Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP273124 (7)I November r i!; 111 1-405 CONGESTION RELIEF AND BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECTS -_ . 1. ` ,. �� � �r � • - � - �'-, �v - S���. PRELIMINARY EARLY ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS INFORMATION 1 r Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION TO EARLY ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS ..................... 2 ' TASK FORCE WORKSHOP #1 AGENDA........................................................... 5 TASK FORCE PROJECT INFORMATION WORKSHEET...................................6 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM............................................................................. 8 rEEI STUDY AREA MAP.....................................................................................17 ' PROJECT LONG LIST BY ROADWAY SECTION AND BASINS ......................18 r i r t r r i 1 r 1 r 1 J J I 1-405 CONGESTION RELIEF AND BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECTS: INTRODUCTION TO EARLY ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS WSDOT welcomes the Early Environmental Investments Task Force If you are a recipient of this packet, WSDOT asks that you participate in the Early Environmental Investment (EEI) part of the 1-405 Corridor Environmental Program by participating on the EEI Task Force. Task Force members are environmental resource professionals from local, state, and federal agencies. We look forward to working with you to develop the EEI approach to environmental mitigation. Our first workshop will be held: Tuesday, December 91h, 2003 8:30 a.m. — 12:30 a.m. Location TBD What is the 1-405 Corridor Program? The 1-405 Corridor, from 1-5 in Tukwila to 1-5 in Lynnwood, needs improvement to relieve current and future traffic congestion. Transportation improvements for 1-405 were addressed in the 1-405 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the EIS, a number of alternatives for corridor -wide improvement were proposed. Following release of the EIS, a Record of Decision identified a Selected Alternative. The Selected Alternative provides for widening 1-405 by up to two lanes in each direction throughout its 30-mile length. At the current time, Environmental Assessments (EAs) are underway for specific projects within the corridor. What is EEI? ' EEI is mitigation developed in advance for the estimated effects of project construction on the environment. It is a corridor -wide process to identify, rank, select, design, and permit environmental investment opportunities in advance of construction creating any environmental impacts. The EEI focus is to identify opportunities for improving aquatic resources, fish, wetlands, water quantity, and floodplains. EEI is a cooperative effort, ' requiring information sharing and partnering among agencies with an interest in the 1-405 study area. 1 EEI is part of WSDOT's commitment to a corridor -wide environmental program. By initiating an EEI task force, WSDOT is seeking your help in selecting mitigation opportunities that will benefit the environment. ' WSDOT's goal is to invest wisely in viable, permittable projects. 1 How does EEI fit with other 1-405 environmental efforts? The EEI effort will rely on, to some extent, the impact analyses provided in the Discipline Reports for each Environmental Assessment (EA). The Discipline Reports will, in turn, rely on the EEI for the mitigation of some of those impacts. The EEI effort will seek to put forth mitigation measures that integrate more than one discipline and build upon basin planning and watershed management efforts. It will be the EEI that addresses the actual compensatory mitigation measures. The EEI work will also utilize watershed characterization work currently underway. While watershed characterization work will identify areas worthy of more site -specific work in North Renton, EEI will use watershed characterization results and evaluate project site ideas in more detail. What have we done so far? An EEI demonstration project has been completed. The South Renton Early Environmental Demonstration is planned to be environmental investment compensation for proposed transportation improvements at the 1-405/SR 167 interchange. Based on the lessons learned from this demonstration project, the EEI team refined the project identification and selection criteria. A "long list" of potential 1-405 EEI projects for the remaining portions of the corridor has been compiled from published documents. These documents include basin plans, near -term action agendas, and needs reports from watersheds potentially affected by 1-405 improvements from North Renton to the Bothell area. Watersheds that may be affected are: • Bear Creek • Cedar River • Coal Creek • East Lake Sammamish • Issaquah Creek • Kelsey Creek • Lake Sammamish • Lake Washington • May Creek • North Creek • Sammamish River • Swamp Creek The "long list" of projects has been evaluated based on readily available information, using a preliminary fatal flaw process. The results of this preliminary analysis will be updated with the addition of more research and input from task force members. 