No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscType A HYDRAULIC REPORT SR 167 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit MP 24.70 to MP 25.69 XL -3348, PIN 840502F WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Northwest Region Seattle, Washington HDR Engineering, Inc Matthew Gray, P.E. CERT#1374 Project Engineer f: O � 39857 Lorena Eng, P.E. Region Administrator December 2011 17JR Table of Contents 1.0 Project Overview.........................................................................f 1.1 Funding..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Site Location........................................................................................................1 1.3 Scope of Work.....................................................................................................1 2.0 Site Conditions.........................................................1500........................... 1 2.1 General Description.. ........................................... ............................................... 1 2.1.1 Springbrook Creek Sub-Basin..................................................................3 2.1.2 Threshold Discharge Areas......................................................................4 2.2 Wetlands.............................................................................................................4 2.3 Major and Regulated Floodplains........................................................................7 2.4 Flooding Problems...............................................................................................7 2.5 Existing Conveyance...........................................................................................7 2.5.1 Springbrook Creek tributary —SW 34`h Street............................................7 2.5.2 Springbrook Creek tributary —SW 23`d Street............................................8 2.6 Soils..................................................................................................................9 2.6.1 General Mapping......................................................................................9 2.7 Existing Utilities............................................................................................ . ..11 3.0 Drainage Criteria................................................................................... 12 3.1 Minimum Requirements...................................................................................12 3.1.1 Stormwater Planning.............................................................................12 3.1.2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention........................................12 3.1.3 Source Control of Pollutants...................................................................12 3.1.4 Maintaining the Natural Drainage System..............................................12 3.1.5 City of Renton........................................................................................12 3.2 Downstream Analysis........................................................................................13 4.0 Developed Conditions........................................................I.................. 13 4.1 Culverts.............................................................................................................13 4.2 Outfalls............................................................ ........... ... 1111., ..............................14 4.3 Stream Improvements..__.._................................................................................14 5.0 Right -of -Way Impacts■........................................................................■ 14 6.0 Utilities.............................................................. 7.0 Permits.................................................................................................. 14 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit i Hydraulic Report DDDDDD00000144752 List of Tables Table 1. Existing Cross Culverts................................................................................................9 Table2. Soil Types...................................................................................................................1Q Table3. Permits......................................................................................................................14 List of Figures Figure1. Project Location.........................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Sub -Watersheds Within the Duwamish/Green River Water Resource Inventory Area.3 Figure3. Springbrook Creek.....................................................................................................5 Figure4. NRCS Map...............................................................................................................11 List of Appendices AppendixA Drainage Plans................................................................................................ A-1 AppendixB NHC Report..................................................................................................... B-1 AppendixC Culvert Design................................................................................................. C-1 Appendix D Streambed Material Design............................................................................. D-1 Appendix E Geotechnical Report........................................................................................ E-1 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit It Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 1.0 Project Overview This Hydraulic Report documents the following permanent hydraulic improvements, and other related modifications to be constructed as a result of improvements to Panther Creek and replacement of a cross culvert under SR 167 at MP 25.69. A section of Panther Creek will be relocated and the existing cross culvert C72 and fish ladder will be removed and a new fish passable culvert will be installed as mitigation for the 2008 Thunder Hills Creek emergency culvert repair located at MP 3.06 of 1-405. Work activities include: clearing and grubbing, grading, constructing new culvert, relocation of existing ditch, and plugging two existing culverts. 1.1 Funding Funding on this project is split between Federal Emergency Relief Funds (90.66%) and Washington State 2005 Transportation Partnership Account (9.34%). 1.2 Site Location This project is located from MP 24.70 to MP 25.69 along SR 167, SR 167 traverses generally level terrain in urban King County and the City of Renton, Figure 1. The improvements for this project will occur within Section 19 and 30, of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, of the Willamette Meridian, in King County. 1.3 Scope of Work The project involves the removal of 189 feet of existing 72 -inch diameter steel pipe and fish ladder structure at MP 25.66 and replacing it with 220 feet of 19-2" by 11'-9" pipe arch. The existing Panther Creek ditch near culvert C65 and C66 will be relocated to the east at the southern end of the project. Two existing cross culverts, C65 and C66 will be plugged. 2.0 Site Conditions 2.1 General Description The project is within Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 — the Green-Duwamish River Watershed. WRIA's are managed and developed by Washington Department of Ecology. Figure 2 show the boundaries WRIA 9. In the early 1900s, the Green, White, Black and Cedar Rivers all experienced major changes. The White River which flowed into the Green River, was diverted into the Puyallup River following severe flooding in 1907. The Cedar River, which used to flow into the Black River, was re-routed into Lake Washington via a new 2,000 foot long channel. After completion of the Montlake Cut, Lake Washington drained into Union Bay instead of into its natural drainage location at the Black River. The Black River became a remnant channel as the Lake dropped several feet in elevation after completion of the Cut. In 1958, an earthen dam was constructed approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the Green river confluence on the remnant channel of the Black River to block flows from the Green River that would create flooding in the lower Renton Valley. In 1972, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service replaced the dam with the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) to provide drainage from agricultural lands and reduce the impacts of flooding from the Green River on the Renton Valley. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 1 Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 The WR1A is further divided into Sub -watersheds which are further divided into Basins, Sub -basins, and TDAs in this report. The project is within the Lower Green River Sub - watershed of WRIA 9. The Lower Green River sub -watershed encompasses the Green River Valley from Auburn north to Tukwila. Figure 2 shows the boundary of the Lower Green River sub -watershed as defined by the Washington Department of Ecology. The basin resides within the Puget Lowland eco -region which is characterized by open hills and flat lands of glacial and palustrine deposits. This sub -watershed has been dramatically transformed over the last 130 years and yet is a vital migration corridor used by fish going to and from the Middle Green to the Duwamish estuary. Figure 1. Project Location Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 2 Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 Figure 2. Sub -Watersheds Within the Duwamish/Green River Water Resource Inventory Area V. Duwamish Estuary Subwatershed .; Middle Green River d ' Subwatershed 40 e a e e yR ~ Nearshore Subwatershed Lower Green River Subwatershed Watershed Boundary Upper Green River .�^ SubwnwnMdbonnGry Sul watershed Urb+n CW*W%h Bbun4+ry ' Lake The Lower Green River Sub -watershed is made up of two basins, the Lower Green River and the Black River. The project is within the Black River basin. The Springbrook Creek Sub- Basin is the largest part of the Black River basin. 2.1.1 Springbrook Creek Sub -Basin This basin encompasses an area west to east from approximately 1-405 MP 1.2 to MP 3.1, and south to north from approximately SR 167 MP 24.6 to MP 26.1. This basin drains an area of approximately 25 square miles located in a highly urbanized area of western King County. The basin is bounded by the boundary between the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila, and east to hills adjacent to 1-405 and SR 167. The creek drains portions of the Cities of Kent, Renton, and Tukwila and unincorporated King County. It also includes the tributaries of SW 23rd Street drainage channel; SW 19th Street, SW 34th Street, and SW 43rd Street systems; and the Panther Creek Wetland Complex. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 3 Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 Tributaries to Springbrook Creek are Panther Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, and Thunder Hills Creek. Figure 3 illustrates Springbrook Creek in context with each of these tributary systems. An additional tributary is Garrison Creek that is outside the influence of the project in the City of Kent. These streams originate on the plateau along the east side of the SR -167 corridor and are supplemented by localized inflow within the valley. Springbrook Creek flows to the BRPS. From there it is pumped to a wide channel that drains into the Green River. 2.1.2 Threshold Discharge Areas Threshold Discharge Areas (TDAs) are defined as on-site areas draining to a single natural or manmade discharge locations that combine within one quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flow path). As part of the 1-405 Renton Nickel project, Springbrook Creek was broken into 3 TDAs. The portion of SR 167 draining to Panther Creek and Panther Creek Wetland was determined to be one TDA. TDA S3 encompasses the portion of SR 167 from just north of SW 23rd Street to the SW 43rd Street Exit. Freeway runoff discharges to the Panther Creek drainage/wetland system via sheet flow. Characterized by predominately flat terrain, a large portion of this basin is located within a floodplain and is surmised to have a relatively high ground water table. The main Panther Creek Wetland is located east of SR 167. Excess flows cross SR 167 via culverts C65, C66, and C72 and eventually discharge to Springbrook Creek. 2.2 Wetlands The Panther Creek Wetland Complex adjacent to SR 167 is a 65 acre wetland complex associated with Panther Creek, located along the foothills of the Talbot Hill west to SR 167. The City of Renton's Critical Areas Wetland Inventory identifies the wetland as being a Palustrine Forested wetland (PFO) / Palustrine Emergent meadow (PEM) complex. The east side of SR167 is connected to the wetland along the west side of SR 167 through several culverts. The wetland provides flood storage, and removal of toxicants and nutrients. It also provides a higher value wildlife habitat because it is large in size, has multiple vegetation communities and is an area of seasonal flooding. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 4 Hydraulic Report OOOODDOOOOO144752 k'N IL. 2.3 Magor and Regulated Floodplains Floodplain zones have been identified in the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (Map 53033C0977F, Map 53033C0978F, Map 53033C0979F). Floodplain zones related to the Green River, and Springbrook watershed are identified as follows: • Northeast of SR 16711-405 Interchange, adjacent to the Renton Village (Zone A, AE and AH), • North of Panther Creek between SW 27th Street and SW 16th Street, west of SR 167 (Zone AE and AH), • West of SR 167, along SW 27th Street (Zone AE), Springbrook Creek (Zone AE), 2.4 Flooding Problems Historically flooding has occurred at several locations along 1-405 and SR 167 near the project. Three locations are in the Project vicinity. Renton Village Center: As stated by the City of Renton, three parking lot flooding events occurred in 2004 on the north side of 1-405 between the SR 167 interchange and Talbot Road (Renton Village Center). East Valley Road between SW 43`d Street and SW 34th Street; and Springbrook Creek crossing at Oakesdale Avenue. 2.5 Existing Conveyance Runoff from SR 167, Panther Creek and Panther Creek Wetland is collected in grass lined ditches along either side of the freeway. Flows from the east side are conveyed to the west side ditch via three cross culverts C65, C66, C72 and on to Springbrook Creek through the SW 23"' St and SW 3e Street conveyance systems. During times of high flow some runoff flows from the east side of SR 167 to the north and cross culvert C-76 associated with Rolling Hills Creek. Panther Creek enters the southeast end of the Panther Creek Wetland. It is braided into two or three separate channels, entering the roadside ditch at intervals along this section of SR 167, The braided channels change their alignment due to the alluvial fan at the southeast end of the Panther Creek Wetland. 2.5.1 Springbrook Creek tributary —SW 34th Street In the vicinity of SW 411t Street, flow is conveyed under SR 167 and runoff generated from the on and off -ramps at the intersection enters into the City of Renton's conveyance system on the west side of the interchange. The City system runs north along East Valley Road to SW 341h Street, then west to Springbrook Creek. The mainline of SR 167 north of SW 41" Street drains to ditches on either side of the freeway. The ditch on the east side enters the Panther Creek Wetland. Two cross culverts 0-65 at MP 24.72 and C66 at MP 24.81, connect these two ditches. Near the outlet of culvert C66, the combined flows (West Fork Panther Creek) leave the freeway corridor and continue to the west across private property (Billie's Casino). At East Valley Road, the channel enters the City of Renton drainage system flowing north to SW 34th Street and eventually Springbrook Creek, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 7 Hydraulic Report DDDDDDDDDDO144752 A detention vault was installed at the end of the northbound on ramp from S 1130'' Street as part of the ramp widening for the HOT Lanes project. The detention vault outfalls to a ditch north of culvert G66. 2.5.2 Springbrook Creek tributary --SW 23rd Street Continuing north on the SR 167 mainline to the crossing of SW 23rd Street, sheet flow and lateral pipes discharge runoff to each side of the freeway. Runoff is conveyed north via a wetland ditch on the west and Panther Creek Wetlands on the east. The two water courses are hydraulically connected by Cross Culvert C72 at MP 25.66. The east ditch, Panther Creek East Fork, flows to a fish weir structure, and then under SR 167 through a 72 inch steel culvert (C72). This culvert is the main outfall conveyance for the Panther Creek Wetland complex. At the freeway's western edge, the culvert outfalls to a short channel running west for approximately 100 feet to dual 48 inch concrete culverts (C73) passing under East Valley Road. Along the western edge of East Valley Road, the culvert discharges to a channel running west following the Olympic Pipeline Company utility corridor. Continuing west, the system runs through a series of open channels and large culverts, eventually discharging to Springbrook Creek. The west wetland ditch discharges to an open ditch approximately 700 feet south of SW 27'` Street. Flow enters the open channel and flows west through private property, entering the City of Renton's conveyance system in East Valley Road. Once in the City system, conveyance continues north along East Valley Road to SW 23 rd Street right-of- way, discharging to the channel running west along the Olympic Pipeline. Seven (7) culverts were plugged during previous HOV widening work on SR 167 in an effort to force the majority of Panther Creek flows through the wetland complex. Five (5) plugged culverts (C67 through C71) were found during field investigation for the 1-405 Renton Nickel project. Video surveys were conducted on Culverts C65 and C66, indicating both CMP pipes are in good condition structurally. Culvert C66 has been extended by 2 feet to accommodate the new lane added to the off ramp to SW 41st Street as part of the 1-405 Renton Stage One project. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 8 Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 Table 1. Existing Cross Culverts Culvert ID Type Station (MP) Description C65 24"CMP 24.72 Panther Creek Tributary freeway crossing. Pipe is in newer condition, some debris observed C66 30" CMP 24.81 Panther Creek main stem freeway crossing. Pipe is in good condition inside with some rust. One of the crossings under SR 167 transporting flows of Panther Creek Wetland Complex from east to west_ A fish C72 72" Steel 25.66 ladder is newly constructed to improve the fish passage. Meanwhile other 7 (5 found) culverts south are plugged to enhance flow to north and therefore to encourage the fish passage. C73 2X48" CMP 25.60 Twin -culvert passing underneath Past Valley Road, downstream from culvert C-72. Sox culvert conveying on-site and off-site runoff from C76 XX 4" Box 26.08 Renton Village, Thunder Hills Creek, Rolling Hills Creek, 1- 405 freeway. 2.6 Soils A Geotechnical Report titled "Proposed Panther Creek Culvert Replacement, Crossing of SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project, Renton, Washington" dated December 15, 2011, prepared by the 1-405 project team, outlines the preliminary geotechnical information, geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit project. The geotechnical report is available for review in Appendix E. 2.6.1 General Mapping According to the Geotechnical Report, the mapped subsurface conditions along the project corridor generally consist of two soil units: wetland deposits and alluvium. These soil units and their typical engineering characteristics are described in the Geology section of the Geotechnical Report. The subsurface soil conditions are described in detail in the Geotechnical Report. The Soil Survey Map (Figure 4- NCRS Map) shows that the soils alongside SR 167 are generally wetland soils belonging to Hydrologic Group D from Table 4B-1, "Hydrologic Soil Series for Selected Soils in Washington State", HRM and urban fill placed for SR 167. Table 2 lists the different soils types. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 9 Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 Table 2. Soil Types Soil Type Name Hydrologic Croup Sk Seattle Muck D Pu Puget Silty Clay loam D Ur Urban Land -- Tu Tukwila Muck D The Geotechnical Report included five new borings which combined with a boring done as part of the 1-405 Renton Stage 1 Project were used to assess subsurface conditions. A hydrologeologic (dewatering) assessment was done to determine the groundwater impact on the project. The hydrologeologic assessment is also available for review in Appendix E. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 10 Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 Figure 4. NRCS Map 2.7 Existing Utilities There is an existing 12 -inch sanitary sewer along the east side of SR 167 which the new Panther Creek stream channel will cross. Just north of Culvert C66, a 16 -inch sanitary sewer crosses SR 167. The new stream channel will also cross this sanitary sewer. Both existing sanitary sewer lines will be protected during construction and not impacted. Directly north of Culvert 72, is a utility corridor crossing SR 167. Within this corridor are a 60 -inch City of Seattle Water line, 16 -inch Olympic Pipeline, and numerous overhead electrical lines. This project will not impact this utility corridor. Within SR 167, there are existing fiber optics and various electrical lines for the traffic control system. The systems running in the median and along the shoulder will be impacted by this project. Thunder Hills Greek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 11 Hydraulic Report 44000000000144752 3.0 Drainage Criteria The design of the new culvert and stream channel follows the WSDOT Hydraulics Manual, Highway Runoff Manual (HRM), Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife criteria for fish passage, and City of Renton Stormwater Criteria including Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administered requirements. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City Renton are concerned with hydrologic response to the Panther Creek Wetland and the effect on peak discharges in the SW 19'� Street, SW 23`d Street and SW 34`h Street drainage systems between Panther Creek Wetland and Springbrook Creek. 3.1 Minimum Requirements Minimum Requirements 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the HRM apply to this project. No new impervious surface is added by this project. There is more than 7,006 square feet of land disturbing activity associated with this project. The City of Renton has additional requirements concerning impact to the Panther Creek Wetland, Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek downstream. 3.1.1 Stormwater Planning Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planning consists of the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESC) that will be submitted to the Northwest Region Compliance and TESC Group. A Spill Prevention, Control and Counter Measures Plan (SPCC) will be required in the project's contract provisions. 3.1.2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction stormwater prevention is documented in' the TESC Plan that has been prepared for this project. Construction stormwater pollution prevention is also specified in Standard Specification 1.07.15(1). 3.1.3 Source Control of Pollutants Source control of pollutants during construction is included in the TESC Plan. Post construction source control will be managed through operational and structural BMPs discussed in WSDOT's Maintenance Manual. 3.1.4 Maintaining the Natural Drainage System Panther Creek will continue to flow to Springbrook Creek. It is only the section from SW 41St Street to SW 341h Street that will be modified. Stream flows will be shifted from the west side of SR 167 to the east side of SR 167 by plugging culverts C65 and C66. The intent is to reduce the potential of flooding in the SW 34'h Street channel and improve fish passage. 3.1.5 City of Renton The City of Renton has expressed concerns about drainage capacity deficiencies within the East Valley Road that appear to include the SW 4h Street conveyance, SW 23rd Street conveyance system and 34th Street drainage system tributaries of Springbrook Creek. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were conducted for the Springbrook Creek basin with particular focus on hydrology of the Panther Creek Wetland. The hydrologic modeling made extensive use of previous modeling performed by NHC for City of Renton FEMA Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 12 Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 Study and WSDOT in 2004 — 2006. The current modeling and analysis was done to address the following: • The anticipated hydrologic response of the Panther Creek Wetland to the proposed outlet design. • The effect of the proposed outlet on peak discharges (2, 10, and 100 -year) in the SW 19th Street, SW 23`d Street, and SW 34" Street drainage systems between Panther Creek Wetland and Springbrook Creek. • The effect of the proposed project on flows (and therefore water surface elevations) in S�ringbrook Creek approximately 1/4 mile downstream of confluence with the SW 19' Street channel and 1/4 mile upstream of confluence with 23rd Street channel. • The effect of the proposed project on water surface elevations within Panther Creek Wetland. All hydrologic modeling was conducted using the Hydrologic Simulation Program — FORTRAN (HSPF) model. A HEC -RAS model of the SW 23d Street channel was also developed from an earlier model developed by NHC (2006) and applied to provide stage - discharge information for use in the hydrologic modeling. This analysis done by NHC can be found in Appendix B. 3.2 Downstream Analysis The downstream impacts of the new fish passable culvert and plugging of culverts C65 and C66 is discussed in the report by NHC, included as Appendix B. 4.0 Developed Conditions The developed conditions are shown on the plans, profiles and details included in Appendix A and described in the following sections. 4.1 Culverts Culvert C72 will be replaced along the same alignment and made fish passable. Culverts C65 and C66 will be plugged. The new culvert was sized based on a methodology proposed by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (MITFD) based on a concept developed by WDFW. The method associated annual precipitation (inches) and basin area (square miles) to determine the geomorphic stream width assuming the basin was not altered. The equation used is BankfullWidth = 0.95 x WA' .45 x AAP°.&' Where WA is the Watershed Area (square miles) and AAP is the average annual precipitation (inches). The width was calculated to be 13.6 feet using watershed area of 2.6 square miles and annual precipitation of 38.6 inches per year. Application of the WDFW stream simulation methodology results in a stream width of approximately 18. 3 feet. The preliminary design calculations for Culvert C72 are included in Appendix C. The new Culvert C72 will be a 220.2 feet long pipe arch 19"-2" by 11'-9". The bottom of the culvert will be filled with streambed gravel. The depth of gravel will vary from 6.2 feet at the inlet to 5.5 feet at the outlet. The new stream channel will have a slope of 0.7 percent. The culvert itself will have a slope of 1 percent. Thunder dills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 13 Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 4.2 Outfalls The new culvert C72 will tie back into the existing Panther Creek stream channel west of SR 167 at the edge of the right-of-way. 4.3 Stream Improvements Panther Creek will be relocated for 758 feet beginning where it turns north alongside the east side of SR 167, near the end of the northbound on-ramp from S 180'x' Street. The stream channel will be widened and enhanced with woody debris and plants. The channel slope will be 0.63 percent. The stream improvements will tie back into the existing channel north of Culvert C66 which is the outfall ditch from the detention tank in the northbound shoulder on SR 167. A short shallow channel segment has been placed between the Panther Creek wetland and the culvert inlet. This channel is a wide trapezoid with an approximately 12 foot wide bottom and 2 to 1 side slopes. Design calculations for the new stream channel are included in Appendix D. Analysis of the stream channel and plugging of Culvert 65 and 66 impacts on the Panther Creek Wetland are included in Appendix B. The first NHC Report dated June 26, 2009, provides the overall basin information used in the analysis done by NHC. The second report dated February 22, 2010, discusses the impact of the stream design on the SW 23`d Street tributary. The stage duration and average daily stage hydrograph at Panther Creek Wetland for Scenario 10 and 17 shows the peak stage is well below the elevation of SR 167. In these figures, Scenario 10 represents the existing condition and Scenario 17 represents the project developed conditions. 5.0 Right -of -Way Impacts This project will be constructed within WSDCT right-of-way and construction easements obtained from the City of Renton. A drainage easement from the City of Renton is required around the inlet of the new culvert C72. 6.0 Utilities There are existing fiber optics and various electrical lines for the traffic control system in SR 167 that will be impacted by this. 7.0 Permits The permits required for this project are listed in Table 3. In addition the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will review the drawings. As part of the City of Renton permit process, a Pre - Application meeting is required with them prior to permit submittal. Table 3. Permits Agency Permit WA Dept. of Ecology NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval City of Renton Critical Areas Exemption (C72) Critical Areas Variance (Stream Relocate) Noise Variance (Nighttime Work) Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit 14 Hydraulic Report 00000000000144752 Appendix A Drainage Plans A-1 cn %0 ui N a z z z � cc zLd ce Lj tA O 0 cv CL r oe Ln Z 0 a 0 Wo V LU 0 o _ 4 a J LU 0 LM.J N C In CL G Zo D z w 3:0 ayam. O IA V ZO = F LU in LII UJ am W OD L L "' C = ���//�� M♦ w Z c 0> �— LL ad a Z � G ti � yy O' urC5 all, Of g >n u u w rU lil C N Ol7 e� w�Ln ui d LL. LU 2z(Cz0 W LJ M -i Q' j IS 36''—'�'c+iL' ��otz `ti � sz W ��' a 1j ' f'rr 1 �" �• If ' i I,.,. � 1 � rS `,� � � � 4 i• k:� 1 X11 � I` iiiiip r � I 1 i { •/i!},' y yp LLI T`V 4`�� -�•--p ty Fi—gin li.; �� 9 wb'"�Iti ,--� r'� �I., �� l' • i � � ,I�.�� -' t� 6 u q E � r.r � ., ff l�r I � ° � I ,I rl!• 1 l� y -' � l Ktiji �I ( l,�; �' V w'I ��I" �` -_J�• "�` O .1_`i� Ai 4 ;Jz V. din 6� I �a W 311MA 02Imoolaid as o I1�"Qfi z W LL 4 H 12 Y �ll w (C y W yU J °K zm x wE2 aW z a a -4:-A YSIM-1-1d Oil '� V a 11 Rig 4 X -T 9 4 E a N 11 h upp.i ----------- ,57- gag, j: Oil '� V a 11 Rig 4 X -T 9 4 E a N 11 upp.i gag, j: Oil '� V a 11 Rig 4 X -T 9 4 E a N 11 LL Its wog HO 1 11 1 81 a; 19 1 1 11 Be I oil, 'DOT 10 -+I-OL I 41 wog HO 1 11 1 81 a; 19 1 1 11 Be I oil, 'DOT 10 -+I-OL I TA I It. Nile epi all 1 §1 pl wo . 1 ; t 9 Z If Q., 0- . —. Op gi- ly OP Op too! OHW s I OHS-, L rj I BERM EMEMHMM I,~ i I, �11 15 "IMA -MA00-1d W LMm C4 H w� c lFi Z�� zi Ir u: a ZZI C7 t7 wwc WN I d93 171MA -!A WOE d f W=� o� aoLd 0� t 222 gg {� W He ~ r I ag 0 W; i o 3� . ... . .. ... D W a ca x u a do .iI"A ac;R;oajo�d It El HN 141MA41IRg"JOld MMA "SPIiVfjOJd �• I co LLI I I �iDI I ru W a � I W ilL'dw a J o ', x WLUfDJw + � 1 , It's acs ', + , '' ,ac , s I. 1•�Y �'} �II `�%c bp QA I- `J7�i'II QP, O Lp- OPI: •° - it �, i� W Ln ir R -ITI I Its NJ Y.cn LU 'lei dtw^ •1 1 I i U, I�oa�I ;Ell ST I1) rlt _ ago�LLJ .K1 iiliM)A v x c F w n i" F F Ly Joel I r RI 13 --- s C y m Qo 111 - - rr\ �i6Y $ I a' H I E k ll r� I , r r r ��� i a fir QL • 04 .! r 1 ILlSON; „ L NEI ',_ LV. / cc- +l•. a OOO `Cq W �O t_Eli I will. 11 gal r [ -1-' � r• W •1 ' • jl I .� r� t i �g � 4F it I ' ' • ; r r rr ^, r � ( ! it AT u IS $E ya E•' m 0. .] 1, 1 i I � FE a R E II I�,.-• . J i� � zr r f FF JI i I u pp ppuq�Iyy�S Z � Iii III '� 1 1 aMM C�n7...+•o� awM; -.UNN ..�QL'� � �j JIM IV � u� dH7 131MA VSIM}»jaJd �k =� n 0� -r t` iS VIM SC 4 tf Do e[ d W " et LL w � I d n h S-- - - - al a m NI IF p p Rio w n y 111 1 �v12 ° PER -� 91 11! 1! PIMA tl t I! ,� Il I' I I I. II I 11 �I Im is iw';a LSI $�� 1-- !' i' + a gUi It 71- ZZ 14 A� j v� ml�i �� 1 w i Ll LS 111rnA wwiPimwtoJ � O'01I0I 4, 14, �O O OHO DiC 4� �m HsCn 9i Iw�h D g O fed � ra Q a'O W h OCG 4 W IC D �I��a �qqq ' !— •� • Iwi !�!� 13 f � I �"� ai `� Ipwplw �i w I yy � w �y I IW.wu mewl �S a Appendix B NHC Report Scenario Descriptions The scenarios modeled are described in the matrix included as Appendix A. Fallowing is a brief description highlighting the key features of the scenarios related to this analysis. • Scenario 1 represents the future hydrologic baseline condition and is the scenario against which other future land use scenarios will be compared. The HSPF model for this scenario uses the existing (2001) land -use condition for areas along the WSDOT highway corridors (SR -167 and 1-405) and the full build out land -use condition for the remainder of the basin. • Scenario 10 represents the existing hydrologic baseline condition and is the scenario against which other existing land use scenarios will be compared. The HSPF model for this scenario uses the existing (2001) land -use condition throughout the basin. • Scenario 11 is based on Scenario 1 but includes the WSDOT "Master Plan" improvements along the SR -167 highway corridor and plugging of culverts 65 and 66 at the south end of the Panther Creek Wetland (PCW), Scenario 11 does not include modifications to the SW 23rd Street outlet from PCW. • Scenario 12 is based on Scenario 1 but includes a 320 -foot fish -passable culvert replacing culvert 72 under SR -167. Scenario 12 also includes other WSDOT project elements including "Master Plan" improvements along the SR -167 highway corridor and plugging culverts 65 and 66 at the south end of PCW. • Scenario 13 is based on Scenario 12 with the fish -passable culvert extended 100 feet to also replace the existing culvert under E=ast Valley Highway. Scenario 15 is analogous to Scenario 13 for the existing land use condition. • Scenario 16 is analogous to Scenario 12 for the existing land use condition. Scenario 17 is based on Scenario 10 but includes a 220 -foot fish -passable culvert replacing culvert 72 under SR -167. Scenario 17 includes plugging of culverts 65 and fib but does NOT include the WSDOT Master Plan improvements. SW 23dStreet Outlet Improvements The existing outlet from the PCW to the SW 23rd Street channel consists of a 72 -inch (6 -foot) diameter steel culvert under SR 167 headed by a fish ladder tying the upstream culvert inlet to the main body of the wetland at elevation 14 feet (all elevations referenced to the NAVD88 vertical datum). The proposed fish passable culvert is a 197" by 11'9" aluminum structural plate pipe arch culvert set at a bottom slope of 0.7 percent. The culvert is proposed to be filled with 6.2 feet of sediment at the upstream end to an elevation of 12.73 feet. The proposed sediment slope through the culvert is set to tie in with existing channel elevations. The characteristics of the existing and proposed culverts are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. SW 23`d Street Outlet Culvert Characteristics Scenario Culvert Size Culvert Length (ft) Culvert Slope (%) Sediment Depth (ft) Culvert I.E. (ft N"D) UIS DIS WS DIS 1114111 6' circular 190 -0.3 n1a n1a 9.90 10.40 12116 197" x 11'9" arch 320 0.7 6.20 5.24 6.53 4.29 13115 1197' x 11'9" arch 420 0.7 6.20 _ 4.94 6.53 3.59 17 192" x 11'9" arch 220 0.7 6.20 4.54 6.53 4.99 Hydrologic Analysis Results The attached tables and figures document the performance of the unrestricted 197' by 11'9" aluminum structural plate pipe arch culvert at the SW 23`d Street outlet from PCW for the eight modeled scenarios. 1. Flow frequency plots and tabulated peaks for each of the three wetland outlets (SW 34"' Street, SW 23Cd Street, SW 19"' Street) for all scenarios. 2. Annual stage duration analysis plots for the Panther Creek Wetland for all scenarios. 3. Average daily stage hydrograph plots for the Panther Creek Wetland for all scenarios. 4. Annual stage duration analysis and average daily stage hydrograph plots for the 341h Street channel just downstream of SR -167 for all scenarios. 5. Annual stage duration analysis and average daily stage hydrograph plots for the 23rd Street channel just downstream of East Valley Highway for all scenarios. 6. Annual stage duration analysis and average daily stage hydrograph plots for the 23`d Street channel just downstream of SR -167 for Scenarios 1, 10, 11, 12, 16, and 17. This location is not applicable for Scenarios 13 and 15, where the SR -167 culvert is extended through East Valley Highway. Note that stages for the 34th Street and 23`d Street channels are based on fairly crude hydraulic modeling of these channels and do not reflect annual variation in roughness due to vegetation that could significantly affect actual water surface elevations (in the 30' Street channel particularly). Stage data for these tributaries should thus be used with care, though they should be adequate for purposes of scenario comparison. Table Z. Flow Frequency Comparison for SW 34'h Street Tributary Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 37.3 38.1 38.4 38.7 38.9 11 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 12 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 13 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 10 37.3 38.1 38.4 38.7 38.9 15 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 16 36.1. 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 17 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 Table 3. Flow Frequency Comparison for SW 23rd Street Tributary Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 96 130 139 144 147 11 105 141 151 155 158 12 107 147 159 163 167 13 113 162 174 178 181 10 73 113 124 131 137 15 101 141 156 165 171 16 97 130 142 149 155 17' 97 130 143 150 156 Table 4. Flow Frequency Comparison for SW 191h Street Tributary Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 62.1 69.7 73.2 75.8 78.2 11 62.1 69.7 69.7 73.2 73.2 75.7 75.7 78.2 78.2 12 62.1 13 62.1 69.7 73.2 75.7 78.2 10 55.8 64.7 68.4 70.9 73.3 15 55.8 64.7 68.4 70.9 73.2 16 55.8 64.7 68.4 70.9 73.2 17 55.8 64.7 68.4 70.9 733 Table S. Flow Frequency Comparison for 5pringbrook Creek Upstream of SW 23`d Street Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 561 790 909 999 1.090 11 551 785 907 999 1.094 12 551 785 907 999 1094 13 551 785 907 999 1094 10 492 693 796 875 955 15 482 687 794 876 959 16 482 1 687 794 876 959 17 482 1 687 794 876 959 Table 6. Flow Frequency Comparison for 5pringbrook Creek Downstream of SW 191h Street Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 724 994 1128 1227 1326 11 728 996 1132 1234 1337 12 732 999 1133 1234 1336 13 738 1010 1148 1252 1357 10 616 866 992 1086 1181 15 638 882 1.006 1100 1195 16 634 873 995 1086 1179 17 634 873 995 1087 1180 F$,�F Np C m U W a v � C M x x x x x x x x Gl h Ly m U'E ELe x x x x QY W cis of a' U + b w m lL 'a � a W Q U. y L m U N LL m N o- 4 x x x x V3 12 x x x x S' LL N o x x x x y � N m � w W 75 U O a x x x x EL ❑ O pH Z yC x x r c k 10 x x i5 � a 0 x x x x r s1 a � w af � F x x x x y v m R v m LL m C� C m x x x x w C C.-Nmvmtnn W i F$,�F U U a W a C x x .1. x x x x r 4 m n 7E W cis of a' U � U Ql Q U. y L m U N LL m N o- a �m C? U � �LL o xx LL � •R N - w W 'c m x x x x x x IL O o Z r u � � • m m x x x x x S � a d a 4 3 1cp L AI Cm m LL [a N C C W - J x x x x W a m z V P a " m 0 Z Z c .� c m 4D w a o o dr 1-11c m Imm U z�EE 3 c n m d8'rm P U; a a m io N > m a iE d ^ 5 W O O L c .Lj U .L.. U) 3 o o c ar a gQy0C c�ry�dc u N W 9 c N z 4 4 O Z m- =EEE° P P O D P a, 'm -`mCL CD c m - W in w � �i o Cd N O F N fT] r 1' Q r A F e c6 r� CD LO r r r T (4) OAVN A013 96.1 N. +t. 92 LT7 N T O T T C) co m d] U O LU LO 0 U C cu L U c CQV U 0— O r DO C C U) CO ti r%� CD CD r T fA N l-+1 1� N N �C V T L7 r :9 w r (4} GAVN AG13 N r 0 r IN In 0 ca U C ca C7 C) x C) W U C O U N L IL O r Ict c g & = a ❑ « Q ° / U) §� � 2k g® 2 f CJn <k _ ce) cli k 0 OAVN ABIg M RE UN 19 q � o 2 § k S 2 w CD C) c / q ƒ 0 # 6 k C) c 0 � g � o T N ,- 03: 1 Cdr-. C b� Q7 C U T VJ aC) C7 Q r N Q Q r O r T Cn Nr (4) GAVN A813 C15 CV r O r w r r I. O C7 i ; T Y T Y T T T (1)? OAVN AOI 'm LU 4.L z U w VID. Q r CL Cl)LIJ i - r 1 } _ - r - J 1� C i ; T Y T Y T T T (1)? OAVN AOI 'm LU 4.L z U w VID. Q r r C11 CD r 0 d (.) Q CD CD r r -0-0 .Q r CV CV CO U) co T CSa T (4) CIAVN A813 N T� O W 4 � 0.0 c CO U a7 � cra � TH L mm N N . !. E e n LO F f� C4 L6 'd' C6 (u) CIAVN A913 N r r r - a - w co -0^ J 4 z D Q � m co _ „U LL z -a _w Z 0 O I— O r O C] () CD ID GO b-0 NCM 3r: � V/ U) Fl- CCT UC) r r r •.- (41) anew AGIA C'7 N r r �- r - CL LU Q J - Z C Q W ro (D Q LLJ m LL Z - Q U _w 0 z _ L.J Q t E—moi — 71 - �4v E — — —-- L Lo — I _e _ 5 ! Fl- CCT UC) r r r •.- (41) anew AGIA C'7 N r r �- r - CL LU Q J - Z C Q W ro (D Q LLJ m LL Z - Q U _w 0 z _ L.J Q t E—moi — 71 E — — —-- L Lo — Fl- CCT UC) r r r •.- (41) anew AGIA C'7 N r r �- r - CL LU Q J - Z C Q W ro (D Q LLJ m LL Z - Q U _w 0 z _ L.J Q Wa= T Y^ Q r Q Q z L id CO C � m Qi U U ww (A N �o -0 Q ��ALLL it F- -2 -2 -2 N N U) Co r Lo ri ni (u) anew A813 0 0 ( .� m 4 w W d ƒ WQ GAVNA;9 S M / k C) m § C;) Cl) g C 7� mf —7 W 2# U) /f . § � \ � r Cf) cli 0 rI 2 D 00 . 1 - - U) � _ LU� 2$ \ \ \ q 2 \ - § . � . .00 \ - @� - . ° + - d *. a~ _ + , ® � : � a � : ; � ; @; + •� ; : ° + + � _ - + + _ ,+f ^ , ¥+ƒ ,e+� + e. � + »^ � ƒ T- ƒ % d � caVNAg E M m # k d T co LO C'7 N T r r r r T (14) CIAVN nal3 CD .r i C4 Q] O D? O OD C1r U c [o 70 N U CD !J3 Lr) d) .c U C Q1 U N N O r T 0 C) Ir 0 T T Lo co N *- r T T T T (4) aAVN AGIA rn ai m OD 6 rn m m rn a O co qT 0 0 0 4 Q L p coN r� r N v) cd } TZoo, w 03: •._. m CESz C: L o "!� c> y.. caQ Q L, Q r 9 A T - c6 T 2 (4) GAVN A913 rn �i co C6 Q) M CD CD 0) Q d1 U Co "6 O Q) t U X w a) cl M N U N 0 - CD r Om T C � G C O �9 } }. CL w LLJ (ME � d o O ❑ N U N �0. Q r r Q �- O O � m C!3 V1 W LLl -0 _0 Cri Cv) N CV U) [q 7 pp TL l[] In 4 6 CV r C7 (4) OAVN ^ala 0- _ W U) Q J _ Q - a � Q � } ryryc � 00 LU LL _ z W -O z - V Lo1.' �.t }, c _J..` ell `..l _�.-fes-=•` �'r_�� In 4 6 CV r C7 (4) OAVN ^ala 0- _ W U) Q J _ Q - a � Q � } ryryc � 00 LU LL _ z W -O z - V Lo1.' n! _U �0N .__ o U m a> r co W `Cil C 0 2 yrs❑ -2 cO a 6.IDd N O r w .LIU U U U) co w w -9 .Q l— F— mm N N U) U) ;n 'a• r� cv .- a (4) OAVN AGO a -w U) Q J Z) _ z _4 _ dC _ Q} g LU U- _ Z LU cl -d Z _ U a J.- LO ;n 'a• r� cv .- a (4) OAVN AGO a -w U) Q J Z) _ z _4 _ dC _ Q} g LU U- _ Z LU cl -d Z _ U a M C CO p 0 (V 2•�.Qp X117 a 7m - N � m CL CO W U �,y o a F' o +-� U) o N (a Q C7 Q r 0 0 w .co U U U) W W L11 'a -D F H c i ch iV N (n co cp Lo c+i CV T T T r T (4) ❑AVN AGIA Y T T m Ln C M C) LO a o m COw ww -0 -0 H F -2-2 �N V) U) LD LO cl CrJ N (4) andN naJ�j a_ _ ui CL Q N _ cQ G _ M W _z _ U _w d - O La _ U O Ag T, W- C) o � o0 C, 10 La ID La U) caLu E CM cry o o TN 0 CO0 o -2 CQ ❑ U cyn. m 4 CO vo W .co U fes,} (D U) W W 'N cn I— i- C) C) N CV Cf) co CL ui Y) a Q 1. CL ui Y) Z Q -O z t() cf [y] N r O CA (u) OMEN AGR Q a Q L1J Z Q -O z t() cf [y] N r O CA (u) OMEN AGR Q 0 W -m C C U) U) Y LLI W .0 'D -0-0 eq o'J iV iV UD Ct m cm �- (4) GAVN A,913 o r r 0- LLI _ Q C Q W m LLI LL z - 4 _ ui 0 Z 10 :s i �..� i —tom•- l {+�, -rte- �'i 1� {• �, UD Ct m cm �- (4) GAVN A,913 o r r 0- LLI _ Q C Q W m LLI LL z - 4 _ ui 0 Z 10 :s d o M ti'/ T C3 Q T CD r n i z (11) ❑AVN n813 O� a> rn CD U ib co U 0 ''x`' i-�-1 N U C O L C N C) 04 v T T T r Q O O CY) r O C) O r r - 1i ti N N N CO T O O m CV CV Cv CV CV (4) GAVN AG13 m C7] CS] Cb LD U C7 CD 00U V X w N U C O � L U c U CU d C) O r d' r O O O O O d r N 04 � z c -i cq N (4) 0AVN A013 � C m rn CD rn 0) 6 a) w C) 6 r p7 _ p ca C I U U - fn W tD C4 T T i I M CA 44 coCf) YJ VJ i i i + - I + .9 - ,;I +i r r r- co O) N 04 � z c -i cq N (4) 0AVN A013 � C m rn CD rn 0) 6 a) w C) 6 C O L O iV C} tLO h {Q � r iti LL O cn 'M f -- U) S-- G N •LL .N f C/rr_) C C1 [o T n r r - 0.0 - .L L (a (a C C a) (D U U U) r r CV] C7 _ U) U) � t t+ f" ,y t� ca rn of N N 2 r T r Q O Q) CV CEJ N C11 N r ©AVN AG13 rn 0) m 6 0) rn Cn 6i a) C3) 0) 0) QD U C 0 U X w Q) U C O L C�7 i CD CL Cs Q v 0 Co 0 0 C: O N 0) co (0�2 [3 Cn r m O� cC � :3� UJ a _ _a L y C ff+n+ Q �1 O O (e r d r T i4) CIAVN A813 O r ,It r r O CD C) r 0) rn rn rn rn 6 rn rn rn (M C6 C3] Cfl Q Cn Q7 C [U a7 N 0 W N U C a w L} L U c W d O N Q r r C3 n N N N N L T CU N N N N r� (4) ©AVN AG13 T O r OO - co w - 0) N _ C4 C4 00 r r - co CY] - 3 T N (4) OAVN nG13 r N Q N n- w 00 w LL U w - r'y a CV a_ LU c� CLQ Z Q Q no UJ LL Z Q U LU O z i U 0 i - r o O� -—� - [� - f`=7� 1_ - Vf CL V �� 1 CD - Q CM 0.0 �lu- 3 - � _ � - cD co i w w =� -0 -C _ `• } - �- co co - E - _�– �_ -=• 7 C!1 f!J 7.9 - r - N 00 �7 Q CD N OQ O CM N N N N N N cv (u) CIAVN na13 a_ LU c� CLQ Z Q Q no UJ LL Z Q U LU O z i U 0 T CO C) T .O .O Eql to C C Coco T T aw CO C) U)C0 E 4 U3 Ct C] 0 N N Y - N cv C%j (;)i ❑AVN A913 T N I I 7n - _4 s=_ S l _ IL LV {f} +r� I CY� 1 I - d y t I - LU LL i r 1- l� 1 `4 y I- I � (� I V Cp Cl N N N W -''.----.��= LO 70 N O -_ Q Co Lf) - 4m '� — __'• I- � a c'Ud { _ C0 Fz E ❑ n a IL j Ll l CD LO =- e c0i L) (n Cl) _ ❑ o Q i i i i ao i [V N N N N N N N W) QAVN AG13 Q CO aC c .0 wo U)U) co r -0-0 Cf) co (n cn E a E S� N N N N N (4) (JAVN A013 N IL w C7 0 z a cr- [G in w LL z 7 V W D z C? 0 al a o T J i- clco f L E _ 4-120-�— (fid o 45 05 ACL ♦ - '4 'i- ¢ 1 Q W 0 Q(D 4LO C} V co m i_ CA U) - ua OD d C7 CO N OD Ct N N N C1i N N N Cli cu N N (4) GAVN Ae13 IL w C7 0 z a cr- [G in w LL z 7 V W D z C? 0 C 0 0 4r 0 r L- (7 4— CD Q1 a E Lt N O � }, Amo Q7r�� �— 0 9E LL C O a -a = °o ULID IL(m J LL 0) co � CD jr) (Sp) 6Mps](] N 8 0 L H N E L cm ct Cc c3 cLL m cis C q� O7 c SO7 c o c '- C� Q �a C N LL. � O O LL. d m J LL CD 07 00 O to 1.47 I (SIO) affiepsi❑ ) � R CL CD � ƒ C 2 � ■ cn -0 \k CD mfr co ¢ � k 0 o k f E / # 0 CD k 2 2 2 $ q q R § 2 LL CP) k d / \ N 0 Q. 07 a 0.. L1 m ui v N� 0 m S5 mA rn Vi kCIL p N •O O 0 5 tm L Nt Q Y N 8 rn co n � L (SIO) a6aeyosi❑ O co Q co rn O v - T rc i i N` 5 � �•1 i i V/- 1✓� I _ l N- I i - J� r. F?i rL r r *Y{1 QJ i l It m j =u CD m I 1 cc �Tr t` 00 CD It S cj •d- co O Q LL 00 coO�t N Q 00 COD � r T r r T T N C G) K W 0 N L U G C U O OD • 1 LO `M I I } } V I '.M II 0 I ' V O 0.0al } L •L �L A F F i ' -2 -2 L L i N N (D � I r 00 coO�t N Q 00 COD � r T r r T T N C G) K W 0 N L U G C U O OD • � 0 0 H I - + CA � . . . � . . � ƒ . $ �+ a_ 0 . � a + ; +� • ( �� . +� � \ + 7/ � k cu . $ 22 ; qq & . 7 � k m v � / % % q (}S%eee� qO $ m m M., 0 t� Q) N T C L ('Yj l� CIO cm �LLC► CO 1 f� O O r—I C> �- 2 _ + + a + c� +, n _ + i + + F +y J, + + _ 49 + t`) + } + u' + + G +; _ to fiy Z + I.� T Q � o o l + i ca ca + U U 0-0 tin N :+ V Ui Li) + N 41 ! I 1 r PIM CD co m coM. SC.0 q* N a 0000 CD CD N (SID) offie pia I o2 two ci CD o ODco�t N +-- r r r r O N U1 U cis QD U Ll.l O Lo U C cu J_- V C U Q� • •t. Lr) - - CD 0 Lr) 0 � + ca /co - V, L/ Q' + �L �L N flN N� + U} Ul D Q i n, C - cu o2 two ci CD o ODco�t N +-- r r r r O N U1 U cis QD U Ll.l O Lo U C cu J_- V C U Q� • •t. Qr L� r -0 co m C) CL m U d O (/� c 0 T LO l T I I T1 I +y 'LJ T rZ + } Gi + I I 11 1 G - 00 + - U) � II<r y + 3 I I I CV) criW H L } T Y O N m C) C) C) C0 C) CDC) �0} e M/ (DV � Y Q co r V +%1 • 1 LL 0 T ' - I � t N 4 I I j t t LO I t? V + o c� # - T -s t 0 _ 'O '0 L: + - U) i t -0-0 _ � c N N �: -3: S) + 0 - + Y L i W ., aao civ Q aoo r r r r r tS��J B�.ILl�9S]Q ilE • • m 0 0 0 W 'I N � / � EL m $ .c a � f � k§ �\In ƒ% � 2%£ oCLE X23 4) CD0 R \ Ccis 2 m I # \ \ \ � , \ \ \ +\ ' o§ 1; + \ ) ® + a �- + v n .+ e � + «. . \+ \ + \. f { ' � � + + /@ 4-- +: 2 i \ f $� ® � � \ G ƒ - g g k j // § � %/ \ + e k % ¢ k / % q / (;o)a Ap @O # 0 S CD k § w 2 § m S k a P -M m � � 0 G _O L C O LM T Z-3 cm C 1 U Q4 o m C!}' a u7 C C 7 C�y L 16 O — O O LL (L C70 .J LL r 1 t 1 I � 1 LO AAl1 •Y + 1` LO- T r rl N - r CV M co "m 0) O_ + .: t I I t CO C4 Cl) Co C+7 C"] Cr1 Cl) (SIO) a6aeyosiQ m • m D �N f1 4m O � a :3 ?M C6 y C Cn [) < m' x -- t cd c!D CD 0 d� Q M= CY)T Kz 9 ir_ C C C ca < 7 a O CL m J m LL T VT N n ai r- cfl LO ce) cV T 4 t+) CD cn I" r) cn co m (SID) a6aeuOsia N 1 i i Lo- JJ t I 5� l,+ C? 4 s_; 1+ Ci i + i i v Q !C} 00 ` _ � +TI1 (a VJ V! Clw A a `'' m chin T VT N n ai r- cfl LO ce) cV T 4 t+) CD cn I" r) cn co m (SID) a6aeuOsia 2 NO LL % q \ % q / % % \@$-eq�SQ # 0 h § k k X 2 7 m 3 \ CL A g g C O .iz CL 07 C 0 C m a— f' (D �' c (D �-OQm a �0co �� O LL E cis�A5 C: m (L tm .y tY1U)cc co ¢ � C n m p O _O O O d d d '.:0 M M cOo c'm c7 [7 M (SIO) a6ae43sia O _ O 04 r co • 1 I - l 1 I K� i t I# Rei i } 'r� i i T +l E O (p T } � _ T O O + _ ed co l _ O 47 1 444 r. e I I I I I '.:0 M M cOo c'm c7 [7 M (SIO) a6ae43sia O _ O 04 r co • C a N O IL 0 c 0 0. c c q- =3 -+= C Ed (f] _p ¢ m O 61 ria (D 0. C C ca 4 ^^Q} .a CL N 0 a LL- O m a 0 J n H LL m Nr a r O [V r�i m m m cca m c° i cera c, (SI -3) Gn'840S](] 0 + w GQ 2: m% U)U) :2 qd �ILa- E 0 A\ CM � 2 a 6 « � w » (# O6VNAa g B CQ % 7 % 0 0 2 § 2 2 \ � k \ 7 @ o ƒ # / k CD `` 0 L � O © N O LD d N O6 Cl)r f2 m C w Co r tG 0 0 'i m ca C i r^ C �G3 �/J = W ,a L N U a C � O 0 r A r N _ 0 0 al (Ti c U � C) U) - C) C) (D (D ca C C a- CL 3 - I + •ti ts. = ++ - L O 00 cp to d N r r r r _ (4) OAHN ^alb rn ai rn 4) C4 W CD Q1 Q) U C 4� C 00 lD x LU 03 C U 0 i CL a r rt!' r 0 C Q L _ LJ N :z m rn �70qu T C C G Q) a' U L ..0 C � � Q Q O T W 4� r r r (11) GAVN Aa13 L6 V T r r m Cl) rn rn rn of m m 0) a? 0s Q O O T C) Y y.r A CF) Oi C) 07 co 00) (D a C SCO c, r W n'W x LU U LO U D7 rtL, rt^W 1.I.. N C) r- d' C5 m LO N'- r• r r- r N _ (u) GAVN AGIJ c 0 - \ � d � 2( (D 2 E) CD � ƒ CD k � 0 co k 0 « / � ƒ / k ƒ / (# GA¥NA0 O / 0 / C:) LJ N � s � r O m Qj.O CD C � U Q) yL � v Cd L C) C[S O O T i Q O O L6 y N r r T — N _ {u} QAVN A913 Gi CD Q? m U -� C=) m U X LLi U C O as LO U C N U Q il[ C) T d' r O O C3 C:) ON .i=.R log a (D W CD CDOG -0 UI - azoL- — >I ID 05 rn co (11) OAVN A91-3 co Lo -j D co Li LL 0 LU Q 0 Z N p T � 0 -.. ML L -C Ui > CU Q ILs C U G�aa Q r cv O T 00 c .(15 0 U U] (f) b � CU co ad rn OD cb (4) GAVN A913 T T� CL W co 0 D Q J z M Q cc Q � m c m ul U - z a U LJ z U d - — Ear---- - - Ln _— -_ — rn OD cb (4) GAVN A913 T T� CL W co 0 D Q J z M Q cc Q � m c m ul U - z a U LJ z U d ai o0 f� co Lo d r r r r r r (34) QAVN A813 a - Lu U) M m W LL Z Q Li! O z U O - F I� �-�- -- } •- _- t. i ai o0 f� co Lo d r r r r r r (34) QAVN A813 a - Lu U) M m W LL Z Q Li! O z U O LO C Cs3 (D o 0 LO C 0 as U m � � m U) m o ,` C 1L !R Q P- r COcil ❑ a.+ 4 0 N� �i m C) Ln a o .0 r� 0-0 UU (D `m .0 L_ C C CL Ll m c (4) GAVN Aal-3 T r r -- __ - - :L i m c (4) GAVN Aal-3 T r r OD r c C:) O T O-9 Ncr) 05 r[�] `l V/ � r L y@ 7 E i? O R �md t C �p cow s N 'p Co C ❑ U 0 Q 45 OD f� Cfl (4) CIAVN A813 CL ' W�n U) J ❑ Q ¢ co [U Q w LL Z Q C. } Ll.f O 0 z V O it • - --d - 45 OD f� Cfl (4) CIAVN A813 CL ' W�n U) J ❑ Q ¢ co [U Q w LL Z Q C. } Ll.f O 0 z V O _O I_ O � W .cl w f C) C) .c a) C C tL caa E C: Q. W 0 Z D 7 a (4) UAVN ^a13 L r r in W LL U W I• r 5 0 0 _ EL 0 A ) § � A � / Q X42 N \ [\ o—A§ 2 2zE �)I ma., � Q4k C C/) �\ cn 7 d e � ( 0 CL CD0 IF k / E I ME am �= gam C) C CD \ # 0 q E ME ME 5 i CD C U') irj � O O (SIO) ablepSJQ It N • LO - 3+�'• I I 1 1 i1 u• 11 1111 1v + 11�2� f 3} 1 r- C%j Cl) Vj #11 _ A U1 UJ 1 ❑ Q 1Ti 11111 cu CL CL U) Q + !n CD C U') irj � O O (SIO) ablepSJQ It N • LL LO c k k /C) � _ �S % q5 3] m v 2 k � � � q J% 6+r \® a1 . » 4 � . � �» \\ - + 3 2 0 0 . o+ % @ «$� } § CD U) \ 0 c 2 t -2 a r -L r.L ,\\ B + \ \ m � LO c k k /C) � _ �S % q5 3] m v 2 k � � � * C/) § /) Ep< � §r\ � oq7 o 3 §o a:E -0 %#$ CY) 22 ' CO CL � <f D � � 2 0 IL0 0 7 $ E I LO \ CD \ / k 4 2 q F I M., m .& � \ , \ ,\ > �\ , � •\\ƒ i R- + \� / � y\+ t+, \�) a *\ / LJO o* 00 ®+\ CIS m y \, Q - § Q G /\+ 01 / )- @ n C6 U) � ® q. + a § . . LO \ CD \ / k 4 2 q F I M., m CD k ) U e m � f LO � ci a) / / (&O) eSL os!O � 0 k � � � 22 � §2 C } _ / ' 6 a § � � KCL mm + & 2 II � , LO � ci a) / / (&O) eSL os!O � 0 k � � � n 2 ctS = fD c CL a 0 m O 0. 0 LL J H IL O r r N • • M CD ci CD U')C*? Lo M T T r (SJO) a6m4S51Q U') _ N 0 N 00 �L �L � _ //n Cl) M V! wyam_-' - ffi A'l A - U) a❑ CC1 -0-0 CL + 1 a] i r r r N • • M CD ci CD U')C*? Lo M T T r (SJO) a6m4S51Q 0 LL. # \ C> k k N � (p)GGe� mO 2 E $ - % 4� { 0- 0 0 2f } } (D � � 22 ! � nm . . 22 \ cm C . .22 . . A- m m 7) M E2 -Z5 -i5 co (Dr -L CL . . 2- § 2 i ; , # \ C> k k N � (p)GGe� mO 2 E $ m # 0 W ƒ E \ co � & RE Q / _ ) � f L- 2 ce) N f a # 2 q 2 10 19 / k \ \k k _ r (;SgemepmO - _ - _ d; �- � - �; t\ �t - �/ �« ��. - , q- A %a - � c \� � \ . � 41 . +� f +, f , +<.43 § R \ - -0 - m Cf) *\ - _ 00 �\ A m @® @ CL CL / � .0- CL # 2 q 2 10 19 / k \ \k k _ r (;SgemepmO B E It 0 q � c � k \ \k k \0 0�,3 o Or r= M#ƒ �E£2 'CL I 6 / R ? d a � 2 00c CDq (!S%@b2y0s m N. & Q o (li c = N 4m 'o x�S°c a T m 0a��F= 0 'y rr�L O VJ Q 2s a (fr N L.L 0 EL- LLO o 0 It 4 cm N O 00 [6 t N t- ' (SID) abjegDSiQ Co CF) - X \. '4- — 1' +,P t . {3 V,,+3 T,t±� _ 49 - +ri Q P �4 - 70 i0 114 L w N CV �1 CL Q-'•�41 .�.r U) Ci3 i 11111 �1 I I ( I It 4 cm N O 00 [6 t N t- ' (SID) abjegDSiQ Co CF) 2 r4 e - \ - � p - - o\ - a . � - # .6 tgo . - \ ƒe , - , y ¥y !� ƒe , ƒ\ � �u +2 % � - 4\ od + \: U _ (1)2- / »i\ -0-0 _ %N ; + A @ *+ � CXC� CL W (}S$22pmO CD / q 10 m F {!j} UOIIIRA013 d) CIA 0 ........... .. ..... .......... . ........ .. ........ . ------- 5 V� fy -- , , iv .3— in N ....................... ....... I ......... ....... I ....... .. ..... .... .. . . ... ...... . ...... ........ ... . ............. ....... ....... ........ .......... ... i 7 i................ ............. .. ............ .. ...... -� ....... ........ .. ... ..... .......... -- ---- ---------------------- ------- ...... -0------ i-- -- - - --------- I.- --- --- zt— IL ...... .... ......... ....... .. . ........ ..... . . ......... . ...... . .. .... ------- ....... CD X LU U)---- ------- ....... ------- ---- ------ ... ............ ... ......... .... . ....... . ....... ....... ....... ...... .... ...... ....... ....... .... .. ....... .... . — .......... .... (1) U01leAei3 i t.. .............. O ....'.----i..----....., i..._ ..... _ ... .. .. .. ... .. ---' ...E _ ._ .. �. I I ................. 1 I................ , r E k A t 1 ............. ... .. .. - -- I I ------.. J h'1NW 661Mn g A t .......:........... ....... .......... - - -. - --_ - - --_ -- - ... .. .. .......------ 1 I f. ......__I �... .......... ... ........... i.. _ I ..3........�__.....}.... ........-...._.; ......y.. ......j-_.... (V N 1 CL i : I i E 1 I 1 i I i i 1 ' i i I I � o Gl l i i C wCO I ----I--. _....�.......'.... ......._-...i---------------{__..�. ....�_ .. .a.__..i-..............-...ij.......J-......�._.... j.A.. ._ . Jj..__._j...----+------F {_...,.i.._»..F.- ...'i-,..... A W i C ; I i 1G : 1 V r t w 1 --j— ; i r r 1 r j �-� r.-'_' 'F '.v ':dF'.-:C+;_ — � 6AV-pUl1 E I Q d0 C L v E I Cn O I ; I I I i I �.. .... .... .. .' ..... _' _ ' I .. .. T i O N O N N N J` 1 O [O � ir )_ U : �SCuS U L... _..... _.... CI1 G7 Cn � I I I , i t.. .............. O ....'.----i..----....., i..._ ..... _ ... .. .. .. ... .. ---' ...E _ ._ .. �. I I ................. 1 I................ , r E k A t 1 ............. ... .. .. - -- I I ------.. J h'1NW 661Mn g A t .......:........... ....... .......... - - -. - --_ - - --_ -- - ... .. .. .......------ 1 I f. ......__I �... .......... ... ........... i.. _ I ..3........�__.....}.... ........-...._.; ......y.. ......j-_.... (V N 1 CL i : I i E 1 I 1 i I i i 1 ' i i I I � o Gl l i i C wCO I ----I--. _....�.......'.... ......._-...i---------------{__..�. ....�_ .. .a.__..i-..............-...ij.......J-......�._.... j.A.. ._ . Jj..__._j...----+------F {_...,.i.._»..F.- ...'i-,..... A W i C ; I i 1G : 1 (4) UOIIBAB13 V t w 1 --j— ; i r r 1 r j �-� r.-'_' 'F '.v ':dF'.-:C+;_ — � 6AV-pUl1 E I Q d0 E I 1 j I I ; I I I i I �.. .... .... .. .' ..... _' _ ' I .. .. i O : : 1 l0 : i i , L... _..... _.... i i ! { I ... Y I I I , ... ...:.. ..... T �---T r 1 ITi , '__I ...1��'��I C) r r ..T__,.y�-..`7��I�•��._..__I O . .-�_I�I��T•�j_� LO O IA r- O (4) UOIIBAB13 C;, L) 4D C:) O 2 ........... ........... ..... .. ... ..... ... . . ................ -------- - --- . ....... ....... .... AZ r. v N, 4N --------------------- ...... ...... J[,rAH 681PA 3 ...... ........ ...... ............... ------ ......... .... ....... ... ... ....... ........ . .... . ............. . ....... ................ .... ........ - ------ --- ...... i ....... ................. ... ............... ------- ... ....... IIII (D - ---- ------- .... ...... ....... ------- ....... ------ ----- ....... ....... - ---- ----------------- .......... -- ----- --- - ............... - ------- - .......... . tE ca ... ....... .... ....... ....... ............... . ..... ....... 'Zi 4 to ------- ------- ....... ......... ... ....... ....... ........ ------- ------ . ............. ... ... L ..... ..... . ........ ...... . .. ............. ......... ................ -- ---- - .......... : ....... ....... . . . ........ . ... . ....... ....... . .... OAV-009- ---------- liq did bldOto ........... ... ..... .............a.. 4....... ....... . ............... ..... . ........... .... ....... ...... ....... I ........ L—L ------ ... ... ------- .............. . ..... ...... ------ --------------- ------------- ..... . .... ....... ....... . ... .... . .... .... . ------ I ------ ....... ....... ....................... ... .... ........ ... . ....... - - --- - - - - - - - ........ . .... .. ... ............... ------- .... .. .... rr��—��,'----�i•–^r—iTi i i— � i ..r i . ... ....... ....... ....... 0 W 0 Sn C> u3 0 m (1)) UORL'AGig 3 Ir p U) N cc U) m G C rn a (4) uoi;enel3 Q 0 LO N O O N N 0 0 0 C) LO 0 2 a co ,n r i ^ N � O C C C C U V) U) }� (4) uoi;enel3 Q 0 LO N O O N N 0 0 0 C) LO 0 2 2 CD .............. . ....... .... ........ ... ....... ..... ........... ui 2 (4) UOIJeAS13 . ..... ..... .. .... .. ..... ... .... ....... ....... . -------- - - - ... ............. . ...... ........ . ..... ..... .. ........................ ------- - 4 C) C4 f�A H MIRA 3 ... .. . .... ------- -------- -4 ...... ...... ............ L ....... ....... ... ------- ........... . . . ....... .. ..... 0 ........ . .....i j i i i = j ---- -------------- ....... - - ----------------- ...... .... .. ... .... . ......... ............. 7 ------- - ...• ....... ....... ..------- 4-.-- t 1 . ....... . .... ------- ...... a: ..... ... . .. . ....... ....... ........... ....... ............ ....... ------- - ----- ........ cr .......... ....... .__._-i..... ............ ....... .. . ............ ------ ............._,...-.:._.._-:...._.L .,..i.._... . . .......... .... ....... .. ... ....... ------- --------- IV i Ca ........ .............. .... - ----.-- ..-- ----- ---- I... -- ---- - ------- ..... - --- - .. --I ..... T— ............. . Lj_-- ...... ................ .. . .. C3 7m AV un C) ........ ...... ....... ....... .. .... -4a�� i4a 4(16 - ... ........ ...... -------------------- ....... ...... ..... ------- --- ....... ....... ...... i ............... ....... Ln ...... ....... 7' ----- - ....... .............. ....... jfj ---- -- ------- ------ ....... . ....................... ......... ..... ....... ........................ L ............... ....... ............ ...... . ...... .. ........... -- ---- - ...... ....... . ..... ....... C) Ln LO NC%j M uuamoo in lOn LO tr) CV i2 Cu 09 U) . ..... ..... .. .... .. ..... ... .... ....... ....... . -------- - - - ... ............. . ...... ........ . ..... ..... .. ........................ ------- - 4 C) C4 f�A H MIRA 3 ... .. . .... ------- -------- -4 ...... ...... ............ L ....... ....... ... ------- ........... . . . ....... .. ..... 0 ........ . .....i j i i i = j ---- -------------- ....... - - ----------------- ...... .... .. ... .... . ......... ............. 7 ------- - ...• ....... ....... ..------- 4-.-- t 1 . ....... . .... ------- ...... a: ..... ... . .. . ....... ....... ........... ....... ............ ....... ------- - ----- ........ cr .......... ....... .__._-i..... ............ ....... .. . ............ ------ ............._,...-.:._.._-:...._.L .,..i.._... . . .......... .... ....... .. ... ....... ------- --------- IV i Ca ........ .............. .... - ----.-- ..-- ----- ---- I... -- ---- - ------- ..... - --- - .. --I ..... T— ............. . Lj_-- ...... ................ .. . .. C3 7m AV un C) ........ ...... ....... ....... .. .... -4a�� i4a 4(16 - ... ........ ...... -------------------- ....... ...... ..... ------- --- ....... ....... ...... i ............... ....... Ln ...... ....... 7' ----- - ....... .............. ....... jfj ---- -- ------- ------ ....... . ....................... ......... ..... ....... ........................ L ............... ....... ............ ...... . ...... .. ........... -- ---- - ...... ....... . ..... ....... C) Ln LO NC%j M uuamoo O O U') N z O co (4) uDIJVAQl3 Ln O O G U 7 , 1 l O O U') N z O co (4) uDIJVAQl3 Ln O Appendix C Culvert Design C-, iJnh .N"x 144752 (Dept 002) Computation in.r,1ece I-405/Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation - sr:se�rr Panther Creek 1Cairrponvag Panther Creek Culvert (C72) Replacement I1'ask Stream Simulation Design Culvert Replacement lCalcAV 06001 1 coarprried Matthew Gray flare 12J1/20 [ 1 lRevielved Purpose Replace existing 72" diameter steel pipe and plug existing CMP culvert 65 and 66 under SR167 Existing Existing Culvert 65: WSDOT* OTAK Survey Culvert 65 is a 24" diameter CMP located at SR 167 MP 24.72 Upstream invert elevation 22.07 (Fish Passage Corridor Information) 23.23 Downstream invert elevation 20.12 (Fish Passage Corridor Information) NA Length 154.61 (Fish Passage Corridor Information) 175.2088 Slope of Culvert 65 is 0.4126 Existing Culvert 66: Culvert 66 is a 30" diameter CMP located at SRI 67 MP 24,93 Upstream invert elevation 20.12 (Fish Passage Corridor Infonnation) 21.06 Downstream invert elevation 18.22 (Fish Passage Corridor Information) 19.54 Length 153 (Fish Passage Corridor Information) 155.9422 Slope of Culvert 66 is 0.0124 0.0097 Existing Culvert 72: Culvert 72 is a 72" diameter steel pipe located at SR 167 MP 25.66 Upstream invert elevation 9.9 (WSDOT Survey) 10.23 Downstream invert elevation 10.4 (WSDOT Survey) 10.66 Length 188.85 (Fish Passage Corridor Infonnation) 190.91 Slope of Culvert 72 is -0.0026 -0.0023 Existing Fish Ladder upstream of C72 Weir#1 Low Flow "V" elevation 10.93 (WSDOT Survey) Top and right of"V" 11.93 (WSDOT Survey) Weir #2 Low Flow 11.9 (WSDOT Survey) Tap and right of"V" 12.9 (WSDOT Survey) Weir #3 Low Flow 12.81 (WSDOT Survey) Top and right of "V" 13.81 (WSDOT Survey) Ground Shat 14.88 (WSDOT Survey) Weir #4 Low Flow 14.00 (WSDOT Survey) Top and right of N" 15.00 (WSDOT Survey) Ground Shot 13.07 (WSDOT Survey) Ground shot @ fabricated corner 14.84 (WSDOT Survcy) Ground shot 4,5 feet south or Weir 4 13,84 (WSDOT Survey) Sheat 1 of 10 Jah iva. 144752 (Dept 002) Computation I project I405/Thunder_Hills Creek Mitigation - IStixienr Panther Creek L'arripmVia Panther Creek Culvert (C72) Replacement IrasA Stream Simulation Design Culvert Replacement _- Criteria calc NO. 00001 canrpaeed Matthew Gra Dine 12/1/2011 Reviewed (Date Existing Culvert 73: Culvert 73 is a 2 - 48" diameter CMP located under East Valley Highway North Culvert Upstream invert elevation 8.4 (WSDOT survey) 9.68 Downstream invert elevation 5.09 (WSDOT Survey) 8.23 Length 90 (Fish Passage Corridor Information) 90.45 Slope of Culvert 73 N is 0.0034 0.0050 South Culvert Upstream invert elevation 8.45 (WSDOT Survey) 8.59 Downstream invert elevation 8.13 (WSDOT Survey) 8.25 Length 90 (Fish Passage Corridor Information) 90.3773 Slope of Culvert 73 N is 0.0036 0.0038 References & Design Criteria References 1 I-405 Corridor Fish Passage Cost Estimate Technical Memorandum August 2007 2 WDFW Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 2003 Edition. 3 WSDOT Hydraulics Manual, M23-03, March, 2007 4 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Alternative, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (nhc), March 2009 5 Structural Plate Design Guidelines, CONTECH, undated 6 City of Renton Washington Municipal Code - Chapter 6 Street and Utility Standards 7 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual; Chapters 3- 5 WDFW Stream Simulation Design Suitability of Site Slope ratio of culvert to channel must be less than or equal to 1.25 Slope Ratio = Sculy/Sch [Reference WDFW Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, page 30] Culvert Sizing BankfalI width was estimated using methodology proposed by MITFD relating bankfull width with annual precipitation (in) and basin area (sq mi). Sankfull width = 0.95*WA^d.45*AAP^0.61 WA (Watershed Area) m 2.6 sq mi AAP (Average Annual Precipitation) — 38.6 in Bankfull Width = 13.6 feet Stream Simulation culvert sizing is based upon Sankfull width Width of the culvert = 1.2*WbankfulI channel+2 feet Wbankfull width is estimated to be 13.6 feet Culvert width is calculated to be 15.2728 feet Rounding up to the next available culvert size 19'-2" x 1 P-9" COntmb Aluminum Structural Plate Pipe Arch Maximum Headwater Criteria Sheet 2 of 10 I.rahNr. 144752 (Dept 002) ICdcNo, ()0001 Computation (project . I-405Miunder Dills Creek Mitigation - �Cnnrprrred Matthew Gray Isr'w# Panther Creek 1Date 12/1/2011 Canrponvo,r Panther Creek Culvert (C72) Replacement Bevterved I 1111 Stream Simulation Design Culvert Replacentent �Datc T Solution Allowable Headwater (HW) @ 25 -yr flow Ratio of headwater to diameter (D) during the 25 -year flow event is less than or equal to 1.25 (IiWI€i<1.25) Note that the D is from the invert of the stream bed at the inlet of the culvert assuming that 10°% of the diameter is buried- (Reference uried[Reference Section 3-3.2.2 WSDOT Hydraulics Manual ] Allowable Headwater (HW) @ 100 -yr flow Calvert must be designed such that the 100 -year flow event can be passed without overtopping the roadway [Reference Section 3-3.2.2 WSDOT Hydraulics Manual ] Allowable Headwater (HW) @ 25 -yr flow Ratio of headwater to diameter (D) during the 25 -year flow event shall not exceed 1.5 times the pipe diameter.pipe. arch rise. [Reference Section 4.3.5 King County Surface Water Design Manual] Inlet Design Criteria The embankment around the culvert inlet shall be protected from erosion by rock lining or riprap specified in Table 4.3.6A except the length shall be extended upstream of the culvert 5 feet minimum and the height shall be to the design headwater elevation [Reference Section 4.3.5 King County Surface Water Design Manual] Outlet Design Criteria The receiving channel of the outlet shall he protected from erosion by rock lining specified in Table 4.3.6A except the height shall be 1 foot above maximum tailwater elevation or 1 foot above the drown - whichever is higher. [Reference Section 4.3.5 King County Surface Water Design Manual] Culvert Sed Configuration Stream bed material will be 30 to 50 percent of culvert rise Well graded rock bands one to two times greater than D100 installed to control grade and channel cross section shape Distance between rock bands is the lesser of five times the width of the channel or as necessary to provide a vertical distance less than or equal to 0.8 feet Rock bands shall never closer than two channel widths or 25 feet (which ever is less) from the inlet or outlet of the culvert CULVERT DESIGN FLOWS Initial Flow Estimate using Regression Equations WDFW Region 2 Lowland Streams < 1000 feet Elevation Qfp January = 0- 125 x A110.93 x (MAP)A1.15 Qfp May — 0.001 x A^ 1.09 x (MAP)^2.07 WDFW Region 2 Urban Streams > 20% Effective Impervious Area Qfp January = 0.052 x A^0,96 x (MAP)^1.28 Qfp May — 0.003 x AA LI x (MAP)^1.6 Region 2 USGS Regression Equations Q2yr = 0.09 x A^0.877 x (MAP)^1.51 Q10yr — 0.129 x A^0.869 x (MAP)^1.57 Q25yr = 0.148 x A^0.864 x (MAP)^1.59 (Standard Error — 48.6%) (Standard Error � 75%) (Standard Error= 40.7%) (Standard Error = 43.3%) (Standard Error= 56%) (Standard Error— 53%) (Standard Error= 53%) Sheet 3 of 10 I Job 144752 (Dept 002) 1 Cale NO. 00001 Computation n,•ajeu 1-405/Thunder Hills Creek Miti ation - I Con uled _ _ _M_ atthew Gray .st•Win Panther Creek Dale 12/112011 Cultopowill Panther Creek Culvert C72 Replacement I Reviewwl ro.,A Strearn Simulation Design Culvert Replacement mare Q50yr = 0.161 x A^0.862 x (MAP)^1.61 Q 100yr = 0.174 x A110.861 x (MAF)^1.62 Legend Q - Flow (cfs) A = Drainage Basin Area (square miles) MAP - Mean Annual Precipitation (inches) Tnnut Vnhif-q Tntn ('nh 3nnc With PM 14P A;nec (Standard Error = 53%) (Standard Error = 54%) Limits (0.08 sq. miles < A < 3,020 sq_ miles) (23.0 in < MAP < 170 in) NHC HSPF Model Results for Siv 23 Street tributary Existing Conditions (Scenario 10) SW 23rd Tributary CFS Qfp (January) 25 2 -year 73 10 -year 113 25 -year 124 50 -year 131 100 -year 137 PROPOSED STRUCTURE Master Plan with Fish Passage (Scenario 13) SW 23rd Tributary CFS 2 -year Return I 10 -year 162 25 -year Q+SC Aescri tion of Area lFrequency A MAP efs cfs Panther Creek at Wetlands Qrp Jan W 2.6 38.6 20.3 30.2 Panther Creek at Wetlands Qf Ma L) 2.6 38.6 5.5 9,5 Panther Creek at Wetlands Qfp Jan U) 2.6 38.6 14.0 19.7 Panther Creek at Wetlands f May 2.6 38.6 3.0 4.2 Panther Creek at Wetlands 2 2.6 38.6 51.8 80.7 Panther Creek at Wetlands 10 2.6 38.6 91.6 140.1 Panther Creek at Wetlands 25 2.6 38.6 112.6 172.3 Panther Creek at Wetlands 50 2.6 38.6 131.5 201.2 Panther Creek at Wetlands 100 2.6 38.6 147.3 226.8 NHC HSPF Model Results for Siv 23 Street tributary Existing Conditions (Scenario 10) SW 23rd Tributary CFS Qfp (January) 25 2 -year 73 10 -year 113 25 -year 124 50 -year 131 100 -year 137 PROPOSED STRUCTURE Master Plan with Fish Passage (Scenario 13) SW 23rd Tributary CFS 2 -year 113 10 -year 162 25 -year 174 50 -year 178 100 -year 181 Proposed structure is au aluminum structural plate pipe arch structure 19'-2" wide by 1 l'-9" high Proposed span, rise plus 0.200 inches for wall thickness [CONTECH, Structural Plate Design Guidelines, page 57] Proposed height of culvert from invert 11.77 feet Conlech Proposed span of culvert including wall thickness 19.20 feet Contech Initial Inlet and outlet of culvert based on modeling performers by nhc Proposed upstream culvert invert elevation is 6.53 feet Design Proposed depth of gravel material at upstream inlet is 6.20 feet Design Proposed upstream culvert inlet elevation is 12.73 feet Design Proposed downstream culvert invert elevation is 4.99 feet Design Proposed downstream culvert outlet elevation is 10.53 feet Design Sheet 4 of 10 I.r„n \v. 144752 (Dept 002) Computation 1Pn jecr I-405lnituttder Hills Creek ;wlitigation - Is,•areu: Panther Creek cnR,pwrC„r Panther Creek Culvert (07) Replacernettt tt,.,n Stream Simulation Design Culvert Replacement CercNO. 00001 ICoraputed Matthew Gray Dare 12/1/2011 Dare Proposed depth of grave[ material at downstream inlet is 5.54 Feet Length of proposed culvert is 220.2 feet Proposed culvert slope is 0.70% Proposed streambed slope is 1.00% Centerline elevation of SR 167 29.3 feet Distance to centerline elevation 131.74 feet Top of culvert under centerline of SR 167 17.38 feet Cover over top of pipe is 11.92 feet CONTECH minimum cover (118* span) 2.40 feet CONTECH maximum cover (See Note) 7.00 feet WSDOT Minimum Cover 2.00 feet WSDOT Maximum Cover (4000 psf foundation) 9.00 feet WSDOT Maximum Cover (6000 psf foundation) 14.00 feet Nofc. nsgp have to use lighiiveight fill acid/or ribs to account for maxinium loading Masterplan length is expected to be 320 feet Slope of Masterplan Culvert is same as proposed slope 0.70% Proposed downstream culvert outlet invert elevation is 4.29 feet Proposed depth of gravel material at downstream inlet is 5.24 feet Proposed downstream culvert outlet flow]ine elevation is 9.53 feet tfreplacement of East Valley Highway Culverts is required: Proposed length of culvert is expected to be Replacement culvert slope is same as proposed culvert Proposed downstream culvert invert elevation is Proposed depth of gravel material at downstream inlet is Proposed downstream culvert outlet elevation is West Roadside Elevation of East Valley highway Distance to West Roadside elevation under East Valley Highway Top of Culvert under Centerline of East Valley Highway Cover over top of pipe is East Roadside Elevation of East Valley Highway Distance to East Roadside elevation under East Valley Highway Top of Culvert under Centerline of East Valley Highway Cover over top of pipe is CONCLUSION: Pipe meets minimum cover requirements 420 feet 0.70% 3.59 feet 4.94 feet 8.53 feet 18.745 feet 388.125 feet 15.58 feet 3.16 feet 18.755 feet 352.275 feet 15.83 feet 2.92 feet Design Design Calculation Calculation Estimated sheet DPL Estimated sheet DPI page 21, Structural Plate Design Guidelines page 57, Structural Plate Design Guidelines page 8-43, Jun 2010 1 lydraulic Manual page 8-59, Jun 2010 Hydraulic Manual page 8-59, Jun 2010 Hydraulic Manual Fstimated Calculation Calculation Design Calculation Estimated Calculation Calculation Design Calculation Measured Measured Calculation Calculation measured measured Preliminary Headwall and Toe Wall Consideration Headwalls and tae walls construction are considered to prevent inlet flotation by anchoring the leading edge of beveled ends, improved hydraulic efficiency, ninin5z of water around the exterior of the structure. and the loss of backfill. if the structure is skewed more than 15 Sheet 5 of 10 koA ?'«. 144752 (Dept 002) Cate/Va. 00001 Computation 3r'rolerr I-405/Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation - Compared Matthew Gray jsp..eem Panther Creek ry hate 12/112011 cnw,. w Panther Creek Culvert (C72) Replacement I Reviewed Ir'uxk Stream Simulation Design Culvert Replacement I Date degrees or when sustained higher flows can cause scour and erosion at the entrance and exit ends of the stnicture. Since the inlet will be anchors by more than 5 feet of stream bed gravel and backfill will consist of lightweight concrete, the culvert will be sufficiently anchor to prevent flotation and limit loss of material and piping around the exterior of the culvert. Hydraulic efficiency is not a consideration for the project. CONCLUSION: No toe wall will be provided. Preliminary Check for Gauge Thickness, Buckling, Scam Strength and Flexibilit Pipe Span 19.20 feet Height of cover under SR 167 11.92 feet Distance to centerline elevation under East Valley Highway fron 370.47 feet measure Centerline Elevation of East Valley Highway 19.08 feet estimate Top of Culvert under Centerline of East Valley Highway 15.71 feet calculated Height of cover under East Valley Highway 3.37 feet Live load, LL HS -25 Backfill compacted to 90% AASHTO Thickness (Guage) SR167 Tabtc 1, Structural Plate Design Design Pressure P - Table I Structural Plate Design Guidelines 100 lbs Guidelines dead load — H(cover) x soil unit weight (120 pef) 1431 psf Factor of Safety 2 Wall thrust, Ts 14697 psf Table 6, Structural Plate Design Minimum Yield Point 33000 psi Guidelines Allowable stress — minimum yield point/factor of safety 16500 psi Wall Area A a Wall thrustlallowable stress 0.9 sq in per foot Table 5, Structural Plate Design Gauge (Thickness in inches) 0.100 Guidelines East Valley Highway Table 1, Structural Plate Design Design Pressure P - Table 1 Structural Plate Design Guidelines 510 lbs Guidelines dead load = H(cover) x soil unit weight (120 pco 405 psf Calculation Factor of Safety 2 Design Wall thrust, Ts 8783.16 psf Calculation Table 6, Structural Plate Design Minimum Yield Point 33000 psi Guidelines Allowable stress — minimum yield point/factor of safety 16500 psi Wall Area A - Wall thrustlallowable stress 0.5 sq in per foot Table 5, Structural Plate Design Gauge (Thickness in inches) 0.100 Guidelines Thickness: Assume wall thickness is 0.125 metal thickness as this is minimum thickness and is greater than required for design. Buckling: Sheat 6 of 10 I Job Vii,. 