No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA 07-123_Report 01------- ---;- / -"---T-, -? ~,;,, ~y ,-,.,,._ . f ,-·--- .., '.\;_- l;J ._'!..:.:...::-; ' -------- -"":".", _.,i\ ---, •J w > ~ z "' ~ " w .. ;: " w " ~ " "' :, "' I ! I- LL : C ,_ N l' () I" w 2 ... <t z 0: w ... ~ "' uJ "-C: 0 w " 0: "' "' () 0: => "' i • ~ i l • • • i 0 !; i . ' ! ~ 0 ' 1 l i i I i l ~ ; ; • a: ~ • i~ -· lo' "'"" as.9r XJ = _ Mn:l .::ISNB 0 w ·~·~ i ~~ ' ' ' ' ' Lake Washington ' " ,t,<'ti," ' SEAHAWKS SITE <'.,~ -'Is,,£~~ "'o,i,, >?.,. ' ~o 60, '- c&<v. '- "'>?.,. '- :~ ~,,. / Y. , ,0 , " ,· ~ ·'$' '- '- '-.. PR0P0SED_j1',,"':r,' 4 X 36" CULVERTS ' !le , ct:' J <# i / , / / I -I ~/ ' Parametrix s54-11rg-029ro1106 9101 (BJ ~ N 0 200 Scale in Feet #', ,::, , -" ~ & ,§ / ~ ~ ~. s, L ___ -- /-· .... __ 7,~ FUTURE WSDOT Ci) ~ -< 0 I CROSSING NE 44Trl ST 1--___ , . I Attachment A ·-.....__ ', ·,, ,, ·, '. ',,: O,;., : .,,,~, 1-: Ripley Lane Storm Improvements SEPA Checklist Vicinity and Alignment ~ ' l ! ' I- LL ' :!! ci • • i ~ a 0 , ~ ! • " ~ l " ~ ~ • ~ V ~ 5 ~ § C • <l ---o• . --e-- rn rn f"10 fOO ro, --\-----~-~ I ' ~~ 'IJ ro, --r I L \ 1 -oc ~~c:.c-c::c::__~~-=-~=- m "' rn ' \ I lB-:{- lB-lh f06 cos f~ -.al \ \ --G\--os-- \ \ \ --\ ~--; -=~~-\r ----,e----0,,----- L8-8 lB-7 ~ j UH ' , h~ ~t~ LB-5 -' - i -·~---<------_, __ UH 8-8(2) .. , RB-6 RB-5 RB-4 w ~ -' z 3: " :,:W 0:; 0 ,( zw ,( e, 00. Zo :5 w ti l;l 3: ;! 111 'l !1 !, l;l :, .. I-u. ~ C ' ' i CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: April 9, 2008 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate proJect closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: LUA (file) Number: Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Acceptance Date: Applicant: Owner: Contact: PID Number: ERC Approval Date: ERC Appeal Date: Administrative Approval: Appeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Mylar Recording Number: Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements LUA-07-123, ECF, CAR Elizabeth Higgins October 19, 2007 City of Renton City of Renton, BNSF, & WSDOT R-0-W's City of Renton, Steve Lee N/A November 19, 2007 December 10, 2007 February 25, 2008 March 10, 2008 Date: Date: Project Description: Flood control project involving the relocation of approximately 120 ft of Gypsy Creek and replacement of an existing 26 inch culvert with fou1-36 inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in/near a class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact class 3 wetland buffer areas. A critical areas exemption and environmental review are needed for this project. A shoreline permit is not required because all work will occur more than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washington. Location: 5015 Ripley Lane Comments: Issued two (2) Critical Area Exemptions -one for Flood Hazard Reduction and one for Temporary Wetland Impacts DATE: TO: FROM: CC: PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 25, 2008 Ron Straka, Surface Water Utilities Supervisor Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager, Development Services 1h{ Steve Lee, Surface Water Utilities Engineer Neil Watts, Development Services Director SUBJECT: Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements Critical Areas Ordinance Exemption We concur that the project is eligible for a critical areas exemption for temporary wetland impacts and flood hazard reduction. The proposed project will relocate approximately 120 lineal feet of' Gypsy Creek and replace an existing 26-inch culvert with four 36-inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in and/or near a Class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact Class 3 wetland buffer areas. RMC 4-3-050C5.f.ii allows for a critical areas exemption when there are temporary wetland impacts: ii. Temporary Wetland Impacts: Temporary disturbances of a wetland due to construction activities that do not include permanent filling may be permitted; provided, that there are no permanent adverse impacts to the critical area or required buffer, and areas temporarily disturbed are restored at a 1:1 ratio. Category I wetlands and Category 2 forested wetlands shall be enhanced at a 2:1 ratio in addition to being restored. For habitat conservation areas, this exemption applies only to Category 1 wetlands. RMC4-3-050V.5.f.iii allows for a critical areas exemption for flood hazard reduction: iii. Flood Hazard Reduction: Implementation of public flood hazard reduction and public surface water projects, where habitat enhancement and restoration at a 1: I ratio are provided, and appropriate Federal and/or State autborization has been received. Attached you will find a critical areas exemption, which provides you with the findings and decision on the exemption for your project. Attachment: CAO Exemptions - CONCUR~~ !Cf --,i. C DATE: LAND USE FILE NO.: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: Applicant: PROJECT MANAGER: PROJECT LOCATION: CITY OF RENTON EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS February 25, 2008 LUA07-123, ECF, CAE NAME @"' -.J WlltjJ vH™"" Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements City of Renton Steve Lee, Surface Water Utilities, City of Renton Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager (x7286) 5015 Ripley Lane n~ni ,:~,e.. ,.., PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to relocate approximately 120 lineal feet of Gypsy Creek and replace an existing 26-inch culvert with four 36-inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in and/or near a Class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact Class 3 wetland buffer areas. CRITICAL AREA: Gypsy Creek (Class 2 stream), Class 3 wetland buffer EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C.5.d.iii Surface Water, Flood Hazard Reduction of the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby granted: X iii. Flood Hazard Reduction: Implementation of public flood hazard reduction and public surface water projects, where habitat enhancement and restoration at a 1: 1 ratio are provided, and appropriate Federal and/or State authorization has been received. FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.C.5: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state or federal law or regulation. 2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. 3. Impacts will be minimized and disturbed areas will be immediately restored, if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\JTH\critical areas exemptions\Ripley Lane Gypsy Creek CAE flood hazard.doc Page 1 of 2 O~TE ""' z~ ~· • . CITY OF RENTON EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS DATE: LAND USE FILE NO.: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: Applicant: PROJECT MANAGER: PROJECT LOCATION: February 25, 2008 LUA0?-123, ECF, GAE Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements City of Renton Steve Lee, Surface Water Utilities, City of Renton Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager (x7286) 5015 Ripley Lane PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to relocate approximately 120 lineal feet of Gypsy Creek and replace an existing 26-inch culvert with four 36-inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in and/or near a Class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact Class 3 wetland buffer areas. CRITICAL AREA: Gypsy Creek (Class 2 stream), Class 3 wetland buffer EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C.5.d.iii Sutiace Water, Flood Hazard Reduction of the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby granted: X I iii. Flood Hazard Reduction: Implementation of public flood hazard reduction and public ' surface water projects, where habitat enhancement and restoration at a 1 :1 ratio are provided, and appropriate Federal and/or State authorization has been received. FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.C.5: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state or federal law or regulation. 2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. 3. Impacts will be minimized and disturbed areas will be immediately restored, if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\JTH\crltical areas exemptions\Ripley Lane Gypsy Creek CAE flood hazard.doc Page 1 of 2 4. Where water body or buffer disturbance occurs during construction or other activities in accordance with this exemption, the site will be revegetated with native vegetation as required as a condition of approval for this exemption. 5. No hazardous material, activity or facility is proposed. DECISION: An exemption from the critical areas regulations is approved for the construction of the above described project subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of Resources Discipline Report/Terrestrial Wildlife (Parametrix, October 2007). the submitted Fish and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report 2. The applicant shall provide temporary erosion and sedimentation control according to the State Department of Ecology manual. 3. The applicant shall use best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles. 4. The applicant shall restore disturbed buffer areas by revegetating with native vegetation. A professional, experienced in the use of native vegetation shall plan and carry out the revegetation immediately following completion of construction. SIGNATURE: ' EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of approval (signature date). H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\JTH\critical areas exemptions\Ripley Lane Gypsy Creek CAE flood hazard.doc Page 2 of 2 date CONCU~~~~l DATE O NAME INITIAL/DATE DATE: LAND USE FILE NO.: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: Applicant: PROJECT MANAGER: PROJECT LOCATION: CITY OF RENTON EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS February 25, 2008 LUA07-123, ECF, CAE ~~ Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements City of Renton Steve Lee, Surface Water Utilities, City of Renton Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager (x7286) 5015 Ripley Lane ,~ NP.J,) I ' '" 'I-' - PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to relocate approximately 120 lineal feet of Gypsy Creek and replace an existing 26-inch culvert with four 36-inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in and/or near a Class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact Class 3 wetland buffer areas. CRITICAL AREA: Gypsy Creek (Class 2 stream), Class 3 wetland buffer EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C.5.f.ii Wetland Disturbance, Modification and Removal of the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby granted: X ii. Temporary Wetland Impacts: Temporary disturbances of a wetland due to construction activities that do not include permanent filling may be permitted; provided, that there are no permanent adverse impacts to the critical area or required buffer, and areas temporarily disturbed are restored at a 1: 1 ratio. Category 1 wetlands and Category 2 forested wetlands shall be enhanced at a 2:1 ratio in addition to being restored. For habitat conservation areas, this exemption applies only to Category 1 wetlands. FINDINGS: Tr.e proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.C.5: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state or federal law or regulation. 2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. 3. Impacts will be minimized and disturbed areas will be immediately restored, if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\JTH\critical areas exemptions\Ripley Lane Gypsy Creek CAE wetland.doc Page 1 of 2 -t,/ 12;/01:, ,, ,_, ~-· CITY OF RENTON EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS DATE: LAND USE FILE NO.: February 25, 2008 LUA0?-123, ECF, GAE PROJECT NAME: Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements City of Renton OWNER: Applicant: PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Lee, Surface Water Utilities, City of Renton Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager (x7286) 5015 Ripley Lane PROJECT LOCATION: PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to relocate approximately 120 lineal feet of Gypsy Creek and replace an existing 26-inch culvert with four 36-inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in and/or near a Class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact Class 3 wetland buffer areas. CRITICAL AREA: Gypsy Creek (Class 2 stream), Class 3 wetland buffer EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C 5.f.ii Wetland Disturbance, Modification and Removal of the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby granted: X ii. Temporary Wetland Impacts: Temporary disturbances of a wetland due to construction activities that do not include permanent filling may be permitted; provided, that there are no permanent adverse impacts to the critical area or required buffer, and areas temporarily disturbed are restored at a 1 :1 ratio. Category 1 wetlands and Category 2 forested wetlands shall be enhanced at a 2:1 ratio in addition to being restored. For habitat conservation areas, this exemption applies only to Category 1 wetlands. FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.C.5: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state or federal law or regulation. 2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. 3. Impacts will be minimized and disturbed areas will be immediately restored, if submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\JTH\critical areas exemptions\Ripley Lane Gypsy Creek GAE wetland.doc Page 1 of 2 -. 4. Where water body or buffer disturbance occurs during construction or other activities in accordance with this exemption, the site will be revegetated with native vegetation as required as a condition of approval for this exemption. 5. No hazardous material, activity or facility is proposed. DECISION: An exemption from the critical areas regulations is approved for the construction of the above described project subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the submitted Wetland Biology Discipline Report (Parametrix, October 2007). 2. The applicant shall provide temporary erosion and sedimentation control according to the State Department of Ecology manual. 3. The applicant shall use best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles. 4. The applicant shall restore disturbed buffer areas by revegetating with a mix of native vegetation providing enhanced buffer functions. A professional, experienced in the use of native vegetation shall plan and carry out the revegetation immediately following completion of construction. SIGNATURE Gregg Zimmertjrarl, Admi stra r Planning!Buildirig!Rublic Works Department z. t EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of approval (signature date). H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev&plan.ing\JTH\critical areas exemptions\Ripley Lane Gypsy Creek CAE wetland.doc Page 2 of2 date MUCKLESHOOT PRESERVATION PROGRAM 39015172ndAve. S.E. • Auburn, WA 98092 December 7, 2007 Christine Taylor Phone: (253) 939-3311 Preservation Program Assistant Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 RE: Ripley Lane/ Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements Dear Elizabeth Higgins: On behalf of the Preservation Committee, I have reviewed the information sent on November 21, 2007 regarding the Ripley Lane/ Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements and have the following comments. The 4635 Lake Washington Blvd N and the 5015 Lake Washington Blvd properties are areas which the Tribe has flagged as having a moderate to high potential for archaeological sites. Information regarding previous surveys and recorded archaeological sites is available from the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, in Olympia. ff the project area has been previously disturbed, we would appreciate documentation that shows that the disturbance extends to the depth of planned construction excavation. From past experience we have learned that areas that show surface disturbance can sti II contain intact subsurface deposits. lfthe project area has been previously surveyed, then the following requests can be disregarded. Due to the project's ground disturbing activities and the potential for archaeological discovery, the Preservation Committee is requesting a professional archaeologist be present to monitor construction excavation that could intersect native soils. The Preservation Program does not represent the Wildlife Program and the Fisheries Program which are separate departments under the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Please contact these departments separately for their input on this project. We appreciate the effort to coordinate with the Muckleshoot Tribe prior to site preparation. The destructive nature of construction excavation can often destroy a site and cause delays and unnecessary expense for the contractor. If you have any questions, please contact me at 253-876-3272. Thank you for keeping the Tribe informed. CC: Stephenie Kramer, ;\S¥istant State A.f.!,Jmeologist, DAHP The Muckleshoot Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe with reserved rights under the Treaty of Point Elliott and the Treaty of Medicine Creek to (among other rights) hunt and gather on all open and unclaimed lands. I State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Mailing Address: WDFW, 1775 -12th Ave. NW, Issaquah, WA 98027 (425) 313-5683 Regional Office Location: WDFW Region 4, 16018 Mill Creek Blvd., Mill Creek WA 98012-1296 (425) 775-1311 November 26, 2007 City of Renton Surface Water Division ATIENTION: Steve Lee, Civil Engineer Renton City Hall, 5th Floor I 055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Lee: SUBJECT: Incomplete Hydraulic Project Application Package; Replace Culvert with Multiple Culverts and Realign Stream Channel; Gypsy Creek Subbasin Drainage, Tributary to Lake Washington; Southwest V. of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 05 East, 47.53497 North Latitude, 122.19676 West Longitude, King County, WRIA 08.6007, WDFW Log No. 111269.01 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) received the above-referenced application for a Hydraulic Project Approval (HP A) on November 16, 2007. The application was incomplete and is being returned to you. Please resubmit the application, along with the following information, to the above Issaquah address, to complete the application. Plans submitted with the application were incomplete. At our August 29, 2007 field review meeting, documentation of the design alternatives considered was requested to provide the WDFW the opportunity to evaluate whether the proposed design would provide proper protection of fish life, including meeting current fish passage criteria, given the site constraints. The requested documentation has not been received for evaluation. Initial review indicates the proposed design may contain an excessive amount of riprap and quarry spalls. The proposed channel is also significantly shorter than the existing channel, and the design may not meet the requirements of WAC 220- 110-080. Additional coordination to ensure the project design complies with WAC 220-110-070 and WAC 220-110-080 is required. I City of Renton/Steve Lee Page2 November 26, 2007 Once the above-referenced design coordination has satisfactorily occurred, the application can be re-submitted for approval. The 45-day review period will commence per RCW 77 .55.021 once this has occurred. If the City desires Parametrix to act as its agent, the portion of the signature block designating the agent needs to be signed. Repeated inconsistencies in the project biological evaluation and wetland biology discipline report were also noted. One is the name "Gypsy Creek" for the stream. Gypsy Creek is a nearby tributary to May Creek. The stream at this site is properly called Gypsy Subbasin Drainage, a name established by your predecessor in the 1990s to distinguish it from Gypsy Creek. Another inconsistency concerns documentation of fish use in Gypsy Sub basin Drainage. I documented the presence of cutthroat trout in this stream in 1997. The occurrence of salmon or adfluvial (lake run) trout spawning in this stream just upstream of NE 44th St. has also been observed and been reported to me by City of Renton road maintenance crews. If there are any questions regarding this, please contact me at 425-313-5683 or at fisheldf@dfw.wa.gov. Sincerely, Larry Fisher Habitat Program LF:lf:IC.111269.1.doc cc: WDFW WRIA File, Olympia, Reinbold, Uber STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on November 24, 2007. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $84.00. ~41Z,)2a ' mda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter ,,,,,,,11 ~~1///11111 S~d sworn to me this 30th day of November, 2007. _f''" .~ ....... ~-1Z'~ -2' ,Y .. ·~\':: "''on ft,;· •• ~ ~ 2 0 :"r;:,f;:-:,;.C".'. '">' ~ .:::C Q /" ,;\Cl 1 ARV' \ ::::: : •-: = State of Washington, ResidiiigJn\ Pua1.-\" / 5 [ -;:. ,A •• ~: /.-..... .."::;:-· . .._::. -y •• Oc, 'l~~ .· 0 ~ ~:'.;,-~(' ·· . .-.-. .1.!.',···~,~ -:,...::::~ /...-:,1 0,:-\V p,...S \,,, . /1, ' \\\ , 11 /i//1!11\\\\ C ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Co<le. Ripley Lane / Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements LUA07-123, CAE, ECF Location: 4635 Lake Washington Blvd N; 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N; 5015 Ripley Lane N. The proposal is to replace culverts for an existing, undersized, 24-inch diameter culvert that carries Gypsy Creek under Ripley Lane and under the BNSF Railway right-of-way. Appeals of the environmental detennination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December I 0, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Published in the Renton Reporter on November 24, 2007. #21528 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNSJ POSTED TO NOTlfY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAIIIE; IUP9Y Lane I Gyps:, CrN-k Fkxld llnprovem&nC11 PROJECT NUMBER~ · LUAOT.123, ECF, CAE LOCATION-: '63$ la~ W~lJ'lgtQn Blv~ N; .501'5 Uli:IJ W--lng~ BNtlN; "15 O~SCRI.PTIQN: TIH PfOPOllal is to Ntpf,1¢t CUNIIIU-for an ti11:h!ilit9-underatmd. :U-lnc:h diameter eu1Yerl th.11lutri1N Gypy CnHk vndffR!pJey Ulna and under the 8NSV. RaMway tlgflt,ol'.way. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMlTIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT A0VER$E IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT If THE ENVU~ONMENTA!. DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUB.UC HEARING WILL BE. SET ANO ALL PARTIES ,N;O,,T,,l'-'Fl,.ED,c... ____ ~------~=---~ -- \ FOR Fl/RTHER INFORMATION. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DMSION AT (4l5) 430-7200 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATION ,,\\\\\HHii ~ .... ';,:'.; ,1Nf,: ;..i: 1 ~t.1 11 I, YG>-1-...-,d._ ~ ....... ;...--..,hereby certify that__'.L_ copies of the above docu~\vcre: '· · "Jt posted by m ~ conspicuous places or nearby the descnbed property o ' ,. . .,. . <~ . ~ , DATE:d-'2.L-o"} Signe· · _.....:L.. 0 ;c~J 'l. ·: .... :\ JI=!\..'• .... ~:a= 11 "1-1,111, <'-19.<.0.F,;: ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me. a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington ~/~''""'""''\;,.0§' Cl ~ I F' AS'r-,,_,, .:::: s+ w» '' ...unrrtlo 'on the~.. day of \..::bll'eMk:iu., -----. - " NOT RY Pl!fl JC SICON . RE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON.SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ripley Lane I Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: LUA07-123, ECF, CAE LOCATION: 4635 Lake Washington Blvd N; 5015 Lake Washingotn Blvd N; 5015 DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to replace culverts for an existing, undersized, 24-inch diameter culvert that carries Gypsy Creek under Ripley Lane and under the BNSF Railway right-of-way. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 10, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional infonnation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES N,;.0==.Tccle...F!.elEc.eD:c... -----.,--------,.,-,.-rr--..,...,---, ' ' ' ' Prl0?0$EP- HW CUL\>~Hf:S FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLAN NIN GIB UILDIN GI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM November 21, 2007 Steve Lee, Civil Engineer, Surface Water Division Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Planning & Development ffe Ripley Lane / Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements LUA07-123, ECF, CAE ERC Determination On behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) this is to inform you that they have completed their review of the environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. The Committee, on November 19, 2007, decided that your project will be issued a Detem1ination of Non-Significance. The City of Renton ERC has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the ERC under the authority of Section 4-6-6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Appeals of the environmental determination must he filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 10, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, ( 425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. CIT~T OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator November 21, 2007 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determination Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on November 19, 2007: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Ripley Lane/ Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements LUA07-123, ECF, CAE LOCATION: 4635 Lake Washington Blvd N; 5015 Lake Washingotn Blvd N; 5015 DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to replace culverts for an existing, undersized, 24-inch diameter culvert that carries Gypsy Creek under Ripley Lane and under the BNSF Railway right-of-way. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in wr.iting on or before 5:00 PM on December 10, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional infom1ation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, ( 425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at ( 425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Divisirn1 WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Enclosure -------lil-55~So_u_th_G_rad_y_W_a_y_--Re-n-to_n_, W-as-ht-.n-gto-n-98-0~5-7 ------·~ @ This paper contains 50% r~yded material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA07-123, ECF, CAE City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Dept, Utility Division Ripley Lane / Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is to replace culverts for an existing, undersized, 24-inch diameter culvert that carries Gypsy Creek under Ripley Lane and under the BNSF Railway right-of-way. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 4635 Lake Washington Blvd N; 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N; 5015 Ripley Lane N City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 10, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services November 24, 2007 November 19, 2007 Dfi¢1);71.~t~~~ Fire Depa nt Date ll L"i v'7- Date ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE November 19, 2007 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Monday, November 19, 2007 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. Thanedar Short Plat (Ding) LUA07-093, SHPL-H, V-H, ECF The applicant has requested Hearing Examiner Short Plat approval, Variance approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the subdivision of an existing 40,208 square foot site into two lots and one tract (Tract A). The average slopes across the site exeed 20 percent, therefore the proposal is being review as a Hillside Subdivision. The project site is located within the Residential -8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning designation. Proposed Lot 1 would be 5,327 sq. ft., Lot 2 would be 7,428 sq. ft., and Tract A would be 26,033 sq. ft. Access to the lots would be provided off of NE 14th Street via residential driveways. Protected slopes (slopes with grades exceeding 40 percent) are located on the south portion of Lot 2, no development is proposed on the protected slopes. The requested setback variance would allow for the subdivision of the property as proposed and the retention of the existing residence with a 10-foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required 20-foot rear yard setback. Ripley Lane I Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements (Higgins) LUA07-123, CAE, ECF The proposal is to replace culverts for an existing, undersized, 24-inch diameter culvert that carries Gypsy Creek under Ripley Lane and under the BNSF Railway right-of-way. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, EDNSP Director® C. Walls, Fire Prevention N. Watts. P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner B. Van Horne, Fire Preventlon ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/8/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® ERG REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Owner: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF- Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City of Renton Department of Planning /Building/ Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT November 19, 2007 Ripley Lane/ Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements City of Renton (Right-of-Way); BNSF (Right-of-Way): WSDOT (Right-of Way) City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Dept, Utility Division Steve Lee, Civil Engineer; Surface Water Division LUA07-l 23, ECF, CAE Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner The proposal is to replace culverts for an existing, undersized, 24-inch diameter culvert that carries Gypsy Creek under Ripley Lane and under the BNSF Railway right-of-way. 4635 Lake Washington Blvd N; 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N; 5015 Ripley Lane N NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): NIA Total Building Area GSF: NIA NIA NIA Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) ;_,;, .. 1·,J.:.',,',s,,'·,, ' ' -· . ,·,1:. -- ' I .. ' ' I . I </ ',/; I . I / , Ii I /-'// / ' l ' . ' ,:· I ' 1' I,' i . ' I : : I , / ' / / ' I , . ' ,N°' ;-\\··· /1 :'I -J--- Project Location Map ... 'l,/) I ' ' I J •·" ,·,·,.•.J r·•i,:i·,,:'I, ERCreport_LUA07-f 23 (rev).doc Ci(y ofRento11 P/B!PfV Depart1J1e1 Envirc en ta! Revieiv Committee Staff Report RIPLEY LANE I GYPSY CR£ E c,;•Oc;;Oc:DCcfo;;M"P~R~O=V"'E'°MccEccN"'Tc;;:Sc.' -----~~----'L:::.;L::.:'Aae0"'7_-"'12"'3,_, "'E"'C"-F~, C"'A'°E~ Report of November 19, 2007 Page 2 of 6 [~~RT ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND The proposed project would replace an existing culvert that, at 24-inches, is undersized for the needed capacity. The culvert, under Ripley Lane N and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way (BNSF RR ROW), constrains upland drainage and results in floodwaters impounding over the roadway. [Exhibit 1] This causes closure of Ripley Lane N at a frequency of approximately every two to three years. Ripley Lane N is the only access to numerous residences north of the culvert. The proposed surface water conveyance would tie into a new 60-inch diameter pipeline located to the west of the BNSF RR ROW constructed across the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. [Exhibit 2] The construction of the 60-inch pipeline was approved as part of the Model Toxics Control Act compliant clean-up of the site. The proposed project is intended to be compatible with future Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) plans for widening of Interstate 405 (1-405 Route 169 to Interstate 90 Congestion Relief -Renton to Bellevue Improvement). The proposed stormwater conveyance is located approximately I 00 feet south of the existing culvert. It would include re-routing approximately 120 feet of the Gypsy Creek open channel between Ripley Lane and the existing l-405 roadway improvements to an inlet structure at the edge of the Ripley Lane road prism. The re- routed stream would include a series of log weirs to provide fish passage to the new culvert. The existing Gypsy Creek open channel would be maintained as off-channel habitat. The new conveyance system would consist of four high-density polyethelene pipes, each of which would be 36-inch nominal diameter. [Exhibit 3] These pipes would carry flows under Ripley Lane, under the King County Metro Sewer 84-inch diameter eastside mainline, and under the BNSF RR ROW, including the tracks, to discharge into the 60-inch diameter pipeline on the Seahawks site. [Exhibit 4] One pipe would be installed al an inlet invert elevation (IE) of 18.09 and a slope appropriate for fish passage at low flows. The other three pipes would be installed at an inlet IE of 18,89 and a somewhat steeper slope to carry high flows. The connection to the existing Seahawks 60-inch pipeline would be through a concrete box structure approximately 10 feet by 28 feet in size with an open grate top and gravel substrate in the bottom to provide for light and a resting area for fish passing through the system. There are wetlands located within the project site near the area that the new pipes would tie into existing upland culverts. [Exhibit 5] Impacts to wetlands in this area, near the WSDOT ROW, however, would be avoided. [Exhibit 6] The existing culvert under Ripley Lane would be plugged at the easterly inlet. The existing culvert under the King County Metro Sewer 84-inch diameter pipe, and under the BNSF RR ROW, would be maintained to provide local drainage from the west side of Ripley Lane and the RR ROW and would be conveyed through a pipeline system to the 60-inch pipeline on the Seahawks site. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A, Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probably impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue DNS with 14-day Appeal Period. B, Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed. ioRCreport_LUA07-123 (revj.doc Cit)· of Renton PIB/PJY Departme RIPLEI' LANE I GVPSY Cl/El:. LOOD IMPROVEMENTS Report of November 19, 2007 C. Exhibits Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Vicinity Map Site Plan Pipe Detail Surcharged Pipe Plan with Profile Wetland and OHWL Surcharged Pipe Plan with Wetland D. Environmental Impacts h.'nvir· zental Revinv Commilfee Staff Report LUA07-/23, ECF, CAE Page3of6 The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: I. Earth Impacts: The site is a former alluvial terrace that existed at the margin of Lake Washington prior to the lowering of the lake 8.8 feet in 1916. Therefore, the topography of the site is level, with the exception of the RNSF RR embankment which is approximately IO feet in height with a 2: I side slope. Riparian soils near the open stream channel between Ripley Lane and 1-405 are mapped in the King County Soil Survey (USDA, 1973) primarily as Bellingham silt loam, a poorly drained soil formed in alluvium, and Kitsap silt loam, a moderately well-drained soil formed in lake deposits and generally found on terraces. Soils within the basin are generally of the Alderwood-Kitsap Indianola series of soils that fom1ed slowly on penneable glacial till or glacial lake deposits. There are no surface indications of unstable soils. The underlying alluvial deposits, however, may be susceptible to liquefaction during seismic events. Temporary cut and ti II for culvert installation would include removal and replacement of about 3,000 cubic yards (cy) of material. Fill to provide sufficient cover over the new pipes would total about 50 cy on the west side of the BNSF RR ROW. About 1,700 cy of material would be removed from upland areas for stream channel relocation east of Ripley Lane. Erosion could occur when materials are exposed, therefore, Best Management Practice for erosion control would be implemented to control potential adverse impacts. There would be no change in the overall amount of impervious surfaces as a result of the project. Future 1- 405 widening, however, would result in such increases. The system proposed by this project is intended to provide capacity for runoff from future 1-405 improvements. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 2. Air Impacts: Construction equipment could result in exhaust emissions and exposed soils may create dust patticles. Vehicle emissions are regulated by state agencies. Best Management Practices would be employed for control of dust. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. ERCreport_LUA07-123 (rev).doc Citv ofRe11/011 P/B/PW Depart me, RIPLEY LANE I GYPSY CREE ,OOD IMPROVEMEN1S Report or November 19, 2007 Nexus: '.\ot applicable 3. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Envirr iental Review Committee Staff Report LUA07-ll3, ECF, CAE Page 4 of6 Impacts: The culvert replacement is on Gypsy Creek, which flows into Lake Washington. Wetlands in the area are north and south of the existing Gypsy Creek open channel. Wetland I is immediately south of the stream and is contained within the ditch conveyance at the edge of 1-405. Wetland 2 is located north of the Gypsy Creek open channel and extends about 20 feet west ofl-405. Both wetlands a9pear to be recharged from combined 1-405 and Gypsy Creek runoff. The new culverts would be approximately 100 feet south of the existing Gypsy Creek channel. The new stream channel to the culvert inlet would be constructed outside of the water, except for the final connection. No work would take place in the existing wetlands. Wetland buffer area would e disturbed by construction of the new channel. The existing vegetation in the area disturbed is reed canary grass. As part of the project, the disturbed area would be re-planted with native riparian vegetation. This would result in a more effective buffer area. The WSDOT plan for widening 1-405 in the future would displace the Gypsy Creek open channel as well as both wetlands. Mitigation for stream channel and wetland loss would be the responsibility of WSDOT. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable b. Storm Water Impacts: Stormwater would be increased by the future widening of I-405. The proposed Ripley Lane / Gypsy Creek project would provide capacity for this additional runoff. Accidental discharge of sediment from erosion or fluids from construction machinery could occur during construction. The Best Management Practices used for erosion/sedimentation control and for spill control and emergency response would limit the likelihood of waste materials entering ground or surface waters. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 4. Vegetation Impacts: Some riparian vegetation would be removed where the new channel connects to the existing Gypsy Creek. Vegetation that would be removed consists of shrubs and red canary grass. No trees would be removed as a result of this proposal (this is a revision of the Environmental Checklist #B4b). There are no known threatened or endangered plant species in the project area. Clearing limits would result in disturbance of the minimum area necessary for construction. Cleared areas would be restored after construction is completed. The area adjacent to the proposed new stream channel would be planted with riparian vegetation as part of the project scope of work. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable ERCreport_LUA07-123 (rev).doc City o/Ren1011 P/BlPVV Deparrmer· RIPLEI' LANE I GYPSY CREE ,OOD IMPROVEMENTS Repor1 of November 19, 2007 5. Wildlife Envin 1ental Revie11.1 Committee StaffReporr LUA07-123, ECr; CAE Page 5 of6 Impacts: Although there are small birds and mammals probably present in the area of the proposed project, there are no threatened or endangered species of animals or fish in the project area or within Gypsy Creek. There arc, however, several species of ESA-listed fish in Lake Washington and eagles are known to forage in the vicinity of the project area. The site is near Lake Washington, which is a migration route for fish. The BNSF RR ROW also provides opportunities for some movement of terrestrial species. It is likely that the area of vegetation and open stream between Ripley Lane and l-405 is used by migratory species. No long-term negative impact is anticipated. The proposed project is anticipated to enhance migration of fish. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 6. Environmental Health a. Environmental Health Hazards Impacts: A Puget Sound Energy (PSE) I 0-inch high-pressure gas line at Ripley Lane would require reconfiguration to accommodate culvert installation and would entail some risk of explosion. It is anticipated that coordination with PSE would ensure that potential impacts would be minimized during construction. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable b. Noise Impacts: There would be an increase in noise, on a temporary basis, during construction. The City of Renton hours of construction would be observed. There are no residential or similar uses within 600 feet of the project area, however. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 7. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: It is unlikely that the site of the proposed project is within an area of pre-European, Native American settlement. The lowered level of Lake Washington means that settlement areas are typically upland of the project site. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 8. Transportation Impacts: The proposed surface water conveyance crosses one public street, Ripley Lane, and the BNSF RR ROW. Ripley Lane is a substandard public street, with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks in the vicinity of the project. There is no public transportation service along Ripley Lane, A school bus stop is located approximately 500 feet north of the site. Although the construction of the project would interfere with railroad traffic, there currently is none scheduled on this portion of the BNSF line. Access to residences north of the project site by means of Ripley Lane would not be impeded for more than short periods of time. ERCreport_LUA07-J 23 (re,).doc City u/Renton P/BiPT-V Dcpartme, · RIPLEY LANI:: I GYPSY CREE .OOD IMPROVEMENTS Report of November 19, 2007 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 9. Utilities F.nvfrr»··zental Revie-.P Committee Staff Report LUA07-l23, ECF, CAE Page 6 of6 Impacts: The I 0-inch PSE natural gas pipeline located in the Ripley Lane ROW may require relocation during construction. An 84-inch diameter King County Metro sanitary sewer line is located within the BNSF RR ROW west of Ripley Lane. The proposed culverts would pass under this line. A 12-inch City of Renton water line is located west of the BNSF RR ROW. A protion of this line would be raised to pass over the proposed culverts. A 12-inch City of Renton sanitary sewer line is located west of the BNSF RR ROW. A portion of this line would be raised to clear the proposed culverts by relocating the "drop manhole" to the south. An overhead telephone line is located in the Ripley Lane right-of-way. This line is not I ikely to be affected by the project. Overhead PSE electrical distribution lines are located in the Ripley Lane ROW. This line is not likely to be affected. An overhead 115 kV PSE electrical transmission line crosses 1-405 and enters the Ripley Lane ROW about 15 feet south of the existing Gypsy Creek culvert. The transmission line then continues to the south on the east side of the ROW. This line is not likely to be affected. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ,/ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, December 10, 2007. Renton \.1unicipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ERCreport_LUA07-123 (re,1,doc . I ' ZONING PIBIPW TICHNlCAL BBllVICBS QZ/28/07 / / / C"'.l I .Q .•. ..---I, --i..J'.. ,---I! ~ i --< • • • <> --J ""'"',,....,....j ... / ~-\ CI/J 11 . JI 0: ;: ..G /1 ~(i C":, \ \ -·« -n Q), I :>J; ~I ... cf·, ..., ii "Sf< I 1 ,---j ;, --< 1, // .. _.SE_ 68t!i"1 i St .. , I t;,~AHA-w~S --P.,N':>P-P...P-~oJJ C4 • 32 T24N RSE E 1/2 0 290 400 1:4.BOO 29 T24N R5E SE EXHIBIT 1 Lake Washington ... / ' SEAHAWKS SITE !' I '-/ A, / PROPOSED__// ,_; 4X36" I ;, CULVERTS / / ,JI ,/ / / / / / / / / /~ / .s,"<" /cJ- /Ic /#1 /<t /{/} /,# / I I I / / ;'/ I / Parametrix 554-1n9-029ro11os sro1 (B) 0 200 Scale in Feet / I / / / / / L __ _ 7<'~-1---FUTURE ilVSDOT CROSSING -------~ --- Ripley Lane Storm Improvements EXHIBIT 2 •• ~ E--< ,, " i" >---< CQ >---< ::r:: (") >< µ.:i -' <! t;; " ~ I I • m l ~ I ~ 5 . ~ l ~ I ! I i I 1111 ;!Ii I- LL ~ d ~ ~ ~ i §' ~ j ' : ; i " C ' ' ,. I ~ g i lj r a i-' .! ' ' i 'l . h: , I .. . , . ! I f l-1:1 i ~ !~ a • ,u g ~ ~ ~ -.., ........... <1,.."t.n>oc ...... -................ ,.,. .. , ......... ,.WO E--< >-< ~ >-< "'T ::r:: X µ.i ·,!ISN 0 I 11\,.?I ll Ill ' ~~ i,: !l -! n .:,--.,-,-.-------g-,t-------------' t ~ if f :: ::::-~.:' --. / _ ... ...._ ..... ,._ ............... -~ f17 / \ "' no Rl9 "' '" ------ ----:..:::. ___ _ -=-~?-=-~~ ,/ --.,,....---7.--::-:. = =::-:-:::----~.\~ ... --"' ~ -- ---- ""-----'--== e • ~ !u ,------ i \~-, I \ lBj6 i ' -~------.___ ____ """.~ . RB--!i ; ,10 roe FD7 r1: "' I i i"16 \"- ' 117,' ~ I ·~ i ! I I , ,o; ro, ~··· ~4· . 7;±0;:?\;.' w "-;;: C w " "' ~ ~ :, "' I- Li,. ~ C ' ! Iii ! ·Hi ! City ot nenton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 2, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-123, ECF, CAE DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton -Utilit Division PROJECT TITLE: Creek Flood Im rovements SITE AREA: " LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane I WORK ORDER NO: 77830 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Flood control project involving the relocation of approximately 120 ft of Gypsy Creek and replacement of an existing 26 inch culvert with four 36 inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in/near a class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact class 3 wetland buffer areas. A critical areas exemption and environmental review are needed for this project. A shoreline permit is not required because all work will occur more than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code} COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major lnformalion Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht!Gfare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Se,vices Energy! Histon'c/Culturaf Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional i ormation is needed to properly assess this proposal. l/-(<j-07 Date ' '"' ' .. CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator ~.[·· ·; YB~···.o"'. -.; 1, -' ~ Kathy Keolker, Mayor .l:';\;'\'i..."l)'---------------------------- November 8, 2007 Ms. Karen Walter, Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Fisheries Division Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 -172"a Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Re: Response to Comments on LUA07-123, ECF, CAE -Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements Dear Ms. Walter Thank you for your comments on the above-referenced project, sent to my attention by electronic mail on October 26, 2007. The response to your questions, provided by the project consultants, Parametrix, is included herewith. Parametrix is working under direction of the Project Manager, Steve Lee, City of Renton Utility Systems Division, Surface Water. If you have additional comments or questions you may contact me ( 425-430-7382) or call Steve Lee at 425-430-7205. Thank you for your continued interest in the City of Renton. Sincerely Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner Cc: Steve Lee File v ' -------l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_ra_d_y_W_a_y ___ R_e-nt-on-.-W-a-s-hi-ng_t_on_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ AHEAD OF TIIE CURVE Parametrix ENGINEERING • PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 411108th AVENUE NE, SUITE 1800 BELLEVUE, WA 98004-5571 l'. 425 • 458. 6200 F. 425 • 458 • 6363 "'ww.p:1r:,n,~1,i,..~om MEMORANDUM DATE: October 29, 2007 TO: Steve Lee, City of Renton, Utility Systems Division, Surface Water FROM: David Sherrard, Parametrix SUBJECT: City of Renton, SEP A Determination, Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood improvements LUA07-123 Response to comments from Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Tribe PMX Project No. 558-1779-029 The following numbered questions were raised by the Muckleshoot Tribe. Responses are in italics. Please phone or email me if you have questions or c01mnents. 1. What is the nature of the flood concern that is the basis for this project? Where any other flood control alternatives considered that would have provided flood flow capacity and remove Gypsy Creek from the current pipes? The floodwaters stage 3.5feet above Ripley Lane N. during larger rainfall events and prevent access of any vehicles or pedestrians through the street. This is the only street that serves the residents and properties at the end of Ripley Lane N. (See Figure I below showing the 2006 November flooding extent. ) Figure I !Renton Ripley Stream Conv SEPA Response to MK Tribe (rev).doc ' The flood waters come from two sources: • The Gyp~y Creek Watershed • Interstate 4()5 impervious surface, including additional impervious surface from proposed future widening Options for flows in Gypsy Watershed were considered in two sets of studies: • Watershed studies by the City of Renton, particularly the 1997 Gypsy Subbasin Drain Improvements Design Memorandum. Prepared for the City of Renton by Entranco. Bellevue. Washington. • Environmental and design studies for the l-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Program, particularly the Final Environmental Impact Statement June 24, 2002, Draft Surface Water Resources Expertise Report, April 2001, CH2M HILL; 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project, SR 169 to 1-90, Environmental Assessment, March 2006. Directing drainage from l-405 from about I I 2th Avenue to the Kennydale hill crest into the Gypsy Creek drainage was proposed primarily to benefitfish as stated in the NAIFS in their Biological Opinion National Marine Fisheries Report. Gypsy Creek does not host anadromous_fish and is less ecologically productive than other streams in the area. Endorsement of this drainage proposal was given by NMFS in their Biological Opinion. It is not.feasible to provide an open channel across Ripley Lane and the BNSF railroad because of the existing transportation facilities and the existing King County Metro 8.foot diameter Eastside sanitary sewer interceptor pipe that is constructed in six foot sec/ions and placed on pilings at six foot spacing. There is only sufficient room to place a single 36-inch culvert between these existing pilings that support the King County Eastside sanitary sewer interceptor. The construction of a culvert across the Seahawks Training Facility site lo the west was approved as part ofAfTCA cleanup of hazardous materials. The site lo the west is outside the project area and scope of this proposal. 2. Why is a single 26 inch culvert being replaced with four 36 inch storrn drainage culverts 9 The existing 26 inch culvert is inadequate for existing flows duringflood events. Hydrologic modeling of the watershed andfuture 1-405 impervious surfaces established a I 00 year storm event maximum flow of I 98 cji·. The system is sized to accommodate those peak flows. 3. Will the single culvert proposed to provide the only fish passage out of the four culverts be able to pass juvenile and adult salmonids? What fish passage design standard is proposed for this culvert? How will flows be managed between the four pipes to ensure that there is fish passage? The low flow culvert will provide fish passage at low flows by providing adequate depth and velocity for fish. All pipes will provide fish passage at higher flows. The low flow pipe is set at a lower elevation to provide an adequate water depth and velocity at low flows. Fish passage design standards are per the WDFW "Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program, Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage". 4. Will the realignment result in a loss of stream channel length or channel area for Gypsy Creek? If so, what is proposed for mitigation for this impact? With retention of the existing channel as "back channel" habitat, the total channel length and area will be greater with the proposed project. In the future, the WSDOT 1-405 proposal will widen the roadway to the east and likely displace much of the open channel. WSDOTwill be responsible/or mitigation at that time. 5. What is the basis for the statement that the WSDOT plans for widening 1-405 in the future will displace the Gypsy Creek open channel as well as both wetlands in this project area? This is stated in the; l-405 Renton to Bellevue Project, SR 169 to 1-90. Environmental Assessment, March 2006 and associated plans. 