1 What will you be doing? Your expertise and knowledge about the region are valuable resources. We need your help in identifying potential EEI projects for wetlands, shorelines, riparian habitat, and stream restoration or enhancement. First- hand knowledge and access to specific project data is needed --- sufficient information is important for an effective evaluation process. What else will you find in this packet?' The following materials are provided for your review prior to our first workshop: • A technical memorandum describing the project selection process which incorporates the "lessons learned" from the pilot demonstration project. ' Definitions of the fatal flaw and second -level screening criteria • The "long list" of potential 1-405 Corridor EEI projects, subdivided by the specific transportation project and by basin. The subdivided list shows the results of the preliminary fatal flaw evaluation. • Worksheets for guidance in providing project information. ' Who can l contact for more information? I The 1-405 EEI Project Manager is Sharon Wright. She can be reached at 425-450-6264 or via e-mail at sharon.wright@hdrinc.com. ' A CD with the tables and worksheets will be available at the first meeting so that project information may be submitted electronically. Hard copies are also welcome. EEI TASK FORCE WORKSHOP: DRAFT AGENDA Tuesday, December 9, 2003 8:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Bellevue Red Lion Inn 11211 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 425-455-5240 Welcome/Introduction C. Martinez (15 minutes) Update on 1-405 Transportation and K. McGowan Environmental Program (15 minutes) Site Selection Process and Criteria Updates S. Wright (15 minutes) South Renton Process Update S. Wright (45 minutes) Overview of Preliminary Project Lists Team (90 minutes) Wrap-up S. Wright (20 minutes) 5 1 1 1 1 1 PROJECT INFORMATION WORKSHEET Purpose: The EEI team has developed this worksheet for your use in submitting project ideas as well as for updating any project information on the preliminary lists. Please fill in as much information as possible for a better evaluation. Any maps or schematics would also be exceptionally helpful. Name of Proposed Project: General Project Description: Distance from 1-405 (miles): Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Location: Basin/Sub-basin: Environmental Investment Type (restoration, creation, enhancement, preservation, etc) : Potential Project Size (acres, sq.ft.): Surrounding Land Uses: Existing Site Condition (Ecological Quality): Name of Property Owner(s): Ease of Acquisition (what, if any, challenges may be anticipated): Zoning: Is the Site Threatened by Development (yes/no)? 0 PROJECT INFORMATION WORKSHEET (CONTINUED) Rough Costs (including: design, acquisition, construction, and monitoring): Threatened and Endangered Species Link (yes/no): Anticipated Permits: Level of Support : Additional Comments and Information: Contact for Project Information: 1 1 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Corridor Implementation of the Early Action Demonstration 1-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects Purpose The purpose of this technical memo is to communicate the updated site selection process for early environmental investments (EEI) to project team members and participants in the EEI task force. ' Overview A pilot process for selecting and constructing environmental investments was conducted in the South Renton area in 20022. That process is being carried forward and applied to other areas of the 1-405 program. Comments from the EEI task force as well as from a post -project review with the 1-405 environmental team have been incorporated to improve the process for identifying and selecting early environmental investments. Clarifications and changes have been made to some fatal flaw and screening criteria, resulting in better tools for distinguishing among sites. One key change is the earlier involvement of a task force for project input. 1 11 It is possible that as the potential project list is reviewed, other criteria may be added or the EEI team may further refine definitions if this improves the screening process. The following tables and sections summarize updates and outline the proposed role of the EEI task force. Updated Fatal Flaw Criteria The fatal flaw criteria identified for the pilot process were analyzed. If a fatal flaw was not useful for distinguishing among sites, it was eliminated or modified to better serve the process. One criterion, High Priority in the Basin, was removed from the screening process. Another criterion, Ecological Connectivity, was moved to the second -level criteria. This is discussed in more detail in later sections. The following table