain bench, in combination with removal and/or replacement of the
existing bridges. It was assumed that none of the bridges would encroach on the floodplain. The proposed
bench would be a flat area adjacent to the right bank approximately 16 to 25 feet wide and would be
constructed at an elevation approximately equivalent to the bankfull elevation of May Creek, (between 1 and
4 feet below the existing grade). It would be constructed by removing material, likely historic fill, from the
floodplain. This would provide additional capacity for flood flows and would reduce shear stress and flood
elevations,which would reduce bed and bank erosion (Attachment E).
In addition, the modified channel cross section would contain the 100-yr future mitigated flows; therefore,
during large flood events floodwaters would not escape the channel to the north. This would protect the
development from flooding, but could have long term effects to stream morphology. In addition, as
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-19 Apri12004
AppendixF-Floodplain Technical Report
previously discussed, in a delta levees may not provide long-term flood protection due to channel
aggradation.
As discussed in the affected environment section, the project area includes the delta of May Creek. The
Army Corps of Engineers Manual (1994) discusses additional problems with levees such as discharge
increasing effects. In instances where levees confine flood events to the channel, instead of allowing flood
flows to escape onto the floodplain and out via overflow channels, the levees can lead to upstream
degradation and downstream aggradation. In addition, levees constructed on deltaic stream reaches "can
require periodic raising,particularly if the river is confined artificially to a single channel" (USACOE 1994).
In addition, the potential for channel avulsions upstream should also be evaluated(USACOE 1994).
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-20 April2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
6. REFERENCES
Andrews, E.D. 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river material: Geological Society of
America Bulletin 94:1225-1231.
•
Bunte, K. and S.R. Abt. 2001. Sampling frame for improving pebble count accuracy in coarse gravel-bed
streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(4):1001-1014.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map, King County,
Washington and Incorporated Areas,Panel 664 of 1725.
INCA Engineers Inc. 1993. May Creek Basin Plan Surveys for EBASCO Environmental,King County, and
City of Renton. Job No. 930120, 3/23/93,by R.G. Hilliard and M.J.DuBray.
King County. 1995. Mty Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. Prepared by Foster Wheeler
Environmental Corporation for King County Department of Public Works - Surface Water
Management Division and the City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department-Surface
Water Utility.
King County. 1999a. Chapter 21A-24, rules and regulations of the department of development and
environmental services, sensitive areas; alteration within channel migration areas. Department of
Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington.
King County. 1999b. Channel migration boundary reassessment study guidelines. Department of
Development and Environmental Services,King County,Washington.
King County. 2001. Final adopted May Creek basin action plan. King County and the City of Renton.
April 2001.
King County and City of Renton. 1995. May Creek Current and Future Condition Report. Prepared by
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. Prepared for King County Surface Water Management
Division and City of Renton Surface Water Management Division.
Leopold, L. 1970. An improved method for size distribution of stream gravel bed. Water Resources
Research 6(5):1357-1365.
Otak, Inc. 2002. Technical Information Report for the Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, King County,
Washington. Report to the Barbee Mill Company. August 27,2002.
USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1994. Engineering and Design - Channel Stability Assessment
for Flood Control Projects. Engineering Manual 1110-2-1418.
USACOE(U.S.Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. Hydraulic Engineering Center-River Analysis System(HEC-
RAS)Version 3.0.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Engineering Center,Davis, California.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural
Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply Paper 2339.
Wolman, G.M. 1954. A method of sampling coarse river bed material. Trans.American Geophysics Union
35:951-956.
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement F-21 Apri12004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
11
I '
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1
I -I
ATTACHMENT A
Hydraulics Support Documents— Results
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
•
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 11 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS= 10
34 07—+—.06 07 � 34 07---> ��.06 07
Legend Legend
32 WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
30 WS 1990 Flood 30 WS 1990 Flood
• _ _ •
Ground Ground
c 28 Bank Sta 28 Bank Sta
o g
co
w 26 w 26
24 24
22 22
20 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS =9 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=8
32 07 — +.06 .07 30 .07x 0 .07 d
Legend 6 Legend
WS 100-yr Future Mi WS FEMA 1996
30
WS FEMA 1996 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
28 Ground Ground
a w 26
Bank Sta Levee
o 0
,...,
,_.
e
26111 m Bank Sta •
w a
u w 24
24
22
22
20 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=7 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6.9
<.o7� k .07 ‹.07�.� .07
28 6 Legend 28- 6 Legend
V V S V
WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
26- WS 100-yr Future Mi 26- WS 100-yr Future Mi
• WS 1990 Flood - • WS 1990 Flood
•
- i J •
- k
Ground - Ground
E. 24- 9 24- L •
Levee - Ineff
•
o - 0 o - to
Bank Sta > - Bank Sta
w 22_ 1 w 22_
20- 20-
- -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS =6.75 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=6.7
.07 .07 d
28 7 6 Legend 28 7 6 Legend
WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 100-yr Future Mi
26 I WS FEMA 1996 26 WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood 1 WS 1990 Flood
Ground r •
Ground
c 24 Levee 24 Levee
o ♦ o e
m I Ineff Bank Sta
aa) 1 ® N
w 22 Bank Sta W 22
20 20
f
18 18
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=6 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=5
e 07 .07>.< 07
28 7 6 Legend 30 6 Legend
WS 100-yr Future Mi 28 WS 100-yr Future Mi
26 WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood 26 WS 1990 Flood
Ground Ground
w 24 w
o Levee 24 Levee
0
T. Bank Sta co
> U Bank Sta
°' 22 °' 22
w w
20
20
18
i
18 16
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=4.4 River= May Creek Reach = 1 RS =4.35
.07 010 j .07
28 7 6O OF' Legend 28 7 6 Legend
26 WS 100-yr Future Mi 26 WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS FEMA 1996 WS FEMA 1996
24 WS 1990 Flood 24 WS 1990 Flood
Ground IMF • Ground
g 22 v v _ _
a Levee c 22 �� Levee
o s o
Bank Sta m Ineff
w 20 w 20 Bank Sta
18 18
16 16
14 14
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS =4.25 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=4.2
.07 1.4 1 .07
28 6 Legend 28 6 Legend
•
WS 100-yr Future Mi WS 100-yr Future Mi
26 WS FEMA 1996 26 WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
24 • •
Ground 24 Ground
c i� ' Levee
0Ile Levee
A
•
22 l�. Ineff 22 Bank Sta
m i ® a�
w I Bank Sta w
20 ! ' 20 1 ,
18 18
16 16
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=4 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=3
.07 e .07
28 !6 Legend 34 7 2 Legend
• 6
WS 100-yr Future Mi 32 WS 100-yr Future Mi
26 WS FEMA 1996 30 WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
24 • •
Ground 28 Ground
Levee c 26 Levee
Ti
22 Bank Sta Bank Sta
0 24
L. w r
20 < 22
20 1
18 I
18
16 16
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS=2.3 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS =2.25
.07 24 0 .07
24 0 2 Legend 2 Legend
6 WS 100-yr Future Mi 6. WS 100-yr Future Mi
22 WS FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996
• WS 1990 Flood • WS 1990 Flood
IGrou▪nd 1 Ground
20 Z 20
c Levee Levee
o ® 2
Bank Sta .; Ineff
a 0
W 18 W 18 Bank Sta
16 y 5 16
14 14
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS =2.15 River=May Creek Reach = 1 RS=2.1
.07 >� .07
24 �2 Legend 24 2 Legend
6 •WS 100-yr Future Mi 6 .- WS 100-yr Future Mi
22 WS FEMA 1996 22 WS FEMA 1996
WS 1990 Flood WS 1990 Flood
■ - - - ■
Ground Ground
w 20 1 w 20 up c r Levee c Levee
o A o G
as Ineff as Bank Sta
a) e a)
W 18 Bank Sta W 18
16 16
14 14
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Station(ft) Station(ft)
River=May Creek Reach=1 RS=2 River=May Creek Reach= 1 RS= 1
26 .07>10k .07 24 07 026— —.07
2 Legend Legend
6 WS 100-yr Future Mi 22 WS 1990 Flood
24 WS FEMA 1996 WS 100-yr Future Mi
WS 1990 Flood 20 WS FEMA 1996
22 Ground 18 Ground
Levee Bank Sta
20 * 1111111111
Bano
k Sta o> 16
w I w
1
18 4
12
16
10
14 8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station(ft) Station(ft)
1
Attachment A Table 1
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1
Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge Geometry=g.01
Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude#
River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) ChI
11 598 1990-flood 22.0 I 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 0.6
11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.0 7.0 i 7.3 R 151.2 42.2 0.6
11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.5 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2 0.6
10 598 21.4 I 26.7 i 5.4 i 6.3 94.5 28.9 I 0.6
10 1,059 21.4 28.0 j 6.6 ! 8.0 135.4 36.6 0.7
10 870 21.4 27.7 6.4 7.0 127.1 35.1 0.6
9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.2 31.1 0.4
9 1,059 20.3 27.7 7.4 5.9 199.6 81.3 0.5
9 870 20.3 27.5 7.2 5.0 186.5 72.7 0.4
8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.4 77.1 0.4
8 1,059 20.0 26.5 I- 6.4 5.4 257.4 110.7 0.4
8 ( 870 20.0 27.3 7.3 2.7 652.4 489.4 0.2
7 1 598 I 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.2 36.7 0.4
7 1,059 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 744.5 558.3 0.3
7 1 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 j 1.7 1,262.8 ! 600.0 0.1
6.9 598 18.3 24.8 i 6.5 5.5 132.6 35.3 0.4
6.9 1,059 1111111111111.111111 18.3 26.4 8.0 3.7 726.1 557.9 0.3
6.9 870 18.3 27.3 8.9 ' 1.7 1,262.8 600.0 0.1
6.8 6 Bridge I
6.75 f 598 18.4 24.0 I 5.6 I 4.7 137.6 42.1 0.4
mm6.75 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 4.1 616.6 589.7 0.3
6.75 870 I 18.4 24.9 6.4 5.8 171.6 58.1 0.4
6.7 I 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.6 42.2 0.3
6.7 1,059 18.4 6.9 3.8 647.5 589.7 0.3
6.7 870 18.4 24.9 r6.5 5.2 202.5 58.6 0.4
6 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 5.7 122.5 50.9 0.5
6 1,059 18.4 24.3 5.9 7.2 173.2 54.7 0.6
6 870 18.4 24.2 5.8 6.1 169.0 54.4 0.5
5 598 I 17.5 1 22.6 ( 5.0 1 4.7 143.7 48.6 0.4
5 1,059 17.5 24.2 6.7 i 3.5 876.4 1,471.1 0.3
5 I 870 17.5 23.5 5.9 I 5.3 188.8 52.0 0.4
4.4 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.9 130.4 49.4 0.5
4.4 1,059 15.3 23.2 7.8 8.0 297.5 560.6 0.6
4.4 870 15.3 22.8 7.5 6.5 179.0 53.8 0.5
4.35 598 15.3 21.7 6.4 1 6.4 116.1 48.5 0.5
4.35 1,059 15.3 23.1 7.8 7.5 174.5 560.6 0.5
4.35 870 15.3 22.5 7.2 7.2 150.8 52.5 0.5
4.3 ! Bridge I i
4.25 1 598 16.7 21.6 4.9 6.2 108.2 45.1 0.6
4.25 1,059 16.7 23.0 6.3 7.4 165.4 53.4 0.6
4.25 870 16.7 22.4 5.7 7.1 141.6 48.1 0.6
4.2 598 16.7 21.6 ( 4.9 6.0 116.8 45.0 0.5
4.2 1,059 16.7 23.0 I 6.3 7.1 I 185.0 53.3 0.5
4.2 870 16.7 22.4 5.7 6.8 I 155.7 48.1 0.5
4 J 598 17.5 21.1 I 3.6 I 6.0 101.1 38.4 0.6
4 1,059 17.5 22.6 i 5.1 6.9 167.1 52.5 0.6
4 870 17.5 21.9 i 4.5 6.8 135.1 43.7 0.6
3 598 16.3 19.9 I 3.7 7.7 79.3 34.7 0.8
3 1,059 16.3 22.2 5.9 7.1 187.0 55.3 0.6
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-7 April 2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
' I
Attachment A Table 1
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1
Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge Geometry=g.01 -
I
Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# _
River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chl
3 870 16.3 21.3 5.0 ( 7.4 ( 139.5 51.7 0.7 '
2.3 598 14.9 19.9 IMII. 6.7 101.7 28.6 0.6 ; i
2.3 1,059 14.9 21.8 6.9 8.2 157.7 WM 0.6
2.3 ; 870 14.9 21.1 6.2 7.6 136.2 MEM 0.6
2.25 598 14.9 19.9 5.0 6.8 100.9 28.6 0.6
2.25 ; 1,059 14.9 21.7 6.9 8.2 156.2 32.6 0.6
2.25 870 14.9 MEM 6.2 7.6 135.9 31.2 0.6
2.2 i Mult Open I 1
2.15 " 598 NM= 19.2 3.7 8.3 80.1 30.0 0.8
2.15 i 1,059 15.5 20.5 5.0 9.9 111130111 0.8
2.15 870 15.5 20.0 4.5 9.3 105.3 31.4 0.8 r
2.1 598 15.5 18.8 3.4 9.2 71.1 29.5 1.0
2.1 ? 1,059 15.5 20.1 4.6 11.1 107.9 IMMIII 1.0 1 __
2.1 870 19.6 4.1 10.4 93.3 30.7 1.0
2 598 16.0 18.7 2.7 77.7 42.2 1.0
2 1,059 16.0 19.6 3.6 9.2 MEM 44.1 1.0
2 1 870 16.0 19.3 3.3 8.6 100.9 C 43.4 1.0
1 E 598 '- 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 0.2
1 _ . 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 0.4
1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 0.3
Jt
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-8 April 2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report t
Attachment A Table 2
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1
Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge Geometry=g.09
Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude#
River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chl
11 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 0.6
11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.1 7.1 7.2 "WM 43.0 0.6
11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.5 1 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2 0.6
10 598 21.4 26.7 I 5.4 I 6.3 94.5 29.0 0.6
10 1,059 21.4 28.2 1 6.8 7.7 142.9 38.8 0.6
10 870 21.4 27.8 i 6.4 7.0 127.2 35.2 0.6
9 I 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.3 31.1 0.4
9 1,059 20.3 28.0 7.7 ? 228.2 114.6 0.4
9 870 20.3 I 27.5 7.3 5.0 188.5 74.1 0.4
8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 ! 4.1 176.5 77.1 0.4
8 1059 20.0 26.5 .._. 6.4 6.3 258.6 482.0 0.5
8 870 20.0 27.4 7.3 1 2.5 685.0 490.5 I 0.2
7 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 1 5.4 136.3 36.7 0.4
7 1,059 ������ 18.3 26.4 8.1 3.7 754.4 558.5 0.2
7 870 18.3 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 600.0 0.1
6.9 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.7 35.3 0.4
6.9 1,059 1111111111111111111111111 18.3 26.4 µ, 8.0 MAN 736.5 558.1 0.2
6.9 870 18.3 27.3 9.0 1.6 1303.2 600.0 0.1
6.8 Bridge ! I I
6.75 598 18.4 L 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.7 42.1 0.4
6.75 1,059 18.4 25.3 $ 6.9 4.0 638.5 589.7 0.3
6.75 870 18.4 24.9 1 6.5 5.7 175.7 59.7 0.4
6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3 0.3
6.7 1,059 18.4 25.3 6.9 3.7 669.3 589.7 0.3
6.7 6 870 18.4 25.0 a 6.5 5.1 207.3 60.2 0.4
6 598 18.4 i 23.3 _ 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0 0.5
6 1,059 18.4 24.4 6.0 7.0 178.1 55.0 0.6
6 870 18.4 1 24.4 6.0 5.8 178.2 55.0 i 0.5
5 598 17.5 22.6 ( 5.0 I 4.7 144.5 48:7 0.4
5 1,059 17.5 24.1 6.6 4.2 I 687.0 1470.9 0.3
5 870 17.5 23.9 6.3 r 4.6 358.6 1470.5 0.4
4.4 598 $ 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6 0.5
4.4 1,059 15.3 24.0 8.7 3.6 754.9 561.1 0.2
4.4 C 870 15.3 23.8 i 8.5 3.4 674.9 561.0 0.2
4.35 598 15.3 21.8 _6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1 0.5
4.35 1,059 15.3 23.9 ; 8.6 3.7 742.8 561.1 0.2
4.35 870 15.3 23.8 I 8.5 3.4 664.1 561.0 0.2
4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8 0.5
4.25 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 4.1 624.7 555.6 0.3
4.25 870 16.7 23.7 7.1 3.8 550.9 555.5 0.3
4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 0.5
4.2 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 4.2 611.3 555.6 0.3
4.2 870 16.7 23.7 7.1 3.9 534.2 555.5 0.3
4 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 0.5
4 1,059 MEM 23.4 5.9 5.8 220.3 127.1 0.4
4 j 870 17.5 23.5 6.0 4.4 364.2 1286.3 0.3
3 I 598 16.3 P 21.1 ° 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 0.5
3 1,059 [ 16.3 23.2 6.9 5.7 245.4 61.5 0.4
3 870 16.3 23.3 7.0 4.5 254.6 63.7 0.3
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-9 April 2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
,
.
Attachment A Table 2
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1
Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge Geometry=g.09
Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# '
River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) ChI
2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 ; 101.3 29.8 0.6
2.3 1,059 15.9 _ 22.4 6.5 8.5 •i 156.5 35.7 0.6
2.3 870 15.9 _ 22.9 7.0 6.4 I 176.1 45.9 0.5
2.25 . 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 j 100.2 29.7 0.6
2.25 I 1,059 15.9 22.4 6.5 8.4 - 154.5 35.7 0.6 i
2.25 870 15.9 22.9 7.0 6.4 I 175.7 45.6 0.5
2.2 ` Mult Open 1 1 1
2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0 0.8 '
2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3 0.8
2.15 870 _ 15.9 20.6 4.7 , 9.1 109.0 32.4 0.8
2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 73.0 30.3 1.0
2.1 - 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 11.2 110.4 32.4 1.0
2.1 870 1 15.9 - 20.2 4.3 10.5 , 95.6 i 31.6 1.0
2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.5 41.8 1.0
2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.3 44.0 1.0
2 870 16.7 19.4 1 2.7 8.7 100.5 1 43.1 Y 1.0
1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 . 0.2
1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 , 495.5 176.7 0.4
1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 0.3
Ir
i
-1
-f
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-10 April 2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
Attachment A Table 3
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1
Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge,50-ft Setback Geometry=g.10
Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude#
River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) ChI
11 I 598 1990-flood 22.0 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 0.6
11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 29.1 Miall 7.1 155.6 43.9 0.6
11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 28.6 6.7 I 6.5 137.2 36.8 0.5
10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 I 6.3 94.5 28.9 0.6
10 1,059 21.4 28.4 7.0 7.3M 42.1 0.6
10 870 21.4 28.0 1 6.6 6.6 136.1 36.7 0.6
9 598 20.3 26.5 6.2 4.4 MEM 31.1 0.4
1059 20.3 _ 28.3 8.0 5.0 246.9 83.2 0.4
9 870 20.3 27.8 7.6 4.6 212.8 82.8 0.4
8 I 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 176.1 76.9 0.4
8 1 1,059 20.0 27.8 7.8 3.6 370.3 103.0 0.3
8 870 20.0 27.5 7.4 ..I 3.2 334.3 93.9 0.2
7 I 598 18.3 24.9 6.6 5.4 136.0 36.6 0.4
7 I 1,059 18.3 27.5 i 9.1 5.0 362.0 126.9 0.3
7 870 18.3 27.1 8.8 I 4.6 318.3 126.9 0.3
6.9 J 598 18.3 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.7 35.3 0.4
6.9 I 1,059 j 18.3 27.4 9.1 111113111111 354.0 126.9 0.3
._ 6.9 f 870 I 18.3 27.1 8.7 4.7 312.4 126.9 I 0.3
6.8 ; Bridge I I I I
6.75 598 18.4 24.0 I 5.6 4.7 137.7 42.1 0.4
6.75 1,059 .111 18.4EM 7.1 6.1 219.5 84.1 0.4
6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 L 5.8 177.2 I 78.5 0.4
6.7 598 . 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3 0.3
6.7 1,059 18.4 25.5 7.1 5.4 256.8 84.2 0.4
6.7 870 I 18.4 _ 24.9 6.5 5.1 208.8 80.3 0.4
6 I 598 18.4 23.3 4.9 J 5.7 122.8 I 51.0 j 0.5
6 I 1,059 I 18.4 25.0 6.6 5.8 236.9 106.8 I 0.4
6 I 870 18.4 24.3 I 5.9 5.9 174.2 54.8 0.5
5 598 11111111111111111111110 22.6 I 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7 0.4
5 1,059 lalliallall 17.5 24.5 I 7.0 I 4.9 276.4 98.2 0.4
5 870 I 17.5 23.6 I 6.1 I 5.1 198.2 53.5 0.4
4.4 I 598 15.3 21.9 I 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6 0.5
4.4 1,059 IIII �I 24.2 8.8 5.6 liniall 71.0 0.4
4.4 I 870 I 15.3 I 23.0 7.7 6.6 188.0 70.3 0.5
4.35 598 15.3 21.8 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1 0.5
4.35 1,059 MEM 24.1 I 8.8 5.6 269.3 71.0 0.4
4.35 870 15.3 22.9 7.6 6.4 185.1 58.6 0.5
4.25 598 16.7 21.8 I 5.1 5.6 R 45.8 0.5
4.25 1,059 111111111111.1111111 16.7 24.1 7.4 5.4 269.5 79.7 0.4
4.25 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 4 5.9 181.1 52.4 0.5
4.2 598 I I 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 I 0.5
4.2 1,059 16.7 24.1 7.4 5.5 267.2 79.7 0.4
4.2 I 870 16.7 22.9 I 6.2 6.0 178.7 51.8 0.5
4 598 17.5 21.4 j 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 I 0.5
4 1,059 17.5 23.9 1 6.5 4.8 273.2 93.5 I 0.4
4 870 17.5 IA 22.6 I 5.2 I 5.6 169.9 , 53.2 I 0.5
3 I 598 I 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 I 0.5
-
3 1,�059 16.3 23.8 I 7.5 5.1 284.4 70.3 0.4
3 870 16.3 22.4 I 6.2 I 5.5 202.7 56.5 J 0.4
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-11 April 2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
Attachment A Table 3 _ (,
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 17 River: May Creek Reach: 1
Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge,50-ft Setback Geometry=g.10
Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Depth Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude#
River Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chi
2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 I.. 6.9 101.3 29.8 0.6
2.3 1,059 15.9 23.1 MEM 7.7 188.7 80.0 0.5
2.3 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 137.3 € 32.7 0.6
2.25 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7 0.6 1
2.25 1,059 15.9 23.1 7.2 7.7 185.7 79.6 0.5 1
2.25 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 136.3 32.7 0.6
2.2 Mull Open J
2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0 0.8 ! l
2.15 1,059 15.9 21.2 5.3 9.8 124.6 33.3 0.8
2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1 109.0 32.4 0.8
2.1 598 1 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 72.8 1 30.3 _... 1.0
2.1 1,059 15.9 20.7 4.8 11.1 110.4 32.4 1.0
2.1 870 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.6 31.6 1.0
2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.4 41.8 1.0
2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0 1.0
2-11- 870 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 100.5 43.1 1 1.0
1 598 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 176.7 0.2
1 1,059 I 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 0.4
1 870 I 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 176.7 0.3
-7
I
I I
I ;
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-12 April2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
Attachment A Table 4
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 22 River: May Creek Reach: 1
Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge, 100-ft Setback Geometry=g.06
River Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude#
Sta • (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) Depth(ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chi
11 598 1990-flood 22.0 ; 27.6 5.6 5.9 101.5 30.4 0.6
11 1,059 100-yr Future 22.0 i 29.1 7.1 7.2 153.7 43.2 0.6
11 870 FEMA 1996 22.0 1 28.6 6.6 6.6 135.8 36.6 0.6
10 598 21.4 26.7 5.4 6.3 94.4 28.9 0.6
10 1,059 21.4 28.2 6.9 7.6 144.5 39.5 0.6
10 870 21.4 27.9 6.6 6.7 133.5 36.2 0.6
9 598 I 20.3 , 26.5 6.2 4.4 137.1 31.1 0.4
9 1,059 20.3 3 28.0 7.8 5.4 235.1 114.6 '0.4
9 870 20.3 1 27.8 7.5 4.8 205.2 89.6 0.4
8 598 20.0 25.6 5.6 4.1 175.8 76.8 0.4
8 1,059 20.0 27.6 7.6 3.6 412.6 146.0 0.3
8 870 20.0 27.4 7.4 3.2 382.4 142.6 0.2
7 598 18.3 L 24.9 6.6 5.4 135.7 36.5 0.4
7 1,059 ~ ., 18.3 27.3 9.0 4.5 440.9 176.9 0.3
7 ; 870 I 18.3 27.2 8.8 3.9 414.4 176.9 0.3
6.9 L 598 18.3 j 24.8 6.5 5.5 132.4 35.2 0.4
6.9 I 1,059 18.3 27.3 8.9 4.5 433.6 176.9 0.3
6.9 870 18.3 27.1 8.8 ' 4.0 409.0 176.9 • 0.3
6.8 I Bridge I
6.75 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.7 137.5 42.0 0.4
6.75 1,059 18.4 25.4 7.0 5.8 261.7 134.1 0.4
6.75 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.7 197.3 128.1 0.4
6.7 598 18.4 24.0 5.6 4.2 160.7 42.3 0.3
6.7 I 1,059 18.4 25.4 7.0 5.2 298.8 134.1 0.4
6.7 870 18.4 24.9 6.5 I 5.0 229.7 129.7 0.4
6 598 18.4 23.3 I 4.9 5.7 122.8 51.0 l 0.5
6 1,059 18.4 24.9 6.5 5.9 243.4 156.5 0.5
6 870 18.4 24.3 ! 5.9 6.0 172.0 54.6 0.5
5 598 I 17.5 22.6 5.0 4.7 144.5 48.7 0.4
5 1,059 17.5 24.4 6.8 5.0 291.6 148.0 0.4
5 870 17.5 23.6 6.0 5.1 194.7 52.4 0.4
4.4 598 15.3 21.9 6.6 5.8 132.7 49.6 0.5
4.4 1,059 15.3 24.0 8.7 5.6 315.7 121.0 0.4
4.4 870 15.3 23.0 7.6 6.4 187.4 60.5 0.5
4.35 598 15.3 21.8 a 6.5 6.1 127.0 49.1 0.5
4.35 1,059 15.3 T 24.0 8.7 5.7 310.0 120.9 0.4
4.35 870 15.3 22.9 7.6 6.4 185.5 59.0 0.5
4.25 598 16.7 21.8 5.1 5.6 127.1 45.8 0.5
4.25 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.3 5.5 299.5 129.5 0.4
4.25 I 870 _ 16.7 22.9 6.2 5.9 181.2 52.4 0.5
4.2 598 16.7 21.7 5.1 5.7 124.1 45.6 0.5
4.2 1,059 16.7 23.9 7.2 5.5 294.7 129.5 0.4
4.2 I 870 16.7 22.9 6.2 6.0 178.7 I 51.8 0.5
4 3 598 17.5 21.4 4.0 5.4 114.2 40.2 0.5
4 1,059 1 17.5 23.8 6.3 5.0 277.4 ' 143.0 0.4
4 870 . 17.5 22.6 5.2 I 5.6 169.9 53.2 0.5
3 598 16.3 21.1 4.9 5.3 132.9 51.2 0.5
3 1,059 16.3 23.6 7.3 5.3 270.2 67.2 0.4
3 870 16.3 22.4 6.2 5.5 202.7 56.5 0.4
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-13 April 2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
1-
•
Attachment A Table 4
HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 22 River: May Creek Reach:1
Proposed Conditions,Aggredation and No Middle Bridge, 100-ft Setback Geometry=g.06
I
River Q Total Min Ch El W.S.Elev Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude# i -I
Sta (cfs) Description (ft) (ft) Depth(ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Chl
2.3 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 6.9 101.3 29.8 0.6
2.3 1,059 I 15.9 22.9 7.0 7.8 176.0 45.8 0.6 !