144752 (Dept 002) Computation 1p"'jw I-405/Thunder Mills Creek Mitigation - s,src rr Parttlter Creek �Cv,rrpmtrne Panther Creek Culvert (C72) Replacement Ted d Stream Simulation Design Culvert Replacement r = radius of gyration (inches) fu = min. tensile strength (psi) fcr — critical buckling strength (psi) k = soi l stiffness factor s = pipe diameter or span (inches) Em = modulus of elasticity of metal (psi) Assume Fcr/FS, <Fa 2 IF s < k-\ F24 E" Z-4 lhen Fa = Fv — 48 E„ ks/r 2 V IF s T k 24 Em thea FQ = 12 E, ks/r 2 Radius of gyration (inches) r soil stiffness factor, k Em = modulus of elasticity of metal (psi) fu _ min. tensile strength (psi) rlk*sgrt(24EM/Fu) _ s = pipe diameter or span (inches) Therefore s is smaller than r/k*sgrt(7,4*EndFu) Then Fer fu^2 48 *Em (ks/r)^2 Fcr Fa Since Fcr is greater than Fa Seam Strength: Required Seam Strength (SS) _ Wall Thrust (Ts)— Factor of Safety SS required Actual Seam Strength Since SS required is less than Actual Cole No. 00001 Compared Matthew dray Dare 12/1/2011 Reviewed Date .. -- 0.8438 0.22 29.0E+06 35,000 540,9 230 inches 33636.0 1,225,000,000 13.9E+08 1549.959014 33636 16500 OK Wall Thrust*Safety Factor 8783.2 lb/foot 3 26349.5 Ib/foot 41,000 Ib/foot OK Table 5, Structural Plate Design Guidelines assumed Table 6, Structural Plate Design Guidelines Table 7, Structural Plate Design Guidelines Table 3, Structural Plate Design Guidelines Sheet 7 of 90 LhhA'u_ 144752 (Dept 002) j cape Nn. 00001 Computation Pn+jecr I-405/Thunder Hills Crcek Mitigation - utcd Matthew Gray Scalene Panther Creek lDare 12/1/2011 `c+,u+nn,eeeer Panther Creek Culvert (C72) Replacement I REwelved ITUAA Stream Simulation Design Culvert Replacement T mare Flexibility: For pipe arches flexibility factor must be less than 0.036 0.036 Page 16, Structural Plate Design Flexibility Factor FF s^2/Em*l Guidelines span, s (inches) 151 Em, 29.0E+46 I, moment of inertia 21.8E-3 calculated, solve for I for 0.125 inch thickness is 104.0E-3 Table 5, Structure] Plate Design Since I for 0,125 thicjknes is greater than calculated 0.125 is ok. OK Guidelines CORROSION ZONE LOCATION, Ph, AND RESISTIVITY _ PH T 6.6 – GeoEngineers 21 -Oct 2009 Turbidity(ntu) 16 Geolingineers 21 -Oct 2009 Resistivity (millisiemens/meter) 96 GcoEngineers 21 -Oct 2009 Resistivity – ohms -em 0.96 mS/cm 1042 ohms -cm Corrosine Zone Location Corrosion Zone II Hydraulics Manual 5 < pH < 8.5 YES Is Soil Resistivity > 1000 ohms -cm YES Fill height greater than 2 feet YES Fill height greater than 15 feet NO Therefore all corrosion zone materials are aceeptable in figure 8-4.2B From 8-4.28 Culverts Schedule Pipe: Schedule Culvert Pipe Galvanized Steel altemate shall have TR. 2 If Schedule pipe not selected then: Concrete: • Plain Concrete Culvert Pipe • Cl—Reinf. Concrete Culvert Pipe PVC: • Solid Wall PVC Culvert Pipe • Profile Wall AVC Culvert Pipe Polyethylene • Corrugated Polyethylene Culvert Pipe Steel • Treatment 2 Galvanized Steel Culvert Pipe • Plain Aluminized Steel Culvert Pipe Aluminum: • Plain Aluminum Culvert Pipe Sheat 8 of 10 LLb:L144752 (Dept 002) I ColcNO. 00001 Computation m'jerr 1-405/Tlluader Hills Creek Mitigation - I Co++,p++ted Matthew Gray !s, re+,+ Panther Creek - - L°re 12!112011 Cae+pa+rr++t Panther Creek Culvert (C72) Replacement I Reviewed Stream Simulation Desie Culvert Replacement Dare Selected Plain Aluminum Culvert Pipe BEDDING (FOUNDATION) MATERIAL Bedding material will be provided in Appendix E. sTItG AMBED MATERIAL Initial sireambed material design is included in Appendix D. GROUND COVER DESCRIPTION The Panther Creek wetland to the east of Highway 167 is a now a depressional wetland which once was likely a snore riverine-type wetland associated with the floodplain of the Springbrook Creek and ultimately the historic floodplain of the Green/Duwarnish River. Separated from the creek and river by levees and associated heavily urbanized/industrialized floodplain development, the wetland now relies on seasonally elevated groundwater levels, direct flow from Panther Creek at its south end, and indirect runoff and seeps from the Panther Creek watershed to the east for its hydrology. Highway 167 limits the outflow of water from the Panther Creek wetland to a series of approximately seven culverts beneath the Highway; the northern portion of the wetland outlets only through the large culvert SW 19'x' Street; the southern portion of the wetland outlets through six culverts, the largest of which is at SW 23"' Street. The highway thus effectively fortes a levee along the western side of the wetland, holding water within its approximately 60 -acre basin. The Panther Creek wetland extends west from the toe of the road prism of [lie highway to the toe of the forested slope to the east. A gas pipeline corridor and its associated fill -prism cross through the wetland from the east/west at SW 23"j Street, effectively bisecting the wetland into northern and southern sections. The northern portion is entirely forested and scrub -shrub wetland and encompasses approximately one third of the wetland; the southern portion encompasses approximately two-thirds of the wetland and contains a willow -dominated, scrub - shrub cornponcnt from the pipeline south approximately 1,200 feet, an emergent component extending from approximately SW 27"' Street south approximately 3,400 feet, and a forested wetland community surrounding Panther Creels rind its broad confluence with the extreme southern end of the Panther Creek wetland. FEMA CONSIDERATION See map inserted on FEMA tab. C72 is within mapped FEMA Zone AH: Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of pending base flood elevations determined. Hydraulic Manual (2007) page 3-13 states that if a culvert is placed in a stream that has been indentified in a FEMA Flood Insurance Study, the floodway and floodplain requirements for that municipality may govern the allowable amount of headwater. GROUND SOIL INVESTIGATION See GeoEngincers Report in Appendix E. SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS ALLOWANCE Stream simulation design culvert is large enough for anticipated vegetation and wood to bypass culvert with limited capacity of stream to move large wood. Sheet 9 of 10 .Iah ryo. 144752 (Dept 002) _ I Cafe No. 00001 Computation iyfoiea I-405/Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation - _ _ (computed Matthew Grp kll vn, Panther Creek IDaoe 12/1/2011 Icampownt Panther Creek Culvert (C72) Replacement �Itc.�cwea ?'ask Stream Simulation Design Culvert Replacement (Aare Summary HISTORICAL INFORMA Initial culvert Installation placed as part of mitigation for fines received from contractor filling roadside ditch wetland. Upstream fish ladder Is higher titan surrounding ground elevation providing storage within panther creek wetland. FISH PASSAGE Culvert us$d Stream Simulation Design as required by USAGE Permit. I3ankfull width was estimated using methodology proposed by MITFD Average channel width was estimated to be 13.6 feet Appliocation of Stream simulation methodology produced required culvert width of 18.3 feet PPROPOSED CULVERT Culvert type; Material: Construction method: Span: Rise; Length: Culvert Slope: Streambed Gravel Slope: Average depth of gravel in culvert Pipe Arch Aluminum Plate Traditional Cut and Cover 19'-2" 11'-9" 220 feet 0.7% 1.0% 5.87 Sheet 1 D of 10 Appendix D Streambed Material Design D-1 Culvert Bed Material Design (DevelopedbyOtto Gershon, gershoo@WS00Twa.gov) RED = modifiable input BLACK = calculated value Critical Shear Stress Method Shear @ Q100 = 1.7 Iblft2 Obtained from WinXSPRO analysis (Colorado) Dm,x = 423.85 mm = 16.7 in - 1.39 ft Calculated frog? Critical Shear Stress Curve on Streambed Sheet (D, s„ =253.71, ^0.9672) DLeop = 135.53 mm = 5.3 in = 0,44 ft Calculated from Critical Shear Stress Curve on Streambed Sheet (D,,,,, =77.9661, 111.042) Paleohydraulic Analysis Velocity @ Q100 = 2.5 ft/sec ' Obtained from Velocity Worskeets or WinXSPRO D84 = 0.064 ft V0,00=9.57 (D,,d0.4e7 Unit -Discharge Bed Design Slope of Channel S= O.Q09991 ft/ft ' Designed slope of channel through culvert 0100 = 181: ftNec W rh = 1 T.89583 ft ' Designedbankfutl channel width D84 = 0.19 D84=3.455°747{T 25gj-'M1grrr Summary - Culvert Bed Material Design Method Bed Material Gradation & Spec. (ft) D1" D84 Dso D16 Critical Shear Stress 1.39 0.56 0.22 0.070 Paleoh draulic Analysis 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.008 Unit Discharge Method 0.47 1 0.19 0.08 1 0.024 Design :Gradaffow 0.5 1 0.2 0.08 10.024 Chicken Coop Creek - Fish Passage 20111202 Panther Creek Current CulvertSedMaterlal.Xlsx F - 2 XL3021 - SR 101 IMP 271.98 120 100 80 IL 40 20 0 Culvert Bed Material Design (Developed byOtlo Gershon, gershoo@ WSDO T wa.gov) Sediment Distribution Curve -- -- 100 84 50 Ci 16 �— -- - 0.01 0.1 Relative Grain Size 13100 Da4 Dw 1316 0.5 0.2 0.08 0,024 Determining the Streambed Mix Per WSDO T Standard Specifications 9-03.11 1 Chicken Coop Creek - Fish Passage 20911202 Panther Creek Current CutvertBedMaterial.xlsx F - 3 XL3021 - 5R 101 IMP 271.88 wAON O:�'� „S.eallma t4f afr 12" = 1.0' 100 100..., 10" = 0.83' - 100 80 100 8" = 0.67' _ 100 85 60 100 3'_.':: ffl - 85 70 45 L , 100 85 70 55 30 93 5" = 0.42' 100 70 1 55 40 26 1 85 4" = 0.33' 3" = 0.25' 85 57 40 35 23 78 10070 43 34 30 19 2" = 0.17' 90 55 30 28 25 16 60 1.5" = 0.13' 80 40 20 ' 22 20 12 50 70 25 1_0 16 15 9 0.75" = 0,06' 48 10 0 10 10 5 24 26 7 0 _ 7 7 3 US No. 40 5 3 0– - - 3 3 2 3 US No. 200 5 - 3 K161' Cat@gQry 50 Chicken Coop Creek - Fish Passage 20911202 Panther Creek Current CutvertBedMaterial.xlsx F - 3 XL3021 - 5R 101 IMP 271.88 Culvert Bed Material Design (DevelopedbyOtto Gershal, gershoo@WSDOT.wa.gavj •,nix; _. _. ....--------- ---- O Laolx9d wnL•ntn 6 Mecr 19M A Loop,*d. W.1— A. MMM, 1964 )upper wlre ) al a - - - 'M14,10 (Q)Walk Date + Upper —11-m Laapold. / v O wcf t. r dMdler 19641 Trdldl— Wad d (L+apdd, * 6 h6ftr. 1965) O O O 0 Goiorado eau.upper a,OF Leaootd. WaWL a LEW, 'WA / .� Po Trendrira Dia tm ) - 253 7,,"'- ,," -R1=08511 R, 0 R511 / 0 O / I mr-old wo"- 6 M11W. 1964 / O .5 Pow& Trmclorw 4Ar Dla.lnun) � 77 966 r,' "'. O R'- 0.9336 / I /ool O O T. trhlul Shear SMass t lbs t Sgrt Figure 126. Critical Shear Stress (tc: Range .001 to 10) Required to Initiate Movement of Grains (partictes), revised for Colorado Rivers. I Instructions: The streambed material design should consist of a mixture of Streambed Sediment and Streambed Cobbles as defined by WSDOT Standard Specifications. To determine the proper gradation of mix to be used in the streambed, the size of the rocks that become mobile in flow events need first be determined. The largest mobile rock sizes can be calculated by the following methods as well as by observation: 1) by using the critical shear stress used to calculate scour, 2) by paleohydraulic analyisis, 3) by unit discharge analysis, and 4) by observation of the existing gradation in the stream (specifically Dfoo.) First, calculate the bed material gradation by the first three methods. To do this, simply enter values in the modifiable inputs (the PURPLE cells with RED text) on page 1 of this spreadsheet. Second, after observing D104 and the general gradation of the existing streambed, compare these three methods' results and determine a conservative Design Gradation. Enter these determined values in the modifiable cells at the bottom of page 1. This will create the Sediment Distribution Curve on page 2. Third, enter the percentage values in the PURPLE modifiable cells at the bottom of page 2, itera until the D% values on the right of the chart (in the GREEN cells) reasonably correspond to the aggregate sizes specified in the Design Gradation. (Note: the selected design gradation values are highlighted in BLUE in the chart for quick identification and comparison.) Chicken Coop Creek - Fish Passage 20111202 Panther Creek Current CulvertBedMaferiaf.xlsx I' - 4 XL3021 - SR 101 1 MP 271.98 Culvert Bed Material Design (Do vetopedby OW Gershon, gershoo@WSOOT.wa.gov) instructions (coat.): Both Streambed Sediment and Streambed Cobbles need to be mixed In proportions that add up to 100%. A good proportion to start with is 50% Streambed Sediment to 50% Streambed Cobbles. Iterate the proportions from there until an acceptable gradation Is achieved. Do not add Streambed Boulders to the mix of the Streambed Sediment and Streambed Cobbles. The Streambed Boulders should be specifically added to the Streambed as individual design elements, according to specific needs Identified by hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and the proposed culvert. The Streambed Boulders should not be part of the mix. Whereas the Streambed Cobbles provide greater streambed stability, the purpose of the Streambed Sediment is to seal the stream bed to prevent subsurface flow. Given its "sealing" ability, It is a good design practice to lay one lift of pure Streambed Sediment (unmixed with the Streambed Cobbles) directly onto the streambed subgrade in order to seal the ground. A Note about this Spreadsheet: Please share with me any notable suggestions or corrections needed to this spreadsheet, which would benefit others. Thank you. Otto Gershon WSDOT Transportation Engineer gershoo@wsdot.wa.gov 380-457-2575 0.0 - initial release A A - fixed D16 calculation Chicken Coop Creek - Fish Passage 20111202P8nfher Creek Current CulvertBedMatodaWax F - 5 XL3021- 5R 101 l MP 271.98 Culvert Bed Materia! Design (DevetopedbyOtto Gershon, gershooQo WSDOT.wa.gov) Chicken Coop Creek - Fish Passage 20111202 Panther Creek Current CulvertBedMafefla1.x1sx F - 6 XL3021 - SR 101 IMP 271,$& Appendix E Geotechnical Report Submitted under separate cover. fRaAf D ! of rran.portation Pal;P I STATUSMISTORY y, Creation Last Revision Form Date Modified No Status Stateetant of Deficlanclas/Needs: See "Statement of DeficiencieslNeeds" on page A-3 of Attachment A. Stafsanrant of Purpose: The Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project will relocate the section of Panther Creek between culverts C65 and C66 an estimated 50 to 80 feet east. Culverts C65 and C66 will be plugged to redirect low flow water through the Panther Creek Wetland. Culvert C72 and an existing fish ladder will be replaced with a fish passable pipe arch. WIN Descriotion U40602H SR 167 MP 24.70 to MP 25.69 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Version: Type of Work: NHS Status: Roadway: New/ Reconstruction? Functional Class: Culvert construction NHS Route SR 167 Reconstruction SR/WIN Mile Posts State Rt. 167 is Other SR(s)? El Begin MP L4./U End MP 25.69 Ctrfine Length 1.0 Resurfacing Length County/Counties Water Resource Inventory Area King County o WRIA-9 Duwamish/Green Township, Range, Section Sec: 19/30, T. 23 N., R. See Project Description on pages A-2 and A-3 of Attachment A for additional information. NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion Original EIS Title: 12--70- I I Date Date SEPA Determination of nonsignificance ROD Date: Federal Doc ID Number. Regional Environmental Contact Completed by Date Telephone: Fax: i � Washington State vI/ Department or Transportation Page 2 Part 2C. National Historic Preservation Act: Section 106 Exempt per 2000 Programmatic Agreement: O Yes 0' No Exempt per 2007 Programmatic Agreement: O Yes Q No See Attachment C, WSDOT Request for Concurrence, and Attachment D, DAHP concurrence in a finding of 0 Yes Q No O Yes O No Q Yes 0 No Q Yes O No APPROVALS JARPA 0 Yes 0 No Corps of Engineers Permit Type; n Section 404 n Sectjon l0 Nationwide #, drawing review only Individual Permit # Q Yes QNo Coast Guard Bridge Permit • Yes QNo Coastal Zone Management Certification Q Yes QNo Short -Term Water Quality Modification Q Yes C)No Water Quality Certification — Section 401 Issued By: Q Yes (F)No Shoreline Permit project is not within a shoreline jurisdiction C) Yes QNo Hydraulic Project Approval O Yes QNo DNR Use Authorization Other State/ Federal Local/Other E• Yes QNo Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Q Yes E)No Water Use Permit Q Yes ()No Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Baseline General for Construction Q Yes Q Yes (:)No (E)No Temporary Erosion Sediment Control Plan (TESC) State Waste Discharge Permit 0 Yes • No Flood Plain Development Permit Q Yes (E)No Tribal Permit(s) (ARPA, other) QYes ()No General HPA Q Yes (E)No Forest Practices Approval Q Yes (E)No Section 4(f)/6(f): Wildlife Refuges, Recreation Areas, Historic Properties of Renton Critical Areas Exemption (for C72 culvert) of Renton Critical Areas Variance (stream relocation) City of Renton Noise Variance (for nighttime work) �� Washington State MF Department of Transportation 1. Water Related Issues Rivers, Streams (continuous, intermittent), or Tidal Waters a. Identify all waterbodies within 300 ft of the project limits or that will be otherwise impacted: Stream Name (if known) Fisheries WA Stream No Panther Creek 09.0006 b. Identify stream crossing structures by type Page 3 Latitude/Longitude ID. 47° 26'49"1-1220 12'56" Panther Creek crosses SR 167 in three culverts: C65 24" corrugated metal pipe (CMP) at SRMP 24,72; C66 30" CMP at SRMP 24.81; and C72 72" steel pipe at SRMP 25.65. Culverts C65 and C66 will be plugged and all drainage directed to the C72 location. C72 will be replaced with a 19'-2" wide by 11'-9" high aluminum structural Water Quality/Storm Water Has a NPDES municipal general permit been issued for this WRIA? Oyes ()No Total sq ft of existing impervious surface within project limits: approx. 688,000 Total sq ft of new impervious surface: 0 Water quality treatment for existing impervious? Yes • No Will the project impact a 303d or TMDL listed water body? Yes QNo Describe proposed water quality/quantity treatment for new and any existing impervious surface upon completion of project. The project will not add impervious surface. No water quality/quantity treatment is proposed for existing impervious surface. Much of the project limit length is alongside the Panther Creek channel relocation or between the channel relocation and culvert replacement site where there is no work in the impervious area. The impervious work area is at the cross -SR 167 culvert replacement where the project will remove 15,300 square feet (0.36 acre) impervious and replace it with 15,300 square feet of impervious. 2. Wetlands Impacted wetland categories and known acreage Are wetlands present? E) Yes QNo If already known, estimated acres impacted: see below Panther Creek Wetland is bisected by SR 167 into East and West Panther Creek Wetlands. The East Panther Creek Wetland (Wetland 24.7R) is a depressional wetland over 57 acres in size, contains palustrine emergent persistent (PEM1), scrub -shrub broadleaf deciduous (PSS1), and forested broadleaf deciduous (PFO1) vegetation communities, and is a Renton Category 1/Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Category II wetland. West Panther Creek Wetland (Wetland 25.5L) along the west side of SR 167 is about 6.5 acres and contains PEM1, PSS1 and PFO1 communities. It is a Renton Category 3ANDOE Category III wetland. See Attachment E (JARPA) for the wetlands If already known, list anticipated wetland mitigation requirements If already known, estimate anticipated wetland mitigation acres: QOnsite QOffsite Tone 1 acre The mitigation plan will rectify portions of East and West Panther Creek Wetlands and their buffers that are temporarily affected by construction of the Project. Rectification will be accomplished by re-establishing pre -construction contours in temporarily affected areas, and installing native shrub and tree species commonly found in the undisturbed portions of the wetlands and buffers. r � Washington State TII Department of Transportation PART 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 3. Habitat a. Are there potential Migratory Bird Treaty Act issues? Q Yes E)No Page 4 b. Threatened/ Endangered Species or Priority Habitat or Species (include species of concern). Indicate state or federal listing. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) may be present in the east fork of Panther Creek which flows through culvert C72. These are Threatened species. See Attachment B, Biological Assessment Update for State Route: 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 - Phase 2). Updated species lists and critical habitat maps from NOAA Fisheries, StreamNet, and USEWS. and priorityhabitat and species maps from m Fish and �. General fish and wildlife habitat The mainstem of Panther Creek flows into the south portion of the project area through a largely native, deciduous tree -dominated forest that contains some invasive species, primarily Himalayan blackberry. Panther Creek then splits into two forks, hereafter called the East and West Forks of Panther Creek. The main flow from the West Fork is carried by C65, a 24 -inch corrugated metal culvert, under SR167. Overflow that occurs during high precipitation flows in a north -south channel constructed for WSDOT SR 167 Stage 3 protect approximately d. Describe habitat mitigation proposals (include anticipated work windows). The project implements stream improvement elements of the "Draft Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan" (WSDOT 2007). The mitigation project will be constructed in summer 2012. All in -water work, including dewatering and fish exclusion, is anticipated to occur between June 15 to September 30, contingent upon WDFW approval of work windows. See Attachment E, Part 7 for Best Management Practices to be implemented. 0 4. Flood Plains or Ways & Groundwater Is the project located in a 100 -year flood plain? If yes, is the project located in a 100 -year floodway? Will the project impact a 100 -year flood plain? Will the project impact a 100 -year floodway? Q Yes () No Q Yes 0 No Q Yes 0 No Yes t"J No Describe type(s) of impact that are expected (new structure, fill, stormwater discharge, etc...) See Attachment A, page A-4. Aquifer Recharge Area, Wellhead Protection Area, or Sole Source Aquifer. If located within a sole aquifer, is project exempt from EPA approval? Q Yes E) N2 The project is not located in a sole source aquifer. It is not located in a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). The Green-Duwamish Alluvial Aquifer near the study area is not used for domestic water supply or irrigation purposes. Therefore there is no special sole -source designation for this aquifer. This aquifer would fall under the protection of State groundwater regulations that are applicable to all groundwater. Anik � Washington State *IA Department of Transportation S. Air Quality a. Is project included in Metropolitan Transportation Plan? MTP adoption date: Is regional conformity required? Is project -level conformity required? Is an Air Quality Study required? Located in an Air Quality CO PM10 Maintenance Q Not Applicable O Yes QNo May 20, 2010 QYes QNo Q Yes E) -No O Yes QNo Page 5 Explain answers given above (eg., identify triggers, regulations, policy, location, type of document, reasons for air study, etc...) The Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation project mitigates the Thunder Hills Creek culvert replacement. Neither project is included in "Transportation 2040" update which is the regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The operation of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation project will not affect roadway capacity or traffic flow. b. Yes to any of the following questions means that a Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT) emission evaluation is likely to be needed: Future design year AADT > 140,000 (both traffic directions) Q Yes (F) No If yes, roadway capacity increased >= 100/a (capacity = total vehicle space added, not anticipated future traffic volume) 0 Yes 0 N New roadway / alignment on existing road designed for or used by heavy duty vechicles / freight more than the 8% standard usage Q Yes QNo Completed project allows larger/heavier vechicles and more frieght due to elimination of weight restrictions Q Yes (j)No Sensitive receivers may be located within 1,000 feet of the project O Yes (E)No Decision: Is a Mobile Source Air Toxic Emission Evaluation Needed? O Yes QNo Type? Q Quantitative O Qualitative Smaller capacity building projects may need a qualititve MSAT. Catagoricial exclusion/ exemption projects are also exempt from MSAT. Provide notes or comments below: MSAT emission evaluation is not required for this project. The Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation project will not affect roadway capacity or operation. Washington State W, Department of Transportation PART 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 6. Noise a. Is this a Type 1 noise project? 0 Yes E)No 0 Need additional information If known, estimate total length of mitigation (in miles). in miles Explain/describe mitigation: The Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation project is not a Type I project as defined in the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, page 446-3, June 2011_ b. Has any other noise mitigation been committed to at this location? c. Is project located within a noise barrier retrofit locations (Type 2)? d. Will a nighttime noise variance be needed? e. Identify any anticipated noise issues. See Attachment A page A-4 for a discussion of project construction noise. 7. Social / E] / Public Involvement Q Yes Q No Q Yes Q No Q Yes ()No Page 6 Are minority and/or low income communities impacted by the project? 0 Yes E) No If Yes, describe the impacts below. If known, also describe the community issues including: changes in access, property acquisition and relocation, land-use/zoning changes, utilities, public services and effects on other transportation systems: AML MWashington State O Department of Transportation S. Cultural Resources/ Historic Properties Are there any National Register listed / eligible properties or structures? Identify any historic or archaeological resources or bridges within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE)? If yes, explain: Page 7 Q Yes QNo 0 Yes Q No A Cultural Resources Survey was conducted in December 2009 for the channel relocation site. See Attachments C and D. This information has been reviewed by a WSDOT Cultural Resources Specialist in November 2011 for the current project design and is adequate for proceeding. Are there any historic bridges (or bridges over 40 years of age that need Q Yes Q) No historic significance evaluation)? If yes, List these bridges (include year built) and briefly describe bridge status and requirements: The Panther Creek culvert replacement will not affect bridges. The closest bridge is the S 43rd Street crossing of SR 167 about 1,500 feet south of the Panther Creek channel restoration element of the project. Will this project require a Cultural Resources Survey? Q) Yes 0 N Will this project have material sources, disposal sites, and/or staging areas that need to be surveyed for cultural resources? O Yes 0 N Has a Cultural Resources Specialist reviewed this project? 9. Tribal Consultation Is the project on tribal lands? Per WSDOT Executive Order 1025 (Feb 19, 2003) list all tribes you will consult (note: consultation is required for projects off tribal lands): Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Yakama Nation Does your project have the potential to impact a tribal treaty right? (impacts to: fishing resources, access to fishing grounds, hunting grounds, gathering areas, etc): Q Yes Q No The project will provide a fish passable culvert under SR 167 to convey the east fork of Panther Creek. Plugging existing culverts C65 and C66 will redirect low flow water through the Panther Creek Wetland. Panther Creek channel relocation will partially implement "Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan" elements for channel restoration between C65/C66 and C72. T Washington State vI/ Department of Transportation Page 8 10. Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife Refuges, Historic Properties, or 4(f)/6(f) Scenic Rivers/Byways, Lands Identify areas of impact. There are no parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, historic properties, 4(f) or 6(f) resources in the project vicinity. The City of Renton does not consider the Panther Creek Wetland Open Space Area to meet the criteria for a Section 4(f) resource and has confirmed this in the Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation issues for the 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 - Phase 2) in July 2008. 11. Resource Lands Identify resource lands within 300 feet of project and those lands otherwise impacted by the project. Describe the impacts: a. Agricultural There are no lands with agricultural zoning or use within 300 feet of the project. b. Forest/Timber There are no forest or timber resource lands within 300 feet of the project. c. Mineral There are no mineral resource lands within 300 feet of the project. r T Washington State Department of Transportation r 12. Hazardous and Problem Waste a. Is the project located within a one -mile radius of a site or sites listed on either the National Priorities List (Superfund) or Confirmed or Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) maintained by Dept of Ecology? b. Is the project located within a 1/2 mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the following Dept. of Ecology databases? []■ Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) Q Underground Storage Tani. (UST) ■❑ Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Page 9 Q Yes 0 No IS Yes (:)No c. Describe the general findings of the Dept. of Ecology database search in questions a and b. Please specify whether an Environmental Records search service report (e.g., EDR) was obtained or if the information was gathered through other means (e.g., WSDOT's Environmental GIS Workbench). Specify how many properties fit the criteria of questions a and b and what the property activities include across the project (e.g., gas station, dry cleaners, service station, etc.) The EDR June 9, 2006 report for the 1-405: Tukwila to Renton improvement Project was the information source. There are 19 CSCSL sites, including 11 for No Further Action (CSCSL-NFA) within a one -mile radius of the project. None of the listed properties abut the project property. See Attachment A, Exhibit 5. Within one-half mile of the project, four (4) sites have voluntary cleanup programs (VCPs). There are 11 sites with listed underground storage tanks (USTs) and six (6) of these sites are listed with leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). The closest LUST site address to the project is 3330 E Valley Road, about 650 feet d. If a site reconnaissance (windshield survey) has been performed, identify any properties not identified in the database search that may affect the project [name, address, property use activity]. No properties were identified in the site reconnaissance. e. Based on the above information and project specific activities, is there reasonable potential for the project to generate contaminated soils and/or groundwater? If yes, explain: Q Yes E)No f 0Washington State r F Department of Transportation 13. Geologically Hazardous Area Identify conditions and hazards. Page 10 Geologic hazards are mapped by the City of Renton as Sensitive Areas. The following maps were reviewed: Aquifer Protection Zones (January 2008) - The project is not located in a mapped aquifer protection zone; Coal Mine Hazards (May 2009) - The project is not located in a mapped coal mine hazard area; Erosion Hazards (May 2009) - The southern portion of the relocated Panther Creek stream channel is partly in a mapped erosion hazard area southwest of the Shattuck Avenue S intersection with S 37th Street; Flood Hazards (May 2009) - The project is partly located on soils mapped flood hazard areas; Landslide Hazard (May 2009) - The channel relocation site of the project is immediately west of a "moderate" landslide hazard area extending west from the intersection of Shattuck Avenue S and S 37th Street about 350 feet downslope; Liquefaction Hazards (May 2009) - The project is located on soils mapped as "moderate to high liquefaction susceptibility;" 14. Energy An energy analysis is generally required for large scale projects. Is an energy analysis required for this project? Q Yes Q No If N0, how will climate change be evaluated? If YES, is a climate change evaluation advised for this project? What are the triggers? This is a small-scale project not adding or affecting roadway capacity or energy use for operation. No greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis is recommended because the project will not add traffic or increase emissions beyond current levels. Construction greenhouse gas emissions will result primarily from fuel used in construction equipment. i T Washington State I Department of Transportation 15. Visual Quality Will the project disturb the roadside? Q Yes 0 N Cuts, fills, clearing and grading, new alignments, structures, utilities, etc. usually impact visual functions and should be analyzed per EPM Chapter 459. Describe roadside visual disturbances. Page 11 The "Visual Quality" section on page A-10 of Attachment A contains the PPM Chapter 459 analysis of impacts to visual function. 16. Commitments a. Environmental Describe existing environmental commitments that may affect or be impacted by the project: The project will comply with the relevant environmental impact mitigation commitments from the 1405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project Finding of No Significant Impact (1-5 to SR 169 -- Phase 2) dated July 2008. These include coordination with local agencies, emergency service providers and other projects for temporary roadway closures during construction, construction noise reduction measures, and water quality protection measures. b. Long-term maintenance Are long-term maintenance commitments necessary for this project? Identify 0Yes QNo INTERSTATE 405 Corridor Program This page is intentionally blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE...... ............ ............... ............ .................................................................... ................................. A-1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................A-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......... ........ __ ........ ___ ...................................................................... ........... _A-3 STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES/NEEDS ......................................................................................A-3 WHAT ARE THE KEY CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS? . ..... ........................................ ................... A-3 WHAT ARE THE CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND SCHEDULE?.............................................A-3 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT: SECTION 106 (DCE FORM PART 2.C)........................A-4 FLOOD PLAINS OR WAYS & GROUNDWATER (DCE FORM PART 4, SECTION 4) ..... ............. .......... A-4 NOISE (DCE FORM PART 4, SECTION 6) .................................... ............................................................ A-4 HOW DID WSDOT EVALUATE NOISE LEVELS FOR THIS PROJECT?......................................A-4 WHAT CRITERIA ARE USED TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT'S POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ACOUSTICAL ENVIRONMENT? ........................................ ...........A-4 WILL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARILY AFFECT NOISE LEVELS? ..... ..................... A-5 HOW WILL EFFECTS FROM CONSTRUCTION NOISE BE MINIMIZED?....................................A-6 DOES THE PROJECT CAUSE ANY SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED? .......................................... ............................................................................................. A-7 HAZARDOUS AND PROBLEM WASTE (DCE FORM PART 4, SECTION 12) ....... ......... .......... .............. A-8 WILL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AFFECT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS?...................................A-9 WHAT ARE THE UNAVOIDABLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS?..........................................................A-10 WHAT WILL BE DONE TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE NEGATIVE EFFECTS FROM HAZARDOUS MATERIALS? ........................... A-10 WHAT WILL BE DONE TO MINIMIZE CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS?.........................................A-10 HOW WILL THE PROJECT MITIGATE UNAVOIDABLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS? ....................... A-11 VISUAL QUALITY (DCE FORM PART 4, SECTION 15) .................................................. ...................... A-11 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT-............. ........................................................................................... A-1 I POTENTIAL EFFECTS..................................................................................................................A-11 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Sinkhole near 1-405 southbound lanes, December 6, 2007 .......................................................A -1 Exhibit 2 South Renton and Tukwila 1-405 and SR 167 culverts and project actions...............................A-2 Exhibit 3 Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels(dBA)........................................................A-5 Exhibit 4 Construction Equipment Noise Range.......................................................................................A-6 Exhibit 5 Confirmed or Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) within one mile of project._. ......... A-8 Exhibit 6 Sites within one-half mile of project............................................................................................A-9 SR 76 7, Thunder Hills Creek Miligalion Fish Barrier Retro. it Page A -i DCE Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 This page is intentionally blank. SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Page A -ii DCE Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 DCE FORM SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Purpose This document provides supplemental information to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Environmental Review Summary form prepared to support a NEPA environmental classification. The project is anticipated to not likely cause significant adverse environmental impacts and to be classified as a NEPA Class Il project with a Documented Categorical Exclusion requiring Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concurrence. The required documentation is contained in the DCE form, this supplemental information, and referenced reports. The Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit project is located in study areas and areas of potential effect of the discipline reports and NEPA Environmental Assessment prepared for the 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2) (TRIP) in 2006 through 2008. A Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation was issued for that project in July 2008. TR -IP environmental documentation covers the majority of analyses required for the actions of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation project. The DCE form and supporting materials summarize these analyses and provide updated and expanded information specific to the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation project. Introduction In early December 2007, the 48 -inch WSDOT Culvert (C) 52, which conveys Thunder Hills Creek under Interstate 405 (1405), collapsed due to record rainfall. About 5 inches of rain fell in the Renton area between December 1 and 4, 2007, with 4%2 inches on December 2 and 3. The culvert collapse resulted in slope failure and the formation of a large sinkhole along the southbound shoulder of I-405 in the vicinity of the 48 -inch cross culvert (Exhibit 1). The location of the sinkhole threatened the 1-405 southbound mainline and the culvert failure prevented Thunder Hills Creek upstream of I-405 from being safely conveyed under I-405. A temporary diversion system of pumps Exhibit 1 Sinkhole near 1-405 and pipes was installed and in operation by December 23, 2007, southbound lanes, December 6, 2007 Emergency construction repairs were approved under the conditions of a Nationwide Permit 23 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on March 3, 2008 (NWS -2008-87). Construction of a replacement culvert began in March 2008 and the creek was running through the replacement culvert by the end of October 2008. The diversion system was removed and the culvert replacement project completed in November and December 2008. The USACE permit requires WSDOT, with the approval of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT), to "complete the replacement of a culvert that will open a quantity of fish habitat similar to that blocked by the existing I-405 Thunder Hills Culvert within 3 years of the issuance of the permit'." WSDOT and the MIT determined that it was not feasible to provide a fish passable culvert at C52_ Fish passage mitigation was then evaluated at alternative locations in the I-405 Renton Nickel project area that drains to the Springbrook Creek subbasin, as required by the permit. WSDOT and the MIT identified culverts C65, C66, and C72, which drain Panther Creek in the vicinity of State Route (SR) 167 Milepost ' On March 26, 2010, the USACE extended mitigation completion to March 3, 2013. SR 16%. Thunder Hills Creek Alifigarion Fish Barrier Retro.fil Page A -I DCF. Furm Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 25.65, as barrier culverts within the Springbrook Creek subbasin that have approximately equivalent fish habitat to Thunder Hills Creek. Field review of culverts C65 and C66 resulted in MIT suggesting that culvert C72 would be more appropriate for opening fish habitat (HDR 2009). WSDOT, the MIT, the USAGE, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have concluded that mitigation for the Thunder Hills Creek emergency culvert repair shall consist of replacing C72 with an approved fish passable structure, permanently blocking C65 and C66, and implementing stream improvements in the vicinity of these culverts. Exhibit 2 shows TRIP freeway culverts and Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation project actions. Exhibit 2 South Renton and Tukwila 1-405 and SR 167 culverts and project actions SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit I age A-2 DCE Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 ~ Black River Far Cedar River Riper ian Forest Area see Inset It I Thunder Hills ' Dent �. Creek culvert C52 53.t ss park�. replaced in 2QQ8 Cottage I > 1 52 42 48 —1 7 44 4 4.1 4 Z 7.1 i ` 10 13 27 76 k Thunder Hills 16� Creek Panther Creek culvert , .. __ . - _ -- I C72 to be re iaced for i 1 Rolling Hills l _ fish passage in 2012 72 Creek Gilliam– 515 Creek Springbrook I l -1 Creek I Panther --f81 , Creek rovsUor 0—W 'ass culverts Green I 4 r River 4 u r Lxai _ I r I � 167 -- Arterial I RENTUNi TUICW! A Toil -, Relocate channel — — Relocate Open channel and block culverts 66 p+ce Cede r River Area » ` C65 and C66 in 2012 Park r, , 65 Park Muniapality l i I Panther N I i Creek k W�E r , L SMI 025 05 57 � � LWctIM t z�i-D7 Exhibit 2 South Renton and Tukwila 1-405 and SR 167 culverts and project actions SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit I age A-2 DCE Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 Project Description Statement of Deficiencies/Needs The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a Nationwide Permit 23 for replacement of the damaged Thunder Hill Creek culvert under I-405, with a requirement that the replacement of the culvert open a quantity of fish habitat similar to that blocked by the existing Thunder Hills Creek culvert. What are the key construction elements? Key construction elements of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project are as follows: • Fill and plug existing culverts C65 and C66 with controlled density till (CDF) concrete to redirect surface water through the Panther Creek Wetland on the east side of SR 167. The ends of the culverts will be buried as part of the filling of the existing channel. This element is within WSDOT right-of-way (ROW) • Relocate the section of West Fork Panther Creek channel between C65 and C66 as part of mitigation for filling 150 feet of Thunder Hills Creek and 15 feet of the unnamed tributary to Thunder Hills Creek. The new channel meanders and its centerline will vary between 40 and 80 feet east of the existing channel, and has been sited to avoid future planned roadway improvements along SR 167. In total, 760 lineal feet of new stream channel will be created. Stream flow from the mainstem of Panther Creek would be diverted into the newly excavated stream channel, which will extend approximately 160 feet north of C66 and tie back into an existing stormwater discharge channel. Following construction of the new section of channel, the area will be replanted with native vegetation. The existing channel downstream of C65 along SR 167 will be filled in as requested by WDFW and replanted with native vegetation. In addition, an existing storm drain will be reconstructed to connect to the relocated West Fork of Panther Creek. Remove the existing fish ladder and culvert at C72, and replace it with a fish passable arch culvert. The culvert is being designed to meet WDFW guidelines, and per the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit 23 conditions, the culvert design will also require approval by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Vegetation in the east and west portions of the Panther Creek Wetland in the vicinity of C72 will be temporarily cleared to allow for adequate construction staging access. Open -cut trenching through SR 167 will involve removal of pavement, concrete and traffic barriers, and a weekend closure of SR 167. The existing culvert and fish ladder will be removed, and the new culvert will be assembled on-site and installed. SR 167 will be restored to pre -project conditions, and disturbed wetland areas will be revegetated with native woody vegetation. What are the construction methods and schedule? The mitigation project will be constructed May through December, 2012. All in -water work, including dewatering and fish exclusion, is anticipated to occur between June 15 and September 30 contingent upon WDFW approval of work windows. Pending refinement of construction details with the contractor, equipment anticipated to be used for the project includes concrete grinders, pavers, graders, dozers, backhoes, air wrenches, generator, cranes, pumps, concrete trucks and dump trucks. Best Management Practices (BMP) to be implemented may include, but are not limited to: • Minimizing the construction footprint to the extent practicable; • Erosion control installation — silt fence installation either by machine or hand; • Use of stabilized construction entrance(s), the fewest number feasible, to minimize tracking sediment offsite; SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fisk Barrier Retrofit Page A-3 DCF. Farm Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 • Containment of any runoff on-site using erosion control BMPs during construction; • Control, treatment and discharge of groundwater encountered in an excavation or other area following procedures of the project's Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; • Silt fence and/or cofferdam to isolate in -water work area depending on ground conditions; and • Revegetation of all disturbed areas with native plant species. No new facilities or material sources will need to be developed for this project. During open -cut trenching of SR 167, traffic from northbound SR 167 will be detoured to Lind Avenue SW and traffic from southbound SR 167 will be detoured to SR 181 (W Valley Highway/68th Avenue S). There will be no temporary or permanent increases in impervious surfaces that would require stormwater treatment. The new arch culvert and relocated stream will be passive facilities and will not require any long-term operation. Potential maintenance of the arch culvert and relocated stream will be limited to removal of any blockages that may develop in the culvert or replacement of streambed material from scour. National Historic Preservation Act: Section 106 (DCE Form Part 2.C) There are no historic structures or sites on or next to the site. Archeological subsurface testing was conducted in the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) on December 7, 10 and 16, 2009 and found no cultural materials. See Attachment C for the WSDOT Request for Concurrence including the January 8, 2010 report on archaeological subsurface testing. The State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) concurred in a finding of "No Historic Properties Affected" for the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project. The DAHP January 12, 2010 letter of concurrence is Attachment D. This information was reviewed for the current project design in November 2011 by a WSDOT Cultural Resources Specialist and is adequate for proceeding. Flood Plains or Ways & Groundwater (DCE Form Part 4, Section 4) A total of 886 cubic yards (cy) of fill will be placed in the 100 -year flood plain. The larger pipe arch will provide more storage than the existing 72 -inch pipe. The culvert replacement, and channel relocation and modifications will remove 1,348 cy of material within the flood plain resulting in a net increase of 462 cy of storage in the 100 -year flood plain. Noise (DCE Form Part 4, Section 6) The Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation project will not change traffic noise levels during its operation. There will be short-term noise increases during construction. How did WSDOT evaluate noise levels for this project? Because there will not be any traffic noise increases from the project, traffic noise modeling was not required. Construction noise has been evaluated for the types of construction equipment expected to be used, their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reference noise levels, and distances to residences. What criteria are used to evaluate the project's potential effects on the acoustical environment? The City of Renton has adopted the State of Washington's property line noise standards with Renton Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 7, Section 8 7 2. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) regulates noise levels at property lines of neighboring properties depending on the land uses of both the source noise and receiving property, as shown in Exhibit 3. City of Renton property east of SR 167 where the project will be constructed is open space with residential zoning which has a noise source Class A environmental designation. Receiving properties to the east are also residential. The maximum permissible environmental noise levels are 55 dBA at the SR 167. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofil Page A-4 DCB Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 residential property line. The maximum permissible environmental noise level at residential receiving properties is reduced by 10 dBA between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Short-term exceedences above the permissible sound level are allowed. The maximum level may be exceeded by 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes, by 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes, or by 15 dBA for a total of 1.5 minutes during any one-hour period. Exhibit 3 Maximum Permissible Environmental Noise Levels (dBA) EDNA of Noise EDNA of Receiving Property Source Class A Class B Class C Class A 55 57 60 Class 8 57 60 65 Class C 60 65 70 EDNA Environmental designation for noise abatement The EDNA classes conform to the City of Renton zoning designations as follows: Class A Residential zones. Class B Commercial zones. Class C Industrial zones. Source: WAC 173-60-040. Construction Noise Standards Construction noise from projects within the state of Washington is exempt from Ecology property line regulations during daytime hours, but regulations apply to construction noise during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m. weekdays and 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. weekends). Performance of construction activities during nighttime hours will require noise variances from the City of Renton. Will project construction temporarily affect noise levels? Construction activities will generate noise during the construction period. Construction will usually be carried out in stages, each with its own mix of equipment and its own noise characteristics. Panther Creek channel relocation will primarily require site clearing and excavation with earthmoving equipment. Culvert C72 and fish ladder removal will involve site clearing, pavement removal, and excavation for the pipe arch and inlet channel. The most prevalent noise source at construction sites will be the internal combustion engine. Engine - powered equipment includes earth -moving and compaction, material -handling, and stationary equipment. Mobile equipment operates intermittently, with periods of high and low noise. Stationary equipment, such as generators and compressors, operate at fairly constant sound levels over time. Construction noise will be intermittent. These noise levels will depend on the type, amount, and location of construction activities. The type of construction methods followed will establish maximum noise levels for the equipment used. The amount of construction activity will define how often noise will occur. The proximity of construction equipment to adjacent properties will affect the noise levels of the receptors. The construction methods and schedule discussion on pages A-2 and A-3 lists the type of equipment anticipated to be used. Maximum noise levels for construction equipment will be similar to the typical maximum levels presented in Exhibit 4. Maximum noise levels from construction equipment will range from 69 to 106 dBA at 50 feet. Peak noise levels from the earth -moving equipment will be about 90 to 96 dBA at 50 feet. Construction noise SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek !Mitigation f ish Barrier Retrofit Page A-5 DCE Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 at residences farther away will decrease at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. At 500 feet from the source, noise will be about 20 dBA lower than 50 feet from the source. The C72 culvert replacement site is approximately 520 feet from residential property on Talbot Crest Drive to the east. Properties are 120 or more feet higher than the culvert site. Nighttime work will be required when SR 167 can be closed to traffic. The Panther Creek channel relocation construction area is as close as 230 feet from residential property along Shattuck Avenue S to the east of the project. Construction noise is expected to exceed nighttime limits at both residential and commercial properties and will require a variance from the City of Renton noise ordinance. Noise Level (dBA) at 15 meters (50 ft.) 60 70 80 90 100 110 Compactors Srollersl F"l-end loaders Backhees Tractors Scrapers, graders i Pares Trucks ConcretemiKers Cancrele Pumps - Cranes (mcvable) Cranes (derrick) Pumps Generators - Compressars Pneumatic rr.enches Jack hammers, rock drills Pile drivers (peaks) i Vibralor j Sa+rs Source: EPA. 1971 and WSUOT, 1991. Exhibit 4 Construction Equipment Noise Range How will effects from construction noise be minimized? Where practicable, WSDOT will reduce construction noise by using enclosures or walls to surround noisy equipment, installing mufflers on engines, using quiet equipment or construction methods, minimizing operation time, and locating stationary equipment far from sensitive receptors. To reduce construction noise at nearby receptors, WSDOT will incorporate the following activities where practicable: • Equip construction equipment engines with adequate mufflers, intake silencers, and engine enclosures to reduce their noise; • Turn off construction equipment during prolonged periods of nonuse to eliminate noise; • Locate stationary equipment away from residences to decrease noise; 5R 167, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Page A-6 DCE Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft Dccember 20t I • Construct temporary noise barriers or curtains around stationary equipment that must be located near residences, to decrease noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors; and • Require use of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) -approved ambient sound - sensing backup alarms, to reduce disturbances from backup alarms during quiet periods_ WSDOT will obtain a noise varience from the City of Renton for requied nighttime work. The conditions for variance approval may include: I_ All vehicles must be equipped with ambient sensitive backup warning devices. The contractor may use back-up observers in lieu of back-up warning devices for all equipment except dump trucks in compliance with WAC Chapters 296-155-610 and 296-155-615. The contractor shall use back-up observers and back-up warning devices for dump trucks in compliance with WAC Chapter 296-155-610. 2. All trucks performing export haul must have well maintained bed liners as inspected and approved by the engineer, or new rubber or aluminum or approved bed liners. 3. Truck tailgate banging is prohibited. All truck tailgates must be secured to prevent excessive noise from banging. 4. Construction and stationary equipment, such as light plants, generators, compressors, and jackhammers must utilize WSDOT approved noise mitigation shields, noise blankets, skirts, or other means available as approved by the engineer. 5. A copy of each noise variance or exemption shall be kept on the project site at all times. 6. Provide a 24-hour complaint answering service as well as a list of designated contact persons shall be provided for the purpose of forwarding complaints. After two substantiated continuing complaints within the area of the work are received and reviewed by WSDOT acoustics staff, a WSDOT acoustic specialist will perform noise measures at the right-of-way line of affected residents. if noise levels are above the allowed threshold, the contractor will provide additional mitigation measures such as, shielding of noise source, or reducing use of certain types equipment, ear plugs, white noise machines, etc. 8. Any unwanted material should be removed by sweeping. 9. The contractor shall provide written notification to all households within a 500 -foot radius from where nighttime construction work shall occur, at least 7 calendar days in advance of the proposed nighttime construction work every month if the nighttime construction may extend at that same location for more than 4 weeks or the nature of the work may change for example from paving shoulder to the placing of bridge pier casing. The notification shall include a 24-hour contractor contact phone number. This notice shall also include the work location, start date and duration of the nighttime work. Does the project cause any substantial adverse effects that cannot be avoided? The Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation project will not cause any substantial unavoidable adverse noise effects from construction. SR !67, Thunder Hills Creek Miligulion Fish Barrier Retrofit Page A-7 DCF. Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 Hazardous and Problem Waste (DCE Form Part 4, Section 12) The following two tables list the sites from the TRIP Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum that are included in the response to DCE form Part 4, item 12.c. Exhibit 5 Confirmed or Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) within one mile of project Address CSCSL CSCSL-NFA EDR Site 1D 2319 Lind Ave SW ✓ 92 2423 Lind Ave SW ✓ 95 800 S 21 st St ✓ 83 2980 E Valley Hwy ✓ 100 3000 E Valley Rd ✓ 100 3324 Lind Ave SW ✓ 102 400 SW 34th St ✓ 103 200 SW 34th St ✓ 104 3100 East Valley Rd ✓ 105 4100 East Valley Rd ✓ 113 9840 SE Carr Rd ✓ 114 8815 SE 180th St ✓ 116 SW 43rd St & E Valley Hwy ✓ 117 E Valley Hwy & SW 43rd St ✓ 117 811 SW Grady Way ✓ 56 208 SW 16th St ✓ 63 710 Rainier Ave S ✓ 42 509 S Grady Way ✓ 44 2100 Benson Dr S ✓ 81 NFA — no further action Source: 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2), Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum, Appendix B, June 2006. The EDR report is a list of databases searched for potential hazardous materials contamination, including selected detailed information from federal and state lists, and maps illustrating the identifiable sites within the indicated search radius. SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofrt Page A-8 DCE Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 Exhibit 6 Sites within one-half mile of project Source: 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 - Phase 2), Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum, Appendix 6 - EOR Report, June 2006. The EQR report is a list of databases searched for potential hazardous materials contamination, including selected detailed information from federal and slate lists, and maps illustrating the identifiable sites within the indicated search radius Will project construction affect hazardous materials? WSDOT will comply with all applicable environmental rules and regulations, the I-405 Programmatic Commitments, and Record -of -Decision (ROD) during construction of the project. Based on WSDOT's commitment to following these compliance measures, the project's effects on and from hazardous materials will be few, if any. However, despite measures to manage risks associated with hazardous materials, hazardous materials spills could occur and releases of anticipated and unanticipated contaminants could occur during construction. These materials could result in short-term contamination effects to the environment before avoidance actions identified in the 1-405 Programmatic Commitments can be taken. Project construction may affect hazardous materials through spills during trenching, excavation and dewatering activities. The project does not include building demolition. Construction Hazards A consequence typically encountered during project construction will be the unavoidable release of hazardous substances. For example, hydraulic hoses used on heavy equipment operation may drip hydraulic oil while in use. WSDOT will perform regular inspection and maintenance on machinery to reduce the occurrence of these types of releases; however, unanticipated equipment failure can occur even with the best maintenance program and preventative measures. SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek ,Mitigation Fish Harrier Retrofit Page A-9 DCG Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 Leaking Voluntary Underground Underground Address Cleanup Program Storage Tank Storage Tank 2423 Lind Ave SW 200 SW 34th St 245 Bush Place S 3324 Lind Ave SW 400 SW 34th St J 3328 East Valley Rd 3330 East Valley Rd 3412 East Valley Rd 3820 East Valley Rd 4096 East Valley Rd 9840 SE Carr Rd V 8815S E 180th Sit E Valley Hwy & SW 43rd St 18010 E Valley Hwy v, Source: 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 - Phase 2), Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum, Appendix 6 - EOR Report, June 2006. The EQR report is a list of databases searched for potential hazardous materials contamination, including selected detailed information from federal and slate lists, and maps illustrating the identifiable sites within the indicated search radius Will project construction affect hazardous materials? WSDOT will comply with all applicable environmental rules and regulations, the I-405 Programmatic Commitments, and Record -of -Decision (ROD) during construction of the project. Based on WSDOT's commitment to following these compliance measures, the project's effects on and from hazardous materials will be few, if any. However, despite measures to manage risks associated with hazardous materials, hazardous materials spills could occur and releases of anticipated and unanticipated contaminants could occur during construction. These materials could result in short-term contamination effects to the environment before avoidance actions identified in the 1-405 Programmatic Commitments can be taken. Project construction may affect hazardous materials through spills during trenching, excavation and dewatering activities. The project does not include building demolition. Construction Hazards A consequence typically encountered during project construction will be the unavoidable release of hazardous substances. For example, hydraulic hoses used on heavy equipment operation may drip hydraulic oil while in use. WSDOT will perform regular inspection and maintenance on machinery to reduce the occurrence of these types of releases; however, unanticipated equipment failure can occur even with the best maintenance program and preventative measures. SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek ,Mitigation Fish Harrier Retrofit Page A-9 DCG Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 What are the unavoidable negative effects? No unavoidable negative effects are anticipated for this project. What will be done to avoid or minimize negative effects from hazardous materials? WSDOT will follow the 1-405 Programmatic Commitments, ROD, and comply with all applicable environmental procedures. WSDOT will manage contaminated media that may be encountered within the project area. The potential to discover unidentified contamination is a risk associated with all construction projects with or without parcel acquisition. If previously unidentified contaminated sites are discovered during construction, WSDOT will follow the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan and manage construction activities to comply with state and federal environmental regulations. What will be done to minimize construction effects? WSDOT will conduct the following activities to avoid or minimize all effects to human health or the environment: Known or Suspected Contamination Within the Proposed Project Area • If WSDOT encounters an unknown underground storage tank (UST) within the existing right-of- way, WSDOT will assume cleanup liability for the appropriate decommissioning and removal of the UST. If this occurs, WSDOT will follow all applicable rules and regulations associated with UST removal activities. • WSDOT will meet all appropriate discharge approvals if water affected with hazardous materials is encountered during construction and water needs to be managed. Known or Suspected Contamination Outside the Project Area Contaminated groundwater originating from properties located upgradient of the project area could migrate to the project area. In general, WSDOT will not incur liability for groundwater contamination that has migrated into the project footprint as long as it does not acquire the source of the contamination. However, WSDOT will manage the contaminated media within the project footprint in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. Worker and Public Health and Safety WSDOT will comply with the following regulations and agreements to minimize the effects of hazardous materials: • State Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. • Safety Standards for Construction Work, Chapter 296-155 WAC. • National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), CFR, Title 40, Volume 5, Parts 61 to 71. • General Occupational Health Standards, Chapter 296-62 WAC. • Implementing Agreement between Ecology and WSDOT Concerning Hazardous Waste Management, April 1993. Hazardous Materials Spills During Construction Unavoidable releases of hazardous materials are hazards on all construction projects, but they are particularly acute for construction over water or where stormwater runs to nearby lakes and rivers. However, we do not anticipate any of these effects on this project because a SPCC plan is required by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction permit and WSDOT Standard SR 167, Thunder hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier RetroTt Page A-10 DCF Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 Specification 1-07.15(1). During the development of a SPCC plan, specific sensitive receptors will be identified. How will the project mitigate unavoidable negative effects? No specific mitigation measures or unavoidable negative effects are anticipated for this project. Visual Quality (DCE Form Part 4, Section 15) The SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit project is included in the visual quality analysis area of the 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (I-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2) Visual Quality Technical Memorandum (December 2007). That study followed the procedures of WSDOT Environmental Policy Manual Chapter 459. Affected Environment The project is in the south section of the TRIP visual quality study area. This is SR 167 between the SW 43rd Street interchange and I-405. SR 167 freeway users have views that are characterized by industrial and commercial areas of Renton to the west. The majority of the highway through the south section is elevated on embankments. The views toward the east are characterized by natural vegetation in the East Panther Creek Wetland and the single-family residences of the Talbot Hill Neighborhood. Topography, vegetation, and structures generally limit views of SR 167 in the study area and subsequently many neighboring residential areas do not have direct views of the highway facilities. These facilities can be seen primarily from cross streets or interchanges perpendicular where screening is limited. SR 167 is visible from the bridge at SW 43rd Street, The TRIP Visual Quality Technical Memorandum identified three key viewpoints from the roadways for freeway users, and nine key viewpoints toward the freeways from freeway neighbors. One of the viewpoints from the freeway, labeled F2, is on northbound SR 167 at approximately the SW 26th Street alignment. This viewpoint is representative of views from SR 167 near the project channel relocation site at approximately SW 36th to SW 39th Streets, and the culvert replacement site at SW 23rd Street. The TRIP visual quality analysis used the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA-Hl-88-054) method which uses both quantitative and qualitative analyses to remove subjectivity and provide a basis for comparison. The quantitative analysis assigns numerical values to describe the physical attributes of the landscape character using professionally accepted terminology. The qualitative analysis explains the project and supports these numerical values. The TRIP Visual Quality Technical Memorandum Appendix A describes this methodology. TRIP visual quality analysis Viewpoint F2 received a visual quality rating of 3.75, moderately low, on a 7 -point scale. Freeway users consisting of local traffic and commuters form the primary viewer groups. These viewers look across the WSDOT roadway embankment toward the Panther Creek wetlands. The area within the WSDOT right of way consists of large black cottonwood and willow trees that screen the wetland from the freeway. Vividness is low and both intactness and unity are average. Potential Effects Temporary Visual Quality Effects Project construction will cause temporary changes to the visual character of the project area from: excavating and removing vegetation outside the existing roadway; operating construction equipment including hauling trucks, earthworking heavy equipment, and cranes; placing temporary erosion and control measures such as plastic sheeting, sandbags, and straw; and placing temporary traffic or construction signs. SR 767, Thunder Hills Creek Mfigaiion Fish Barrier RefroJif Page A- l 1 DCE Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 Because SR 167 is elevated on fill above the construction sites and is screened from them by vegetation, construction activity will be most visible from SR 167 in the immediate vicinity of the work areas where the sites are cleared to the roadway. Work areas will be visible for the time it takes vehicle occupants to pass the sites. The channel relocation site will be about 760 feet in length, parallel and cast of SR 167. At the 60 miles per hour (mph) speed limit, a vehicle will pass the site in about 8 seconds. The culvert replacement site will have an SR 167 frontage of about 80 feet and a vehicle traveling at 60 mph will pass the site in about one second. The most visually conspicuous work on SR 167 will be removal and replacement of the existing 72 -inch culvert C72 under the SR 167 roadway. This is planned to be done during nighttime or weekend freeway closure when pavement will be removed, excavating equipment and cranes will remove the existing culvert and install the pipe arch in sections, and pavement will be restored. Northbound SR 167 traffic will be diverted to Lind Avenue SW at SW 43rd Street and SW Grady Way far enough away from the culvert construction that it won't be a distraction to freeway and detour users. Southbound SR 167 traffic will detour to SR 181 (W Valley Highway), more than one mile west of SR 167. The nighttime construction will be visible to traffic on East Valley Road. Some of the residential viewers on the Talbot Hill neighborhood to the east may have views of the work areas to the west. The channel relocation site is mostly south of the Shattuck Avenue S residences and screened by trees, but there may be some visibility from the closest houses 250 feet away from the channel site. The culvert replacement is 500 feet or more from the closest residences and is screened by trees from most of them. There is an east -west viewshed2 along the SW 23rd Street utility right of way corridor that will allow views of the culvert replacement site from one or more residences on the south side of Busch Place S west of Shattuck Avenue S. Permanent Effects on Views The C72 culvert replacement and Panther Creek channel relocation construction sites will be replanted with trees and shrubs suited to the drainage channel and wetland environment. The visual quality will be similar to existing conditions. The project will not change the TRIP Viewpoint F2 visual quality rating from its baseline condition or TRIP project rating. a Viewshed — The area that can be seen from a given viewpoint or group of viewpoints; it is also that area from which that viewpoint or group of viewpoints can be seen. SR 167, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Page A-12 DCE Form Attachment A Supplemental Information Draft December 2011 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit QCE Form Attachment B Page B-1 Biological Assessment Update For State Route: I-445 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (I-5 to SR 169 - Phase 2) Sixth Field HUC Code Lower Green River: 171100130399 Lower Cedar River: 171101120106 Northwest Region Headquarters 15700 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133-5910 Prepared by: Washington State Department of Transportation 1-405 Project Team Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment B Page B-2 1. Introduction This memorandum provides a project update to the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project Biological Assessment (BA, WSDOT 2007a) as it relates to implementation of mitigation for emergency repairs to the Thunder Hills Creek culvert (Culvert 52) located under 1-405. 