summarizes analyses to the pilot process fatal flaw criteria: Table 1. Fatal Flaw Criteria Updates Within established boundaries IN None High priority in plan OUT Did not distinguish sites Total cost less than 10 million IN Revised to a range Ecological connectivity MOVED Part of second -level viability — was not useful for fatal flaw Permitability within 12 months IN None Project availability IN None Z WSDOT. I-405/SR 167 Interchange Early Environmental Demonstration, October 4, 2002. ' 3 The Status refers to whether or not the fatal flaw criteria will be used in the updated process or if it was changed. The resulting list of fatal flaw criteria is to be applied in the following order: 1. Within established boundaries 2. Reasonable EEI project 3. Total cost greater than $250,000 and less than $10 million 4. Permitability within 12 months 5. Project availability Updated Fatal Flaw Definitions Within Established Boundaries There is an EEI study area based on basin boundaries potentially affected by I- 405 improvements. This effort evaluates early environmental opportunities on a corridor -wide level. A project will not advance to the short list if it is located outside the study area boundary. In order to better manage the expected long list of projects within the corridor study area, it will be necessary to categorize the potential EEI projects by road improvement section. 2. Reasonable EEI Protect Reasonable early environmental investments consist of projects that are primarily environmental projects, have a clear location, with defined environmental elements addressed. Projects also need to have potential for credits toward any aquatic resource environmental impacts. Many published documents suggest program efforts like education or improvements to overall water quality. An EEI project may incorporate some of these kinds of program efforts if they are appropriate. However, an EEI project must focus on water resources and receive credit for the advanced mitigation. 3. Total Cost Greater than $250,000 and Less than $10 Million Cost to design, acquire land, construct, and monitor the project site will not exceed $10 million. Projects with a cost of less than $250,000 were also eliminated to avoid the expense associated with the startup and mobilization of numerous projects; this also leaves financially obtainable projects for organizations with smaller budgets. 4. Permitability within 12 Months Specific project attributes that would require extensive, time-consuming effort or negotiations may make projects less feasible as early environmental investment projects. Hazardous waste clean-up efforts, extensive application of unproven or untested techniques of restoration, or acquiring and demolishing existing structures are some examples of factors that would extend the time for acquiring permits. A project will not be advanced to the short list if it is not likely to be permitted or approved within 12 months after a 30 percent design on the site is provided to the permitting team. This fatal flaw has not changed. The timeline was redefined based on the amount of time required to develop the necessary information for obtaining all applicable environmental permits (design plans, specifications, etc.) and on current project schedules. 0 5. Proiect Availability Projects will not be advanced to the short list if they are identified by the basin steward or other sources as already in construction, being developed, or otherwise unavailable due to changes in conditions. This fatal flaw has not changed. Moved or Removed from Fatal Flaw Screening High Priority in the Basin Plan Criterion The High Priority in Basin Plan criterion was removed from the fatal flaw list. This fatal flaw was found to be overly subjective and would be better covered in the second -level screening criteria under the Level of Project Support criterion. It is the goal of the EEI process to work with basin representatives, agencies, jurisdictions, and the WSDOT watershed characterization group to construct projects that will provide the most environmental benefit possible for the cost of development. Updated Second -Level Screening Criteria The second -level screening criteria identified for the pilot process were reexamined for effectiveness. If a second -level criteria was not useful for distinguishing among sites, it was eliminated or modified to better serve the process. One criterion, High Priority in the Basin, was removed from the screening process. Another criterion, Ecological Connectivity, was moved to the second -level criteria. This is discussed in more detail in later sections. The following table summarizes the analysis performed on the pilot process second -level screening criteria. Table 2. Second -Level Screening Criteria Updates Ecological/functional viability IN Definition changed to more clearly include connectivity Long-term protection/low-level IN Separated into two parts maintenance Minimal IN None constraints/co n st r u ctab