No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP273549 (8)Michael A Benoit From: Perlman, Alex [Alex.Periman@kingcounty.gov] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:06 PM To: Michael A Benoit Subject: RE: City of Renton - East Renton LS Elimination Project - KC ROW Permit Request DNS - Mitigated Michael, The attachment you sent is titled as the DNS and has several city docs in it that refer to project mitigation measures, but the actual SEPA MDNS is not part of the scan. Please advise. Alex G. Perlman, JD Real Ptr��egy .- genl II, Kuhl-ol-' [Vqy Penrrits, Fianchise _-1greements DES11-AID/RES (1Di1I-ES-08-30) Phone: 206-296-0879 I a1: 206-296-0196 From: Michael A Benoit [mailto:MbenoitCa@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 1:48 PM To: Permits, RES Cc: Perlman, Alex; Michael A Benoit Subject: RE: City of Renton - East Renton LS Elimination Project - KC ROW Permit Request DNS - Mitigated Per you request, a copy of our DNS — Mitigated for the project. Project Manager Wastewater Utility City of Renton (425) 430-7206 I Denis Law Citof y Mayor ©. Q U ✓-, y s « 'F + 111111110000 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator February 14, 2012 David Christensen City of Renton RECEIVED 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 FEB 1.5 2012 CITY OF RENTON SUBJECT: East Renton Lift Station Removal UTILITY SYSTEMS LUA11-092, ECF, CAR Dear Mr. Christensen: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended February 3, 2012 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated for the above -referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination therefore, this decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Environmental Review Committee Report dated January 17, 2012. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Roca e Timmons Ass ciate Planner Enclosure cc: Robert Nunnenkamp - King County Parks; Maplewood Homeowners' Association / Owner(s) Carol Nielsen, Walter Thurnhofer, Jim Lyons, Charles Anderson / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor City of ��Y o January 18, 2012 David Christensen Cit of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION East Renton Lift Station Removal, LUA11-092, ECF, CAR Dear Mr. Christensen: RECEIVED JAN 2 3 2012 CITY OF RENTON UTILITY SYSTEMS This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Roca e Timmons Ass ciate Planner Enclosure cc: Maplewood Homeowners' Association, King County Parks / Owner(s) Carol Nielsen, Walter Thu rnhofer, Jim Lyons, Charles Anderson / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ity°f DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY c AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE. January 17, 2012 Project Name: East Renton Lift Station Owner: Maplewood Homeowners' Association; PO Box 2594; Renton, WA 98056 King County Parks, Capital Planning and Business Development; 201 S Jackson St, Rm 700; Seattle, WA 98104 Applicant: City of Renton, David Christensen; 1055 Grady Way; Renton, WA 98057 File Number: LUA11-092, ECF, CAR Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant, the City of Renton, is requesting Environmental Review and a Critical Area Exemption in order to remove an existing sewer lift station, located west of SE 2nd Ct; and install a new sewer pipeline, extending west and south from the lift station location, through Maplewood Park and ending within 148th PI SE. The 1.2 acre subject site is located primarily within unincorporated King County. However, the portion of the property located within the City limits is within the R-4 zoning classification. Seven wetlands and two streams were identified within the project area boundaries. Proposed construction would require temporary crossing of one of the on -site streams (Stewart Creek) and its buffer along with some of the wetland buffers. Project Location: West & South of SE 2"d Ct, North of Maplewood Park Site Area: 52,272 SF STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report EAST RENTON LIFT STATION LUA11-092, ECF, CAR Report of January 17, 2012 Page 2 of 6 =PARTONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The East Renton lift station is approximately 10 years old. The lift station serves to pump sewage from nearby residential neighborhoods (Maplewood Estates, Parkside Court, Shy Creek, Liberty Ridge, and others for a service area of approximately 430 acres) to the gravity sewer system located near NE 4th Street. The City prefers to serve customers via a gravity sewer pipeline rather than a lift station whenever feasible. Based on a topographic survey, conversion to a gravity system appears to be possible at this location by crossing through an undeveloped portion of Maplewood Park and connecting to Briar Hills Division No. 4 sewer system to the south. The project site is located on a plateau on the north side of the Cedar River valley. The existing sewer lift station is situated on the north side of the right-of-way for SE 136th St. The lift station occupies the southwest corner of an existing stormwater pond. Within Maplewood Park, the construction corridor to be cleared for the project would be 60 feet wide. The total area of clearing and grading within the park would be 21,948 square feet (0.5 acre). Within the 30-foot wide corridor, the pipeline trench would be up to 10 feet wide, with the rest of the corridor width used for equipment access and material stockpiling. The new sewer line would be a total of approximately 1,030 feet long. Of this total, approximately 270 feet would be located within existing paved or gravel surfaced roads, and 760 feet within vegetated areas (Maplewood Park). Seven wetlands and two streams were identified within the project area boundaries. No streams or wetlands are located in the portion of the site site that is within the City of Renton however, buffers for the streams and wetlands do extend into the City limits therefore the applicant is required to obtain a Critical Areas Exemption for work proposed within a wetland buffer. There are 31 coniferous and deciduous trees, measuring up to 26 inches in diameter, which would be removed from the construction corridor within Maplewood Park. No trees would be removed within the City of Renton jurisdiction. It is estimated that approximately 1,375 cubic yards of material would be excavated from the trench. Staff received comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division regarding water typing, project impacts, and project mitigation (Exhibit 6). PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. ERC Report. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report EAST RENTON LIFT STATION LUA11-092, ECF, CAR Report of January 17, 2012 Page 3 of 6 B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included within the "Final Geotechnical Evaluation Report", prepared by HWA Geosciences Inc., dated February 2, 2011. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included within the "Stream and Buffer Mitigation Plan", prepared by ESA, dated July 2011. 3. A hydrologist/geomorphologist will develop a proposed plan for the large woody debris replacement. The City shall coordinate with King County Parks to identify and agree to favorable locations for large woody debris placement. The use of cobbles in the stream area will be replaced with appropriate streambed gravels. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Zoning Map Exhibit 2 Site Plan Exhibit 3 Critical Area Exemption Exhibit 4 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments Exhibit 5 City Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The topography of the site gently slopes to the south with an average grade of 2 to 3%; up to 10% in limited areas. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map states that soils in the project area are Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. The applicant provided a geotechnical report, prepared by HWA Geosciences Inc., on February 2, 2011. The geotechnical report states that topsoil onsite to consist of silty fine sand and sandy silt with a high organic content. Below the topsoil, loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel is present over deep glacial till. A surface layer of gravel fill approximately one foot deep is present in portions of the site where a foot path was once constructed. It is estimated that approximately 1,375 cubic yards of material would be excavated from the trench. Approximately 760 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site for trench backfill material. In addition, approximately 24 cubic yards of concrete and sand would be used to fill an existing sewer pipe to be abandoned south of the lift station, and to fill two manholes in this same area to provide the correct grade for the new pipeline. The project would create only 3 square feet of new impervious surface. Existing asphalt surfaces will remain north and south of the park. The geotechnical report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of design and construction including but not limited to the creek crossing, open -cut trench construction, dewatering, and wet weather earthwork. As such, staff recommends a mitigation ERC Report. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report EAST RENTON LIFT STATION LUAII-092, ECF, CAR Report of January 17, 2012 Page 4 of 6 measure that the applicant comply with the recommendations included within the "Final Geotechnical Evaluation Report", prepared by HWA Geosciences Inc., dated February 2, 2011. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included within the "Final Geotechnical Evaluation Report", prepared by HWA Geosciences Inc., dated February 2, 2011. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The applicant provided a Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Study, prepared by ESA, dated July of 2011. Seven palustrine forested wetlands and two streams were identified within the project area boundaries. The wetlands and the stream are hydrologically connected. Most of the wetlands are located directly adjacent to, or near, the on -site streams and receive overbank flow as well as groundwater. The main stream channel, Stewart Creek, enters the northern end of the project area via a plastic culvert, and exits the southern end of the study area via grated concrete culvert. The stream enters the storm drain system south of Maplewood Park and daylights approximately 0.3 mile south of the park. Stewart Creek joins the Cedar River approximately 0.75 miles south of the park. Each of the wetlands received a rating of Category II which requires a buffer of 140 feet under King County Code (KCC 21A.24.325.A.1). Both streams meet the King County criteria for Type N streams with a buffer of 65 feet per KCC 21A.24.358. The applicant is proposing construction within Stewart Creek and within the buffer of wetlands. No direct wetland impacts are proposed. The applicant submitted a Stream and Buffer Mitigation Plan, also prepared by ESA, dated July 2011, in accordance with the King County Code requirements. No streams or regulated wetlands are located within the project area north of the park. King County regulated buffers for the streams and wetlands in the park do however, extend north into the city limits. The portion of the stream and wetland buffers extending into the city consists mostly of gravel -surfaced access road and existing fenced and graveled pump station area. A critical area exemption is required, from the City of Renton, for work being done within the King County regulated buffer which extends into the city limits (Exhibit 3). For those proposed unavoidable impacts to the wetland and streams within the King County jurisdiction the applicant would be required to comply with mitigation as prescribed by the King County Code prior to construction. The Stream and Buffer Mitigation Plan provides recommendations regarding mitigation and monitoring for unavoidable impacts. As such, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to comply with the recommendations included within the "Stream and Buffer Mitigation Plan", prepared by ESA, dated July 2011. In a response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division comments the City answered questions with regard to stream typing and project impacts. Additional mitigation, is proposed, in the form of a plan for large woody debris replacement. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the City coordinate with King County Parks in order to identify appropriate locations for large woody debris placement. The plan shall be developed by a hydrologist/geomorphologist. ERC Report. doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report EAST RENTON LIFT STATION LUAI1-092, ECF, CAR Report of January 17, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included within the "Stream and Buffer Mitigation Plan", prepared by ESA, dated July 2011. 2. A hydrologist/geomorphologist will develop a proposed plan for the large woody debris replacement. The City shall coordinate with King County Parks to identify and agree to favorable locations for large woody debris placement. The use of cobbles in the stream area will be replaced with appropriate streambed gravels. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 3. Vegetation Impacts: There are black cottonwood, European mountain -ash, red alder, Douglas fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar trees located on site. There are also Pacific ninebark, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, vine maple, willow, and Indian plum shrubs on site. The areas to be cleared include a mixture of native and non-native tree, shrubs. The applicant is proposing to remove a total of 31 trees from the construction corridor. No trees would be removed within the City of Renton jurisdiction. The applicant is proposing to replant with native plant species following installation of the pipeline. Trees that are removed would are proposed to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. The revegetation would be required to comply with the tree retention and replacement requirements outlined in the King County Code. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus: N/A a. Noise Impacts: The only noise that would be generated by the project would be short term during construction. Construction is anticipated to last four months. During this time, the types of equipment expected to be used for construction include a backhoe, trackhoe, bulldozer, dump truck, concrete truck, and submersible pumps. Single-family residences, located in the Parkside Court neighborhood, would be the closest noise receptors which are at least 100 feet from the construction area. King County and the City of Renton both have a noise limits of 55 dBA. Once construction is complete, the project would not generate noise. The project will eliminate a minor source of existing noise associated with the lift station. In order to mitigate construction noise impacts, the applicant is proposing to limit construction activities to between 7:00 am to 5:00 pm typically. Modern construction equipment would also be used to minimize noise and noisy portable equipment would be located as far away from sensitive receptors as practical and would be muffled. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus: N/A 4. Utilities Impacts: The project corridor. includes numerous existing utilities, including underground stormwater, water, telephone, gas lines, and an overhead utility line. The utility proposed is a new City of Renton gravity sewer pipeline totaling approximately 1,030 linear feet. General construction activities include clearing and grubbing of a forested area and a standard open -cut ERC Report.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report EAST RENTON LIFT STATION LUAII-092, ECF, CAR Report of January 17, 2012 Page 6 of 6 trench construction in developed and undeveloped areas. Existing aboveground and underground utilities requiring relocation are anticipated to be relocated by others prior to the beginning of work. An existing telephone line (overhead and underground) and power poles would require temporary or permanent relocation. Prior to construction, the applicant would be required to locate all of the utilities within the project area by a contractor. The City plans to coordinate with contractors to avoid impacts to existing utilities and service interruptions. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, February 3, 2012. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ERC Report. doc E6 - 10 T23N R5E E 1/2 ZONING MAP BOOK G6 - 22 T23N R5E E 1/2 PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 ,i:, �umm�ba oao�:�.ao.es.�mr Poi {uaraeveetl m sum auurary, aM a bad Pn me belt mbmution mikbk a of Ne Ea[e ibwn iti: man k�—d m. an&*yPm 4p 0 200 400 _... c h nf.; _ mat Feet 1:4,800 15 T23N R5E E 1/2 i 5315 xOPEREUNENT CP.NsH AREA O // << MAPLEW000 P— I/sEWERPIPE rte of :C: m I 7.< L TT iiP x t •1��9a$1ROCIION .,.... i. /SEMEN sIEWERPIPE _ I u I iN; o it IItIrI' / I LSE �SLE _ EBB . .•. I } P-0 I I ,\ MAPLEW I PARK O u�a roRVE ' ae ENT Lwn INI B BiaFAM eGEPERUMrte / KING LGU KETUNOANG 0 20 40 00 N Scele In Fast SOURCE: City GI Renton; CamllG, 2011. EXHIBIT 2 .._.......... .-.. __ _ ..... -. I < I : I I I h fLEAseRENTGN PA a E Ntl,� REMOVED r OCONTI—TON / .—NG AREA MAPLEWOOD ESTATES I I ��.", cmaRENTON I'. K.EEs / P�\�\ ••`'`• \ \ /X-/ OF REMOHIOLIry East Renton Lift Station. 209036 Figure 2, Site Plan King County, Washington , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City _ = �, styof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT J f� _' PLANNING DIVISION CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: January 17, 2012 LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: LUA011-092, CAR PROJECT NAME: East Renton Lift Station Critical Areas Exemption PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Renton; 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PROJECT LOCATION: West & South of SE 2"d Ct, North of Maplewood Park CRITICAL AREA: Wetland Buffer PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The proposal involves the repairing of an existing 18" concrete culvert that failed during a major storm event. Portions of the culvert would be replaced with corrugated polyethylene pipe and the remaining portions would be rehabilitated. Minor excavation would be required in order to expose the outlet. The slope is proposed to be stabilized with erosion control blankets and hydroseeded. No construction would occur within the adjacent wetlands and would occur solely within the buffers. Additionally, the applicant is requesting the replacement of an existing inlet structure within a new manhole and birdcage trash rack. EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C.5.e.iv. Roads, Parks, Public and Private Utilities, of the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby granted: iv. Modification of Existing Utilities and Streets by Ten Percent (10°o) or Less: X Overbuilding (enlargement beyond existing project needs) or replacement of existing utility systems and replacement and/or rehabilitation of existing streets. FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050C.5: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state or federal law or regulation. EXHIBIT 3 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Certificate of Exemption from Critical Areas Regulations East Renton Lift Station Critcal Areas Exemption LUA11-092, ECF, CAR DATE OF PERMIT: December 19, 2011 Page 2 of 2 2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. 