6. Why are log weirs proposed upstream of the new culvert proposed for Ripley Lane? Weir logs were recommended by Lany Fisher of WDFW as a means lo maintain the gradient in the open channel to the west of the proposed culverts. This results in a nearly flat low_flow culvert across the BNSF and Ripley Lane. Because of the depth ofrhe existing 60 inch storm pipe to the west of Ripley Lane, this results in a lower invert elevation of the culvert inlet at the east side of Ripley Lane. This, in turn, results in an increased gradient of the open stream channel. Use of weirs by Larry Fisher is judged to be the most effective means offish passage for this project. 7. How will the existing Gypsy Creek open channel be maintained as off channel habitat? What will it connect to? The existing Gypsy Creek open channel maintained as ofFchannel habitat will continue to connect to the upstream source of water -the culverts under 1-405. The channel configuration will be maintained as present. The new channel will connect to the existing channel but will not block or otherwise change water levels in the existing channel. 8. What is the nature of the "temporary" impact to class 3 wetland buffers? What is the proposed mitigation 9 There are temporary impacts to class 3 wetland buffers by removal of Reed Canary Grass in the area. WDFW (Larry Fisher) is requiring this project lo connect the inlet elevation of the proposed storm crossing pipes to the 1-405 outlet pipes that cross the highway. An alternative to the proposed design was presented to is to propose a much higher inlet elevation that will increase runoff velocities in the proposed pipes and thereby not allow JiJr fish passage through those storm pipes, as well as maintain the existing 24-inch storm pipe that has a steep pipe gradient not allowing fish passage. The proposed mitigation to the wetland buffer impact will be replanting the buffer area with native vegetation which will provide more effective buffer functions than the existing vegetation which is predominantly Reed Canary Grass. 9. The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has requested that the WSDOT 1-405 culvert be made fish passable as part of the pending project. If this occurs, how will the proposed culverts for this project affect this new or modified stream crossing at I-405? The new WSDOT culvert will connect into this culvert. This culvert will not affect the WSDOT culvert design, except lo establish the invert elevation into which that culvert mus/ discharge. ~ King County Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 October 30, 2007 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: LUA07-123-Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements -5015 Ripley Lane Dear Ms. Higgins: The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Notice of Application & Proposed Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), dated October 19, 2007. King County's East Side Interceptor, Section 4 is located within or near the proposed location of your project (please see the enclosed drawing). In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City of Renton do the following: • Submit construction drawings for the project to our Asset Management section. Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's impacts. Please send the drawings to: Eric Davison, Local Public Agency Administrator King County Wastewater Treatment Division Asset Management 201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Tel.: (206) 684-1707 eric.davison@metrokc.gov • Please contact Eric Davison a minimum of 72 hours prior to commencing any construction in order to allow staff time to arrange for a King County inspector to be on the site during construction. • King County has a permanent easement for a sewer line on the proposed development site, and we must be assured the right to maintain and repair the sewer line. In the event that the line must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided. CREATING RESOURCES FROM WASTEWATER Elizabeth Higgins October 30, 2007 Page 2 • Please send the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner of the proposed development site to Eric Davison so that he can contact the property owner regarding the easement. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Sandy Redick Administrative Staff Assistant Environmental Planning & Community Relations Enclosure (1) cc: Eric Davison, Local Public Agency Administrator, Engineering, & Asset Management r-~-·------~---~...,--.~~.,.-1,~·•··"''!'l"T: ':' ~'"'·~.,-.. ~·,'!'··•"'!'"t-""~ l'<'j:~ c!,·" ·--1-, ,. ~=----·~ ___ ,,<_. ~-~''"':='::~.2-··-. -~-::,·;~ ·,n·--. ._---~ ~-· .__. .. -. ·=----·-,: I r -·----------()----·-- I ~-·:-~ a.,c,-, .... .,,.,,....., __ .,.,....,......., ~-:r :~-..;.--~ .. =--·---, ·-~~,· . --. ------~-- ; -~~......,.......,----------· -·--·---·1 ,N i 0:.0 >- ; ~ 1--I ,z 00.. , .;r Z 4 :~ 0~ ;z O o :-~s : ~ ,q ~ :'!: )-u.. ,a::...Jo ! 0 z ~ow ! a::w~ :t~ 0 ' :, w i >--0 ·, :X: X z : a._ 0 -oe:i:[l/) ; ~!~ 0 "' :; 1-w z • 0 Ir 4 jI<t:l: i CL~~ ! ...J~ 0 ·, 40 W , -I-...J I C::z U.. J WOW ; 40 C:: L -~~·"·~-~--'""--------~--------::::-:::'.""-~ ___ --.ij 1 ;,;/~oNST/i'(./CTluN' .~/TS ·r HI~ L) r, ,c. /' g~ir:~r ra £Kl5' ,,,., I I j / i A/.1./ (':J.?-?5·--· 5,"':-J -~9~30. 9/ N 97..5i.J 21 E /U3.WZ:[9-· ~,-~"",, · i-T \ . I ·r,·, I I 1 --,., ·' . ~! u CTOR S"ALL I I I I! I I ec,-=, Tr, L /-I \I I Ii / , / \ . A1 , __ rJ_.L.1 ____ _ .• ~--~ 1 i',--f·t''cC / 1 ., ~ . . . -£:XIST!NG CONTOUI? t -1, ' 1 ·~\/:=--·-,COf.fSl!l!'P UNE ··ca ·,,·,,s I ---J \. ) /. . ;r,sruB NPl?i':'R/~"E£SPE"CIALCONST.NU, r4R~~-'E·Z)· ---. ------/ .\ &.4"F.M. ---=,="' --, --' . I \/J./"'o~ •• -~,u., , +,---r-Q ---,.29".Kl'f;,T ,::::-c.45ED tl./COllCr.~.":'_r c..'.-/'' __) . . --..._, ,...-----A.I~~ ~ ·. ·. / C, '"'...-.· ·. ·.· ®'· \---=, ~~-" 4 '5cc 5 ~! /--' • _ __ ____ _ ----·~ \:---<>"'r.:,, ®--;: -· , 57,T _ .. ~~ ~B74 /·~..._. _ --------/-:2/Z "'• LIA;:ft6lf W45H -::,~ ;:V-;-------:=-:;S:;-;;N-:~~~~· ~~c-c:x:=---~-,--=-=-..c.--,____-+ 8oS "-,~~-"-__:__/ ,,::_:"~_.-,/ z·MH il'.12-2' -:---c-,----:---,-----c,------~c'>c=-c~=~=-:--'ce:--------------NOTE £? OWG S _ ,\ ~ ' , c, ,,4 t...J,l!, ~ I 57'f ShJo ,"~ ./\ ~ ' -,--"' -------..._______ ~-----~---------L_~T---~ --.,_ -. _'V !_9B.d::J:, 0!, .C-RfW1DE2STORM '\',\f\_• , I-I ?02-~6 ,. _..--------r -----------.( ~---E/6o3d..J.-~.~- ~!2~STl./8 ,------L __ I .:/Q ---- 30 -;.· ·~-·/.," J----\---;7.; 20 10 0 WA7°ERWL£TSTRl.lCTIJR!S\\ 5/A.47'-t)~Q./. \ _/ N.f:,RY _ / /----=-__::::::__---;__ '-<--=--:c_. _ --------...:...-----... ..-.,+-c , .... ---.. . .._, CYOTHt;-R:5 W/ 2 StD£!1./LET5 EA::1-1 \_ . i.'__//3,_f-:1_.-_.-/I / RIX L/Nt::.,, / ~,.....-~-~ ~,0::::---..:_ ----------:v...c.!:,.y ". _ :EE SPEC.CO)..!ST./JOTEG '\ \\-£.:r!ST 8.J· E NS63 . ./~'i./9 .' i ~~I./,:._ ••• ,,----"\--._----.,---.--:::::---.... ~:Ct,-"._ -- .,, NPRr R(WLINE" ,yfw ,~/NE ~' .... ' CONC.O'.'..; / \,"\ \"''-.,--.._--.... L> ·_ . ....__ CONN. 70 /Iv':....: / / -, / I '\, ~ ..____'---....._ ' SCALE: HORIZONTAL 1"::501 VERTICAL 1"=10' ! M:81 );,!PE" :CLA$s .nz-AAcl<F1L ·-·:~-f ---l-· -i -. -I ~--r-· · -·-. ~=-1-·:-_-r--~. • ,~-, P.ROVIOE DITCI-I £"ACH SIDE'OFP!PE ~1Li-j s1.1ppo.J.rEa PllfE"(SEE !owG 5J! ' _ ____,_ + . . _,-1:4 501'/'S TO 5/-..95' i?' fEEP 6/'TRA $,e.,v£L .~TA :51_;,,~~ ;t"::J 5.?~45 ~YlfR ... £trA//ATe.:a., -.. ~;,~CKF!{..L 11'/TH' I~" l.'J-:· ,ROCK /.JALL.A5r ---~· +2.;a :U,QRM l,yATE:R 11./t..ErS !J£,4P J i , S',A 4r4Q SE".DWGS 4 ," 5 , t----1-· --~--_;I. l I . . ' ;-,. / ... .,._;-fyfr7ff~///7,,?7/J// 7///y,,/ //,, ;, , ,/_·_-~)'z,>,·,7;-~'777/-:::?.;7/2/ · .. "CJ;-/77JzZ?:?>7~Y?Z7Aif:7';·;_:~;...-- t'-4 ~J?Cp s~0.00111 i-' !--. l ·---; I ' I I /NY. ?168 M_ 1~7 PIPE [., 5~€ ;''(f:JCAL SCCTtON tN ROCK Q_~G S _J 1 _Pll£ 5UPPCRTEC PIP£"_ . 1; ii .... ~1 . I~_-· V)· 'J t ,,;-,0.,--::::-;,7~-:-:.-:.···;_"/;-,,..;, .. ····-.J.··-- ,-------------. . -¥[ j ----t-------·---· - ---l.-TC5T IJOR!J.IG WIT# il/{J.1/) ~I t ' . ,41./$.:R ... REFl.!5AL 6' '' . _ .. __ ~ EEP. G'RAV.e"LY SAi.ii) ~ , : m..,~y, ,lti i --y--;-- ' . j ' f' ·l ! . s~b.oo°ltf 1,1 i\:i /"\1 4D 30 20 r . .... -:-~:- !,:NCA.5E". £"PST.-:?4"cUiJI , • ~ ~[ :::--.;w/cONC.RET~ . .':1/'WIC;E:"., ~ \J'i! :. ";L/Nl)ER 8~_".RCP ' "E.XIS.r '. ~,i{: ----;"-·-·-··-. "~•--"--"·· ~flc,'"4~-_;__.,___;_ .L.. -~ 1Nv. .. zZ95'--,-;_ ~-<f:1 I '----7--.M· ;:0;;,, 11M54.5 ;::e, :,-''1 10 I Y _J_ ---,-~"' ·l ..• _j . ,AIOTE.-, ; ......................... , .. -..... ; ..... --r,ee"CO!d.5TRt/cr/o.V !='!LES FOR f ' r'" Bl/Ill(' Plf-C flP .ELE//ATION.:f --------·----; -:---r---· t' ----, i ' -~~; i ··1'<): I , I -+------.--1--· -~{~~ ----;--~\) i:. ~~, ') . , -: ~"x~·~-~-s;-I Q rP/i..~ P~AJETRATIOAJ ro El. ,'-10 ___ : ____ .. ··-: --r-.. t· !· r- _ _J "l?'!i; , _,.C. / • . p :i ·;r ~--· (O..J""'''""T«'.· "·' ';.~ -1~--PiLe PEAJE;TRAf/ON_-tro h.--ifr r Pl~~PEJ:!E'TRAtlov TO EL -12 f ' ' ' ' -~~~--! • .;,:; ... -;J "·.,: _;y;/)" 'lCH [)?IG ' ·c~co RF'!'= I ,; .'-,' ·.J:J 4Z.IW 43f00 44-t"OO 451'00 467'00 47hJO 48>00 -•/.J! .• "10 501-00 ·:.:-_ ~ f-.-JPOLITAN ENGINEERS M U N IC I PAL I T Y OF fY1 E T RO P O L I T A N S E AT l L E ,.cc B..?.'RL : .• ~·,/,EL~ CAREY A'ID 11RAMER ,.,/·_ ./J . -.. _,...~ •// l''t, 1 ~ • <', . ....,;:.:1/7 ~'i()~_T-/'/,,/l;: l'c~,r SU8.,1THD ~-,.,co .... [~Di'D ~~-AP~~oerr,-~ .. ._ r<>RDvrnO"'"c'7µ-;1~ AP~F'OVH>-"·-·-·-------'--'----_:.o:;_...___ fl W BECK JlND JlSSOC1A-f"S DH•~" t,g,ao~'""• ,0po,,0 ,'c,~,, .. cs P•o:•" fo~·""•' .,...,,,.00 ,,,0, Eo~·""'" c,,., Eoq:,••·-M• <0, "~"<cc,.•,.,!'·;·"«<> I '" Mo,,·c,pc''''"' w_,. ,, .. ,·,, 0,011« _ AS NOTED O~T, JUNE,1963, 51-1-00 REN TON SYSTEM '-.. ~ , • .J' ('---· .. --.. . ~ .... \'',:o/f" l "<:, <,"i r,.:.:;:: MARCIi /I, !?t~:" <'i:;~E_T ~I', '"'c.,"+;, 'J';,J.,_ t.. -".:Jo 33-100 ·EASTSIDE INTERCEPTOR -SECTIDN 4 STATION 40 TO NORTH END C•-'•"' ·,,; 'L' ~· ~ '-rrr ~~"'~' ~ ' _9_ ,:,• I! ___ . City o enton Department of Planning I Building I Pub,ic Narks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 2, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA0?-123, ECF, CAE DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton -Utilit Division PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hi ins PROJECT TITLE: Riple Lane/G ps Creek Flood Im rovements PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Hennin er SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA ross : N/A LOCATION: 5015 Ri le Lane WORK ORDER NO: 77830 !. . \'/ SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Flood control project involving the relocation of approximately 120 ft of Gypsy Creek and replacement of an existing 26 inch culvert with four 36 inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in/near a class 2 stri!iilm (Oyµ,sy Creek) and will temporarily impact class 3 wetland buffer areas. A critical areas exemption and environmental review are'i'le'eMll!JfurUtlr.131(9jljct. A shoreline permit is not required because all work will occur more than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinn Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoorlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whe additional information is neede to properly assess this proposal. ' City of Re ... on Department of Planning I Building I Public ' · rks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 2, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-123, ECF, CAE DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 19, 20070 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton -Utilit Division PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hi PROJECT TITLE: Ri le Lane/G ps Creek Flood Improvements PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Hennin er SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA ross : N/A LOCATION: 5015 Ri le Lane WORK ORDER NO: 77830 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Flood control project involving the relocation of approximately 120 ft of Gypsy m!,ek and repla ment of an existing 26 inch culvert with four 36 inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in/near a class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact class 3 wetland buffer areas. A critical areas exemption and environmental review are needed for this project. A shoreline permit is not required because all work will occur more than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino Air Aesthetics Water Liaht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals TransDortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet _/ RECEIVE D A {2/J,C-Y, OCT 2 3 2007 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS CITY OF RENTON UTILITY SYSTEMS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is ne d to properly assess this proposal. _/ City of n~nton Department of Planning I Building I Public .. arks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REv1Ew1NG DEPARTMENT: Pio.n 1'iev'iew COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 2, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-123, ECF, CAE DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 APPLICANT: Citv of Renton -Utilitv Division PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hinnins PROJECT TITLE: Ripley Lane/Gvnsv Creek Flood Improvements PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninaer SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA lnross\: N/A LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane WORK ORDER NO: 77830 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Flood control project involving the relocation of approximately 120 ft of Gypsy Creek and replacement of an existing 26 inch culvert with four 36 inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in/near a class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact class 3 wetland buffer areas, A critical areas exemption and environmental review are needed for this project. A shoreline permit is not required because all work will occur more than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water Lioht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoorlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historie/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS 01 Date I City of n~nton Department of Planning I Building I Public ,/arks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: T, COMMENTS OUE: NOVEMBER 2, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-123, ECF, GAE DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 APPLICANT: Cit of Renton -Utilit Division PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hi ins PROJECT TITLE: Ri le Lane/G ps Creek Flood Im rovements PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Hennin SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA ross : NIA LOCATION: 5015 Ri le Lane WORK ORDER NO: 77830 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Flood control project involving the relocation of approximately 120 ft of Gypsy Creek and r~J1~Urnent of an existing 26 inch culvert with four 36 inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in/near a class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact class 3 wetland buffer areas. A critical areas exemption and environmental review are needed for this project. A shoreline permit is not required because all work will occur more than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housino Air Aesthetics Water Liaht!Gfare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS f'v<YW.. We have reviewed fhis application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of. ____ ton Department of Planning I Building I Public .. arks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: !=i rf' COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 2, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-123, ECF, CAE DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 APPLICANT: Citv of Renton -Utility Division PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hinnins PROJECT TITLE: Ricley Lane/Gvnsy Creek Flood Improvements PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninaer SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA fnross): N/A LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane I WORK ORDER NO: 77830 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Flood control project involving the relocation of approximately 120 ft of Gypsy Creek and replacement of an existing 26 inch culvert with four 36 inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in/near a class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact class 3 wetland buffer areas. A critical areas exemption and environmental review are needed for this project. A shoreline permit is not required because all work will occur more than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Linht!Gfare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistondCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feel 14,000 Feet _ ... ., . ----------· -- I ·o c) ,-------, ,\/ c) ,V JI ' • • OCT 1 9 2007 . \ L ____ _ ___.: -:~1 rv (',!= P'. •; r,_,fJ B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS f ,2--c ./ !cl,) e .-v,._(" '""-J"' re/( _'j ~, e ( / d>" (., c, ct c: .,__,- ('.:,_ I--c,. t f f.tv..-;..,(J cl v k:Jwj c· o ,t.0 fx_,..,,G-;f---/cJ ,v, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly asses this proposal. ~' Date City of ,,~nton Department of Planning I Building I Public ,. arks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Vmn.,r-k; ,C:.,r,, c:; COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 2, 2007 APPLICATION NO: LUA07-123. ECF.'CAE 1 DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 APPLICANT: City of Renton -Utility Division PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hinnins PROJECT TITLE: Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninaer SITE AREA: BUILDING AREA (aross): NIA LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane I WORK ORDER NO: 77830 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Flood control project involving the relocation of approximately 120 ft of Gypsy Creek and replacement of an existing 26 inch culvert with four 36 inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in/near a class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact class 3 wetland buffer areas. A critical areas exemption and environmental review are needed for this project. A shoreline permit is not required because all work will occur mare than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washington. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Environment Minor Major Impacts Impacts Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RE A TED COMMENTS \ \ More Information Necessary Element of the Envfronment Housina Aesthetics Lioht/Glare Recreation Utilities Transvortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Probable Probable More Minor Impacts Major lnformaUon Impacts Necessary RECEIVED OCT 1 9 2007 CITY OF RENTON UTILITY SYSTEMS reviewed this application ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or tion is d t properly a sess this proposal. l(Jii1!~ Date I t NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE· October 19 2GC7 LAND USE NUMBER: lUA07-1L.3, ECF, GAE PROJECT NAME· Ri;:,ley L"'0eiGypsy Creek Flood lmprcvernenls PROJECT DESCRIPTION: FloOC control pra1ect m'<llvmg the rn1ac:ation at a.pprnx,rnately 120 tt of Gypsy Creek .md replacement of ar ex1st1r.g 2E ,nc~ culve,rt with fo\:r 36 inc~ storm drainage cu,verts Wort; will occ,Jr in/near a dass 2 slrean, (Gypsy Creek:, Jnd w,11 temporarily rm pact class 3 we:land buffer areas A cntrcal areas exempt on and environmental review are needed for this pro:en'. A snore•i1e perr,,11 1s not 0 equired because al, work will occur ~10re than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washi~gton PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane OPTIONAL DETERMINATION Of NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Le~d Agency the Cly' of Renton hais deterrmned that s1gn1f1can'. environmental impacts are ~nl'ke y to result from the proposed prC)ect. Therefore. as perrn1lted under the RCW 43.21C 110, the Cit•/ ol Ren'.or s using the Opt1ooal DNS process to gr,e notice that a DNS ·1s\i'<et·y tc be•,ssued Comment pencds for lhe p•oJeGt and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment penocl There 11111 be no comrient penad following !he isswarce of th~ Threshold Dete,m1nat1or, oi Non-Sign1!1ca1ce (DNS) A 14-day appeal period will follow tre iSSJance of the DNS PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: Octocer 15, 2007 October 19. 2007 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Steve Lee, Civil Engineer, Ci1y of Renton·, Tel: 14251430-7241; Eml: slee@ci.ranton.wa.us Pcrmits/Revi&w Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Cri~cal Areas Exemption 01her Pennlts which may be required: Rlgh1.of-Way and Construction Permits Requested Studies: Wetland Biology Report, B!ologlcal Eva1uatlon, and Hydrologi,:: Analysis Location where application may be review&d: Planning/Building/Public Work11 Department, Development Services Division, Si~th Floor Renton C(ty Hall, 1055 South Grady way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mlllgation· The SJbJect site ,s des1g11a1ed CommencaVO!fice.'Resident1al :CORI on the City or Ren:on Comp 0 ehens1ve Land Use Map and Commercial10ff1ceiRes1dem1al ICOR) on toe City's Zoning Map Envrnnmenlal (SEPAi Checklist The o·oJect will bf' subject to the C ty's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050 and o1her applicable code~ and regulations as app-op-iate comments on the above application must be submitted 1n writing to Elirabeth Higgins. S!i'nior Planner, Development Scrvkes Diviaion. 1055 South Grady Way, R.anto11, WA 98057, bY 5:00 PM on November 2, 2007. ' you nave quest,~% aooul trls prop,JsJr orws'1_b te made a part; vf recorC a.1c rnce1w a~di;1onal nct1/1r.a1j0n u1 cunl"dct lhe P'CJect M_an~ger An·1one .vha sulm·1:s wr·tten conn<cnb ,11111 automatically become a pa'Tu· oC ,eoord and ~e rot1fled or any d%,s1or en t~,s pr~.ect · CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner: Tel: (425) 430-7382; Eml: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to rli'ce1ve further 1nformat1on on this proposed project, complete this form and return to. City ol Renton, Oevelopment Planning, 1 055 So. Grady Way, Renton. WA 98057 Name/File No Ripley Lane!Gypsy Creek Flood lmprovernentsJLUA07-123 ECF, CAE NAME MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO CERTIFICATION CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 19th day of October, 2007, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Memo, NOA, Environmental Checklist, & PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Agencies Steve Lee, City of Renton -Utility Systems Surrounding Property Owners (Signature of Sender):,~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) Reoresentim1 See Attached Contact/Owner/Applicant See Attached I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: / o · c) 'i -"7 !11 1 OF W1'~,.: II\\· : Project Name: 13alJ:lii!' B,iilill'liAal') !"!lat El 1a~e 111 R1 p\~J.\ Li: .... ')'<'/G•-\f~ ·l (r,"ek. fl1:crxi Project Number: LUA07-123, PP, ECF -W':',pf ,,. Jr>t''t' r-{..-.-1_,v. ·• ,, , ~ template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology • Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region • Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-971 O US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers • Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olvmoia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 1601h Ave SE 39015 -172'' Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office* Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program• 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172'' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72'' Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Title Examiner 3190 1601h Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. • template -affidavit of service by mailing 292405900500 BURLINGTON NORTH RN SANTA FE ATIN: PROP TAX PO BOX 96189 FORT WORTH TX 76161 292405900203 QUENDALL TERMINALS PO BOX 477 RENTON WA 98055 334330288005 CROSETIO FRED A 5025 RIPLEY LN N RENTON WA 98056 334330300008 THOMAS DAVID L+SUZANNE E 5029 RIPLEY LN N RENTON WA 98056 292405901508 PORT QUENDALL COMPANY C/0 VULCAN INC 505 5TH AVE S #900 SEATILE WA 98104 334330287502 WILLARD RICK+RENEE 5031 RIPLEY LN N RENTON WA 98056 01-11-3 Jdt<tiCl S \ct!'. /Jlcjll" a \,'\'.Y 0 :~~ ~~~ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: October 19, 2007 LUA07-123, ECF, GAE Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Flood control project involving the relocation of approximately 120 ft of Gypsy Creek and replacement of an existing 26 inch culvert with four 36 inch storm drainage culverts. Work will occur in/near a class 2 stream (Gypsy Creek) and will temporarily impact class 3 wetland buffer areas. A critical areas exemption and environmental review are needed for this project. A shoreline permit is not required because all work will occur more than 200 ft from the shoreline of Lake Washington. PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is !ikely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 15, 2007 October 19, 2007 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Steve Lee, Civil Engineer, City of Renton; Tel: (425) 430-7241; Eml: slee@ci.renton.wa.us Permits/Review Requested: Environmental ($EPA) Review, Critical Areas Exemption Other Permits which may be required: Right-of-Way and Construction Permits Requested Studies: Wetland Biology Report, Biological Evaluation, and Hydrologic Analysis Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: NIA CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: ZoningJLand Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The subject site is designated Commerical/Office/Residential (COR) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on November 2, 2007. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7382; Eml: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I ' ' ·, \ ~ \ ! \ I \ \ __ C I ·l If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood lmprovements/LUA0?-123, ECF, CAE NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING MEMORANDUM October 19, 2007 Steve Lee, Utility Systems Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Flood Improvements LUA07-I23, ECF, CAE The Development Planning Section has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on November 19, 2007. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at 430-7382 if you have any questions. cc: Yellow file City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: NAME: City of Renton, Right of Way BNSF Right of Way 425-430-7205, Slee@ci.renton.wa.us WSDOT Riqht of Way PROJECT INFORMATION ADDRESS: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: CITY: Renton ZIP: City of Renton, Ripley Lane Gypsy Creek Flood Conveyance Improvements TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: City of Renton, Planning, Building and Public Works Department, Utility KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): Division Account Numbers are not assigned to Right of Way COMPANY (if applicable): City of Renton EXISTING LAND USE(S): Right of Way ior 1-405, Ripley Lane, BNSF Railroad ADDRESS: Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Wav, 5th Floor, PROPOSED LAND USE(S): No changes in right of way CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98057 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: TELEPHONE 425-430-7241 NUMBER CCR -Commercial, Office, Residential CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): No change NAME: Contact: Steve Lee, Civil Engineer, Surface Water Division EXISTING ZONING: CCR -Commercial, Office, Residential COMPANY (if applicable): Same as above PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): No change SITE AREA (in square feet): NA ADDRESS: Same as above SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: NA CITY: Same as above ZIP: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NA Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/mastcrapp.doc 10108107 P IJECT INFORMATION (conl. 1ed) PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET PROJECT VALUE $1,200,00 ACRE (if applicable): NA IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NA ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE D AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA D FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL D GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL o SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 1 200 sq. ft. BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA D WETLANDS 4 500 sq. ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach leaal description on separate sheet with the followina information included) SITUATE IN THE NE/SW QUARTER OF SECTION 29 , TOWNSHIP 24N . RANGE 05E IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. SEPA Review 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Steven Lee declare that 1 am (please check one)_ the current owner of the property involved in this application or _x_ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. / L I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatS \ \:: l I c; i...._ __ ~ ,:... /L-..~/ signed this Instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the ~ -1 1 uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. /if/ ~ ~ . (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc \ ( ·~' Notary Public in and for he State of Washington 2 10/08/07 ROJECT INFORMATION (contir ) Notary (Print) C' /; .>h (-,, \ ~ \, My appointment expires:_-'---------'------!--- Q:web/pw/d~vserv/forrns/planning/masterapp.doc 3 I 0/08/07 City of Renton Planning, Building and Public Works Department, Utility Systems, Surface Water Division Ripley Lane N./Gypsy Creek Flood Conveyance Improvements City of Renton Critical Areas Review Criteria Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations Stream Classification Gypsy Creek is mapped as a Class 2 stream under the City of Renton Critical Areas stream classification system, as it does not support anadromous salmon or steelhead, but does support resident cutthroat trout. Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters that historically or currently support any life history stage of salmonids, including resident trout, or is a water body (e.g., pond, lake) between one-halfacre and twenty acres in size. Stream Buffer Required buffer areas for a Class 2 stream are I 00 feet as specified by RMC 4-3-050.L.5.a.i. The open-channel portion of Gypsy Creek between Ripley Lane and 1-405 has a buffer area that meets or exceeds the I 00-foot standard, although the small reach immediately downstream of the BNSF right of way does not. Buffer width for a Class 2 stream may be reduced to 75 feet pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.5.c. if it meets the criteria in either subsection(!) and (3) through (5) or subsection (2) through (5): (1) The buffer area land is extensively vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has less than 5 percent non-native invasive species cover, and has less than 15 percent slopes; or (2) The buffer can be enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non-native species per criteria in subsection L5c(iv)(c) of this Section, and has less than 15 percent slopes; and (3) The width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions, including those of anadromous fish or nonfish habitat; and ( 4) The width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat; and (5) No direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated water bodies, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to subsection F3 of this section and RMC 4-8-120; or (b) The proposal includes daylighting of a stream, or removal of legally installed, as determined by the Administrator, salmonid passage barriers; and (c) The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced area will be equal to or improve the functional attributes of the buffer; or in the case of existing developed sites where a natural buffer is not possible, the proposal includes on-or off-site riparian/lakeshore or aquatic enhancement proportionate to its project specific or cumulative impact on shoreline ecological functions; and (d) The proposal will result in, at minimum, no net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function; and (e) The proposal does not result in increased flood hazard risk; and Q:web/pw/dcvserv/fonns/planning/masterapp.doc 4 10/08/07 (f) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. Piped or culverted streams do not require buffers per RMC 4-3-050.L.5.a.ii. Wetland Classification According to a wetland survey by Parametrix staff, the two wetlands in the area are Renton Type 3 and Ecology Type 2 and 3. Renton Classification: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (I) Are characterized by hydro logic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (I) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category I or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. These wetlands meet the definition of Category 3 because they are characterized by (a) Human-related hydro logic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification. The wetlands are adjacent to Gypsy Creek which was re-routed by 1-405 construction in the early 1960s. Wetland hydrology is largely related to runoff from 1-405. (b) Soils alterations include the presence of fill from the 1-405 road prism. ( c) Vegetation alteration of the buffer has occurred recently and is largely characterized by Reed Canary Grass (d) Wetlands that are newly emerging insofar as they are related to 1-405 construction and the Gypsy Creek re- routing. (e) The wetlands are characterized by emergent vegetation, have low plant species richness and are used minimally by wildlife partially because of their vegetaiton communities and partly because of their isolation between the BNSF railroad and Ripley Lane on the west and l-405 on the east Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 5 10/08/07 Wetland Buffer Wetland Category Standard Buffer Category 1 100 feet Category 2 50 feet Category 3 25 feet Project Code Compliance Stream Relocation Allowed Use Streams may be relocated through administrative approval pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.8.e {I) A public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies; or (2) Expansion of public road or other public facility improvements where no feasible alternative exists; or (3) A public or private proposal restoring a water body and resulting in a net benefit to on-or off-site habitat and species. This project meets criteria (1) above as a flood hazard reduction project. The project also may be approved pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.C.5.d.iii. as an exempt activity permitted within critical areas and associated buffers. iii. Flood Hazard Reduction: Implementation of public flood hazard reduction and public surface water projects, where habitat enhancement and restoration at a I: 1 ratio are provided, and appropriate Federal and/or State authorization has been received. Exempt Activity Criteria In making a finding that a proposal is classified as an Exempt Activity the following findings must be made pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.C.2.4.d. d. Administrator Findings: In determining whether to issue a letter of exemption for activities listed in subsections CS, C6, and C7 of this Section, the Administrator shall find that: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or State or Federal law or regulation; 11. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; Q:wcb/pw/devscrv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 6 I 0/08/07 111. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored, unless the exemption is a wetland below the size thresholds pursuant to subsection C5f(i) of this Section; 1v, Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required. In addition, the following conditions generally apply to any stream relocation proposals under the provisions of RMC 4- 3-050.L.8 .. e(i)(b ): ( l) Buffer widths shall be based upon the new stream location; The code allows buffer widths to be reduced or averaged if meeting criteria of applicable code sections. Where minimum required buffer widths are not feasible for stream relocation proposals such as this, other equivalent on-or off-site compensation to achieve no-net-loss ofriparian function may be provided; (3) Applicable mitigation criteria of subsection RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c(ii) [addressing approval mitigation plans] must be met. This is addressed below. ( 4) Proper notifications and records must be made of stream relocations, Approval Criteria This project meets criteria for an exemption in RMC 4-3-050.C.5.d.iii. and meets the criteria in RMC 4-3-050.L.8.e (1) as a flood hazard reduction project as discussed below: Mitigation Criteria The criteria for approval of a mitigation plan in RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c(ii) include the following: (a) Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in subsections L3c(ii)(a)(l) to ( 4) of this Section. Basins and subbasins are indicated in subsection Q of this Section, Maps: ( 1) On-Site Mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless the Reviewing Official finds that on-site mitigation is not feasible or desirable; (2) Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Subbasin as Subject Site: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin as the subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation on the subject site; (3) Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Basin within City Limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin within the City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project; (4) Off-Site Mitigation within the Same Drainage Basin Outside the City Limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin outside the City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the City limits and it meets City goals. (b) Mitigation Type: Types of mitigation shall follow the preferences m subsections L3c(iiXb )(I) to ( 4) of this Section: (I) Daylighting (returning to open channel) of streams or removal of manmade salmonid migration barriers; (2) Removal of impervious surfaces in buffer areas and improved biological function of the buffer; (3) In-stream or in-lake mitigation as part of an approved watershed basin restoration project; Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 7 10/08/07 ( 4) Other mitigation suitable for site and water body conditions that meet all other provisions for a mitigation plan. In all cases, mitigation shall provide for equivalent or greater biological functions per subsection L3c(ii)(e) of this Section. (c) Contiguous Corridors: Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed; and (d) Non-Indigenous Species: Wildlife or fish species not indigenous to the region shall not be introduced into a riparian mitigation area unless authorized by a State or Federal permit or approval. Plantings shall be consistent with subsection L6c of this Section; and (e) Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions: The Administrator shall utilize the report "City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations" by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, dated February 27, 2003, unless superseded with a City-adopted study, to determine the existing or potential ecological function of the stream or lake or riparian habitat that is being affected. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration. Mitigation to compensate alterations to stream/lake areas and associated buffers shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. No net loss of riparian habitat or water body function shall be demonstrated; and (I) Minimum Mitigation Plan Performance Standards: See Subsection F8 of this Section. [Reproduced below] F.8. Mitigation Plan Required: a. Criteria: For any mitigation plans required through the application of subsections H to M of this Section, the applicant shall: i. Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, the supervisory capability, and the financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; and ii. Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during the monitoring period if the mitigation project fails to meet projected goals; and iii. Protect and manage, or provide for the protection and management, of the mitigation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term persistence of the mitigation area; and iv. Provide for project monitoring and allow City inspections; and v. Avoid mitigation proposals that would result in additional future mitigation or regulatory requirements for adjacent properties, unless it is a result of a code requirement, or no other option is feasible or practical; and vi. For on-site or off-site mitigation proposals, abutting or adjacent property owners shall be notified when wetland creation or restoration, stream relocation, critical area buffer increases, flood hazard mitigation, habitat conservation mitigation, or geologic hazard mitigation have the potential to considerably decrease the development potential of abutting or adjacent properties. For example, if a created wetland on a property would now result in a wetland buffer intruding onto a neighboring property, the neighboring property owner would be notified. b. Timing of Mitigation Plan -Final Submittal and Commencement: When a mitigation plan is required, the proponent shall submit a final mitigation plan for the approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of building or construction permits for development. The proponent shall receive written approval of the mitigation plan prior to commencement of any mitigation activity. (Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) Q:web/pw/devserv/fonns/planning/ma.~terapp.doc 8 10/08/07 (g) Additional Conditions of Approval: The Administrator shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or abutting a stream/lake or its buffers, as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but are not limited to. the following: (I) Preservation of critically important vegetation and/or habitat features such as snags and downed wood; (2) Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access; (3) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and ( 4) Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities. (h) Based on Best Available Science: The applicant shall demonstrate that the mitigation is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. Compliance with Mitigation Criteria (a) The project meets criterion (a) Mitigation Location: throngh compliance with criteria (1) On-Site Mitigation: Mitigation is proposed on the site through creation of a new stream channel that (I) ls similar in configuration and function to the existing channel; (2) Provides similar length and gradient as the existing channel with equal or greater long term ecological productivity when riparian vegetation matures; (3) Retains the existing channel to the existing 24-inch culvert as off-channel habitat, increasing the overall aquatic habitat within the area. Future plans by WSDOT to widen 1-405 will substantially alter this area in the future when that project is implemented. A mitigation plan for that future action will be submitted separately by WSDOT at the time of project implementation. (b) The proposal meets criterion (b) Mitigation Type through compliauce with criteria through criteria (4) Other mitigation suitable for site and water body conditions that meet all other provisions for a mitigation plan. Mitigation outlined in (a) above meets this criterion by providing for equivalent or greater biological functions. (c) The proposal meets criterion (c) Contiguous Corridors through preserving the same contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors as existed prior to the project. The character of open space and vegetation within the area between Ripley Creek and 1-405 will remain with the stream relocated. Future plans by WSDOT to widen 1-405 will substantially alter this area in the future when that project is implemented. A mitigation plan for that future action will be submitted separately by WSDOT at the time of project implementation. (d) The proposal meets criterion (d) Non-Indigenous Species by not introducing wildlife or fish species that are not indigenous to the region. (e) The proposal meets criterian (e) Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions by maintaining and increasing the features of the stream that provide ecological functions as outlined in (a) above. Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 9 10108107 (f) The proposal meets criterian (f) Minimum Mitigation Plan Performance Standards through compliance with Subsection F.8 criteria, including: 1. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division has sufficient scientific expertise through qualified consultants, the supervisory capability, and the financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; as evidenced by past successful projects. 11. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division has the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during the monitoring period as will be included in a specific mitigation monitoring program. 111. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division will provide for the protection and management, of the mitigation area through agreement with WSDOT. Future plans by WSDOT to widen 1-405 will substantially alter this area in the future when that project is implemented. A mitigation plan for that future action will be submitted separately by WSDOT at the time of project implementation. 1v. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division will provide for project monitoring and allow inspections through the mitigation monitoring and reporting program incorporated into construction plans. v. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division does not have a feasible option to avoid a mitigation proposals that will result in a different future mitigation or regulatory requirements by WSDOT as a result of future widening. It is also desirable to preserve current ecological functions in the area over the time period of several years between the implementation of this program and future WSDOT widening ofl-405. v1. The proposed on-site mitigation proposals will not increase, flood hazard mitigation, habitat conservation mitigation, or geologic hazard mitigation for adjacent land owners, therefore notification under this provision is not in effect. vii. In accordance with criteirion (b) a final m1t1gation plan will be submitted for the approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of construction bids for the proposal. (g) The proposal meets criterion (g) Additional Conditions of Approval through: (I) The proposed stream relocation will preserve critically important vegetation in the majority of the riparian buffer and other habitat features such as snags and downed wood; (2) The proposed stream relocation will not limit access to the habitat area beyond that which is currently in place as part of the WSDOT fencing of the I-405 right of way. (3) The proposed stream relocation will perform all work except the final connection to the stream outside the existing stream OHWM. The stream connection will take place during the in-water construction window established in the HPA by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ( 4) The proposed stream relocation plans will include establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities. (h) The proposal meets criterion (h) Based on Best Available Science through this report that provides for consideration of best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905. Alteration of Wetland Buffer Allowed Use The work proposed within the wetland buffer is classified as an Exempt Activity pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.C.5.f.ii: Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 10 I 0/08/07 f. Wetland Disturbance, Modification and Removal: 11. Temporary Wetland Impacts: Temporary disturbances of a wetland due to construction activities that do not include permanent filling may be permitted; provided, that there are no permanent adverse impacts to the critical area or required buffer, and areas temporarily disturbed are restored at a I: 1 ratio. Category I wetlands and Category 2 forested wetlands shall be enhanced at a 2: I ratio in addition to being restored. For habitat conservation areas, this exemption applies only to Category 1 wetlands. Exempt Activity Criteria In making a finding that a proposal is classified as an Exempt Activity the same findings must be made pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.C.2.4.d as discussed above for stream relocation. Compliance with Criteria for Temporary Wetlands and Buffer Impacts 1. There are no impacts to the wetland themselves. There is no fill or grading within the wetland. 2. Impacts to buffers are temporary. 3. There are no permanent adverse impacts to the critical area or required buffer 4. Areas temporarily disturbed are proposed to be restored at a 1: 1 ratio and will relate to greater buffer function because existing Reed Canary Grass will be replaced by native riparian vegetation. Construction Mitigation Incorporating BMPs and conservation measures into a proposed action is done to avoid, mm1m1ze, rectify, or compensate for impacts to species and critical habitat. The following conservation BMPs have been identified for implementation during and after construction: • Wetlands disturbance from open channel construction will be avoided by construction fencing adjacent to the wetland. Excevation will take place from equipment sited east and north of the wetland boundary. • Vegetation removal will be minimized to the greatest extent possible, and erosion control blankets will be used to assist in the rapid revegetation of sites disturbed by culvert removal or bridge construction. • Staging areas for equipment, or for the storage and handling of materials will be located outside of the stream channel and functional buffer. Because of the project location and the proximity of many critical areas within and adjacent to the project limits, the Contractor shall take extreme care in siting any staging areas associated with this project. • To reduce potential spills of petroleum and hydraulic fluids in sensitive areas, servicing and refueling of vehicles will not occur in the stream channel and functional buffer. Additionally, drip pans will be fitted with absorbent pads and placed under all equipment being fueled. • Erosion of disturbed areas will be controlled by using silt dams or catchments between the site and wetland, by use of mulch and hydroseeding, and by planting disturbed areas as soon as possible to establish cover vegetation. Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped with native vegetation where feasible. • Erosion control devices will be inspected daily during the rainy season, weekly during the dry season, and monthly on inactive sites. If inspection shows that the erosion controls are ineffective, work crews will be mobilized immediately, during working and off-hours, to make repairs, install replacements, or install additional controls as necessary. • All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any wetland, stream or water body will be inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Any leaks detected will be repaired before the vehicle resumes operation. Q:web/pw/devserv/fonnslplanning/tnasterapp.doc 11 10/08107 . . When not in use, all vehicles, where it is practicable will be stored in the vehicle staging area. Other vehicles, such as cranes, that may be stored in place, will be inspected daily for fluid leaks. • Refueling activities will be conducted within a designated refueling area at least 200 feet away from any stream or designated wetland areas. Additionally, drip pans will be fitted with absorbent pads and placed under all equipment being fueled. • Work will be conducted in a manner to prevent loss of chemicals into wetlands or receiving waters. No wash and rinse water will be discharged into wetlands, streams or rivers. • Work will occur primarily during the day and any essential night work will be conducted with minimal light and noise impacts to wetlands. Adjacent Property Owners Washington State Department of Transportation 1-405 Project Office 600 108th Avenue SE, Suite 405 Bellevue, WA 98004 Contact: John Donatelli, 425-456-8500 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 2454 Occidental Ave. South, Suite IA Seattle WA 98134-1451 206-625-6135 / Fax-206-625-6125 Contact: Terry Finn 206-625-6135 / Fax-206-625-6125 Vulcan Real Estate/Port Quendall Company (Seahawks) 505 5th Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 981 04 Contact: Elaine Wine 206 342-2000 Q:wcb/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 12 I 0/08/07 i_ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIOt · WAIVI:., OF SUBMITTAL REQUl.,-MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Calculations 1 :9§1eri#i!MliR.i?fqrtwJ~'etlx:!