1.1 Project Overview In early December 2007, WSDOT Culvert (C) 52, which conveys Thunder Hills Creek under Interstate 405 (I-405), collapsed due to record rainfall. The culvert collapse resulted in slope failure and the formation of a large sink hole along the southbound shoulder of 1-405 in the vicinity of the 48 -inch cross culvert. The location of the sinkhole threatened the 1-405 southbound mainline, and the culvert failure prevented the upper portions of Thunder Hills Creek from being safely conveyed under I-405. Emergency construction repairs were approved under the conditions of a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on March 3, 2008 (NWS -2008-87). Replacement of the damaged culvert was completed in December 2008. The USACE permit requires WSDOT to "complete the replacement of a culvert that will open a quantity of fish habitat similar to that blocked by the existing 1-405 Thunder Hills Culvert within 3 years of the issuance of the permit." Additionally, WSDOT is required to "provide mitigation for the filling of 150 feet of Thunder Hills Creek and 15 feet of the unnamed tributary to Thunder Hills Creek." On March 26, 2010, the USACE revised the condition of this permit by extending the required completion date by two years to March 3, 2013. WSDOT determined that it was not feasible to provide a fish passable culvert at C52 during the emergency repair effort. Fish passage mitigation was then evaluated at alternative locations in the 1-405 Renton Nickel project area that drain to the Springbrook Creek subbasin, as required by the permit. WSDOT identified three culverts with upstream habitat that have approximately equivalent habitat to Thunder Hills Creek. C65 and C66, which drain into the West Fork of Panther Creek near State Route (SR) 167 Milepost (MP) 24.70, were identified as partial barriers (HDR 2009). C72, which drains the East Fork of Panther Creek near MP 25.69, was also identified as a fish barrier (HDR 2009). Field review of culverts C65 and C66 resulted in suggesting that culvert C72 would be most appropriate for opening fish habitat (HDR 2009). The USACE, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have concurred with WSDOT's proposal to provide mitigation for the Thunder Hills Creek emergency culvert repair by replacing C72 with an approved fish passable culvert, permanently blocking C65 and C66, and implementing stream improvements in the vicinity of these culverts. 2. Project Description Key construction elements of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project are as follows: • Fill and plug C65 and C66 with controlled density fill (CDF) concrete. The ends of the culverts will be buried as part of the filling of the existing channel described above. This element is within WSDOT right-of-way (ROW). Biological Assessment Update for 1-405, _ Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 2 W oftda"""oupwboaff~"` Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment B Page B-3 Relocate the section of West Fork Panther Creek channel between C65 and C66 as part of mitigation for filling 150 feet of Thunder Hills Creek and 15 feet of the unnamed tributary to Thunder Hills Creek. The new channel meanders and its centerline will vary between 40 and 80 feet east of the existing channel, and has been sited to avoid future planned roadway improvements along SR 167. In total, 760 lineal feet of new stream channel would be created. Stream flow from the mainstem of Panther Creek would be diverted into the newly excavated stream channel, which would extend approximately 160 feet north of C66 and tie back into an existing stormwater discharge channel. Following construction of the new section of channel, the area would be replanted with native vegetation. The existing channel downstream of C65 along SR 167 will be filled in as requested by WDFW and replanted with native vegetation. In addition, an existing storm drain will be reconstructed to connect to the relocated West Fork of Panther Creek. Remove the existing fish ladder and culvert at C72, and replace it with a fish passable arch culvert. Vegetation in East and West Panther Creek Wetland in the vicinity of C72 would be temporarily cleared to allow for adequate construction staging and access. Open -cut trenching through SR 167 would involve removal of pavement and traffic barriers, and the weekend closure of SR 167. The existing culvert and fish ladder would be removed, and the new culvert would be assembled on-site and installed. SR 167 would be restored to pre -project conditions, and disturbed wetland areas would be revegetated with native woody vegetation. The mitigation project will be constructed in summer 2012. All in -water work, including dewatering and fish exclusion, is anticipated to occur between .lune 15 to September 30, contingent upon WDFW approval of work windows. Pending refinement of construction details with the contractor, equipment anticipated to be used for the project includes concrete and pavement grinders, pavers, graders, dozers, backhoes, air wrenches, generator, cranes, pumps, concrete trucks and dump trucks. Best Management Practices (BMP) to be implemented may include, but are not limited to: • Minimizing the construction footprint to the extent practicable • Installation of high -visibility fence around all sensitive areas that are to remain undisturbed • Erosion control installation — silt fence installation either by machine or hand • Construction entrance(s) • Containment of any runoff on-site using erosion and water quality control BMPs during construction • Initial dewatering will be disposed of by the contractor by an approved method • Silt fence and/or cofferdam to isolate in -water work area depending on ground conditions • Revegetation of all disturbed areas with native plant species No new facilities or material sources will need to be developed for this project. During open -cut trenching of SR 167, traffic from northbound SR 167 will be detoured to Lind Avenue SW and traffic from southbound SR 167 will be detoured to SR 181 (W Valley Highway/68th Avenue S). There will be no temporary or permanent increases in impervious surfaces that would require stormwater treatment. The new arch culvert and relocated stream will be passive facilities and Biological Assessment Update for 1-405, w. Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 3""�"�`"�A'`� Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit UCE Form Attachment B Page B-4 potential maintenance of the arch culvert and relocated stream will be limited to removal of any blockages that may develop in the culvert or replacement of streambed material from scour. 3. Species, Critical Habitat, and Project Impacts Addressed in the BA for State Route: 1-405 Renton to Tukwila Improvement Project Replacing C72 with an approved fish passable culvert, permanently blocking C65 and C66, and implementing stream improvements in the vicinity of these culverts are elements of the Stream Rehabilitation 2 and 3 objectives detailed in the Draft Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan (PCWRP, WSDOT 2007b). The one discrepancy between the proposed Thunder Hills Creek mitigation and Stream Rehabilitation 3 objective is that the relocated stream at C65 and C66 will not extend to C72. Connection of the relocated stream to C72 will occur in later phases of the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project. The PCWRP was evaluated for ESA compliance in the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project BA and Biological Opinion (BO) for the BA (NMFS and USFWS 2008; NMFS #2007104219; and USFWS #13410-2007-F-0416). The BA provided effect determinations for the following species and critical habitat (CH): The BA presumed that Chinook salmon and steelhead may be present in the East Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C72; no listed species were presumed to be present in the West Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C65 and C66. The Green River and Springbrook Creek were identified as CH for Chinook salmon, and the Green River was identified as CH for bull trout. The BA and NMFS/USFWS BO identified the following potential effects on ESA listed -species that may result from implementation of the PCWRP: Biological Assessment Update for 1-405, _ Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 4 Critical habitat Effect Critical Effect Species status Agency Determination Habitat Determination Chinook salmon Threatened NOAA May Affect, May Affect, (Oncorhynchus (Puget Sound Fisheries Likely to Designated Likely to tshawytscha) ESU) Adversely Affect Adversely Affect Steelhead trout Threatened NOAA May Affect, None (Oncorhynchus (Puget Sound Fisheries Likely to designated NIA mykiss) ESU) Adversely Affect Bull trout Threatened May Affect, May Affect, (Salvelinus (Coastal -Puget USFWS Likely to Designated Likely to confluentus) Sound ESU) Adversely Affect Adversely Affect Bald eagle (Haliaeetus Threatened' USFWS No Effect None N/A designated leucocephalus) 1 = Bald eagle was delisted in August 2007. The BA presumed that Chinook salmon and steelhead may be present in the East Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C72; no listed species were presumed to be present in the West Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C65 and C66. The Green River and Springbrook Creek were identified as CH for Chinook salmon, and the Green River was identified as CH for bull trout. The BA and NMFS/USFWS BO identified the following potential effects on ESA listed -species that may result from implementation of the PCWRP: Biological Assessment Update for 1-405, _ Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 4 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment B Page B-5 1. Fish capture, handling, and relocation in advance of in -water work may injure or kill listed species. 2. Temporary sedimentation as a result of in -water work may degrade spawning and incubation habitat, and negatively affect primary and secondary productivity. This may disrupt feeding and territorial behavior through short-term exposure to turbid water. 3. Temporary vegetation removal may cause a short-term increase in stream temperatures, reduction in the potential for large woody debris recruitment and contribution of organic material for macroinvertebrates, temporary elimination of in- and over -stream cover, and a decrease in bank stability. 4. Hazardous material spills could have lethal and sublethal effects on fish and micro- and macro invertebrate prey at any stream within the action area. 5. Correction of existing partial or complete fish passage barriers on Panther Creek will provide measurable benefits to listed fish. 6. Updates to Species, Critical Habitat, and Project Impacts HDR acquired updated species lists and critical habitat maps from NOAA Fisheries (2011), StreamNet (2011), and USFWS (201 la, 201 lb), and priority habitat and species maps from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2009, 2011). No new species or critical habitat has been listed that was not addressed in the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project BA. The proposed construction to mitigate for emergency repairs to C52 are consistent with elements of the PCWRP, and all potential impacts on listed species or critical habitat have been considered in the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project BA and NMFS/USFWS BO. Based on the above, re- initiation of consultation with the Services will not be required. 7. References HDR. 2009. Task 3 — Identification of Candidate Culverts for Fish Passage that Drain to Springbrook Basin. April 30, 2009 memorandum to William Jordan, WSDOT I-405 Project Team, NOAA Fisheries. 2009. Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/upload/snapshot-7-09.pdf July 1, 2009. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the 1-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2) Lower Cedar River, Cedar River Sixth Field HUC: 171100120106, 171 100120302 King County, Washington. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, March 3, 2008. StreamNet Pacific Northwest Interactive Mapper. 2011. http://map.streamnet.org/website/CriticalHabitat/vicwer_htm . Accessed October 28, 2011. Biological Assessment Update for I-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 5�`�`�`� Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment B Page B-6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat, Candidate Species, and Species of Concern — King County http.//www-fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/KingCountyO8011 l .pdf . August 1, 2011 _ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 201 lb. Critical Habitat Portal. http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/. Accessed October 28, 2011. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Priority habitats and species maps in the vicinity of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Section 30. May 29, 2009. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. Priority Habitat and Species on the Web. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed October 28, 2011. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2007a. Biological Assessment for the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project. Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. 119 pp. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2007b. Draft Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan. Prepared by David Evans and Associates. May 2007. Biological Assessment Update for 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 6~`"�`"��'�"'�"'`� 0 a n �e U m qC 2� a � w t ._ rLL Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCB Form Attachment C MWashington State Department of Transportation Paula Hammond Secretary of Transportation January 11, 2010 Allyson Brooks, Ph.D. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Log: 112206-10-FHWA Page C-1 ESO Mega Projects 4D1 Secord Avenue South Suite 300 Seattle. WA 98104 2D6-716-1 22 01 fax 206-716-1101 TTY 1-800-833-6388 www wsdot,wa.gov Property: 1-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement (I-5 to SR 169 -Phase 2)[TRIP1 Re: Request for Concurrence -- No Historic Properties Determination Dear Dr. Brooks: On behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(c)(1) and as stipulated in the 1-405 Corridor -Wide Programmatic Agreement (1-405 PA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is continuing consultation in regards to the 1-405/1- 5 to SR 169 Stage 2 — Widening and SR 515 Interchange Project. This project is design -build, which integrates the final design and the construction phases. New design elements, and their corresponding locations of ground disturbance, may be added to the original Area of Potential Effects (APE) after completion of the original cultural resources assessment, and only become known immediately prior to proposed construction. Given these circumstances, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b)(1)(v), FHWA, WSDOT, SHPO, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe executed the I-405 PA. One intention of the I-405 PA was to provide for an efficient and streamlined post -review process to identify and evaluate historic properties (1-405 PA Stipulations I.B and IV.D). The process enables WSDOT and FHWA to perform necessary project effects assessments to historic properties and obtain concurrence from the SHPO in a shortened review period of 10 days (1-405 PA Stipulations I.B and IV.D.3). Consulting tribes are also provided opportunity to comment. This letter is our request for concurrence with a determination of no historic properties affected for the proposed construction of a channel for Panther Creek and replacement of a culvert with a fish passable culvert. For your reference, the project is referred to as the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project. On October 29, 2009, the design -builders submitted a "Request for Section 106 Clearance" per I- 405 PA Stipulation IV.D to WSDOT (Attachment 1). In this document, the design -builders requested Section 106 clearance for the construction of a channel for Panther Creek and replacement of a culvert with a fish passable culvert. This project is mitigation for the Thunder Hills Creek culvert replacement completed in December 2008, as required as a condition of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-2 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 issued for that previous project by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) on March 3, 2008. As stipulated in NWP 23, WSDOT will notify the USACE District Engineer (DE) with the results of our request to your office for concurrence with a determination of no historic properties affected. WSDOT will also provide the documentation to support this determination that is attached to this letter. The location of the channel restoration project is within and just east of State Route (SR) 167 right-of-way between MP 24.70 and MP 25.69 (Attachment 1: Figure 1). The section of channel restoration east of the SR 167 right-of-way is City of Renton property. The centerline length of the restored channel is 758 feet. The width of the restored channel excavation will be approximately 40 feet and the depth of the excavation will be between five and nine feet below existing ground surface. Following construction of the new section of channel, the area will be replanted with native vegetation. The existing channel will not be filled and existing channel plantings will not be disturbed as part of this project. The location of the culvert replacement is under SR 167 near SW 23rd Street and East Valley Road in the City of Renton (Attachment 1: Figure 2). The existing culvert (Culvert C72) is a 72 -inch steel pipe that will be replaced with a 151 -inch -wide and 89 -inch -high aluminum structural plate pipe arch providing fish passage. The east end of the pipe arch and inlet, and a habitat restoration area will be in a permanent drainage easement on City of Renton property. Given that the area for the channel restoration was within and adjacent to an area previously determined "restricted" in the TRIP Map Book (Attachment 1: Figure 1) and neither the channel restoration location nor the culvert replacement location had been subject to previous cultural resources investigation, WSDOT Cultural Resources Specialists determined that a cultural resources survey would be required. WSDOT contracted with AMEC to perform an archaeological investigation of the project area. Pursuant to Stipulation IV.D.1 of the I-405 PA and in consultation with WSDOT Cultural Resources Specialists, AMEC carried out a subsurface exploration of the project area that was consistent with the I-405 Corridor Program Cultural Resources Assessment Guidelines (I-405 PA: Appendix A). As detailed in the Cultural Resources Survey for the I-405IThunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project, King County, Washington (Attachment 2), AMEC performed subsurface investigation of the project area, including the channel restoration location and culvert replacement location. AMEC conducted 25 shovel test probes of approximately 40 centimeters in diameter and three mechanically excavated trenches of three meters by 0.5 meters in the channel restoration location, and one shovel test probe of 40 centimeters in diameter in the culvert replacement location. The limited number of shovel test probes excavated at the culvert replacement location was due to the fact that the location had been previously disturbed by culvert and utility construction, and the single probe was excavated to confirm this observation. The subsurface investigation failed to identify any cultural materials within the project area. However, the water table at the location limited the excavation depths of shovel test probes and trenches to a maximum of 1.4 meters below surface. Given these findings, WSDOT, acting on behalf of FHWA, has determined that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed channel restoration and culvert replacement. However, given the limited depth of archaeological testing, WSDOT recommends the following stipulations be followed as the proposed project progresses to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources: Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-3 1) 1-405 Corridor Design -Builders provide final design for the facilities, including depths of excavation indicated by location, to Kevin Bartoy (WSDOT) for review prior to construction; 2) I-405 Corridor Design -Builders allow a qualified archaeologist monitor excavation of the channel restoration below 4.5 feet in depth; and, 3) 1-405 Corridor Design -Builders conduct a pre -construction "tail gate" meeting with construction personnel in which the Unanticipated Discovery Plan is explicitly detailed. WSDOT respectfully requests your concurrence with our determination of no historic properties affected within the next 10 calendar days. If you have any concerns or comments, please contact Kevin Bartoy at 206.4919242 or email bartoyk(awsdot.wa.gov, or I-405 Corridor Environmental Manager William Jordan at 425.456.8647 or email William.Jordan a,i405.wsdot.wa.gau. Sincerely, t Yi Kevin M. Bartoy Cultural Resources Specialist ESO Mega Projects Att. 1. Request for Section 106 Clearance Att. 2. Cultural Resources Survey for the I-405IThunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project, King County, Washington cc. Matthew Sterner (DAHP) Pete Jilek (FHWA) Allison Hanson (WSDOT) William Jordan (WSDOT) Scott Williams (WSDOT) Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-4 Attachment 1. Request for Section ] 06 Clearance Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-5 HNTB Corporation 600,1081h Ave NE Telephone (425) 455-3555 Engineers Architects Planners Suite 900 Fax (425) 453-9179 Bellevue, WA 98004 www.hntb.com Date To HNTB October 29, 2009 Kevin Bartoy, WSDOT From Bill Jordan, WSDOT PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE Subject Request for Section 106 Clearance; Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project WSDOT Agreement #Y-9614 - AE Purpose and Need The purpose of this letter is to request Section 106 clearance for work activities for the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project. The current Section 106 clearance was covered by the Cultural Resources Program report for the Interstate 405 Corridor Survey: Phase l Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project (Report No. 08-23). The Section 106 clearance shown in the TRIP Map Book shows the excavation restriction zones present at the site. Figure 1, covering the channel relocation area, shows the southern end of the channel is in a "Restricted Zone" requiring archaeological review including consultation with interested and affected Indian tribes and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). The northern end of the channel that connects to the existing channel is within the "Fill Zone" and will require archaeological review including consultation with interested and affected Indian tribes and DAHP for any excavation below the top'/4 of the depth of modern fill. Most of the channel is outside of the cultural resources survey and will require archaeological review including consultation with interested and affected Indian tribes and DAHP. Figure 2 shows the culvert replacement area. Portions of the replacement are within the "Fill Zone" and will require archaeological review including consultation with interested and affected Indian tribes and DAHP for any excavation below the top 3/4 of the depth of modern fill. Excavation outside of the cultural survey area will require archaeological review including consultation with interested and affected Indian tribes and DAHP. The proposed work involves construction of a channel for Panther Creek and replacement of a culvert with a fish passable culvert. This project is mitigation for the Thunder Hills Creek culvert replacement completed in December 2008, as required as a condition of the Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 issued for that project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on March 3, 2008. Site The location of the channel restoration is within and east of SR 167 right of way between MP 24.70 and MP 25.69. The section of channel restoration east of the SR 167 right of way is City of Renton property. A temporary construction easement will be obtained from the City of Renton. The centerline length of the restored channel is 758 feet (CH line station 10+42.48 to 18+00.49 on sheet DPP1 of Attachment A). Two existing 24 -inch (C65) and 30 -inch (C66) culverts crossing under SR 167 in the channel restoration vicinity will be blocked and their flow conveyed to the restored channel. Culvert C72 is a 72 -inch steel pipe crossing under SR 167 near SW 23rd Street and East Valley Road. It will be replaced in the same location with a 12'-7" wide and 7'-5" high aluminum structural plate pipe arch providing fish passage. The east end of the pipe arch and inlet, and a habitat restoration area will be in a permanent drainage easement on City of Renton property. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-6 Page 2 of 6 Request for Section 106 Clearance Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project WSDOT Agreement #Y-9614 - AE Both the channel restoration area and culvert replacement sites east of SR 167 are in the forested Panther Creek Wetland (TRIP wetland 24.7R). 'The outlet of the replacement culvert west of SR 167 is also in a forested wetland (TRIP wetland 25.5L). Known Prior Site Disturbances Channel Restoration Area Within SR 167 right of way, the site was disturbed previously for construction of a stormwater vault beneath the SR 167 SW 43' Street northbound on ramp and roadway shoulder. Outside of the right of way, a 12 -inch City of Renton sanitary sewer runs south to north between 10 and 20 feet east of the right of way. The Renton sewer connects to an east to west, 18 -inch King County sewer that crosses under SR 167. These sewers are about 10 to 11 feet below the existing ground surface where the restored channel will cross them. Culvert C72 Replacement Area The 200 -foot long pipe arch will be located on the same horizontal alignment and near the same depth as the 189 foot long, 72 -inch diameter steel pipe that will be removed. The upper portions of the pipe arch will be within the fill under SR 167. Description of Work Key construction elements of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project are as follows: • Fill and plug C65 and C66 with controlled density fluid (CDF) concrete to redirect low flow waters through the Panther Creek Wetland on the east side of SR 167. Relocate the section of Panther Creek channel between C65 and C66 to the east an estimated 50 to 100 feet as part of mitigation for NWP 23, and to avoid future planned roadway improvements. Stream flow from the main stem of Panther Creek will be diverted into the newly excavated stream channel, which will extend approximately 160 feet north of C66 and tie back into an existing stormwater discharge channel. Sheet DPP1 of Attachment A is the 60 percent design of the channel plan and profile. Excavation depth will vary typically between five and nine feet below existing ground at the channel centerline. The cut will typically be 40 feet wide (see Appendix A sheet SP1). Following construction of the new section of channel, the area will be replanted with native vegetation. With the exception of constructing a berm just downstream of the confluence of the main stem of Panther Creek and the existing channel along SR 167, the existing channel will not be filled and existing channel plantings will be undisturbed as part of this project. Remove the existing fish ladder and culvert at C72, and replace with a fish passable arch culvert. Vegetation in the east and west portions of the Panther Creek Wetland will be temporarily cleared to allow for adequate staging and construction areas. Open -cut trenching 20.5 feet wide through SR 167 will occur during off-peak traffic hours, and will involve removal of pavement, concrete and traffic barriers, and the weekend closure of SR 167. Excavation depth will be 2 feet below the bottom of the pipe arch. This is about 6 feet below existing ground in the east side of SR 167 and 3 feet below existing ground west of SR 157 (see Appendix A sheets DPI and RSDD1). Most of the excavation zone has been previously disturbed for SR 167 fill and C72 construction. The existing culvert and fish 1:1486141redbooklworktaskldceV0408_cultu rahrequestlthcm_section_146_clearance_request_092909.docx Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit CCE Form Attachment C Page C-7 Page 3 of 6 Request for Section 106 Clearance Thunder Hiiis Creek Mitigation Project WSDOT Agreement #Y-9614 - AE ladder will be removed, and the new culvert will be partially assembled on-site and installed. SR 167 will be restored to pre -project conditions, and disturbed wetland areas will be re -vegetated with native woody vegetation. An inlet control structure will be located east of SR 167 by placement of fill. The mitigation project will be constructed in summer 2010. All in -water work, including dewatering and fish exclusion, is anticipated to occur between June 15 to September 30, contingent upon Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) approval of work windows. Pending refinement of construction details with the contractor, equipment anticipated to be used for the project includes concrete and pavement grinders, pavers, graders, dozers, backhoes, air wrenches, generator, cranes, pumps, concrete trucks and dump trucks. Request The Thunder Hills Mitigation Project requests Section 106 Clearance for construction of the relocated Panther Creek channel and replacement of culvert C72 with a fish passable pipe arch. Copies: Ross Fenton, PE, HDR Engineering, Inc. Alicia Toney, WSDOT file 1;1486141redbooklworktaskldce10408_collurallrequestlthcm_section-106_clearance_request 092909.docx Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-8 Page 4of6 Request for Section 106 Clearance Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project 4VSDOT Agreement #Y-9614 - AE ('ulrural kc•.cuVIYT.c .42111c r. li'ashitWee r .' 1Ywc Deparonew rrl 7ranspurlwirnr Figure 24. Area H (Zone 24. sheet 3) and .Area I (Zones 25-26). 0 Figure 1: Channel Relocation Shown on TRIP Cultural Resources Survey Figure 24 1:1486141redbooklworktaskldce10408_cu Itu ra 1',req uestuhem_seclion_106_dearance_req �est_052909.docx Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-9 Request for Section 106 Clearance Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project Page 5 of 6 UUSDOT Agreement #Y-9614 - AE C "uhural Rrsonrces Sw-l'e1', W(uhipkelon .State Deparwrew qffrarr.cpor+atiorr Inter.gare 40 Corriior.Surrrw Phase 1. King Counrr, WashinKfon ILI -1 Interstate 405 Corridor Surveys Phase jai Zone 24, Sheet 1 _ r R; a - : I Prism i 1 t 167 7 1 Remove C72 and 1 replace with fish passable pipe arch l JL Es i 0 100 200 400 Feet i 0 20 40 sok aim Figure 20. Area H. Zone 24- sheet 1. 36 Figure 2: Culvert Replacement Shown on TRIP Cultural Resources Survey Figure 20 11486141redbooklworkta skldce1040B_cu Iturallrequestlthcm_section_ 106_clearance_req uest_092909.docx Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit SCE Form Attachment C Page C-10 Request for Section 106 Clearance Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project Page 6 of 6 WSDOT Agreement #Y-9614 - AE ATTACHMENT A SR 167 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Contract Plans 60% Submittal, October 2009 (the attached sheets are a partial set of the submittal) VMI VICINITY MAP SPI SITE PREP/, RIW, UTILITIES & TESC DPPI DITCH PLAN & PROFILE SP2 SITE PREP/, R/W, UTILITIES & TESC DPI DRAINAGE PROFILE RSDD1 ROADWAY SECTION / DRAINAGE DETAIL I:1486141redbooklworktaskldce10408_cuiturallrequesflthcm_section_106_dearance_req uest_092909.docx 0% to N d O O N a Wo C.) UJ U) J J W o o 0 IJ C yam. Z U %0_ 0 = U) U au 09 a o m O of LL to1.- L z Y � u 0 a V W 0 C O � O 0 z O'IL 4w N 4.alto-Lu �Z C t] z Z' W WlpgJ A 435 •ii sur, a , 7 � n d VO { a s F- _ c`c Ea �a b W cc Ir a: � 0 w � -j M u x x w S2 a LL A 435 •ii sur, a , �M W co 50 W ox 10 �M W co r S r 8 N s 6 7 Q V t3 ~ N o LL A F w Y w E I w L 5 FE i x w 2 LL F D E i d5 lAinc� as;hi"Idlo�d O + I _ 2 p Z Fln O ZW' r PZ } m U. IL z 00: J LU W119 m m Vi .J r S r 8 N s 6 7 Q V t3 ~ N o LL A F w Y w E I w L 5 FE i x w 2 LL F D E i d5 lAinc� as;hi"Idlo�d 8 ! L , } � 8 ! L W z M N H O M T ci W U) O 8 � o w G O �z S �N z 2;CL azi,2U' LL4to ,W �Z J Liz U Uj t -i 3 0 dS +i^or. as.My�a;��d x h 0 g coop d lilnol as �M��d�q�d Y W uj 12 12 I�.xi. �I, LL + LQ•1 I,y1� T g n O A g coop d lilnol as �M��d�q�d Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-18 Attachment 2. Cultural Resources Survey for the 1-405/Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project, King County, Washington Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-19 Author James N. Greene M.A., RPA Title of Report: Archaeological Subsurface Testing on 1-4051Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation, King County, Washington. Date of Report: County(ies): King January 8, 2009 Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Sections 30 Quads: Renton, WA (1949; revised 1994) Acres: Approximately 10 acres PDF of report submitted REQUIRED Yes Historic Property Export Files submitted? ❑ Yes N No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? ❑ Yes F� No TCP(s) found? ❑ Yes ® No Replace a draft? ❑ Yes M No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? F1 Yes # N No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Submission of paper copy is required. • Please submit paper copies of reports unbound. • Submission of PDFs is required. • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. • Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-20 ameO January 8, 2009 9-915-16885-0 Washington State Department of Transportation 401 2nd Avenue South, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104 Attention: Kevin Bartoy Subject: Archaeological Subsurface Testing on 1-405/Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation, King County, Washington. (Agreement Y-10800 AC - XI -3348) AMEC Short Report No. 7 Dear Kevin, This technical report documents the cultural resources investigation for the Interstate 405/ Thunder Hills Mitigation Project, King County, Washington. The archaeological subsurface testing took place on December 7, 10, and 16, 2009. No cultural materials were found during the survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE). AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC) finds that there are No Historic Properties Subject to Effect within the APE. During trench excavations, AMEC was unable to test for deeply buried cultural materials due to a high water table. Mechanical trenching only reached a depth of 4.5 feet (1.4 meters) below the ground surface. In order to confirm the absence and/or presence of deeply buried cultural materials (up to 9 feet (2.7 meters) below surface), AMEC recommends that an archaeologist monitor the construction excavation process of the project. Monitoring the excavation process of the Thunder Hill Mitigation Project will ensure that any buried cultural resources located within the APE are identified and documented- If you have any questions or comments on this short report please feel free to call (423) 509-2351 or email jim.greene@amec.com, Sincerely, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. James N, Greene, M.A., R.P.A. Archaeologist AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11810 North Creek Parkway N Bothell, Washington 98011 (425) 368-1000 Phone (425) 358-1001 Facsimile www amec.com P.06685-0 Thunder HillslReportlFinal Reporl documenlslThunder Hlil€s Final Reporl.doc Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-21 Page 2 Management Summary AMEC conducted a cultural resources investigation of the Interstate 405/Thunder Hill Creek Mitigation Project, King County, Washington. The project is located primarily on the east side of State Route (SR) 167 in Section 30 of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian (Figure 1). This report documents the results of the background literature review, the record search on the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's (DAHP) Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) web site, subsurface shovel testing, and backhoe trenching within the APE. No cultural materials were recovered during the cultural resources investigation of the APE; however, during the excavation of the backhoe trenches AMEC was unable to test for deeply buried cultural materials due to a high water table. In order to confirm the absence of deeply buried cultural materials (up to 9 feet (2.7 meters) below surface) AMEC recommends that an archaeologist monitor the construction excavation process of the project. Administrative Data Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey for the 1-405/Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project, King County, Washington Author(s): James N. Greene, M.A., R.P.A. Report Date: Draft — January 8, 2009 Location Cities: Renton Counties: King State Route(s): SR 167 and 1405 Table 7. Location Information % Section Section Range Township SE and NE 30 5 E 23 N USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle: Renton (1949; revised 1994) Project Description In fall of 2009 AMEC was notified by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) of the need for archaeological subsurface testing services for the I-405/Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project (Project). The Project entails constructing a new channel for Panther Creek and replacing a fish passage culvert. WSDOT plans to improve the SR 167 transportation route and this project was designed to mitigate project impacts. Future improvements to SR 167 will necessitate the construction of a 758 -foot -long by 40 -foot -wide channel to relocate Panther Creek an estimated 50 to 100 feet east of its current location. Panther Creek will be diverted into the newly excavated stream approximately 160 feet north of Culvert 66 and will be tied back into the exiting stream channel. The new Panther Creek channel will be excavated to a depth of 5 to 9 feet below surface (Photo 1). Archaeological resource investigations within the Panther Creek WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-22 Page 3 re -channel area were designed to systematically test for any subsurface archaeological materials. Archaeological testing included a total of 25 shovel test probes and three trenches placed within the Panther Creek re -channel area (Figure 2). The Project also includes archaeological testing of both sides of Culvert C72. Culvert C72 is located approximately 1 mile north of the Panther Creek re -channel area (Figure 1; Photo 2). Plans are to replace the existing culvert with a fish passable arch culvert. The replacement of the existing culvert will require the excavation of portions of SR 167 and areas east and west of the culvert in the Panther Creek wetland area. This construction process will involve the removal of fill sediment associated with the state route road prism and associated embankment_ The Project is located within a wetland generated by Panther Creek. Due to the high water table, shovel testing extended only to a maximum depth of 3.5 feet (1 meter) below surface and mechanical trenching extended to approximately 4.5 feet (1.4 meters) below surface. Vegetation in the project area currently consists of a thick understory of blackberry bushes with many downed trees. The thick understory coupled with wetland conditions made systematic shovel testing problematic; therefore, the placement of each shovel test was determined at the discretion of the Field Director. Regulatory Environment The Project was designed to mitigate impacts of the 1-405 and SR 167 improvements. This project will receive federal funds and/or federal permits and is therefore subject to the provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and associated implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800. All information must be provided to the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers (USACE) as required under the condition of the Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23_ State and Federal Agencies: Washington State DAHP, WSDOT, FHWA and USAGE Area of Potential Effects (APE) Total Project Area (Acres): Approximately 10 acres APE Description and Justification: The proposed APE consists of approximately 10 acres including the footprint of the Panther Creek re -channel area and the Culvert C72 pipe arch replacement area. The proposed mitigation project will require the re -channeling of Panther Creek and the replacement of Culvert C72 with a fish -passable pipe arch_ Consultation with DAHP, Tribes, and Other Interested Parties Consultation between DAHP, Native American tribes, and other interested parties will be completed by WSDOT. Correspondence is ongoing and will continue until the completion of the project. Affected Native American tribes will have an opportunity to review and comment on this report. WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit SCE Form Attachment C Page C-23 Page 4 Background Research Sources Consulted: ® DAHP GIS Database ® General Land Office Maps ® Other: Historic Aerial Photograph Previous Cultural Resources Surveys in or near the APE: ® Listed Below Table 2. Previous Cultural Resources Surveys in or near the APE Recorded Archaeological Sites in or near the APE: ® Listed Below Table 3. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites in or near the APE Site Number Description Distance from Current Project APE Distance from 45KI267 White Lake Site_ Potentially the oldest site Approximately None Current Project Findings Relevant to the Author Date Title APE Current Project Forsman, 2003 Carr Road Improvements Approximately None et al. TualdadAltu Site. Midden deposits and (CIP#400898) Cultural 1 mile post mold patterns representing a series of 2 miles Resources Assessment, longhouse structures. King County, Washington. Bowden 2005 Cultural Resources 1 to 5 miles None and Dampf Discipline Report; 1-405, Renton Nickel Improvement Project 1-5 to SR 169. Bundy, B. 2008 Interstate 405 Corridor 0.1 to 5 miles None Survey: Phase 1 Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project. Recorded Archaeological Sites in or near the APE: ® Listed Below Table 3. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites in or near the APE Site Number Description Distance from Current Project APE Findings Relevant to the Current Project 45KI267 White Lake Site_ Potentially the oldest site Approximately None found along the Black River. Basalt cobble 2 miles tools and flakes typical of the Cascade or Olcott technological system. 45KI159 TualdadAltu Site. Midden deposits and Approximately None post mold patterns representing a series of 2 miles longhouse structures. WSDOT January 8, 2610 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-24 Page 5 Recorded Historic Buildings or Structures in the APE: ® None Previous Cultural Resources: Investigations of archaeological sites in the vicinity of the Black, Cedar, and Green Rivers and their tributaries indicate human occupation of the region for at least the last 8,000 years. Ethnographic research in the Puget Sound region identified the project area as the traditional area of the Duwamish Tribe, who occupied a network of villages and campsites within the Duwamish, Green (formerly White), and Cedar River valleys. (See DeJoseph and Dampf 2005 for an overview of the prehistory, ethnography, and history of the project area.) There are six documented pre -Contact archaeological sites on the floodplains near the project area (Table 3 above). Three of these sites have provided sufficient information to warrant further description. Site 45KI6, a pre -Contact shell midden, is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the project area on the Green River (Holmes and Possehl 1963). The site was discovered in 1963 during highway construction, buried under nearly 10 feet (3 meters) of fine alluvium. Information from this site shows that river floodplains in western Washington go through cycles of accumulation and tectonic subsidence of sediments such that sites once located on the banks of a river may now be deeply buried. Site 45K159 (or Tualdad Attu), a pre -Contact archaeological site, is located 2 miles north of the project area on an abandoned channel or ancient tributary of the Black River. This site, which dates between 300 and 400 AD, is an early village site. Now located just 4 feet (1.3 meters) above sea level, it is another example of post -occupational subsidence of floodplains in the Green River basin. This site was subjected to data recovery excavation in 1980 and then capped to protect it from future development (Chatters 1990). Sbabadid, site 451<151, was a village consistent with Duwamish ethnography. Beads, copper, mirror glass, and iron found in the floor of a single longhouse at this site date its primary WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Distance from Findings Relevant to Current Project the Site Number Description APE Current Project 45KI151 Sbabadid Site. Five small household Approximately None structures. 2 miles 45KI1439 The Renton Sears -Fred Meyer Site. 150 Approximately None feet east of the Sbabadid Site. Low density 2 miles midden deposits and ash and fire modified rock features. 45KI6 Shell midden and associated wooden Approximately None posts, which may represent a weir. 2 miles 45KI501 Late prehistoric fishing camp. Approximately None (Renton High 2 miles School) Recorded Historic Buildings or Structures in the APE: ® None Previous Cultural Resources: Investigations of archaeological sites in the vicinity of the Black, Cedar, and Green Rivers and their tributaries indicate human occupation of the region for at least the last 8,000 years. Ethnographic research in the Puget Sound region identified the project area as the traditional area of the Duwamish Tribe, who occupied a network of villages and campsites within the Duwamish, Green (formerly White), and Cedar River valleys. (See DeJoseph and Dampf 2005 for an overview of the prehistory, ethnography, and history of the project area.) There are six documented pre -Contact archaeological sites on the floodplains near the project area (Table 3 above). Three of these sites have provided sufficient information to warrant further description. Site 45KI6, a pre -Contact shell midden, is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the project area on the Green River (Holmes and Possehl 1963). The site was discovered in 1963 during highway construction, buried under nearly 10 feet (3 meters) of fine alluvium. Information from this site shows that river floodplains in western Washington go through cycles of accumulation and tectonic subsidence of sediments such that sites once located on the banks of a river may now be deeply buried. Site 45K159 (or Tualdad Attu), a pre -Contact archaeological site, is located 2 miles north of the project area on an abandoned channel or ancient tributary of the Black River. This site, which dates between 300 and 400 AD, is an early village site. Now located just 4 feet (1.3 meters) above sea level, it is another example of post -occupational subsidence of floodplains in the Green River basin. This site was subjected to data recovery excavation in 1980 and then capped to protect it from future development (Chatters 1990). Sbabadid, site 451<151, was a village consistent with Duwamish ethnography. Beads, copper, mirror glass, and iron found in the floor of a single longhouse at this site date its primary WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-25 Page 6 habitation to between 1790 and 1810 AD. The site was discovered along the historic channel of the Black River in 1979 prior to residential development. It, too, was subjected to extensive data recovery excavations (Chatters 1989). Land Use, The area located around the APE has undergone extensive modifications since the latter part of the nineteenth century. Original land patents were awarded in 1872 to two men, John Christ and John Logmann (Bureau of Land Management General Land Office 1872). These two men were the original land owners within the APE. No record was found to indicate whether they built a homestead within the project vicinity. The 1865 General Land Office cadastral map for Township 23N, Range 5E does not indicate any structures (Figure 3). By 1900, when viewing the USGS Tacoma Land Classification sheet, County Road 70 (today SR 515) ran north -south on the ridgeline east of the APE (Figure 3) (USGS Tacoma 1900). Aerial photographs from 1936 to 1990 were reviewed prior to commencing fieldwork for this project. These aerial images demonstrate the extent of urbanization that occurred within the Renton area during the twentieth century. An aerial photograph from 1936 shows the APE in a similar state of use as documented in the 1900 Tacoma land classification sheet (USGS Tacoma 1900). The 1936 photograph also shows few buildings associated with farmland. The land use of the area consists of well-maintained agricultural fields and a forested area along the ridgeline to the east and north of the APE (Figure 4). By 1960, the land use of the area around the APE had not changed dramatically (Figures 4 and 5). Comparison between the 1946 and 1960 aerials shows a decline in the use of land for agricultural production to the west of the APE and an increase in construction of suburban neighborhoods located on the ridgeline east of the APE. From 1974 to 1990, the area surrounding the APE became a heavily populated suburban and commercial location (Figures 5 and 6). The area around the APE seems to have had a jump in population density during the completion of the 1405 corridor including SR 167. State Route 167 now serves as an artery for the Renton and Kent communities. By 1974 a hospital complex was constructed south-southwest of the APE. Between 1974 and 1990, a large commercial center was constructed along the west side of SR 167. Panther Creek seems to have been redirected during the SR 167 improvements associated with the construction of the 1-405 corridor. To the east of the APE is an ever-growing suburban area characterized by residential neighborhoods. Changes in land use in the area around the APE have been significant during the twentieth century. A stable feature within the area has been SR 515, located on the ridgeline east of the APE. SR 515 has under gone multiple name changes since appearing on the 1900 USGS Tacoma map. The road's original name was County Road 70. In 1929, County Road 70 was also referred to as the Renton Orillia Road and by 1947 this road was called Secondary State Highway (SSH) 5C. In 1964, the name changed once more to its current name SR 515. SR 515 is currently 7.86 miles long and runs from Renton to Kent (Highways of Washington State 2001; King County Road Service Map Vault 1929 and 1947). WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-26 Page 7 Soils: Poulson (1952) mapped the soil in the APE as part of the Sultan Series. Identified as Sultan silt loam (SN), the soil was generally mapped as having a 10 -inch (25 -centimeter) smooth surface of granular silt loam of grayish or medium brown. From the subsoil to about 24 inches (61 centimeters) below the surface, the sediment was mapped as brownish -gray silty clay loam mottled with rust brown. Below 24 inches (61 centimeters), Poulson (1952:75) described SN as a light brownish -gray stratified soil and a laminated silty clay loam and silty clay highly mottled with yellow and rust brown. The next effort to map soils around the APE was conducted by D.R. Mullineaux in the 1960x. Mullineaux (1965) prepared a geologic map of the USGS Renton 7.5' quadrangle. He mapped the geologic sediments in the area as alluvium belonging to the most recent depositional period of the Quaternary. Labeled Quaternary alluvium (Qaw), Mullineaux (1965) described the sediment as chiefly sand, silt, and clay deposited by the White and Green rivers before diversion of the White River to the south in 1906. Mullineaux (1965) also mapped Quaternary lacustrine deposits (Qlp) within the Green and White River areas. These deposits are characterized by the presence of peat and contain minor amounts of silt and clay, chiefly as basal beds. Environmental and Cultural Context Summary: Panther Creek is situated within the relatively flat Green River Valley and drains the watershed located on the east side of the Green River known as the Black River Basin. The creek was formed during the last 10,000 years as a result of the Green River (formerly White River) channel changing positions on the landscape both by avulsion of long segments and meander migration and abandonment (Palmer, et al. 1994:4). Prior to mid -twentieth-century development of Panther Creek, the entire watershed was greatly impacted by Lake Washington Ship Canal Project construction in the early 1900s. Before 1900, the Black River drained Lake Washington, and the Cedar River was a tributary of the Black River. The Black River flowed west into the Green River just north of Panther Creek. After completion of the ship canal project in Seattle, the outlet feeding the Black River was blocked, and the Cedar River was channelized and redirected to Lake Washington. The level of Lake Washington was lowered approximately 9 feet (3 meters), and the newly exposed lakebed and surrounding freshwater marshes, in what is now northern Renton, were filled or otherwise modified by development (Palmer et al. 1994:3) Before 1906, the White River split as it reached the floor of the Duwamish Valley, with the White River flowing northward to join the Green River and the Stuck River flowing southward as a tributary of the Puyallup River. After a flood in 1906, most of the flow from White River was directed into the Stuck River. Engineering projects then permanently diverted the north -flowing White River into the Stuck River (which was later renamed the White River), and from there, into the Puyallup. Thereafter, the portion of the White River north of the Stuck became known as the Green River. WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-27 Page 8 Vegetation existing in and round the APE consists of non-native grasses, common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armeniacus). Black cottonwood (Populus balsamife), red alder (Alnus rubra), Pacific willow (Salix lucida), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), and redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea) mixed with Himalayan blackberry dominate the existing wetlands and uplands at the site. Large areas of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and patchy native shrub cover the northern portion of the re -channel area. Fieldwork Dates of Survey: December 7, 10, and 16, 2009 Field Personnel: Jaynes N. Greene, M.A, R.P.A.; Krista Jordan -Greene, M.A, R.P.A.; and Emily Scott, B.A. Weather and Surface Visibility: Rain and freezing temperatures with 75% ground visibility (Photo 3). Methods; Shovel test probes were excavated to a depth of approximately 3.5 feet (1 meter) below surface (Photos 4-5)_ Sediment characteristics and the absence of cultural materials were recorded from each shovel test probe on AMEC field forms. Sediment characteristics data consisted of soil colors and textures. A hand-held bucket auger was used where stratigraphic conditions indicated the possibility of deeply buried postglacial deposits. All excavated soils were screened though a 114 -inch screen onto a drop cloth. After completion, the excavated soil was placed back into the shovel probe. Shovel test probe locations were recorded using a GPS unit (Figure 2). Table 4 presents the results from our subsurface exploration efforts. Notes and photographs are on file in the AMEC office in Bothell, Washington. Archaeological resource investigations of Culvert C72 were minimal and consisted of one shovel test probe located on the eastern side of SR 167. The area around Culvert C72, during the survey, consisted of a frozen wetland and the SR 167 embankment. To the north of the culvert is a petroleum pipeline that runs east -west across SR 167. These factors obstructed the placement of multiple shovel test probes around Culvert C72. The SR 167 embankment and the petroleum pipeline are two major features providing evidence of the disturbed nature of the area around Culvert C72. Shovel test probe #26 was placed on the east embankment of SR167, just north of the current culvert, to document this disturbed area. The data recovered from this probe are listed in Table 4. Additionally, three trenches were excavated using a backhoe excavator. The trenches measured approximately 10 feet by 2 feet (3 meters by 0.5 meters) (Photos 6-9). Each trench was excavated to approximately 4.5 feet (1.4 meter) below surface. Trench excavations were designed to explore the possibility of deeply buried archaeological materials. The trenches were systematically placed across the Panther Creek re -channel area (Figure 2). Profile images and drawings of the trenches are attached to this document. wSDOT January8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Greek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit INCE Form Attachment C Page C-28 Page 9 Trench excavations were originally designed to explore the possibility of deeply buried cultural materials. The trenches were to be excavated to a maximum depth of 9 feet (2.7 meters) below the surface, the depth of the proposed re -channel of Panther Creek. Due to the high water table within the project area, trench excavations only extended to approximately 4.5 feet (1.4 meters) below surface_ The stratigraphy of each trench was recorded immediately after excavation before the rising water table caused the walls to collapse. The north walls were recorded from each of the three trenches. The record includes photographs and detailed stratigraphic drawings. During the recording process the profiles continued to collapse, making the documentation of the stratigraphy extremely difficult. The archaeologists documented the profiles to the best of their abilities. Subsurface Tests: ® Described Below (Shovel Test Probes were terminated upon reaching the water table) Table 4. Shovel Test Probes (STPs) and Trench Locations within the APE UTM Location STP Number Sediments Findings 559248.01 E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 5254990.96N 1 loam, brown and dark grey clay Negative foam, water table at 48 cmbs Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 559261.85E 2 loam and dark grey clay loam, Negative 5254987.85N water table at 42 cmbs Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 559248.50E 3 loam to dark grey clay loam, Negative 5254952.51 N water table at 53 cmbs Humic topsoil to dark grayish 559238.46E 4 brown silt loam, dark brown clay- Negative 9 5254952.51 N clay loam, to dark grey clay, water table at 55 cmbs 559233.71 E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 5254921.65N 5 loam and orange brown alluvium, Negative water table at 60 cmbs. Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 559244.00E 6 loam, dark grayish brown clay Negative 5254909.28N loam, to dark grey sand, water table at 60 cmbs 559236.42E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 525487022N 7 loam to dark grey clay -clay loam, Negative water table at 35 cmbs Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 559211.57E 8 loam and dark grey clay loam, Negative 5254866.55N water table at 45 cmbs wSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-29 Page 10 UTM Location STP Number Sediments Findings 559224.30E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt Negative 5254852.22N loam, water table at 30 cmbs 559261.05E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 5254833.36N 10 loam to dark grayish brown clay Negative loam and dark grey fine sand, water table at 55 cmbs 559227.38E 11 Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt Negative g 5254815.48N loam, water table at 24 cmbs 559217.23E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 12 loam to dark grey clay loam and Negative 5254827.24N fine sand, water table at 50 cmbs 559216.13E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 5254803.85N 13 loam to clay loam and sand, Negative water table at 17 cmbs Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 559227.52E loam to orangish brown alluvium 5254809.73N 14 deposits with pebbles and Negative medium sand, water table at 17 cmbs 559229 11 E Humic topsoil to dark brown silt 15 loam to clayey sand with pebbles, Negative 5254795.89N water table at 30 cmbs 559224.70E 16 Humic topsoil, to dark brown silk Negative 5254796.63N loam, water table at 10 cmbs 559212.82E 17 Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt Negative g 5254794.24N loam, water table at 10 cmbs 559227.73E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 18 loam and dark grey sandy clay, Negative 5254838.94N water table 50 cmbs 559229.82E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 19 loam to clayey sand and fine Negative 5254865.02N sand, water table at 25 cmbs Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 559222.92E 20 loam to medium orange brown Negative g 5254893.73N sand and light clay, water table at 35 cmbs Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 559242.14E 21 loam to orange brown medium Negative g 525899.98N alluvium and pebbles to fine sand, water table at 70 cmbs WSDDT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Bills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-30 Page 11 UTM Location STP Number Sediments Findings 559248.52E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 22 loam to dark grey clayey sand, Negative 52549383.92N water table at 90 curbs Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 559237-99E 23 loam to dark grey clayey sand Negative 5254942.96N and fine sand, water table at 68 cmbs 559243-20E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 24 loam to clayey sand and fine Negative 525981.53N sand, water table at 40 cmbs 559255.33E Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 5254976.39N 25 loam to sandy clay and fine sand, Negative water table at 50 cmbs Humic topsoil, to dark brown silt 559131.41 E 26 clay loam to dark grayish brawn Negative g 5256270.60N silty sand and pebbles, cobbles, excavated to 100 cmbs. Trenches UTM Locations Trench Number Sediments Findings Humic topsoil, to dark brown 559142E poorly sorted sand alluvium to a 5255035N 1 dark gray fine sand with light clay, Negative water table at 50 cmbs, excavated to 130 cmbs. Humic topsoil, to brown poorly 553142E sorted alluvium, to dark gray very 5255046N 2 fine sand with clay lenses, water Negative table at 60 cmbs, excavated to 140 cmbs. Humic topsoil, to a dark brown 559153E clay loam with sand pockets, to a 5255039N 3 yellowish brown medium well Negative sorted sand, water table at 55 cmbs, excavated to 140 cmbs. Cultural Resources Identified Archaeological Resources: ® None Buildings or Structures: ® None WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-31 Page 12 Conclusions The fallowing are: ❑ Determinations ® Recommendations ® No Historic Properties Affected ❑ No Adverse Effects to Historic Properties Other Conclusions and Recommendations: This report documents the results of the Cultural Resources Survey for the 1-405/Thunder Hills Mitigation Project, King County, Washington. The results are the outcome of background literature review, record search on the DAHP WISAARD Website and careful subsurface investigations of the APE. No cultural materials were recovered during the cultural resources investigation and AMEC finds that there are no known archaeological resources within the APE, During excavation of the three trenches AMSC was unable to test for deeply buried cultural materials due to a high water table. In order to confirm the absence of deeply buried cultural materials (up to 9 feet below surface) AMEC recommends that an archaeologist monitor the construction excavation process of the project. Monitoring the construction excavation process of the I-405/Thunder Hill Mitigation Project will mitigate the possibility of encountering cultural materials within the APE. This recommendation only pertains to the surveyed APE. Any other infrastructure development not associated with the Thunder Hill Mitigation Project would require further investigations. Please refer to the Unanticipated Discovery Pian attached at the end of this document for recommendations and procedures in the event that significant cultural resources are uncovered during construction excavation. Attachments: ® Location Map (Figure 1) ® APE Shovel Test/Transect Map (Figure 2) ® Historic Maps and Aerials (Figures 3-6) ® Photographs ® Trench Profile Drawings ® Unanticipated Discovery Plan WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-32 Page 13 Certification I certify that: • I am an AMEC Earth & Environmental Cultural Resources Specialist meeting all applicable state and federal professional qualification standards; • 1 have reviewed, evaluated, and documented the methods and observations prepared here; and • This report is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Name: James N Greene M.A., R.P.A. Date: January 8, 2009 WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-33 Page 14 References Bowden, B., and Dampf, S. (2005). Cultural Resources Discipline Report, 1-405, Renton !Nickel Improvement Project 1-5 to SR 169_ Prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc. On file at Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Bundy, B. E. (2008). Washington State Department of Transportation: Interstate 405 Corridor Survey., Phase I Interstate 5 to State Route 169 Improvements Project. Prepared by WSDOT, Environmental Services Office. On file at Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Bureau of Land Management General Land Office (1872). Land Patent Serial No. WAOAA 067989 and 067985, John Christ and John Logmann's Land Patent Records. Bureau of Land Management U. S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved December 14, 2009 from http://www.glorecords.blm.gov. Chatters, J.C. (1989). The Antiquity of Economic Differentiation within Households in the Puget Sound Region, Northwest Coast. In Households and Communities, S. Maceachern, D_J.W. Archer, and R.D. Garvin (Eds.), pp. 168-178. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Chatters, J.C. (1990). Tualdad Altu (45K159): A Prehistoric Riverine Village in Southern Puget Sound. Archaeology in Washington 2:23-48. DeJoseph, D. and Dampf, S. (2005). Final Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Discipline Report 1-405, Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Project. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Urban Corridors Office and Federal Highway Administration. Prepared by Historical Research Associates, Inc. On file at Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. rorsman, L. A., Roedel, K. W., Lewarch D. E., and Larson, L. L. (2003). Carr Road Improvements (GIP # 400898) Cultural Resources Assessment, King County, Washington. Prepared by Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited. On file at Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. General Land Office (1865). Cadastral Survey Plat, T23N, R5E. On file, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Spokane, Washington. Highways of Washington State (2001) Web site, http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/hwysof wastate/sr515.html, accessed January 8, 2010. WSDOT January 8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-34 Page 15 Holmes, B.G. and Possehl, G.L. (1963). Site 45K16. University of Washington Archaeological Field Forms, Site Survey Form. On file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. King County Road Services, Road Establishment T23 R5. On File, King County Department of Transportation, Road Service Map Vault. (1929) John Langston Road Widening. On File, King County Department of Transportation, Road Service Map Vault. (1947) Monster Road 1947 Oiling. On File, King County Department of Transportation, Road Service Map Vault. Mullineaux, D.E. (1965). Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ -405, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000. Palmer, S.P., Schasse, H.W., and Norman, D.K. (1994). Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Des Moines and Renton 7.5 -minute Quadrangles, Washington. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Geologic Map GM -41. Poulson, E.N. (1952). Soil Survey of King County, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station and the Washington State Planning Council. Synder, D.E., Gale, P.S., and Pringle, R.F. (1973). Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Geological Survey (1900). Tacoma Washington 1:125,000 Topographic Quadrangles. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. On file in University of Washington Libraries Map Collection, Seattle, Washington. wSDOT January8, 2010 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-35 Attachments Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DC Form Attachment C Page C-36 FIGURE 1 Project Vicinity Map Archaeok)gical Subsurface Testing on 1-405/Thunder Hills Creek .......... ---- _ amec 9-915-16885-0 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-37 Archaeological Subsurface Testing on 1-4051Thunder Hills Creek 9-915-18885-0 FIGURE 2 Archaeological Subsurface Testing Map Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-38 r General Land Office Map FIGURE 3 Historc Maps of the Project Vicinity Archaeological Subsurface Testing on 1-405irhunder Hills Creek amec Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCB Form Attachment C 1936 Page C-39 Seattle. WashgW - Copyright 1990 Archaeological Subsurface Testing on 1-405fihurder Hills Creek 9-915-16885•D FIGURE 4 Aerial Photographs of Project Vicinity Somme Walker 5 Assoc ales. Sealtle Washinglon - Gopyrighl 1990 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit SCE Form Attachment C 1960 Archaeo4o ral Subsurface Testing on 1.405/Thunder Hills Creek 9-915-16885-0 Page C-40 FIGURE 5 Aerial Photographs of the Project Vicinity Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C 1980 1990 Source Walker 8 Assomales, Sealde, Washinghrn • Copyright Archaeological Subsurface Testing on 1-4051Thunder Hills Creek 9-915.18885-0 Page C-41 FIGURE 6 Aerial Photographs of the Project Vicinity ameO N C) W Q1 f9 CL C 0 M d m 011 0 0 L CL O CD w rn C3, O Z U c 0 C u c� ro H 3 L b b 3 0 r IA r C F N CL rt P 0 r a 0 4 u m rn R a U C O1 E L u m E 0 LLW U O c 0 0 C3 N L R c c N ui w w v R 3 on O L O Ln L V 00 00 T Q+ P O, L dO R ' Z O O u 0 L 6 ^ ' in O CL �r d a 0D� v C 7 � O a2 �Q Illi 00 0- ffrr\ N Q IV o. a+ C O cu N a Q � C Q C � o T Q a V � C T � Cry V t 131 tC m �a o0 C,, oQ M> Q�n .E vi cm c� H E G c 0 Q It 4D00 O 0 ICT L C7 E 0D� qao -" Illi .• .', ffrr\ o. rrrrrr „C Q It 4D00 O 0 ICT L C7 E N W 0-1 � o � � LD C LL tm m OL ^ nQ C m E L rn a L c m I � o t u `` � ,,Y„` ,,�.. o ' • ,II iii\; � E u o � � � E � — E .. � V _ y .0 { h • . IIII Q V w Q V L � _ C,"= u � �a s .� \�\\ Y Jo - _ Q Ea —� �r my a �c � -2o -00. Ma N a p v FLn ro V 9 Nv my T� v a 0. Ol CL 0-0 j +0 a -o Q� r>,, ci 08, C N � � 000 0 NN � 2 u O LL +�•' IO I _6 u `` � ,,Y„` ,,�.. o ' • ,II iii\; o — .. � V _ y .0 { h • . IIII U • • • • .� \�\\ Jo - _ V • • ' •' ' •• • • • ' • • • N � � 000 0 NN � 0 W W D }_L � �• •.i � Jam•• •v � I o v � 00 o o r r r M uj l0 or O M t c C Oi H C 0 W P C LU � L 2 LLn C rIF C rn 0 N m a Q � C � L -14 V 7 N O ` O C 0 V a > C 7 T � m O ` v Ol � � Y Ern a N � VI a � ti N p� o a V 7 00 0 W W D }_L � �• •.i � Jam•• •v � I o v � 00 o o r r r M uj l0 or O M t c C Oi H C 0 W P C LU � I 2 C o F rn Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-48 PLAN AND PROCEDURES FOR THE UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS I-405/THUNDER HILL CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON 1. INTRODUCTION The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) plans to undergo the I-4051 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project. The purpose of this project is to construct a new channel for the existing Panther Creek and the replacement of Culvert C72. The following Unanticipated Discovery Plan (UDP) outlines procedures to follow, in accordance with state and federal laws, if archaeological materials or human remains are discovered. 2. RECOGNIZING CULTURAL RESOURCES A cultural resource discovery could be prehistoric or historic. Examples include: • An accumulation of shell, burned rocks, or other food related materials • Bones or small pieces of bone, • An area of charcoal or very dark stained soil with artifacts, • Stone tools or waste flakes (i.e. an arrowhead, or stone chips), • Clusters of tin cans or bottles, logging or agricultural equipment that appears to be older than 50 years, • Buried railroad tracks, decking, or other industrial materials. When in doubt, assume the material is a cultural resource. 3. ON-SITE RESPONSIBILITIES STEP 1: STOP WORK. If any WSDOT employee, contractor or subcontractor believes that he or she has uncovered a cultural resource at any point in the project, all work adjacent to the discovery must stop. The discovery location should be secured at all times. STEP 2: NOTIFY MONITOR. If there is an archaeological monitor for the project, notify that person. If there is a monitoring plan in place, the monitor will follow its provisions. STEP 3: NOTIFY WSDOT PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM. Contact the WSDOT Project Manager and the Cultural Resources (CR) Program Manager: Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-49 WSDOT Project Manager: Bill Jordan (425)456-8647 whjordan@HNTB.com CR Program Manager: Scott Williams (360) 570-6651 willias@wsdot.wa.gov If you can't reach the CR Program manager, contact your project's assigned Cultural Resources Specialist or an alternate: Assigned CR Specialist: Kevin Bartoy (206)716-1121 bartoyk@wsdot.wa.gov Alternate CR Specialist: Ken Juell (206) 464-1236 juellk@wsdot.wa.gov The Project Manager or the Cultural Resources Program Manager will make all other calls and notifications. If human remains are encountered, treat them with dignity and respect at all times. Cover the remains with a tarp or other materials (not soil or rocks) for temporary protection in place and to shield them from being photographed. Do not call 911 or speak with the media. 