HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272757(8) CITY OF RENTON
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 30, 1999
TO: Lin Wilson,Transportation Systems Division
FROM: ✓Allen Quynn, Surface Water Utility
SUBJECT: Project Definition Report-Oakesdal Ave. Extension Project
Review Comments
The following are Surface Water review comments for the above referenced project:
• Need to see water quality volume calculations for both the new and existing pond. Since the
existing pond will serve the drainage area north of STA 5+50 which exceeds 5,000 sf of
impervious area,the available volume must be 1.5 times the normal wetpond volume(City
requirement for sites that require bioswale plus wetpond). It is my understanding that the pond
has already been oversized for Phase I and that additional volume was provided to account for
Phase lI. It might be helpful to include the Phase I drainage report with the drainage report for
Phase II.
• Although the 1990 King County Drainage Manual satisfies the City's minimum water quality
and detention requirements, it may be wise to consider designing Phase II using the new 1998
King County Drainage Manual or the Ecology Stormwater Manual. In light of ESA,reviewing
agencies such as NMFS and WDFW may require the higher standards as a condition of approval
of the project HPA permit or the Corps individual permit. At the very least, it may be beneficial
to begin a dialogue with these agencies to get an understanding of their stormwater standards.
• What is the basis for the elevation of 12.87? We need to verify the 100-year water surface of the
City wetland west of the Oakesdale berm as this will control the tailwater condition for the storm
drain system draining to the proposed water quality pond.
• Volume of compensatory storage required for filling within the 100-year floodplain will based
on the elevation determined from the City model results for the 100-year future floo
"conveyance"event. This elevation is 15.6 (NGVD 29).
• Figure 4 should be labeled 12a for the West cell and 12b for the East cell
• In Figure 6, Wetland'T should be labeled as Wetland"12b."
• Water quality pond missing on sheet C1 of the Plan and Profile
\\TS SERVERMS2\COMMON\H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\I999\CURRENi199-662.DOC\AQ\tb
September 30, 1999
Page 2
• Label/show City and Boeing wetland and wetland boundaries on Preliminary Drainage Plan and
Profile
• As the City indicated in the attached letter to"Friends of the Blackriver", now would be the time
to modify the drainage across the mitigation berm. At this point, the preferred option would be
to install 3 - 36 inch culverts set at an upstream elevation 10.03 (NGVD 29) per the City adopted
ESGRW Plan. The use of upstream check valves could be used to increase the storage capacity
of the wetland. The upstream invert elevation of the existing culvert would need,to be reset to
elevation 10.03. Since this project will utilize a portion of the berm that was identified as the
mitigation site for the ESGRW Plan improvements along Springbrook Creek,the construction
costs associated with the additional pipe crossing would be borne by the Transportation Systems
Division.
• We need to show the proposed City wetland bank property boundary on the plans and verify that
the proposed water quality pond is not located on the wetland bank property. If there is a
conflict, a bioswale might be a better alternative.
• The plans show a new 48-inch culvert crossing to augment the existing 48-inch culvert that
crosses Oakesdale which will require downsizing to a 24-inch due to a conflict with the proposed
storm drain. Would it be feasible to maintain the existing crossing as opposed to diverting the
higher flows to a new 48 inch culvert? This could be accomplished by using a combination of
several smaller diameter pipes(2- 36 inch pipes), an arch pipe culvert,or box culvert to provide
the necessary capacity and clearance under the proposed storm drain.
enclosure
cc: Ron Straka
i
z 7 — Z75 7
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
d 2CW 00 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
� Region 4 Office
FISH=d ��l..Fivi® 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek,Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: July 10, 2001 JUL 13 2001 LOG NUMBER: 00-E3992-02
Transportation 8yeteml,I)Iv
At the request of,Joe Armstrong,on June 29,2001,this Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA),which now supersedes all previous
HPAs for this project, is a renewal of the original HPA issued.
PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
City of Renton Kato&Warren
ATTENTION:Joe Armstrong ATTENTION:Bryce Ecklein
1055 South Grady Way 2003 Western Avenue, Suite 555
Renton Washington 98055 Seattle, Washington 98121
(425)430-7303
Fax: 425 430-7376
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Permanent Culvert
PROJECT LOCATION: Oakesdale Ave Southwest south of Southwest 27'Street
N WRIA WATER BODY TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
1 09.0005 Unnamed Spring Brook Creek SW 24,25 23 North 04 East King
NOTE: This culvert is proposed for installation in a location where fish passage is not a concern.
PROVISIONS
1. TEMEING LEMTATIONS: The project may beginImmediately and shall be completed by December 1,2001.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The permittee or contractor shall notify the Area Habitat Biologist(AHB) listed
below of the project start date. Notification shall be received by the AHB at least three working days prior to the
start of construction activities. The notification shall include the permittee's name,project location, starting date for
work,and the control number for this Hydraulic Project Approval.
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled,"Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension Phase I & 2
- SW 315`Street to SW 19'St,Drainage Plan and Profile"dated March,2000, and submitted to the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. These plans reflect design
criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate
impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. Fill associated with the culvert installation shall be protected from erosion to the 100-year peak flow.
5. The culvert shall be installed and maintained to avoid inlet scouring and to prevent erosion of stream banks
downstream of the project.
6. The culvert shall be installed in the dry or in isolation from the stream flow by the installation of a bypass flume or
culvert, or by pumping the stream flow around the work area.
7. Disturbance of the streambed and banks shall be limited to that necessary to place the culvert and any required
channel modification associated with it. Affected streambed and bank areas outside the culvert and associated fill
shall be restored to preproject configuration following installation of the culvert. Within one year of project
Page 1 of 4
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
d 2CW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
Fland 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek,Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: July 10, 2001 LOG NUMBER: 00-E3992-02
completion, the banks shall be revegetated as shown in the landscape plan and maintained as necessary for three
years to ensure 80 percent survival.
8. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the bypass inlet to divert the entire flow through the
bypass.
9. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the downstream end of the bypass to prevent backwater
from entering the work area.
10. The bypass shall be of sufficient size to pass all flows and debris for the duration of the project.
11. Prior to releasing the water flow to the project area, all bank protection or armoring shall be completed.
12. Upon completion of the project, all material used in the temporary bypass shall be removed from the site and the site
returned to preproject or improved conditions.
13. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress,a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop(including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife at(360) 534-8233 and Washington Department of Ecology at(425)649-7015 shall be contacted
immediately. Work shall not resume until further approval is given by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
14. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt-laden water from entering the stream. These may include, but
are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric,temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel-filled burlap bags or
other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
15. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the ordinary high water line to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to
the stream.
16. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
17. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products,hydraulic fluid,fresh cement, sediments, sediment-
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the stream.
18. The stormwater outfalls at the point of the discharge shall be armored to prevent scouring.
19. The stormwater drainage system shall be inspected during installation and following construction.
20. Excavation for the placement of the structure or armoring materials shall be isolated from the wetted perimeter.
SEPA: EIS by City of Renton, July 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February 3,2000 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Boone 030 [P3]
Page 2 of 4
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
DqwtmW a( 2CW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FI HMd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Walm Mill Creek,Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: July 10, 2001 LOG NUMBER: 00-E3992-02
Mark N. Wenger (425) 379-2321 for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code(RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s)performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s)to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge,possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions,conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER,that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
APPEALS-GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS(WAC 220-110-340)OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103,75.20.106,AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA,or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level,but if not,you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife,600 Capitol Way North,Olympia,Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal,a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS(WAC 220-110-350)OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
Page 3 of 4
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
&M Doanauxt d 2CW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
FISH and Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek,Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: July 10, 2001 LOG NUMBER: 00-E3992-02
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties;or
(C) Any other"agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife,600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia,Washington 98501-1091,shall be plainly labeled as"REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL"and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal,the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA,or the conditions or provisions made part of
a HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office,4224 Sixth Avenue SE,Building Two-Rowe Six,Lacey, Washington
98504;telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL,THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 4 of 4
65/07/2001 15: 02 2067285608 KATO WARREN PAGE 01
K—ATO& 2003 Western Avenue
WARREN ® 555 Market Place One
I N C O R P O R A T E D Seattle,WA 98121 (206)448-4200 (FAX)728-5603
TRANSMXTTAL FORM
To: Date: 5 '7
Pages: + Z
Fax
Number: 7 { - (p(,QZ Via: Mail-WT ( )
FAX (V )
From: ' Fed Ex ( )
Subject: A -
Comments:
It I
4704
w
Enclosures: CC:
425- 30 .73?
O'5/07%2001 15: 02 2067285608 KATO WARREN PAGE 02
4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
A REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
•i�(�► Seattle,WA 98101
MAY - 2 2001
Reply To
Attn Of: ECO-083
Colonel Ralph Graves MAY - 4 2001
District Engineer
Seattle District, Corps of Engineers
PO Box C-3755
Seattle, Washington 98124-3755
Attn' Jack Kennedy, Project Manager
RE: Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension, Phase H, City of Renton(PN# 1999-4-01497)
Dear Colonel Graves:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)has reviewed the referenced Public Notice
of Application for Permit to construct a 1400 foot extension to Oakesdale Ave. SW, Phase II, in
Renton. The project will fill approximately 1.05 acres of wetlands, and mitigation will include
creating 1.39 acres of forested wetland and 0.27 acres of open water, and enhancing 0.80 acres of
existing wetland. I have visited the site with the applicant and consultant, and briefly reviewed
the mitigation plan, The plan appears detailed and well thought out, but I have a few comments
on the mitigation plan you may want to consider.
The planting plan should specify use of local seed and cuttings whenever possible to maintain
local genetic.integrity.
The plan shows placement of isolated downed logs. Using brush piles and groups of logs, as
opposed to laying single logs, will increase the habitat opportunities_
The restoration area is currently;filled with reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), which
is notoriously difficult to suppress. The vegetation plan proposes placing live six-foot stakes 24
inches deep into the ground.' These are expected to grow and eventually shade out some of the
grass. The plan does not appear to specify what type of vegetation these will be, and there is
currently no plan to remove, cover, or otherwise suppress grass around the stakes. This is due, I
understand, primarily to cost considerations and the large member of stakes to be planted.
Although canary grass is relatively shallow-rooted, it forms a thick mat of roots hear the surface
and competes vigorously with plantings. As canary grass will easily reach four to five feet in a
season, plantings may be overtopped by canary grass in the very first season, before they have
really had a chance to take hold. Restorations in other areas have generally shown much better
survival success when grass and other vegetation surrounding the planting is removed or
suppressed around the plant and mulch such as wood chips is placed around the stakes to
Printed on Recycled Paper
0507%2001 15: 02 2067285608 KATO WARREN PAGE 03
suppress new weed growth and maintain soil moisture. We recommend that clearing and mulch
be required for the live stares, as well as bare root and burlap plantings.
I understand Gary Jones (206/288-7000) has had a great deal of experience with the reed
canary grass problem while dealing with the Auburn racetrack mitigation, which is nearby and
similar in many ways to this site_ It might be worthwhile for the consultant to get Gary's
perspective on potential for mitigation success without clearing and mulch, as well as to learn
strategies that seemed to work well at the Auburn mitigation site ira terms of canary grass
management, planting densities, and species.
The plan also calls for planting a long line of Douglas spirea along the north end of the
enha,acement area. Although native, this shrub can be very invasive, and over time, like cattail,
may overwhelm and convert an area to a monoculture. I would recommend you replace it with a
mixture of less invasive plants, such as Indian plum or red osier dogwood_ Spirea may come in
on its own, but I would not actively plant it.
Creation of an open water area having a depth of 10-12 feet, and relatively steep banks, is
proposed_ The pond's stated function is to maintain year-round water on the site and to provide
additional wildlife habitat, flood control and recharge/discharge. A pond of this depth,
particularly with steep sides, may store more water, and possibly provide visual diversity, but it
will not provide the type of quality wildlife habitat that is obtained when sides are sloped and
depth is reduced. More gradual slopes and shallower depths will allow much better development
of emergent vegetation.and more wildlife use.
EPA has normally suggested a performance,standard of 80% cover at the end of the five year
period.
The mechanism by which the mitigation plan will be protected under the sensitive area
ordinance is unclear. Relying on the ordinance alone to protect the mitigation in perpetuity
seems insufficient. I suggest you require a covenant or easement to be placed on the property
deed, so that future development will not occur on the site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. For further coordination or
for questions related to these comments, please feel free to contact me by telephone at (206) 553-
73 69, or by email at cabreza Joan@epa.gov.
Sincerely,
Joao Cabrera,
Environmental Scientist
cc: Alice Kelly, Ecology(NVWRO); Bryce Ecldein, Kato & Warren
2
Public Notice
o f
Engineers Army Corps
of oApplicationf
Seattle District
for Permit
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 3755 Public Notice Date: 3 April 2001
Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Expiration Date: 3 May 2001
Telephone (206) 764-3495 Reference: 1999-4-01497
ATTN: Jack Kennedy, Project Manager Name: Renton, City of
Interested parties are hereby notified that an application has been received for a Department of the
Army permit in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for certain work described
below and shown on the enclosed drawings.
APPLICANT - City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Telephone: (425) 430-7303
AGENT - Kato and Warren
2003 Western Avenue, #555
Seattle, Washington 98121
ATTN: Bryce Ecklein
Telephone: (206) 448-4200
LOCATION - In a wetland adjacent to Springbrook Creek, in Renton, Washington. The site is along
the right-of-way of Oakesdale Avenue, between SW 27th Street and the platted SW 30th Street, in
Section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East.
WORK - The overall project involves constructing a 1,400-foot segment of roadway with fill in
1.05 acres of wetlands. The wetland fill would be approximately 960 feet in length and an
average of approximately 50 feet in width.
PURPOSE - Connect the final two disjunct portions of Oakesdale Avenue, creating a north-south
urban arterial. The final roadway would be four lanes wide, and have a sidewalk along the west
side.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Buried underneath this alignment, and bedded partially in imported
soils, are two King County Metro sewer trunk lines, 6 feet and 9 feet in diameter, respectively.
The impacted wetland area is bounded on the west by a berm-like rise in the terrain, capped by a
maintenance trail, that remained after sewer line installation. The berm-like rise is incorporated in
the roadbed. See drawing sheet 4 of 7. This proposal is Phase 2 of the Oakesdale Avenue
Southwest Extension. Phase 1 was the subject of Department of the Army permit 1997-4-01329,
issued on March 5, 1998, which authorized a 0.31 of an acre fill for construction of a segment of
Oakesdale Avenue half a mile to the north. Mitigation for Phase 1 is still under review.
1999-4-01497
MITIGATION — The affected wetland is classified as a Category 1 palustrine scrub/shrub (PSS)
system with open-water, scrub/shrub, forested, and emergent (PEM) components. To provide
compensatory mitigation for the wetland to be filled, the applicant has proposed a plan to restore
1.39 acres of forested wetland, 0.27 of an acre of open-water, and enhance via plantings 0.80 of
an acre of existing PEM-PSS wetlands. The mitigation site would be on an abandoned road fill
900 feet east of the project site, which would be excavated out to a depth of 12 feet for its
1,200-foot length, and partially replaced with forestable soils. In addition, Renton is also offering
1.30 acres of excess mitigation for Phase 1 be applied to this project. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) is currently reviewing the mitigation work for Phase 1 and has not determined
how much mitigation is to be considered excess for Phase 1. The mitigation plan is briefly
described and depicted on drawing sheets 5, 6, and 7.
A more detailed version of the mitigation appears in a document entitled City of Renton Oakesdaie
Avenue SW Extension Phase ii Mitigation Plan, available for review at the Seattle District's
Regulatory Branch Office at the letterhead address, or upon request from the applicant's agent.
The Seattle District will coordinate agency distribution of a final version of the mitigation plan.
ENDANGERED SPECIES - The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, requires
assessment of potential impacts to listed and proposed species. The bald eagle (Haiiaeetus
ieucocephaius) listed as threatened, the Puget Sound chinook salmon (Oncorhyncus tshawytscha)
listed as threatened, Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout (Saiveniinus confiuentus) listed as threatened,
and the marsh sandwort (Arenaria paiudicoia) listed as endangered may occur in the project area or
otherwise be affected by the proposed work. After receipt of comments from this public notice,
the Corps will evaluate the potential impacts to the four species. A preliminary determination
indicates that the activity may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, bull trout and chinook
salmon, and will have no effect on bald eagles or the marsh sandwort. The Corps will initiate
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA as required.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - The District Engineer has reviewed the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places, lists of properties determined eligible and other sources of
information. The following is current knowledge of the presence or absence of historic properties
and the effects of the undertaking upon these properties:
There are no recorded historic properties within the permit area. The permit area has been so
extensively modified by modern development that little likelihood exists for the proposed
project to impinge upon an undisturbed historic property.
The District Engineer invites responses to this public notice from Federal, State, and local
agencies, historical and archeological societies, Indian tribes, and other parties likely to have
knowledge of or concerns with historic properties in the area.
PUBLIC HEARING - Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in
this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
2
1999-4-01497
EVALUATION - The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the
probable impact, including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That
decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources.
The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal
will be considered, including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation,
economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and
wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food
and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the
needs and welfare of the people.
The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials;
Indian tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this
activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue,
modify, condition or deny a permit for the work. To make this decision, comments are used to
assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental
effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation
of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public
hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the activity.
The evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the
guidelines promulgated by the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, under authority of
Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. This evaluation will include an alternatives analysis.
ADDITIONAL EVALUATION - The State of Washington is reviewing this work for consistency with
the approved Washington Coastal Zone Management Program and for Water Quality Certification.
This proposal is the subject of Shorelines Substantial Development Permit No. LUA00-091 SM
which has been issued by the City of Renton.
COMMENT AND REVIEW PERIOD - Comments on these factors will be accepted and made part of
the record and will be considered in determining whether it would be in the best public interest to
grant a permit. Comments should reach this office, Attn: Regulatory Branch, not later than the
expiration date of this public notice to ensure consideration and refer to the following name and
file number:
Renton, City of
1999-4-01497
Encl
Drawings (7)
3
W fee Wr't 4'`•
SW 16th St
405 cstc RENTON
t r -
Y
r a 4
02
iloega<ses J 61) ",S4jy i"l tf ' i1F -
Office Pad
Project \ r Phase I r
site I mitigation
Hoeing-A mash i welled•E'E SW 11th SI s •1 "3°e7'
TUKWILA ' , �" •� I t
3 . SW 34tk Si
� �r.• i 71
A 46n 61
SW 41 it S1
0 lit 1/2 f
Mks
Legend SW 43A it v
Proposed align,ant KENT
tit r
r ,iAgIJI LiO SAes �
PURPOSE: CONNECT DISJUNCT PORTIONS OF OAKESDALE AVENUE, PROPOSED: PLACE 1.05 ACRES OF ROADWAY FILL
CREATING A NORTH—SOUTH URBAN ARTERIAL. IN: WETLANDS ADJACENT TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK
ADJACENT ALLPACK CORP., BOEING COMPANY, CITY OF RENTON, AT: RENTON. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PROPERTY SEATTLE TIMES, SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES, KING COUNTY DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2000
OWNERS: DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO.1
PAGE 1 OF 7 VICINITY MAP AND AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SITE 1999-4-01497
CITY OF RENTON
i , r
4-EXIST.- 108" SANITARY SEWER WETLAND BOUNDARY (TYP.) j - THE BOEING CO.
-' - PROJECT WETLAND.G - - - LLJ
-
BECIN CONSTR lION s, 1 (Forested Scrub shrub) it SO�MAJ S LAJ
.f
r '---"-_-
--- *------ ------ .. --- --.. --..--�--�
_�._. ,r.�-.... .. - LLJ
00 _.. _._.. .. _.. X
1+00 f 3+00, / 4 00,
rr LL1
OAKES A�,E A VE. S.'W.-, W
—r
��� P/t 5 tLAN FILL o. W
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED 1.0 1g AC
� - Z
+.� { EARTH RETAINING WALL 1 SdKf ranular mot lar roodbee) J
**EXIST. 72" SANITARY-SEWER . . .
.1 ( PROJECT WETLAND F Q
. (Emergent-Scrub shrub) - - - - - -
- PSS/P£M .
i/ . . . . . \
WETLAND BOUNDARY (TYP.)
CITY OF RENTON
CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON
SCALE FEET
0 50 100
PURPOSE: CONNECT DISJUNCT PORTIONS OF OAKESDALE AVENUE, PROPOSED: PLACE 1.05 ACRES OF ROADWAY FILL
CREATING A NORTH—SOUTH URBAN ARTERIAL. IN: WETLANDS ADJACENT TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK
AT: RE'NTON. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DATUM: NGVD 1929 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2000
PAGE 2 OF 7 PROPOSED FILL PLAN 1999-4-01497
. . . . . . . . t
LLJ
it
LLl WETLAND-BOUNDARY (TYP.
_ SOUTH MARSH. ) STRUC110M I F I{
N (EmpEUnt) "EXIST. 108" SANITARY $EWE$
A D CON —
42+00:- _ (
I
LLJ 1
a
LLJ
W a-• _ ' - -TT_ - - - __
••tXISf. 72' SANITAF;r�iSEWER is I
LU ". MECHANICALLY STABILIZED
Z EARTH RETAINING WALL 1 iI
J PROPA II , Ilir
(0.003 AC) _ r lor
- - - - -PROJECt YWILAlVD f (SarKfgr motl' k ! �✓
U (Emergent Scrub shrub) °"Y!"
PSS/PEM
_ . . . . . . . . .
I
WETLAND BOUNDARY (TYP,)
CITY Of RENTON � � � II
1
SCALE FEET
0 50 100
PURPOSE: CONNECT DISJUNCT PORTIONS OF OAKESDALE AVENUE, PROPOSED: PLACE 1.05 ACRES OF ROADWAY FILL
CREATING A NORTH—SOUTH URBAN ARTERIAL. IN: WETLANDS ADJACENT TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK
AT.• RENTON. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DATUM: NCVD 1929 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2000
PAGE 3 OF 7 PROPOSED FILL PLAN 1999-4-01497
SOUTH MARSH BOUNDARY WETLAND F BOUNDARY
(Emergent) f—(Emergent Scrub shrub)
i
i
46't
ROADWAY MSE WALL
(T YP') EXISTING
20 ' GROUND 20
r-
8 8
4 4
—60 —40 —20 20 40 60 80
EXIST. Ioeo EXIST. 72"0
SEWER SEWER
SECTION A-A
SCALE FEET
0 10 20
PURPOSE: CONNECT DISJUNCT PORTIONS OF OAKESDALE AVENUE, PROPOSED: PLACE 1.05 ACRES OF ROADWAY FILL
CREATING A NORTH-SOUTH URBAN ARTERIAL. IN: WETLANDS ADJACENT TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK
AT: RENTON. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DATUM: NGVD 1929 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2000
PAGE 4 OF 7 PROPOSED FILL CROSS SECTION 1999-4-01497
r
//- City of Renton
li Wetland 'C'
SEE PAGE 7 FOR 0
PHASE 1 WETLAND DETAIL
i
Phase I a
Created Wetlond (tW.)
Excess Enhanced Wetlond from
H J Phase l; Proposed to be
< i assigned to Phase 2 Mitigation.
a ( (t)p•) (1.30 acres)
BOEING
OFFICE k_j
PARK < I PRIVATE W I -
:� � DEVELOPMENT
City of Renton y ,'
Wetland 'D'
— SW 27TH ST. ----- —
1 r^;
City of Renton
Wetland 'E'
Boeing
South Marsh" A ;�. A Propo d Phase.'(I
Wetlon Enhoncethe it Area
a� (0.80 cres)
Phase It Impact Area
1.05 Acres
I ' City of Renton
Wetlond
City of Renton I (o.k.c. 12b)
Wetlond 'F' `,< City of Renton
(a.k.o. 12c) Wetland 'il'
>;: -
City o/ Renton Oakesdole Avenue
Wetlond 'G' ( Phase II Project Area
Proposed Phase II zz
Open Water Creation :7
0.27 Acres
` ; Proposed Phase I
Wetlond Creation ite
Y'r 1.39 Acres
Existing Ookesdole Ave.
Terminus
LEGEND
aExisting Wetlands Phase It Proposed Enhanced Wetland
SCALE FEET
Phase 11 Impacted Wetlands F7 Phose I Created Wetland
0 150 300 450
Phase 11 Proposed Created Wetland Phose I Enhanced Wetland
PURPOSE: CONNECT DISJUNCT PORTIONS OF OAKESDALE AVENUE, PROPOSED: PLACE 1.05 ACRES OF ROADWAY FILL
CREATING A NORTH—SOUTH URBAN ARTERIAL. IN: WETLANDS ADJACENT TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK
AT: RENTON. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DATUM: NGVD 1929 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2000
PAGE 5 OF 7 PROJECT AREA 1999-4-01497
i
.�.41 n.x`•:f
1w w� - wettand
wettal d u
EXISTING GONDITIONS
A
original surface
.A
proposed
• V' M
PROPOSED OPEN WATER I"11TiGATION AREA
B KTs.
original surface
1: •a•i
• proposed
PROPOSED FORESTED 1"LITIGATION AREA
G N Ts.
.MN
•` i
AM
o.wr+rw, a . i•
,/�FROFOSED CULVERTS
PURPOSE CONNECT DISJUNCT PORTIONS OF OAK£SDALE AVENUE, PROPOSED: PLACE 1.05 ACRES OF ROADWAY FILL
CREATING A NORTH-SOUTH URBAN ARTERIAL. IN: WETLANDS ADJACENT TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK
AT_• RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DATUM: NGVD 1929 DAT: DECEMBER 8, 2000
PAGE 6 OF 7 MMGATION CROSS-SECTICAS 1999-4-01497
i;
j Ili City of Renton
j 1 I I,I Wetlond 'C'
Pho3d!rr-�
o O'eatedi Wet/aid(t)pj)
t!
ti
Excess Enhanced Wetlond from
La- _ .. .___. j Phase l; Proposed to be
._- - assigned to Phase 2 Mitigotion.
y `� J _} (typ.) (t.JO acres)
W
i ! /
BOEING I
OFFICE
PARKi
E[ PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT
'\\ N
City of Renton
t I 1 : T �/ Wetland V
- - - - - _ — SW 27TH ST. T-- -
LEGEND - - -
71 Existing Wetlands
SCALE FEET
ElPhase I Created Wetlond
aPhase ! Enhanced Wetlond 0 75 150 225
PURPOSE: CONNECT DISJUNCT PORTIONS OF OAKESDALE AVENUE, PROPOSED: PLACE 1.05 ACRES OF ROADWAY FILL
CREATING A NORTH-SOUTH URBAN ARTERIAL. IN: WETLANDS ADJACENT TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK
AT: RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DATUM: NGVD 1929 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2000
PAGE 7 OF 7 PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT AREA CREDIT 1999-4-01497
��F,STATE a
C r
d� ?
n
O
Hf 1889�
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV-71 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8711 • (206) 459-6000
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Notice of Application for
Water Quality Certification
and for
Certification of Consistency with the
Washington Coastal Zone Management Program
Date: 3 April 2001
Notice is hereby given that a request has been filed with the Department of
Ecology, pursuant to the requirements of Section 401 of the federal Clean
Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) , to certify that the project described in the
Corps of Engineers Public Notice No. 1999-4-01497 will comply with Sections
301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Act, and with applicable provisions of
State and Federal water pollution control laws.