2.3 870 15.9 21.8 5.9 11116011111111MINIEEEN 0.6
2.25 598 15.9 20.7 4.8 7.0 100.2 29.7 0.6
2.25 1,059 _ 15.9 22.9 7.0 7.9 174.7 45.1 0.6
2.25 870 i 15.9 21.8 5.9 7.7 136.3 IIMMI 0.6
2.2 I Mult Open MIIIIII ME=
2.15 598 15.9 19.9 4.0 8.0 84.9 31.0 0.8
2.15 1,059 11111111111111111111111111 15.9 IIIMINIIIIMIll 9.8 124.6allina 0.8
2.15 870 15.9 20.6 4.7 9.1 109.0 32.4 0.8
2.1 598 15.9 19.5 3.6 9.2 72.9 30.3 1.0
2.1 1,059 15.9 20.6 4.7 11.2 110.4 32.4 , 1.0
2.1 870 15.9 20.2 4.3 10.5 95.5 31.6 1.0
2 598 16.7 18.9 2.2 7.7 77.4 41.8 1.0
2 1,059 16.7 19.7 3.0 9.2 115.2 44.0 1.0
2 870 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 16.7 19.4 2.7 8.7 100.5 43.1 1.0
1 598 ,t 14.7 16.9 2.2 1.4 495.5 I 176.7 0.2
1 1,059 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.4 495.5 176.7 0.4 1 C
1 870 14.7 16.9 2.2 2.0 495.5 1.76.7 0.3
1
ii
1r
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02) -
Final-Environmental Impact Statement A-14 April 2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report I`
1
ATTACHMENT B
Sediment Transport Analysis Support Documents
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
May Creek Subpavement MC-3
Sample Date: 5/25/03
Grain Size Volume Cumm.% Percent
(mm) Retained(ml) Percent Retained Finer
May Creek
Subpavement
MC-3
75 0 0.0 0.0 100,0
50 110 3.5 3.5 96.5
25 1060 33.9 37.4 62.6
12.5 610 19.5 56.9 43.1
9.5 120 3.8 60.7 39.3
6.3 130 4.2 64.9 35.1
3.35 220 7.0 71.9 28.1
1,7 160 5.1 77.0 23.0
0.85 200 6.4 83.4 16.6
0.425 300 9.6 93.0 7.0
0.075 205 6.5 99.5 0.5
Wash 0.01 15 0.5 100.0 0.0
sum 3130
May Creek Subpavement MC-3
40
35 33.9
30 : ,"
253
o 20 :• r 19.5
15 , ..'
10 7.0 96
b 4 � 1 6.5
5 3.5 i" 3,8 4.2 5.1 '•
00
75 50 25 12.5 9.5 6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.075 Wash
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Subpavement MC-3
100 A
90 =
80
`m 70
u- 60
C. 50
cD
12 40
30 :
20
10
0 •
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A
Grain Size
(mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002 $
Percent 0 0 0 0 2 19 30 29 11 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cumm% 0 0 0 0 2 21 50 79 90 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
%Firmer 100 100 100 100 98 79 50 21 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A
100 e II
90
80 --
70
t 60
m
50 `- I
Et 40 - 30 29
30
75 ..r
20 r ��; 11 3 7 ,
10 0 0 0 0 2 1`` € • ' 0 0
0 I 1 I t i� l 1 ,
2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5 '
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-1A
100 : e n c 0 —
90 ` ,
80 ° • - . _ . .
70 ° - __ . _
6 .0 ' ,
a "40 ° . .
30
20 `. .
100 0
10000 1000 100 10 1 I
Grain Size(mm)
I
I
1
j t
I
I
i
i
I l
1
•
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4
Grain Size
(mm) 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1.0 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.062 0.031 0.002
Percent 0 0 0 0 0 13 27 39 10 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cum m% 0 0 0 0 0 13 40 80 89 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
%Firmer 100 100 100 100 100 87 60 20 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4
' 100 t
90
80 _
70 `
c 60 `.
u 50 - 39
d =
o. 40 = 27 d .
30 13
0 Pa 0 0 0 0 0 . iu :� 4 7 0 i 0
0 : 1
2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 0.5
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Surface Substrate MC-4
100 c < c c '1/4***\,\\\\...............s,
90
80
a "40 ' -
30 : _ .
20 : . .
10 : .
10000 1000 100 10 1
Grain Size(mm)
•
May Creek Sample MC-2
Sample Date: 4/25/03
Volume
Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent
(mm) (ml) Percent Retained Finer
May Creek
Sample MC-
2
1.7 0 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.85 21.49 0.9, 0.9 991
0.425 429.36 18.2, 19.1 80.9`
0.3 826.64 35.1 54.2 45.8
0.21 685.49 29.1 83.3 16.7
0.106 345.51 14.7 97.9 2.1,
0.063 29.24 1.2 99.2 0.8
Pan 0.01 19.59 0.8 100.0 0.0
sum 2357.32
Pan
May Creek Sample MC-2
40
35.1
35 '% 29.1
30
r'v
25
220 18.2t
CD R • 14.7
15
0.9 , 1.2 0.8
1.7 0.85 0.425 0.3 0.21 0.106 0.063 Pan
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Sample MC-2
100
90
80
I30
20
10
0 A
1 0.1 Pan
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Subpavement MC-1B
Sample Date: 9/27/01
Volume
Grain Size Retained Cumm.% Percent
(mm) (ml) Percent Retained Finer
May Creek •
Subpaveme
75, 0 0.0 0.0 100.0
50 900 40.9 40.9 59.1
25 640 29.1 70.0 30.0
12.5 270 12.3 82.3 17.7
9.5 80 3.6 85.9 14.1
6.3 55 2.5 88.4 11.6
3.35 50 2.3 90.7 9.3
1.7, 55, 2.5 93.2 6.8
0.85 20 0.9 94.1, 5.9
0.425 25 1.1 95.2 4.8
0.075 95 4.3 99.5 0.5
Wash 0.01 10 0.5 100.0 0.0
sum 2200
May Creek Subpavement MC-1 B
45 _ 40.9
40 Ktz
35
' 29.1
30 "
•s
cS25 "_
n20
15 •• 12.3
10
5 0.0 :,Y . 3.6 2.5 2.3 2.5 4.3
0 .< eel U.9 1.1 0.5
75 50 25 12.5 9.5 6.3 3.35 1.7 0.85 0.425 0.07E Wash
Grain Size(mm)
May Creek Subpavement MC-1B
100
90
Ii1j
�a
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Grain Size(mm)
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
it
ATTACHMENT C
Manning's Roughness Coefficient Documentation
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Range of Manning's Coefficients for Channel Roughness
wl Floodplain Bench
• Orginal likely mitigation
Range Range
Variable Subcategory Description Low High Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.035
n1 Minor Uniform channel in good condition 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005
n2 Alternating occasionally The main flow shifts from side to side 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005
n3 Negligible Obstructions generally occupy less than 5 percent of the cross sectional area 0.000 0.004
n3 Minor Obstructions generally occupy less than 15 percent of the cross sectional area 0.005 0.015
a
n4 Small Little to no live vegetation in the stream channel 0.002 0.01 0.002 0.01
m Minor Sinuosity= 1.04 1 1 1 1
n Manning's Roughness Coefficient 1 0.032 0.059 0.037 I 0.07
t s
Value Used in the Analysis for the Channel 0.06
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 554-1779-017(02/02)
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report C-1 April 2004
Range of Manning's Coefficients for Floodplain Roughness
•
w/Floodplain Bench
Orginal likely mitigation
Range Range
Variable Subcategory Description Low High Low High
nb Very course gravel Pebble Count D50=32 mm 0.028 0.035 0.028 0.035 •
ni Minor Floodplain is uniform and paved and smooth in many locations 0.001 0.005
ni Moderate Has more rises and dips than minor-some hummocks or sloughs may occur 0.006 0.010
n2 N/A
n3 Negligible Obstructions occupy more than 5 percent of the floodplain 0 0.004
n3 Minor Obstructions occupy more than 15 percent of the floodplain 0.005 0.019
n4 small The floodplain is paved or gravel in many locations with minor shrubs and grass 0.001 0.01
adjacent to the channel
n4 large 8 to 10 yr old willow or cottonwood with some weeds and brush i 0.025 0.050
m N/A 1 1 1 1
n Manning's Roughness Coefficient I 0.03 1 0.054 I 0.064 I 0.114
Value Used in the Analysis for the Floodplain 0.07
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Final-Environmental Impact Statement — -- --- ------ __ _ -__ - --_ 554-1779-017(02/02)
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report C-2 April2004
ATTACHMENT D
Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
i l
ATTACHMENT D
Proposed Bridge Impact Documentation
Attachment D is a summary of the modeling results prepared by OTAK on February 13, 2004. Under
Plan 29, which is their proposed conditions model for the 100-year flood, the bridge proposed at cross
section 4.01 would cause backwater that would result in the stream overtopping the right bank at cross
sections 4.325, 4.555, 4.775, and 5. Therefore, additional mitigation such as fill or a levee would be
required to protect the proposed development from flooding. In addition, the proposed bridge does not
have 3 feet of vertical clearance between the low cord and the water surface elevation of the 100-year
flood as required under Renton Code.
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Attachment D-1 April2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
Memora -ndum
oa
14 4Z. To: Jenna Friebel, .Parametrix
From: Robert Schottman, PE, PhD
620 Kirkland Way,0100
Russ Gaston, PE
Kirkland, WA 980.33 Copies: Campbell Mathewson, Matt Ilough, PE
Phone (/25)822-/4 6
Fax (1 J)82/ 9J/7 Date: February 13, 2004
Subject: Barbee Mill —HEC-RAS Modeling
Project#: 30209
During our meeting on February 5, 2004, a few questions were raised regarding the HEC-
R.AS modeling that Otak performed for May Creek. These included
• Increased velocities for proposed conditions,
• Appropriateness of Manning's roughness factors and
• Differences between water surface levels for Otak and Parametrix existing models.
Increased velocities for proposed conditions •
First, it was noted that the velocities for proposed conditions (HEC-RAS Plan 29) are higher
than those for the existing conditions (IIEC-RAS Plan 18) and that flow areas were
somewhat smaller for the proposed conditions. Modeling results are summarized as
Figure 1 —Plan Layout and Table 1—Modeling Results for Existing and Proposed
Conditions. Four plans are included:
• Plan 17—Parametrix Existing Conditions Model
• Plan 18—Otak Existing Conditions Model
• Plan 29 —Otak Proposed Conditions Model
• Prop_High_n —Proposed Plan 29 with increased roughness factors
For existing conditions, the flow areas are generally larger for the cross sections upstream
of Cross Section 7, primarily because the existing bridge at that location produces deeper
water upstream of the bridge. The proposed removal of that upper bridge will allow the
water surface levels to fall and will produce higher average velocities for the proposed
condition.'The slope of the energy grade line upstream of the upper bridge steepens when
the bridge is removed.
In contrast, the slope of the energy grade line flattens for the cross sections immediately
upstream of the proposed roadway. There, we find lower velocities and larger cross--
sectional areas after the proposed channel modifications.
Appropriateness of Manning's roughness factors
The final choice of roughness factors will occur during final design based on the ultimate
channel/overbank design. We believe that the proposed n values are appropriate based on
Il:\pro*t\;30200`.30209'.AdminLCo tesp\D 1S\Friebel02130.1R1.dor•
derma Friebel, Parametrix Page 2
Barbee Mill—HEC-RAS Modeling February 13, 2004
the USGS methodology for roughness determination. Channel roughness is influenced by
several factors with the primary variable being the roughness of the channel bed material
itself. We observed the channel stream bed material to be gravelly, an observation ti
supported by Parametrix's pebble counts. The gravelly channel creates a base roughness of
approximately 0.028. Other variables that increase the channel roughness are surface
irregularity, variation in shape and size, obstructions to flow, vegetation relative to flow
depth, and degree of meandering_ The U.S. Geological Survey method for estimating stream
roughness factors incorporates all of these factors as shown in the attached sample
calculations.
In previous modeling, we roughened the proposed channel to account for the presence of
some woody debris and plantings within the buffer. We have summarized four HEC-RAS
plans to determine the effect of a roughened channel on our predicted water surface
elevations. Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 summarize the assumed n-values for different plans. The
modeling results in Table 1 show that increasing the channel and overbank roughness I ',
factors causes water levels to rise.
It
Figure 2— Stream Profile shows the resulting water surface profile for the four plans.
Both of the proposed plans give lower water surface elevations than do the plans for the
existing conditions. Figures 3a—3h—HEC-RA.S Cross Sections shows the 100-year water
levels for all plans. The plan using the higher roughness factors predicts that water levels
will rise above the existing ground along the right overbank. Note that the adjusted
roughness factors appear to be conservatively high based on Chow's method for assigning n
values.
Differences between water surface levels for Otak and Parametrix existing models
Earlier modeling showed nearly two foot difference between water surface levels for the
Parametrix existing condition (Plan 17) and the Otak existing condition model(Plan 18).
Rechecking the model shows that a HEC-RAS optimization feature associated with lateral
structures was not operating properly. The lateral structure in the Otak model allows water
to sheet flow to Lake Washington. Flows in the downstream channel are reduced
accordingly. The model was rerun and the difference in water levels was reduced to 0.7 foot
at Cross Section 8 as shown in Table 1. At the upstream end of the reach (Section 11), the
water surface elevations match within 0.01 foot.
Reference:
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness ' (
-
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 2339.
•
•
H:\pn ject\30200\30209\Mmin'-.Con-cp\DEIS\FriebeI021304m.doc
. ,
• .
' . .
•
•
. .
• .
I
•
• .
. .
•
• .
. . . •
. . •
1 1
1. • .
•
•. ,
•
•
; f
l' 1
. ,
. -
•
•
•. .
• .
, . .
- • .
•
, I
• . .. .
. .
. .
. . ,
. ,
• . .
. . .
•
. .
. ,
. .
.. .
..
, ' ' •
. .
•
, .
• .
,. . .
•
. .
. .
• .
•
, . ..
' . . .
•
, •
. .
. .
, .. .
' •
' . .
' .
•
'' • . • •• -
•
.•
, .
. , • .
. . .
, . ..
• ,
' r .- 1 - . . •.
. . . . . .
, . .
. .
•
. ,
. ...
- • . - ----- 11
.
•
• '
. • ,,.
•
. -•-
•
• . , . • . ,
•
, . ' • • . ' - -- 10
, .
, .
.. . . .
. .. •
. .
. . .
. • • . . . . ,
. ..
_ .
•
•
. .
•
• ••
. .
. . .
-. .,-. . .. . .,
•
. - -
. ., . .
. .
•
. . ,. .
. '
• • ,
., . .
. • . .
•. .
_. ..
.•
. .
. .. .
. . .
. . .
.• ,••-;". .
,.
• - ..,..rD.:..-.. 7
. . ,. •
• . •
• . ." '•• . °.:.•,;•. ..75,
• '
•
,.
• , ,
. .
. . .
. .
' . .
•
. .
„.
. . .
, . . . . . •.
. . . . . ,
. • .
; . . •. .
, .. -. •.... , ., ..
.:. ..'. ._ . •
. , ,- .• - , ,
. .. „.
• . . — ..• .., , ,. ,.
• . . . . , . .
. . .. . . . •
.„ .
. .
•
. ,
. . . . .
. ' ".•••••'' ,• . .
•
• .
, .
_ . .
. . .
. ,
...
. ...
, . .
,• ,
- . • .• . -. • . .., : .- ,• -.. . . •.-
,• . .
. . . • ,. . ; , .... „ , ..
....:. •„., , . ,
. ,
. .
. .. .
. „, . ., .. . .. . .. , •,. , „„ ,
. . . , . . .
- . . . .... . •, .. ..
., .. . . „...•
r •;..; . . . ... :. ,...; : . . .
•-' .
-• , ,• , --
• '
. . . . , .. .. .., ,
. ...
. . , . , , ...• .. .,.
, . .
, .
, .
. .
. . . .
• ,
•
• . •
. . .
. . . . .
.
• •3 45*..• ... . ,
, .. . .
: . . . ...
-• • • r.- . •.•.,-. •„ ....„- .
• .
- ,... . .
- - ••• .
•
. - • • •••" --- - •••
.. ... ..
' . . ..
. , .
•
. .
. ,
• . - • ' : :•2:53333*
. . .
- - '''• •••• • •
" •
.. „. .. . . „ . .„.,. .
. . .. - ...,. ,.... . ..... . .... • .
; . .. - . • ., , . .
•
•• • •• ' -.' ', • • ' • ''• .• '. '6:0"••?•211'.•
- .• - • .... . -..: •-• • .
. , . . ; ••... .•• • ,.• • - .• , -- --.-•
‘•.,, .
. .
• , • • - -'4;;i .218* '
- .,. „ .,.... . .
• . - •••'':'• . .:-.. -,- ••.'-, • ,., ,' -.• .
••
. . „ . . ,.. . • ...
• : .. '. . . ..• .. : , .,•.'.".••,•„•. - •• —
. . ,..., . .. .... . ,..... „.
. .
• .
, i. • ..• : ,
. . . . . . .
. , •... •.• . ,
. .
• . . .
. ,
. ..
. . .
. .
. .
- .
•
. . . .
. . .
. .
, .
• -
•
•
. . .
. ,
' - - • •
. .
. ,
. . . .
. . .. . . . . .
. .
.. .
. .
. ..
• , . • . .
•..••• •._ , . ., . . .
.. .. . .
. .. .,
•
- •.:• • . • :„.... . ,. ; .
. ;
••: '. . ... ;
. .
. ., .. . . . ....
• .
• .,
•
„ .
. , .
. .
„ . . ..„. • , .. , ; '
• .
•
• .
• •... ••. ., •.... ,.. • , ,
- • ..
. . .
. .. . .
. , .
, . . . .
. . . . .
• . . ... . .. , „..,.
,............. . .. .., ; . _. .. . . . . . . .. .
• ,- '.•••••., , - .
. • .:. . .,.. ,..
. .
. . ..
..-...... .. • ..
. • - - ".,. ••• . . . ,
• . .. . . .
. . ,
• . , . . .. • .... . , . . . .
----:.. .:.• . ..; ; .,• ,
•
•. . .• -..,„.„ . , . ,.. --
. , ... . . r... r. .. . .
•
•
. •
. . . . . . . . . .. . .
. ,
•
. .
. .
• , . -. . ...•.
. ' •.,..--• • ,. -..i . .
• .
. •
. • . „ .. • . "
. .
. .
• • .
.. . .. . , . • , . ••• :_." „ •
. . .
. ,
... .
.... . . . ,
' - • - •-•' •
, .
... •.•• ., .••••• ...• ...,..... . ... ... .
• • ; •; .• , , .- - • -• . •• •
. . ..
, , • .
•., .
. . .,
. . . .
. .
.,-- .,•:, ..;. ....,. . ....,.... .., , . . . , ;
. .
-. . • .. ,•, • ••„•.•,-.• .••••.• •
. .
. ••_.- . , . ...' .
; . . .. - • ' • '• ''- •'•:: - • • ; ,'. : : ::. '.. ':' r•':'..• .• ,-......';','".'":;:;•.''''•':•-•),'N'',.;''•';',,,'•,;•?;',.'''•';,;"':.: ._;',-;-'• .,.'.,-..„,-i; ,'''',.:
.. -• : •-‘. '. ..
Barbee Mtll
. .
; .
. .
. • . ..• • „ . , • '' •; ..,,. ,•'.:, ,'..;,, . ,,:`-.1 ;,•".,-;•,:.1, . :,,Piiriii..e.l. •••':.;,••:-'....,•'...,.;,::',...,:.;.„".;,..-..
. . .
, i. - • .• . .' . . „ .
. . • - - •- ..
. .„ . .
, . .
., .
. •,. ... , :.••., •... • . •
. 6 - ,. May Creek-*Barbee Milf Plan: 1)Pian_29 2/13/20.04' 2)Plan 18 2/13/2004 3)'Plan 1.7. 2/13/2004 '4)Prop High n 2113/2004. •
�
• May Creek 1 _. .
�: �.
30• _Legend �
•
• . WS'.100-yr Future Mi-Prop High n ,
•
, WS 100-yr.Future Mi-Plan_29
•
28. WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18
" WS-100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17 1
• Ground f
I
26; �'y' _ • •
24-
o
:Ia
-> ..
a)
221 ••
i
•
` 1
. j
18- I l
I
in cv In n . iS 3
• Y m R 4 . . si■ es a
#_
-N Sf to.t0 N. , V o O cp. tn. h ti,os, • F
.
O ,,,,i f r 1-i-.=CV• CV M ei; N st e!' � eh t7 ...co; • CC CO. ‘s, C): -n
.
•
0 200 400 600' 800 1000 1200
•
N Main Channel aistance;(ft)
.
1
•
0
1
uryCm+08ubr4e PI, ,I,....241 tl312001 2)P11n It 2/1Y-'904 3)Raw 17 2(y208a a)Pryiroo, 2,13,200. U Prrtm8artw4e Paa 1)pyn}9 2/12/204 lfptn IS 3)349C4 TWan)r VI Y,SM a)Pep_Mgnn 2/12)208e
' RS=11 RS=10.Copy XSEC 11(poor survey data)
�a a .07 >-c06"4 .07 r
40. Legend 401 6 _._�....__.�Legend ._..__
WS 100-yr Future toll-Prop High n WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High_n
WS 100-yr Future toll-Plan 17 j WS 100-yr Future toll•plan 17
.,WS 100-yr Future MI-Plaan l8 I' i—WS 100•yr Future MI•Plan 18
35. WS 100-yr Future Mt--Plan 29
35" WS 100-yr Future eai•Plan 29
• •
'Ground G Ound +
Bank Sta
Bank Stu t
o. i
25 " .'
•
25
•
20, -_ _
0 �'-50 100 150 '200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station(ft) Station(It) ,
4ryCrr4t)BuN041 Rut 1).4%29"JIY.'001 :V.I.,6 7113,."Wa 4,1,17 22112004 ayPmocghj 2r12266a WOGrat al Sub«lW Ran: 11Raw2 2n12001 4lynl8 1111001 3)Ran IT 2/114004 al Pagfigw_^ L1I2001
RS=9 RS-8
. R.'07>er.C5> ....-.07 ---' > .. .07 >IS05+_'--.07
40'I . • Legend. ...
_ 40; • .^_ Legend
{ -. WS•100-yrFutureMt Plan•17,... - ._. �...._.___ .,_...._._.. _!
d
.. - WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18
.
WS 100-yr Future MP=Prop_Hlgh_n WS 100-yr Future P.li_Prop_High n
f WS'100-yr Future MI'Plan 18' WS 100-yr Future MI•Plan 17
•
35} WS.100-yr Future MI-Plan 29.. _ WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan_29
• - Ground' - Ground
•
{ Bann Sta. Bank Sta
•
3o t 30
W j •
is zs
•
tD• ...` ." 0" - 50 100- :. 150 -" 200 •250 300 0 50 100 150 200. '250 .300
G j' Station(tq. Station(ft)
1.in Horiz.='120.ft. 1 in Vert.`="S ft 1
o
u. aryGwY NUbbta3Fi .iw:,n P.Yl39.yfYSd II PHn 18 9fY7001 S1PWft7 f31o31,QPV^P.r1bW'_'"L13R33f - Wy W..tae.ne•W PWi llF9en,j9'Y1173f1f'71 Win t3'YtYSW lYP4n if .YtY}fi01 gPaP.N9R,^ 'JfY:06T
RS=6.8 Copy CX 7 for US Bridge
., 4—.07 .0817
07
0..
Legend .
«:. .. .:': Legend
f. . ' WS 100•yr Future Mi-Plan 18 ..S t MI Pan 1.. - _ " • WS 00.yrFuiureR"•PI 8 . )
'WSa00.•FutuieMl-PIan17 J
Yr WS 100•yr Future MI-Plan 17 'I
35 • •• WS 100-yr Future Mi'.Prc'High_n WS 100-yr Future Mi•Prop_Higtt_n
' ,. .WS 100•yr Future Mi-Plet-C29 WS 100,yr Future MI•Ptan_29
- ` " a
.Ground'' . ,Ground
�_...
- Bank Ste. _ Bank Ste
29.` 25 . •
•
•
�.. 20
0 50 100 • " 150 `200- 250' 300 - •• • 0 50 100 150 .- 200 250 'V '300
Station(ft) . Station(f1)
. W/Cv<+.ae.M.i.,- Pw, t)Wn-74 2V1Y1OW ZPW fa b13Zdf* 33+'1<,IT v11561'•)P,..EA_n•IJf3200f WyCn.t aane..fw PW,; I)PatiS 7n3^.Pa. OPt,fC 913A01 3)P4n Si 7113RGW. i)Propfry-„ Y13CePf
.. . ••RS=6.75' . RS;6,•
O91(.06+-.07—4 - }C07 .06+.—,07•— .
. .Legend 1 - Legend-___...._
j WS 100-yr Future Mt-Frop_High_n W5100 yr Future Mi.Prop_High_n
O J yr Fufure Mi•Plan 17 WS 100-yr future MI-Plan 17 ,
35'` � ,' WS•100•yrFutureMI-Plan'29as- •
W$100yrfutureMi-Plan 29'
•
_,WS'100-yr Future Rti-Plan.18,, - WS.f00•yr Future MI-Plan 18 -
` • Ground •� Ground
. �.:.. f
30,E z 30
'Bank Ste Bank
•
•
•
Sta i
$' $
0:'
.
25 —
•
' 03 0 50' 100 150 200 250 300 • . 0 ' 50 100 150 200 250 ,300
Station(It)` . Station itt)
-1 in Horiz.=1'20 ft. 1 in Vert.=8 ft 2
- - __ ' — - -
•
--_ -- -- — __ __-_
a
.1
,.74n1 N8.K441 Pon; 1)PL)p Ir O0W 21P4a,6 7n7RW1 7)Pr r17 01weG;4)P.,._Hyn n L17�OG 1 2)PW t1 vru7ouI W.17 2/*Y2001 4)P,oa We"_ 7m,PG
• f0' A{ryCeW N8u4a Y8 P4n: 1 o n 19 utOR.UI
RS=S
R S
y (rm.._..._._.07•----':+OB�t—,07—r1 r .07 7Ico4 .07
I B
Legend Legend:....._...............
H" WS 100-yr Future MI-Pro0_High n 35 WS 100.yr Future Mi-Prop High n
WS 100-yr Future MI•Plan 29 WS 100.yr Future MI-.Plan 17 1
35•
WS:100-yrFuture MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi.Plan 29 ,
, WS 100.yr Future MI-Plan 18 I WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 18
Ground. • 30- Ground
r
Bank Sta` .' - _ Bank Sla
30 '
•
• w 25
251
•
201 20
0 50 100 150 .200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300—......