3. Impacts will be minimized and disturbed areas will be immediately restored, if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. 4. Where wetland or buffer disturbance occurs during construction or other activities in accordance with this exemption, the site will be revegetated with native vegetation as required as a condition of approval for this exemption. DECISION: An exemption from the critical areas regulations is approved. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director Planning Division . Date APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2012. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required fee to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of decision (date of signature). Stacv Tucker EXHIBIT 4 From: Rocale Timmons Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:10 PM To: Stacy Tucker Subject: FW: East Renton Lift Station Removal, LUA11-092, ECF, CAR, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance Attachments: coho and intermittent streams.pdf Rocale T From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 10:29 AM To: Rocale Timmons Cc: Fisher, Larry D (DFW); Lull, Lori C NWS Subject: East Renton Lift Station Removal, LUA11-092, ECF, CAR, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance Rocale, We have reviewed the Notice of Application for the above referenced project and offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty protected fisheries resources: Water Typing Per the Wetland, Stream, and Wildlife Study (ESA 2011), there are two streams on -site: Stewart Creek and a tributary to Stewart Creek. Stewart Creek is a tributary to the Cedar River. The Study classifies both streams as Type N waters. We disagree. Both streams appear to meet the physical criteria for presumed fish use and fish habitat based on WAC 222-16-031, as both streams are at least 2 feet in bankfull width per the study and appear to be less than 16% stream gradient based on the site plans. Stewart Creek is identified with an average channel width of 5 feet and portions as wide as 15 feet. The unnamed Stewart Creek tributary is identified as being three feet in width. Therefore, at least the bankfull width criterion is met for both streams. We are unaware of any natural barriers downstream that would constitute a fish passage barrier. Previously, King County DOT removed a known fish passage barrier culvert downstream on Stewart Creek as part of the Elliott Bridge replacement project (see http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20050901&sluq=glance0le) which should have resulted in improved upstream passage in Stewart Creek. If there are other existing human created barriers downstream of the Park and above King County's previous work, then they can and should be replaced and not be used to determine potential fish habitat accordingly. Finally, the minnow traps and visual observations on two days described in the Study are too limited to confirm fish absence. We generally recommend that such studies be completed over 10 years to capture a variety of hydrology and rainfall events to document fish absence. There can be a variety of reasons why fish are not present when examined in single observations. As a surrogate for 10 years of monitoring data, we recommend that the physical criteria from WAC 222-16-031 be used along with the Forest Practices Board Manual 13 to determine potential fish habitat, unless there is a documented natural barrier confirmed by the MITFD and WDFW. There was substantial fish electroshocking data used in combination with stream measurements to create the criteria used in the WAC 222-16-031. The photos in the Study indicate features similar to other streams where we have found coho and cutthroat trout. Even seasonal streams can provide habitat for coho and other salmonids when they are flowing. Please see attached paper. Project Impacts Since the impacted streams appear to be capable of providing fish habitat, then the potential project impacts may not have been adequately assessed. For example, the extent of riparian impacts may not be accurate if a larger regulated stream buffer is required based on a Type F classification. It appears that the Category II wetland buffer may encompass the larger regulated stream buffer for Type F waters; however, this should be verified. Also, the proposal to use open trenching techniques would not be the preferred stream crossing if these are potential fish bearing streams. Rather, horizontal directional drilling or other techniques with less impacts to the streams would be assessed and implemented if technically feasible. Another consideration is the depth of the sewer line at the stream crossings (minimum 5 feet) may not be sufficient to protect the pipeline over time if the stream conditions change as a result of changes in upstream hydrology, debris flows, etc. The pipe may need to be located deeper to avoid its exposure over time that causes future bank and bed stabilization that generally results in adverse impacts to fish habitat, all of which can be avoided if located at the proper depth now. 3. Project mitigation We recommend that all native trees that are 4 inches in diameter (at breast height) and greater and proposed to be removed from within 200 feet of the project streams, be placed back into the streams as partial mitigation for their removal. The tree replacement ratio of 3:1 will not address the temporal loss of tree growth and future wood recruitment from the removal of these trees. Per the environmental checklist, 31 trees that measure up to 26 inches DBH will be removed as part of this project. It is unclear how many of these trees are within 200 feet of the affected streams and at least 4 inches in diameter that will be removed. The mitigation area also needs to verify that the existing trails are not included in the mitigation ratios as these trails are proposed to be restored and would not be replanted as stream or wetland buffer. The stream buffers will also be further impacted by the pipeline and its requirement to plant only native shrubs within 20 feet of the 30 foot wide construction corridor to avoid tree root damage to the pipe. Additional mitigation will likely be needed to address this permanent impact. Finally, stream bed materials placed back in the affected streams should be similar to what is found currently, i.e. sands and gravel per the Study. The proposed cobbles, for example, may be too large of substrate,, whereas gravel sized material and smaller will likely be more suitable. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project and look forward to the City's responses. Please note that the project is seeking a Hydraulic Project Approval permit and a Corps of Engineers 404 permit, at this time as well; therefore, we are also submitting these comments in response to those pending permits. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS Coho salmon dependence on intermittent = streams PJ Wigington Jr'*, JL Ebersole', ME Colvin', SG Leibowitz', B Miller', B Hansen4, HR I-avignes, D Whiter, JP Baker",'MR Church', JR Brooks, MA Cairns"', and JE Compton' In February 2006, the US Supreme Court heard cases that may affect whether intermittent streams are juris- dictional waters under the Clean Water Act. In June 2006, however, the cases were remanded to the circuit court, leaving the status of intermittent streams uncertain once again. The presence of commercial species, such as coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), can be an important consideration when determining jurisdic- tion. These salmon spawn in the upper portions of Oregon coastal stream networks, where intermittent streams are common. In our study of a coastal Oregon watershed, we found that intermittent streams were an important source of coho salmon smolts. Residual pools in intermittent streams provided a means by which juvenile coho could survive during dry periods, smolts that overwintered in intermittent streams were larger than those from perennial streams. Movement of juvenile coho into intermittent tributaries from the main - stem was another way in which the fish exploited the habitat and illustrates the importance of maintaining accessibility for entire stream networks. Loss of intermittent stream habitat would have a negative effect on coho salmon populations in coastal drainages, including downstream navigable waters. Front Ecol Environ 2006; 400): 513-518 Intermittent streams only flow during part of the year and are often under -appreciated as aquatic resources. In the western US, over 65% of total stream length is inter- mittent (Stoddard et aL 2005). Whether intermittent streams are included under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is not clear. Under the CWA, the defi- nition of "waters of the United States" is vague, leading to substantial debate in the courts and federal agencies about the geographic scope of the statute (Downing et at. 2003). Until recently, regulatory interpretations were fairly broad, but a 2001 US Supreme Court ruling (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v US Army Corps of Engineers, 531 US 159 [20011) re-emphasized the importance of a water body's navigability and its "significant nexus" with navigable waters. In June 2006, the Court issued decisions in two additional cases (United States v John Rapanos and June Carabell v United States Army Corps of Engineers and United States Environmental Protection Agency, slip op, 547 US _ [20061) that concerned the jurisdictional status of non -navigable waters. An issue that remains unresolved is whether a tributary to a nax igable waterbody must be perennial to be included, or whether it can be intermit- tent. Research documenting the impact of intermittent streams on interstate or foreign commerce in navigable waters, in particular, could influence whether such systems are protected under the CWA. 