i t it Threatened and Endangered IN None Level of proportionality of investment to impact IN Changed to reflect environmental elements without implying onespecific ratio Timeliness of benefits OUT Did not distinguish sites, does not always align with highest overall environmental benefit Owners hip/avai labi I ityIN Category title change Consistent with land use plans and federal and local regulations OUT Did; not distinguish sites, plans are not clear, compliance with regulations assumed Level of project support IN Changed definition Cost effectiveness IN None Credits generated IN Changed quantification Level of partnering op ortunity IN None ° The Status refers to whether or not the fatal flaw criteria will be used in the updated process or if it was changed 1 10 Ecological Connectivity The fatal flaw criterion Ecological Connectivity was removed from the fatal flaw criteria and included as part of the second -level screening criterion, Ecological/Functional Viability. This criterion was not helpful in distinguishing sites during the earlier effort, and it complemented the Ecological/Functional Viability description already included in the second -level screening criteria. In general, most of the projects considered in the earlier effort had been proposed as a means to further an environmental enhancement or restoration goal. Therefore, all of the projects either met or were intended to provide ecological benefits, many of which depend on some level of connectivity to other important natural resources. Updated Second -Level Screening Criteria Definitions Most of the second -level criteria definitions were carried over from the pilot process. The criteria updates are explained in the succeeding sections in the following order: 1. Ecological/functional viability 2. Potential for long-term protection and low-level of maintenance 3. Potential for minimal site constraints and favorable constructability 4. Threatened and Endangered Species support level 5. Level of proportionality of environmental investment to impact 6. Timeliness of benefits 7. Ownership/availability (ease of acquisition) 8. Consistency with local land use plans and local, state, and federal regulations 9. Potential for loss of environmental investment opportunity 10. Level of project support 11. Cost effectiveness 12. Credits generated 13. Level of partnership opportunities 1. Ecological/functional viability (Change) --This criterion definition was changed to more clearly include connectivity and to clarify considerations. Previous Definition: This criterion refers to the type of habitat the project can accommodate and refers to the relationship of site to landscape. A higher score indicates greater ecological and functional viability. Below is a list of questions that will be addressed under this criterion: What habitat improvements could be accommodated by the site (e.g., wetlands, streams, riparian habitat, wildlife, floodplain, stormwater, or water quality)? What functions could the environmental investment or restoration opportunity provide (e.g., over -wintering, rearing for juvenile salmon, flood flow reduction, amphibian habitat, primary productions)? What are the ecological processes necessary to support these functions? Are ecological and functional opportunities feasible on the site? How likely is it that these functions will be viable in the future? 11 Updated Definition: This criterion refers to the ecological elements provided by the proposed project or project area. A higher score indicates a greater ecological contribution in terms of a larger number of ecological elements or a significant contribution to a particular ecological element, especially an identified limiting factor affecting threatened or endangered species. Below is a list of questions that will be addressed under this criterion: ■ What habitat elements could be accommodated by the site (e.g., wetlands, streams, riparian habitat, wildlife (buffer) habitat, floodplain, or water quality)? ■ What functions could the potential ecological elements provide, given the landscape position, drainage basin condition, and identified limiting factors? These may include fish habitat issues such as over -wintering and rearing habitat for juvenile salmon, flood flow reduction to improve basin functions, or general habitat parameters such as wetland or riparian habitat. ■ Will the project enhance critical ecological processes necessary to support these functions? If not, are the critical ecological processes ' sufficiently protected to make improvements to the site feasible? 