Station(ft) • Station(it)
W7 C....l 0444.49 RM. n.4n_29 J130701 4..18 2112u2024 nm.17 2/M0g1 dlPrrr•Hyhn L12720G 1.474w4N8m94.6. Pon: 1)P4n.29 2111200/ 2141n11 7r112001 now.17 'J1Y2t01 4)1.4P_C.7n 7/04C.O.
RS=d,775
RS=C,55-
ir...........07 g .07 1{r06.r_._.—
i -.07
• Legend. I Legend..__, _
• 35 i WS 100.yr Future MI..Prop_High_n 351- WS 100.yr Future Mi-Prop_H gh n
WSA00.yr Future Mi-Plan 29 1 WS 100-yr Future Mi•Plan 29
Ground Ground
} Bank Ste Bank Sta
30-
'25 d1 251
)) •
•
� '` Y 0 ..,..w.. 0,:.�... 100' 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 .200 250 300 -
,� .. ,-.-, ,Station(11)• - - -.. Station'(ft) '
..:1 in Hariz:=120.ft,';1:in.Veit::="8•ft. 3 •
•
Qi`. •
ti
- - e.rcmt«e4M:ad-,'� nPyn.n••v1yz00. 2tr74n la N1=61 0)PI..n VIVION 41)P,.eV.. vlvra4 thraw:le4n..w 'Pkn: it P4.•ti"v10Re61'2U,r1 2.1104e04 91P1ui11 •J1V3004 •IP'._U. .. vnur4
"�. . - .. -RS n4.325• - RS=4,1
--,07" "c-07
. . . .-Legend - ----._Legend..._,......_.,._,
WS100-yr Future Ml.Prop_Higli n 35- WS100yr Future MI.Prop High n
C WS100•yr,Future MI-Plan_29" WS100•yr Future MI-Plan29
Ground Ground
• - • a .
. ' Bank Sta .. „ 1ne0
ie
30' 30 Sank Sin
c , .
w• 25 -"
"20 - - ,. .20-
•
•
0. 50, •'100 150 200 250 " • 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 • • 300
Station(Rl.., Station(0)
. u
.
yq «\u84MitiH Pin: .qP.*a L1Yt8M'ZDtai I. 2/134004 a)U.it 7111,20W'4tPrayJ00,n 2113%5001 047er. e.e.,a9 .U.. 11PW..29-1113s00,4 i)P1.n to VI37061 5PNn17 viv2004 .0.0 Wu n 71,3 04
RS=4.01 :OR Proposed Access Bridge RS=4.01 BR Proposed Access Bridge
. . ' "< -.04' •,,c0c I<. .04.._i._ , _ _ . - - -,0
. .(- 4—�C09�<—.04—� •
. - _ Legend. _Legend_
"" JS"• -: WS-t00-yFuture -Prop_Higti_"n 35" •, Future Mi•ProP_High n
WS 100 yr
` WS 100•yr Future'MI•Plan 29. WS 100•ys Future MC-Plan_29
, G;und • Grciund
(nett .. !nett j
36. Bank 5ta. , . •907,. Bank Ste
20 !®�� •
1i y,
y�s
• ., .. f
0.
.• 201
�
:"0 .'S0,` :100. •"-150. 200•: "250 J00 . •
'0'. - 50 100. " 150 200' 250 300..E
.GJ "
• • . 1 in Horii.,=120 It: 1 in Vert:=8:ft `` 4 •
--- - — —
,
ti ,
CO • U/CMi peal..K9 Plan' 9,4%29 2/11Z4.1 71 Flo 18•2113M01'3)Pt:n If V13/204 1)Pn®Jrten 2n211941 MOCn.1.1eari..1.1 ROC CCP10,22 2,11aoi 1)Pt4n1e 0ur2003'3)P 17 21117001 i)Pmp-fin 2113200/
A ' . RS=3.9 RS=.3.45a
K .07 at.06K .07 } —.07�`t03S'�—.07—d r .__..._..._
. ., • Legend. . "
35' - . .WS 100.yr Future MI-Prop F ighjt 351 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_Nigh n
. .• ..WS 1007yr Future MI.Plan 29 ' WS 100-yr Future Mi.Plan 29 I
1
Ground .Ground
30- "Bank SW . 30 .
.� ..
�. :Z5 w 25
•
I,
• 100 150 " 200 .250 300 0 50 100 - 150 200 250 300 _
Station'(lt) •• - Station(It)
•
. • t47Ca...'lent„MIRi+:"1)PW-2y 2fn200.- a1aan 18 .111.3.1491. 3)Nan Ii )1ll2W .1P,.IJ1101n 2t1179..- tlyan at.t Cowes 1F9 Nan: 1)1,5;c:9'V.13200.1 2)Plan lb gtS'N 2 . 3 Pa) n 17 2113120M .)Prop M n `Vi32e61
• ' ' RS=3. - - - RS=2.76666*
_. .__.'.07.._._._k(035'�r....:.OT....._2� . , • .07-4.03S'f—.07—*
•
' WS 100-yi Future MI-Plan 17 35'1 WS 100-yr Future Mi-Prop_High n
•
-
. ., WS 100-yr,Future MI'-Prop High n ` WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 29
., WS 100-yr Futurekti-Plan 29. • - Ground
' WS100-yrFutureMI-Plan18- BankSta
i Bank Sta
7' a
. u; is .
E. 25,
�, 20 20 .
100 '150 ,..200 ' 250,... ,300, 0 • 50 . 100 150 . 200. 250 300
•
�` ' Station(ti) Station 01) ,.
' '.'1-in:Horiz,=;120.ft '1 in Vert:=•8 ft:' 5
•
•
• ...West at es4.044.Ma; IIPMw-JV'v1uuret nw.ete viY140. 3),."."10" ..)W..-Mi+r v,UfeOi ' ., WY WM eetlon,to PN-.• ttefn_D vF1L94 1)w..ee'ulu7,oe,3)P4.te vevIDO. e)Pro0-109ti,,.V,I7oee
<o" RS=2.53333' ! RS=2.3'Aggredagan
,- �:.O7-><'(O357t.....07 -. 0IS035 —.07--�
' t .- .Legend - Legend
7 • e
35 t . •• WS 100-yr Future MI:Prop_Higr n, 35 ' ' .WS 100-yrFuture MI•Plan 17
•
WS•1O0•yrFutureMl�Plan_29 • • _• WS100•yrFutureMl•Plan,18 s
Ground"'--•
•
WS 100 yr Future Mi•Prop Highn •
l _ Bank,Sla.•.: _ WS 1O0-yr Fuluf8 MI Plan 2s .1
•
30 •
30 Ground.
Bank Sta
W'. :25 W.. 25
.•
�eeeee.e�
20
. . .
...
. .
• .
. .
. .
. ,
. . , .
0 „50 �100 150 .. 200 250 300 •, 0 50 100 150 ,-200 250 300 ~
Station(ft) SlaSon(ti)
u•rv..t tie.,.iva 'Ptu.: ,)P..-IV vev203e r)P;u.to 2n12OOa 3)wwlr atV2ca a)PrvP-tri'p vis7O3e u,GsatNe.n.•t;O wax nnn-» vevrOet.vwente ✓uooa WI.er V32O •Proo)+'Va,.OU000i
RS=2,2 BR Footbridge RS=2.2 BR Footbridge
k035.4•--07-,,.q . -
!. Fc.07n-.035-M--.07 -
-
La end
WS 1O0-yr Futunn,Ml.Plan 17 . 35- WS 100;yr Future Mt-Plan 17
- ., WS 100-yr-Future MI Prcp High n WS it)Q yr Future MI-Plan 29
I.
.. WS100yrFutureMl-Flan 18.. WS100yr Future Mi-Prop High n
j: ,WS •
-.100 • . •WS100-yr Future Mr Plan 18'
30 i Group f'. 30 • Ground
BankSta:. Bank SW•
v> io
_ _.._.
c. -
•
__ :.9 • .. c
W 25;"- • • w• 25- .
:fir :Z<:...
' 20 20- MIT
1
•
0 _._..50 100 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
' ' _ - - , ,. Station(l8) . •. . . Sutton(n)
- 1 in..Horiz.:='120 ft.. 1'in Vert.=8 ft ' " 6.
•
— — — -r --r �,_
•
y
o' .
ro Mv/Chnt MP,.b'/M:0 Maa. IHPan-iv 2/13120.1 2114an10 etnxO'Si PI'n 1t 1/13,:961 l)P,PjWpnn n9200. M'yL.•MMe'+M'MA Pip: I)PYn.29 2/1212001 n Pt.IS 2)1nt61 31 P4.17 VI312091 Ai Ptap-Xgnn •J134C4+
Pa RS=2.1' RS=2 Aggredalion
• k.07*-.035-fr.....07- -1i Ire-.07-ir-.035-4, --117—�
t Legend 'Legend i
N 1 WS 100 Future Mi•Pla 29 -35: w.INS._-..______._.__lan 2 ,.{
! N n WS 100-yr future Mi•Plan 29
i WS 100•yr Future MI-Plan 17 WS 100-yr Future Mi•Prop High n
r WS 100•yr Future Mt-Prop Htgh n •
WS 100-yr Future Mi-Plan 17
{ - - -. WS 106-yr Future Mi••Plan 18 WS 100-yr Future Mi•Plan 18
30 - •Ground 30y Ground
Bank Ste • 1 Bank Ste !
•
°` . m
°' 25)
ur• .. _ 1u 25-
2oy 20-
'.100 •- 150•.- 200 . 250 300 350 dW - •150 .200 250 300 .350 400 450
' Station(0). - Station(ft)
Wyt0r400u1..M0 Pr'u' II P4n..39 2nYx0/ :Man 10 21140C. 21 Plw Ir 2II2,2004 SIPropJPpnn 2/13s0M M+ychAMe..e"Mi0 Pon; 1)Rq_20 241600 2)P4n10 211LiVpr 0)PNn it 2/131C00 4)Prop)P0_n LI3490,1
.. .RS=1.8' .. _ - - RS=,1.6'
-
j�-07 —.035 4Y.07 _—__
35= •`,WS 100-yr Future Mi Flan 29: .35- WS 100-yr Future MI•Plan 29
' - ' ' WS 100,yr Future Mi=PrOp_High n . _WS 100-yr Future Mi•Prop_Highn. .
Ground Ground,
.. .: .-, i
io
an. �._.._.._.....-...._..........
8 Y Ste Bank Ste
30'I 30-
. v .
c
a .
. �"
'w, " 25• w• 25-
•
t.
is
'~150, -2004-•��250 300 - -350 400 450 150 200 ' 250. 300 350 400- -450
.ffCl. ,:•. - - - .StaUan(It). Station(It)-
'' 1_in'Horiz..=.120.ft`,. .1,in.Vert.=8 ft ' . 7 .
a
. • .
•
•
r7 MijCmiat guai kw PNn' 13 pa39 nn 3Ja 71PW1a 2113C004 3}kr if U13230a 4)PlpP_N!1� 2/13.04 AY7G.A N garb.W Ran' 1)P29 VS3. n 2)PW to U1110). 3)PNn IT 2I72004 a)P'e,,,,KA? n114604
'a) RS=1,4 R2'
—07—> —035----r. Legend. Legend i
,35' - .WS100-yrFutureMi:�Plan_29 35^ • WS100.yr Future Mt-Plan29
.•i WS 100.yr Future Mi,=Qrop Higt n WS 100-yr Future Mi.Prop High n i
Ground'
•
. Ground
_ - ........_.w_.__.._._._........_......_....i
Back Siai` Bank Sta
381 .30- . . . .
20?, 20
•
1 ,
100 150" - " .200 •250� 300 "350• :. .40D _ 100 ,•150 200 250" ':300 - 350 400
• ;- - - -Station(5)' Station(It)
' ,Ma7G.i NauaiW. PW:.UPW^79 tna'.NI"7PIm16,NIYSSL 3)PW 17 'JI1RODt,a)PsPjr911.,L1N.a0i .
•
35 I . WS 100-yr Future Mt-Pr9i_High n .
•
.. " - - .,WS,1005i,,FuttiieMI•Plan 29 ' .
WS100.yrFutureMi-PIan18. ' -
Ground.:r .
�.
• Bank Sta
• o'. ,
�.: .
20• • rr
l0 100: -, 150, •- zoo':. •'250. Y .300. ".350 4. .
GJ:
Staton(ft) .
-' 1'in Horiz =120 ft.'1 in'Vert.=8:ft. 8 -
Table 1 =Results for Existing and:Proposed Conditions ,
HEC-RAS River: May:Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
River Sta Plan . Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left. ,Vel Chni Vel Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right. Top Width Froude#Chl
' (cfs) (ft). (ft/s) 1(ft/s) (ftis) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
11 Plan_29 1059 28.1 2.86: 7.24 3.98 49.86 677.52 331.63 62.38 0.57
11 Plan 18orme ' 1059: 29:03 2.2 7.26 0.72 19,02 1039.51 0.47 42.66 0.58
11 Plan'17 ervs. ;1059 . 29.04 ' 2.2 7.24 0.73 19.26 1039.23 0.51 42.85 0.58
11 Prop_High_n, 1059 29.08 2.24. 6:02 2.67 67.9 674.23 . 316.87 83.43 • 0.44
10. Plan_29 1059 27.34 4.19 7.87 4.43 176.68 468.03 414.29 61.82 0.61
10 Plan 18 1059 28:1 2:19' 7:8* 0:18 1.3:22 1045.78 0 37,69 0.64
' 1:0 Plan 17 .1059 28.15 .2.19_ .7:.71 0.31 14.06 1044.93 0.01 38.46 0.63
10- Prop_High_n 1059 28.37 3:07 6.46 • 2.94 188,75 459.95 410.3 86.03 0.46
9. `Plan 29 1059 . 26.93 1.72 '5;51 3.1 8.32 .776:3 274.38 61.78 0.42
9 Plan:18 ' 1059 27:87 5:62 1.05 1022.49 36.51 105.05 0.42
.9., Plan 17 1059 27.94 5;53" 1:04 1017.35 41.65 114.02 0.41
9 Prop_Highn: 1659 . 27.93 _ 1.41 . 4:46 " 2.47 12.3 744.88 301.82 65.28 0.31
8.65384* Plan 18 1059 27.42 4.52 1.12 796.6 262.4 349,82 0.35
8 Plan 29 ` 1059 25.82" '2.74 5.95' 3.21 70.32 687.38 301.3 66.09 0.45
8 Plan'_18 1059 27.2 0.36 . 4:12 1.97 0.29 747.38 311.32 117,07 0.32 .
8 Plan 17 1059 26.51 6.08 0.82 959.55 99.45 482.06 0.5'
8_ Prop_High_n 1059 "26,68 2.38 5.45 1.83 85.93 727.27 245.8 111.48 0.38
7:66666* Plan 18 997.12 27.1 1.28 4.1 1,73 20.48 697.71 278.93 123.18 0.3
7:33333* Plan 18 901,23 27.02 1..4 3.98 1.49 50.68 604.93 245,62 129,37 0.27
7 P1an_29" ._ 1059 ` " 25.06 3.27' . 6;59. 3.49 121.24 614.12 323.64 62.66 0.48
, 7• .Plan.18 775.55: 26.79 . _ 1.09 " 4:.95 1.85 62.62 611.71 101.22 99.5 0.32
Plan 17 1059 .26.38' ' 1.58 3.72 0.95 74.15 433:89 550:96 558.24 0.25
• . :7: Prop_High_n 1059. 25.88:, 2;71.:: 5;63 2.72 132.09 59746 329:45 69.75 0.38
:B s�., . ar"bee kill : �" : • . : • .. .kaproject13020013A2d9\waterresVhecras\roughness_sensitivity.xls. otak
. tak
. • '•
. .
'Tabler.1:, -Ikesults;for Existing Oncl,pecipood Conditions
" •
„ .
• Prefile:10Qtr Future Mi
• River Sta Plan 0Q Total W S Elev. Vel Left .; Vel Chnl Vel Right Q-Left- ,Q„Channel Q Right Top.Width Froude#Chi
: ,(ft/s) .(cfs) (cfs) : (cfs) • (ft)
69 - 'Plari..29 1059 • .2604:: 238 , 55, 2.86 43.54 791,4 224.05, 60.28 0.4
6.9' Plan 18 72984 : 26.73 2.63 516 1.89 95.34 547.47 8703 54.01 0.33
6.9 Plan 17 1059 26,34 2.12 3.75 094 92.42 436.07 53051 557.8 0.25
6.9 Prop_ligh_ri 1059 2583 '1.93 4.71 238 47.5 770.1 241.4 63.3 0.32
6.75 ,Plan_29. 1059 24.93 2.05. 5.51 2.75 24.59 822.25 212.16 56.92 0.39
675 Plan 18 72984 24.42, 6.19 2.22 681.81 48.04 42.96 0.48
Plan,17 1059 263 4.1 0.95 609.92 44908 589.71 0.29 •
6:75 Prop_High_n 1059 25.71 - 1.69: 4.77 2.32 27.19 '800.55 231.26 59.49 0.32
Plan. 29 . 1059' 24,93 2.08 5.15 2'68 27.42 791.07 , 24051 66,93 0.38
67 Plan 18 : 729.84 245 211 468 165 34.5 651.79 43.56 51.28 0.36
6.7 'Plan 17:, 1059 2529 1.73 3.82 0.88 37.58 61113 410.29 589.69 0.27
6.7 FrorkLHigh_n 1059 25:69 1.75 4.55 2,02 -31.55 792.32 235.13 78:62 0.32
,.646666* ,Plan 18 79.84 24.37 2.54 4.81 1.51 845 ..609.67 35.68 62.9 0.39
623333k: 18 72984'. 2417' -2.76 5.16 1.23 117.83,-, 599.63 12.49 64.06 0.43
6 . 1059 24.46, 2.56 '5:76' 3.15 174.11 566.69 318.2 83.72 043
.
6', • 23.86 172 '5.76, . ;118.19 611,66 " 52.98 0.49
6 Plan 17 1059 '24.27 - 3.7,6' 7.28 . '207.93 851.07 . 54.61 0.6
6 ,P(Ofijligkft 1059 25.13 224 504 2,25 202.74 556.64 299.62 100.56 0.35
5 plarL29 1059: 2469 25 4.7 2.2 19769 59026. 27105 9559 0.33
5 Plan 18 .729.64%, 23.19 .2.33 4.77, ; 1.61 , 80.47 6396 9.77 50.95 0.39
5 Plan 17 1069.11 ". 24.41,, „:1,46 • „ 269 055 8309 45606; 52085' 1471.43 0.19
5 PrOpLylighLn 1659 24:59 -228 4:48 1:24 209.83 '607.09 242:68 190.96 0.3
4775 Plan_29 1059:- . 23.98 '2.67 486 193 19484 , 596.53 267.63 -11634 0.35
4.776*, PrOlpJ:ligrLn : 1059;2. H2446:, " ,4A8 ,'191.89 2 59176 ,i275.36 165.61 0.31
. ,
-•Bai•Pee ' 1 : : • " T_
, - • 2 ' --otak
kAprojectl3p2001.10p9luveterrestheereskroughness sensitivity.*
t_ _
• _______ -------7 .,
‘_. • _.: ,. ...;,--•-• ...f'.• ';.- : '' - .-
• ....,_ .•-•• - ,, •...- •
,-- . ..,_-_,.• .--,.. • •• •. ., . •. . •"
_ • . . , ,, . - • , .• , ••• ,,- .• .,. - , ,- , . -- .
.. . „ -•:-.•• • : :. .... . - . • --.- ,-..., •-• ,.:-. ,
. , .. . . ..•. .., .. .
_ , , .. . ... ,. ., . • .. ... . . .
...- . . ., , ...,. , • .,• , .,.•. , • . . , " .. . .,.
Width
de.#--Chl •
_ ._, , ,_•,,,,,,.:!:,,•---..,7..-'.,,,•_-,.••",••).-•,_::•-...,,:,-,:::•::,'::‘:•-•: '‘..*::,-.•';_,,,,,.,,•••':..: ,,,:;,,:,_...,-----„-•::: :-....f!.i.;.---!-.',;.':..-::-`..,,,-1,-:':•; .'•-'2,'`,...2- -'ff:' :, . '. _ . . ; '' - Right .:Top;
'",":-.:,•::::2‘,....:.,-.,::,,":-.:„..*;,..";:::.--::'.s:---':....-__.,:,:,-"•=:-:,:',::::.:--2.'.'_-:).-..;:;•. „.::::, ,,-,R-:q"-.[: .: '.66--ii-iiit°9_: -.1.•;-,:(-,,.. ."'„;-,‘:':--:J, her;0='Rig.-- '-:"--:...:.- (to': •
.......:. .., ::-..--,-- -,:,.::::-•::::-_-_, :..5"• ;,...:•': .-:..,,"--,---:,. ":,.::::::::-"1,..,2:::- and Proposed
(3:Lait',.2,•":;.0,'?" nl' --, ---- (cft): . :
0.35
, : :- '. -:--,-.:-.--••••'•'-'''----.,--,:''-'::,:•;.,''''•-•- '-'";__--.4•"•iting•-•,- '•,-,''.1":„'-!-').-. ---;=•''''.-':• --''''''' - i'FL4t417---':"'•'..::-:-•• -'• • : •••.-fit': '.-.---"' . .-.., ,::-.'(Ofs,-: 14;7
0-32
liliir''''-)c--„•`_,`.----.?:,---',.;,-:.•--:-- -- -
fiii:....•10,91-....;..•:,- •.. .:-.-::.. • 1;„ ,vel,R19- ., ..,......(dft)..:',:- •:: _, • .,... ,,-- 2,. -1„.......- --
- :.-- -'-•,---,-'-..- - ;,--:'•,-•- ke:su...- -.--,-;„-.------,:-„,,--.,.- ,-,;•,,•-• - ,;..; 4.,...,-,PrQ...,„ -v:-...:1,Chn. '-- ftieN•;-•:- :'• "-- 0 „. . .30P.,.. .. • .43:42• - ,
. ,. •-.. ib10.-,:117'...-.rd--.;::•:-..','.:;:'.-'...';':,. .k.i-...koac!!,-'' ": ..x/.4.iieit:‘,":".‘• --'.- ‘,.', •- :•:-''( '.-:,. • • ' . - .::t817- ..1:----62::32 !, . 0:41 , • - . '.
--..--.....,::Sc-r::.•.`c-,..",.-";.--F::,--:::-:-', ..:::„..--::., :;::•-‘;',b, , 14.may.:.,c1,:q'1,. ,ms--;El6i--'"•'"- ' .-.--•••;•:-.;::(ft!84-- , 160::99•-•• '.-git--'162--:-- •-•'•' ''' . ,, i • .-.6 17
- ' .."-• •-:-.._-_:. .,.-L:--;.--f.: 6:44AS-- -',T !•777----..'..'...,,::,‘:-,..: ...-..-- yoi6l...,:„.::."'•': vv'- ,,,,-;.-....:.-- ••••:(ftlf..--.-:::...:'-.-• ''i ..' . -:1.1 . .•' 006.' ''''.7.-,:.--: • :.,--1:-:,',I.': ': • ''5'. '-----. '
' . .- -•---- :,---.-11E-.:J:•': '- . ,. ..- i--: :, f'.---Qi• • -I_„-,- :•':;(ft),•'''--•'' ,'A..88- . - ..- -----. :-.. .-1.6,,; • ,..-- , - - ,•.--, 1,' 16811.... - ::b8-t:36..:- • : ' , .
-. - -.: :•:-::: •-: :,:-:„.-.•:„..-:' .. -:-...,:::plan -- -...le.ft),,'.-.:- ' ,. 7'7,•7:-„- • :-1iP4.:--- -'•' --. . "- ."-:,-,:c48:, ----:--•--_,'-: ,-'0-6:- - ••.... 0 44 '. •
‘' . ---•• '. -River -:.1.-- ..•- ,--;•,• -.' ,:', . ' -:••:-23 88 , ,..',2:5... -'-;.•2 18 .-...:.4- 9....-.:=., - •. -. . . .- 1 .. ., : :-.:-...... 8,:.:-, .:-,70 :--• •• • ..,, _- ,, • .6
3
.' ' ' ‘1, '. '.':•.'''•'-,:•'-' ::'''. .•'. .1.- - '-';.'1,65P':.: -:- ,61. ..''''-:---:-':-::-...,-"::::::-'l."---' • ---i, ..:::. .....'.? .,--, --....- ::I0,. ...• -.:-.:-;•-.......-- -.:•.:-.7- '..'it .6 --- ."2.. :,:•.:Ai'...§4.„ '
• - . ' '' - ' ' • .' ‘ lae2-9:::- ''-..-idb'''''': --':: -.:-:;',.:-'-'-'-•:...-' ,,:•1-9-''S - •:.',...--.'• '.. ..-,..:.;'.. .:,...-;-..i.-.1)§ :- , ;;4.:6$:,".'.... 1 '.'64•. . 5P 7 •
22
'''..'' .-....''''' 1.4.-''..tin'''- -':'''' .' -2-;v-----:-;f',--',.-,-=-'t.2.:7;:'-'-,-• '.',.:'-'::::-•-•- • --.. -.- --:A4-•• ';'',5 '-'. :.'• ::.272,,. .-:,' • - " . 9.•, ....
. ' - •4:5..,-.:.., ,:•-•---••4--1-,..,ig-;- .-•:•.- :,, , ..,- : ' .- - 68'",-.---;.-. .--,---fy:::.-‘, --•-'-;:•-:...-.:2,--:•:',, - •..:..':•-:•-•;.•,„ .. ,.,,22-,,t ••- •• .1 922. 7 1 '0 34
35
, - 45., 18 ,. - 729. - -- 2434' • • •
82 3714
34118
715
-,''----_-;-:' .::•-•:--'-`2-•':-,-;„':',''-- •- • '.1:).14:.':•-•,--- -' '-; ,:r•'',-;10&..9:-:`:-•-•'• 2:-: ' - - ..:::: -37',:,:;','''••::*•-•-'?-,:-:•-•' :.--• .- • •-3„..---:-.,-- '•• ', - • •,563,17.:-. 16-.:06 . • . -0.4
-'--. ',-:''••-.1•-'....-..,'::•4;i4,...::---.,.": :al6i.aiii:17.-....-'-:. :''.?-.-.,:?. •-•':.:.,--..:-...: ..'...)2.'.5 -:-.'- r•: ." 87•:-,.--.,,••-, '--!-..:--2,..- -.,: • • - --..- : 154,. . 5841 - - 839
2
1
6
:,,-.'..:••••••.-„:„:',",-.,,-:',.:::_:,,',..•..,:4';.4-•••:-.::7:-','',..,--.•';',,,L,...,",',•• .,,. _„.' ,,•••••.„,,,s749i.,':.8n....4.."-9 .:•,,•••••.: ,.#07,. ':::,,,,i,-: ."1.-,•,-.•:,2•,4.....84;.•:_: •••• •:_•-•-•:?i•-::.9„-;.2-•-----,-- : -.15 8, - -- - 3_ ,.::9691. „ , • . 5.5516. -
43
4
, -.: '.-'."-•--''''--'..',,''',''':- :-- •-••• ....',..:Plan'l „--''. - ::-.10,P ;'',::::: . ••154.'-': ' : .----1i .?.-..',-- --- • - . .. -.63Z9 --.---- .14591
2
61
044
'2- -• ,r-'.•:',":::--„-7s::::::::•;c,'4. _..*: ;''-'•'.-'111". 1TI''''.•:','.'-'•';',-..-.'---- ."1•• •'-'''' ...--. 3.. .0 "--- -'1 .iii'. --.. '' ;'''''''s , -863..9.9-':- A837
- 0.37
:-.: "'• ::...--- ::,-,...-: :ti:; .,§:'::',::'.:.,..'.....`.':',;-.-...--.'.. ‘-'"•...'.2:-.1650.. .,':-- -,-,'-.- Ila..:-;.-.'---.-,,,'.,..-'...E' '.:.:',:•::y•.,„.- r:Z.7._. 8,6 , ,7 5. ,i.