'US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR .97333 *(wigingwnJim®epa.gov); 'Independent contractor, Corvallis, OR 97333; 'Oregon Department of Fah and Wildlife, Charleston, OR 97420; 'USDA Forest Service, Con4L, OR 97333; 5Dr=,ac Corp, Corvallis, OR 97333 Current address: Beavercre'eJk',` IO..R 97004;'Current address: Independence, OR 97351 © The Ecological Society of America Pacific salmon are extremely important to the ecosys- tems and economies of the Pacific Northwest and support valuable commercial and recreational fisheries. Salmon populations have experienced major declines and local extinctions, due in part to loss of freshwater habitat (Lichatowich 1999; CENR 2000). Coastal coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), which use headwater areas where intermittent -streams are common, have experienced declines similar to other Pacific salmon and have been the focus of major restoration efforts (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 2005). The potential importance of intermittent streams to coho and other salmonids has been documented (Everest 1973; Erman and Hawthorne 1976; Kralik and Sowerwine 1977; Cederholin and Scarlett 1982; Brown and Hartman 1988), but quantita- tive data are limited. Coho salmon commonly have an 18-month freshwater life cycle. Adult coho return from the ocean in late fall, when streamflows increase, and spawn in the upper por- tions of coastal stream networks. Coho fry emerge in late winter and remain in these streams through the summer and winter before migrating (as smolts) to the ocean the following spring. Juvenile survival during winter flood events is one of the most important factors controlling smolt production (Nickelson et aL 1992). High stream - flows can physically displace or fatally injure fish unable to find suitable, low -velocity refugia. Larger smolts tend to have higher ocean survival rates (Holtby et A 1990). Thus, both the number and size of smolts affect the size and biomass of adult populations. In this paper, we quantify the contributions of intermit- tent streams to coho salmon production in an Oregon coastal watershed. Specifically, we provide estimates of Salmon and intermittent streams PJ Wigington et at. Figure I. Gamest Fork Smith River watershed and stream network. Intermittent streams are shown with dashed lines. the (1) proportion of spawning that occurred in intermit- tent streams, (2) movement of juveniles into intermittent streams, (3) juvenile survival in intermittent and peren- nial streams during winter, and (4) relative size of smolts produced from intermittent and perennial streams. This effort is part of a larger study that is examining how coho use habitat in the whole stream network of an Oregon coastal watershed during their freshwater life cycle (Ebersole et al. in press). E Methods Since 2002, we have studied survival and movement of juvenile coho salmon in the stream network of the West Fork Smith River (WFSR), a 67 km' forested drainage in coastal Oregon (Figure 1). The watershed supports a wild coho salmon population, and produced an average of 24 000 coho salmon smolts per year during 2002-2005 (Jepson et al. 2006). The stream network consists of a mainstem and six major tributaries (Figure 1). Two tribu- taries, Moore Creek and Crane Creek, have intermittent flow during many summers and represent 9% of the total stream network. Douglas County has measured streamflow continuously on the mainstem WFSR, near the mouth, since 1981. During 2003-2005, we periodically measured streamflow in trib- utary streams using Swoffer flowmeters (Swoffer Instruments, Seattle, WA) mount- ed on wading rods (Gordon et al. 1992). We compared mainstem and tributary streamflows to establish mainstem threshold values below which intermittent tributaries ceased to flow. We also deployed an array of Onset Stowaway Tidbit (Onset Computer Corp- oration, Bourne, MA) temperature data log- gers in 43 pools in the WFSR stream net- work (Cairns et al. 2005), and made recordings at 30-minute intervals. Adult coho salmon spawner abundance was calculated from surveys conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) personnel, using established field survey protocols (ODFW 2005). Area under the curve estimates were obtained from repeated ODFW surveys throughout the spawning period, and were converted to estimates of abundance assuming a 75% observation probability (Jacobs 2002). Because estimates of observation and asso- ciated variance are not available at the stream level (Jacobs 2002), we developed confidence intervals for the estimate of adult coho spawners using intermittent streams. A confidence interval was con- structed using the difference between the spawner estimate and the actual number of coho observed during stream surveys to create upper and lower bounds for each stream. This confidence interval corresponds to an assumed range of observation probabil- ities from 50% to 100%. Coho salmon juveniles were individually tagged from August to October each year, with 11 mm passive inte- grated transponder (PIT) tags (PIT Tag Steering Committee 1999). We collected coho for tagging by sein- ing (Ebersole et al. in press); fish were recaptured as they left the watershed using a rotary screw trap that was oper- ated continuously (February through June, except for brief periods during extremely large hydrologic events), with a trap efficiency of 33-39% (Jepson et al. 2006). Each fish was measured for fork length (distance from tip of snout to indentation in caudal fin) at time of tagging and at time of recapture at the smolt trap. From August to October 2003, we PIT tagged an average of 328 coho salmon (range = 94 to 469) in each of eight reaches located in the upper and lower sections of Crane, Moore, Beaver, and Gold Creeks, and at ten reaches within the mainstem. Each tributary reach was 800 m long and each mainstem reach was 400m long. In total, 3977 coho salmon were tagged in the mainstem, 1214 were tagged in ® The Ecological Society o£America PJ Wigington at al. Salmon and intermittent streams the perennial tributaries, and 400 were tagged in the intermittent tributaries. During August to October 2004, we established 30 PIT -tagging reaches, spaced systemati- cally across the WFSR stream network Each reach was 300 m long. We tagged an average of 149 coho salmon (range = 86 to 185) within each reach, tagging a total of 3012 coho salmon in the mainstem, 2010 coho salmon in the perennial tributaries, and 1156 coho salmon in the intermittent tributaries. We estimated overwinter survival for each tagged group per reach by dividing the number of fish recovered at the rotary screw trap by the number released, after correcting for trap efficiency and the proportion scanned for PIT tags. Variance estimates for overwinter survival were derived using a bootstrap method (a technique for estimating the sampling distribution of an estimator by resampling with replacement from the original sample; Thedinga at aL 1994). Movement of PIT -tagged coho salmon between the mainstem and four tributaries (two perennial: Beaver and Gold, and two intermittent Moore and Crane) was mcmi- tored using stationary PIT -tag monitoring stations posi- tioned in the tributary near the junction with the mainstem West Fork Smith River. All four antennae were in opera- tion for the winters of 2003-2004 and 200¢-2005. Each monitoring station consisted of a Destron-Fearing (South St Paul, MN) FS1001 transceiver powered by deep -cycle batteries. A rectangular antenna (3.3 m x 1.2 m) was posi- tioned in the stream and bracketed with weir panels to cap- ture all but the highest streamflows. PIT -tagged fish passing through the antenna field were recorded (PIT -tag identifi- cation number, date, and time) continuously on a laptop computer attached to the transceiver. Coho salmon smolts PIT tagged during the autumns of 2003 and 2004 were clas- sified according to the recapture history (where they were located within the stream net- work during the overwinter period) as (1) mainstem, (2) perennial tributary, or (3) inter- mittent tributary habitat users. We used analysis of covari- ance (ANCOVA; Gotelli and Ellison 2004) to compare the length of PIT -tagged coho salmon smolts recaptured at the smolt trap that used mainstem, perennial tributary, or intermit- tent tributary stream habitats. We used the year of PIT tagging as a categorical variable to account for between -year varia- tions and coho salmon length at the time of PIT tagging as a covariate to control for variabil- ity in initial fish length. Date of recapture at the smolt trap was also included as a covariate, because juvenile coho salmon @ The Ecological Society of America grow rapidly in the spring, and smolts that out -migrate later