2. Potential for Long -Term Protection and Low Level of Maintenance (Change) -- This criterion was split into two independent criteria primarily to clarify the differences in maintenance costs and partnership potential. ' Previous Definition: This criterion refers to the need for maintenance and mechanisms for long-term site protection after compliance monitoring indicates final performance standards have been met. A higher score indicates lower maintenance needs and more yore opportunities for long-term protection. Consideration was given to the following: ■ Environmental investment or restoration opportunities that require little -to - no maintenance are preferable to opportunities that require human intervention to ensure success. ■ Sites that have the potential to be turned over to another agency or conservation group for long-term protection and maintenance. (A parcel that is targeted for acquisition by another agency or organization should be given consideration over other parcels that may require long-term ownership and management by WSDOT.) Updated Definitions: Low Level of Maintenance -- Environmental investment or restoration opportunities that require little -to -no maintenance are preferable to opportunities that require human intervention to ensure success. A higher score indicates lower maintenance needs. Potential for Long -Term Protection -- Sites that have the potential to be turned over to another agency or conservation group for long-term protection and ' maintenance. A higher score indicates more opportunities for long-term protection. 12 3. Potential for Minimal Site Constraints and Favorable Constructability (No Change) -- This criterion refers to site conditions that may interfere with completion or construction of a successful environmental investment or restoration opportunity (e.g., clearing, grading, fill removal, filling, hydraulic structures, etc.). A higher score indicates fewer or no site constraints and favorable constructability potential. Constraints to consider include: • Site contamination • Utility locations • Presence of cultural, historical, archaeological features • Access 4. Threatened and Endangered Species Support Level (No Change) -- This criterion refers to threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, including candidate species present at the site. A higher score indicates more ecological support for threatened and endangered species. Questions to answer under this criterion include: ■ Does the site provide ecological support for threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species? • How does the site provide this support? 5. Level of Proportionality of Environmental Investment to Impact (Change) -- This criterion will now be called Environmental Benefits Address Estimated Project Effects. The reason for changing the category title is to convey that the 1-405 Corridor Program is working at watershed levels to address the estimated water resource effects of transportation design as early as possible. The EEI team felt that the previous definition conveyed a standard number, ratio, or credit, which has not truly been established for the corridor. The definition was changed slightly to reflect category title and intent. Previous Definition: This criterion indicates how well the estimated level of environmental investment compares to the estimated impacts. A higher score reflects early environmental demonstration projects would address the impacts in a more proportionate manner. This criterion answered the question: How well does the early environmental demonstration opportunity offset the transportation project impacts? Updated Definition: This criterion indicates how well the estimated level of environmental investment compares to the estimated impacts. A higher score indicates that early environmental investment benefits would more proportionately address the estimated project effects. This criterion will answer the question: How well does the early environmental demonstration opportunity offset estimated transportation project effects? 6. Timeliness of Benefits (Change) -- This criterion was removed from the screening. During the pilot process, it did not help to distinguish the sites. It also does not align with the objective of looking for environmental investments with 13 the most environmental benefit. In some cases, it may take more time to see higher benefit. Previous Definition: This criterion refers to how soon the site would provide benefits after construction. A higher score indicates more immediate benefits. 7. Ownership/Availability (Ease of Acquisition) (Change) -- The name was changed to Ownership (Ease of Acquisition). The change was initiated to minimize confusion with the fatal flaw "Availability of the Project." This identifies how property ownership will affect project feasibility. ' Previous Definition: This criterion refers to the ease of site acquisition. A higher score indicates favorable conditions for acquiring land. Consideration was given to the following questions: • Are there multiple owners? ■ Is the site owned publicly or privately? ' Is the site for sale? • Would condemnation be required? Updated Definition: This criterion refers to the ease of site acquisition. A higher score indicates favorable conditions for acquiring land based on ownership of the parcel or parcels. Consideration will be given to the following questions: ' ■ Are there multiple owners? • Is the site owned publicly or privately? ■ Is the site for sale? ■ Would condemnation be required? 