¥.fI!::!:ii:/liiiIItI}i!/III!:/i/:::::/tiI/i;i/::)i/i'i/f;i;\!IJ!i!i:;if l iffll}!!!: Co nstruction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4 9¥~i!i2riBw~f*'r,fi~s?!@l@ilP,Pi::iiI!ii!ii!itti/:i11J:::J?:1rfJ};'/:!ii:/i Environmental Checklist 4 ,g¥,.$.Hiii~loPv,~n~B~~:;is~iri!~ii.:im.Qi.w}j:;::;;::::;::iy:m;,:;:,::11:i:i::I;ii:ii/:ii Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 it19sisEmi~r¢itfJ~!?~::::;:;:,::i:i:::iff::::i:::I:i::;;;:;;::i:;:ri:!::;::::::,;;Jri=ii:ij:1::;:=:;:~:::::,::;:: Grading Pl an, Conceptual 2 ?df.~Hl~tf:Pi~n;D~I~if~&;~=/':i'Jtrn:If!i:1:'i'1:::;::r:i!:I)[=i:ii::!i:i:i!ii:i!6!!i;:):!/i:/:i!:';.:;;: H a bitat Data Report 4 :ik.rtgrdv.~ffie'nfrb:~'.t~~iat f=?:'\WJ;:/!/!!i!ffifi!!fft:::::;:=:=:p::;:::0r:::{:N!i!:::;5wy:?!:i Irr igatio n Plan 4 f§hsi§P~tlfy:'.Ai§.~~~:~t{$}fytj;:;:r.nff@~fJ.ifQ;:i§l#f}\'[] JI!{/it;! Landscape Plan , Conceptual 4 ,fo s ter App lica tion Form 4 19~'4mjitXJ~rst*ii1,r1;r1:;:glmintii1tr:Itif::::::::1::::::::1:: l eighbo rh ood Detail Ma p 4 hi s r equirement m ay be waive d by: Property Services Section , Public Works Pl an Revie w Section Bu ilding Section Development Plann ing Secti on Q:IWEBI PW\DEVSERV\Forms \Planninglwaiverofs u bmittalreq s_9-06.xls DATE :------------ ~r · L '-f, 200 7 09/06 _ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVE >F SUBMITTAL REQUIR IENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Ana ly sis 4 iRM§!mii!ftri*:!!RiB&ifigli.mrii}'i;/I!ii:f!:iiJ/:J;/Hiittm!i!!/!iiififi;i!;;ii Rehabilitat ion Pl an 4 gf !~!,cr1tlI!wtiltI~iii;)iii,ii;i,(i~;!tmi/i;!!;i!/!iIIi!:/ii!;!;i!i:!{!:;!:!;;ii!:ff:!/1{ifi!~(;t,i!;~l~~~J{!;!ff:!/!;ti S ite Plan 2 AND 4 :§tr~:~mJf;rI~fg!:111ill;,i!!ttJt~l,r:i!f 1iI11:1:ii1:11:;:1::,:11::::::1:r1I1I1Ii:::I1:::!i1IIII:f S tream or Lake Study, Supp lem ent al 4 §:1r~ijmiiriiit~ij::~1Yiif1§,i iJ11tieI~i:JiiI1:::::i::1::1i1i:i1:1 t;11::1*111;:1r1*::i11 1iI!Iill::1 Street Profiles 2 :tf1tf:/fl~eif:t!ierifl!ir.:£,~i.1~Rifli1i!Jiit::!!iiJI;iii11i!IIi:1Ill;Ji::::I'!JfJ Topograp hy Map 3 Tree Cutting/Land C learing Plan 4 ,JdrimnI~!@tlii@,i~*:QnI:gtifrtix11~if>,itim:r111It1:11;1IIi:11111:f;:1r1i Utiliti es Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Mitigation Plan , Preliminary 4 1!v~a#IiiieBi~,IB,lttniiitgfi:::1I:g:11I;!i:rr1rr=if1,trr1ttltIIr]ntl Wirele ss: Applicant Agreement S ta tem ent 2 AND 3 In ventory of Ex isting Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Ex istin g S ite Conditi ons 2 AND 3 M ap of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 -his requirement may be wa iv eid by: . Property Service s Section :. Public Works Plan R eview Section Building Section DATE:-------------- . Development P la nn ing Section Q;\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forrns\P lanning\waiverofsubmittalreqs_9-06.xls 09/06 ' J ... CITY OF RENTON PBPW -SURFACE WATER UTILITY October 15, 2007 Project: Ripley Lane North (Gypsy Creek) Flood Conveyance Improvement Project Project Narrative: The proposed project involves replacement culverts for an existing undersized 24-inch diameter culvert on Ripley Lane that carries Gypsy Creek under Ripley Lane and under the BNSF Railway railroad. The capacity constraints of the existing culvert result in floodwaters impounding over the roadway and closing the road at a frequency of approximately every two to three years. The surface water conveyance will tie into a new 60-inch diameter pipeline located to the west of the BNSF railroad tracks in the Seahawks Training Camp site previously approved as part of the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup of the site. The project is designed to be compatible with future Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) plans for widening of Interstate 405 (1-405 Route 169 to Interstate 90 Congestion Relief -Renton to Bellevue Improvement). This WSDOT project was the subject of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).A Biological Opinion (Opinion) was issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on January 3, 2007 pursuant to Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. At some time in the future, the existing 30-inch culvert passing under 1-405 would be replaced with a new longer culvert that would discharge into this facility. The proposed stormwater conveyance is located approximately 100 feet south of the existing culvert. It will include re-routing approximately 120 feet of the Gypsy Creek open channel between Ripley Lane and the existing 1-405 roadway improvements to an inlet structure at the edge of the Ripley Lane road prism. The re-routed stream will include a series of log weirs to provide for fish passage to the new culvert. The existing Gypsy Creek open channel will be maintained as off- channel habitat. The new conveyance system will consist of four ( 4) HDPE pipes each of which is 36 inch nominal diameter which will carry flows under Ripley Lane, under the King County Metro Sewer 84-inch diameter eastside mainline, and under the BNSF Railway railroad to discharge into an existing 60-inch diameter pipeline on the Seahawks Training Facility site. One pipe will be installed at an inlet invert elevation (IE) of 18.09 and a slope appropriate for fish passage at low flows. The other three pipes will be installed at an inlet IE of 18.89 and a somewhat steeper slope to carry high flows. The connection to the existing Seahawks 60-inch pipeline will be through a concrete box structure approximately 10 feet by 28 feet in size with an open grate top and gravel substrate in the bottom to provide for light and a resting area for fish passing through the system. The existing culvert under Ripley Lane will be plugged at the easterly inlet. The existing culvert under the King County Metro Sewer 84-inch diameter pipe, and under the BNSF Railway railroad will be maintained to provide local drainage from the west side of Ripley Lane and the BNSF right of way and will be conveyed through a pipeline system on the Seahawks site to the 60-inch diameter pipeline on the Seahawks Training site. Other Permits: (See Master Land Use Application and SEPA document for further explanation.) Other known permits needed include US Army Corps of Engineers 404 Nationwide 43 for Stormwater Facilities Management, the WA DOE 401 Clean Water Act certification, the / WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), the City of Renton Critical Areas Review, the King County Metro Sewer engineer approval of crossing of existing sewer line, the City of Renton Utility approval for modification of existing water and sewer lines, and the BNSF crossing permit for crossing a utility under BNSF property. Special Site Features: Wetlands are within the project site tie-in location with any wetland impact near the WSDOT property being avoided. See also the wetland report project within this Master Landuse Application. Soil Type and Drainage Conditions: Soils are predominantly silty, sandy material that lies in the lowlands and was historically part of the Lake Washington lake bottom or shorelines prior to the Lake being lowered as part of the lock operation system. Total Estimated Construction Costs: The total estimated construction cost of this project is approximately $1.3 million dollars. Estimated Quantities and type of materials for excavation: Temporary cut and full for culvert installation will include removal and replacement of about 3,000 cubic yards of material. About 1,700 cubic yards of material will be removed from upland areas for stream channel relocation east of Ripley Lane. Number and Type of Trees to be Removed: No significant trees are to be removed as part of this project. Explanation of Any Land to be dedicated to the City: No land is to be dedicated to the City. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1G55 South Grady ',Vay, Renton.. WA 98055 ?hone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Not Applicable A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Renton, Ripley Lane N./Gypsy Creek Flood Conveyance Improvements 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton, Planning, Building and Public Works Department, Utility Systems, Surface Water Division 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Steve Lee, Civil Engineer City of Renton Planning, Building and Public Works Department, Utility Systems, Surface Water Utility Renton City Hall, 5th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-7241 4. Date checklist prepared: September 13, 2007 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Planning, Building and Public Works Department, Utility Systems, Surface Water Utility 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction in Spring/Summer 2008 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The City of Renton has no plans for future additions or expansions. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has an adjacent project related to 1-405 expansion. The WSDOT 1-405 improvements are not functionally related to this project. The WSDOT 1-405 project involves widening the highway and constructing a new conveyance across 1-405 which would replace the existing 30-inch pipeline. If construction plans are known at the time of preparing the bid documents for this project, the two projects may be coordinated to some extent. Most likely this project will be constructed and the WSDOT new conveyance would tie into it at a later date. This culvert replacement for flood avoidance has independent utility and will be constructed regardless of whether 1- 405 improvements are constructed. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Cedarock Consultants 2006, Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility, Stream and Lake Study, Stream Mitigation Plan, prepared for Football Northwest, LLC by Cedarock Consultants, Woodinville, WA September 20, 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2007) Biological Opinion (Opinion) issued by the pursuant to Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation, January 3, 2007. Renton, City of (Renton 1997) Gypsy Subbasin Drain Improvements Design Memorandum, prepared for the City of Renton by Entranco, Bellevue, Washington. Washington State Department of Health (WDH 2006) Initial Release Public Health Assessment, Quendall Terminals, Renton, King County Washington, EPA Facility ID: WAD9806392 15, Prepared by Washington State Department of Health Under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page2 September 13, 2007 September 30, 2006, Website: http://yosemite.epa.gov/rl O/CLEANUP.NSF/sites/Quendall/$FILE/PHA- Quendall.pdf. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2002) I-405 Corridor Program NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation (WSDOT, 2002) and I-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT], 2002). Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2006) I-405 Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to 1-90/405 Corridor Program, Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, Environmental Assessment, Appendix X: Fish and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report, February 13, 2006. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2006) 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to 1-90/405 Corridor Program, Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Trans it Projects, Environmental Assessment, Appendix V. Wetlands Discipline Report February 13, 2006. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2006) 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 lo 1-90 405/ Corridor Program, Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, Environmental Assessment, Appendix W. Wildlife and Vegetation Discipline Report, February 13, 2006. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2007) Data file entitled "gypsy_ ck_ drainage_ areas_ 02200 7 .dxf.", created February 2 1, 2007, provided to Parametrix by the City of Renton. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit No 43, Storrnwater Management Facilities Washington Department of Ecology, Clean Water Act Section 401 certification Washington Department offish and Wildlife (WDFW), Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) City of Renton, Critical Areas Review King County Metro Sewer, engineering approval of crossing of existing sewer line City of Renton Utility approval for modification of existing water and sewer lines 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask yon to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposed project involves replacement culverts for an existing undersized 24-inch diameter culvert on Ripley Lane that carries Gypsy Creek under Ripley Lane and under the BNSF Railway railroad. The capacity constraints of the existing culvert result in floodwaters impounding over the roadway and closing the road at a frequency of approximately every two to three years. The surface water conveyance will tie into a new 60-inch diameter pipeline located to the west of the BNSF railroad tracks in the Seahawks Training Camp site previously approved as part of the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup of the site. The project is designed to be compatible with future Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) plans for widening of Interstate 405 (1-405 Route 169 to Interstate 90 Congestion Relief -Renton to Bellevue Improvement). This WSDOT project was the subject of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 3 September 13, 2007 Significant Impact (FONSI).A Biological Opinion (Opinion) was issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on January 3, 2007 pursuant to Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. At some time in the future, the existing 30-inch culvert passing under 1-405 would be replaced with a new longer culvert that would discharge into this facility. The proposed stormwater conveyance is located approximately 100 feet south of the existing culvert. It will include re-routing approximately 120 feet of the Gypsy Creek open channel between Ripley Lane and the existing l-405 roadway improvements to an inlet structure at the edge of the Ripley Lane road prism. The re-routed stream will include a series of log weirs to provide for fish passage to the new culvert. The existing Gypsy Creek open channel will be maintained as off-channel habitat. The new conveyance system will consist of four (4) HDPE pipes each of which is 36 inch nominal diameter which will carry flows under Ripley Lane, under the King County Metro Sewer 84-inch diameter eastside mainline, and under the BNSF Railway railroad to discharge into an existing 60-inch diameter pipeline on the Seahawks Training Facility site. One pipe will be installed at an inlet invert elevation (IE) of 18.09 and a slope appropriate for fish passage at low flows. The other three pipes will be installed at an inlet IE of 18.89 and a somewhat steeper slope to carry high flows. The connection to the existing Seahawks 60-inch pipeline will be through a concrete box structure approximately IO feet by 28 feet in size with an open grate top and gravel substrate in the bottom to provide for light and a resting area for fish passing through the system. The existing culvert under Ripley Lane will be plugged at the easterly inlet. The existing culvert under the King County Metro Sewer 84-inch diameter pipe, and under the BNSF Railway railroad will be maintained to provide local drainage from the west side of Ripley Lane and the BNSF right of way and will be conveyed through a pipeline system on the Seahawks site to the 60-inch diameter pipeline on the Seahawks Training site. 2. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located on the City of Renton Ripley Lane right of way and BNSF Railway right of way approximately 1,500 feet south of 44th Street NE as indicated in Attachment A, Vicinity and Alignment Map. The project is within the NE quarter of the SW quarter of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 05 EWM, Latitude (decimal): 47.5322, Longitude (decimal): 122.2022. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS I. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The topography is flat. The project is located on the former alluvial terrace that existed at the margins of Lake Washington prior to lowering the lake 8.8 feet in 1916. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The BNSF Railway embankment is at about a 2: I slope and is up to IO feet high. c. What general types of soils arc found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Riparian soils near the open stream channel between Ripley Lane and 1-405 are mapped in the King County Soil Survey (USDA, 1973) primarily as Bellingham silt loam (Bh) -a poorly drained soil formed in alluvium; and Kitsap silt loam (KpC) -a moderately well drained soil formed in lake deposits and generally found on terraces. Soils within the basin are generally of the Alderwood-Kitsap-lndianola series of soils that formed slowly on permeable City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 4 September 13, 2007 glacial till or glacial lake deposits. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no surface indications of unstable soils. The underlying alluvial deposits may be susceptible to liquefaction during seismic events. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Temporary cut and fill for culvert installation will include removal and replacement of about 3,000 cubic yards of material. Fill to provide sufficient cover over the new pipes will total about 50 cubic yards on the west side of BNSF. About 1,700 cubic yards of material will be removed from upland areas for stream channel relocation east of Ripley Lane. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion can occur whenever soils are exposed. Erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to control adverse impacts. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? There will be no change in impervious surfaces as a result of the culvert replacement. Future 1-405 improvements will result in increases in impervious surfaces and runoff. The capacity of the system is designed to accommodate future runoff from proposed l-405 widening. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial, wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Equipment used in construction will emit exhaust. Soils exposed during construction can result in entrained dust. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Dust control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The culvert replacement is on Gypsy Creek which flows into Lake Washington. Wetlands in the area are north and south of the existing Gypsy Creek open channel. Wetland I is immediately south of the stream and is contained within the ditch conveyance at the edge of the 1-405 road prism. Wetland 2 is located north of the Gypsy Creek City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 5 September 13, 2007 open channel and extends about 20 feet west of the 1-405 road prism. Both wetlands appear are recharged from runoff from 1-405 and from Gypsy Creek. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The new culverts will be about JOO feet south of the existing Gypsy Creek channel. The new stream channel to the culvert inlet will be constructed outside of the water except for the final connection. No work would take place in the existing wetlands. Wetland buffer area will be disturbed by construction of the new channel. The existing vegetation in the area disturbed is Reed Canary grass. The disturbed area will be re-planted with native riparian vegetation which will result in a more effective buffer area over the long term. The WSDOT plans for widening 1-405 in the future will displace the Gypsy Creek open channel as well as both wetlands. Mitigation for stream channel and wetland loss will be the responsibility of"WSDOT. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredging will be placed in or removed from surface water. All work for installation of new culverts and construction of the new channel will take place outside of the wetted portion of Gypsy Creek, except for the final stage of connection of the new channel to Gypsy Creek. No work is proposed within wetlands. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. None. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. There is no mapped floodplain associated with Gypsy Creek. The creek currently floods because of inadequate culvert capacity. With the proposed improvements flooding will be limited to the proposed high-flow channel. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: No. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the sonrce of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. No additional impervious surface will result from the new culverts. Future 1-405 improvements will result in increases in impervious surfaces and runoff. The capacity of the system is City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 6 September 13, 2007 designed to accommodate future runoff from proposed 1-405 widening. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Accidental discharge of sedimentation from erosion or fluids from construction machinery could occur; however, the BMPs employed for erosion/sedimentation control and for spill control and emergency response will limit the likelihood of waste materials entering ground or surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if auy: Incorporating best management practice (BMPs) and conservation measures into a proposed action will avoid, minimize, rectify, or compensate for impacts to surface, ground and runoff water. The following conservation measures will be incorporated during and after construction: • Construction of the new culverts will take place approximately I 00 feet from the existing Gypsy Creek. A detailed Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be implemented that will include the following: > Construction disturbance will be limited to the minimum area needed, the shortest duration, and at the most appropriate distance away from water bodies and aquatic habitat as practical. > Clearing limits will be delineated with fencing or flags prior to any ground disturbing activities and maintained throughout construction. > Erosion control devices including silt fencing, silt dams or screens, and catchments will be installed prior to vegetation removal or grading. > Areas with exposed soils will be mulched or otherwise covered on a daily basis during the rainy season, at least weekly during the dry season, and at the close of activity on any portion of the site. > Erosion control devices will be inspected daily during the rainy season, weekly during the dry season, and monthly on inactive sites. If inspection shows that the erosion controls are ineffective, work crews will be mobilized immediately, during working and off-hours, to make repairs, install replacements, or install additional controls as necessary. > Sediment that accumulates at control devices will be monitored and removed as appropriate to ensure effective operation. • Construction of the new channel between Gypsy Creek and the new culvert inlet will take place entirely outside of the stream. Erosion of disturbed areas will be controlled by use of silt dams or catchments between the site and Gypsy Creek, use of mulch and hydroseeding, and planting disturbed areas as soon as possible to establish cover vegetation. Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped with native vegetation. Specific measures to control impacts on the stream include: > Construction of the new channel associated weirs and revegetation will be completed outside of the wet portion of the stream, except for the final 2 to 4 feet adjacent to Gypsy Creek. Vegetation within the new channel area will be allowed to establish to the maximum extent practical prior to connecting the new channel to Gypsy Creek. > Silt curtains will be installed within the water area of Gypsy Creek around the area where the new channel is to be connected. > A sandbag dam will be built inside the silt curtains to completely isolate the wet areas of Gypsy Creek from the work area. All fish will be removed from the area isolated by sandbags and the area will be dewatered by pumping. > Removal of the final 2 to 4 feet of material will occur with equipment located above and outside of the existing and new channel. > Erosion control measures and vegetation will be installed as soon as the soil removal is completed in the connection area. > The sandbag dam will be removed by hand to allow water to gradually fill the new channel. > The existing channel will be retained as "off-channel" habitat. City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 7 September 13, 2007 • The existing 24-inch culvert inlet at Ripley Lane will be plugged with minimal in-stream work with the following sequence: > Silt curtains will be installed just upstream of the Ripley Lane culvert to isolate the work area, and fish will be removed from the work area. > A sandbag dam will be built inside the silt curtains to completely isolate Gypsy Creek from the work area, and the downstream reach gradually dewatered by flow through the culvert and by pumping if needed. > The existing culvert will be plugged with concrete at the east end. The westerly portion of the culvert will continue to provide drainage for the west side of Ripley Lane and the BNSF right of way. • Spill control and emergency response plans will be implemented for fueling and concrete activity areas. :> BMPs and restoration work will be monitored during and after project construction. All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any stream or water body will be inspected daily for fluid leakage. Any leaks detected will be repaired before the vehicle resumes operation. When not in use, all vehicles, where it is practicable, will be stored in a vehicle staging area separated from surface water. > Refueling activities will be conducted within a designated refueling area at least 200 feet away from any stream or designated wetland areas. Additionally, drip pans will be fitted with absorbent pads and placed under all equipment being fueled. > Work will be conducted in a manner to prevent loss of chemicals into receiving waters. Equipment that is used for work near the water work will be cleaned prior to operations. External oil and grease will be removed, along with dirt and mud. No untreated wash and rinse water will be discharged into streams or rivers without adequate treatment. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: __x_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __x_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass -pasture crop or gram wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other __x_ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? A small amount of riparian vegetation will be removed where the new channel connects to the existing Gypsy Creek. Vegetation displaced consists largely of shrubs and Reed Canary Grass. Construction of new culverts will remove some trees along the west side of Ripley Lane. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened and endangered plant species in the action area according to the WDFS Priority Species and Habitat (PSH) database. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 8 September 13, 2007 Clearing limits will disturb the minimum area necessary for construction. Cleared areas will be restored after construction is completed. The area adjacent to the proposed new stream channel will be planted with riparian vegetation. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or arc known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: small birds are present small mammals are present resident fish are present b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no threatened and endangered species of animals or fish in the action area or within Gypsy Creek according to National Marine Fisheries Service review and the WDFS Priority Species and Habitat (PSH) database. There are several species of ESA-listed fish in Lake Washington. Eagles use the vicinity but not the action area. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is near Lake Washington which is a migration route for fish. The BNSF Railway right of way also provides opportunities for some movement of terrestrial species. It is likely that the small area of vegetation and open stream between Ripley Lane and 1-405 has low use by migratory species. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Revegetation of riparian area adjacent to new stream channel. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No use. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. A Puget Sound Energy (PSE) I 0-inch high pressure gas line on Ripley Lane will require reconfiguration to accommodate culvert installation and entails some risk of explosion. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Emergency services may be required for accidents during construction. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: It is anticipated that coordination with the natural gas utility (PSE) will ensure that potential impacts on the gas line will be minimized during construction. City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 9 September 13, 2007 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic from 1-405 is the predominant noise source in the area. There is also currently construction noise from the activities on the Seahawks Training Center site. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short- term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. There will be equipment noise during construction. There are no residential or other sensitive uses within 600 feet of construction that will be affected by noise levels produced. Operation will result in little or no noise. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise from construction will occur during daytime hours when exempt from noise regulations. Properly muffled construction equipment will reduce construction noise somewhat. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Land uses in the action area are roadway and railroad use and undeveloped right of way. The site west of the BNSF Railway railroad is being developed as the Seahawks Training Facility. Residential uses are present about 600 feet north of the action area on the west side of the BNSF Railway railroad. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The City of Renton CCR-Commercial, Office, Residential f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan designates the area to the west of the BNSF as a major Commercial, Office, and Residential center. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not Applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Gypsy Creek and associated wetlands are an environmentally sensitive area. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 10 September 13, 2007 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The culvert replacement will not affect land use, except by improving access by avoiding road closure due to flooding. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not Applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The proposal will not affect views except for additional native vegetation on the new stream alignment. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. Light and glare a. What type oflight or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light aud glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are a variety of formal and informal recreational opportunities in the city. New development on the Lake Washington Shoreline at the Seahawks Training Facility and Barbee Mill residential development will provide additional public access to the shoreline. City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 11 September 13, 2007 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposed surface water conveyance crosses one public street -Ripley Lane -as well as the BNSF Railway right of way. b. ls site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? There is no public transit on Ripley Lane, Lake Washington Blvd., or N. 44th Street. The nearest transit stops are at the N 30th Street Park and Ride. There is a school bus stop on Ripley Lane about 500 feet north of the site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Not applicable. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No change in existing streets is proposed. The adjacent Seahawks Training Facility improvements will include frontage improvements on Ripley Lane consisting of improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? Ifso, generally describe. The proposed surface water conveyance crosses the BNSF right of way of the Black River to Snohomish Junction branch line. Proposed construction will interrupt rail service for about 2 weeks, however a section of the line is currently being abandoned to the north where it crosses 1-405. There are no rail customers on the line between the Boeing Renton Plant and the abandoned section, so construction is not likely to interrupt service. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Not applicable City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page 12 September 13, 2007 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. A IO-inch diameter Puget Sound Energy (PSE) natural gas pipeline is located within the Ripley Lane right of way. This line may require relocation during construction An 84-inch diameter King County Metro sewer line is located within the BNSF Railway right of way west of Ripley Lane. The proposed culverts will pass under this line. A 12-inch City of Renton water line is located west of the BNSF Railway railroad. A portion of this line will be raised to pass over the proposed culverts. A 12-inch City of Renton sewer line is located west of the BNSF Railway railroad. A portion of this line will be raised to clear the proposed culverts by relocating the "drop manhole" to the south. An overhead telephone line is located in the Ripley Lane right of way. This line is not likely to be affected. Overhead PSE electrical distribution lines are located in the Ripley Lane right of way. This line is not likely to be affected. An overhead PSE electrical transmission line ( 115 kV) crosses 1-405 and enters the Ripley Lane right of way about 15 feet south of the existing Gypsy Creek culver. The transmission line then continues to the south on the east side of the right of way. This line is not likely to be affected. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The proposed surface water conveyance culverts may be considered a utility line. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: David E. Sherrard Senior Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Parametrix Inc. 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800, Bellevue, WA 98004, 425-458-6374 Date Submitted: September 13, 2007 City of Renton, Ripley Lane Surface Water Conveyance SEPA Checklist Page l3 September 13, 2007 Wetland Biology Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Prepared for City of Renton Planning, Building, and Public Works Department Utility Systems, Surface Water Utility Engineering Renton City Hall, 5th Floor I 05 5 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Prepared by Parametrix 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, WA 98004-5571 425-458-6200 www.parametrix.cum October 2007 I 558-l 779-029 (01/05) CITATION Parametrix. 2007. Wetland Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Review. City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. October 2007. TABLE OF CONTENTS H'"etla11d Discipli11e Report City ofRenro11 Critical Areas Review City of'Re!lton Ripley l.a11e. Gyp.f}' Creek Conveyance lmprovemelffs Ci1y of Renton EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 111 WHAT WETLANDS WERE FOUND IN THE PROJECT AREA? .............................. III WHAT IS THIS PROPOSAL? ..................................................................................... III WHAT IMPACTS WILL THE PROPOSAL HAVE ON WETLANDS? ....................... Ill IMP ACTS OF FUTURE ACTIONS BY OTHERS ....................................................... Ill 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................ 1-1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 2-1 2.1 MAJOR DESIGN FEATURES .......................................................................... 2-l 2.1.1 Channel Realignment ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.2 New Culverts ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.3 Juncture Structure at 60-Inch Seahawks Site Pipe ...................................... 2-1 2.2 IN-WATER WORK ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 WORK AFFECTING WETLANDS ................................................................... 2-2 2.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROPOSALS ..................................................... 2-2 2.5 SECONDARY FEATURES ............................................................................... 2-2 2.6 GENERAL PROJECT TIMING AND SEQUENCE ........................................... 2-2 2.7 LONG-TERM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ..................................... 2-2 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND ACTION AREA .............................. 3-1 3.1 PROJECT SITE AND ACTION AREA ............................................................. 3-1 3.2 PROJECT AREA CONTEXT AND WETLAND RESOURCES ........................ 3-1 3.2.1 Gypsy Creek Basin Area ........................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Gypsy Creek Stream Character ................................................................. 3-1 3.3 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ................................................... 3-2 3.4 METHODS ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.4. l Wetland Delineation and evaluation .......................................................... 3-2 3.4.2 Existing Documents .................................................................................. 3-5 3.4.3 Previous Studies ....................................................................................... 3-5 3.5 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS/WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS ............................... 3-7 3.5.1 Wetlands ................................................................................................... 3-7 3.5.2 Wetlandfunctions ..................................................................................... 3-7 3.5.3 Stream Delineation ................................................................................... 3-8 3.6 WETLAND RATING ........................................................................................ 3-8 3.6.1 Ecology Wetland Rating ........................................................................... 3-8 3.6.2 Renton Wetland Rating ............................................................................. 3-9 October 2007 I 558·1779-029 (01/05) Wetland DiJcipline Report City o/"Rrnton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane, GJpsy Creek Conveyance lmproreme11ts City of Ren.on TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 4. IMPACTS ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION ............................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 General Project Timing and Sequence ....................................................... 4-l 4.1.2 Work within wetlands ............................................................................... 4-1 4.1.3 Work within wetland buffers ..................................................................... 4-l 4.1.4 Secondary Features ................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 PERMANENT IMPACTS .................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 OPERATIONAL EFFECTS ............................................................................... 4-2 4.3.1 Impervious Area and Stormwater Treatment Facilities .............................. 4-2 4.3.2 Stream Flow ............................................................................................. 4-2 4.3.3 HabitatConditions .................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.4 Long-term Operations and Maintenance ................................................... .4-2 4.4 INDIRECT EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 4-2 4.5 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS ............................... .4-2 4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................ 4-3 4.7 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................. 4-3 5. RENTON CODE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................. 5-1 5.1 APPLICABLE STANDARDS ............................................................................ 5-1 5.2 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS ............................................................... 5-1 5.2. l Compliance with RMC 4-3-050.C.5.f.ii: Temporary Wetland Impacts: ...... 5-1 5.2.2 Compliance with RMC 4-3-050.C.2.4 ....................................................... 5-2 5.3 MITIGATION .................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3.1 Mitigation Criteria .................................................................................... 5-2 5.3.2 Mitigation Sequencing .............................................................................. 5-3 6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 6-1 APPENDICES A Wetland Delineation Methodology B Wetland Data Sheets and Rating Forms ii October 2007 I 558-l779-029 (01/05) /Id/and Discipline Report Cit) of Re1Jton Critical Areas Review City of Remon Ripley l.ane. Gypsy Creek. Cnnvn·ance lmprorements Ci1y of Rrnton TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) LIST OF FIGURES Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Project Vicinity Map ....... 2-3 2 Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Project Open Channel and Ripley Lane Crossing ................................................................................... 2-5 3 Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Project BNSF Crossing ... 2-7 4 Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Project Details ................ 2-9 5 Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Details .......................... 2-11 6 Gypsy Creek Basin Soils .................................................................................... 3-3 7 Wetland and Stream Map ................................................................................. 3-11 LIST OF TABLES Criteria for Wetland Rating Systems ................................................................... 3-9 2 Wet land Area, Rating, and Classification Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek ................. 3-10 October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (OI/05) iii ACRONYMS Bh BNSF CWA EA Ecology ESA HPA IE KpC LWD MTCA NEPA NRCS OHWM TESC USFWS WDFW WDOE WRIA WSDOT Octobe,2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) Wetland Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Ci1y of Rcn{on Bellingham silt loam Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Clean Water Act Environmental Assessment Washington State Department of Ecology Endangered Species Act Hydraulic Project Approval invert elevation Kitsap silt loam large woody debris Model Toxics Control Act National Environmental Policy Act Natural Resource Conservation Service ordinary high water mark Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan U.S. Department oflnterior, Fish and Wildlife Services Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington State Department of Ecology Water Resource Inventory Area Washington State Department of Transportation V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wetfo11d Discipline Reporl City of Renton Critical Areas Rel'iew Cay of Renton Ripley Lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance lmpruwmcnls Ci!y ofRenl(m WHAT WETLANDS WERE FOUND IN THE PROJECT AREA? Two wetlands were found in the project area. Both are adjacent to the existing 1-405 road prism and receive water supply from 1-405 runoff and Gypsy Creek. Wetland I is classified Category III. Wetland 2 is classified Category IV. WHAT IS THIS PROPOSAL? This proposal by the City of Renton will provide a new surface water conveyance across Ripley Lane and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad rights of way with four (4) culvert pipelines 36 inches in diameter and a realigned open channel between Ripley Lane and 1-405. The new conveyance system will tie into the 60-inch-diameter culvert on the Seahawks Training Facility (Seahawks) site. The new conveyance is designed to prevent recurrent flooding which currently closes Ripley Lane every two to three years because of inadequate culvert capacity. The project will replace an existing 24-inch diameter, 150-foot long culvert across the Ripley Lane and BNSF railroad rights of way. The proposed culvert system will include provisions to concentrate low flows into only one of the new culverts to enhance fish passage conditions. WHAT IMPACTS WILL THE PROPOSAL HAVE ON WETLANDS? The project will not displace wetlands. The existing wetlands are outside the area to be regraded for a new open channel. Current buffer areas that are largely Reed Canary Grass will be revegetated with a mix of native vegetation which will provide enhanced buffer functions. IMPACTS OF FUTURE ACTIONS BY OTHERS Future plans by WSDOT to widen 1-405 will result in widening of the highway to the west and construction of a retaining wall near the east side of the Ripley Lane right of way. This project will displace both wetlands. WSDOT will be responsible for wetland mitigation for their project. October 2007 I 558·1779-029(01/05) 1. INTRODUCTION I-Fe/land Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Rei•iew City of Renton Ripley lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance lmprowments City uf Rento11 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The City of Renton proposes to install a replacement culvert for an existing undersized 24- inch-diameter culvert that carries Gypsy Creek under both Ripley Lane and the BNSF railroad. The capacity constraints of the existing culvert result in floodwaters impounding over the roadway and closing the road at a frequency of approximately every two to three years. The project is located on the City of Renton Ripley Lane right of way and BNSF railroad right of way, approximately 1,500 feet south of 44th Street NE as indicated in Figure I, the Vicinity Map. The project is within the NE quarter of the SW quarter of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 05 East Willamette Meridian, Latitude (decimal): 47.5322, Longitude ( decimal): -122.2022. The proposed new culvert system will tie into a new conveyance to the west of the BNSF railroad right of way, in the Seahawks site, previously approved as part of the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup of the site. October 2007 I 558-1779--029 (01/05) 1-1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 MAJOR DESIGN FEATURES 2.1.1 Channel Realignment Wetland Discipline Report Ci().· o/ Rc11!on Critical Areas Raiew City ofRenton Ripley Lane. 6}psy Creek Conveyance lmprnrements City of Renton The proposed stormwater conveyance is located approximately 100 feet south of the existing culvert. It will include re-routing approximately 120 feet of the Gypsy Creek open channel between Ripley Lane and the existing 1-405 roadway improvements to an inlet structure at the edge of the Ripley Lane road prism as indicated in Figure 2. The re-routed stream will include a series of log weirs to provide for fish passage to the new culvert. The existing Gypsy Creek open channel will be maintained as off-channel habitat. 2.1.2 New Culverts The new conveyance system will consist of four (4) HOPE pipes, each of which is 36 inches in nominal diameter, which will carry flows under Ripley Lane, under the King County Metro Sewer 84-inch diameter eastside mainline, and under the BNSF railroad to discharge into an existing 60-inch diameter pipeline on the Seahawks site as indicated in Figures 3, 4 and 5. One pipe will be installed at an inlet invert elevation (IE) of 18.09 and a slope appropriate for fish passage at low flows. The other three pipes will be installed at an inlet IE of 18.89 and a somewhat steeper slope to carry high flows. The existing culvert under Ripley Lane will be plugged at the easterly inlet. The existing culvert under the King County Metro Sewer 84-inch diameter pipe, and under the BNSF railroad will be maintained to provide local drainage from the west side of Ripley Lane and the BNSF railroad right of way and will be conveyed through a pipeline system on the Seahawks site to the 60-inch diameter pipeline on the same site. 2.1.3 Juncture Structure at 60-lnch Seahawks Site Pipe The transition from the four 36-inch pipelines under the Ripley Lane and the BNSF railroad rights of way to the 60-inch pipe under the Seahawks site will be accommodated through a concrete box structure approximately IO feet by 28 feet in size as indicated in Figure 3. This structure will include an open grate top and gravel substrate in tbe bottom to provide for light and a resting area for fish passing through the system. This structure will replace the function of the existing short (about 15 ft) section of open channel located between the Ripley Lane/BNSF culvert and the culvert under the Seahawks site. The gravel substrate within this concrete box structure would also enhance fish passage by further reducing water velocities. 2.2 IN-WATER WORK Connecting the upstream end of the realigned channel to the existing stream channel is the only activity requiring in-water work. Constructing the new culverts and the new stream channel will occur entirely outside of the existing stream ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and will require no in-water work until the final connection to the existing stream channel is made. In-water activities will occur during the fish window stipulated by the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) to be issued by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). In-water work is estimated to require a total construction time of one day. See the Aquatics Report for additional details of in-water work and measures to mitigate impacts on aquatic resources. October 2007 I 558·1779-029 (01/05) 2-1 Wetland Discipline Report City ~f Renton Critical An-as Review City of Renton Ripley lane, Uypxy Creek Conveyance !mprovemf.'nls City of Renton 2.3 WORK AFFECTING WETLANDS The realignment of Gypsy Creek will not displace wetlands. The area proposed for the steam relocation is entirely upland habitat. The location of the proposed connection to the existing channel also has no wetlands. Buffer areas adjacent to Wetland 1 consist of a mix of small deciduous trees with some large cottonwood trees. Buffer areas adjacent to Wetland 2 consist of a mix of trees and shrubs on the 1-405 road prism to the east, a mix of deciduous trees to the south and Reed Canary Grass to the west. The area affected by grading for the new stream channel is in buffer areas almost entirely characterized by Reed Canary Grass. That buffer area will be re-vegetated with native riparian species which will provide enhanced buffer functions in the future. 2.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROPOSALS The proposed project is designed to be compatible with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) plans for future widening of 1-405. This future project will result in widening 1-405 to the west. The widening of 1-405 to the west would likely require a retaining wall close to the Ripley Lane right of way. This will result in replacement of the existing culvert passing under 1-405 with a new longer culvert that would replace the existing open stream channel and would likely discharge directly into the proposed Ripley Lane/BNSF conveyance system at the east side of Ripley Lane. As a result, the future WSDOT enclosed conveyance is expected to eliminate most or all of the existing open channel and wetlands between 1-405 and Ripley Lane. WSDOT would be responsible for mitigation of all impacts resulting from their proposal. 