4. FURTHER CONTACTS AND CONSULTATION A. Project Manager's Responsibilities: Protect Find: The WSDOT Project Manager is responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the discovery site. All work will stop in an area adequate to provide for the total security, protection, and integrity of the resource. Vehicles, equipment, and unauthorized personnel will not be permitted to traverse the discovery site. Work in the immediate area will not resume until treatment of the discovery has been completed following provisions for treating archaeological/cultural material as set forth in this document. Direct Construction Elsewhere On-site: The WSDOT Project Manager may direct construction away from cultural resources to work in other areas prior to contacting the concerned parties. • Contact CR Manager: If the CR Program Manager has not yet been contacted, the Project Manager will do so. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit OCE Form Attachment C B. CR Program Manager's Responsibilities: Page C-50 • Identify Find: The CR Program Manager (or a CR Specialist if so delegated), will ensure that a qualified professional archaeologist examines the find to determine if it is archaeological. o If it is determined not archaeological, work may proceed with no further delay. o If it is determined to be archaeological, the CR Manager or CR Specialist will continue with notification. o If the find maybe human remains or funerary objects, the CR Manager or CR Specialist will ensure that a qualified physical anthropologist examines the find. If it is determined to be human remains, the procedure described in Section 5 will be followed. • Notify DAHP: The CR Program Manager (or a CR Specialist if so delegated) will contact the involved federal agencies (if any) and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). • Notify Tribes: if the discovery may relate to Native American interests, the Manager or Specialist will also contact the project's Tribal Liaison, or, if the project is not assigned a Liaison, the Executive Tribal Liaison. Federal Agencies_ Army Corps of Engineers Jack Kennedy Federal Highway Administration Pete Jilek Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Dr. Allyson Brooks or State Historic Preservation Officer Matthew Sterner (360) 586-3066 Transportation Archaeologist (360) 586-3082 Tribal Liaisons: Project Tribal Liaison Executive Tribal Liaison NIA NIA Thunder Hilis Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C51 The Tribal Liaison, or CR Program Manager or Specialist, will contact the interested and affected Tribes. Tribes consulted on this project are: Muckleshoot Tribe Laura Murphy Cultural Resources (253) 876-3272 laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us Tulalip Tribes Hank Gobin Cultural Resources (360) 716-2636 jjess@tulalipin'bes-nsn.gov Suquamish Tribe Dennis Lewarch THPO Cultural Resources (360)394-8529 dlewarch@suquamish.nsn.us C. Further Activities Snoqualmie Nation Ray Mullen Cultural Resources (425) 888-6551 ray@snoqualmienation.com Yakama Nation Johnson Meninick Cultural Resources (509)865-5121 johnson@yakama.com Duwamish Tribe The Honorable Cecile Hansen, Chair (206) 431-1582 Archaeological discoveries will be documented as described in Section 6. • Construction in the discovery area may resume as described in Section 7. 5. SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN SKELETAL MATERIAL Any human skeletal remains, regardless of antiquity or ethnic origin, will at all times be treated with dignity and respect. If the project occurs on federal lands (e.g., national forest or park, military reservation) the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 apply, and the responsible federal agency will follow its provisions. Note that state highways that cross federal lands are on an easement and are not owned by the state. If the project occurs on non-federal lands, WSDOT will comply with applicable state and federal laws, and the following procedure: A. Notify Law Enforcement Agency or Coroner's Office: 4 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fissh Barrier Retrofit SCE Form Attachment C Page C-52 In addition to the actions described in Sections 3 and 4, the Project Manager will immediately notify the local law enforcement agency or coroner's office. The coroner (with assistance of law enforcement personnel) will determine if the remains are human, whether the discovery site constitutes a crime scene, and will notify DAHP. King County Medical Examiners Office (206) 731-3232 B. Participate in Consultation: Per RCW 27.53.030, RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60, DAHP will have jurisdiction over non -forensic human remains. WSDOT personnel will participate in consultation. C. Further Activities: • Documentation of human skeletal remains and funerary objects will be agreed upon through the consultation process described in RCW 27.53.030, RCW 68.50, and RCW 68.60. When consultation and documentation activities are complete, construction in the discovery area may resume as described in Section 7. 6. DOCUMENTATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS Archaeological deposits discovered during construction will be assumed eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D. Cultural Resources Program staff will ensure the proper documentation and assessment of any discovered cultural resources in cooperation with the federal agencies (if any), DAHP, affected tribes, and a contracted consultant (if any). All prehistoric and historic cultural material discovered during project construction will be recorded by a professional archaeologist on State of Washington cultural resource site or isolate form using standard techniques. Site overviews, features, and artifacts will be photographed; stratigraphic profiles and soil/sediment descriptions will be prepared for subsurface exposures. Discovery locations will be documented on scaled site plans and site location maps. Cultural features, horizons and artifacts detected in buried sediments may require further evaluation using hand -dug test units. Units may be dug in controlled fashion to expose features, collect samples from undisturbed contexts, or interpret complex stratigraphy. A test excavation unit or small trench might also be used to determine if an intact occupation surface is present. Test units will be used only when necessary to gather information on the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation fissh Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment C Page C-53 nature, extent, and integrity of subsurface cultural deposits to evaluate the site's significance. Excavations will be conducted using state-of-the-art techniques for controlling provenience. Spatial information, depth of excavation levels, natural and cultural stratigraphy, presence or absence of cultural material, and depth to sterile soil, regolith, or bedrock will be recorded for each probe on a standard form. Test excavation units will be recorded on unit -level forms, which include plan maps for each excavated level, and material type, number, and vertical provenience (depth below surface and stratum association where applicable) for all artifacts recovered from the level. A stratigraphic profile will be drawn for at least one wall of each test excavation unit. Sediments excavated for purposes of cultural resources investigation will be screened through 118 -inch mesh, unless soil conditions warrant'/4-inch mesh. All prehistoric and historic artifacts collected from the surface and from probes and excavation units will be analyzed, catalogued, and temporarily curated. Ultimate disposition of cultural materials will be determined in consultation with the federal agencies (if any), DAHP, and the affected tribes. Within 90 days of concluding fieldwork, a technical report describing any and all monitoring and resultant archaeological excavations will be provided to the Project Manager, who will forward the report to the WSDOT Cultural Resources Program for review and delivery to the federal agencies (if any), SHPO, and the affected tribe(s). If assessment activity exposes human remains (burials, isolated teeth, or bones), the process described in Section 5 above will be followed. 7. PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION Project construction outside the discovery location may continue while documentation and assessment of the cultural resources proceed. A WSDOT CR Specialist must determine the boundaries of the discovery location. In consultation with DAHP and affected tribes, Project Manager and Cultural Resources Program staff will determine the appropriate level of documentation and treatment of the resource. If federal agencies are involved, the agencies will make the final determinations about treatment and documentation. Construction may continue at the discovery location only after the process outlined in this plan is followed and WSDOT (and the federal agencies, if any) determine that compliance with state and federal laws is complete. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Foran Attachment D Page D-1 LTATA y `r. o � a x a STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 566-3067 + Website: www.dahp.wa.gov January 12, 2010 Mr. Kevin Bartoy Cultural Resources Specialist WSDOT ESO Mega Projects 401 Second Ave. South, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104-3850 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 112206-10-FHWA Property. I-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement (I-5 to SR 169 -Phase 2)[TRIP] Re: Archaeology - No Historic Properties Dear Mr. Bartoy: Thank you for contacting our office and providing a copy of the cultural resources survey report completed by AMSC. We concur with their professional recommendations and your finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the Thunder Creek Mitigation Project. We do, however, concur with the findings of the report and your commitment to provide archaeological monitoring during construction. Since the water table was so close to the surface during the archaeological investigation, additional monitoring during construction is a prudent course of action. We also concur with the additional steps mentioned in your cover letter (i.e., reviewing the final design prior to construction, and coordinating a meeting with construction crew prior to construction). These seem to be eminently reasonable accommodations to make to ensure that cultural resources are not inadvertently disturbed during construction. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800.4(a)(4). These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on the behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and this office and the concerned tribes notified. Please note that DAHP requires that all historic property inventory and archaeological site forms be provided to our office electronically. if you have not registered for a copy of the database, please log onto ,qqi DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION ryetir she Fos- 'pore '�e FUV Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Foran Attachment D Page D-2 our website at www.dahp_wa.gov and go to the Survey/inventory page for more information and a registration form. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Matthew Sterner, M.A. Transportation Archaeologist (360) 586-3082 matthew,sterner@dahp.wa.gov DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION `"i— Protect the Pas'. Shape f77e Purj e Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E ,------------------------------ Page E=1. ' AGENCY USE ONLY 2010 5 � Date received: US army c«pg ; WASHINGTON STATE of Engineers Joint Aquatic Resources Permit earle District Agency reference#: Application (JARPA) Form' Tax Parcel #(s) - USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN WHITE SPACES BELOW. , i ------------------------------------ Part 1—Project Identification 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development)el 2 1 -405 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Part 2—Applicant The person or organization responsible for the project. [reel 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Cieri, Denise Deputy Project Director, Eastside Corridor Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 2b. Mailing Address (street or PO Box) 1-405 Project Office, 600 108th Ave NE, Suite 405 2c. City, State, Zip Bellevue, WA 98004 2d. Phone (i) 2e. Phone (2) 2f. Fax 2g E-mail (425) 456-8509 ( ) (425) 456-8600 CieriD@wsdot.wa.gov Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b. of this application.)h[� 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Jordan, Bill 1-405 Corridor Environmental Manager Additional forms may be required for the following permits: . If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at http:iiwww.nws.usace.arrny.rnil/PublicMenu/Menu cfm7sitename= REG&pagename= mai npage_ESA . If you are applying for an Aquatic Resources Use Authorization you will need to fill out and submit an Application for Authorization to Use State - Owned Aquatic Lands form to DNR, which can be found at http 1/www dnr.wa.govlPublicationslagr_use_auth app doc . Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you think you will need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they will accept the JARPA. 2 T access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to http:11www.epermitting wa.gov/sitelalias_resourcecenterljarpa_jarpa_forml9984ljarpa_form aspx . For other help, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-800-917-0043 or help@ora wa.gov. JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 1 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-2 3b. Mailing Address (street or PO Box) 1-405 Project Office, 600 108th Ave NE, Suite 405 3c. City, State, Zip Bellevue, WA 98004 3d. Phone (1) 3e. Phone (2) W. Fax 3 E-mail (425) 457-0642 ( ) N/A william.jordan@i405.wsdot.wa.gov Part 4—Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur.hf V ❑ Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ® There are multiple property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Within WSDOT ROW: Cieri, Denise; WSDOT 4b. Mailing Address (street or PO Box) 1-405 Project Office, 600 108th Ave NE, Suite 405 4C. City, State, Zip Bellevue, WA 98004 4d. Phone (1) 4e. Phone (2)4f. Fax 4g. E-mail (425) 456-8509 ( } (425) 456-8600 CieriD@wasdot.wa.gov Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur.hl eV ® There are multiple project locations (e.g., linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply_) ELLId ❑ State Owned Aquatic Land (If yes or maybe, contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) at (360) 902-1100) ❑ Federal ® Other publicly owned (t;)count city, pecial districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ® Private 5b. Street Address (cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.)hLpj WSDOT State Route (SR) 167 at mile posts (MP) 24.70 and MP 25.69 5C. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town) hel Renton, WA 98057 5d. County kelp] JARPA 2010 0 3/30/2010 Page 2 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-3 King 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. nem '/, Section Section Township Range SW, NE/ SE 19,30 23N 5E 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location, hem Example: 47.03922 N lat. / -122.89142 W long. (NAD 83) Panther Creek Relocation: 47.03922 N lat./-122.215627 W long. Culvert 72 Replacement: 47.458904 N lat./-122.216852 W long. 5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [help • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. N/A within WSDOT ROW — see Attachment B for Parcels outside WSDOT ROW 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) rhemp] Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) WEST OF SR 167 (properties east of SR 167 in Attachment C) OLYMPIC PIPELINE COMPANY C/O BP AMERICA INC PO BOX 5015 BUENA PARK CA 90622 3023059101 DA VALLE STRADA CSA INC LLC 9125 10TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98108 3023059103 3023059118 PO BOX 1941 AUBURN WA 98071 GROWING TOMORROW LLC JANZEN ANDREA J -KEG REST LT 3700 E VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98057 3023059197 3023059082 10100 SHELLBRIDGE WY RICHMOND B CANADA PENNY R CHURCH 3820 EAST VALLEY R RENTON WA 98057 3023059092 5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location.hl eu 24.7R (also known as East Panther Creek Wetland) 25.5E (also known as West Panther Creek Wetland) 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. nem Panther Creek 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100 -year flood plain?eAl ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property.hl ei�l JA RPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 3 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E14 24.7R is a depressional wetland about 57 acres in size, located east of SR 167 between SW 43`d Street and the northbound on-ramp to 1-405 extending easterly to the toe of a forested slope. This wetland lies within the Green River floodplain and receives hydrologic input from perennial flows from Panther Creek, a seasonally elevated groundwater table, and hillside drainages and seeps upslope to the east of the wetland. Surface water discharges from the wetland through C65166 and C72. It contains palustrine emergent persistent (PEM1), scrub - shrub broadleaf deciduous (PSS1), and forested broadleaf deciduous (PFO1) vegetation communities. The emergent communities in the central portion of the wetland consist of dense monotypic stands of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and common cattail (Typha latifolia). Douglas spires (Spiraea douglash), and redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea) and Sitka willow (Salix sifchensis) are dominant in the scrub -shrub communities. Pacific willow (Salix lucida) is the primary trees species in forested communities in lower -elevation portions of the wetland. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) is the dominant tree species in forested areas at higher elevations in the south portion of the wetland and in transitional zones along east and west edges of the wetland. The EPCW is seasonally inundated up to 2 feet; surface waters completely draw down throughout the wetland by autumn. Solis throughout lower elevations of the wetland are mucky peat, while soils found in higher elevations of the wetland mainly consist of gravelly sandy loam. It is rated as Category II in the WDOE rating system, with a high score for water quality functions, moderate score for hydrologic function, and moderate score for habitat function. 25.5L is a long, very narrow depressional wetland located immediately west of SR 167 and east of East Valley Road. It is approximately 6.5 acres in size and extends approximately one mile between SW 23rd Street and SW 41 st Street. This wetland receives hydrologic input from a seasonally elevated groundwater table, stormwater runoff from surrounding development to the west, and surface discharge from West Fork and East Fork of Panther Creek. It contains PEM1, PSS1, and PF01 communities. Dominant vegetation in forested vegetation community includes red alder, black cottonwood, Scouler's willow, and Pacific willow. The northern and southern portions of the wetland are dominated by emergent vegetation community including reed canary grass and bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). Scrub -shrub vegetation community is present in the transitional area between emergent and forested vegetation communities, which mainly contain Scouler's willow, Pacific willow, redosier dogwood, and Douglas spirea. Surface water is present in the wetland during wetter months, but draws down through spring and summer. Soils generally consist of loam. It is rated as Category III in the WDOE rating system, with a moderate score for water quality functions, moderate score for hydrologic functions, and low score for habitat function. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used.hf eU The project area is located within the 240 -foot -wide WSDOT SR 167 ROW as well as parcels owned by the City of Renton. The City -owned parcels in the project area are zoned as Residential Low Density but are part of the Panther Creek Wetland Open Space and are not currently developed. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. ttaid The adjacent properties are currently residential, industrial, hospital and City of Renton -owned undeveloped land within the Panther Creek Wetland Open Space_ 50. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s). hei SR 167 is located within the WSDOT ROW in the project area. There are three culverts under SR 167 (C65, C66, and C72) in the project vicinity as well as a fish ladder associated with the existing C72 culvert. There are two sanitary sewer lines in the vicinity of C65/C66: (1) one 12—inch-diameter sanitary sewer line runs north -south east of the east edge of the WSDOT ROW and (2) one 18—inch-diameter concrete sanitary sewer line operated and maintained by King County runs east -west just north of C65. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map.h[ eAl j JARPA 2010 v 1 3130/2010 Page 4 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-5 The East Panther Creek Wetland site can be accessed by entering SR 167 northbound from the SW 43rd Street, which turns into South Carr Road on the east side of Talbot Road on-ramp. The east sides of C65 and C66 are located north of the SW 43rd Street on-ramp on the east side of SR 167. C72 and the fishway are located on the east side of SR 167 approximately one mile north of C65 on the first pullout located on the right hand shoulder of SR 167. The west side of C72 and East Fork Panther Creek/West Panther Creek Wetland are between SR 167 and E. Valley Road (see Vicinity Map) Part 6—Project Description 6a. Summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6d. [heel _] WSDOT proposes to construct the Fish Barrier Retrofit Project as mitigation for emergency repairs to the Thunder Hills Creek Culvert (C) 52 located under 1-405. The proposed mitigation has been designed to meet the culvert replacement conditions of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 issued by the U.S_ Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) on March 3, 2008, for emergency construction repairs to C52. The proposed project consists of three major components: Fill and plug C65 and C66; relocate the Panther Creek channel between C65 and C66; and replace the fish ladder and culvert at C72 with a fish passable culvert. 6b. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) hel ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational ❑ Maintenance ® Environmental Enhancement 6c. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) (help) ❑ Aquaculture ® Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Road ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam / Weir ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Scientific ❑ Boat House ❑ Dike ! Levee / Jetty ❑ Land Clearing Measurement Device ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock ! Pier ❑ Mining ❑ Stormwater facility ❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Piling ❑ Utility Line ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Retaining Wall ® Channel Modification ® Fishway (upland) ❑ Other: 6d. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6c. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. ttgAi • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100 -year flood plain. JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 5 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-6 Key construction elements of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Project are as follows: • Fill and plug C65 and C66 with controlled density fill (CDF) concrete. The ends of the culverts will be buried as part of the filling of the existing channel described above. This element is within WSDOT right-of-way (ROW). • Relocate the section of West Fork Panther Creek channel between C65 and C66 as part of mitigation for filling 150 feet of Thunder Hills Creek and 15 feet of the unnamed tributary to Thunder Hills Creek. The new channel meanders and its centerline will vary between 40 and 80 feet east of the existing channel, and has been sited to avoid future planned roadway improvements along SR 167. In total, 760 lineal feet of new stream channel would be created. Stream flow from the mainstem of Panther Creek would be diverted into the newly excavated stream channel, which would extend approximately 160 feet north of C66 and tie back into an existing stormwater discharge channel. Following construction of the new section of channel, the area would be replanted with native vegetation_ The existing channel downstream of C65 along SR 167 will be filled in as requested by WDFW and replanted with native vegetation. In addition, an existing storm drain will be reconstructed to connect to the relocated West Fork of Panther Creek. • Remove the existing fish ladder and culvert at C72, and replace it with a fish passable arch culvert. Vegetation in East and West Panther Creek Wetland in the vicinity of C72 would be temporarily cleared to allow for adequate construction staging and access. Open -cut trenching through SR 167 would involve removal of pavement and traffic barriers, and the weekend closure of SR 167. The existing culvert and fish ladder would be removed, and the new culvert would be assembled on-site and installed. SR 167 would be restored to pre -project conditions, and disturbed wetland areas would be revegetated with native woody vegetation. 6e. What are the start and end dates for project construction? (month/year)nr elpi • If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start date: May 2012 End date: December 2012 ❑ See JARPA Attachment D 6f. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. Lei This project will complete the mitigation as required by U.S. Army Corps Permit Number NWS -2008-87. 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. Lheiw $4.5 million 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? hem • If yes, list each agency providing funds. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know Part 7 -Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation ® Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.)hf M 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands.h[ eM ❑ Not applicable JARPA 2010 v1 3/34/2010 Page 6 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-7 The location of the proposed stream channel has been selected to meet NWP 23 requirements for creating new stream channel and to avoid future roadway projects impacts. The stream location has also been designed to minimize impacts to significant trees and to the existing sewer line. The location of the proposed culvert has also been chosen to minimize ground disturbance and wetland hydrology while maximizing fish passage. The proposed culvert location is to replace the existing culvert. The old culvert will be removed and the proposed culvert will be installed along a similar alignment. The size of the culvert has been significantly increased to meet USACE permit conditions. Best Management Practices (BMP) to be implemented may include, but are not limited to: • Minimizing the construction footprint to the extent practicable • Installation of high -visibility fence around all sensitive areas that are to remain undisturbed • Erosion control installation — silt fence installation either by machine or hand • Construction entrance(s) • Containment of any runoff on-site using erosion and water quality control BMPs during construction • Initial dewatering will be disposed of by the contractor by an approved method • Silt fence and/or coffer dam to isolate in -water work area depending on ground conditions • Revegetation of all disturbed areas with native plant species 7b. Will the project impact wetlands?hf V ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers?ht eu ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? hel • If yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? el • If yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands?h[ ell • If yes, submit the plan with the DARPA package and answer 7g. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. hl eld The mitigation plan will rectify portions of East and West Panther Creek Wetlands and their buffers that are temporarily affected by construction of the Project. Rectification will be accomplished by re-establishing preconstruction contours in temporarily affected areas, and installing native shrub and tree species commonly found in the undisturbed portions of the wetlands and buffers. 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted; the extent and duration of the impact; and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. h(ld JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 7 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit QCE Form Attachment E Page E-8 Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact mitigation mitigation area flood, etc.) rating ft. or shrubs, grasses); typed (sq. ft. or Machine placed C72 categoryZ Acres) Excavation for acres) Clearing and WDOE Estimated Amount Fill Location Material Source grubbing upstream 24.7R Category II, 8,160 sf 1 month Revegetate NA of C72 (trees, streambed material Renton material Channel downstream of shrubs, grasses); Crushed aggregate and Category I Machine placed C72 import existing topsoil Excavation for WDOE Watershed pit or Streambed 105 cy Machine placed construction of 24.7R Category 11, 4,500 sf Permanent NIA NIA approach channel Renton upstream of C72 Category I Clearing and WDOE grubbing Category 111, 1,570 sf downstream of C72 25.51L Renton 1 month Revegetate NA (trees, shrubs, Category III grasses); Excavation for WDOE construction of 25.51- Category I 11, 140 sf Permanent Revegetate NA channel downstream Renton of C72 Category I II Clearing and grubbing for new WDOE Panther Creek 24.7R Category 11, 38,780 sf 1 month Revegetate NA channel upstream of Renton C65166 (trees, Category I shrubs, grasses); Excavation of new WDOE Panther Creek 2417R Category II, 22,830 sf Permanent Revegetate NA channel upstream of Renton C65166 Category I if no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as "Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report. Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating system. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter "permanent" if applicable. `Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank In -lieu fee (B) Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available, 7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h., describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic vards that will he used_ and flow and where it will be placed into the wetland. rhelnl JARPA 2010 v1 3/3012010 Page 8 of 15 Estimated Amount Fill Location Material Source Type Material of Material How Placed Approach Channel upstream of C72 -- Watershed pit or Streambed 580 cy Machine placed streambed material import material Channel downstream of Watershed pit or Crushed aggregate and 1.0 cy Machine placed C72 import existing topsoil New Panther Creek channel at C65/C66 - Watershed pit or Streambed 105 cy Machine placed streambed material import material JARPA 2010 v1 3/3012010 Page 8 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-9 For all excavating activities identified in 7h., describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed.hl ell Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies_ (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands_)h[�i ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) 8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. hf elgl ❑ Not applicable Best Management Practices (BMP) to be implemented may include, but are not limited to: • Minimizing the construction footprint to the extent practicable • Installation of high -visibility fence around all sensitive areas that are to remain undisturbed • Erosion control installation — silt fence installation either by machine or hand • Construction entrance(s) • Containment of any runoff on-site using erosion and water quality control BMPs during construction • Initial dewatering will be disposed of by the contractor by an approved method • Silt fence and/or coffer dam to isolate in -water work area depending on ground conditions • Revegetation of all disturbed areas with native plant species Hydrologic modeling of West and East Forks of Panther Creek downstream of SR 167 indicate that: West Fork Panther Creek: For the reach of West Fork between SR 167 and East Valley Road, the proposed diversion of surface water from C65/C66 to the EPCW will result in a decrease of water surface elevation in the West Fork of approximately 4.2 inches for the 50 percent exceedance value (more than 1000 hours per year) and approximately 26 inches for the 0.001 percent exceedance value (less than 1 hour per year). However, this reach will continue to receive hydrologic input from a seasonally high groundwater table and surface runoff from surrounding development. For the remaining downstream reach of West Fork Panther Creek downstream of East Valley Road, peak flows during more frequent storm events (2 -year and 10 -year) are expected to only decrease approximately 5% (from 37.3 cfs to 36.1 cfs and 38.1 cfs to 36.4 cfs, respectively). Thus, while there will be an overall decrease in water levels in the West Fork of Panther Creek between SR 167 and East Valley Road, the remainder of the 34th St. tributary downstream of East Valley Road will experience a negligible loss of surface flow. East Fork Panther Creek: For the reach of East Fork between SR 167 and East Valley Road, the proposed diversion of surface water from C65/C66 and installation of the new arch culvert at C72 will result in an increase of water surface elevation of approximately 3 inches for the 50 percent exceedance value (more than 1000 hours per year) and approximately 15 inches for the 0.001 percent exceedance value (less than 1 hour per year). For the remaining downstream reach of East Fork Panther Creek downstream of East Valley Road, peak flows during the 2 -year and 10 -year events are expected to increase approximately from 73 cfs to 96 cfs JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 9 of 15 Estimated Amount Excavation Location Method Type Material of material How and where placed Approach channel Excavator Wetland soils 650 cy Contractor to dispose of in upstream of C72 approved WSDOT location Channel downstream of Excavator Wetland soils 6 cy Contractor to dispose of in C72 approved WSDOT location New Panther Creek Contractor to dispose of in channel upstream of Excavator Wetland soils 3,070 cy approved WSDOT location C65/66 Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies_ (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands_)h[�i ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) 8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. hf elgl ❑ Not applicable Best Management Practices (BMP) to be implemented may include, but are not limited to: • Minimizing the construction footprint to the extent practicable • Installation of high -visibility fence around all sensitive areas that are to remain undisturbed • Erosion control installation — silt fence installation either by machine or hand • Construction entrance(s) • Containment of any runoff on-site using erosion and water quality control BMPs during construction • Initial dewatering will be disposed of by the contractor by an approved method • Silt fence and/or coffer dam to isolate in -water work area depending on ground conditions • Revegetation of all disturbed areas with native plant species Hydrologic modeling of West and East Forks of Panther Creek downstream of SR 167 indicate that: West Fork Panther Creek: For the reach of West Fork between SR 167 and East Valley Road, the proposed diversion of surface water from C65/C66 to the EPCW will result in a decrease of water surface elevation in the West Fork of approximately 4.2 inches for the 50 percent exceedance value (more than 1000 hours per year) and approximately 26 inches for the 0.001 percent exceedance value (less than 1 hour per year). However, this reach will continue to receive hydrologic input from a seasonally high groundwater table and surface runoff from surrounding development. For the remaining downstream reach of West Fork Panther Creek downstream of East Valley Road, peak flows during more frequent storm events (2 -year and 10 -year) are expected to only decrease approximately 5% (from 37.3 cfs to 36.1 cfs and 38.1 cfs to 36.4 cfs, respectively). Thus, while there will be an overall decrease in water levels in the West Fork of Panther Creek between SR 167 and East Valley Road, the remainder of the 34th St. tributary downstream of East Valley Road will experience a negligible loss of surface flow. East Fork Panther Creek: For the reach of East Fork between SR 167 and East Valley Road, the proposed diversion of surface water from C65/C66 and installation of the new arch culvert at C72 will result in an increase of water surface elevation of approximately 3 inches for the 50 percent exceedance value (more than 1000 hours per year) and approximately 15 inches for the 0.001 percent exceedance value (less than 1 hour per year). For the remaining downstream reach of East Fork Panther Creek downstream of East Valley Road, peak flows during the 2 -year and 10 -year events are expected to increase approximately from 73 cfs to 96 cfs JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 9 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-10 and 113 cfs to 130 cfs, respectively. Water surface elevations will increase approximately 8 inches for the 50 percent exceedance value (more than 1000 hours per year) and approximately 7 inches for the 0.001 percent exceedance value (less than 1 hour per year). Aquatic habitat lost in West Fork of Panther Creek between SR 167 and East Valley Road due to the blockage of culverts C65/C66 would be minimal due to the already degraded conditions found in the reach immediately downstream of C65/66. The channel downstream of culvert C65 is a straight confined channel that appears to be excavated out of degraded, fragmented wetland and runs parallel to SR 167. Stream substrate is silty throughout with sparse to no gravels/cobbles and no instream structure. Riparian vegetation mainly consists of invasive reed canarygrass and some planted conifer trees. The channel downstream of C66 consists of a short, straight confined channel with some gravels interspersed with a few large cobbles on top of a silty substrate. At the confluence of the C65/66 tributaries, the west fork turns westerly with the combined flows of C65 and C66 and flows through a managed bioswale before it flows into a City of Renton stormwater system under East Valley Road. The resultant west fork channel is a straightened confined channel that lacks in -stream structure, is chocked with reed canary grass and Himalayan blackberry, and contains some larger cobble on a substrate with embeddedness greater than 50%, and has no native riparian canopy. 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? hel ® Yes ❑ No 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non -wetland waterbodies?h( ell • If yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ❑ Yes ❑ No ® Not applicable 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g_, you do not need to restate your answer here.hj elp] N/A: the proposed culvert replacement and stream relocation are mitigation requirements of the NWP 23 issued by the USAGE for emergency construction repairs to C52. 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. "el Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile name' location of impact' to be placed in or linear ft.) of drive, etc.) removed from waterbody waterbody directl affected Modification of East Fork 45 cy in channel at outlet of panther Creek In Permanent 55 cy out 590 sf C72 Removal of existing culvert, installation East Fork In Permanent 341 out (net) 3245 sf (net) of new culvert and Panther Creek backfill @ C72 Excavation/fill for new Panther Creek West Fork In and 1 month 10 in 970 sf channel connection Panther Creek adjacent 20 out upstream of 065166 Fill in existing West Fork channel upstream of Panther Creek In Permanent 200 cy in 2720 sf C65/C66 Fill for plugging of West Fork In Permanent 1.5 cy in 9 LF C65/C66 Panther Creek JAR PA 2010 v1 3130/2010 Page 10 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-11 ' If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as "Stream 1 ") The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2lndicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100 -year flood piain. 3Indicate the days. months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter 'permanent" if applicable 8f. For all activities identified in 8e., describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody.h[ el a 8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e., describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed.Lelel Agency Name Contact Name Amount of Most Recent Date of Contact Fill Use Source Nature material How and where placed Excavation Location Method Crushed material How and where placed Modification of channel d/s of Watershed pit or aggregate 45 cy Machine placed C72 import and existing approved WSDOT location Removal of existing culvert Excavator topsoil 231 cy Contractor to dispose of in Installation of proposed culvert Offsite aluminum 572 (pipe Machine placed @ C72 Excavator Streambed only) cy Contractor to dispose of in Installation of streambed Offsite Streambed 830 cy Machine placed material- culvert @ C72 material Backfill of proposed culvert @ Offsite Control Density Fill 45 cy Machine placed C72 (CDF) Crushed Infill of existing channel Watershed pit or aggregate 200 cy Machine placed between of C65/C66 import and existing topsoil Crushed Fill for new Panther Creek Watershed pit or aggregate 10 cy Machine placed Channel import and existing topsoil Fill for plugging of C65/Ci Offsite CDF 1.5 cy Machine placed culverts 8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e., describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed.Lelel Part 9—Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewers) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can_ It is ok if you cannot answer a question. 9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. h( els] Agency Name Contact Name Estimated Most Recent Date of Contact Amount of Excavation Location Method Type Material material How and where placed Modification of channel Excavator Streambed 55 cy Contractor to dispose of in downstream of C72 approved WSDOT location Removal of existing culvert Excavator Steel pipe 231 cy Contractor to dispose of in @ C72 approved WSDOT location Excavation/fill for new Excavator Streambed 15 cy Contractor to dispose of in Panther Creek channel approved WSDOT location connection upstream of C65/66 Part 9—Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewers) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can_ It is ok if you cannot answer a question. 9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. h( els] Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 11 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-12 Washington Department Patrick Klauas (360) 902-2606 November 9, 2011 of Fish and Wildlife Jason Kunz U.S. Army Corps of Rebecca McAndrew (206) 764-6912 November 9, 2011 Engineers City of Renton Ron Straka, Surface Water (425) 430-7248 November 8, 2011 Utility Supervisor Rocale Timmons, Planner (425) 430-7219 November 29, 2011 91b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) List?h[� • If yes, list the parameter(s) below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: http:Ilwww. ecy.wa.govlprogra mslwg1303d1. ❑ Yes ® No 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? hel • Go to http:/lcfpub.epa..qov/surfllocate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC. 17110012 el 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in?[" Go to http:Ilwww.ecy.wa.govlservices/gis/maps/wria/wria.htm to find the WRIA #. WRIA 9 9e. Will the in -water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity?Lid • Go to http:/lwww.ecv.wa.gov1programslwglswgslcriteria.html for the standards, ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? hel • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. • For more information, go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/smallaws rules/173-261211 desicinations_html. ❑ Rural ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ® Other NOT IN SMA JURISDICITON 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? hel • Go to http:llwww.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/TopicslForestPracticesAr)plications/Pageslfp waterty_ping.aspx for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. ❑ Shoreline ® Fish ❑ Non -Fish Perennial ❑ Non -Fish Seasonal JARPA 2010 v1 3130/2010 Page 12 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-13 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? [help] • If no, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. ❑ Yes ® No Name of manual: WSDOT Hydraulics Manual 9i. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [Lel Historically this was a floodplain wetland that was converted to farmland in the 1900's. Currently no agricultural use occurs on the site. 9j. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? Lel * If yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No 9k. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work. h[ eta] Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (0. mykiss) may be present in the East Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C72. No listed species were presumed to be present in the West Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C65 and C66. The Green River and Springbrook Creek were identified as Critical Habitat for Chinook salmon, and the Green River was identified as Critical Habitat for bull trout. 91. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work.[held WDFW maps indicate the presence of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and resident cutthroat trout (0. clarki) in the East Fork of Panther Creek. WDFW maps a wetland polygon that corresponds to East Panther Creek Wetland; however, no priority species occurrence in or use of the wetland is indicated in the polygon report. Part 10-SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at htp://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help(a7ora,wa.gov. • For a list of agency addresses to send your application, click on the "where to send your completed JARPA" at http://www.epermitting.wa.gov. 1 Oa. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (check all that apply_)h[ elpj • For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html. ® A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ❑ A SEPA determination is pending with (lead agency). The expected decision date is JARPA 2010 v1 313012010 Page 13 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-14 ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 1 ob.) hel ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. 1 Ob. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (check all that apply.) hel LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ variance ❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): Other citylcounty permits: ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ® Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GOVERNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: ® Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption Washington Department of Ecology: ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification Washington Department of Natural Resources: ❑ Aquatic Resources Use Authorization FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): ❑ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ❑ Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. [help] 11a. Applicant Signature (required)h[�el l I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. JARPA 2010 v1 313012010 Page 14 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit PCE Form Attachment E Page E-15 hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application- (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) Applicant Printed Name Applicant Signature Date 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature bei ] certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. Authorized Agent Printed Name Authorized Agent Signature 11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant),hf M Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. Date consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner, Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -019-09 JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 15 of 15 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E :.& 2010 M US Army C78 WASHINGTON STATE SBe eDist 'a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form hem JARPA Attachment A: For additional property owner(s) tel Page E-16 r-------------------------------------- ' AGENCY USE ONLY 4 4 ' , l 4 ' ' Date received: 4 4 4 4 4 , 4 , 4 , 4 , 4 4 4 4 Agency reference # 4 Tag Parcel #(s): ' 4 4 4 --------------------------- ------- ' TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT' hel i r , 4 Project Name: 1 -405 Thunder Hills Creek Mitization Fish Barrier Retrofit ------------------------------------- Use this attachment only if you have more than one property owner. Complete one attachment for each additional property owner impacted by the project. Signatures of property owners are not needed for repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) City of Renton (Drainage Easement) 4b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 1055 5 Grady Way 4C. City, State, Zip Renton WA 98055 4d. Phone (1) 4e. Phone (2) 4f. Fax 4g. E-mail (425) 430-6400 ( } ( ) Address or tax parcel number of property you own: 3023059002 (Culvert 72 Replacement) and 3023059026 (Panther Creek Relocation) Signature of Property Owner Printed Name Signature If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-8341. ORA publication number: ENV -020-09 JARPA Attachment A v1 04/08/2010 Page 1 of 1 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit SCE Form Attachment E 2010 F M $ US Army Corps WASHINGTON STATE SEe D'Stru . Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form he, , JARPA Attachment A: For additional property owner(s) lqem Page E-17 --------------------------------------- AGENCY USE ONLY ' Date received: Agency reference #: Tax Parcel #(s): r --------------------------------------I TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT hj elpj Project Name: 1 -405 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit ; e i --------------------------------------- Use this attachment only if you have more than one property owner. Complete one attachment for each additional property owner impacted by the project. Signatures of property owners are not needed for repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below. 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Olympic Pipeline Company; C/O BP America Inc (Temporary Construction Easement) 4b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) PO Box 5015 4c. City, State, Zip Buena Park CA 90622 4d. Phone 1 4e. Phone (2) 4f. Fax 4g. E-mail Address or tax parcel number of property you own: 3023059101 (Temporary Construction Easement) Signature of Property Owner Printed Name Signature If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -020-09 DARPA Attachment A v1 04/08/2010 Page 2 of 1 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E 2010 M o US Army Corps WASHINGTON STATE of Bgo,' Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form hel JARPA Attachment B: For additional project location(s) hel Use this attachment only if you have more than one project location. Use a separate form for each additional location_ lase black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below Page E-18 r--------------------------------------- i AGENCY USE ONLY i Date received: Agency reference #: Tag Parcel #(s): TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANThheeM i Project Name: - ; Location Name (if applicable): -------------------------------------- 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) hem ❑ State Owned Aquatic Land (If yes or maybe, contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) at (360) 902-1100) ❑ Federal ® Other publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ❑ Private 5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5n.)hf elbl WSDOT State Route (SR) 167 at mile posts (IVIP) 24.70 and MP 25.69 5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) hj elp] Renton, WA 98005 5d. County hel King 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. Ltei '/4 Section Section Township Range NE (C72 Replacement) SE (Panther Cr Reloc.) 30 25N 5E 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location.tLeeI • Example: 47.03922 N lat. 1-122.89142 W long (NAD 83) Panther Creek Relocation: 47.03922 N lat.1-122.215627 W long. Culvert 72 Replacement: 47.458904 N lat.1-122.216852 W long. 5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location.tLeel The local oounty assessor's office can provide this information. Panther Creek Relocation: 3023059026 Culvert 72 Replacement: 3023059002 JARPA 2009 Attachment B: Additional project locations (see JARPA Part 5) v1 04/07/2010 Page 1 of 3 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrorit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-19 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) hel Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) See JARPA Form and Attachment C 51i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. hem East Panther Creek Wetland West Panther Creek Wetland 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location.h[ ems] East Fork Panther Creek West Fork Panther Creek 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100 -year flood plain? hem ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. Lheid See detailed description in JARPA Form. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. [heipi The project area is located within the 240 -foot -wide WSDOT SR 167 right of way as well as parcels owned by the City of Renton. The City -owned parcels in the project area are zoned as Residential Low Density but are part of the Panther Creek Wetland Open Space and are not currently developed. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [hem JARPA 2009 Attachment B: Additional project locations (see JARPA Part 5) _v1 04/07/2010 Page 2 of 3 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E Page E-20 The adjacent properties are currently residential, industrial, hospital and City of Renton -owned undeveloped land within the Panther Creek Wetland Open Space. vo. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s).h(�] SR 167 is located within the WSDOT ROW in the project area. There are three culverts under SR 167 (C65, C66, and C72) in the project vicinity as well as a fish ladder associated with the existing C72 culvert. There are two sanitary sewer lines in the vicinity of C65/C66: (1) one 12 -inch -diameter sanitary sewer line runs north -south east of the east edge of the WSDOT ROW and (2) one 18 -inch -diameter concrete sanitary sewer line operated and maintained by King County runs east -west just north of C65. ap. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map.h� ell The East Panther Creek Wetland site can be accessed by entering SR 167 northbound from the SW 43rd Street, which turns into South Carr Road on the east side of Talbot Road on-ramp. The east sides of C65 and 66 are located north of the SW 43rd Street on-ramp on the east side of SR 167. C72 and the fishway are located on the east side of SR 167 approximately one mile north of C65 on the first pullout located on the right hand shoulder of SR 167. The west side of C72 and East Fork Panther Creek/West Panther Creek Wetland are between SR 167 and E. Valley Road (see Vicinity Map) If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-8341. ORA publication number: ENV -021-09 DARPA 2009 Attachment 8: Additional project locations (see JARPA Part 5) -v1 0410712010 Page 3 of 3 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit DCE Form Attachment E 2010 C3 US Army Corps WASHINGTON STATE S�EaDist tt Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form Lel JARPA Attachment C: Contact information for adjoining property owners.h[�] Use this attachment g -al -y if you have more than four adjoining property owners. Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below. Page E-21 r------------------------------------ AGENCY USE ONLY i Date received: ' Agency reference #.- Tax :Tax Parcel #(s): ' -------------------------------------- TO ---------------------------»»»»»TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT [help] Project Name: Thunder Hills Creek Fish Mitigation Barrier Retrofit Location Name (if applicable): SR 167 MP (MP) 24.70 and MP 25.69 --------------------------------------- 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners.hf eu Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) JOHN L FAST 4450 DAVIS AVE S #4219899200010 ......................................... .... RENTON WA 98055 DONALD A & CARMEL D CAMERINI 3503 SHATTUCK AVE S. RENTON WA 98055 5070000080 KATHERINE E MOSS 3509 SHATTUCK AVE S RENTON WA 98055 5070000070 RICHARD D & FRANCINE HARVEY 21015 148TH AVE SE KENT WA 98042 5070000060 HARRY G BOSTICK 3527 SHATTUCK AVE 5 RENTON WA 98055 5070000050 RUDRA &SAVITRI KUMARAN 3603 SHATTUCK AVE 5 5070000040 _ _-_ RENTON WA 98055 BAY T HOANG 3609 SHATTUCK AVE 5 RENTON WA 98055 5070000030 ANNE GILLILAN LIVING TRUST 3615 SHATTUCK AVE S 5070000020 - _ _ -_ RENTON WA 98055 VALLEY VIEW PROFESSIONAL 350 S 38TH CT #210 3023059111 RENTON WA 98055 PUBLIC HOSP DIST#1 ICING CO P O BOX 50010 8857670060 VALLEY MED ATTEN FINANCE RENTON WA 98058 8857670100 CITY OF RENTON 1055 5 Grady Way 1923059016 RENTON WA 98055 If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -022-09 JARPA Attachment C v1 04/07/2010 Page 1 of 1 0 W D z z 0 V x W a Z LLI ci zz LU J � CL U - tu F- W 0 Z Z N d 0 c I 9 P- M -,D M -,D r31nbA 2i N4&!OJd mR 4 irvee I' O LLJ LU z I r 1 I I l = W 'o 10 Uk I � � a d 'I =� a ao ZR W rf] 2 �W Y• '0 Z � � W ^ a 'a �\ I� rvAf 5 �` yJ Z z w O uj LU U) W n W U, 22 O s � o o m ILau, VYTH Oaaw j a ai ? z LU 9 U p w WW{YJQ 4 r ST - or W r Si V J 5 Iw,l rmTmm�{ r LLFoax� �gs ra 30 =+Inon a�, M+aa!o�d W LM u M � N 3 M M C3 W U) u F $ ah om 0 on oc ooh Z Ly a Q0 M. Lu U)Z.a n J O i7 0 3: wwM-jg0 mmvi -ilea w w d p N TO W W wOgWjZi�Y�ZPSJ° 40 yW�SS ���y�Oa gmo F r} N'nh�JOR~p~W OW is LU U xF O�OywNpbOQU�N W4J NLLFR��F�14�m NwVwf w -�Nx°rK c�c rc m W �Z�uWUO�ubWOQQ \i V� W � J O n @ a q J ? ygW� W 222 S7 F I 51 RLIU R S Q N �h6y7 i Z O _ o� Q N F H W LL f Y W � W a LLJ �caiw rc N K 4 = m Cd d W ul ~ a a z �+ 7 2 r 8� N � IL S� 00, V �Q d5 ii'non as; K+�afo�d E a V rc o a m J F b b $� o�Q°{y�tl w wapp aa"_ W H Ci a a O w l� u tl K J 7 w F 2 2 2 Z = m fK9 m m }0 3 m t! = Z Z Z F 2 2 x l w ±± yy �w W h h xF Kjh M LL J 7 Cr Q M f W- u u i w p J N N � N�11 � M�uu y Oy Z Z Z .Y. W m 3e W 0 o m Z m ` Y c°`a LLP 3 04 ' � � a d `q W H Vires w I 5 j e 1 : 2 m W oC a N r ' U 0 z) a —I-- _--_ o LO W i V7 Z g > K Q r LL a W on Act w y i H 1 r o w _ m S Z Z� J a rcr W W N J a' NOs OF V3 W �9 i f - W Ln W w! zO zz� o a a VS ,+ tia S W nn `S� J J x 2 AFI I R 6H u� y W 7 \1 S 1 Is : i M a z C4 g'$ s u cu w O w i W M ( m z Z Y b Q V W + a z �� o w i !! ^ w J +I m O !I + + + r ++ I wig a u zr VyXs poO Zw On pw W4 e Z w �Z �u v G NLL [ WK(Ylj WWW WpV€ N j �¢K Oa V 0 BCW 2yw Cuu �m m w�iic $xc�� ozdo wpwo o' o N�mOZ06 - a wi�ouw �b =�� CSO U'Kw Ww¢ 'i On a 4ULL ZZ znuF? ��n m owF mn'N¢ m �ZZV r ��S O -S c'.yw 2 Z moa � y]�m¢ Onyp U����tt ��r~9N1� � KF�w rc4 Z¢mywj -W OW iwq Ow�]�OS OjNC4F�o���WwN �OWi�SmipJ t --z. h WWW 9 � W�Z❑U'O Kgwx WZwr � NO2wZ O U�JZw a F-Z_� w�Z;<�L ZmVV O zmO�m�i ��O.NeV ZZOOm S�yy W W � FFVaa � w ^� ZmW` Owwww aawOVFUOZVVO F- V~U'CVx SVio� UyOWmOC�K _r � 7pmVw� umKx ZN Ww d V i COw 7 K�p l9 Nm XVX N7��¢F SFq �6 dWo=mf O�<J�NwNji Urcrfff ZIXO�m.WaOUo¢¢Z~gQn G�� IXm� NVK a ��Ytl�jiLLw d1�VV�J m €bid JOWFzgq�QO�qKjW WO.w°.OW mOVuw `-'�wi U -w °zoQW�F� �O]VK g qOV' J]i ZWtl O�tl ¢ SZ 0 2 Y _ wcaaaigixaoodp�o�zoo -> �wo� moa�mwVmommzz.� °�S r o °m ¢Kny' wz mw i �5�oy� o�on �°z o oao 0 arcs Boz 2 wwW zw a ¢K mmyr mm mmwZ c ° cAF Oww=�niz u' w'nwv�m •- Nam ri �O�-�rcW mq�� rcw m m s z W Ow Hwm�$4�nw'mvwiQmgm��q m VZC]Zw t~ � Z m !a: RN d5 ii'non as; K+�afo�d U �ceg W a U O xD W wQi R' w n E a Z O ffi a ff Wrx cc ua m .8 J m W LO a Q d U. 2 LU Q LU q Z v � � W ~ o p 0 _ �Wy t�,�t � � wF� �yTy+1� �S� LL� yes■�� nZ < � _ gin �a�iµ O.Y. �W Y a rJWsw 1, j�xow o F-1 U � .i� ¢. [� Wz s €� Ft p W r y_g€ 5 it gsKFK Fwfi' ffiw a� ! 0 gd ga Foo it R 4u 121-P iW 9.9 LU o°y,u yJ Z H- Ls={i '2l �l K51F 9 QQ, ■! G��j r�X� yi��nu r¢ pi[�a uWa�a �{ W it o h ir �Ow91 k K OT <F Wy°j n n+� 4 a w O 1WV [ 1. KK °V � v� O [s[ € n C 0 Z w w ��2 6cZ� � 0�� OW�� � OF� �� � V�K� �� �• J : JJmy�¢�KWO]oZ�W �KF2■ KFap4Fn uO°O5�yV�i au-J4WF�EgA aSOi �F;py,(j�WOJ„d�WQ¢Qi iWu1(,11�QF�rUsV�K° E G° 9=ii¢pUyu�p N OtMF VOi�ZV11FO Gh KzZ T. AN W K K°KI112 call, RKW p min V KK 'fig` :1-Han 1- ni W �w m U ��W jig €gS '�5�WF� a �y�� t7iFw�wgW a�° rqr i� w # 3 to v Z�zm ww[ 3w gg w7ZWl K YW" '�'�� w FPy 4 y�O1LL _ ui a y� y� Ts c�-� 3 <¢or JJ 4c L Q WWWm� T � ?MJ �~ WEO _ ~ 3 J AW � ° �g[ J� �� Ix W Ea zJ �� fSW 12 1� F1= � �� '�` bq LL pW�w=3QV WO nFae w& wW wg-J rcWZ K° p �Qy anti gyp!W W pwt�u�gql��yy�y wW�y� ;HP O]��um e�y�ypC� <_2 S2 � KQ�WVSO �o ���i b�b�� �WV 9O 9� 1 ,OiUS J�m Vl$��y BWCnZ�°LLWOw��yD U�.F �IpY Ute= Y2 �?O Q <Z �Oy nZ �y c• Y WhppFq�V ''V ['Jm Zppip WK-�wCt�S¢�=yd�wKmFFUWG yZ JW Q S�Y 5�Uy `dux H �h°K U2 o.-MOVU¢ s°V x sssWYYY yy�CIWnY J rW 1� � � ■per 9 J i �i zs3e�ii0�03 Ful �=#i �mgtw# ��wa3 LF1 Fi 6K V YY�mm 1 _Lu W m W oB � t � � 181 €a r �W sn= F �n 94 b� �I W �w Lei � w N HEM w i h ¢ R' M %_ _ N F r O F F Y OVIW � 4ZFZ �'w U [y tZ w w w w Es s w x m3 m_ Q d U Uw m � u E s L_ i W"�ya�o zwsu /may U`.. go -Iwo 5Ns- N °oO j Sy �� Yi m' �1 �uiwvi2 N LL�w� A o ol�r �N��y��N - bJwZ , m a 1 w zw ❑Fi FO 1Oa a n M \. �inainJ��O �\ W uowoo� N SM \ _a�mNw�� W z W ii 52 �o nor m n'pOl4 !! V zig �4 w% �m'ow- zz,ri aw A6 om.�a uwum -w 'z:u5 FUm m< Sam - o ' o�r0 w szu zym R w�w ^d 5 W z ° a r F, LL r� YW z W 0! LLP a 4 V w W � m ~ oC = uj LL h �n 94 b� W W �w Lei � w N HEM w i h ¢ R' M %_ _ N F r O F F Y OVIW � 4ZFZ �'w N [y tZ w w w w Es s w x m3 m_ Q d U Uw m � u E [8p7 L_ i W"�ya�o CO) w 5Ns- N °oO 3zhU o Yi m' �1 �uiwvi2 N LL�w� A o ol�r �N��y��N - bJwZ JELL I m a 1 w zw ❑Fi FO 1Oa a n M \. �inainJ��O �\ W uowoo� N a \ _a�mNw�� W z W ii �o nor m n'pOl4 !! V zig �4 w% �m'ow- zz,ri aw A6 om.�a uwum -w 'z:u5 FUm m< Sam - o ' o�r0 w szu zym R w�w �w ol�lLu✓I SSO , - WIC �r- Y�Z�x`n4 1 , wn Z: •' FFta W K hh2w U Z€w Y30 g i ! z ue0 \. � O Z w Wg�J W w S M G M' Q- � i W z ° a r F, LL r� YW z W 0! LLP a 4 V w W � m ~ oC = uj LL h vi HEM w i ¢ Z v a n v m 4 w i u Jua ow %_ _ N F r O F F Y OVIW � 4ZFZ �'w =J ! tZ w w w w Es s w x m3 m Q d U Uw m � u E [8p7 1 w zw a AY n'pOl4 !! V Mj 1 , } i ! + ! � i W z ° a r F, LL r� YW z W 0! LLP a 4 V w W � m ~ oC = uj LL h 0 0531 :41--t -W—I-d vi HEM w i ¢ Z v a n v m 4 w i u Jua ow %_ _ N F r O F F Y OVIW � 4ZFZ �'w =J �wwwa� tZ w w w w Es s w x m3 Q d U Uw m � u E [8p7 0 0531 :41--t -W—I-d M ° IINE ja, ] V /W/� W LL J V z0� � VHO HE n°66 an w rP°mow i xW xm Si x -i Hawar� NzpN w z� g FF4wy a .0 400, x<� m z`�skst zS P�KUU��WVU¢� NSLLmNwZW 'J E �A Z-ZSsvIQp � N��� W waw °rrrra i�il ��SD°r�=lr�4yO LYLYLY a �40� z w z z0W�° yio��wa�K F $ �2jy��LLz°mwa000�o 41 2 K K W o O x Y 2° Y S W V V A s x u' w oKi u m y W i a z �W r ffi 9 F F w Nw _ Y 2 O d F C7 E LL arc r w K W q V w o W oc N �•�-�� LU 2 i a H b wO LLy Z x = _ o ALL TT rc rc z rc� b boo- w rc rr - _ rc rc _ via =� J i x w �a ' Z io binb rb%� ' II..ZI KYm io �(q lW g � Sr ¢.ob ®9�.. TAS n A �OW -,j.4 u l u=A M ° IINE ja, ] V /W/� W LL J V z0� � VHO HE n°66 an w rP°mow i xW xm Si x -i Hawar� NzpN w z� g FF4wy a .0 400, x<� m z`�skst zS P�KUU��WVU¢� NSLLmNwZW 'J E �A Z-ZSsvIQp � N��� W waw °rrrra i�il ��SD°r�=lr�4yO LYLYLY a �40� z w z z0W�° yio��wa�K F $ �2jy��LLz°mwa000�o 41 2 K K W o O x Y 2° Y S W V V A s x u' w oKi u m y W i a z �W r ffi 9 F F w Nw _ Y 2 O d F C7 E LL arc r w K W q V w o W oc N �•�-�� LU 2 i a H b wO LLy Z x = _ o ALL TT rc rc z rc� b boo- w rc rr - _ rc rc _ via =� J i x w �a ' Z io binb rb%� ' II..ZI KYm io �(q lW g � Sr ¢.ob ry TAS n A �OW -,j.4 u l u=A 2 µ rc rc z rc� b boo- rc rc rr - _ rc rc _ via a z A' s x -m x r �p io binb rb%� wbiV �b � Sr ¢.ob ry TAS n A 2 J m u V U U V U U U U V U V V V V V U V U U U V V I r I U V V U V V V V DSjj riIrA ba s41lOh asiMlaa?O�d a ti W rr a N LL ao �z z ~ p O LO Y W W le g a _ o + O N W $ U U d coW co _ Q + aZ_ w f.! ui tr1' N 7 VJ f O04 41 a f • 1 W z F w r O�uyz r f t ❑ LL Q.� W z z w O + W W(gJ2' + z f I 41 os mss_ \ g e Owl NOf1�3S `�- f R F e o s s1 s ue` s�69 u "�+ 3 ~�l Qz L - - = Wre Y Es 21 r = 4 m G = N ,,U 1� .. c yp� LLU n2 SAT r W d auJ NMi " ik di Os n � � S�S S W 4�� O I 4 m u� a T5z �«ss r q� ! = a 9f o JA r Z S J c w W =V0 Wog jfJel 'M T 6Y¢ ��iYr FZw _ m WE! 0 ` q S g F rnul $$ zz jxg o 8 £ #�'g� a?�E��y7 3c Gl �U22 Z q �a LU ! 5�on- Al Y1 � po'g�$$� � Z d2Z' of R' w W y�.3 L d R 6cR Z ro W I dE i? ��$ i� - ^' uF�douRrc ba s41lOh asiMlaa?O�d n a rte'. •4�'+ Ui O �F N i i E i i i q 1 ____.-.. _.-_...._......_ _._............._-._...- _........_..........._. _ LL AN3W36Y3 - `1 W 0 30YHIYtlO —1�Wu: j 12� ^ W R" ..._-__........_._........f..................... ... ..... I............................... ti................ .._......._ ---- _--------- _ U. r z - ...--.._._----------------....._ _ ...._......... - "' - -.......__.. .m... • J N I ... —1 �K F22L fid....CO H1d3O HOMY aN3 tt _ QQ a w au a a � W , I m I I a r....._� -------- ------_----------.._._r _--------- ----- -- ---- ' --- �— - ti�; 1 - a i ....._-._._I i� a ......----'-......—..._ �^ ._.moi..._.-._......-._.L. _........_..7_._- .- _--- .--........_... ._.. u 3 regia I I''� z° n Ju a c 1 I 56'/'3'1 � IEll. WOL ld K SL'LN6 3 � �}._H1d30 N'JtlY 3dld ....._--._... f ............._. I i AV......; .. 'tib'--.. �e' ... -....- - 6.^. W j m --....... --...--................ --L..-- -...-4------ ---..-....._------ «........... ............ ...... I............ i i SA w wLL¢lui I I I U K S! Cqy o W O u�i O W J q@ J z zK O �3� 0 a=3 I f x l Lp 4 � mn�3 _ z o¢ OO Z. _..........................._...! 1 ... L..._...� LL 6 Y i] w 1...................... _... ............._____--_i_._-_..-...._..._-....;..........__- W O D V1 rn tW9 W '' W ZsY Z a Z� h� dr reo um_ 4J;aw I I '� r I � � 1Wu w1y y1 4 1y iip WV r M ,rcniz�>. 4 ❑ � � e a bli I 9 2� .ms's' Y W oil IM w f -i`�£+bj� 'k'rS;,l W¢ q U W Z �J•'c ❑ y rc O wW 6 a 1i oa � f�► �s � NN wF ■ - 6 H S'fC) �� I� as a ctiM 1 x s Im IN TWO cut 1 uracil aK=�ozoEms rc ^� �w` Qw ZDE goo r�zoa�;� �� 1H C'1 ¢� �U rc and �5 '¢ 11C~- 1m oww Al <w<2 000 nr Al j �rv1 ZO z�,y yam¢ VVVV U�w OT �g�rcOO ZV� ; m KK vwi2 u � p rcw - � �✓! m chi kms? O'�� awg 1 'fig -- tl OLLw _---� ou� as = o � O � b o = Q 9 R rc o oil Vi y A w�&yryo<foo{ g zq�a =x z m G P S w LLFoNe u � Ton aslN+�arc,d ■, ! ® §©| �■. k§§ �k§� .|§\\|��|§! ■ EE|.�||'����td LLJ LU . ^ � ( � � � § § Zr %t q w 1£ - �- \ � q L§ ■, ! ® §©| �■. k§§ �k§� .|§\\|��|§! ■ EE|.�||'����td LLJ LU . ^ � I § |� § § %t q §§ L§ 2 9k3 § k 5$ § ,3 k I § |� L I� I � r w� wx �w �f 6 U � � d 3 o U V c w N N Y 3 N ❑ QQ K JT U_ ❑ Z w Z Q w P I F F FJ{� g Ww J o w� w� w w w� m w w m w��� a °u c'� �� ✓�, x% T J J ` d] i.J-A 25.1�4�?f0�tl � r M 6 U 4 o ~ o r J h LL O a r i I ❑ z � r W R" o W _ LLI W e U _ / R' TI = m Z, W � � a�� u! W H 7 o n w u i u � K� Or A � m g `o C o� 8 Y =o � z � � d 3 o U V c w N N Y 3 N ❑ QQ K JT U_ ❑ Z w Z Q w P I F F FJ{� g Ww J o w� w� w w w� m w w m w��� a °u c'� �� ✓�, x% T J J ` d] i.J-A 25.1�4�?f0�tl i I ❑ z � �a _ _ / Q Z, � � a�� a� o IF• W i f 1 w m L'i � � d 3 o U V c w N N Y 3 N ❑ QQ K JT U_ ❑ Z w Z Q w P I F F FJ{� g Ww J o w� w� w w w� m w w m w��� a °u c'� �� ✓�, x% T J J ` d] i.J-A 25.1�4�?f0�tl W JJJ�rr1 j K � y, yy Z 4¢ W i 3 W i m lJ J I w UW W 4 O z w a Zi w rc g o as W wlx �m19 Im ape CD o $0� y it 0 w o %,OR � G1'pN o �Q Rr w m WHui�� r j3 FL N W U N U) 3 m m}Y zed~W N �ww O YW h 012 Nz i MIyP a W; -i LLdz ca 00 73 W zzw o ! xW wLU: (gJK N �� uG oar S z 2 c ail Y W 1 LU m L O�� pm i n w 0% W p o VIqM n 6 „ S r A W F FF °� mw u u �wuS = I m -t�Z40 c a 5 Re m d M o � a s aw w LU u LLI m �n Y � pmmm K 4 m � p OQ�pWy� J �. W-WNm4W��Oa -, , �d uffc 15 -1-A-I!--!-Id LLI 4 - q a S LL............... ............ ... i..............:... -.-.._....y.-........_-.........--. y-........--..... Z S aF .......... o FE rc O H i w � ..--. ..... ;............. --> --------------- ---------'-------- u+ uJ ei! jr V w z ......---..... 'n it 3 i Ix .m_..._..._...1._..........1........_.__i...... _....... _........._ ....._. _....._ W W O N w�F 1 l-.. ca LL :.. °o~a w K` 1 is c usix3 1 c m wJ� iP ...............�...... ........F 1 l Si19. 01l -1 �.... _.._i..__.�.....j....._...... � ap / . 61'00.;L H3 ( 8 4 m C --` ............. ..i............. L.............. -...... Z o t 2 �� s�� w�ls�0 O ~r �i L � 1 .......- ..... _ .._.._._.....- �.......-_...- - ---. J r ' w o i . w S . f— Lrx ~---....�.._..... ' .... ............. 8 Cq O r... —........ ........... ._......_-._.�]. .._... ....... . ...--..__........ _... ...... ---- g 4 +1 W O to a 4 3 10 O nS g e K 4 i n - _ ' N r vii a(L W e ...............':............... T...... -.......T_.._ .._...... ............ u:a�N J E i o w Z 10 W ..._.. .................... r..._.._. +.... .....;_. .. NIl&X3 1 m -Ij-_...t' ---.;.... .. o W W R' J ?� \ ....�' sox �a i .................... c j4 LL�o x'2r�x LYi + i i tlw _o FU i------------ gti J i i i : s w aLL� w 3�'. OQOi tl tl tl tl J O 4 U• tl tl 2 2¢ bS ? i n_ i uw x w ��oLL W1 W' R. - I M w w w �# S° gam ---------.._.... .............- ' --- ---- v 7- 7- Mo�wQ�Q fq �I ---.....� e, .- L1NN_j � c�ww �N� god � d87 :+mon ajK4 aioJd G v W N F ........---.Y....i......-..._...+..............{.........-.....�............... �......... ..--..i...-._-__ ' �a w0 Wa _..... ............. 'a y m co W d A ^ O & y� J/ gnLn s7 O OWgr %C4 J ill Laid � M Q N zr G v W N F ........---.Y....i......-..._...+..............{.........-.....�............... �......... ..--..i...-._-__ ' �a Wa _..... ............. 'a y m co G LArL C! 71 + d A ^ O & C,!;: G ch s7 O OWgr %C4 u) IL d9c w ill Laid myz zzt,W� zr O W W W fi Inm?7-jw I F If e °z a 3 WO O If y zla O - i � (7 I a HOZ U N F w� � oma w L 6 LL � LL a 6 r� z � O�USl7 wo 0�oo z �wozJ U t -o - P wwFW � wyNs ro° x .06 LU rNm�a F O LL O K i O V gW o12 W�w�� M i gs w d)J3 41000 891Al a!old ........---.Y....i......-..._...+..............{.........-.....�............... �......... ..--..i...-._-__ ' ___I _-__-..T _ ....-.__..... •.-..._...... i 1 __..._.._.i...-._..._...Y....._......_...__._..._i_..._..._. _......_.__._....... ! i ! 3, _..... ............. 3 I I i i 1 ! i i ...................-"......{_....... MLL4Lx3 1 �117Y j i • SL'G1NL !q i � i • i i i 1 i I '---- --..._..._...z.-----------'---...._..-.. ... I ........ 0 ...._--- -- I a S I� i i i 1 i Ido sc� Leo •I ! •14+94 ......._.....i .......... ... ......................_...�._...._. - I ..... .. ! 3 I � � ---_......--.._..._..._..................j...___...-i--------_— - _s_�.........-.--....._ j ! j ------------ ! I 8 o i .—.._..-a-..._.—._i..—_..._.1_......_._.�.....--_...i._.--........�.. Y...i..._ d)J3 41000 891Al a!old W Lr) �C E Z N o 3 den V W fly r O w G 8 z V a dw _ r =o Baa oa y oz w r. o e a ua � WVa'i \\ R ow 0 z c� Fr a wona E Lu Lu Qo� Hrc'UO E o�oo� � u � Z q �J ip a QUW�F C KwwO� - - = G ZZww6 WJwn p V C'i r ry i osssassg I ej� Is to i LU I>�FSij$R��I`� f I � o � w w tolm I z mfr I � z z z x w V VjV V U V U rip syl pan as!M1�d�OJd = � IR 1 c o t� o z c� Fr a Qo� � u � �J ip a m Y s!a r�F H rc�lrc - - = o WIC p V i O r W osssassg I ej� Is to i LU I>�FSij$R��I`� f I � o � w w tolm I z mfr I � z z z x w V VjV V U V U rip syl pan as!M1�d�OJd � K | 0 L 2 i ) mj J gg u 5 z i o 3 T rc� m w d w s x rc x x a 2 4 z qq s F LL O O W o 01 7 u w m K w K S P U a q c} 41 Ili ti� 41 ux1 S W I ,v Lu Lu m w 0 o s co 1 o an Lu N ¢ LU I k a If ae N � IiJ�N�N IQ J Q N O W z-)10-Hw w Lu z L6 u p,�rgz W i m a ~ LLa"WJ �z Z,;Ix 0 z zz W W W J W !I I •1 � ' •� a S W a i DCl � I M � �1 0. a � YW Ld m M F:A UJI Mi \ Fms° '•1 •.�' J i fin 2My�jZ i oAt F- � Or�wx WnO W KV9r um° � rc w ST — sr -... w C 6 O e w g z E w E s C o = C i p o r Z Z # QFY P 0 W N YLLY Y0.Y Y0.Y z O F F F F O i T Js W C O Zi e° u o� m�1vu-, JUN ��w��- \ - n io A d57 :*1-1 -!kL -!-ld di7 X41 -h asiMi �efo�d W G Z 2 w 2 2 I 2 2 H F° C n ;k5 F F F `3 F% w n% n n nE 0 7, 9 �titi �z d L Lu o S Z I s W w O LL i V €Na!� 1. W^bp2 �g �, "—LL- � L W I x oc wp zz r uj / ' / � sgii �2� 89lllo y43F uy1 ts F f Fm < < S w g�j5z5 Ig l/l/11..rrr l'.' ! dl' .g- s Ln w a N ¢ e a< G ate_ N r"ll a Z q _ W a�H1 u F I J s / w 7r id / z zre Yn �I L J�ppH \ Li �.6V7` pp 1p Z. P \�,'1 W W '° w o i rc ng di 2 r H v`'� 1:-l� a Dann O mi�N gm: a moo QQ !2 �Ws q di7 X41 -h asiMi �efo�d a I zm -KID qqq 0'0 0A w q OF �pW K ni =�[�s� �r d W rvp zw O Dm� 40mq pGn�rc SN'w C s o K52�K inr� o07�r c €m0 wF a E!�r¢nwdi sssy��r 3wg zp � r W01 m�39 W a r6,.;; E O 0i rt imz p p Z 00=$ og°�y U' �IF� p a duKi yr Om55rpZ��� �f wFV p Z ��Kr� wKSm Yd24 FO¢O �0.N� w ��8� ]zQ] Og�u u� Utl rL yWyI w [ Z NHH .4'� Z•�K7iM144< �90.�IVF K d 3 cc 01j�� e O fl fOilOmO z 3816 �2 ZAO �pw- 31 opw u�3 z'-fll 01 y�y� yxlp w�W¢ THE `eV �r=�c z mu �21 i'05' "5u53Wtz W Or=90m P !'- m Y R - Y+ 1 �Or2j �0 RZV '. ¢ g z. i? 3 �a Kw p t = C Z ��gp 0.00J€ NQ 60 €0 'z oa 12J9 w 0 KOKp i$. m°iiR�wiww �o- ug�WiC•z WKgVqrJ �j20.1 91.yj 0 K m�w�mG 20="K x°� gadder -r/ a 15 :'j—, asp„.... j.” �K SaSd37.rv- %2 J� u usw pp O rv� w � K K$y wy0J �ni9 VK? o Y 13 r KV ¢q ONE M w J �LL a V n n w a 0 =w uj uj ow Ll Zw a< x U � LL II p W Y IFu ^ Foy p I!ry tl.Y, Ip.1TQ $xg� gY m �V2SW I zm -KID qqq 0'0 0A w q OF �pW K ni =�[�s� �r d W rvp zw O Dm� 40mq pGn�rc SN'w C s o K52�K inr� o07�r c €m0 wF a E!�r¢nwdi sssy��r 3wg zp � r W01 m�39 W a r6,.;; E O 0i rt imz p p Z 00=$ og°�y U' �IF� p a duKi yr Om55rpZ��� �f wFV p Z ��Kr� wKSm Yd24 FO¢O �0.N� w ��8� ]zQ] Og�u u� Utl rL yWyI w [ Z NHH .4'� Z•�K7iM144< �90.�IVF K d 3 cc 01j�� e O fl fOilOmO z 3816 �2 ZAO �pw- 31 opw u�3 z'-fll 01 y�y� yxlp w�W¢ THE `eV �r=�c z mu �21 i'05' "5u53Wtz W Or=90m P !'- m Y R - Y+ 1 �Or2j �0 RZV '. ¢ g z. i? 3 �a Kw p t = C Z ��gp 0.00J€ NQ 60 €0 'z oa 12J9 w 0 KOKp i$. m°iiR�wiww �o- ug�WiC•z WKgVqrJ �j20.1 91.yj 0 K m�w�mG 20="K x°� gadder -r/ a 15 :'j—, asp„.... j.” r a SaSd37.rv- rv� m w J uj uj ow - x U � LL LL u u r LL 1' W w w 0 0 0 o m uu E o o m m a S e u x w ti ti ti U ci . 0 0 a n 0 p 0 0 d d d d d d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z 4 m N LL F aLU i Ir U c� LL LL d n rc a h �n F E r r c p#p G E u u $' j E v w a a x F ti a a a w w w a i c n a i u w w w a a a w w w w w w w w o 0 O � O O ry p n S0 S 2y rt} a} I zm -KID qqq 0'0 0A w q OF �pW K ni =�[�s� �r d W rvp zw O Dm� 40mq pGn�rc SN'w C s o K52�K inr� o07�r c €m0 wF a E!