8. Consistency with Local Land Use Plans and Local, State, and Federal ' Regulations (Change) -- The criterion was eliminated. During the pilot process, this criterion did not help to distinguish sites. All projects received a medium score during the pilot process. Environmental investments must comply with or ' address planning issues and land use conflicts, and the projects must comply with environmental and planning regulations. Previous Definition: This criterion addresses potential land use conflicts. A higher score indicates fewer or no land use conflicts. Is the environmental investment or restoration opportunity consistent with land use plans and regulations such as comprehensive plans, master plans, critical areas ordinances, and other regulations? 9. Potential for Loss of Environmental Investment Opportunity (No Change) Definition: This criterion addresses the impending risks of losing a site for ' environmental investment due to other development. A higher score indicates the site has a higher risk of being lost and, therefore, may benefit more from early action in order to prevent its loss to other development. ' Is the environmental opportunity at risk of being otherwise developed? 1 14 10. Level of Protect Support (Change) -- During the pilot process, this criterion was quantified by counting the number of planning documents in which the project was listed. Overlapping environmental planning among agencies that occurred in the South Renton area, partly due to a published Corps document, is not expected to occur in other areas. Instead, a value will be given to this criterion based on input from task force participants and other local representatives, about perceived support and opposition to using the project site. Previous Definition: This criterion addresses the level of support for each of the projects. A higher score indicates a higher level of public support. All projects were assumed to have some level of support because they were extracted mainly from published documents put together by jurisdictions, WRIAs, the Army Corps of Engineers, and basin plans. In general, if the project was listed in one document, it received a low rating relative to projects found in more sources, and if the project was listed in three or more sources, it was given a high rating. Updated Definition: This criterion addresses the level of support for each of the projects. A higher score indicates a higher level of public support and a lower level of public opposition. Input from the task force about their knowledge of support or opposition to the project will be imperative to score this criterion effectively. 11. Cost Effectiveness (No Change) Definition: This criterion compares the preliminary project costs to the estimated amount of functional benefits of the project. 12. Credits Generated (Change) -- The basic premise of this criterion remains unchanged. However, the eco-unit will not be used. The eco-unit developed by the Corps was not a sufficiently clear number to most people, and it will not be an effective measurement for the team to use with other projects. The new method of quantifying this criterion will be a work -in -progress based on standard requirements and ongoing discussions with the permitting agencies. Previous Definition: This criterion refers to the number of mitigation credits the site would generate relative to the expected impacts and cost of an EEI. A higher score indicates that a higher number of credits would be expected for the project. Most site scores for this criterion resulted from the consideration of an eco-unit number developed by the Corps and other agencies in the development of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Restoration Plan — Green/Duwamish River Basin. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 2000) Updated Definition: This criterion refers to the number of environmental credits the site would generate relative to the expected impacts and cost of an EEI. A higher score indicates that a higher number of credits would be expected for the project. 15 13. Level of Partnership Opportunities (No Change) Definition: This criterion refers to the potential of partnering with other jurisdictions or organizations. For example, if King County Parks owns property that needs restoration, WSDOT, through agreement with the County, may receive mitigation credit for completing the restoration work, but may not need to acquire the site or provide for long-term site protection and maintenance. A higher score indicates higher potential for partnership opportunities. Are there partnership opportunities available that would assist in leveraging project funds or enhancing long-term manageability of the site? Early Environmental Investment Project Plan Send to task force participants a preliminary "long list" of