..:-;:".,`;:•_,, : ::::.Fiian9±'-----: -- ity6"0.,:-.- ,
---• ....: ....,-.!:,, ';.. :,:,--S..."-:' ' 6003.: : '.zhii-68': ' 5' ' .' .
0.61
' , .: .1`• :',,': :43ZP.....-..,'''-., ,,2•--':Higitj1' • '• . ,i1,7-....:...:-..:. . , ; . 7 .., '':', .- 6j36• • : •••-; 6--- •••••,..* :• ' ,
2
056
- , - - .- •:-<--'•4v-----ProP. ,-.,---,-,-.:: ...-,• . ---,,•, -: ...-2?...• --- - - • , , ,,' -.. • • -- 45_,-.-- „-;-,. •:69/ , • ...69-:63
401
,:f.,32 •:;.;:-,2::', ..:;::,,i':;.;y•I:-.: .';.;••-17, §•.:84-:. ..,,-.--.i ..-4',7:- - -- ..:',..5--••:,-.- -• ,.: •,-? !:.... - . : 62... ,P - ' ,•
.140•-f-•• •7f64
'---•'-:-.''.,1.---.':::.-1 .--',...•.- -21';:: : :'.00!'.-'-'::- .::',1 10591''''T•. ' 2---:' .- -----.-• . ,.i,6• 0:::-„,:-.'•: !'' ,,F3,•; -.•.--.;:2,9,99:.- .. ••• , , - 7-14-.-0.3-. 1 .142 "
,i.-..-r'.--.-:-.•,--h:-'.-:'=:-:-'-*.-,25' ..,"•::.'-:.T:.:r.-0j -(-17,.,,':::-r - ,,,,2-i,47-:---, --"-.-. ..)::•-_44-- -.•; ' ,..!... ', .:'. 2•:!"'= - . --14.34 .i81-•:Q7-_ '
-4-.-2 --.-:::--::"'-..-..:;,•.--.'-:-._;,-,-::.±".'.:;;-------,1"---,- ... 84'•••' :•."-',-'ci. :r-'--• - -'•-•-• -:':--•-''' '''•'' ". •-;. ,6 41 • •.,1§."01 ' '
. .„ .. .. •729.,•. ••, ••23i5,-,.,, -, . , ., : , . •:-•• .3---'- - 1,,,.,.
0.45
'---18---': " 1059-- : • -. ...• :": -..-•.- -•• •.,-7,7 -. .'' 483 -. •
_ - 0.48'
• - •.-'' ___:,.,.--;••,•••:,,[.•••,••_:,,, -:•-'.p! •,11 :- _: ,:. : , : . . .:.,..., • , .,.,.,,...,..:-., ,.. , „.:6;45 ••- .....i.20, , ,•
048
7.:9.9"
,..,: I-..-::-''.--------•:---,'• ••••;4:?.:--.'••,--.,••,...:_-,!-i.,.::,,P,Jdril7•••••_',.2, ••,.•,, :: :
22';%e:---''••• 481 ' '.••,''!"::"'-.-, n7 7 .i . .:.0:02- . . 47461.
1059,, - -:-33',.:::-. ' ' ,.."-. -., ., " - :::---.'-‘ .: -•
13
n 76' • ,
- . ..,_, ....::;:,,,.." ......•:,..,-:•,,,-f,, ,,-..,„:,,•:,.• .„ .•,,-:... 6::.:: - •-•,;:. , : . 2,1. . .. ... ,,, ,, , . . .., , , ‘• , .12 .. ••7'/'ii,'.A. -2445, • , , .•• ' -.:' - •. , • 0-.;-57 :- •
1 OC.PY-`7!- • 66-..5,9.
3
• ' :.:.•''::::,•- • .'•-2,'-'4'.•I'f•-• •-••-,,.:-,•,'----,..,-,..,-' •Ai6.1.1 .9:-''. ,'• ,-: . ' ' . ' , - :', , ,, -, • • ••--1.‘t.: •- .,, ,i.:7.8
15 23,.'":. "-. '71'C-66:' . , .
:7,..:.'-,,•-::.i-:-:-.:„:.' 4-::i:-:,::.,..-:;-, t-st:•:•-•,:..::," _ 8.„..4,- • „ :i:..„. - ,-y ,...,-;:..,,.,..:::::.5.1 a,, :, .. ,.., -,71,..t7. '... - - .s:-...4.,,i4 ,:•• :....':.,..:-4.-6,i..-: ,: •,-. :-. -:.- . • 0.40 . •
-.;f:.:-...,-."2,•;;;'.--,..,,::,.-1,:.:,:::,::::::-;'::,:::.. .:::::::::::::-,..-':,-/i1:".-: ,:,..: ....,::-;-.-.:,:Pr! '.':-•. ,2224,... -- l'CT--- [.----‘--.---:.6972,;-.: b,iz '-.:-.'!''' 6 3 '''. 154'.'::''''. :'•''. '„ .. ''. . .
2311 24
Barbee
' ''' ' • . ''‘' 2:'.'.`... ',':' ,Z, ',.I'Plan.1.`'. ,. ..:,:.. 10§a: ...:' ::.' 609' '?':':: :',1.2769';'' ':.' HS'.'519..,'::::,., :'''..:''..':‘ . •.:..11.§P.,•
119 4421
otak
•:--:_.,..,-,-12: 4,.:...,-,: .i.i„::: „:0106..17-,._.-.,- - ..,:.. .,,,i2.s.i0:z,.:,...•.;-::.y,-,...4d;;,. r,:,:,, f,,,..:,. . ...,.:...,,.,::,,:-,:i.,::..2,.--.. -:,:., ,-,.,1 .7?.-
4.:::.....1:: :.::::-. -:: :•,:-'. ...'.;:....-::.:-.'"::....-.id$#:-:.. 1-.:::•:::.. iOt;-..';‘,.-;:::: ,:.5":„:g5"‘. ..,":-(..,_=•:.-.:.'9..i.87 ,;-
. .4:,F;rii6t1-,: s---- i. ,,:_-1:0 ,-.,-,-•-.......;;-....:.-. ..'...,_:-.•;:,-,,,-..-, :.1:..'768--,,::::,:::-,:.:::,::..,,.;,..-:?„.
i§,-:-.::..;:,:H :' :...-Prop_HibtLn..;, ::::•.....:::'.''....:'•::' ':.;;;:: :'21 7 '.::.:::.'":::.<:S i''.:L,t:',..:%.1''.1''':•'::.'. ': ' ''•.'' , ' , , , •, , . , ,, ,
q;0;. ..:kS''''.:.":','..:::',..:'''.•-.:'' ::8 ',V4i034::"::':,' ''.::. i . ::. ..; '
:..;,'`'.:.:?::,;::1 6 6..:1' --'''' ' ::-','S.'::, •.;'::::?‘::...','' ''',',:,. :', :';:::, .'
''6660P7 'Z'' ''''''H'.f.'. :1':'.Y.t...f.:.J\::,?:.',' •'::..'2 ..'4'.'' '''..''.,'''''..:`'::::. - :..,..; ',.f,., ::.„:'::::C:,' . ''', : .•;',..,f';:;,.:'. ,..'.'. . '
'.'''..'
,' '''::.!.::.'iii3'•SM.'S•,'-',,•••••' •:•• - -‘,'. '',':'•:-•,'.' •'. •,,' ,''''' '
r:•,''•'••‘'' ''' -'''''1•-•''''-''''''1';''''''''' -ill1- 1):-.1;4-`"iresVJEIC,r1------ ,.', •,• • . ;- , ,. ' , ,
Ll'•''.•.: ::-:''''':'•';'''''•4'' ''14W-;•':,''4i'''),',.',.,:f;7:',"./-!. .'-'..-•,;'''''',''','•',.''''' • , '' '
'.':'-';',,,,5::',--;';'1'f',.."'„---,,,;'&., -" ;,.ii',W,•,:•'V':,''..;•K,.';,'',,,':;.-.'S''' ' •
(:':•:''•,‘•';'•'''.••••-',-;••:W". --'::::,Y,•„'i''', •',:'•-'''V‘,";',.n:.•''': ':::::2- '''''' •
11,t'''''.--•'=';''''... 1%••••-.2:'' '''''';':'.',,:•:' '..•,':,;<•';:;-'-•''•`;''''''''''
";':;,.'••_.•:"...- :„'.:'..,'-',.•17.,• >••'•''
,,.*.,',:':•••''''-'..••
Table 1 -Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
River Sta. , Plan Q Total W.S..Elev Vel Left "Vel Chnl Vet Right Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chi
(cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
3.45* Plan_29 1059 22.06 1.97 7.22 2.66 69.82 731.71 257.46 76.71 0.6
3.45* Prop_High_n 1059 22.79 2.31 4.94 2.95 116.53 580.86 361.61 80.86 0.38
3.33333* Plan 18 729.84 21.83 1.3 5.63 22.93 706.91 46.66 0.49
3 Plan_29 1059 21.99 1.7 6.45 2.35 74.9 748.66 235.44 86.94 0.53
3 Plan 18 729.84 21.81 1.04 5.35 41.01 688.84 53.93 0.44
3 Plan 17 1059 22.87 1.39 6.03 95:07 963.93 58.26 0.46
3 Prop_High_n 1059 22.52 2.12 4.67 2.77 123.12 604.61 331.28 90.01 0.36
2.76666* Plan_29 1059 21.73 1.72 7.36 2.55 40.15 797.91 220.93 76.89 0.62
2.76666* Prop_High_n 1059 22.25 2.21 5.44 3.09 72.74 660.47 325.79 80.11 0.43
2.53333* Plan_29 1059 21.48 1.87 8.04 2.76 20.16 818.15 220.7 66.56 0.69
2.53333* Prop_High_n 1059 21.91 2.38 6.19 3.48 34.37 694.56 330.08 69.11 0.51
2.3 Plan_29 1059 21.06 1.76') 9.21 3.1 5.34 842.42 211.25 59.31 0.83
2.3 Plan 18 729.84 21.67 0.95 5.72 1.11 12 694.7 23.14 32.48 0.41
2.3 Plan 17 1059 22.51 1.21 7.25 1.22 20.18 1004.46 34,36 37.25 0.49
2.3 Prop_High_n 1059 21.31 2.33 7.51 4.13 . 8.54 733.9 316.56 60.31 0.66
2.25 Plan 18 729.84 21.69 1.41 5.54 1.84 17.99 674.33 37.53 32.53 0.4
2.25 Plan 17 1059 22.52 1.19 7.19 1.66 20.03 996.47 42.5 37,33 0.48
2.2 Bridge
2.15 Plan 18 729.84 19.86 1.74 7.91 2.98 6.26 691.91 31.68 31.19 0.72
2.15 Plan 17 1059 20.52 1.42 - 9.88 2.57 7.15 1016.59 35.26 32.31 0.83
2.1* Plan_29 1059 20.05 1.7 9.71 1.31 2:55 1054.25 2.2 41.78 0.99
Barbee Mill - 4
k:tproject1302001302091waterreslhecrasIroughness sensitivity.xls otak
Table 1 - Results for Existing and Proposed Conditions
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
River Sta Plan Q Total W.S. Elev Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right , Q Left Q Channel Q Right Top Width Froude#Chl
(cfs) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
2.1* Plan 18 729.84 19.35 2.03 9.26 3.11 5.35 698.78 25.72 30.33 0.91
2.1* Plan 17 1059 20.05 1.59 11.14 2.45 - 6.35 1023.24 29.41 31.51 0.99
2.1* Prop_High_n 1059 20.05 1.19 9.75 0.92 1.77 1055.7 1.52 41.74 0.99
2.05* Plan 18 729.84 19.32 0.08 7.99 0 729.84 39.39 0.92
2 Plan_29 1059 19.68 1.47 9.3 1.25 1.32 1056.99 0.69 44.85 1
2 Plan 18 729.84 19.13 7.64 729.84 43.13 0.9
2 Plan 17 1059 19.58 9.18 1059 44.14 1
2 Prop_High_n 1059 19.68 1.03 9.31 0.88 0.92 1057.6 0.48 44.84 1
1.8* Plan_29 1059 19.46 1.2 8.28 0.83 0.77 1058.02 0.21 53.72 0.93
1.8* Prop_High_n 1059 19.46 0.84 8.28 0.58 0.54 1058.31 0.15 53.72 0.93
1.6* Plan_29 1059 19.38 0.99 7.23 0.58 0.56 1058.36 0.08 62.69 0.82
1.6* Prop_High_n 1059 19.38 0.69 7.23 0.41 0.39 1058.55 0.06 62.69 0.82
1.4* Plan_29 1059 19.26 0.81 6.57 0.45 0.35 1058.61 0.04 71.82 0.76
1.4* Prop_High_n 1059 19.26 0.56 6.57 0.31 0.25 1058.73 0.03 71.82 0.76
1.2* Plan_29 1059 19,12 0.61 6.16 0.34 0.16 1058.82 0.02 80.86 0.74
1.2* Prop_High_n 1059 19.12 0.43 6.17 0.24 0.11 1058.88 0.01 80.85 0.74
1 Plan_29 1059 18.95 0.35 5:97 0.25 0.02 1058.97 0 89.49 0.74
1 Plan 18 729.84 17.01 6.51 729.84 177.08 1
1 Plan 17 1059 16.9 2.06 2.42 810.45 248.55 176.65 0.39
1 Prop_High_n 1059 18.95 0.24 5.97 0.18 0.02 1058.98 0 89.49 0.74
Bargee Mill
k;pprojecl1302001302091waterres\hecras\roughness sensitivity.xls 5 otak
Table 2 -Plan 17-Parametrix Existing Conditions
Manning's n Values
River Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3
1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 1__i
2 10 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
3 9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
4 8 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
5 7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
6 6.9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
7 6.8 Bridge I
8 6.75 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
9 6.7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 •
10 6 n 0.07 0.06 0.07 I
11 5 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
12 4.4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
13 4.35 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
14 4.3 Bridge
15 4.25 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
16 4.2 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
17 4 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
18 3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
19 2.3 n 0.07 0.026 0.07 _
20 2.25 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
21 2.2 Mult Open
22 2.15 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
23 2.1 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
24 2 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
25 1 n 0.07 0.026 0.07
--P
1
li
Barbee Mil!
k:lprojeet1302001302091waterresthecrasVouflhness_sensitivity.xls 6 otak
Table 3-Plan 18-Otak% Existing Conditions
River.Station Frctn(n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3
' 1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
2 10. n 0.07 0.06 0.07
3 9 . n 0.07 0.06 0.07
4 8.65384*" n 0.07 0.06 0.07
5 8. n 0.07 0.06 0.07
6 7.95 Lat Struct
7 7:06666* n , 0.07 0.06 0.07
8 7.33333* . . n 0.07 0.06 0:07
9 7 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
10 6.9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
11 6.8. Bridge
12 6.75 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
13 6:7 . n 0.07 0.06 0.07
14 6.65. . Lat Struct_
15 6.46666* ri 0.07 0.06 . 0.07
16 6.23333* . n 0.07 0:06 0.07
17 6 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
18 5: a 0.07 0.06 0.07
19 4.4 n 0.07 0.06 . 0:07
20. 4.35 n 0.07 0.06 0:07 .
21 4:3 Bridge
22 4.25 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
23 4.2 n : 0.07 0.06 0.0.7
24 .4" n 0.07 0.06 0.07-
25 3.66666*. n 0.07 0:049 0:07 .
26 3.33333* . "n , 0.07 0.037 0:07
27 3 ; n 0.07 0.026 0.07
28 2:3 n" 0:07 0:026 0:07
29 2.25 h 0.07 0.04 0.07 .
30 2`2" Mutt Open
31 2:15 : n 0.07 0.04 0.07
32" 2.1 n 0.07 0.04 . 0.07 '
33 2.05* a 0.07 0.04 0:07
34 2 '" n 0.07 0.04 0:07 .
, 35 1 n . 0.07 0.04 . 0.07
Barbee Mill
kaproject130200130209hvaterreehecrastroughness_sensitivily,xis 7 .otal(..
Table 4-Plan 29-Proposed Conditions
River.Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3
1 11 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
2 10 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
• 3 9 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
4 8 n 0.07 0.06 0.07
5 . .7 n 0.07 . 0.06 0:07
6 6.9. n 0.07 0.06 0.07
7 6.75 . n 0.07 0.06 0:07
8 _ 6.7 n 0.07 0.06 0:07
9 6 n 0:07 0.06 0:07
10 5 n 0.07 0.06 .0.07 j _
11 4.775* n' . 0.07 0.06 0:07 ,;
12 4.55* n 0.07 0.06 0:07
13 4.325* n ' 0.07 0.06 0:07 .
14 . 4.1 ' . n 0.07. 0.06: 0.07
15 . 4.0.1 Bridge
16 3.9 n 0.07 0.06 0:07 '
17 3.45* n ' 0.07 0.035 0.07
18' 3, •n . 0.07 0.035 0.07
19 2.76666* n 0.07' 0.035'. '0.07
20 • 2.53333* ,n 0.07. 0.035 0.0,7
21 2.3 n 0.07 0.035 0.07 ` " i
22 2.2 Bridge
23. 2.1* n 0.07 0.035 0.07
24 2 n 0.07 0.035 0.07
25 1.8* n . 0107 0:035. 0:07 1
26 1:6* n 0.07 0.035 0.07..._ ; .
27 1.4* n 0:07 0.035 -0 07. ,:
28. 1.2* . n '0.07 0.035 0.07.
29 1 n' 0.07 0.035 '0.07
_s
l'
Barbee Mill
loproiecno2o01302amwaterresihecrastroughness__sensitivily.xis 8 otak . ,
Table 5-Proposed Plan Having Higher Roughness Factors
River Station Frctn (n/K) n#1 n#2 n#3
1 11 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
2 10 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
3 9 • n 0.1 0.08 0.1
4 8 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
5 7 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
6 6.9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
7 6.75 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
8 6.7 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
9 6 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
10 5 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
11 4.775* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
12 4.55* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
13 4.325* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
14 4.1 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
15 4.01 Bridge
16 3.9 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
17 3.45* n _ 0.1 0.08 0.1
18 3 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
19 2.76666* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
20 2.53333* n 0.1 0.08 0.1
21 2.3 n 0.1 0.08 0.1
22 2.2 Bridge
23 2.1* n 0.1 0.035 0.1
24 2 n 0.1 0.035 0.1
25 1.8* n 0.1 0.035 0.1
26 1.6* n 0.1 0.035 0.1
27 1.4* n 0.1 0.035 0.1
28 1.2* n 0.1 0.035 0.1
29 1 n 0.1 0.035 0.1
-
Barbee Mill 9 otak
ktprojec630200\30209twalerreslnecrnslroughness sensitivity.xls
.
Sample Calculations For Estimating Manning's n
Reference: USGS (U.S. Geologic Survey). 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness
Coefficients for Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geologic Survey Water Supply
Paper 2339.
The following calculations serve as the primary design basis for determining Manning's n values for
the existing and proposed channels. They support n values in the following ranges:
Existing channel 0.035 < n < 0.045
Proposed Channel 0.060 < n < 0.075
Overbank 0.065 < n < 0.075
These roughness factors will be adjusted during final design.
Existing Stream Channel: River Station (RS) 3.9 to RS 11
1. Channel bed material: Coarse gravel n 0 := 0.028
2. Surface Irregularity: Minor(slighly eroded banks), n 1 := 0.005 I I
3. Var. in Shape& Size: Minor n 2 := 0.003
(Occasional shift from large to small section),
4. Obstructions to flow: Neglig. (<5%section area), n 3 := 0.002
5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Low(Flow> 2 x Veg.), n 4 := 0.005
6. Degree of meandering: Minor(Sinuosity< 1.2), m := 1.00 •
n := m•(n0+ n1 + n.2 + n3 + n4) , n = 0.043
River Station (RS) 1 to RS 3.9
Stations downstream of RS 3.9 should have lower n values based on the sandier channel bed
materials and the regularity and smoothness of the channel. These values are not as
important because flow in that reach are heavily influenced by tailwater conditions near Lake
Washington.
Barbee Mill 30209\waterres\hecras\MANNINGS.MCD otak
By: RWS 02/13/04
Proposed Stream Channel: River Station.(RS) 3.9 to RS 11
. 1. Channel bed material: Medium Gravel n 0 := 0.028
2. Surface Irregularity: Uniform channel in good condition, n 1 := 0.002
3. Var. in Shape& Size: Occasional shift from large to small n 2 := 0.010
section),
4. Obstructions to flow: Appreciable(additional woody debris n 3 := 0.015
5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Small (Flow>2:x Veg.), n 4.:= 0..005
6. Degree of meandering: Minor(Sinuosity< 1.2), m := 1:03
n := m•(n0+n1 + n2+ n3+ n4 n = 0.062
Proposed Overbanks: River Station.(RS) 1 to RS 11
•
1. Channel bed material:.;Gravel(d50—2.5"), 9.0 := 0.02
2. Surface Irregularity: Minor(slighly.,eroded banks), n :;:=.0.01
3. Var. in Shape&Size: Minor 'n 2 :17,0.00
(Occasional shift from large to small section),
4. Obstructions to flow: Minor( <10%section area), n 3 :=:0.015 •
5. Vegetation relative to flow depth: Small (Flow>2 x Veg:),. n4.:= 0.025:
6:.. Degree of meandering: Applicable (1.2 < Sinuosity.< 1.5), m = 1.00
n := m•(np+ n1 + n2+ n3+ n4). , n= 0.07
Application of Roughness Factors
Tables 2, 3 and 4 show:the Manning's n values used"in:the HEC-RAS modeling. Table 2 shows
results for the existing channel; Table 3 for the proposed channel and."Table 4"for.a :
conservatively rough channel.
•
Barbee Mill 302091waterres\hecras\MANNINGS:MCD : otak
By: RWS 02/13/04
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
It
•
ATTACHMENT E
Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
•
ATTACHMENT E
Mitigation Scenario Hydraulic Analysis Results
Mitigation scenarios for the 100-year flood were evaluated independently of the proposed
development scenarios using HEC-RAS. Each of the mitigation scenarios assumes that the dredging
operations have been discontinued and that the existing channel has aggraded as discussed under
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 in the Impact Section. A brief description of each scenario and a qualitative
summary of the modeling results is provided below.
• Scenario 4: Aggradation of the channel due to discontinuation of dredging operations, remove
existing bridges at stations 2.2 and 6.8, and assume hat the bridge at station 4.3 would be
• replaced with a bridge that spans the floodplain. Under this mitigation scenario,the stream would
still overtop the existing right bank and flow onto the floodplain.
• Scenario 5: If the proposed development floods under Scenario 4, then a levee at a 50-ft setback
from the stream would be evaluated. A levee at a 50-ft setback from the stream could be used to
prevent the site from flooding. This would result in increased flood stages, and potentially
increase scour and erosion. •
• Scenario 6: Aggradation of the channel due to discontinuation of dredging operations, OTAK
modified channel configuration, and the bridge at Station 4.01 is assumed to span the floodplain.
Under this mitigation scenario the stream would remah in the confined channel during flood
flows and the site would not be inundated. This scenario would benefit the stream by reducing
flood stages, scour and erosion. However, confming the stream could have long-term impacts as
discussed in the Impacts and Mitigation Sections of the report.
• Scenario 7: If the proposed development floods under Scenario 6, then a levee at a 50-ft setback
from the stream would be evaluated. This mitigation scenario was not evaluated because under
Scenario 6 the site would not flood.