�r¢nwdi sssy��r 3wg zp � r W01 m�39 W a r6,.;; E O 0i rt imz p p Z 00=$ og°�y U' �IF� p a duKi yr Om55rpZ��� �f wFV p Z ��Kr� wKSm Yd24 FO¢O �0.N� w ��8� ]zQ] Og�u u� Utl rL yWyI w [ Z NHH .4'� Z•�K7iM144< �90.�IVF K d 3 cc 01j�� e O fl fOilOmO z 3816 �2 ZAO �pw- 31 opw u�3 z'-fll 01 y�y� yxlp w�W¢ THE `eV �r=�c z mu �21 i'05' "5u53Wtz W Or=90m P !'- m Y R - Y+ 1 �Or2j �0 RZV '. ¢ g z. i? 3 �a Kw p t = C Z ��gp 0.00J€ NQ 60 €0 'z oa 12J9 w 0 KOKp i$. m°iiR�wiww �o- ug�WiC•z WKgVqrJ �j20.1 91.yj 0 K m�w�mG 20="K x°� gadder -r/ a 15 :'j—, asp„.... j.” N W 7 S W R xyx W 5EIx uj K G ¢m OpuN ¢� mZ W d 4�ul < io �h� J Y'� 0 q �i W Fu Wm at Czi W��i1- U J d I2 CL in z5a F 2 rw \ \ W Nia L6 i Ws�up"_p 1AM WL LU H—IIL:.. '2 ti wFym LU w.ras.-I: r n D_ H1d3Q QNIIQOL, =gw 2 [ 12.r x 6iN� a c V s _ hw dint Fll � W 7 'w W y M Q } Io I } o f II❑ �I a5 a� I I oZ �� oZ Oa j J c�i w a ¢ O o a" I rc a ° N I LL m 9 C t N M1 U O w sx _ Ms, > W I oc ❑ rn o aaamz a >- 2 lO U 2z I m m m m oz � I� v l I N v oJ3 I z i a aa3 uj V cr F �- 0 O MEMO! 15 4i!A04!c.d m � z D F-: O U 7 LL f7 m K FRF i [9 N N V i m TWw Ow ==;=z2J. '=p 0 = z LLIOLU r � +w Q AUL UW 5 N cn _j 0 '� le dc tvUlNrljLu _ W Oi� U)Z Q J = LL: IL W r Z 2 Z,ix co W Ui (0) --I co co 0. N l c Hi u O d u en ao V o W y m s m I m 7 w N J U \ wttw r Q� Q i o G kw w s a N a ? caw x N o 2 S N 4 O LL Wwz q N o n w0 J C d Z Y C, 7 q W C OLL z Q LL W LL u o E _ rc w' —mow o " Sa ; a w �" o W o i W �pF w J w O= d ¢ N N W ¢�¢ ; Z lfj Q O N r F Z i U o o w 2'w�w ciFl VFi K Ca a n a n a q .4 E y 3� n I � J O o z x Z o m v a �+ oaz� �5wwoow >> �� �� < o ca c9 az zc� F ❑ o 0 0 o a osxu �����o�? F Q Z W < H?( 7 Ott ✓. w O F O � G W m m 61 W VI a a s ¢' n ��r /� l �. W W[[ w w < w a 0 C7 � _ _ W� O�� n`d`wcsi� qd �ainor as;r+aaio�d fl rtw- O W ti a 0 o LL M N dC F Go 01N O o F LL a W00 F -i r 10 N1 r O YS MW Li aluD I f o r% z cn a x In x c� z Zr, W W�V� J K Vj W Vl Z � x � I! `` x s .99 s � LLi < 37 g. a10 N W U) y{ I J T m C K V I 11 I II $ W � Q x y x a 0U wowo o z W¢ E g _ N g Z�� � p g i n n n g V n p z z z I�i z x z z x x x x F W� n F F F F n n n n ; o o a w C pF�pF�� y�y11 y�y11 W W W W N m W S S Sj Q Y Y n W x 9 K 2 u xUxU 2 Z r# U N W w QJQ a= - L E ops I'Ir- I - =qy:y�� II I I I i I I I I I pp I M �I ill N li 1 WM L" III i I � li ql I I I i I i I � Y la KJ J � z q %x z i s �U Q' J ■� nK s Uo o. qja Us Po IN II z w� Illi l` I II I wnm m ' Kw� I � I l ' I I u LL b FZ 2 M a.F F $w_ m rcI 3w �w kW �w z 0 a F LL H Y W W 1Y r W o C) a yc)w C3 t d WU) pWc ZLL i9 a as � �9 oi. a` N 2nr LLy. O� LL 4 _ O 2 e ops I'Ir- I - =qy:y�� II I I I i I I I I I pp I M �I ill N li 1 WM L" III i I � li ql I I I i I i I � Y la KJ J � z q %x z i s �U Q' J ■� nK s Uo o. qja Us Po IN II z w� Illi l` I II I wnm m ' Kw� I � I l ' I I u LL b FZ 2 M a.F F $w_ m rcI 3w �w kW �w z 0 a F LL H Y W W 1Y r W o C) a yc)w C3 t d WU) pWc ZLL e a f c dRH :41-A asiM;�alo�d i9 a e C ; � S CJ C i y � 3 U t f W Y' m° a q Fi o Q U 0 m lai 4 W � W K w � e a f c dRH :41-A asiM;�alo�d r., F) . 2 Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Crossing of SR 167 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project Renton, Washington for Washington State Department of Transportation January 4, 2012 GEQENGINEERS 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Crossing of SR 167 Thunder Hills Mitigation Project Renton, Washington File No. 0180-251-01 January 4, 2012 Prepared for: Washington State Department of Transportation 600 - 108th Avenue NE, Suite 405 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Ross Fenton, PE Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 r Timothy D. Bailey, PE Geotechnical Engineer Daniel J. Campbel E Principal DJC:TDB:sml:CSV ti . sof, WA .�� 4421)13 Seven copies submitted (one copy also submitted electronically) Disclaimer. Any electronic form, facsimile orhard copy ofthe original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Copyright© 2012 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. GMENGINEERS� Table of Contents INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1 PROJECTSCOPE........................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING...............................................................................2 FieldExplorations....................................................................................................... 2 LaboratoryTesting...................................................................................................... 2 SITECONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................................2 SurfaceConditions.......................................................................................................... 2 Geology................................................................................................................................................... 3 SubsurfaceSoil Conditions...................................................................................................................3 GroundwaterConditions........................................................................................................................4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................4 General................................................................................................................................................... 4 Geologic Hazards............................................................................... LandslideHazard............................................................................................................................5 Seismic/Liquefaction Hazard.........................................................................................................5 Earthwork............................................................................................................................................... 5 Excavation Considerations............................................................................................................. 5 ExcavationSupport................................................................................................................ 5 Over -Excavation Recommendations..............................................................................................6 StructuralFill Materials...................................................................................................................7 Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria........................................................................................8 ShallowFoundations................................................................................................. Allowable Bearing Pressures..........................................................................................................9 RoadwaySettlement............................................................................................................... ............9 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................9 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................... 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. East-West Cross -Section Figure 4. North-South Cross -Section Figure 5. Slope Stability Analysis Results Figure 6. Earth Pressure Diagram for Braced Temporary Shoring APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs GWENGINEER� January4.2012 Pagei Rle Nv CIRID 251 31 Table of Contents (continued) Figures A-2 through A-6 - Log of Boring and Logs of Monitoring Wells Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Figures B-1 through B-6 - Sieve Analysis Results Figures B-8 through B-10 - Atterberg Limits Test Results Figures B-11 and B-12 - Soil Consolidation Test Results Figure B-13 - Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results Appendix C. Technical Memorandum Discussing Trenchless Installation Options Appendix D. Report Limitations and Guidelined for Use Page ii January 4. 20 12 GeoEngineers. Inc. d! Na 1118(1751 DI PROPOSED PANTHER CREEK OULVERTREPLACEMENT GROSSING OF SR 167 Renton, Washington INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the proposed replacement of the existing Panther Creek culvert that crosses under State Route 167 (SR 167). The existing culvert is located approximately 2/3 of a mile south of the interchange with Interstate 405 (1-405) near Renton, Washington. The project site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on Figure 1, Vicinity Map, and the Site Plan, Figure 2, respectively. PROJECT SCOPE The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) completed emergency repairs to the damaged Thunder Hills Creek culvert under 1-405 in the winter of 2007/200$. As part of the permit process for those repairs, WSDOT was required to complete replacement of a culvert that opened a quantity of fish habitat similar to that blocked by the existing Thunder Hills culvert. After it was determined that it was infeasible to complete this work for the Thunder Hills Creek culvert, the Panther Creek culvert below SR 167 near SW 23rd Street in Renton was identified for replacement. We have completed several phases of work for the project. We previously provided a summary of the subsurface conditions and preliminary recommendations regarding culvert replacement options in our technical memorandum dated July 14, 2009. The technical memorandum included preliminary recommendations for cut -and -cover as well as trenchless installation techniques to replace the existing culvert. We also previously provided conclusions and recommendations regarding dewatering considerations in our hydrogeologic report dated January 22, 2010 and conclusions and recommendations regarding geotechnical issues for a cut and cover replacement option in our geotechnical report dated January 21, 2010_ Subsequent to these reports, the project scope changed, with a substantial increase in the size of the planned fish passage structure from about 13 feet wide to 19 feet wide. WSDOT issued Task Order No. AB under Agreement No. Y-10747 for GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) to update our previous geotechnical and hydrogeologic reports to account for the larger fish passage structure. We issued a draft of this report dated December 15, 2011, and this final report incorporates comments received from the project team. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Our understanding of the project is based on our discussions with the project team and our review of the 90 Percent project drawings dated November 2011. Panther Creek crosses under SR 167 from east to west through an existing 72 -inch -diameter culvert that is approximately 190 feet long. The approximate location of the existing culvert is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The existing culvert will be removed and replaced with an GEoENGINEERS January 4, 2012 Page 1 a, 4u 0.8� 2=1 11 PROPOSED PANTHER CREEK CULVER REPLACEMEPrTCROSSING OF SR 167 Renton, Washington approximately 11 -foot 9 -inch high by 19 -foot 2 -inch wide structural plate pipe arch. The bottom 5.5 to 6.2 feet of the pipe arch will be filled with a specified gradation of stream gravels. The proposed pipe arch will be approximately 220 feet long and will be installed along roughly the same alignment as the existing culvert using cut -and -cover techniques during one or two weekend closure(s) of SR 167. According to the 90 percent plans provided by WSDOT, 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) temporary cut slopes and potentially temporary shoring will be used to install the pipe arch. The maximum depth of excavation to reach the invert elevation plus the specified thickness of bedding material is anticipated to be up to 26 feet. Cross sections parallel and transverse to the alignment of the proposed pipe arch are shown on Figures 3 and 4, respectively. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were explored along the proposed alignment of the replacement pipe arch by drilling five borings (PC -01p-09 through PC -05w-09). The locations of the borings are shown on the site plan, Figure 2. The borings were completed with truck -mounted drilling equipment to depths ranging from 301/2 to 601/2 feet below the ground surface. Piezometers (1 -inch diameter) were installed in borings PC -01p, PC -03p and PC -04p, and a 4 -inch diameter pumping well was installed in PC -05w. A monitoring well was not installed in PC -02 completed in the median of SR 167 because of the difficulty associated with reading instrumentation in the median of the freeway. The logs of the recent borings are presented in Appendix A. In addition, a boring drilled near the culvert alignment for a previous project was also used to aid our interpretation of subsurface conditions. The historical log (SRX 1405) is included in Appendix A. Laboratory Testing Soil samples were obtained during drilling and taken to GeoEngineers' laboratory for further evaluation. Selected samples were tested for sieve analyses and the determination of moisture content and Atterberg limits (plasticity characteristics). The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions SR 167 is constructed on embankment fills overlying alluvial soils. The roadway surface of SR 167 is at about Elevation 29 feet in the vicinity of the culvert. The existing embankment on the east side of the freeway alignment has a wide shoulder and then slopes down at an inclination of about 3H:1V (horizontal to vertical). An access road with a much flatter slope extends north over the culvert alignment from the shoulder to a power line easement east of SR 167. The elevation of existing grade within the wetland just east of SR 167 is at about Elevation 14 feet. A fish ladder (series of weirs) consisting of driven sheet piles and a concrete bulkhead is present at the upstream end of the existing 72 -inch diameter culvert. Page 2 January 4. 2012 GeoEngineers. Inc. Fiehu ASO 23191 PROPOSED PANTHER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT CROSSING OF SR 167 Renton, Washington The embankment on the west side of SR 167 is supported with a wire -face wall that was recently completed as part of a widening to the southbound lanes. Wetlands are also present on the west side of the freeway. The surface elevation of the wetland is at about Elevation 10 feet. Standing water was observed west of the SR 167 alignment during our site visits. East Valley Road is a frontage road located approximately 150 feet west of the wire face wall supporting the west side of SR 167. It is also constructed on an embankment fill over alluvial soils. The elevation of the roadway surface is at about Elevation 19 feet. Side slopes on either side of the road alignment are inclined at 3H:1V or flatter. Geology Published geologic information for the project vicinity includes the Geologic Map of King County (Booth et al., 2007). Mapped soils in the immediate project vicinity consist of wetland deposits and alluvium. Wetland deposits generally consist of peat and organic -rich soils. The alluvium generally consists of interlayered sands and gravels and fine-grained soils deposited in an alluvial environment. Organic material is often encountered in alluvium as well. Although not mapped, fill is present along the freeway and adjacent frontage road alignments. Components of the Tukwila (Unit Tpt) and Renton (Unit Tpr) Formations, which are Tertiary bedrock consisting of sedimentary deposits of the Puget Group of the Eocene Age are mapped to the east of the proposed culvert alignment. This unit is mapped on the east valley wall and is not expected to be encountered in the excavation to replace the culvert. Subsurface Soil Conditions There are six borings located near the existing culvert alignment. The boreholes were drilled to depths ranging from 301/2 to 601/2 feet below existing grades. Fill, organic material and alluvium were encountered in the borings to the depths explored. Fill was encountered in the borings drilled through the roadway embankment and generally consists of medium dense to dense silty sand with variable gravel and stiff to very stiff sandy silt. The fill is up to about 17 feet thick and was underlain by organic material and alluvium. The organic material was encountered in the majority of the borings below the fill and generally consists of 3 to 5 feet of very soft to medium stiff organic silt and peat. The organic material was underlain by alluvium generally consisting of interlayered very loose to medium dense sands with variable silt content and very soft to medium stiff silts and clays. The borings were terminated in the alluvium. We developed two cross sections based on the information gathered from the six borings drilled near the existing culvert. Figure 3 shows a cross section with our interpretation of the subsurface information overlaid on the 90 percent design plans provided by WSDOT that parallels the east - west alignment of the culvert. The cross section shows the soft silt and peat encountered in the borings at and below the water table along the alignment relative to the proposed pipe arch invert elevations. Figure 4 is a cross section that runs along a north -south line, paralleling SR 167 near the eastern portion of the existing culvert. Figure 4 includes summary logs for the three borings completed on GWENGINEERS 3anuary4, 2012 Page 3 PROPOSED PANTHER CREEK CULVER REPLACEMENT CROSSING OF SR 167 Renton. Washington the east shoulder of SR 167 and it also shows the soft organic -rich soils extending beneath the existing culvert. Groundwater Conditions Three of the borings (PC -01p-09, PC -03p-09 and PC -04p-09) were completed with 1 -inch -diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) slotted screen and casing assemblies to act as standpipe piezometers or observation wells for measuring groundwater levels. PC -05w-09, drilled at the eastern end of the existing culvert alignment was completed as a 4 -inch -diameter well for a pump test. Groundwater elevations measured in the piezometers ranged between about Elevation 121/2 and 14 feet. In general, groundwater conditions are anticipated to approximately match the elevation of the water level in the adjacent wetlands and will fluctuate as a function of season, precipitation and other factors. A more detailed discussion of the groundwater conditions and recommendations regarding dewatering is presented in our Dewatering Analysis report (GeoEngineers, 2011), CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General In our opinion, replacement of the existing 72 -inch diameter culvert with the proposed pipe arch with cut and cover techniques is geotechnically feasible, provided the considerations and recommendations presented in this report are incorporated in the project planning process. The following is a brief summary of the major conclusions and recommendations. More detailed discussion of these and other issues is provided in the sections below. ■ It will be necessary to dewater the alignment of the proposed pipe arch in order to complete the pipe arch installation with cut and cover techniques. ■ Temporary cut slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2H:1V and may need to be slightly flatter in localized areas. ■ The pipe arch should be supported on a minimum of 2 feet of structural fill: 6 inches of pipe bedding over 18 inches of quarry spalls with a separator fabric above and below the quarry spalls. ■ Provided the pipe arch is supported as recommended, the subgrade will provide the allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf required by the culvert manufacturer. Geologic Hazards There are three geologic hazards mapped near the proposed project including landslide, seismic and potential liquefaction hazards. It is our opinion the proposed improvements can safely be accommodated on the project site if completed in general accordance with WSDOT and City of Renton Standard Practices. Our conclusions are recommendations regarding these three hazards are presented below_ Page 4 January 4. 2012 GeoEngineers. Inc HIP Nn_ 11189251 01 PROPOSED PANTHER CREEK CULVERTREPLACEMENT CROSSING OFSR167 Renton, Washington Landslide Hazard The mapped landslide hazard area is associated with the steeply sloping valley walls that are present to the east of the proposed project site. These slopes are approximately 400 feet east of the proposed pipe arch inlet on the east side of SR 167. It is our opinion the proposed excavation and earthwork associated with this project will not adversely impact these steep slopes. Seismic/Liquefaction Hazard The project is mapped within a seismic and potential liquefaction hazard area. The borings indicate the presence of potentially liquefiable soils in the vicinity of the project. The liquefaction and seismic hazards are present for the existing culvert and the existing SR 167 embankment for a considerable distance on either side of the culvert and will continue to be present following the pipe arch installation. It is WSDOT's general policy not to mitigate for liquefaction and similar seismic hazards for fill embankments and underlying culverts as mitigation is not considered cost effective for these features. Earthwork Excavation Considerations Fill, organic material and alluvium were observed in the explorations. We anticipate these soils can be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as track -hoes or dozers. We understand temporary cuts are planned to complete the culvert removal and pipe arch installation. It is our opinion that dewatering will be necessary to complete the excavation. Our Dewatering Analysis Report (GeoEngineers, 2011) should be reviewed for additional information regarding dewatering the alignment. Loose/soft, wet soils are expected to be encountered during the excavation for the pipe arch construction process. Handling of these soils is expected to be difficult. In addition, because the project is being completed on a freeway during weekend closure(s), the contractor should anticipate limited access and tight working conditions. Excavation Support TEMPORARY SLOPES We understand the culvert removal and pipe arch installation will be completed using temporary cut slopes during a weekend closure(s) of SR 167. We evaluated the stability of temporary out slopes with the computer software program Slope/W. Based on the results of our analysis, we recommend temporary cut slopes be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical). Temporary cut slopes inclined at 2H:1V will have an estimated factor of safety against instability of approximately 1.44 for the dewatered condition depicted on Figure 5. Based on our analysis, it is our opinion that 2H:1V dewatered slopes can be completed while meeting the minimum WSDOT requirements for global stability (WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual 2011). Flatter slopes may be necessary if seepage is present on the face of the cut slopes or if localized sloughing occurs. Since the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. Shoring and temporary slopes must conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. GWENGINEERSJanuary 4. 2012 Page 5 fill• riu. 0380 251 r3 PROPOSED PANTHER CREEK CULVER REPLACEMENT CROSSING OF SR 167 Renton, Washington TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SUPPORT We anticipate any temporary shoring is likely to consist of trench boxes that may be installed to reduce the amount of total excavation required to install the pipe arch, although a braced sheet pile wall might also be considered. Because of the short weekend closure window(s) provided to complete the project, it is unlikely that more substantial excavation support such as tieback soldier pile walls would be utilized. Therefore, we have provided recommendations for at rest earth pressures for assistance in designing braced temporary shoring. Lateral earth pressures for design of braced shoring systems such as trench boxes should be evaluated using the at -rest earth pressures presented in Figure 6. If cantilevered shoring systems are considered, they should be designed using limit equilibrium slope stability analyses to account for a preferred failure surface through) the underlying organic and soft, fine-grained alluvial layers. It is likely that the contractor may decide to use a combination of trench boxes and temporary cut slopes. Therefore, the lateral soil pressures presented in Figure 6 provide recommendations for variable backslope inclinations ranging from 11'2FIAV to 3H:1V. The earth pressures presented in Figure 6 assume that the excavation will be adequately dewatered prior to excavation and that the groundwater table will be lower than the bottom of the excavation. A slope inclination of 1 ARIV is only appropriate within the medium dense to dense embankment fill soils when the excavation below these fill soils is supported with adequate temporary shoring. Other surcharge loads, such as cranes, construction equipment, or construction staging areas, should be considered in the design of the temporary excavation support if the loads are located above the excavation support within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the excavation support elements. In general, we do not anticipate that this will impact the feasibility of completing the excavation in the limited timeframe available. However, the contractor will likely need to make plans to stockpile materials away from the edge of the excavation to reduce the risks of instability of the temporary cut slopes. Over -Excavation Recommendations Peat and organic -rich soils were encountered in the explorations below the invert elevation of the proposed pipe -arch culvert on the east and west sides of 5R 167. In order to reduce the amount of potential post -construction settlement along the proposed culvert alignment, we recommend the organic -rich soils be removed prior to installation. Based on the explorations, we anticipate these soils generally extend down to about Elevation 7 feet, so excavation to establish the pipe arch invert elevations and bedding materials should remove the organic soils. However, the bottom elevation of these soils is anticipated to fluctuate along the alignment of the culvert, and it may be necessary to over -excavate deeper if the organic -rich soils are still present_ If the contractor decides to use trench boxes instead of temporary cut slopes to reduce the size of the overall excavation, it will be necessary to remove additional soft silt and clay below the organic material below the boxes such that the trench boxes are seated in the underling medium dense sand. Otherwise, there is a potential that localized failures within the soft silt and clay below the trench boxes may occur if these soft materials are not removed. While these localized failures would not likely result in loss of roadway or significant slope failures above the box, they may complicate the excavation and fill placement process and could significantly impact schedule, Page 6 January4. 2012 GeoEngweers. Inc 1-4 No 0181253 01 PROPOSED PANTHER CREEK CULVERT REPLACEMENT CROSSING Of SR 161 Renton, Washington particularly if localized failures occurred resulting in heave of the trench subgrade after the pipe - arch was set. The fill placement at the haunches of the culvert is important to providing adequate bearing capacity and maintaining the proper shape of the pipe arch culvert. Localized failures through the soft silt below the boxes into the areas where the contractor will need to place structural fill to support the culvert pipe haunches could significantly delay the installation process and adversely impact the tight time schedules that will be required on this project. Failures could compromise previously placed fill or result in additional excavation to remove material that moves around the bottom of the trench boxes. To reduce the potential for these localized failures, the trench boxes should extend down to the medium dense sand layer typically encountered at about Elevation -5 feet in the explorations. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS It will be necessary to implement a dewatering program in order to complete the excavation for the proposed culvert replacement. Recommendations regarding dewatering are provided in the Dewatering Analysis Report prepared for the project (GeoEngineers, 2011). We understand there are utilities located in the median of SR 167 that the contractor will need to maintain during construction. The locations of these utilities, dewatering pumps and ancillary equipment, construction sequencing and maintenance of traffic will need to be considered in the design of temporary cut slopes or temporary excavation support. Structural Fill Materials GENERAL Materials used as backfill below and around the proposed pipe arch and as roadway embankment fill are classified as structural fill for the purpose of this report. In order to satisfy the pipe arch manufacturer's installation requirements, we have separated our structural fill recommendations for placement adjacent to the pipe arch and in general backfill areas. Structural fill material quality varies depending upon its use as described below. STRUCTURAL FILL PLACED BELOW PIPE ARCH ■ Structural fill placed for the working pad should consist of 4- to 8 -inch quarry spalls as described in Section 9-13.6 of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications. ■ Structural fill placed as bedding below the haunches of the proposed pipe arch should consist of gravel borrow for pipe zone bedding as described in Section 9-03.12(3) of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Material placed within 5 feet of the lateral edge of the lower half of the pipe arch or 2 feet below the bottom of the pipe arch is considered bedding for the purposes of this report. STRUCTURAL FILL PLACED AROUND PIPE ARCH ■ We understand from the 90 percent drawings and discussions with WSDOT that the pipe arch will be backfilled from the haunches to the crown of the arch with control density fill. STRUCTURAL FILL PLACED ABOVE AND WITHIN 5 FEET OF PIPE ARCH ■ Structural fill placed as general trench backfill above the crown of the pipe arch during dry weather should consist of common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3) of the 2010 GEOENGINEERS� ianuary4.2012 Pagel FleND o:;j�,,] G] PROPOSED PANTHLRCRLLKCULVERREP LACEMENT CROSSING OFSIR 167 Renton, Washington WSDOT Standard Specifications. If structural fill is placed during wet weather, it should consist of gravel borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(1) of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications, with the additional restriction that the fines content be limited to no more than 5 percent. Alternatively, the contractor may decide to use control density fill for general trench backfill. GENERAL STRUCTURAL FILL PLACED AT LEAST 5 FEET AWAY FROM PIPE ARCH ■ Structural fill placed as general trench backfill during dry weather should consist of common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3) of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications. If structural fill is placed during wet weather, it should consist of gravel borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(1) of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications, with the additional restriction that the fines content be limited to no more than 5 percent. USE OF ON-SITE SOILS The majority of the soils observed in the explorations generally contain a high percentage of fines (silt/clay) and are moisture -sensitive. The existing embankment fill may be suitable for use as common borrow during dry weather only, provided the soils can be properly moisture conditioned prior to placement. The organic material and alluvial soils will generally not be suitable for use as structural fill - Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria SUBGRADE PREPARATION We recommend the contractor place a minimum of 2 feet of structural fill below the pipe arch to provide adequate subgrade support for the pipe arch. The pipe arch manufacturer should confirm the materials for the structural fill, but we suggest for planning purposes that the structural fill consist of 6 inches of pipe bedding over 18 inches of quarry spalls, with a geotextile separator fabric above and below the quarry spalls. A geotextile separator fabric should be placed at the base of the excavation along the proposed pipe arch alignment as well as between the quarry spalls and bedding material. The separator fabric should be a woven fabric meeting the requirements for Soil Stabilization in Table 3 of Section 9-33.2(1) of the 2010 WSDOT Standard Specifications. We recommend the use of 4- to 8 -inch quarry spalls rather than smaller gravels as the quarry spalls will have more interstitial spaces between the spalls than a comparable volume of compacted gravels and therefore, have a lower unit weight. The lower unit weight will reduce the amount of post -construction settlement that occurs because of the increased weight associated with the excavation and replacement process. In addition, quarry spalls require minimal compactive effort to establish a firm working surface. FILL PLACEMENT Structural fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with Method C of Section 2-03.3(14)C of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. The use of trench boxes by the contractor to reduce the total amount of excavation to install the replacement culvert will need to be carefully considered by the contractor. While the trench boxes will reduce the amount of material that must be excavated to reach subgrade elevations, the Page S January 4, 2012 GeoEngineers, Inr,. E I, Na- 0160251 01 PROPOSED PANTHER GREEK CULVERT RE PLACEWNTCROSSING OF SR 167 Renton, Washington presence of the trench boxes during fill placement will likely complicate the placement procedures. We recommend the contractor provide a plan for WSDOT review indicating the sequencing and methods that will be used to obtain adequate compaction throughout the backfilling process. Shallow Foundations Allowable Searing Pressures The proposed pipe arch will be supported by appropriately shaped and adequately compacted granular bedding material. Assuming the working pad consisting of a separator fabric and the quarry spalls is constructed below the pipe arch and the bedding material is adequately compacted as recommended in this report, it is our opinion that an allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf can be used for design of the proposed pipe arch. Since the pipe arch will be backfilled with control density fill, we recommend that the calculated bearing pressure for the pipe arch footings include the trench width, since the control density fill will help distribute the load. Based on email communications from the pipe arch manufacturer, Contech, dated December 23, 2011, we understand that the calculated bearing pressure considering the effect of the control density fill will be less than 4,000 psf provided the trench width at its base is at least 5 feet wider than the maximum width of the pipe arch. Roadway Settlement The proposed pipe arch and backfill will change the loading on the surrounding and underlying alluvial soils. We evaluated the potential settlement at the roadway surface due to the change in loading. Based on our evaluation, it is our opinion that up to 2 inches of post -construction settlement could occur within one year at the pavement elevation. This settlement would occur over a large area, but differential settlement over a distance of 100 feet could be one-half the total settlement. We recommend that the pavement surface be monitored during the year following construction to identify if settlement occurs and complete any leveling as necessary to maintain adequate drainage. REFERENCES Booth, D.B., Troost, K.A., and Wisher, A.P. Geologic Map of King County (available at http://V-eomaonw.ess.washin ton.edu/services/publications/ma /data/KingCo composite.pdf), 2007. Contech Construction Products Inc., "Structural Plate Design Guidelines," 2009. GeoEngineers, Inc., 2011. "Dewatering Analysis, Proposed Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Crossing of SR 167, Thunder Hills Mitigation, Renton, Washington." GEI File No. 0120-251-01, December 12, 2011. GeoEngineers, Inc., 2005. "Geotechnical Baseline Report, 1-405 Renton Nickel Improvement Project, Renton and Tukwila, Washington," GO File No. 180-173-00, 2005. GEoENGINEERJanuary4. 2412 Page 9 ;A No C180 251 11 PROPOSED PANTHER CREEK CULVER REPLACEMENT CROSSING OF SR 167 Renton, Washington Washington State Department of Transportation, 2010. "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction," 2010_ Washington State Department of Transportation, 2011. "Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit, 90% Submittal," November 2011. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the proposed Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Crossing of SR - 167 located in Renton, Washington and for the exclusive use of Washington State Department of Transportation and their authorized agents and regulatory agencies. Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on GeoEngineers' field observations and chemical analytical data for soil samples from specific sampling locations at the site. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix D, titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use," for additional information pertaining to use of this plan. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please call if you have questions regarding our report. Page 10 January 4. 2012 GeoEngineers, Inc. F 1,= No. 0180 251 H' LO st't'5th CSW ath Fl Sgthpl N°`ase` S 5th Si ¢ Q C 6 T S d SW 71h St j:% S 7th St 7� N C7 ¢ yS a' I T E a GtadY c . a � J SW 16th St ,.52th gt S Renton Village Pl 13 g 14th St $1n1�ih St 5Vd ���� _- \� S 15th St!- Sya SW16thSt $qW-18th -St;, �/ :0 _ Gree .f3', i m m ,e F SE 16th Pl 1 SW 191h St � t � c ` .; C '• 7s S 18th S[ ro � lath Pr m m SW 19th St j S 19th 51 oSITE `' � � �, , � S Puget Or N 22nd Pi SW 23rd St ,i. �� cn i SV, ?A p s m N � SE 160th St a`r m r S 23rd St m wQ o /Renton � w SE 162nd Sr U S # o- U C7 m SE 164th St N ' } sw 27th sl n s= S 20th Sr - S 27th St SSS �� w y =: ~ S 28th PI G* --. S 28th St _ Z ��to 181' i 5 on SE 29th Sl r N Li r 5 fn 31st St nLL ¢ SE 168th St ro ? S 32nd PI g 168th PI $ o o SE 170th Sl S 34th St c� Sw 33rd St S 172nd St Tukwila x I W 167) SF 172nd St a U v i CO en L ' N — ua b 3sihi st m 4 m I ¢' n SE X ♦' i= 6 S 37th St; 174th + L St E m a SW 39th St vii SW LU 4151 St 1 S 177th Sr y w b SE Carr Rd m o a *• v SE 180th St SE 160th S[ ._.. 5,180th'5t........, 43rd St- - ro C:) - O m SE161stSt SE 182nd Sl N O r N � wi: Washington 0 s tv 00 o� i a h 2,000 0 2,000 o Feet 5 .o w V 7M on Notes: a 1. The locations of all feak res shown are approximate tY 2. This drawing is for infor ation purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discus ied in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc- la cannot guarantee thea uracy and content of eEectromc files, The master tL file is stored by GeoEng neers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3- It is unlawful to copy or i eproduce all or any part thereof, whether for 0 personal use or resale, ithout permission W Data Sources SSRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2008 Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 `4= North arrow oriented to gnd north Vicinity Map Proposed Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Crossing of SR 167 Renton, Washington GEoENGINEER� Figure W:1RedmondlProjects101U1802511011CAQ10180251-01-F3_F4.Dwg1TAB. F3 modified on Dec 30, 2011 - 10:Nam A wZ N 0 ID3 � CD U' U n v N Co C ° cr N oca N 3 C N C D5 n m a m m N n 1 o n o � N'-0 ° ° Q - O y' ° y m o: ill N fp p' . N 7' o ° N Q1 N 07 CDrL ° ° -u,< m ° C1 m m o v o m N m CDLa fD N Uj O- rT,-u a (D 0) o'a p � N (D 7 v N SD n' �. n () (p a N n 3 a vc a ° :5@ m m ca Q a o. C, rn o :3 p 0) cr ? m o N. c ID 3 m CL Z 3 W CD N ° CD ID N C) rn — -o w a c a ° ::r ° (D v 3 rn S o ++ CD ° N N -n C j y N n a n m v Q CD S w N N o 0 CL a rn 5' Q ° a w m v n ° Q N N N rn 0 ma r°o 0 � n ( cU p o- -0 -0 CD rn c (O a .3-. X vCLo �ZIw o v 3cc - m n c ? m w a N n p N S0 c (D a � 0. C C N a ° a o nCD o: � N N D0- D N 3 �c Cl.v n v v 3 :3 m CL N o � w 3 o a Er n W ° o C N 5D CD cn3 G) I I I m n 1 C7 Cn I I 00 rn 0 0 Z n m PC -03P-09 CD n M 7 O (CD (D m �. 0 m M *CC @ 0 tA Q)0CD o � PC -01 P-09 Z 7 G- (0 (0 < (7) CD N cD CD 7 Lt O O_ 0 m � r � �r C m C p W Z I I I I :D i I n 1 C7 Cn I I PC -03P-09 0;o oym � Aj r a 70 C) 0 m m_M mzr Zam z 0mr- � � PC -01 P-09 Z p ! Ir O r Z O_ 0 �M r � �r Ox mO Z p Z n rim = z F- m O C) SRX >y � z� I tN0 N v J A RFDMKGO TJM h.] fes) UI O Cn C- ()I (,7 - I� ti N 1� (r ,, o un o u- o r v LEVATION (feel) PC -03P-09 � p ! Ir r I � I 1 SRX � -14-05 I f �I¢ co PC -02-0 3 cn N N v, w 1019 n N g w m of Dm O O I N Cfi �1 v PC -05W-09 I I I I 00 ra e 1 u I � I - I� ti N 1� (r ,, o un o u- o r v LEVATION (feel) Ageoengineers.comlwanlRedmond�Projecis10101802511011CAD10180251-01_F3_F4.dwglTAB'.F4 modified on Dec 14 2011 -1 22prn -a --j? Q m� o w n) c@ 3 ro z -ac coo�3o� �� rn-ix�-� M 7 Al C S d ro S --'-o G -., O S tnn w N ro (O N ro mma U 0 ro MM acs=ro pm y Q t 9I ID [fl Or � O{flQ7 rCC 0 flQ -N O 6 T n a N ON C Q O N _(a N 0 S C6 v C CW N e N moCD 0 N4 n N OmgaQMNm - N O S n :3 O C J'o CL n 5 o o a Q � rB' - `� ro 7 � � O r1 �• m y 77 sn Q p v m o rnL 0 E' n m O> Q O v C S 7 6 O N o v Q a SK U CL N p C (7 N SD O Q -0 0 m N (n -0 Q M C N o o m -a a `n Q a o :3 m �. 0 0 m m o m a n n IMD n c o n m w e 0 m y SD 3 �, N CD Q a N O, i] c m - Cc (D p fG O Q su N ur Co.W co Q rp _� O O N OZ, .N M N'O T N N S 5 [fl n ro O i° C n rN wm m a. rn .cam O 5 f�i N N -No co 3w N 1C Q OQ p 7 I O D REDM'KGGTJM ELEVATION (feet) N CiJ Q O O D m PC -01 P-09 v Lh mTT, �mY co acs pyo Z C �rrlr�� k O o rn-m r� N N N N O O Zorn z rn � Q,CD o O PC -01P-09 I O D REDM'KGGTJM ELEVATION (feet) N CiJ Q O O D m PC -01 P-09 v o rn 0 z N a Z C G) k � N N N N O O z y rn � Q,CD o O PC -05W-09 � N to o ;� 0 � �U o Z O en Z3 V z (D ( j v —n0 G] COD 7 I fD :3 60I n W I O D REDM'KGGTJM ELEVATION (feet) N CiJ Q O O D I D o d o ry y O o ELEVATION (feet) PC -01 P-09 � k � N N N N O O I N Cn y O PC -05W-09 � N � k Z z PC -04P-09 v � l � I I 60I n W I \� yI _ I r-> O C � r D ti. r C D{ C C F r C I D o d o ry y O o ELEVATION (feet) O O O C7 b r , a CD LO E � � L H � U � N v 3 a ii cn C-4 o � m zEl i� o � CD m y j [.77 '� �• � y x ai � ai a O E d OL d m z M z 7ti O O � U U a? �, 0 W Q W 4% Y/ X li ? N _� W!A VJ © w L L 0 is >m O 77 o= (Y L '� W Ca A U1 �_ 0 CIL o rn o cv m U o n? w E O 03O Lo Q7 CV a < N O C 1 a) a _ LD CL O t O c o o a o � O b a O O ^ C U � � ❑ in y O t t o p s o U U ) C3 OO � U v c� U u L) O U Q Q .. CL w E C) lCL y a a, Q a, O L L CL(Uo o 0 CL F- Qty o rn as N ( 3 ur � C 7 F � � U d E a -�� LL rn o " ,D6 u. .-. � c � V o — is — M = U7 U) U] CO U] C:) a, F 0 Lfoaa��a o 0 0 Cl o h 0 0 EEEEEEE m CN zzzzzzz vCD W � d H C U Y LL W K AI OTF C i7; (H) Lateral Earth Pressure (psf) =S) Backslope At -Rest Earth Pressure (la( ) Inclination Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf) Horizontal 55 3HAV 72 2HAV gp 1 1/2H -.1V 86 1. Earth pressure diagram assumes dewatered condition with the water table below the base of the excavation. 2. 1 1/2H: 1V temporary cut slope likely only suitable in the medium dense to dense embankment fill soils. 3. It trench boxes are used to support temporary excavations, the boxes should be seated below organic and soft, fine-grained alluvial soils to reduce the potential for heave of the trench subgrade during Construction. 4. If cantilevered shoring systems are considered, they should be designed using limit equilibrium slope stability analyses to account for preferred failure surfaces through the underlying organic and soft, fine-grained alluvial soils. a Earth Pressure Diagram for Braced Temporary Shoring Proposed Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Crossing of SR 167 Renton, Washington GMENGINEERS Figure 6 APPENDIX A Field Explorations APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling five borings. Borings PC -01p-09 through PC -05w-09 were completed to depths of 301/2 to 601/2 feet below the existing ground surface in June and October 2009 by WSDOT and Gregory Drilling under subcontract to GeoEngineers, Inc. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Borings The borings were completed using mud rotary and hollow stem- drilling techniques with skid- and truck -mounted drill rigs. The borings were continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm who examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. The soils encountered in the borings were typically sampled at 21/2- or 5 -foot vertical intervals with a 2 -inch outside diameter, split -barrel, standard penetration test (SPT) sampler or with 3 -inch -diameter Shelby tubes. The SPT samples were obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soils with an automatic 140 -pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration was recorded. The blow count ("N -value") of the soil was calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N -value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense soil conditions precluded driving the full 18 inches, the penetration resistance for the partial penetration was entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. Soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the boring log symbols is also presented in Figure A-1. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-2 to A-6. A historic boring log completed previously by WSDOT is shown on Figure A-7. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils and groundwater conditions encountered. The logs also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change; although, the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. The densities noted on the boring logs are based on the blow count data obtained in the borings and judgment based on the conditions observed. Groundwater Monitoring Wells Four groundwater monitoring wells were installed during drilling at borings PC -01p-09, PC -03p-09, PC -04p-09 and PC -05w-09. For borings PC -01p, PC -03p and PC -04p, 1 -inch -diameter, schedule 40 PVC pipe was used, with the bottom 20 to 25 feet of the wells being slotted pipe. The approximately 25 to 28 feet of the slotted well screen was backfilled with 10/20 Colorado sand, and bentonite was used to backfill and seal the remainder of the drilled hole. A flush -mount monument was placed at the top of the wells. Installation logs for the monitoring wells are provided on the boring logs indicatingthe screened interval and the total depth. GEoENGINEER January4,2012 PageA-1 F, 1s N". 0l8C. 25: 0: SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS Percent fines _I AL nt Concrete GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS Chemical analysis O(Forest CP O WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, CRAVEL- CS ed Rock/ CLEAN �� °I (jw SAND MIxTuREs ■ Shelby tube GRA'JEL GRAVELS f1 J MC Duff/Sod AND MD Moisture content and dry density — OC GRAVELLY 11—LE OR NOFINLS,° ° ° PM MORI.Y-c;HADLDGRWELS 3RnVEL.. PP 4 o L. VP SAND MI%'"URES Sieve analysis SOILS N O O Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression — 4 VS Vane shear Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or COARSE distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight GRAVELS WTH �a i GMSIL-Y GRAVELS.GRAVEL- NAND -sLT GRAINED MORE THAN 5C•%4= EINE$ SS MIATORES SOILS COARSE FRACTION Moderate Sheen drill rig. HIS Heavy Sheen RETAINED ON NO 4 NT Not Tested SI"W IAPPRLCWtlIE AMWIR CLAYEYGRAVELS,GRAVELSANG- aFFINES, 0 GC CLAY IAXTJRES sw wEu IIAn[❑ SANDS. GRAVELLY CLEAN SANDS saNu�s MORE THAN 5^ SAND RETAINED ON NO AND rUTTLE OR NO'MESj 20D SIF VE SANDY SP POORLY GRADED SANDS. GRAVEI I Y lLs SOILS SAND MOR "TIAN 50% OF SANDS SMITH SM — SILTY SANDS SANDSriT MIA1 URES COARSE FRACTION FINES PASSING INC. A— SIEVE IAPPREGm LE AMOl1NT SC CLAYEY S4Np5. SAND - CLAY OF FINES MIY.TURFS • INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOOR, ML CIAYEY SILT5KNTH SLIGHT PLAS7Icin SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF 0411JOLIMr CL GLRA MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY FINE GRAINED AND CLAYS I FSS THAN.A CLAYS. SANDYCLAYs. sILTYCLAYs, LEAN CLRYS SOILS OL ORGANIC HILTS AND ORGANIC SILIY CLOYS OF LOYJPLFSTI(:ITY MORE THAN 5054 PASSING NQ?00 I I MH pD pI�jANCEDU5IC 5SM TY S6�Ls5 OR SIEVE SILTS LIQUID DMR INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH AND GREATER THAN 50 / / CH PLASTICITY CLAYS OH I ORGANIC ClAY5 ANO SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT. HUMUS.NwAMPSOILS7A7H = HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER Sampler Smbol Descriptions %F Percent fines AL nt Concrete ® 2.4 -inch I.D. split barrel CA Chemical analysis O(Forest CP lt Concrete Standard Penetration Test (SPT) CS ed Rock/ DS Spalls ■ Shelby tube HA oill MC Duff/Sod Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer Groundwater observed at time of exploration Perched water observed at time of exploration Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic Loss Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit Material Description Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units _ _ _ _ Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit NOTE', The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions - Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GE4ENG!NEERS /,' FIGURE A-1 Laboratory 1 Field Tests Sampler Smbol Descriptions %F Percent fines AL Atterberg limits ® 2.4 -inch I.D. split barrel CA Chemical analysis CP Laboratory compaction test Standard Penetration Test (SPT) CS Consolidation test DS Direct shear ■ Shelby tube HA Hydrometer analysis MC Moisture content ® Piston MD Moisture content and dry density OC Organic content Direct -Push PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity PP Pocket penetrometer Bulk or grab ® SA Sieve analysis TX Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression VS Vane shear Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or Sheen Classification distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. NS No Visible Sheen SS Slight Sheen A "I indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the MS Moderate Sheen drill rig. HIS Heavy Sheen NT Not Tested NOTE', The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions - Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GE4ENG!NEERS /,' FIGURE A-1 Start End Drilled 6!312009 6/3/2009 Total 40 5 Logged By NCS Depth (ft) Checked By lDriller Drilling Mud Rata 6 -inch OD WSpQT ry G EO E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Method Casing Hammer Automatic Drilling LC -55 Drill Ri g Data 140 (lbs) 130 (In) Drop Equipment A 1 {in) well was installed on 6/19/2009 to a depth of 40 (ft). Well was developed on 57312009- Surface Elevation (ft) 26 - Top of Casing Vertical Datum Elevation (ft) 14 Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water ft Elevation (R1 Lasting (X) 1298186.7 S Stem Northing (Y) 170458.2 Datum Washington State Plane 1983 North 6/19/2009 12 14 Notes. JI FIELD DATA WELL LOG I a m c m c t s MATERIAL Locking .7. -plug a o a d a, J o m DESCRIPTION m Steel t w Q m m a. 3 m N E L a- � o o y Surface w ❑ S � 1d O 4 m u Ui 7;❑y., 2 m } D C7 0U 7U L y ❑a D \ \ 2q 5vf Brownish gray silty tine to medium sand with \ �V \ occasional gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill) f\ Concrete surface IJ Irl I 2 ,�\ seal Ia 25 ' Grades to silty fine to coarse sand with gravel 5 ,t0 Bentonite seal 314" 15 Ib 3 1 Grades to silty fine sand with occasional gravel chips 1 -inch Schedule SA 40 PVC well I; 16 4 _ : SA'UT11- [iy_hrown silty, clayey fine to coarse sand with r 18 casing 10 c, si It lavers (1!2"-1 1/2" thick) and oecasinnal 10.6 gravel (medium dense, moist) %F=52 A 1 i Cl. Gray sandy clay (very soft, wet) (alluvium] 30 5M-YtI. AL, %F-52 _ _ _ _ _ — 12 15 6 Gray silty fine to medium sand/Sandy silt with 21 q 9 ri 7 woody debris (soft, wet) 15.0 UA Shelby refused on wood debris at t 5 feet 12 ' X Food fragments _ — — _ _ — — — J 143 Brown organic silt with fibrous organic material (soft, moist)22 r 9 ` L 40 79 20 w --------- ---,r Gray sandy silt (medium s1ifT, moist) 5 Alf _ UC.. CS 3 10 ML 50 Gray silt with fibrous organics and sand lenses . w 18 22 II .••. •• 51'-SA'i _ (soft, wet) (A] - ) 24 .••;.•. Dark brown fine to medium sand with silt lenses (rnedium dense, wet) (SA) 25 0 10120 Silica sand s backfill = _ Mf Gray silt with occasional fine to medium sandlLw'--1 -inch Schedule z lenses (very soft, wet) 40 PVC screen, y ]X 1 12 0.02 -inch slot 3a width h d _ SU Gray silty tine to rnedium sand {loose, wet) E 19 4 13 .• 51Gray Cine sand with gravel and trace silt (medium dense, wet) l8 77 14 - as 40.0 113 -inch {slug 40.5 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols - Log of Monitoring Well PC -01 P-09 Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing G EO E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 0180-261-00 Sheet 1 of 1 Start Drilled End Total 60.5 Logged By NCS Driller WSDOT REMARKS Drilling Mud -Rotary 6 -inch OD 6/8/2009 6!912009 Depth (h) Checked By KGO �U ❑� Method Casing Surface Elevation (fl) 28 um sand with gravel Hammer Automatic Drilling LC -55 Drill Rig Vertical Datum Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 1298107.7 System Groundwater Northing (Y) 170473.1 Datum Washington State Plane 1983 North Date Measured Depth to Water ft Elevation (ft) C, wet) Notes: Aith 51brous organics 6/8/2009 13.5 14.5 ERIAL Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing OPTION= Project Location: Renton, Washington REMARKS Figure A-3 Project Number: 0180-251-00 Sheet 1 of 2 011 �v 00 �U ❑� um sand with gravel ith [:ravel (vcn stilt; 1; to medium sand with C' moist) ]3 y with gravel (Stitt 6 to medium sand with 13 C, wet) 136 Aith 51brous organics {alluvium) 201 n_ stilt, moist) tsand — — 31 (i5 rel)— (medium dense, wetj i sand with silt {medium td (medium dense, wet) sand with occasional T Log of Boring PC -02-09 Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing GEO E N G I N E E R Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 0180-251-00 Sheet 1 of 2 011 45 51' -SIM Gray fine to medium sand with silt (medium dense, wet) 16 13 1' ;L 50 SMI —GraySilty tide to medm s ivand with occasional shell fraLments (medium dense, we[) 16 1 12 1 16 55 St' -SM Gray fine is medium sand with silt and amawl (medium dense, wet) 12 24 I; fi0 Y Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symttols. Y o- REMARKS L C N ❑ 0 o c� �U ❑a Log of Boring PC -02-09 (continued) FIELD DATA Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 s MATERIAL s a E v o w a z „ J v J U DESCRIPTION 7 L w 2 C _ N m m U C dl Q 7 y a S rnF 0 CSU 40 h 9 13 14 45 51' -SIM Gray fine to medium sand with silt (medium dense, wet) 16 13 1' ;L 50 SMI —GraySilty tide to medm s ivand with occasional shell fraLments (medium dense, we[) 16 1 12 1 16 55 St' -SM Gray fine is medium sand with silt and amawl (medium dense, wet) 12 24 I; fi0 Y Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symttols. Y o- REMARKS L C N ❑ 0 o c� �U ❑a Log of Boring PC -02-09 (continued) Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing G EO E N G I N E S RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 0180-251-00 Sheet 2of2 Start End Total Drilled 6/912009 6/9/2009 Depth (tt) Hammer Automatic Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Surface Elevation (ft) 20.0 Vertical Datum Easting (X) 12978983 Northing (Y) 170476,9 Notes: 40.5 Logged By NCS Driller WSDOT Checked By KGO Drilling Equipment LC -55 Drill Rig Top of Casing 12 0 Elevation (ft) System Datum Washington State Plane 1983 North Drilling Mud -Rotary 6 -inch OD Method Casing A 1 (in) well was installed on 511912009 to a depth of 310 (ft) Wellwas developed on 61912008 Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water ftElevation J0 6/19/2009 6.0 14.00 Log of Monitoring Well PC -03-09 Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing WELL LOG Figure A-4 Project Number: 0180-251-00 sheet 1 of 1 Locking MATERIAL J plug DESCRIPTION a Steel E Surface _ mO �m \ \ �\ y fine to medium sand with gravel rm dense, moist) (fill) Concrete surface seal 17 bentonite seal -own fine to coarse gravel with silt, id trace organics (loose, moist) (fill) 3 -inch Schedule 40 PVC well -d debris 301 7.0 casing ,n peat with silt seams (veru soft, moist) am) fine to medium sand 29 91 10.D sand with Ir2" to 1 1/2" silt layers 34 wet) 10120 Silica sand backfill silty fine sand with stratified silt layers I V2" thick) (loose, wet} %F=4$ 36 1 -inch Schedule — 40 PVC well titP, moist) 1s5) screen, 0.02 -inch slot width o medium sand with silt and trace woad debris (medium dense, wet) :ane tomedium sand with occasional tnd wood debris (louse, wet) 30.0 end cap plug Bentonite seal iltv fine sand (medium dente. ivvll 1 1 40.0 Log of Monitoring Well PC -03-09 Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing G EQ E N G I N E E R Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 0180-251-00 sheet 1 of 1 16 IS 2 9.0 FIELD DATA With occasional organic matter WELL LOG _ .� S n R v � 0 � 4 MATERIAL-p+ug looking o w v aj o c Z m � 10'20 SIIICa Sand z i 18 1 440 DESCRIPTION ° w AL Flush -mount w > a } w w 3 0 u m n E s w nN o m= >= N ❑ steel monument LU ❑ d' m 'O U N to 3 0 6 C7 (J UU 30 N p N ❑ Q i Note' See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. a Log of Monitoring Well PC -04p-09 Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing GM E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Project Number; 0180-251-00 \ \ Sheet 1 of 1 Stir Brown silt- fine to medium sand with occasional \ \ gravel and organic matter (medium dense. Concrete surface moist) (fi11) seal 15 SM Brownish gray silty fine sand with occasional gravel orange mottling (medium dense, moist) 16 Io I - Bentonite leaf 5 - 1 -inch Schedule 40 PVC well . casing Fn :I 16 IS 2 9.0 With occasional organic matter 5M Gray silty fine t0 medium sand with trace organic matter (very 100$10, wet) (allodium) 3 4 3 x 0 w c� G� Y Mi. OraV silt with trace organic matter 10'20 SIIICa Sand z i 18 1 440 1 -inch schedule 40 iti3 �' 20 AL PVC screen. 0 -02 -inch slot - E v width SI' Dark brown to medium sand with occasional E gravel and trace silt (medium dense, wet) ' 14 16 5 SA 24 O 25 7 3 0 6 Becomes very loose 29.0 end cap plug 30 i Note' See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Monitoring Well PC -04p-09 Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing GM E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Project Number; 0180-251-00 Figure A-5 Sheet 1 of 1 e Start End Total 40.5 ' Logged By RNM Driller GregoryDrilling Drilling Drilled 10/7/2009 101812009 i Depth (fl) Checked By MAPK g Method Hollow stem Auger/SPT Hammer Automatic Drilling Truck -mounted CMF 75 l ' Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment A 4 (in) well was installed on 10!812009 to a depth of 39 (ft). Surface Elevation (K) 25.1 Top of Casing 248 Well was developed on 10/812009. Vertical Datum Elevation (h) Groundwater Depth to FasDate Measured Water fl Elevation (fti Northing (( SystemY} Datum Undetermined 10/12/2009 12.7 12.4 Nor Notes. Auger Data: 4.25 inches LD 1 PTX Pressure Transducer Log of Monitoring Well PC -05w-09 FIELD DATA Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing G Eo E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 Project Number: 0180-251-00 Sheet 1 of 1 WELL LOG v a a w p Q MATERIAL locking J -plug o o Z a �_ .� DESCRIPTION o _ Flush -mount o 7 Q p a y Q S' y y aj ❑ Steel monument y N W Q m C 2' o U m ? 2 2 m (Do m o �, Vii a 0 \ \ SUI Brown silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel and trace organic matter (medium / / Concrete surface dense, moist) (till) 1.5 seal 12 27 1 ti� 5 UtL Gray to brown with occasional orange mottling sandy silt (very stiff, moist) Rentonite seal 1s 17 2 �h 10 4 -inch schedule 40 OLT I Dark brown organic silt and peat (medium siiff, PVC well casing moist) (alluvium) IS 5 3 185 ^� 15 R11 Gray silt with sand and trace organic matter (eery' soft, wOI 18.0 18 2 4 5 20— 0SPlack S Pka—C kfine to medium sand with trace silt (medium dense, wet) 1 20 5 10120 silica sand 25 Chau clay with sift (v'ery soft, wet) 4 -inch schedule 40 PVC screen, 18 o 6 •• 0 02 -inch slot h 30 1 width SM Gray silty fine to medium sand+'ilh occasional gravel 4loose, wet) a 1R 5 7 24 35 SA SN -SM Gray fine to medium sand with silt and gravel gg p end cap plug (medium dense, wet)39 = Native soil (heave) 6 22 R 14 p 0 40 SA Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Note: See Log of Monitoring Well PC -05w-09 Project: WSDOT/Panther Creek SR 167 Crossing G Eo E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-6 Project Number: 0180-251-00 Sheet 1 of 1 APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and examined to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate index properties of the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing consisting of moisture content, sieve analysis, consolidation, and determination of the unconfined compressive strength and Atterberg limits (plasticity characteristics). The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other applicable procedures. Moisture Content Testing Moisture content tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Sieve Analyses Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The wet sieve analysis method was used to determine the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the sieve analyses were plotted, classified in general accordance with the USCS, and presented in Figures B-1 through B-6. Atterberg Limits Testing Atterberg limits testing was performed on selected fine-grained soil samples. The tests were used to classify the soil as well as to evaluate index properties. The liquid limit and the plastic limit were estimated through a procedure performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The results of the Atterberg limits testing are summarized in Figures B-7 through B-10. Consolidation Tests One-dimensional consolidation tests were conducted on relatively undisturbed soil samples. The consolidation testing was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 2435, using a fixed -ring consolidometer. The results of the consolidation tests are presented in Figures B-11 and B-12. Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests An Unconfined compressive strength test was conducted on a relatively undisturbed soil sample from boring PC -01p-09. The testing was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 21.66-06. The results of the unconfined compressive strength test are presented in Figure B-13. GEOENGINEERS� January 4. 2012 Page B-1 File lac GIST "1 01 T C) C) 0 a r G Q � O Q F_ a n 0 0 T ����—i-----`-----�L�w • CD • . .. GEOENGINEER� :1 TF ^■ m F - Z O W CD Q CL Z) / X Z o U Li] 0. � z G a J O p f C Lu W J a Z c'^ G V 0 0 T ����—i-----`-----�L�w • CD • . .. GEOENGINEER� :1 TF ^■ m F - Z O W O Q CL Z) / X Z o U ui 0. m C G a J O w J W a G 0 0 T ����—i-----`-----�L�w • CD • . .. GEOENGINEER� :1 TF ^■ m F - Z O �W m O Q CL Z) / X Z o U ui 0. m C G J O 00 SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS FIGURE B•9 n n ai n a� (A O OD N U Z U z 0 0 u� N O co 0 • v� a m y C a Z 'w O "111111111111"1'1' + Q �3 C lL N r17 m G 11111111111111111111 • 0 9 d� w cmv D . ..... .. . .... .... . .. O� �w m O U � a� z _n O x c� w a O m . !!tel il �liil�!! "111111111_ 001111 • 1 1'11111 11'11'1'11'1 ii �i iii moi! ii !iii i!i i • 11 11/11111 11111 111 11 i!�!lii��iil�iiil�!! • 1 11111 111 11 111 111111SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTSGEoENGINEERS��r v� a m y C a Z 'w O r Q �3 C lL N r17 m G 0 9 d� w cmv D z O� �w m O U � a� z _n O x c� w a O m . 0 0 0 O 0 0 4 0 C) O O O O O C) Q3 00 f— (D ll) 1�r m N r 1HOIDAA h8 JNISSVd 1N30�13d GEOENGINEER� O 0 Is (n C� N N a y rn m L_ L Z C C O N (6 F N N EE I T3 vJ E E Qo a U c t T T 40 (0 Mal .0 - N N C C 0 0 OD 00 T a;2L', z O Of c �w m o0 02 N N a z a CLLliJ 0 *13 r N SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS FIGURE B-3 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 O T O CD 00 ti (D LO �t m N T T 1HJ13M A9 !DNISSdd 1N30HE]d GEOENGINEERS� t� 0. C7 N U C `0 m ca ca C N z _O � !q U — L U Q U m J 0] � N U1 N O U O m O t N SO a� v w z 0� V Lu rn �m 02 J O d 0 w a w J 0 Co SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS FIGURE B-4 a n 4i m A T ci 0 O r I.. .- C) C) C) O 0) CD 000 � (D O� It M N T 1HOIDAA Ag 3NISSVd 1NDO�IAd GEOENGINEER� CD SIEVE ANALYSIS RESULTS FIGURE B-6 O C) O is E 0 Cf) � H a rn � O W C1 � � N 0 m O � N U C N 0 O N 0 a . N O Z r oa LoN r2 N W o - - 0 V �o U W N 0 F � d Q W � Z M � co Q �� X� o U w N Q N o . } N O O N O O CD U 0 a' U 0 H Q � r J a a o o o rcc o b � O C) 0 Ln 0 p a V _ •.�° V O0 co .. .. O N 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N r O M M I- (O LO 't M N T T T T T X30N1 kil01-LS'v9d ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-7 GEOENGINEERS / O is E z O � H a � o � O W C1 � � t 3 O � N U C 0Y O O a U_ Y f' w � Z r oa r2 N W o �� r �o U W F � d Q W � Z � co Q �� X� o U w a o . } F- C) C) C) vl Q a CD 0 r� 0 rn N coQ N 0 ti N 0 - to N 0 Ln N O N O N O N 0 CN o 0 N O m O O 0 to LaO ro0 v O Q O o L r O o B, a0 o m Lo o J O CD 0 0` J ..•�.� o co O 0 O W P- co u') co O N O O X3aNI ,kil0llS'v9d GEOENGINEER� ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-8 O y U C f6 m O Z _O H � CL If U W � N J U O C 6 O Q C 3 O m ~ o X 0 Q J Z a- ❑o 7 v � a O � N J W F- LU w W W 20 w= �w <� O_ ti F ofLu m o dD Z CN O X V LJ a. m } ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-8 O O J V T N l6 Z � L _ o rn a 3 � � U U C W y in (C6 N � I T t0 ar _ L N 0 a o O ~ 0 _ U m 2�6 � N O Z � O J F f— � 0 m W Q p �o Z U =- 2 �m o O� U XZ o 0 0 �z IL a J m r 04 U J 0 7iL- CD Q J � J J �Q W o L. 0 Z o J O NLuCL IL O (D O t� N o 0 x�ONI kll0IlS�d co GEoENGINEERS ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-9 _ � N O Z � O J F � W Q p •^ Z �m o O� o XZ U w a J m r 3 d CD 0 r � U U p Q W 0 d N J_ O � N R �o w � Z a - o o� J - J W Z N� 02 �O U W = J � � d O W N ♦ a Z O O co o J O� J � p 2 \-Oj U Lu IL 60 0 m J O CJ L n 1 H 2co U J o � D U_ i— � Q o J tl C) O N O 0.0 co o M o 0 0 X-3ONI All:DIlS'dld GEOENGINEERS ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-90 3 d � U U p Q W 0 d N J_ O � N R �o w � Z a - o o� J - J W Z N� 02 �O U W = J � � d O W N ♦ a Z O O am o J O� J � p 2 \-Oj U Lu IL 0 m J CJ L 1 3 d � U U p W d N J_ O � N R �o w � Z a - o o� J - J W Z N� 02 �O U W = J � � d O W N Q Z O � v am o � O� J � p 2 X U Lu IL 0 m r DAER Bright People. Right Solutions - SOIL CONSOLIDATION ASTM: D 2435-04 PROJECT: Geo -Engineers, Panther Creek LOCATION: Panther Creek MATERIAL TYPE: Sandy Silt SAMPLE SOURCE: PC -1, S-9 @ 19.0' to 21.0' SAMPLE TYPE.: Shelby Tune Extraction SAMPLE PREP.: J. Revard PROJECT NO: 0180-251-00 LAB NO: 8932 DATE REPORTED: 7/7/2009 PREFORMED BY: R. Hogg/J. Revard REVIEWED BY: J. Regard Vertical Strain versus Stress Vertical Stress - psf 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0.00 2.00 4.00 -------- 6.00 -6.00 8-00 10-00 --- 12.00 FIGURE B-11 Vertical ,aMadhlmi Ho (in) 1.000 Vertical:.' Step r Stress Deflectlans Str.a ao ~ 100 No: -1 i_t fl . �In. ' _ �1n,1 . [Its) . F (% 100 -0.0001 0.0128 0.9871 1.29 2 500 0.0012 0.0159 0.9724 2.76 3 1000 0.0019 4.05 0.0136 0.9595 _. ---- 4 --- -- 2000. _. 0.0035 0.0129 10.9482 _ 5.18 5 4000 + Q 0058 O.Q168 0.9337 6.63 ---- --- --- 6 8600 11 6.0085 Y .. 0.0215 _ 8.50 - 0.9150 7 10.74 - - 16000 0.0134 0.0273 0.8826 8 8000 0.0695 10.28 0.8972 9 2000 0.0047 9.98 --0.0060 - .0078 0.9002 10 + - 0.0021 500 9,_56 f -0.0067 0.9044 - �- -0.0032 0.9070 9.30 111 100 0.0014 FIGURE B-11 Kt E/NFEt DER Bright People. Right Solutions. SOIL CONSOLIDATION ASTM: D 2435-04 PROJECT: Goo -Engineers, Panther Creek LOCATION: Panther Creek MATERIAL TYPE: Silty Sand SAMPLE SOURCE: PC -3, S-4 @ 19.0' to 21.0' SAMPLE TYPE.: Shelby Tube Extraction SAMPLE PREP.: J. Regard PROJECT NO: 0180-251-00 LAB NO: 8934 DATE REPORTED: 71712009 PREFORMED BY: R. Hogg/J. Regard REVIEWED BY: J. Revard Vertical Strain versus Stress Vertical Stress - psf 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0.00 1.00 2.00 - 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Step No: Vertical .. Stress . {psfl Machine, Deflectioc�s } iln 1. Ho (in) * .goo t1n 1.000Vertical. tao ' [in .. . Stralri (eioj 1 100 -0.0001 0.0070 0.9930 0.70 2 400 0.0010 0.0096 0.9834 1.66 3 900 0.0017 0.0081 0.9752 0.9671 2.48 3.29 4 1800 0.0032 0.0081 5 3000 0.0049 0.0038 0.9633 3.67 6 8000 0.0085 0.0160 10.9473 5.27 7 16000 0.0134 0.0174 0.9299 7.01 8 8000 0.0095 -0.0053 0.9351 6.49 9 2000 0.0047 -0.0081 0.9432 5.68 10 400 0.0021 -0.0067 0.9499 5.01 1C 1 100 0.0014 -0.0011 0.9511 4.89 FIGURE B-12 KLE/NFELOER Daacbmkedby _C29= D= _ 7Z7 d� Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results ASTM D2166-06 PROJECT: GEO-ENGINEERS, Panther Creek LAB SAMPLE NO.: 8932 PROJECT NO.: 0180-251-00 SAMPLE NO.: PC -1, S-9 a 19.0'-21.0' PROJECT LOCATION: Panther Creek SAMPLE DESCRIP: Shelby Tube Extraction SAMPLED BY: Client DATE TESTED: 71712009 DATE SAMPLED: Sample wesk Type REPORTED BY: R. Hogg Tare Weight ) 99.52 Dellecdoo inch Diameter (in) 2.85 Wet specirnen Weight + tHt ) 1157.60 Area (in') 6.37 Dry cmen Weight + tare (g) 851.53 He' t (in) 6.05 Weight of Water () 306.07 Valnme (in) 38.56 Weight of Dry Specimen (0 752.01 Maximum Load, P s) 69 Weight of Wet Specimerkw Specimen1058.08 Compressive Strength (PSI) 11 Water Content a 40.7 Unit Weight Wet f) 104.5 0.80 Unit Wei hl Dry fl 74,3 Sample wesk Type Intact 1.02 I Fraoture Other Break Comments: 0.00682 1.25 NOTE: UD ;o 2.0 ASTM stataa that the failure stress must haves correction tactor applied. Axial Loadfibs) Dellecdoo inch Axial Strain neh/inch Compressive Streaa PS 0 0.000 0.00000 0 4 0.009 0.00149 0.59 5 0,020 0.00330 0.80 6 0.030 0.00497 1.02 8 0.041 0.00682 1.25 9 0.052 0.00861 1,43 11 0.068 0.01120 1.71 18 0.111 0,01826 2.85 25 0.153 0.02521 3.94 32 0.195 0.03220 5.17 40 0.238 0.03925 6.35 47 0.280 0.04621 7.50 58 0.349 0.05772 9.20 67 0.455 0.07524 10.76 69 0.561 0.09270 10.98 57 1 0.652 0.10773 9.05 40 0.740 0.12224 6.33 Compressive Stress versus Axial Strain Plot 12 10 CL 4 E 0 U 2 0 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.050 0.100 0.120 e�ial Af min flnrhAnrhl FIGURE B-13 APPENDIX C Technical Memorandum Discussing Trenchless Installation Options r t f f� 'S t' GEoENGINEERS MEMORANDUM 8410154"" AVENUE NE, REOMallo. WA 98052, TerePHone (425) 861-6000, Fax: (425) 861-6050 www.geoengineers.com TO: Anthony Stirbys, PE and Ross Fenton - WSDOT I-405 Team FROM: Dan Campbell, P.E- and Kimball Olsen, P.E. DATE: July 14, 2009 SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Considerations for the SR 167 Panther Creek Culvert Replacement PROJECT DESCRIPTION This memorandum presents preliminary geotechnical considerations for the proposed replacement of an existing 72 -inch diameter culvert. The existing culvert extending below northbound and southbound SR 167 is being replaced with a fish passable culvert as part of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project. The approximate culvert location is depicted on the attached Site Plan. The existing 72 -inch diameter culvert is approximately 190 feet long and provides drainage across SR 167 for Panther Creek. As currently envisioned, the existing culvert will be removed and replaced with an approximately 8 -foot tall, 12.7 -foot wide, steel plate, elliptical culvert. The pipe will be underlain by at least 2 feet of bedding material, and the bottom 4 feet of the culvert will be filled with a specified gradation of streambed gravels for fish habitat. We understand the proposed culvert will be approximately 220 feet in length. The conceptual plan is to install the new culvert using open trench techniques during weekend closures of SR 167. According to the preliminary plans provided by WSDOT, 21-1: IV (horizontal to vertical) temporary cut slopes would be used to install the culvert. The depth of the excavation to reach the invert elevation plus an additional 2 feet for bedding material is anticipated to be on the order of 22 feet. Because of the extent of the excavation that would be required to construct the new culvert using open trench techniques, tunneling options may also be considered. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS EXPLORATION PROGRAM Subsurface conditions near the culvert alignment were evaluated by drilling three new borings, designated PC -01-09 through PC -03-09, to depths ranging from 40 to 60 feet below the existing ground surface. Piezometers were installed in borings PC -01-09 and PC -03-09 along the northbound (east) shoulders of SR 167 and East Valley Road, respectively, to monitor groundwater levels. In addition to the new borings, a historic boring (SRX -14-05) completed as part of the Renton Stage I design -build project and located near the alignment was used to aid in assessing subsurface conditions. The locations of the borings are shown approximately on the Site Plan, and logs of the borings are attached. DSCLAiMER: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Memorandum to WS DOT 1-405 Team July 14, 2009 Page 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Our interpretation of subsurface conditions along the alignment is depicted on the attached cross section (Figure 2). Two distinct soil units were encountered in the explorations, namely roadway embankment fill for SR 167 and East Valley Road and underlying alluvial soils. The embankment fill generally consists of medium dense to dense sand with gravel and varying amounts of silt. The upper 3 to 7 feet of the alluvial soils encountered immediately below the embankment fill in the borings consists of soft, compressible, tine -grained silt, organic silt and peat. As can be seen in the cross section, it appears the soft, compressible soils generally extend up to 8 feet below the proposed culvert invert. The alluvial soils encountered below the soft, fine-grained soils consist of inter -layered loose to medium dense sand with variable silt content and soft to medium stiff silt. The depth to groundwater in the borings ranges from about 6 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface, which generally corresponds to about 4 feet above proposed culvert invert elevations. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS PRIMARY GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES The primary geotechnical issues are the underlying compressible soils and the relatively high groundwater level. Theses conditions will impact the design and construction of both open -trench and tunneling options. These conditions will significantly impact excavation geometry and shoring for open - trench methods, and necessitate ground improvement for most tunneling options. A discussion of the potential impacts of these conditions on the various alternatives and associated mitigation are presented below. OPEN TRENCH ALTERNATIVES Non -Dewatering Option As currently envisioned, the open trench alternative would include excavation of at least 2 feet below the proposed culvert invert to place bedding materials. The excavation for the 2 feet of bedding might result in the removal of the soft compressible soils below a portion of the alignment, but in other areas it appears up to 6 feet of soft soils would remain. Because of the poor support conditions provided by these soils and the strong potential for differential settlement along the pipe if these soils were to remain, we recommend they be over -excavated from below the pipe alignment and replaced with structural fill. The depth to completely remove the soft compressible soils from immediately below the pipe is anticipated to range from 2 to 8 feet below the pipe invert for total excavations depths ranging from 22 to 28 feet below the existing ground surface. The lower 6 to 12 feet of the excavation would extend below the static groundwater level. If the alignment is not dewatered prior to completing the excavation, the stability of the cut slopes will be significantly impacted. We estimate cut slopes below the water level would need to be inclined 3H:1 V (horizontal to vertical) or flatter to provide a stable excavation. Above the water table it may be feasible to incline temporary cut slopes 1'/:2H: IV. Assuming a base width of about 19 feet, the top of the excavation would be on the order of 110 to 145 feet wide for excavation depths of 22 to 28 feet. Total Memorandum to WSDOT 1-405 Team July 14, 2009 Page 3 volume of material to be excavated would be on the order of 55 to 100 cubic -yards per lineal foot of trench length (in place volumes). In addition to effectively increasing the size of the excavation, attempting to install the pipe below the water level increases the difficulty of construction, likely resulting in lower quality construction and more time required to complete the installation. To support the portion of SR 167 that would remain open, the side of the excavation perpendicular to the pipe alignment and parallel to the traffic lanes would need to be shored. The height of the shoring would preclude the use of conventional cantilever shoring systems. Shoring can also be used to support the sides of the excavation in line with the pipe to reduce the volume of excavation required, but like the end condition, the heights preclude the use of cantilever shoring systems. The presence of the high water table will also impact the shoring design as driving forces will be higher and resisting forces less. Whether the excavation is made using open cuts or shoring, in our opinion it is likely not feasible to complete the installation over two weekend closures. However, we recommend the opinion of an experienced contractor be sought to confirm this assessment. Dewatering Option If the alignment were adequately dewatered, the soft compressible soils would still need to be over - excavated and replaced with structural fill, but cut slopes as steep as I V2H:l V might be feasible over the entire excavation height. The steeper cut slopes would reduce the width of excavation at the roadway level to approximately 85 to 105 feet. Total volume of material to be excavated would be on the order of 40 to 65 cubic -yards per lineal foot of trench length (in-place volumes). Like the non-dewatered option, shoring can be used to reduce the size of the excavation parallel to the culvert alignment. Shoring would still be needed perpendicular to the culvert alignment to support the travel lanes on the opposite side of the freeway where the work is taking place. The driving forces would be less and the resisting forces greater for the dewatered condition, so the shoring system would not need to be as stout as the non-dewater alternative. But it would still need to be a robust shoring system because of the depth of the excavation. Conditions for removing the unsuitable soils, placing bedding and backfill materials, and laying the pipe would be significantly more favorable for the dewatered condition. All things being equal, the quality and speed of construction would be better for the dewatered case. The conditions for installing the culvert along a dewatered alignment are significantly more favorable than for a non-dewatered alignment. However, in our opinion the size of the excavation and the need for shoring the end of the excavation still render it unlikely the culvert could be placed in two weekend closures. Again, we recommend a contractor experienced with similar installation conditions be consulted to assess constructability given the timeframe available for construction. Memorandum to WSDOT 1-405 Team July- 14, 2009 Page 4 TUNNELING OPTIONS General Tunneling options have a significant advantage over open trench methods because the highway would not need to be closed to complete the installation. However, the direct costs of tunneling are typically much higher than open cut techniques. While it is possible to install a non -circular culvert using tunneling methods, it is considerably more difficult than installing a circular culvert. For the purposes of this discussion it is assumed the new culvert would be circular should a tunneling option be selected. The tunneling options generally fall into the following categories: • Pipe ramming • Jack and bore tunneling • Open shield tunneling • An earth pressure balance tunneling machine Pipe Ramming Pipe ramming consists of jacking a pipe completely through the embankment and then excavating out the interior of the pipe following the ramming. In our opinion, the length of the alignment (in excess of 200 feet) precludes the use of pipe ramming for this project. Jack and Bore Jack and bore methods consist of jacking a pipe into the ground and then using an auger to excavate out the spoils from inside the pipe. Typically a soil plug is maintained within the pipe to help control stability and keep ground from flowing into the open pipe. As soil is augured out from the interior, the pipe is jacked further through the embankment and the process is continued until the alignment is completed. Because of the potential for flowing conditions and subsequent loss of ground, the alignment should be dewatered prior to attempting a jack and bore tunnel. Jack and bore techniques are limited to a maximum diameter on the order of 6 feet. Therefore, to use jack and bore techniques for the Panther Creek culvert replacement, multiple pipes would be needed to achieve the required capacity. We understand the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife is not in favor of using multiple culverts instead of one large one, so jack and bore tunneling is probably not an option. Open Shield Tunneling Open shield tunneling is similar to jack and bore tunneling except instead of using an auger to remove spoils from the pipe, the soil is mined by hand and with small equipment that will fit inside the pipe. Culverts in excess of 12 feet in diameter can be installed using open shield tunneling. Like jack and bore tunneling, a soil plug is typically kept in the pipe at all times while the pipe is advanced and the spoils removed. Because of the potential for flowing conditions and loss of ground into the pipe, the alignment should be dewatered prior to commencing open shield tunneling. Memorandum to WSDOT I-405 Team July 14, 2004 Page 5 Earth Pressure Balance Tunneling Baring Machine An earth pressure balance tunnel boring machine (TBM) has a closed face that can impart pressure to match the earth and hydrostatic pressures on the other side of the tunnel face such that dewatering is not required to complete the tunnel. The cutting tool at the head of the TBM rotates and cuts through the soils at the face of the tunnel and deposits them within the interior of the pipe for removal, typically through the use of hand labor and small equipment tilling muck carts. Site Geotechnical Considerations Project constraints such as the length of the culvert and the desire to install one large culvert instead of multiple smaller pipes leaves open shield tunneling or using and earth pressure balance TBM as the most suitable tunneling options. The primary difference between the two is that the open -shield tunneling alternative requires that the alignment be dewatered in advance of tunneling while the alignment does not need to be dewatered for the earth pressure balance TBM. However the cost per foot of pipe installed will be significantly higher with the TBM. Both tunneling options would encounter a rnixed-face condition along the proposed alignment with soft compressible soils along the bottom edge of the tunnel and medium dense to dense sandy embankment fill along the upper portion of the pipe. It will be difficult to maintain alignment through this mixed -face condition as the pipe will tend to deflect downward into the soft soils. To control the alignment, we recommend that ground improvement by means of a grouting program be completed to stiffen the underlying soft soils. Grouting the fill soils immediately above the crown of the tunnel is also advisable to help prevent loss of ground and associated surface settlement. With the open -shield method, the grouting could be completed from within the pipe as the tunnel is advanced in stages. For the TBM method, the grouting would likely need to be completed from the ground surface in advance of the tunneling. Both tunneling methods require a stout reaction frame to jack against to advance the pipe. The native soils through which a jacking pit would be constructed are soft/loose, and the static water level would be above the base of the jacking pit. Therefore, a cofferdam and dewatering would be required to construct the jacking pit. We envision a series of solider piles (steel wide flange beams placed in a concrete filled shaft) would be required to create the reaction frame at the back end of the jacking pit. SUMMARY The open trench culvert installation methods likely will have significantly smaller direct costs, but come with the high indirect cost of highway closures. We are currently of the opinion that the pipe cannot be installed during only two weekend closures of the highway. Tunneling methods will have higher direct costs but have the advantage that they can be completed without closing the highway. Based on our current understating of the site conditions, we recommend that dewatering be completed for both open -trench construction methods and if an open shield tunneling method is selected. The alignment would not need to be dewatered if an earth pressure balance TBM is used, but this is the most expensive option discussed herein. Memorandum to WSDOT 1-405 `ream July 14, 2009 Page 6 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL TASKS • Complete global slope stability analyses to confirm the excavation geometries described above for the open trench methods can be made while maintaining adequate safety factors. These analyses are part of our current scope of work and are in progress. • Consult a contractor experienced with open -trench culvert installations similar to those described above regarding constructibility over the desired two -weekend closure. • Complete a dewatering assessment to better understand potential volume of gn'oundwater flow into the excavation, develop conceptual dewatering plans, and estimate the dewatering draw- down influence zone and associated impacts. In particular, the impacts of dewatering on the adjacent wetlands and the potential to cause settlement needs to be more thoroughly evaluated. These tasks are not included in the current scope of services. Enclosures: Figure l — Site Plan Figure 2 Cross -Section Appendix A - Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Testing L 41 408 '0 f � o �rONAL ' f2 APPENDIX D Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use APPENDIX D REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE' This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Washington State Department of Transportation and other project team members for the Proposed Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Crossing of SR 167. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Is Based on a Unique Set of Project - specific Factors This report has been prepared for the Proposed Panther Creek Culvert Replacement Crossing of SR 167 in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you, I Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org . GEOENGINEERS ianuary 4, 2012 Page D-1 FI044 01K25l61 PROPOSED PANTHER CREEK CULVER REPLACEMENT CROSSING OF SR 167 Renton, Washington a not prepared for your project, a not prepared for the specific site explored, or a completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: ■ the function of the proposed structure; ■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; ■ composition of the design team; or ■ project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report- Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over -rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Page D-2 January4.2012 GeoEngineers.lnc. File Na 6181) 251-C7 A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule_ Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties. GEoENGINEERS� January 4. 2012 PageD-3 Filc No. V 18 251 D1 Have we delivered World Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting www. geoengineers.com/feedback. GMENGINEER� n JAN J 2 20111' Washington State Department of Transportation Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit Critical Areas Study January 2012 500 108th Avenue NE Suite 1200 Bellevue, WA 98004-5549 fal (425) 450-6200 Table of Contents 1.0 Summary...................................................................................................1 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit r Critical Areas Study 1.1 Project Introduction............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 1.3 Critical Areas Impacts......................................................................................... 1 1.4 Mitigation.................................................................................................. 2.0 Project Description....................................................................................6 2.1 Project Background............................................................................................. 6 2.2 Project Elements................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Applicable Regulations..............................................................................8 3.1 Federal Regulations............................................................................................ 8 3.2 State of Washington Regulations........................................................................ 9 3.3 Local Regulations............................................................................................... 9 4.0 Flood Hazard Areas.................................................................................10 4.1 Study Methods...................................................................................................10 4.2 Results...............................................................................................................10 4.3 Project Impacts ................................................ .............10 5.0 Wetlands.................................................................................................14 5.1 Study Methods...................................................................................................14 5.2 Results...............................................................................................................17 5.3 Wetland Functional Assessment........................................................................25 5.4 Project Impacts..................................................................................................28 6.0 Streams and Lakes..................................................................................33 6.1 Study Methods...................................................................................................33 6.2 Results...............................................................................................................34 6.3 Project Impacts..................................................................................................37 7.0 Habitat Conservation Areas.....................................................................39 7.1 Study Methods...................................................................................................39 7.2 Results...............................................................................................................39 7.3 Project Impacts........................................................... ..-................................... 45 8.0 Mitigation................................................................................................46 8.1 Mitigation Sequence..........................................................................................46 8.2 Avoidance and Minimization..............................................................................46 8.3 Rectification.......................................................................................................47 9.0 References..............................................................................................50 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit r Critical Areas Study List of Tables Table 1 Impacts in Areas of Special Flood Hazard...................................................................13 Table 2. Wetland Rating Systems for the Thunder Hill Creek Mitigation Project Study Area — Cityof Renton..........................................................................................................16 Table 3. Summary of Required Wetland Buffer Widths in the Thunder Hill Creek Mitigation ProjectStudy Area...................................................................................................17 Table 4. Wetland Size, Rating and Classification for Wetlands in the Study Area.....................17 Table 5. Functions and Values of the East and West Panther Creek Wetlands ........................26 Table 6. Permanent and Temporary Wetland Impacts in East Panther Creek Wetland in the City of Renton........................................................ ....28 Table 7. Summary of the Water Typing System in the Thunder Hill Creek Mitigation Project StudyArea...............................................................................................................34 Table 8. Summary of Stream Buffer Widths in the Thunder Hill Creek Mitigation Project Study Area................................................................................................................ .......... 34 Table 9. Summary of Streams in the Project Area.....................................................................35 Table 10. Monitoring Report Recipients. .............. ................................................................ 48 List of Figures Figure1 Vicinity Map..-.,.-... ...................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Areas of Special Flood Hazard................................................................................11 Figure 3 Wetlands and Streams at Proposed Culvert 72 Replacement Site._.. .................... 19 Figure 4 Wetlands and Streams at the Proposed Panther Creek Channel Relocation Site ... 21 Figure 5 Habitat conservation areas, streams, and lakes......................................................41 Appendices Appendix A. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Culvert and Stream Restoration and Enhancement Plans.. ................................................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B. Biological Assessment Update for 1-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project................................................................................................................. B-1 Appendix C. Wetland Delineation Methodology and Data Forms ............................................ C-1 Appendix D. Site Photographs................................................................................................. D-1 Appendix E. WDOE Wetland Rating Forms............................................................................. E-1 Appendix F. WSDOT Wetland Functions Data Forms_ - _ . ....... ............................................... F-1 Appendix G. NHC Hydraulic Analysis...................................................................................... G-1 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit Critical Areas Study i Lq 1.0 Summary 1.1 Project Introduction Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to construct the Fish Barrier Retrofit project as mitigation for emergency repairs to the Thunder Hills Creek Culvert (C 52) located under 1-405. The proposed mitigation has been designed to meet the culvert replacement conditions of Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on March 3, 2008, for emergency construction repairs to C52. The proposed project consists of three major components: (1) replace the fish ladder and culvert at C72 at State Route (SR) 167 milepost (MP) 25.69 with a fish passable culvert; (2) relocate the Panther Creek channel between culverts C65 and C66 near SR 167 MP 24.70; and (3) fill and plug C65 and C66. This document has been prepared to comply with the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC). It addresses critical areas as defined in the RMC that occur in the project area and may be impacted by project construction, and discusses the methods that have and will be used to best avoid, minimize, and mitigate those impacts. The proposed project is expected to result in a net benefit to aquatic habitat in the Panther Creek watershed since the project components would improve salmon habitat limiting factors that have been identified for this watershed. 1.2 Existing Conditions Environmental critical areas that occur within the proposed project area include flood hazard areas, geologic hazard areas, habitat conservation areas, streams and wetlands. Geologic hazard areas are discussed in a separate Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoEngineers (2011). There were no aquifer protection, coal mine hazard, erosion or landslide hazard areas identified in the project sites. The project area is located within the 100 -year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the project site is not located within any area mapped as floodway. Two wetlands —East and West Panther Creek Wetlands (also known as Wetlands 24.7R and 25.5L, respectively) - are located in the immediate vicinity of the project area. The East Panther Creek Wetland is classified as a Category I wetland based on the City of Renton's classification system, and also meets the definition of a Habitat Conservation Area per the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance. The West Panther Creek Wetland is a Category III wetland based on City of Renton's classification system. Panther Creek, a Renton Class 2 stream, divides into East and West Forks near the south portion of the project area. The East Fork of Panther Creek flows through C72, and the West Fork flows through C65 and C66. 1.3 Critical Areas Impacts Construction of the proposed project would result in modifications to flood hazard areas, wetlands, streams and habitat conservation areas in the project vicinity. Modifications to geologic hazard areas are discussed in GeoEngineers (2011). Construction of the project within City of Renton flood hazard areas would result in a net increase in flood storage volume within the 100 -year floodplain. Wetland impacts within the City of Renton resulting from non-exempt activities would be limited to temporary removal of vegetation in the East Panther Creek Wetland. There would be no direct Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit Critical Areas Study 0 This page intentionally left blank. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit Critical Areas Study ;'.w�! i .tRenton 4 E max. 'T W; SeaTac ft�_ CV90 Project Location SeaTac Kent !a_ r IT 1 Y . • f•• • I i y 1 R Replacement a OL .. # s t t � y i ��f • � +i �� # � }. raj � t • r yTj k �' Ort t 71 MFL�j #fit# ` • _ �� moi-:' 40 1c � - �� !- • fir, �T 'wf�_�' .' �,. HR This page intentionally left ,blank. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit Critical Areas Study temporary or permanent impacts to the West Panther Creek Wetland within the City of Renton, or to any wetland buffers within the City of Renton. Direct temporary and permanent impacts to streams due to project construction would occur entirely within WSDOT ROW. Re-routing of Panther Creek from C65/66 to the East Panther Creek Wetland would result in beneficial changes to flow regimes in the East and West Forks of Panther Creek, which have been designed to improve aquatic habitat in Panther Creek. 1.4 Mitigation The Thunder Hills Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit has been designed to avoid or minimize impacts to critical areas wherever feasible. In addition, engineering design standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to limit the effects of construction within critical areas. Several minimization and conservation measures would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to wetlands, streams, and habitat conservation areas within the project site in the City of Renton. Mitigation for temporary impacts to wetlands within the City of Renton would consist of revegetating all disturbed areas with native vegetation appropriate to the wetland habitat. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit b Critical Areas Study Im. 2.0 Project Description 2.1 Project Background In early December 2007, WSDOT Culvert (C) 52, which conveys Thunder Hills Creek under Interstate 405 (1-405), collapsed due to record rainfall_ The culvert collapse resulted in slope failure and the formation of a large sink hole along the southbound shoulder of 1-405 in the vicinity of the 48 -inch cross culvert. The location of the sinkhole threatened the 1-405 southbound mainline, and the culvert failure prevented the upper portions of Thunder Hills Creek from being safely conveyed under 1-405. Emergency construction repairs were approved under the conditions of a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on March 3, 2008 (NWS -2008- 87). Replacement of the damaged culvert was completed in December 2008. The USACE permit requires WSDOT to "complete the replacement of a culvert that will open a quantity of fish habitat similar to that blocked by the existing 1-405 Thunder Hills Culvert within 3 years of the issuance of the permit." Additionally, WSDOT is required to "provide mitigation for the filling of 150 feet of Thunder Hills Creek and 15 feet of the unnamed tributary to Thunder Hills Creek." On March 26, 2010, the USACE revised the condition of this permit by extending the required completion date by two years to March 3, 2013. WSDOT determined that it was not feasible to provide a fish passable culvert at C52 during the emergency repair effort. Fish passage mitigation was then evaluated at alternative locations in the 1-405 Renton Nickel project area that drain to the Springbrook Creek subbasin, as required by the permit. WSDOT identified three culverts with upstream habitat that have approximately equivalent habitat to Thunder Hills Creek. C65 and C66, which drain into the West Fork of Panther Creek near State Route (SR) 167 Milepost (MP) 24.70, were identified as partial barriers (HDR 2009). C72, which drains the East Fork of Panther Creek near MP 25.69, was also identified as a fish barrier (HDR 2009). Field review of culverts C65 and C66 resulted in suggesting that culvert C72 would be most appropriate for opening fish habitat (HDR 2009). The USACE, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have concurred with WSDOT's proposal to provide mitigation for the Thunder Hills Creek emergency culvert repair by replacing C72 with an approved fish passable culvert, permanently blocking C65 and C66, and implementing stream improvements in the vicinity of these culverts. 2.2 Project Elements Key construction elements of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project are as follows: • Fill and plug C65 and C66 with controlled density fill (CDF) concrete. The ends of the culverts will be buried as part of the filling of the existing channel described above. This element is within WSDOT right-of-way (ROW). Relocate the section of West Fork Panther Creek channel between C65 and C66 as part of mitigation for filling 150 feet of Thunder Hills Creek and 15 feet of the unnamed tributary to Thunder Hills Creek. The new channel meanders and its centerline will vary between 40 and 80 feet east of the existing channel, and has been sited to avoid future planned roadway improvements along SR 167. In total, 760 lineal feet of new stream channel would be created. Stream flow from the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 6 Critical Areas Study FLR mainstem of Panther Creek would be diverted into the newly excavated stream channel, which would extend approximately 160 feet north of C66 and tie back into an existing stormwater discharge channel. Following construction of the new section of channel, the area would be replanted with native vegetation. The existing channel downstream of C65 along SR 167 will be filled in as requested by WDFW and replanted with native vegetation. In addition, an existing storm drain will be reconstructed to connect to the relocated West Fork of Panther Creek. • Remove the existing fish ladder and culvert at C72, and replace it with a fish passable arch culvert. Vegetation in East and West Panther Creek Wetland in the vicinity of C72 would be temporarily cleared to allow for adequate construction staging and access. Open -cut trenching through SR 167 would involve removal of pavement and traffic barriers, and one or two weekend closures of SR 167. The existing culvert and fish ladder would be removed, and the new culvert would be assembled on-site and installed. SR 167 would be restored to pre -project conditions, and disturbed wetland areas would be revegetated with native woody vegetation. Selected sheets from the 100% plan submittal are in Appendix A. The project will be constructed in summer 2012. All in -water work, including dewatering and fish exclusion, is anticipated to occur between June 15 to September 30, contingent upon WDFW approval of work windows. Pending refinement of construction details with the contractor, equipment anticipated to be used for the project includes concrete and pavement grinders, pavers, graders, dozers, backhoes, air wrenches, generator, cranes, pumps, concrete trucks and dump trucks. During open -cut trenching of SR 167, traffic from northbound SR 167 will be detoured to Lind Avenue SW and traffic from southbound SR 167 will be detoured to SR 181 (West Valley Highway/68th Avenue South). Potential maintenance of the arch culvert and relocated stream would be limited to removal of any blockages that may develop in the culvert or replacement of streambed material from scour. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit Critical Areas Study FM 3.0 Applicable Regulations Wetlands, streams, and other sensitive resources in the project vicinity are subject to federal, state, and local regulations_ The following sections outline the regulations for each of these three levels of government_ 3.1 Federal Regulations 3.1,1 Clean Water Act Wetlands and streams are considered Waters of the United States. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates placement of fill in Waters of the United States, and is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). As discussed in Section 2.1, the fish barrier retrofit is part of the special conditions for NWS -2008-7 3.1.2 Endangered Species Act 3.1.2.1 I-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project Biological Opinion Projects with the potential to affect threatened and endangered fish and wildlife must be evaluated in accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Replacing C72 with an approved fish passable culvert, permanently blocking C65 and C66, and implementing stream improvements in the vicinity of these culverts are elements of the Stream Rehabilitation 2 and 3 objectives detailed in the Draft Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan (PCWRP, WSDOT 2007a). The PCWRP was evaluated for ESA compliance in the 1-405: Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2) Biological Assessment (WSDOT 2007b) and Biological Opinion (BO; NMFS and USFWS 2008; NMFS #2007104219; and USFWS #13410-2007-F-0416). HDR (2011a; Appendix B) determined that all potential impacts on currently listed species or critical habitat have been considered in the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project BA and NMFS/USFWS BO. Thus, re-initiation of consultation with the Services will not be required. 3.1.2.2 FEMA Flood Insurance Program Biological Opinion The City of Renton is a participating jurisdiction in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). As such, the City must demonstrate compliance with and implementation of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) outlined in the September 22, 2008, Biological Opinion for the Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the Puget Sound region as issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The City has elected to implement Option 3 "permit by permit" review for projects located within the floodplain, until such time that a different approach is decided upon. The City either requires the applicant to provide a habitat assessment ("Biological Assess ment/Criti ca I Areas Study") that determines that the development project will not have an adverse effect on endangered species or the applicant must provide concurrence from the Services that the project is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Per FEMA (2011) guidance, there are only two circumstances where a habitat assessment would not be required: 1. Projects that are listed as exempt from conducting a habitat assessment in the community's floodplain management ordinance; and Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 8 Critical Areas Study FDR 2. Projects that have undergone Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in order to obtain a federal permit. As discussed above, the proposal is an element of the 1-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project, which has received concurrence from the services for ESA compliance. Thus, based on the guidance above and the City of Renton's Code Interpretation dated October 17, 2011, the proposal does not require a floodplain habitat assessment (Timmons pers. comm. 2011). 3.2 State of Washington Regulations 3.2.1 Washington State Department of Ecology Activities that affect wetlands and streams may require a water quality certification (CWA Section 401), which is implemented at the state level by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Projects located within any of Washington's 15 coastal counties and requiring a federal authorization, certification, approval, license, or permit are required to comply with the Coastal Zone Management Act which is implemented at the State level by Ecology. The work authorized under NWP 23 issued for this project complies with Ecology's Water Quality Certification and CZM requirements for this NWP. No further coordination with Ecology is required for these requirements (Kennedy 2008). 3.2.2 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Activities that use, divert, obstruct, or change the flow of a Water of the State, including some wetlands, may also require a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is responsible for implementing HPAs under the State Hydraulic Code for the purpose of protecting fish and other aquatic life and the habitat that supports them. 3.3 Local Regulations Local regulations related to critical areas include provisions of the shoreline management act and local critical areas ordinances. These regulations are discussed in greater detail below. None of the waters crossed by the Project is considered Shorelines of the State (WAC 173-18-180). Therefore, a Shoreline Substantial Development permit will not be required. The City of Renton (2011) regulates activities in wetlands, streams, and other critical areas and applicable buffers outside of WSDOT right of way (ROW) under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title 4. The City of Renton will review the West Panther Creek channel relocation as a Critical Area Variance, and the replacement of Culvert 72 as a Critical Area Exemption (Timmons 2009). Critical area classifications, required buffer widths, and mitigation requirements for the City of Renton pertinent to the proposed project are discussed in further detail in the following sections. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit Critical Areas Study FM - 4.0 Flood Hazard Areas 4.1 Study Methods The City of Renton regulates all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of the City. Areas of special flood hazards are defined as "the land in the floodplain subject to one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year." The special flood hazard areas are identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Renton, dated September 29, 1989, and any subsequent revision, with accompanying flood insurance maps. HDR evaluated the presence or absence of flood hazard areas within the project area based on review of existing documentation. Existing documents reviewed included: • City of Renton (2009) Flood Hazard Map • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 1995) Flood Insurance Rate Map 4.2 Results The majority of the project area is classified by FEMA (1995) as a Zone AH special flood hazard area (Figure 2). Zone AH flood hazard areas are defined as an area inundated by the 100 -year flood with flood depths of 1 to 3 feet, usually as areas of ponding. FEMA (1995) establishes the Zone AH elevation at 16 feet NGVD29 (19.556 feet NAVD88). None of the project area is located in an area mapped by FEMA (1995) as floodway. 4.3 Project Impacts 4.3.1 Impacts within Renton Areas of Special Flood Hazard Construction of the project in Areas of Special Flood Hazard would comply with all applicable performance standards per RMC 4-3-050(1). All design and construction methods would be in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting the provisions of the RMC based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications, and plans. Construction of the Project would result in a net increase of approximately 74.4 cubic yards (CY) of floodplain storage within the City of Renton (Table 1). The downstream impacts of the new fish passable culvert and plugging of culverts C65 and C66 is discussed in the Hydraulic Report (HDR Engineering Inc. 2011 b) prepared for this project. The design of the new culvert and stream channel follows the WSDOT Hydraulics Manual, Highway Runoff Manual (HRM) and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife criteria for fish passage. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 10 Critical Areas Study '� ■'fir' " " ; J .ti' 7Ll1L� 414;+i • �e + y ,li y '! L iI g + "I tg 'ISL-. ti "RJII C« L• _moi+ is. u� f� . f r-i�., lir unl�rnwOW -Ir - 0 1: OPMa low ta a4` ` II s 1 ■ 1, iA - i1 I-.•s.`-"•' • + Rr�•k1 ' c' ' �r ''' F '•{1 ., fly. p Aysvw' Ila � ,•. r" r �, may., i�� I,Y,� •� I ''�.+5�''��xy� � �. p - 1• :r-ql� � 1 �1 �' I .100 . � '� it ;s�. } s .1 •� ' 4- ��'R" h �„ ��� + ;� r I ta'a1 L a-"lege . •^s F � - m i'�`�-= ''gm"� .,'r' it 14 OF 1 NNW _� ","�� F ' •� STD- { it �.�; `1 1 g� k �' � '- - 40a . s•yi , r 1r. : IMF T Ali V. 41P W911- 40 F Jv Y I', s. r,,,,�rI1--:-sl��� — 77 .� .�. ,may i' � S'.• 'y, _ Iui.i�l .l. .�.'.�� - FDR Table 1. Impacts in Areas of Special Flood Hazard Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 93 Critical Areas Study FDR 5.4 Wetlands The City of Renton (2011) regulates nonexempt activities on sites containing or abutting regulated wetlands, which include: "Wetlands... defined by Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M4a. Wetlands created or restored as part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. (RMC 4-11-203)." The City of Renton does not regulate: "artificial wetlands intentionally created for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, or landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway." Drainage ditches also are not considered regulated wetlands. A two step process was used to determine the presence of wetlands and streams in the study area. In step one, HDR staff reviewed existing environmental documents. The initial document review was followed by delineation and additional field investigations of wetlands within the study area. These steps and the results are discussed in detail below. 5.1 Study Methods 5.1.1 Document Review HDR Staff reviewed the following existing environmental documents to determine the presumed presence of wetlands and wetland functions in the project study area: • City of Renton (2011) Landlnfo • National Wetland Inventory Web site maps (hftp://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/wtinds/launch.html) • Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington (USDA NRCS 2009, Snyder et al. 1973) • Best Available Science Ordinance Review (Parametrix 2004) • Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan — Draft (WSDOT 2007a) • Biological Assessment for 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 -- Phase 2) (WSDOT 2007b) • 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2): Ecosystems Discipline Report (WSDOT 2007c) • WDFW (2008) Priority Habitat and Species List • WDFW (2009, 2011) Priority Habitat and Species Maps 5.1.2 Field Investigation 5.1.2.1 Wetlands The project area was evaluated for the presence of wetlands using the three parameter methods described in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) as updated by the Western Mountains, Valleys and Thunder Kitts Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 14 Critical Areas Study i aq Coast Region Regional Supplement (USACE 2010). The USACE delineation methodology is consistent with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (WDOE 1997), as required per RMC 4-3-050.M.4. A more detailed description of the field methods used in this study is provided in Appendix C of this report. HDR biologists delineated wetland boundaries within approximately 100 feet of the C72 culvert replacement and Panther Creek Channel relocation sites in June 2009. HDR biologists also established 7 transect lines in the East Panther Creek Wetland (Figure 1) and collected quantitative and qualitative vegetation, soil, and hydrology data in June and July 2009. HDR biologists also visited the site in October 2009 to inventory trees within the project area. Delineated wetland boundaries were marked in the field with sequentially numbered pink flagging tape. Sample plots and transect point locations were marked in the field with blue -and -white flagging tape. The wetland boundaries and selected transect points were later surveyed by licensed professional surveyors, and the resulting data were incorporated into project base maps (Figures 1, 3, and 4). 5.1.3 Critical Area Rating and Classification 5.1.3.1 Wetlands Wetland ratings are used by regulatory agencies to help determine wetland buffers, mitigation replacement ratios, and permitted uses in wetlands. Ratings are based on a wetland's sensitivity to disturbance, rarity within a region, and functions. Generally, wetlands that have not been altered significantly due to urbanization have structural and spatial diversity, and which are hydrologically connected to streams have a high rating. Wetland habitats in the study area were classified according to the system outlined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). The Cowardin system allows for the classification of wetlands based on their vegetation and hydrologic characteristics. Wetlands in the study area were rated using both state and local rating systems. The City of Renton rates wetlands using a three -category system (RMC 4-3-050.M.1). Table 1 displays the wetland rating criteria for the City of Renton. Wetland buffer widths have also been assigned to wetlands based on the City of Renton ratings. These buffer widths are shown in Table 2. HDR also updated the Ecology (Hruby 2004) wetland ratings to reflect current criteria for habitat scoring. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 15 Critical Areas Study O C3 aD s Y T U W C N 7 � Z w N- N a) � U C a W 3 N m NE a O O N - m C a) a 010 .— o N N N CU O V E.O OA C U 4 M [�'6 O a) m E `0 T y W (D COm N 7_ s _T t d N C '� N E N N 3 .0 C y _C a m ra ca N N O N N -O �' m C to C O C `� O N C O O E r E Sd a) a LD � N O L w O a r 1 a) @ =0-a- � `�'a �i 4E) a) tC -O a1 c a 3 N � � 3-0 �.M a y cca � m a; w =- m m T C: CN C �a a v c�M cu 3 v c'm 3 ivy —a) E a� Q arm. o m N o @t a �0 o° w o 0 pE 0 (C6 N' N -O p O a O CO O m Co O' pL � (D Q T C m ; N y ip C:� � L != fa U _� O 3 5 O O � L) p n '� c � a) � m� .m Y a) C a) -1 O Q7 3 N m s w U� 9) vy ami mLy O �ryyr < -r-T3 m = Qm 2 O E L7 7 ti mmao ¢UL KM L r r C + • N 0 y.. CO a O Y a3 m C d) m N m P 00� a yN a5 .X .NCUI CO m a) ' m a) - m a) A' - U N 3 o fo p- U v a) 0 � n a p� o c- E� mC Ca (D o sm c y w (D a)0 a N C p N N S m i� L a 7+ 6 N 3 C C m3m-Q�� C C =U) >lpN C 4} P m "SPO P mC t a r C, O s U O CV N W E C C C N C �+ N @ N m U U N fa C .— O a i4 R of Qc N 3� 3 a� c' c }u� ., O -O 2 f0 c m -- Fm o m U 3 V M O �.fa L S O C N m U Ad c O U Al a) o CDLC .y n C M U C Q Cn m O ai C v `p C .0 w Nr+ O N O C a) O 0 0 0 C P a () U) O O p N C = m - m a F [AM � .0 O m W � m �� o E c m aE w= r Q. U CD— C o '� pfi� a) Lot a) m m N o a) Co .� m 4 0 0 a- N Q �' w 'O CP a) roa O L) C c0im�umi C O L is m U 0 P a1 a CO N O ` m PE a.Nc� cmi�.- °= a �� aQ U r O L) N N P N Qc} N y (J N C N v .N a) 4) O `) �+ C Q. p y V m Q C CO N N@ Q Q a P 4) C y a) v> v O m U 7$ Q P N m U ~tea .-S N C m i �o ~ aa'i U E a� �°.�' ami Q vii a �a P 4) o 3 3 m u�E o �.� rn 0 C cr- w P U IM Table 3. Summary of Required Wetland Buffer Widths in the Thunder Hill Creek Mitigation Project Study Area 5.2 Results HDR staff identified two wetlands in the study area -the East and West Panther Creek Wetlands (Figures 1, 3 and 4). Both wetlands were distinguished from adjoining uplands by the presence of indicators for wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland delineation data sheets for wetlands within the study area are provided in Appendix C, and site photographs are provided in Appendix D. Ecology rating forms are in Appendix E. Table 3 summarizes the size, rating, and classification of these wetlands found within the project area. Detailed descriptions of each wetland are provided in the following sections. Table 4. Wetland Size, Rating and Classification for Wetlands in the Study Area a Overall wetland size is from the Draft Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Conceptual Plan (WSDOT 2007a). b Hydrogeomorphic classifications are based on A Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Wetlands (Brinson 1993) and Hruby (2004). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). P = Palustrine, EM = Emergent, FO = Forested, OW = Open water, SS = ScrublShrub. d wetland ratings are based on City of Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050. All ratings shown in this table are preliminary and have not been reviewed by the City of Renton. e Wetland buffers are based on City of Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050 r City of Renton wetland ratings from the 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project Ecosystems Discipline Report (WSDOT 2007c) 5.2.1 East Panther Creek Wetland The East Panther Creek Wetland (EPCW) is located east of SR 167 between SW 43`d Street and the northbound on-ramp to 1-405 extending easterly to the toe of the forested slope (Figure 2). A Seattle Water Department Utility Easement crosses EPCW at the SW 23rd Street right-of-way, just north of C72. For the purposes of this project, the discussion below focuses on conditions in the wetland south of the easement. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 17 Critical Areas Study 1 Lq This page intentionally left blank. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation., Fish Barrier Retrofit is Critical Areas Study aw I RL f. rL�iuC @0- wall E- —"C Fol `j.xa.s l A TJ D 14Y SP p f. rL�iuC @0- wall E- —"C Fol `j.xa.s l A TJ D 14Y f. rL�iuC @0- wall E- —"C Fol `j.xa.s l A TJ D West Panther Cre Wetland (Renton Category M o be R Regrade the E) 025 50 Feet r i I 1 inch = 50 feet I Legend Wetland Boundary (Delineated in 2009) Cowardin Glass _ _ ;100 -foot Stream Buffer Ordinary High Water Line (Delineated in 2009) IM PEM1 _ ] 100 -year Floodplain Existing Culvert PSS1 Tree at least 10" DBH - - - WSDOT Right -of -Way (ROW) PFQ1 ® Sample Plots (20091 Utility Corridor _ _ ,Wetland Buffer - Surface Water Flaw Q Limits of Proposed Clearing and Grubbing 0170 feet for Cat 1, 25 feet for Cat Ill) r� —Renton Drainage Easement ---------------------1---=yrr -- � 1 1 y' n Figure 4. Wetlands and Streams at the Proposed Panther Creek Channel Relocation Site Thunder HiPs Creek Mitigation- Fish Barrier Retrofit Elevations in EPCW range from approximately 13.5 feet NAVD88 in the north portion of the wetland in the vicinity of C72 to over 30 feet NAVD88 in the south portion of the wetland in the vicinity of C65/66. This wetland is a depressional wetland that receives hydrologic input from a seasonally elevated groundwater table, seasonal surface flows from the mainstem of Panther Creek, and hillside drainages and seeps to the east of the wetland. Surface water discharges from the wetland through C65166 and C72. Existing documents indicate that the Panther Creek Wetland was likely a multi -hectare riverine- type wetland associated with the historic floodplain of Springbrook Creek and the Green/Duwamish River before the wetland was separated from the creek and river by levees and urban/industrial development (WSDOT 2007a, Collins and Sherikh 2005). 5.2.1.1 Vegetation EPCW contains numerous large patches of emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested vegetation communities (Figure 5). The emergent communities in the central portion of the wetland consist of dense monotypic stands of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and common cattail (Typha latifolia). Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasit), and redosier dogwood (Comas sericea) and Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) are dominant in the scrub -shrub communities. Within forested communities throughout most of the wetland, particularly at lower elevations in the north portion of the wetland, Pacific willow (Salix lucida) is the primary trees species. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) is the dominant tree species in forested areas at higher elevations in the south portion of the wetland and in transitional zones along east and west edges of the wetland. The most common understory species in the scrub -shrub and forested communities in the north and central portions of the wetlands is yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus). Dominant understory species at higher elevations include giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia) and reed canarygrass. EPCW is classified as a palustrine, emergent persistent (PEM1), scrub - shrub broad-leaved deciduous (PSS1), and forested broad-leaved deciduous (PFo1) wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979). 5.2.1.2 Soils Soils in EPCW are mapped as Urban land and Tukwila muck (USDA NRCS 2009, Snyder et al. 1973). Soils throughout lower elevations of the north -central portion of the wetland are comprised of at least 12 to 18 inches of mucky peat, while soils found in higher elevations of the wetland mainly consist of loam and gravelly sandy loam. The soils observed in sample plots near the C72 culvert replacement and Panther Creek channel relocation sites were generally dark gray to gray (10YR 4/1 and 2.5Y 411 to 10YR 511) sandy loam with redoximorphic features. These soils meet the Depleted Matrix indicators for hydric soils (USAGE 2008). 5.2.1.3 Hydrology Primary indicators of hydrology in the EPCW included surface soil saturation and free water present within 12 inches of the surface. Drift deposits up to 1 foot aboveground were observed in the north portion of the wetland_ HDR staff observed pockets of standing water, generally less than 2 inches deep, during early June 2009 site visits. Surface water throughout the wetland had completely drawn down by late June -early July 2009. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation., Fish Harrier Retrofit 23 Critical Areas Study fl 5.2.1.4 Wetland Category and Buffer Width According to the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance, EPCW is classified as a Category 1 wetland (WSDOT 2007c). The City of Renton requires a standard 100 -foot buffer for Category 1 wetlands. Buffer Conditions The vegetated buffer of the EPCW in the vicinity of C72 is on the road prism of SR 167 within WSDOT ROW. It mainly consists of a narrow band of mixed grasses, giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus) with some red alder (Alnus rubra) and black cottonwood trees. Buffer soils consist of 6 inches of dark grayish brown (10YR 412) loam with no redoximorphic features and 3 inches of grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) loam with redoximorphic features over 9 inches of olive brown (2.5Y 413) loam. There were no primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. In the vicinity of the Panther Creek Channel relocation, SR 167 abuts the west boundary of EPCW. 5.2.2 West Panther Creek Wetland The West Panther Creek Wetland (WPCW) is a long, narrow depressional wetland located immediately west of SR 167 and east of East Valley Road (Figures 4 and 5). The WPCW is approximately 6.5 acres in size and extends approximately one mile between SW 23rd Street and SW 41st Street. Elevations in this wetland range from 22.73 feet NAVD88 in the south portion of the wetland to approximately 15 feet NAVD88 in the south portion of the wetland. The WPCW was also part of the multi -hectare riverine-type wetland associated with the historic floodplain of Springbrook Creek and Green/Duwamish River (Collins and Sherikh 2005). This wetland receives hydrologic input from a seasonally elevated groundwater table, stormwater runoff from surrounding development to the west, and surface discharge from West Fork and East Fork of Panther Creek via culverts 65166 and 72. 5.2.2.1 Vegetation The WPCW contains palustrine emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested vegetation communities. Dominant vegetation in forested vegetation community includes red alder, black cottonwood, Scouler's willow, and Pacific willow. The southern portion of the wetland in the vicinity of C65/66 is dominated by emergent vegetation community including mostly a monoculture of reed canary grass. Patches of scrub -shrub vegetation communities are scattered throughout WPCW, including the area in the vicinity of C72. Dominant species in this community include Sitka willow, Pacific willow, red -osier dogwood, and Douglas spirea. The WPCW is classified as a palustrine, emergent persistent (PEM1), scrub -shrub broad-leaved deciduous (PSS1), and forested broad- leaved deciduous (PF01) wetland (Cowardin et al. 1979). 5.2.2.2 Soils Soils in the West Panther Creek Wetland are mapped as Urban land and Tukwila muck (Snyder 1973). Soils observed in wetland soil pits were generally dark gray to very dark gray (10YR 411 to 10YR 311) sandy loam or loam and dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4l2) silty clay loam with redoximorphic features over dark gray to greenish gray (N 41 to 10Y 5l1). These soils meet the Depleted Matrix or Loamy Gleyed Matrix indicators for hydric soils (USAGE 2008). Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 24 Critical Areas Study 5.2.2.3 Hydrology The primary indicator of hydrology in the West Panther Creek Wetland was saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface. Free water was observed in some soil pits but was 12 inches below the soil surface at the time of HDR's site visit. In these areas, hydrology was presumed to be present during the wet season by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, topography, and proximity to Panther Creek_ Oxidized rhizospheres were also present along living roots in the emergent vegetation community areas dominated by reed canarygrass. 5.2.2.4 Wetland Category and Buffer Width The City of Renton classifies the West Panther Creek Wetland as a Category 3 wetland based on levels of disturbance and alterations to the wetland. A standard 25 -foot buffer is required for category 3 wetlands in City of Renton_ Buffer Conditions The vegetated buffer of the West Panther Creek Wetland is mostly limited since the wetland is bounded by the road prism of SR 167 to the east and the commercial properties to the west. The buffer is mainly vegetated with reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, or mowed grass. Buffer soils consist of dark grayish brown to very dark grayish brown (10YR 412 to 10YR 312) sandy or silty loams with no redoximorphic features. There were no primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. 5.3 Wetland Functional Assessment The existing functions and values of wetlands within the project area were evaluated using the Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects (WSDOT 2000). The methodology does not assign quantitative values to a particular function, but qualitatively identifies functional strengths and weaknesses in each wetland. Under the WSDOT (2000) functional assessment methodology, the potential for wetlands to provide a certain function is contingent upon its HGM class. If a wetland's HGM class has potential to provide a function, the wetland is further qualitatively evaluated based on the suite of attributes for each function. The EPCW and WPCW provide moderate to high levels of water quality and hydrologic functions, and a low to moderate levels of habitat functions. Neither of the on-site wetlands provides educational or scientific value. Both wetlands provide some value for uniqueness and heritage. Table 5 presents a summary of the determinations for the presence or absence of each function. See Appendix F for WSDOT (2000) Wetland Functions Field Data Forms. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 25 Critical Areas Study lq Table 5. Functions and Values of the East and West Panther Creek Wetlands Function Wetland EPCW WPCW Water Quality Functions Sediment Removal + X Nutrient and Toxicant Removal + X Hydrologic Functions Flood Flow Alteration + X Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization + X Habitat Functions Production & Export of Organic Matter + + General Habitat Suitability + X Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates X X Habitat for Amphibians + X Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals - - Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds - - General Fish Habitat X X Native Plant Richness X X Special Characteristics Educational or Scientific Value - - Uniqueness and Heritage X X "-" means that the function is not present; "X" means that the function is present and is of lower quality; and "+" means the function is present and is of higher quality 5.3.1 East Panther Creek Wetland 5.3.1.1 Hydrologic Functions The EPCW provides flood flow alteration functions since it is a large depressional wetland with dense vegetation and relatively constricted outlets, which allow the wetland to retain higher volumes of water and attenuate the severity of peak flows during storm events. Furthermore, floodwaters from the upstream reach of Panther Creek and drainages along the east bluff discharge as sheet flow into the wetland, maximizing the opportunity for the wetland to provide this function. Vegetation associated with the reach of Panther Creek that flows through the south portion of the wetland provide some streambank erosion control. 5.3.1.2 Water Quality Functions The EPCW provides sediment and nutrient/toxicant removal functions based on several attributes. The wetland's capacity to detain stormwater, its dense herbaceous vegetation Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 26 Critical Areas Study FM and near -surface organic soils allow the wetland to trap and filter sediments and to adsorb nutrients and toxicants from stormwater discharge. Seasonal drawdown of standing water throughout the wetland also allows denitrification to occur. Untreated stormwater from surrounding developments provide opportunity for these functions to take place. 5.3.1.3 Habitat Functions The EPCW has the potential to perform many of the habitat functions evaluated by WSDOT (2000). The EPCW primarily provides functions for general habitat support, organic matter export and amphibian habitat since it has a diversity of well-established vegetation classes, some variety in hydrologic regimes, and connectivity to surrounding undeveloped land and downstream aquatic resources. To a lesser extent, the EPCW provides functions for aquatic invertebrate and fish habitat and native plant species richness. Since the EPCW does not have permanent standing water, aquatic bed or open water classes, it does not provide functions for wetland -associated mammals or birds that are listed in WSDOT (2000). However, generalist mammal and bird species such as deer, songbirds, and red -tail hawks use the EPCW for foraging, shelter and refuge. 5.3.1.4 Social Values The EPCW does not provide educational or scientific value because there is limited public access and no known scientific or educational uses. The EPCW has some uniqueness since Chinook and steelhead presence are assumed in the East Fork of Panther Creek_ However, the EPCW is not documented to have any other species of federal, state, or local significance. 5.3.2 West Panther Creek Wetland 5.3.2.1 Hydrologic Functions The West Panther Creek Wetland (WPCW) provides some flood flow alteration functions since it has a depressional configuration and relatively dense vegetation. While several large culverts under East Valley road drain water from WPCW, the capacity of these culverts to drain water diminishes during high -precipitation events. Thus, WPCW can store relatively large volumes of stormwater. Dense vegetation associated with the reaches of the East and West Forks Panther Creek that flow through the wetland also provide some streambank erosion control; however, evidence of erosion on the banks of West Fork of Panther Creek at C65/66 indicate that this function is limited. 5.3.2.2 Water Quality Functions The WPCW has the potential to provide some sediment and nutrient/toxicant removal functions based on the wetland's capacity to detain stormwater, as well as dense herbaceous vegetation. Denitrification also occurs during the seasonal drawdown of stormwater within the wetland. Untreated stormwater from surrounding development provides opportunity for these functions to take place. 5.3.2.3 Habitat Functions The WPCW likely performs some habitat functions; however, its structure and landscape position generally limit the potential for this wetland to provide habitat. The primary function that the WPCW provides is production and export of organic matter. The WPCW likely provides some general habitat support; however, this function is limited by the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 27 Critical Areas Study fa L fragmented nature of WPCW and its isolation from other habitats. The WPCW also has limited potential for aquatic invertebrate, amphibian and fish habitat. Since the EPCW does not have permanent standing water, aquatic bed or open water classes, it does not provide functions for wetland -associated mammals or birds. 5.3.2.4 Social Values The WPCW does not provide educational or scientific value because there is no public access and no known scientific or educational uses. The WPCW has some uniqueness since the East Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through the north part of WPCW, is presumed to have federally -listed chinook and steelhead. However, the WPCW is not documented to have any other federal, state, or local significance. 5.4 Project Impacts The proposed fish barrier retrofit would result in temporary vegetation clearing, small amounts of wetland fill, alteration of some wetland soils, and changes to wetland hydroperiods. There would be no increase in impervious surface that would increase stormwater runoff into the wetlands. While there may be a short-term risk of increase in sediment and toxic contaminant load due to construction activities, best management practices and temporary erosion control measures would be implemented to minimize this risk. Replanting disturbed areas with a suite of native plant species would, in the long- term, increase overall plant species diversity and general habitat functions in the EPCW. The following discussion of direct impacts to the hydrologic and habitat functions of EPCW and WPCW are based upon the best available science. 5.4.1 East Panther Creek Wetland The following is a summary of temporary and permanent impacts to EPCW within the City of Renton (Figures 3 and 4). No temporary or permanent impacts would occur to the buffer of EPCW within the City of Renton. Table 6. Permanent and Temporary Wetland Impacts in East Panther Creek Wetland in the City of Renton TemporaryPermanent Wetland Impacts in Wetland Impacts in Activity causing impact acres (square feet) acres (square feet) Clearing and grubbing upstream of C72 -- 0-08 (3,485) Construction of approach channel upstream of 0.05 (2,350) -- C72 Clearing and grubbing for Panther Creek 0.80 (34,850) channel relocation upstream of C65166 Conversion of East Panther Creek Wetland to new Panther Creek channel upstream of 0.06 (2,472) -- C65/66 Total 0.11 (4,822) 0.88(38,335) Within the City of Renton, approximately 650 cubic yards (CY) of soil in EPCW would be excavated at C72 to accommodate the new approach channel, and 580 CY of streambed material would be backfilled into the newly excavated approach channel. Construction of Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 28 Critical Areas Study 1 UR the new Panther Creek Channel would remove approximately 2,980 CY of wetland soils in the south portion of EPCW. The new stream bottom would be backfilled with approximately 100 CY of streambed material. In addition to construction activities, the re- directing of water from C65 and C66 would increase the hydrologic input from Panther Creek into EPCW. Total temporary and permanent impacts would affect approximately 2% of EPCW_ The replacement of Culvert 72 falls under the Natural ResourcelHabitat Conservation or Preservation Exemption (RMC 4-3-150 C.5; Timmons 2009). Avoidance and minimization measures and rectification for temporary wetland impacts due to non- exempt activities within the City of Renton are discussed in Chapter 9 — Mitigation. 5.4.1.1 Hydrologic Function Impacts Filling a small portion of the EPCW would result in a minor reduction in the wetland's surface water storage capacity; however, this loss would be partially offset by the excavation of the new stream channel in the south side of the wetland. The removal of woody vegetation would also have a temporary effect on the wetland's potential for attenuating peak flows. Replacing C72 with a fish -passable arch culvert and re-routing water from C65 and C66 to EPCW would result in changes to hydrologic input to and output from the wetland, and subsequently result in changes to the duration and magnitude of water level fluctuations in the wetland. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC 2011; Appendix G) evaluated surface flows from Panther Creek into EPCW under existing (Scenario 10) and post - retrofit (Scenario 17) conditions. In particular, NHC evaluated pre- and post -retrofit stage durations, daily stage hydrograph, and event -elevation duration in EPCW using the Hydrologic Simulation Program — FORTRAN (HSPF). Simulated post -retrofit wetland water levels are expected to be within 1 foot of pre -retrofit water levels whenever water reaches the elevation where it is discharging from C72 (elevation 12.73 feet NAVD88). The hydraulic analysis provides approximate pre -and post -retrofit surface flows from Panther Creek through the wetland; however the model does not account for other wetland hydrologic processes such as subsurface flows, groundwater discharge/recharge, surface water evaporation, canopy evaporation, soil water evaporation, and infiltration. Results of the NHC analysis indicate: Re-routing of Panther Creek from C65/66 into the EPCW would result in an decrease of surface water elevation of approximately 0.4 feet for the 50 percent exceedance value (more than 1000 hours per year); surface water elevations above 50% exceedance would approximate existing water elevations (Appendix G, "Panther Creek Wetland Stage Duration"). The greatest decrease in water surface elevations would be approximately 0.7 feet at the 4% chance exceedance. During the 0.001 to 0.1% exceedance (less than one hour per year), water elevations under post -retrofit conditions would exceed current water elevations by 0.1 to 0.2 feet. Hydrographs of EPCW indicate that maximum water level fluctuation patterns under post -retrofit conditions would be comparable to existing conditions (Appendix G, "Average Daily Stage Hydrographs"). During larger storm events from November through March, the delta in water level fluctuations under post - retrofit conditions may be up to 0.7 feet greater than under pre -retrofit conditions. On average, water level elevations under post -retrofit conditions would be up to Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation. Fish Barrier Retrofit 29 Critical Areas Study i L_q 0.7 feet lower November through March, and would be within 0.1 feet of current conditions by the height of the gowning season in June/July. 5.4.1.2 Water Quality Function Impacts The proposed project may slightly impact water quality treatment functions in EPCW due to soil, vegetation, and hydroperiod alterations. The replacement of C72 and relocation of the Panther Creek channel in the south portion of the EPCW would require excavating organic and non-organic soils; however, this action is not likely to permanently impact water quality functions since erosion/sedimentation controls would be implemented to minimize sedimentation, and construction would occur during the drier part of the year when there is little to no surface water flows through the wetland. The construction of the approach channel at C72 would result in replacing a small area of near -surface organic soils with streambank material; however, given that most of EPCW has near -surface organic soils, there would be a negligible decrease in EPCW's ability to adsorb nutrients and toxicants. Hydrologic processes such as evapotranspiration would continue to contribute a major role in surface water drawdown through the drier months of the year, thus it is anticipated that denitrification processes in the wetland would be maintained. 5.4.1.3 Biologic Function Impacts The replacement of C72 and construction of the approach structure would increase the opportunity for fish to utilize habitat in EPCW (see Section 6.3.1). The temporary removal of vegetation in portions of EPCW would cause a minor and temporary decrease in general habitat support, organic matter production and transport, and native plant species support. Since the areas of disturbance are located in peripheral portions of the EPCW, there would be no overall loss in connectivity between undisturbed portions of EPCW or adjoining undeveloped habitat to the east. Revegetating disturbed areas with native plant species would result in a long-term increase in plant species diversity and general habitat support. Alterations to the wetland hydroperiod would result in an overall decrease in seasonal inundation, primarily in portions of the EPCW that are below elevation 15 feet. The predominant wetland vegetation at elevation 15 feet and lower includes reed canarygrass, Sitka willow, pacific willow, yellow -flag, hardhack spirea and cattail. These species are tolerant to a wide range of hydrologic conditions and water level fluctuations (Cooke and Azous 1997, Walters et al. 1980, Kercher and Zedler 2004). As such, it is unlikely that the resulting change in hydroperiod from the proposed project would result in a substantial shift of the vegetation communities, particularly the willow -dominated forested communities. Under post -retrofit conditions, deciduous and coniferous tree species that cannot tolerate prolonged inundation may be better able to establish in wetland areas that experience less inundation. Habitat for aquatic invertebrates is not likely to be adversely impacted by the project. Vegetation that contributes to shade, leaf litter, and other structures necessary for invertebrates' life cycle will be temporarily removed; however, disturbed areas would be immediately replanted to restore these functions. Changes to the wetland hydroperiod would not substantially impact invertebrate aquatic habitat. Research indicates that the most dramatic changes to wetland invertebrate communities occur when permanently ponded wetlands are subject to drought or complete drawdown (Sheldon et al. 2005). Under current conditions, surface water in EPCW most frequently is no more than 1.5 feet deep, and surface water completely draws down throughout the wetland as the growing Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 30 Critical Areas Study EDER season progresses. As such, slight alterations in the timing, duration and depth of water levels would not substantially impact invertebrate communities. Aquatic invertebrates are also sensitive to rapid water level fluctuations. Since EPCW already undergoes rapid water level fluctuations under existing conditions (Appendix G), this component of invertebrate habitat is already compromised. Post -retrofit water level fluctuation patterns are anticipated to be comparable to existing conditions. Habitat for amphibians may be temporarily impacted by the short-term removal of thin - stemmed wetland vegetation and woody debris, which may be used by amphibians for egg -laying. Amphibian species richness generally declines when mean annual water level fluctuations exceed 8 inches in wetlands (Sheldon et al. 2005). Under current conditions, water level fluctuations in EPCW frequently exceed 1 foot throughout most of the wetland, so the EPCW hydroperiod is not optimal for certain stages of amphibian life history. Modeling of post -retrofit water level fluctuations (Appendix G) indicates that the magnitude of water level fluctuations in EPCW may increase up to half a foot during the breeding/egg-laying period (January -March) for most amphibian species that are expected to occur in the region ( WDNR 2012). EPCW does not currently have the potential to provide habitat support for wetland - dependent birds and mammals since it does not have permanent ponding, areas of open water or aquatic bed plant communities. The proposed project is not anticipated to alter wetland hydrology to the extent that such habitat for wetland -dependent species would be created. 