potential projects, organized by basin and roadway section, with preliminary fatal flaw results, updated criteria definitions, and a worksheet for filling in necessary information for further screening and scoring. a. Ask for comments on listed projects, additional projects with baseline information, and updated information. (More time will be available to work on this after the first meeting.) II. Conduct first task force meeting. a. Ask task force participants to bring in comments and additional information. b. Present 1-405 Program Updates. c. Present Updated Screening Definitions (Lessons Learned) d. Answer questions and set deadline to electronically return lists of projects, comments, and additional information. III. EEI team researches and applies second -level screening criteria to the "long lists" broken down into road sections. IV. EEI team scores "short lists" based on research and score definitions. V. Present to task force the three -to -five top scoring sites related to each roadway section. VI. EEI finalizes credit and permitting negotiations with support of task force. A third task force meeting may be held to cover permitting issues. Attendance at this meeting can be limited to members with permitting authority and permitting knowledge and/or background. 16 EEI STUDY AREA MAP 17 V Mnn, Roll LakA. er ne jr — 'i ,l J.'thalLake r' ,I i, 9 Swamp(Creek 524 t �! North Creek iC Little 1 Bear ` Creek /Lake &!!i �,� 522 Big B i 4 �,Sammamish Rive East Lake Washington Juanita 4 \ f,reen /,ke I Bellevue Northern Limit (SR 520) ! r,k<• ir',,,,,,, East L Lake;. f i'ar South Renton Northern Limit (SR 169) Bimen / ake t • U, /r Luke % Lower `t Green River i r 1 Star Lake ) We'st Lake Kelsey 1 Sammarl f I Kirkland Northern Limit (SR 522) 203 Lake Marc•e Finalmle Evans Creek, S 2 r Amelake >h , /ashmgton I Creekt ) East Lake Sammamish " e" 1 J Lake .1'litilrtmivh {' � N `.1!lrrc•er .Sluu,� h Phunti�n} I'a6 1� 1r Mercer Keavedake ` \ Slough Prn�et/fflake t , Mercer / F Island ; 1 ICoal'Creek+ ' �g ^;,ram .�. ♦ �. / 1 `� North Renton Northern Limit (I-90) 1 May Creek 1 1 �I IL Issaquah Creek k River IL. 169 eKathifee, Early Environmental Investments > ® EEI Study Area Cedar River I _ Basin Boundary Draft ESA Action Area � � Lai Desire ter1_ake Lake rS ad Lak—(Mud`L•ake) 167 \ River or Stream Panther Lake L k You gs� Freeway Soos Creek hsharri wjlie Basin Name ♦ 1 Jenkins Creek N 0 1 2 3 Lake er' is L Miles The information included on this map has been complied from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice WSDOTmakes no representations or warranties, express or implied as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information WSDOT shall rot be liable for any general, special, indirect incidental, of consequential damages including, but rat limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map Any sale of this map or information on this map Is prohibited except by written permission of WSDOT I� Early Environmental Investments 1-405 GEC I Early Environmental Investments Forth Renton m m m m i m m m ■■r m m m m m m s m m m Lower Cedar River Map Output Page 1 of 1 King County King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. http://www5.metrokc.gov/servlet/com. esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Cli,... 12/02/2003 Map Output Page I of I (* King County ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map C010 ai 0120 om 040D S120 ca YO Ii5o C-OW MO SS 9DA-2 t1fi 44TV3 ST Wo 0180 1143 82 0 1141 1142 -NE----43WDr-.P- Cosy 90311 0005 aQ 9C.49 OC69 4, z COSS VXV 'gs CW V 0016 0 C*81 COIS W00 OW035 po.'a M 20M King Cou 1 Legend Streets ED Parcel Lakes and Large Rivers The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. http:Hwww5.metrokc.govlservleticom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Cli,... 12/02/2003 Map Output Page 1 of 1 0 King County By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. http://www5 .metrokc.gov/servlet/com. esri. esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Cli,... 12/02/2003 King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report Page 1 of 2 0 King County By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Appraised Land Value $586,600 Taxable Land Value $586,600 Appraised Improvement Value $731,600 Taxable Improvement Value $731,600 Taxpayer EXIT 7 INC Tax Year 2004 Tax Status TAXABLE Parcel Number 3343301142 Account Number 334330114201 Levy Code ..__..� , ..