City of Renton—Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat 554-1779-017(02/02)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Attachment E-1 April2004
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report
I
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
Q = 100-yr Future Mitigated flows = 1,059 cfs
r
River Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Shear Chan Shear Total Flow Area Top Width Overtop Froude# E.G.Elev E.G.Slope
Sta Plan Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (Ib/sq ft) (Ib/sq ft) (sq ft) (ft) Bank • ChI (ft) (ft)
11 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 22.0 29.1 7.1 I 2.2 7.2 0.7 3.3 2.5 MOM 43.0 NO I
11 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 22.0 29.0 7.0E 0.711.1 42.3 NO 11111101111111111
11 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 22.0 29.0 7.0 IIMEEMINIMIN 0.7 IIKOMINEMMI 151.8 IMIMM NO 1111.1111111111111
1 11 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 22.0 28.1 6.1 2.9 NM 4.0 111.11 2.0 194.0 62.4 NO
11 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 22.0 28.1 6.1 2.9 7.2 4.0 3.2 2.0 194.3 62.4 NO 0.57 28.7 0.010494
10 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 21.4 28.2 6.8 2.2 7.7 0.3 3.8 3.1 142.9 38.8 NO
10 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee MINI 28.0 6.6 2.2 8.0 .111 - 4.1 MEM 136.2 36.7 NO10111111,1111111111111111
10 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 21.4 28.0 6.7Mil 7.9MIMI 4.0 ��� 137.8 36.9 NO1111.111111.11
10 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 21.4 ���iiP I 6.0MICIIM 7.9MEM � � 194.4 61.7 NO 1111111111111111111111111111111
10 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 21.4 27.3 6.0 4.2 7.9 4.4 3.7 2.2 195.1 61.8 NO 0.61 27.9 0.011746
9 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 20.3 28.0 7.7 - 5.5 1.0 1.9 0.7 MEM 114.6 NO
9 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 20.3 27.7 5.8 1.1 l 1.0 202.3 85.2
IMIIMIII 1111
9 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 20.3 27.8IEMIMMIll 5.7 1.2 2.0 1.0 207.8 82.7 � �
i
9 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 20.3 26.9 6.7 1.7 5.5 3.1 1.8 61.7 111111111111111111111.1111111111111111
9 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 . 20.3 26.9 6.7 1.7 5.5 3.1 1.8 1.3 �� 61.8 NO I 0.42 27.3 0.005771
j 8 Plan 17 lEx Cond w/Aggredation 20.0 26.5 6.5 I - 6.1 I 0.8 2.3 0.3 258.6 482.0 YES I_
8 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 20.0 26.8 6.8 �� 4.6 1.0 1.3 0.3 437.8 482.9 YES
8 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 20.0 27.0 6.9 0.2 4.5 2.4M� 0.9 288.7 85.8 YES O 8 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 20.0NEM 5.7 2.8 6.1 3.3 1.4 ►c 65.8 YES 1.111.111111111111
8 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 20.0 25.8 5.8 2.7 6.0 3.2 2.1 1.3 235.1 66.1 YES FP Cut off on RB 0.45 26.2 0.006058
7 122.111111111 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.3 26.4 8.1 1.6 3.7 1.0 0.7 0.2 754.4 558.5 YES May be due to Bridge @ 6.8 11.1111111111111
7 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.31 6.8 4.4 9.1 3.0 4.8 2.9Mall 39.5 NO �� ,'.'� �M
7 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.3 MEEIN 7.0 MEM 9.0 1.3 4.6 1.5 153.0 MEM NO MN
7 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. �M 24.9 6.6MIN 6.9 3.6 ��, ■ % cc 62.1 NO MIM,
7 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.3 25.1 6.7 3.3 6.6 3.5IIIMEEMHIIIEIIIMEBMI 62.7 YES FP Cut off on RB 0.48 25.5 0.007071
6.9 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.3 26.4 8.1 2.1 3.7 0.9 0.8 0.2 736.5 558.1 YES May be due to Bridge @ 6.8
6.9 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.3 24.4 6.1 4.8 10.6 4.7 6.8 4.6 118.6 32.6 NO 11111111111111111
'
6.9 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.3 ® 6.7 4.4 9.2 3.1 4.9 2.9 allIMM 39.0 NO 111111.111111111.11.111111.11.1111.111111.1
6.9 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.5 24.9 6.4 2.5 MI 2.9 1.9 ® c ® 59.7 111.1111111111.1111.11111.11a..111111111.11111
6.9 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.5 25.0 6.5 2.4 5.5 2.9 1.7 1.2 240.6 60.3 YES FP Cut off on RB 0.40 25.4 0.004798
6.8 Existing Bridge
6.75 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 24.0 5.6 - 4.1 1.0 0.9 0.2 137.7 42.1 YES I
6.75 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 25.3 6.9 1.8 3.9 0.9 0.9 0.2 634.9 589.7 YES
6.75 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 25.4 7.0 2.5 5.5 1.6 1.7 0.8 251.8 84.1 YES
6.75 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.8 6.4 2.1 5.7 2.8 1.9 1.2 228.7 56.4 NO
6.75 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.9 6.5 2.1 5.5 2.8 1.7 1.1 238.4 56.9 NO 0.39 25.3 0.004492
6.7 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 25.3 6.9 1.7 3.8 0.9 0.8 0.2 669.3 589.7 YES I
6.7 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 25.2 6.8 1.8 4.0 0.9 0.9 0.2 617.3 589.6 YES
:6.7 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 25.4 7.0 2.5 5.5 1.6 7 247.7 84.0 YES
6.7 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.8 6.3 2.2 5.4 2.8 1.7 1.1 244.9 66.3 NO
6.7 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.9 6.5 I 2.1 5.2 I 2.7 1.5 1.0 256.6 66.9 NO 0.38 25.3 0.004484
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Final-Environmental Impact Statement
554-1779-017(02/02)
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report E-1
April 2004
1
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
Q = 100-yr Future Mitigated flows = 1,059 cfs
River Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Shear Chan Shear Total Flow Area Top Width Overtop Froude# E.G.Elev E.G.Slope
' Sta Plan Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (lb/sq ft) (Ib/sq ft) (sq ft) (ft) Bank • Chi (ft) (ft)
6 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 18.4 24.4 6.0 3.8 7.3 - 3.4 2.5 178.1 55.0 NO
6 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 18.4 24.7 6.3 3.0 0.6 1.8 0.1 478.8 1,495.2ISM M
6 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 18.4 24.8 6.4 3.4 6.2 0.8 2.4 1.0 214.5 106.3
6 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 18.4 24.1 ' 6.5 3.5 2.5 1.3 238.2 81.8 NO ,III�II,I11111.1111
6 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 18.4 24.5 6.1 2.6 5.8 3.2 1.9 1.1 267.6 83.7 YES 0.43 24.8 0.005508
5 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 17.5 24.1 6.6 1.5 2.7 0.6 0.4 0.1 687.0 1,470.9 YES
5 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee MOM 23.8 6.3 3.0 5.8 0.3 2.0 0.1 299.4 1,470.4 YES 11.11111.1111`
5 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 111111= 24.1 6.6 2.9V 1.0 1.8 0.8 236.8 97.5
5 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. ® 23.6 6.0 al 2.7 1.6 1.0 281.7 84.2 NO 11.1111111.11111111111.11.1111111.1.111
5 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 6.6 2.5 4.7 2.2 1.2 0.7 327.8 95.6 YES 0.33 24.3 0.003273
4.775 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 MIMI 5.8 3.0 5.6 2.6 1.8 1.0 273.0 89.9 . NO
4.775* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 24.0 6.4 IIMM 4.9 1.9 1.3 0.6 333.6 116.3M31.1.1.1111111.111111111 0.35 0.003601
�
4.55 Plan 03 `Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 23.2 5.7 3.1 5.7 2.7 1.9 1.1 267.4 89.5 NO !
4.55* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.9 6.3 2.5 4.9 2.1 1.3 0.7 331.5 111.7 i YES 0.35 24.1 0.003672
4.4 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.3 24.0 8.7 1.0 2.7 0.9 0.4 0.1 754.9 561.1 YES
4.4 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 23.7 8.4 1.8 4.7 1.1 1.3 0.2 586.3 560.9 YES
4.4 Plan 02 1Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.3 23.5 8.2 1 2.5 6.8 3 2.8 2.6 1.3 223.6 70.6 YES i
#
4.35 Plan 17 l Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.3 23.7 8.4 2.9 6.6 3.8 2.5 ! 1.7 560.9 YES L 1111111111111111111111111
4.35 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 1.111MIIMMI 8.1 2.4 6.4 1.1 2.3 0.3 419.3 560.8 YES i
4.35 Plan 02 !Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft ® 8.0 2.6 7.0 2.8 2.8 1.3 215.3 70.5 YES I 111111111111111
4.325 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 23.0 MilM 3.0 5.8 3.1 2.0 1.2 254.0 81.6 NO 11111111.111110111
4.325* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 ME ' 6.2 2.5 4.8 2.4 1.3 0.8 318.8 MilaillMEM1 May be due to bridge @ 4.01 0.35 24.0 0.003687
4.25 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 23.9 MMUIRM 6.6 3.6 2.5 1.9 624.7 555.6 YES
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
4.25 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 1 MEM 6.4 IIIIIMI 6.9 3.0 2.8 1.8 191.0 54.7 NO
4.25 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 MEM 6.6 MIMI 6.9 2.1 2.8 1.3 203.2 78.7 YES
4.2 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 23.9 7.2 2.4 5.2 1.0 1.6 0.2 611.3 555.6 YES
4.2 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 23.0 6.4 3.3 7.0 3.1 2.9 1.8 188.0 54.0 NO MIMIIIII,,,.,,II
4.2 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 23.2 6.5MOE 7.1 2.1 3.0 1.3 196.4 78.6 YES
4.1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.6 22.8EIM 6.1 3.7 2.3 1.6 227.6 68.4
4.1 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.6 23.0 5.4 5.5 7.7 5.4 3.6 3.2 152.5 69.6 NO 0.61 23.8 0.011527
4.01 Proposed OTAK Bridge
4 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 17.5 23.4 5.9 2.4 6.1 1.3 2.2 1.2 220.3 127.1 NO
4 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 17.5 22.9 5.5 2.5 6.3 1.9 a 2.4 1 7 186.1 57.1
4 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 17.5 22.9 5.5 2.5 6.3 1.9 2.4 1.7 186.0 57.1
3.9 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 17.4 22.5 5.1 3.2 5.9 3.8 2.1 1.5 234.8 68.8
3.9 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.4 22.1 4.7 6.1 9.0 6.5 5.0 4.5 131.5 66.6 NO 0.76 23.2 0.018855
3.45 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod. Chnl. 17.1 22.0 4.9 1 2.0 7.3 2.7 1.1 0.8 232.0 76.6
3.45* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 17.1 22.1 4.9 2.0 7.2 2.7 1.1 0.8 233.7 76.7 NO t 0.60 22.7 0.004024
3 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.3 22.9 6.6 1.4 6.0 - 0.4 0.3 245.4 61.5 NO g
3 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.3 22.6 6.4 1.4 6.3 - 0.5 0.4 214.8 57.3
3 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.3 22.6 6.4 1.4 6.3 0.5 0.4 214.8 57.3
3 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 22.0 5.1 1.7 6.4 2.3 0.9 0.6 261.1 87.0
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Final-Environmental Impact Statement
554-1779-017(02/02)
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report E-2 April 2004
- 1
HEC-RAS River: May Creek Reach: 1 Profile: 100-yr Future Mi
Q = 100-yr Future Mitigated flows = 1,059 cfs
River Min Ch El W.S.Elev Depth Vel Left Vel Chnl Vel Right Shear Chan Shear Total Flow Area Top Width Overtop. Froude# E.G.Elev E.G.Slope
Sta Plan Description (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft/s) (lb/sq ft) (lb/sq ft) (sq ft) (ft) Bank • Chl (ft) (ft)
3 Plan 29 OTAK IOTAK Bridge @ 4.0-1 16.9 22.0 5.1 1.7 6.5 2.4 0.9 1 0.6 260.5 86.9 NO 0.53 22.5 0.003179
2.76666 !Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 21.7 4.8 1.7 7.3 2.5 1.2 0.8 219.1 76.9
2.76666* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.7 4.8 1.7 7.4 2.6 1.2 0.8 218.4 76.9 NO 0.62 22.4 0.004393
2.53333 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 21.5 4.6 1.9 8.0 2.8 1.4 1.0 193.4 66.6
2.53333* Plan 29 OTAK IOTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.5 4.6 1.9 8.0 2.8 1.4 1.0 192.5 66.6 NO 0.69 22.3 0.005546
2.3 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 22.4 6.5 1.2 7.3 1.2 0.5 0.3 156.5 35.7 NO
2.3 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 21.4 5.5 1.8 10.4 2.1 1.2 0.9 121.8 31.5
2.3 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 21.4 5.5 1.8 10.4 2.1 1.2 0.9 121.9 31.5
•
2.3 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 20.8 3.9 1.9 10.1 3.3 2.4 1.7 146.1 58.2
2.3 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 21.1 4.2 l 1.8 9.2 3.1 1.9 1.4 162.5 59.3 NO i 0.83 22.1 0.008266
2.25 Plan 17 i Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 22.4 6.5 1.2 7.2 1.7 0.5 0.4 154.5 35.7 NO
_
2.25 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 20.9 5.0 2.0 11.6 2.3 1.6 1.2 1 107.6 30.3
2.25 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 20.9 5.0 2.0 11.6 2.3 1.6 1.2 I 107.5 30.3 i s
2.2 Existing Bridge
2.15 Plan 17 IEx Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 21.2 5.3 1.4 9.9 2.6 1.1 0.9 124.6 33.3 NO I
_ 2.15 , Plan 01 iScenario_4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 l 21.1 5.2 1.6 10.1 2.5 1.2 1.0 123.6 33.1 r -__. .......,:d
2.15 ;Plan 02 !Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 21.1 5.2 1.6 10.1 2.5 1.2 1.0 123.7 33.1
2.1 Plan 17 'Ex Cond w/Aggredation 15.9 20.7 4.8 1.6 11.1 2.5 1.5 1.2 110.4 32.4 NO
2.1 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 15.9 20.7 4.8 1.7 11.1 ,_ 2.8 1.5MEM 110.5 32.4
2.1 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 15.9 20.6 4.7 1.7 11.2 2.8 1.5 1.3 I 110.3 32.4
2.1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. L 16.9 20.1 3.2 1.7 I 9.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 111.7 41.8
2.1* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 I 16.9 20.1 3.2 1.7 9.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 111.7 41.8 NO I 0.99 21.5 0.012445
2 Plan 17 i Ex Cond w/Aggredation 16.7 19.7 3.0 ' - 9.2 - 1.2 i 1.2 115.3 44.0 NO
2 Plan 01 !Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 16.7 19.7 3.0 - 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.3 44.0
2 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft 16.7 19.7 3.0 MEN 9.2 - 1.2 1.2 115.2 44.0
2 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.7 2.8 1.5 I 9.3 1.3 2.2 2.0 115.1 44.9
2 Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.7 2.8 1.5 I 9.3 1.3 2.2 2.0 115.1 44.9 NO 1.00 21.0 0.013301
1.8 Plan 03 'Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.4 1111111111 1.2 8.3 0.8 ME= 1.7 127.8 53.7 4
1.8* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge 16.9 19.5 2.6 1.2 8.3 0.8 1.8 1.7 128.7 53.7 NO 0.93 20.5 0.011672
1.6 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.0 7.3 0.6 1.4 1.4 145.3 62.6
1.6* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.4 2.5 1.0 7.2 0.6 1.4 1.3 147.2 62.7 NO 9 0.82 20.2 0.009214
1.4 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 19.2 2.3 0.8 6.7 0.4 1.2 1.2 158.1 71.7
1.4* Plan 29 OTAK OTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.3 2.4 0.8 6.6 0.5 1.1 1.1 161.7 71.8 NO 0.76 19.9 0.008066
1.2 Plan 03 IScenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 16.9 18.7 1.8 - 7.6 0.2 1.7 1.7 139.8 79.3
1.2* Plan 29 OTAK jOTAK Bridge @ 4.01 16.9 19.1 2.2 I 0.6 6.2 0.3 1.0 1.0 172.2 80.9 NO 0.74 19.7 0.007666
1 Plan 17 Ex Cond w/Aggredation 14.7 16.9 11111EIEM 2.1 ! 2.4 - 0.1 0.2 495.5 176.7 NO
1 Plan 01 Scenario 4 No Bridges No Levee 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.3 0.3 235.3 88.0
1 Plan 02 Scenario 5 Levee @ 50-ft. 14.7 18_4 3.7 - 4.5 - 0.3 0.3 235.3 88.0 I i
1 Plan 03 Scenario 6 Mod.Chnl. 14.7 18.4 3.7 - 4.5 - _ 0.5 0.5 235.3 182.8
1 Plan 29 OTAK IOTAK Bridge @ 4.01 � _ 16.9 19.0 2.1 j 0.4 1 6.0 - 0.3 1.0 3 1.0 177.4 89.5 NO 0.74 -
19.5 0.008005
City of Renton-Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat
Final-Environmental Impact Statement 554-1779-017(02/02)
Appendix F-Floodplain Technical Report E-3 April 2004
,
MICROFILMED
•
, , ICROFIL ED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLATo
To /OVERALL PLAT PLAN // a,, ,/
s, j ,/ O' S0' 100' 2O0' E
is \/ ?% ff
a
,::
/ LAKE .MASHINGFON O O / ''
//2,f1/ '''. 11110 I.jr- .111L/' Dm, l't
LIB __ _ - __ --s- _ter __ ,, \ ,, -
-11
/ /\ `\\-- Jli_� 1j...•If" L Imo, i r' -IC
II - 1�.1-i c.. ',/,
, ,/ / / I , \B 90'OyT0.,". '''''''
J`,I. I";Ia..l h.....I I_ I I6...1•_�f- I---•II •1 � / ��1 -` F.
11 f . I-,-.1c...j1 I ,1 I / /j CST, j t
•C 1• r mmc pYm��•\�� �� �I. 1 JI L11 ( I I 1 JL1JI / // �:i / . " r. -- z
LAKE v �/ : 3 lt ' [ �' F.
L_ // Mr-
r ET'q�,' J 1. _ / %�� / \ ,;fig./ .:4::1" 0
WASHINGTON I---1 I..1 .ji111 i_.J11_.li`;r-g L/ r,L, 11...,':._J%v//. f''/// 1i1` e ' ' 9 0
I/ STREET A / 1 _ �i
1- I ' I 11 i II 1 11 1 ,p / / y 4 v/z! ,''��� 80E
1 IL--1—J I L JI i,c..l I�1 \ I I1=-_6..1 I_ 7'`'�// �// : Yfr":i,. I ��y� m'm
r__ I T J lc..l .1,I.:. 1-•-I I ..1 1 W I./i j/// / ! 1 ,r , imai.4niiimE i&6 A'7e°3.'_.�.Lk.ci' .�3�
YJII q_ �J y / ,m.m
Nws.. ` .-r I , J r-1, '� 3'/ %/ I i O 500• 0• 500• 1000. W sN
W -' J / 0 fll��ziO
1 I II_••1:=-J-� ' j /, / SCALE IN FEEL ao� v
rT II
•
1-.h --.1,•iJ" <_ 7\= ‘‘,1;
.,`�j
,�'//,O / i I VICINTY MAP F.
0a_ 11 Y Y j!'/ ; , q LEGAL DESCRIPTION: >"
/ I 1 c.. 1/ ^/ \\.\ -. .. -_ •/ /I_ •/ / / '� THE LAND CT N. OU TOO TI CA D S ST AS F IN THE STATE OF Z
--= l' „ \ )' - -.>AA/ice/, % rr/ 1/A9F@LGTON.COUNTY OP IONS AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
I 1 J / 7 \, ..., .s ue, -�j /�
ALL THAT PORTION OP GOVORNMENP LOT 1•SECTION 32•TOH N�24 NORTH,
I-, . ^/� . - ,.- / RANGE A DS A.ADJOINING
IN YING COUNER. OF NORTHERN
AND CI ICCOND OAD T a
SH WAY.
EX ADIOHH LYING 1 I ANY.ERLY OF SAID IELOT PACIFIC YING NO H OF
I / - _ / OF RAY.EXCEPT THAT PORTION.IN ANY,OF SE SORE IND9 LYING NORTH OP
/ \\\ /•- % _ • ,./ ,r�/ a I THE NEEITE[U.Y PRODUCTION OF THIN NORTH TINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT I. w
L.,.J 1 \ `\ -:.-,-;:f:::�j ..�• - ;/ SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING,STATE OF WASHINGTON. �y
15 I --`- / c >,\� ',t / FLOOD HAZARD a a
( I, \_- • --- ,\?� / / { ME IGO YEAR FLOOD HAZARD IS CONTAINED WITHIN TIE MAY CREIX HANKS. !-'1 I—
i ` =- L�1/jb/� _.�i/i <,_: // ii I p w
/ ,..,-,,‘,7-‘,2/ //,/i• ,'>-•-,,, / ,-;(•/ a) -
l ,
e /• "" "•/ ./ 1= CLI Incorporated
R. MAY cae©c // % / /�/.r 1YrIBe a CA-IL30 w�lkve YnT/1008 DELTA / /L,,// Y V.--A 1 %I . /..i 1(vHm4 Ye BB0T9/ Phmc ((125)) BT1-4M8/ __ _ .... ,
P ///-. /'a" O FAL (125) AZA-95R
8 \(• ''/ I �2 kk30209.0 001oK
• 7.17INlope---�� // !J%1L LAND Project No.
R-8 ZONE .mow �'^ �. �
/- N 40TH ST. Sheet No
Coll.BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551L5Lleet 1 of 1
micRoRi mED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
-,,-- il Figure 2 — Vicinity Map
, .
MATCHLINE - LOWER RIGHT 0 40 50 150 w
coo-2 ZONE /i/" 7 '
----,,r-t—,r--1---ii--T._,, ....,........, / i i
( ,,-,A\ 21 0,201 19jj I81 171I I I1 � ��_-_lr T-i � , /'. i / !. 'f
/-♦ 1 1 _J--I I 11 1 r—I- r-1—' 1 I I 1J�e/ < / /
/ . �\ J1=-t= , 161 15II1q II I II 1 1 I I 311 // ''' 4. / / .-� r / a8
/ .^-\ Lam` -; I13 1112 1 111110 j 9 8 7 j 1 6 5 11 4 1 I I // /// i%/ / ' O .r',f w m
I ,..5,`23�2 / _ \ �- 11 1 11 1 ,_-_J L_1_J 1 / LAKE O�/ , _
_ L. J ` �/ //%/ / WASHINGTON .,
I pq / 1 jj T� �5,7 '°m��-� /tea m "' .// 1. y
E"
f - /(65 1 66 671 68 I j - „a\J :S REEf A_ _- , �/ \• ,,,/.:„
�, m
I 1---25-I(_. I11-- I _ 11 1 11169 I70 II j71 1\Th r---- r� ` if-1 -1 1 ., /'a.''; ! ,I'-� %�:..,C .u,., Q=
I 1 721$ 1 1 ' 1 11 11 164)1/ ,/'/// % J, k i.
L 26 1 --I-J I 11 73 74j 1 75 \ I I 1 ///////� / / 7 an= 0 ;II 1
_"J -- -� I I_ 1 q 1 59160 11s1 6211 // ,h'/ / -,, { G��
II J L _J --�I I I I I I /�� / / / ri* ..
I 1 mom.¢ 1-- 19 L_.L_J L_T_I L- �/' ,I, / ,,/J \ IA'
-1 - 180 1 79,178 ,7711 I 6 8 .( 58-1 '//.,• piI//// J / ' ��,�j
S' I I J , \57 / I/ 4
.,. L I I a -1 1 1 81 1 I-i ` 5b`// ->/ %/ / 11W • 'MEIN G fi
m G11 r- 1 1182 I L' / i_ ,a\K •` i//.,.„,_
t, / La}� ^CL��� I - g
83 1 L /% E-\ `\\ss,\ • /7 is I% 6 �n II;% V
' i zi,1 T i 184 I E 11 s3\s4 i //!// %I ! 1JL!'lFr�NG��Eizi��.� 1 a . S8
�I 11861 as 1 I //%.' S1 11 52 11 i/ i' i / II J/ �*• e il
:ltro n It f[RIt 1 1. ; 1 q\ I 28 I I 11,',' / < 49 \ 5011 1 • .,.G/ / II / - .. ".r - '�tl 1211E
♦' 500• 0' 500• • 1000' 0 w
I r----4 `i�6a ink•47`� ) _ - v / � % % sIF. IN FEET ���o
n I 1 1 ' a 8',•< > /`-'-:_ /" ! VICINITY MAP 1
I 3t 1 ..., .- �\asp � _-' • i/--=_�%' - / %!
y / II/ .. .LAKE a I „ // /! I/ o .<.n..„ P,
WASHINGTON in I L_32-J ( 44' - _ /' %//// $
I 33-11 r 1� 43\\�\i �� -`f %I// ~ •
'Tt
0
\ r o/ r
2.
J w.�\\ -36 ! '/\ to I% // fie>
' pt
/ /® // n; 1t' /O A..,. I/ d .ram %
./I/ ///
•
/
,,..-N.i t.,,
(,jj, / \ 87/ / /./ %/ :n\9798/ 4, /i/.! / 7� -4 U_
•
9 MAT CREEK // /< g9o/� r\ t ,/ 6
OEL4A /' \. , :• , \ /// // fly i-f
E /' / �£.e.., ;91,9/�,/ -y�`Y IT•\ 4r , A�j�� /� /ncorpora Led
\ A , , / `� h+i 620 arfuma Tay 0100
•
II/ i
a.uaoa,r wma
g L'6iwm'a \ / 6/ \ • O PEwe ((1z5 ea-Iu6
/ / —1,, </ tt �'V Ewe `+u�ezr-esn
J`. R-8 ZONE ,.,.,�. 14%, •I/; •
,� Project No.001.001
N 40TH STREET' MATCHLINE — UPPER RIGHT Figure 2
/ sneer 0.
`• .0,—, CALL.BEFORE YOU BIG 1-800-42/-5555`sheet I of 1
•
•
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
_= BARBEE ,MILL PRELI,VIIXARY PLAT
APPROVAL APPLICATION
t,
WA98NCEON Q' '
LAKE 0 a vat
FLOOD HAZARD SITE INFORMATION: L'
�'! C�- :a
pATG APRIL 6,2002 THE 100 YEAR FLOOD HAZARD IS -_
CONTAINED WITHIN THE MAY CREEK
INANILS. BESTING ZONING: COR-2 I iI G Id. -
grA /,, v, III''
GROSS SITE AREA: 22.81 AC / \ I'�
(BOUNDARY AND HARBOR[ANTI) 1. .i.I ." / 4 4-�
NET DEVELOPMENT ARIA: 17.01 AC Ilri
11.4
(CROSS-SENSITIVE AREAS.WATER&=TYPHON) z / ,f \ I SV �
HINDU®BURRING/STRUCTURE FOOTPRINTS: 80X DIPERVIOUS t.
(BUILDING AND ROADS COVERAGE) ; ;I' .GP`, i
-i
.?' PROPOSES DENSTIY: MIN.8.68 DU/AC NET(112 DU) a �' � `�;s;ngD
PERILMED DEN5RY: 6 DU/AC NOT MIN.(88 DU) ) r- IN'0'IyW,I .1
BUILDING SETBACKS REQUIRED: REQUIRED PROPOSED MIN. `{:"� �y, I�VIM I
o. (coR-2 ZONE)
— _.1—f_.� • or r
/ (COR-2 Ns _ O. o• r '' ��yyR ��,I I
/ O (COT,HERO9mE LOT
O 6 Arks[ N 1F U�
/ ,i e,r I'--;� N� .i GiA:w . 1,..=:'.' iI �(I fffa zzz
FRONT YARD 0• 10' y 1 RE
COR-2 ZONE �� 500' 0' S00• 1000' 1I 27
�\ BACK YARD 1D• _ - Wy
\r ml�a ,a /,„/%/. / - __ SCALE IN FEET 0 W az
I \ 1°L ,.I+• ,.I I -'-/ ,. // - --I CRITICAL AREA CA1CIRATIONS: pG m
1 "1 I .L i • •/ /// I: AREA OF MA lea WAScror: 020 ACRES VICINTY MAP w.a s
/1 IA ro T --/.. //. /,' { AREA OF MAY CREEK: 028 ACRES E.
�1 a. I"I—21 •.II" T T T /v/////% 1 - TOTAL: 2.00 ACRES
1 '° I I "i" "`\ (aoi� .1u"170/// ROAD RIGI2T—OF—WAY: 3.88 ACME CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION: PL.
I i m I'"i" i j / //i%-/ • s OF AREA IN STREETS AND OPEN SPACE: 41%
CI ' I m 1 \�i'/ /// CONSTRUCT/ONANTICIPATED R BE COMPLETED INN�All OFG2000420WORKING HOURS
v e l r ../ / m NOTES: MIL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD PRACTICES BETWEEN THE
HOURS of 7:00 AM To 8:00 PM.UNIli9S UNUSUAL CHtcUvsrAxCEs d�i
Y T \a. %%'7/ o DICTATE OTHERWISE.IN THE EVENT ADDITIONAL HOURS ARE REQUIRED, Z
I. "-{ I I t„ \ /• _ NOTIFICATION WILL BE GIVEN TO ME CITY OF RENTON.
1 f/ .•\n„I /%/ // I. ALL RECITING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED WTIH THE EXEMPTION OF TINE%POSTING
'° (®I°' ,� a,/i:/ // /A .. AT BUDDING T. AIL MATERIALS WILL B MINED TO THE SITS PROM TB soma VIA[ARE
77.1
°-I (y ,` • ! / 2. AIL%HISIDIG RAILROAD TRACKS ON SIZE TO B REMOVED. EMPLOYED ro DIBCT ntAFFIC IN THE EVENT LARGER TImCKS AB
. F " . WASHI CTON BLVO.,B PARE DR YE AND I-406.PLACIOTT WIt B .a
.':�- / !/ F� s. PHASING: UNABLE TO OPERATE WITHIN TRAFFIC LADEN.