5.4.2 West Panther Creek Wetland Direct temporary and permanent impacts to West Panther Creek Wetland and its buffers would occur entirely within WSDOT ROW. C65 and C66 would be plugged, which would cut off stormwater discharge from these culverts into the south portion of WPCW, and direct more water to discharge into the north portion of WPCW at C72. Wetland hydrology is likely to be maintained from other sources of input discussed below. 5.4.2.1 Hydrologic Function Impacts The north portion of WPCW would have wetland vegetation temporarily removed, which would likely result in a small temporary impact on the wetland's potential for attenuating flood peak flows. Replacing C72 with a fish -passable arch culvert and re-routing water from C65 and C66 would result in changes to the hydroperiod in WPCW. NHC (2011) evaluated the effect of the proposed project on surface flows in the West and East Forks of Panther Creek, which both contribute hydrology to the West Panther Creek Wetland. Results of the NHC analysis indicate that surface flows through the WPCW would change as follows: West Fork Panther Creek: For the reach of West Fork between SR 167 and East Valley Road, the proposed diversion of surface water from C65/C66 to the EPCW will result in a decrease of water surface elevation in the West Fork of approximately 4.2 inches for the 50 percent exceedance value (more than 1000 hours per year) and approximately 26 inches for the 0.001 percent exceedance value (less than 1 hour per year). However, this reach will continue to receive hydrologic input from a seasonally high groundwater table and surface runoff from surrounding development. East Fork Panther Creek: For the reach of East Fork between SR 167 and East Valley Road, the proposed diversion of surface water from C65/C66 and installation of the new arch culvert at C72 will result in an increase of water surface elevation of Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 31 Critical Areas Study FR approximately 3 inches for the 50 percent exceedance value (more than 1000 hours per year) and approximately 15 inches for the 0.001 percent exceedance value (less than 1 hour per year). While surface water discharge from the West Fork of Panther Creek in the south portion of the WPCW would decrease once C65 and C66 are plugged, this portion of the wetland would continue to receive hydrologic input from a seasonally high groundwater table and surface runoff from SR 167 to the east and surrounding development to the west (HDR Engineering, Inc. 2011 b, West Consultants, Inc. 2008). The decrease of stormwater flows in the south portion of the wetland would also create more flood storage capacity in the wetland to store surface water runoff from surrounding development. 5.4.2.2 Water Quality Function Impacts The temporary loss of wetland vegetation in a small portion of WPCW near C72 may cause a slight short-term decrease in the potential for sediment trapping; however, the decrease would be minimal since the vegetation immediately downstream of C72 does not include dense herbaceous vegetation. Based on the NHC (2011) modeling, while there would be less opportunity for the south portion of WPCW to detain and treat stormwater flows from C65I66, input of more stormwater into the north portion of WPCW would increase the potential and opportunity for the wetland to carry out sediment and nutrient removal processes, resulting in no substantial change in water quality functions throughout WPCW. Surface water throughout WPCW post -retrofit is anticipated to continue to draw down during drier months of the year, thus maintaining denitrification processes in the wetland. 5.4.2.3 Biologic Function Impacts The temporary removal of vegetation in the north portion of WPCW would slightly reduce its overall ability to provide general habitat and native plant species support. Increased surface water levels in the north portion of WPCW are unlikely to adversely affect the existing wetland vegetation, which consists mainly of flood -tolerant species such as redosier dogwood and willows. While reed eanarygrass likely would persist in this portion of the wetland, less inundation may encourage the recruitment of scrub -shrub vegetation into this portion of the wetland. The production and transport of organic matter likely would not substantially increase or decrease since surface water is anticipated to continue to discharge from WPCW and thus maintain export of material to downstream aquatic resources. Since WPCW does not currently have the potential to provide habitat support for most wetland -associated fauna, these functions would not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 32 Critical Areas Study HE 6.0 Streams and Lakes The City of Renton regulates all nonexempt activities on sites containing all or portions of Class 2 to 4 streams or lakes per RMC 4-3-050(L). Class 1 waters are regulated by RMC 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program Regulations). HDR staff reviewed existing environmental documents and then conducted a field investigation to delineate streams within the project areas. The study methods, results and project impacts are discussed in detail below, per the Supplemental Stream Study criteria in RMC 4-8-120(D). 6.1 Study Methods 6.1.1 Document Review In addition to the documents reviewed in Section 5.1, HDR Staff also reviewed the following existing environmental documents to assess streams located in the project area: • City of Renton (2011) Landlnfo Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Areas 9 (Kerwin and Nelson 2000) • WDFW (2009a) SalmonScape * A catalog of Washington Streams and salmon utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound (Williams et al. 1975) • City of Renton: Best available science literature review and stream buffer recommendations (A.C. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2003) 6.1.2 Field Investigation The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of streams in the study area were determined per the definitions in WAC 173-22-030. In particular, HDR biologists looked for the landward limit of drift and sediment deposition on the streambank and surrounding structures to help determine OHWM_ HDR biologists flagged OHWM of all streams in the study area using blue and white, sequentially -numbered flagging. The wetland boundaries and selected transect points were later surveyed by licensed professional surveyors, and the resulting data were incorporated into project base maps. HDR biologists also qualitatively assessed each stream in the project area to determine riparian condition, fish habitat, and passage. 6.1.3 Critical Area Rating and Classification Streams identified in the study area were classified according to local ordinance requirements detailed in RMC 4-3-050(L) (Table 7). The stream types shown in this report are based on the stream reaches within the project area; downstream reaches may be rated higher. Buffer widths have also been assigned streams based on their classification (Table 8). Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 33 Critical Areas Study Fal Table 7. Summary of the Water Typing System in the Thunder Hill Creek Mitigation Project Study Area Stream .- Definition1 Perennial salmonid -bearing waters which are classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. 2 Perennial or intermittent salmonid -bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 2; and/or (b) Historically and/or currently known to support salmonids, including resident trout, at any stage in the species lifecycle; and/or (c) Is a water body (e.g., pond, lake) between one half (0.5) acre and twenty 20 acres in size. 3 Non -salmonid -bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 3. 4 Non -salmonid -bearing intermittent waters during years of normal rainfall, and/or mapped on Figure Q4, Renton Water Class Map, as Class 4. 5 Non-regulated non -salmonid -bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in Section M. a Definitions are summarized from Renton Municipal Code 4-3-0501 Table 8. Summary of Stream Buffer Widths in the Thunder Hill Creek Mitigation Project Study Area Stream Type Minimum Buffer Width (in feet)' a City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-0501) t Regulated under City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 43-090) 6.2 Results Panther Creek originates from Panther Lake, which is located north of 108th Avenue SE, approximately 2 miles east/southeast of SR 167. From the lake, Panther Creek flows northwestward through a forested riparian corridor, flowing into the south end of the East Panther Creek Wetland. From here, surface water from Panther Creek mainly splits into two forks, the East and West Forks of Panther Creek, which occur in the project area. A summary of the characteristics of these the East and West Forks of Panther Creek are provided in the following section. Locations of streams in the study area are shown in Figures 3 through 5. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 34 Critical Areas Study i m- Table 9, Summary of Streams in the Project Area 6.2.1 West Fork of Panther Creek The main flow from the West Fork is carried by Culvert 65 (C65), a 24 -inch corrugated metal culvert, under SR167 (Figure 4). Overflow that occurs during high precipitation events flows in a north -south channel constructed for WSDOT SR 167 Stage 3 project approximately 400 feet north to C66, a 30 -inch corrugated metal culvert, which also discharges west under SR 167. After crossing SR 167 at C65, the West Fork flows northward for approximately 450 feet through the West Panther Creek Wetland, then joins with the channel downstream of C66 and flows westward approximately 400 feet through an open channel between two commercial properties. At East Valley Road, the West Fork flows into a stormwater system, then flows approximately 4,000 linear feet, primarily through closed pipes, to the confluence with Springbrook Creek (WSDOT 2007). On east side of SR 167, vegetation within the West Fork channel consists of soft rush (Juncos effusus), common cattail (Typha latifolia), broadleaf water -plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica), and watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum). Dominant vegetation in the north -south channel on the west side of SR167 consists of reed canarygrass. Young red alder (Alnus rubra), redosier dogwood, Sitka willow, and Pacific willow are found above top of bank along the east -west channel that flows to East Valley Road. Substrates of the West Fork primarily consist of silt and fine sand materials, although some areas of gravel were noted in the channel at the confluence of the two branches upstream portion of the West Fork on the east side of SR 167. Embeddedness in the channel is generally high, and no large woody debris or in -stream structures were observed within the project study area. Degraded aquatic habitat is present in the West Fork of Panther Creek between SR 167 and East Valley Road. The channel downstream of culvert C65 is a straight confined channel that appears to be excavated and runs parallel to SR 167. Stream substrate is silty throughout with sparse to no gravels/cobbles suitable for spawning habitat and no instream structure. Riparian vegetation mainly consists of invasive reed canarygrass and some planted conifer trees. The channel downstream of C66 consists of a short, straight confined channel with some gravels interspersed with a few large cobbles on top of a silty substrate. At the confluence of the C65/66 tributaries, the West Fork channel is a straightened confined channel that lacks in -stream structure and only has sparse cobbles with embeddedness greater than 50%. The primary riparian vegetation consists of a narrow band of Himalayan blackberry on the left and right banks. Culverts C65 and C66 are considered partial fish passage barriers due to being undersized, and C66 is perched (2007d). . Due to the extent of piped channel between the reach of West Fork of Panther Creek in the project area and Springbrook Creek, combined with extensive commercial development, no salmonid species are assumed to Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 35 Critical Areas Study f use the West Fork of Panther Creek (WSDOT 2007b). During field visits in the summer of 2009, no juvenile salmonids were observed in the West Fork of Panther Creek; however, stickelback (Gasterostus aculeatus) were observed in pools at the outlets of C65 and C66. West Fork of Panther Creek is mapped by the City of Renton (2008) as a Class 2 stream. Streams rated as Class 2 in the City of Renton require a 100 -foot -wide buffer. The vegetated buffer on west side of the west fork of Panther Creek within the study area is generally limited to less than 100 feet before being cut off by paved areas and/or by buildings. 6.2.2 East Fork of Panther Creek The East Fork of Panther Creek receives sheet flow from the mainstem of Panther Creek, which flows as an alluvial fan through East Panther Creek Wetland (Figures 3 and 4). Based on field surveys conducted in the summer of 2009, there is no contiguous defined channel that flows north from the mainstem of Panther Creek through EPCW to the East Fork of Panther Creek at C72. The East Fork of Panther Creek drains into a fish ladder before entering a 72 -inch culvert underneath of SR 167, draining into a straightened open channel approximately 10 feet wide. Riparian vegetation upstream of C72 on east side of SR 167 includes a canopy of black cottonwood, and wetland vegetation such as Pacific willow, and red -osier dogwood with an understory of reed canarygrass, tall mannagrass (Glyceria elata), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Riparian vegetation downstream of C72 mainly occurs in West Panther Creek Wetland, consisting of redosier dogwood, red alder, and scattered willows. Substrate in the East Fork in the project vicinity upstream and downstream of C72 is primarily muck and no streambed material such as cobbles were readily evident. Some small downed logs (generally less than 12 inches in diameter) are located in the EPCW upstream of C72; no large woody debris or any in -stream structures were observed downstream of C72. The reach of the East Fork downstream of the project area discharges through two 48 - inch culverts under East Valley Road into an open channel that drains into Springbrook Creek on west side of Lind Avenue SW. This downstream reach is a relatively straight with few pools and limited instream structures (WSDOT 2007a). Whereas the right bank of the East Fork is mainly bounded by an access road, the left bank adjoins forested wetlands associated with Springbrook Creek. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Puget Sound ESU Threatened) are presumed to be present in portions of Panther Creek due to its association with Springbrook Creek (WSDOT 2007b). Resident and/or anadromous steelhead (O. mykiss, Puget Sound ESU Threatened) may also use Panther Creek for rearing and foraging (WSDOT 2007b). Coho salmon (O, kisutch, Species of Concern) are also documented as present in Panther Creek (WSDOT 2007b, WDFW 2009). HDR did not observe any of these species during summer 2009 site visits; however, stickelback were observed in shallow pools at the inlet of the fish ladder at C72. The east fork of Panther Creek is mapped as a Class 2 stream by the City of Renton (2011 b). The City of Renton requires a 100 -foot -wide buffer for class 2 streams. The vegetated buffer on either side of the east fork of Panther Creek within the study area generally extends less than 100 feet before being cut off by paved areas and/or by buildings, especially on west side of SR 169. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Harrier Retrofit 36 Critical Areas Study i aq 6.3 Project Impacts Direct temporary and permanent impacts to the East and West Forks of Panther Creek clue to project construction would only occur within WSDOT ROW; stream buffer impacts on the West fork of Panther Creek would be limited to clearing and grading activities associated with the Panther Creek Channel relocation (Figures 3 and 4). In -water work would comply with all WDFW HPA conditions for work windows, stream bypass, fish handling, and water quality. At C72, diversion of surface water would involve a temporary check dam and stream bypass system pipe, which would be installed in a dry open trench. The flow will re-enter the channel downstream of the construction work area on the west side of SR 167. 6.3,1 Impact Evaluation The proposed replacement of Culvert 72, plugging of C65166 and creation of approximately 760 lineal feet of new Panther Creek channel would have a net benefit to aquatic habitat functions in the Springbrook Creek sub -basin. The proposed project is the result of extensive coordination with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT) representatives and other permitting agencies to identify an area within the Springbrook Creek sub -basin that would provide a quantity of fish habitat similar to that blocked by the existing 1-405 Thunder Hills Creek Culvert (HDR 2009). The proposed project would implement elements of the Draft Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan (PCWRP, WSDOT 2007x). In particular, the replacement of C72 and the fish ladder is consistent with the action proposed under Stream Rehabilitation 2, and relocation of 710 lineal feet of the Panther Creek is an element of Stream Rehabilitation 3. Elements of the PCWRP that would be implemented as part of this project would improve limiting factors for salmonid species in lower Springbrook Creek sub -basin (WSDOT 2007a, 2007b, NMFS and USFWS 2008) including: 1. Insufficient seasonal low -flows: Diversion of Panther Creek into EPCW will provide a more reliable water source to the East Fork stream channel to avoid periodic flow shifts and resulting impacts to stream hydrology (WSDOT 2007a). 2. Lack of functioning riparian habitat: Riparian habitat in the reach of Panther Creek in the vicinity of C65/66 would be improved by relocating the Panther Creek channel from a confined roadside ditch to a more naturally meandering channel that contains suitable streambed material; locating the channel within a portion of EPCW that would provide more buffering and large woody material recruitment; and replanting the disturbed channel relocation area with a mix of coniferous and deciduous tree species, which would increase riparian vegetation diversity. 3. The presence of fish passage barriers: Replacement of the existing culvert at C72 with a WDFW and MIT -approved fish -passable culvert would reduce high-flow velocities and improve the opportunity for juvenile Chinook and coho to utilize overwinter habitat for rearing and feeding (LaRiverie 2006). The placement of rootwads in the approach channel at C72 and suitable streambed material in the approach channel and culvert would improve in -stream habitat. The West Fork of Panther creek between SR 167 and East Valley Road would experience a decrease in peak flows, as described in Section 5.4.2.1. However, this reach of the West Fork would continue to receive hydrologic input from the seasonally high groundwater table as well as stormwater runoff from surrounding development and Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 37 Critical Areas Study IM SR 167 (HDR Engineering, Inc. 2011 b, West Consultants, Inc. 2008). For the remaining downstream reach of West Fork Panther Creek downstream of East Valley Road, peak flows during more frequent storm events (2 -year and 10 -year) are expected to only decrease approximately 5% (from 37.3 cfs to 36.1 cfs and 38.1 cfs to 35.4 cfs, respectively). Thus, while there will be an overall decrease in water levels in the West Fork of Panther Creek between SR 167 and East Valley Road, the remainder of the 34th St. tributary downstream of East Valley Road will experience a negligible loss of surface flow. Regardless, the proposed diversion of flows from the West Fork of Panther Creek would not result in a net loss of aquatic habitat function in the Springbrook Creek sub -basin. Due to the extent of piped channel between the reach of West Fork of Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek, combined with highly degraded stream and riparian conditions, the West Fork of Panther Creek in its current condition does not provide suitable habitat for salmonid species. In the remaining reach of East Fork Panther Creek downstream of East Valley Road, peak flows during the 2 -year and 10 -year events are expected to increase approximately from 73 cfs to 96 cfs and 113 cfs to 130 cfs, respectively. Water surface elevations will increase approximately 8 inches for the 50 percent exceedance value (more than 1000 hours per year) and approximately 7 inches for the 0.001 percent exceedance value (less than 1 hour per year). Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 38 Critical Areas Study 7.0 Habitat Conservation Areas The City of Renton applies habitat conservation regulations to all nonexempt activities on sites containing or abutting critical habitat as classified below: 1. Habitats associated with the documented presence of non -salmonid (see subsection L1 of this Section and RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, for salmonid species) species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority; and/or 2. Category 1 wetlands. A two step process was used to determine the presence of wetlands and streams in the study area. In step one, HDR staff reviewed existing environmental documents. The second step was a field investigation. The initial field investigation was followed by site investigations to identify habitat conservation areas within the study area. The study methods, results and project impacts are discussed in detail below, per the Habitat Data Report criteria in RMC 4-8-120(D). 7.1 Study Methods 7.1.1 Document Review In addition to the documents reviewed in Sections 5.1 and 6.1, HDR Staff reviewed the following environmental documents to determine the presence of habitat conservation areas in the project study area: Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species (Azzerrad 2004, Larsen et al. 1995, Larsen 1997, Larsen et al. 2004) • Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian (Knutson and Naef 1997) • WDNR (2011) Natural Heritage Information Request Self -Service System • University of Washington (2010) NatureMapping • Wildlife -Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O'Neil 2001) • Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington (Franklin and Dyrness 1988) 7.1.2 Field Investigation Potential Habitat Conservation areas were identified in the project area and vicinity using City of Renton definitions under Habitat Conservation Areas (RMC 4-3-050.x.1)_ HDR biologists conducted a field review of the project site for the occurrence of and potential suitable habitat for state and federally listed species in June and July 2009. 7.2 Results The East Panther Creek Wetland, a City of Renton Category I wetland, is the one Habitat Conservation Area located in the project area (Figure 5). Results of field investigations and inventory reviews are presented below. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 39 Critical Areas Study fq This page intentionally left blank. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 40 Critical Areas Study -,CAW Iv Win MOT N, A,:; PM i 'A , L U I ka 7 la Deciduous Forest (Acer macrophyllum, Populus balsam�fera). M. '10 fis 6-f'. W.4 ;FQ A lip, , 4il 410 Ilk LON 0 W6 mr- A i: Relp '3 us balsamifera Salb(s 7� r Deciduous Forest Tl� V Y :46 nF, 4 jj� Alt, 4 1 4.1 j J, I I w Leg, aL 7 T 7 T� "'N v; j, ;-ArL. �7f. %7 M. A wo 0 if 1 W4 14 All .1" . 4s L & 1.413;41 rXI.."Ill 4k 4 all -,CAW Iv Win MOT N, A,:; PM i 'A , L U I ka 7 la Deciduous Forest (Acer macrophyllum, Populus balsam�fera). M. '10 fis 6-f'. W.4 ;FQ A lip, , 4il 410 Ilk LON 0 W6 mr- A i: Relp '3 us balsamifera Salb(s 7� r Deciduous Forest Tl� V Y :46 nF, 4 jj� Alt, 4 1 4.1 j J, I I w Leg, aL 7 T 7 T� "'N v; j, ;-ArL. �7f. %7 M. A wo 0 if 1 W4 14 All .1" . 4s L FDR 7.2.1 East Panther Creek Wetland 7.2.1.1 Habitat Features The EPCW consists of three habitat units - emergent, deciduous scrub -shrub and deciduous forested wetland habitat (Figure 5). See Section 5.2.1 for a discussion of the EPCW vegetation communities, and Section 5.3.1 for a discussion of habitat functions for wetland -associated fauna. Wetland communities provide habitat for a variety of generalist wildlife species, and also may act as "stepping stones" or avenues of movement for migrating birds. The large size of EPCW and forested bluffs to the east of the wetland provide additional opportunity for wildlife movement. However, wildlife movement for larger fauna is mostly limited, as the surrounding lands are highly urbanized. Other special habitat features in the EPCW include biologic elements such as edges between plant communities or successional stages, and coarse woody debris. The most distinct edges in the EPCW are the edges of the wetland vegetation types, as well as the edges between emergent and scrub -shrub vegetation and deciduous forest communities upslope of the east boundary of EPCW. There were scattered snags (dead or partly dead trees at least 4 inches diameter at breast height [dbh] and 6 feet tall) observed throughout EPCW; however no standing snags with cavities were observed in the project area. Coarse woody debris includes downed logs and major limbs of trees lying on the ground. Downed logs can enhance habitat value by providing perch sites, food sources, nest cavities, and cover for many species, such as woodpeckers, small mammals, and some amphibians (Jones 1986, Carey and Johnson 1995). Downed woody debris was limited to small trees and branches throughout the scrub -shrub and forested portions of the project area, although a few larger (at least 24—inch-diameter) downed black cottonwood trees were observed in the southern portion of EPCW. 7.2.1.2 Wildlife Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) were observed numerous times perching on trees or soaring over EPCW during summer 2009 site visits. One red-tailed hawk nest (activity unknown) was observed in December 2009 in a black cottonwood tree located approximately 300 feet east of the Panther Creek Channel relocation site (Figure 5). Red-tailed hawks are not proposed or listed by the Federal government (USFWS 2007) or State of Washington (WDFW 2008) as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority species. Other species observed during June and July site visits included rufous hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) and red -wing blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), and several other passerine species. No woodpeckers were directly observed; however, sign of red - breasted sapsuckers (Sphyrapics ruber) were observed on trees in the south portion of EPCW. The most commonly observed amphibian in the wetland was Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris regilla). Columbian black -tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were directly observed during site visits in the eastern portion of the wetland outside of the project area; herbivory sign was also observed in the east portion of the wetland. A variety of smaller mammals (particularly rodents), as well as a small number of reptile species, are assumed to inhabit portions of EPCW as well. No carnivores or their sign (footprints, scat) were observed, although raccoons (Procyon lotor), coyotes (Canis latrans), and domesticated cats and dogs may use EPCW_ Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 43 Critical Areas Study IR 7.2.2 Federally Endangered and Threatened Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2011) identified terrestrial species including Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), Gray wolf (Canis lupus), Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos/U. a. horribilis), Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) that could occur in King County. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus, a federal species of concern), nests are documented approximately 1.5 mile northwest and 2 miles southeast of the project study area, however, no suitable foraging and perching habitats are present within the project study area due to the surrounding land use, limited prey availability, and lack of open water with visual access to adjacent habitats (WSDOT 2007c). The project area lacks suitable habitat for listed terrestrial species (WSDOT 2007b, HDR 2011a). Specific occurrences of these species were not recorded in the agency databases and were not observed during summer and autumn 2009 site visits. 7.2.3 State Listed Species WDFW (2009, 2011) PHS maps do not show the occurrence of any state listed terrestrial species within the project study area, or within one mile of the project area. The East Panther Creek Wetland is designated as wetland priority habitat by WDFW (2009). Habitat for specific priority species is not documented in the WDFW (2009) inventory. State listed species that could potentially use EPCW include western toad (Sufo boreas) and pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). Surveys for the western toad (Richter and Azous 1997) indicate that western toads have restrictive distribution in King County. Since more urbanized and isolated wetlands such as EPCW generally have lower species richness and since high water level fluctuations may prohibit successful breeding by lentic species such as the western toad (Richter and Azous 1997), it is unlikely that EPCW provides suitable breeding habitat for the western toad. Western toads were not detected visually or aurally during June and July 2009 site visits. Pileated woodpeckers may utilize snags in urbanized areas for roosting and nesting (Lewis and Azerrad 2003). Pileated woodpecker nest trees average 27 inches (no range reported) and 40 inches (range 26-61 inches) dbh in western Oregon and the Olympic Peninsula, respectively, and roost trees averaged 44 inches (range 16-82 inches) and 59 inches (range 15-122 inches) dbh in the same locations. Pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon and on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington have been documented as having average home range sizes of 1,186 and 2,132 acres, respectively (Lewis and Azerrad 2003), Since no snags in the optimal size ranges were observed in the project vicinity and since the EPCW provides a small portion of an overall home range for a pair of pileated woodpeckers, it is unlikely that suitable habitat currently exists in the project area for pileated woodpecker breeding. Pileated woodpeckers were not detected visually or aurally and no foraging sign was observed during June and July 2009 site investigations Priority game species are those native species managed for game hunting that require protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Although Columbian black -tailed deer and their sign were observed, no "regular" or "regular large concentrations of deer," as defined by WDFW (2005b), are mapped or known on or in the vicinity of the project site (WDFW 2005a). Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 44 Critical Areas Study r LR 7.2.4 WDNR Inventories There are no state natural preserves of natural resource conservation areas located within the project study area (WDNR 2009b, 2009c). There are also no areas of rare plant species or high quality ecosystems within the project study area (WDNR 2011). 7.3 Project Impacts Temporary disturbance to Habitat Conservation Areas that are City of Renton Category I wetlands are exempt per RMC 4-3-050(C). Indirect impacts on wetland -associated fauna from the re-routing of water from Panther Creek into EPCW on wetland -associated species are discussed in Section 5.4.1. Below is a discussion of potential impacts to other terrestrial wildlife. 7.3.1 Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Other Species Because endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant or animal species are not known or likely to occur on or in the site, no impacts to these species are expected. The proposed project would temporarily disturb wetland vegetation within the project site. As a result, wildlife species that occupy and utilize wetland forest habitat within the site may be temporarily affected. However, with the replanting of disturbed wetland areas with native trees and shrubs, habitat would remain available for a number of wildlife species. Grading and construction activities associated with the proposed project, as well as temporarily increased levels of human activity on-site, may result in a temporary increase in disturbance to wildlife species using adjoining wetland areas. Replanting areas with a suite of native plant species would provide a long-term increase in plant species diversity and habitat suitability for terrestrial wildlife. Because the completed project will be passive in nature and would only require infrequent maintenance activities, no long-term increases in human disturbance and displacement of species that utilize EPCW are anticipated. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 45 Critical Areas Study FDR 8.0 Mitigation This section describes the proposed mitigation for temporary construction impacts to critical areas affected by the project. It outlines impact avoidance and minimization (including BMPs), and describes mitigation goals, objectives, and performance standards as well as proposed monitoring and maintenance efforts at each mitigation site. 8.1 Mitigation Sequence Federal, state, and City of Renton regulations require that mitigation efforts follow this prescribed sequence: 1. Avoiding the impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts, 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment, 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations, 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. 8.2 Avoidance and Minimization The project has been designed to improve wetlands, streams and buffers wherever feasible. The location of the proposed project is the result of continued discussions with MIT representatives regarding the NWP 23 Conditions for a fish -passable culvert at C72. The location of the proposed culvert has been chosen to minimize ground disturbance and wetland hydrology while maximizing fish passage. The proposed culvert location is to replace the existing culvert and fish ladder. The old culvert would be removed and the proposed culvert would be installed along the same alignment. The size of the culvert has been increased to meet USACE permit conditions to provide for a stream simulation designed culvert according to WDFW (2003) and stakeholder preferences. The location of the proposed stream channel has been selected to meet NWP 23 requirements for creating new stream channel and to provide better functioning aquatic habitat. The new stream channel alignment will also avoid future roadway projects impacts. The stream location has also been designed to minimize impacts to significant trees and to existing utility lines. Best Management Practices (BMP) to be implemented to minimize wetland and stream impacts may include, but are not limited to: • Minimization of the construction footprint to the extent practicable • Installation of high -visibility fence around all sensitive areas that are to remain undisturbed • Installation of erosion control, including silt fence • Installation of construction entrances Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 46 Critical Areas Study Fl - Containment of any runoff onsite using erosion and water quality control BMPs during construction • Disposition of initial dewatering by the contractor by an approved method • Installation of silt fence and/or coffer dam to isolate in -water work area as appropriate depending on ground conditions • Revegetation of all disturbed areas with native plant species There would be no temporary or permanent increases in impervious surfaces that would require stormwater treatment_ No new facilities or material sources would need to be developed for this project. 8.3 Rectification 8.3.1 Wetlands Wetlands temporarily impacted by construction of the project would be restored to preconstruction contours and replanted with native vegetation, using one of the restoration types shown on Sheets CRP1, DRP1, SRD1 and SRD2 in Appendix A. These restoration types are used throughout the project drawings to describe planned restoration for impacted areas. 8.3.1.1 Goals and Objectives The overall goal of the wetland rectification is to replace wetland vegetation removed for construction of the proposed project and to provide improved wetland functions by increasing wetland plant species diversity. This goal would be achieved by replanting disturbed areas with native woody vegetation that would mature rapidly to provide cover and add forage value for wildlife_ 8.3.1.2 Performance Measures Year 1 and Year 3 Native, wetland (facultative and wetter) woody species (planted and volunteer) will achieve an average density of at least four plants per 100 square feet in the scrub -shrub and forested communities of the rectified wetland areas. Year 5 Aerial cover of native, wetland (facultative and wetter) woody species will be at least 30 percent in the scrub -shrub and forested communities of the rectified wetland areas. All years King County -listed Class A noxious weeds identified on the site will be eradicated. Non -King County listed Class A noxious weeds will be controlled in all years. King County -listed Class C noxious weeds will be contained on the site. Non -King County listed Class B and C noxious weeds and reed canarygrass, non-native blackberries (Rubes spp.), and Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius) will not exceed 25 percent aerial cover in the rehabilitated wetlands. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation. Fish Barrier Retrofit 47 Critical Areas Study FR 8.3.1.3 Monitoring WSDOT staff (or their designated representatives) will monitor the restored sites for 5 years after installation. If all the performance standards are achieved in less than 5 years, WSDOT may terminate monitoring with approval of the review agencies. Quantitative monitoring will be completed and documented 1, 3, and 5 years after initial acceptance of the mitigation construction. The site should be evaluated informally during the summer following plant installation to assess survival rates and document the presence of non-native invasive species. The WSDOT HQ Wetland Assessment and Monitoring Program (or their designated representatives) will also complete informal (qualitative) assessments of the mitigation site in years 2, and 4 for adaptive management purposes only. Monitoring will be designed to determine if the performance measures or performance standards have been met. Monitoring reports will be submitted for review and comment to the recipients listed in Table 10 by the end of April following the formal monitoring activities conducted the previous year. Table 10. Monitoring Report Recipients WSDOT has established a comprehensive set of monitoring methods that are based primarily on Elzinga et al. (1998). The actual methods used to monitor each site are documented in annual monitoring reports prepared by WSDOT's Wetland Assessment and Monitoring Program based in the Environmental Services Office in Olympia, Washington, or their designated representatives. Some variation of the methods will occur as techniques are improved or standards change. 8.3.1.4 Contingency Plan WSDOT anticipates the mitigation goals will be accomplished with the construction and installation of the mitigation design as shown on the grading and planting plans. Contingency actions, however, may be needed to correct unforeseen problems. Contingency revisions typically require coordination with the permitting agencies. As necessary, contingency measures (site management or revisions to performance criteria with permitting agency agreement) will be implemented to meet performance measures and standards. The following describes potential situations that may occur and the potential contingencies that can be implemented to correct the problem. Because not all site conditions can be anticipated, the contingencies discussed below do not represent an exhaustive list of potential problems or remedies. Vegetation Problems related to vegetation include plant mortality and poor growth resulting in low plant cover. These problems could be the result of insufficient site management, Thunder Hilts Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 48 Critical Areas Study fq particularly watering in the first few growing seasons, animal browse, competition from invasive species, incorrect plant selection, altered site conditions, and vandalism. Contingencies for plant mortality and poor plant cover may include the following: • Plant replacement — Additional planting may be required to meet plant survival and plant cover requirements. Plant species will be evaluated in relation to site conditions to determine if plant substitutions will be required. • Weed control — Control of non-native invasive species may be required to meet survival and plant cover requirements. Weed control methods could include mechanical or hand control, mulching, or application of an herbicide approved by Washington Department of Ecology for use in aquatic areas. • Herbivore control — If plant survival or vegetation cover standards are not met because of animal browse, the wildlife responsible will be identified and appropriate control measures will be attempted. This could include plant protection, fence installation, or the use of repellents. However, some pestilent and invasive wildlife species are difficult to avoid. Implementing precautionary measures with design and placement will minimize unwanted species but likely not eliminate them. Wildlife damage and manipulation to plantings and structures should be expected to occur and, with exceptions, it may be necessary to accept the situation and allow the vegetation to mature under these conditions. Occasionally it may be necessary to dissuade or exclude destructive wildlife species. Native species such as beaver may initially create a perception of damaging effects on the expected outcome of a mitigation site; however, the site modifications that result from their activities can create functions and habitats suited to several other species. 8.3.1.5 Site Management WSDOT (or their designated representatives) will manage the sites within the drainage easements annually for the first 5 years. Site management activities shall include noxious weed control and may include mulching, fertilizing, supplemental watering, and maintaining access, repairing damage from vandals, correcting erosion or sedimentation problems, or litter pickup. During the first year, supplemental watering of buffers and seasonally saturated wetland areas will occur during July, August, and September to assure, at a minimum, the equivalent of normal rainfall levels and no periods of drought (no rainfall or watering) longer than three weeks. Reed canarygrass dominates the EPCW, and suppression/control of this invasive plant will require careful site preparation and active site management. While complete elimination of reed canarygrass from the mitigation site may not be possible, it should be managed sufficiently to ensure survival of the native planted species until they can effectively compete. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 49 Critical Areas Study Fl 9.0 References A.C. Kindig & Co. and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2003. City of Renton: Best available science literature review and stream buffer recommendations. February 23, 2003 report to the City of Renton. Azerrad, J., editor. August, 2004. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species. Volume V: Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. Brinson, M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands. Technical Report WRP- DE-4, Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Carey, A., and M. Johnson. 1995. Small mammals in managed, naturally young, and old-growth forests. Ecological applications 5: 336-352. City of Renton_ 2009b. City of Renton sensitive areas: Flood hazard map. May 21, 2009. http://rentonnet.org/internetapps/maps/pdf/Sensitive%20AreasIFlood%2OHazard. pdf City of Renton. 2011a. Renton Municipal Code. Ordinance 5628, passed September 26, 2011.. Available from: http:/1www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/ City of Renton. 2011 b. Landlnfo. http://rentonnet_org:8080/landinfo/Geocortex/Essentials/Web/viewer.aspx?Site=LIP. Accessed December 2011. Collins, B. and A. Sheikh. 2005. Historical aquatic habitats in the Green and Duwamish River valleys and the Elliott Bay nearshore, King County, Washington. Final project report to King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Seattle, WA. September 6, 2005. Cooke, S. and A. Azous. 1997. The hydrologic requirements of common Pacific Northwest wetland plant species. Pages 154-169 in Azous, A. L., and R.H. Horner (ends). Wetlands and Urbanization, Implications for the future, Final Report of the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA; King County Water and land Resources Division; and the University of Washington. Seattle WA. Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Elzinga, C., D. Salzer, and J. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1, BLM/RS/ST- 98/005+1730. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood insurance rate map: King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas. Map No. 53033C0979. Map Revised May 16, 1995. http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogld=10001 &storel d=10001 &categoryld=12001 &langld=-1 &userType=G&type=1. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 50 Critical Areas Study I L� FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2011. Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Draft Regional Guidance. Produced by FEMA - Region 10. April 2011. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. (1988) Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Reprinting with revision and bibliographic supplement. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. GeoEngineers. 2011. Geotechnical engineering services: Proposed Panther Creek culvert replacement crossing of SR 167. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project, Renton, Washington. Draft December 15, 2011 report to Washington State Department of Transportation. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2009. Task 3 — Identification of candidate culverts for fish passage that drain to Springbrook basin. April 30, 2049 memorandum to William Jordan, WSDOT 1-405 Project Team. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2011 a. Biological assessment update for State Route: 1-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 - Phase 2). January 2010 report to WSDOT ESO Mega Projects. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2011 b. Hydraulic report: SR 167 Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Fish Barrier Retrofit MP 24.70 to MP 25.69. Draft report December 2011. Hitchcock, C. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State wetland rating system for western Washington — Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 04-06-025. Johnson, D_ and T. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife -habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Jones, K. 1986. Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 267-290 in Cooperrider, A., R. Boyd, and H. Stuart. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, Colorado. Kennedy, J. 2008. Letter to Ben Brown, Washington State Department of Transportation, Northwest Region. Reference: NWS -2008-7. March 3, 2008. Kercher and Zedler. 2004. Flood tolerance in wetland angiosperms: a comparison of invasive and noninvasive species. Aquatic Botany 80: 89-102. Kerwin, J. and Nelson, T. (Eds.). December 2000. Habitat limiting factors and reconnaissance assessment report, Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural Resources Knutson, K., and V. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: Riparian. Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. LaRiverie, P. 2006_ Panther Creek — fish passage and fish habitat comments. January 12, 2006 memorandum to Dale'Anderson, Larsen, E., E. Roderick, and R. Milner, eds. 1995. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species. Volume 1: Invertebrates. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation_ Fish Barrier Retrofit 51 Critical Areas Study Fal Larsen, E., editor. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species. Volume III: Amphibians and reptiles. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. Larsen, E, J. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, eds. 2004. Management recommendations for Washington's priority species. Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 268pp. Lewis, J. and J. Azerrad. 2003. Pileated woodpecker. Pages 29-1 — 29-9 in E. Larsen, J. M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell soil color charts. Gretag Macbeth, New Windsor, NY. NHC (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants). 2011. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Alternative. June 26, 2009 Technical Memorandum to Mr. Ross Fenton, HDR Engineering. Revised November 2011. NMFS. 2008. Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation: Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington Phase One Document — Puget Sound Region. NMFS Tracking No.: 2006-00472. September 22, 2008. Available from: http:/Iwww.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon- Habitat/ESA-Consultations/FEMA-BO.cfm National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the 1-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2) Lower Cedar River, Cedar River Sixth Field HUC: 171100120106, 171100120302 King County, Washington. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, March 3, 2008. Parametrix. 2004. Best available science ordinance review. June 28, 2004 memorandum to Jones and Stokes. Phinney, L., P. Bucknell, and R. Williams, 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 2, Coastal Region. Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Olympia, WA. Available from: http://www.fishlib.org/library/Documents/Washington/DFW/StreamCatalog/index. 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. Richter, K. and A. Azous. 1997. Amphibian distribution, abundance and habitat use. p. 84-96. In Wetlands and urbanization, implications for the future. Final report of the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. Azous, A. L. and R.R. Horner (eds.) Washington State Department of Ecology, King County Water and Land resources Division and the University of Washington. Seattle, WA Saldi-Caromile, K., K. Bates, P. Skidmore, J. Barenti, D. Pineo. 2004. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines: Final Draft. Co -published by the Washington Departments of Thunder Hilts Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 52 Critical Areas Study HDR Fish and Wildlife and Ecology and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005_ Wetlands in Washington State — Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, We. March 2005. Snyder, D. E., P. S. Gale, R. F. Pringle. 1973_ Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service In cooperation with Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and Washington State University, Agriculture Research Center. http://soiIdatamart. nres. usda.gov/ManuscriptslWA633/0/wa633_text. pdf Sheldon, D., T_ Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T_ Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State — Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05-06-006. Olympia, Wa. March 2005. Timmons, R. 2009. WSDOT Panther Creek Culvert — SR167 at SW 191h Street. August 20, 2009 memorandum for City of Renton pre -application file No. PRE 09-042. Timmons, R. 2011. WSDOT Thunder Hills Mitigation Project - Question on Requirement for Floodplain Habitat Assessment. Email from Rocale Timmons, City of Renton, to Bonnie Lindner, HDR. November 29, 2011 University of Washington; NatureMapping [Internet]. January 27, 2010. Available from: http://depts.washington.edu/natmap/maps/ USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR -10-03. April 2010. http://www. usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/west_mt_finalsupp. pdf USDA NRCS (Unites States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. U. S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. USDA NRCS (Unites States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2009. Web soil survey for King County, Washington. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey_aspx. Accessed June 9, 2009. Walters, M., R. Teskey, and T. Hinckley. 1980. Impact of water level changes on woody riparian and wetland communities. Volume III: Pacific northwest and Rocky Mountain regions. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior FWSIOBS — 78/94. Washington, D.C. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003. Design of road culverts for fish passage. May 2003. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 174 pp. http:l/wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phs/phs_list_2008.pdf. August 2008 WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009a. SalmonScape web application. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.htmi. Accessed March 2, 2009. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 53 Critical Areas Study Fl WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009b. Priority Habitats and Species map and report for Section 30, Township 23 North, and Range 5 East. June 1, 2009. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 201 la. Natural Heritage Information Request Self -Service System. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_trs.pdf. November 4, 2011. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2011b. Washington Herp Atlas. http://wwwl.dnr._wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/herp/speciesmain.html. Accessed December2011. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. Priority Habitat and Species on the Web. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed October 28, 2011. WDOE (Washington State Department of Ecology), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 la. Olympia, WA. March 2006. West Consultants, Inc. 2008. 1-405 to SR 169, Stage 1 — Widening: Downstream analysis. May 7, 2008 Memorandum to Jim St. John, David Evans and Associates, Inc. WSDOT. 2000. Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects. June 2000. WSDOT. 2007x. Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan: Preliminary draft for Multi -Agency Permitting (MAPT) review. May 2007. WSDOT. 2007b. Biological Assessment for the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project. Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. 119 pp. WSDOT. 2007c. 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 —Phase 2): Ecosystems discipline report. December 2007. WSDOT. 2007d. Draft Assessment of Culverts for Fish Passage —Project Areas Involving In -Water Work. 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 - Phase 2). Prepared by 1-405 Team. January, 2007. Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Fish Barrier Retrofit 54 Critical Areas Study Appendix A Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation: Culvert and Stream Restoration and Enhancement Plans Projectwise vault: CP m v n m p_vO ti T m X x Z m r a m r om ;u Mo Z m rn m m m a O O v p❑ 3 03 oa C3 m N 0 I rn a Irn cn r^n n 0 m m m m m m-1 m m m 0 m r m o 1 o me 0;v rr rr x x x x x w A x x x 0 x 3 x i m m C y Z D D Co 1 1 0 mC: M �� O y m 2 3 $� yA ; g z z Z z z 2 Z 2 Z Z C z❑ Z [n i m c a a Q G1 Gj ❑ r Gj L7 Gj G1 Gj m v z i = oo a n a I c m m c m O n o 0 Z= z i i m rn y r 0j z N Cj x=� x a Q x js 3 o m c m= Yc 0 b m m m° z as m m-4 _< y H m y * m D v 0 A r o r m °ate T4 � V N A �o o r —z� m m 0 A - 23 Z4 _1g- �� Cmm ' room 1 51 ° 5"� rz 2m N��2Z mQ 66 jmD {r�JO Iry A y 7 z oJ m z a M 0 Z = ci ow m S C = z m c1_ Z z Z r �) m 3 1 ;u ;u Q w Z D m X 3 M m a r � 0— a C) fJ A O z n D r m y 0 — o 2 T rnm N N e 40 C' O m D `T n - m :2 �m M 0 0- c m ©o I rn a Irn cn r^n n 0 m m m m m m-1 m m m 0 m r m o 1 o me 0;v rr rr x x x x x w A x x x 0 x 3 x i m m C y Z D D Co 1 1 0 mC: M �� O y m 2 3 $� yA ; g z z Z z z 2 Z 2 Z Z C z❑ Z [n i m c a a Q G1 Gj ❑ r Gj L7 Gj G1 Gj m v z i = oo a n a I c m m c m O n o 0 Z= z i i m rn y r 0j z N Cj x=� x a Q x js 3 o m c m= Yc 0 b m m m° z as m m-4 _< y H m y * m D v 0 A r o r m °ate T4 � V N A �o o r —z� m m 0 A - 23 Z4 _1g- �� Cmm ' room 1 51 ° 5"� rz 2m N��2Z mQ 66 jmD {r�JO Iry A y 7 z oJ m z a ma C* kz m> Zm m b m m v rn cn a w N s G) QFfn0fn[nC m n„ z m m m m z Z mmmmm fTl <SDcnocncncn ;o m m p= w m= u> pmymmM-Mma Z m c Z .Z7 L �' 0) mo 0 QM>r�m7❑J^'m 0 c o v m `S m D= W O T O A Z C7mK0NpDQ m m m� m X. - I D m m z Y Z r r moo 0 z�><Oomc)cn Zm_X-4co z0co coZ = p z� Z 0 0 mc"nm0Zn ca �_oU3_ m KZ�0M: Dr =cn-n c � K r . m X 0 x m � m m m p < om2mj m�mcsorzn m D. , n 1 i }}El r! I l J. 1� 1 o cs� z �v+ 11 11 I m0 mZ m> m0 zm M 0 Z = n „ v ; C = z m a m Z r �) 1 ;u ;u Q w Z D m X m � 0— a C) fJ a q O z n D r y — o 2 T rnm N N e ma C* kz m> Zm m b m m v rn cn a w N s G) QFfn0fn[nC m n„ z m m m m z Z mmmmm fTl <SDcnocncncn ;o m m p= w m= u> pmymmM-Mma Z m c Z .Z7 L �' 0) mo 0 QM>r�m7❑J^'m 0 c o v m `S m D= W O T O A Z C7mK0NpDQ m m m� m X. - I D m m z Y Z r r moo 0 z�><Oomc)cn Zm_X-4co z0co coZ = p z� Z 0 0 mc"nm0Zn ca �_oU3_ m KZ�0M: Dr =cn-n c � K r . m X 0 x m � m m m p < om2mj m�mcsorzn m D. , n 1 i }}El r! I l J. 1� 1 o cs� z �v+ 11 11 I m0 mZ m> m0 zm 0 CL n W CL. it ■ OC p co J z N a Q o o o �o M Oa C4: ti r. w CD m CD 10 ti W �tH ^W z a It a� Z L�a n W z r�nWJ g W Lu W m0O[V)JQ: W ❑ a d W LL J LL Q Zoo ' >: C3 a^wQ QM{j ❑ LL L) z x p a t DD r ZLQLIZ U O z z2� W d �❑o _j C) a LL J Q oinw O �C ) :r Z.aM o U) LU LL Fn LL �OIx0 ❑z a J Oww~ v�22rd1. y N N m w�v,v,co 0 N P7 r x v r O z W r 9P O!� UN " ra DID f z 1. 3: Wim= - mJU D mm z W w C9 z w W O C5 N J z O N > Q W K a H V°6 z °° Jo z wr = y cwi a W rc xW z x H U W j j O Z r = d -0 C~iy v U LL. C7 Wm 2 [7 uri aaia v = r r Q � o D } �_ z 6 z z z Z 2 z z z z z S r r W w r f r r dJ U Go W S N N N N T W D N T F D z U W F x a x x x W OL x x x x x WQ �­ W O D W J W W W r m W W W W W 3 Ti O U C Z p fR1 W 0. 0 W JLLILLI I ' tE'!64 ld 1 ------------ 'ILLSIX3 �1t/W 1b.RF9 L 9z 9+1 OL l = 64'00+VL HO r z N •; ............F...............a..............*..............L........._.... --------------- / W U LN I t ............}..............{................f......�........{.....................F...............j................ r� l -------- --------- ----- - ----------------------------------------- Loz ! i x_ iJ w i ;I N ......................................... wt.............i...... ........... !p N ........................... l r�J 1 ,�.: 7 --------•---••••--}------. Q ...... - ----••--............... LL L SL�4Z ld JNI1SfX3 H�1HW la cf' s bs t9 LOL ' = 8f'Lf+ L H9 �Jf ---------- --------- -------- ................ ........ -------------- _._. ........... -..._...+--------------- +----- ------- +--------------- +--------- ---•------•---- -•t ........ _................. ............... {.............. .j............... 4 ............... y ............... i. ............... h............... j............... � m Lu LLJ Q I t -------------{---_.----.....-f---_.---------- --------------- {--------------- - --------------- h--...iLL__.h._ ...iLL-..., Lr Z 7 7 I I U I -----------------------------------{--- -- --------a ------- - -------F -- - --4W --- h-- -----vVr--- CL n W CL. it ■ OC p co J z N O m o �o M Oa ti LU W r 0 CD m CD 10 ti 0 C �tH ^W a a It a� Z L�a W z r�nWJ g W Lu owe m0O[V)JQ: W ❑ a W LL J LL Q Zoo ' >: C3 a^wQ QM{j ❑ LL ZLQLIZ U O z z2� W d �❑o _j C) a LL J Q oinw O �C ) :r Z.aM o U) LU LL Fn LL �OIx0 ❑z a J Oww~ v�22rd1. y N N m w�v,v,co 0 N P7 r x v r O z W r 9P O!� UN " ra DID f z 1. 3: Wim= - mJU D mm z W w C9 z w W O C5 N J z O N > Q W K a H V°6 z °° Jo z wr = y cwi a W rc xW z x H U W j j O Z r = d -0 C~iy v U LL. C7 Wm 2 [7 uri aaia v = r r Q � o D } �_ z 6 z z z Z 2 z z z z z S r r W w r f r r dJ U Go W S N N N N T W D N T F D z U W F x a x x x W OL x x x x x WQ �­ W O D W J W W W r m W W W W W 3 Ti O U C Z p fR1 W 0. 0 W JLLILLI I ' tE'!64 ld 1 ------------ 'ILLSIX3 �1t/W 1b.RF9 L 9z 9+1 OL l = 64'00+VL HO r z N •; ............F...............a..............*..............L........._.... --------------- / W U LN I t ............}..............{................f......�........{.....................F...............j................ r� l -------- --------- ----- - ----------------------------------------- Loz ! i x_ iJ w i ;I N ......................................... wt.............i...... ........... !p N ........................... l r�J 1 ,�.: 7 --------•---••••--}------. Q ...... - ----••--............... LL L SL�4Z ld JNI1SfX3 H�1HW la cf' s bs t9 LOL ' = 8f'Lf+ L H9 �Jf ---------- --------- -------- ................ ........ -------------- _._. ........... -..._...+--------------- +----- ------- +--------------- +--------- ---•------•---- -•t ........ _................. ............... {.............. .j............... 4 ............... y ............... i. ............... h............... j............... � m Lu LLJ Q I t -------------{---_.----.....-f---_.---------- --------------- {--------------- - --------------- h--...iLL__.h._ ...iLL-..., Lr Z 7 7 I I U I -----------------------------------{--- -- --------a ------- - -------F -- - --4W --- h-- -----vVr--- LOO + T_ T_ 0 0 t a r o�l ■ 19 z a w y` a c7 a cm b p 0 LL Z O m O N OVi'4 W 3•�� �V Va2� I w o °w c W z a �W ��9xe z a� w z m rc w LL f o C. O lu U 4 0.^ daa i+IrDA es;M4D9fcJd CL n CL. Q ^o r, p n � z Q_ (� LU P0 LL 0 19 Y W a LU a� W z g J� N LU ❑ LL z x p o t DD r � N c c C i 0 co O O c + ti to m 3E r co CL d O � 4 U z Z LL z z Ll LOO + T_ T_ 0 0 t a r o�l ■ 19 z a w y` a c7 a cm b p 0 LL Z O m O N OVi'4 W 3•�� �V Va2� I w o °w c W z a �W ��9xe z a� w z m rc w LL f o C. O lu U 4 0.^ daa i+IrDA es;M4D9fcJd ProjectWise Vault: DGR Q1 fSs A W N M A 2 z m � a +� am-yo-amr m cn,, rfr1 ox mm m O m A z o C7 n a: n [7 [ 1 [7 C7 n� m D O m m Z Z ax!"rnmp a A7]2222222=2- z zz�mmmlll r 0 a a ❑ ; � � � � �, � � � w n ry � s m1 ❑Ocncn �] 7s m m m d p m Os Cn A w O p x xry x D� m m xcn y a m < + + + + + + + + + a ry mXn11m o < j cn 0 0 W? A w m�ybmO r - N w w W m-4 m c cn N m O +0'i A 1 0 0 r r 1 2 Z W N O Ql CN11 pm0 VI W m rUO W Z A C 4 O6 ❑ e v' ❑ a m O o r n N 14 to c' ❑�1cnp m]J r 0 i N a = p 4 O Y 1 C T Z 2 Z 2 m 11 N C1 0 o nl -4 C7 41 y G) D .n N CI) Z x N a o = x n ;a cn 0 G1 2OZm;e_r ydrn oaz + p Zm2m p w 0nm221 1 1 O z --IM m mcm 0_❑ A N = S Ol Q VCc fp A co to 'W Q� m 1 m G) 0 w W W w cn m 0} cD rn Z 7; m N y -4 w rn m 1 v o N a G) =— � ` LU�y = DD�-0 1 f _ m '' y g3nrm 1 F' z� mz p ��Se6'1 mOii m ;o mm p°z xnooz ^cwt z �cn � 4 Zt+ Zmz a mm �0 I' N N N � N ns ns ns ns n� s.s m _ `� y� N to m pmnmiyy ��� M, -0 O� a to co w ro ro (D w co to to to D - / M W co ��pp ppD� co m (mn m m m m rn a / �+ a W �o i m C N 1 a m XW w A A W A W p Np N p N� 1 C7 IJ f epi O D C7 y O Q 4 w mOm N L c�O A C ~ O� A 0 �i 2 A C ZI aW �s w m ro to W m Ln -1 c�.� / ; N ,my v m L7 m cn -4 w m m v Os o v o w m RI m c Z O z lS 2 7J C f 1 T a r m 1 n !Tl m rn rl 11f m w o m n 7C w z 71 m °�° °�° CN w o m w rWa m co m a o Ir f ti _ z Io b+ 0 MT a Z n e a IO) > W i y p W P n N W d N❑ n r A A Q 1 A rQ po A N EW fQ (Of cn m % 1! 2+ i 1 Z CD m W W s L W Q m A N 1 I f r i i o m m co n_ Z m w u w G m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /J 41 w m � a m ro 1rl s n `° C oz w a ti;i m m �� o N g o _car, 0 ri .`�' ,tNn o .(7Ni re) 1 1 J! of n m g N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c A;11! Z = 1J vlro 1 0 0 r! v J! 11 ND D rn rn N o in is 0 i 1 ' J = m v o� m 0 it w N m ry Z m❑ + W 1 y N 11 m z v rn 1 w V .NA v N W A 003 m N z zm 0 If1' t7 OI cn m cn 0 6 6 A A A 0 1 i x l r 0 V o' io �$ 41 4 N 0 r0 o w - o= r 1 J iT a x 11 N ° NsN ri!Z Qw l i CD t W wmmn pm��I 0 i .007 Ch a � 01 T Z 1 N z o=_ 0 Z I I I I x m 0m 1m II V/ rn L° O " m 0mm�$-mm as D u. T rn A m mw�'i� Ya' 1+ ly 0 r _ =oZ$o$'ip3 z ii 11 x4 co fd D so } r�i 0 GS m�A;3~zubirOn 1 i m €m o c A z A A Z , + w Qam ulmam4 m Mi C) m� v m m� N o iv m X Z 2 ns N �71 O n<imi0 AOzZ� , 2 W Omo Omo Y om W mz rmszm-`"i> �i ,s O z ~ cm Z o li m o m 13-Z y m m ry 2 CAI rrnnLa 0 Z y mm�mo 040 ` a m N m T Q o m(n ZN Om Z 5�mb m m o m m>00zDGm1 v ,V N N mn r '�°zmz� m y CO 0w0 O p m 1 1J G'1mm 1 3 A 1 1 _ t° m D Z o < P 100' v ymz X o 203 Q z I ocn m S r r C O 4 W n m l a iii A1z 0 / 111 N W iJ m o a A o N cn � m J -4 O m ( ca o 1 m ry i f "LLL r ;arm Ul T m >M_Z z q �` c1i��D m0k z n v 11 z Sys°-° mw1 1 /! z x x z -0z ci +! � wx r 0-00 nzv m s* D :4' zmao Vi 1 � li li ,a +y .z wm Mt D x 7Q 0 I � I I � °i ;.m a w O z NII m m ��°+ 'A MA prn I m a y -r 13 N I l z C1 m II Z m .. S �m n W O 3 . O \ _ e m \ A o n o n m �c>c m n \\ \ Ln -� regi z 0�-1 z w --Z O x z z ^'zz w; n z z O z > 0 --1 m °' i v CM 4M D m -4c o D r0 m w mjry u N 1 C+n rn � -S "' O m cn° l A o 0 0 _C! O= 0 O wZ w u -n �� z x DZ 1 0 mm m� z + m N 0 D3nrm N m 0 a r N 2 O �q2�z 1 a n m m e 1 '�° N �m o m +a D = a z a o, ` pmao--4iz n r '" I �\ �A� 1 _ c y rn 0 Z! - Qo m C7 P B L I S o a 3C 3� mry � rn ❑ y I Z m1��A z Qz _>; rn A ❑ 0 wa "'m °x Z T rn m m m m m-1 m m m m n m r w m o mzc, _ ox a Q 0 y to O N y C m fA Ul Z H z 0; O w n N cm s Z� n� ry i Z rri �_ 8 1 1-0 1 w m 1 m 1 -a m m x fOww �.+. v Sz m O z z 0 z z= z z z 0 z D z $ + w CA g G) A m 0 0 m 0 0 r 0 G) G) X!> w G) v b. u a rM 'i ry Y> w� C m m C m 0 n 0- °'"' m D 0 -Di CS i 0 m D m czi Z m x x o im Z Z f) x a ,v 3 z D m O w -i _ a C. ic w p z a Y y w m r Z LA z S m� q z r l SIM I ONissnaol , V DNINV3l3 W r/ U a o� F 0 o J SIMI ONIeenmo y Fay ` LU ❑w o rc t~/� O r a or Jz 0-1 W0 1 � W CL U) 4m Z a 8 Lule 7 K +� -4 J 0 + + rco ^ Vl Z C1m n , CO W C�-2. a o� F n'--------- WI 9 SIMI ONIeenmo Wi Co. I ONNYT10J hoc aQ z o , CO �d a o� F awdImm LU oc 1 SIMI ONIeenmo Z ❑ I ONNYT10J hoc aQ o rc t~/� O >= z W SE Z,r W O 2 y 0 �+ z r W a~7 }w} SAMI1 `3NI69nNo 8 ONINV319 1 0 awdImm w 1 z W~ hoc aQ o rc r �z W 0-1 W0 1 � W CL U) 4m Z a 8 7 K +� -4 J 0 + + rco ^ Vl Z C1m ;C c� Qp N I N w P rx W o� II U o vc --z—� I ------ -r-- Nr �N cli w porn W _ ma LU y a 2 ni U +* r r Z— N m 0 U LUo y~ N r W a �a °� I �2 0 0 w HOW ~ simn K vNisenai uuia z W '8 ONINValo i i FE in ymaw I �� �o W 0 CA w 111 � O w to W q SLIMIl ONleenuo T JNIaV3l3 Q z O m P- r O r W m Qaoaam w�mLU 1 a y } �4 ------ O r O W IL �W°yam LLIm y a� a y m Y W a! CL W I � a O } r W s1lwn smesnms` I ZZ 1 �O W C7 s U z W mm b b W a Q w x a� QCr W N N N 0 A Z N r O a fan U U x U 8 votp I j7c-4 N O r O Ute• W 0 w w z ZZ W o rc Iw w0 W 0-1 W0 1 ca 7 K +� -4 J z K ... m I Vl Z C1m ;C c� Qp N I N w N W w o� II r 1 Nr �N votp I j7c-4 N O r O Ute• Z � w w ZZ O a w0 W W0 LLI w z 0 U LLI (0 z 0 F a � t� w a' W Q w U -ia =m Lu p LL z F 00 z �o . v ZqN Qc c t F -0O wW v ❑ j vi y mF c7 x W o iz z w su ❑a ga ❑ 0 1m WE s JLLJ m C7 C7 � W O J J Ur 7 4 5 a 0 O =l po 0 a a zz 9 W 0 z 0 o 1 U ul Q LL U- �O o o T x z LU K N n °u U' �ViLLW F- 0 0 a a M Wo ❑ y❑❑ zu L;Z _jp o W w w w r W o axl? fill U) co jm w m m m m Q uj J W W W W C)¢ Q W Z W w W 2 z Z LLI W W W yy(� z F y[ z LU D N 0 0 0 W= w r U' W V N tq ui m� LLI a .i '� 6 i w z x m w li O a a W U a Q' z 0 U W H z 0 LLI O :�Inon as!A-[oafo-jd Z � g O a O W LLJ QL W❑ q IK --i 00 z �o . v ZqN Qc c t F -0O wW v ❑ j vi y mF c7 x W o iz z w su ❑a ga ❑ 0 1m WE s JLLJ m C7 C7 � W O J J Ur 7 4 5 a 0 O =l po 0 a a zz 9 W 0 z 0 o 1 U ul Q LL U- �O o o T x z LU K N n °u U' �ViLLW F- 0 0 a a M Wo ❑ y❑❑ zu L;Z _jp o W w w w r W o axl? fill U) co jm w m m m m Q uj J W W W W C)¢ Q W Z W w W 2 z Z LLI W W W yy(� z F y[ z LU D N 0 0 0 W= w r U' W V N tq ui m� LLI a .i '� 6 i w z x m w li O a a W U a Q' z 0 U W H z 0 LLI O :�Inon as!A-[oafo-jd ProjectW;se Voult: CSP AMnmpvv-+� M 0 x z m r D '; r L) D 0 m 0 Q M m G7 m c m a� Q o a 0 c ; rr m � 3 3 EO v w N 0 0 0 0 T O m 0 T Z w N V o .. d N C q O Z m m in fil 3 w 0 '� (� T is i z i °zT o s om d i ? m A o m M m m A a Z Q Z Z r r z z m 0 a m N Z Z z -` m p LAa o � I z � a A m m �15L M nm M u<—i 0rn-nim �mn'N z �yy0 (n 52lA Zm zm.-7 �� , yz Zyca Z .> L)Aoo iaW� 02(n M OM -4M �M �= pqmm i z 1fi Diem A N©�w r Togo [r� W F ,.,� imp �.p N m Z�WZ G Q y� M JD I , r 0 A yN m ! / aym-4m 1 1 1 ] r _' D � w � H �Co O 2 J■ Q 4= �; N Y mwo wm r ��m Z A� n O I 0 y w Z Q OQN� +.T VA m !1 \\ y0�w $ O Z � om0 -qm0 q 1m � 2 •, ., KO m 4 � `. ■ Zy,O -4Z m 'MO W o- ma _ �qS nn Z >-n Y 1J p 70 1- - o v Ac O m 0 .: r z xz £ v 1 1 ~ O 1 1 Z 1 r rn 1 Z c (n -4 m F= q ► ■ z �I mm !I r My � ;m m� z to m M � os aD �+ M � 120' 120' � O w Cf1 7orcnmm 0 O XZZ z gZivv w rn =N 4 zcl)F m c m 1 V D rn 0 o� 103 m � mm n �cria °Q r m m+c° o a — a 00 z o N ;um X o ~ 9� �3 -iM�o� xxxxxwp-ixxxox3r,x� .4 ZO �_ mx 1 l i m n m m 1= o Z '� s Z ZO 51 67 Gf 2 2i c si 0 p 0 > W m 1 = m mz n o r 7p z Co Z ■ O � c _ 3 y n yr a a uF G7 m c D .� G7 r m C �+ n m O [D7 D n h_ I n p Z s O x0 ! I K ;a M 0 = n x D 3 m D Z p m p colx O m m D P m m w m Z m N r a3 9� �A ;jm A x r I f m V A s v f W LO z N F— d LU U) Z 0 U W 0 U � � a °ao (D z �o � z � Hy W w W a a' LU m LU o m wui2_ W H M Z W 2 CL o z o 06W 3 Z a Z d U O uQl r z cn U LL 0 LU o O V Ca F o ami 0 Z Lu a M EL Z r4 p O O a a Z Z aQ? C7 y V7 h a J O W$ a w z 0 W p W a rJ Z F F LL J W LL Z W adnv=i°IL �+ co W W W W W a a W O � 7 a 0 _ N Vi _ 0 (7 J 00- Lu a m W OF T_ L LI J W z z a UI II Y~ W VIo I7 � Y Z W ~ �r .xo z C3 „-INV O� gaF `Y WJfi'it0 z F = CO W Z W as F Z A Z r V J w Ln �$ Q a' W W LU Z CV 'tW 5 W Z N 0 J y W y N yam a L7a 7 R' a y g y S 0 y O 0 Z CO F a O F- u Q J F- U 0 O W a W W 7 d Q V Z yO 0 W U U LL a w z a N O N U O Q Z D S rZ J Z W W z Z W Z Z_ S Z Z Z Z O Uw QOa S 0 a F 0 F F V F F- L} N N H m F F Il a Z F- v oo O In z m z O m N O Y� pQd �' K J X O x W x x a' w x x m x x a` ryry � Z 0 Z Z Q O W N J W U W LL W W H m W W a W w a FLL W 2H 1 5C =ou)(Ogg _j -1 w I N aWrLLI jr F- Uj z 10 't o N°v� aWWSLLZ Q� I w z�� J ! x �LIJ 1° azo tr o a � v y I.7 Z W QLLWZ� Z = H Z 2 Z 32 W w z Z 00 O UN =0Onyg�it W LL a m = �w a CW LU U) LU OIQ z c7 O 2 z Ix NS aa'YSLL? 0O W w W F g n? Sul F F U_ Z a x00S NCO a z-,ALu dLLJNyO4-2 1 4 N +y J � IS - Z ¢N 0— 0: UWaoa W~ wa0 vOFF O HLu 0 ILWZ4Ia- w�c31iJJ = 0 "'n 0, Q W N W O y Z W LU LU N a W W z a J W z z S UZJ 0LL 06 _t ZOO IL^ W railuo W F oxg O.a oLo 7 J LU z Z _ U 13 a : N Z e o z p Jai Ir 0 0 0 0 U) 0 LL �+ 0 0 0 0 H J J a Ix Z Ix IV z 0 I. - 4t -Q 0 LL Y W W uu U W U J_ m 2 I _ W N O LL z O a G W LL U Z Z z Fr LL) w Z z LU z Zs Oz Q� 0 � OZ ;a 2 SZ LU �a oZ a co O co o W mmmm�a W T f` z W w� W 002 I � II W lu- O m P w 0 0 dHO I4.I00n as!M 0 a1O-Jd r©g V N z F H 0 z HW f / / / 1 W K z a W 0 O e ZA /rl 2Fo U S U ZZ yZZ c,aLLWto Y7� I�%rA o°mU3gQ o W F tib aWroLeu02 a�NLL_ e o F F U_ Z a x00S NCO a z-,ALu dLLJNyO4-2 1 4 N +y J � IS - Z ¢N 0— 0: UWaoa W~ wa0 vOFF O HLu 0 ILWZ4Ia- w�c31iJJ = 0 "'n 0, Q W N W O y Z W LU LU N a W W z a J W z z S UZJ 0LL 06 _t ZOO IL^ W railuo W F oxg O.a oLo 7 J LU z Z _ U 13 a : N Z e o z p Jai Ir 0 0 0 0 U) 0 LL �+ 0 0 0 0 H J J a Ix Z Ix IV z 0 I. - 4t -Q 0 LL Y W W uu U W U J_ m 2 I _ W N O LL z O a G W LL U Z Z z Fr LL) w Z z LU z Zs Oz Q� 0 � OZ ;a 2 SZ LU �a oZ a co O co o W mmmm�a W T f` z W w� W 002 I � II W lu- O m P w 0 0 dHO I4.I00n as!M 0 a1O-Jd / r N f / / / 1 W K z f f 6l x` Z J a dc /rl o WF IUl ZZ yZZ c,aLLWto I�%rA o°mU3gQ o W F frlr� aWroLeu02 a�NLL_ W f�A L6 rf rf� �00 $Nz V iF W r0 CN ZJ 2 SNJ W H '- lu C',r H '. LU Ix Z N - Z N � w"- ' V W a a I y2 Y pO ly = . ULU z ZZ OF - F - MO - I FLL WZ Wed=Sg W0 m�[70LLF-F {`' =O Nal NZ- Ovi uj 44 oz -' .rs• e � W LU r= F F U_ Z a x00S NCO a z-,ALu dLLJNyO4-2 1 4 N +y J � IS - Z ¢N 0— 0: UWaoa W~ wa0 vOFF O HLu 0 ILWZ4Ia- w�c31iJJ = 0 "'n 0, Q W N W O y Z W LU LU N a W W z a J W z z S UZJ 0LL 06 _t ZOO IL^ W railuo W F oxg O.a oLo 7 J LU z Z _ U 13 a : N Z e o z p Jai Ir 0 0 0 0 U) 0 LL �+ 0 0 0 0 H J J a Ix Z Ix IV z 0 I. - 4t -Q 0 LL Y W W uu U W U J_ m 2 I _ W N O LL z O a G W LL U Z Z z Fr LL) w Z z LU z Zs Oz Q� 0 � OZ ;a 2 SZ LU �a oZ a co O co o W mmmm�a W T f` z W w� W 002 I � II W lu- O m P w 0 0 dHO I4.I00n as!M 0 a1O-Jd / r N f / / / 1 W K z f f 6l x` Z J a dc /rl o WF IUl ZZ yZZ c,aLLWto I�%rA o°mU3gQ o W F frlr� aWroLeu02 a�NLL_ W f�A L6 rf rf� �00 $Nz Y r0 CN ZJ r r! SNJ W H lu C',r = Va ow LLIat Z N � w"- ' a� � = Q F W �Z y2 U a LU = 0a F_: - LUz W0 m�[70LLF-F {`' NZ- Ovi I e � W LU r= y lu LLI.4 UJ C,ON j.- - as -y0 o o r LU N• LU �TLk-STUA f f II LU I� U. 0. W z 10 Z �- d� W0 F F U_ Z a x00S NCO a z-,ALu dLLJNyO4-2 1 4 N +y J � IS - Z ¢N 0— 0: UWaoa W~ wa0 vOFF O HLu 0 ILWZ4Ia- w�c31iJJ = 0 "'n 0, Q W N W O y Z W LU LU N a W W z a J W z z S UZJ 0LL 06 _t ZOO IL^ W railuo W F oxg O.a oLo 7 J LU z Z _ U 13 a : N Z e o z p Jai Ir 0 0 0 0 U) 0 LL �+ 0 0 0 0 H J J a Ix Z Ix IV z 0 I. - 4t -Q 0 LL Y W W uu U W U J_ m 2 I _ W N O LL z O a G W LL U Z Z z Fr LL) w Z z LU z Zs Oz Q� 0 � OZ ;a 2 SZ LU �a oZ a co O co o W mmmm�a W T f` z W w� W 002 I � II W lu- O m P w 0 0 dHO I4.I00n as!M 0 a1O-Jd / r N f / / / 1 W K z f f 6l x` Z J a dc /rl o WF IUl ZZ yZZ c,aLLWto I�%rA o°mU3gQ o W F frlr� aWroLeu02 a�NLL_ W f�A L6 rf rf� �00 $Nz Y r0 CN ZJ r r! SNJ W H F F U_ Z a x00S NCO a z-,ALu dLLJNyO4-2 1 4 N +y J � IS - Z ¢N 0— 0: UWaoa W~ wa0 vOFF O HLu 0 ILWZ4Ia- w�c31iJJ = 0 "'n 0, Q W N W O y Z W LU LU N a W W z a J W z z S UZJ 0LL 06 _t ZOO IL^ W railuo W F oxg O.a oLo 7 J LU z Z _ U 13 a : N Z e o z p Jai Ir 0 0 0 0 U) 0 LL �+ 0 0 0 0 H J J a Ix Z Ix IV z 0 I. - 4t -Q 0 LL Y W W uu U W U J_ m 2 I _ W N O LL z O a G W LL U Z Z z Fr LL) w Z z LU z Zs Oz Q� 0 � OZ ;a 2 SZ LU �a oZ a co O co o W mmmm�a W T f` z W w� W 002 I � II W lu- O m P w 0 0 dHO I4.I00n as!M 0 a1O-Jd W f�A Y z Q CN ZJ lu C',r = Va ow � W W �Z y2 = 0a F_: F F U_ Z a x00S NCO a z-,ALu dLLJNyO4-2 1 4 N +y J � IS - Z ¢N 0— 0: UWaoa W~ wa0 vOFF O HLu 0 ILWZ4Ia- w�c31iJJ = 0 "'n 0, Q W N W O y Z W LU LU N a W W z a J W z z S UZJ 0LL 06 _t ZOO IL^ W railuo W F oxg O.a oLo 7 J LU z Z _ U 13 a : N Z e o z p Jai Ir 0 0 0 0 U) 0 LL �+ 0 0 0 0 H J J a Ix Z Ix IV z 0 I. - 4t -Q 0 LL Y W W uu U W U J_ m 2 I _ W N O LL z O a G W LL U Z Z z Fr LL) w Z z LU z Zs Oz Q� 0 � OZ ;a 2 SZ LU �a oZ a co O co o W mmmm�a W T f` z W w� W 002 I � II W lu- O m P w 0 0 dHO I4.I00n as!M 0 a1O-Jd Projectwise Vcult: ST ;uvnm0-00-jM mMzzmr D a r m ti D O n m T O m m m z m MOT m m Z rn q SZa4rm7nmk �Mk mz00=Dm C DO> .pmz� tazOC 2m—ocmm 4x-4mp� >C) 0 m 1r2�2NZ3 -4 'mmz 1 Fmzmm mAV Z��RZw m�=ammm MOxt Oz Z y z W mmm r ��• -�� =Nmn3 0 r TmM>� v�-i-4�OZam q�Nxmn� r3 AOr� j j � mz ��ym Z�IOA ;0�1ZD00 M Amcru MMT zym MmZq;mO OmrV yG1 V, m� C m m t m p N n_ mm IWC -4>0 - O m v 5 300 3 �±cgr-i2m�_r R O w02 Z2 MamYr vv�p��aFM DG1 020 3MZ O -n A r w r a77rN aDr m Vim �{ U -1r 2 mN-410 Z ail• T � Z ? wmR s zwr>roz pro C3rzC OR c��Cf7m-=� ate -o z D�}Z 0 33 r zz mza r M>>zo zv ma�z �z a,vvcssW� �z��30 O maa § Xz -4-a AAma N�?ii NmtiMrm• C am t mOz —1 G1 > w N O=mt-i 9 r Gi M-, W- ; mN a 401z -m_a 111 N tam -mmm z C C x -.N �rr ViNzZ ' wma zz a O D=0W 052 M-4;CNMM oT-O ONO -4T qZ j�7CmOn O�am"f n� Mmwma rn NL7vN -0 ylC Z DCWr CS -m D• =Z m m>�a0 mai Am z0pry? mmo Oc- (Amvmimn m mmWWO ma�0 0 0 znTx ARS '�jNm�7m0 a �>mm mr� Aa O <-<- mm iZm z0-M-ii� a ID acZi1D m�A07o ryN m0���gDO OotCiiR1R Wg NRr ?ny pap °th��N--11C Oman pCQ--' Z1�p -0 a-mtR7x C-4�COirnr> oxoI rrliTa 3Nap�� y azo W>W m >-4N-40-07mp zDD RarO ta7�la m 711N aD Wnf - z C1 m r RRO �4m mrn Corn -a ozr aro 0zz g ami-Nitz�nv�r zvf >-11- mb>0� 0 �z a O rma>0 0 -<3-imOONo mm0 c �>m �mNm M Ur) � �zm -1 xm > A 3mx agyar r wNm Omxr330 moo°r C0 TXmM WT m��OW>m RTom' ami NCA m20 Rm m ZDOpr�N = C mZ0 A 2TzX� O ps�ymr ZxV,�m N WN�a�w- W amm 1z m0 N tzzzOzm art a -n M> v ;i�CDy zm�-'q�mc°7 �rmrrnDavi�z= � ��r i a -4rfS ° ZORSz�N TWO C�V�-4M mmm Omm3C10N -1 0m0>05 F �rDmrnO Or < W3-maC)a om-n =1Z?a Z mD'M -0C-0�mClO� nr-iiNam zr aWGRZO 7 NSm r0 \ mMm>mo° rZM 'nrfanym'10 aNmvi �WSM zM 7C�3 ra0 Dmi.