2.5 SECONDARY FEATURES Relocation of the Puget Sound Energy 12-inch high pressure gas line in Ripley Lane would be required as a result of this project. It is likely that the gas line would be installed in the same location within a casing below or above the culverts. The existing City of Renton 12-inch water line and 12-inch sewer line west of the BNSF railroad would be realigned to pass over the new culverts. No other major utility relocations will be necessary. 2.6 GENERAL PROJECT TIMING AND SEQUENCE Construction for the entire project is tentatively scheduled to begin in spring or early summer of 2008 and to be completed by October 2008. The actual construction is estimated to take about 40 days. It should be noted that this schedule is only a likely representation of what the actual schedule may be and that variations in work timing may occur due to issues with project funding, contractor delays, or adverse weather conditions. The approved in-water work window for Gypsy Creek is from June I to October 31, during which all in-water work would occur. 2.7 LONG-TERM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 2-2 In general, maintenance and operations of this facility will be similar to the requirements for the existing culvert. Re-vegetation of temporarily disturbed riparian areas and riparian buffer enhancement areas will require monitoring subsequent to construction, and pending the results of the monitoring may need some additional maintenance. October 2007 I 55 8-1779-029 (0 I /05) Lake Washington Parametrix 554-1n!t-029/011oe 9/07 (BJ ~ 0 200 Scale in Feet ' ' SEAHAWKS SITE ' ~~ __/,· . PROPOSED ' 4 X 36" CULVERTS 7.,.~-i----FUTURE WSDOT \ \, CROSSING Figure 1 ! Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Project Vicinity Map "'-; • \ 7 :;;, • , ' r n. f: i C -, '.' : y'>~11?J i~., ~-----Jr ~ii::.:, =---t·· .---:.c- .-<· ::_:,;. ~ r ,,; " " -; "-'t~; ~ q, "' ~ ! l·~~(rn! ;i ·,;J~ ; i ; I I ' el ,~-~ ,-ii -~i ;i l;i ' ',' 7" ~'c~Qd2£'.i_.: . I: .... , ... ,_, --j'l:c~" ,.! 1,?,-, ! -~ ~" ~~ -'· -'r,-- ,----• --• "i; j! ,, i: i: Ii ., I' l I- LL ~ C ~~ ,, --~.:: __ -· ,-l< ~ilUUr,;1 I. ~ ---· ,-12' ~~ ' ··• : A~N. ;P."0:', , j_["P) j··:..-~.:.',.....[_ ·,.--re~ ,_ Lr--~-. _ · I! _ --, ---i. :.:IJu .__J L_O(l_~~ SECTION ~~ ~:·~~ -··----·--~ 'r,,"(RF"1'•1C ux ..-er, a:, c, -J-., 12° ·_,: AW~ (=>A,ll ~_LBEO SECTION 1,0 so_, .@ :-· J;~,,-,y •;p:.u ~ __ __ ........---· 1· ~-------' ;c· _;I:~=·'"' "'""' .. _.L -----.. ··-·--.:.· -' r- i·, ! : ~~ /,·r--..... -t--;-...l.. '· j 1~· ~p~~N \,,:A\'fl_:1 '(" ~~ ,• _J_ __ ,_\ \4j_ '.~·' ? ... :~, ~ ·'-{;) -----\::__-~,,.;,,il· ,-, .... , IM.ET STRUCTURE SECTION /c) ~c '.,.:A..: Cl ~;:f,;:r~= ~-~ }"'!0.:i co --1---+-to,~-'"' l.::t:"·'·' .~,i~;;-"--~ !~ ,/T"\ t---7" ' ' ' ' __ , DRAFT ~ . ' r.-2·•v ,·,,~· ',f, ~IR,:tl,,R[ ...... rf= ~ = '. -u==·=·,,.,,,-[Cl'fl-&Z!lll. 00111!00 .... :,,,., «•·o,, SC,,. ,a 11 , .. \'.;'·I , .. ,n,,.m,,,,m ,, .~:.. ""' _;_: t/) ;~$' gY.:~(?_] ,•• -,,,=a'"'~' l '"-,.>,:c',N Gi<••I!. OUTLET STIWClUAe -secliON____ $ WJ •.c.;u: ·1 ' ~l1·= .:f" 'N"' ' ~IJ·d·h D 'ii~:i;;:--,-,---rri:;;.i;, · · ·J;p;r:_r;;;ij/ . \ ~· \ y \ / °' ... 'S .. ,b C,'.L ,:•;· W.">,A_ \ ' B I '· ""····~ ·;,:,c,,,~,~ , y·"'i:: r , '\: :n \::, , / ,;:•,:1. ,:,, .. ,G .'1_ • ".'.',-. :'10.~ .... ;.~.· ... /,.... ,,%ft~ .. ··:+.. L/ .~~2;~~,;~,, '' · I~ "'. 1, ;\~b i::: ~~ t: ! '·-3rocr,; ;~'I! !;'~ ;( ;~ 2~ ~; 3ft ~ .. \ '. . ., '' l '" .,. <1< ,, .'~·,·· 0.~~-11-EXC.lV,I. '[1QNJRENtH SECTION (iD ,,o ",/.~_, u ll!PLEV LANE STORM IMPAOVEMEHTS Figure 4 1-l~~:<.'N WAS~INGTON Ripley lane/Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Project Details 3(1r-J C3 '[-=24.3~) U b~" Ui/". '._/:, Ii =:..'.'.:.,.Of..i / /,I\,\ 1/ ',L ' I t! I \_) ! ' \...__ 22 '] fL 36" I\JU1'/! jll, (J'.' ~<' C': :21 S'.::: .::i1 .. lf ' 8 lY-J -G" -~ ----, ] I , I ! ! ,J c-'.)Fi·., I r 6' er; C['! u'_, -1 -... ( ........ ". ----j ' <, ll <, \ CA. / (\ I ·-·-.1 _,_:. ;\ 1.· ,: \\ J) . ....... -· "\:.__/ --- j Yi" r~::..:1-1 ry;., ;_:,:,, _r· _J) I UFI er;;,: 1 s::: ;::·iP: If->-i tl 4· 36" NOM DIA (32.3"1D) HOPE, DR21 SD UNDERC~()§§ING OF 84" Dll\_§5 DETAIL ffi "JO ~,r:AL.~- -""'""r.ttH•YU =~<C <'N<>'-""""-••ee""°'""'' l / ,::, r 1:·,1)" :::K (<.:" [;..:. s:· L..:c'..:: ~15 -,,1' ' i"--( ! ,, \\ '" 1-->< f ' ' "'-,.__ ~_.::::_ " 1;::~: '~ 1:~t . -" ~ -1 ! I,._, EX 84" DIA 55 SECTION \I() ')C'.AL. :. Figure 5 C£:::, t t I [;::, 3 ·-~~:,~·;:-::·.o, 0 • DRAFT f·~ + .. ,,, ' ' ,,,, I' RIPLEYLANE!HO!IMIMPROVEMENTS tr::r:e:cr ,...,,_,. --. _M~~• " ""·-·-' ~:~:: .. ~~ I ~C~'[)'l \'IIAS~IN(ll(J'I Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Details ·1-, \'h/ _1 "' C4 Wetland Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Review City o{Renron Ripley lane. Gypsy Creek Conwyance Improvements City of Renton 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND ACTION AREA 3.1 PROJECT SITE AND ACTION AREA The project site is defined as the vicinity where the majority of the proposed action will occur. Descriptions of existing conditions for wetland resources and related aquatic and terrestrial resources are discussed in detail below. An action area is "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action". Effects from the project are not expected beyond the action area directly affected by the construction. Therefore, for wetland impacts and related aquatic and terrestrial species the action area is defined as the immediate work and construction area. For non-wetland terrestrial habitats the action area is within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. This action area is a conservative estimate of the extent to which water quality impacts could affect aquatic species and noise disturbance from construction activities could affect wildlife species. 3.2 PROJECT AREA CONTEXT AND WETLAND RESOURCES Parametrix wetland biologists conducted field survey of the wetlands in the area on May 24, 2007. The following describes the general context and the character of the wetlands. Additional information on wetland delineation methodology is found in Appendix A. 3.2.1 Gypsy Creek Basin Area The project is located within the Gypsy watershed, a tributary to Lake Washington. The Gypsy Creek Basin occurs in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8, and is also identified as Stream 08.LW-7.6 by WDFW. It is an independent tributary to Lake Washington, draining about 408 acres. The Gypsy Creek drainage basin extends from roughly SE 90th Street in the City of Newcastle/NE 35th Place in Renton on the south, to I 08th Avenue SE in the City of Newcastle on the east, to about SE 76th Street in Newcastle/NE 48th Street in Renton to the north. 3.2.2 Gypsy Creek Stream Character The stream outlet to Lake Washington is at approximately the alignment of NE 50th Street in Renton. It flows from a southeasterly direction through a recently installed 60-inch-diameter, 300-foot-long pipeline through the Seahawks site. (The stream formerly flowed through this site in a 24-inch culvert, originating about 100 feet north of the new 60-inch culvert inlet location). Near the BNSF railroad right of way the Seahawk site conveyance extends to the north about 100 feet to intercept the flow from the existing 24-inch-diameter culvert under Ripley Lane and the BNSF railroad which is about 150 feet in length. East of Ripley Lane the stream occurs as an open channel for about 160 feet, to the east side of 1-405, where it is carried under the highway in a 30-inch culvert approximately 300 feet long to an inlet just south of the Denny's Restaurant. East of 1-405 the stream again occurs as an open channel that parallels Lake Washington Blvd for about 450 feet where it crosses under NE 44th Street. South of 44th Street the stream splits into a number of separate channels and piped systems draining to several sub- basins. The area north and east of the 1-405 culvert also drains into Gypsy Creek near the Denny's Restaurant, through a piped system from a vegetated stormwater detention facility at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of NE 48th Street and Lake Washington Blvd. Flow into the detention facility is largely from piped systems to the east. October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) 3-1 Wetland Discipline Report (."i~\· of Ren/ori Crilical Areas Re1 1iew Cilr of Renton Ripler Lane. G}p.1,_v Creek Conreyance lmproi,ements Ci1y of Renton 3.2.2.1 Soils Riparian soils near the open stream channel between Ripley Lane and 1-405 are mapped in the King County Soil Survey (USDA, 1973) primarily as Bellingham silt loam (Bh) a poorly drained soil formed in alluvium, and Kitsap silt loam (KpC) a moderately well drained soil that formed in lake deposits and generally found on terraces. Soils within the basin are generally of the Alderwood-Kitsap-lndianola series of soils that formed slowly on permeable glacial till or glacial lake deposits (Figure 5). Soil investigation as part of the wetland delineation is reported in the wetland description in Section 4.3.2 of this report. 3.2.2.2 Habitat Conditions The study area is part of the larger Tsuga heterophylla (Western Hemlock) Zone, a vegetative zone that occupies extensive areas of Western Washington. Plant communities that have not been altered by logging or urbanization normally consist of western hemlock (Tsuga heterophyl/a), Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata), with an understory of swordfern (Polystichum munitum), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) (Franklin and Dymess 1988). 3.3 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS The project will be subject to a variety of federal, state and local regulations. Federal environmental regulations that will apply to the project include Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, and relevant portions the Clean Water Act (CW A). Specific portions of CW A applicable to the project include Section 40 l, which ensures water quality; and Section 404, which governs activities in waters of the United States, including wetlands. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by WSDOT for to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 3.4 METHODS 3.4.1 Wetland Delineation and evaluation Our investigation included two components: 3-2 • A review of existing documents such as soil surveys, aerial photographs, and other available documents • The field investigation and delineation. Wetland determinations were made using methods described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology [WDOEJ 1997) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987). Areas investigated were considered to be wetlands if they displayed the necessary soils, plants and hydrologic conditions. A detailed description of the field methodology used in this study is provided in Appendix A of this report, and supporting wetland delineation data sheets are provided in Appendix B. October 2007 j 558-1779-029 (01/05) Legend C]oA,.s, c:JoA7.58 ... -.... L .. .; DA 7.59;:} LJAgC AgD Renton :::: ) LJKpC : ::~} Parametrix Newcastle City of Renton ipley Lane Hydrologic Analysis Soils Figure 6 Gypsy Creek Basin Soils Jf'etland Discipline Repor/ City of Renton Critical Areas Review Ci11· of"Remon Ripley l..atU', GJp(v Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Renton 3.4.2 Existing Documents Project staff reviewed the following existing information sources pnor to carrymg out fieldwork: • National Wetland Inventory Map. (available online at USFWS, http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/) • Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (USDA 1973) • The King County Critical Areas Wetland Map Series Survey (King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 2007) http://dnr.metrokc.gov/topics/wetland/index.htm# • WRIA 8 salmonid distribution database (King County et al. 2001). • A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. (Williams et al. 1975) • 1-405, Renton to Bellevue Project, Environmental Assessment, Appendix V.· Wetlands Discipline Report, Washington State Department of Transportation, March 2006 3.4.3 Previous Studies National Wetland Inventory (USGS, http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/) for the area shows a single scrub-shrub wetland located to the east of 1-405. This wetland is approximately 1.5 acres m size. The site was previously assessed by wetland biologists retained by WSDOT as part of the Interstate 405, SR 169 to 1-90 -Renton to Bellevue Project. Results of their study are found m: WSDOT 2006, 1-405, Renton to Bellevue Project, Environmental Assessment, Appendix V: Wetlands Discipline Report, March 2006 Findings in the WSDOT assessment included the following: Wetland 7.5L Size and location: Vegetation: October2007 I 558-1779--029 (01/05) 0.28-acre wetland located northwest of the NE 44th Street interchange and east of Hazelwood Boulevard. The extent of this wetland was verified during a second field investigation conducted in early March and indicators of wetland hydrology were observed, including inundation and saturation in the wetland. Dominated by Pacific willow, red-osier dogwood, and Japanese knotweed. An A horizon extending to 5 inches of very dark grayish brown (l OYR 3/2) silty clay loam with dark brown (7 .5YR3/4) mottles over a B horizon that is a very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) clay loam with dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) mottles. 3-5 Wetland Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Renton Hydrology: No saturated soil observed in soil pit; however, wetland hydrology was assumed because of observed hydric soils and topography. Wetland Classification: This seasonally saturated, depressional PSS wetland is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system and a Category 3 under the City of Renton's critical areas regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Flood flow alteration and production of organic matter and export. Wetland Determination: The boundary was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads and topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the presence of upland plant species. Wetland 7.78L Size and location: Vegetation: Hydrology: 0.87-acre ditch-associated wetland located immediately west of 1-405 off-ramp to the NE 44th Street interchange. The northern area of the wetland contains a mix of ditches, forest, and scrub-shrub areas. Dominated by Reed Canary Grass, red alder, red-osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, and Sitka willow. An A horizon extending to 12 inches depth of very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam. The B horizon is a dark grayish brown (7.SYR 4/4) silt loam with brown (7.SYR 4/4) mottles extending beyond 20 inches. Saturated soil at 8 inches and free water at 10 inches of the surface in the soil pit, as well as visible sediment deposits throughout the wetland. Wetland Classification: This narrow, semi-permanently saturated and seasonally inundated depressional PSS wetland is a Category III under Ecology's rating system and a Category 3 under the City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: This wetland provides the majority of functions evaluated under Null et al. (2000), principally sediment removal. The wetland receives road runoff, and contains dense herbaceous vegetation. Wetland Determination: The boundary was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. These corresponded to the base of fill for adjacent roads or topographical changes. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators. 3·6 October2007 I 558-1779--029 (01/05) Werland Di;cipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance lmproi,emenls City of Renton 3.5 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS/WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS Field investigations to delineate wetlands and streams were performed on May 24, 2007. Wetland delineations and OHWM for streams in the study area were marked by Paramctrix staff. 3.5.1 Wetlands Two wetlands were identified in the study area. Table I summarizes the size, rating, and classification of the wetlands found within the study area, and Figure 6 shows the approximate wetland boundaries. Wetland Rating Sheets are in Appendix A. Photographs of the site are available in project files. 3.5.2 Wetland functions Wetland functions are described based on the criteria outlined in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Revised (Hruby 2004). According to this method, Parametrix staff qualitatively assessed the functions of individual wetlands based on the presence of certain environmental characteristics. For example, an area of open water in a wetland is considered to be characteristic of a wetland that provides habitat for waterfowl or aquatic animals. The upland habitats and buffers surrounding wetlands were also considered in the evaluation because surrounding land use affects the performance of some wetland functions. Wetland 1 Size and location: 0.16-acre wetland located north of Gypsy Creek bounded to the south by the OHWM. It extends to the 1-405 road prism to the east. Indicators of wetland hydrology were observed, including inundation and saturation in the wetland. Vegetation: Dominated by Pacific willow, red-osier dogwood, and similar understory. Several large cottonwoods are located along the 1-405 road prism. Soils: An A horizon extending to 5 inches of very dark grayish brown (l OYR 3/2) silty clay loam with dark brown (7.5YR3/4) mottles over a B horizon that is a very dark brown (IOYR 2/2) clay loam with dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) mottles. Hydrology: Saturated soils were not observed, wetland hydrology was based on observed hydric soils and topography. Wetland Classification: This seasonally saturated, depressional PSS wetland is a Category IV under Ecology's rating system and a Category 3 under the City of Rcnton's Critical Areas Regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: Flood flow alteration and production of organic matter and export. Wetland Determination: The boundary was flagged where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) 3-7 Wetland Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Reriew City of Renton Ripley l.ane. G;p~y Creek LOnveyance lmprol'ements City of Renton Wetland 2 Size and location: Vegetation: Soils: Hydrology: Wetland Classification: present. To the east, this corresponded to the base of fill for I-405. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the presence of upland plant species. Ditch-associated wetland is located immediately west of 1-405 and south of Gypsy Creek. The area south of the wetland contains a mix of forest, and scrub-shrub including red alder, red-osier dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, and Sitka willow. The area immediately to the west is dominated by Reed Canary Grass. A horizon extends to 12 inches depth of very dark grayish brown (I OYR 3/2) silt loam. B horizon is a dark grayish brown (7.SYR 4/4) silt loam with brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles extending beyond 20 inches. Saturated soil at 8 inches and free water at 10 inches of the surface in the soil pit, as well as visible sediment deposits throughout the wetland. This narrow, semi-permanently saturated and seasonally inundated depressional PSS wetland is a Category III under Ecology's rating system and a Category 3 under the City ofRenton's Critical Areas Regulations. Wetland Functional Assessment: This wetland provides principally sediment removal. The wetland receives road runoff, and contains herbaceous Wetland Determination: vegetation. The boundary was flagged where indicators were present, including vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. These corresponded to the base of fill for 1-405 to the east. Adjacent uplands were distinguished from the wetland by the lack of soil saturation or hydric soil indicators. 3.5.3 Stream Delineation Streams in the study area were identified by Parametrix staff. In summary, Parametrix staff marked the OHWM of Gypsy Creek. Streams were rated according to Renton Critical Areas codes and are addressed in the Aquatics Discipline Report. 3.6 WETLAND RATING 3.6.1 Ecology Wetland Rating 3-8 Wetlands in the study area were rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Revised (Hruby 2004). In addition Table I includes the Renton rating system. The Washington State Department of Ecology has defined a 4-tiered system, based on wetland rarity, replacability, and function. A summary of the criteria for the wetland categories is presented in Table I. October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) Wetland Disciplini' Report City oj Renton Critical Areas Rei·iew City o(Renwn Ripley Lo.ne. Gypsy Creek Co,n,eyo.nce Improvements City of Renton Table 1. Criteria for Wetland Rating Systems Category Ecology Rating System• Category I Wetlands: • Represent a unique or rare wetland type; or • Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; or • Are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or • Provide a high level of functions. Specific wetlands that meet the Category I criteria include: (1) Relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands over one acre in size; or (2) Natural Hartage Wetlands. specifically. , Wetlands identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as high quality relatively undisturbed wetlands; and , Wetlands that support State listed threatened or endangered plants; (3) Bogs; (4) Mature and old-growth forested wetlands over one acre in size; (5) Wetlands in coastal lagoons: and (6) Wetlands that perform many functions very well, as indicated by a score of 70 or more points out of 100 on the wetland rating form. II Category II wetlands are difficult, though not impossible; to replace, and provide high levels of some funciions. Specific wetlands that meet the Category II criteria include (1) Estuarine wetlands less than one acre in size, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre; (2) lnterdunal wetlands greater than one acre; and (3) Wetlands scoring between 51 and 69 points out of 100 on the wetland rating form. Ill Category Ill wetlands provide a moderate level of functions. Specific wetlands that meet the Category Ill criteria include: IV ' b (1) Wetlands scoring between 30 and 50 points out of 100 on the wetland rating form; and (2) lnterdunal wetlands between 0.1 acre and 1.0 acre in size. Category IV Wetlands have the lowest levels offunctions and are heavily disturbed. Specific wetlands that meet the Category IV criteria include: (1) Wetlands scoring less than 30 points out of 100 on the wetland rating form. City of Renton (2007). Hruby(2004). 3.6.2 Renton Wetland Rating Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (I) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. 0<tobe, 2001 I 55s-1119--029 <o 11os> 3-9 Wetland Disc1pli11£' Report City ofRe11lo11 Critical Areas Review City of Ren/on Ripley Lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Renton 3-10 (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (!) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. These wetlands meet the definition of Category 3 because they are characterized by (a) Human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification. The wetlands are adjacent to Gypsy Creek which was re-routed by 1-405 construction in the early 1960s. Wetland hydrology is largely related to runoff from 1-405. (b) Soils alterations include the presence of fill from the 1-405 road prism. (c) Vegetation alteration of the buffer has occurred recently and is largely characterized by Reed Canary Grass (d) Wetlands that are newly emerging insofar as they are related to 1-405 construction and the Gypsy Creek re-routing. (e) The wetlands are characterized by emergent vegetation, have low plant species richness and are used minimally by wildlife partially because of their vegetation communities and partly because of their isolation between the BNSF railroad and Ripley Lane on the west and 1-405 on the east A summary of the for the wetland categories under the Renton and Ecology rating systems is presented in Table 2. Wetland 1 2 Table 2. Wetland Area, Rating, and Classification Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek ,, b ' d Renton Area Rating• (Acres) (Category) xx 3 xx 3 Renton Critical Area Codes #80,23.5.2. Hruby(2004). Cowardin etal. (1979). Ecology Wetland Rating' Bufferd FWS (Category) (Feet) Classificatione II 200 Palustrine Forested, Scrub/shrub, Ill 200 Palustrine Scrub/shrub October 2007 J 558-l 779-029 (01/05) ~ § • ! , i • ,; ; . ~ ! ~ I ii: i I l I ! 11 ' 11:1 !.jl a~r I-u. ~ C B 1!! fi '! !i ,. ! ! H I ; :;:. ,_ .. ""'°"' -~-LOOC10"°'><" 4. IMPACTS Wetland Discipline Report Citv o{Renton Critical Areas Review Cily of Renton Ripley lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance Jmprovementf City of Rcni:on Impacts may be either temporary or permanent in nature. Permanent impacts would include the conversion of stream, wetland or buffer to upland or paved road surface through filling or excavation. Permanent impacts would also include removal of vegetation, and loss of buffer width or wildlife habitat (either area or quality). Temporary impacts include short term filling in sensitive areas, removal of vegetation, and construction related erosion, sedimentation, and nmse. All of the impacts discussed in this report are based on preliminary engineering. The following sections address potential direct and indirect effects on wetland resources. 4.1 EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION 4.1.1 General Project Timing and Sequence Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in June 2008 and be completed by mid-October 2008. Within this time frame, culvert construction is estimated to take approximately 40 days. It should be noted that this schedule is only a likely representation of what the actual schedule may be and that variations in work timing may occur due to contractor delays or adverse weather conditions. 4.1.2 Work within wetlands No work is required within wetland boundaries. No work is proposed that is likely to change the hydrologic conditions the wetlands depend upon, either temporarily or pennanently. The maintenance of water in the existing channel as off-water habitat will maintain existing relationships between wetlands and surface water. 4.1.3 Work within wetland buffers The proposed new open channel connecting to the new culvert system will take place within the buffer areas of Wetlands I and 2 and the riparian buffer for Gypsy Creek. Approximately 200 square feet of small trees and shrubs will be displaced where the new channel connects with the existing Gypsy Creek channel. All other work to create the new open channel will occur in an area currently dominated by Reed Canary Grass. Buffer restoration plantings will establish a community of riparian and wetland buffer vegetation that will generally perform buffer function more effectively than the Reed Canary Grass that currently dominates the buffer area disturbed. 4.1.4 Secondary Features All temporarily disturbed areas will be protected from erosion and sedimentation by a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESC) described under mitigation below. The lack of initial riparian cover within the new channel which would be constructed across an area of Reed Canary Grass could potentially increase stream temperature, although such changes are expected to be small because the amount of new channel is small in comparison to the length of the overall stream system, the majority of which is either contained in enclosed conveyance pipelines or vegetated riparian areas. October2007 j 558-1779-029(01/05) 4-1 U'et/and Di:~cip/ine Report City ofRenton Cruicul Ar('as R('l·iew City of Renton Rij,ley Lane, (,}psy Creek Cor1veya,1ce Improvements City ofRenrnn No adverse effects to overall large woody debris (L WO) loading or recruitment rates will occur due to the project because the cleariug of existing riparian vegetation will be limited. 4.2 PERMANENT IMPACTS The project will result in no permanent displacement of wetlands or permanent reduction in wetland buffer area or function. 4.3 OPERATIONAL EFFECTS 4.3.1 Impervious Area and Stormwater Treatment Facilities The project will include no increases of impervious surfaces or runoff. 4.3.2 Stream Flow The proposed culvert replacement will not affect stream flows. Low stream flows will be directed to a single pipe to concentrate flows and optimize fish passage conditions. 4.3.3 Habitat Conditions The project will result in little change in overall habitat conditions in the wetlands or the adjacent Gypsy Creek. The re-routing of the stream to the new conveyance facility will result in about 120 feet of new channel and the existing stream channel will be retained as off- channel habitat which will maintain wetland hydrologic relationships. The replanting of the wetland and stream buffer areas in native vegetation will enhance habitat functions over the long term. 4.3.4 Long-term Operations and Maintenance In general, maintenance and operations of the culvert facility will be similar to the requirements for the existing culvert, although the maintenance frequency is expected to be reduced due to the larger culvert size. 4.4 INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects are those that are caused by the action and are later in time (after the action is completed) but are still reasonably certain to occur. Examples include changes to ecological systems such as predator/prey relationships, long-term habitat changes, or anticipated changes in human activities including changes in land use. However, the project is not expected to cause any indirect effects, as the result will be similar in function to the existing facilities. 4.5 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS 4-2 Interrelated actions are defined as those actions that arise as part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. In the case of the proposed project, this includes the creation of staging areas, temporary traffic revisions, and mitigation plantings. None of these activities is expected to have any deleterious effects on Gypsy Creek, as they do not involve in-water work or contribute to in-stream sedimentation. October2007 I 558·1779-029 (01/05) /Yetland Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Review City ofRenton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance lmpr01'ements City of Renton Interdependent actions are defined as those that arise from actions that have no independent utility apart from the proposed action. No such actions will occur as part of the proposed project. 4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative actions are defined as those actions that arise from actions by other parties that are not part of the subject project. This can be impacts on land use due to the actions of many land owners or can be impacts of a specific known public or private project. In this case, the 1-405 widening plans are projected to displace both the wetland and the open channel area of Gypsy Creek at some time in the future when the project is implemented. 4.7 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, existing flooding related to the existing undersized culvert would continue. Fish passage would continue to be impeded by the capacity and flow rate through the existing culvert. October2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) 4-3 Wetland Discipline Report Ciri, of"Rr:nto11 Crilicai Areas Review City of"Renton Ripley lane. GJpsy Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Rein on 5. RENTON CODE REQUIREMENTS 5.1 APPLICABLE STANDARDS The work proposed within the wetland buffer is classified as an Exempt Activity pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.C.5.f.ii: f. Wetland Disturbance, Modification and Removal: ii. Temporary Wetland Impacts: Temporary disturbances of a wetland due to construction activities that do not include permanent filling may be permitted; provided, that there are no permanent adverse impacts to the critical area or required buffer, and areas temporarily disturbed are restored at a 1 :1 ratio. Category I wetlands and Category 2 forested wetlands shall be enhanced at a 2: 1 ratio in addition to being restored. For habitat conservation areas, this exemption applies only to Category I wetlands. In making a finding that a proposal is classified as an Exempt Activity the following findings must be made pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.C.2.4.d. d. Administrator Findings: In determining whether to issue a letter of exemption for activities listed in subsections C5, C6, and C7 of this Section, the Administrator shall find that: i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or State or Federal law or regulation; ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored, unless the exemption is a wetland below the size thresholds pursuant to subsection C5f(i) of this Section; iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required. v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Department Administrator may require compliance with the aquifer protection requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that haz.ardous material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations will be based upon site and/or chemical-specific data. 5.2 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 5.2.1 Compliance with RMC 4-3-050.C.5.f.ii: Temporary Wetland Impacts: Temporary disturbances of a wetland due to construction activities that do not include permanent filling may be permitted; provided, that there are no permanent adverse impacts to the critical area or required buffer, and areas temporarily disturbed are restored at a l: 1 ratio. Category l wetlands and Category 2 forested wetlands shall be enhanced at a 2: 1 ratio in addition to being restored. For habitat conservation areas, this exemption applies only to Category I wetlands. Buffer areas are proposed to be restored at a 1: 1 ratio. October 2007 I 558-1779--029 (01/05) 5-1 IYetland Di.5cipline Report Ciry of Ren/on Critical Areas Review Ciry of Renton Ripley lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Rel11un 5.2.2 Compliance with RMC 4-3-050.C.2.4. d. Findings for an Exempt Activity 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or State or Federal law or regulation; As indicated above, the activity is permitted as an Exempt Activity, pursuant to compliance with these criteria. 11. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; As indicated in Section 5.3 below, specific Best Management Practices are proposed to address potential adverse consequences. iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored, unless the exemption is a wetland below the size thresholds pursuant to subsection C5f\i) of this Section; As indicated in Section 5.3 below, disturbed buffer areas are proposed to be restored with native vegetation which will provide more effective buffer functions than the Reed Canary Grass that currently characterizes the buffer area. 1v. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required. As indicated in Section 5.3 below, disturbed buffer areas are proposed to be restored with native vegetation which will provide more effective buffer functions than the Reed Canary Grass that current! y characterizes the buffer area. v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Department Administrator may require compliance with the aquifer protection requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations will be based upon site and/or chemical-specific data. No hazardous material, activity or facility is proposed. 5.3 MITIGATION 5.3.1 Mitigation Criteria The criteria for approval of a mitigation plan in RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c(ii) include the following: (a) Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in subsections L3c(ii)(a)(I) to (4) of this Section. Basins and subbasins are indicated in subsection Q of this Section, Maps: (I) On-Site Mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless the Reviewing Official finds that on-site mitigation is not feasible or desirable; (2) Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Subbasin as Subject Site: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin as the subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation on the subject site; 5-2 October2007 I 558-1779-029 (Ol/05) Wetland Discipline Report City o(Renton Critical Area.~ Review City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Com•eyance lmprOl'(.'ments City of Renton (3) Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Basin within City Limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin within the City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project; (4) Off-Site Mitigation within the Same Drainage Basin outside the City Limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin outside the City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the City limits and it meets City goals. (b) Mitigation Type: Types of mitigation shall follow the preferences in subsections L3c(ii)(b)(I) to (4) of this Section: 5.3.2 Mitigation Sequencing Regulatory agencies require that mitigation efforts follow this prescribed sequence: (a) Avoid the impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (c) Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; ( d) Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (e) Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; or (f) Monitor the impact and take appropriate corrective measures. 5.3.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization Past flooding demonstrates that it is necessaty to improve the conveyance of Gypsy Creek across Ripley Lane and the BNSF. Alternatives were examined that investigated retaining the existing channel. Those alternatives were not beneficial for fish passage because of the relocation to the south of the stream conveyance across the Seahawks Training Facility to the west. The project has been designed to avoid placement of any fill in wetlands, and to restore and improve fish passage characteristics of the conveyance as a whole. Impacts on buffer areas are temporaty and will include replanting that results in beneficial impacts in the long-term. October 2007 I 558-1779..(129 (01/05) 5-3 Wetland Discipline Report Cur of Renton Criucal Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Renton 5.3.2.2 Best Management Practices 5-4 Incorporating BMPs and conservation measures into a proposed action is done to avoid, minimize, rectify, or compensate for impacts to species and critical habitat. The following conservation BMPs have been identified for implementation during and after construction: • Wetlands disturbance from open channel construction will be avoided by construction fencing adjacent to the wetland. Excavation will take place from equipment sited east and north of the wetland boundary. • Vegetation removal will be minimized to the greatest extent possible, and erosion control blankets will be used to assist in the rapid revegetation of sites disturbed by culvert removal or bridge construction. • Staging areas for equipment, or for the storage and handling of materials will be located outside of the stream channel and functional buffer. Because of the project location and the proximity of many critical areas within and adjacent to the project limits, the Contractor shall lake extreme care in siting any staging areas associated with this project. • To reduce potential spills of petroleum and hydraulic fluids in sensitive areas, servicing and refueling of vehicles will not occur in the stream channel and functional buffer. Additionally, drip pans will be fitted with absorbent pads and placed under all equipment being fueled. • Erosion of disturbed areas will be controlled by using silt dams or catchments between the site and wetland, by use of mulch and hydroseeding, and by planting disturbed areas as soon as possible to establish cover vegetation. Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped with native vegetation where feasible. • Erosion control devices will be inspected daily during the rainy season, weekly during the dry season, and monthly on inactive sites. If inspection shows that the erosion controls are ineffective, work crews will be mobilized immediately, during working and off-hours, to make repairs, install replacements, or install additional controls as necessary. • All vehicles operated within 150 feet of any wetland, stream or water body will be inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Any leaks detected will be repaired before the vehicle resumes operation. When not in use, all vehicles, where it is practicable will be stored in the vehicle staging area. Other vehicles, such as cranes, that may be stored in place, will be inspected daily for fluid leaks. • Refueling activities will be conducted within a designated refueling area at least 200 feet away from any stream or designated wetland areas. Additionally, drip pans will be fitted with absorbent pads and placed under all equipment being fueled. • Work will be conducted in a manner to prevent loss of chemicals into wetlands or receiving waters. No wash and rinse water will be discharged into wetlands, streams or nvers. • Work will occur primarily during the day and any essential night work will be conducted with minimal light and noise impacts to wetlands. October 2007 j 558-1779-029 (01/05) ff'erland Discipline Report Ci1_r urRrnton Critical Area5 Review Cily of Renton Ripley Lane. G.ipsy Creek Conveyance Jmproi-ements City of Renton The final mitigation will be discussed in a separate document which will include detailed plan sheets, planting lists, specific goals, objectives, performance standards, and guidelines for monitoring the site. Adaptive management strategies will be included as part of the performance standards. The final wetland mitigation plan will meet the respective requirements for mitigation plans as determined by the City of Renton and will be incorporated into project plans, specifications and bidding documents. 5.3.2.3 Compensatory Mitigation No compensatory mitigation is required for wetland impacts. No buffer areas will be permanently displaced. Location of an open steam channel in a wetland buffer area does not affect its functional value and increases habitat complexity. Buffers will be re-vegetated and provide equal or greater functions after implementation of the project. October 2007 j 558-1779--029 (01/05) 5.5 6. REFERENCES Wetland Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyana Improvements City ofRi:ntori Cooke, S.S. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1997. Washington State wetlands identification and delineation manual: Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 96-94. Olympia, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2001. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Publication #99-l l. September 2001. Olympia, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecolo&'Y). 2004. Guidance for Wetland Mitigation in Washington State. Part l: Laws, Rules, and Guidance Related to Wetland Mitigation (Draft). Prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology, US Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District), and US Environmental Protection Agency (Region I 0). Publication Numbers 04-06-013A Olympia, Washington. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dymess. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. Greytag Macbeth Corporation. 1994. Munsell soil color charts. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington - Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. Olympia, Washington. NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2003. Field Indicators ofHydric Soils in the United States. U. S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2001. Hydric Soils List Snohomish County, Washington: Detailed Soil Map Legend. U. S. Department of Agriculture (http://www. wa.nrcs. usda.gov/technicaVsoils/ county_ hydric _ lists.html). Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, Washington. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1997. Revision of the national list of plant species that occur in wetlands. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Tech. Report Y-87-l. Vicksburg, Mississippi. USFWS (U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services). National Wetland Inventory wetlands mapper. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtlnds/viewer.htm. Portland, Oregon. Williams, R.W., R. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization ,Volume I, Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington. o,,obe, 2001 I s5s-1119-029 co1105> 6-1 APPENDIX A Wetland Delineation Methodology Wetland Discipline Report City of Renton Critical Areas Review City o(Renton Ripley Lane. GJpsy Creek Conveyance Improl'ement.f City of Renton APPENDIX A Wetland Delineation Methodology WETLAND DELINEATION Wetlands are defined as areas saturated or inundated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and which under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The methods used to delineate the on-site wetlands conform to methods in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). All delineated wetlands were instrument-surveyed and mapped on project base maps. Field data sheets for wetlands are provided in Appendix B. To be considered a wetland, an area must have hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Staff collected data on these parameters in areas representative of typical site conditions. Staff collected additional data in associated uplands as needed to confirm wetland and stream boundaries. The wetland boundaries were delineated with numbered, bright pink flagging. Boundaries were numbered in the order in which they were encountered in the field, and numbering does not necessarily reflect geographic location. Vegetation The dominant plants and their wetland indicator status were evaluated to determine if the vegetation was hydrophytic. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as vegetation adapted to wetland conditions. To meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion, more than 50 percent of the dominant plants must be Facultative, Facultative Wetland, or Obligate, based on the wetland indicator category assigned to each plant species by USFWS (Reed 1997). Table A-1 lists the definitions of the indicator categories·. Table A-1. Definitions of Wetland Plant Indicator Categories used to Determine the Presence of Hydrophytic Vegetation Wetland Indicator Category Obligate Wetland Plants Facultative Wetland Plants Facultative Plants Facultative Upland Plants Upland Plants Source: Reed (1997). October 2007 I 558-1779-029(01/05) Symbol OBL FACW FAC FACU UPL Definition Plants that almost always (> 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but which may rarely(< 1% of the time) occur in non-wetlands. Plants that often (67 to 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but sometimes (1 to 33% of the time) occur in non-wetlands. Plants with a similar likelihood (34 to 66% of the time) of occurring in both wetlands and non- wetlands. Plants that sometimes (1 to 33% of the time) occur in wetlands, but occur more often (67 to 99% of the time) in non-wetlands. Plants that rarely(< 1 % of the time) occur in wetlands, and almost always(> 99% of the time) occur in non-wetlands. A-I Wl'llw,d Discipline Report City of Renton. Crit1cul Area~ Rei·iew City of Ren.ton Ripley Lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Rene on A-2 Project biologists used A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwest Oregon (Cooke 1997) and Plants of the Pacific Northwest (Pojar and MacKinnon 1994) as field references to assist with plant identification. Scientific and common plant names follow currently accepted nomenclature. Most names are consistent with Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973) and the PLANTS Database (USDA 2004). During the field investigation, staff observed and recorded the dominant plant species on data sheets for each data plot (Appendix B). Soils Generally, an area must contain hydric soils to be a wetland. Hydric soil forms when soils are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (12 inches). Biological activities in saturated soil result in reduced oxygen concentrations and organisms turn to anaerobic processes for metabolism. Over time, anaerobic biological processes result in certain soil color patterns, which are used as indicators of hydric soil. Typically, low-chroma colors are formed in the soil matrix, and bright-colored redoximorphic features form within the matrix. Other important hydric soil indicators include organic matter accumulations in the surface horizon, reduced sulfur odors, and organic matter staining in the subsurface (NRCS 2003). Project staff examined soils by excavating sample pits to a depth of 16 inches or more to observe soil profiles, colors, and textures. Munsell color charts (Greytag Macbeth 1994) were used to describe soil colors. Hydrology Primary indicators of hydrology include surface inundation and saturated soils. Secondary indicators of hydrology include drainage patterns, watermarks on vegetation, water-stained leaves, and oxidized root channels. Project staff examined the area for evidence of hydrology. Wetland hydrology criteria were considered to be satisfied if it appeared that the soil was seasonally inundated or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days greater than or equal to 12.5 percent of the growing season. The growing season in low elevations in western Washington is typically considered to be from March I to October 31 (244 days) (Ecology 1997). Octobe, 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) APPENDIX B Wetland Data Sheets and Rating Forms WETLAND RATING FORM -WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproduciblity among users .---.;....--'-----------...... Name of Wetland: _....:,I _________ _ (attach map ofwetlan.d to rating form) Project Name: Ripley Lane Project Number: Rated by: Erik Christensen Trained by Ecology? Yes ___ _ No X ---'"-- location: SEC: TWNSHP: RNGE: ------------ Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes ___ _ No _____ _ Date(s): 5/24/2007 Affiliation: Parametrix Map of wetland unit: Figure: ___ _ Size (acres): ---- SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III X IV Category I= Score >70 Score for Water Quality Functions 24 Category II = Score 51 -69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 8 Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions 18 Category IV = Score <30 TOTAL SCORE 50 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of the wetland I __ _ II __ _ Does Not Apply __ X=-- FINAL CATEGORY (choose the "highest" category from above),CATEGORY III I Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon lnterdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington Depressional Riverine Lake-fringe Slope Flats X Freshwater Tidal ____ _. ------Check if unit has multiple ____ _. HGM classes 1 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0.1 Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Checklist for Wetlands that Need Special Protection, and that are not Included in the Rating SP/. Has the wetland been documented as a habital for any Federally listed Threalened or Endangered plant or animal species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. I 1 SP2. Has the wetland been documenled as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? h;::t~d~~ ,_;:_o~S\i\'_::~:;:; __ , SP4. Does the wetland have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. 1-·· J To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. Seep. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 2 /0/812007 PMXVer. 0./ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington Wetland Name: 1 -=------------------Date: 5/24/2007 lfthc bydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In case, indentify which hydrologic criteria m questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. I. Are the water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? L .. ,•r ,~i!~1~~~;:water I 'if'.~~j!I~ •,,NO -go to 2 If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? I .: · -·_._·._•_ •1Y.ES -Freshwater L.--....;.;.;.>._:·-..... · _Tidal Fnnge I . : •x INO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe L. --------'·(Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. !fit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term ''Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed ( ste p. ) 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ! •i};.