2 (`,,•„.a\ /: — ' //6 FOR WORK To B DONE W 0001 T THE LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD.RIGHT OF
v �_a` i�,/ 0' / /7 / MAY INCUDEE TTHEHEDCLOOSTRAFFIC SUREE of ONENE LANNEE AND DIU FLAG6200 PIAN MIL BE urruzio. TOPLAN
Q
" %/ ` �oy / '/ /// LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DIIm nNArr1°•.xD TEMPORARY 6IGN.GE""°LAB MARKINGS IN .a
1 / / s%�410, Y/ //•/ // �.. ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF REN'ION STANDARDS. I-1
g --\ i ill / / TINE LAND MEMO TO THIS comTrExr Is SITUATED IN TB STATE Or
IMPACTS FROM DUST SHALL a TIIND®BY WATERING CONSTRUCTION
/L l 'lI / / % .' WASHDNGHTN,COUNTY OF KING AND IN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AREAS AS NECESSARY.EROSION AND MUD CONTROL SHALL B HANDLED w
/ USING AN REPROVED EROSION CONTROL PLAN,INCLUDING TIRERAC WASHES. _
a/ / (it / i ALL THAT PORTION OF GOVISINMENT MT 1,SECTION 32.TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH,
AND STREET SWEEPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD PRACTICES. [S]
\\ / ///y / ' / RANGE 6 G41,WY,IN KING COUNTY.7ASI@NG'ION AND OP SECOND MASS AIL HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS AND OTHER N01H PRODUCING
Cn
•� ' //{ / / SHOREGNOS ADIORRONO LYING WESTERLY OP NORTHERN PACmC RAILROAD RIGHT
\ Y % % / / OF RAY,EXCEPT THAT PORTION,B ANY,OF SAD SHOEBLINDS LYING NORTH OF ACTIVITIES SNAIL B L➢EM TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS WHEN IMPACTS .II Pq
�i' / /// //� / THE ARMS NLY PRODUCTION OF THE NORTH LUM OF SAm GOVERNMENT LOT I. •'+U
Y/J /// , ? •//, ( SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF EINC,SLATE OF WASBaNCION. FROM THH ACTIVITY AREA AT A ImN➢rtIY.NO SPECIAL NOISE ` 0
/ ATTENUATION MEASURES ARE PLANNED AT TIM MIN. / .. 8
\.� �/ \ h .. SHEET INDEX: D
cip
g / / a /// . PLO COVER SHEET CREEK STREAM BUFFER AVERAGING 4—N
/R� ' - / �• - 2' PP001606ARY AT BUFFER INTRUSION PROPOSED: D.00 ACRES
EU o:a
• /' '/-- 0 ADDIITONAL HUPFsE PRO}92ED: 0.58 ACRES
PSI PBITIIINARY GRADING elm DRAINAGE PLUN REP ACEMENT DOFFED RATIO: e:1
P�R I PLAT �, o Incorporated
OVERALL PLAT PLAN NOT TO SCALE P9_2 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLU !�w;°AS H ta°F°((:�)) 100
4 PS-S PRELD2URY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN v'F� FHC a (N25) A2N-B TI
/�" /,. Fte.e.I Eale:nATAW
P4-1 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 30209.001.001
di Project No.
P4-2 PRMININARY UTILITY PLAN /AWct P1_0
P4_9 PIE➢@iARY Un117T PLAN
��A' p` Sheet No
BALL BEFORE DIG I-8E0-424-555i Sheet 1 of 10
MC)ROFLMED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
, MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P23 ,m ar/
\ s�o' 7 -6a PP,a a, 9 :5 °
1 4]I 1 3 t w•. TRACT'A• OPEN SPACE a 20 ST 96' 9fi 8' iffx'i
1 "- I l 3_-, r-_--}-_3]-,Ir-te_�_a,al " / /
s 01 `m21 11'"' "' I>s s19 1 d,ma.e s 1 >,n�9 s IM ;`66, - .0 6, 39 2r _ 1 $1 ,69am s 1 / 7
r
z/ \ms. 11. 1 18 IV. 17 m1m1.,xs 39s 39,3' I M IM 1 ..a. So,r / e
/ \ 22 \ 1 20 J L-- Im 15 ..sr 1 I sm s 4t.41 Lt.... .s1 /, g
.��^� \ -•8y' 3z.3.T B-az o. i 16 I $a,.,,I s So,.,x ''at _ - vfiam s / ar/ s'\TER 73.g
P14 ,d A- tau g, s 1 J za F1t5ENENT
i \g . 6 0 `J 1m �am..>,s I A.o.w s ,, Mo y 5 s p 4 ..3 _ M 2 // '3
/ ...- \\ . p.p,p0 p• -8+00 L=45 43. --'-'-.....I
`` u 13 ih 12 I� _ - 7 8 6
f� 23 �— —R-,zs.°o\« 9* 11 10 .6n,o9 6 I '1 I"v i / §
`\a' \\'� a° °° to 58' 00 3. `��\� 'a 33` I� t.
J L a,as a,as J -,T.y°° )(/ W
s / "{ TO'3a oY 3T3' z.61.t9r O Iza.5o' J I J L_,_•—_]49. y3 i a
,,,,.,. / / ° a 10. R=,o0 ,< afio l-� a 000 U 3° az
24 i: a/m o90`>' n 11 -I, r \moo .00 6°ias, a=i 33 �\ 1 sfi.00i e '4 ___ ego°°
m ss I 1STREET 63. 00 °°• °p0 o STREET A /% A
=�'z ___ w (c;\
__a555' a0]2'1111.wrtm m6v1 1M - 72 1 \\�\ \°P� / i'// I/ I' I -lsin.4a4s� SPACE "0• / 0'4
55' s x
.ee I J uNw s la - 1 73 I 74 \`-soo 61 a 62 _ 63 m w • I�'.n/d I
N1 26 --4197. 39 I5:"aooux sll A- 75 \�' _ p - :mom e.zs ).T/' x
_' J I --- I uo.r4 .oe 1 11 rI 590 �.O� . .
--s�� - IT 1 i moiws oo l o V:• 4,- gl� 4x s 1 ^ro` 0
t g I . s
tI L_ J " 1 I c°)z
' 09 0 6009 1 L___ ..
gJ L36 9 J x
el TRACT-A- --- _--, 4555' 4446 s mw
OPEN SPACE ° o I 76 /'o / �^• 1rM , �. 1 �18me
a / 0 * e 1 .n.s s 58 I o 35, 38 y 3. w 's
TRACT•B• _-1 I I
sANaA w WATER QUALITY r--- I -- 661 1 78 77 � / / ryo 1 2, m _ '• wm�x«
°3 I 79 1i 1 .�sle"isfio S'" j / o° ` i. w:a o-
F- a, -1 80 aNre.T.W'1 65.I v \`rm1_3 4 E.
_ 1 1 L. 9 �e ,$. o`"� 57 $
T�15 L11 r ao• 1 I Io,-1039 1 I a ,3200113., �J\1�° �Oos\\ en J2�
IK a _ I 1 1.mexs I6-,o300J I' a=,0o••av, .,� /ss9id \.\` /aP' rr.m' P.
r m 11 81 11-I I,6- 1ti° s 5B\\\.. ,p' s
V1 m. -- 9-II 1 82 I..I /oo ' ,/-e?�5° .;O �• > a ›..
0 1 r p0 I a''-iazoz s I I e ^`a .`.°°°n \ane.a sr' �4
1 4 I e0 11"-u1 S I �� 00�5t • ,Ae% / QI,
�...o.w. 1' 1 83 Iq«, I ,..r, 51R�� a:;5° \ \\�55 z�--11
92.23' a043' 4043. I 84 SI I iA,yO°pO /°°+9' . _so Se `'°/ 4m.Bv \\ \\ ,• °O Fi
--- lu.mnua I 1/'/ i/- \\ \\NRPoS \�N 54\ \\ v I�
r-- 27 I r--- i 1;3.o,sI' x °o C \ 1 \ \s ) •/ .. - W
ml mnns I 1 1 I .' PeyOO Xu ° :y/� \ \se6` \ mm�.l 1 53 /^'� - F' - P:
I _9,_zs' I NI\I Sa.,86s11"65 i,'211 /"�°°° *�e°yoo°° e5;o p0 n1 y6 1\ \w. s 1\, ' [L �`
Inssa.s 52 \ 3°•0 v
NI A- 28 I 1 usi zl "� ,P6 \ "' ,xs \ l\��\ 51 \;, \ \ �h„a CI) . a
o till a,a.ms --J n - Isa.. L o °„o \.a,e \� 50 \ \ j \'� BUFFER IONE A
i 29 ° �m w 2.�9 =C) • .C) 41
tiI ems /�,�>� /°o v'i' \9 48 \ \\ - rii
SF
JO
,:„... i_0 w
1 / $. \ \�47 TRAcr•o- .�op6Y%' / ..
O-.(n
s 30 I I i oo O� \ OPEN SPACE .'�,P1 ' I�
8 v! of mg4fi\ / �- a
5 °°� '',../
Dn20' 4D^80' o a
r Res°° `sh a I -LU, 1.iuva ss 31 m I- as 1+61 • .°00° n'sF 45 - _. -.
MATCHLINE SEE SHEETP2_2 °°� ram APRIL 5, 2002 a O Incorporated
y 4.L'4 620 60.4evd Fey p00
1 v ,4n�E4� .I 606400d,Ts 06033
k 01 `� I 0 Cc (4 62-N
r
/.. ne37,
l2
'09.7
I1.00Y
Pro1e<
Sheet No.
4470E BAIL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555`sheet 2 o1 10
MICROFILMEC
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P2_1
mg
:I >m } m 1 e° / �smmsi ' `� \ Aso>-
'', : 1 I u.1.,,‘ d q*. /./ `‘‘,.... 47 ,'••,''''' •.. /- .,. •
ro
ti
---i. r1 .5 d'Y _ •
a
1`eum s 31 „1 a v a,45�' I. _ ":
I I sm.s 1 - 44 • `• .' •'PROPOSED TRAIL P- 5a8
I _-i -p.W.o f ` .'OVER COST.BRIDGE,
be
d
•
r ▪ a' / 0 1tz`
• 1 m,m s 33 ,• •
P,\ / • s •x ..
•ry/ ,A'� emseS'/ e�� ag
LAKE WASiIINGTON \\,aay v 34 1, o•W- a "`s /.°'"• • `.zom.m 110 o-'.^'�,�. re9• -
\ q°o v s�, T
•
•
1 �—__ 1 1__ 35 '\� ' ;0 '..�•?`�z'0z oo o-ax; o-dR• .w'�y/ , i.,�
•
1 TRACT•A• '+1 °Agn"zPs 1 0 ° h�o �t,�ttyyRR
^Sty —'F�— OPEN SPACE e\ \ n� BUFfERZONE °j gPO/e" Op"y� • �IWUL x' r'�'
•
G3
aT-- a s // :TRACT•D• ��105��.>. %o /,-, /., w �� n8
/ 9�\ s. MSS 'qo • OPEN SPACE ry^'/^. `.u,ums °o/�: Bo gv
v�/ as y `\y,. /ry R-2085.00' O a @
T-159.49' - W i k
^�\�\ .ea s / Jo• ".: ,,,,04.. - "*,� iii//////////// L-ales' w�Mz,'o
/ ...-- ...- ..0,
et
:./
;���� '\ \ / ?°/ '� 103�. /� off, ; .. , ,-- _ E.
a: ffi \m 39 `� 102 . •
/•/ ;44o ° "l • g aim a.�/; •,. �O p
'; «runs. $ e°"eo ,101 �',..••: P -
„?r / `� /o-'oyo. , M1a ao, soil $' /" �; 4c/ _
-- „,;,,^,\Zoo)or \k s, s,',0,,,,°./-;?. / ./ .4,.,....,0,17:9‘8,9iggf,b./10,0,,,,.2:7:::,,,, , v, - ' Cb. , r ., Z
7/ '' \‘‘,.t. 42 ;
w/ 87 ` '6.. ', 4 r< .m s ro, , 49 [s]
4xssm s ;/, ,00 ! ;`,y 97 ~ ACCES yr 'Z' a
4
,,•4.•,,,,,,.,""//,,-1.,„'/:,:\:
:,'1/e'/:;,,:-'.4'0'.,•/1/4'..„%,/44•''A.„7.',N..
/, ajs `� C' o° EASENENTii 8/ G4 F
s :3 M 88 °gaC° ° Sj lu �iz . 96` / :' �� , / `< '-� Jd
°, _-_ _ PROPOSED TRAB. /�,ma><s9 ,. _.?' ,'.Gry , , % - !v to
/, \ -A$4' OVER BOST.BRIDGE •?' e / 7� i (f� % _\— /' / '-'N }
DRAINAGE EASELENT // ♦ 93 n • //6 o, ' ,` \\' / / 1d' J
Y / �, `E? a°6 ti 4// :I " .i
/ (� �j W W
.14r90S :\/c r
/5 6' TRACT'E• >O A• i/92 v •ice'~., / X, `.J/ WATER p1ALRY vS g9'\ \anx®s ,/� '/ / j / -' ,- -, ',-"'
y C
, 0 0 ,I.I --=I
/ `� os t mssm Sr; /��'/99� / ./ ; ey L. in F++C� Incorporated
KeilM..^N/- o \\/,/ / J / / �\ / �s 620 IOr41md 0oy 41m
\ NDT A PART OF' N. o '/ / f! // � 's /�Y 0' 20' 40' 80' O ®m411`425)�BZ1-4416 s�a,s / i/ �' / y '.ar' 17.1=11.- TA[ `4zs� 82T-9sn 3� WATER GVAIITY
L_- I V n [[�O eY COY
f Er i/ € [-. 30209.001.001_
-_ SBBY9'S5•E 269.&l' Y'� '{ 'I 4 / ,' / \ / _ J __ _ _ __ _ _ Protect N°.
v'S N~ 2021' ,r^,'sr,\j;% - APRIL 5, 2002 P2-2
Sheet No.
'CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55554 sheet 3 of 10
ICROALrl
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
/....N*l
/ /1
D,/ W
/• f
/� ,,� NOTE:STREET"r TO BE LOCATED AT Fl(ISTMC '"
f RAILROAD CROSSING o
,) \, z .2
to
//f
a S o \W
g
i
/ //
WINN
�� / �`deb
2�� Q• � 1m�e Z
/•• s /'C/ rs•BH -
1 `"ob �g C.,g
LI
e ea. g 5
. WpgRE
jF.T 1—a :
/ �w1
/ / /
- .
z
/// a
x
a
0a a/ a
`� o
c.
dd0_ 3... w ,i
s .% 7 I
t i f —U CC 2
4, % - 4 oz
a ,,o, ]]96N 01 6 3 P ��� - jU: Jd
/i.1w 6mxwem fey nao
I J _ _ am j y�. '15'WATER , / ,/ /.' 0' 20' 40' 80' O ®m0.�(e(125))03 B12-4H6
I tam s/ EASEMENT ' rA (425) F24214
ILL I a 8 g 4 3 1 m l 2 / /'' i / i �-7 Internet m.0w.c011
7 I' 1 IV I'�I / / i 'ice/ / , i� 30209.001.Z001
.i 6� o —i L —0 �' / Projec�Ny—J
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P2_1 APRIL 5, 2002 sneer No.
(CP1J BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-a24-5555Y sneer 4 of 10
n.._ np.,Nr...li
tinui-iLMED
.
• ,, ,
, ..
,
.,.........„.„__ ' , .,
,.,
25
r----- ----- =‘,.-____________-7/ , ;
. %
• i \ 1
-- 7 ffh ,
, ,
, , ,
,,,,,, 20 't 19 H i 1 i' /1'.• ,/ 21
I I
! '- = I
i‘6
/ . "L',..,\,,‘,..,,‘ -'-//111)• MI ---1 y' 14 1
r•
, ‘ • ' ---,olio, ;I 3 .
1. •\‘. .,/ /di''10,"-,•,-.ie ..... 4,1.hs---- _4/ 1 7 6 i , ' /' .'
; 12 1
11 ' 1 0 5 1 8
r I/ "''-Pi' .1.-M1- '.W.RE'r= k"Sak./....- /' , ., • .
r ....../ .401
<i 2
.1
pwo.d,
_---1 r-,-- -- 7 - 1 i ' . ,.:, • .
III', 71 I
• lr
. i . .:' 1 64 1 .,
' . .
. ., STATE OF
72 1
74 1 7\8\'''''1 .V - \ 50-."1'60
. r LIV-kg:
,
i -, I, 11114016`3.1777!Fr.414,!./7tIlj_:11w4ir.-...i:;:y1;(1' 11 61 - 6,2/ 63
. i t /
HAD FA.WEISER
L '
,i
i , CERTIFICATE ND.773
\ 1 \ 1 ;/ I . / i : / I/'
,. ' - • Z
I
-' -- - - • - - -- __i i ' 1
•°A ir"' 0.. —— • i gl
0 0 1 7 // • •IS 0.. .•:.„:
:":::•. 0.,,...,::,...00' , __ 76, ,/, r 1,/ii
if, .,-,..1,-;.-esto.%- — • " - — - - ---c. '°' °-- '
A•
- • - - - - : -
' - • - ' '''' A 1.-,A,,y,,, -. .: ,.., - - - - 10:1";-•-, _ J _,I,__ • i J,
58 ir p ,..--
„II fa
',N -- - •-'''',.-, \:',,1-;i4i.- 0 — -- -- - - ...?"6',' r-- 1 1 78 \ 77. ' // /
, ..,../.
too .11.1
/.••••,,,, •."-/.'9,•• i
..4 - •
,e1P.,41.0,-.•-•'
.`er'••• 1 i
i , .. • .- ...
‘! "64C; ,,,V)'.--- ''r..4 -- -- ,-, ', .-,_.A.•/IA r-- -1 i 8° \ ,
1 _ p. ,, „ /,/ ',/,‘,/ 57 /:,,/,',",•
on i , , ,
, , L___1............_- ,, / ,/..".
, / ,/" '‘ .' 7'29- .
/
F‘
I
• /s, „...ip, \ ./•‘,/ , ....-
, (EROSION coma. \ I •• -- *. 1 i I \'' /// ,//,' ' /
M2.555E132•11% I I I \ I WI.-.-" A 1..I'll.' __,------ " • ‘ /' N•
,v -) ,,, 41:1 , 83 I, It '- _....- ,,, ..,--- --e-, '„,.:0".•••••"°'--- `‘,> 55
= 'N.
/ \ \ / •.• / • / 49 l'i • --,C
Or"* ..4‘,"...1, '' t, •l•.00 \ f.. I ! ,..--' _._------- .......lin .:111--- , / / ‘•‘‘ / '.... ‘--N// i// // ' ,7-.17-,,,2i ;. 7.10•77 Z 0
I-AI Z
..,,,,-,-,---- - ",:ok - , v v 54 , ,, . .•
> • • ',-',4" / -EL-
i' /7 // f,/,/
ci
\ /\. 53 - . . .
40.5 ...,,-- N \
1 't 86 , 1 / I . ,
,...., .,,' '''I 1 'I / 85 1,11, / „ ,/,', ./„..- , cy • 52 \ ‘ - ..„..
. / ,.,., -2-•/..// / P4 ci
MIN&
1 p ,7" ' .',7 \ \\' 49A \\ • ii
.---.---' •.••... .'":714r) -". "/! / 6P/;;X' ,' .....A.,
(2) ,.....LAD.LA AHYD•..
APAGIN2
,Fil'X'' r •1-.1
0 p_
i --,----,------- 1 1
0 Piaaroaws earrive as. ...- 0_
1
••' ''''''\ r• ./"...- ./ / 4/A;" . ERMA./RNA"VAN. ,,,,,..,,,,,, Il.)',AA, Ps.1 Li,
\ ...-VI • ' ..-" num.=n ram... ,/,e,„,,,,.., .,.//C.,) w 0 p
• .
/2,, \ I • _ , .._..4/. / / ,‘,/47 \ j 2 ,,or,as".•'''''''••..-----...••' . .,
§ I
l' ilitil-----:\--\--:::: fill , 7 /' / // ,it6\‘‘s•\‘`‘ /> •'' ••.. ..--'--;.." D" c„,_HHOlOmirp.66 IZI CI) pr:1
...LH'0.G.•,• .„.....r_,..
....-T.
--......A..'
\ I. /31 / / \ `,,,.-". 45 \/ . .t .,-1 I.••• / _._ —L
Incorporated
4.40000 BF WHII 4.4
il I--".MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET L1.02
.W Erkland.le S8033 1-----1
-i ORZININP-0-'"'"1 ;!..rgr.t
Pr (425)g:gg 5, 0,41 -/-.-/=.a==.4alo= r.-
: I I nsyMEEKSTREAMOSFER .,4 Z i'''T209.:Titt. I
Project No.Ic:/CettrArt.C.PACAVEIE,MoinlIre+10
PROPER, 4 LGAAILANDAP P. L1.01
AAI•NoNSIAIN TOM.AREA sPlAN,,,A,`AA
Sheet No.
SI
tAU carurtE Too-trit,,800-424_,=.115
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET L1.01
•
• \ •
• /•`�II 30I iI / +/ 6 i\\ • i
�/•ettREAn owam ' ,\ ) ,
. /
a� 31 �. / /
a,�� a/N �'- ç4344
'.i / ' - /
MAY CREEK BUFFER RESTORATION SCHEMATIC z 1 34 / (/J 11° �®
NOT TO SCALE 1 __ -__p,,`1 v / Or,
35 , ,;j,
1 1 ;- / % $ 108 � • STATE OF
/ 1°�jWEGiSTERED
107 ' ;%7
,. .i
\ — 36 =_•__?7 , :I, 1 ,I / t
06/` i "If / * _OJT CEanrmnz NOCHAD FALL .773
- - I "//e# ,-"bs ,
•
e. __ ,/ ' ,g—;tilt / ,'.' ,/," `,'•;, , i 7. ./ ./,:,. . - ,,/ ea 6
•
. ... J [i! �f
.214
_-- \\ .,. \\.\\ / , i -__ .,/ ,,,/, ,,,,,...„ . , 1.;_ r
., ,.. /..../. ...... _. _____ ,
, , ,, . ,,,..1.2.
.....\ \ , 39 ‘) // 2-/ /.'%,--/ '", -/ -; ., , E-.
: / , -' ,,/\ ,‘,s‘ao \\ /7/ /7' <, —T/i/ ,7:7 / 4:4(e, ---_ ,,•. / I i ../ /
1
',�\�\ \\' �.�\ /
, %% /;' j; � /�.� 1001 //( 0
-, // /- ' '7 _ T� ,yr,' .'�/ a' za' ao' ao' d
/ / 8\\s 42 '\ N-' '/�\� j/ /%i %/ • / r,//:, 7-3aJ i9� 0' _ %/ = 'ZZ c7
ci
•. , / / , . ' /' / / 'eft, , •
„ /J9 : L__,. ..dis4.\-/, , . ; , ,..". kii,..,,,14,12... N-4a,
- • I : - COMMON NAME/ sue.
T
// ,, .®��j`.Lib— .. Orik.,1/ /, j 0-1/1 / _ rw•- Ra h
8 ,l/' /89 \ w��l� ( ,'S.'S /' / �>. ,LLEQ$tae abr G'"6' 0U N
/ r.' <\/ 90 / / T� /5�'v` / =9 O-D�'° �D or a w
,� �' o a
�, wsNewsH wx s' \ 91 /i� r • �-,/,�f!� /' E ,Wee, Nee •~ O _
i s U
L.
R 1 `1 ' ocna7cwieee®7m{ e
/ ��y '/ // / w Incorporated
\ o. \ / �f/ / ✓ I-.•...I a came moo rex F+i 620 KVYIena Vey/MO
8 /' \ �7 , O '�/� ,� /// L.�::1 •-6 OM 41 nide,Ile MGM
I.ry s®mix 5 J I //ref �• . Fa 425) �r-esn
miaorc mowcrnu
N /-- 1 I NMc7�ca [WEIR wA 30209.001.001
i ,7 ,aN y' 40
i i � Project No.
ff — — ta9NA„GN �� —gycameo, P a L1.02
/ APPICOIMATE7er.E.EAQr.NDe .
Sheet No.
-. All BEF-ORF'1 -802 424-5��"""r0
MICROFLM'ED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
//i L f �%
-�_ L _
•
—__ � ; //-- _' -- 8 'W o o-
.r——�tT A'''
- /N
/�� \ma " �� , '
w`�f\/ y,/
20• „
/ `y 22 I 1I - 16 15 ,i/ f 1 8/ /
\ 14 li' .r T.
3 '
/ I 8+0 12 / 6 .11 1 / ? 9n fo / l
_ R ET B N. 1 . STREE— A ,i ('�'% a
/ __ 67 68 \ �__ -i—~�\a„°o /
.00, Flo' // �jy
5
/ / 70 71 oo, .j 64 / i
/ 73 j . 62%/ 63 .i�
26 .�: J• 74 75 i \ - 61 / / I�.'z I
� ,--1
/ \ �1 0T
,60 1 / //��\ glii ,.., . •---
1
�: 1I •/ \\ 76I58 ` I n / ��mS
` //I it i 78 77 7I / i/! v w1�;i1
J 57
wJ.
/� 07 4 �, (s)TREES To BE CUT ` ! / /1; /6 I
ii u°.\ 82 \1 // \ / o• e , fg 4,4/ z
_x_� - __ I a4 I �G� /' 1 P.
II / /1/00_ir,,
o
0 PA
, \
ii .,, )zo ao ao o f 6
`I � ` r o0 / o.
i , � ' o'qo� � f � o a
.► , I /31 BSI 6I 45 \ / 3-,\I / / \ _ Incorporated
R MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET T1_2 p 4' 020 Erkta.reT 1,U0
LEGEND: pi
66033
PGam: (425) 922-4418
- 23 PROPOSED CONTOUR
O FAX (425) 06kcoM
. 23 EXISTING CONTOUR `HJ mm30 701 002
,1 Project No.001.001
TREES TO BE CUT
T1 1
———— CLEARING LINK Sheet No.
FALL BEFORE 1110 DIG 1-BO0-424-5551 sheet I of 3
mical,FILmEll�
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
_ MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET T1_1
o
/ • ' `
N. \ -- / / ( /
47 \ am_ /
/�I L/\ l
L.,6 g:
o w " aa 5 �.•A _I /31 . c
IA / BEI 79 oR
32 / j' // ..- _ =yr`_�_:, -as
44 / n / i / I\ ` \ Qi N\\ 1 ,. os
I / 43 / / ,\L. I \\
__ 1�� _���% / V'111�i i` '.A <_
cn /\, 1 /� 1 y
`9
/ �.s/
35 I r ,,I toa • i .,:%jr � LEGEND:
'/ ' /Lip / / 13 PROPOSED CONTOUR 4 •�1
\ ,% ////N 107 - ii/\✓ ,.� ECISTING CONTOUR � y
/ 36 �-^ ,.' / `/ l/ /;ti' ./-- / /i O TREES TO BE CUT E
1 ti
� 10/: Q ____ D1
�/ i CLEARING EMIT UF,
/ 38 /i /...,_,/,,:::;:,,,, 104- �, 1 .
//, ' ,, c4/,.G \ /* / (1)TREE TO BE -1 U '- 1°3 -`�'/ F
ji / cui, }
/„ 9 0o i�` // i .x-1r�-1O2- a
h / 40 \ // e -/
...,./ �' \ , / / --,_/, ' '/,',--too `� /� I
A \ / „..,"-.. /, ; =;,.!--441 i 1 I / ' g8 -/ AP , . 0,
41 \ „7,,, /k<IA--- ,// / 4,7 .f 1 ( I,, , r_, c4 0
97 , , a..
,, ci
%. ,,, .
„./Aw„, ,.. . , . ._ /I , _ it, ii
g.,s,,, ‘ , , ,,
0,-2,,, ; 88 lif . 5
Y '\� ice\ ` \ l \/• 1 s5' \ i \;,• , o
i /' - `� \93:. % / \ 1 / 0U UN
s ( / . \ �4 �// / w
6 `� e 1 I. / WI?TREES TO BE \: Sr\P .r.-. o a
dre
aU
sk—
v0 s'y..,
2.\\ /0,
QtE9, Incorporated
corpora
�V • MO.2.1 Tay/IGO
a . I 4-1 Y¢Ai+o4 Te BB039
fntweL 1.001!tC Y
8 5B5h,,. U%s \ 0' 20' 40' 80' I O .._" (125 ea-u18
(21 TREES TO BE 11\_-\\\!`#,- ` ( 1
T ./� H/
F 30209.001.001
3 4 N a \` Sheet
,f No.