Notice is also given that a request has been filed with the Department of
Ecology, pursuant to the requirements of Section 307(c) of the federal Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) , to certify that the above-
referenced project will comply with the Washington State Coastal Zone
Management Program and that the project will be conducted in a manner
consistent with that Program.
Any person desiring to present views pertaining to the project on either or
both (1) compliance with water pollution control laws or (2) the project's
compliance or consistency with the Washington State Coastal Zone Management
Program may do so by providing written comments within 30 days of the above
publication date to:
Permit Coordination Unit
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
11
i�
Short Plat'(SIK# )
�e Prelim.Plat (PP#
REQUEST FOR PROJECT# )
CAG# )
YJ
To: Technical Services Date 0 WO# Green#
From: Plan Review/Project Manager 1414", (� �H
Project Name 0A02, D4-LG AUJE . Sw &KTZ NStUrJ
(70 chanc(=max) /
Description of Project: �f;cJ i?un L jA--1 :-,0L1—tH
0E- ()� 11J�2 t /fiVC . �/3 orrl a liens d ��e /��l �c�� G�rrr�ritY ^lofifal5v.-�
757
Circle Size of Waterline: 8" 10" 12" Circle One: New or Extension
Circle Size of Seweriine: 8" 10" 12" C61e One: New or Extension
Circle Size of Stormline: 12" 15" 18" 24" Circle One: New or (Extensrion
Address or Street Names) OA �� p� S[ t .��+� 3�S}��1 )W ly�ST
Dvlpr/Contractor/Owner/Cnslt::
(70 characters max)
Abs ,, see Aiso Pha se. oox-
Check each discipline involved in Project Ltr Drwg #of sheets per discipline
k� Trans-Storm ❑ ❑
(Road' yfl)rainage) (Off site impmvcn:=ts)(include basin name) (include TESC sheets)
Transportation (Signalimdon.Channetizntion.Lighting) ❑ ❑
1 Wastewater ❑
Sanitary Sewer Main(include basin nine)
Water (Mains.Valves.Hydrants) ❑
((rtcludc composite 6c Horizontsl Ctr(S('ccts)
Suface Water ❑
Improvements (CLP ONLY)(includc basin name)
TS Use Only
D
SV P- a7 = a-757
66Y CITY OF RENTON
XI �e PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
sm+ + TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION
425-235-2615 RECEIVE®
PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE DEC
DATE: 12/19/00 CITY 8 Z��Q
OF RENT
TIME: 10:00 AM UTILITY SySTEMSN
LOCATION: City Hall,5th Floor, ConL Rm. 511
1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055
NAME OF PROJECT: Oakes�dale Ave. SW Extension Phase 113 & Phase 2 CAG-00-061
COMPANY NAME: !/ Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc.
COMPANY ADDRESS: 9125 10 Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108
CONTACT: Brian Kittleson Phone# (206) 762-9125 FAX# (206)763-1478
INSTALLATION: Asphalt concrete paving, curb & gutter, sidewalks, storm drain, water
main, street lighting, signal,channelization,retaining all and wetland
PROJECT LOCATION: Oakesdale Avenue SW—SW 19 Street to SW 3 Ph Street
PROJECT MANAGER: Joe Armstrong(425)430-7303 FAX(425)430-7376
DEPARTMENTS TO BE NOTIFIED AND SPECIFY PERSON TO ATTEND:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
® Utility Plan Review Lys Hornsby
® Water Utility Abdoul Gafour
® Wastewater Utility David Christensen
® Surface Water Utility Ron Straka
® Transportation Systems Karl Hamilton
® Maintenance Services Division Jack Crumley
® Customer Services P.I.C. Kayren Kittrick
® Construction Services Mary Burgy
® FIRE PREVENTION Jim Gray
® POLICE DEPARTMENT Mike Luther
1,� Consulting Engineer, Kato&Warren, Inc. Barry Knight
OUTSIDE DEPARTMENTS
Phone# FAX#
® The Boeing Company (John Murdock) 253-773-0444 253-773-2432
® Quest(Frank Forrest) 253-345-2968 253-872-5434
® Pacific Resources Group(Steve Getz) 425-451-0620 425-451-0620
❑ AT&T Cable(Steve Underwood) 206-433-3434 206-433-5103
® Puget Sound Energy(Joe Jainga) 206-224-2120 206-224-2318
® METRO-Bus Routes(Mary Malcolm) 206-684-2732 206-684-2686
® Rainier Disposal(Terry Bickell) 206-243-4050 206-243-3350
® Seattle City Light(Dix Fulton) 206-684-3034 206-684-3380
® Seattle Public Utilities(Chris Church) 206-684-5972 206-684-8535
® Department of Fish & wildlife(Phil Snyder) 425-649-7015 425-649-7084
4--t�j — Amec(Test Lab.) Steve McDuffee 425-820-4669 425-821-3914
® King County Metro (Eric Davison) 206-684-1707 206-684-1710
H:\DNIS ION.S\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENGUARMSTRO\OAKEPH2\PRECONOakes.doc
w
PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING MINUTES
OAKESDALE AVENUE SW PHASE 1B & PHASE 2
SW 19TH STREET TO SW 31ST STREET
To: Gary Merlino Construction Co.,Inc.
9125 loth Avenue South
Seattle,WA 98108
Agency: City of Renton
TIB (TPP)9P-102(010)
City Contract No.: CAG 00-061
DATE: December 19,2000
TIME: 10:00 AM
LOCATION: City Hall,5"'Floor,Conf.Rm.511
1055 S.Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055
NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE#
Joe Armstrong City of Renton (425)430-7303
Steve McDuffee AMEC Earth &Environmental (425) 820-4669
Tom Boyns City of Renton (425)430-7209
Steve Goetz Pac Res. Grp./For Boeing (425)451-0620
Mary Burgy City of Renton (206) 999-1827
Allen Quynn City of Renton (425)430-7247
Jody Wamygora Gary Merlino Construction Co.,Inc. (206)762-9125
Dave Zimmerman Gary Merlino Construction Co., Inc (206)762-9175
Ted Noble Gary Merlino Construction Co.,Inc (206)762-9125
Barry Knight Kato&Warren/TranSystems (206)448-4200
Mark Brower Kato&Warren/TranSystems (206)4484200
Jon Larscheid The Boeing Company (206)655-9928
Mike Luther Renton Police Dept. (425)430-7561
John S.Murdoch The Boeing Company (253) 773-0444
Lin Wilson City of Renton (425)430-7223
Bryson Huie Totem Electric (253) 838-9803
Mike Shaffer Totem Electric (253) 838-9803
I.ORDER OF WORK
Contractor provided a preliminary schedule covering Phase 113 of the project. Contractor went over
schedule, stated work would start at the north end and work south. It was stated that the contractor
can do sidewalk work at the south end of the project and intersection work at SW 27`h Street that is
out of the permit area. It was noted that the schedule did not include any Phase 2 work. There will
be a new schedule that would include Phase 2 work that can start before the issuance of the Corp 404
permit.
Oakesdale Avenue SW Phase 1B&Phase 2
December 19,2000
Page 2
Introduced Mary Burgy, City Construction Inspector, Consultant Kato & Warren, Steve McDuffy of
Amec, who will be the City's test lab for the project. Also mentioned Shannon & Wilson (geotech)
and Osborn Pacific Group for wetlands and landscaping.
II.UTILITIES AND RAILROADS
The utilities in the construction area, are Olympic Pipeline, Seattle Public Utilities, Puget Sound
Energy, METRO, Qwest and City of Renton Utilities. Before working around these utilities they
require 24 hours notification.
III.SUBCONTRACTORS AND AGENTS
The contractor was advised that request for approval of subcontractors, including survey
subcontractor, must be submitted along with a statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wage. It was
stated that the Intents would need to be submitted by February since that would the first pay estimate.
Jody brought five copies of Safety and Health Plan submittal that lists the person with authority on
the job.
IV.RECORDS AND REPORTS
It was noted that RAMS are needed as soon as possible and should the contractor need any request
forms the City could provide them. The contractor stated that they brought submittals with them for
drainage, electrical and waste and borrow sites. They also stated that they did not need forms as they
have their own.
V.TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SAFETY
It is noted that the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices will control signing. The contractor
did not have traffic control plan at the meeting, would provide one. Jun Aesquivel of Transportation
Operations would review the traffic control plan.This is then circulated to the Police Department and
Fire Department.
Contractor and project engineer designate by name the individual responsible for construction traffic
control. Jody will provide name.
Gross legal load limits will be adhered to.
Mike Luther of Renton Police Department noted that Oakesdale has been used has a drag strip in the
early morning hours and the contractor should be aware of this activity. He mentioned the barrier
located at the south end of the project had been moved 440' to the north.
VI.ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Erosion Control Plan is a part of contract
Advised Corps permit is not yet issued, however 30 Day Notice will be sent out any day.
An updated Hydraulic Permit would need to be issued changing the time limitations. Fisheries stated
they would be flexible on the June 1, start date.
Short discussion on DOE requirement for rock crusher registration WAC 173-400. Steve McDuffee
gave a brief reading on the WAC 173400. He stated that most crushers are registered with DOE in
connection with air pollution regulations.
VH.DISMISS DISINTERESTED PARTIES
No dismissals
HADIVI SION.S\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENGUARMSTRO\OAKEPH2\PRECON MIN.DOC
Oakesdale Avenue SW Phase I&Phase 2
December 19,2000
Page 3
VIII. REOPEN FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTION DISCUSSION
Contractor stated he will start work at the north end and work south to SW 27`h intersection. It was
noted that the contractor could do all the work at the SW 271h and Oakesdale intersection that is not
in the permit area. It was also stated that the contractor could do sidewalk work at the south end of
the project.
Contractor asked Boeing if they could place the job shack on their property. John said he would
check into it. It was stated that the City has property on the east side that could be used. The
contractor would prefer the west side as east side would be in construction path.
John Larscheid will notify Boeing facilities on site of construction start. John stated that it would
have to go through their real estate department.
Draft of project sign was given to contractor with dollar amounts for the Grant Agencies. They will
go ahead have signs made up. Contractor received two City of Renton decals for project signs.
Placement of signs will be at SW 19`h Street and the other at SW 27t'street.
Totem Electric stated there would be ten week lead time for lighting and signal equipment. Bryson
Huie would order equipment once their contract with prime is executed. Jody stated contract is in
the mail and Totem should receive it any day.
Change Orders 1 &2 were executed by the Contractor.
IX ITEMS RECEIVED FROM CONTRACTOR
Submittal No. 1 RAMS for Waste and Borrow Sites
Submittal No. 2 Site Specific Safety Plan
Submittal No. 3 RAMS & Catalog Cuts for CB Type 1, CB Type 2 48", CB Type 2 60" And CL
III Reinforced Conc. Culvert Pipe 36".
Submittal No.4 RAMS &Catalog Cuts for all Electrical
Project Schedule Phase 1B
H:\DI VISION.S\TRANSPOR.TAT\DESIGN.ENGUARMSTRO\OAKEPH2\PRECONMIN.DOC
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 9, 1999
TO: File
FROM: Lin Wilson
SUBJECT: Oakesdale Avenue Extension-Wetland Status
This memorandum summarizes my understanding of the areas of wetland that have been and will be
created and/or enhanced in the course of constructing Phases 1 and 2 of the Oakesdale Avenue Ex-
tension from SW 16th Street to SW 31 st Street. The information is drawn from the Phase 1
JARPA/Section 404 permit application, the Phase 2 Project Definition Report prepared by Kato &
Warren (K&W), and the explanations provided at Tuesday's meeting with Bryce Ecklein of K&W.
Phase 1 Wetland Impacts, Creation and Enhancement
The construction of the new Oakesdale Avenue roadway and bridge linking SW 16th Street and SW
27th Street involved the filling of 0.31 acres of existing Category 2 emergent wetlands, subject to
the conditions set forth in the Department of Army's permit dated March 6, 1998. As a condition of
this filling, the revised mitigation plan, dated February 1998,was to be implemented, involving the
creation of 0.62 acres of replacement wetlands. The City's regulations call for a replacement ratio
of 1.5: 1;the 2:1 replacement ratio was a requirement of the U.S. Government EPA, notified during
the permit application review process.
The construction project created the new wetland area adjacent to existing wetlands northeast of the
Oakesdale/SW 27th intersection. In order to optimize wetland development in this area, a total of
2.05 acres of new wetland were constructed, and an additional 1.3 acres of existing wetland were
enhanced. This amount is in excess of that required for Phase 1 mitigation, and the intention was
that the excess would be used as credit towards Phase 2 of the project,or possibly for other City
projects, and this was recorded in the USACE permit. After allowing for the 0.62 acres of replace-
ment wetlands to mitigate the Phaase 1 impacts,the excess remaining amounted to 1.43 acres of
created wetland, and 1.3 acres of enhanced wetland. The City had a pre-existing agreement with the
Benaroya Corporation to allocate to that developer 16,700 square feet(0.38 acres)of created wet-
land from the City's banked resources, and 0.38 acres of the created wetland were allocated to this
purpose, and reimbursement received by the Transportation Division at$3/SF ($50,100 total).
Areas"in the bank"as of the completion of Oakesdale Phase 1 were:
1.05 acres of created Category 2 wetland,and
1.3 acres of enhanced Category 2 wetland
December 9, 1999
Page 2
Phase 2 Wetland Impacts, Creation and Enhancement
Construction of the Oakesdale Avenue roadway between SW 27th Street and SW 31st Street will
involve the filling of 1.05 acres of existing Category 1 palustrine vine scrub/shrub wetlands. Under
the revised sensitive area regulations in the process of adoption by the City,this impact requires
mitigation by a combination of wetland creation and enhancement. Using a replacement ratio of
1.5: 1, creation of 1.58 acres of Category 1 palustrine vine scrub/shrub wetlands are required,to-
gether with enhancement of 2.1 acres(2: 1 ratio)of any category of wetland.
The created Category 1 wetlands will consist of area reclaimed from an existing berm midway be-
tween the Oakesdale Avenue alignment and Springbrook Creek. The reclamation will result in the
creation of 0.3 acres of open water and 1.3 acres of forested wetland. The wetland area to be en-
hanced will consist in part of the"banked"enhancement from Phase 1 (1.3 acres), and the remain-
der will be 0.8 acres to the east of the berm, immediately south of SW 27th Street,to be planted
with willow and red osier whips to shade out invasive species.
The 1.05 acres of excess wetland created in Phase 1 will not be affected by the Phase 2 mitigation
plan, and will be available for other City uses. Actions to be taken regarding this resource are as
follows:
1. The costs of creation will be identified and subtracted from the cost of the Oakes-
dale Avenue project. This will be reflected in the final Phase 1 billing to the T.I.B.
2. The costs of creation of the 1.05 acres, and the 0.38 acres used for Benaroya proj-
ect mitigation may be subject to Washington State Sales Tax, since they do not
constitute a transportation project expenditure subject to State Department of
Revenue Rule 171, conferring exemption from WSST.
3. We will work with the Surface Water Utility towards identifying development or
City projects requiring created wetland as mitigation. The Transportation Division
can expect to receive reimbursement(previously set at$3 per square foot for the
Benaroya development)for created wetland areas dedicated to this purpose. The
estimated reimbursement if all of the remaining excess created wetland were to be
disposed of in this manner would be approximately$136,000.
Phase 2 Right-of-Way to be Acquired from Surface Water Utility
Development of Phase 2 of the Oakesdale Avenue project will require an estimated 1.7 acres of City
property currently under the jurisdiction of the Surface Water Utility to be redesignated as transpor-
tation right-of-way. A similar redesignation took place in for Phase 1,whereby 1.36 acres(59,351
SF)was transferred at a cost of$4,670($3,434/acre). At the same rate,Transportation would reim-
burse SWU $5,840 for the area transferred from SWU jurisdiction.
cc: Bryce Ecklein Jana Hanson
Peter Rosen Sandra Meyer
Lee Hato Joe Armstrong
James Wilhoit Ron Straka
Allen Quynn Tom Boyns h:\...\oakesdal\wetland5.doc
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
2CW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHaWt 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLM RECEIVED Mill Creek,Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: May 29, 2000 J U N 0 1 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-E3992-01
CITY OF RENTON
UTILITY SYSTEMS
PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
City of Renton Kato&Warren
ATTENTION: Allen Quynn ATTENTION: Bryce Ecklein
1055 South Grady Way 2003 Western Avenue, Suite 555
Renton Washington 98055 Seattle, Washington 98121
(425)430-7303
Fax: (425)430-7376
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Permanent Culvert
PROJECT LOCATION: Oakesdale Ave Southwest south of Southwest 271h Street
# WRIA WATER BODY TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
1 09.0005 Unnamed Spring Brook Creek Sw 24,25 23 North 04 East King
NOTE: This culvert is proposed for installation in a location where fish passage is not a concern.
PROVISIONS
1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: The project may begin June 1,2000 and shall be completed by October 1,2000.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The permittee or contractor shall notify the Area Habitat Biologist(AHB) listed
below of the project start date. Notification shall be received by the AHB at least three working days prior to the
start of construction activities. The notification shall include the permittee's name,project location, starting date for
work, and the control number for this Hydraulic Project Approval.
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension Phase I &2
- SW 3 1" Street to SW 19`h St, Drainage Plan and Profile"dated March, 2000, and submitted to the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. These plans reflect design
criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate
impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. Fill associated with the culvert installation shall be protected from erosion to the 100-year peak flow.
5. The culvert shall be installed and maintained to avoid inlet scouring and to prevent erosion of stream banks
downstream of the project.
6. The culvert shall be installed in the dry or in isolation from the stream flow by the installation of a bypass flume or
culvert, or by pumping the stream flow around the work area.
7. Disturbance of the streambed and banks shall be limited to that necessary to place the culvert and any required
channel modification associated with it. Affected streambed and bank areas outside the culvert and associated fill
shall be restored to preproject configuration following installation of the culvert. Within one year of project
Page 1 of 4
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
�v �Of 2CW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
FISEmd Region 4 Office
�� 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
LN Mill Creek,Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: May 29, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-E3992-01
completion, the banks shall be revegetated as shown in the landscape plan and maintained as necessary for three
years to ensure 80 percent survival.
8. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the bypass inlet to divert the entire flow through the
bypass.
9. A sandbag revetment or similar device shall be installed at the downstream end of the bypass to prevent backwater
from entering the work area.
10. The bypass shall be of sufficient size to pass all flows and debris for the duration of the project.
11. Prior to releasing the water flow to the project area, all bank protection or armoring shall be completed.
12. Upon completion of the project, all material used in the temporary bypass shall be removed from the site and the site
returned to preproject or improved conditions.
13. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop(including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife at(360) 534-8233 and Washington Department of Ecology at(425) 649-7015 shall be contacted
immediately. Work shall not resume until further approval is given by the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
14. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt-laden water from entering the stream. These may include, but
are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric,temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel-filled burlap bags or
other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
15. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the ordinary high water line to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to
the stream.
16. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shah be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
17. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment-
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the stream.
18. The stormwater outfalls at the point of the discharge shall be armored to prevent scouring.
19. Excavation for the placement of the structure or armoring materials shall be isolated from the wetted perimeter.
SEPA: EIS by City of Renton, July 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February 3, 2000 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Boone 030 [P3]
Page 2 of 4
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Deparbwpa Of 2CW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
Flsgmd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
lOLNE Mill Creek,Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: May_29, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-E3992-01
Philip Schneider (425)649-7015 for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code(RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s)performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s)to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge,possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions,conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER,that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
APPEALS-GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS(WAC 220-110-340)OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103,75.20.106,AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA,or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level,but if not,you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife,600 Capitol Way North,Olympia,Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal,a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS(WAC 220-110-350)OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
Page 3 of 4
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
2CW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHwd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WDLN Mill Creek,Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: May 29, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-E3992-01
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA,or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties;or
(C) Any other"agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife,600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia,Washington 98501-1091,shall be plainly labeled as"REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL"and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal,the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA,or the conditions or provisions made part of
a HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office,4224 Sixth Avenue SE,Building Two-Rowe Six,Lacey,Washington
98504;telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL,THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Jesse Tann�er�,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator
July 28, 2000
State Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160th Ave. SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for
File No. LUA-00-099;SM
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was
issued by the City of Renton on July 28, 2000.
We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090.
Please review this permit and attachments and call me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Sincerely,
Steven Taylor, AICP
Project Manager RECEIVED
Enclosures: Copy of Original Application JUL 3 1 2000
Site Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement CITY OF RENTON
Legal Description UTILITY SYSTEMS
cc: Office of Attorney General
City of Renton, Transportation Systems ,
City of Renton, Utility Systems
Applicant
Shnrlinp I tr rinr
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055
®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer
r
CITY OF RENTON
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971
PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION NO.: LUA 00-091, SM
DATE RECEIVED: July 10, 2000
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: July 19, 2000
DATE APPROVED: July 28, 1000
DATE DENIED: NA
TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit
[ ] Conditional Use Permit
[ ] Variance Permit
Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit for construction of Phase II of
Oakesdale Avenue SW.
This action was taken on the following application:
APPLICANT: City of Renton
Contact: Joe Armstrong, Transportation Engineer
Renton City Hall
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
PROJECT: Phase II of the Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The project is a continuation of the extension of Oakesdale
Avenue SW, between SW 16t" to SW 31st Streets. All
phases of the project were subject to review in the finial
Environmental Impact Statement issued in July 1997.
Phase II is not within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek but will
impact associated wetlands and is therefore subject to the
Shorelines Master Program. Phase II will construct a new
four lane roadway from SW 27th Street to approximately SW
31st Street. The project will include curb, gutter, sidewalks,
bike lanes, street lighting, utilities and wetland mitigation.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Attached separately to the report.
SEC-TWNP-R: Section 25, Township 23N, Range 4E
WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Springbrook Creek
APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton
SHSUBDEV.dot
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Page 2 of 2
The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development:
Section Description Page
RMC 4-3-090E Regulated Water Bodies Page 3-20
RMC 4-3-0901 Conservancy Environment Pages 3-24 to 3-25
RMC 4-3-090L15 Roads and Railroads Page 3-36
RMC 4-3-090L18f Local Utilities Page 3-39
Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions:
1. The City shall ensure that the contractor follows best management practices for all construction
activities over and adjacent to the Springbrook wetlands.
2. Temporary erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the construction
phase of the project.
3. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures detailed in the Oakesdale Avenue SW
Extension Phase lb & II Wetland Mitigation Plan approved 6/5/00.
This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following:
1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant
from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements.
2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in
the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof.
3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton
Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day
review period have been completed.
Planning/Building/Public orks dministrator ate
cc: Attorney General's Office
City of Renton, Plan Review (Neil Watts)
City of Renton, Surface Water Utility(Ron Straka)
Applicant
SHSUBDEV.dot
I vim» .
2003 Western Avenue
KATO& 555 Market Place One �tcezr_
1
Seattle,WA 98121 r ~'D
WARREN (206)448-4200 Fax (206)728 5608 DEC 1
INCORPORATED E-Mail: summersett@ktowm.com 1999
r�ar7sRoreatior7 •
SYstams Div.
TRANSMITTAL FORM
To: Joe Armstrong Date: 12/16/99
Of: City of Renton, Planning/Building/Public Works Number of Pages:
(including cover sheet)
1055 S. Grady Way (5th Floor)
Renton,WA 98055
Pheae Number: 425-430-7303 Via: Mail X❑
Fax Number: 425-430-7376 Fax
From: Shawn S. Summersett,P.E. Courier 1-1
FedEx
Contents: K&W Job: Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension- Phase I & 2; 99002-01 &02
December 1999 50% Submittal SWTIR for Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension- Phase 113 &2 (1 copy)
Comments:
For City review as requested at the 50% review meeting.
cc:
�l �
J
t
KATo& 2003 Western Avenue
WARREN ` 555 Market Place One
INCORPORATED Seattle, WA 98121 (206) 448-4200 (FAX) 728-5608
. - - -
TRANSMITTAL FORM
To: Allen Quynn, Civil Engineer Date: 1/4/00
City of Renton
1055 South Grad Wa _ C^C Pages: -1
Renton WA 98055 �GVG'V`'� g
- J � 00
Fax g4
Number: CITY OF FtEKTOs Via: Mail ( x )
ym y sys� FAX ( )
From: Kourosh Sameni Fed Ex ( )
Subject: Abbreviated Surface Water Technical Information Resort(95% Submittal) for
Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension- Phase lA
Comments:
Copy enclosed.
Enclosures: cc:
\J \
}
1
S � i
i
f � �
\
Jr
i
1
i\
r
I
s
L
RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION
DESIGN REVIEW
Project: Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Review Type: 50% Design
SW 191h Street To Sw 31" Street
Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone #(425)430-7303
To: Attn: Z-- Date:
T
Transportation Design Community Services
Transportation Operations Fire
Transportation Planning "" a Police
Storm Water Utility SPU
Waste Water Utility
Metro
Water Utility ��
Street Maintenance fir i 11 NFMc Puget Sound Energy
Utility Maintenance U.S.West
Construction Inspection AT&T Cable
Development Planning WSDOT
Plan Review Boeing
Planning and Technical Services Drainage District(DBM)
PLEASE REVIEW AND RETURN THIS FORM WITH YOUR COMMENTS TO PROJECT
MANAGER BY: November 15, 1999
Reviewer check appropriate space(s):
No comment Reviewed by:
See comments below Date Reviewed:
See comments attached
See comments on Plans Approved by:
See comments on Specs Date approved:
Comments:
H:\Transp\design\jarmstron\oakesph 2\Review5O%
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19t' Street To Sw 31" Street
550% Design Review- Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
PLAN SHEETS Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425) 430-7319
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
1 RLM 1. Pavement Marking and Sign Plans need to be
(Cover) included
2. Temporary Erosion Control(TESC) Plans need
to be included.