in the spring tend to be larger. A model of the two covariates and two factors and all interactions for the ANCOVA were fit using the mixed procedure (PROC MIXED) in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute; Carey, NC). Model fit, structure, and assumptions were visually assessed using diagnostic plots of predicted values and residuals. N ResuRs We were able to use streamflow data from the summer of 2003 to establish mainstem streamflow thresholds below which streamflow ceased at the mouth of the intermittent tributaries (Moore Creek and Crane Creek). Using these thresholds, we estimated that one or both intermittent tributaries experienced periods with no flow during approximately 14 of the 24 years of streamflow record, with 6 years having no streamflow in intermittent streams for periods of 15 to 87 days: During our study, two summers (2002 and 2003) had extended periods with no streamflow in the intermittent streams, but during the summer of 2004 streamflow did not cease at any time (Table 1). During periods with no streamflow, residual pools (Figure 2) were present in Moore and Crane Creeks for a considerable period of time after streamflow had ceased. Water temperature data in intermittent and perennial Figure 2. Residua! pools during a dry summer in a West Fork Smith Ricer intermittent tributary stream. PJ Wigington et al. Salmon and intermittent streams Figure 3. Proportion of juvenile coho tagged during the fall in mainstem, perennial tributaries, and intermittent tributaries, and the estimated proportion of the same tagged coho emigrating from the West Fork Smith River (based on recaptures at the smolt trap) that were classified as mainstem users, perennial tributary users, or intermittent tributary users. (a) Coho tagged in fag 2003 and captured in smolt trap in spring 2004; (b) coho tagged in fall 2004 and captured in smolt trap in spring 2005. The number of coho comprising the bars are shown above the bars. The standard error of the tagged coho smolt emigrants are shown as whiskers above the bars. Coho smolts that were located during the over - winter period exclusively in mainstem habitats were classified as mainstem users; smolts that were originally tagged in or located at some time during the over -winter period in the perennial tributaries were classified as perennial tributary users; and smolts that were originally tagged in or located at some time during the over -winter period in the iruern ittent tributaries were classified as intermittent tributary users. streams confirm the presence of residual pools. Diet water temperature patterns were consistent in upper and lower Gold Creek throughout the course of the summer of 2003 and are indicative of perennial streamflow. In contrast, water temperature patterns in Moore Creek show moder- ately fluctuating temperatures followed by widely fluctuat- ing temperatures, indicative of a dry channel in the lower stretches during that period. We observed cool, constant temperatures, -indicative of a residual pool sustained by groundwater, at an upper Moore Creek site from early July into September. Intermittent tributaries were used by coho salmon in several ways. During 2002-2004, 11% (confidence inter- val [CI] = 8 to 14%) to 21% (CI = 16 to 26%) of the adult coho salmon spawned in the two intermittent streams. The total number of spawners in the West Fork Smith were 3451, 3728, and 994 in 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively. We detected 833 (460 in Moore Creek and 373 in Crane Creek) coho juveniles originally PIT tagged in the mainstem at one or more of the intermit- tent tributary antennas during the winters of 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Most mainstem-tagged juvenile coho salmon entered the intermittent tributaries during high streamflows in the fall months. Juvenile coho that had been tagged in or used intermittent and perennial nibu- tary streams comprised a higher proportion of the smolts that were recaptured at the smolt trap during the subse- quent smolt migration period than coho that had remained in the mainstem (Figure 3). Overwinter sur- vival of coho salmon PIT tagged in intermittent streams during the winters of 2002 through 2005 was similar to survival rates in perennial tributaries, but higher than mainstem survival rates in all years (Table 2). After accounting for variation in the length at tagging and smolt migration timing, our statistical analysis showed a significant difference in the length of coho smolts that used perennial (mainstem and tributary) and intermittent tributary habitats (F,,,;6t = 9.06, P = 0.0001) during 2004 and 2005. Significant interaction terms com- plicated direct interpretation of the model, so we evalu- ated differences in smolt length at lower, middle, and upper values of the covariates used in the model for all habitat user classes and cohort years resulting in a total of 54 comparisons. Statistical significance of the differences was set at a P value < 0.0009 (0.05/54 pairwise tests). Coho smolts that used intermittent tributaries were larger than coho smolts that used perennial tributary habitats dur- ing both 2004 and 2005 (Figure 4). This difference was sta- tistically significant throughout the smolt migration period in 2004, but only during the middle portion of the 2005 smolt migration. Coho smolts that used intermittent tribu- tary habitats were larger than coho that used the mainstem during 2004 (Figure 4). This difference was statistically sig- nificant for the middle and end of the migration period. On the other hand, coho smolts that had used intermittent tributary streams were significantly smaller than coho 0 The Ecological Society of America PJ Wigington et al. Salmon and intermittent streams smolts that had used mainstem habitats through the early and middle portions of smolt migration during 2005. 0 Discussion Although intermittent streams experience periods with no streamflow, they provide valuable habitat for juvenile coho salmon. In the WFSR network, Moore and Crane Creeks provided both spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon. Even during years in which the streams had extended periods with no streamflow, they accounted for an important component of the coho smoks leaving the WFSR watershed (Figure 3). In addition, overwinter sur- vival rates for juvenile coho originally tagged in the inter- mittent streams were higher than survival rates in main - stem habitats and equivalent to survival in perennial streams (Table 2). How can intermittent streams produce coho smolts even though the streams have extended peri- ods with no streamflow? One reason is that if periods without streamflow are not too long, residual pools (see Figure 2) can sustain juvenile coho until streamflow resumes with autumn rains. May and Lee (2004) found that in Oregon coastal streams, gravel -bed pools sustained by hypotheic flow were able to carry over coho juveniles during the summer, but the pools experienced a decrease in juvenile coho abundance of 36% because of fish mortality caused by pool drying. We observed numerous residual pools in Moore Creek and Crane Creek during late summer periods, when no streamflow occurred at the mouth of the streams. Water temperature patterns in the pools were consistent with two types of pools in Oregon coastal streams identified by May and Lee (2004), which may have the potential to maintain water during periods with no streamflow. One pool type is comprised of gravel pools with bedrock contact for which hyporheic flow is the primary source of water during dry periods. Lower Moore Creek was a location that featured this type of pool, in this case, the pool dried out during late summer, as evidenced by the wide fluctuations of tempera- ture, typical of air temperature fluctuations. Bedrock pools that received no surface flow from upstream but are recharged by groundwater from fractured bedrock repre- sents another class of pools. These have relatively low water temperatures and little diurnal fluctuation. The importance of residual or isolated pools in sustain- ing fish population in intermittent streams has been doc- umented in a wide range of settings. Closs and Lake (1996) found that Gakixias olidus, a small salmoniform fish, was able to survive in scattered small pools through- out the upper reaches of an intermittent stream in Australia. Pires et al. (1999) noted that isolated pools were important habitats for fishes in intermittent streams in Portugal. Labbe and Fausch (2000) reported that, during summer drought, permanent pools were important habi- tats for the Arkansas darter (Edwostoma cragini) in two intermittent streams in the Colorado plains. Another reason that WFSR intermittent streams were 0 The Ecological Society of America Figure 4. (a) Date of capture and length of coho snwtts originally tagged in 2003 and recaptured at the smolt trap in 2004, and (b) originally tagged in 2004 and recaptured in 2005. The width of the box is proportional to the number of coho used to generate the box. able to produce coho smolts was that some coho tagged in the mainstem moved into intermittent tributaries when streamflow resumed in the fall. Once the intermittent tributaries resumed streamflow, coho that had survived in the residual pools or immigrated in the fall probably expe- rienced lower densities and higher food resources com- pared to coho in perennial tributaries. We hypothesize that this provides higher survival and growth of coho that overwinter in intermittent streams via release of density dependence (Chapman 1966). Our