~2!:.;,•JYES -The wetland class is Flats NO -go to 3 If your wetland can be classified as a "'Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? ~YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) l2iwNO -go to 4 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria'? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectio_nal) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or ma swale without distmct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks( depressions are usually <Jft diameter and less than I foot deep). l'.J!l~---!YES -The wetland class is Slope ! .:;•t:~!l~iJ!NO -go to 5 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. ----------The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. r""'• .... -.... ~ ... .., .. ,YES --The wetland class is Riverine I,'' -.,e::,, ·!NO-go to 6 Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington 3 /01812007 PMX Ver. 0.1 6. Is the wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. DNO-goto7 ~YES -The wetland class is L....1......l1Depressional 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. DNO-goto8 ~YES -The wetland class is L....1......l1Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents I 0% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% if the total area. Slope+ Riverine Slope + Depressional Slope + Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional + Lake-fringe Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Riverine Depressional Lake-fringe Depressional Depressional Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 4 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve "'·ater quality D 1. Does the wetland u,1it have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38) D 1./ Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) 1-----1 Unit has an intennittently flowing, or highly constricted, permanent 1-----1 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) 1-----iunit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious outlet and/or outlet is X a man-made ditch points= 3 points -2 points -l points -l (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as '1intermittently flowing") Provide photo or drawing D 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions). Figure 0 0 0 1 i::uYES c:::=:)NO points~4 CO points~ 0 C:!::J Provide photo or drawing D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class): Figure_ Wetland has persistent, ungrazcd, vegetation>= 95% of area points = 5 ~ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>~ 112 of area points -3 3 Wetland has per.;istent, ungrazed vegetation>-1110 of area points-l 0 Wetland has per.;istent, ungrazed vegetation <1110 of area points-0 0 Map of Coward in vegetation classes Dl.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of IO yrs. Figure_ § Area seasonally ponded is > Y, total area of wetland points -4 rn Area seasonally ponded is> Y. total area of wetland points~ 2 0 Area seasonally ponded is< Y. total area of wetland points -0 0 NOTE: See text for indicators of seasonal and permanent inundation .. Map ofhydroperiods Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above D 2. Does the wedand unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but an sin le source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft 1-.... ---1 x Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland ...., ............. Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging .....,.._--t ..._~x::...-1Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland 1-,-----IWetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen Other .__X _ ___.!YES multiplier is 2 ._ ___ .,!NO multiplier is I TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Dl by D2 Add score to table on p. l Wetland Rating Form-Western Washington 5 i i 12 I 2 II 24 II DepWQ D Deprcssional and Flats Wetlands HYDRO LOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 46) D 3 1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit . X Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch (If ditch is not permanently flowing reat unit as "intermittently flowing") t Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry) X •• · .. ·' ,·· Marks of ponding are 3 fl or more above the surface The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" Marks of ponding between 2 fl to < 3 fl from surface Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap wa Marks of ponding less than 0.5 fl D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of wetland The area of the basin is IO to I 00 times the area of the wetland The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland Entire unit is in the FLA TS class Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above points~ 4 points~ 2 poinls ~ I points~ 0 points~ 7 points~ 5 poinls ~ 5 points~ 3 points~ I points~ 0 points -5 points~ 3 points~ 0 points~ 5 D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. h=---IWetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems .................. · Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems Other ,_ __ ..... !YES multiplier is 2 '--'x;.;... ...... INo multiplier is I TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form -We~tern Washington 6 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 8 1 8 /01812007 PMXVer. 0./ R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality R I. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 51) R 1.1 Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Figure_ Depressions cover>3/4 area of wetland points= 8 0 1---- points= 4 0 . , Depressions cover> 1/2 area of wetland (If depressions >1/2 of ~'",.-'",.-~area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) P.,.."',.---iDepressions present but cover< 1/2 area of wetland i.;;;.-..;.....INo depressions present points = 2 l---'o'----1 points = 0 ._--'o'--_. R 1.1 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): Hmre F' points= 8 points= 6 points= 6 points= 3 0 0 0 0 Trees, shrub, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1 /3 area of unit points = 0 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Add the points in the boxes above "'jl ==o==-11 R 1. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming/ram several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft .,....._,.,....untreated stormwater discharges to wetland ... Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compounds or nutrients in the Other ,__ __ _.!YES multiplier is 2 .. ! _x __ !NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from R 1 by R 2 Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington 7 11 1 0 II 10/8/2007 PMXVer. 0./ R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosi R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 54) R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width of stream between banks). Figure points= 9 points= 6 points= 4 points= 2 points= I Aerial photo or map showing average widths R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as "'forest or shrub". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. §Forest or shrub for> 1/3 area OR herbaceous plants> 2/3 area Forest or shrub for> 1/10 area OR herbaceous plants> 1/3 area Vegetation does not meet above criteria Add the points in the boxes above points= 7 points= 4 points= 0 ,, Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 57) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply. " There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, E,,-""""--..-ffarms) that can be damaged by flooding. There are natural resources downstream ( e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding ....................... Other ~-~-(Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,, f fYES multiplier is 2 f X f NO multiplier is I l._ __ l _ _.f TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 .,II ==O==="I! Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 8 /0/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ L Lake-Fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality L 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 59) LI.I Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore Fie:ure L..'--'--....IVegetation is more than 33ft (IOm) wide points= 6 0 .._ __ ...JVegetation is more than 16 (Sm) wide and <33ft L..'---....IVegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points= 3 points= I 0 0 .__ __ ..... Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = o L..'--o'--....1 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L J.Z Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland. Choose the appropnate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. In this case the herbaceous plants can be either the dominant fonn (called emergent class) or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: s does not include aauatic bed. Figure Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area Cover of herbaceous plants is > l /3 of the vegetated area Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 2/3 vegetated area i.,;...,..... ....... ""-1 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 1 /3 vegetated area L.,..,......,.....,JAquatic bed cover> 2/3 of the vegetated area points= 6 0 points= 4 0 points= 3 0 points= 3 0 points= 1 0 points= 0 0 Add the points in the boxes above Map with polygons of different vegetation ty,,l,p=c=s===;i 11 o 1/ L 2. Does the wedand have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or surface water flowing through the unit to the Jake is polluted. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within I 50ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses (all within 150 ft. of lake shore) Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake ._ __ ...J!YES multiplier is 2 L! _.;.:X:....._..1!NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2 I ii 1 0 10/812007 Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 9 PMXVer. 0./ I I/ L Lake-Fringe Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion L 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (seep. 62) L3 Distance along shore and average width ofCowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the Figure S.....i.--.;;.,11" of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 ft (!Om) wide points = 6 0 .... .._.;._.;;.,1> 1" offringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 i...,,...;..;._.;.4> y.; offringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 ft (!Om) wide points= 4 Fringe vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide points = 2 0 0 0 L..i.-.i.-.;.;J Fringe vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide points = 0 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Record the points from the box above IJ 0 L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (seep. 63) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland . (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland ( e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion Other ._ __ __.!YES multiplier is 2 L-.....;x.;;_ ..... INo multiplier is I TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. I 11 1 0 Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington IO 10/8/2007 PMXVer. 0./ ii S Slope Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that wetland unit functions to improve water quality Sl. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? SI.I Characteristics of average ,·lope of wetland: (see p.64) ....................... Slope is I% or less (a 1% slope has a I foot vertical drop in elevation for every I 00 ft horizontal distance) points= 3 0 Slope is!%-2% 1-----1 points = 2 1--0=--1 1---............ Slope is 2% -5% points = I 0 i-----.._ __ ...., Slope is greater than 5% p o int s = o ..__o=...., S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (Use NRCS definitions). ! !YES = 3 points L > !NO= 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (> 75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 points= 3 points= 2 points= I 1-'-..... =""'!Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area l---"-"-1Dense, woody, vegetation> Y, of area 1-'--~""'!Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation> 1/4 of area L..===..aDoes not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 0 Figure 0 0 0 0 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons Total for S I Add the points in the boxes above II 0 11 S 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but an single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland Other 1 .._ __ ....,!YES multiplier is 2 .. ! __ X_-!NO multiplier is I TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from SI by S2 Add score to table on p. I II 0 11 Wetland Rating Form -Western Wahsington II 10/8/2007 PMXVer. 0./ S Slope Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding d . ~~~~, an stream eros10n. S3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> l/8in), H-----... or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) i.,;--~--"iDense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 112 area of wetland Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/4 area =~~~More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not 1 points= 6 points= 3 points= 1 points= 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wedand that holds back small amounts of flood flows: 0 0 0 0 The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. ! •.· · ·. • .•· ! YES points ~ 2 ! < •··.· • · .• · · !NO points= 0 ! 0 Add the points in the boxes above II 0 S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. I.L ;;; .. )~~~;nd has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) ! !YES multiplier is 2 !..--X--,!NO multiplier is 1 ! 1 TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 ~ 0 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating System -Western Washington 12 10/8/2007 PMXVer. 0.1 I 11 I II These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. H HABIT AT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat HI. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? HI.I Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class 14 acre or more than 10% of area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. i.:.,_...;.......iAquatic bed i........::........1Emergent plants Scrub/shrub(areas where shrubs have >30% cover) 1.:. .... .::x .. ....1Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, X a...;.;.... ..... --1moss/ground cover) Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures I structures points= 4 points= 2 points= I points= 0 Figure_ 4 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Figure_ Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or 14 acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) _...,.!..._;.j Permanently flooded or inundated Seasonally flooded or inundated Occasionally flooded or inundated Saturated only >4 types present points = 3 3 types present points = 2 2 types present points= I I type present points = 0 2 ....::...,...iPerrnanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland I....Z...Z......I. Lake-fringe wetland a...; __ --1 Freshwater tidal wetland points= 2 points= 2 EB Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least IO square feet ( different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold). You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, or Canadian Thistle. If you counted: > 19 species 5 -19 species < 5 species points=2 EB points= I I points= 0 0 Wetland Rating System -Western Washington /3 /0/8/2007 PMXVer. 0./ H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation ( described in H 1.1 ), or vegetation types and unvegetatcd areas ( can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Figure~ 0 None = 0 points Low= I point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the ratin2 is always ·'hi2h". l,.l...;....;.....;.,;rHigh Moderate 1-....;.. ..... -1 Low None points= 3 points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 0 2 0 0 Use map of Cowardin classes. H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long) la,;;...;.;......;..j Standing snags ( diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland 1 0 Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetatio If 1---_..,..;..jextends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream for at least 33 ft (!Om) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs ofrecent beaver activity are present At least Y. acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structures for egg - 0 0 1 .... _ ........ .;;..i Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plant s 0 NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOT AL Score -potential for providing habitat l!.!I ==1=1==111! Add the scores in the column above Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 14 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80). Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of"undisturbed."' Figure 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated area,;;, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. . (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing) ,----""' i,,..,----""' 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> 50% circumference. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing) 50 m ( 170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water> ..,.. ........... 25% circumference, 50 m ( 170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. If buffer does not meet any of the three criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to ,.._..._..,.:....;.;,imoderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Heavy Grazing in buffer. Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) "'-==-'""Buffer does not meet any of the Criteria above. Points= 5 0 Points= 4 0 Points= 4 0 Points= 3 0 Points= 3 3 Points= 2 0 Points= 2 0 Points= 1 0 Points= 0 0 Points= I 0 Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). f ;,;~dlil'IJilillNO = go to H 2.2.2 .---0--. H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? !ii.D:?'·"s;;:(" i.9fYES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR ..,.._.,,..,.,.,within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? f~j.P~ifJ!ifYES = 1 point f1~mi:1J!jr~J\"0h;mlNO = 0 points Wetland Rating System -Western Washington 15 0 1 10/8/2007 PMXVer. 0./ Wetland Rating System -Western Washington 15 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist ifthere are any questions. (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) X 1---1 Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements ofhoth aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres) . ._ _ _, Cliffs: Greater than 7 .6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft . ._ _ _, Old-growth forests: (Old-growth west ofCa,;;cade crest) Stands ofat least 2 tree species, fonning a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at species, forming a multi-layered canopy with 1.:. .... _.Joccasional small openings; with at leas120 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity oflarge downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest. l-'----1 Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas ofrock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated 1---.;!with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages ._ _ _, Oregon White Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25% . Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary/Estuary-like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi-enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts ' .... ···"'measure less than 0.5% during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. L....:.:...-1 Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat= I point ___ _ No habitats= 0 points.L! __ 1_...J Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 16 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0.1 H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but ~~ ...... · The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake fringe wetlands within Y, mile t,....----1 · There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed ..................... ' The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there ..,...,,... _ _,are 3 other lake fringe wetland within Y, mile There is at least I wetland within Y, mile. There are no wetlands within Y, mile. H 2. TOT AL Score -opportunity for providing habitat points= 5 points= 5 points= 3 points= 3 points= 2 points= 0 Add the scores from H2.l, H2.2, H2.3, and H2.4 TOT AL for HI from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H I, H 2 and record the result on p. I Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 17 0 0 0 0 2 0 ~ l:jtj /0/8/2007 PMXVer. 0./ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the appropriate Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wedands (seep. 86) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, vegetated, and L:,....;.....;.....;.~w~it~h~a~s!!a~linity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC I.I ._ __ __, .___x _ _.!No SC 1.1 ls the wedand within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park,National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational,Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? .•. •,:;/;•INo go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland at least I acre in size and meets at least two of the following D three conditions? ! !YES = Category I frJrl; ;i'•~tNO = Category II ! ! The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling,cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plantspecies. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that covermore than I 0% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dualrating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while therelatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina indetermining the At least * of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 18 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 l< the wetland being rated in a Section/l'ownship/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/DNR)S/T/R information from Appendix Dor accessed from WNHP/DNR web site. o~~~:;~~~: ~H:IDNR (see P·F" ; ·.· .. JNo SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? .___ .......... f YES = Category I f · fNO SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland ( or part of the wetland) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If youanswer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. I. Does the wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil),either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? r 1Yes -go to Q. 3 '!No -go to Q. 2 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over hedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash. or that are floating on a lake or pond? ..._ ____ ., .. ,Yes -go to Q. 3 ~No -Is not a bog for ~purpose of rating 3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants. if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? rDYes -Is a. bog for r." ... ·•.··.'·.•.'t ...... ·1No -go to ~purpose ofratmg · · ·•· · • Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the wetland forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann 's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? ~No -Is not a bog fo1 ~purpose of rating ._ ____ _.. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington /9 /0/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90). Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two- hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily_ have to have trees of this diameter. !;.;L~~EJit'JYES = Category I ! i ';JNO Mature forests: (west of the Cascade crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. j ( ;!j':f•~'IYES = Category I !: ' !INO SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish(> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom). YES= Go to SC 5.1 NO -not a wetland in L;.;.;..;.;::...;.;::. ..... a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland.Cl 9 The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4,350 !9_._u_ arefe_ e'._._/1 ._ __ ....,YES = Category I •:. ;, ,:_ · ,, >": NO = Category II B Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 20 /0/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ SC 6.0 lnterdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? l•/.j, ..••... ,YES -go to SC 6.1 ~NO-not an ~interdunal wetland If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 Gray/and-Westport-lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copa/is-lands west of SR 115 and SR I 09 SC 6.1 ls the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? WI .. . . !YES = Category II . J•· '!NO--go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? ._! .....,..,...,..· ... · !YES = Category III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Not Applicable Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. I. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. l Wetland Rating System Western Washington 21 /0/812007 PMX Ver. O_J WETLAND RATING FORM-WESTERN WASHINGTON Name ~[Wetland: __ 2::_ _________ _ Version 2 -Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproduciblity among users ,------'------------, (attach map of wetland to ratingform) Project Name: Ripley Lane Project Number: 558-1779-029 Rated by: Erik Christensen Trained by Ecology? Yes ___ _ No X -"""".;._- location: SEC: ___ _ TWNSHP: ----RNGE: ---- ls Sff/R in Appendix D? Yes ___ _ No _____ _ Date(s): 5/24/2007 Affiliation: Parametrix Map of wetland unit: Figure: ___ _ Size (acres): ---- SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV X Category I= Score >70 Score for Water Quality Functions 2 Category II = Score 51 -69 Score for Hydrologic Functions 3 Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions 12 Category IV = Score <30 TOTAL SCORE 17 Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of the wetland I __ _ II ___ _ Does Not Apply_ ....... X ....... _ FINAL CATEGORY (choose the "highest" category from above)ICATEGORY IV I Estuarine Natural Heritage Wetland Bog Mature Forest Old Growth Forest Coastal Lagoon Interdunal None of the above Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington Depressional Riverine Lake-fringe Slope Flats X Freshwater Tidal -----1 ------Check if unit has multiple ____ -I HGM classes I 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0.1 Does the wetland being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Checklist for Wetlands that Need Special Protection, and that are not Included in the Rating SP 1. Has the wetland been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant or animal species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. HK'.i', ,.J·' '~'.;"~:i] SP2. Has the wetland been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. SP3. Does the wetland contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? t SP4. Does the wetland have a local significance in addition to its fimctions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. l,:f'.·.:;. · <~;··;;~:,XU ._:"j) To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands Wetland Rating Form - Western Washington 2 10/8/2007 PMXVer. 0.1 Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington Wetland Name: 2 Date: 5/24/2007 ------------------ If the hydro logic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In case, indentify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. I. Are the water levels in the wetland usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? I : . , , . JY.ES -Freshwater I' ·cr~.·,.•·.,·.··.·.'c;.~NO _goto 2 : • '':8 _ Tidal Fnnge:i, , ·••"':'!:~ If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? ,'!'.-,, -'I,', I ·······•.· .. ,:.:: ... '.'·.'.'.·.·,·.'."• . .i.,YES -Freshwater .,,,,> 'Tidal Fringe , ,,\[ > ::JINO -Saltwater Tidal Fringe =-~-·_.·•_(Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. !fit is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed ( see p. I 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. , ' ::l'',',)9YES -The wetland class is Flats •f;!:ii,;'1K•',iil:ffi'i~NO -go to 3 If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the wetland meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of open water (without any vegetation on the surface) where at least 20 acres (8 ha) are permanently inundated (ponded or flooded); At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? YES -The wetland class is Lake-fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) . NO-go to4 4. Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks( depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than I foot deep). YES -The wetland class is Slope !~: :' · · ·:,•:4No -go to 5 5. Does the entire wetland meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley or stream channel where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river. -----The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years, -----NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are JU/ed with water when the river is not flooding, "!i"'n1f'":i+'":~"','", "'I.;,"'"}"',:0"'ii":!YES --The wetland class is Riverine !\~1:llii1!:''fl11.:)NO -go to 6 Wetland Rating Fonn • Western Washington 3 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ 6. Is the wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time of the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. I <~ ' . ·.. 'NO -go to 7 r--lYES -The wetland class is ~Depress1onal 7. Is the wetland located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. F i ·. ·. <l)No -go to 8 r--lYES -The wetland class is ~Depress1onal 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. Sometimes we find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than l0% of the unit, classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% if the total area. Slope+ Riverine Slope + Depressional Slope+ Lake-fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional + Lake-fringe Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Riverine Depressional Lake-fringe Depressional Depressional Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 4 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0.1 D Depressional and Flats Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: i.;;;"""""""""JUnit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) i..;.--'----....IUnit has an intermittently flowing. or highly constricted, permanent Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) Unit is a "Hat" depression (Q.7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious outlet and/or outlet is i..;;.a;.--'---1a man-made ditch points~ 3 points~ 2 points~ I points~ I (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing'1 ) Provide photo or drawing D 1.2 The soil 1 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions). Figure 0 0 0 0 , •... · :.,;,;ic\, .•. ,~~s points ~ 4 (=::r::J points~O CD Provide photo or drawing D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergen4 shrub, anti/or forest Cowardin class): Figure_ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation>~ 95% of area points~ 5 ~ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetat10n > ~ 1/2 of area pomts ~ 3 0 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation>~ 1/10 of area points~ I 0 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <l/10 ofarea points~ 0 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes Dl.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. This is the area of the wetland that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Figure_ Area seasonally ponded is > Y, total area of wetland points~ 4 rn Area seasonally ponded 1s > I, total area of wetland pomts ~ 2 0 Area seasonally ponded is< ~ total area of wetland points = 0 0 NOTE: See text for indicators of seasonal and permanent inundation .. Map of hydroperiods Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above j O l! D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? ( see p. 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but an sin le source would qualify as opportunity. l,,i;,.,..;;......,.iGrazing in the wetland or within 150 ft :,,.;. __ ·,-1· ·. Untreated stormwaler discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen · Other i..;; __ ....J!YES multiplier is 2 .__x _ _,!NO multiplier is I TOT AL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from DI by D2 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form· Western Washington 5 I I 1 I 0 I DepWQ D Depressional and Flats Wetlands IIYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 46) D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit 1-----IUnil is a depression with no sulface water leaving it (no outlet) Unit has an intennittently flowing, OR highly constricted 1-----lpermanently flowing outlet Unit is a "flat" depression (Q.7 on key) or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch (If ditch is not permanently flowing i..;. ___ .. treat unit as "intermittently flowing'') Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet 1,;;,, __ __,(permanent/y flowing) D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry) i..;._. __ ;..iMarks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface i..;. ___ .. The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" i..;. ___ .. Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface ._ __ __, Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface 1-,----IWetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap wa ._ __ _, Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft D 3.3 Contribution of wedand unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself The area of the basin is less than IO times the area of wetland The area of the basin is IO to IOO times the area of the wetland The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland Entire unit is in the FLATS class Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes aboue point~ =4 points= 2 points= I points= 0 points= 7 points= 5 points= 5 points= 3 points= 1 points= 0 points= 5 points= 3 points= 0 points= 5 D 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the wetland is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater. Note which of the following indicators ()f opportunity apply. i..;. ___ .IWetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems 1-,._..;.._.jWetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems ·. Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise i.,;..;....;....,..~ flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems i..;. __ __, Other ._ __ __.fYES multiplier is 2 '---"X"'-_.fNO multiplier is 1 TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 6 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 /0/812007 PMXVer. 0./ R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that wetland functions to improve water quality R I. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 52) R I. I Area of surface depressions within the riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Figure_ l",-.=~--1Depressions cover >3/4 area of wetland Depressions cover > I /2 area of wetland (If depressions > 1/2 of area of unit draw polygons on aerial photo or map) t-----t points = 8 1--0;....--I points= 4 0 Depressions present but cover < 1/2 area of wetland r,-~-; points= 2 0 1-----1 =-=;...;.i· No depressions present points = 0 0 ..._ ___ _. R 1.2 Characteristics of the vegetation in the unit (areas with >90% cover at person height): 101.1re F' points= 8 points= 6 points= 6 points= 3 points= 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types Add the points in the boxes above "'Ii ==o===ail R 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 53) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in grow,dwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland · A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, t"!'i.,,....~_..residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging =;....;....,Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland The river or stream linked to the wetland has a contributing basin where human activities have raised levels of sediment, toxic compow,ds or nutrients in the ,c-c•-cc.-.Other ,__ __ __,!YES multiplier is 2 ...__X _ _.!NO multiplier is I TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from RI by R 2 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 7 Ii 1 0 ii /0/812007 PMXVer. 0.1 R Riverine and Freshwater Tidal Fringe Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that wetland functions to reduce flooding and stream erosi R 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 54) R 3.1 Characteristics of the overbank storage the unit provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width of unit)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 20 points= 9 points= 6 points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 Figure 0 . · . . . . If the ratio is between 10 -20 If the ratio is 5-<10 If the ratio is 1-<5 If the ratio is < I Aerial photo or map showing average widths R 3.2 Characteristics of vegetation that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as "forest or shrub". Choose the points appropriate for the best description. Forest or shrub for> I 13 area OR herbaceous plants > 2/3 area Forest o_r shrub for> 1/10 area OR_herbaceous plants> 1/3 area Vegetat10n does not meet above cntena points= 7 points= 4 points= 0 0 0 0 0 Add the points in the boxes above ii 0 Ii Aerial photo or map showing polygons of different vegetation types R 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 57) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Note which of the following conditions apply . . There are human structures and activities downstream (roads, buildings, bridges, · farms) that can be damaged by flooding. ~ ......... There are natural resources downstream ( e.g. salmon redds) that can be damaged by flooding t.e..~~"'""1· Other (Answer NO if the major source of water to the wetland is controlled by a reservoir or the wetland is tidal fringe along the sides of a dike) ! !YES multiplier is 2 ! X !NO multiplier is 1 ._! __ 1 _ _.f TOT AL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from R 3 by R 4 l!,il ==O====lli Add score to table on p. 1 Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 8 /0/812007 PMXVer. 0.1 L Lake-Fringe Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to improve water quality L 1. Does the wetland have the potential to improve water quality? (seep. 59) LI.I Average width of vegetation along the lakeshore i,..;._._.....___,Vegetation is more than 33ft (!Om) wide points= 6 J...._._--IVegetation is more than 16 (5m) wide and <33ft points= 3 p.......;;.,...;;.,,-1Vegetation is more than 6ft (2m) wide and <16 ft points= I Fi1rnrc 0 0 0 i,..;...._.....___,Vegetation is less than 6 ft wide points = 0 0 Map of Cowardin classes with widths marked L J.l Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland. Choose the appropnate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. In this case the herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form (called emergent class) or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of cover is total cover in the unit, but it can be in patches. NOTE: s does not include aauatic bed. Figure Cover of herbaceous plants is >90% of the vegetated area points = 6 0 Cover of herbaceous plants is >2/3 of the vegetated area points= 4 0 Cover of herbaceous plants is> I/3 of the vegetated area points= 3 0 i;..:...;;.,...;;.,.....i Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in > 2/3 vegetated area points = 3 0 Other vegetation that is not aquatic bed in> 1/3 vegetated area points= 1 0 Aquatic bed cover> 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 0 0 Map with polygons of different vegetation tyf.ap=e==s ==,;, Add the points in the boxes above ii O II L 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p. 61) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in the lake water, or surface water flowing through the unit to the lake is polluted. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity. Wetland is along the shores of a lake or reservoir that does not meet water quality standards Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Polluted water discharges to wetland along upland edge Tilled fields or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Residential or urban areas are within 150 ft of wetland Parks with grassy areas that are maintained, ballfields, golf courses ( all within 150 ft. oflake shore) L;:;:i:..:;:i:..:;:i:..:..1Power boats with gasoline or diesel engines use the lake ._ __ __.!YES multiplier is 2 .. I _..ax.a....__.!NO multiplier is 1 TOT AL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from LI by L2 II 1 0 II Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington 9 10/8/2007 PMXVer. 0./ L Lake-Fringe Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion L 3. Doe,· the wetland unit have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? (seep. 62) L3 Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore ( do not include aquatic bed): (choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the Figure J,.; of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 ft (!Om) wide points= 6 0 · > J,.; of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 6 ft. (2 m) wide points = 4 0 > \,:; of fringe vegetation is shrubs or trees at least 33 ft (I Om) wide points = 4 0 points= 2 0 ~..,.-...iFringe vegetation is at least 6 ft (2m) wide ..__....._...,Fringe vegetation is less than 6 ft (2m) wide points= 0 0 Aerial photo or map with Cowardin vegetation classes Record the points from the box above II 0 L 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce erosion? (seep. 63) Are there features along the shore that will be impacted if the shoreline erodes? Note which of the following conditions apply. There are human structures and activities along the upland edge of the wetland (buildings, fields) that can be damaged by erosion. There are undisturbed natural resources along the upland edge of the wetland (e.g. mature forests other wetlands) than can be damaged by shoreline erosion Other ._ __ _,!YES multiplier is 2 ,..__X _ __.!NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL -Hydro logic Functions Multiply the score from L 3 by L 4 Add score to table on p. I II I 0 Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington JO 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0.1 II S Slope Wetlands WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS -Indicators that wetland unit functions to improve water quality Sl. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? SI.I Characteristics of average slope of wetland: 1-.;.;.;..;.;.;.....,., Slope is 1 % or less (a 1% slope has a I foot vertical drop in elevation for every JOO Ji horizontal distance) points= 3 (see p.64) 0 a...,_.;___.Slope is 1% -2% .._ __ _.Slope is 2% -5% points = 2 i--0'----1 points = I ._...;;.o_-f a........;X::...--1Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 0 .__;..._...., S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (Use NRCS definitions). ! · !YES = 3 points In:.·.~-~ ;,3JNO = 0 points S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (> 75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. 1,;,.,,.....,....,;.,..,1Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation> 90% of the wetland area points= 6 1,;,.,,....,......,...;.,..,1· Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area L.;..;....;...-"-'Dense, woody, vegetation> Y, of area .... _..;;;....,.,.Dense, ungrazed, herbaceous vegetation> 1/4 of area points= 3 points= 2 points= 1 L;..;;;;..;.;;;..;.;;;..;,;.iDoes not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo or map with vegetation polygons 0 Figure 0 0 0 1 0 Total for S I Add the points in the boxes above I 1 II S 2. Does the wetland have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 67) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland? Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but an single source would qualify as opportunity. Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland Other 2 L.......:Xa:...--1fYES multiplier is 2 ._! __ __.!NO multiplier is I TOT AL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from SI by S2 Add score to table on p. I II 2 II Wetland Rating Form -Western Wahsington ll /0/812007 PMXVer. 0./ s Slope Wetlands HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS -Indicators that wetland unit functions to reduce flooding ( 68 ) and stream erosion. see P· S3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. ''·''·'''" ' .I Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually> I/Sin), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/2 area of wetland Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation> 1/4 area ...._'"""'""".._.More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not 1 points= 6 points= 3 points= I points= 0 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: 0 3 0 0 The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least I 0% of its area. ! , . < •,I YES points= 2 Vi x '!NO points= 0 ! 0 Add the points in the boxes above II 3 S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 70) Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. j·,;,f;,::~;~;'."!JJ~~~~d has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems (Answer NO if the mqjor source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) ! !YES multiplier is 2 ... , --X--,!NO multiplier is I ! 1 TOTAL -Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 II 3 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating System -Western Washington 12 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ I 11 I 11 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. H HABITAT FUNCTIONS -Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)-Size threshold for each class ~ acre or more than I 0% of area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub(areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) Forested areas have 3 out of 5 strata ( canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, L.i:...:a...:a....:;imoss/ ground cover) Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 4 structures or more 3 structures 2 structures 1 structures points= 4 points= 2 points= 1 points= 0 Figure_ 2 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Figure_ Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ~ acre to count. ( see text for descriptions ofhydroperiods) -- Permanently flooded or inundated Seasonally flooded or inundated Occasionally flooded or inundated Saturated only >4 types present points = 3 3 types present points = 2 2 types present points = 1 1 type present points = 0 2 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland a;;.,;~~....4Lake-fringe wetland 1..,...;...;.....;...1Freshwatcr tidal wetland points= 2 points= 2 E8 Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 square feet (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold). You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, or Canadian Thistle. If you counted: Wetland Rating System -Western Washington 13 > 19 species 5 -19 species < 5 species points=2 EB points= 1 0 points= 0 0 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0.1 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitat,· (,·ee p. 76) Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between types of vegetation ( described in H LI), or vegetation types and unvegetated areas ( can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. Figure~ C) ·.·0 None = 0 points Low= l point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more vegetation types or three vegetation types and open water the ratinl! is always ''hil!h". High i... ..... -.... Moderate Low ~""'"-I ===~None points= 3 points= 2 points= I points= 0 0 0 1 0 Use map ofCowardin classes. H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. /.c•i.:.:'UI Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long) Standing snags ( diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetatio extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream for at least 33 ft (!Om) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present At least Is acre of thin-stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated.(structures for egg n - ====_.Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plant s 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score -potential for providing habitat "=!I ==5=="1! Add the scores in the column above Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 14 10/8/2007 PMXVer. 0.1 H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80). Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of"undisturbed." Figure 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No developed areas within undisturbed part of buffer. -(relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing) ~--.~ .... 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated are.as, rocky areas, or open water> 50% circumference. (relatively undisturbed also means no-grazing) ro-.-.... --150 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water ......... __ _, >95% circumference . I 00 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, .... ___ ._, 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for -' > 50% circumference. If buffer does not meet any of the three criteria above: No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland> 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK . ......... ..,......,-iNo paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Heavy Grazing in buffer. ro-.--,--,-~Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland) &..:;..:......:......:.....iBuffer does not meet any of the Criteria above. Points= 5 0 Points= 4 0 Points= 4 0 Points= 3 3 Points= 3 0 Points= 2 0 Points= 2 0 Points= 1 0 Points= 0 0 Points= 1 0 Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2. l Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor ( either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? ( dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor) . .. P_,::, .......... ,_.'' ... !YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) 0 H 2.2.2 ls the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake-fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? !'ff'' ;(;,,::;i;.YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) ! f {';:';;;jNo = H 2.2.3 0 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? "'r""'"'":>.,..;x:""',,,"",,'"'cjvES = 1 point !;;i !~Jl']', ~;;;!NO = 0 points Wetland Rating System -Western Washington 15 1 10/8/2007 PMX Ver, 0./ Wetland Rating System -Western Washington 15 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions. (see text for a more detailed description of these priority habitats) X Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. t",,.---1 Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres) . ....,_ ..... Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft . .............. Old-growth forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, fonning a multi- t",,.---1 layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings: with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre)> 81 cm (32 in) dbh or> 200 years of Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm {2 l in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large dov.med material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 -200 years old west of the Cascade crest . .... -..... Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. t,,,----ITalus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 -2.0 m (0.5 -6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. t",,.---1 .............. ,i Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon White Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25% . Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. ,.,,,,_...,.. .. Estuary/Estuary-like; Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi-enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean-derived salts measure less than 0.5% during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat = I point No habitats = 0 points'"! --1--. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington /6 /0/8/2007 PMXVer. 0./ H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) · • There arc at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but points= 5 0 The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake fringe wetlands within Y, mile There are at least 3 other wetlands within Y, mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed The wetland is Lake-fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake fringe wetland within Y, mile There is at least I wetland within Y, mile. L. .... ~~a.iThere are no wetlands within Y, mile. H 2. TOTAL Score -opportunity for providing habitat points= 5 points= 3 points= 3 points= 2 points= 0 Add the scores from HZ.I, H2.2, H2.3, and H2.4 TOTAL for HI from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions -add the points for H l, H 2 and record the result on p. I Wetland Rating Fonn -Western Washington 17 0 0 0 2 0 /0/812007 PMXVer. 