�. _.. _.._... -- 2151�._.. Taxable Value ReasonNONE OR UNKNOWN Appraised Land Value $586,600 Taxable Land Value $586,600 Appraised Improvement Value $752,200 Taxable Improvement Value $752,200 Assessor Parcel Records: District Name RENTON Property Name LINE RETAIL TypePropertyCOMMERCIAL Plat Name HILLMANS LAKE WASH Present Retail Store GARDEN OF EDEN NO.03 Use Plat Block Water WATER System DISTRICT Plat Lot 183-184 Sewer System PUBLIC Lot Area 53,329 SgFt (1.22 acres) Access PUBLIC Section/Township/Range SE 29 24 5 Street Surface PAVED Assessor Legal Description Records: Account Number 334330114201 Record 1 Number 183-184HILLMANS LK WN GARDEN OF EDEN #3LOT 2 Legal Description RENTON SHORT PLAT 011-87REC NO 8802169005 SD SP DAF- Account Number 334330114201 1 Record 2 http://www5.metrokc.gov/reports/property_report.asp?PIN=3343301142 12/02/2003 King County: Assessor Property Characteristics Report Page 1 of 3 0 King County By law this information may not be used for commercial purposes. Assessor Real Property Records: Appraised Land Value $418,800 Taxable Land Value $418,800 Appraised Improvement Value $856,200 Taxable Improvement Value $856,200 MCDONALDS REAL Parcel Number 3343301143 Taxpayer ESTATE COMPA Account Number m334330114300 Tax Year 2004 Levy Code_.-___-.__..-m...____ 2151 Tax Status TAXABLE Taxable Value Reason NONE OR UNKNOWN Appraised Land Value $418,800 Taxable Land Value $418,800 Appraised Improvement Value $856,200 Taxable Improvement Value $856,200 Assessor Property Sales Records: Tip: Use the Recorders Office: Excise Tax Affidavits Report ort to see more sales records details Sale Date 11/1/1995 Sale Price $0 Seller Name MCDONALDS CORPORATION Buyer Name MCDONALDS REAL ESTATE COMPANY Assessor Parcel Records: District Name RENTON Property Name MCDONALDS Tree COMMERCIAL Plat Name HILLMANS LAKE WASH Present Restaurant GARDEN OF EDEN NO. 03 Use (Fast Food) Plat Block Water WATER System DISTRICT Plat Lot 183-184 Sewer System PUBLIC Lot Area 34,904 SgFt (0.8 acres) Access PUBLIC Section/Township/Range SE 29 24 5 Street Surface PAVED http://www5.metrokc.gov/reports/property_report.asp?PIN=3343301143 12/02/2003 LOWER CEDAR RIVER Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or "completed." 4. Cost greater than $250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. May Creek MAY CREEK Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. MAY CREEK Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or 'completed." 4. Cost greater than $250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. Coal Creek m m m m m = m m m m m m m m COAL CREEK 11 Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or "completed." 4. Cost greater than S250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. Kirkland m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m s m m Sammamish EAST LAKE SAMMAMISH Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. EAST LAKE SAMMAMISH 1 Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or "completed." 4. Cost greater than $250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. Kelsey Creek m m m = = m = = m = = m m m Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. Issaquah Creek m ISSAQUAH CREEK I r Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. ISSAQUAH CREEK Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or 'completed." 4. Cost greater than $250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. Lake Washington mmm m mmmm = = = m EAST LAKE WASHINGTON I L, [J Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or "completed." 4. Cost greater than $250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. North Creek m m m = = m = m m = = m m m NORTH CREEK Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. NORTH CREEK Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. ' Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. Bellevue m= m = = = m = = = = m m r m w m Bear Creek = m = = m r m w== m m m m= m m BEAR CREEK Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. BEAR CREEK Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or "completed." 4. Cost greater than $250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. Sammamish River SAMMAMISH RIVER Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or "completed." 4. Cost greater than $250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. Washington 1 EAST LAKE WASHINGTON Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or 'completed." 4. Cost greater than $250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. Swamp Creek M M w M M M M M M M r M M M M M M M M SWAMP CREEK 1 1 ' Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. SWAMP CREEK Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. SWAMP CREEK Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information. SWAMP CREEK Fatal Flaw Criteria: 1. Within Established Boundaries - watersheds/basins in contact with I-405 transportation corridor. 2. Reasonable EEI Project - primarily environmental projects, clearly defined, and clear location. Does not include studies, programmatic recommendations, etc. 3. Available - projects should not be "in construction" or "completed." 4. Cost greater than $250K and $10M. 5. Permitability within 12 months - projects should be permitted within 12 months after 30% design is submitted to the permitting team. Shaded projects did not satisfy at least one Fatal Flaw Criterion based on available information. Remaining projects satisfied all Fatal Flaw Criteria based on available information.