observation that, fol- lowing a particularly dry summer in 2003-2004, coho smolts from intermittent streams were considerably larger than smolts that used perennial habitats (Figure 4) is con- sistent with this hypothesis. In conclusion, WFSR intermittent streams provided both valuable spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon. Residual pools in intermittent streams provided one means by which juvenile coho could survive during dry periods. Movement of juvenile coho into intermittent tributaries from the mainstem was another way in which juvenile coho exploited intermittent stream habitat, and illustrates the Salmon and intermittent streams PJ Wigington et al. importance of maintaining accessibility of entire stream networks to coho. Under particularly dry conditions, smolts that overwintered in intermittent streams were larger than those from perennial streams. Low -gradient intermittent streams, such as those in the WFSR, are common in water- sheds with sedimentary bedrock, which comprise the prime coho salmon habitat among Oregon coastal drainages. Our results demonstrate that loss of intermittent stream habitat would have a negative effect on coho salmon populations in coastal drainages, and in general, our study illustrates the important role that intermittent streams can play in main- taining the biological integrity of navigable waters. Research and methods that demonstrate these interconnec- tions, are critical in helping regulators and policy makers respond to recent US Supreme Court decisions. Acknowledgments The authors thank S Hendricks, C Oyler, R St Claire, R Emig, N Raskauskas, T Mintkeski, C Meengs, S Davis, and S Orlaineta for tireless field work in support of this project, and P Haggerty of Indus Corp, for GIS support. We thank Roseburg Resources and the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for providing access to research sites, and P Olmstead with the BLM, who pro- vided encouragement and logistical support. We are very appreciative of the efforts of G Cicchetti, J Hall, R Lackey, B McComb, R Ozretich, D Poon, and J Richardson, who reviewed earlier versions of this manu- script. We also acknowledge D Downing for reviewing our discussion of the Supreme Court cases. This paper was funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. It has been subject to Agency review and approved for publication. Reference to trade names does not imply endorsement by the US Government. Z. References Brown TG and Hartman GF.1988. Contribution of seasonally flooded lands and minor tributaries to the production of who salmon in Camation Creek, British Columbia. T Am Fah Soc 117: 546-51. Cairns MA, Ebersole A, Baker JP, and Wigington Jr PJ. 2005. Influence of summer ternperantre on black spot inksmdon of juve- nile coho salmon in the Oregon Coast Range. T Am Fah Soc 134: 1471-79. Cederholm CJ and Scarlett WJ. 1982. Seasonal immigrations of juve- nile salmonids into four tributaries of the Clearwater River, Washington 1977-1981. In: Brannon EL and Salo EO (Eds). Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory behavior sympo- sium. Seattle, WA: Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. Chapman DW. 1966. Food and space as regulators of salmonid popula- tions in reams Am Nat 100: 345-55. Closs GP and Lake PS. 1996_ Drought, differential mortality and the coexistence of a native and an introduced fish species in a south east Australian intermittent stream. Entgron Bid Fish 47: 17-26. CENR (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources). 2000. From the edge: science to support restoration of pacific salmon. Washington, DC: Commitwe on Environment and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council Dov,ning DM, Winer C, and Wood I.D. 2X'3: Navigating through: Clean Water. Act jurisdiction: a legal review. Weticna 23: 47543. Ebersole JL, Wigingron Jr PJ, Baker JP, et aL Juvenile coho salmon growth and survival across stream network seasonal habitats Am Fish Soc. In press. Erman DC and Hawthorne VR. 1976. The quantitative importance of an intermittent stream in spawning of rainbow trout. Am Fish Soc 105: 675-81. Everest FH. 1973. Ecology and management of summer streIhead in the Rogue River. Portland, OR: Oregon State Game Commission. Fisheries Research Report 7. Gordon ND, McMahon TA, and Fmlayson BL.1992. Stream hydrol- ogy. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons- Gotelli NJ and Ellison AM. 2004. A primer of ecological statistics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc Holtby LB, Andersen BC, and Kadowaki RK. 1990. Importance of smolt size and early ocean growth to interarnual variability in marine survival of coho salmon (Oncwhyr� ksutch). Can J Fish Aqucu Sd 47: 2181-94. Jacobs S. 2002. Calibration of estimates of coho spawner abundance in the Smith River basin, 2001. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Monitoring program report number OPSW ODFW 2002-06. Jepson DB. Dalton T, Johnson SL, et aL 2006. Salmonid life cycle monitoring in western Oregon streams, 2003-2005. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Monitoring program ,,part number OPSW-ODFW-2006.1 Kralik NJ and Sowervine JE. 1977. 'Ilse role of rob northern Califonia intenninent streams in the life hismry of anadromous salmonids (MS thesis). Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University. Labbe TR and Fausch KD. 2000. Dynamics of intermittent stream habitat regulate persistence of a threatened fish at multiple scales. Ecot APPI 10: 1774-91. Lichatowich J. 1999. Salmon without rivers. Washington, DC: Island Press. May CL and Lee DC. 2004. The relationships among in -channel sedi- ment storage, pool depth, and summer survival of juvenile salmonids in Oregon Coast Range streams N Am J Fish M-age 24: 761-74. Nickelson TE, Rodgers JD, Johnson SL, and Solazzi ME. 1992. Seasonal changes in habitat use by juvenile mho salmon (Groan T-tchw hwrrh) in Oregon coastal streams. Cat J Fah Aquat Sci 49: 783--89. ODF%i (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2005. Coastal salmon spawning survey procedures manual 2005. Corvallis. OR - Oregon . Adult Salmonid Inventory and Sampling. Project. hnp:(joregonsmre.edwDepdODFW/spawnlpdf%KNIealr nsr05 SSManual.pdf. Viewed 26 October 2006. Oreettn Watershed Enhancement Board. 2005. The Ottgau plan for salmcm and watersheds, 2003-2005 biennial report, Volume 1. Salem, OR: Oregon Watershed Fsuhancement Board. Pires AM, Cowx IG, and Coelho MM 1999. Seasonal changes in fish community structure of intermittent streams in the middle reaches of the Guadiana basin, Portugal. J Fish Biol 54: 235-19. PIT Tag Steering Committee. 1999. PIT tag marking procedures man- ual, version 2.0. Portland, OR: Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. Stoddard JL, Peck DV, Olsen AR, et aL 2005. Environmental monitor- ing and assessment program (EMAP): western streams and rivers statistical summary. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 620/R-05/006. Thedinga JF, Murphy ML, Johnson SW, et aL 1994. Determination of salmcmid smolt yield with rotary -screw traps in the Sinuk River, Alaska, to predict effects of glacial flooding. N Am J Fah Mmigv 14: 837-51. m The Ecological Society of America Denis Law Mayor cityOf . Public Works Department - Gregg Zimmerman, P. E., Administrator December 23, 2011 EXHIBIT 5 Ms. Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 RE: East Renton Lift Station Removal, LUA11-092, ECF, CAR, Notice of Applications and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance Dear Ms. Walter: The City of Renton offers the following in response to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fish Division's comments on the East Renton Lift Station Removal, LUA11-092, ECF, CAR, Notice of Applications and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance, for the letter dated December 19, 2011: Comment 1: Water Typing We agree that the stream does meet the physical criteria for presumed fish use and fish habitat based on WAC 22-016-031. We initially questioned whether or not fish could access this reach due to the extensive portion of the stream that is culverted beneath residential developments south and downstream of the park and the presence of piped segments and stormwater facilities upstream of the park. Therefore, to assist the County in applying the appropriate stream classification for the stream and to assist with development of construction methods, a scientific collection permit (SCP) was obtained from WDFW to conduct an electrofishing study to determine fish presence/absence within that portion of Stewart Creek that flows through Maplewood Park. Upon receipt of the SCP, ESA contacted Larry Fisher, a local area habitat biologist with WDFW, to set up a site visit prior to performing any electrofishing. ESA fisheries biologist Steven Krueger and wetland scientist Sara Noland, City staff, and a Carollo engineer met with Mr. Fisher on -site on March 23, 2011. Based on existing site conditions and follow-up review of site plans, Larry Fisher indicated that electrofishing would not be necessary and instead suggested making visual observations and installing baited minnow traps to assess fish use of Stewart Creek within Maplewood Park. During the site visit we also looked at the downstream culverted portion of Stewart Creek and Mr. Fisher indicated that this was a likely barrier to fish migration. ESA fish biologist Steve Krueger installed two baited minnow traps on March,29, 2011, one located upstream near the proposed crossing and one located at the