0./ CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the appropriate Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? The dominant water regime is tidal, vegetated, and ..... .....,.....,.....,._,:;w..::ith=a:..:sa::::,linity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC l.1 ,__ __ ... .___x _ _.!NO SC I.I ls the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park,National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Pre.,erve, State Park or Educational,Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? SC 1.2 ls the wetland at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the followingD three conditions? ! !YES = Category I NO = Category II ! ! The wetland 1s relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling,cultivation, grazing, and has less than I 0% cover of non-native plantspecies. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that covermore than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dualrating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while therelatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area ofSpartina indetermining the At least * of the landward edge of the wetland has a I 00 ft buffer of sluub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed grassland. The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 18 /0/812007 PMXVer. 0./ SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR)SITIR information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHPIDNR web site. r-----:]YES-contact WNHP/DNR (see P-1 • ..... :.· ... · .. · .· .. ••· .. ·.1NO L__j79) and go to SC 3.0 > • • SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? L---..1· !YES = Category I p••• • ,,.,.]NO SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland ( or part of the wetland) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If youanswer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil),either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? ,.,_.,_. __ __,'!Yes -go to Q. 3 2. Does the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? r-----:]Yes -go to Q. 3 L__J r-----:]No -Is not a bog for L__jpurpose of rating 3. Does the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? ~Yes -Is a bog for No -go to L__jpurpose of rating Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug al least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 4. Is the wetland forested (> 30% caver) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann 's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover(> 30% coverage of the total shrub/herbaceous cover)? L J• IYES = Category I ~No -Is not a bog fo1 lliWpurpose of rating L-----.J Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 19 10/8/2007 PMX Ver. 0./ SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90). Does the wetland have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height ( dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two- hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily_ have to have trees of this diameter. h :<";;)<JYES = Category I F'i f NO Mature forests: (west of the Cascade crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 -200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that I 00%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. ltlm-',!F/ ,,".)YES= Category I .... ,~_;i_ •.. _,_,_,._tt .. !No SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks. The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom). , • r}~L;~YES =Goto SC 5.1 ~NO -not a wetland in lh........Ja coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). At least ~ of the landward edge of the wetland has a I 00 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or on-mowed grassland.C 19 The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4,350 s ._ __ _..YES = Category I NO = Category II E3 Wetland Rating Form -Western Washington 20 10/8/2007 PMXVer. 0./ SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? ! ....•.... ·•• _ .... JvEs -go to SC 6.1 i-----lNO -not an ~interdunal wetland If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: Long Beach Peninsula-lands west of SR 103 Gray/and-Westport-lands west of SR 105 Ocean Shores-Copa/is-lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic ofwedands that is once acre or larger? ! · )YES ~ Category II ................. I No --go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2 Is the wetland between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Not Applicable Choose the "highest" rating if wetland falls into several categories, and record on p. 1. If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p. I Wetland Rating System Western Washington 21 10/8/2007 PMXVer. U.l Biological Evaluation City of Renton Critical Areas Review Fish and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report Terrestrial Wildlife Resources Discipline Report City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Prepared for City of Renton Planning Building and Public Works Department, Utility Systems, Surface Water Division Renton City Hall, 5th Floor I 055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Prepared by Parametrix 411 I 08th Avenue NE, Suite 1800 Bellevue, WA 98004-5571 425-458-6200 w,vv.'. param\."trix.com October 2007 I 558-1779--029 (01/05) CITATION Parametrix. 2007. Biological Evaluation City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements. Prepared by Parametrix, Bellevue, Washington. October 2007. TABLE OF CONTENTS Biological t.·~·aluotirm City of Renton Critical Areas R.evie11 City oj Rcnwn Ripley Lane. G.i,psy Creek Conveyonce Improvements City of Kenton EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... V WHAT JS THE RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION OF EFFECT ON SPECIES LISTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT? .................... V WHAT FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ARE PRESENT IN GYPSY CREEK? .............................................................................................................. V WHAT IS THE CURRENT CHARACTER OF GYPSY CREEK? ............................... V WHAT IS THIS PROPOSAL? ..................................................................................... VI WHAT FUTURE PLANS BY OTHERS MAY AFFECT OF GYPSY CREEK? ........... VI WHAT MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED IN THE PROPOSAL TO MITIGATE IMPACTS TO FISH AND AQUATIC SPECIES? .......................... VI 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................... 1-1 1.1 MAJOR DESIGN FEATURES ......................................................................... 1-1 1.1. I Channel Realignment ................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.2 New Culverts ............................................................................................ I-I 1.1.3 Juncture Structure at 60-lnch Seahawks Site Pipe ...................................... 1-2 1.1.4 In-WaterWork .......................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.5 Work Affecting Wetlands ......................................................................... 1-2 1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROPOSALS ..................................................... 1-2 2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 STUDIES AND COORDINATION .................................................................. 2· l 2.2 GENERAL HABITAT SURVEY ....................................................................... 2-2 2.3 FISH PRESENCE AND HABIT AT USE ........................................................... 2-2 2.4 ANALYSISOFEFFECTS ................................................................................. 2-3 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND ACTION AREA .............................. 3-1 3.1 PROJECT SITE AND ACTION AREA ............................................................ 3-1 3.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES .................................................................................. 3-l 3.2.1 Gypsy Creek Basin Area ........................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Gypsy Creek Stream Character ................................................................. 3-1 3.2.3 Stream Flow ............................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.4 Soils ......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.5 Habitat Conditions .................................................................................... 3-5 3.3 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... 3-8 4. PROJECT EFFECTS ....................................................................................... 4-9 4.1 EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION ............................................................ 4-9 4.1.1 General Project Timing and Sequence ....................................................... 4-9 4.1.2 In-stream Work ......................................................................................... 4-9 4.1.3 SecondaryFeatures ................................................................................. 4-10 October 2007 I 558-1779--029 (01/05) ii Biological Evaluation City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gyp~y Creek Conveyance Improvement.\ City of Renton TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 4.2 OPERATIONAL EFFECTS ............................................................................ 4-10 4.2.1 Impervious Area and Stormwater Treatment Facilities ............................ 4-10 4.2.2 Stream Flow ........................................................................................... 4-IO 4.2.3 Habitat Conditions .................................................................................. 4-l 1 4.2.4 Long-term Operations and Maintenance .................................................. 4-l l 4.2.5 Indirect Effects ....................................................................................... 4-l l 4.2.6 Interrelated and interdependent Actions ................................................. .4-l 1 4.3 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................... 4-l I 5. CITY OF RENTON CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW ............................................. 5-1 5.1 STREAM CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 5-l 5.2 PROJECT COMPLIANCE ................................................................................ 5-2 5.2.1 Allowed Use ............................................................................................. 5-2 5.2.2 Mitigation Requirements .......................................................................... 5-3 6. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE EFFECTS TO AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 6-1 7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 7.3 LIST OF FIGURES I· I Project Location ................................................................................................. 1-5 1-2 Channel Realignment ......................................................................................... 1-7 1-3 Culvert Pipes Plan View ..................................................................................... 1-9 1-4 Culvert Pipes Plan View ................................................................................... 1-11 1-5 Details .............................................................................................................. 1-13 3-1 Gypsy Creek Basin Soils .................................................................................. 3-3 LIST OF TABLES Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Action(s) on Relevant Indicators ......................................................................... 3-6 October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) ACRONYMS Bh BMPs BNSF BO cfs Ecology EFH ESA GIS HPA I-405 KpC LWD MTCA NMFS Opinion PHS ROD TESC USDA USFWS USGS WAC WDF WDFW WRIA WSDOT October 2007 J 558-l 779-029 (01/05) Bwlo~ical Evaluarion Cily of R('nfOn Critical Areas Review City of Renton Riple_v Lani'. Gypsy Cri:'ek Convevance /mpron:m('n/S City nf Renton Bellingham silt loam best management practices Burlington Northern Santa Fe Biological Opinion cubic feet per second Washington State Department of Ecology essential fish habitat Endangered Species Act Geographic Information System Hydraulic Project Approval Interstate 405 Kitsap silt loam Large woody debris Model Toxics Control Act National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion Priority Habitats and Species Program Record of Decision Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control U.S. Department of Agriculture United States Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Washington Administrative Code Washington Department of Fisheries Washington Department offish and Wildlife Water Resource Inventory Area Washington State Department of Transportation iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Biological Evaluation City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renron Ripley Lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance lmpmvemou~· City of Ren!on WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION OF EFFECT ON SPECIES LISTED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT? A no effect determination is recommended based on the Jack of listed species in Gypsy Creek and the Jack of impact of the project on habitat used by listed species within Lake Washington. WHAT FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ARE PRESENT IN GYPSY CREEK? The Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed fish species identified by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) potentially occurring in the project vicinity (see attached species lists) are bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Puget Sound Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Puget Sound steelhead (0. mykiss). While these species occur downstream in Lake Washington, they are unlikely to occur in Gypsy Creek. There is also no designated critical habitat or essential fish habitat (EFH) occurring in the stream. Gypsy Creek is a small stream that discharges directly into Lake Washington, north of May Creek in the City of Renton. The Gypsy Creek watershed is contained within the cities of Renton and Newcastle in King County, Washington. Fish potentially present include resident sculpin and resident cutthroat trout species (Buchanan 2003). However, the recent presence of these or other fish species in this stream has not been documented. Anadromous fish use of Gypsy Creek is not expected due to the extensive culvert system, which has been in place for at least four decades, throughout most the lower reaches of the stream. In addition to the extended length (over 500 feet) of the culvert system, much of the piping was small (typically 24-inch-diameter). Although there are short reaches of open channel remaining in stream, these do not appear to provide adequate spawning habitat for anadromous salmonids, due to extensive areas of sediment accumulation (WSDOT 2006). According to a Biological Opinion (BO) released on January 3, 2007 by the NMFS addressing the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Interstate 405 (1-405) Renton to Bellevue Road Widening project, no ESA listed species occur in the watershed (NMFS 2007, p 31 ). There are also no known terrestrial ESA-listed species occurring in the project area. WHAT IS THE CURRENT CHARACTER OF GYPSY CREEK? The creek drains a watershed of about 408 acres. Within the project area, the creek has been largely contained in culverts since at least the early 1960s. A recently approved project on the Seahawks Training Facility on Lake Washington allowed the replacement of the existing 24- inch-diameter culvert and short reaches of open channel with about a 500-foot long, 60-inch- diameter culvert. This 60-inch culvert extends from the downstream end of the proposed Ripley Lane project area to an improved outfall on Lake Washington. The proposed project area occurs just upstream of this new culvert, which includes a short section of open channel (about 15 feet in length) and the existing 150-foot-long and 24-inch-diameter culvert in the proposed project area, under Ripley Lane and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway rights of way. Another open channel reach (about 160 feet long) occurs immediately upstream of this culvert, which is also within the proposed project area. Upstream of the project area, the stream passes through another long (about 300 feet) of 30-inch-diameter culvert under 1-405. October 2007 J 558-1779-029 (01/05) ' Biological £1,ulualio11 City uf Rentun Cri(ical Areas Rennr City uf Re111on Ripley Lane. Gip.1y Creek Conveyance lmproremelJ/s Ci!y of Renton WHAT IS THIS PROPOSAL? This proposal by the City of Renton will provide a new surface water conveyance across Ripley Lane and the BNSF rights of way with four 36-inch-diameter culverts. The new conveyance system will tie into the 60-inch-diameter culvert across the Seahawks Training Facility site. The new conveyance is designed to prevent recurrent flooding which currently closes Ripley Lane every two to three years because of inadequate culvert capacity. The project will replace an existing 24-inch diameter and 150-fool long culvert across the Ripley Lane and BNSF Railway rights of way. The proposed culvert system will include a structure to concentrate low flows into only one of the new culverts to enhance fish passage conditions. The proposed culvert system will be located in alignment with the new culvert under the Seahawks Training Facility, about I 00 feet south of the existing culvert. Therefore, the proposed project would include rerouting the open channel between Ripley Lane and the existing 1-405 edge of roadway fill, to align with the new culvert system under Ripley Lane. In addition, the old stream channel would be left in place to provide new off-channel habitat. WHAT FUTURE PLANS BY OTHERS MAY AFFECT OF GYPSY CREEK? Future plans by WSDOT to widen 1-405 will result in replacement (and lengthening) of the existing culvert crossing 1-405. WSDOT describes this new facility in their Fish and Aquatics Report as a "new fish-friendly culvert" (WSDOT 2006). NMFS (2007) describes the WSDOT proposal, in part, as: "The project will enlarge basin conveyance culverts and the channel from the interchange to Lake Washington. The new Gypsy Creek basin outfall channel will discharge to the lake. This discharge will treat flow from 83.6 acres of new pavement. These changes will create a closed conveyance system that is designed for the new flow rates. Design for the new channel is not yet finalized, but we expect that the new channel will have slightly slower velocities than the existing undersized culvert" (NMFS 2007 p. 3). WHAT MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED IN THE PROPOSAL TO MITIGATE IMPACTS TO FISH AND AQUATIC SPECIES? The project will improve up and downstream fish passage in Gypsy Creek by improving conveyance capacity which will have slower flow velocities after enlargement, improving conditions for fish passage through the conveyance. Fish passage through the new culverts will also be enhanced with an inlet structure that directs low flows to a single pipe, to provide greater depths for fish passage during low flows. The project will reconfignre the existing open channel between the west side of 1-405 where the stream discharges from a 30-inch culvert, to the new culvert inlet at the east side of Ripley Lane. This will result in a new channel about 160 feet long that initially will lack substantial riparian vegetation and shading. Mitigation for this work includes: • The new channel will be replanted with native riparian species that will re-establish tbe 30 to 50 percent coverage that currently exists in three to five years. • The existing open stream channel leading to the existing 24-inch culvert will be retained as off-channel habitat, increasing the amount of open channel in this area by about 30 percent. vi October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) Biological Evaluation Ciry of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Renton Mitigation for loss of a short section of open channel area (about 15 feet long) on the west side of the BNSF right of way will consist of an open concrete structure at the transition between the four proposed 36-inch-diameter pipes, to the 60-inch pipe on the Seahawks Training facility property. This structure will include an open grated top for light passage and a gravel substrate at the bottom of the structure. This will provide an open resting area for fish between the two pipe sections. Construction practices will include best management practices (BMPs) to minimize disturbance to riparian vegetation, to implement a temporary erosion and sediment control plan and a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan. All construction of the new pipes and open channel will occur in upland areas away from the stream, except the final connection of the new channel to the stream. In addition, the project will minimize the duration and restrict the timing of in-water construction to avoid periods when ESA-listed fish could occur in the stream or in the nearshore habitat of Lake Washington. These management and standard construction practices are intended to avoid, prevent, or minimize effects to the environment, and as a result, only minor construction effects are expected. Future plans to widen 1-405 may eliminate all or a substantial portion of the new and existing open channel areas. October 2007 I :558~1779-029 (01/05) Bwlugical Evalualion Ci!y oj Renton Critical Areas Review Citi: of Renton Ripley Lane, Gyp.\)' Creek Conveyance Improvements -· City uf Ren1on 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The City of Renton proposes to install a replacement culvert for an existing undersized 24-inch-diameter culvert that carries Gypsy Creek under both Ripley Lane and the BNSF railroad. The capacity constraints of the existing culvert results in floodwaters impounding over the roadway and closing the road at a frequency of approximately every two to three years. The project is located on City of Renton Ripley Lane right of way and BNSF right of way approximately l ,500 feet south of 44th Street NE. The project is within the NE quarter of the SW quarter of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 05 East Willamette Meridian, Latitude (decimal): 47.5322, Longitude (decimal): -122.2022. The proposed new culvert system will tie into a new conveyance to the west of the BNSF right of way, in the Seahawks Training Camp site, previously approved as part of the Model Toxics Control Act {MTCA) cleanup of the site. The proposed Ripley Lane stormwater conveyance is located approximately l 00 feet south of the existing culvert, re-routing approximately 60 feet of existing Gypsy Creek open channel between Ripley Lane and 1-405. The Ripley Lane storrnwater conveyance will cons isl of four 36-inch-diameter pipes, to carry flow under Ripley Lane, under the King County Metro Sewer 84-inch-diameter eastside mainline, under the BNSF railroad and discharge into an existing 60-inch-diameter pipeline on the Seahawks site. However, an inlet structure at Ripley Lane will direct low flows lo a single 36-inch-diameter pipe. The connection to the existing Seahawks 60-inch pipeline would occur through a concrete box structure approximately 20 feet by 40 feet in size with a steel grate top and gravel substrate in the bottom to provide for light and a resting area for fish passing through the system. 1.1 MAJOR DESIGN FEATURES 1.1.1 Channel Realignment From the existing culvert under 1-405 the existing open stream channel to the west will be left in place. Approximately 75 linear feet downstream of this culvert, a new channel will be constructed that will loop to the south to the inlet to the new storrn conveyance. The remainder of the existing channel, lo Ripley Lane, will be left in place as side-channel habitat (see Sheet 2). The new stream channel will consist of an approximately 4-foot wide low-flow channel section, lined with gravel "fish mix" substrate. On either side of the low-flow channel the high-flow benches will vary in width from 5 to IO feet. These high-flow floodplain benches will allow for overbank flows and help reduce velocities through the culverts during high flow events (see Cross-Section Sheet 3). 1.1.2 New Culverts New culverts will be installed between the easterly road prism of Ripley Lane and the 60-inch Gypsy Creek pipeline on the Seahawks site. The culverts are sized to fit under the existing King County Metro 84-inch-diameter sewer line on the east side of the BNSF right of way. Because of the elevation of the existing sewer, the distance between the sewer line support columns, and the invert elevation of the 60-inch pipeline on the Seahawks site, the maximum size of the culverts under Ripley Lane and BNSF is limited (See Cross-Section Sheet 2). One of the pipes will be placed lower at the inlet structure at the upstream (east) side of Ripley October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) ].] Biological Evu.lriatwn City ofRenlon Critical Areas Review Ciry ufRenlon Ripley Lone. Gypsy Creek Conve,vance lmproviimenl\' City of Rent(m Lane to direct low flows to a single pipeline. During high flows water will be routed to all four 36-inch pipelines. 1.1.3 Juncture Structure at 60-lnch Seahawks Site Pipe The transition from the four 36-inch pipelines under the Ripley Lane and the BNSF rights of way, to the 60-inch pipe under the Seahawks site will occur with a 10-foot by 28-foot concrete box structure. This structure is expected to enhance fish passage conditions, by providing a resting area for fish and allowing natural light to enter the conveyance system. This structure will replace the function of the existing short (about 15 ft) section of open channel located between the Ripley Lane/BNSF culvert and the culvert under the Seahawks site. The gravel substrate within this concrete box structure would also enhance fish passage by further reducing water velocities. 1.1.4 In-Water Work Connecting the upstream end of the realigned channel to the existing stream channel is the only activity requiring in-water work. Constructing the new culverts and the new stream channel will occur entirely outside of the existing stream OHWM and will require no in- water work until the final connection to the existing stream channel is made. In-water activities will occur during the fish window stipulated by the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) to be issued by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). In-water work is estimated to require a total construction time of one day. During construction activities to connect the upstream portion of the realigned channel to the existing channel, the stream will continue to flow into the existing 24-inch culvert. Removal of the remaining material below OHWM to connect the new channel to the existing stream channel will occur using excavating equipment located above OHWM. Prior to the constructing the connection, fish removal activities would occur within the bypass reach, including the existing 24-inch culvert between the upstream inlet and the downstream connection points with the existing 60-inch pipeline on the Seahawks site. After completing the connection, the existing 24-inch culvert will be blocked, first with a temporary sandbag dam, then with a concrete plug in the culvert. The existing stream channel between the upstream end of the relocated channel and the existing 24-inch culvert will remain as off- channel habitat. 1.1.5 Work Affecting Wetlands The realignment of Gypsy Creek will not displace wetlands. The area proposed for the steam relocation is entirely upland habitat. The location of the proposed connection to the existing channel also has no wetlands. The excavation for the new open stream channel will displace wetland buffer area, which currently consists almost entirely of Reed Canary Grass. The project will incorporate buffer plantings of native riparian vegetation which will substantially enhance buffer functions when mature. 1,2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROPOSALS 1-2 The proposed project is designed to be compatible with WSDOT plans for future widening of 1-405. This future project will result in the replacement of the existing culvert passing under 1-405 with a new longer culvert that would replace the existing culvert crossing 1-405 with a new conveyance that would likely discharge directly into the proposed Ripley Lane/BNSF conveyance system. The widening of 1-405 to the west would likely require a retaining wall October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) Biologicaf £va/ualion City (_if Ren/on Critical Areas Revie11 Ciry of Renton Ripley lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance lmprm,emen/.1· Cily of Renton close to the Ripley Lane right of way. As a result, the future WSDOT enclosed conveyance is expected to eliminate most or all of the existing open channel between 1-405 and Ripley Lane. WSDOT describes the new facility in their Fish and Aquatics Report as a "new fish-friendly culvert" (WSDOT 2006). National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) describes the WSDOT proposal as: "The project will enlarge basin conveyance culverts and the channel from the interchange to Lake Washington. The new Gypsy Creek basin outfall channel will discharge to the lake. This discharge will treat flow from 83 .6 acres of new pavement. These changes will create a closed conveyance system that is designed for the new flow rates. Design for the new channel is not yet finalized, but we expect that the new channel will have slightly slower velocities than the existing undersized culvert" (NMFS 2007 p. 3). "Eventually enlarging basin conveyance culverts and channel from highway to Lake Washington will improve up and downstream fish passage in those streams. Recent revisions will discharge to the new Gypsy Creek basin outfall channel to the lake. Improving conveyance capacity will handle the increased extent of treatment expected as the result of treating all runoff from 83.6 acres of new impervious surface. In summary, this conveyance will have slower flow velocities after enlargement, improving holding conditions for fish in the conveyance." (NMFS 2007 p. 27) October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) \ .J Lake Washington i / Parametrix sS4-1n9-029ro1J06 9/07 (BJ 4} 0 200 Scale in Feet ' ' ' SEAHAWKS SITE ' ' PROPOSED~~- 4X36~ / CULVERTS ,I i I / ----------, ,c,,,,_,,,_ ------------ r""'d----+--,FUTURE WSDOT CROSSING ' ' Figure 1-1 Ripley Lane/Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements Project Location ii ! ~~ ~·~"91 Q ··---~ • ,J ,NO !IOUNOARY 2 ,,..>:, w .. ,.~~'<,: .... ·.!.\_,,., \. . ~·, .-,:,, ,, ·. Ci \ \ < } C. \\ ,::,- , ·< CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ·,1· ' \ \. ,j 1~• , """ . ">t~ . ::4:•·_, .c:. ,;, :•""<). J ' •, I I _l,~ .--.. 4' .. J ' ., t ·, . r J ·l .f·' . ' nt . rJ. ... '~/t·r 1 ' ''{ ,. ~""(,, . ·····~ ,:{: \, . ,,ll\_ · .. ". ·. ·," •. 'J it''{,('\.~ <\ ' ( \.4:' ":.; y .• I I,,· r ' i ,p .~·,, ¥'l -! -~":1P'. ti )f .. • -~ . .4' ·~~-. i"':. -;"""lr':"~ . ._ ~.._.,_ a 1111'1.H L.ANE' STORI.I" 11,tf>RC>\IElillENT'!I Ripley Creek./Gypsy Lane Conveyance __ 4_J~·-;;"""' ,._,....,.~~-~ IIS:7171SF . -~ ... ~. lm .... ovementsProject c• re 1 1::: j~:;:~#;,;;,,j DRAFT ~'=!·'"' • ..... "''"'~ Channel Ro,Ugnment 11 I . j _,,,_ "•"'· 1 ·2 r'" -· /It· ·· , '!tWle9'f{i'.i"'. "'·····~-~•. r-• ' !A-~ ,. ' -~-;.\!-., 'I \ E z" I" :PC ~' ' . ,, • ' ' ' • ;9;,·f i.~ g 'o ·f ' l ,, . .,.,,,,,,.,""'"C>' ,.,.,.,,,.,,,.,,,,,, , ' ' ' ,' ' I ... LL ~ C ,:"_~_) __ ) l i, 'I t ) I: + ;:::_J ..:,., I T .; I ii 1, ;. CZ ! ::l Q ~ ~Ii ~ ) I, d "'-----1-11,-------·!'· "'""""""' ''"' •• ,, .... ''"·'""' ... ,,.,-0, ·- I • ii 0 a . 3 ~ • I !1 ii j I- LL ~ C 11 , I <1 r ,, [ /4_JL1 ,_. ('N ., !;~· Ji ,, ' " ' ii Ii !I "),) ---~-\, ! o ,.; ·-:~.:'.~I /"\ Ex '.·,, DI' . j ' • U". h ":;,~. •I '·1' ,-··)' 1·1 ' f =-1 -----L . I I ' ·'·-'-"=V ---.--.··' --l-I I I I ;( --C'' 1--, ~ 22-;~"----F------1-_ ---c-1 -~= -1~-< .. } C0 V>C l > jQ" \JC,M .llA (..'i2.J'iD'1 HD 1~1::.. ~1f~21 '.}) P!Pt" -l=1S.C9 -- --~ -_7,,/' l>J(!t.J Dlt\ U'.:' : ' n·1 1-H:-?f--. CF2 l Sil ;,1~':: r_ ;1u: 4-36" NOM _DIAJ32.3"10) HOPE, DR21 S.D UND~~~~Q_SSING OF 84" DIA SS DETAIL ffi \J(1 ):"::Al_:- l //,. L X .. ~....----; .-8<+ ·;1.,-:. S"' 1 / 1'.:_c;:::.6.o~; ~ / ( '-..[ I l' ·\ ' ' ;·-\ '•. ",, / _/ -' ' pj f-~-~ ';-', .. \ ---· ,t. • • ·-:-. ~-~--·· ' ;: :· ~·-! t i r r-,-1' -1 :,..-_,__J EX 84" OIASS SECTION NC) ·:,:-~;/,.l.E ".) 1J:1\ ·,:c:, C -;-:r----·.L --_I_ -1 1 , r i ' 'L.~·:J © I I S8 fl ': .. ~;;:~ ~irt:J f@.lu!§iif•,,-=~~-.. ,--.. ,-J "~"'""""'""0 ~""" I Figure 1--5 ,8 .. ,,' /' .,, ,-SP""-'~ --0 RAFT "''"''" --I Details C4 --,,~, O , -\U'L(_O ' :.:_~~~;_"_'.-""·'-~£~1(l!, ~,AS>IIN<.;TON o UCl ~-;o,,> 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 STUDIES AND COORDINATION Biolo,;:ical Evaluation City of Ren/on Criticul Areas Rn)e1r Cily of Renton Ri11lq lane. GJp.l'}' Creek Conveyanc(' lmprow.'menlJ (i!y or Renlrm Parametrix biologists reviewed scientific literature for background information on general watershed conditions, known fish presence and passage issues, and location and habitat condition information for streams and drainages within the project area. This literature review included published and unpublished literature, resource and regulatory agency databases and documents, technical reports, and related data. Project biologists also consulted the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to interpret the ordinary high water mark in those stream reaches where both stream banks have been armored with riprap. They also reviewed existing studies including: • Cedarock Consultants 2006, Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility, Stream and Lake Study, Stream mitigation plan, prepared for Football Northwest, LLC by Cedarock Consultants, Woodinville, WA September 20, 2006 • National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2007) Biological Opinion (Opinion) issued by the pursuant to Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation, January 3, 2007 • Renton, City of (Renton 1997) Gypsy Subbasin Drain Improvements Design Memorandum. Prepared for the City of Renton by Entranco. Bellevue, Washington. • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2002) 1-405 Corridor Program NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation (WSDOT, 2002) and 1-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT], 2002) • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2006b) 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to 1-90 405/ Corridor Program, Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, Environmental Assessment, Appendix V. Wetlands Discipline Report February 13, 2006 • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2006c) 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to 1-90 405/ Corridor Program, Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, Environmental Assessment, Appendix W. Wildlife and Vegetation Discipline Report, February 13, 2006 • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2006a) 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to l-90 405/ Corridor Program, Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, Environmental Assessment, Appendix X: Fish and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report, February 13, 2006 • Topographic maps (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 1973 and 1983). • Soil Conservation Service soil survey map and soils descriptions (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], 1973). • Digitized aerial photographs of the area October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) 2-1 Biological fa•aluation City l!j Renton Crilirnl Areas Re1,>iew City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek C(Jnvcyance Improvements City of Re111on • Geographic Information System (GIS) layers and data provided by Renton and King County. • Construction drawings for proposed improvements. • Descriptions of drainage basins, stream numbering and names, locations of tributary channels, and fish usage (Washington Department of Fisheries [WDF], 1975). • The NMFS website listing on Endangered Species (NMFS Fisheries, 2007). • WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Program (PHS) maps and listings for wetlands, fish species, and priority habitat (WDFW, 2007a). The PI-IS maps identify sensitive species information, such as location of a species that is used for local and state planning purposes. • Consultation with stream and habitat specialists from WDFW, and the City of Renton regarding the locations, fish habitat, and conditions of the stream. • SalmonScape, a WDFW computer mapping system website, for documentation of fish presence (WDFW, 2007b ). 2.2 GENERAL HABITAT SURVEY Previous stream survey work conducted for the WSDOT 1-405 widening project was reviewed and the results of that study are reproduced in the relevant sections of this report. In addition, Parametrix biologists conducted general habitat surveys on the affected portions of Gypsy Creek. The general habitat surveys included a qualitative field assessment of the following in-stream and floodplain features: • Natural drainage system configuration; • Riparian zone land uses; • Riparian vegetation (structure, species composition, density, and quality); • Adjacent wetlands; • Stream confinement; • Substrate composition; • Large woody debris and pool quality; and • Resident and anadromous fish habitat and use. Project biologists observed and photographed existing culverts including the current crossing of Ripley Lane!BNSF, the current crossing beneath l-405 and the recently installed 60-inch- diameter pipeline through the Seahawks site. WSDOT biologists conducted additional stream surveys upstream ofl-405. 2.3 FISH PRESENCE AND HABITAT USE 2-2 Parametrix biologists relied on habitat survey results, literature reviews from previous research, previous environmental reviews, species index counts, or planning documents, and contact with local, state, federal, and tribal biologists on personal knowledge offish presence and habitat use. Biologists did not conduct direct fish surveys (i.e., electro-shocking, October 2007 [ 558-1779-029 (01/05) Biological Evahialion City ofRenton Critical Areas Revin1: Ci!y of Rentun Ripley I.uni!, r,Jp.,y Creek Conveyance Improvements Ci1y of Ren10ll snorkeling, or seining) for this study. However, whenever fish were observed during the habitat surveys, biologists noted their presence, species, life stage, and relative abundance. 2.4 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS Based on stream assessment results and a preliminary project design, the project biologist conducted an analysis to identify potential project effects on fish and aquatic resources. The project team also analyzed anticipated construction and operation activities, as a basis for modifying the project design in order to avoid and minimize all identified effects. The project team also assessed indirect and cumulative impacts in the context of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-060 and WAC 197-11-792 as well as 40 CFR Parts 1508.S(b ). Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. "Cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. October 2007 I 558-1779..029 (01/05) 2-l Biological l:\•aluation City of Renton Critical Areas Review Ciry o./Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy· Creek Conveyance Improvements Ci1y of Rem on 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND ACTION AREA 3.1 PROJECT SITE AND ACTION AREA The project site is defined as the vicinity where the majority of the proposed action will occur. Descriptions of existing conditions for aquatic, terrestrial and wetland resources are discussed in detail below. An action area is "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action" (50 CFR §402.02). Effects from the project are not expected beyond the action area directly affected by the construction. Therefore, for aquatic species the action area for the project is defined as the immediate work and construction area and downstream aquatic habitat. For terrestrial species the action area for the project is defined as the immediate work and construction area all terrestrial habitats within a 1/2-mile radius of the project site (see Figure 1-1). This action area is a conservative estimate of the extent to which water quality impacts could affect aquatic species and noise disturbance from construction activities could affect wildlife species. 3.2 AQUATIC RESOURCES Parametrix fish biologist observed no fish in the stream in May 2007. The same results were reported by WSDOT field biologists during surveys conducted in March 2004 (WSDOT 2006a). The stream is not listed on the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species maps (WDFW, 2007a). Resident cutthroat trout historically used the habitat in major Lake Washington tributary streams such as in the nearby May Creek, but no fish usage of Gypsy Creek has been documented recently. In the NMFS Biological Opinion for the WSDOT 1-405 project concluded that there were no listed species in Gypsy Creek (NMFS 2007). The BO addressed anadromous salmon and steelhead population that were either listed or being considered for listing under the ESA.. 3.2.1 Gypsy Creek Basin Area The Gypsy Creek Basin occurs in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8, and also identified as Stream 08.LW-7.6 by WDFW. It is an independent tributary to Lake Washington, draining about 408 acres. The Gypsy Creek drainage basin extends from roughly SE 90th Street in the City of Newcastle/NE 35th Place in Renton on the south, to 108th Avenue SE in the City of Newcastle on the east, and to about SE 76th Street in Newcastle/NE 48th Street in Renton on the north. As part of a 2007 hydrologic study, Parametrix utilized recent (2002) aerial survey contours developed by WSDOT and the City, with melded topography from the King County 2005 aerial survey to identify the basin boundaries, including portions of 1-405 that drainage to the basin. This evaluation established a maximum design flow of 198 cubic feet per second ( cfs) for the l 00 year storm event. 3.2.2 Gypsy Creek Stream Character The stream outlet to Lake Washington is at approximately the alignment of NE 50th Street in Renton. It flows from a southeasterly direction through a recently installed 60-inch-diameter, and 300-foot-long pipeline through the Seahawks Training Facility. (The stream formerly flowed through this site in a 24-inch culvert, originating about JOO feet north of the new 60- October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) 3-1 Rio/ogical t:vafualion City <1fRenlon Critical Areas Revie)'. Ciry of Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance Jmprovement.1 Ci1y of Renton inch culvert inlet location). Near the BNSF right of way the Seahawk site conveyance extends to the north about JOO feet to intercept the flow from the existing 24-inch-diameter culvert under Ripley Lane and the BNSF which is about 150 feet in length. East of Ripley Lane the stream occurs as an open channel for about 160 feet, to the east side of 1-405, where it is carried under the highway in a 30-inch culvert approximately 300 feet long to an inlet just south of the Denny's Restaurant. East of 1-405 the stream again occurs as an open channel that parallels Lake Washington Blvd. for about 450 feet where it crosses NE 44th Street. South of 44th Street the stream splits into a number of separate channels and piped systems draining several sub-basins. The area north and east of the 1-405 culvert also drains into Gypsy Creek near the Denny's Restaurant, through a piped system from a vegetated stormwater detention facility at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of NE 48th Street and Lake Washington Blvd. Flow into the detention facility is largely from piped systems to the east. 3.2.3 Stream Flow Available information indicates that this stream has enough flow and habitat to support fish life year round, subject to limitations on open channel area and fish passage barriers from existing piped stream reaches. Stream flow was measured for the WSDOT study on March I 0, 2004, showing an average velocity of 0. 13 feet per second, and the total discharge of 0. 71 cfs. The average velocity on March 11, 2004 was 0.59 feet per second, and the total discharge was 0.67 cfs (WSDOT 2006a). A 2007 hydrologic study by Parametrix established maximum design flows of 198 cfs for the I 00 year storm event. 3.2.4 Soils 3-2 Riparian soils near the open stream channel between Ripley Lane and 1-405 are mapped in the King County Soil Survey (USDA, 1973) primarily as Bellingham silt loam (Bh) a poorly drained soil formed in alluvium and Kitsap silt loam (KpC) a moderately well drained soil that formed in lake deposits and generally are found on terraces. Soils within the basin are generally of the Alderwood-Kitsap-Indianola series of soils that formed slowly on permeable glacial till or glacial lake deposits (Figure 3 -I, Soils). October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) Legend [:"]oA7.57 OoA?.ss ,-.. ., L .. .; DA 7.59:<,, = ' L.:.,__,_~JAgC AgD Renton .::F) ~:; ~:~} lll0vo -RdC [23RdE Param trix Newcastle City of Renton ipley Lane Hydrologic Analysis ~ 250Feet N Soils 250 125 0 MM Figure 3-1 Gypsy Creek Basin Soils 3.2.5 Habitat Conditions Biulv~icul Evahumon City of Renton Critical Areas Review City(~{ Relllon Ripley lam'. Gypsy Creek Conveyance lmprovemef!I:; City of Renton The results of a Level I stream survey conducted for the WSDOT 1-405 Aquatics report is summarized below and in Appendix A (Table 4-9 on Page 4-60 of WSDOT 2006c) and is supplemented with additional Parametrix field investigation information. Parametrix biologists surveyed the action area from the west side of l-405 where the stream outfalls from a culvert under I-405. The biological survey for WSDOT proceeded 430 feet downstream of I-405 and approximately I ,295 feet upstream, for a total survey distance of approximately l,725 feet. 3.2.5.1 Temperature NMFS criteria states that stream temperatures should not exceed 60° F ( l 5° C) in areas used by salmonid adults during migration. Gypsy Creek and its tributaries have no 303( d) listing (Ecology 2004). Using the matrix of pathways and indicators criteria, overall baseline conditions for temperature are at risk, primarily due to commercial and residential development upstream, and the impervious surface area of I-405 and other roadways in the basin (Table I). While the amount of impervious surface will not increase in the basin due to the project, future widening of 1-405 will substantially increase the impervious surface area in the basin. Although the existing riparian vegetation along the open stream channel is limited, the realigned stream channel to the new Ripley Lane/BNSF stormwater conveyance culvert will have less riparian vegetation. However, any net effect on stream temperature will likely be negligible. Therefore, baseline conditions will be maintained. 3.2.5.2 Riparian Vegetation Riparian vegetation on the north sides of this stream consists predominantly of willow an average of 20 to 30 feet in height and provides a continuous canopy for about 100 feet to the north. On the south side of the stream a narrow discontinuous band of willows and other vegetation is about 5 feet wide with inclusions of Himalayan blackberry, and reed canarygrass. The area immediately south of the existing stream consists of an open field of reed canary grass. Canopy coverage in this area is estimated at 30 to 50 percent. The baseline condition for riparian vegetation is at risk, and the proposed project is expected to result in a slight degradation of these conditions. 3.2.5.3 Sediment/Turbidity The predominant substrate composition of the open channel portions of Gypsy Creek in the action area vicinity is silt. Much of the fine sediment is likely naturally present, as this reach has a very low gradient and acts as a natural deposition zone. However, based on other literature (Gersib et al. 1999) and NMFS criteria, baseline conditions for sediment are at risk. The project will result in no change in substrate in the stream, maintaining baseline conditions. 3.2.5.4 Physical Barriers No permanent total fish passage barriers currently exist on Gypsy Creek; however fish passage in the past has likely been limited by the length of the 500-foot-long and 24-inch- diameter culvert from Lake Washington to the BNSF, the 150-foot-long culvert under BNSF and Ripley Lane and the 300-foot-long culvert under I-405. In addition, there is little or no suitable spawning habitat in any of the open sections of the stream which are generally either very low gradient and characterized by silt substrate or are very high gradient. October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) 3-S Biological Evaluation City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Rento11 Ripley lane, Gypsy Creek Con~·eyance Improvements City of Renton Table 1. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Action(s) on Relevant Indicators ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE EFFECTS OF THE ACTION(S) PATHWAYS Indicators Water Quality Temperature Sediment Chemical Contamination/Nutrients Habitat Access Physical Barriers Habitat Elements Substrate Large Woody Debris Pool Frequency Pool Quality Off-Channel Habitat Refugia Properly Functioning1 Channel Condition and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio Streambank Condition Floodplain Connectivity Flow/Hydrology Peak/Baseflows Drainage Network Increase Watershed Conditions Road Density/Location Disturbance History Riparian Reserves Watershed Name: Lake Washington Basin At Risk1 X X X X Not Properly1 Functioning Restore2 Maintain3 Degrade 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X These lhree categories of function (properly functioning, at risk, and nor properly funcuoning) are defined for each indicator in the "Matrix of Pathways and lndicalors." 2 For the purposes of this checklist, restDre means to change the function of an at risk indicator to properly functioning (it does nol apply to "property functioning" indicators). 3 For the purposes of this checklisl, maintain means that the function of an indicator does not change (i.e., it applies to all indicators regardless of functional level). 4 For the purposes of this checklist, degrade means to change the function of an indicator for the worse {i.e., 1t applies to all indicators regardless of functional level). In some cases, a "not property functioning" indicator may be further worsened, and this should be noted. 3-6 Octobe, 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) Biological Eval11aliu11 City(!/ Rel/ton Critical Areas Revir:"1i City oj Renton Ripley Lane, G_nJ.\)' Creek Com1eyance /mprovemems City of Renton Therefore, baseline conditions are classified as not functioning. Completion of the project will improve fish passage conditions across Ripley Lane and BNSF. The replacement of the previous 24-inch diameter culvert across the Seahawks site with a 60-inch diameter pipe will improve fish passage, but the length of piped stream will likely continue to limit use. 3.2.5.5 Large Woody Debris Large woody debris (L WD) is essentially missing from the Gypsy Creek drainage, largely because of the small size of riparian vegetation. No large woody debris was observed in the open channel section between 1-405 and Ripley Lane. Therefore, baseline conditions are classified as not functioning for L WD, and the project will maintain this condition. 3.2.5.6 Pool Frequency and Quality East of Ripley Lane, the stream flows through a 160-foot-long open channel, primarily consisting of run/riffle habitat. However, one relatively large pool occurs where the l-405 culvert discharges. This pool is about 20 feet long and 8 feet wide, but was less than 2 feet deep during the Parametrix field visit in May 2007. This pool provides some habitat for resident species, however no fish were observed during the Parametrix or WSDOT biologist field visits. The limited amount of open channel habitat (approximately 600 linear feet of open channel in the 1,600 feet of stream between 44th Street NE and Lake Washington), and the lack of a sufficient number or quality of pools, indicates that the stream is not properly functioning for pool habitat. The realignment of the open stream channel between l-405 and Ripley Lane, will not alter the existing large pool immediately downstream of the l-405 culvert, and will add some additional pool habitat to this reach. However, the overall condition for pool habitat in the action area will be maintained. 