1 Vicinity Map JPW Show Wetland Mitigation Site
(Cover)
Al Signalization RLM Existing symbols for Traffic Signal Pole and Traffic
Symbols Signal Pole with Luminaire are missing
X1 Surfacing JPW Insert the word"Barrier"between"Concrete" and
Leg.Note 7 "Curb"
X1 Sec A RLM
1. Add Curb and Gutter Callout No. 7 at right curb
2. Add Callout No. 10 at sidewalk on right side
3. On left side,should wetland plantings or upland
seeding be provided on 2:1 slope to complement
the existing abutting wetland areas?
X 1 Sec B RLM Suggest adding construction Note 3,"Remove
Existing Asphalt Pavement,"and add callout to Sec
X1 Surfacing RLM Add Note !0,"Modified Cement Concrete Sidewalk
Legend (See Dwg. No. W4 for Details)"
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19" Street To Sw 3 1" Street
oProject Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone#(425)430-7303
PLLNoAN SHHEETSEFTSDesign R@VI@W- Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone#(425) 430-7319
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
C 1 RLM • Extend cement concrete sidewalk on the east side
of Oakesdale to the Seattle Times property line
(about Sta. 1+12). This work is within the
project limits approved by the TIB. Future
extension to the south would be by the abutting
property owner.
• Extend cement concrete sidewalk on the west
side of Oakesdale to match existing sidewalk
about 650 feet to the south. Abutting property
along this section of missing sidewalk is owned
by the City of Renton;and comprises a wetland
area and an area designated for wetland
mitigation. Thus, future installation of this
section of sidewalk by private development is not
an option. A change in project scope could be
justified to the TIB,as installation of this
additional sidewalk would complete the sidewalk
on the west side of Oakesdale between S.W. 16`h
Street and S.W.43`d Street.
• Add pavement removal cross-hatching in area of
new roadway in existing cul-de-sac to make it
clear that all existing pavement in this area is to
be removed.
• Station the beginning of existing curb and gutter,
pavement and sidewalk removal and/or new
construction.
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19" Street To Sw 31St Street
oProject Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
PLANNo HEFTSDesign Review- Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone#(425) 430-7319
PLAN SHEETS
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
• Station beginning of 27-foot width on west side
of roadway, similar to that done for the east side.
Cl Profile RLM Replace grade break in roadway with a vertical curve
(preferably a minimum 200-foot in length). Also
callout grade of existing roadway that the vertical
curve will match with.
Cl & RLM Show existing and/or new Oakesdale right-of-way
C2 line on west side.
C1, "Welded RLM Revise to"Wall A(Welded Wire Wall)". Use of the
C2&C3 Wire Wall word"typical' is not necessary. Also, add note on
(Typ.)" plan to see Dwg.No. W1 through W4 for Wall A
callout details.
C3 RLM Add callout for"Wall B (Welded Wire Wall)" on east
side of roadway at about Sta. 13+85
C4 RLM 1. Where existing pavement outside of intersection
is shown to be removed, also add a callout
specifying this. Add cross-hatching and callout
for removal of existing pavement within
intersection.
2. Add Wall B callout on east side at about Sta.
14+30.
3. Station all locations where new curb and gutter,
pavement and sidewalk match existing. Also add
callout at all appropriate locations(S.W.27",
Oakesdale north of S.W. 27')regarding
matching existing pavement.
4. Callout and station all new curb ramps.
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 SW 19th Street To Sw 31" Street
o Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
PLLNoAN SHEETS
E REVIEW- Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425) 430-7319
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
C5 Right-of-Way RLM Relocate leader so it clearly points to the existing
callout on right-of-way.
east side of
roadway
C8 RLM 1. Add"Asphalt Conc. Pavement"to"End Cement
Conc. Curb and Gutter"callout.
2. Callout and station new curb ramp. Provide
dimension for sidewalk configuration at curb
ramp or provide special or typical detail showing
such dimensions.
3. Are all existing features(i.e.traffic signal pole)
shown on plan at new sidewalk curvature
location? Will new sidewalk conflict with any
above ground existing features and/or will
existing features constrict sidewalk width below
the required 5-foot minimum unobstructed
width?
4. Remove pavement markings and arrows from
background. Provide existing,revisions to
existing, and new pavement markings and arrows
on separate plan sheets.
C8 Sawcut Line RLM Is"Typical"needed?
callout
C9 Intersection RLM To be consistent with drawings CI through C8, rotate
Layout 90 degrees so north direction points to the right
C9 RLM Provide station and off-set for all curb ramps
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19" Street To Sw 31St Street
50% Design Review- Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone#(425)430-7303
PLAN SHEETS Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone#(425)430-7319
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
D1 RLM/ Invert elevations at Pipe Outfall(Sta. 4+15),and Rim,
JPW Existing Invert,and Out Invert and length 18"LCPE
at this location are missing. Also,should reference to
see Detail/D12 be added at this location?
D1 RLM 0 Revise profile per comment for Dwg.No. C1.
• Relocate background printing or relocate"52LF
12"Dia. LCPE"callout so"52LF" is easier to
read.
D1 Water JPW What is the area designated by field of hexagons
Quality Pond directly north of pond? Symbol not indicated under
Surface Feature Symbols on Sheet A 1
D3 Pipe Inlet @ JPW Use a different detail than I/D12 or annotate 1/D12 to
10+45 50' LT distinguish inlet detail from outlet detail
D3 RLM Suggest showing new 36-inch culverts on roadway
Plan and Profile Dwg.No.C3
D12 1/Dl,D3 JPW See above comment for D3. Detail currently refers
strictly to an outlet,not an inlet. Modify it for both or
add a different detail for inlet.
W2,W3 Note"Finish JPW Define"Front of Wall"as side away from traffic,or
Grade @ similar wording
Front of
Wall"
W4 Typical RLM 8-foot dimension between face of curb and face of
Section railing should be 6.5 feet to agree with Roadway
Section A on Dwg.No.X1. Also,railing should
extend further into the sidewalk than shown. Explain
abbreviation"SDA"in rebar callout. If needed,
include explanation in notes on this drawing or on
Dwg.No.A l. Concrete sidewalk details(strength,
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19t' Street To Sw 31St Street
oProject Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
PLLNoAN SHHEETSEFTSDesign Review- Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425)430-7319
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
W4 depth, dimension, etc.)are missing. Need to clarify
(con't) on plans limits of handrail. Preliminary Engineers
Estimate specifies 922 LF; however total length of
Wall A and Wall B on plans is 975 LF.
U 1 • Existing street light pole on west side of roadway
(Sta. 2+50)should be relocated to behind
sidewalk
• Revise profile per comment for Dwg.No. C1
U 1 Construction Should be revised to"Power Pole To Be Removed.
Note 2 Also See General Note 3." Also add this note to
Illumination Plans.
U 1 General RLM Should also be included on Illumination Plans. Each
(&U2 Utility Note 3 luminaire pole base to be removed per Note 3 should
thru be called out on the Utility Plans and/or the
U8) Illumination Plans
U8 RLM General Note 3,Construction Note 2,and Note 2
Callout should be included on Illumination Plans.
E2 thru Illum.Const. RLM Should be identical to Note 1 on Dwg.No. E1
E8 Note 1
E2& Illum.Const. RLM Missing from Note List. If Illumination Construction
E3 Note 3 Note 1 is to be expanded to make it identical to
Illumination Construction Note 1 on Dwg.No. EL
will Note 3 be needed?
E4 Gen. Illum. RLM Should"Conduit" in Note be revised to"Details"?
Note 3
E7 RLM Illumination Construction Note 3 is missing.
If Note 3 is not applicable to this drawing,
Note 3 should state this to avoid confusion.
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19" Street To Sw 31" Street
50% Design Review- Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone#(425)430-7303
PLAN SHEETS Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone#(425)430-7319
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
E9 RLM At all four locations on signal plan,the symbol for
Signal Pole with Mast Arm should be replaced with
symbol for Signal Pole with Mast Arm and
Luminaire.
RLM
E10 Notes JPW/ 1. Insert"(1")"after"25mm"
RLM 2. Insert"WSDOT'between"Arm"and"Std."
3. At end of note,after"Plans"add"referenced on
Plan Sheets"
4. Delete", Sheet 8"and replace with"in Standard
Plans referenced on Plan Sheets"
6. Why does this include the phrase"No luminaire
arm required this contract."? Is reference to
"Sheet 8"in notes intended for this set of
drawings?
E10 Legend JPW B. Insert"WSDOT"between"Sign,"and"Std."and
change"G-9"to"G-9a&G-9b"
Insert"WSDOT"between"Handhole,"&"Std."
E10 Type PS Ped. JPW Change 8'-0"dimension to 10'-0"to conform to City
Head Std. & of Renton standard.
Type I Veh.
Hd Std.
E10 Main JPW 1. Change 8'-0"dimension(from top of foundation
Luminaire to Ped. Signal Head G)to 10'-0"to conform to
Detail City of Renton standard.
2. Add 3'-6"dimension from top of foundation to
Ped. Push Button I.
3. For 610mm Min.dimension(curb to pole)add
"(2%0")„
E10 Sig. Standard JPW Note that this chart should be in English units,not
Detail Chart metric
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19t" Street To Sw 31st Street
oProject Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
PLANNo HEFTSDesign Review- Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425) 430-7319
PLAN SHEETS
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
M 1 Refer to JPW Upland- Should be Upland Seeding as referred to in
Legend Special Provisions Section 8-01.1(3)
Created Forest Wetland*-Make this area on the plan
look more like the legend symbol
Created Open Water Wetland*-Make this area on the
plan look more like the legend symbol
Area of Enhancement*-Make this area on the plan
look more like the legend symbol. Also,define
"PEM-PSS" in Plans or Special Provisions,if the
contractor needs this info-otherwise delete it.
*These areas do not appear to be defined in the plans
or specials, or indicated as specific bid items.
M1 JPW In vicinity of"S.W.27"H ST."there appear to be two
different types of areas designated. Are they both
upland? Is one just existing conditions? Need to
clarify,and add legend symbol if needed.
M2 Secs. B& C JPW Define"PFO/PSS"and"PEM"Communities in Plans
or Special Provisions, if the contractor needs this info-
otherwise delete it.
XS-1 RLM Wall A ends at Sta. 13+52. Should X-Section at Sta.
13+51 be revised to reflect this?
XS-2 RLM Wall B begins at Sta. 13+83. Should X-Section at
Sta. 13+83 be revised to reflect this?
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19t' Street To Sw 31St Street
o Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
P I L PROVISIONS
Review- Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425) 430-7319
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
General JPW Contract will be incorporating WSDOT Standard
Specs 2000 English edition as applicable, so all
Standard Spec sections referenced in Special
Provisions must be checked to confirm they are
correct.
1 Introduction JPW Change 1996 to 2000
3 1-03.8 RLM Delete entirely
4 1-05.14 RLM Question inclusion of"relocation of existing water
appurtenances." Suggest including"relocation and
installation of natural gas lines."
8 1-07.15(1) RLM 50%Plan Submittal did not include TESC Plans.
9 1-07.17 JPW Check all utility company contacts,addresses and
phone numbers and update as necessary. Note that
Dave Christensen's number(Sanitary Sewer and
Water) is now(425)430-7212.
10 1-07.17 RLM Delete"Relocate Irrigation System"
10 1-07.17 JPW None of the work items covered by the note"Simpler
to pay individual std. Items."are included in bid items
except for"Adjusting Manholes to Grade"
13 1-10.3(3) RLM Delete sentence that begins"The construction signs
shall be located 400 feet....."
16 2-01 JPW "Clearing Limit Fence"not included in bid items
18 2-02.5 RLM Revise list of items and approximate quantities to
agree with Phase 1,13 and Phase 2 plans. Should
"Remove Traffic Curb"be added to this list,and
should"Remove Sidewalk"be revised to"Remove
Asphalt Sidewalk"?
2-03 RLM Drainage Grading specified in the Engineer's
Estimate with reference to Section 2-of Special
Provisions,but not included in this Special Provision
submittal.
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19t" Street To Sw 31s' Street
o Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
SPECIAL
PROVISIONS Sign Review- Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425) 430-7319
SP P
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
20 2-03.5 JPW Item 2. "Gravel Borrow Including Haul", per Ton-
Phase 2 estimate indicates per C. Y. (Phase 1 b est.
indicates per ton). Determine which is correct and
revise accordingly.
2-09 RLM Quarry Spalls specified in the Engineer's Estimate
with reference to Section 2-09 of Special Provisions,
but not included in this Special Provision submittal.
20 2-09.2 JPW "Gravel Backfill for Trench"not included in bid items
21 2-09.4 JPW "Structure Excavation Class A, incl. Haul"and
"Shoring or Extra Excavation Class A"and"B"not
included in bid items
21 2-09.4,2-09.5 JPW "Gravel Backfill for Trench"not included in bid items
21 2-09.5 JPW "Gravel Backfill for Welded Wire Wall"Per Ton-
Estimate indicates per C. Y. Determine which is
correct and revise accordingly.
22 2-12.5 JPW "Construction Geotextile for Soil Stabilization"not
included in bid items
27 6-10.3(7) JPW In third and fourth line of para.,"aesthetically
pleasing"does not specify anything. Replace with
more specific requirement.
27 6-10.3(7), JPW/ "Railing Seat"not included in bid items
6-10.4,6-10.5 RLM
28 6-10.5 JPW "Railing Seat"not included in bid items
40 7-05.3(7) JPW/ Spec heading- Revise Water Quality Ponds to
RLM Water Quality Pond.
Description- Delete the word"two", change"Ponds"
to"Pond"and delete"and dispersal V-ditches" if
these ditches are not included(not evident in Plans).
Construction Requirements-
1 st para.- Revise first word, "Ponds",to"Pond"
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19t" Street To Sw 31St Street
50% Design Review- Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
SPECIAL PROVISIONS Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425) 430-7319
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
3`d para-Delete the word"rock"
4th para-Delete"and V-ditch"if not applicable.
General-Not clear from plans if everything described
in Construction Requirements applies. Pls. Confirm.
41 7-05.3(7) JPW/ Are paragraphs beginning with"Culverts"and
RLM "Bollards"(last) applicable? Dispersal V-ditches and
bollards not evident from plans.
42 7-05.5 JPW/ Top Table- Revise"Water Quality Ponds"to"Water
RLM Quality Pond"
Next para. not crossed out-
l. Revise"Water Quality Ponds"to"Water Quality
Pond" in first and third lines
2. In third line, delete"and dispersal V-ditches" if
not applicable. Is reference to access ramps
applicable? Not evident in Plans.
Next para. (with material quantities listed)-
Introductory line-Change"ponds"to"pond".
18"Dia. LCPE Culvert-Not shown in plans
24" Dia. LCPE Culvert-Not shown in plans
Bollards, fixed-Not shown in plans
Bollards,removable-Not shown in plans.
42 7-05.5 JPW Last para. not crossed out-
Revise"water quality ponds"to"water quality
pond" in fourth line
43 7-05.5 JPW Delete last para.
44 8-01.1(3) JPW/ Nothing shown in Plans or Est. as"Upland Seeding"
RLM designation, only"Upland". See Plans comments for
Sheet MI.
44 8-01.1(4) JPW Similar comment-Plans do not indicate
"Forested/Scrub Shrub Zone"or"Emergent Zone".
45 8-01.2(3) JPW Upland Seeding-See above comment for Page 44
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19t' Street To Sw 31St Street
o Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
P I L PROVISIONS
Review- Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425) 430-7319
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
Spec Sec 8-01.1(3)
45 8-01.2(4) JPW Constructed Wetland Seeding-Nothing shown in
Plans as this designation
48 8-01.4 JPW "Stabilized Construction Entrance", "Storm Drain
Inlet Protection","Upland Seeding"and"Liming"not
included in bid items.
48&49 8-01.5 JPW "Stabilized Construction Entrance","Storm Drain
Inlet Protection'and"Upland Seeding"not included
in bid items.
49 8-01.5 JPW "Straw Mulch"and"Erosion Control Blanket"not
included in bid items.
50 8-02.5 JPW/ Vegetation items shown in table are not included in
RLM bid items
55 8-20.5 JPW Interconnect System Complete listed in table and
included in lump sum para. below it is not included in
bid items
55 8-20.5 RLM Should separate payment for Illumination Systems be
specified for Phase 1B and Phase 2?
64 8-32.3(7) JPW Revise indicated dates
66 8-32.5 JPW Items in table are not included in bid items
INSERT NO. 1 (To be Spec Sec 8-28)
General JPW Delete tooter notes for City of Kelso project
SP-108 1.01 JPW Delete sub-para. C
SP-113 Payment JPW Is"Gravel Borrow Including Haul' supposed to be
this, or should it be"Gravel Backfill for(Welded
Wire)Wall'?
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19"' Street To Sw 31St Street
o Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone# (425) 430-7303
P I L PROVISIONS
Review- Reviewer: James Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425) 430-7319
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
12/02/99
Sheet or Para. Or Reviewer
Page No. Detail Initials Comments Designer Response
(if applicable)
ADDENDUM#1
RLM Applicable items in addendum should be incorporated
in main portion of the Special Provisions.
5-8 of 8 Contract JPW Appears that these revisions are applicable to a
Plans previous contract,not this one
DDENDUM#2
RLM Applicable items in addendum should be incorporated
in main portion of the Special Provisions.
7—T7
STANDARD PLANS
1 Drawing JPW Add the following:
Title G-9a(WSDOT) Overhead Sign Mounting Details
G-9a(WSDOT) Sign Mounting Details
2 Drawing JPW Add the following:
Title J-5 (WSDOT)Pedestrian Pushbutton Details
J-7c(WSDOT) Strain Pole Standards Type IV and V
Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase lb & Phase 2 Sw 19f' Street To Sw 31St Street
50% Design Review- Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone#(425) 430-7303
ESTIMATE Reviewer: James P. Wilhoit, Bob Mahn Phone# (425) 430-7319
12/03/99
Item Description Reviewer
No. Initials Comments Designer Response
PHASE 1B
16 ACP CL A RLM Suggest unit price$35/ton
17 ACP CL E RLM Suggest unit price$30/ton
34 Adjust JPW Should this be"Adjusting Manhole to Grade" as listed
Manhole in Special Provisions Sec 1-07.17?
34 Adjust RLM Quantity 7-6 indicated in plans
Manhole
PHASE 2
10 Gravel JPW See Special Provisions Comment for Spec Sec 2-03.5,
Borrow Incl. page 20. If units should be tons instead of C. Y.,
Haul revise accordingly.
I I Gravel Back- JPW Change to"Gravel Backfill for Welded Wire Wall"
fill for Wall and change units to C. Y. to agree with Special
Provisions
16 Adjusting Ex. RLM Quantity 9- 1 indicated in plans
Manholes&
CBs to Grade
Adjust Valve RLM Not included as bid item but 3 indicated in plans
Cover to
Grade
23 Quarry Spalls RLM Not included in the Spec Section 2-09 indicated. Are
spalls at ends of 36"culverts included with spalls at
Water Quality Pond?
30 ACP CL A RLM Suggest unit price$35/ton
31 ACP CL E RLM Suggest unit price$30/ton
35 Wetland JPW Change to"Constructed Wetland Seeding"to agree
Seeding with Special Provisions
NOV 2 9 1999
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
' SEATTLE DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O.BOX 3755
SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98124-3755
REPLY TO N OV 2 6 1999
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Branch
RECEIVED
DEC - 11999
TaansPOI14 ion Systems Div.
Mr. Bryce Ecklein
Kato and Warren
2003 Western Avenue, Suite 555
Seattle, Washington 98121
Reference: 1999-4-01497
Renton, City of
Dear Mr. Ecklein:
We have received your request on behalf of the city of Renton for Department of the
Army (DA) permit to fill within 1 acre of wetlands adjacent to Springbrook Creek, at Renton,
Washington (secs. 24 and 25, T. 23N., R. 4E.). I will be the project manager for this project
to which we have assigned the File Number 1999-4-01497. Please cite this number in any
correspondence with us concerning this project.
I have completed a preliminary review of the application and need additional information.
Since writing the Biological Assessment, Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout have been listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). You must include bull trout in your
assessment and make a determination on whether you believe the proposed project will affect
this species. In addition, you did not address proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound
Chinook. Finally, we have determined that bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Marsh
sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) may occur within the project area and must be addressed in the
document. I suggest you revise the BA. Incorporate all species listed or proposed for listing
under the ESA using one document. If you believe the proposed project "may affect, is not
likely to adversely affect" bald eagle, Marsh sandwort, and bull trout, then give reasons for
why you believe this is true. I further suggest that you state that the proposed project will have
"no adverse modification or destruction" to proposed critical habitat for Chinook. Finally,
please change the title page of the document to read "Biological Evaluation", and make this
change to all other references within the document. The National Marine Fisheries Service
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prefer the title "Biological Evaluation" for project "not
likely to adversely affect" listed species, and "Biological Assessment" for projects "likely to
adversely affect" listed species. Please incorporate these changes into your BA and re-submit
them at your earliest convenience.
-2-
During the process of coming to a permit decision, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) must assure that pertinent concerns, policies, goals, and requirements contained in
several Federal statutes have been considered and followed. The ESA is one such Federal
statute. The ESA requires that Federal agencies take action as necessary to ensure that they do
not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat for such species [33 CFR 320.3(i), 33 CFR 320.40)(4), 50 CFR Part 17, and 50 CFR
Part 402].
Under our program, permit applications are reviewed for the potential impact on
threatened and endangered species pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, as amended. We must
evaluate information on the presence of listed species (including timing and life stages), habitat
for such species or their prey sources, and other parameters. To expedite the review of this
application, we encourage you to submit any information you may have about the project site
and/or construction techniques. Enclosed is a list of requested information that would greatly
assist us in reviewing this application. If you have not included this information in the
documentation you submitted, please do so when you revise the document.
We will be evaluating the impacts of this project on these species and suggest that you
provide this additional information if you can. Please tell me if you plan to submit the
requested information or collect the information and write a biological document yourself. If
you elect not to provide this additional information, and do not write a biological document for
the proposed work, the Corps' Regulatory Branch will collect this information and I may
contact you in the future to clarify project details. I must perform this review for the majority
of applications I receive, so I request your patience as I attempt to serve all applicants in as
timely and equitable a manner as possible.
We will process your application as quickly as possible. However, you must actively
pursue gathering the requested information. We will cancel this application if no additional
information is received within 30 days from the date of this letter. If you have questions, you
may contact me at telephone (206) 764-6909.
Sincerely,
Lori Morris
Project Manager
Enclosure
June 25, 1999
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NECESSARY RECEIVED
TO EXPEDITE
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REVIEW DEC - 1999
Transportation Systems Div.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Corps must evaluate the potential impacts of the
proposal to listed and proposed species and their critical habitat before we can reach a permit
decision. The following information will help the Corps' assessment of the impacts of the
proposed work on fish and their habitat.
Marine/Estuarine Environment:
1. Description of substrate to be dredged, filled, moved, and/or stockpiled onto, or
built over (e.g., mud, sand, gravel, cobble, bedrock, other).
2. Distribution of eelgrass and macroalgae (preferably by underwater survey) in the
project area.
3. Species and distribution of vegetation along banks on the applicant's property,
including any intertidal vascular plants (e.g., pickleweed).
4. Construction techniques
a. Excavation area, even if reestablished after construction.
b. Equipment to be used, such as backhoe or clam shell.
c. Describe method to access work area (e.g., barge mounted or route by
land), including new access roads required.
d. Describe sediment control methods.
5. Photographs of the project site: Overall view from one end parallel to the shoreline
and one or more photos of the substrate at low tide.
6. Forage fish spawning areas present? Salmonid rearing or migration areas present?
(Can check with WDFW staff or data base.)
7. Description of proposed project elements that are in the action area but not in
waters of the U.S., including removal of vegetation, creation of impervious
surfaces; and proposed work timing. (Under ESA, the action area is "all areas to
be affected directly or indirectly by the [work allowed by Federal permit] and not
merely the immediate area involved in the action.")
Freshwater Environment:
1. Description of substrate to be dredged, filled, moved, and/or stockpiled onto, or
built over (e.g., mud, sand, gravel, cobble, bedrock, other).
2. Species and distribution of riparian, emergent, and submerged aquatic vegetation in
the project area.
3. Description of existing natural structure in the water (e.g., logs, rocks, overhanging
bank, shallow slope bank), including number, size, etc.
4. Construction techniques
a. Excavation area, even if reestablished after construction.
b. Equipment to be used, such as backhoe or clam shell.
-2-
c. Describe method to access work area (e.g., barge mounted or route by land),
including new access roads required.
d. Describe sediment control methods.
5. Salmonid or bull trout spawning areas or habitat present? (Can check with WDFW
staff or data base.)
a. area of stream basin above project (square miles or kilometers).
b. type of stream (perennial or intermittent).
6. Photographs of the project site parallel to shoreline showing the water and land.
7. Description of proposed project elements that are in the action area but not in
waters of the U.S., including removal of vegetation, creation of impervious
surfaces; and proposed work timing. (Under ESA, the action area is "all areas to
be affected directly or indirectly by the [work allowed by Federal.permit] and not
merely the immediate area involved in the action.")
y
MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
Project: Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase 1B & Phase Phase 2
Date: December 3, 1999
Subject: Project Design Meeting No. 1
Project Manager: Joe Armstrong Phone #: 425-430-7303
Name Affiliation/Representing Phone #
�0V� Irl C)fy off' ��f�� `y z- -q3y ^ 7ay7
� tiy (����� `R£i��rs�.,_ (�lti°,�;r� l�tU�( �S�i� q-'�� •4'�r; -ti�.�
C leen 2422 --7303
731 �1
I ay. ky4 E k2 E 9 Q rrfin 9-06 - 4-4-8- 417,00
ark QroL-Y-I r �t.-�o Z' 04rmr,- N8-4zoo
& rfZ S--S`3o-7LO
!L 6N o �25 - 3A . 7223
c:\Project\Oakesdale Phase II\signupl
Oakesdale Avenue SW - Wetland Mitigation
A Category 1, Palustrine Scrub/Shrub wetland would be filled by widening of Oakesdale Avenue
SW to the east. This project proposes to fill 1.01 acres of this wetland.
The current Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows only for creation or restoration as mitigation for
wetlands impacts; there shall be no net loss of wetland; and mitigation created wetlands shall in no
case be a lower category than the altered wetlands. The newly created Phase I mitigation
wetlands are Category 2, not Category 1. This precludes use of the banked 1.05 acres of wetland
from Phase 1.
Definitions:
West Wetland - The Category I wetland that would be impacted along the east side of
Oakesdale Avenue.