downstream Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Ms. Walter Page 2 of 3 December 23, 2011 end of Maplewood Park. On the same day, Mr. Krueger also performed visual observations by walking the entire stream length within the park using polarized glasses. Steve Krueger returned to the site on March 31, 2011, to inspect and remove the traps and perform additional observations of the stream by walking the entire length again. Upon inspection of the traps, no fish were observed. One small salarnander and two aquatic invertebrates were collected and released unharmed. No fish, particularly salmonids, were observed during visual observations conducted along the entire stream length within Maplewood Park. It is assumed that the downstream piped segment in conjunction with steep grades through the ravine may prevent salmonid access to the project area. The results of the field investigation were forwarded to Larry Fisher on March 31, 2011. Mr. Fisher replied on April 1, 2011, that WDFW would allow for open cut excavation through the channel provided that the streambed and vegetation disturbed during construction would be restored. While the downstream fish passage barrier near Elliott Bridge may have been removed, this does not necessarily mean that salmonids can access the stream channel within the park. The piped segment beneath the residential development south of the park is also most likely a fish passage barrier, although this has not been formally identified as a barrier by either WDFW or the Muckleshoot Tribe. The issue is not that the stream does not meet the physical criteria for presumed fish use, but whether or not fish can actually access the site due to downstream barriers. It was concluded based on the use of baited minnow traps, observations along the entire reach, and presence of a significant segment of piped channel, that fish are not present. While ten years of monitoring would be valuable to support this conclusion, this is not feasible given the current timing of the City of Renton. Therefore, the prior assessment that the stream should be classified as a non - fish bearing stream (Type N) stands. Additional Mitigation Agreed To: No additional mitigation required. The City will meet with Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (MITFD) to demonstrate constraints. Comment 2: Project Impacts The method for the determining fish presence/absence was coordinated with WDFW and open. trench excavation was allowed provided that the channel was restored in the excavation area and that vegetation was restored. WDFW was in agreement that this segment of Stewart Creek was non -fish bearing and therefore agreed that open trench excavation could be allowed. The depth of the sewer line was taken into consideration as there is always the potential for bed scour. The topography in this area is relatively flat with good floodplain connectivity. Excessive flows, if they were to occur, would spread out laterally; thus ameliorating the scour potential. In addition, upstream portions of the stream are primarily piped conveyances with the stream being located within a detention pond immediately upstream of the park. Therefore, due to the highly developed nature of the headwaters and the fact that there are piped segments and detention ponds are present, the potential for "debris" flows seems extremely unlikely. To further reduce the H AFile Sys\W P - VJasteWater\WWP-03-0000 Correspondence - Wastewater\DaveC\2011 Correspondence\Response to Muckleshoot Tribe Comments on East Renton Lift Station Removal_Final.doc\DNICtp Ms. Walter Page 3 of 3 December 23, 2011 potential for bed scour, a courser material (cobble) was selected as backfill over the pipeline. Additional Mitigation Agreed To: The use of cobbles in the stream area will be replaced with appropriate streambed gravels. Comment 3: Project Mitigation Mitigation for tree removal and the temporal loss of stream function due to tree removal will be further assessed through other state and federal permit application processes (Corps 404/WDFW HPA). The City could pursue the placement of a portion of the trees to be removed within the channel near the disturbance area and in other areas easily accessible by existing trails. However, the City only has control over the 30-foot wide pipeline corridor through the park and any mitigation outside this would require additional coordination with King County Parks, who may or may not be supportive of placing large woody debris (LWD) within the stream outside the 30-foot corridor. The tree replacement ratio identified (3:1) in combination with using felled trees to supplement stream habitat would provide adequate mitigation for the tree removal and temporal impacts associated with the loss of cover, shade, and LWD recruitment potential. Placement of large felled trees within the stream channel would be limited to the disturbance area to minimize stream impacts where none were previously identified. The stream bed materials specified (cobble) will be replaced with the appropriate streambed gravels such as a general spawning gravel mixture with a higher content of large gravel. Additional Mitigation Agreed To: A hydrologist/geomorphologist will develop a proposed plan for the LWD placement. The City will coordinate with King County Parks to identify and agree to favorable locations for LWD placement. The use of cobbles in the stream area will be replaced with appropriate streambed gravels. If you have any questions regarding this response letter, please contact me at 425-430-7212. Siriceredy, !. f, %" " Dav,�d yM_-Christensen Wastewater Utility Supervisor cc: Rocale Timmons, CED Associate Planner Lori Lull, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, PO Box 3755, Seattle, WA 98124 Larry Fisher, WDFW, 3190 160t" Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 Lara Kammereck, P.E., Carollo Engineers, 1218 Third Avenue Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101 H:\File Sys\WWP - WasteWater\WWP-03-0000 Correspondence - Wastewater\DaveC\2011 Correspondence\Response to Muckleshoot Tribe Comments on East Renton Lift Station Removal_Final.doc\DMCtp DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS RECEIVED EVALUATION FORM & DECISION FEB 0 S 2012 DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: January 27, 2012 CITY OF RENTON UTILITY SYSTEMS LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: LUA011-092, CAR PROJECT NAME: East Renton Lift Station Critical Areas Exemption PROJECT MANAGER: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Renton; 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PROJECT LOCATION: West & South of SE 2nd Ct, North of Maplewood Park CRITICAL AREA: Wetland Buffer PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The proposal involves the repairing of an existing 18" concrete culvert that failed during a major storm event. Portions of the culvert would be replaced with corrugated polyethylene pipe and the remaining portions would be rehabilitated. Minor excavation would be required in order to expose the outlet. The slope is proposed to be stabilized with erosion control blankets and hydroseeded. No construction would occur within the adjacent wetlands and would occur solely within the buffers. Additionally, the applicant is requesting the replacement of an existing inlet structure within a new manhole and birdcage trash rack. EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC4-3-050C.S,e.iv. Roads, Parks, Public and Private Utilities , of the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby granted: iv. Modification of Existing Utilities and Streets by Ten Percent (10%) or Less: X Overbuilding (enlargement beyond existing project needs) or replacement of existing utility systems and replacement and/or rehabilitation of existing streets. FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050C.5: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state or federal law or regulation. City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Certificate of Exemption from Critical Areas Regulations East Renton Lift Station CritCal Areas Exemption LUA21-091, ECF, CAR DATE OF PERMIT: January 27, 2012 Page 2 of 2 2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. 3. Impacts will be minimized and disturbed areas will be immediately restored, if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. 4. Where wetland or buffer disturbance occurs during construction or other activities in accordance with this exemption, the site will be revegetated with native vegetation as required as a condition of approval for this exemption. DECISION: An exemption from the critical areas regulations is approved. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: • Z. C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director Planning Division Date APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner by 5:00 p.m. on February 10, 2012. Appeals must. be filed in writing, together with the required., fee to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of decision (date of signature). DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 5, 2011 TO: Dave Christensen, Utilities DEC 0 1) ZOIk FROM: ocale Timmons, Planning SUBJECT: Notice of Complete Application East Renton Lift Station Removal, LUA11-092, ECF, CAR The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on December 19, 2011. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at x7219 if you have any questions. cc: Yellow File h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\11-092.rocale\acceptance memo 11-092.doc SEPA Environmental Checklist East Renton Lift Station Elimination C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best o the lead agency is relying on them to ce its de ' ion. Signature: Name (print): Title: Date Submitted: I understand that Page 24 ESA July 2011 David Christensen From: Sara Noland [SNoland@esassoc.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:03 PM To: David Christensen Subject: RE: Easements Thanks, Dave. Couple more questions: > Carollo's plans show a temporary bypass pumping system extending west of Tract H, into parcel 666903TRCT. Do we need to reference an easement from a different property owner on this parcel, or is it also part of the Maplewood HOA easement? > Do you have contact info for the Maplewood HOA? The Master Land Use form Rocale provided asks for the property owner's name, address, and phone. > The form is also asking for the square footage of private access easements (I am interpreting this to mean new easements). From Tract K to the existing easement around the lift station is a distance of about 310 linear feet . . . if we assume a 30 ft wide easement, that's around 9,300 square feet of new easement area. Does that sound correct? Thanks, Sara -----Original Message ----- From: David Christensen fmailto:Dchristen(@Rentonwa.gov1 Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:23 PM To: Sara Noland Subject: Easements Sara, Attached are the plat docs showing our easements. In addition we will obtain an easement that connects from Tract K through Tract H to our easement for the lift station in Tract H. The easements are all from the hOA for the Plat of Maplewood Estates. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Dave C. "Denis Law Mayo Public Works Department ^�~� December Z],ZO11 Ms.KarenVV'lter VVatershed/-andLapdUse Team Leader W1uck|eshoot|hUianTribe Fisheries Division o6 ' 39015172 Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 -E: East Renton Lift Station Removal, LUA.11-092, ECF, CAR, Notice ofApplications and Proposed D*aternoinat mnmfydon-Shxnificance Dear Ms.Walter: The City ofRenton offers the the hoot In.dian Tribe Fish Division's `comments ontheEaRenton- Lift Station Removal, L./\1I-O92,E[F,CAR, Notice of`� Applicationsa d Proposed Detenni /ationofNbn'5igni�cance,f_rtheletter ~ -' dated December 19,2O1l: - Comment 'rTyping V h the st6 does meetth A""i |h1 criteria d' fish dfih habitat based on' WAC 22-016-031. We initially qu6sti I pried whether or not fish could segments�6ncl st&mwater facilities upstretim of -the pa.rk. Therefore, to assi-st the County in 40pjlying t,he appropriate stream. classificatio.n for the strea'm and to a'ssist with c166!opmont of constIrOction methods, a scientific' collection permit (SCP) was obtained withih that portion of SteWart Creek that flow . s throu'l-i M.aplewood Park. Upon (eceipt 9. on --site on March 23, 20,11. Ba'se'd on existin-g' site cohditiorisland follow-up re�view of siti� plans, Larry �Ish'6r iridicat0d that eleqr�dishlfig would not*be necessairy-and instead sug . gested making -visdal Observations and installing baited r�riinhoW traps -to j-ssess fish U�e.of:S-iew:art"Creek within lvla'ple�ibocl Park. During the' site visit We also' looked.at the ' downstream -~°~�^^^^"'..�.~.�.~^�-...^~^^....'—. ,_..^. '..'�--_ -`-'_is - - likely barherto�shrni�ratibn. . ` . . . ESA fish bidk)9 st Ste've' U Krueger inst�edtwo bahmin t March 29,2011, one ` |. ^ �dupstream neartheproposed cmos��g`zindone| 'cai|atthe downstream ' _ Ms. Walter Page 2 of 3 December 23, 2011 end of Maplewood Park. On the same day, Mr. Krueger also performed visual observations by walking the entire stream length within the park using polarized glasses. Steve Krueger returned"to the site on March 31, 2011, to inspect and remove the traps and perform additional observation's*of the stream by walking the entire length again. Upon inspection of the traps, no'fish were observed. One small salamander and two aquatic invertebrates were collected and released uriharmed., No fish, particularly salmonids, were observed during visual observations conducted along -the entire stream length within Maplewood Park:At is assumed that the downstream piped segment in conjunction with steep grades through the ravine may prevent salmonid accessto the project area. The results of the field investigation were forwarded.to Larry Fisher on March 31, 2011. Mr: Fisher replied on.April 1, 2011, that WDFW would allow for open cut excavation through the channel provided that the streambed and vegetation disturbed during construction would be restored. While the downstream fish passage barrier near Elliott Bridge may have been -removed, this does not necessarily mean that salmonids can access the stream channel within the park. The piped segment beneath the residential development south of the park is also most likely a fish passage barrier, although this has not been formally identified as a barrier by either WDFW or the Muckleshoo,tTribe. The issue is not that the stream does not meet the, physical crite'ria for presumed fish use, but whether or not fish can actually access the site due to downstream barriers. It was concluded based on the use of baited minnow traps, observations :along the entire reach, and presence of a significa"nt segment of piped"channel, thatfish are not present. While ten years of monitoring would be valuable to support this conclusion, this is not feasible given the current tirriing of the City of Renton. Therefore, the prior assessment that the stream should be classified as 'a non - fish bearing stream (Type N) stands. Additional Mitigation. Agreed To: No additional mitigation required. The City will meet with Muckleshoo't Indian Tribe Fisheries.Division (MITFD) to demonstrate constraints.. Comment 2: Project Impacts The method for -the determining fish presence/absence was coordinated with WDFW and open trench excavation was allowed _provided that the channel, was restored, in the excavation area and that vegetation was restored. WDFW was in agreement that this segment of Stewart Creek "was non -fish bearing and therefore agreed that open -trench excavation could be allowed. The depth of the sewer line was taken into consideration as there is always the potential for bed scour. The topography in this area is relatively flat with good floodpl"ain connectivity: Excessive flows, if they were to occur; would "spread out laterally; thus ameliorating the scour potential.* In addition, upstream portions of the stream are primarily pipe"d conveyances with the stream being located within a detention pond immediately'upsiream of the park. Therefore, due to the highly developed, nature of the headwaters and the fact that there are piped segments and detention.ponds are present, the potential for "debris".flows seems extremely gnlikely To further reduce the H:\File Sys\WWP - WasteWate r\WWP-03-0000 Correspondence Wastewater\DaveC\2011ICorrespondence\ 6sp`onse to j � I f� Muckleshoot Tribe Comments on East Renton Lift Station Removal_Final.doc\DMCtp�py�.•/ �' �_ Ms. Walter• Page 3 of,3' December 23, 2011 potential for bed scour, a courser material (cobble) was selected as backfiil over the pipeline. Additional Mitigation Agreed To: The use of cobbles in the stream. area will be replaced with appropriate strearnbed gravels. Comment 3: Pro'ect:Mitigation Mitigation for tree removal and the temporal loss of stream function due to tree removal will be further assessed through other state and federal permit application, processes (Corps 404/WDFW HPA). The City could pursue the placement of a portion, of the trees to, be removed within the channel near the disturbance area and in other areas easily accessible by existing trails. However, the City only has control over the 30-foot wide pipeline corridor through the park and any mitigation outside this would require additional coordination with King Gounty.Parks, who may or may not be supportive of placing large woody debris (LWD).within.the stream outside the 30=foot corridor. The tree replacement ratio identified (3.1) in -combination with using felled trees to supplement stream habitat would provide adequate mitigation for the=tree removal and temporal impacts associated"with the•loss of cover, shade, and LWD recruitment. potential. Placement of large felled trees within the, stream channel would be limited to the disturbance area to minimize stream impacts where none were previously identified. The stream bed materials specified (cobble) will be replaced with the appropriate streambed,gravelssueh as a -general spawning gravel mixture with a higher content of large gravel. Additional -Mitigation Agreed To: A hydrologist/geomorphologist will develop a proposed plan foe the LWD placement. Th'e City will coordinate.with•King County Parks to.identify and agree to favorable locations for-LWD placement. The use of cobbles in the stream area will be replaced with appropriate streambed gravels. If you have any questions regarding this response letter, please contact me at 425-430-7212. Wastewater Utility Supervisor - cc. Rocale Timmons; CED Associate Planner Lori.Lull, US Army Corps of Engineers; se attle.District, PO Box 3755, Seattle, WA 98124 Larry.Fisher; WDFW, 3190 160th' Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008. Lara Kammereck, P.E., Carollo Engineer's, 1218 Third Avenue Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101 H:\File Sys\WWP_- Wa'steWater\WWP-03 OOOO.Correspondence-Wastewater\DaveC orrespondence\Response Muckleshoot Tribe Commments on.East Renton Lift Station Removal_Final.doc\DMCtp