3.2.5.7 Refugia and Off-Channel Habitat The limited open channel area, as well as past disturbance and habitat degradation, have limited the number and size of refuge and off-channel areas in Gypsy Creek. Also, much of the habitat area lacks sufficient buffers. Therefore, the stream is not properly functioning for refugia and off-channel habitat. The proposed project will not displace existing refugia, and will produce additional off- channel habitat in the area between Ripley Lane and 1-405. This additional off-channel habitat will result from maintaining the existing open channel area, and adding a new channel to realign the conveyance to meet the new culvert structure under Ripley Lane and the BNSF rights-of-way. However, the cumulative impacts of the future l-405 widening are likely to eliminate much or this entire open channel between 1-405 and Ripley Lane. Despite the increase in off-channel habitat, the overall conditions in Gypsy Creek will be maintained. 3.2.5.8 Channel Condition and Dynamics Due to the extensive modification of Gypsy Creek from development in the area, particularly the extensive piping of the creek, the factors related to channel condition and dynamics are not properly functioning. The proposed project is expected to maintain the overall conditions in the basin. 3.2.5.9 Hydrology The purpose of the propose project is to alleviate flooding problems that currently occur in the project area. Therefore, the hydrological characteristics of the stream are considered not October 2007 j 558-1779-029 (01105) 3-7 Biologirnl E mluation City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gyp.1y Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Ren Lon properly functioning. Although the project will reduce the flooding potential, it will not alter the overall conditions in the basin. 3.2.5.10 Watershed Conditions Gypsy Creek is a highly modified system with an extensive disturbance history. Therefore, baseline conditions are considered not properly functioning, and the project is expected to maintain these conditions. 3.2.5.11 Fish Presence, Habitat Use and ESA Species Presence Parametrix fish biologist observed no fish in the stream in May 2007. The same results were reported by WSDOT field biologists during surveys conducted in March 2004. The stream is not listed on the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species maps (WDFW, 2007a). Resident cutthroat trout historically used the habitat on major streams, such as in nearby May Creek, but no fish usage has been documented recently in Gypsy Creek (Buchanan, 2003). In the Biological Opinion for the WSDOT 1-405 widening project, NMFS concluded that no listed species occur in Gypsy Creek. The opinion addressed anadromous salmon or steelhead population that is either listed or being considered for listing under the ESA (NMFS 2007). There is also no designated critical habitat for listed species in the project area, although critical habitat for Chinook salmon and bull trout occurs downstream in Lake Washington. 3.3 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES J-8 The area between 1-405 and Ripley Lane, and between 44th Street NE and about NE 52nd Street provides an area of about 5 acres of mixed vegetation types, some wetland areas, and some open channel areas of Gypsy Creek. However, these areas are isolated by 1-405 and other transportation corridors, as well as commercial and residential development. Bald eagle use of the Lake Washington shoreline and May Creek for foraging is relatively common for both resident and wintering eagles. The Lake Washington shoreline in the immediate vicinity, however, generally lacks large perch trees close to the shoreline, which likely limits use. There are also no eagle nests within I mile of the project site. An osprey nest occurs about one-half mile south of the project area, on a nest platform on the Barbee Mill residential community site about one-half mile south of the project. Eagle and osprey use of the project site is unlikely because it consists of a small patch of open space between 1-405 and Ripley Lane and because Gypsy Creek is unlikely to provide fish for forage. However, the large cottonwood trees along Ripley Lane may be used as resting perches. There are some corridors for animal movement along the BNSF railroad right of way, but this is limited by the proximity of houses to relatively human tolerant species. It is likely that small animals including voles, mice, and introduced animals such as the Norway rat, opossum, house mouse and eastern gray squirrel utilize the area. A variety of bird species tolerant of human intrusion, such as the noise and light/glare from 1-405 likely utilize the area for forage and nesting. It is unlikely that the area of open channel provides sufficient habitat for aquatic species such as beaver, muskrat and river otter. Forest dwelling animals such as deer may be observed occasionally in the area as they move along the BNSF corridor. October 2007 j 558-1779-029 (01/05) 81olugical Evaluation City of Rentu11 Critical An:a.1· Revie11· City of Renton Ripley Lane. G;,psy Creek Conveyance Improvements ('iry of Renton 4. PROJECT EFFECTS The following sections address potential direct and indirect effects on fish and aquatic resources. 4.1 EFFECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION 4.1.1 General Project Timing and Sequence Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in May 2008 and be completed by mid-October 2008, a total of about 5.5 months of construction. Within this time frame, culvert construction is estimated to take approximately 70 days of which days is actual construction. It should be noted that this schedule is only a likely representation of what the actual schedule may be and that variations in work timing may occur due to contractor delays or adverse weather conditions. The construction sequence and estimated duration of each task, is as follows; • Mobilization and TESC installation (IO days) • Relocate existing utilities (14 days) • Clear and grubbing (2 days) • Construction of new pipelines( 14 days) • Construction of new open channel east of Ripley Lane(lO days) • Planting ofriparian vegetation(IO days) • Opening channel to new conveyance {I days) • Site restoration, seeding, fertilizing, and mulching ( 4 day) • Clean up and demobilization (5 days) 4.1.2 In-stream Work Construction of the new stormwater conveyance is proposed completely outside of the existing stream except for the connection of the new conveyance to the existing stream as the final step of construction. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plans will minimize effects on surface water as outlined in Section 6, Measures to Minimize Effects to Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources. The connection of the new channel to existing Gypsy Creek will occur within the approved in-water construction window established in the project HPA, to minimize the potential effects on salmonids. The typical in-water work window is from July I to August 31 for Lake Washington tributaries. In addition, potential impacts on Gypsy Creek water quality will be minimized by the following construction sequence: • Construction of the new channel and revegetation will be complete except for the final 2 to 4 feet adjacent to Gypsy Creek. Vegetation within the new channel area will be allowed to establish to the maximum extent practical prior to connecting the new channel to Gypsy Creek. • Silt curtains will be installed within the water area of Gypsy Creek around the area where the new channel is to be connected. October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (Ol/05) 4-9 Biological Evaluation City of Renton Crilicaf Areas Review City of Renton Ripley lane, GJpsy Creek Conveyance lmprowments City of Rentoo • A sandbag dam will be built inside the silt curtains to completely isolate the wet areas of Gypsy Creek from the work area. All fish will be removed from the area isolated by sandbags and the area will be dewatered by pumping. • Removal of the final 2 to 4 feet of material will occur with equipment located above and outside of the existing and new channel. • Erosion control measures and vegetation will be installed as soon as the soil removal is completed in the connection area. • The sandbag dam will be removed by hand to allow water to gradually fill the new channel. • The existing channel will be retained as "off-channel" habitat. • The existing 24-inch culvert inlet at Ripley Lane will be plugged with minimal in- stream work with the following sequence: , Silt curtains will be installed just upstream of the Ripley Lane culvert to isolate the work area, and fish will be removed from the work area. , A sandbag dam will be built inside the silt curtains to completely isolate Gypsy Creek from the work area, and the downstream reach gradually dewatered by flow through the culvert and by pumping if needed. , The existing culvert will be plugged with concrete at the east end. The westerly portion of the culvert will continue to provide drainage for the west side of Ripley Lane and the BNSF right of way. 4.1.3 Secondary Features The removal of forest cover in the riparian corridor is likely to be limited to approximately 250 square feet where the new channel extending east from the new culverts connects to the existing channel. All temporarily disturbed areas will be protected from erosion and sedimentation by a Temporary Erosion Control Plan (TESC) described under mitigation below. The lack of initial riparian cover within the new channel which would be constructed across an area of reed canary grass could potentially increase stream temperature, although such changes are expected to be small because the amount of new channel is small in comparison to the length of the overall stream system, the majority of which is either contained in enclosed conveyance pipelines or vegetated riparian areas. No adverse effects to overall LWD loading or recruitment rates will occur due to the project because the clearing of existing riparian vegetation will be limited. 4.2 OPERATIONAL EFFECTS 4.2.1 Impervious Area and Stormwater Treatment Facilities The project will include no increases of impervious surfaces or runoff. 4.2.2 Stream Flow The proposed culvert replacement will not affect stream flows. 4-IO October 2007 I 558-1779--029 (01/05) Biological LFaluatirm City of Renton Critical Areas Review Citv o{Rt'nlon Ripley lone. Gyp~)' Cret.'k Conn•vann' !n1J1mwmenls City of Renton Low stream flows will be directed to a single 36-inch-diameter pipe to concentrate flows and optimize fish passage conditions. 4.2.3 Habitat Conditions The project will result in little change in overall habitat conditions in Gypsy Creek. The re- routing of the stream to the new conveyance facility will result in XX feet of new channel and the existing stream channel will be retained as off-channel habitat. Although this will result in a net increase in stream habitat, the new channel will have limited riparian vegetation and shading. 4.2.4 Long-term Operations and Maintenance In general, maintenance and operations of the culvert facility will be similar to the requirements for the existing culvert, although the maintenance frequency is expected to be reduced due to the larger culvert size. 4.2.5 Indirect Effects Indirect effects are those that are caused by the action and are later in time (after the action is completed) but are still reasonably certain to occur. Examples include changes to ecological systems such as predator/prey relationships, long-term habitat changes, or anticipated changes in human activities including changes in land use. However, the project is not expected to cause any indirect effects, as the result will be similar in function to the existing facilities. 4.2.6 Interrelated and interdependent Actions Interrelated actions are defined as those actions that arise as part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. In the case of the proposed project, this includes the creation of staging areas, temporary traffic revisions, and mitigation plantings. None of these activities is expected to have any deleterious effects on Gypsy Creek, as they as they do not involve in-water work or contribute to instream sedimentation. Interdependent actions are defined as those that arise from actions that have no independent utility apart from the proposed action. No such actions will occur as part of the proposed project. 4.3 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Under the No Build Alternative, existing flooding related to the existing undersized culvert would continue. Fish passage would continue to be impeded by the capacity and flow rate through the existing culvert. October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) 4-ll Biological Evaluation City ,!{Renlon Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley Lane. Gypsy Creek Con~·eyance Improvements City uf Re11ton 5. CITY OF RENTON CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW 5.1 STREAM CLASSIFICATION Gypsy Creek is mapped as a Class 2 stream under the City of Renton Critical Areas stream classification system, as it does not support anadromous salmon or steelhead, but does support resident cutthroat trout. Class 2 waters are perennial or intermittent salmonid-bearing waters that historically or currently support any life history stage of salmonids, including resident trout, or is a water body (e.g., pond, lake) between one-half acre and twenty acres in SIZe. Required buffer areas for a Class 2 stream are I 00 feet as specified by RMC 4-3-050.L.5.a.i. The open-channel portion of Gypsy Creek between Ripley Lane and 1-405 has a buffer area that meets or exceeds the 100-foot standard, although the small reach immediately downstream of the BNSF right of way does not. Buffer width for a Class 2 stream may be reduced to 75 feet pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.5.c. if it meets the criteria in either subsection (I) and (3) through (5) or subsection (2) through (5): (I) The buffer area land is extensively vegetated with native species, including trees and shrubs, and has less than 5 percent non-native invasive species cover, and has less than 15 percent slopes; or (2) The buffer can be enhanced with native vegetation and removal of non-native species per criteria in subsection L5c(iv)(c) of this Section, and has less than 15 percent slopes; and (3) The width reduction will not reduce stream or lake functions, including those of anadromous fish or nonfish habitat; and ( 4) The width reduction will not degrade riparian habitat; and (5) No direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated water bodies, as determined by the City, will result from a regulated activity. The City's determination shall be based on specific site studies by recognized experts, pursuant to subsection F3 of this section and RMC 4-8-120; or (b) The proposal includes daylighting of a stream, or removal of legally installed, as determined by the Administrator, salmonid passage barriers; and (c) The project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation and substantiates that the enhanced area will be equal to or improve the functional attributes of the buffer; or in the case of existing developed sites where a natural buffer is not possible, the proposal includes on-or off-site riparian/lakeshore or aquatic enhancement proportionate to its project specific or cumulative impact on shoreline ecological functions; and ( d) The proposal will result in, at minimum, no net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function; and (e) The proposal does not result in increased flood hazard risk; and (f) The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. October2007 I 558-1779-029(01/05) 5-1 Biulogicai Evaluation City <?{Renton Critical Arem· Revie11· City of Renton Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance lmprowmenl1 City uf Renton Piped or culverted streams do not require buffers per RMC 4-3-050.L.5.a.ii. 5.2 PROJECT COMPLIANCE 5.2.1 Allowed Use 5-2 Streams may be relocated through administrative approval pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.8.e (1) A public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies; or (2) Expansion of public road or other public facility improvements where no feasible alternative exists; or (3) A public or private proposal restoring a water body and resulting in a net benefit to on-or off-site habitat and species. This project meets criteria (1) above as a flood hazard reduction project. The project also may be approved pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.C.5.d.iii. as an exempt activity permitted within critical areas and associated buffers. iii. Flood Hazard Reduction: Implementation of public flood hazard reduction and public surface water projects, where habitat enhancement and restoration at a 1:1 ratio are provided, and appropriate Federal and/or State authorization has been received. The following criteria in RMC 4-3-050.C.4.d. apply to approval of a letter of exemption for exempt activities: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or State or Federal law or regulation; ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; 111. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored, unless the exemption is a wetland below the size thresholds pursuant to subsection C5f(i) of this Section; 1v. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required. In addition, the following conditions generally apply to any stream relocation proposals under the provisions ofRMC 4-3-050.L.8 .. e(i)(b): (I) Buffer widths shall be based upon the new stream location; The code allows buffer widths to be reduced or averaged if meeting criteria of applicable code sections. Where minimum required buffer widths are not feasible for stream relocation proposals such as this, other equivalent on-or off-site compensation to achieve no-net-loss ofriparian function may be provided; (3) Applicable mitigation criteria of subsection RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c(ii) [addressing approval mitigation plans] must be met. This is addressed below. ( 4) Proper notifications and records must be made of stream relocations, October 2007 I 558-1779-029(01/05) RMC 4-3-050.L.8.e Biological f:.'i,aluatio11 City o(Rf'n/on Critical Areas Review Ciry o(Rentun Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Conveyance /mprovemenL1· City of Renton (I) A public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies; or (2) Expansion of public road or other public facility improvements where no feasible alternative exists; or (3) A public or private proposal restoring a water body and resulting in a net benefit to on-or off-site habitat and species. This project meets criteria for an exemption in RMC 4-3-050.C.S.d.iii. and meets the criteria in RMC 4-3-050.L.8.c (1) as a flood hazard reduction project. 5.2.2 Mitigation Requirements 5.2.2.1 Mitigation Criteria The criteria for approval of a mitigation plan in RMC 4-3-050.L.3.c(ii) include the following: (a) Mitigation Location: Mitigation location shall follow the preferences in subsections L3c(ii)(a)(I) to (4) of this Section. Basins and subbasins are indicated in subsection Q of this Section, Maps: (I) On-Site Mitigation: On-site mitigation is required unless the Reviewing Official finds that on-site mitigation is not feasible or desirable; (2) Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Subbasin as Subject Site: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage subbasin a~ the subject site and if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation on the subject site; (3) Off-Site Mitigation within Same Drainage Basin within City Limits: Off-site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin within the City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions within the City over mitigation within the same drainage subbasin as the project; (4) Off-Site Mitigation within the Same Drainage Basin Outside the City Limits: Off- site mitigation may be allowed when located within the same drainage basin outside the City limits if it achieves equal or improved ecological functions over mitigation within the same drainage basin within the City limits and it meets City goals. (b) Mitigation Type: Types of mitigation shall follow the preferences in subsections L3c(ii)(b)(l) to (4) of this Section: (I) Daylighting (returning to open channel) of streams or removal of manmade salmonid migration barriers; (2) Removal of impervious surfaces in buffer areas and improved biological function of the buffer; (3) In-stream or in-lake mitigation as part of an approved watershed basin restoration project; (4) Other mitigation suitable for site and water body conditions that meet all other provisions for a mitigation plan. October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) 5.3 54 lliological fa,aluation City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley lane, G}p~y Creek Cvnwyance lmprol'emmts City of Renton In all cases, mitigation shall provide for equivalent or greater biological functions per subsection L3c(ii)( e) of this Section. (c) Contiguous Corridors: Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed; and (d) Non-Indigenous Species: Wildlife or fish species not indigenous to the region shall not be introduced into a riparian mitigation area unless authorized by a State or Federal permit or approval. Plantings shall be consistent with subsection L6c of this Section; and (e) Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions: The Administrator shall utilize the report "City of Renton Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations" by AC Kindig & Company and Cedarock Consultants, dated February 27, 2003, unless superseded with a City-adopted study, to determine the existing or potential ecological function of the stream or lake or riparian habitat that is being affected Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration. Mitigation to compensate alterations to stream/lake areas and associated buffers shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. No net loss of riparian habitat or water body function shall be demonstrated; and (t) Minimum Mitigation Plan Performance Standards: See Subsection F8 of this Section. [Reproduced below J F.8. Mitigation Plan Required: a. Criteria: For any mitigation plans required through the application of subsections H to M of this Section, the applicant shall: i. Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, the supervisory capability, and the financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; and ii. Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during the monitoring period if the mitigation project fails to meet projected goals; and iii. Protect and manage, or provide for the protection and management, of the mitigation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term persistence of the mitigation area; and iv. Provide for project monitoring and allow City inspections; and v. Avoid mitigation proposals that would result in additional future mitigation or regulatory requirements for adjacent properties, unless it is a result of a code requirement, or no other option is feasible or practical; and vi. For on-site or off-site mitigation proposals, abutting or adjacent property owners shall be notified when wetland creation or restoration, stream relocation, critical area buffer increases, flood hazard mitigation, habitat conservation mitigation, or geologic hazard mitigation have the potential to considerably decrease the development potential of abutting or adjacent properties. For example, if a created wetland on a property would now result in a wetland buffer intruding onto a neighboring property, the neighboring property owner would be notified. October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) Biological Evaluation City of Renton Critical Areas Re1 1iev,; City o.{Renton Ripley /..am!, Gyp.1y Cr,,('k Conveyance Improvements City of Renton b. Timing of Mitigation Plan -Final Submittal and Commencement: When a mitigation plan is required, the proponent shall submit a final mitigation plan for the approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of building or construction permits for development. The proponent shall receive written approval of the mitigation plan prior to commencement of any mitigation activity. (Ord. 513 7, 4- 25-2005) (g) Additional Conditions of Approval: The Administrator shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or abutting a stream/lake or its buffers, as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (I) Preservation of critically important vegetation amllor habitat features such as snags and downed wood; (2) Limitation of access to the habitat area, including fencing to deter unauthorized access; (3) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and (4) Establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities. (h) Based on Best Available Science: The applicant shall demonstrate that the mitigation is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in RMC 4-9-250F are followed. 5.2.2.2 Compliance with Mitigation Criteria (a) The project meets criterion (a) Mitigation Location: through compliance with criteria (1) On-Site Mitigation: Mitigation is proposed on the site through creation of a new stream channel that ( 1) Is similar in configuration and function to the existing channel; (2) Provides similar length and gradient as the existing channel with equal or greater long term ecological productivity when riparian vegetation matures; (3) Retains the existing channel to the existing 24-inch culvert as off-channel habitat, increasing the overall aquatic habitat within the area. Future plans by WSDOT to widen 1-405 will substantially alter this area in the future when that project is implemented. A mitigation plan for that future action will be submitted separately by WSDOT at the time of project implementation. (b) The proposal meets criterion (b) Mitigation Type through compliance with criteria through criteria (4) Other mitigation suitable for site and water body conditions that meet all other provisions for a mitigation plan. Mitigation outlined in (a) above meets this criterion by providing for equivalent or greater biological functions. (c) The proposal meets criterion (c) Contiguous Corridors through preserving the same contiguous riparian or wildlife corridors as existed prior to the project. The character of open space and vegetation within the area between Ripley Creek and 1-405 will remain with the stream relocated. Octobe, 2007 I 558-(779-029 (01105) 5-5 Bio!oxical Evaluation Ciry rf Ren/on Critical Areas Rerin1· Cily of Renton Riplev Lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improwments City l)fRenton Future plans by WSDOT to widen 1-405 will substantially alter this area in the future when that project is implemented. A mitigation plan for that future action will be submitted separately by WSDOT at the time of project implementation. (d) The proposal meets criterion (d) Non-Indigenous Species by not introducing wildlife or fish species that are not indigenous to the region. (e) The proposal meets criterion (e) Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions by maintaining and increasing the features of the stream that provide ecological functions as outlined in (a) above. (I) The proposal meets criterion (I) Minimnm Mitigation Plan Performance Standards through compliance with Subsection F.8 criteria, including: 1. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division has sufficient scientific expertise through qualified consultants, the supervisory capability, and the financial resources to carry out the mitigation project; as evidenced by past successful projects. n. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division has the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during the monitoring period as will be included in a specific mitigation monitoring program. iii. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division will provide for the protection and management, of the mitigation area through agreement with WSDOT. Future plans by WSDOT to widen 1-405 will substantially alter this area in the future when that project is implemented. A mitigation plan for that future action will be submitted separately by WSDOT at the time of project implementation. 1v. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division will provide for project monitoring and allow inspections through the mitigation monitoring and reporting program incorporated into construction plans. v. The Renton Surface Water Utility Division does not have a feasible option to avoid a mitigation proposals that will result in a different future mitigation or regulatory requirements by WSDOT as a result of future widening. It is also desirable to preserve current ecological functions in the area over the time period of several years between the implementation of this program and future WSDOT widening of 1-405. v1. The proposed on-site mitigation proposals will not increase, flood hazard mitigation, habitat conservation mitigation, or geologic hazard mitigation for adjacent land owners, therefore notification under this provision is not in effect. vii. In accordance with criterion (b) a final mitigation plan will be submitted for the approval of the Administrator prior to the issuance of construction bids for the proposal. (g) The proposal meets criterion (g) Additional Conditions of Approval through: (!) The proposed stream relocation will preserve critically important vegetation in the majority of the riparian buffer and other habitat features such as snags and downed wood; (2) The proposed stream relocation will not limit access to the habitat area beyond that which is currently in place as part of the WSDOT fencing of the 1-405 right of way. 5-6 October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) Bwlugirnl Evaluation City o/Ren1011 Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley l.1.me, GJp~y Creek Co11veyance Improvements City of Renton (3) The proposed stream relocation will perform all work except the final connection to the stream outside the existing stream OHWM. The stream connection will take place during the in-water construction window established in the HPA by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (4) The proposed stream relocation plans will include establishment of a duration and timetable for periodic review of mitigation activities. (h) The proposal meets criterion (h) Based on Best Available Science through this report that provides for consideration of best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905. October 2007 I 558-1779--029 (01/0S) 5.7 Biological En1lual1on City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley lane, G,tpsy Creek Conveyance lmµrovement~- City of Rentoo 6. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE EFFECTS TO AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES This project will not result in substantial adverse effects to fish and aquatic resources because the project, by design, avoids and minimizes effects on the fish and aquatic resources identified within the project area. Incorporating best management practice (BMPs) and conservation measures into a proposed action is done to avoid, minimize, rectify, or compensate for impacts to species and critical habitat. The following conservation measures will be incorporated during and after construction: • Construction of the new culverts will take place approximately 160 feet south from the existing Gypsy Creek culvert. A detailed TESC Plan will be implemented that will include the following: Construction disturbance will be limited to the minimum area needed, the shortest duration, and at an appropriate distance away from water bodies and aquatic habitat as practical. , Clearing limits will be delineated with fencing or flagging prior to any ground disturbing activities and maintained throughout construction. , Erosion control devices including silt fencing, silt dams or screens, and run-off catchments will be installed prior to vegetation removal or grading. , Areas with exposed soils will be mulched or otherwise covered on a daily basis during the rainy season, at least weekly during the dry season, and at the close of activity on any portion of the site. ;.. Erosion control devices will be inspected daily during the rainy season, weekly during the dry season, and monthly on inactive sites. If inspection shows that the erosion controls are ineffective, work crews will be mobilized immediately, during working and off-hours, to make repairs, install replacements, or install additional controls as necessary. ,.. Sediment will be removed from sediment controls once it has reached 113 of the exposed height of the control. Whenever straw bales are used, they will be staked and dug into the ground 5 inches. Catch basins will be maintained so that no more than 6 inches of sediment depth accumulates within traps or sumps. • Construction of the new channel between Gypsy Creek and the new culvert inlet will take place entirely outside of the existing stream channel, except the final connection stage. Erosion of disturbed areas will be controlled using silt dams or catchments between the site and Gypsy Creek, use of mulch and hydroseeding, and planting disturbed areas as soon as possible to establish cover vegetation. Disturbed areas will be re-landscaped with native vegetation. • The connection of the new channel to existing Gypsy Creek will occur within the approved in-water work window. Potential impacts on Gypsy Creek water quality will be minimized by the following construction sequence: , Construction of the new channel and revegetation will be complete except for the final 2 to 4 feet adjacent to Gypsy Creek. Vegetation within the new channel area will be allowed to establish to the maximum extent feasible prior to connecting the new channel. October 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01105) 6-1 Biological Evaluation City of Renton Critical Areas Review City of Renton Ripley lane. Gypsy Creek Conveyance Improvements City of Renton ;.-Work will occur primarily during the day and any essential night work will be conducted with minimal light and noise near Gypsy Creek. ;.-Silt curtains will be installed within the water area of Gypsy Creek around the area where the new channel is to be cOJmected. ; A sandbag dam will be built inside the silt curtains to completely isolate the wet areas of Gypsy Creek from the work area. All fish will be removed from the area isolated by sandbags and the area will be dewatered by pumping. , Removal of the final 2 to 4 feet of material will be from equipment located above and outside of the existing and new channel; , Erosion control measures and vegetation will be installed as soon as the soil removal is complete. ;.-The sandbag dam will be removed by hand to allow water to gradually fill the new channel. ;.-The existing channel will be retained as "off-channel" habitat. • The existing 24 inch culvert inlet at Ripley Lane will be plugged with minimal in- stream work with the following sequence: , Silt curtains will be installed within the water area of Gypsy Creek around the area where the new channel is to be connected. ,. A sandbag dam will be built inside the silt curtains to completely isolate Gypsy Creek from the work area. All fish will be removed from the culvert and the work area will be dewatered by flow through he culvert and by pumping if needed. , The existing culvert will be plugged with concrete at the east end. The westerly portion of the culvert will continue to prove drainage for the west side of Ripley Lane and the BNSF right of way. • Spill control and emergency response plans will be implemented for fueling and concrete activity areas. ,. BMPs and restoration work will be monitored during and after project construction. All vehicles operated within I 50 feet of any stream or water body will be inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area. Any leaks detected will be repaired before the vehicle resumes operation. When not in use, all vehicles where it is practicable will be stored in the vehicle staging area. Other vehicles, such as cranes, that may be stored in place, will be inspected daily for fluid leaks. ; Refueling activities will be conducted within a designated refueling area at least 200 feet away from any stream or designated wetland areas. Additionally, drip pans will be fitted with absorbent pads and placed under all equipment being fueled. ;.-Work will be conducted in a manner to prevent loss of chemicals into receiving waters. Equipment that is used for work near the water work will be cleaned prior to operations. External oil and grease will be removed, along with dirt and mud. No untreated wash and rinse water will be discharged into streams or rivers without adequate treatment. 6-2 Octobe, 2007 I 558-1779-029 (01/05) 7. REFERENCES Biological Evaluation City o/R('l1fon Critical Ar('US R('view City of R('n/on Ripley Lane, Gypsy Creek Convl'J.'a/lCt' Improvements City of Renton Cedarock Consultants 2006, Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility, Stream and Lake Study, Stream mitigation plan, prepared for football Northwest, LLC by Cedarock Consultants, Woodinville, WA September 20, 2006 Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. 1992. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2004. Draft 2004 Washington State water quality assessment-303(d) list of threatened and impaired water bodies. http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wqawa/viewer.htm. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Fisher, L. (Fisheries Biologist, Washington Department offish and Wildlife). 2007. Personal communication with Robert Sullivan, July XX. 2007 August XX, 2007 Gersib, R.A., S. Grigsby, L. Wildrick, C. Freeland, K. Bauersfeld, S. Butkus, R. Coots, J. Franklin. 1999. Process-based River Basin Characterization: A Case Study, Snohomish Basin, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. First Draft (June 1999). National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2007) Biological Opinion (Opinion) issued by the pursuant to Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation, January 3, 2007 Renton, City of (Renton). 1997. Gypsy Subbasin Drain Improvements Design Memorandum. Prepared for the City of Renton by Entranco. Bellevue, Washington. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Washington State Agricultural Experiment Station. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. USDOT (United States Department of Transportation). 2002. 1-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects Record of Decision. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/l-405/resource/l-405%20ROD%20Final.pdt> '(accessed July 20, 2007). USGS (United States Geological Survey). 1973. Renton, Washington quadrangle topographic map. Scale I :24000. WAC (Washington Administrative Code) l 73-20IA-130. Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards. WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 220-110. Washington State Hydraulic Code Rules. WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries). 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Volume I, Puget Sound Region. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2007a. Priority Habitats and Species Program data and maps. Provided for the 1-405 Corridor Program, July XX, 2007 WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2007b. SalmonScape. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/> (accessed July 20, 2007). Biulogical /.:,"valuation City uf Renton Critical Areas Rellie1i· City of Renton Ripley Lane. (jypsy Cn,d,. Conveyance lmprovem,-nts CityofRenton WRIA (Water Resource Inventory Area) 8 Steering Committee. 2002. Near-Term Action Agenda for Salmon Habitat Conservation. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2002) 1-405 Corridor Program NEPNSEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation (WSDOT, 2002) and 1-405 Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Projects Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOTJ, 2002) Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2006a) 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to 1-90 405/ Corridor Program, Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, Environmental Assessment, Appendix X: Fish and Aquatic Resources Discipline Report, February 13, 2006 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2006b) 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to 1-90 405/ Corridor Program, Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, Environmental Assessment, Appendix V. Wetlands Discipline Report February 13,2006 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT 2006c) 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to 1-90 405/ Corridor Program, Congestion Relief & Bus Rapid Transit Projects, Environmental Assessment, Appendix W. Wildlife and Vegetation Discipline Report, February 13, 2006 Parametrix ENGINEERING • PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Date: To: From: Subject: cc: 4ll 108TI-I AVENUE NE, SUITE 1800 BELLEVUE, W'A 98004-5571 T. 425.458.6200 F. 425.458.6363 'MW\\'.paramctrix.c.:um TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM June 15, 2007 Steve Lee; City of Renton Ron Straka; City of Renton Jenna Friebel; Parametrix Julie Brandl, P.E.; Parametrix Hydrologic Analysis for Ripley Lane David Sherrard Project File Project Number: 558-1779-029 (01/04) Project Name: Ripley Lane Drainage Improvement Project OVERVIEW The purpose of this analysis is to predict the future 100-year flow at the Ripley Lane culvert to support design of a new drainage system in this area that will reduce flooding of the road and adjacent areas. The project is located within the Gypsy Creek Sub-basin, which is a small tributary of Lake Washington. Specifically, the project is located just upstream of the mouth of the stream, between the new Seahawks training facility and 1-405 (Figures I and 2). Two hydrologic models have already been prepared for portions the Gypsy Creek Basin. One was prepared by Entrance as part of the Gypsy Creek Drainage Improvement study conducted for the City of Renton. The other model was prepared by WSDOT to support design of the planned 1-405 improvements. This analysis builds from the information collected in these two models and fills in data gaps as needed to create a single StormSHED model of the entire sub-basin for future conditions. The results of the StonnSHED model will be used to design the conveyance system for the proposed Ripley Lane Drainage Improvement Project. HYDROLOGIC MODEL HISTORY Two hydrologic models have previously been developed to predict flows for the Gypsy Creek Basin. Entrance prepared a hydrologic model in 1997 (Entrance 1997). In 2006, WSDOT prepared a StormSHED model of the upper basin and an MGSFlood model of the future expanded 1-405 (Black 2006). As discussed in the following sections, the input values and predicted flow rates differ slightly between each model. The following sections summarize each model and identify data gaps. Historic Basin Areas Based on the documentation provided by the City of Renton, it appears that the Entranco Model and the WSDOT Model are based on slightly different Gypsy Creek Basin delineations (Table I). TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) Sub-basin Area (acres) Upper Basin Future t-405 Ripley Lane/BNSF RR Sub-Total Table 1. Comparison of Modeled Basin Areas Entrance Model 320.6' Not included Not included 320.6 a lncllldes 18.9 acres of the existing 1-405 (pre-phase 1 project) and Ripley lane Sub-basin b Does not include 1-405 WSDOTModel 319.4' 83.6 Not included 403.0 As compared to the WSDOT model, the Entranco model has a slightly smaller upper basin. In addition, the Entranco upper basin includes approximately 19 acres of the existing 1-405 and Ripley Lane Sub- basins, making it seem more comparable in size to the WSDOT upper basin than it actually is. Based upon the more recent aerial contours used in the WSDOT analysis, the City of Renton and Parametrix determined that upstream areas were not included in the delineated Entranco boundary area that should be included under current conditions. This was verified by more accurate topographical information provided from the City's 2002 aerial survey with melded topography from the King County 2005 aerial survey. The older Entranco report used topographical information from a pre-1990 aerial survey along with USGS topographical mapping available at the time (Lee 2007). In addition, since the WSDOT upper basin does not include 1-405 drainage, it is potentially a more accurate isolated representation of the contributing basin. The WSDOT model clearly identifies l-405 as a unique basin and accounts for the future highway improvements. Based on this review of the sub-basin boundaries, the larger area encompassed by the WSDOT basin boundaries for the upper basin appears to be more accurate. Historic Predicted Flows In addition to the differences in basin areas, the flows predicted by each model are also slightly different (Table 2). Table 2. Comparison of Predicted Flow Rates Model Enlranco (Future Land Use) WSDOTTotal WSDOT upper basin (StormSHED) WSDOT Future 1-405 (MGSFlood) 25-year 137.5 159.5 120.5 39.0 Predicted Flows (els) 100-year 161.9 196.6 145.9 50.7 The differences in predicted flows can be accounted for by the following differences in the models • Modeling methodology -a portion of the WSDOT model uses MGSFlood. • Differences in basin areas --the Entranco model includes a portion of 1-405 in the upper basin, while the WSDOT model does not. • Assumed differences in land use assumptions -exact land use data from both models is unknown. City of Renton Hydrologic Analysis for Ripley Lane 2 558-1779-029 (0//04) June I 5, ]{)(Jl RIPLEY LANE SUB-BASIN SEAHAWKS TRAINING FACILITY ~"' ~ --. __ ) "" '"" ------------------..._) __ ) -. ...____.._______ _______________ ---_ -~ ~'" '"'''"' -----~ -~ -( -~~-fl) -~~ '--'--, ~-~---------~-r ..,,,., r' 1-_-;:? ~=----~ L, ~---) , ' ,J\ -lf;"\~~-, \,_,05 'UTURE ,-_; '---~ ( ! -: \_,-,os EXISTING / DA 758 / / EXISTING 24-INCH PIPE r l l ', DA 7.57 \ ~r L___ --J' \ DA 759 \ ! I "' < ~- \ L\ \ . ...,--.. /', \ _/~ \ _ __/ V ~ " ,f = 1-405 FUTURE 1-405 EX1Sl1NG Pmmot,1, ~" ,.,, --"' "'""'-'""~ Flgu,e 1 \'----.. Ripley Lane Hydrnloglc Analysis _!QOO ZJ,.,-"" Modeled Sub-basins SCALE IN FEET ----Fl_ __ RIPLEY LANE SUB-BASIN -----~ __ .._...-./,---------_ r::~---= ~-/ )! // / Parametrtx o,,. ,., " ""'' zv7 250 0 --•• r "'-"'-" IN FEET ,,,,_.._,,..,,,,.,..,..,,n,.,...,. RIPLEY LANE SEAHAWKS TRAINING FACILITY fi /! ,/ /I EXISTING PIPE --------I/ 24-INCH ---_;/ ;/ GYPSY CREEK~ // i/ ),, ~- _____,----\\ -~ \\ CULVERT~\ ----- \\ r-- _,---------~\ I (/ '\\ /j \,-,) / / RAILROAD --·;//- ----/~) _ _. / ------. / // // / -~ -------------- \/ \ r---__ / --~ ~/"" --~-----------_.., Figure 2 Ripley Lane Hydrologlc Analysis Ripley Lane Sub-basin TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) Data Gaps The documentation provided by the City of Renton for the historic models has several key data gaps that will be resolved within this hydrologic analysis. • Neither the Entranco Model nor the WSDOT model has documentation of future land use assumptions or the methods used to estimate future land use and impervious surface cover. • The Entranco model does not have a unique sub-basin delineation for the existing 1-405 area separate from the Ripley Lane and BNSF railroad sub-basin area. • The WSDOT model does not account for runoff from the area west of I-405, including the BNSF railroad and Ripley Lane. MODELING APPROACH Based on our review of the historic modeling data, Parametrix employed the following approach for hydrologic modeling of the Ripley Lane Drainage Improvement Project. I) The WSDOT sub-basin delineations have been used for both the upper contributing basin and the 1-405 existing and future expansion sub-basins. 2) The WSDOT MGSFlood model of the 1-405 sub-basin has been converted to StormSHED and this sub-basin has been included in the overall Gypsy Creek Basin model. 3) A StormSHED model has been created for the future 1-405 expansion including the pervious portions of the right-of-way and 2.2 acres of impervious surface added to the 1-405 Improvement project and not accounted for in the 2006 WSDOT model. 4) A new sub-basin has been added for the Ripley Lane area. 5) The future land use analysis has been updated based on GJS data, observations made during a site visit, and future zoning data obtained for the Cities of Renton (Renton 2007) and Newcastle (King County 2005). This approach is intended to fill in the data gaps and provide a unified model of the entire Gypsy Creek Basin. Sub-Basin Delineation The sub-basins used for this analysis were a combination of the sub-basins provided by WSDOT for the upper watershed, a sub-basin provided by Entranco for the existing I-405, a sub-basin provided by WSDOT for the proposed conditions of 1-405, and a new sub-basin identified by Paramelrix for the Ripley Lane area (Table 3; Figures I and 2). As shown in Table 3, the area of I-405 that drains to Gypsy Creek differs between existing and future conditions. This difference is due to the fact that the proposed 1-405 improvements will divert runoff from the May Creek basin into the Gypsy Creek Basin (Black 2007). The Entranco Report estimated the existing 1-405 Sub-basin (identified in the Entranco Report as Basin G) to be approximately 18.9 acres. However, the sub-basin delineation shown in this report included portions of Ripley Lane and the railroad. These areas were moved into the Ripley Lane Sub-basin (2.63 acres) and removed from Basin G. The remainder (16.3 acres) was assumed to be the amount ofl-405 that drained to Gypsy Creek prior to construction of Phase I of the 1-405 Improvement Project in 1996. The 16.3 acres of 1-405 is considered the existing condition for this analysis. After Phase 2 of the 1-405 Improvement project is constructed, a total of 86.62 acres of highway will drain to Gypsy Creek; which is shown as the future condition for this analysis. City of Renton Hydrologic Analysis for Ripley Lane 7 558-/779-029 (01/04) June I 5. 