Berm- The upland roadway/berm that defines the boundary between the East and West
Wetlands.
East Wetland - The Category 2 wetland located between the Berm and Springbrook
Creek.
The East Wetland appears to be just slightly greater than ten acres in size. It has three wetland
vegetation types, but does not have open water. By damming the small outlet ditch to
Springbrook Creek and excavating a three-foot deep pond behind it, we should be able to create
a perennial open water wetland. This would upgrade the East Wetland to Category 1 and allow
its use for mitigation.
There is about 2.5 acres of reed canarygrass in the East Wetland. Canarygrass is an exotic,
invasive species indicating past disturbance to the area. Conversion of these areas to scrub/shrub
habitat by live staking and/or planting tall native species shrubs would be considered restoration
work, as opposed to calling it enhancement.
There is a maximum of about 2.0 acres of the Berm that could be converted from upland to any
type of wetland desired. I would suggest a conifer-dominated palustrine forested wetland, since
this is a wetland type and wildlife habitat type that is very limited in the Black River basin. It
would also be the easiest and least expensive to create with a high probability of success.
Under the existing SAO, mitigation for proposed impacts must have a minimum of 1.01 acres
created Category 1 wetland and 2.02 acres of Category 1 wetland restoration. This is shown on
the attached drawing of Minimum Mitigation as 1.01 a. Creation, 0.25 a. Conversion and 1.8 a.
Restoration. The Maximum Mitigation treatment provides approximately 1.6 acres of additional
Category 1 wetlands creation/restoration for Wetlands Banking.
The proposed wetlands amendments to the SAO has the same requirements of equal or higher
category replacement. Using the amended SAO and classifying the conversion of reed
canarygrass to shrub/scrub as enhancement rather than restoration would require 1.01 acres
creation, 0.51 acres of creation/restoration and 2.02 acres of enhancement.
}
Category I Scrub/Shrub Wetland Impact Mitigation
Impact - Fill 1.01 acres
Banked wetland creation from Phase I - 1.05 acres, Category 2
Banked wetland enhancement from Phase I - 1.5 acres, Category 2
Existing, SAO —Wetland creation/restoration at 3:1 replacement ratio -No Net Loss
3.03 acres Class 1 replacement required
Minimum Mitigation Treatment
Wetland modification to create Category lwetland - 0.25 acre Open water pond
1.01 acres creation of forested wetland on berm
1.8 acres restoration of reed canarygrass to scrub/shrub wetland
Maximum Mitigation Treatment
Wetland modification to create Category lwetland - 0.25 acre Open water pond
2.0 acres creation of forested wetland on berm
2.4 acres restoration of reed canarygrass to scrub/shrub wetland
Proposed SAO - minimum replacement and enhancement
Wetland modification to create Category lwetland - 0.25 acre Open water pond -
Wetland creation/restoration at 1.5:1 replacement ratio - 1.52 acres needed
Wetland Enhancement at 2:1 replacement ratio - 2.02 acres needed
Costs - see attached Cost Estimate sheet
Open Water/Pond Creation $34,992.00
Wetland Creation/Restoration/Enhancement
Existing SAO
Minimum treatment (L 01 a. Create/L 8a. Restore) $469,481.00
reduction for bare root planting ($ 93,711.00)
Maximum treatment (2a. Create/2.4a. Restore) $904,306.00
reduction for bare root planting ($185,565.00)
Proposed SAO Treatment
Minimum Treatment (1.5a. Create/2.02a. Enhance) $683,021.00
reduction for bare root planting ($139,174.00)
Totals Minimum Treatment -Bare root planting $410,762.00
Maximum Treatment - Potted plants $939,298.00
Proposed SAO -Bare root planting $578,839.00
OAKSDALE PHASE II - WETLAND MITIGATION COST ESTIMATES
WETLAND CREATION AREAS
Assumptions:
Excavate 8 feet deep ($15/cy);
Top soil import 4 feet depth ($22/cy);
67% tree cover;
33% shrub cover;
18 inch Western red-cedar @ 48 inches on center;
18 inch Sitka spruce @ 48 inches on center;
18 inch Douglas-fir at 48 inches on center;
2 gallon R. O. Dogwood/ninebark @ 48 inches on center;
willow slips @ 24 inches on center;
1 year plant establishment period
Wetland Creation Cost per s.f.: $9.78/sf(w/Containerized Plants @$2.13/sf, Earthwork $7.65)
Wetland Creation Cost per s.f.: $7.65/sf(wBare-root Plants @$0.20./sf, Earthwork $7.65)
WETLAND RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT AREAS
Assumptions:
90% shrub cover;
10% emergent cover;
willow slips @ 24 inches on center (@$2/ea);
red-osier dogwood/ninebark slips@ 24 inches on center (@$2/ea);
Wetland Restoration/Enhancement Cost per s.f.: $0.50/sf
WETLAND GRUBBING FOR OPEN WATER CREATION
Assumptions:
'/4 Acre area
Saturated soils requiring log matting for access,
Excavate/haul 36 inches;
Est. earthwork at $25/cy
Wetland Grubbing Cost per s.f.: $2.80/sf
WEHUDAM FOR OPEN WATER
Assumptions:
24 Inches high
Cedar or Douglas fir logs;
Hand and machine work;
Weir Cost complete: $4,500.00
Existing SAO Existing SAO Propposed SAO
Minimum Treatment Maximum Treatment Minimum Treatment
Open Water/Pond Creation $34,992.00 $34,992.00 $34,992.00 $34,992.00 $34,992.00 $34,992.00
Wetland Creation/Restoration
Potted Plantings $469,481.00 $904,306.00 $683,021.00
Bare Root Plantings $375,770.00 $718,741.00 $543,847.00
TOTAL COST $504,473.00 $410,762.00 $939,298.00 $753,733.00 $718,013.00 $578,839.00
Introduction
The City of Renton is proposing to connect the disjunct portion of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. between
S.W. 27°i Street and an extension that is located at approximately S.W. 30`h Street. These two roads
are currently connected by a low grade, two-lane paved road that is blocked to all traffic. The
construction to upgrade this road to four lanes would impact 1.01 acres of wetland ecosystems along
its eastern edge.
Project Location
Figure 1 shows the project location on Oakesdale Avenue SW just south of the new Boeing facilities
on the old Longacres Racetrack land. The site occurs within the USGS - Renton Quadrangle at
T23N, R4E, Section 25, W. M. The project area is located approximately 1,600 feet west of
Springbrook Creek, a tributary to the Black River.
Current Existing Conditions
The wetlands report for Phase I of the Oakesdale Avenue improvements delineated a Class I
palustrine scrub/shrub wetland adjacent to the unused section of Oakesdale Avenue between SW 27`h
and SW 30''' Streets (Figure 2). This wetland is actually a combination of what the report labeled
as Wetlands F and G. These two wetlands are connected by a 48-inch pipe that allows for free
interchange of water, fish, or other organisms. The total wetland area is greater than 10 acres in size,
contains open water, palustrine forested, palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine emergent vegetation
types. It is classified as palustrine scrub/shrub because it is not hydrologically connected to a stream
or river, it has less than 20 percent forest overstory and over 60 percent of the area is dominated by
wetland shrub species or trees less than 20 feet tall.
The proposed mitigation site is located immediately to the east of the wetland that would be
impacted. The mitigation site(Figure 3)currently has about 2 acres of upland and slightly more than
10 acres of wetland adjacent to Springbrook Creek. The upland is an old, unused roadbed that
primarily supports black cottonwood of various ages and an understory of Himalayan blackberry,
nettle and assorted other disturbance species. Approximately midway down this road a small culvert
(18" dia. and 3-4-foot drop) allows surface water to flow from west to east, but not back.
The wetland portion of the mitigation site area supports a Class 2 wetland having palustrine forested,
scrub/shrub and emergent vegetation types. The forested wetland is dominated by red alder and black
cottonwood, the scrub/shrub type supports various willows and spiraea and the emergent type is
dominated by reed canarygrass with a small amount of cattails. The upland that defines the east side
of this wetland is the berm constructed to channelize Springbrook Creek. A small ditch breaches this
berm to drain flood waters that overtop the berm. From winter through spring the ditch carries very
low flows (<O.1 cfs in March/April) of ground water from this wetland into Springbrook Creek.
Project Activities and Potential Impacts
The project is proposing to construct two additional lanes along the east side of the existing roadway
and add a paved sidewalk along the west side. The fill required for these improvements will encroach
on wetland to the east of the project. Approximately 1.01 acres of Class 1palustrine scrub/shrub
wetland will be filled. The culverted connection between wetlands on either side of the roadway will
be maintained through a similar culvert to be located at the current crossing. Stormwater retention
and treatment facilities will be constructed to meet water quality regulations.
The wetlands being impacted have moderate to high functions and values, as rated by the modified
Reppert Method. The wetland functions that would be reduced or lost due to project impacts include
water quality improvement, flood storage and wildlife habitat. The upland/wetland site proposed for
mitigation has low function and value due to past roadway construction, diking, channeling and
dominance of invasive herbaceous species.
Proposed Mitigation
The City of Renton's Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires:
No net loss of wetlands,
Replacement wetlands must be the same Category or higher, _
a creation/restoration replacement ratio of 3:1 for Category 1 Scrub/Shrub wetlands, and
mitigation will be in the same drainage.
The mitigation being proposed will replace the lost wetland with a combination of open water and
palustrine forest wetland creation and palustrine scrub/shrub restoration(Figure 4).
Wetland Type Acrea e
Open Water creation 0.25
Forested creation 1.01
Scrub/shrub restoration 1.80
Total 3.06
The open water being created will provide a wetland type that is needed to upgrade the mitigation
site to Category 1 status as well as provide for enhanced water quality, flood control and
recharge/discharge. An area of 0.25 acres of existing palustrine emergent reed canarygrass would
be grubbed out in the vicinity of the existing ditch through the berm. A log weir will control outflows
ofboth natural runoff and flood waters,maintaining the pond elevation at roughly 2-3 feet higher than
the current ditch bottom elevation. No planting around the pond is planned as its construction will
be directly into wetland vegetation.
The unused upland roadway will be excavated to below the natural water table and filled with
forestable soils to a level that will permit development of wetland forest species as the dominant
vegetation. The west edge of the roadway and configuration of the culvert that separates the two
wetlands will be retained so that the hydrology of the existing Class 1 wetland will not be modified
by mitigation activities. The forest wetland being created will be planted with coniferous tree species,
providing a type of wetland wildlife habitat that has become very limited in the lower Green River
basin.
The scrub/shrub restoration will concentrate on removing reed canarygrass dominated vegetation and
replacing it with willow and red-osier dogwood shrubs. The plan is to live-stake the existing reed
canarygrass portions of the wetland with five to six-foot long slips of various willow species and red-
osier dogwood. As evidenced by similar projects, it can be expected that a high percentage of the
shrubs will establish within the first year and begin to shade out the canarygrass within three to five
years. This methodology greatly reduces the disturbance to an existing wetland site and accomplishes
the otherwise extremely difficult task of removing highly invasive vegetation from a site.
A work plan, performance standards, monitoring plan and contingency plan will be developed to
ensure that mitigation for lost wetlands and changed functions and values is successful. The
mitigation activities outlined above are expected to provide a net gain in wetland functions within two
to three years and much higher functions and values in five to seven years.
Summary
The City of Renton is proposing to connect the disjunct portion of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. between
S.W. 270'Street and an extension that is located at approximately S.W. 30'h Street. The construction
to upgrade this road to four lanes with sidewalk along the west side would impact 1.01 acres of
wetland ecosystems along its;eastern edge. The wetland is a Class I palustrine shrub/scrub wetland
that supports open water, scrub/shrub,emergent and forested wetland types. Mitigation will take the
form of upgrading an existing Class 2 wetland to Class 1 status, and will create or restore a total of
3.06 acres of open water, palustrine forested and palustrine scrub/shrub wetland. Enhanced water
quality, flood control, and recharge/discharge and improved wildlife habitat are the benefits that
would be derived from this project.
Slur• 2'th S-re t —...__
{
t x i
Y
i
T
f-'
is
i•:
�SS i
a y
oj,3'<<,-K�
1
i
1
s
s
m s;
2_ Lk)R+� o-..�
........ ....
_ .....
p ss
i
Upl�
,.
}i
i
1
jfr(
S.X
3
ss �
s.
s
Cmo¢.rSitr�. P�cM `�OU1
CA.eUC" 1 viP l•u1 :�ioH (a..v-+ PP-o
U f.8 re-5�—.A," VEM-'p Pss
Mxxi:i
•w
„g
1
i,wF
„x!
,x
x
•„x
ghat �
'ice„;x,Y�' �F?•�?'"m .� ,�`� - � _
"xxix. '�E�aixxr c�•�' .
r:�..,„art,„ u x:c `x �?'„it.x„•.,,�,•,°„,."•rt x
x�^'xa„xxi'.•�xix.�:,• iix••i:'x �::i;xii���:ri••
wx' i• x ri� .
� 1 �
Oakesdale Avenue SW - Wetland Mitigation
A Category 1, primarily Palustrine Scrub/Shrub wetland would be filled by widening of
Oakesdale Avenue SW to the east. This project proposes to fill 1.01 acres of this wetland.
Definitions:
West Wetland - The Category 1 wetland that would be impacted along the east side of
Oakesdale Avenue.
Berm- The upland roadway/berm that defines the east boundary of West Wetland.
East Wetland - The Category 2 wetland that is present between the Berm and
SpringbrookCreek.
The current Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows only for creation or restoration as mitigation for
wetlands impacts. Also under MA.a. mitigation created wetlands shall in no case be a lower
category than the altered wetlands. Bryce did not think that the Phase 1 mitigation created
Category 1 wetlands, and Kirk Hackler, Osborn Pacific, was of the opinion that the new Phase 1
wetland would be a Category 2. This would preclude our use of the banked 1.05 acres from
Phase 1.
The East Wetland appears to be just slightly greater than ten acres in size. It has three wetland
vegetation types, but does not have open water. By damming the small outlet ditch to
Springbrook Creek and excavating a three-foot deep pond behind it, we should be able to create
ephemeral open water, if not possibly a perennial pond. This would upgrade the East Wetland to
Category 1 and allow us to use it for mitigation.
There is about 2.5 acres of reed canarygrass in the East Wetland. Canarygrass being an exotic,
invasive species, we should be able to classify conversion of those areas to scrub/shrub habitat by
live stalking and/or planting tall wetland shrub species as restoration work, as opposed to
enhancement. This would be the least expensive treatment with very high probability of success.
There is a maximum of about 2.0 acres of the Berm that could be converted from upland to any
type of wetland desired. I would suggest a conifer-dominated palustrine forested wetland, since
this is a wetland type and wildlife habitat type that is very limited in the Black River basin. It
would also be the easiest and least expensive to create with a high probability of success.
The amended wetlands portion of the SAO has the same requirements of equal or higher category
replacement. As discussed above, classifying the removal of reed canarygrass as restoration work
would place the project under the current SAO, and would require only 3.03 acres of
creation/restoration as opposed to 1.52 acres creation/restoration and 2.02 acres of enhancement
under the proposed amended SAO.
f>rv) cr - 6147 - gaDD
l611�1 41- Ne,'w 0-..-
Category I Scrub/Shrub Wetland
Fill - 1.01 acres
Banked wetland creation from Phase I - 1.05 acres, probably Category 2 �-
r
Banked wetland enhancement from Phase I - 1.5 acres, probably Category 2
Existing SAO — 3.03 acres replacement required
Wetland modification to create Category lwetland - 0.25 acre Open water pond
Wetland creation/restoration at 3:1 replacement ratio - 3.03 acres needed
2.0 acres creation on Berm
1.03 acres restoration in East Wetland
Proposed SAO - minimum replacement and enhancement variable
Wetland modification to create Category lwetland - 0.25 acre Open water pond
Wetland creation/restoration at 1.5:1 replacement ration - 1.52 acres needed
Wetland Enhancement at 2:1 replacement ratio - 2.02 acres needed
Costs - see attached estimate sheet
Open Water/Pond Creation
$34,992.00 INA
Wetland Creation z 1 L
n\ 'Z
Minimum treatment (lea. Create/2.4a.restore) $255,610.00
reduction for bare root planting ($ 50,442.48)
Maximum treatment (2a. Create l). Restore) $852,033.60
reduction for bare root plantin� ($168,141.60)
Wetland Restoration r,11^oAcrwtA ?
Minimum Treatment $167,270.40
Maximum Treatment $69,696.30
Totals Minimum Treatment $422,880.40
Maximum Treatment $921,729.90
OAKSDALE PHASE II WETLAND MITIGATION COST ESTIMATES
WETLAND CREATION AREAS
Assumptions:
• Excavate 8 feet deep ($15/cy);
4 feet depth of import ($22/cy);
• 67% tree cover;
• 33% shrub cover;
• 18 inch Western Red Cedar @ 48 inches on center;
• 18 inch Sitka Spruce @ 48 inches on center;
18 inch Douglas Fir at 48 inches on center;
• 2 gallon R. 0. Dogwood/ ninebark @ 48 inches on center;
willow slips @ 24 inches on center;
• 1 year plant establishment period
Wetland Areas Cost per s.f.: $9.78/sf (w/Containerized Plants @$2.13/sf,
Earthwork $7.65)
Wetland Areas Cost per s.f.: $7.65/sf (w/Bare-root Plants @$0.20./sf;
Earthwork $7.65)
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS
Assumptions:
• 90% tree cover;
• 10% shrub cover;
willow slips @ 18 inches on center
• R. 0. Dogwood/ ninebark slips@ 18 inches on center (@$3/ea);
Wetland Enhancement Areas Cost per s.f.: $1.60/sf
WETLAND GRUBBING
Assumptions:
• 1/4 Acre area
• Saturated soils requiring log matting for access;
• Excavate/haul 36 inches;
• Est. earthwork at $25/yd
Wetland Grubbing Cost per s.f.: $2.80/sf
WEIR
Assumptions:
24 Inches high
• Cedar or Douglas fir logs,
• Hand and machine work;
Weir Cost complete: $4,500.00
.................. ........ ................ ............
SW 27th St-ef
?5S
13
pss
..........
..........
.. ........
. ............................
...........
.............. ......_..,.,..._.....
SV ^7es. ..._____......
._....._.
pss
3
�S
S
k
i
3
(j(3
1
i
M
z�
ks.
c
U Z•`f 3
—.._._.�......._.._....._....�.......
SW 27th
t j
{
�55
i
i
k
?�
.• s
1
A
a �' f
reµ
:�wN
f
Core�� r � 2 UJ
OAKESDALE A VENUE EXTENSION, PHASES 1 B & 2
1999
ID Task No. Task Name Duration Earl Start Early Finish Apr I may Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
1 NOTICE TO PROCEED 0 days Fri 4116199 Fri 4116199 4/16
2 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 239 days Fri 4/16/99 Wed 3/15/00
3 1.1 Prepare CPM Schedule 2 days Mon 5/24/99 Tue 5/25/99
:......._.......................... ................. ..............................................
.....,.. .......................................................:......_.................
4 1.2 Monthly Progress Reports & Billings 223 days: Mon 5/10/99 Wed 3/15/00 �y
»w
5 1.3 Management, Direction &Coordination F
9 239 days' Fri 4/16/99 Wed 3/1.►/00
vK
6 1.4 Quality Assurance
175 days Fri 4/16/99 Thu 12/16/99
...................... ..........._.......... .............. . .....................
.............
yss w� 8
7 2.0 MEETINGS 210 days Fri 4/16/99 Thu 2/3100
...............................................................:..................__.....................................................-................................._........_.........................._.............................................._.........................................................................: _......................_.._..................................................
8 2.1 Kickoff Meeting & Field Review 0.5 days Fri 4/23/99 Fri 4/23i99
9 2.2 _ PermittingMeetings (Monthly) 21 Fri
9 ( Y) 0 days' rl 4/16/99 Thu 2/3/00
......... ................... .. ...._.__...... ........_....... ................_ ....._... ...._._. ..__... ._............. __... .... _._ ..........i. _....._.. __.. _ -
10 2.3 Progress Meetings 100 days Tue 6/1/99 Mon 10/18/99
....._.............. ....................................... �...
..... ....
11 2.4 Internal &Other Meetings 100 days Thu 9/2/99 .`'�
!; s. �,mow».u., ---,%,�,,.yy�4, :=.. .,� -w �va:"� �� ..................................................... ............................................... .......................
s Fri 4/1
12 3.0 INITIAL STUDIES 74 days Fri 4/16/99 Wed 7/28/99
13 1 3.1 Data Collection& Review 20 days Fri 4116199 Thu 5/13I99
.........._........_..>...........................__.........;.._..............__...._............_..................................................................................................................................................................
.................................._......................................................_..........................
.._......_._.......__..........__...... .....__............_....__......-._
14 3.2 Review Geotechnical Report 5 days'! Tue 6/1/99 Mon 6/7i99
15 3.3 Wetland Delineation 5 days' Fri 5114/99 Thu 5/20/99
..
16 3.4 Determine Phase I Wetland Credits 5 days' Tue 6/1/99 Mon 6/7/99
17 3.5 Coordinate with Permitting Agencies 60 days Fri 4/16/99 Thu 7/8/99
w
.................................................. .... ..................................................:........................................................._..............................................._................................................
18 3.6 Preliminary Wetland Mitigation Plan 20 days Tue 6/8/99 Mon 7/5/99 -
19 3.7 Coordinate with Boeing 40 days Tue 6/1/99 Mon 7/26/99
20 3.8 Prepare Base Plans 5 days Fri 4/16/99 Thu 4/22199
..._,. ...... .._.. ...... .........._. ............................... .. .. ..... ..........._ ..........__........................... .
.. .................. ....................................................................................................................... .........
21 3.9 Review& Refine Initial Alignment Concept 20 days Fri 5/14/99 Thu 6110,199
22 3.10 Develop Drainage Concepts 20 days Fri 5121199 Thu 6/17/99
- ... ...----...... ...__........--_-------._..._
..... ... ........ _......... ------------ _...._... .
23 3.11 Coordinate with Utility Agencies 20 days Thu 7/1/99 Wed 7/28/99 .
.................................................._..................................................................................................................................................... ....... ........................................................._................................................. .............
;
..........
24 3.12 Finalize Design Standards 5 days' Fri 6118199 Thu 6124199 w;•
m
25 3.13 Preliminary Cost Estimate 5 days Fri 6125199 Thu 7/1/99
K
.......... ....... .............:....... ......... ...... ......_.............._........................._ ............. ......................... ............. '......... ___..........................._............ ...
26 3.14 Prepare Project Definition Report 10 days Fri 7/2/99 Thu 7115199...... _ ................
.............. ...........................................................
27 SUBMIT PROJECT DEFINITION REPORT 0 days Thu 7115199 Thu 7/15199 i 5
... .... . ................................................. ..... .............................;. ....._........... ................ .. .......................................... ......... . ..........._...
28 3.15 City Review of Project Definition Report 5 days Fri 7/16/99 Thu 7/22/99
29 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 40 days Fri 7/30/99 Thu 9/23/99MEW
30 4.1 Geotechnical Investigation & Draft Report 25 days' Fri 7/30/99 Thu 9/2/99
.................................... .............. ... .. ....... ...... ................
:...... ..................
..............
....
...... ...... ..._.. ... ........... ........... .......... ............ ...................... ...................... ..
31 SUBMIT DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 0 days', Thu 9/2/99 Thu 9/2/99 9/2
Oakesdale Avenue Extension, Task 77, Milestone SummaryCritical Ci Task
Phases 1 B&2 �� � � T
Date:Wed 526/99
Page 1
I f
OAKESDALE A VENUE EXTENSION, PHASES 1 B & 2
1999
ID Task No. Task Name Duration Earl Start Earl Finish A r Ma Jun Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
32 4.2 City Review of Draft Geotechnical Report 5 days Fri 9/3/99 Thu 9/9/99
33 4.3 Prepare Final Geotechnical Report 10 days Fri 9/10/99 Thu 9/23/99
_.
34 SUBMIT FINAL GEOTECHN/CAL REPORT 0 days Thu 9123199 Thu 9123199
.. ......... ....... .. ....... 9/23
35 5.0 PERMITTING & SEPA ACTIVITIES 176 days Thu 613/99 Thu 2/3/00
36 5.1 Prepare Biological Assessment (BA) 30 days Thu 6/3/99 Wed 7/14/99 � .
37 5.2 Application to USACE 30 days Fri 6/11/99 Thu 7/22/99
.... .... ... ... ............ .......... ... . ...... ............ ......... . ..........
.................... ..
38 5.1 Finalize Permits&SEPA Documentation 30 days Fri 7/23/99 Thu 9/2/99
..... ... ........ ...................._. . _._............_.. .. ......................................... .. ....................................
...................... .. .. _...............
39 5.3 Prepare Public Notice Package 15 days Fri 9/3/99 Thu 9/23/99 ;w
40 5.2 Meetings with Permitting Agencies 30 days Fri 8/20/99 Thu 9/30/99
_...................................................
...............................................
41 5.4 Continuing Permit Assistance 90 days Fri 10/1/99 Thu 2/3/00 L
......................... ......._.......... _............ .............. ........_.................._......_..............I......._.......................
42 OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 0 days Thu 2/3/00 Thu 2/3/00
ZS
43 6.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN(500/6) 46 days: Fri 7/16/99 Fri 9/17/99NNW
........
44 6.1 Roadway Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections 20 days Fri 7116199 Thu 8112/99
......._.........._.... .._.. ........................_............._............._..........................................._...._................ ..._.._..........._.........................._
...................:............_........ ............................... _.._......__..............._..__.............
...................................._.........._..
45 6.2 Drainage Layout Plans & Profiles 25 days Fri 7123199 Thu 8126199 Yv
......... ... .................................................9......................................... ....... .........- .... - ..... ....................................................................................................... ......................................................... ... ..........
46 6.3 Wetland Mitigation Plans 20 days Fri 7/23/99 Thu 8/19/99
. .-......
47 6.4 Traffic Signal & Illumination Layout 25 days Fri 7/16/99 Thu 8/19/99C7 F4w
48 6.5 Utility Relocation/Installation Layout 20 days Fri 7/23/99 Thu 8/19/99 :
....._........
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .. ..........:.............................................................. ...............................................................>..............................................................................
49 6.6 Retaining Wall Plans 20 days' Fri 7/23/99 Thu 8/19/99 :ram
50 6.7 Preliminary Cost Estimate 10 days Fri 8120199 Thu 912199 ��4
........... _.._ .... ..