-� SBB'49'S5'E 289.8]' i5 Ti_2
i
Ah
m' ' Sheet No.
'" AII.BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55554 sheet 2 of 3
MICROFILME1
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
/—\ .
WT OSITOE BE / ./a, \/" — 1
LEGEND: / �_ � /\ Po� •
`
23 PROPOSED co. /� ,/ \\
�— EXISTING CONTOUR / / •
/ / / / \\ �`i,'a O:,
TREES TO BE CUT c� 9 0
———— CLEARING UNIT j / v '
•
/ /f/ /
q I
/ 4. / ,mm.vvz
/` //'V / w
(2)TREES TO BE / 1/�.`V / - OX
CUT OFF-SITE x ,// V g
/ / P� S8
iii / / " v o m.sm.i
/ fl•
'�1�/ I 'zFIE/�
:51.-
E.
_ >4 z
/ / x
/ Ee
I/ j,' / z
/// // // , w Z
P"f91T GF TREF-ES SITE TO BE P.,,
- / • z
E , / ir -4.,
/// �� �f/"� w z
/ �' (�(n 1—cn
'S5'W 1085.4Y �o — _�/ ` ',/ J/i
,�,, 1 1oo/YC/ �// _ W :..Incorporated
, . ' N l� / �~ 0
- 4--t 620lOrtlmd ie Way 100
FF..26.5 FF�26.5 1 FF�ji26.5 1� FF�27.5 FF 27.5 FF..2B5ry Ms 28.5 .., /aJ / cn Pr.
ha /((425 Bf2-W48
1,FF�2].5 bFF�27.5 4 1 3 ', FF,;29.5 / i / �P 7O Ivtemel (425��Olnk roY
9 7 6 5 / / 0' 20' 40' B0' F-I 30209 001.001
11 1 10 f' 9 i 8 j / ��V n ^ Protect No.
x I VA CHLIN� — SEE SHET T1+1 I /I I / I i / I T1 3
Sheet No
,-
BALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-555515neet 3 of 3
M1C.F • 1-LMED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT , ii .
.,
TOPOGRAPHY MAP .i/.5' , %
aw/ /
•DSD .100' ZOO
/% //
I j�u7
K
; // e /� � _
S
a
jR p
/I UNTL3R°VE
/..;/„..-...,,',
x
AL f
LAKE , - • _.e i,, ;,/„ I /// \, I g
WASHINGTON I — - / /4// /
og
ea tt
j - I 1/.'';// W
I L .//y/,// /
Eti
m ral
om
I • - "
II . / / /-'/ Q� j
/ •/// / w
///�\ ,/;/ / / VERTICAL DATUM
I n x/ '• i/�i/ 1/ �q j ASSUMED,BASED ON BENCHMARKS SHOWN ON PLAN
r'/ . y x
\ _ -r - ! / / !� • }=BENCHMARK- T cx Qi
u —1 H
1� % �_ / !/%/ I j
L. �' ! �!/// W
aQ NTLz ppOA gx I /�d� ...,." - `L'• r // / a.
r W Q
% /r` =Ei y r� 0
V '�` t •
y°Gx THIS MAP WAS CREATED BY ME OR UNDER ii
4 �, •
1 � ea ;r : Aqy !� MY DIRECTION.PLANIMETRIC FEATURES ANO
` /•is� ;�j,,,• TH Sa1AP•DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY a O Incorporated
:! •1 , 1 SURVEY.BOUNDARY LINES AS SHOWN ON THIS 4--1
MAY CREEK %''a 1 YY-• y\ (�\ /J I _ . YAP ARE RECORD FROM SAID ALTA.MAP. 620 SAD.Te,MO
DELTA _ r/ -,,,.»�M-M------+ yJ N4tlmE,Te S9033
o , I L O Pacve (125) 622-IMB
r EfIr (12T 62Y-95T!
F-1 30209.001.001
y, �..m nn I mama C.IAWREN E.PlS PATE Project No.
" R-B ZONE a. lal�.wr / / N 40TH ST. i CO_3
(TAIL BEFORE E YOU DIG 1-BOO-424-555i Sheet 1 of I
MORORLME
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT - ROADWAY SECTIONS
_
LE,,,,.
Ga
�m
50' co
8/W _ 8'PUE _ 40'R/M W
RPItR0A0 R/W A p
30' q 30' 20' E. 2A JIB_
2' S' 5' 18' 18' 5' S' 2' 45' 14' 14' 4• 2'
SIDEWALK TRAFFIC LANE TRAFFIC LANE SIDEVIALL( SIDEWALK TR/�FFIC LANE TRAFFIC LANE
1,T 0.5' . 0.5' I1— �,y,. z., 1.5_ 0.5' 0.5'
'44F, z, .1
4 1 4 2x 2x 2,' 2x 2x� 4 4 �2x 1` '.
,y:. 1/,�.,.•.- ��\��� zx zz `✓,,,<::` ...\. �� ",W. +i�;Pi`.yT>-ai✓ilii`.%`'/`.,,..,�: ,2 i zS .
ummEs
%,t ;i/rj/,i>v,),&4;e�\? :>,� ;ay/\ij:ij>`j,V>)(.., /../ ,•.y?% T o''.%>;�{a3�',,,,A. ' �
✓,���!,�l.�i {,. <: ��.<..<�<.. �Ll.�. �, :� �i�!:Z�iili 7 i.T,./ii,!i��' ' /;;7i:/izii 9' z O'"t0*
1.—.Vero, I
x
OFFSITE ACCESS COLLECTOR STREET SUBACCESS STREET 0
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 81
0.
AmST
gzg
8'PUE m 50'R/2I x 8'PUE 8'PUE 30'8/W '� S S
25. 25' _ 15' Q 15' IAAT CREEK BUFFER 1� W i E
3' 6' 16' 16' 6' 3' E
SIDEWALK TRAFFIC LANE I TRAFFIC LANE SIDEWHL It 12' I 12 3
0.5' I+I —{ 0.5. TRAFFIC LANE I TRAFFIC LANE 0.5'
0.5' L oo
u —J{I © 4 2x Q. 4 �Tx a 2R
IX
O ©
. a
ONSITE RESIDENTIAL ACCESS STREET MINOR ACCESS STREET w
a
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 114
Z
I O
• _ U
Y LA1
(n
3.2 W }
w a
ROADWAY SECTION NOTES 0 XI o •
cosF. ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT.CUSS 8 >Z " 8
O Y ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT,CLASS 8 4el).4.4
O 4 A18(ASPHALT 1REAIED BASE)OR rgr..I
i Y CRUSHED SURFACING FOP COURSE i1
OVER 5 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE rl O O a
O CEMENT CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER t"T U
—
• aw Incorporated
628 Er4lmd Vey/100
4.1 Nrtle05..e 08LLT0
S . O PD,,, (425) 4W-4a9
h_-1 PAX (425) 82T-051T
Ivtuuel I�IOtek.CO
30209 M.001 M
Project No.
CO_4
Sheet N,
.ALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5554 Sheet I of 1
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P4_3
•' •
_ __ N88'48'58'W 1085.47' r"0p
/ 1 I it
_ /� \ 21 20 11 19 1 18 I 17 I I --1 a / to
/ \ , III
22 \\ I 16 I 15 14 1 I I _ ,
3
13 , 5 4 2 _^E
23 _ _ 5Ws° \ 12 I 11 10 9 8 7 6
s.0p e
w —�~\"�ss STREET B i I STREET A I '$
w�� o
24 + 66 �w\ss _ W 7- W �#p0/ .. W W
67 , 68 w�ti--w ,00 5 ss ss ss g
1 W W Via,
65 I4'\ /�� i <2
/
25 I 69 1 /
70 71 , '\\\\� I 64 i•
�',
72 , I i �
, 73 I 74 f 1 I 61 62 1
63 g�
26 I II 1 75 I �;ei�y0€'
p , , I+ 1m�vv. 1
____) i-141. /. z
m I •;
3 76 �� 58 n a Q
79 78 I 77 +� / de
W �Rw
11" 1 8o I 57
1i2
m I 81 1 8 ' I � 56 /1 ‘Ak, "i/o
F
a
. ,
: // .
2948 ~
. ,
. z._
-30 i 1 •
j�% 47 >>, 3.2
g ,7y�" 46 /` U w w
Pe�^
O ; • 4.301 'ER
oa
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P4_2 LEGEND: ^'I —�
;,.., Incorporated
-SS PROPCS D SANITARY SLR.LINE 0/C.4rgOW /ii (/", �EHve Te+/100
• PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 4..1 OLLOvd EA 1 Rom
',Ey�.� Phove. 1 , BY2-4116
C • PROPOSED SANITARY SLR.PUMP STATION 1., L(01'- O
vrx gm az'r-ssn
____ PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORTED YAIN ��/ -- 4 ,vle30 71
001 M
� 30209.001.007
W- PROPOSED WATER LINE Project No.
0 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ./ P 4_1
4 4,,L Sheet No.
PALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551 sheet 8 01 10
mIcRoFIL ,4,ED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P4_1
r, \U`�/JAI/////,/%,
r
31 ez L sL 45\ - 3Q
• p
32 •
44` ti l <
\
f 43 •
33 112 a
111 <2
34 k
•
110
teCV:V\i .... 109
35
..<
3 / 107 �Q [1"... z
__� 106\ 3 - v oz
A z/ . ,,, J E'
1o5`, �a 0� LEGEND: m'
37 / (V/ , 55— PROPOSED SANITARY sm..N LINE
2T /,�� • PROPOSEDiE:
TARY he O W ni
CA. 104 n C'1 • PROPOSEDION�� OEwsnNc__— PROPOSED
` ' / ' • 103 3/ _ � —W— PROPOSED WATER LINE
// PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
\ 39 102 /?,
/ �� _ p G4
40 \� �G / �\O1 xti - v
��� 4 d
` 41 5 / �\ Z
42 4, , 99
•
a
87 � ss / awl.
,' ` 88 0.n.00 - - \ A' S' " a\ ` « "
\� 95 /"' � ' ;vxam
Q W Z N
' \
N
%/
i/ q a vl89 ',,/ / /
x �
; ,- o oa
_ii EU -_,_,-
-- �` ✓,�,' •, i �r
c.W q
,/ .Y., j ,'�' 'Fr
(azs) ea-t4oe
\av"-� / //' / o• 20' 40' eD' ' r Em ws my-9sn
. i F Inl BI10tetC0Y
E �� F ,/� ^ 30209.001.001
o o _ /.4RI WO Project
4
:y
5E8;Li '4,75S"E 1'r o. ,%T''�f // \ -- - --—- --------- ---—-- e _2
TALL WORE YOU DIC 1-800-424-55551 Sheet 9 of 10
IX KENB1-O4/O3i2OO:II 32p,-->x\PROJECTV0200\3O2O9\DWC\PPLA1\Pa l BOB
___ m ,
>
—I ------
2
r
z ___
m
I A
m
m ---
U W o z Ie• m
II 1
m ---
m
r
- 9 m
a
`•� ,:,B4 E g
eooQ \ o
Rp 't
4Po 4
\T y
�
,
�
•
Rfp�FY \
'�NF \ Z
j
j 7.
,---- t,,,i *
•
K
c)
m
0
I : 1 (11 71
r Permit Review m
I Not for Construction
V ' ��r Es , BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OWNER.4,=,:. . i �� BARBEE MILL CO. a `
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN p4101 0 BOX 96B dffi+GSON BLVD.N'8 ,+ `
IC4 o & g a SHEET 3 P IE6-22809000 ��a <3 o:EGO a „ EGO
gym ,\`®e'\ NO DATE G ENsIoHs
[+ xcNo}0p/0,GGGG,o,porn-->N\DD..,\]020G\10209\DWG\P.M,'DWG a o o a
•
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET U1_2
•
\
1
v \ 3\ \ \\.\
y ' 10
Z. �8
.. \ \ ,\ \
1 6
\1.,, \ \
rn
L.
o ` �
1 •
\ \
pg 6
0_24 7 \
\ b
\ 6 O
1 I I ` \ \ \
z
�
6 f 2 \ \ 'ice.
D • . \\ '\
o
, 8 . 8 '' \ \
11710 t J
i 1 .4 11 1 1 I 6n1 \ ,
, \ .
2 ii 1 i \\ \ Cn
6
0 \\\4 R \ \
\ N
• \ z
- \ \.'; 6 \
6
\
\\ \ \
/\:3
\ I\ . \
'''''. \
\m
C
\ \
ol
Xil
, p \
Permit Review
1
r Not for Construction-�
x = n o -g . BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OS9NER: n
0 '
- T.C^Nr r ° [ BARBEE MILL CO. �sr, _
9 0In r p (�1 {t01 IABE W SHINGTON BLVD.N 2
?„ UTILITY PLAN PO BOX 959 •
m — .80.y. ' ^ SHEET 1 RENTON.•A 08057 _ yob s//@ EGO +n•m,•*••w EGO
8 4 PH.420-220-9000 NO 0n*[ G .REVISIONS
s 1I rowew,
is FJL D
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
//
M' \\ // •
\ r
___ 4`\ 1 LEGEND: I '-I
u I ' -SO SS- PROPOSED SANITARY SEVER LINE II F-
a //W-" \J� W
n 7 3 , • \ •Al / / `` / ``\ • PROPOS D SANITARY SE'MR MANNOIE _ W
/ g /- I �
TO / / � ♦ \\ / ``\ • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION
- -
/ \\i� PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCED MAIN z
W 74 / �\ \ / 8 / \ -w W PROPOSED WATER LINE I W E f
Z E ue
KM:
\ \* /, X
PROPOSED LIRE HYDRANTI _J F$l o // 7 ``• \ -SO SD- PROPOSED STORM LINE 0
/ I I \<11. / / • 0 PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN I ¢ ^$
75 / \••>‹,
I <_
Li_____
/ 6
. X
' // _ w
�jsi6e�
/ X \., IE..E/1/0, __I
/ 76 \ / 4 , // • ss -----------..., ..
/ />\\
_____ 4 *X
/- 4),,,,,//
,„ 4i , o_t9_o____,_• — ,'
Ins
STREET B / '/ \ 4 /.. \
m.
T
;,Z<Z<• / \ \ I wg
:-:_L_'' _--7——----,,_____i________ __.._1,0 ,
\ ,./ . (
58 / �\ ,� W
62 �" �? w
I / ■ �W , i 3 ■ a
I ?xp0 W
/'/ X
�'
I
\I \//�' Z.,
—— �u BEY LPN ��7I55 I56 I 57 \ / 63 ��4JENT2
R1P I �� /� � 13.E w N
E I I 1 , 6 4 -- -
�' � /' -/- EAST.WATER LINEillt I.°U a J W
•
12 H I --�-_- / - -'- TAPE �>/ (n
R W </ W
-' X
8 I=_ .. - ' • --� _ - 0' IO' 20' 40' I z
IdW -- EXIST.10'SANITARY
~(''O O
Cr) BYAtBOL SO .L NAME, AGBl6 ��\7- r _ _,e EASEMENT - - - c:�"7
' I MAL
'°"° OBOu
v. %_!� _ "� SAKE W ASVOGT O ;��`d B 98033 a rag
F.a 30209.001001
,{ Fc=2Project No.
¢ U1_2
.11 SM1eel No.
ICAO.BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5554 Sheet z of 8
. ' , ICR ("FILM D
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, RSE, W.M.
1 i \ ,
I NI
20 \ 19 __ —_�
118 17 i I w w
I N
0
I � I
I 16 15
REET ''I
e 14 I ;' e
I-- Will
_�°e.} _ \ - 13 12 11 10 9 8 I = o aa$
1... . .
II
W w \ \ I -
- U ,„,.
ss ....„,„ __
..,___________:_------,,,_ ,
3
imprl""' -.4 ,
• .2
I z,--..--T--- 440,410, '101.11 `,,-
W ----------- a
in 66 \, s, �� SD So 4,-
I
W ; 68
I writ
W W W \ � \ /' 'p'I lowm.a/Yk
1 =65 \,Po
Iw �I '54Lit , , 69 70 I �, ¢ m�
Im
w y I 71 72 °°� • I �3$zk
I J --_— — T7374 \\, I H
I
' 75 I I a
LII_— I zIo 40
I—
��so— 1 1 i i tot z
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET U1_4 '•1
w
a
a
LEGEND:
.4
}' _Os SS— PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE Z
e • PROPOSED SANITARY StmH MANHOLE O w _0 I',^^`` W }
III
• PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION •... 0 .ay J W
,,,,, » `4 SET)
— — PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCED MAIN g. ��Ii/)
—W W PROPOSED WATER LINE W c4
—
R PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT -0 o a
"AM COIRA[wI NAME/ SOE. U
SC�NT6'ID NAME SPACND•
—50 SD— PROPOSED STORM UNE () rwwu�eeFes cw red_ ,"
iti
❑ PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN ,"."'"p--s', ZeuouN /1 CO r Incorporated
4 — F++ 020 1011danM Tay/100
O ( )
(� 012 (425) 6211004
q t"7 Wk30 TLITOWtCOY
`S ,C-i 30209 001 001
Project N0.
U1_3
Sheet No.
r,ALL BEFORE You DID 1-B00-424-g5751 sheet 3 of a
\\iiIG OFaL ED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET U1_3
J
1� / 85 / 84 / \\I NI
/ N /�
I% / / 83 / / 73
I I— o
ELS
I / / 82 /
Y � / �O
/ w
STREET
' 81 / 80 / / 74 I N
I " %
—W W W .�m sr f / / \\�� / I W
sue— — �- — W f— W�w �� sr.._
i' 78 / I U \3
SS SS SS SS 00+B1 SS \ �- /
_ / / 75 I �_
\IP'
I' _'61— I e"
45 46 47 48 / I • J /I a
I /
49 '/ ,, •k t , ,,,ft
/ 50 / , .. — w--___,„
E.
I IC2 __ I _________L_______j L...,_. ,
v -‘11,ip,''' ...'':' a 0___ 1
55 1 Iu I �6 _____....
,/ 51
' 52 / 53 54 ; 56 57
i a
w
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEETS U1_7 & U1_8 14
a
a
a
a
LEGEND:
w IL a-
-SS SS— PROPOSED SANITARY StntR LINE .O W
4.+ CQ .-L
R • PROPOSED SANITARY NL,.u1 MANHOLE
`
F. • PROPOSED SANITARY Sct2R PUMP STATION /0
i P1 Cir
— — PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER GORGED MAIN ..-t O W W— PROPOSED WATER LINE COMMON NAME/ glg. ,`
8YMBOL BC�NTIFIC NAME SPAM. v
0 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT J.52
SOR03 n�ttexAN s.
� �M b`A �N�NOCAIGI F+(1)O m Ied
—SD SD— PROPOSED STORM LINE 11 Inca 000
1 62D 4ukl Ye,II00
i.l /G M &1e 98033
8 0 PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASINinTar>F+arcxv�eR,A , O fAL 114 Ora
i eeeuoNl Z '01
0 1DM01
Project No09 o0I.00,
3 Project No
U 1_4
Sheet No.
CALL BEFORE YOU DIC 1-80D-424-55551,sheet 4 of a
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
, Is
I 25
' I \
I I I
26 24 i-
I 27 IW
I 28
CS
I 32 I 31 30 29 \ aillk
1 \��15.SANITARY SEWER` -- -- 0 I w
I , 1 EASwwT pr LJ _l , _�-- 4 L —��so � o
�Ty ss I
ss
I I A� __ I d ET\ = _ sw= �a s w w---�µ 'J -
- Do _ w w �- U
��- w \ Q : a
SS ___,SS -�i o - --w� -- \ g
Si.Do --�- W w S Q2
M 6 M M M —
�_M '11111111111111111-1-
I ] i . ,
) 8 65 \
�,`
In \ 6 6 z
LA \ i \-----
wl �;`sue\\ 85 \e\ a — •
J �� \ 4 \4iik 1 , Wg..t
§0 44 / 45 \\\*. V.�\ sT�F 84 • OS OS—ow- t ••
l ------ I/
\�, m • D� ,D• 2D� 4D� 68 �
46 �\ • , fg
� a
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET U1_4
a
• w
x
LEGEND: a
a
z
—ss ss— PROPOSED SANITARY NAFFAN LINE Q
C • PROPOSED SANITARY SEVER MANHOLE O W CL LO
d W }
• PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION 0•,J 6j J W
$
— — PROPOSED SANITARY SENOR FORCED MAIN •J PP =N
//
R —w W— PROPOSED WATER LINE FZe
Cn
r.
PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT O O a
SYMBOL. COMMON NAME/ 5�• ^�+r,
Butnl:IC NAME• SPACNA •(-V ,.,y—;�
—SD SD— PROPOSED STORM LINE �,f,
❑ PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN j y,�p� S meuo+N ��O ' Incorporated
o Ly L44 QO KuYlend Tay F100
e 9803,7
$ 9 \N m e:u+N O none. T((425 022-4H6
(� PAC (424 221-BYR
D.
�-4 Internet: 001.0000M
,(� 30209 001.001
6 Propol No.
U1_5
Sheet No.
(CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-R0O-424-55554 sheet 5 of S
? s `F�L
Wall
I' ` )
.� i
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
__ \------ . ..„.......,..„.
1,.. .
I=
/ P.
42 \ ---I
\ \ ,
\ \, / ,-X v-,
/ 1J o6Y
\ 41 J
,so, „0„, \KZ / ,, __---T 7 1
/ I LEGEND:
IJ
I ‘71II
SS SS—I 32 1 • PROPOSED SANITARY SLIVER MANHOLE M
24 WW 1s
/ �� / I I 3 5 34I — • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION ^� 11
\ O im.4
‘.‹.
3 6 1 \ 1 — PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCED MAIN k7 i
``\ ---• \�\ 38 // I 1 1 A�--_I W W PROPOSED WATER LINE (i((6g� g �I
M1�i6
.`ST / 1I 11 E�,. -�_ I PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT Ey
TpE 8 SD
\�\ \T C / 37 —' '���. . /� �" _ `I —SV ❑ STl— PROPOSED STORY LINE a
a
. / M' PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN ›.'
.41100
, ; r"011111 :__________
. , ,4.4.4 -sc. // ,.----- w
o�' 1/ S' t
a
7"----, ,
43 /I Z
W g
w I o W aLg
O
1 U w
44 �'
R Eo
I 8TA®OL COMMON NAME/ Ski r)�.+.r(1 o a
® SCffNIF1C NAME. SPAC"' i..v .-.-1
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET U1_7 2 0 I10.12N01.03 LEEPLESS.d1
_ rurr*uie"eE=r UORO I CO ` Incorporated
8 C F++ 620 x rk/,d Tey MO
i-1 Kirkland.■e MOO
125) 24:::11
(� jiver orx+u NW.% O Zr.PAC �/25) BZl-85T1
72 1m WC. 4 mte30 001.00cloM
1 /-� Proj ct No.OD1.GD
U1_6
Sheet No.
BEFORE YOU DIG 1-WO-424-55A Sheet 6 of I
MICRIFILWIED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET U1_6
------1
15 STORY DRAIN
-"-, ENT I w
SD SD I
I WI-
Lai _o
_ __ II .1 \
I r I!n - a
89 1 w 1 w
------ �I� \ \ I I ' Ii
\sE I 1I I \ 102 10
— — I 99 I y I3
I I, 93 \ 96 r 97 gg 100 , . w� Q
4 91 I I 94 95 I 1 wy��l
I Wy,
I �
/----———— 92 �o/______- ..... --sof illatirEE� 5D, / ¢ I ry
_ wSD �______---_____._____. __ ,
il sD ..
• oo w ��-� _ x__-----\-- , S
_ I. W Cgms
11 15•SANITARY WI. W i a a..
EXIST.WATER LINE f II EASEMENT I
E
TAP , -r ti I \.. \ E,
, r1
1 *C:' e" 11 a
1 SY C I y.l
I w
'1. a
r--- --- - ~ , -S.t , -- , i 14
I -
I W a�
LEGEND: 0•'-'
w
x
$ -SS 55- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER USE U
^, � ��
R ,
8 • PROPOSED SANITARY StRcrt MANHOLE /A/.-
R PL
`k . PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER POW STATION i.
i-.O O a
SYMBOL. M BcramnC NAME. N6 U COMMON NAME/
SIZE•
T - - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER MAI
N IN L, rrx ' . -. �
-W W- PROPOSED WATER UNE J � LW. /1 t2, Incor'pofa led
PROPOSED PORE HYDRANT Ly ' i-.1 IGrN620 m a Billand �ItoO
8 g 111, e O PMove (A7�0) �-<N8
o -SD 80- PROPOSED STORM LINE.', la 0-USIMPONCELDMEEEPA d t �J Stool lI 1m 01eY-COY
,Li 30209.001.001
•; 0 PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASH - - Project No
U 1_7
Sheet No.
ICALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-R00-424-5555 Sheet 7 or B
MiCROFILMED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
__ MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET U1_6
",I .
S
ca I- I
LI
v= I LEGEND:
LLI _. ' 1 I Uae
1 '.......).
W
n I ''� 11 —� PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE O' 8
—
II I III I1I I • PROPOSED SANITARY ARY SEWER MANHOLE \
11 II 1 0 ' I • PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PUMP STATION e
<2
0 I I I' 1 9 II 110 I 111 II 112 — — PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER FORCED NAM $�•W
II I I I 1 —W W— PROPOSED WATER UNE py
I I I 1 SD PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT �3'\Y
1 \
\ \ 1w
50 SD PROPOSEDSTORY LINE STREE PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN
moa BMOC
I W .SD '\< g 1.1
' /W� SS�QaS m
OZ
W U
/ss _�-- w o
/Wi !/ s.� r4 di m$
SS .so ' 4,14
I
I _ a
z IN gl_Np
I LAKE WASH GTON - a
- - -0' 10' 20' 40' P.
14
C I W d CO
�0
C.)'� a —1 w
S >= =L=pc1OI
R
8 •
u)
A ^ r"
O
9TMB04 COMMON NAME/ SOE. o a
Sc:tea C NAME SPACNO• •E U -.LJ
MaAHaLLDe®YY9 Alu rat, n\id -
irsNsr<vweu i I-- 4/^ /ncorporaled
62o end.We rat/100
yJ MO SEA We lOtUS
8 P.'.l O P5,00 (4151 BE2-4449
(l 1 m gA PAR: (425) :NZ
q m einw 4-s Int 30 001. 01
GS ,C.� 30209.001.001
'y Project No.
U 1_8
Sheet No.
SS
CALL BEFORE YW DIC 1-BO1-424-SSSSt sneer a of 8
MICROFILMED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
,-_-_ MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET P3_3
.30
.
00
30 10135.47 33
/\' —
-
. . ---------- '17------ ----- ' a
. . • 8
22
21 ‘ 20 19 ;
.'
18 17 •,
%N
I 16 15 ' 14 -;
1/f
' 13
'
' ..,
2
4 1 3
;
, • ,, '0 i•"
.2
§8
, 7
i• . 1%11 - ,
7:a
,' <2
/ 24 /,‘...., •
.77........7.-••••••-•„.................DVIINM /•'. //ow...-. 40013 A„z40+
--• -.- ,/,.