2007 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) Table 3. Summary of Sub-basin Areas Sub-Basin Name DA757 DA758 DA759 1-405 Ripley Lane Total Existing Conditions 181.45 93.65 44.33 16.3' 2.63 338.4 Area (acres) a. From sub-basin Gin the Entranco Report{18.9 acres) minus the new Ripley Lane Sub-Basin {2.63 acres) b. Includes 85.72 acres of impervious and 0.9 acres of pervious right-of-way (Black 2007) Land Use and Curve Numbers Existing Conditions Future Conditions 181.45 93.65 44.33 86.62' 2.63 408.68 Land use and curve numbers for existing conditions were provided by the City of Renton. To develop the land use, the City compared the existing conditions used in the Entranco model against present day conditions. The City found that the 1997 Entranco existing conditions model used a pre-1990 aerial map depicting only areas having been erected up to that time. Therefore, the curve number values developed for the Entranco model (Table 4) underestimate present-day flows. Table 4. Pre-1997 Land Use From Entranco Analysis (Entranco Basin Boundaries) Sub-basin Description DA757 DA758 DA759 Total (lmperv.) Note: Land+use estimated from 1990 aerial photographs Total 166.2 70.1 84.3 320.6 Area (acres) Impervious 15.5 4.9 33.9 54.3 Curve Number 83.5 81.7 86.1 (n/a) The City adjusted the Entranco model curve numbers to reflect present-day conditions using 2005 King County Aerial Mapping. The updated curve numbers along with the more accurate WSDOT sub-basin boundaries are shown in Table 5. The adjustments shown in Table 5 correct existing conditions for development since the time of the original Entranco basin study. As a result of the increase in development, the City determined that the effective impervious area (EIA) for the entire upstream drainage area increases from 17 percent to 27 percent. As previously discussed, the l-405 area and the Ripley Lane area were modeled as separate sub-basins from the upstream areas of DA757, DA758, and DA 759. The existing conditions for 1-405 were taken to be I 00 percent impervious (Black 2007), therefore a curve number of 98 was used for the model. The existing conditions curve number for the Ripley Lane sub-basin was estimated based on Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil data (NRCS 2007), site survey information, and a site visit conducted in May 2007. City of Renton /Jydrologic A11alysis_(or Ripley lane 8 558-1779-029 (01/04) June J 5, 2007 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) Table 5. Updated Existing Conditions Curve Numbers (WSDOT Basin Boundaries) Sub·basin Description DA757 DA758 DA759 Total Note: Land~use estimated from 2005 King County Land Use Map Future Conditions Total 181.45 93.65 44.33 319.43 Area (acres) Impervious 48.99 16.9 19.95 85.84 Curve Number 86.3 84.9 89.2 (n/a) Future land use for each sub-basin was determined using soil data obtained from NRCS (NRCS 2007), fulure zoning data for the cities of Renton (Renton 2007) and Newcastle (King County 2005); information provided by WSDOT (WSDOT 2007); and observations made during the May 2007 site visit. GIS was used to perform a land use analysis based on future zoning and soils data. Sensitive area buffers were not deducted from either the existing or the proposed land use assumptions. Curve numbers were assigned to each land use category based on the underlying soils and a weighted curve number was calculated for each sub-basin (Table 6). Land use data that was used in the analysis is presented in Attachment A. Sub-Basin Name DA757 DA758 DA759 1-405 Ripley Lane Table 6. Summary of Sub-basin Curve Numbers Weighted Curve Number Existing Conditions 86.3 84.9 89.2 98 88.7 Future Conditions 86.5 87.8 90.5 97.7 88.7 As shown in Table 6, the curve number values only increase slightly between existing and future land use conditions in the upper watershed. This was verified during a field visit to the watershed conducted in May 2007, when Parametrix staff observed that the basin has generally been developed to the maximum allowed zoning density. This was also verified by the City's review of 2005 aerial photographs of the upper basin. The Ripley Lane sub-basin (which only consists of the road, portions of the railroad, and land between the railroad and Ripley Lane) was assumed not to change under future conditions. Time of Concentration Time of concentration calculations were taken from the WSDOT StormSHED model for the upper basin (Sub-basins DA757, DA758, and DA759). Times of concentration for the 1-405 sub-basin for existing and future conditions were estimated from the Entranco Report and drawings provided by WSDOT (WSDOT 2007). The time of concentration for the Ripley Lane sub-basin was estimated based on site survey information and a site visit conducted in May 2007. City of Renton Hydrologic Analysis for Ripley Lane 9 558-1779-029 /01104) June 15. 2007 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) Rainfall Rainfall for the I 00-year event was estimated using an isopluvial map for the Puget Sound area (Ecology 2005). Based on this map the rainfall associated with the 100-year 24-hour return frequency storm event is 4.0 inches. Hydrologic Modeling Results The computer program StormSHED (Engenious 2002) was used to model runoff from the Gypsy Creek basin under existing and future land use conditions. Model output files are presented in Attachment B. Table 7 summarizes the estimated flows for the 100-year return frequency storm event for each sub-basin and for the total flow discharging from the downstream end of the culvert under the BNSF railroad. Table 7. Summary of Gypsy Creek Sub-basin Flow Rates. 100-year Event Flow Rate (cfs) Share of Total Sub-Basin Name Existing Conditions Future Conditions Difference Flow Increase a DA757 65.7 66.3 0.68 1% DA758 41.8 47.6 5.72 11% DA759 24.9 26.2 1.39 3% 1-405 14.5 57.1 42.54 85% Ripley Lane 1.7 1.7 0.00 0% Sum of Flows 148.6 198.9 50.32 100% Creekflowb 145.4 198.2 52.83 a. The share of total flow increase represents how much increased development within each individual sub-basin and/or expanded sub--basin boundaries (i.e. 1-405) contribute lo the predicted increase in the mathematical iotal of flow rates from each tributary sub-basin. b. The creek flow rate represents the modeled flow rate of the combined hydrographs discharging lo Gypsy Creek at the BNSF railroad culvert, accounting for the lag in hydrograph time of concentration from each individual sub-basin. Therefore, the resulting flow rate al this point in the creek is slightly different from the mathematical total of flow rates from each tributary sub-basin (see Attachment B for detailed hydrograph summations in the model output). As shown in Table 7, the changes in land use in the upper basin (Sub-basins DA757, DA758, and DA759) between existing and future conditions has been estimated to contribute approximately 15 percent of the overall increase in flow for the study area. However, the 1-405 improvement projects that increase the drainage area of Gypsy Creek by 70.32 acres appear to have the greatest influence on the predicted future conditions flow. The highway improvements are estimated to increase the flow by approximately 42.54 cubic feet per second during the 100-year storm event, contributing approximately 85 percent of the total flow increase for the study area from existing to future conditions. Ciry of Renton Hydrologic Analysis for Ripley lane JO 5 5H-I 779-029 (OJ 104) June 15. 2007 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM (CONTINUED) REFERENCES Black, A. 2006. E-mail from Alan Black, P.E., HNTB, to Allen Quynn, City of Renton. Fwd:Re: RTB Project-Gypsy Creek flows. October 20, 2006. HNTB, Bellevue, Washington. Black, A. 2007. E-mail from Alan Black, P.E., HNTB, to Steve Lee, City of Renton. Re: Existing and proposed WSDOT ROW areas. May 2, 2007. HNTB, Bellevue, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2005. Stonnwater Management Manual for Puget Sound Vol. [II Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control Design BMPs. Publication No. 05-I0-31. February 2005. Engenious. 2002. StonnSHED software version 6.1.6.8. Engenious Systems, Inc. Seattle, Washington. Entranco. 1997. Gypsy Subbasin Drain Improvements Design Memorandum. Prepared for the City of Renton by Entranco. Bellevue, Washington. King County. 2005. City of Newcastle Zoning Map. Amended July 5, 2005. King County GIS Division, City of Newcastle, Triathalon Mapping, 2004. Provided to Parametrix by the City of Newcastle. Lee, S. 2007. E-mail from Steve Lee, City of Renton, to Jenna Friebel, Parametrix. Conditions Landuse Analysis. May 18, 2007. Renton, Washington. NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2007. Soil Data Mart. Survey Data, WA633 King County Area. Accessed on the http :I lsoildatarnart.nrcs. usda.gov/Down load.aspx ?Survey= W A633& U seState-W A. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Re: 2007 Existing Washington Soil internet at United States Renton, City of. 2007. City of Renton Zoning Map. Adopted April 3, 2006; updated through Ordinance 5243; effective January 14, 2007. Accessed on the internet at http:llrentonwa.govluploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/2006%20zoning%20adopted%203-3- 06.pdf. City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department. Renton, Washington. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2007. Data file entitled "gypsy_ck_drainage_areas_022007.dxf." Created February 21, 2007. Provided to Parametrix by the City of Renton. City of Renton Hydrologic Analysis/or Ripley Lane II 558-/779-029 (0//04) June I 5. 2007 ATTACHMENT A Land Use Analysis RIPLEY LANE NORTH (GYPSY CREEK FLOODING) PROJECT Excel Tabl& Created by Steve Lee@ City of Renton -e-mailed to Parametrlx S-4-2007 Updated by F'arametrlx 6-5-2007 p&r Instructions from Steve Lee. The following analysis was computed comparing the increase in developed areas between the Pre1997 Entrance landuse from their used aerial map to the 2005 KC aerial landuse map. The impervious area was totaled from the percentage of existing developed area in each subbasin to extract impervious area totals for each sub-basin. From the effective impervious areas calculated, the composite CN values for each upstream offsite area was then calculated. WSDOT Basin Boundaries.._ Existing Conditions Area (ac) I CN IYR2007)1 EIA ( % Dev. In I Imp. Area I Perv. Area Subbasln (ac) (.ac) Notes: Offsite DA 757 (A, B, & someC) 181.45 86.3 27 60% 49.0 132.5 Entranco Sub-Basin A& B a•e pnmal)' aru, corrupond,ni; to OA757. 88'1> Platted/Deyeloped. (Ma)or~y R4.) DA 758 (D) 93.65 84.9 18 40% 16.9 76.8 Entral\<:o Sub-Bas•n O vs Iha primary aru 1hat correspc,nds to DA758. 40% PlatledlD811eloped. (Mej<mty R,q DA 759 <E & Fl 44.33 89.2 45 75% 19.9 24.4 Entranco Sub-Bu,n E&F art primary a,eas c11rrasponding to OA759. 750/o PletlediOev. (Commercial.) Offsite Sub-Totals= 319.43 86.3 27 85.8 233.6 WSDOT ROW" 16.3 98.0 100 100 16.3 Entranco Sub-Se!lin G, minus the area of the Ripley Lane Su!).E!n,n. Total= 335.73 86.9 102, 1 233.6 ~ • A~as upde!ed by PMX 5-5-2007 pe, iM1ru~on from S. lee Also. per Alan Black email 10-17-2006. WSDDT has 11nlY boa en focused on change in PGIS and has not quantine<J the pen,ious area contributing to Gypsy Creek. '' Calculahons done by Entral'co not including luff WSOOT Phar.e 1 wor~ in<:luded in area calcula~ons. {Delineated a~a~ by Entranco d;d not 1nelu<le 1nfitlratlon areas upstraam atop the h1h-ide.) ••· Ex·is~ng WSOOT Upatream Basin Areas and 2005 KC Aerie/ used ,n deterrmning eris6r,g CN and EIA values. (O,ffetl lrom pre-1997 Aarial used by Entranco) ... , CN a S2 for gras~~st mi• (pervlous), CN • 9! for Impervious surfaeQs 070420·0· TABLE.xis BY: STEVEN LEE (MAY 2. 2007) Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis Ripley Lane Subbasin 119:~Pil'f ~wr:r,~"'f.~\i~l~r·~~ii,,: y~~l~~.':!'i":~~~~;f~;f~%~1j:1 .ffi·g~~e··~~· ,~~:~~::~~b~··· Existing Conditions Cover type Railroad(gravel) Pervious area(mixture of grass, weeds and low growing shrub Gravel area between Railroad and Ripley Lane Rielet Lane Total Area Weighted CN City of Renton Ripley Lane Width Length ft ft 5 1310 52 1310 15 1310 23 875 1 of 1 .~~~~2~¥li!~Ji:~~lllilili+l~; Area Area CN A·CN s ac 6,550 0. 15 91 13.68343 68,120 1.56 85 132.9247 19.650 0.45 91 41.05028 20,125 0.46 98 45.27663 114,445 2.63 88.66 558-1779-029 (01/04) June 2007 From: To: Date: Subject: Jenna Friebel Julie Brandt 5/3/079:11:14AM Fwd: RE: Existing and proposed WSDOT ROW areas here is alan's e-mail -Jenna >» "Alan Black" <ABlack@HNTB.com> 05/02 2:27 PM>» Steve, Our expectation was that the model already included the 4.5 to 5 acres of existing pervious area in the WSDOT right-of-way, so our correspondence was about the impervious pavement change that resulted from our proposal. As it turns out (looking closer) we will potentially have another 2.2 acres of impervioul!_area and 0.9 acres of pervious area __ as a result of water quality treatment sites in the vicinity of the 44th Street interchange. For areas outside the existing Gypsy Creek contributing area, we only divert the highway pavement. Pervious areas will continue to drain according to the existing flow pattern. I I -'-105 I t= u 't"\.,) re.. -Page 1 i --_____ _.J We provided the electronic basin boundary fi/e(s) on the disk that I brought down a couple of months ago. It was part of the information that we provided to coordinate the culvert design. Are you sure that you need it again? ----. ------r ,:::~ I :;:::~:- -----Original Message----- From: Steve Lee [mailto:Slee@ci.renton.wa.us) Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:18 AM To: Alan Black Cc: Kent Large: John Donatelli; Jenna Friebel Subject: Existing and proposed WSDOT ROW areas Alan, I know you did a quick calculation previously for Allyn Quynn on the WSDOT areas draining into the Gypsy Creek basin on October 17. 2006. Within the email you wrote to Allyn you had 1-405 currently contributing 51.44 acres o~rvious area to the creek. With proposed WSDOI proposal to divert flows from Clover and ~reek for a total o~ acres of impervious area to Gypsy Creek. This does not include the pervious areas correct? Can you provide me the WSDOT area drainage boundary (existing and proposed) that will drain towards Gypsy creek on cadd (autocad)? Also can you quantify how rnuch pervious area will be draining there also via WSDOT ROW areas? Or did you assume 100% impervious from the WSDOT 2.. 2. Ac. 86. 1't AC ~ Pe.rvt.0U!:> CN = 73 • '5oil 1-lyd Group "' D • (L;,vu-• T re4.& / 5 l'l>!'a>~ / vl-.,...u b areas? Providing both a summary of pervious and impervious areas via ,,. email and cadd would be most helpful. Ae&u,....e. 50 ++- p...-vio<.6 sh~ Thanks, Steven Lee City of Renton Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis Model Input -Future Sum of SumOfPMX Acres SUBBASIN DA 7.57 DA 7.57 Total DA 7.58 DA 7.58 Total DA 7.59 DA 7 .59 Total Grand Total City of Renton Ripley Lane CN 75 77 83 85 88 90 91 92 98 93 96 80 83 86.5 88 90 91 95 98 93 96 69 83 86.5 95 98 93 96 Area Total 8.701 5.01 95.938 5.536 2.961 22.015 0.65 0.358 29.645 0.242 8.294 2.159 181.509 30.011 17.118 4.925 0.002 5.867 1.968 13.98 7.201 6.473 5.603 93.148 16.215 3.276 13.23 7.497 0.444 3.347 44.009 318.666 1 of 1 Weighted CN 652.575 385.77 7962.854 470.56 260.568 1981.35 59.15 32.936 2905.21 22.506 796.224 172.72 86.51 2490.913 1480.707 433.4 0.18 533.897 186.96 1370.04 669.693 621.408 386.607 87.75 1345.845 283.374 1256.85 734.706 41.292 321.312 90.51 558-1779-029 (01 /04) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis Ripley Lane Subbasin lllii9'~\W'elglitetlt'Qf;(•;; ; 1.\tt~·2~rf;1;:]iTI>,~t·\:-·f~:: ,:.h .... -.«./: Existing Conditions Cover type Railroad(gravel) Pervious area(mixture of grass, weeds and low growing shrub Gravel area between Railroad and Ripley Lane Rielel Lane Total Area Weighted CN Ctty of Renton Ripley Lane ; 01il:'o1~tr. ·. Project No: Width ft 5 52 15 23 Ripley Lane Renfori 658-1779•029 (01/04) Length Area ft s 1310 6,550 1310 68.120 1310 19,650 875 20,125 114,445 1 of 1 Date sia/2001 Done by .. seethu Babu Cb,i,~!,l:b~l!l!!lli••J;tf!fbel;i; Area CN A·CN ac 0.15 91 13.68343 1.56 85 132.9247 0.45 91 41.05028 0.46 98 45.27663 2.63 88,66 558-1779-029 (01 /04) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis GIS Data 5-9-2007 ,i~ft,,.,,~'.,;,, ~c;IB!3AS1 DA 7.57 " . &<.Zbn:1~~~~~-iil:;;,_~,.,.--._"'-M~x"'.·'11'!.;;;; __ ."~~ ",;, "'_"' ___ !;:,",_l-H,...1-v,d,...ro___,,G-,p-+-"'c-at,...e-ao-,rv--l--c""N:-:----l DA 7.57 DA 7.57 DA 7.57 DA 7.57 DA 7.57 DA 7.57 CA DA 7.57 CA DA 7.57 CA DA 7.57 R-10 DA 7.57 R-10 DA 7.57 R-10 DA 7.57 R-10 DA 7.57 R-4 DA 7.57 R-4 DA 7.57 R-4 DA 7.57 R-8 DA 7.57 R-8 DA 7.57 R-8 DA 7.57 R-8 DA 7.57 R-8 DA 7.57 R-8 DA 7.57 R-8 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 CA DA 7.58 CA DA 7.58 CA DA 7.58 CA DA 7.58 CA DA 7.58 CA DA 7.58 R-10 DA 7.58 R-10 DA 7.58 R-10 DA 7.58 R-10 DA 7.58 R-24 DA 7.58 R-24 DA 7.58 R-24 DA 7.58 R-24 DA 7.58 R-4 DA 7.58 R-4 DA 7.58 R-4 DA 7.58 R-6 City of Renton Ripley Lane AgC 15.627 C Roads C 98 AaD 6.968 C Roads C 98 EvC 3.261 A Roads A 98 No RdC RdE Eve No RdE AgC AgD EvC RdE AgC AgD RdE AgC AgD AkF EvC No RdC RdE AgC AgD Bh Eve KpC No OvD RdC RdE Bh Eve Koc No RdC RdE AaC AgD RdC RdE AgD KpC KpD RdC AgC AgD KpC AgC 1.636 1.064 1.089 4.283 8.294 0.242 0.221 0.429 2.159 2.961 78 011 17.927 8.701 9.549 7.954 0.229 5.01 0.358 4.782 0.754 3.992 3.213 0.211 2.366 1.235 1.118 0.282 1.282 0.281 0.068 0.002 1.968 6.405 1.967 1.273 0.265 5.602 3.956 0.969 1.253 2.557 0.151 0 15.274 13.833 0.904 12.162 1 of 2 D Roads D B Roads B B Roads B A CA A D CAD B CAB C R-10 C C R-10 C A R-10 A B R-10 B C R-4 C C R-4 C B R-4 B C R-8 C C R-8 C C R-8 C A R-8 A D R-8 D B R-8 B B R-8 B C Roads C C Roads C D Roads D A Roads A C Roads C D Roads D C Roads C B Roads B B Roads B D CAD A CA A C CA C D CAD B CAB B CAB C R-10 C C R-10 C B R-10 B B R-10 B C R-24 C C R-24 C C R-24 C B R-24 B C R-4 C C R-4 C C R-4 C C R-6 C 98 98 98 90 96 93 91 91 80 88 83 83 75 90 90 90 77 92 85 85 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 96 90 95 96 93 93 91 91 88 88 93 93 93 91 83 83 83 86.5 558-1779-029 (01/04) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis GIS Data 5-9-2007 City of Renton Ripley Lane DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.58 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 DA 7.59 .... l'!l\llX•iP::Zorli!l R-6 R-6 R-6 CA CA CA R-24 R-24 R-4 R-4 R-4 R-4 R-6 'MUS. ' n AgD EvC OvD AnC AgD Bh KpC KpD Bh KpC KpD KpC KpD AnC AgD KpC KpD AoC .!Co> hl;f\J:fes Hvdro Gro 2.077 C 5.603 A 2.879 C 3.015 C 0.467 C 1.246 D 2.559 C 0.21 C 3.347 D 10.786 C 2.444 C 0.303 C 0.141 C 6.104 C 2.63 C 6.921 C 0.56 C 3.276 C 2of2 Cateoorv R-6 C R-6 A R-6 C Roads C Roads C Roads D Roads C Roads C CAD CA C CA C R-24 C R-24 C R-4 C R-4 C R-4 C R-4 C R-6 C CN 86.5 69 86.5 98 98 98 98 98 96 95 95 93 93 83 83 83 83 86.5 558-1779-029 (01104) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis Soils-Hydro Grps SCSCode AgC AgD AkF Bh EvB Eve lnC KpC KpD No OvD Py RdC RdE Sm Description Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep Bellingham silt loam Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Nonma sandy loam Ovall gravelly loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Puyallup fine sandy loam Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep Shalcar muck Hydrologic Group C C C D A A A C C D C 8 8 8 D Soils Information from National Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey v1. 1. obtained on the internet at http:i!websoilsurvey,nrcs.usda.gov!app!, 5-7-2007. City of Renton Ripley Lane 1 of 1 558-1779-029 (01/04) June2007 Legend /CJI Renlon DA 7.57 g,DA7.5B 1.::~_: DA 7 59 .. f .<] AgC :c AgO .::F) -Eve [mtJ KpC tllll:o) Bavo -RdC C:::J RdE Param t. nx Newcastle ipley L City of Renton ane Hyd . rolog,c Anal -ys,s Soils 2!;,0Feet j N Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis Curve Numbers Source: StormSHED Tutorial Booklet~ 2001 Land Use Brush with weeds and grass Residential districts: Pasture or range Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries Grayel roads and parking lots Dirt roads and pari<.ing lots Impervious surfaces: pavements and roofs Description Good condition: ground cover> 75% Fair condition: ground cover 50% to 75% Poor condition: ground cover< 50% ~ acre lots 1 /3 acre lots % acre lots 1 acre lots Good condition: lightly grazed Fair condition; not heavily grazed Poor condition: heavily grazed wino mulch Good condition: grass cover> 75% Fair condition: grass cover 50% to 75% Poor condition: grass cover < 50% A B C D 40 48 65 73 40 56 70 77 48 67 77 83 61 75 83 87 57 72 81 86 54 70 80 85 51 68 79 84 40 61 74 80 49 69 79 84 68 79 86 89 40 61 74 80 49 69 79 84 68 79 86 89 88 92 95 98 86 90 94 98 98 98 98 98 Source: National Resources Cnnse,vation Service, "Urbati flydrology tor Snwll w,ittJr.;s:;fH,,ds," Technical RchMse 55. 1986. Urban Residential 1/8 acre or less (town houses) (65% imperv) 77 85 90 92 Urban Commercial and business (85% imperv) 89 92 94 95 Urban Industrial (72% imperv) 81 88 91 93 Source: Parametrix Estimated Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban City of Renton Ripley Lane Residential 1/4ac (4du/ac apartments) Residential 1/6 acre lot (avg of 114 and 1/8) Residential 1/8ac (8du/ac apartments) Residential 1110 acre lot Residential 1124ac (24du/ac apartments)[85% lmperv) Commercial and business (90-95% imperv) 1 of 1 61 75 83 87 69 80 86.5 89.5 77 85 90 92 80 88 91 93 88 91 93 94 90 93 95 96 Associated Zoning R-04 R-06 R-08 R-10 R-24 CA Newcastle 4 d.u.lac Newcastle 6 d.u.lac Newcastle 8 d.u./ac Renton 10 d.u.lac Newcastle 12 d.u.lac Renton Commercial Arterial 558-1779-029 (01104) June 2007 Renton Legend B::;::) .,-.... L .• ...: DA 7.59 L .. J CA r···1 .::;:} IIIR-4 Ni~ffl R-6 f:Jt:,t-'] R-B Parametrix Newcastle City of Renton ipley Lane Hydrologic Analysi Zoning 250 125 0 j MM N ATTACHMENT B Hydrologic Model Input and Results Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis StomiSHED Model -Results Summary ;~'l':;StdlfflSRisD'IIIIO<Jltt''* ':., ~,"\,, ','' .. -\ ,, .',·, . ,~:, · .. ·,:Area Tc a,,. LOtltlori· · .. 'tii~resl CN (mlnl (Cfs) DA 757 181.45 88.3 56.4 67.6 DA 758 93.65 90.6 22.9 53.0 DA 759 44.33 90.0 20.0 25.7 1-405 lmperv NIA 1-405 Pervious NIA Riplev Lane NIA Sum 319.43 146.3 Creek Flow 8 . . PMX Model Notes: 1. Tc from WSDOT StomiSHED. ~miaff'al ,; , 12 '"· · ' •· · • ···· sting • • · • Area Tc Q100 (acres) CN (min) (els) 181.45 86.3 48.6 65.7 93.65 84.9 22.2 41.8 44.33 89.2 19.8 24.9 16.3 98.0 8.4 14.5 0 . . - 2.63 88.7 10.8 1.7 338.36 148.6 145.4 2. Tc for l-405 Sub-basin was estimated from the CD by PMX. 3. CN from Table sent by Steve Lee 514/2007, updated by PMX 6/5/2007. ~MKModel ~ Future 1 '2..,.,. Flow lnerease Area Tc 0100 A0100 Share of (acres\ CN /min) (cfsl (cfsl Total' 181.45 86.51 48.6 66.3 0.68 1% 93.65 87.75 22.2 47.6 5.72 11% 44.33 90.51 19.8 26.2 1.39 3% 85.72 98.00 28.8 57. 1 42.54 85% 0.90 73.00 10.2 2.63 88.66 10.8 1.7 0.00 0% 408.68 198.9 50.32 100% 198.2 52.83 . 4. CN for future was estimated by Parametrix based on NRCS hydrologic soil groups and future zoning data from the Cities of Renton and Newcastle. 5. Sub-basin areas from WSDOT Stormshed; sub-basin area for 1-405 existing from Entrance Report, future 1-405 from Alan Slack e-mail. 6. Sub-basin for Ripley Lane based on topographic map and site investigation -includes Ripley Lane, half of the railroad, and the vegetated area between the railroad and Ripley Lane thal drains to the CB located in the middle of the Gypsey Ck culvert. 7. The share of total flow increase represents how much increased development within each individual sub-basin and/or expanded sub-basin boundaries (i.e. 1-405) contribute to the predicted increase in the mathematical sum of flow rates from each tributary sub-basin. 8. The creek flow rate represents the modeled flow rate of the combined hydrographs discharging to Gypsy Creek at the BNSF railroad culvert, accounting for the lag in hydrograph time of concentration from each individual sub-basin. Therefore. the resulting flow rate at this point in the creek is slightly different from the mathematical total of flow rates from each tributary sub-basin. City of Renton Ripley Lane 1 of 1 558-1779-029 (01/04) June 2007 Ripley Lane Siorm TM Attacl1 B1 Results.xis Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis StormSHED Existing Output ,~ .. l~~-f:~~~,~~ll>ll'wlth'Stll~Ue5~31.07,:['111!'~~'1:ft$lllwas ctian.ll~'frorn 35:9 ac tc i.".C·L'.'-lc'i>il<,.;..;, ·.t:..'it.c.;;.:J.1•:.:L:s.i,o.o,A'llok_...,l_"1i.;.-T .. '.s .'••0d.:::: !~-.--'• °" -·~-, '-"-' , . ... . . . . . . . .. . . .. --. -. . - Running P \Clients\1779-City of Renton\558-1779·029 Ripley Lane\Task 4 Hydro-Modeling\HydrologyStormSHED Model\ StormSHED Run Files\Gypsy Ck Exist calc.pgm on Thursday, May 31, 2007 BASLIST [TYPE1A] AS [100 YR] DETAIL [DA 757] [OA 758] [DA 759] [1-405 Existing] [Ripley Lane] LSTEND Drainage Area: DA 757 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Peak Factor: 484 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Area Pervious 181.4500 ac Impervious 0.0000 ac Total 181.4500 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Entranco A, 8, and some C 86.3 Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Sheet per WSDOT woods, light underbrush Shallow per WSDOT Street gutter Channel per WSDOT channel, ravine Channel per WSDOT Street gutter Drainage Area: DA 758 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Peak Factor: 484 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Area Pervious 93.6500 ac Impervious 0.0000 ac Total 93.6500 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Entrance D 84.9 Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Sheet per WSDOT woods, light underbrush Shallow per WSDOT Streel gutter Channel per WSDOT channel, ravine Channel per WSDOT Street gutter City of Renton Ripley Lane Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS AbS1 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 86.3 0.81 hrs o 0.00 hrs 181.4500ac Length: Slope: 250.00 fl 4.60% 1270.00 ft 3.40% 520.00 fl 8.30% 2230.00 ft 8.30% Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 84.9 0.37 hrs 0 0.00 hrs 93.6500 ac Length: Slope: 180.00ft 25.00% 3040.00 ft 16.40% 510.00 fl 17.80% 940.00 ft 14.80% 1 of 4 Coeff: Travel Time 0.4 39.54 min 27 4.25 min 17 1.77 min 42 3.07 min Coeff: Travel Time 0.4 15.45min 27 4.63 min 17 1.19min 42 0.97 min 558-1779-029 (01104) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis StormSHED Existing Output Drainage Area: DA 759 Hyd Method: Peak Factor: Storm Dur: Pervious Impervious Total Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Entranco (E, F, and G) Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Sheet Channel Channel Drainage Area: 1-405 Existing Hyd Method: Peak Factor: Storm Dur: Pervious Impervious Total Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Current 1-405 WDOT ROW (Phase 1) Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Sheet Channel City of Renton Ripley Lane SBUH Hyd 484 24.00 hrs Area 44.3300 ac 0.0000 ac 44.3300 ac 89.2 Description: per WSDOT overland short grass per WSOOT channel. street gutter per WSDOT Grass DitcL _ SBUH Hyd 484 24.00 hrs Area 0.0000 ac 16.3000 ac 16.3000 ac 98 Description: Sheet flow across 1-405 WSDOT Ex. Pipe est. from CD Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 89.2 0.33 hrs 0 0.00 hrs 44.3300 ac Length: Slope: 140.00 ft 5.00% 2230.00 ft 11.20% 320.00 ft 7.00% Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 78 0.00 hrs 98 0.14 hrs 16.3000 ac Length: Slope: 85.00 ft 1.00% 1925.00 ft 1.40% 2 of 4 Coeff: 0.24 42 17 Coeff: 0.011 42 Travel Time 15.98 min 2.64 min 1.19min Travel Time 1.73 min 6.46 min 558-1779-029 (01104) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis StormSHED Existing Output Drainage Area: Ripley Lane Hyd Method: Peak Factor: Storm Dur: Peivious lmpeivious Total Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Peivious area Peivious TC Data: Flow type: Shallow Channel Channel City of Renton Ripley Lane SBUH Hyd 484 24.00 hrs Area 2.6300 ac 0.0000 ac 2.6300 ac 88.66 Description: Railroad and outside gravel Vegetated Ditch 24-inch CMP Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 88.66 0.18 hrs o 0.00 hrs 2.6300 ac Length: Slope: 25.00 ft 6.00% 720.00 ft 0.44% 55.00 ft 2.36% 3 of 4 Coeff: 11 17 21 Travel Time 0.15 min 10.64 min 0.28 min 558-1779-029 (01104) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis StormSHED Existing Output BASINCOMPUTE [DA 757] AS [100 yr] Flow: j65.6609 cfs BASINCOMPUTE [DA 758] AS [100 yr] Flow: 141.8355 els BASINCOMPUTE [DA 759] AS [100 yr] Flow: j24.8621 els BASINCOMPUTE [1-405 Existing] AS [100 yr] Flow: j 14.5484 els BASINCOMPUTE [Ripley Lane] AS [100 yr] Flow: j1.6860 cfs MOVEHYD [DA 757] TO [H1J AS [100 YR] Peak Flow: 65.6609 els MOVEHYD [DA 758] TO [H2J AS [100 YR] Peak Flow: 41.8355 cfs ADDHYD [H1] AS [100 YR] [H2] AS [100 YR] TO [H3] Peak Flow: 107.4964 els MOVEHYD [DA 759] TO [H4] AS [100 YR] Peak Flow: 24.8621 cfs ADDHYD [H3J AS [100 YR] [H4J AS [100 YR] TO [HS] Peak Flow: 131.9848 cfs MOVEHYD [1-405 Existing] TO [H6J AS [100 YR] Peak Flow: 14.5484 cfs ADDHYD [HS] AS (100 YR] [H6] AS [100 YR] TO [H7J Peak Flow: 143. 8699 cfs MOVEHYD [Ripley Lane] TO [H8] AS (100 YR] Peak Flow: 1.6860 cfs ADDHYD [H7] AS [100 YR] [H8J AS [100 YR] TO [H9] j 145.3736 cfs Peak Flow: City of Renton Ripley Lane jVol: jVol: jVol: jVol: jVol: Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time· Peak Time: Peak Time: )Peak Time: 4 of 4 1694880.21 cf-38.9091 acft Time: 832546.78 cf -19.1126 acft Time: 457337.71 cf-10.4990acft Time: 222765.83 cf -5. 1140 acft Time: 26643.49 cf -0.6117 acft Time: 8. 17 hrs Hyd Vol: 8.17hrs Hyd Vol: 8.17hrs Hyd Vol: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol; 8.17hrs Hyd Vol: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 8.17 hrs Hyd Vol 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 8.17hrs Hyd Vol: 490.0000 min • 8. 1667 hr 490.0000 min· 8.1667 hr 480.0000 min· 8.0000 hr 480.0000 min. 8.0000 hr 480.0000 min -8.0000 hr 1694880.21 cf· 38.9091 acft 832546. 78 cf· 19. 1126 acft 2527433.31 cf -58.0219 acft 457337.71 cf -10.4990 acft 2984776.58 cf· 68.5210 acft 222765.83 cf· 5.1140 acft 3207551.33 cf-73.6352 acft 26643 .49 cf • O .6117 acft 3234192.41 cf-74.2468 acft 558-1779-029 (01/04) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis StormSHED Fut Output Running P:\Clients\1779-City of Renton\558-1779-029 Ripley Lane\Task 4 Hydro Modeling\Hydrology SlormSHED Model\ StormSHED Run Files\Gypsy Ck Future calc.pgm on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 BASLIST [TYPE1A] AS [100 YR] DETAIL [DA 757] [DA 758J [DA 759J [1-405 FutureJ [Ripley Lane! LSTEND Drainage Area: DA 757 Hyd Method: Peak Factor: Storm Dur: Pervious Impervious Total Supporting Data: Pervlous CN Data: Renton & Newcastle Zoning + NRCS Soils Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Sheet Shallow Channel Channel Drainage Area: DA 758 Hyd Method: Peak Factor: Storm Dur: Pervious Impervious Total Supporting Data: Pervlous CN Data: Renton & Newcastle Zoning + NRCS Soils Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Sheet Shallow Channel Channel City of Renton Ripley Lane SBUH Hyd 484 24.00 hrs Area 181.4500 ac 0.0000 ac 181.4500 ac 86.51 Description: per WSDOT woods, light underbrush per WSDOT Street gutter per WSDOT channel, ravine eer WSDOT Street gutter SBUH Hyd 484 24.00 hrs Area 93.6500 ac 0.0000 ac 93.6500 ac 87.75 Description: per WSOOT woods, light underbrush per WSDOT Street gutter per WSDOT channel, ravine eer WSDOT Street 51utter Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 86.51 0.81 hrs 0 0.00 hrs 181.4500 ac Length: Slope: 250.00 ft 4.60% 1270.00 ft 3.40% 520.00 ft 8.30% 2230.00 ft 8.30% Loss Method: SCS CN Number SGS Abs: 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 87.75 0.37 hrs 0 0.00 hrs 93.6500 ac Length: Slope: 180.00 ft 25.00% 3040.00 ft 16.40% 510.00 ft 17.80% 940.00 ft 14.80% 1 of 4 Coeff: 0.4 27 17 42 Coeff: 0.4 27 17 42 Travel Time 39.54 min 4.25 min 1.77min 3.07 min Travel Time 15.45 min 4.63 min 1.19min 0.97 min 558-1779-029 (01 /04) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis Stom,SHED Fut Output Drainage Area: DA 759 Hyd Method: Peak Factor: Stom, Dur: Pervious Impervious Total Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Renton & Newcastle Zoning + NRCS Soils Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Sheet Channel Channel Drainage Area: 1-405 Future Hyd Method: Peak Factor: Stam, Dur: Pervious Impervious Total Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Proposed 1-405 WDOT ROW Impervious CN Data: Proposed 1-405 WDOT ROW Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Sheet Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Sheet Channel City of Renton Ripley Lane SBUH Hyd 484 24.00 hrs Area 44.3300 ac 0.0000 ac 44.3300 ac 90.51 Description: per WSDOT overland short grass per WSDOT channel, street gutter per WSDOT Grass Ditch_ SBUH Hyd 484 24.00 hrs Area 0.9000 ac 85.7900 ac 86.6900 ac 73 98 Description: 1-405 ROW Description: Sheet flow across 1-405 Prop. Cone Piee 1est. from CD! Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 90.51 0.33 hrs 0 0.00 hrs 44.3300 ac Length: Slope: 140.00 ft 5.00% 2230.00 ft 11.20% 320.00 ft 7.00% Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 73 0.17 hrs 98 0.48 hrs 0.9000 ac 85.7900 ac Length: Slope: 50.00 ft 2.00% Length Slope: 85.00 ft 1.00% 8020.00 ft 1.40% 2 of 4 Coeff: 0.24 42 17 Coeff 0.24 Coeff: 0.011 42 Travel Time 15.98 min 2.64 min 1.19min Travel Time 10.12min Travel Time 1.73min 26.90 min 558-1779-029 (01104) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis StormSHED Fut Output Drainage Area: Ripley Lane Hyd Method: Peak Factor: Storm Dur: Pervious Impervious Total Supporting Data: Pervlous CN Data: Pervious area Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Shallow Channel Channel City of Renton Ripley Lane SBUH Hyd 484 24.00 hrs Area 2.6300 ac 0.0000 ac 2.6300 ac 88.66 Description: Railroad and outside gravel Vegetated Drtch 24-inch CMP Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.2 lntv: 10.00 min CN TC 88.66 0.18 hrs O o.oo hrs 2.6300 ac Length: Slope: 25.00 ft 6.00% 720.00 ft 0.44% 55.00 ft 2.36% 3 of 4 Coeff: 11 17 21 Travel Time 0.15 min 10.64 min 0.28 min 558-1779-029 (01104) June 2007 Ripley Lane Hydrologic Analysis StormSHED Fut Output BAStNCOMPUTE [DA 757] AS [100 yr] Flow \66.3421 els !Vol: BASINCOMPUTE [DA 758] AS [100 yr] Flow: 147.5556 cfs !Vol: BAStNCOMPUTE [DA 759] AS [100 yr] Flow: 126.2494 cfs !Vol BASINCOMPUTE [1-405 Future] AS [100 yr] Flow: !57.0836 cfs !Vol: BASINCOMPUTE [Ripley Lane] AS [100 yr] Flow: )1.6860 cfs !Vol: MOVEHYD [DA 757] TO [H1] AS [100 YR] Peak Flow: MOVEHYD [DA 758] TO [H2] AS [100 YR] Peak Flow: 66.3421 cfs 47.5556 cfs ADDHYD [H1] AS [100 YR] [H2] AS [100 YR] TO [H3] Peak Flow: 113.8976 cfs MOVEHYD [DA 759] TO [H4] AS [100 YR] Peak Flow: 26.2494 els ADDHYD [H3] AS [100 YR] [H4] AS [100 YR] TO [HS] Peak Flow: 139.6568 cfs MOVEHYD [l-405 Future] TO [HG] AS [100 YR] Peak Flow: 57.0836 els ADDHYD [HS] AS [100 YR] [HS] AS [100 YR] TO [H7] Peak Flow: 196.7403 cfs MOVEHYD [Ripley Lane] TO [HS] AS [100 YR] Peak Flow: 1.6860 els Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time: Peak Time: ADDHYD [H7] AS [100 YR] [H8] AS [100 YR] T..,cO,>.(H;-;9,-')-,,,--,-------- Peak Flow: !'-'1=-98'-".2=-44'-'-'-0"'cf"-s _______ _ •Peak Time: City of Renton Ripley Lane 4 of 4 1707348.64 cf-39.1953 acft Time: 490.0000 min -8.1667 hr 919742.97 cf -21.1144 acft Time 490.0000 min -8.1667 hr 477759.99 cf -10.9679 acft Time: 480.0000 min -8.0000 hr 1177486.15cf-27.0314acft Time: 490.0000 min -8.1667 hr 26643.49 cf -0.6117 acft 8.17 hrs 8.17 hrs 8.17 hrs 8.00 hrs 8.17 hrs 8.17 hrs 8.17 hrs 8.00 hrs 8.17 hrs Time: 480.0000 min -8.0000 hr Hyd Vol: 1707348.64 cf -39.1953 acft Hyd Vol: 919742.97 cf -21.1144 acft Hyd Vol: 2627099.34 cf -60.3099 acft Hyd Vol: 477759.99 cf-10.9679 acft Hyd Vol: 3104880.31 cf-71.2782 acft Hyd Vol: 1177486.15 cf -27.0314 acft Hyd Vol: 4282368.54 cf -98.3097 acft HydVol: 26643.49cf-0.6117acft Hyd Vol: 4309011.95 cf -98.9213 acft 558-1779-029 (01104) June 2007 Lake Washington 4} 0 200 Scale in Feet ' ' ' PROPOSED 4 X 36" CULVERTS SEAHAWKS SITE ' / ./ / / -~ / I -.....__, G) ~ ' -< \ C) \ ~ \ NE44TH ST Attachment A Ripley Lane Storm Improvements SEPA Checklist Vicinity and Alignment '"I' ~v ~~ ~[ l i -. ref:~~ PLAN (i) SC,\.[ ,~ C[[. -~ :1~ n .. n 16 "' i 19Q4~ -----------·------"----------·--~~R"U t._';.. ~~-· ...... --" ~t LV_'' __, ~-oa.:, l W ETLAND BOUNDARY 2 ...; . ;,,, - " . ,,. ':-~~· " O N £ INC...., A, l"Vt.l. S <..:Al t H• N O T S C.ALf A C C.()q,0t!'o1G.l. v t'\:t ... .....r -- ~~--,~~f.:... ... ' ' ""-1 ~ ,, \:_ ' \· ---/ ·. \' ' .... .:..... ,, ... \' - ' \ ' . .._ \. 1;..• -"~~ .-· ,~ WETLAHO BOUNbARY 1 -l -, .. ~~~- --' . , '). ---' ""· ~ ----- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ---- .,,. ~·~-.-. .-~ .. ...·-c~ ·~ ..... ;,-·~ ~- -~ ;~ \\ ?. • .,_ ~· t -:;..,,.,c,--.C: f> ..._~ L-~-• ... Y 'l::W:f! "' ... "5:1 - • r"-. ·. ·" "'; 1' ~ I ~ "tz~ -11 ~-----. . .. ·-,.-. ----1- \, ·J ~}h· .\ ., f. · -Ar-#1": .,.. ___ ,; i.~ -··u .• _ii'! • -c1 ; ~-· •.. .,, ~ .; ./ ...-· .... ...-i ~::..c ... .._. RIPLEY LANE STORM I M PROVE MENTS SURCHARGED PI PE ALTERNATI V E .......... , .... : .. : :J:: -- C 1 ~ I -· AP<><>O,C I rl~~~~~-;~~li-_:~ -] I I ._ _________________ ..... L------------------------' ._ ____ __, DRAFT :..tF '~ ~(J'. Vt.~H!t\J C, .. '), ..., : : 1 . Ex 4n~ PILE ' I : ' : ' ' '. CAP~ 0 p' oc t : ; , I , : • I I I ! I j I I! I ' , , , : ; ' 1-36' HOPE PIPE (S) spr EL 17 5 ' ; ' : : : ' / :.. : i ' ' 3 NO~THE:fN-35· HOPE lp1PE 81)1 ( 1 s/1 / : : ; ; : (~[:-°1vi-w&: (~~PLAC'~ I : IJ I If.~ R().10VE EX 8 4. MH. 35"S D &: 50'SD PIPE AS NE CESSARY FOR 1 o·, 28' STRUCTU RE CONSTRUCTION '' ' ' ' I fl ''':' 1 ':"I· ' .... r~ : --... \ ·. . 1 8 )> 1 1 1 ; 1 , ! : : ; . : : · .. ;;; : (.) ef-J L.. 1 ', 1 1 ~ 1 I : I i I ; 1 : I ti ~. ----~ : ' '·. : . : I I : ' : : I ., ; : 0: -i-: .:._· _.J..:·.,~-~: -tt-+---t~""!-;:::=1.1 w ,: . . : , . ·30· : , , , , , , , ,I : EX 60" IE-1 B.01 EX 60°SD .. ! f!' J. ~ ~ Inv! il''--<i;! ~x l z ~ 0 i: ~ ! « 1-36" BOT EL 17.95 3 NORTHERN PIPES- 36" BOT EL 18.47 ::I: : 1 I I CJ) n wl ..... t;. ~ _,. ~ ,_.. I 7"' ~ r .t. UL.jj/._i__;_--,------+--:--+----:--.---i---:--~+;--'.--;-~-:-;i--'---~--'-'-~"1t--'-'. ~ L.,.,......~~,----,---.,, 1 ,l __ -J0---~.-:....+,---,---/ 1 ---+_:_-+-~~+-tr.~----,---,Ti,tl-Tl w I z ' :::::i .. a.j;: : 1· 1 : : : : 1 L' G : : : 4 EACH. 55' _:42~ Di.+, STL iCASING ·, I 1-...... : ; ,' / W/36" NOM ~IA ~D P.E. (DR2 1} \ 1 < t · · · · ·, I : I CARRIER f>!PE , 3 ;NORTHERN PIPE , I I :Ee l;:-~ : ' I AND CAS1is,:; @ $}=0.liD7.. $OUTHEf/t, \ 0 -\_' : I PIPE O S907.; PIPE 0 f'ND ~AS)~G . \ 1 ' : :· / INSTALLED ~ ;DP~N ~XCAV/ITI~ I I I : ~ :-' '.' ! . ( M[THOD I I ~ I ~ 01 ~ l,U.. :!: EX 84°S S I I u.. I ~ . ~u.. 60 I I 50 I I 40 I I 20 10 I ·v, ·: Cl) '.c: Cl) % " z z m ;: \ co I ~ co , .. I ,> t' "' ::,; 2•50 0 STA 2+83.5 or BNSF 30' PLAN (j» SCALE IN FECT 10 20 25' 159' -36" NOM DIA HOPE 1 0 S=0.32r.. 4-42"0 1A , 55'L STL CASI NG S *" TH K 1-42" CASING IE= 17.75 3 NORTHER N PIPES -42" CASINGS 1E=18.21 1-42" CASING IE-1 7.75 3 NORTHERN PIPES-42" CASI NGS IE =17.9 3 "' ::;; 3•00 PROFILE HORIZ: 1 ·=10· VERT: 1°=10' I 11 ~ I RELOC 12·ss IE =21.3B "' ~ rr-· 1·· 1· 1-1 ~ R. HERMES ONE I N C H A TFULL SCALE , DRAWN tF M O T , SCAL E A CCORDI N OL Y 8 K. TAYlDR NAU J C><ECl<ED ~ 779029-COJ ssa -1779 -029 _ (01LQ1 APPROVED ~L... _ _,. _____________________ _._ __ ....._ __________ - 0'1ucus r 2001 L ,~ X lr 7·, 8 ' PLUNGE POOL 36 • NOIA DIA HD PE IE = 18.09 (TYP) EX 36" IE-lB.16 REMOVE &: REPLACE 145' -12"SS (DI) ;) S=0.227. \ EX 84' SSMH __L EX 60°SD ~ PLUNGF POOL BOT EL 16.09 3•50 ' (, 60 50 40 30 20 10 1.MGfNO:ll:IJltG .~.~£1,lfM.s.at.NCl!S I l $3 163S•nr zs,ee,ro.,, ...__._,,,,. PRO,.,.C CT MAME RIPLE Y LANE STORM IMPROVEMENTS REN TON. WAS HINGTON SURCHARGED PIPE ALTERNATIVE DRAWING NO. 2 OF 3 C2 ~ ~ I ! - "' ' ~ ~ vilii tl'1.. ;~ _x f i .\; ~ ,:_ [ 8 ;.; .,., ,... ,.: en -o ~~ -II 0W z- 'i2li' uo ' I "'<D ..,..., '°"' _.., II a:i w - -II (.}W z - 'i2li' uo ' I NU> ..,..., -34'± 25S± OPE N EXCAVATION TRENCH SECTION ffi NO SCALE C2 a;; ... _..,. II . "'!-• <.:)W z -\2 w uo . I "'"' ..,..., TOP OF BNSf RAIL EL 35.0 ± 6 " BALLAST SUB-BALLAST MATERIAL 4 -42"STL CASING Gt,. THK) BEDD ING ~ 16 I oc~...,. I I I I I 0£Slit"°~ERMES I O N E INC H AT FULL SCAL E. t----t-• ----------------4----+--~: ORAr B(TZVQG -fF ~~SCALE A CCOROINOLY OAT( BY 8 l "' ~ t---t-----------------4----.--~ CHEC><[O 5:1 0 1779029-DTI 5~~17I 9 ,-__Qi9_(0_1LQ1 APPRO'w'{O ~~GUST 2007 --------------------- PRO...CC T ltJAM( RIPLEY LANE STORM IM PROVEMENTS u«:i1N£1:.IIIING l"\.AN~. (HYIMONl,IIENTN.. SOENCES RENTON, WASHINGTON DETAIL 0RA1"NC NO. 3 OF 3 C3 ~ .............. ..:. ·: __ ;:_,. -.-- ' \ -rroo HP N 26..5Q / ----=:=\( \ \," ..;-\ "-,,_ \ \ ·\, "3145 -=.:...-==:-=:::. ___ _ •-...1'-·/-" .. -,:-.... ___ --·-· -~--- -------~\ ·, ,, -'~----- 14' -------,~~ ··-r----=------- I I 38 -;-I I./ 25.; 26,88 ( 2~ 27JO 26'.88 r_,00_1(~ ;,i,----,.._,~--[ J.s .'};._':, ,,,. ~ 27.50 TW 21 10 '°: i == _ _.....,_____ ··- . 0-\ u. 0 - f-- UJ UJ I (fJ z Q ~ u 0 ...J I I I I i j I I i ' \ -.,1 -, ' ;-.-:·2 _ ~ :, I I • ---· : C ~-- " ____ :...: __ ,· I --" < \'. ~..f.:.._._) ;:.:.:::_::::·::1 V ' ' [ -__ 1~- ". -,-------~·-' I ;I --,, --· I Lt'.! .. ,1 L !! ---~··" I ______ ) _a :i ,- ____ __J J Parametrix P ROJECT 1 '!! Ley 1 /1· ;L. BY / '..) !/ DATE SUBJECT /. .¥_; \. , . ;,,U. ,. \ ,/ ·7~1_,···. ~:.;. /C1 /~.._)\·?/'' ·. CHECKED JOB NO. ' I., r -. ,. ....... . ,;~ ... rj r (/,.: >,, ;;:·:·:-:-._,\ r( \1 ... \, !1 \\ j\ . ) ,, ' ~ r/, I .:,-/J .. ;I· ><-l ,r-:--:· -:-· .. -.': . '") . · · -· --·-·-···· -··· .J. . ... --c:,( ·• r= Fl . ,,. {) r , . .. j' . ·'·, -·-----/ 11;· C, I,:;;; t ,eo, /x;: i JJ U/-{. It:.· ,,1:., ·-----·----·---- C LI ENT DATE PHASE LOCATION . S HE ET :, OF TASK ·--·--······--····--·············--·--·------------- I 1&.4 I 1--ifV --· -·tr1 --· -t (71~!;\ I'! I ' I ' I i -18(..('1 ;.,_,... ____ , J I . . :-·-....... ·····i . "..L_ ::-:-.. ·/(,'.-/::~.. : ' r·· ·: t /I/ . \\\\ j I ' ( \ I f. \ ' : \ \ I\ )'/I ,av i I \\ ' l \ \ .-,' . '2'-'' /. /GJ/Q I • ' / --·-I ,, ... .,.-.. . ,:-·.r-·· ·-··· __ =::,,;,.,.. I ,!~---·-··· _ . '-:,--.,-. _ .. ,,,,...._ --_·-..... j / ··-;-... fl.-:..-.-... --·--· -~:..---~----~----~---· 111-:. · · ·-· l, v-.=:.:: .... } __ -~ ·:::: .. ~ .. :·.:::: .... ~-------~---,! ' I • ( j ,. ·{ 1::·, -. --------·· . -/f,.5 ·. 4 .... { ' -: •. .J ,l :· ~ ·-·---·,·,-· .. .. ·-~·-... '. _ _. ____ . .~ /1:J.-..T .i I J · t .. , ..... TiC 1 ------------·-· ... ····--- •/ "' i ..,, 0 cl CD ! u u I <Cl <• " 0 " 8 ~ I I WETlAN D BOUNDARY -0---0---0--0---0--·0---0-----=·~--·--·-1 I j I l '6 I 0 j':,, I RE~~ONS EXISTING 405 PIPE DISCHARGE PLAN ~ SCALE IN FEET 10 20 cl 01 11----'··r EX o . ----~ '~·-~-·~.:~: ' ---~-------1 65 '.•J ..• -··. (-X-·24"···· ...... ; I L -----~-------~ .._ r r ! ___.Q_ ! CY ~ OJ I "' i CD ::0 OJ I Ol '" OAT! BY OCSICN€0 R. H(Rl.l(S ONC INCH AT FULL SCA.L e . I F N OT, SCALE ACCOROIN GL Y ..,, CD ..,, <D "Ff' rur NXiJI DRAFT I I ~·~ I I I CH(~(~TZ\IOC 1. INS~~'""' uc" m,~ V"V 'I 01/01 APPRO\U> CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ORDINAR Y HIGH WATER LINE (OHWL) "LB-A" Al CD I u, :n I r- CD I -...J ::0 CD I 0-, :,:,· co I CD 2 r- (D I c..~ ~ \ \ PRO..£CT NAME 1 1 1 7 1 I ,;i 0 u I 1 jl--f-'.) ____ 9 __ J' 0 k / I I '.)Q_ ! I I I ' I I I I I l " I i I I ' . . -I I . 1 jl -r-' ~'~"'··~--==~ ti _:2._ I I I I 'i 1 l u I O I I I ~ I I I f I I 1 I 1 · o I I ~ r , I " r ,;/ l ') I (") I 0 " I C u I I I Q RIPLEY LANE STORM IMPRO VEMENTS WETLAND AND OHWL SURCHARGED PIPE ALTERNATIVE ,n,rr•vM>A\-• :!l .. ll1>N("-\"0~1HGt 0,.16)K r ,s1 •1~,11 r 2$l.Ml(:1.a( -..-:,,--.(,;;wo, f.MCMIIU.-..tG ~UH't ... G . t:NVIMO"lfill'Otf N. SQCNC.£$ RENTON . WASHINGTON DRA'MNG NO. OF C1 To: TINA HEMPHILL FIS DEPT. INTERFUND TRANSFER FORM DATE: 1D/1~ /o 7 FROM: J....{),u.;-ef,n flrw/~ H/AOl -1;;;.3 Please prepare the following cash transfer: DEBIT: \WO Function Account Number Amount Description R,p10 wv,,;:,/k!Jr-:::; uee±- ~k~3.~[Lili):: __ 131-:;_;·c1z;:~:-;.-·Z;;-~ ·j:7-;_~·~--·~\;1:t~:~7. :(./;~~(~~=~~-}~/54i~7i~~~-~:S_,; 1:}i-. R-~-~. _t-.-.. r~ _ ! i . i -------------·-+."" ----------------- ·--------1------· --·-··-· '------i---------------·-.. -- ' ' ----·<"--···•·-.... __ .,_ ' - ----, ---~------------·-·-··-·--·--·-·-······· CREDIT: W/0 Function Account Number Amount Description -----:--------------·-+---------------------:------------------- -------------------·-.. ·----+---------------·---. ---.-------------------'------------ ' ----·--...... --·-----···------' ---------------------·-------+----------·------ ·········------·---···+·· .............. ······--···· ---------------------,·-··-· ------------. Reason: Approval Signature:; Date: / c//c,-o· Nole: Documelllalion lo support this transfer request must be attached. Document in Windows Internet Explorer\ Rc•,i:;d ::.12uus ,g Printed: I 0-15-2007 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA07-123 10/15/2007 06:23 PM Receipt Number: R0705546 Total Payment: 1,000.00 RIPLEY LANE/GYPSY CRK Payee: INTERFUND TRANSFER FOR Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 1,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment IOT STEVE LE 1,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 I of: 'l' ' ,. '. ' , - " ,,.,,..·, .. ,. ,, ' ' ,, /A·· ~ . '·.-..;.,... ,_ 0 PLAN SCALE IN FEET i[,····.1· 1· 10 . I 20 lJAW. !ff '.-,, ', •O •'' <,- > ' ' .' ' ·-' ,, .,,. ·.-, -,''.'~':'-:-,..,,,._ ' ·, , : ', J '' ,·' .·,,·,, ,, < ·'". ', , ' ' ij~~.r,g 8(1\Jf!&A!Y:;~ ... ' ~ . -. .;,. ,., ,, ' ., ------ <'> J ' ' ./ I ,, ' ; i,'.( • " ,t,,,.,,_, '.,_ !!'~!"l!ERll<<l , PI/\HNJHG. Ef!Y!RQ~!!~N.! Al ,l!,¢!1i!j0!!$ . . _-,;,.;, ,.-.--· -- ' PRQ..ECT NA.Mt RIPL<l:U' ' ' ' ' <c..::u,,-•, "'"~ --, ' ' ,' ·, . ,.-.. \ ,-.-,.', ' ' ' ,. ' -.~ "' ' I ! f ! r t i I ' I ,, ' ' J ' f ,. ' . ,,, ·-,_: ' ' ' ,' " -, ' I ! ! ! L ! l I ' '1' ·' f·', j I·· /:;: / .. /: c;>.\lj); I. :r r : I.' , I • • I r ''1ii ,,·n ' :11·:, ' ... -t -n ' '--. . -·' .y, 1 !. !· l I I .. [ t t I I i I I ·1 l .J I ! ' I .. 'l I } j l . I I l J t I l I l ,, f I I '\' \. I l I l t I ' I I I {, ' I f I ! I ( I t ! I. l I I \ l l I t I l \ I ' ., ' l \ I, I \ ' \ l I. I ,, 1· ,,r· I. ._,,' .i;,:·, l < 1· '-, 11 ,J;~, · · VP r _•,, ·,'. ' ' ' · ... . . , ' ' ' .. -' " -VS")~' '.Iii, 'f,i'o, ,, •• , -,,,, ·,·,, , ,, ,",' ',·,,·. '"''.·, ', • , , \ '· " '" , J' , 1· . --., .!!< ,,., ~ ,··,·, ---,·."·""-!' ' ,,. -,• ,·,,· ,,, .,, ,,. ,.,, • q\•. h•·-w··· I ·.I ' "<' w I I • I f 1 l ( : r , I f ' . ' ' .' .. • Vl : ·: ·'·-en . : Ji,' -. -· ' ., -"'~ ' : .or-.. . '· ... .,,. , .... .. , ·,' EX so• 1E~1ao1 EX -60~SD wi .. •--~, ,. ~>···:·,, ....... ,.;,. ..... ·• , · ' . ' ·-'if. .. " . .:. : d .. -13 q_(-'. J-.. , ' § 21· ·. ~:·' a - -· E, .t ~ .,; • PLAN SCALE IN FEET ---0 10 20 ' : \ .. , · 1l I lo I 1· l l l r • I • • • 0 .· "--7'.x .8',-PLUNGE POOL ~· 3i;i' NOM . DIA HOPE lEi;J/i!OO (TYP) · 3tl"" IE=18.16 '--REl.lOVE, & REPLACE 145'~ 1.~·ss. (D!) @ S=0.22% . .--EX 45• MH 12• IE~21.58 60. . --,--·-·--·-----~,------·---r----------_.-------·--1,.., -------...,..!---·----'-c-l-----'-----,.i-. ---------,1611 ,-~--·-·-·4i ~ •--••--·-----·---·«j.:.-.,....,.._,,,.........,_,.__~,.----~w,;....,,-,,_,._,,,. -•".,..._...,,_ ---·------4------,,_,.,.,__,,_,-.,,,. . ....,.....,,..,_,,..., t r-"'" _,_ .. ,,.... __ _,.._...._,_._..,~,,-,.,.-,~f ~n-'" -~....,_.,.,., • ....,..,,,...,.........,..~,--•-··-~~ • ~ ,~1--..,....,. __ , "-""'~ ~. ~-•~ ~•• -·~ ... ,,.,,. nj,,...,.,,, J•....W••••~~,.,--~·-" ••">•P • ~ '• •, '""'"""i C.< I so f:...-"'.._._.,..h-Z5-·------------· -----------;----------·-· --·-·-· -----~t~ I ; ,:,:;, .:~··•-"'"'·--·~o·~·.---~-.-·,, ........................ e ... --- - ---+.-. -_____ ..,.,,...., ,, RELOC ·. 2"W ' [ 1 --~ ' ........ -1 . ' ..... .....--l . . ' ' ---! -~ .............. ,,._,,._,__ ____ +,---· -· .. ---· ·----'~.,. '-.,;::----:-,, -· ----t-:::~S:-'::~:!!:==--1:.,--1n-1-·--· ' . 'r JED-,. ; .... :--·_:t··-----1W1-=-·36;·---NOM·D1A-~ l @ S=o.32%,3-;-;· 00% . ; r-----1 -..... --·· 1--F~-~?.~J~--·-··---·--1 1---· --·--·-·---...., .. -... -- .. _ --·-r----,-----------·--I 'l .-... 1· t I.,' '20 30 -· I , ........ . -20 .-, .... -.- -=-3-:-N,zo'='Rn,""'. ""ER.+N:-'P?.l"'PE:±s""-"'----1" f 35.• BOT EL 18.4 7 10 .:: ~-~~-~.·::·~--:-··-~ --~J., ., . . ............. ?~l~~~~E.!.~~~=-~~-----·------·-··-----=--~[ ___ . __ -~----~~~.~:-=~~-~~-~~~~-------~[ ___ ·--.... :~:::~----· -··-·-~~: ... -·· ....... ,, ------·-·-----_,,._ -· ~ ~~-=------·-. -=~·~· --... 1 10 2+50 3+00 3+50 PROFILE HORIZ: 1 "= 10' VERT: 1•~10' I f--'"'l"------------------,i----""!'"--,.------------, §t' -=6=--t-m,si-QllS--------------t-011_n: __ f-s_r_,_~~R.;..ED!!H~ER!!:M!!,E~S------I DRAW l •a l 8 t---+----------------;----+---l K. TAYLOR 1-...:.;c._==;.;..., ______ _ ! CfltCKEO . ONE INCH AT FULL SCAL!a, U' NOT, SCAI..E ACCORDINGLY ss"s-1779-029 .. l-----~l---,...~~~~~~~~~......:~~1..--~......li,.......~~;::;::::::::;;---~~~~~~ ....,,.,~~~~"'--1,,...,..><J,..t.~ . 12'1 ffiYAAll~U'f! tlJWlER w~m.:.r-a~ ~w r. ~),$>il.:$"1l~ f·.1'-lo·.NJ.~ : ~ {l211':r-:,c"ll'\1f.~ · f'RQ..ECT NAM£ RIPLEY LANE STORM IMPROVEMENTS RENTON, WASHINGTON • / .·,.,; ' SURCHARGED PIPE ALTERNATIVE DflA\\11~ HO • 2 OF3 C2 . • .. ... , ;·:·. ~ . -'PPRO'.a> 0"',ucusr :2007 ,~: I p __ _._ ___________ • ____ .._ __ _._ __ ..._ _________ __. 1_._.:.:::_;:;:-.:--::.::;=.:,---------:a=;;=:=====;;;...----..I.,...-..---,, .. -----·-------------' -~--------------------------------------------' ..... ____ __. \ ~ _ , ,:, .. , 'i·C.:.·_t,\., · >J ·;_j,', _;y -, .• , •.. > .• · .·.-.•• , / • • .'., -·-.. ,,.·,. _.!~.-' ,,_--! -!,. · -' ""' • , ;s, ; ",. -, ; P, -, '. ·L< _,.,,. i "''''I',,-, s. ,--, ,,--,·, il ,-'' ' ··:k'" ,:., .<,,• ,,:-. ·' 2-,." '< · , •· ' '• • 1 · ,. '" ,~_, ... , -~ , '· -'"' ' • ... •, • ' '> · , • " • ' ~ " -,. . ,.c,, ... <>-'' ,---.,'.· ·.-,,, ·,, . ·· .,-,. · . ., .... _ ,,. .. •· · ,._ :.,: Yr,.,_.--_.\ ·1;-· ·• .. " ... ;;~ ': :·. :· "~f··-, '.'",,Jl''-.,:·,_,,: ·:-·, .r:, ·,;1r,'')>'"jik1' • tif¥j'i"1,JP,.P1· -1''!(' ·ir:---y,n_-,1·:_;1• :.tj 1~w1;"1 ·' w._' ,.•.,_, --·""' •. , .. -,.. -, ·-'--.::. '···"-"•·,.-., ·' • r{~'-·.'·-'~!''>-,l'-f.',i{'' ;· ' .... 34'± i--------------------""''-=---··----------------1 re--TOP OF BNSf RA!L EL 35.0± It! t "' ·-!!!· I j .. ·-~ ~~ ~"' -"' ~ f ~ .,,. ;: "' ~ ~ E t r ;; • ' " 8 ·• ' . ' ' .. !. ' . ' 13. R£'i1Sl0NS .. '';., . OPEN EXCAVATION. TRENCH __ ~.~CT~~N . . ffi • NO SCA!.£ C2 !lY . OESIGNEO R. HERMES ... • g O/lA\\11 1----1-----------------+-----11----1 J. B£TZV0G _____ _.........,..,....,_ _____ _ g. 1----...-------------·-----l-----l'----l CHEC!<£0 ... · L sor oF TIE a 33:a± -........ 6"' BAl.LAST "--SVB-BA!.t.AST:· MATERIAL ~ 4-42"STL CASING (%'' THI<) '---8EOOING Jemt. : it : ONII! INCH AT FULi.. S¢A.1.E, . IF NOT, SCAl.ll AC¢0RPlNGLY , . • .. .. l-~-l-----------------l.----1---11-:;::::=::-;;:;;;-----------; t=, 556-1779-029 01 01 FT ' ·.1ntffiYM·~'./af.£ ~uJJ.Ht~ w~oo ~, T: l!i"'-Kl,:;·nt f; 2:5;;1.~.¢,14 .... ~~~ • ' ·. PROJ::Cl NAl.lf RIPLEY LANE STORM IMPROVEMENTS RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ ' ., .. ,__1,..._,~ .. ,;.~,,:,. ;;·,--,;!: , .... _._ .. , •._ •. , . ' • • DETAIL ., OAAW,NG NO. 3 OF3 C3 . .' . ·'. . . -., ..:. : ·, ~ O· APPROVE'!> A UGUST .2007 --"""'--------------.....1---..... --ia.-----------'---;:;.;;~...;;.;;;.::;,:. _____________________ .,_ ___________________ __. ._ __________________ ...., 1.-------------------------.a. 't.,,-----~ === ---~ --~. --=-·~·-_-_-_-_-_-__ ·-_··-·-::--:_._ ..... _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_~---"--"-------..-.. -------------t· 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 \---tE 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 EXISTING 405 PIPE DISCHARGE-.--- I \-- I PLAN ~ ~ .0 C SCALE IN FEET f:' ~ a. 0 1 0 20 ;: m c:, ~ g 0.. E 0.. -0 r'i ,... REVISIONS 0 DATE BY DESIGNED R. HERMES 0 "' .,; 0 ~ u DRAWN 1---1---------------+----J---jl--'J::.., -=Bc=E.:.:TZccV_cO_:_G _____ , l-~--l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t--~~~t-~---j CHECKED 0 ~ APPROVED < c:, I J I I J I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I J J I I I I I ..,, C) <..O d OD d O'> d u, N WETLAND BOUNDARY 2 ----------------, to I ,, ', ,, to I N u, ,.,---WETLAND BOUNDARY "F # II / / I I I \ \ / / // / ', ! I / ' I \ --, --- 0 -·----,,, -----~-- ' ' ' ,, ' ' ' --·· \ ', \ ' ' \ \ \ I I \ I I I ,. / --- • -- ' I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ • ' I I I J J I I I I I I I I I \ I \ ' I \ \ -1 \ I I \ \ \ \ ' I I I I ' \ I \ I \) 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 u I I I ' I I I I ' I I I ' I I l I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'il I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cl o' I u \ / 0 u 'p Q__ /, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cl I I I ' I ; ' I ' l ' l I ' ' I I ' ' ~ I I \ \ \ r \ I \ 0 u \ I \ ' : I \ I / ! I 0 u i \ '5 I I I I \ o I \u 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 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 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 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 I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I J I I I ! J I I I I -, --:'--, CONCEPTU1 AL;,,OESIGN ---. --- ---,, 0 I I I I I I I ' I I [ 4 \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ONE INCH AT FULL SCALE. IF NOT, SCALE ACCORDINGLY FL ', \ \ \ \ \ sumner BL 1779029P01 T01 C01 0, . 558-1779-029 01 01 DAT~UGUST 2007 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' ,, ------..... I I . -1 ' I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I ' \ \ \ . ,, ', ....... "·--·------~----·-··------------- DRAFT 1231 FRYAR AVENUE SUMNER, WASHINGTON 98390 T. 263.863.5128 F. 253,863,0946 www ,pararne1rlx,com -. ,, ' I I ''-'--,, I I 0 I I ', '/ b '·-----J 1' ---------. "·, I I -------~----- 0 /I.· i ..._ -.. .... I I ........ ..., I 0 I I I I I I o, -u \.,,,, --· ·---, ' ____ ,~~ '----.. ----·-• _,MM____ -... --·-------------------·-____________ p --·-----, 0 0 0 0 0 ' I I I I I I I I I I 01 ell I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·/ QI I ul ' 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 I I I I I I J I I I I I J I I ;::o OJ I OD ------N '-" .. PROJECT NAME 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I r I~ / I I I I I I r 1 , ; 1 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 Gj, f, I I I I I I I I I Cl I ' I ' I I I I : I I I I I I r/ I !/ RIPLEY LANE STORM IMPROVEMENTS ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONME~TAL SCIENCES RENTON, WASHINGTON ' l I I !. ,, t' I I \ ' \ i / I \ ! I \j I I I 0 u I I I I \ \ \ 11 \ , q\ / I I J 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 I I I I \ I I I I I i I I I i ,, I l I l 1 WETLAND AND OHWL SURCHARGED PIPE ALTERNATIVE DRAWING NO, OF C1 '' -. '' ,'.~, ,.t