-
51 6.8 Identify Special Provisions Required 8 days Fri 8/20/99 Tue 8/31/991
. ............................................................................ .......................................................... _ ....... ... ........ .. .... .. .. .....
52 6.9 Assemble Preliminary Design(509,61) 6 days Fri 8127199 Fri 9/3/99
53 SUBMIT PRELIMINARY DESIGN(50%) 0 days Fri 913/99 Fri 913199
- -........ . .... _.. ._. .. ......... .... ... _....... ...- .......... _..
54 ; 6.10 City Review of Preliminary Design 10 days Mon 9/6/99 Fri 9/17/99
... .............. ... ... . .......... ................... . ..... ...... .............................
....._<.......................... ................. .............. .
55 7.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 40 days Mon 9/6/99 Fri 10/29/99
_ ....... ...................................... ........... .............................................................................. ...........................................................
.......................................... ............
56 7.1 Prepare Right-of-Way Plans 15 days Mon 9/6/99 Fri 9/24/99
....... .. . ._
57 7.2 Prepare Legal Descriptions 30 days Mon 9/20/99 Fri 10/29/99
... . ............................. ............
..... .. ....:. ........................... ............
58 8.0 FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E 74 days Mon 9/6/99 Thu 12/16/99
... . ___ .................. .. ..... ............ ...... . .......................... .
.. ....
59 8.1 T...........................................................ical Sections 5 days Mon 9/20/99 Fri 9/24/99
60 8.2 Roadway Plans& Profiles 20 days Mon 916199 Fri 1011199
......... .................. .;..................................._.............................................. .. ......... ........... ............... ............. ........... .. ........
61 &3 Drainage Plans, Profiles & Report 30 days Mon 916199 Fri 10115199
... .._c.......... ........: .................................................... ..... ...... .......-....................—. ............. ............... ........... ..
62 8.4 Utility Relocation/Installation Plans & Profiles 20 days Mon 9/6/99 Fri 10/1/99
Oakesdale Avenue Extension, Task Milestone ♦ Summary Critical CityTask
Phases 1 B&2 �� ---
Date:Wed 5/26/99
Page 2
OAKESDALE AVENUE EXTENSION, PHASES 1 B & 2
1999
ID Task No. Task Name Duration Early Start Early Finish Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
63 8.5 Retaining Wall Plans 25 days Mon 9/6/99 Fri 10/8/99 _
64 8.6 Traffic Signal & Interconnect Plans 20 days Mon 9/13/99 Fri 10/8/99 '
............. ................... . .. .. ........ _ _. ... ........ _ ........
65 8.7 Illumination Plans 20 days Mon 9/13/99 Fri 10/8/99
....................... ............... ... ...... . ........ ................. . ..:..... ........................................................,........................................................................... ...... __ .......... ... .................__........ . . .. ..........
66 8.8 Signing & Pavement Marking Plans 10 days Mon 9/20/99 Fri 10/1/99
67 8.9 Traffic Control Plans 10 days Mon 9/20/99 Fri 10/1l99
............................................. ................. -----..._---------.....-----.._........ ............. -------_......--- -------...._...._......-----------.._.............................................__......._........................... ._...................................................................................-------------------
68 8.10 Wetland Mitigation Plans 20 days Mon 9/13/99 Fri 10/8/99
...............:.......................... .. .... ......... . ...... ...._......... .. .................... . . ..... . . ................._............ , . . ......... ......... ......... ......._. ..
69 8.11 Landscape Design Plans 20 days Mon 9/13/99 Fri 10/8/99
.............._......................... ........... ................... ....... ......................................................._................... ... ........._.._...._.._.._ ........................................................................:.,........ . ...
70 8.12 Temporary Erosion Control Plans 20 days Mon 9/13/99 Fri 10/8/99
.......................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................. ................................................................. ...............
71 8.13 Miscellaneous Plans 32 days Mon 9/6/99 Tue 10/19/99
......................... _.._.... ____ __ ..... _ _.... .._....._.....___.._._..........................................................................................................._....--..:.._._................................................;..........................................................................
.....:......................_.............................._.. ......
72 8.13.1 Cover Sheet 5 days Mon 9/6/99 Fri 9/10/99
.................._......_._...._......_......-._..............._............................._......---................_..............- --.._._..._ ......._.......................-...................................._..............
....................................................................
73 8.13.2 Abbreviations 2 days Mon 9/6/99 Tue 9/7/99
..............
74 8.13.3 Summary of Quantities Sheets 10 days Wed 1016199 Tue 10119199
......... I .............. .................................... .. .. .... .......... .......................... ....... ...................................... .. ..................... .....
75 8.13.4 Superelevation, Fencing &Other Details 30 days Mon 9/6/99 Fri 10/15/994v w,u„
---------- - .._.._.._........_..............__................................................................................................................._...._.._..-............................................................................._................................................__....-._.. ...............................
._......_........... .............. :..............
....... ..................
76 8.13.5 Standard Plans 5 days l Wed 10/6/99 Tue 10/12/99
77 8.14 Special Provisions 30 days Mon 9/6/99 Fri 10/15/99
.... ._. .... .....
78 i &15 Draft Engineers Estimate 5 days Fri 10115199 Thu 10121199
........... . .................
79 &16 Assemble Draft PS&E for Review 5 days Fri 10122499 Thu 10128199
......_......_.......:......................................................................................................................................................._................. . . . ...............................................................:.........................................................................................................................................e..................................................................
..........
80 SUBMIT DRAFT PS&E(9061) 0 days Thu 10128199 Thu 10128199 10/28
--------------................................. ........................_.............................................................................................................. ...................................... ................................................................. ...............
81 &17 City Review of Draft PS&E 15 days Fri 10129199 Thu 11118199
................
._..._..._.._........._... .. - ----------------------------- _
---- -................._...........---.._.......................,............... ---.
82 8.18 Respond to Review Comments 15 days Fri 11119199 Thu 1219199
:...................
.........................
.........
_.........................................................................................................................................................................................................._.........._......................_...................................................................................................:.....................................................................
........
83 8.19 Final Quantity Calculations 5 days Fri 12/3/99 Thu 12/9/99
84 8.20 Engineer's Estimate 4 days; Fri 12/10/99 Wed 12/15/99
...........
....._......................._.............._......-----._....---------- -------------........__.._.....------------__..__.......------............_........ ..... _....__..._. - -- - ..._.. ---............................................... -' -
85 8.21 Cross Sections&Staking Details 5 days Fri 11/26/99 Thu 12/2/99
.................................................................................................................................................................. ..............:........................................................................................................................................>........................................................ ................................................................ ............... ..................................................................................................... --.................................................... .....
86 8.22 Assemble Final PS&E 5 days' Fri 12110199 Thu 12116199
........... .
87 SUBMIT FINAL PS&E(100%) 0 days Thu 12116199 Thu 12116199 12/16
.. _. .
88 9.0 ASSISTANCE DURING BID PERIOD 63 days;, Tue 12/21/99 Thu 3/16/00
................................................................. .................................................................................. ........
89 9.1 Assist City during Bid Period 23 days Tue 12121199 Thu 1120100
_...._..-------_..........................--...._............................................................................................................................................_...............---.........._._......................;.........
.........................................................._.................. .................................................._......................................................................
90 9.2 Attend Pre-Bid Conference 0.5 days Tue 1/4/00 Tue 1/4/00
........................................ . .. ........................... ................................... . ............................... ................... . ........
91 9.3 Assist in Contract Award 40 days Fri 1121100 Thu 3116100
...
92 COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION 0 days' Thu 3116100 Thu 3116100 3/
Oakesdale Avenue Extension, Task y ,y. ♦ + 7 City Task
Phases 1 B&2 Milestone Summ Critical
Date:Wed 5/26/99
Page 3
MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
Project: Oakesdale Ave. SW Extension Phase 1B & Phase Phase 2 Date: 4/23/99
Subject: Kick Off Meeting
Project Manager: Joe Armstrong_ Phone #: 425-430-7303
Name Affiliation/Representing Phone #
1-4
! ^Ct
7z)
v V
c:\Project\Oakesdale Phase II\signup2
i)rU-Cq-Jb 1HU IU;Cb fin rfiKhrlt I X i A, I NU. HAX NU. I 4?5 88U BbUd V. U1
ParaMetrix Inc. CansoftaMS it)ErlgfflCorftl�,7 i1rid Frivirownent,it SuCOCC5
,
Blvd-N.E- Suitc 200 Kirkland.WA 9803.3-7.150
ax.425-889-UO3
Mr. Lin Wilson December 24, 1998
Planni iig/Bili[ding/Public Works 55-1779-10
City of.Renton
Renton, WA 98055
RL': Oaksdale Avenue Phase 2 Weiland Mitigation and Peraiiiiing
Dear 1,111:
As requested, I have reviewed wetland mitigation and permitting issues for the Oaksdale Avenue
Phase 2 project. My findings are reported below.
I Weiland Impacts.
l"rellininary engineering plans and supporting documentation indicate that 1.01 acres of
shrub wetland will be impacted by the proposed Phase 2 construction. These wetlands
meet the criteria of Category 1 wetland per the City of Renton Ordinance because the
wetland is greater than 10 acres in size and includes at least three wetland classes (One of
which is open water).
2. Mitigation Requirement.
Based on Ordinance 4346, the mitigation ratio for required for Category I shrub wetlands
is 3:1 (acres of new or restored wetlands: acres of filled wetlands). Therefore, under the
existing regulation, the project requires a 1-iiiiiiinurri of 3.03 acres of wetland mitigation.
Under proposed regulations, the project would require 3.03 acres of mitigation for a
restoration or creation scenario, but 3.53 acres of mitigation if a combination of creation
and enhancement are included.
3. Weiland Mitigation Opportunities.
The following opportunities for wetland mitigation actions were examined;
A. Create new wetlands Mitigation Bank Site 1. This mitigation would create a variety
of wetland types as described in the various mitigation bank documents- Up to about
12 acres of wetland mitigation is available on this site.
Utu-eq—M I nu l u-C f HI-1 rt KHI-lr.I N l A, 1 NU, r HA 11U. 1 4Co ot3ZI t50Uo r uc
To: Lin Wilson
From: Jini Kelley
RF: Oaksdalc Avk;ilue Weiland Permitting
I'aou 2 of 3
Dk•ccruber 24, 1998
B. Create new and enhanced wetlands at Mitigation Bank Site 2. This mitigation would
create a variety of wetland types as described in the various mitigation bank
documents. Up to about 14 acres of wetland mitigation is available on this site.
C. Rcmove old road fill located cast of the Phase 2 project(between S.W. 27°1 Street and
the Seattle Times property) and enhance existing wetlands to the cast (between this
road fill and Springbrook Creek). This could provide 5-6 acres of wetland restoration
and enhancement.
D. Improve floodplain hydraulics between Springbrook Creek and the wetland located
cast of the Phase 2 project) by removing the old road fill described above. The
additional volume of flood storage is unknown. This action would enhance the flood
storage function of about 18 acres of wctland.
L Improve floodplain hydraulics between Springbrook Creek and the Boeing South
Marsh (located west of the Phase 2 project) by including oversized culverts in the
Phase 2 design. The additional volume of flood storage is unknown. This faction
would enhance the flood storage function of about 10 acres of wetland in Soutli
Marsh.
4. Agency Contacts.
On-site meetings were held with the following agencies and individuals:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(Steve Roy, October 16, 1998)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jim Green and Gail Terzi, October 23, 1998)
Washington Department of Ecology (Eric Stockdalc, December 15, 1998)
During these meetings, the general location and design of the Phase 2 project were
described and reviewed. Agency staff were shown the wetland mitigation for the Phase 1
project. We walked each potential mitigation site and I described the details of each
option and how it could be implemented.
The consensus of all staff was that option C was preferable to options A and B. Option A
was the least preferred mitigation option. Options D and E are viable and should he
iticorporated in the project, probably in concert with option C.
Based on these meetings, it appears a mitigation plan for option C should be prepared.
Part of the mitigation ratio (especially to meet the City's replacement ratio requirements
could be derived from options D and E. Eric Stockdalc noted a need to provide detail on
the stormwatcr management system for the roadway to meet Section 401 Water Quality
Certification requirements, Eric also noted that an HPA would be required for the project
because the wetland is contiguous with a fisheries stream.
5. Proposed Sensitive Area Regulations,
ft appears the proposed sensitive area ordinance (September 22, 1998 draft) may be
bericl<cial to this project in the they clearly allows combinations of wetland creation and
wetland enhancement to occur as part of mitigation planning. However, if these
mitigation techniques are combined, there is an increase in the required ratio by 0.5. The
llr.u—C4—Uo I nU 1 U C f H11 rHMH11r.I I(1 A, i 11U. r HA NU 1 4CO 000 (MUO r. UJ
s
To: Lin Wilson
From: Jim Kchey
RE: Qal<sdalo Avenue Wctland Pcrmittilig
Paec 3 of 3
lkccmber 24, 1998
logic for this increased ratio is not provided, and seems flawed since most federal and
state biologists feel wetland enhancement and restoration are more likely to be
successful than wetland creation. This feeling would suggest that when enhancement and
restoration are used to meet a mitigation requirement that the ratio should be decreased
over that required for creation.
The ordinance states that Category 1 wetlands may not be enhanced as mitigation for
wetland alteration (line 1763, p52). This conflicts with information provided in the; table
(line 1769, p52). Further, enhancement of Category 1 wetlands that have been degraded
by drainage modifications, clearing, farming, etc. is ecologically valuable and should be
recogni-red as mitigation. Agency staff examining the wetland affected by the Phase 2
project confirmed this opinion by recommending enhancement as a component of the
mitigation plan. If credit is not given by the City for enhancement of Category 1
wetlands, than mitigation option C would need to be combined with option A or B. As
the new ordinance is written, options D or E would not receive mitigation credit.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely, /
I
Jim Kelley, Ph.9.
l/ Welland Ecologist
11K1 RKLAND—I I.SYS\US ERSIKELLEYIRF.N"r0 N\oaksdale-ltr_doe
Yaw 2003 Western Avenue
1 4Dpril
REN Q 555 Market Place One Tel: 206/448-4200
OR P ORATED Seattle, Washington 98121 Fax: 206/728-5608
26, 1999
Supervisor
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Program/Olympia Field Office
510 Desmond Dr. SE Ste. 103
Lacey, WA 98503-1273
Re: ESA Data Search
Dear Sir:
The City of Renton is working on a project to connect the disjunct portion of Oakesdale
Avenue S.W. between S.W. 271h Street and an extension that is located at
approximately S.W. 315' Street. The extension section would be 4 lanes wide with
sidewalks on both sides. The road construction and proposed mitigation would impact
natural ecosystems in the following section:
T23N, R4E, Section 25, W. M.
USGS - Renton Quadrangle
The project area is adjacent to Springbrook Creek, a tributary to the Black River.
Would you please send us any information you may have on all candidate, proposed,
and listed threatened or endangered fish species or sensitive habitats that may occur
within 1.5 miles of the project and that may be impacted. Information provided by the
National Marine Fisheries Service will be included where applicable in environmental
analysis, biological assessments, wetland/fisheries specialist reports and in the Joint
Aquatics Resources Permit Application (JARPA) which will be submitted to the
U.S.Army Corps. of Engineers and the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The City of Renton is scheduled to submit the JARPA by June 15, 1999 and
would like to receive the NMFS response before that date if possible. Project
construction is scheduled to begin Spring of 2000.
If you have any questions or require additional information regarding the proposed
project, please call me at (206) 448-4200.
Thank ,you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Bryce A. Ecklein
Kato & Warren, Inc.
4q
ACI
/' dyrrKT c.:rl•ng:on / .,• i -
�� ,
C i uon Golf Course
• t• m
�l a `` r� �e � s e�,�1 i ■�� I� � �hdli Arnold
ta
4 yrs ;ark
Va
Riv r ji ■I _ ' I; r
^ �\\ �' � - .I ♦ Substa:!;
I _ �' �, r� .��: � �•� �\. L 'is��J �---� :r>-1 �. -;Nate �'\
Tank \
ng
ao
S . "•,�'o�� t\C � ._-_ = II ,: ,. � i. 1, � \' �
46
Talbo 6 ` M' dle�S .1 a
\\A
ubsti
•,��h•�� _�RENTON
■�� � ,,��d uTUKW�1_ =--ni� r•O�QC�'-� C,�{�4n: ' t '..'+: \\ r 1. ' A�.,i °• \ \` i
+ R �l'.pa 2 ofo
orliw�,/ y A= ma 30 --
J S•79
=t`
�`� - ttT>tikwila
t G ,I ■I ----------`�{' ( •dr .II'... :
55
I reef) .I _— `` I w�\ I ✓� /ry °� `/� / J r/ Q • , I '- °
BMtd I Orillia !CORP' _ •• '� % ' \;�:
■ u'. t, I 'i KENT CORP 'BDY•
5254 Substa •'Ip /�._ — 1 `� — o _� ,;( �� J 'i-` r� ����=a 32 I ,, . •
36
' l II{I�_�_��,,�'�' �/ I I Y \ , 1- ..•� nson• iIl At Be
Snrm
� a il; ■ � t 3a
7-7
91
� •- �' --- - - ,.:::`..,.�.. /� _^a=ta � � `� - �{ ,}sic •f, --
—�•"� - to %.�;.� �'i I' � ��• •�' :i•::•�•• 1' I ,•.:.::�•. _ •� \
-:52 -- -- ��- - - - Sch---- a - - - - -
Ilk Am"
VOW
I •r
IA
71
RENTON
lo
- � � � F A,. t'•-ems' _., s: .�
s t..
SW 2
A MCI
i � €
SW 341h St"■ �" , :�
y 7
4VR
h, A", M
� ... l 9tltltltCG�' 1
•i• s
September 27, 1999
Page 2
As a mitigation requirement for the Oakesdale Avenue Extension Phase 2 project, the City will be removing a
portion of the berm between Wetlands 12a and 12b for wetland creation (1.3 acres) and open water habitat (0.3
acres). Approximately 2.1 acres of wetland enhancement will be provided along the north portion of wetland
12b. These mitigation measures will significantly'improve the function and value of the existing wetlands.
Thank you for your letter of concern regarding Wetland 12a. If you have any additional questions, please
contact Ron Straka,Utility Engineering Supervisor at 425-430-7248.
Sincerely,
sse Tanner
Mayor
Referral:29-99:ps
cc: Gregg Zimmerman
Lin Wilson
Lys Hornsby
1:\Officefolders\MAYOR\Referrals\1999\29-99.doc\cor
September 27, 1999
Page 2
As a mitigation requirement for the Oakesdale Avenue Extension Phase 2 project, the City will be removing a
portion of the berm between Wetlands 12a and 12b for wetland creation (1.3 acres) and open water habitat (0.3
acres). Approximately 2.1 acres of wetland enhancement will be provided along the north portion of wetland
12b. These mitigation measures will significantly'improve the function and value of the existing wetlands.
Thank you for your letter of concern regarding Wetland 12a. If you have any additional questions, please
contact Ron Straka,Utility Engineering Supervisor at 425-430-7248.
Sincerely,
)sse Tanner
Mayor
Referral:29-99:ps
cc: Gregg Zimmerman
Lin Wilson
Lys Hornsby
x
1:\Officefolders\MAYOR\Referrals\1999\29-99.doc\cor
r
CITY OF RENTON
Mayor
l� Jesse Tanner
September 27, 1999
Friends of the Black River
c/o Mr. Tom Malphrus
18713 102"d Ave SE
Renton,WA 98055
SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON WETLAND 12A CULVERT REPLACEMENT
Dear Mr. Malphrus:
In response to your letter dated September 5, 1999,the following information is provided:
Question One: Is it possible that water from the wetland may be infiltrating the sewer interceptor
adjacent to the wetland?
Response:
This was one concern expressed during the environmental review of the King County METRO 108-inch
interceptor project by the City. Mitigation measures were required to prevent the project from impacting the
adjacent wetlands. Please refer to the project environmental review documents or contact King County if you
have any further questions.
Question Two: Does the City know of any other recent activities that may have impacted the water
level of Wetland 12a?
Response:
It is unknown if other activities in the area that is tributary to Wetland 12a are having any impact on the
hydrology of the wetland.
Question Three: When will the City restore the hydraulic control of Wetland 12a to 10.03 NGVD 1929?
Response:
The City is actively investigating various options to improve the hydraulic connection between Wetlands 12a
and 12b. These options could be implemented as early as the summer of 2000, when the Oakesdale Avenue
Extension Project(Oakesdale Phase Two)is scheduled for construction.
One option includes installing three, 36-inch culverts (adjacent to the existing culvert between the two wetlands)
in order to utilize the storage capacity of Wetland 12a. The additional culverts would allow more frequent
flooding of Wetland 12b, thus improve the hydrology of the wetland. The upstream invert elevation of the
culverts would set at elevation 10.03 (NGVD 29). As an additional feature, the pipes may include a check valve
on the upstream side to increase the storage capacity of the Wetland 12a. The existing culvert would be reset to
elevation 10.03 and would act as a control to meter the flows out of the wetland. Another much simpler option
would be to insert a riser section on the upstream end of the existing culvert and set the overflow weir elevation
at 10.03.
I:\O fficefo1ders\MAY0R\Referra1s\1999\29-99.doc\cor
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425}430-6500 / FAX(425)430-6523
/Zua,,( &L = .vo
Crest Stage Gage No. 6
West Cell of Wetland W-12, FEQ Wetland W7b
Ground Elev. at Gage= 9.82 NGVD (feet)
5 m 1vuM rYcv✓�S ot` Sd�FI•it�
"C 2sy"- 5 Post-it®Fax Note 7671 Date / 7 y paof
ges
To From
15.05 Co./Dept. Co. C�
Phone# Phone# if
14.55
Fax#'2 , ��� r j/ Fax#
14.05 (O
13.55
13.05
j 12.55
0 ■Previous Crest
z
12.05 GCurrent Water Level
w i
2 yr 11.55
gPn`ybr►�" 11.05
Craves
g £
10.55 _
9
1
10.05
9.55 -
;
9.05
N e \ \ \ $ 94.n rn ao o
0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 - o 0 0 - -
Date Existing,severely choked culvert outlet replaced with same sized o
culvert by maintenance project (City File No.LUA-95-142,SME) in October of 1995
Additional readings would have been recorded through 10/96 if readings would have been taken at the culvert outlet r�
when the water was below the ground elev at the gage. Readings were made at the culvert when appropriate beginning 12/96. t
� uT
a
Parametrix, Inc.
WETLAND~
ENHANCEMENT
___ -APPR-OX1MA_TEL
SW 27TH S TREE 7�= �_� _._
.62 ACRES -�
s MWETLAND- � lei
ENHANCEMENT
_ y •(APPROXIMATELY
_ - _ - A . _
BERM TO
_ _ _ _ _ _ BE REMOVED _ LU
j1 � - _ - - - - « �- . ;(APPROXIMATELY-�- a " `"" ":� "` '
i? "WETLAND FILL - 1.13 ACRES); . �` " x — — t� '
j (APPROXIMATELY ~ _ - _ Y
{ : Q �1.01 ACRES)
_
{i J = r = m RETAINI �IIVCC
MAINTAIN EXISTING
`V)y' - _« HYDROLOGIC CONTROL
te. ` _
.r. a.^- r-1) �� Cl
hw - -1lt Yd
us v..
s
...•. .- - _
WETLAND-:-'-"'
( ` -
- _ x
n 7
k"1
I
1
•
i
RLE: 177910-01
DATE: 11/18/98
Figure 1
0 60 120 Proposed Wetland Mitigation for
SCALE IN FEET Oaksdale Avenue SW Phase 11 Extension
. r
Before
6
:
5
4 `'
3
2
1
A A
After
6
5 F."
\ \
4 \
3
2
1
A A
Port of Seattle/SS-2912-01(03) 8/98
Cross-Section Proposed Mitigation
Oaksdale Avenue SW Extention
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS A '
FIFTH FLOOR
1055 GRADY WAY SOUTH
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-21893
FAX: 425-430-7376
To: Bryce EcKlein
Company: Kato & Warren
Phone: (206) 448-4200
Fax: (206) 728-5608
From: Lin Wilson
Organization: City of Renton P/B/PW
Phone: (425) 430-7223
Fax: (425) 430-7376
Date: February 29, 2000
Pages including this cover page: 6
Subject: Oakesdale Phase 2 - Wetland Regulations
The Planning Department is proceeding with the amendments to the wetland
regulations, and there is a Council Committee meeting scheduled on Thursday as the
next step, with an in-house meeting at 3:30 PM Wednesday. Attached is a package
summarizing the interpretation of comments recently received from WDFW, also
attached. Could you review these materials and advise both on your interpretation as to
if and how Oakesdale Phase 2 is affected by the WDFW position.
Could you please make this a priority with a target of giving us your conclusions in
time for tomorrow afternoon's meeting. Also, how are the regulation changes to be
handled in the Oakesdale SEPA process, and is there a schedule for that action?
cc: Joe Armstrong
Ron Straka
Peter Rosen
Robert Jenkins-Sensitive Areas -WDF&W Comments Page 1
From: Robert Jenkins
To: 6th Floor Confrence Room #610; Jennifer Henning; Laureen Nicolay; Leslie Betlach;
Neil Watts; Owen Dennison; Rebecca Lind; Robert Jenkins; Ronald Straka) OA, /,1/-41 K,
Date: 3/1/00
Time: 3:30PM -4:30PM
Subject: Sensitive Areas-WDF&W Comments
Place: EDNSP Conf Room
Everyone,
I know this is short notice but we just got Wa. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife's comments on the SAO. I am
asking everyone to review their comments and come to the meeting on Wednesday with your comments.
We have our FINAL Planning and Development Committee meeting on Thursday afternoon and I would
like to take a staff recommendation, and revised code language, on the F&W comments to them at that
time.
With the exception of a couple of things, I think we could probably accommodate F&W's comments. The
main policy issue is whether to use DOW wetland buffers or existing buffers (4-3-050M.6.c.).
They bring up a good point about relying on vegetated neighboring properties in reducing wetland buffer
widths (4-3-050M.e.i.). We could add language requiring native growth protection areas be established on
adjacent property that would be equal to the requested buffer reduction -what do you think?
F&W is supportive of allowing wetland buffer reduction in exchange for enhancement(4-3-050M.6.f.vi.)
but thinks we should be more cautious in applying the principle, i.e., allow maximum reductions of 15%,
not 50%, with no variance option to reduce them further.