. ,,,, •o„, .,......
. • r.,, 25 , 69 -- •
. ,---- 70 71
: 64.-- .-- /
-- .
. , /
. --- r 73 . 61 /
-62 63
•
.,.../- . , / Ito=WM I
26 ,-,
''• ,—----
59, .60 /
/
/
1 /
1 81
a
F A "
• .20E 78 77 , 47. 79 • 8 q
. . 80 , ' .• E.
[ . / , ,„ 0. Z
a.
.. .r. /I 0
g •.,. ., w\ ., 1 , ..i -t4 <
0 CC,
27
C.1.
85 .-- 51
52 , . ..,•••'...- ..' . ,• •N•i-'-Z','.
a,-4
0
iY
. , , • ,- ..• 4u 0 2 ' , .• .
E. j -, 29 i'c';* , ,•s -. ., .-
48 . .• --.... ,..'
0
1 . / ,..........
'' 47 /. '''''••-'....
. .,' ..
30 4-4
g , .c, ° • / /46
, ..,
-
: ...•
S , - -' 0' 20' 40' 80'
/31 r, 6 45 \ , __ -
' ,--.o-.----,a
. . _ . 0,
_(/)
0 g -
p...,„;...,, Incorporated
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET P3_2 LEGEND: - ‘.-i--‘ .Xvilland Tay 3100
4..I Erkland,Ile 38033
f8: —43— PROPOSED CONTOUR )''''i.t.'14
' ''''*`' - 0 ;Ur` 0 l'27_116
%
33-- EXISTING CONTOUR
l'i• 0'; 4 th-g,s'209.71°.r"
* —CO— PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 1 ..:a.
0 PROPOSED STORM CATOR BASIN A;41.I.' P3 1
• RUSTED ZONE ' :frie4,7- BEFORE YEA DIG 141100-424-5555 sheet 5 of 7
M i O F L Et
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET P3_1
•o ii,
47 0
rP 30 w
•
43 $32 \ a �' §W\.... _ j a
33 m • ' , 112 b
34 - 1101:s•1'
i
3501:14 It'.
/ toe 0� i�. LEGEND:
4�,ti
yip 2O PROPOSED CONTOUR '
107 ,.•�, %` '- COSTING CONTOUR Imms.c/t/w
360):::: - ! z
•
`• -SD- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN g
/ 1O6 Qiff ❑ PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN d
1y BUTTER ZONE O.
•
� o s
38 �� - 10,4- RJ9�i"
, „ / d �� - P19i i �
• // . 103 E.
'
41 Z
i h.,
42 _ '•' -1oz .:_. LL
N `
��O,O •
i
0_
-I c5wZ/ O 0
roe- - zi‘l, 98
h � ,-. s-.---. 88 1 ..''',': ,"....0.-".... --— •'•'• '1 ' l• Sit.''.? I , .36 filbli‘' z
Q- a 1r
Fri �4,� J� W ly
/ , •11111%,„N„: , ,.?.:\;.:. ' 4 , ', • # (2) 0 4..) Irl "
es ���c�' / �� oa I
fZ40 n
�l-ram\/ ��, P� � _a
,a`: v
\ yii Be „ Incorporated
ezo m ma.e /t9D
m t•. ° LJ DrM 4 Vs NOM
2 5a5�, ' ' 0' 20' a0' BO' �,. , Fe: (�zs) Iwosue
� /`- O vuc 4zs azv-es'n
^ f \ � IvtweL TROt- 71
g \: \ • "At'?''''' H SI209.001.001
'i' S0849'S5'E F;' \ Project No.
T89.83'
Tint 9�
Sheet No.
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-B00-424-5555`sheet 6 of 10
°8o"k=$o
IK NENB1-0v03/s00s B.xecm-->II\PFOJER\]WW\n0]G9\OY6\GGUi\Pl—s DWG r
CD
N
D
z
m ,
I - —
w
m '
_ li
m
m \TROT o i u
m q
I, . Y� AAgAr
m
,, 44gg o
AI/
��yl'G•O '
yq�R`i\ oo\ •
•;\\S0 \ ro
•may z
' SrR F o
e
r 5 f `fq 0ti a
tt
fie', z
H
• 0
e? H
Js
4.
34
4'40 47 ) ' -32/,',-----:''' t.1
Fy ci
�qN iv
% 09
/ H
• k
•
o
4. t 23
u
; 4 ,11
f -mrmit Revi•
ew
m,,........ .,....,,,...„,,,
t Not for Construction
V ' °a &„rr BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OWNER.
pf 0
BARBEE MILL CO. �.
��Egg•M � PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN U01 L186 W 111NGTUN BLYO.NG
�� PO B02 96B
8 CABBNTON.�e 98057 Q awn cos ERGO +._�+.� r EGO
.00a s a SHEET 1 PH.429-998-9900 ,\ . o.
MICRIFILMED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
� �- _� / p/ / MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET G1_3 , /-,
77,.
io j- _:\Neeae'5k,. 1°as.Q' / 1� i _�/ :1, '�
RO
/// ^/ FF.2f.5 24.5TF-za.s \ \ ::
18 17 n'� Ir n \ 1 / ,// T
•
/ 22 I 15 ✓ 14 FF-25.5 FF-26.5 'FF-2].5 FF-27.5 FF-28.s 9 FF-gas ,, w r$ / -rr
/ \ L 16 I PP-2" FF.26.5:PF'-I2a5 ''''FF
FF-27.5
FF.rz4.0\ �:. - i' 33(• ' /� FF
2Ts5 q 1'I, 3 RS,zss / z
23 //,_ B+ono - / 1, 12 • 11 1, I ,�5 9 8 7 6 `� r / u
t
I �\ j _ ° \'f0T g TREE' / s
j FF.24.0 /'/` ' TI �0O i 1 ~
24 FF-24.5 /
' 66 FF-24.5 �x9('-
FF.27.5 24 FF-25.0 \ ' V - '3
FF-24.5 •iF.75.0 E(�(y+
•<'/
j/ 25 / 69 70. FF.25.5 _ -- - / i`.
•
/ J / 72 / FF.zes \ - .� � P'
_ 73 \\ l"e
\ 2623.5 -'�f • f FF.26.5 74 i �75'S" a \_ //
.\,„. /
2
r •
FF-26.5 1 S8
/ 76 (C.�F7
\ � I /i 1 / FF.26.5 OF-26.5 . , I I / k V ���
1% / 1 /I r` �/ FF=zas 78 77 I j 0°' w m
\ 1 / 79 �8 z
' J / I FF-25.5 < ��a °�'
\ \ _1 �/i 1 90 �_ /
? ...
,�-�/' . aka`�� m F`.25.5\ \ _ FF-25.581-91 -/ / i'Ss � / p P.
1.71
\) a , FF.,24.5 .�• • Oo+St \\ / V� g' 83 r�- FF-x6s /�55 /\ ) OJv z
a )kl
1FF-24.5
/ 84 I iXoox9� - Fr.zfis I1 / s. 54 O� 1-727 FF.:62
.5 /• ,' 1 rO� W Z
/ 53 rFF-2J.5 FF-24.5 ooxL FF/26.5 /', �t21 /• I / \� a1 __ � / �FF-25.5 �.' \I, / (�� 11
i 28 50 51 f ...........i.\�-- ' Se. ,aa„ Z
\ I FF-2J.5 / % xSs
Y -1 =/ r< 49 / \t". 1 r ��
C 29 /polom �FF-za°L' cE
v O w
1 � '! 0U
/ !•I.I
/ 12J.5 i-.�/ o a
F4
/1 Incorporated
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET G1_2 EARTHWORK TABLE: LEGEND: F+i 620 Kirkland leer noo
.1.I IGAden4 Ye 96020
RI"
41S BII-/HB
S UNSUITABLEThE EXCAVATION SHALL BE EXCAVATION: 32000 CY(50,000 TONS) _ 23 PROPOSED CONTOUR 0 F,� f{y5;6Zt_BST
REMOVED FROM THE SITE TO A LOCAL
FILL SITE AND SHALL BE IN nu.: 3a000 CY fi0,DO0 TONS) 2' DUSTING CONTOUR interv<l m01ek COY
8 ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF RENTON ( 30209.001.001
Or' STANDARDS.ADDITIONAL FILL MATERIAL ---- CLEARING UNIT Protect No.
TO BE PROVIDED FROM A•LOCAL SOURCE • BUFFER ZONE G 1 1AND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS Sheet No.
26
CALL BEFORE Y00 DIG 1-800-424-555511 sheet I of 3
..
A.
4
Ir.,/10FIL MED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET G1_1
990
FF.zss,' 47 j //. /
190 1 30 /
1„ I I1` iFF-23.5 / ,3 /46 / //�• i w
---- 11''I \\) —r,23.5 1 / CP FF.245. ,. ` / '� -= i
11 t i/ 1,'l31 ez't+sl /(Y45 ///�, ���� .. o
I n( // _/ FF-24.5` / • 3` ///, /
1 / FF.23.5 / /FF-24`5 /- h / / / 1..'. \ I\;'s O
/ �FTa"27..5 ",N ��,. w
FF-24.0 43/ / %I 1 / FF=zaG ' 1• 1
1 33 / m / I 1 / \ .'112 �'� ,i ,/ 4, 0
\ % \ / 71,� '/ /// FF.'29. .1 111� / •,/,:•A,�1 4_
; /FF.34� �. .,\ ,// FF-29.5`. 110'111 ��! '�/'e '
\ FF-z4.5 /35 I \ !/ /// l' .I/.o / '
\ .,_ 108 / �' ;;a LEGEND:,°,:..�
\ / ,, 3F FF-31.G4 / /`.�. E3 PROPOSED CONTOUR
6F'f `1
yn• D \`,'
\ i�-� r /.:Y 107 ) / �`� 2? EXISTING CONTOUR �mmn y�/m
\ 36 _ If, , ' /. - / —' ———— CLEARING LIMIT g
�,,\ / • /r /I„if ,/FF.32G BUFFER ZONE 8
2
/ Cam` o
/ FF.25.G I Mr ,fF-325 1' /' W F yR�
•
/ FF. 0 . ' �/. •/ Ire: FF.32.5 f r// PA Rd0.
/ FF-2s.o / / i - I:i..,-.-.-;2:, 10— 1 / F
/ / / ' / a.
/ 39G ro� / // !� /:Frs 3i.5 ----PM- I _/ L4
4. / FF-2CON., 40 / i /
ix
/ FF= so 41 ��� /( N / .y%;/i/F-Fe 33s v — /
FF.24.5 42 \ a�- o° ''\ e // I : %! /: / ti
\ 111 ,'e/ . \ / , //f s%� FF"315j FF9911.5 �- --- O 1-�
ti \ 87 / ) /// / /_ 1' (9\8-' \ w Z
a.
N\\�\ 88 \ / —�_ //// , \ i/if /I 1 6 _,/'" \ \\� /,\% �O Z_
7 / G�`i�/,v�' t ( ,.tom_ s. �` / �I�ti jam/ Jew a0
s / , Q2l,,,,93 \ 1/4//P7iii / °. (22
N V W
2 Cti FFe R25 90'i / N / �, Pc W
s''.,/.3N,t.-
7 'rQ,
\ 9\. !i 4N P4 V O a
/. 24592 /
N'u
d :4
/,•1 ��\\:_ ' , /ncorporated
5 U ; !y-1 4J 0033j.3q 0.B0e0R33100
8 `3 f. \ / 0' 20' 40' 80' p Peme ((fzs eT2MM6
YAZ (f25� 92i-A5T1
\ 70209 001.001
588'4955•E 269.03' ". \. /^ ProjecG —2
Sheet No.
.. ICAEL BEFORE YOU OIC 1-800-424-55551 so,et 2 of 3
. MICROFILMED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
. /t � )
,/j,/, //// /'nn"-...
�,sµ� / /////%`� ,i , /' §tt Nig
/ `
2
LEGEND: // / / /i%!/ !/r 7` / T'r <_
/23 PROPOSED CONTOUR ' /
---i3 EXISTING CONTOUR
/ /
/ / �// !" /——-- CLEARING WIT \/ y / #/// ei%
BUFFER ZONE / „ ' /
/ `V
//' ///.�� / i1 ''/� / /.I 0
/ $1�QK �i o
/ //; ji /!'/ __ Vg
�' �i i i Q" o"'
/ / j / o sm
Fazes
,1 // /,/ ,/ / // ////7Y / / Y,
'/ / F / ,/ d
1 / '/ / / �/;/ // z
"/, ..
i / % ,/ ',% a z
f j // !. /, r '4 Z
/
P] oPo
plsrPo/ vv ��/ o n
ssw / / !
e. / o ai j �,� �
^ ,. iFe 25.5 , /
S `—^ Ir I / �CV� •�%/ 0 p Incorporated
I %\ I ` n /p&/I: / `r h+l ezo Kirkland reT Iloo
FT-26.5 j Me 27.5 FT-z�5 4 FF.za5 \ / PCO O >wuma.r,NOW
S FF- 5.5'/FT-25.3 FF-27.5 T F3ove 125 222-M45
FF-27.5
1I ,. PT-27.5 3 6 5 4\ 3 ,` FF-.zS.s , / Internet: m.0tekCou
U 30200.001.001
�� 14A CHLINk —BSEE SHET G1+.1 I 71 I / -' (% // �� Project
Gl 3
Sheet No.
PAIL BEFORE YOU 0I0 1-800-424-555511 Sheet 3 of 3
MICROFILMED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET E1_3
-- u\\ /
B 23 z3 --�_ _� N8R'18'S6\ f0&5.{7 i �x0 /
-- 21 20 19 - \\ 1 i ` 2.
/2\/ _-—--......_..._.._....._...,,,,=—.....,--7
18
•/ 22 1 _/ \ I 16 15 '/� I - 8/
/,' 14 ry� I 1 i 3 :r 'as
N i % Ba00 / 13 12 ' ' / / 7 6 5 4�' $
I 23 --+-�-~\ s /ST1� 11 10/ n: 9 8 '�
Do ET g \p STREE A ;op/!
:„..
67 sa- \ f ~`1 - eel
\-69-- -.;,‘-----.1 / ----,_ _...):'‘•„, .
/ .,�1 //' / 73 74 61 6 '/ 63 :�''.. ..6/ eu, IDt
..�- 175 / /iuiiìi.iT
-- // i 1 u I 59i�60 '� g
o �i/ U
. \
0
/I 76 $S
/ ,, 58 // n" w ,0ys
z.
i = w.
" ni_H /_8/01_„, /7'9
all m ' /8 I
_�_ 82, 81 �1 S3 • _�I:5; \ \ S�R6 .5, •/• nnp.. z
84 \
\ 1t \l / ,0 a
/\ —8r_i /cA"�27
w, S�2 -� 'IL" a 1n
141
Z--.
o w Js \ ' .�U Pd z,_2 / 47 :;,/' i 7 ii
r ore` 0 20 ao aoQ 11:1,, , 30
11 \t/ /r = 6 0 a
,
/31 Rrf EL 45 .'1 \./
Incorporated
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET E1_2 a4 &U Ghlma by FIBB
EARTHWORK TABLE: LEGEND: y, MoHand.1,08033
PROPOSED CONTOUR ROOD ((425)9a-g
UNSUITABLE U TEE SHALL BE EXCAVATION: 32000 CY(50.000 TONS) PAY (125f BYI_BS'R
Fi REMOVED FROM THE SITE TO A LOCAL Ivle30 11100k,AY
FILL SITE AND SHALL BE IN FILL: 3B4O00 CY 60,000 TONS) 2= COSTING CONTOUR 7
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CO RENTON ( F-1 30209.007.001
STANDARDS.ADDITIONAL FILL MATERIAL BUFFER ZONE Project N°.
TO BE PROVIDED FROM A LOCAL SOURCE E1 1
AND SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS Street N°.
22
ICAIE BEFORE Y00 DIG 1-800-424-55554 Sheet I of 3
•
MICR; FILM -
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET E1_1
90 \ 30 /47 r E-cw
1 a / I::
r / 45 �ez•t/6t i -----
33/ ( ' / I
•2 , 34 u1 - \ ' \i,,,112 I `
r
a
d n
110`1 ` 'gf
~ \ I • ` BA ,1 1 ?a/y 108N. 'I1L7
7 �M1_ J� ^5 COSTING CONTOUR Imrs r Z
/ 36 �-"-I 1, • BUFFER zaNe
/ :` 4 / rxx 1067' O // ..h 2
UR
/ 1y • �' d` • :05 ., �F / oc .p7
S / •'/ �� 0) C WR1Fa
38 / : 104 .//r•�/ W6wx4
,,,,, , 0/' 4 yy?//'-''j /////,' .,/,/),//1///-,----,:_jol, ,,,„ /ez__ i
Nv/ //'4i:'/ i ,,'j----100 0
/ / i'I(r / (98 d
W
/ fg
cl
9 ,' > 14 oL; S9\/�� � 7 �
liol I i
x •
N90
N.Sor A \ / CO
o
`,-...\( /Air �., Incorporated
azo Eir.a,laay/IOU
8 Sf'Sy'' . t �' 0' 20' 40' BO' 0 P�aa°d•UM BTf-8 g
mo/�'� 30209 001.001
fProject No
,, g g El_2
23.21'
!•AIL
�.1I Sheet No.
BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551 Sheet 2 of 3
CD:KENONDA/OO/2002 9:1Wm-->IT\000 ECE\30]OO\30009\Ow0\DPU.T\EI]O.O 1
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET E1_1
7 — NM
II I _ r" \
1 \ \
\
' \\ 7 '. „ „
Iij±IITT
>\
r\ b
. O .
\\ I 1 . o
<Ti
\ ,, z
\ \v `-\ \ o\ �\� ' tt
\ \ c\\\ ll� �\$
o
\\\ \\\ .\ \; _ /
I.?? \\\\ \ ,A\ \ \-• \ -/
�\\y 1 '\ n
\
\ J' \. l \ %/
•
81 z \\t i
sa o i'
I g \ \\\\ \\ \\
ls,A \ \\ '.
<Cn� \ .\�\\\ �\
,, l'-‘;‘:\ ‘Ws\\ )1 ) \'' ''s. C)
\\ /1,/ Y \
o
,\-d,; / ,,,,,-..., K
A e \ ,,
.0,-,, ,,
r
Permit Review
'0 Not for Construction
9w6a � BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OWNER
o,= 0
C.10. 3�a8e ^ SHEET 3 ELEVATIONS pc` 969
m GTON DLvn.x�e � q11,,.. Y
g m nmrrox, s 92067 d <p/oz EGO EGO
ogml 4 PH.425-P.2H-2900 -y /°\
—��o 1 — •\ NO DATE By _ ADASEONS
micRoFiLmEt)
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
_ MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET D1_3
I
/ P 19 1 _ �' \rc, /7-
-
22 21 SO
/ \ 18 17 16 15 ��,V/ �' H \4 0 \'� 1g/ J
4, / / �' 14 I i� 3
1r 2\' / sp--t- •--� / ' 1 ', 12 ' 11 10/•�n`' 9 8 7 6 5 , 4 I•� t -o
%'� ` �_ 'Po :iR ET B \.,\\ 1 STREE- A / I 1 1ag
% / / 1 - �_j to
/ 24 66 C r� • ___ _ / -__,„ E'
i
----\ / —I—69
— 70 —_
o
... �' i/ ' / 73 74 �; \ 61 ,�y..
I
. f'... / ' ' 75.--1) s-z..-
\ y_____) , '\\ , s°------ ,\
/ 58 y
I / 79 - (o -_ zz �o
El
1-; _-_ 81 - 56 II r•
,./; .. ., //' •'.:'• .4,
1\-.3---- Is/jo
•\\ _ I_ / /' 50 j w z
•
o
•
•
..„ .
. ,
I, \.•\ 30 so s / 46 ( /' •... / / O w U
3.
9 1. \ 006 // / / -- .. ' 0' 20' 40' 0
\' 80' i 4A�
` A / �31 •<st jcl • _/ 45 \ ' �� H (� Q L+�i
s i / 1 / _-- —,' : a/� ov=i
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET D1_2 p 0 a
LEGEND: U
..)
YS PROPOSED CONTOUR . In corpora Led
E. ---23 E%ISTBIC CONTOUR F�1 Ear:rel lloo
-SD- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
i-1 Yvtlmd,re tv
$ 0 p PAX7 r1 BP2-1M8
PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN ((
PAY 125 BZI-PSTi
1730 mO0000Y
��ZONE 30209.001.001
J. - Project No.
D1 1
Sheet No.
BALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-55551 Sheet 1 of 3
MICROFILMED
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET D1_1
/
�/ 47 / ...
/
�: 30 / 'sD i i i �90
\ 46 /
I
/ /31 Y
r , ajG 45 /
o
,%• 32 f N 4r/i F % / �..��� 1 1� ��\,\ 1 W as
/\iiiimmfmiNis:-1.
/ 1/ j I '`\ \I • .! <=� /
• ,111 /� Rr�
N• • // iO8
ng;,.s ; '/ LEGEND: ti
/,__ \ •. \\,,/ / 23 PROPOSED CONTOUR
:� 107 ' �v/ / EXISTING CONTOUR Imp VIM
/. /�' / ♦ .C� / -SD- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN
/ 36 � ,• i / O' f IV o .PROPOSED STORM CATCH BASIN c pp
• L / " 1!' 10/'
J
11
/ ..\ BUFFER 20NE 6
�� 37��\ i ///�• • /05 �w :'#� - ' a S8
,� • \mil /// Il" �� a igi
f . � / . � w i
\ 38 /
/ /f� # .i 104-- P / // mg ...
//N`, 4° / i / /,...., , 1
/// /4:7, 7./.;.,--no 1 i y_17:------ 4
/ l/ i t 1 / (sa V., .401141%; a
$$
E �� LJ� Imo.f^`, (l :19 \ vs., �� ������ Jew w o
Luo
3 • p z
x 89 �$ \ i• CC i
�G 0.1 Q w
g '90\ / VitiPtir/ \ i,
i:4 Up CD GO
"-X/ / 4)Ari 7 •-0 o a
Nr-
ii . EU
G = \ //f a�0 Incorporated
E. �m� W98. .fey 3IW
g50'�` 4 \ - 0' 20' 40' 80' O Frfei 41 6Bz�i-85 88
t mteru<t: mrnettou
3O209.001.007
a f mo I �`� I z Project No.
•
1 s59'4S'S5'E 2G8.s3' i n '{ D1_2
Lf 23.21' 1 Sheet No.
Z. , PAIL BEFORE YW DIG 1-800--424-5555`sheet 2 of 3
[K:Kfxel-oe/m/zooz i.ieom-->x\aBoacr\�ozoo\wzas\owc\cau*\oi JDWC : 1 1 :
MATCHLINE — SEE SHEET D1_1
„\ 0, '". 0> ''''----.,, / 1
• �, v \
::: ..::661 / Eig
Ak\ .
<\L o48 8 0
g p E
—\ „ ___
: ,_,,, .
0
\• . , ,
\,\ i
, I\\,\1 j \\`B
N „,,„ ..,,
\\• \, \
• , \\ � • \\\ y..,:s
\\\ ('• \ z
\
iA \\\\\\ '-' � '% G�
//s . \\ \\I \ , C
\ \\\ \\\\\\ \\ ``. },F�
\ \\ \\\ o\\\ F y
\' •>\\ H
. \ `\\\\\\\:`,---> Ali.-°:\ \
\ \\A\ : trim
\, \\\ \� \` can
/?:. A ' \\\\\ C ''
<c'N ,\
\ )\.\ iv '*�\
\ ,�
4 ,e � ), .0
_ ,,_, .\,‘,'. \ ....„
R CD
i
r Permit Review
Not for Construction
I I Ogg BARBEE MILL PRELIMINARY PLAT OWNER:
; a. 0
BARGEE MILL CO.
0 r c Q) DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN eo°Bo�asee esaa cmx xcvn,N E
C l i 8 c SHEET 3 s=zu-°scoo _ �`uo,' A<// EGO �,,., .. EGO
Ohm I x0 DATE ByDEMONS
MICROFII[MEI
PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SEC. 32, T24N, R5E, W.M.
L.
_- Figure 3 — Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics
ii
MATCHLINE — LOWER RIGHT o ao— eo 'sO
i r x �
1 1 0 1 , I I 1 1�/l r-- 1 rT - / / / 0
<'i h 11, 1 1=4- I , I I 9'I' I r-1-7 r ' I I ,1 1 I I % / /b / /' / s e
I fT n « JL heI `1I e 1 AI
I .i II 1 II I I II 11 ,I.- ,e // / `a8
/ I I 11 1 I j I I'z 1,. n e , I I° ' j j ' 1 I / 'Y/ /,� / V
`\ / • •,�a�'+e,� I\.1 1 I ji 1 , ®1 L__,J,L :J-i 1/� ; /;/;/ LEGEND 3
L_,__-,(000
I1 e I e 111I -- - 1�-� , / i,�i i ——> Flow path
I/ ze__ / f-1 r _,r�. , I -,1�//
I �l ,' i 1 1 /I '�1 I°� I ,.I 1 \` ( I/ci et/I I sa / /' /////j e
i��''� I I I 11' 1 I r i i. Basin boundary
J .__ "_-i1ore
, -I/ I i 11 I , I i\ 1 �I- 1 I / 11 z(:/G� /// /
`— C _ I _- I `1n` i;l.I/`ICJ I/•, 11i �` /,,// /
T 1 1 1 L- -j ti,'-i L_ /I \ I . , �ZI \, I %/ �i�
' ,177,-11 . 1'''' 1 1 ilit:: J .,„/N: -,--
/,//
r
1 i ---\ A oicllllU , I j/ ,✓`, Y'� / * / •
.51
!"ilr,_„;-----"1,-,..- , ---/%24\\>-/---- --)//././0,2 // c., ..
\i III , z. I f, •`N:\,..- ,\ .,,/ % ,, / �.V N ,g
114
LAKE 1 1,0 i_.°C.' �,®��ya'° �y :; r.� ii-=- /% ,:l/ p•� '�
WASHINGTON I / � � �/ ,� / �,
1 � �j I�\ I a W Ff�a �,i/ ~ /iett 1:4
1 I-�-- j v a/ j/ ��Ili
TA Ix
i j\‘/ ' 114 ''s N/ 77 // ) < \ .f, / ,�/i Q i
i d r
. \ .'1-_-_-:-----i ; tct/i 4%.' V? / /// 'Ck , r
L Lu
4 cn Z U
/ -<, '' ‘‘‘.` '
y' ,1/ t7 ' ' Elc)cl
mi
/ if, .,, / vw ›. w cn w
/7 7 (tf.„ s‘ .,,,•‘'' / 7 //...,,,,,,, :,,,
t ,... r4
/ -/ \ \ * /7
r.,:,,,,,..„. -„,,,_„:.,, ,.„..,
,..)iee1 PCI T(.r,
•,. ,..) . _,,,,
7, „,.... ...,1,:„ / ..„,,,,„,-,,,...., ./..,
› . `4 (<1 z
,,,,,
N.
/ •/ (IdAY CREEK
;f7/f °�,•�r• „ifs a�O ,,eorporated
wo2ou .�,G �, / .%�// MATCHLINE — UPPER RIGHT 620 W.A.II,06033
Q re a . ea-�ae
. / �' b.. /' lir IoterveL � OIa1cCY
30209.001.001
i N 40TH STREET Project No.
Figure 3
Sheet
`• eFFORE YOU DIG 1-800-42/-555511 Sheet 1 of I
26