F&W is supportive of allowing lower wetland creation/� enee�m�tratios if one creates a functioning
wetland in advance but thinks we should be more cautious in applying the principle, i.e., allow a max.
reduction of 20%. This converts into the following ratios:
Cat 1 Ours F&W (20% of the standard)
-forested 2 4.8
-shrub-scrub 2 2.4
-emergent 1.5 1.6
Cat 2
-forested 1.5 2.4
-shrub-scrub 1.5 1.6
-emergent 1.25 1.2
Cat. 3
-forested 1.25 1.2
-shrub-scrub 1.25 1.2
-emergent 1 1.2
F&W also raises a good point about needing to define or clarify what is meant by"successfully
established".
Their comments on 4-4-130D2., vegetation removal in sensitive areas buffers don't apply since we do not
allow for general vegetation removal. They may have been confused since they don't have the most up to
date version of this section.
Well, those were my brief thoughts on the attached letter. I look forward to hearing your comments. If you
have suggested language to address their comments, please bring it on Wednesday.
February 16, 2000
Rob Jenkins, Senior Planner
City of Renton
Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Renton's Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. I hope
these comments will be of help in establishing regulations that will ensure the future health of
Renton's fish and wildlife resources, in accordance with the Growth Management Act.
This draft has many good features that will help to protect fish and wildlife, including the
definition of critical habitat(section 4-3-050). It includes endangered, threatened, sensitive,
monitor and priority species. Identifying these species of concern is a very positive feature of
this ordinance, and will help maintain a greater diversity of fish and wildlife.
Another good feature is the requirement to post signs marking the boundaries of critical area
buffers, identifying them as protected areas. If critical areas and their buffers are not clearly
identified, they tend to suffer significantly over time from encroachment(clearing,mowing,
paving, etc.). Signs identifying protected areas will help to reduce both unintentional and
intentional degradation of critical areas. In addition, they will make enforcement easier if illegal
degradation occurs.
There are a few suggestions WDFW would like to make at this time:
Wetland buffers: Wetlands are extremely valuable habitats for fish and wildlife. They
are rich in both flora and fauna, they help filter and purify water, and they act as sponges
to absorb stormwater and lessen the effects of heavy rains. The current buffers for
wetlands are now 100, 50 and 25 feet for class 1, 2 and 3 wetlands,respectively.
Considering the importance of these habitats, WDFW does recommend that these buffers
be increased, and suggests that the Washington Department of Ecology(WDOE)buffer
recommendations be adopted:
State wetland category Recommended buffer I Recommended buffer
Page 1
(high-intensity (low-intensity
land uses) land uses)
Category I wetlands 300 feet 200 feet
Category II wetlands 200 feet 100 feet
Category III wetlands 100 feet 50 feet
Category IV wetlands 50 feet 25 feet
These wetland categories are based on the State of Washington wetland ranking system,
which has 4 categories instead of the 3 currently used by the City of Renton. If the
minimum buffer of 50 feet for high-intensity land uses (such as urban areas) is adopted by
Renton for its class 3 wetlands, and buffers of at least 100 feet are adopted for class 1 and
2 wetlands,protection of these very valuable habitats will be greatly enhanced.
This ordinance also allows wetland buffer reduction if the remaining buffer is enhanced
or the adjacent land is"extensively vegetated." WDFW does not feel that this provision
provides adequate protection. The adjacent land cannot be relied on to make up for an
inadequate buffer on the subject property,because the adjacent land may also be
developed at a later date. Therefore, to be reliable as a buffer, there would have to be at
least an easement on the adjacent land that would prevent its degradation as a sensitive
areas buffer.
Vegetative enhancement in exchange for buffer size reduction is also allowed in this
ordinance. It can be effective,but it should not be used as a justification for excessive
reduction of buffers. Enhancement can speed up the development of the vegetation in the
buffer, which will enhance its value. But the more the buffer is reduced, the more its
overall potential to protect the sensitive area is reduced. Therefore, WDFW recommends
retaining the minimum buffer width in this ordinance, and also limiting the buffer
reduction, to a maximum of perhaps 15 percent.
Mitigation for wetland damage: Mitigation ratios for Category 1 forested and scrub/shrub
wetlands may be reduced from 6:1 and 3:1, respectively, down to 2:1 if"the applicant has
successfully replaced the wetland prior to its filling and has shown that the replacement is
successfully established for 5 years." Category 2 forested and scrub/shrub wetland ratios
can be reduced from 3:1 and 2:1, respectively, down to 1.5:1 if the replacement wetland
is successfully established for 2 years. Category 3 forested and scrub/shrub ratios may be
lowered from 1.5:1 down to 1.25:1 after 2 years, and Category 3 emergent wetland ratios
may be reduced to 1:1 if the new wetland is successful for 12 months.
Page 2
Prime reasons for the failure of mitigation projects include bad design(e.g., slopes made
too steep for wetlands to function properly), and lack of vegetation maintenance during
the first few years, when the new plantings are becoming established. Therefore,
providing an incentive to have mitigation in place and functional before the original
wetland is destroyed is a good idea. WDFW recommends that assessment of the success
of mitigation be stringent,but also recommends that reduction of mitigation ratios not be
excessive. For example, the allowable reduction of forested Category 1 wetlands from
6:1 down to 2:1 reduces 2/3 of the total replacement habitat. The allowable reduction for
forested Category 2 wetlands would eliminate half of the total replacement habitat. A
maximum allowable reduction(of perhaps 20%) could be used instead of the proposed
figures. Also, since mitigation is often not 100% successful, a 1:1 mitigation ratio will
probably guarantee a long-term net loss of wetlands. Thus, a minimum mitigation ratio
greater than 1:1 for Category 3 emergent wetlands would also be appropriate.
Tree cutting in stream and wetland buffers: This draft proposes that tree cutting be
allowed in stream and wetland buffers (section 4-4-130). What is the reason for this
change? The buffers are supposed to be areas of undisturbed native vegetation, to help
protect the sensitive area from degradation due to erosion,pollution, flooding, etc. They
are also to provide shade, nutrients from leaves, and large woody debris. This refers to
big trees that provide vital habitat for fish when they die and fall in the stream. They give
fish places to hide, and by redirecting water around, over and under them,they form pools
and other valuable habitat features. Western Washington streams have a serious lack of
adequate large woody debris. Unless there is a good justification for cutting trees in
sensitive area buffers, WDFW recommends that as many trees as possible be left in the
buffers to provide, shade,nutrients, and eventually, large woody debris.
Stream buffers: Section 30-A-6 lists proposed buffers for streams. Like wetlands,
riparian(streamside)habitats are extremely valuable to fish and wildlife. Good
protection for these habitats is especially important in light of the recent listing of
chinook salmon under the Endangered Species Act, and the state's efforts to restore
salmon populations. WDFW buffer recommendations constitute the best available
science on the subject, and are as follows:
Stream type (DNR water typing system) stream buffer
Page 3
(feet)
Type 1 or 2 250
Type 3 (5-20 feet wide) 200
Type 3 (less than 5 feet wide) 150
Type 4 or 5 (with low potential for erosion or slope failure) 150
Type 4 or 5 (with high potential for erosion or slope failure) 225
Larger buffers may be required where priority wildlife species
occur.
The scientific evidence shows that a minimum buffer of 100 feet is needed just to protect
the basic water quality of streams,which is vital for maintaining fish populations.
Healthy vegetative buffers of this width will filter and purify water as it moves through
the soil and into streams. WDFW strongly recommends an increase in the size of all
stream buffers to a minimum of 100 feet, and preferably adoption of the stream buffers
listed above.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on these regulations. If you have
any questions or would like to talk about any other fish and wildlife issues, please feel free to call
me at 425-379-2308.
Sincerely,
Mark Goldsmith
Habitat Biologist(Priority Habitats and Species/Growth Management)
cc: Ted Muller, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Millard Deusen, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Shane Hope, Washington Department of Community,Trade and Economic Development
Page 4
SHEAR GATE WTH CONTROL "FC-U&RaGFRATE
ROD (PROVIDE HOOK FOR n M
HANOLE 1$AR GRATE z— CB TYPE 2, 60'0 ° m3046 OPENING) �' � OPm2'0 CNP RISERFry ' d N
i (OPEN ENDS) L LAMER/STEPS V '
1 Z tJ
tp (D m
I —I I rI NOTE: EXISTING 18' SD 0 1 CS)
1 CONSTRUCT PER CITY OF RENION I UI
III—III(' STANDARD PLANS 0027 a B029,
-- I—IjI- SECTION A—A EXCEPT AS N01ED OTHERWISE. PLAN N fi rn I O1
fABRIC V I P
Ul
ROCKS SPILL CONTROL CB TYPE 2 — 60"0 2 „ -0 o „ o
SCALE: N.T.S. D 1 a c 3 S m
m
1 ` i
tj al
D
D 1 , D3 NOTE: N S W
REUCIVE EXISTING I15'0 ADS CULVERT
y AT STA 6+64.3, 14J' LT/34.8' RT. 1 OT► ( mo OD
1
1CIUARRY SPALL PAD
L=12'. W-23', D-1' �o
` YADTH-W SHOWN
FOR THREE CULVERTS / I
COMBINED 1/
I
WALL (WIRED WIRE WALL) " 3-35"0 39LF'CONC. CULVERTS
INLET 1.E. 10.03
STA 13+J3, 14' LT. CITY SURVEY CONTROL
STA 13+40, 14' LT. /R/CAP 9905-1
STA 13447, 14` LT, SFA 14+00,00. 19.86' LT. D
_ - ---'�� - H A(AX. SIDE 0
------ i2 : IV0Pf (TYP. I 20
WETLAND BOUNDARY I D
OUAARY SPALLS )2+00 13+00
14+00 EX. CURB i m
`' ASSU►IED HO— RIZO AL 0.1TUM.
BASELINE BEARITO BE COMPUTED FROM CRY SURVEY CONTROL PgNTS. / Z
'IPE 0 1&0 MIN. P 114 i EX. Co
WEILJWD BOUNDARY I
14. _ I n
Il12- t6 Fx. CR
-- - - i RIM 16.OB
3-36'0 J9LF CONC, CULVERTS
U A; I.E. 9.35 _ j1 j £%. CURD
CfTY SIJRVEY CONTROL " STA 13+33, 24.5' RT.
H/MAG PK 9905-101 STA 13+40, 24.5 RT. l�
PLACE FILLER FABRIC STA 12423.16. 5.21' RT. STA 13+47. 24,5' IRT, 1
LINER UNDER ROCKS
"1 OUMRY SPAM PAD t 3
W=23'. 0=1' I of
IQTH '4Y' SHOWN
W AND D. ELEVATION _ FOR T+lRfC CULVERTSAND
1 1 4 Wra 10 oew+w 4 D
L 1 1 ruu-sr�aorrtwtr t M
L O U T FALL 3 �' " °°°''c cam *
WETLAND MITIGATION BERM CULVERT PLAN � ' CD
D3
09/07/1999 11: 06 206-269-6378 KATO & WARREN INC. PAGE 01
KATO& 2003 Western Avenue
WARRENZ 555 Market Place One
INCORPORATED Seattle, WA 98121 (206) 448-4200 (FAX)728-5608
TRANSNUTTAL FORM
To: Allen Quynn Date: 9/6/99
City Of Renton
Pages:
Fax
Number: (425) 430-7241 Via: Mail
FAX ( X )
From: Kourosh Sameni Fed Ex
Subject: Oakesdale Phase 2
CB & SDMH invert elveation?
Comments:
Allen,
Enclosed please find a sketch of the site plan showing the location of CB's and SDMH's in question.
Invert elevation and direction of the pipes are missing from the survey,four places.
Number I &2 were field verified. The questions remain the outfall from number 3 and the inlet pipe to number 4.
The wall construction may effect the number 4.
1 appreciate your effort and please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Kourosh
Enclosures: cc:
u
I =
a.a
O;rt'�:CF9 I l-A 1 I
dw 0 srA3 OW
dai
tl[O,r(9)-tt nN, I 1 ':tl6tvbva35/M
\Y / 9t'9� i II I co'L,rww
I II ( (1 3du)9J
(S3dw ONUS513 0N)
0'8-MUM0�7=�
I
I 1 I I
I I ! I
II I ( m I
i I
I I � I �• i
I � I
I ' I
I I
I I I
I I I I
! I I
I I I I
I I ! I
I I ! I
` P I X71 CN
......._...
1
AM
9r'Bf-Na
ww I I I
artr(sa/asp ' I j
F I F I I
I I I I ><
F F F! I I
R35od o?Jld
Z0 39Vd ONI N3�i VM T OiVA BLE9-69Z-90Z 90 :TT 666T/L0/6O
Allen Quynn
From: Shawn Summersett
To: Barry Knight; Allen Quynn
Cc: Kourosh Sameni
Subject: SDCB and SDMH questions
Date: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 3:54PM
In preparing the basemap and preliminary drainage plan and profiles for the
Oakesdale Phase 2 project we noticed in the basemapping provided that the
two Type 1 CBs within the curbline at —STA 1 +80 are shown AND labeled that
they lack inlet and outlet pipes. This is curious. Would the City have
drawings showing the design and purpose of these CBs? Perhaps a City
inspector would know? Perhaps I can talk to the surveyors associated with
our basemapping? We'd like to use them and their expected downstream systems
for conveying the Oakesdale runoff currently draining to them. Please let me
know what your thoughts might be.
There also is a SDMH shown just south of the CBs in question that isn't
fully described (i.e., inflow and outflow pipes and directions).
Best regards,
Shawn S. Summersett, P.E.
Kato & Warren, Inc.
2003 Western Avenue
555 Market Place One
Seattle, WA 98121
206-448-4200 voice
206-728-5608 fax
summersett@ktowrn.com
Page 1
ti�Y o� City of Renton
♦ PLANNING/BUILDING/
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Utility Systems - Fifth Floor
1055 South Grady Way Date: 06/07/99
Renton, WA 98055
TO: Shawn Summersett FROM: Allen Quynn
Kato & Warren
Phone: ( ) Phone: (425) 430-7247
Fax Phone: (206) 72845W S 6O-z Fax Phone: (425) 430-7241
ISUBJECT: Oakesdale Phase 11 I Number of pages including cover sheet
REMARKS: ❑ Original to ❑ Urgent ❑ Reply ❑ Please For your
be mailed ASAP Comment review
Attached please find the elevation/discharge information for Springbrook Creek. I've underlined the rows
labeled SW 27th Street and SW 34th Street. You will have to interpolate to get the elevation of the wetland
just upstream of SW 27th. Assume worse case by using the values in column one (Alternative 1 -No
action). Note that all elevations are on the NGVD 1929 datum.
Ahead of the curve
TABLE 8-2 (Continued)
ju,,,,,,c,l of Hvd� 1llic Results - Flood Control ter atn ivies
25-Year Future Conveyance Event
(Elevation Datum NGVD)
SC:Altemative 3 SC:Altemative 3
SC:Altemative 2 SCAltemative 2 PC:Altemative 3
Alternative I-No Action PC Alternative 3 PC:Alternative 2
3ST-AAlteemativ2 23ST:Altemative3 23ST:Altemative3
23ST:AItemative 2 23ST:AItemalive 3
PIPE: Alternative 2 PIPE: Alternative 2
PIPE: Alternative 2 PIPE: Alternative 2 2 WETLAND: See Note 2
WETLAND: See Note l WETLAND: See Note l WETLAND: See Note_
7L-Year Fut Flow 25-Year Fut.Flow
75-YearFut Flow Conveyance
75-Year Fut.Flow �5-Year Fut.Flow Conveyance
Conveyance
Conveyance Conveyance
Roadway Elev
Top Elev. Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Fcfsy (feet
Flow feet ( feet
Location/Description cfs feet) cfs (feeQ (cfs)
95 96 95
96 95 0 38
Panther Creek u/s of SR-167(3) 0 38 38 15 6
Panther Creek South SR-167 Xing(3) 86 15.5
38 15.6 86 15.5
Proposed Culvert Crossing of 114 12 66 115
SR.167 at SW 23rd Street(3) 113 12 66 10.9
SW 23rd Street Channel d/s 103 20.9 101 20.9
102
of East Valley Road(3) 2p 94 100 20.9 101 20.9
Rolling Hills Creek at Renton 103 17 101 17
Shopping Center Culy.outlet 102 17(3x4) 100 17 101 17
.02
Rolling Hills uls 132"culvert OX4) 66 15 5 69 15.6
82
16 66 15.5 68 15.6
SR-167 north crossing
1189 II81
Springbrook Creek 1219 1231 1191 4.1
1095 1231 4.1 119 4.1
BRPS outflow 1095 4.1 1219 4.1 4.9 1189 4.8
4.8 1230 7.8 1197
BRPS inflow 1095 4 6 1228 1063 7.8 1052 7 8
Floodwater Storage Pond Inflow 7_2 1098 T9 1083 8.1 g
959 1074 8.1 1053 8 1043
Grady Way u/s 951 7.8 1088 8.1 10 1021 10
SW 161h Street 1060 9 9 1047 9.9 1037 11.2
933 11.1 10.6 957 11.2 943
Confluence of Rolling Hills Creek 12 I 980 10.7 966 893 11.7
843 11.2 91ll 11.2 858 11.7
Confluence of SW 23rd St Channel 831 1426 SSJ S27 12.6 827 12.7
SW 27th uls 17.9 836 12.3 842 12.4 14
14.9 847 15.4 842 13.6 846 13.9 846
SW 34th Ws B49 15.94 941 13.4 794 14 794 14
Oakesdale d/s 17.1 796 14.2 799 14.3 15
17.1 goo 117.E 797 15.2 793 15 793
Oakesdde u/s 22.9 795 17.6 791 IS.I 793 I5.5 793 I5.5
SW 43rd d/s 791 15.6 792 15.7
SW 43rd u/s
22.9 795 19.12
Notes
(1) This alternative includes Weiland 12:Altemative2,Weiland 7N:Altemative l:Wetland 32 Alternative 1.
(2) This alternative includes Wetland 12:Altemative 2,Wetland 7N:Altemative I:Wetland 32 Alternative
2.
(3) FEQ simulated flows at these locations are based upon frequency analysis of Springbrook
Creek inflows to the BRPS forebay. Refer to ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis Report(NHC,1996) for flows
based upon frequency analysis of Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Creek.
(4) Flows are based upon assumption that capacity restriction through Renton Shopping Center is improved
such that no attenuation from surface ponding occurs.
(5) u/s-upstream,d/s-downstream
Mw _LLB _ ".. 'w An ,H
TABLE 8-2 (Continued)
Summary of Hydraulic Results - Flood Control Alternatives
100-Year Future Conveyance Event
(Elevation Datum NGVD)
Alternative I-No Action SC:Altemative 2 SC:Alternative 2 SC:Altemative 3 SC:Altemative 3
PC:Alternative 2 PC:Alternative 3 PC:Alternative 2 PC:Alternative 3
23ST:Alternative 2 23ST:Altemative 3 23ST:Altemative 3 23ST:Alternative 3
PIPE: Alternative 2 PIPE: Alternative 2 PIPE: Alternative 2 PIPE: Alternative 2
WETLAND: See Note l WETLAND: See Note l WETLAND: See Note 2 WETLAND: See Note 2
100-Yr Fut.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow
Roadway Conveyance Conveyance Convevance Convevance Sonvevance
Top Elev,
Location/Description Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev
cfs (feet) (cfs) (feet) (cfs) (feet) (cfs) (feet) (cfs) (feet)
10 165 165 167 167
Panther Creek u/s of SR-167(3) I 0 38
Panther Creek South SR-167 Xing(3) 0 38
107 16.1 48 16.2 I07 16.1 48 16.2
Proposed Culvert Crossing of
SR-167 at SW 23rd Street(3)
159 12.7 103 12.0 163 12.6 104 12.3
SW 23rd Street Channel d/s
of East Valley Road(3)
Rolling Hills Creek at Renton
Shopping Center Culy.Outlet(3x4) 174 21.8 173 21.8 173 21.8 174 21.8 174 21.
Rolling Hills u/s 132"culvert(3x4) 174 17.8 173 17.7 173 17.7 173 17.7 173 17.7
SR-167 north crossing 98 17.0 87 16.1 86 16.1 88 1&1 87 16.1
Springbrook Creek 1593 1589
BRPS outflow 1223 1700 1700
BRPS inflow 1223 4.1 1700 4.72 1700 4.5 1593 4.35 1589 5.2
Floodwater Storage Pond Inflow 1223 4.7 1747 5.4 1720 5.3 1595 5.2 1587 4.3
Grady Way u/s 1110 7.6 1498 8.8 1461 8 7 1389 . 1370 8.5
85
SW 16th Street 1106 8.2 1488 9.1 1452 9 0 1383 8.9 1363 8.8
Confluence of Rolling Hills Creek 1088 11.6 1441 11 1405 11.0 1347 10.9 1324 10.9
Confluence of SW 23rd St Channel 989 12.6 1344 11.9 1309 11.8 1254 12.2 1232 12.2
W 27th u/. 17.9 989 15.6 1251 _ _ 124 1303 _ 12A___ 1147 12.7 1190 12.7
SW 34th u/s 14.9 1219 16.1 1239 13.6 1239 _s 13.6 1217 13.7 1219 13.8
SW 34tale s 17.1 1227 16.9 1239 15.1 1239 15.0 1256 15.6 1256 15.6
OakesdOakesdale u/s 17.1 I I67 17.9 1160 16.7 1 160 16.7 1164 15.7 1 165 15.7
SW 43rd d/s 22.9 1158 18.3 1148 17.4 1148 17.4 1155 16.8 1155 16.8
SW 43rd u/s 22.9 1158 19.5 1148 18.6 1148 18.6 1155 17.92 1155 I8.0
Notes (1) This alternative includes Wetland 12:Altemative 2,Wetland 7N:Alternative 1:Wetland 32 Alternative 1.
(2) This alternative includes Wetland 12:Altemative 2,Wetland 7N:Altemative 1:Wetland 32 Alternative 2.
r+ (3) FEQ simulated flows at these locations are based upon frequency analysis of Springbrook
Creek inflows to the BRPS forebay. Refer to ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis Report(NHC,1996) for flows
based upon frequency analysis of Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Creek.
M (4) Flows are based upon assumption that capacity restriction through Renton Shopping Center is improved
such that no attenuation from surface ponding occurs.
(5) u/s z upstream,d/s-downstream
$GM
Jmv-_7J1
mv.1700 --- ---_--_.,_ a 'x I -- LD
n/v.
I
lD
Li
2.t-)56J — —
� Q
UP
Pw4 \ N
P i(P tF
Lm
SSW—
".Is it
_s 4
�____ o o TYPE 1 / TYPE 1
`- ----
RIM 15.98 RIM 1 8 4 AVEOSA a 1 N
+ I- U)_E 12.78 3+00 / / �T) C 13.68 — — Z m
r-r .- ass asT an+rrcn
- -
.t_ z m
12`! LCPE 11 t ( _ U
m
-.. -- ----- Q7 YL1W I00
/ - � (5(OQSAllO 0 0.1DD7G C! V 1 .
-_--- i a
54LF Lg`� CPE \ I/ �xsrr(a�( )
SPILL-COW ROL_Ol1/WATER 5 ARATOR TEE 00.19 �B PfPE 1 ➢atw i Iv»IsHlt (U
-------- roux E-�
�r ---------TTA �TL S'-Ri: STA 4+00, 26.2' RT. 777 �`
Qt T
ormv "HAS)
1ISO
_ may)_ - '— -- ,f ,n, .• ,
.'x t•x )'"Am CAP A"ft"OI. 22 12 L
K y0437°10 I W 0 1:QODx
r s.oer.wo
PIPE p611;A11 \\ \\ \` 7 c�P
--T:E. 50 ♦ ` I D
4 4 t�UARRYPAthrP {
1
•� WATER � -�, � % � � Z
- a D
VOLUME PRaoV10_EO 223Y
VOLUME REQUIRED = 846 C,f � �� �, � \\� / � fTl
S� `de..axS �T�zg c�fl TOP SURFACE POND AftF. =El. - T�2f - Z
CF31!(lt� ��rQ- rvo - �c�6 �\ n° '3 PONO 130T. AREA - 159za
` POND 90T. EL. = 8. (�
5pYli� L'+� \� FS�72 {a :e4 UARRY SPALL SPILLWAY EL w 12.5�
TOTAL DEPTH = 4
WITH 3:1 SME SLOPES k 1' SEDIIIEM STORAGE DEPTH
..... .... :::
.: a
.... C F TH
1'f'
.. .. ... :i)� .. ....o
... ..... .. .. �PAYItlO:SE;G'�aN: 14:�. .. �
....... ... T7.h n id..F7.
ELEV;:t6�8: Z i .... a
... .:..! .... N - -. .. .. .....
o _.. .. .... ... .......... ...- .. ... •1. .!-.N ..... .. ... ................................... ........ ........ ......... p
FF ooID9! n fmxo : �..
71 D>Tla pages fM 1SlfT/.PRRfIiE:1f9DE . m �;W
Post-ir Fax Note 76 ro P T.: "..... a �: '..:. G mac _ D
From ... a.�.ss ur '!•1: ..
TO
............ ......... — ...
Co1DepL 00• 01� _..... .. N
ma
( . ' o o
t � iex \::::::
.....r
... _F-a
—
sog'e up S3:
-:I. ....... •(TOP'SHOWN•OHLY ....
.�.
�.... .I'..�.'........ •�:................... rvr•�rYan••f•ON Wi�•�1 .. ... ......
--- vv.ia.v� ` t✓
CD
--``. _
SSier
Ftlr-1,.00 `--____----------------� rr --- L.0
somrvv \
tD
NW.165) `-
wY--229 / '00,hem SS
nnn.nu
r
a rarru�s O N
Irt tr sco.(t�u.as
YJ
S _
. d
o o E I TYPE 1 m---- ------
--------- 46.3*-1T'. / \STA 4+OD, 26.3 LT. \ 00
--- --- 111 u1) y ig 3400 TjIE 13M6e ° \ AYE•$W. _ �W
,_� t"earls as xru� Loll
----- — — ` ' 12-0 LCPE ,.�.r t ;' r / �"� m
----- -------------- ` ,
--__-__ ----- rswuarlo O 0.100X ) u{v, t /� x m
�o C - 54LF 1 '0 CPE \ f �aIC/" mar(ouraux )
:�7�___-- SPILL COHTRAI OJL/YtAIER SE PRATOR TE O 0.1Q `C8 'RPE-T �pmf W #ttr`Y.`
eo rxsr IJ �,
----- -----------------3TA74 -28:3t-Rl STA 4400, 26.2' RT. -
sr•ot
a+�-re Ie .�
,vv r7"(rJ•r0.14 ajt r
._ _. Avv IZINAS)•I '
Al
nre.�rtsl— 12'
i r. /7'BRA44 Crw u.o puvpt 22LF 1 Z"0
�aaon 7.Io ne. O 1
57/1h+e-7�, t9,2' RT,
0 PIPE FALL \\� \ \ \ \ 7• \ J
IPALt- { _ / W 0 L=8'. T'. Q= \ O
2
WATER < \ -` / D
VOLUME PROMIDED =-22 �. �
VOWTAE REQUIRED - 846 V y
TOP SURFACE AREA 1554 w - Z
PP - m
•� r 4 PONO TOP W.S. EL = 12. __
5 MH -fo. -�.nw�•�i18t�'��\ Pl�"J POND 60T. AREA ! 154 S.f - '------- -'r'
! POND SOT, EL = 8
S MN Gd>7 �{l`r< �rp` `� Evy�n �I pUARRY SPALL SPILLWAY EL, - 12.SQ \ y +
�^ J g,[1,,`4- TOTAL DEPTH = 4
fx ne�S' .�-( vq hen- P(nj `NRH 3:I SIOE SLOPE'S I. SE0IMEN1 STORAGE OEPi C
I,..— -I(, �..�.o\i�, �res�m� �r h�toicra.� incxe�b
.
iH ... n.:
-- . 'er:.m.,•�
... ..
ELEY,:a618: ;,E fn n r. i'i:• .: r t -
�,,t;r . ly' '. v
.. .O •�N -.. ..... _ ..
oe r!>.V
....................... ............................
_.. g
... ... .. rye.
+_ ..
N
g Sri zzo: -
2•
.RLtF ..
eo a3 wi�. - D
a ..... ...
n Gl ui- 's�i:w ..
yr .. _.. ..... .
0:62 .......
1:
m
..... ...... — — —' —— — --f�}}-�-- .. .... ..- ..... ..N
...:.7.J... .......
.. ...•\•
... l.. ...-.........Tpi ... ..
... ... rlp- 2 t':l .E:0.:0:T891s: — -- ...: :�
_.....
::::
......... . ................ . ........ ......................................... I�rlun n IN .. ...... ..
10/12/1999 12: 14 2067285608 KATO WARREN PAGE 03
• AW00, 01
Maae by q �� k pa 6�, b Number
�� hecked by Data S ^Sheet Number
t c Backchecked by Data Z
F-v IS'j (DS
L �
J"
c_Y a..0 acre
� - Q
✓a ���� Glf�.eAi A-�
js Hof a6la �� ��o✓;de, you-�,, >e��� �es�a �, c�l� :
L (( r
Gt'ry o� �e,To.n � �5 ,�otgc{ 44P ex15T lw� ��`(s�Lw, ovtly
Gout ale Y., ✓oa�;;vp, V-()VI4:7 ,
L�y�-_.� �t sw 2j .� St,✓eef ����Y�� �o�•,��y�...�z o� ��o�`
�V
-7
P 2rr(C.7,� - 4.71 �f
0.
�. 4 SG Z�3
Q - o C,77)(0,757,�5) p.00z2
Gcl p
(Oca(Ce�i��e,
r�jr 4titi of ��{ :t �� +co f O (o y,? - r-J�v((o(o l +) _ ?
8 3 Z3� �aox Izo - ?SIT@0) - Z�oT
Gil
v1/NbAv�tl
o o zo S << . �z o�,�a; - 27,xo
AaY0.55 -�G3 AG-
o I
r+
TABLE 8-2 (Continued)
Summary of Hydraulic Results - Flood Control Alternatives
2-Year Future Conveyance Event
(Elevation Datum NGVD)
Alternative I-No Action SC:Altemative 2 SC:Altemative 2 SC:Altemative 3 SC:Alternative 3
PC:Altemative 2 PC:Alternative 3 PC:Altemative 2 PC:Altemative 3
23ST:Alternative 2 23ST:Altemative 3 23ST:Altemative 3 23ST:Altemative 3
PIPE: Alternative 2 PIPE: Alternative 2 PIPE: Alternative 2 PIPE: Alternative 2
WETLAND: See Note 1 WETLAND: See Note I WETLAND: See Note 2 WETLAND: See Note 2
2-Year Future Flow 2-Year Future Flow 2-Year Future Flow 2-Year Future Flow 2-Year Future Flow
Roadway
Location/Description Top Elev. Flow Elev Flaw Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev
cfs feet) (cfs) (feet) (cfs) (feet) (cfs) (feet (cfs) (feet
62 62 62 62
Panther Creek u/s of SR-167(3) 62
Panther Creek South SR-167 Xing(3)
0 31 0 31
Proposed Culvert Crossing of 35 14.1 10 13.8 35 14.1 10 13.9
SR-167 at SW 23rd Street(3)
56 11 I 77 9.5 55 9.9 37 91
SW 23rd Street Channel d/s
of East Valley Road(3) 70 20.4
Rolling Hills Creek at Renton 70 20.4 70 20.4 70 20.4 70 20.4
Shopping Center Culy.Outlet(3x4)
Rolling Hills u/s 132"culvert(3x4) 70 16.59 69 16.6 69 16.6 69 16.6 69 16.6
SR-167 north crossing 45 14.67 40 14.1 40 13.8 40 14.1 40 13.8
Springbrook Creek
BRPS outflow 726 853 635 754 763
BRPS inflow 726 3.8 853 3.9 935 3.9 754 3.8 763 31
Floodwater Storage Pond Inflow 728 4.2 854 4A 843 4.4 764 4.3 773 4.3
Grady Way Ws
593 6.2 741 6.9 742 6.9 662 6.6 668 6.7
SW 161h Street 584 6.7 733 7.2 733 7.2 654 7 660
Confluence of Rolling Hills Creek 561 9.4 709 8.7 709 8.7 639 8.6 640 8.6
Confluence of SW 23rd St Channel 526 10.4 657 9.4 660 9.4 597 9.7 598 9.7
SW 27th u/s 17.9 519 11.5 609 9.9 631 9.9 555 10.2 577 10.2
_ th u/s 14.9 564 129 575 11.1 561 11.1 534 11.2_ _ 534 11.4
SW 34
SW 34 14.1 567 I3.5 575 12.3 575 12.3 576 12.4 576 12.5
ale ills
Oakesdate u/s 17.1 527 14.3 535 12.6 525 12.6 524 12.4 524 12.5
SW 43rd d/s 22.9 525 14.65 530 13.6 530 13.5 530 13.3 530 13.4
SW 43rd u/s 22.9 525 14.9 530 13.8 530 13.9 530 137 530 13.7
Notes (1) This alternative includes Weiland 12:Altemative 2,Weiland 7N:Altemative 1:Wetland 32 Alternative 1.
(2) This alternative includes Wetland 12:Altemative 2,Wetland 7N:Altemative l:Wetland 32 Alternative 2.
(3) FEQ simulated flows at these locations are based upon frequency analysis of Springbrook
Creek inflows to the BRPS forebay. Refer to ESGRW P Hydrologic Analysis Report(NHC,1996) for flows
u
based upon frequency analysis of Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Creek.
(4) Flows are based upon assumption that capacity restriction through Renton Shopping Center is improved
MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET
Project: Oakesdale Ave. SW PHASE 2 Date: 1/13/99
Subject: Oakesdale Alignment/Surface Water Issues
Project Manager: Joe Armstrong_ Phone #: 425-430-7303
Q Name Affiliation/Representing l Phone #
>C 4R&-4,-4 z i'�SJ - kf3& -7a
<41
J S4- N rT SV�RD2 VP G
�11�.Tt L i3 o u, t' �-+ A-0 rt o Z b G , G 2 4, y ) 9 0
f l/ZS--Y3c)- 7 ZD 9
4 20 43 o- 2&
cAProject\Oakesdale Phase II\signup2
REt VEb
MEETING RECORD
50% DESIGN REVIEW CITY OFRlNr
UTILITYSySTE ON
CITY OF RENTON
Oakesdale Avenue Extension - Phases IB and 2
Meeting Date: 12/3/99 Time: 10:00 AM—Noon Location:
City
Participants: City of Renton: Lin Wilson 425-430-7223
Joe Armstrong 425-430-7303
Abdoul Gafour 425-430-7210
James Wilhoit 425-430-7319
Allen Quynn 425-430-7247
Tom Boyns 425-430-7209
Kato &Warren, Inc.: Ken Kvalheim 206-448-4200
Shawn Summersett 206-448-4200
Mark Brower 206-448-4200
Entranco, Inc. Hillary Stibbard-Terrell 425-454-5600
1. Joe Armstrong provided an itemized spreadsheet of the City's comments. He also
requested an updated schedule from Kato &Warren.
2. Lin Wilson requested to be contacted by Bryce Ecklein regarding use of the left over
enhancement acre from the Phase IA mitigation, and a time frame regarding re-submittal
of the JARPA application.
3. Joe Armstrong reported that the City wants to add a water main to the Oakesdale Ave.
project (for system reliability and fire flows only). Abdoul Gafour suggested that the
water main be shown on the storm drain plans so that new sheets will not need to be
added to the plan set. Red-line plans of the proposed water main were given to Kato &
Warren. The City will provide the Special Provisions, details, and schedule prices. The
water main will be placed under a separate bid schedule. Sale tax will apply to water
main work only.
4. Abdoul Gafour noted that the two monitoring wells will need to be abandoned as per
DOE standards. City to verify ownership of the wells and forward to Kato & Warren.
5. Abdoul Gafour noted that the water main should be located 6-7' from the face of curb.
He added that a 10' separation between water and sewer would not be achievable, but he
Kato&Warren, Inc. Pale 1 12/09/99
would accept the resulting 7 to 75. The 12" line would be 5' deep with 4' of cover.
He noted that the pipe should be placed in an excavation in the new fill. The Special
Provisions should describe this. Include vertical bends at the twin 36's. Abdoul
suggested that a portion of the existing water main (approx. Sta. 2+00 to Sta. 4+00) be
relocated to 6-7 feet from the face of curb to avoid conflict with the proposed water
quality pond. Sufficient cover must be provided. He will forward a revised alignment
near the pond to Kato & Warren. Hillary Stibbard-Terrell to verify that there will not be a
conflict with the wall grid materials. There needs to be a 7' separation from the gas line.
Lin Wilson added that a detail for the PSE trench, on the west side of the road, should be
coordinated with the Phase IA lines and the interconnect conduits.
6. Abdoul Gafour noted that fire hydrants have been added so that the water main can be
maintained and/or flushed. It was agreed that the hydrants would be spaced at 400'
intervals rather than 300', as shown in the red-lines, and that they be placed on the west
side of the road to avoid a difficult wall/hydrant pocket detail. Abdoul added that
bollards are not needed at the fire hydrants.
7. Kato & Warren to estimate the cost of adding the water line to the plans and report back
to Abdoul Gafour next week.
8. Shawn Summersett to provide a draft Surface Water Technical Information Report to
Allen Quynn. Allen requested that the 18" culvert in the mitigation area not be relocated.
Shawn to coordinate with Bryce Ecklem.
9. Shawn Summersett said that it was assumed that the water quality pond (near 3+35) could
be maintained with a backhoe and would not need a maintenance road and approach. It
was noted that City maintenance has reviewed the plans and had no comment regarding
pond maintenance. Allen suggested LCPE rather than concrete pipe for the 2 — 36" cross
culverts. Allen needs a copy of Kato & Warren's response to the 9/30/99 memo to Lin
Wilson.
10. The fill slopes will receive topsoil and upland seeding as was done for Phase 1A fill
slopes.
11. Mark Brower provided Lin Wilson with the geotechnical memo on the mitigation site.
Mark will update the City on the status of the geotechnical report as soon as possible.
12. Lin Wilson suggested that the Phase IA report data on the Metro sewer would probably
satisfy the recent Metro (Eric Davison) request. This response should be transmitted
through Kato & Warren with a copy provided to the City. Extension of manholes may be
a non-standard item. Kato & Warren to investigate.
Kato&Warren, Inc. PaLe 2 12/09/99
13. There was a discussion regarding Entranco's work on the plat maps. Tom Boyns reported
that the take on the "Parks and Recreation" piece is Surface Water property and that it
could be surplused to the City for use as mitigation.
14. Lin Wilson requested that the vertical grid on the wall elevations be other than 1.25 feet
per and. He suggested that the 2.7-3.6 feet of below-grade wall was excessive. Hillary
concurred.
15. There was a discussion regarding the railing that would be provided at the top of the wall.
Lin Wilson suggested that it need not match the Phase IA railing. Ken Kvalheim added
that the City of Kirkland has a "safety fence" detail that is used at the top of walls. It
consists top and bottom rails, end posts instead of line posts - spaced closer than usual,
and is black vinyl-coated. K&W and Entranco to consider the detail for Oakesdale.
16. Lin Wilson noted that there are two poles (not one) on Sheet U4 to be relocated or
undergrounded. Kato & Warren to verify if these are power, phone, or both.
17. Lin Wilson requested that suitable berm excavation materials be used in the lower fill - at
the City's choice. An embankment compaction item should be added for excavated
material to be placed in the embankment. Verify need for imported gravel borrow for 18"
below subgrade.
18. Lin Wilson noted that the wetland boundary on Sheet D2 (Sta. 6+95 Lt.) is nicked by the
fill. Allen Quynn to investigate wetland boundary. The wetland boundary labeled
Boeing "South Marsh" is a City wetland.
19. Lin Wilson requested that the ends of the twin 36" culverts be labeled properly (in/out).
He noted that the 8' pads overlap. Joe Armstrong questioned if there was a need for a
headwall or a CDF seal between the pipes.
20. Lin Wilson noted that the channelization needs to be screened back on Sheet El.
21. The City requested that Kato & Warren add 650' of sidewalk to the southwest end of the
project. The sidewalk would just follow the existing curb. Lin Wilson suggested that this
could be done with notes and/or an inset rather than adding new sheets and survey work.
City to provide necessary information to Kato &Warren.
22. Joe Armstrong requested more detail (profiles, etc.) east and west along S.W. 271' Street.
23. Lin Wilson suggested that the cul-de-sac pavement could remain. City maintenance staff
to do cores to support the idea. Kato & Warren to revisit the profile (need for lowering
grade) and grade break.
Kato&Warren, Inc. Page 3 12/09/99
24. Kato & Warren to consider use of City bollards to extend across the City's pond
maintenance access and SPU's access.
25. Lin Wilson requested that the reference to metric units be removed from Sheet E10.
26. Joe Armstrong to check for the need to change the signal heads at 19th. City to provide
as-builts to Entranco. The City has ped-heads in storage for installation.
27. There was a discussion regarding the review process for signal plans. Lin Wilson
suggested that an intermediate signal review occur. Kato & Warren to also prepare
channelization plans early to allow this.
28. Specifications Comments — PSE Contact: David Matulich not Janet Olsen. AT&T (not
TCI) contact: see Joe Armstrong. SCL contact—Lena Tat.
29. Joe would like to use 2000 WSDOT Specs, along with City's 1996 Supplemental Specs.
Careful attention will need to be maintained to avoid conflicts.
30. Kato & Warren to look at an accelerated schedule. Consider environmental permit,
public notice 60-days, etc. Permit may be critical path. Bid documents may have to
include late start provisions for Phase 2, similar to those in Phase 1 documents. Using the
original time interval between the 50% meeting and the 95% Submittal, it was determined
that the new 95% Submittal date should be 1/14/00.
Distribution: All meeting attendees
Kato & Warren File 99-002 cAM99002150reviewmto.doc
Kato &Warren,Inc. Page 4 12/09/99
TABLE 6
Summary of Wetland Characteristics
MYJraullc
DEQ IIyJitvllc
1 Wetland rEQTablo Swge Sur rice Strr,9a connoctlon Conuecden to SD�Ingbrook
Number Numbcr 11) Arro tAc) IA-fJ Elevatlnn Crock(Unless otl,ormio Notod)
D:CCriptlo„
1p 701
1015 2.94 0.0 30 rirtdlnvcstl0atlw,:fuundl•12'
11.5 2.94 Z,3 pipe. Baceusa of I15 neiiio-ble
12 0.7 5.4 size,It la discmpuc lod from
13 7,62 12.5 the mudel(it SW 191h Strevtl
2 30 7,61 1 a2.1
r58bt Sc101 Not utrd
Vim\
z
p 3 703 10 Wolr
9 5 86 0 0 50'wldlh
til 10 6,88 5.9 900'length
1 12 15.75 27.5 IConnncttng to SW Z3id Street
tAuua is 21AS 64.4 Ch)nnrtl
NY? 10 30.27 115.a
p(nl 30 30.27 639.E
a 704
9 10 Weir
IA 1.2
R, 10 1.2 .2 GO'wldlh
�\ x 11 9.35 6.5 300'Iength
r, 1 12 12. 17.
V LD 14 12.88 88 43.3
ii 16 12.88 09.0
5 705 30 12,68 249.4
Wolr
1
(�,
v 9 1.67 0.0 11,5 50'width
10 1 65 1.7 150'for gth
,�• 111 7,9 11.2
\\\ 11 12,1 31.2
18 22.7 68.1
30 22.7 '1 3,9
8 7013
x 9 5,1 0.0 10.5 Wdr
10 5.1 5.1 50'wldth
11 21.5 15.4 300'length
12 24 41.2
30 24 473,2
rr
� � 'a '� 7A 7071
9 2.4 0.0 10 Weir
N 10 2.4 2.4 1,2
12 1025 15.1 f,200'01 0'lu lunpth
14 11.93 37,Z
to, f 30 11.93 228,1
t , a 0-� 7D 12) 702
n 9 13. 0. 13.5 Wclr
13.54 5a 27.1 40'w7Jt1,
12 23.32 45,5 1.300•Irnoth
14 25.6 94A (connecung 78 and 7A)
xx 30 2516 504,0
f� U.
.rit-1T71 7C(2) 7073
9 OJS 0.0 10.1 1 -40'pipe
10 0.15 0.2 (Connecting 7C and 78)
12 fi.2 G.G
14 115 5 9.4d
le 16.81 52.a
18 26.93 MG
30 26.33 420.5
8 708
15 0.9 0.0 18 Wuir
10 0.6 0.5 50'wldlh
l
17 20.1 10.8 500'longth,8 20.1
.
00 20.9 27272.1
Z0/10 'd 'ON xv. Wd ZE:£0 3ni 66-2-d3S
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 01/10/00
TO: Lin Wilson,Transportation Systems Division
7
FROM: Allen Quynn, Surface Water Utility Division
SUBJECT: Review of Oakesdale Ave. SW Phase lb and 2 echnical
Information Report(T.I.R.)and the abbreviated T.I.R. for Phase
1
The Surface Water Utility has reviewed the Phase lb and 2 technical Information Report with the
following comments:
• There is no discussion of detention requirements in the abbreviated Phase I T.I.R. If
detention is not required please explain in the report.
• Based on the water quality calculations for basin 1 and 2 in the Phase I and 2 T.I.R., both
the existing and proposed wetponds appear to have sufficient volume to treat the combined
runoff from IA, 1B and 2. However,I would like to see a table with elevations, cumulative
storage volume and surface area at one foot intervals for both new and existing ponds.
• The tailwater elevation of 12.9(NGVD 29)will be sufficient for computing the backwater
calculations for the storm drain system in basin land the twin 36-inch conveyance pipes
across the Oakesdale berm. Therefore, it will not be necessary to change the conveyance
calculations.
• The compensatory storage analysis must be submitted and reviewed before final approval of
the drainage report.
• Please verify you are not giving compensatory storage volume credit for the existing wetpond
and created wetland in Phase 1.
• In the last paragraph of page 1,the tailwater elevations for basin 1 and 2 appear to be
reversed.
If you have any questions, please call me at ext. 7247.
cc: Ron Straka
Joe Armstrong
James Wilhoit
H:\DIVISION.S\UTILITIE.S\DOCS\2000-006.doc\a
ENTRANCO
MICHAEL G. YEOMAN
OAKESDALE PHASE 2
PROJECT NO. 97027-26
JANUARY 19, 2000
EXHIBIT "A"
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
CITY OF RENTON
CITY OWNED PROPERTY
An acquisition for roadway purposes over, under and across a portion of Section 25, Township
23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying westerly and northerly of
Burlington Northern Industrial Park Renton II, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume
I I I of Plats, pages 42-44,records of King County,Washington defined as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 9 of said Burlington Northern Industrial Park
Renton No. 11; thence North 88' 32' 51" West, 20 feet to its intersection with the easterly line of
the proposed P-I channel; thence North 020 07' 11" East, 1560 feet, more or less, to its
intersection with a line bearing North 87' 57' 39" West from the most northwesterly corner of
Longacres Parkway, said point being on the westerly line of Government Lot 9 in the Northeast
Quarter of said Section 25; thence South 870 57' 39" East, 1624 feet, more or less, to its
intersection with the northwesterly corner of the westerly right-of-way line of said Longacres
Prarkway, said point also being the westerly line of Government Lot 9; thence South 01° 30' 3 1"
West, 1570.12 feet to its intersection with the northerly line of Block 9, said point also being the
southeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 25; thence
North 870 44' 27"West, 1347.99 feet; thence North 88" 32' 5 1"West, 275.79 feet to the point of
beginning;
LESS that portion conveyed to Burlington Northern Railroad Holdings, Inc. by deed under King
County Recording NO. 8911170955.
TOGETHER WITH that portion of Government Lot 11, and the Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter, and of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, and of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 25, beginning on the easterly line of
Government Lot 10 in said Section, 255.38 feet southerly, as measured along the easterly line
from the southerly line of Henry A. Meader's Donation Land Claim No. 46; thence westerly in a
straight line to a point on the easterly line of the easterly line of the Northern Pacific Railroad
Company right-of-way at a point 289.12 feet southerly, as measured along said easterly line,
from said southerly line of Donation Land Claim and the True Point of Beginning; thence
southeasterly to a point on a line parallel with and 60 feet east of said easterly line of the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company right-of-way at a point 1100 feet north of the east-west
centerline of said Section; thence southerly along said parallel line to a point on the southerly
line of a tract conveyed to Broadacres Inc. by deed under King County Recording No.
7504010373, said point being 545.60 feet north of said east-west centerline; thence east along
Page 1 of 4
ENTRANCO
MICHAEL G. YEOMAN
OAKESDALE PHASE 2
PROJECT NO. 97027-26
JANUARY 19, 2000
EXHIBIT "A"
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
CITY OF RENTON
CITY OWNED PROPERTY
said southerly line to the easterly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said
Section to a point 545.60 feet north of said east-west centerline; thence southerly along said
easterly line to the northwest corner of Longacres Parkway; thence South 87' 57' 39" West 1624
feet, more or less, to the intersection of northerly extension of the easterly line of the proposed P-
1 Channel, said line being 20 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 9 of
said Burlington Northern Industrial Park Renton No. H; thence southerly along said extension to
a point bearing South 88' 29' 29" East, from a point being measured along the easterly line of
said Railroad right-of-way and 2028.44 feet north of the south line of said Section; thence North
88'29' 29' West to the easterly line of said Railroad right-of-way; thence along said easterly line
of said Railroad right-of-way to the True Point of Beginning;
ALSO TOGETHER WITH that portion of Government Lot 9 and the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter defined as follows:
Beginning at a point 20 feet west and 1254.20 feet south of the northeast corner of said
Government Lot 9; thence North 88' 24' 48"West 1029.43 feet, more or less, to a point 300 feet
easterly of the west line of Government Lot 9;thence South 010 01' 49"West 845.23 feet; thence
South 88' 24' 48" East 1032.55 feet, more or less, to a point 20 feet west of the easterly line of
said Southeast Quarter; thence North 00'49' 10"East 845.19 feet to the Point of Beginning;
LESS that portion dedicated for street.
ALSO TOGETHER WITH the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section;
LESS the East 20 feet for drainage canal;
AND LESS that portion lying within the following: Beginning at a point 20 feet west and
1254.20 feet south of the northeast corner of Government Lot 9; thence North 88' 24' 48" West,
1029.43 feet, more or less, to a point 300 feet easterly of the west line of said Government Lot 9;
thence South 01' 01' 49" West 845.23 feet; thence South 88' 24' 48" East 132.55 feet, more or
less, to a point 20 feet west of the easterly line of said Southeast Quarter; thence North 00' 49'
10"East 845.19 feet to the Point of Beginning;
AND LESS that portion platted as Burlington Northern Industrial Park Renton No. II, according
to the plat thereof recorded in Volume III of Plats, pages 42 through 44, records of King
County, Washington.
ALSO TOGETHER WITH Lot 7, Block 7 of said Burlington Northern Industrial Park Renton
No. II;
Page 2 of 4
{
ENTRANCO
MICHAEL G. YEOMAN
OAKESDALE PHASE 2
PROJECT NO. 97027-26
JANUARY 19, 2000
EXHIBIT "A"
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
CITY OF RENTON
CITY OWNED PROPERTY
ALSO TOGETHER WITH the westerly Half of Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way
adjacent;
LESS that portion dedicated as county road;
Said acquisition more particularly describes as follows:
(Bearings refer to Washington State Plane, North Zone NAD83 (91) datum
translated to project coordinate positions by WH Pacific for Oakesdale Avenue
SW Phase 1 and 2 as shown on Record of Survey AF#9601029013).
BEGINNING at the intersection of the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of said Section 25 and the south line of said tract conveyed to
Broadacres, Inc. by deed under King County Recording No. 7504010373; thence
North 01' 03' 03" East, along said west line, a distance of 765.03 feet to the
southerly margin of SW 27t' Street; thence South 88' 24' 10" East, along said
southerly margin, a distance of 88.44 feet to the point of cusp of a 28.00 foot
radius non-tangent curve to the left, the center of which bears South 01' 35' 50"
West 28.00 feet distant; thence southwesterly along the arc of said 28.00 foot
radius curve, through a central angle of 90' 20' 36", an arc length of 44.15 feet;
thence South 01' 15' 14" a distance of 400.08 feet to the beginning of a 5955.00
foot radius tangent curve to the right; thence southerly along the arc of said
5955.00 foot radius curve, through a central angle of 00' 30' 24", an arc length
of 52.66 feet; thence North 89' 15' 10" West a distance of 5.00 feet to the
beginning of a 5960.00 foot radius non-tangent curve to the right, the center of
which bears South 890 15' 10" East 5960.00 feet distant; thence southerly along
the arc of said 5960.00 foot radius curve, through a central angle of 03' 43' 20",
an arc length of 387.18 feet; thence South 020 58' 30" East a distance of 8.03
feet to the beginning of a 6040.00 foot radius tangent curve to the left; thence
southerly along the arc of said 6040.00 foot radius curve through a central angle
of 03' 07' 16", an arc distance of 329.01 feet; thence North 890 51' 14" West a
distance of 80.00 feet to the beginning of a 5960.00 foot radius non-tangent
curve to the right, the center of which bears North 89' 5 P 14' West 5960.00 feet
Page 3 of 4
ENTRANCO
MICHAEL G. YEOMAN
OAKESDALE PHASE 2
PROJECT NO. 97027-26
JANUARY 19, 2000
EXHIBIT "A"
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION
CITY OF RENTON
CITY OWNED PROPERTY
distant; thence northerly along the arc of said 5960.00 foot radius curve, through
a central angle of 03'07' 16", an arc length of 324.65 feet; thence North 02' 58'
30" West a distance of 8.03 feet to the beginning of a 6040.00 foot radius
tangent curve to the left; thence along the arc of said 6040.00 foot radius curve
through a central angle of 01° 02' 18", an arc length of 109.46 feet to the south
line of said tract conveyed to Broadacres, Inc. by deed under King County
Recording No. 7504010373; thence South 87' 57' 35" East, along said south
line, a distance of 18.08 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing and area of 80,167 sq. ft., more or less.
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 30, 1999
TO: File
FROM: Lin Wilson
SUBJECT: Oakesdale Ave SW Project
Wetland Mitigation for Phase 2 Construction
On Tuesday August 24, 1999, I met with Bryce Ecklein and Ken Neiman (K&W), Kirk Hackler
(OPG) and Peter Rosen to review the wetland mitigation plan proposed for Phase 2 of the
Oakesdale project. The JARPA document for submittal to the USACE is in final draft form,
accompanied by Biological Assessments for both NMFS and USFWS (separate documents),
and could be submitted next week. There still remain two issues relating to interpretation or
variance of the Sensitive Area Regulations that need to be resolved, as follows:
Status of"Excess" Wetland Created in Phase 1:
In Phase 1, approximately 2 acres of wetland were created north of SW 27th. Approximately
0.4 acres was funded by a mitigation fee paid by Benaroya, and was not charged to the
Oakesdale project. Of the remainder, approximately 0.6 acres was used as mitigation to
compensate for the impact of Phase 1 upon existing wetlands, leaving about 1 acre available (it
was believed, and stated in the wetland mitigation plan prepared by Shapiro & Associates) for
mitigation of Phase 2 impacts.
Later review established that the impact of Phase 2 affects Category 1 wetlands, and the SAO
regulations require that this can only be mitigated by the creation or enhancement of Category 1
wetlands. The wetland created in Phase 1 is classed as Category 2, and cannot be considered
for the mitigation of Phase 2's impact upon Category 1 wetlands.
Earlier discussions on this topic held out some hope that there might be ways of interpreting or
obtaining a variance from the SAO rules that could put the 1 acre of Category 2 wetlands to
productive use on the project. Our consultants have assumed for the time being, conservatively,
that our wetland mitigation plan cannot rely upon this and have calculated replacement areas
and costs based upon this assumption. However, it would be helpful to discuss this topic once
more to see if we can reach a result more beneficial to the project.
The best fallback solution, if there is no project use, is for there to be one or more developers
with a need for mitigation wetlands, who could purchase the unwanted area. This would be
similar to the provision of wetlands for the Benaroya project, priced at $3 per square foot. Ron
Straka's group will inquire if there are any such current or upcoming development applications.
August 30, 1999
Page 2
Buffer Requirements:
So far, I have been unable to find anyone who can give me a clear explanation of whether or
how the SAO rules regarding wetland buffers apply to Oakesdale Phase 2. In Phase 1, no buffer
provisions were applied to the road's impact upon the Boeing wetland; the impact area was
calculated based upon the intrusion of the new road right-of-way into the delineated wetland.
The current wetland impact and mitigation proposals for Phase 2 are based upon the same
assumptions regarding buffers. Peter Rosen offered to go over the approach used for Phase 1
with Bob Mahn on Bob's return to the office on August 31, 1999,to confirm this approach and
verify that the wording of the SAO regulations is not in conflict with the City's intentions.
cc: Bryce Ecklein(K&W),
Ken Neiman(K&W)
Kirk Hackler(OPG)
Jana Hanson
Sandra Meyer
Ron Straka
Joe Armstrong
Peter Rosen
h:\...\1in\oakesda1\wet1and4.doc
City of Renton
Wetland 'C'
Uy I W
W }(tk' J Phase 1
V Created Wetland (fyp.)
I PRIVATE
BOE/NG DEVELOPMENT i
OFFICE
PARK
Excess Enhanced Wetlond from w
_ I Phase 1; Assigned to Phase 2
Mitigation. (typ.)
O City of Renton m,
Wetland
w I yl +
_ - - City of Renton �f
Wetland 'E j ...
I
Boeing Proposed Phas 11
+'South Marsh - I - - - - - Wetland Enhon ement -
Phase 11 Impact Area
1.95 Acre; _ -
-
City of Renton City o/Renton I City of Renton
Wetland F' :: j Wetland '12-b' Wetland '11'
_ _
City of Renton I / Oakesdole Avenue ZZ11� I I
Wetland 'G' I Phase 11 Project Area =< IZZ
j
I
Proposed Phase 11
zZlIZZ11 Wetland Creation to i
1.6 flares
J
I�I Existing Ookesdole Ave. ZZ;;Z;Z',y I,
Terminus I
A L G N
aExisting Wetlands �.� Phase 11 Proposed Enhanced Wetlond
Phase 11 Impacted Wetlands ® Phase 1 Created Wetland yu
F—
Phase 11 Proposed Created Wetland Phase 1 Enhanced Wetland
Gty of Renton
Oakesdale Avenue SW Extension
Project Wetland Relationships
Figure M6
> .44
TABLE 6 (Continued)
Summary of Wetland Characteristics
FED Hydraulic Hydraulic
Wetland FEQ T,blc 5tago Surfaco Storage Connection Connuctiun to Sivinobrook
Number Number (1) Araa (Ac) (Ac-ft) Elovation Creek(Unless Otherwise Noted)
De.crlption
9 709
15 3.8 0.0 16 Weir
16 3.0 3.6 50'width
17 26.1 78.6 500' length
18 2 .G 45.1
30 20.0 36464.3
10 710
15 6.68 0.0 16 weir
16 6.68 6.7 40'width
17 28.8 24.4 140'length
18 28.8 53.2
30 28.8 398.8
11a 12)13) 711
(PCW north of north 13 2.64 0.0 14 Weir
utility dike) 14 2.64 2.6 15'width
16 7.34 12.6 200'length
18 8.16 28.1 (Connecting to Roltina Hills
30 8.15 125.9 Creek)
11b 12) 712
IPCW between utility dikes) 11 0118 0.0 13.5 2.36'PIPES
12 0.18 0.2 (connecting 110 fk 11)
12.5 3.82 1.2
14 6.93 9.2
16 7.74 .
30 7.74 13232.3
11 12) 713
(PCW south of south utility 11 1.03 0.0 20.3 Woir
utility dike) 12 1.03 1.0 15'width
12.5 21.65 6.7 50'length
14 39.3 52.4 (off Panther Creek)
18 43.86 135.6 13.5 (connecting to 11b)
30 43.88 749.0
(IMPS Refer to Table 4
forebay This wotland was modeled
as a branch,
12 780
5 0.038 0.0 3.5 Multiple pipes
6 0.038 0.0 1 -30"pipe wl flop gate
7 0.076 0.1 1 -36"pipe wlo flap gate
8 0.156 0.2
9 0.158 0.4
10 1.678 1.2
11 9.3 0.7
12 23.52 23.1
43.6
13 43.6 50.6
14 62.23 109.6
15 93.58 187.5
1 1 301.
16.5 142.72 2.72 370.8
30 142.72 22.97.6
(1)7ho storiga calculated for the intermediate stages not given in the toblo below elevation 30 assumes venical walls.
(2) Starting water surface elevations used for the following wetlonds:
7b Elev, 13.5 1la Elev. 13.1
7c Elov. 13.5 11b Eley. 12.7
11 Elev. 12.5
(3)rotlowing the simulation runs, tho bottom elevation of wetland 11a was found to be lower than cluvation 13, This
change has little affoet on the simulation results. This change was made for the altern9tive analy-,,Is simulations.
Vv- t vvt,prOUF��.
ZO/Zo 'd 'ON XV. Wd K:60 Inn 66-2-M
r
s
_._ � `�—_ ••� __•_._ __ ""FPS ____ —_ — _�r-�— � ._.— _._ -- I
0
IN
Ilr 'tIQ •'
r- °,, o.�
I /
4, ,I 11k
q I
I y
� � Z
s x
to
'{ 41'
XI V
f
�
e • I / *IS XI1.5 ' \b• Xlb - wil
Los,
It
KIS 1,11 1V
V
w1 ♦r".1
City of Renton
_ . Wetland 'C' -
I
W
I4
!
=. ' Phase 1
Created Wetland (typ.)
i 3.N.. PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT -
BOEING I < 'Q W
OFFICE
PARK U
Phase 1
O
Y Ih Enhanced Wetland t O
O mi
j City of Renton
Wetland ID, ate'
Kt
SW 27TH ST. —
I ! i
I City of Renton
Wetlond 'E'
ri ,I I I
Boeing Proposed Phos 11
'South Morsh' G Wetlond Enhon ement
Phase 11 Impact Area
' 7.05 Acres "?
City of Renton City of Renton City of Renton
Wetlond 'F' Wetland '12-b' Wetlond '11'
City of Renton _ y7yJ
Wetland 'C 5f Ookesdole Avenue „F
Phase ll Project Area yti
!
+ " Proposed Phose'll
Wetland Creation 'te
1.6 Acres
Existing Dakesdole Ave. ) y W
Terminus
LEGEND
7
Existing Wetlands " Phase 11 Proposed Enhanced Wetlond
;l�
ff':> Phase 11 Impacted Wetlands Phase I Created Wetlond
L�
Phase 11 Proposed Created Wetlond Phase I Enhanced Wetland
y� 1
3, s�
/� . (� �
i
i
�I ,
e
? �
��
I
i
I �
1
r
7
o actprt Account Information Page: 1
09/29/1999 11:32:09 City of Renton
Account No: E 421.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065115 Title: P-I WETLANDS ACQUISITION Fiscal Year: 1994
Debit/Credit D Account Class: Budgeted? Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code 0 Allotment? N
JC Required? N Locked? N
Standard Acct?: N Budget Acct:
-------------------------------------------Account History-------------------------------------------
Year Orig. Budget Adjustments Encumbrances Expenditures Balance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 101,000.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00 0.00
1992 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
------------------------------------------Account Activity-------------------------------------------
Per Orig. Budget Adjustments Encumbrances Expenditures Balance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 193,250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 193,250.00
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 193,250.00 0.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Totals: 193,250.00 0.00 0.00 193,250.00
-----------------------------------------------------Transaction Detail---------------------------------------------------------
Per Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 GJ GJ genjrnal 02/14/1994 02/14/1994 FNN 83860 193,250.00 D
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Encumbrances: 0.00 Activity: 193,250.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 1
o actprt Account Information Page: 28
09/29/1999 08:38:25 City of Renton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account No: E 421.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065115 Title: P-I WETLANDS ACQUISITION Fiscal Year: 1993
Debit/Credit D Account Class: Budgeted? Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code 0 Allotment? N
JC Required? N Locked? N
Standard Acct?: N Budget Acct:
-------------------------------------------Account History-------------------------------------------
Year Orig. Budget Adjustments Encumbrances Expenditures Balance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
------------------------------------------Account Activity-------------------------------------------
Per Orig. Budget Adjustments Encumbrances Expenditures Balance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 101, 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00 0.00
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Totals: 101, 000.00 0.00 0.00 101, 000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 28
o actprt Account Information Page: 1
09/29/1999 11:31:30 City of Renton
Account No: E 421.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065115 Title: P-I WETLANDS ACQUISITION Fiscal Year: 1992
Debit/Credit D Account Class: Budgeted? Y Year End Estimate:
Status Code 0 Allotment? N
JC Required? N Locked?
Standard Acct? : N Budget Acct:
------------------------------------------Account Activity-------------------------------------------
Per Orig. Budget Adjustments Encumbrances Expenditures Balance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.11 -196.11
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -196.11
9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -196.11
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -196.11
11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -196.11
12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -196.11
Totals: 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 1
o actprt Account Information Page: 1
09/29/1999 11:53 :13 City of Renton
Account No: E 421.000600.018.5960.0038.65.065115 Title: P-I WETLANDS ACQUISITION Fiscal Year: 1995
Debit/Credit D Account Class: Budgeted? Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code 0 Allotment? N
JC Required? Y Locked? N
Standard Acct? : N Budget Acct:
-------------------------------------------Account History-------------------------------------------
Year Orig. Budget Adjustments Encumbrances Expenditures Balance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 193,250.00 0.00 0.00 193,250.00 0.00
1993 101, 000.00 0.00 0.00 101,000.00 0.00
1992 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
------------------------------------------Account Activity-------------------------------------------
Per Orig. Budget Adjustments Encumbrances Expenditures Balance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Totals: 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00
r
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 1
�`�� �
o � �, .`
��
��
f
Oakesdale Avenue SW - Wetland Mitigation
A Category 1, primarily Palustrine Scrub/Shrub wetland would be filled by widening of
Oakesdale Avenue SW to the east. This project proposes to fill 1.01 acres of this wetland.
Definitions:
West Wetland - The Category 1 wetland that would be impacted along the east side of
Oakesdale Avenue.
Berm - The upland roadway/berm that defines the east boundary of West Wetland.
East Wetland - The Category 2 wetland that is present between the Berm and
SpringbrookCreek.
The current Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows only for creation or restoration as mitigation for
wetlands impacts. Also under MA.a. mitigation created wetlands shall in no case be a lower
category than the altered wetlands. Bryce did not think that the Phase 1 mitigation created
Category 1 wetlands, and Kirk Hackler, Osborn Pacific, was of the opinion that the new Phase 1
wetland would be a Category 2. This would preclude our use of the banked 1.05 acres from
Phase 1.
The East Wetland appears to be just slightly greater than ten acres in size. It has three wetland
vegetation types, but does not have open water. By damming the small outlet ditch to
Springbrook Creek and excavating a three-foot deep pond behind it, we should be able to create
ephemeral open water, if not possibly a perennial pond. This would upgrade the East Wetland to
Category 1 and allow us to use it for mitigation.
There is about 2.5 acres of reed canarygrass in the East Wetland. Canarygrass being an exotic,
invasive species, we should be able to classify conversion of those areas to scrub/shrub habitat by
live stalking and/or planting tall wetland shrub species as restoration work, as opposed to
enhancement. This would be the least expensive treatment with very high probability of success.
There is a maximum of about 2.0 acres of the Berm that could be converted from upland to any
type of wetland desired. I would suggest a conifer-dominated palustrine forested wetland, since
this is a wetland type and wildlife habitat type that is very limited in the Black River basin. It
would also be the easiest and least expensive to create with a high probability of success.
The amended wetlands portion of the SAO has the same requirements of equal or higher category
replacement. As discussed above, classifying the removal of reed canarygrass as restoration work
would place the project under the current SAO, and would require only 3.03 acres of
creation/restoration as opposed to 1.52 acres creation/restoration and 2.02 acres of enhancement
under the proposed amended SAO.
Category I Scrub/Shrub Wetland
Fill - 1.01 acres
Banked wetland creation from Phase I - 1.05 acres, probably Category 2
Banked wetland enhancement from Phase I - 1.5 acres, probably Category 2
Existing SAO — 3.03 acres replacement required
Wetland modification to create Category lwetland - 0.25 acre Open water pond
Wetland creation/restoration at 3:1 replacement ratio - 3.03 acres needed
2.0 acres creation on Berm
1.03 acres restoration in East Wetland
Proposed SAO - minimum replacement and enhancement variable
Wetland modification to create Category lwetland - 0.25 acre Open water pond
Wetland creation/restoration at 1.5:1 replacement ration - 1.52 acres needed
Wetland Enhancement at 2:1 replacement ratio - 2.02 acres needed
Costs - see attached estimate sheet
Open Water/Pond Creation
$34,992.00
Wetland Creation
Minimum treatment (0.6a. Create/2.4a.restore) $255,610.00
reduction for bare root planting ($ 50,442.48)
Maximum treatment (2a. Create/la. Restore) $852,033.60
reduction for bare root planting ($168,141.60)
Wetland Restoration
Minimum Treatment $167,270.40
Maximum Treatment $69,696.30
Totals Minimum Treatment $422,880.40
Maximum Treatment $921,729.90
OAKSDALE PHASE II WETLAND MITIGATION COST ESTIMATES
WETLAND CREATION AREAS
Assumptions:
Excavate 8 feet deep ($15/cy);
4 feet depth of import ($22/cy);
• 67% tree cover;
33% shrub cover;
• 18 inch Western Red Cedar @ 48 inches on center;
18 inch Sitka Spruce @ 48 inches on center;
• 18 inch Douglas Fir at 48 inches on center;
• 2 gallon R. O. Dogwood/ ninebark @ 48 inches on center;
willow slips @ 24 inches on center;
• 1 year plant establishment period
Wetland Areas Cost per s.f.: $9.78/sf (w/Containerized Plants @$2.13/sf;
Earthwork $7.65)
Wetland Areas Cost per s.f.: $7.65/sf (w/Bare-root Plants @$0.20./sf;
Earthwork $7.65)
WETLAND ENHANCEMENT AREAS
Assumptions:
• 90% tree cover;
10% shrub cover;
• willow slips @ 18 inches on center
• R. O. Dogwood/ ninebark slips@ 18 inches on center (@$3/ea);
Wetland Enhancement Areas Cost per s.f.: $1.60/sf
WETLAND GRUBBING
Assumptions:
• '/< Acre area
• Saturated soils requiring log matting for access;
• Excavate/haul 36 inches;
• Est. earthwork at $25/yd
Wetland Grubbing Cost per s.f.: $2.80/sf
WEIR
Assumptions:
• 24 Inches high
• Cedar or Douglas fir logs;
• Hand and machine work;
Weir Cost complete: $4,500.00
mm
xx �=
:r
x as
• x
A, y
� •yr
1
a,
k
, x
nam
xa �a'rCF, •�aax i ".MMI.ra xxxextt�����rxxx r` "•rr,..xcxc,.
K
x.,:x?„x,x��� •l:x, •��..,„fix
Ir"M am
mpmmm-
•j•_� .,t xx�a`ix�xx••`rx� xxx�x,,,. �`•
ffiM
raxxax ir,SERUM
Ax,xx �r
_,i`iz:ra• ,n'^ ;',�, r�'x'wxx,:xxx„
�«,?k�a,�.�'•>� ';�„��':.... ;xis
1 y �
`A
2 S „;.25•
i
'. 2xxAx•`•
,i`i max:`•
_.. _._............ _....
Sty .27ir S eef
�_.._. �.
a
33:
f ! � .
f
i
;` Et � 1
!j
1
i
s
(t
I
t �
; r
3
i
i
w.Q rI °�•G�
- -
• II
(C/TY OF RENTON)
I I I SCALE r-150'
#/04 FOUND CONC. I I
ANON. W/2' BRASS \ \
DISK WITH PUNCH
INTERSECTION (60E/NG)
34TH STREET / I I I '
OAKSDALE AVE SW \ \
I I I
'POINT A' \ \
POINT OF BEGINNING I C84 '\ '\
S STA. /4+56.22
TA. 2*50.00 ' � 1
I N 0I0/5'47' E I \ \
I -POINT 8' - - - , 45.00'
_ STA. 9*74.64 -
- - - - - S= - -OAKSDALE AVE- - - - - - J- ' - -- -- -- - - ---
►I / C N 0/'/5'/4' E 429.5 - - - - +-_ L-
- - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -�..- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N 02°58'30"' W 8.03' �� •' \
{ RECORD of SURVEY 1 1
*/03 STA. .3+34.97 3.17 RIGHT C70 AF 09706185�Q09 \ '
FOUND CONC. ANON W/2' BRASS 1
DISK WITH PUNCH IN CASE \
CENTER OF CUL-DE-SAC (CITY OF ` \
- OAKSDALE AVE. SW RENTON) \ ,
- I
_ (C/TY OF RENTON) I I \
- -= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4
5'I45e ,
N 0/0/5'/4' E 84.2/'
/04 ` ` N 84°39'20' W 7.02' ' ': S 8804446' E 5.00' I '
AAONUA/ENT ol
1 1
1
I
STA. 3+34.98 N 89024'/2' E j C75 ♦ N 46°15'/4 E 39.60' I 1 1
' 2.88' O
S 87057'45' E
/.05
3 �♦ ;� v �. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
_ , 25.52
b i o - C80 ; I OkaSPo'PO/N�Zr64 I 45.00' S 0/'/5'I4' W
ho N• 0/°25'36' E , i F- -- - - - - - - - - - - - II4.73' - - - '
//45.56' p i j j OAKSDALE AVE
AIONUA/ENT
' I I
►` L/NE N 0I°I5'I4 E
r ,
45.00'
kVNUA/ENT • '
I I I ti I I
28./7- 3
DETAIL-A
DETAIL A I I
LEGEND N.T.S.
FOUND MON IN CASE
' 1
CALCULATED SECTION CORNER I i I
u CURVE TABLE
PER W.H. PACIFIC RECORD OF SURVEY
I I
CALCULATED SECTION V4 CORNER I I N0. RADIUS DELTA ARC TANGENT CHORD DEGREE I I
PER W.H. PACIFIC RECORD OF SURVEY 1 I C70 28.00 90°20'36' 44.15 28.17 39.72 UNDEFINED I I 1
FOUND SECTION CORNER C75 28,00 85006'50' 41.98 26.07 38.16 UNDEFINED '
C80 6000.00 OP01'07' 106.68 83.34 106.68 00°57'l8' I I
P.p.a FOUND V•a CORNER I
C8/ 1 6000.00 03°07'16' 326.83 163.46 326.79 00057'18' I I
(M) MEASURED I I C821 600).00 1 03°43'20- 389.78 194.96 389.71 00°57'18' I I 1
(WHP) RECORD OF SURVEY *9601029012 I I C841 6000.00 1 00'30'24- 53.06 26.53 53.06 OLr57'18- '
I I
S 0749'09 W /J67.04' S QO'49'09' W /253.82'
SECTION 25, T WP 23 N, RGE 4 E, W. M.
RECORD OF SURVEY FOR
E N T R A N C O OAKS DALE AVENUE SW SHEET
WWW.CNTRANCO.COY
RIGHT OF WAY 2
10900 H.E.ea street
Below..Wo,ningt°n 98W4
(206)454-5600 OF
NE %, SECTION ?5, TWP ?3 N., ArZ 4 E., W.M. 2
PROJECT: #97027-26
I .
(CITY OF RENTON) I I
sc" r-/50'
*/04 FOUND CONC.
,NON. W/?' BRA55 \ \
DUSK WITH PUNCH I '
INTERSECTION (WE/NG) \ \
34TH STREET
OAKSDALE AVE SW \ \
'POINT A'
Fow, OF BEGINNING I C84 '\ ,\
+
STA. 2#50.00 STA. /456.?? 1 i 1
I N 0/'/5'47- E \ \
_ 45.00'
I 'POINT 8" - " i I
STA. 9*74.64 -
_ OAKSDALE AVE - - - - --� ' ` -- I------------i --- - -- �• t ----r------ ----
�� ��- �81
40' I-- -_ - - - - - - - - L -- - - - - - -- C82 45, N 01'/5'/4' E 429. , -
i i 4� - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - -
,� N O2.5830'' W 8.03' ;�i _ .1'' '\ \•
C-{ , RECORD OF SURVEY \ 1
*/03 STA. 3t34.97 3.I7 RIGHT C70 I AF #970818900.9 1 '
- - - - FOUND CONC. ANON W/2- BRASS \
- - - D�/5K WITH PUNCH /N CASE \ '
- - - - CENTER OF CUL-DE-SAC (CITY OF - \
- - - OAKSDALE AVE. SW 1
- RENTON)
(CITY OF RENTON) I I _ 1
45' 45' - - - - - - -/ ;- - - - - - -=-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N Ori5I4 E 84.2/
S 8804446' E 5.00' I
*104 N 84'39'2O' W 7.02' ;X'
1 1
,NONUMENT
I 1
STA. 3f 34.98 `� N 89'24'I2' E C75 '' ♦ N 46'/5'/4' E 39.60'
S 87057'45' E �` 2.88' ,' ♦ �� L - - - - --
1
�►- _., /.05 a 25.52 ,
- C80 ► `� 'POINT B' I 45.00' S 0/'/574" W I ! 1
``0 _ _ , STA. 9+74.64 //4.73'
h o N• 0/'25'36' E , I I I F- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� I ,
r� "� - OAKSDALE AVE
cla //45.56 AIONUAIENT
k c� LINE ►N O/'/5'/4 E i
45.00'I
c� AIONUA/ENT
I
28.I7'
3 I 131
DETAIL-A - DETAIL A I I
N.T.S. ,� b
LEGEND I I "
FOUND MON IN CASE I �' I I I
' s 1
CALCULATED SECTION CORNER
CURVE TABLE I I
PER W.H. PACIFIC RECORD OF SURVEY
� CALCULATED SECTION % CORNER
N0. RADIUS DELTA ARC TANGENT CHORD DEGREE I I
PER W.H. PACIFIC RECORD OF SURVEY I I C701 28.00 X720'36" 44.15 28.17 39.72 UNDEFINED I I 1
FOUND SECTION CORNER
C751 28.00 85006'50' 41.98 26.07 38.16 UNDEFINED '
I I
C80 6000.o0 0l'OI'07' 106.68 83.34 /06.68 00057'18' ,
0-0.4 FOUND %a CORNER I C81 6000.00 03'07'16" 326.83 163.46 326.79 00'57'18" I I
C82 6000.00 03043'20' 389.78 194.96 389.71 00'57'18'
(m) MEASURED I I I I
(WHP) RECORD OF SURVEY #9601029012 I I C84 6000.00 00.30'24" 53.06 26.53 53.06 00'57'18' '
I I
I I
S 00049'09" W 1367.04'
S W49'09' W /25.3 8?' I- - - - -
SECTION 25, TWF 23 N, RGE 4 E, W. /Y.
RECORD OF SURVEY FOR
E N T R A N C O OAKSDALE AVENUE SW SHEET,
WINWANTRANCO.CON RIGHT OF WAY 2
10" )LE.t)tn street
B.s.vw.Washington 98W4 OF
(206)454-5W
NE %, ZCTA9N ?5, TWP ?3 N., AGE 4 £., W.M.
2
PROJECT: #97027-26