<mn ata \\ m Wm_ m -Ox Wma z zyDr mp y> a'ata2 DRO _C X ��OmogZ � � Cd >zo-Im ma a2 M wrnyr=90� tzn2E mno gm�azv M // Mzaana �a ON ?zC0 -0r 0 m 1 n��'aoq o�D az -.1 v \\/ vfOD� �r Wn0 6ziv0-aim z° � p rrz 03 �So�maMM z= azo zpzOmO z00 O "W G] za m> y a m ac oa Z a �3 Wa z 07nC� \/\\% z mp aOZ z Oz a N R Om0 ma Tr m0 p m zx /\ \ 0xm �M.X O 3 a 3 a^ \\' \' -� m m 038 v X ° a 0 z o (0 z z z z a y m -n v v v -o -u-0 M v M M -u-0-a C 2 O Cn to Cn W cn U) to 0 0 0 0 Cf7 C/1 GS Z RI W t `5 --5 t 0 "v t� t t M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m C `-" O m a) o In z m W a, m 3 r n'a m o n n o n 5 W i n n 03 M o D v O ac ar m x �' 2 ao z > Z r @ n v 73 0 3 n n w m a m Z 0 r. _. o :3 o 2 o c oZi r v p N z Z ---- ------ m-_ p0 o Q Cr rn a� o a N O c T 3 a� a o o m 0 00 O a � n >0 ro a M = ZZ m R D m� o n� 7 0 0 �� o w m d �' G Z r v x' �. n' o w K' K' 3 171 t` y n c CD ti w o y n �` v CD n M r a t� x x n ``s o- 'o: 2 D 1 p m a� m a m v ar m �. 0 m a w �. �, °' oZi z CD T r N0 > 0 %/ ca 0- OD OD W N N 3 'r 3 �rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Q O O O n n z o 0 CO) (n�' ? o o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d N N ;1 CDv M \ w w w cn CD CD CD ��//\ j oo w ao ac o0 0o w w oo co ao ao ao a�C Q m r mr =r s r a s \\\j W W CA fn fn C / T Ln T YI a'i DO Z r ZN m �_ o Q MCK) co [/1 Z N N N O Q] Q1 O] V tLo CO V V V V �7 1 L'l O co Iv A S 07 0 M Z _ � v W A m 1 j�� CO Cb Rei G3 y I I I I I 3 I 3 I �7 •+ r W W co W N a 171 <-n (iii � I I I I I I 3 N Q N W a0 Z 0 � O \\ w y W000Z a A m' A A A jm o TMiN. o o w W N y0�m y \ 7 � am -4� m r W W mo m 0� N CSA m O \� I zmmD z fl ? H z oo O°ma �n m ` 1 \//\ axa mmmm vm CR 7 t I1 1/XX 0-4 Z°> Z05 \<<N\ \ Y +� a moc C Rax m O z z z X m R m z r*a -4 Ouw a a C r \\/ /\\/\\ N " a- z 00 Z O /X\\)//j D > 0 W z -nv c� z' _ g \\�i� O R xv D r rn ` J -= n� Zf] M N ,— ?� N N r NO zm mZ n2 M 0 A NO Mm Rn / 0 '� is zC M � o � SC W OP w_ z(A X 111 Har m 4 rn w N J .A �n am N� ��0 M Tr n � O ;;3 -t a MOTO Mi* MC O Om Or m3 � C -1 D, r m>;cs Dm O mz 00'1 yan>I+ a0 O t00 27G >Z ram°m r� Oa o 0m DD3R 00 mzD �i,Z =mm am m1 Nar �c,> Wg C zZ . . . > Rnx a rn>G ((��y c7T rz pzcpi ��� m0 n i O �Ap- -4M> iMZ U 1y ; R �Om mrn D XOz3 arz z >M o Nx vx g� z w 0-40 m� Z A c� az =m0 C) 0 z qxm m>i 3� O p n 3GC � Z N zmn �R zx m m 3X ?� a W> mW �r -1< f/f zm A�A7z 70 ma to r0 R -t V 0T 0 a C m N am 3 J 0 N W MWa Z J N N Qom_ w w O LLIz W h o Y 1W w 7 N W W W 0.° W z L0 LU � baa~a 00a N O F- N p J q -0i J Z a 0. h ZF N 7 z =� w zaaFN 144 _ O J C7 QXK -j _3 J ¢� N1 USN U. C7 0J0 0. N J J W W 0Yi j y LL,gF ~Or zj.FZ a le U_0Lu m7 ca W LLI0.Z W aQ a4F?a N 2Z a2(Wj fn=Zj 2' _CF) ZZ Q0IL J t%LL OZ �z`q Q zQ U3 U_ z w m0�LLJ 9lz mF�._ w _ wd�z-0 N J Q aN a0� WYx0 cLLJ a m�t� a Z o LU LIJ H w0 moo ��OLLz� � �J� ao U 3o5zNaja? 0. 7zN 0. H Oa.0. U i - 0 Na W a0Z�0 x POLL d'.j In en OaLL _- FW- N JZ } oW t-2 W U.U' yFm o NNZw= I -1 -- v�ax d a c) IL I a �Wi>J0aLLY a'x L Jay 60u III ui N�mjz WWxOW p ' - 0 °a UwdKFQZ=Z 0 -- dm°d Wrcxaza NJxaF�dFDa —I—III=1 J N zLL,UA F p Lijv=i�¢�fl�aygi —III IEI—' �'..Z� Z=aQa F- J J LU zaada?LL a r ai vi a Iri co r: H1d30 °JNUOOH J 0 N W MWa Z J N N Qom_ w w W Z 0 1W F �` O �� L0 LU � \ W p zzN F m 0 t C Wy' z W = z C) LL x a.0 OLUW aOT v 3LL g Q 2 a JUO Baa w Ir LU 00 CL W �IL U W 0. m M o J a� J = ~aa Q 0 x ax z a go w _ UW w V _ m a Z o zN r W pw "'�py "W � �J� ao U a w 3 W 0. U 0. H Oa.0. U i F Lu F 0. N= d'.j Wom N W(KOMam FW- N av1HF o NNZw= IL a'x 60u W i 1W O°oo ° ooa� L0 LU � \ cn a. LLU' 00° t C W z J_ Oz mw en a ° 0 1W O°oo ° ooa� z J_ Oz mw en a 1 N ♦Z Q W I.IN.n N W O U J W F LL N 1 z O IL M aZ WJ a. � N J_ N O CL y W a )IW J 1,-O W 02 Q aN 13 w0a V DC z LUCL 4 z a IL O:E °) W w z y OSS � W.J3z 1L 0. J uj U Q ¢ w Q �V1W x 7tlC4 uj EL=l i=N a~i aIy 0O � U W 0moza r}.F z 2ga° aLL°IL9 Xxwx0EL j aF W F W i d Z Q a % a. d LU p O a J J Q LU aLU Z z>O IL >Fa� Q U Z i LLJ m 0 d U d a W a EL H 0 a c) 2 fOR o 1W O°oo ° ooa� L0 LU CL LU5w 1 N ♦Z Q W I.IN.n N W O U J W F LL N 1 z O IL M aZ WJ a. � N J_ N O CL y W a )IW J 1,-O W 02 Q aN 13 w0a V DC z LUCL 4 z a IL O:E °) W w z y OSS � W.J3z 1L 0. J uj U Q ¢ w Q �V1W x 7tlC4 uj EL=l i=N a~i aIy 0O � U W 0moza r}.F z 2ga° aLL°IL9 Xxwx0EL j aF W F W i d Z Q a % a. d LU p O a J J Q LU aLU Z z>O IL >Fa� Q U Z i LLJ m 0 d U d a W a EL H 0 a c) 2 fOR o 1W w . ILy L0 LU CL LU5w cn a. LLU' r40 1 N ♦Z Q W I.IN.n N W O U J W F LL N 1 z O IL M aZ WJ a. � N J_ N O CL y W a )IW J 1,-O W 02 Q aN 13 w0a V DC z LUCL 4 z a IL O:E °) W w z y OSS � W.J3z 1L 0. J uj U Q ¢ w Q �V1W x 7tlC4 uj EL=l i=N a~i aIy 0O � U W 0moza r}.F z 2ga° aLL°IL9 Xxwx0EL j aF W F W i d Z Q a % a. d LU p O a J J Q LU aLU Z z>O IL >Fa� Q U Z i LLJ m 0 d U d a W a EL H 0 a c) 2 fOR m o cr G v w . = CL O 3 t C a� C) LL +� N d OLUW 0 W Q a O cc w W 1 W W ill U W xV i z V) u Q J J Q —1z W -C T J i k. w _ Z u W Na z C Y H� VJ I` $ m o CL N 0) t C w 0 WNCA c o N d N 3 W a O cc w J D ill z O z O ti z_ ca N z J i cc w J J ¢ � � H N w VJ z W Y H� VJ W $ J W F a p r a m m m m Q UJ W z w I W z J AWz=rcw 0. 'La 15 :-�Inop as M4Dajojd Appendix B Biological Assessment Update for I-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project Biological Assessment Update For State Route: I-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (I-5 to SR 169 - Phase 2) Sixth Field HUG Code Lower Green River: 171100130399 Lower Cedar River: 171101120106 Northwest Region Headquarters 15700 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133-5410 Prepared by: Washington State Department of Transportation I-405 Project Team 1. Introduction This memorandum provides a project update to the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project Biological Assessment (BA, WSDOT 2007a) as it relates to implementation of mitigation for emergency repairs to the Thunder Hills Creek culvert (Culvert 52) located under I-405. 1.1 Project Overview In early December 2007, WSDOT Culvert (C) 52, which conveys Thunder Hills Creek under Interstate 405 (I-405), collapsed due to record rainfall. The culvert collapse resulted in slope failure and the formation of a large sink hole along the southbound shoulder of I-405 in the vicinity of the 48 -inch cross culvert. The location of the sinkhole threatened the I-405 southbound mainline, and the culvert failure prevented the upper portions of Thunder Hills Creek from being safely conveyed under I-405. Emergency construction repairs were approved under the conditions of a Nationwide Permit (NWT) 23 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on March 3, 2008 (NWS -2008-87). Replacement of the damaged culvert was completed in December 2008. The USACE permit requires WSDOT to "complete the replacement of a culvert that will open a quantity of fish habitat similar to that blocked by the existing I-405 Thunder Hills Culvert within 3 years of the issuance of the permit." Additionally, WSDOT is required to "provide mitigation for the filling of 150 feet of Thunder Hills Creek and 15 feet of the unnamed tributary to Thunder Hills Creek." On March 26, 2010, the USACE revised the condition of this permit by extending the required completion date by two years to March 3, 2013. WSDOT determined that it was not feasible to provide a fish passable culvert at C52 during the emergency repair effort. Fish passage mitigation was then evaluated at alternative locations in the I-405 Renton Nickel project area that drain to the Springbrook Creek subbasin, as required by the permit. WSDOT identified three culverts with upstream habitat that have approximately equivalent habitat to Thunder Hills Creek. C65 and C66, which drain into the West Fork of Panther Creek near State Route (SR) 167 Milepost (MP) 24.70, were identified as partial barriers (HDR 2009). C72, which drains the East Fork of Panther Creek near MP 25.69, was also identified as a fish barrier (HDR 2009). Field review of culverts C65 and C66 resulted in suggesting that culvert C72 would be most appropriate for opening fish habitat (HDR 2009). The USACE, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have concurred with WSDOT's proposal to provide mitigation for the Thunder Hills Creek emergency culvert repair by replacing C72 with an approved fish passable culvert, permanently blocking C65 and C66, and implementing stream improvements in the vicinity of these culverts. 2. Project Description Key construction elements of the Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Project are as follows: • Fill and plug C65 and C66 with controlled density fill (CDF) concrete. The ends of the culverts will be buried as part of the filling of the existing channel described above. This element is within WSDOT right-of-way (ROW). Biological Assessment Update for I-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 2'"`"''�"'"'�`"�"'�`�"� Relocate the section of West Fork Panther Creek channel between C65 and C66 as part of mitigation for filling 150 feet of Thunder Hills Creek and 15 feet of the unnamed tributary to Thunder Hills Creek. The new channel meanders and its centerline will vary between 40 and 80 feet east of the existing channel, and has been sited to avoid future planned roadway improvements along SR 167. In total, 760 lineal feet of new stream channel would be created. Stream flow from the mainstem of Panther Creek would be diverted into the newly excavated stream channel, which would extend approximately 160 feet north of C66 and tie back into an existing stormwater discharge channel. Following construction of the new section of channel, the area would be replanted with native vegetation. The existing channel downstream of C65 along SR 167 will be filled in as requested by WDFW and replanted with native vegetation. In addition, an existing storm drain will be reconstructed to connect to the relocated West Fork of Panther Creek. Remove the existing fish ladder and culvert at C72, and replace it with a fish passable arch culvert. Vegetation in East and West Panther Creek Wetland in the vicinity of C72 would be temporarily cleared to allow for adequate construction staging and access. Open -cut trenching through SR 167 would involve removal of pavement and traffic barriers, and the weekend closure of SR 167. The existing culvert and fish ladder would be removed, and the new culvert would be assembled on-site and installed. SR 167 would be restored to pre -project conditions, and disturbed wetland areas would be revegetated with native woody vegetation. The mitigation project will be constructed in summer 2012. All in -water work, including dewatering and fish exclusion, is anticipated to occur between June 15 to September 30, contingent upon WDFW approval of work windows. Pending refinement of construction details with the contractor, equipment anticipated to be used for the project includes concrete and pavement grinders, pavers, graders, dozers, backhoes, air wrenches, generator, cranes, pumps, concrete trucks and dump trucks. Best Management Practices (BMP) to be implemented may include, but are not limited to: • Minimizing the construction footprint to the extent practicable • Installation of high -visibility fence around all sensitive areas that are to remain undisturbed • Erosion control installation — silt fence installation either by machine or hand • Construction entrance(s) • Containment of any runoff on-site using erosion and water quality control BMPs during construction • Initial dewatering will be disposed of by the contractor by an approved method • Silt fence and/or cofferdam to isolate in -water work area depending on ground conditions • Revegetation of all disturbed areas with native plant species No new facilities or material sources will need to be developed for this project. During open -cut trenching of SR 167, traffic from northbound SR 167 will be detoured to Lind Avenue SW and traffic from southbound SR 167 will be detoured to SR 181 (W Valley Highway/68th Avenue S) There will be no temporary or permanent increases in impervious surfaces that would require stormwater treatment. The new arch culvert and relocated stream will be passive facilities and Biological Assessment Update for 1-405, + Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 3 �`�""`�'*`'�•'"�"" potential maintenance of the arch culvert and relocated stream will be limited to removal of any blockages that may develop in the culvert or replacement of streambed material from scour. 3. Species, Critical Habitat, and Project Impacts Addressed in the BA for State Route: 1-405 Renton to Tukwila Improvement Project Replacing C72 with an approved fish passable culvert, permanently blocking C65 and C66, and implementing stream improvements in the vicinity of these culverts are elements of the Stream Rehabilitation 2 and 3 objectives detailed in the Draft Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan (PCWRP, WSDOT 2007b). The one discrepancy between the proposed Thunder Hills Creek mitigation and Stream Rehabilitation 3 objective is that the relocated stream at C65 and C66 will not extend to C72. Connection of the relocated stream to C72 will occur in later phases of the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project. The PCWRP was evaluated for ESA compliance in the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project BA and Biological Opinion (BO) for the BA (NMFS and USFWS 2008; NMFS #2007104219; and USFWS #13410-2007-F-0416). The BA provided effect determinations for the following species and critical habitat (CH): The BA presumed that Chinook salmon and steelhead may be present in the East Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C72; no listed species were presumed to be present in the West Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C65 and C66. The Green River and Springbrook Creek were identified as CH for Chinook salmon, and the Green River was identified as CH for bull trout. The BA and NMFS/USFWS BO identified the following potential effects on ESA listed -species that may result from implementation of the PCWRP: Biological Assessment Update for I-405, Tukwila to Renton improvement Project 4 Critical habitat Effect Critical Effect Species Status Agency Determination Habitat Determination Chinook salmon Threatened NOAA May Affect, May Affect, (Oncorhynchus (Puget Sound Fisheries Likely to Designated Likely to tshawytscha) ESU) Adversely Affect Adversely Affect Steelhead trout Threatened NOAA May Affect, None (Oncot-hynchus (Puget Sound Fisheries Likely to designated NIA mykiss) ESU) Adversely Affect Bull trout Threatened May Affect, May Affect, (Salvelinus (Coastal -Puget USFWS Likely to Designated Likely to confluentus) Sound ESU) Adversely Affect Adversely Affect Bald eagle None (Haliaeetu.s Threatened' USFWS No Effect designated NIA leucocephalus) ' = Bald eagle was delisted in August 2007. The BA presumed that Chinook salmon and steelhead may be present in the East Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C72; no listed species were presumed to be present in the West Fork of Panther Creek, which flows through C65 and C66. The Green River and Springbrook Creek were identified as CH for Chinook salmon, and the Green River was identified as CH for bull trout. The BA and NMFS/USFWS BO identified the following potential effects on ESA listed -species that may result from implementation of the PCWRP: Biological Assessment Update for I-405, Tukwila to Renton improvement Project 4 1. Fish capture, handling, and relocation in advance of in -water work may injure or kill listed species. 2. Temporary sedimentation as a result of in -water work may degrade spawning and incubation habitat, and negatively affect primary and secondary productivity. This may disrupt feeding and territorial behavior through short-term exposure to turbid water. 3_ Temporary vegetation removal may cause a short-term increase in stream temperatures, reduction in the potential for large woody debris recruitment and contribution of organic material for macroinvertebrates, temporary elimination of in- and over -stream cover, and a decrease in bank stability. 4. Hazardous material spills could have lethal and sublethal effects on fish and micro- and macroinvertebrate prey at any stream within the action area. 5. Correction of existing partial or complete fish passage barriers on Panther Creek will provide measurable benefits to listed fish. 6. Updates to Species, Critical Habitat, and Project Impacts HDR acquired updated species lists and critical habitat maps from NOAA Fisheries (2011), StreamNet (2011), and USFWS (201 la, 2011b), and priority habitat and species maps from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW 2009, 2011). No new species or critical habitat has been listed that was not addressed in the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project BA. The proposed construction to mitigate for emergency repairs to C52 are consistent with elements of the PCWRP, and all potential impacts on listed species or critical habitat have been considered in the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project BA and NMFS/USFWS BO. Based on the above, re- initiation of consultation with the Services will not be required. 7. References HDR, 2009. Task 3 Identification of Candidate Culverts for Fish Passage that Drain to Springbrook Basin. April 30, 2009 memorandum to William Jordan, WSDOT I-405 Project Team. NOAA Fisheries. 2009. Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/upload/snapshot-7-09.pdf July 1, 2009. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the I-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (I-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2) Lower Cedar River, Cedar River Sixth Field HUC: 171100120106, 171100120302 King County, Washington. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, March 3, 2008. StreamNet Pacific Northwest Interactive Mapper. 2011. httpa/map.streamnet.org/website/CriticalHabitat/viewer.htm . Accessed October 28, 2011. Biological Assessment Update for 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat, Candidate Species, and Species of Concern King County http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/KingCounty08011 l .pdf . August 1, 2011, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011b. Critical Habitat Portal. http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/. Accessed October 28, 2011. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Priority habitats and species maps in the vicinity of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Section 30. May 29, 2009. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. Priority Habitat and Species on the Web. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed October 28, 2011. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2007a. Biological Assessment for the Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project. Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. 119 pp. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2007b. Draft Panther Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Plan. Prepared by David Evans and Associates. May 2007. Biological Assessment Update for I-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project 6`�"''""�`"`q��''""�"�`" I i u' • i'i•••••i•ii•iii••ii•i II • ' ' 1 7 l l I' �I I ° r0) r U) o �a m� } 0. C) � �- U f) d � �yr` W E E L - �LL w cn I i u' • i'i•••••i•ii•iii••ii•i II • ' ' 1 7 l l I' �I I I i u' • i'i•••••i•ii•iii••ii•i Appendix C Wetland Delineation Methodology and Data Forms 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 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010). To be considered a wetland, an area must have hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. HDR Engineering, Inc. 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. Delineated wetland boundaries and wetland data plot locations in the study area were marked in the field with flagging tapes. All delineated wetlands and data plot points were surveyed by a professional land surveyor. 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 in each stratum must be Facultative, Facultative Wetland, or Obligate, based on the wetland indicator category assigned to each plant species by USFWS (Reed 1988, or current approved list). 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 Symbol Definition Obligate Wetland Plants Facultative Wetland Plants Facultative Plants Facultative Upland Plants Upland Plants Source: Reed (1988). OBL Plants that almost always (> 99% of the time) occur in wetlands, but which may rarely (< 1 % of the time) occur in non - wetlands. FACW Plants that often (67 to 99% of the times) occur in wetlands, but sometimes (1 to 33% of the time) occur in non -wetlands. FAC Plants with a similar likelihood (34 to 66% of the time) of occurring in both wetlands and non -wetlands. FACU 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_ UPL Plants that rarely (< 1% of the time) occur in wetlands, and almost always (> 99% of the time) occur in non -wetlands. HDR biologists identified plants observed in the field to species. During the field investigation, staff observed and recorded the dominant plant species on data sheets for each data plot. 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 C-2 Database (USDA 2004). During the field investigation, staff observed and recorded the dominant plant species on data sheets for each data plot. 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 (USDA MRCS 2010). HDR Engineering, Inc. staff examined soils by excavating sample pits to a depth of 20 inches to observe soil profiles, colors, and textures. In some case, a shallower soil pit was adequate to document hydric soil indicators. Munsell color charts (Munsell Color 2009) were used to describe soil colors. Hydrology HDR Engineering, Inc. 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 (USAGE 2010). The growing season generally begins when the soil reaches a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit in the zone of root penetration or when certain indicators of plant biological activity are evident (USAGE 2010). The growing season in the project area can be approximated using the long-term climatological data reported in WETS tables available from the USDA NRCS National Water and Climate Center. Wetland hydrology indicators are divided into two categories — primary and secondary indicators (USAGE 2010). Primary indicators of hydrology include surface inundation, high water table, and saturated soils. The presence of one primary indicator is sufficient to conclude that wetland hydrology is present. If the absence of a primary indicator, observation of two or more secondary indicators is required to conclude that wetland hydrology is present. Secondary indicators of hydrology include drainage patterns, water -stained leaves, and geomorphic setting (USAGE 2010). C-3 WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region ProjectlSite: Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 CitylCeunty: RentonlKing Sampling Date: 6111Q009 ApplicantlOwner WSDOT StateWA Sampling Point: EPCW -I )UPL) Investigator(s): L. Danielski Section, Township, Range: S30 T23N R5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Edge of road prism Local relief (concave, convex, none)- flat Slope (%): 60% Subregion (LRR): LRRA Lat: 1296664.6 Long- 168668,1 Datum. NAD03 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NW Classification: PSS1 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If noexplain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) sl imuARy nr FINniNr:S _ AMar_h it. rnao shnwina sarr ino noint locations- transects_ imnortanl features. etc_ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No x Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes No x Is the Sampled Area within Yes No x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No x a Wetland? Remarks: E Panther Gr Wetland at C72. Sample plot is located in vicinity of old wetland flags, approximately 6 feet higher VPf:FTATlnlJ _ Ifso aciantific Hamas of nlanls_ Tree Stratum Plot size 5x20 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1 Alnus rubra 10 Y FAC Number of Dominant Species 2 That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 10 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are DBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% (AfB) SaplinglShrub Stratum Plot size: 5x15 Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Rubusprocerus 40 y FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2 Cornus nutalli 15 y UPL OBLSpecies 0 x1 = 0 3 OEMLERfA CERASIFORM)S (HOOK. 8 2 N FACU FACW Species 4 x2 = 8 4 Spiraea douglasii 2 N FACW PAC Species 10 x3 = 30 5 CCryius comuta 1 N FACU PACU Species 43 x4 = 172 60 = Total Cover UPL Species 15 x5 = 75 Column Totals: 72 (A) 285 (B) Herb Statum Plot Size: Prevalence Index = BIA = 3.96 1 Equisetum ielmateia 2 IN PPCW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 3 Dominance Test is }59% 4 Prevalence Test is r 3.0' 5 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 6 Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 7 g Problematic Hydrophilic Vegetation' (explain) 9 ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 be present, unless disturbed o r problematic - 11 2 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size: Hydropl is vegetation present? 1 2 Yes No X 0 = Total Cover 1/6 Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Herb layer a5%. therefore combine with shrub stratum, Does not meet dominance test US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point: EPCW -1 (UPL) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color {moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 412 100 Loam 6-9 2.5Y 5I2 95 1CYR 416 5 C M Loam 9-18* 2.5Y 413 100 Loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocatiow PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (Al) _Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (At 0) (LRR B) Histic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) Matrix (F3) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland —Depleted Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1 }Depleted Dark Surface (F7) problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if Present): Type: Depth (inche Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Soil does not meet hydric soil criteria - very disturbed soil strata, part of SR 167 road prism fill HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of 1 required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) —Water -Stained Leaves (B9) Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1,2,4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A, and 419) —Drainage Patterns (61 C) Saturation (A3) _Salt Crust (B11) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks ml) _Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Saturation Visible on Aerial —Imagery Sediment Deposits (62) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Oxidized Rhixospheres along Living Roots (C3) _Geomorphic Position (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _Shallow Aquitard (D3} Iron Deposits (135) —Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (86) —Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) —Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X18" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No x Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches). X1W Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches), ?18" (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No primary or secondary indicators of hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region Pro}ectlSite: Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 ApplicantlOwner: WSDOT Investigator(s). L. Danielski Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Edge of road prism Subregion (LRR): LRRA Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land Are climaticthydrologic canditlons on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology CltyiCounty- RentoniKing Sampiing Date: State WA Sampling Point: _ Section, Township, Range: S30 T23N R5E Local relief (concave. convex, none): flat Slope (%): Lat: 1298664 6 Long: 168668.1 Datum: NADB NWIClassificabom PSS1 Yes X No (If noexplain in Remarks) significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks) ci iuunov no ceanean¢ _ anarh it. man ahnwinn azmni inn nnint Inratinna trnneants imnnrtantfwaturea_ atr._ 611112009 EPCW -2 (WL) Yes X No Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Yes No x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Remarks: E Panther Cr Wetland at C72. V9f-`r:TAT1nk1 —11 lea erlanriflr nnmao of nlanle Trete Plot size: 5x20 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet; Cover Species? Status 1 Salix laslandra 30 Y FACW Number of Dominant Species 2 That are OBL. FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 30 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1001/0 (A/B) SapIingl5hrub Stratum Plot size', 5x15 Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Spiraea dougfasii 10 y FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2 Cornus stolonifera 15 y FACW OBL Species 1 x1 = 1 3 FACW Species 62 x2 = 124 FAC Species 5 x3 = 15 4 FACTS Species 1 x4 = 4 5 25 = Total Cover UPL Species 0 x5 = 0 Column Totals: 69 (A) 144 (B) Herb Stratum Piot Size: 5x10 Prevalence Index = B1A = 2.09 1 Egwsetum telmateia 5 Y FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 Athynum frlix-femine 5 Y FAC 3 Phalaris arundinacea 2 N FACW x Dominance Test is >50% 4 Veronica amencana 1 N OBL x Prevalence Test is s 3.0' 5 Poa pratensis 1 N FACU Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 6 7 Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 8 Problematic Hydrophilic Vegetation' (explain) 9 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 be present, unless disturbed c r problematic. 11 14 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size: Hydrophytic vegetation present? 1 2 Yes x No 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks, Mare than 50% of dominant plant spp. are FAC or wetter U5 Army Corps of Engineers Western MOL ntalns, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point, EPCW -2 (WL) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR 211 100 Fire sandy loam Some organic content 2-4 10YR 411 95 7.5YR 418 5 C M Fine sandy loam 4-8 10YR 511 85 10YR 518 15 C M Silty clay loam 8-17+ 10YR 511 >g8 1 OYR 518 <2 C M Fre aandy loam Some depletions with depth 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosoi (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR B) Histic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix ($6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) —Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 )(except MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Suffide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Below Dark Surface (A11) _ x Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland —Depleted Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ ^ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inche Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: F3 meets hydric soil criteria. Fibric organic soils in lower pokecths with ponding HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of 1 required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X Surface Water (A1) —Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) -Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2,4A, and 413) X High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A, and 46) _Drainage Patterns (610) Saturation (A3) —Salt Crust (611) —Aquatic _Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) invertebrates (B13) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Sediment Deposits (62) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —Oxidized Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _Geomorphic Position (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (65) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) —FAG -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (1313) —Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) —Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches), at Surface Welland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Water Table Present? Yes X No _ Depth (inches): 12" Saturation Present? Yes No _ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), ff available: Remarks: Free water at 12", evidence of flooding, sediment stains on trees up to 26", lower pockets nearby have approximately 3" of ponding, US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region Project/Site- Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 Applicantfowner WSDOT Investigator(s): L. Danielski Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Floodplain Subregion (LRR): LRRA Soil Map Unit Name: Tukwila Muck Are climaticfhydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology City/County, RenlonfKing Sarni Date 6!19!2009 State: WA Sampling Point. 7(Wt) Section, Township, Range: 530 T23N R5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): flat Slope (%)_ 0% Let: 1298664,6 Long: 168668.1 Datum NAD83 NWI Classification: P551 Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumslances" present? Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Iamla A my ^c Clunimn-c AF1­6 nit.. m ckn AC -nli nn n int 11i trannartc imnnrtAnt TAAtllrp4 pt C._ Yes X No Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No a Wetland? Remarks: Sample pilot in north part of wetland PCW -W, near Culvert 72 on west side of 167 Sample plot is —1' higher in elevation than OHWM_ irC/�CTA TIrIu II.............4�F... .........n ..f ..lank Tree Stratum Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status 1 Salix iasiandra 30 Y FEW Number of Dominant Species 2 That are OBL, FACW, or FAG- 2 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 30 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 67% (A!B) SaolinaiShrub Stratum Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Comus slolonifera 80 Y FAC W Total % Cover of: Multiply by. Ci Species 0 x1 = 0 2 FACW Species 110 x2 = 220 3 FAC Species 2 x3 = 6 4 FACU Species 0 x4 = 0 5 80 = Total Cover UPL Species 10 x5 = 50 Column Totals 122 (A) 276 (B) Herb Stratum Plot Size: Prevalence Index = BIA = 2,26 1 EQuisetum arvense 2 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 Geranium roberfanium 10 Y DPL 3 X Dominance Test is 150% 4 X Prevalence Test is s 3.0' 5 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 6 Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 7 8 Problematic Hydrophitic Vegetation' (explain) 9 ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 be present, unless disturbed o r problematic. 11 12 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size: Hydrophytic vegetation present? 1 Yes X No 2 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks- More than 50% of dominant plant spp. are FAC or wetter US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point: 7 (WL) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) o/ Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-9 10YR 3!1 100 sandy loam cobbles <2" diam throughout 9-18+ 1G 4IN 93 1CYR 416 7 C M sandy loam cobbles <2" diam throughout; slightly compacted layer 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL*Pore Lining, M=Matrix- Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil93: Histosol (Al) —Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Histic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) X Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Depleted Redox Dark Surface (F6) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F6) Restrlctive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inche Hydric Soil Present? Y X No Remarks: Soil meets F2 criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of 1 required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) —Water -Stained Leaves (139) —Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1,2,4q and 46) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A, and 413) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) _Salt Crust (1311) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (131) Invertebrates (1313) Saturation Visible on Aerial Sediment Deposits (132) _Aquatic Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) —Oxidized Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _Geomorphic Position (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (G4) —Shallow Aquftard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (08) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >18" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >18' Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >181, (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soils damp throughout profile, but no saturation. Assume wetland hydrology based on veg, soils, and two secondary indicators. US Army Corps of Engineers western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region Project/Site: Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 CitylCDunty: Renton/King Sampling Date: 6AW2009 ApplicantlOwner: WSDOT State: WA Sampling Point' 6 (UPL) Investigatcr(s). L Danielski Section, Township, Range: S30 T23N RSE Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc), Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none), convex Slope (%): a5% Subregion (Li LRRA Lat: 1298664.6 Lang: 168668.1 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI Classification: --- Are climatic1hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (if no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) A ---ti e..., er......;.....—Ii— —In. 1—tlnna frananr•4c imnnrtant MA111fP_C wtc_ Yes X No Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Absolute Hydric Soii Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Yes No x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Wetland? Remarks: Upland sample plot located north and upslope of wetland PCW -W, near Culvert 72 on west side of SR 167 Tree Stratum Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: %Cover Species? Status 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 That are OBL, FACW, or FAC- 1 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata, 1 (B} 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A1B) Wiling/Shrub Stratum Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Total % Cover of: Multiply by OBL Species xi = 0 2 FACW Species 99 x2 = 198 3 FAC Species x3 = 0 4 FACU Species x4 = 0 5 0 = Total Cover UPL Species x5 = 0 Column Totals: 99 (A) 196 (B) Herb Stra um Plot Size: Prevalence Index = B1A = 2,00 1 Phaiansarundinacea 99 Y FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 Cirsium arvense 1 N FACU 3 X Dominance Test is >50% 4 X Prevalence Test is 5 3.01 5 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or an a separate sheet) 6 Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 7 8 Problematic Hydrophilic Vegetation' (explain) 9 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 be present, unless disturbed o r problematic, 11 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size: Hydrophytic vegetation present? 1 Yes X No 2 0 = Total Cover °{o Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: More than 50°! of dominant plant spp. are FAC or wetter US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point, 8 (UPL) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type Loc' Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 312.5 100 --- — gravely sandy loam cobbles throughout 14-16+ 10YR 312.5 95 10YR 518 5 C M gravely sandy laam compacted layer 'Type' C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils?! Histosol (Al) —Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Histic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) ^—Loamy Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Redox Dark Surface (F6) must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (If present): Type, Depth (inches Hydric Soil Present? Yea No X Remarks: Soil matrix value and chroma do not meet hydric soil criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of 1 required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) Water -Stained Leaves (69) Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MCRA 1,2,4A, and 46) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A, and 40) _Drainage Patterns (610) Saturation (A3) _Salt Crust (611) _Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (81) _Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (63) _Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _Geomorphic Position (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ^ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) Inundation Visible an Aerial Imagery (B7) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >16" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No X Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >16" Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >16" (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos. previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No primary or secondary indicators of hydrology. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region Projecvsite', Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 ApplicantfOwner: WSDOT Investigator(s): L. DanielskilM. Dalzell Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Subregion (LRR): LRRA Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land Are climaticlhydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology CltylCounty' Renton/King Sampling Date 611912009 Stale' WA Sampling Point 9 (WL) Section, Township, Range 530 T23N R5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): c 5% Lat: 9298664.6 Long: 168668.1 Datum: NAD83 NWI Classification: PEM Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) significantly disturbed? Are `Normal Circumstances" present? Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) m LLwu A 0 nr Crunudrnc _ A" -h Qus — oh^,An, a nlinn nnin4 1—finna trananrts imnnrtant features_ it Yes X No Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Yes x No_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Watland? Remarks: The soil pit is located approximately 4 feet east of SP10, 1 foot drop from SP10 filen eTw Yln►1 11... .... .... ♦:�...........n .-.i ..lin{e Tree Stratum Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Cover Species? Status 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 That are OBL, FACW, or FAC' 1 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A18) SaolinglShrub Stratum Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL Species x1 = 0 2 FACW Species 100 x2= 200 3 FAC Species x3 = 0 4 FACU Species x4 = 0 5 0 = Total Cover UPL Species x5 = 0 Column Totals: 100 (A) 200 (B) Herb Stratum Plot Size3m Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.00 1 Phafansarundlnaces 100 Y FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 3 X Dominance Test is X50% 4 X Prevalence Test is s 3.01 5 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 6 Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 7 a Problematic Hydrophitic Vegetation' (explain) 9 ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 be present, unless disturbed o r problematic. 11 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size: Hydrophytic vegetation present? 1 Yes X No 2 _ 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Area meets dominance test US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point 9 (WL) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LDo2 Texture Remarks 0-11 2.5Y 412 97 7,5YR 413 3 C M SiCL Oxidized root channel, diffuse redox 11-16 10Y 5f1 80 10YR 414 20 C M CL 16-22+ 10Y4f1 80 7,5YR314 20 C M CL 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL -Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) indicators for Problematic Hydric Soili: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) —_Stripped 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Histic Epipedon (A2) Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) x Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) _Redox Dark Surface (F6) must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F6) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches Hydric Sail Present? Yes x No Remarks: F2 meets hydric soil criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary indicators (minimum of 1 required: check ail that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,2,4A, and 4P High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A, and 4B) _ Drainage Patterns (610) Saturation (A3) _Salt Crust (B11) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Aquabc Invertebrates (613) Saturation Visible on Aerial Sediment Deposits (62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) x Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living hoots (C3) Geomorphic Position (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (03) Iron Deposits (65) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations; Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X20" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): }20" Saturation Present? Yes x No Depth (inches): at 16" (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: C3 meets wetland hydrology criteria lA Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region Project/Site, Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 ApplicantiOwner, WSDOT Investigator(s): L. DanielskilM. Dalzell Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Subregion (LRR): LRRA Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land Are climaticlhydrelogic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology City/County. RentonlKing Sampling Date. State: WA Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: S30 T23N R5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): < 51/o Lai, 1298664.6 Long: 169868.1 Datum: NAD83 NWI Classification: --- Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) ..L...w;—. ..Iron 1n11+1—tinnn +rnnoar+e nnrlan+fnat„roa Me 6!1912009 10 (UPL) Yes X No Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Plot size, Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Yes No x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Wetland? Remarks: The soil pit is located approximately 4 feet west of SP 9, at the toe of slope. VFf:FTATIr71U - I Ina ntian+ifir n�mon of nlanos_ Tree Stratum Plot size, Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: °% Cover Species? Status 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAD 1001/ (AB) Sanlina/Shrub Stratum Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL Species x1 = 0 2 FACW Species 95 x2 = 190 3 FAC Species 5 x3 = 15 4 FACU Species x4 � 0 5 0 Total Cover UPL Species x5 = 0 Column Totals: 100 (A) 205 (B) Herb Stratum Plot Size: 3m Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.05 1 Phalaasaarndinacea 95 Y FACW Hydrophi Vegetation Indicators: 2 Lotus comiculatus 5 N FAC 3 X Dominance Test is ?50% 4 X Prevalence Test is s 3.0' 5 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 6 Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 7 g Problematic Hydrophitic Vegetation' (explain) 9 Indicators of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must 10 be present, unless disturbed o r problematic. 11 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Piot Size: Hydrophytic vegetation present? 1 Yes X No 2 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Area meets dominance test US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point: 10 (UPL) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR 4R 95 7.5YR 314 5 P L SiL Soil compcated, gravel throughout profile, oxidized root channel 16-20 2.5Y 412 85 7 5Y 314 15 P L SiCL 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. zLocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRa, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SolIN?: Histosol (A1) _Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Histic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) —Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) —Loamy Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology Thick Dark Surface (At 2) —Depleted _Redox Dark Surface (F6) must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) —Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (inches Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Redox features in B horizon are faint, and soils in upper layer too high value to meet Al2. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of 1 required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) —Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1,2,4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2) (except Ill 1,2,4A, and 48) Drainage Patterns 110) Saturation (A3) _Salt Crust (B11) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Invertebrates (B13) Visible on Aerial Sediment Deposits (B2) _Aquatic —Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _Saturation Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) x Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (114) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) a —Shallow Aquitard (133) Iron Deposits (65) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (Cl _FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (66) _Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) _Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BS) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >29' Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes x No Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >29' Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >20" (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: C3 meets wetland hydrology criteria. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region ProjecUSite: Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 ApplicantlOwner WSDOT Investigator(s): L DanWski Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Berm Subregion (LRR): LRRA Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land Are ciimaticlhydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology CItylCounty: Renton/King Sampling Date: 629120C9 State: WA Sampling Point 11 (UPL} Section, Township, Range, S30 T23N R5E Local relief (concave, convex none): Convex Slope (%), -10% Lat: 1298664.6 Long: 168668.1 Datum NAD63 NWI Classification: -- Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Naturally problematic? (It needed, explain any answers in Remarks) cl WUAOV no CednnNr]C _ A"—h it. man .hnurinn comnlrnn nnint InratinnR_ transiante_ imnortant feafures. etc. Yes X No Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Yes No x Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Wetland? Remarks: Data point just above OHWM on left bank of stream 65, immediately above OHWM flag 65L-1 VCr-CTATInrJ _ I Ion aria Mifir nam.¢ of I. nt. Tree tratum Plat size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC_ 50% (A!B) SaplinglShrubSlratum Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Rubusprocerus 60 Y FACU Total % Cover of. Multiply by: OBL Species x1 = 0 2 FACW Species so x2 = 160 3 FAC Species x3 = 0 4 FACU Species 60 x4 = 240 5 60 Total Cover UPL Species x5 = 0 Column Totals- 140 (A) 400 (B) Herb Stratum Plot Size: Prevalence Index = BIA = 2.86 1 Phafans arundinacea 80 Y FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 3 Dominance Test is >50% 4 X Prevalence Test is 5 3.0' 5 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 6 Weiland Non -Vascular Plants' 7 8 Problematic Hydrophitic Vegetation' (explain) g Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 be present, unless disturbed o r problematic. 11 80 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size: Hydrophytic vegetation present? 1 2 Yes No X 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks, Does not meet dominance test; area does not meet hydrophitic veg indicator based on prevalence index since hydric soil and hydrology are not present US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point: 11 (UPL) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LDc? Texture Remarks 0-13 10YR 412 100 — �_ fine sandy loam 13-20+ 10YR 412 95 10YR 413 5 C M fine sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators_ (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soili: Histosol (Al) _Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR B) Histic £pipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1}(except MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) -Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Mucky Mineral ($1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (If present): Type: Depth (inches Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Redox features in B horizon are faint, and soils in upper layer too high value to meet Al2. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of 1 required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (09) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1,2,4A, and 46) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A, and 49) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _ Satt Crust (611) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Invertebrates (1313) Saturation Visible on Aerial _Aquatic Sediment Deposits (62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (83) _Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (65) _Recent Iron Reduction in Titled Soils (C6) FAG -Neutral Test (135) Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plarrts (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (1137) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >20" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No % Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >20" _ Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >20" (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No primary or secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. U3 Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region ProjecUSite: Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 City/County, Rentonll Sampling Date: 612912009 ApplicantlOwner: WSDOT State: WA Sampling Point: 12 (WL) Investigator(s): L, Danielski Section Township, Range: S30 T23N I Landform (hillslope. terrace, etc): Historic floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none). convex Slope (%): <-51/0 Subregion (LRRy, LRRA Lat: 1298664.6 Long 166668.1 Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Urban NWI Classification, PEM1 Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Cr iuuARY nr FINrNNt4S _ AMwch it. man shnwino samolinn onint locations_ transects. imoortant features. etc_ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Plot size: Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Yes X No_ Well Hydrology Present? Yes X No Wetland? Remarks: Sample plot in wetland PCW -S W, between culverts 65166 on west side of SR 167 VFGFTAT1n1J _ I Iso cciontific nomas of olwnts_ Tree Stratum Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: 2 (B} 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A)l SaWinq/Shrub Stratum Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Spiraea douglasii 5 Y FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL Species x1 = 0 2 FACW Species 100 x2 = 200 3 FAC Species 5 x3 = 15 4 FACU Species x4 = 0 5 5 = Total Cover UP Species x5 = 0 Column Totals 105 (A) 215 (B) Herb Stratum Plot Size: Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.05 1 Phalarisarundinacea 95 Y FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators_ 2 Urfica dioica 5 N FAC 3 X Dominance Test is >50% 4 X Prevalence Test is 5 3.01 5 Morphological Adaptations {Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 6 Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 7 a Problematic Hydrophitic Vegetation' (explain) 9 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 be present, unless disturbed o r problematic, 11 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size: Hydrophytic vegetation present? 1 Yes X No 2 T 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Area meets dominance test US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point: 12 (WL) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators-) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Calor (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LDc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 411 90 7.5 YR 414 10 C M loam 10-18+ 1G 10Y311 100 — loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ?Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil: Histosol (A1) _Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Histic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(exoept MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) X Depleted Matrix (F3) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Redox Dark Surface (176) must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) _Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (If present): Type, Depth (inches Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Soil meets criteria for depleted matrix HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of 1 required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) T_ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) _ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1,2,4A, and 413) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A, and 413) _Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (1311) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Saturation Visible on Aerial Sediment Deposits (62) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X Geomorphic Position (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (135) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ^ Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >19' Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >18" Saturation Present? Yes X No� Depth (inches): 14" (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available. Remarks- Assume wetland hydrology early in the growing season based on veg, soils, and two secondary indicators. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region ProjecUSite: Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 Applicant/Owner: WSDOT Investigator(s): L. Danielski Landform (hillslope, terrace. etc): Berm Subregion (LRR): LRRA Soil Map Unit Name Urban Land Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Are Vegetation J Soil Or Hydrology Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology CitylCounty. RentonlKmg Sampling Date: 612 912 0 09 State: WA Sampling Point: 13 (UPL) Section. Township, Range' 530 T23N R5E Local relief (concave, convex, none) concave Slope (%): 10% Lat: 1298664.6 Long 168668.1 Datum, NAD83 NWI Classification. Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks) significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) SUMMARY nF FINnlNnR _ Attach site man showinn samnlinn point locations. transects. imoortant features. etc. Yes X No Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area within a Yes No X Wettand Hydrology Present? Yes No X Wetland? Remarks, Up.iand sample plat about 5' west and 1' upslope of SP 12, between culverts 65 and 66 on the west side of SR 167 Vr('.1 TION — 11— srienti6r_ names et nlants_ Tree Stratum Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet_ Cover Species? Status 1 PSEUDOTSUGAMENIIESH (MIRBEL) 40 Y FACU Number of Dominant Species 2 Thuja plicata 40 Y FAC That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 80 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are 011 or FAC: 0.5 (AIB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet: 1 Rubusprocerus 10 Y FACU Total %Cover of Multiply by: OBL Species x1 = 0 2 FACW Species 50 x2 = 100 3 FAC Species 40 x3 = 120 4 FACU Species 50 x4 = 200 5 10 = Total Cover UPL Species x5 = 0 Column Totals: 140 (A) 420 (B) Herb Stratum Plot Size: Prevalence Index = BIA = 3.00 1 Phalaris arundinacea 50 Y FACW Hydrophytio Vegetation Indicators: 2 3 Dominance Test is X50% 4 X Prevalence Test is 5 3.0' 5 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) fi Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 7 8 Problematic Hydrophitic Vegetation' (explain) g ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 be present, unless disturbed o r problematic. 11 50 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size: Hydrophytie vegetation present? 1 2 Yes No X 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Does not meet dominance test; area does not meet hydrophitic veg indicator based on prevalence index since hydric soil and hydrology are not present U5 Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point: 13 (LIPL) Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) %g Type' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 312 100 — fine sandy loam 12-20+ 10YR 3f2 90 7.5YR 416 10 C M fine sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soili: Histosol (A1) _Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Histic Epipedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) — Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Matrix (F3) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology —Depleted Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present)-- resent)_Type: Type: Depth (inche! Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: Layers do not meet Al2 or F6 criteria HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of 1 required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (Al) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) XLRA 1,2,4A, and 4Q High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A, and 413) _Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) _Salt Crust (1311) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Visible on Aerial Sediment Deposits (132) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _Saturation Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (83) a Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _Geomorphic Position (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (135) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D 1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) _Other (Explain in Remarks) _Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >20" Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No X Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): X20" Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): ?20" (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks- No primary or secondary indicaotm of wetland hydrology present. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region ProjectiSite: Thunder Hills Creek Mitigation Phase 2 Applicantl0wner: WSDOT Irvestigator(s). L. Danielskl Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Historic Floodplain Subregion (LRRi LRRA Scii Map Unit Name: Urban Land Are climatirJhydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year`.+ Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology Are Vegetation Soil Or Hydrology CitylCounty: Renton/King Sampling Date: 71812009 State, WA Sampling Point, 15 (WL) Section, Township, Range: S30 T23N R5E Local relief (concave, convex, none): Flat Slope (%), 0% Lat: 1298664.6 Long: 166668.1 Datum. NAD83 NWI Classification: PSS1 Yes X No (If ro, explain in Remarks) significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) el iuue Dv no viuniur_c _ Aft—h it. mar, ch—inn aamnlinn nnint Ineatinna transprls_ imonrtant features. etc_ Yes X No Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Absolute Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area within a Yes X No_ Wetland Hydroiogy Present? Yes X No Wetland? Remarks: Wetland sample plot on west side of channel between culverts 65 and 66, on east side of SR 167 SP is in area that was temporarily disturbed during SR 167 Phase 3 construction, and replanted. ar�y.a�r.ti�r.i+wrrr-r-ram nrrrcrr-r-rsricrn Tree Stratum Plot size: Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Cover Species? Status 1 Number of Dominant Species 2 That are OBL, FAGW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 4 Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That are OBL, FAGW, or FAC: 100% (A1B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum Plot size' Prevalence Index worksheet 1 Salix scoularena 5 N FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2 Salix iasiandra 30 Y FAGW OBL Species x1 = 0 3 Salix sitcheasis 30 Y FAGW FACW Species 61 x2 = 122 4 Alirus rub ra 5 N FAC FAC Species 11 x3 = 33 5 Epllobium ,ifarum 1 N FAGW FACU Species x4 = 0 6 vicia americana I 1 N FAC UPL Species x5 = 0 72 = Total Cover Column Totals: 72 (A) 155 (B) Prevalence Index = 1 = 2.15 Herb Stratum Plot Size: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 2 X Dominance Test is }50°/ 3 X Prevalenoe Test is 5 3.0' 4 Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 5 _ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 7 8 Problematic Hydrophilic Vegetation' (explain) g ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 10 be present. unless disturbed o r problematic 11 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum Plot Size: Hydrophytic vegetation present? 1 Yes X No 2 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: Herb stratum incorporated into shrub stratum since less than 5% total cover. Area meets dominance test. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, valleys, and Coast WETLAND DETERMINATIONA DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region SOIL Sampling Point: 15 (WL) Profile Description: (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-0 10YR 311 100 — fine sandy loam 4-10 2.5Y 411 95 10YR 416 5 C M fine sandy loam 10-12 7.5YR 416 100 sand 12-18+ 2.5Y 411 95 10YR 416 5 C M fine sandy loam 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil9?: Histosol (Al) _ Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Histic Epi pedon (A2) _Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Patent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)(except MLRA1) Other (Explain in Remarks) —Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) —Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ' Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: Soil meets criteria for depleted matrix HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of 1 required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) —Water -Stained Leaves (69) —Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1,2,4A, and 4B) High Water Table (A2) (except MLRA 1,2,4A, and 413) Drainage Pattems (810) Saturation (A3) _Salt Crust (B11) _Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Invertebrates (813) Visible on Aerial Sediment Deposits (132) _Aquatic _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _Saturation Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) _Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) X Geomorphic Position (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) —Recent —Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5) Iran Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (56) Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) (LRR A) _Raised Ant Mounds (D6} (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) Other (Explain in Remarks) _Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soils damp throughout profile, but no saturation. Assume wetland hydrology early in growing season based on veg, soils, and two secondary indicators. US Army Corps of Engineers western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Appendix D Site Photographs Appendix E WDOE (Hruhy 2004) Wetland Rating Forms S4— Wetland name or number C a l c WETLAND RATING FORM -- WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name ofwetland (if known): �'1i��S �� a %aP'€a.t i Date of site visit: Rated Trained by Ecology? Ye&No� Date of training SEC:30TWNSHP: RNG13: Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ Nox Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size - 55,09 ,�` SUMMARY OF RATING Category based7111 FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II IV Score for Water Quality Functions Category 1–Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Score for Hydrologic Functions Category III = Score 30-50 Score for Habitat Functions Category IV = Score < 30 TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland II Does not Apply � Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) -r— I Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit. has Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class used for Rating Estuarine De ressional �C Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest slope Old Growth forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unfit has multiple HGM classes resent i Wetland Rating Form — western Washington I August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 Wetland name or number Does the wetland unit 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. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection YES NO in addition to the protection recommended for its tate o SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the X appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit 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. Note; Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands see p. 19 of data form), SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFWfor the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit 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. To complete the next art of the data sheet.you will need to determine the Hydro e omorphic Class of the wetland beinjz 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 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 ll �� i Wetland name or number �.{:�.t'.^Y .Eo '� Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? `go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe \_rf`yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO -- Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wedland, 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 Il estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Gr r and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. O – go to-3YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; t least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO – go to 4~ YES -- The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? �< The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), v 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 l ssthanl, b.QLdM` NO - go to 5 "--Y- FS - The wee_land_classis`Slope_-� Wetland Rating, Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1 � t Wetland name or number l� t k� '4-.v Ck'O.4 'Fk A - 1-4' 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? :�L_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. NO - go to 6 CYES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 YES -- The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit 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. NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Dep ressio- alb 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. 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. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). 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 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland.unit beh!g rated HGM Class to Use in Satin Slo e + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional. Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland 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 if 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 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 U- 1 Wetland name or number D Depressional and Flats Wetlands Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to (only 1 score improve water quality per box) D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 _ �D Unit has a intrmittently flowing oints eOR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet-Lp= 2_'.._ Unit has an uncottstric e , or s tg tly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 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 points = 1 "internrittentlyflowing ") F \ ( (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat tint as Provide photo or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) D YES C points _4 - NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure _ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area point 5 D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area points = 3 - Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1/10 of area points= 1 - Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes DIA Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out D sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > % total area of wetland points 4 Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland porn s = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < `A total area of wetland points = 0 Map of H dra eriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I 1 D 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 coating 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 150 ft -- 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, l farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging 74 Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier ---- Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen --- Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL -Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from Dl by D2 _ Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 1G- tom.'',: ( -.r r.. ,i �' r, Wetland name or number !. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 D Depressional and Flats Wetlands Points HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to (only t score reduce flooding and stream de adation per box) D 3. Does the wetland unit have the natential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) . 4.,; _points Unit has a intermittently flowin OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit is a "flat' depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface out nd no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = I < Qf stitch is not permonentiy flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing ") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet rmanentl owin) points = 0 arl�S w D 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 (ifdry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 a s orfaf e- The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 _ Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet mints = 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface t rap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed yv Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland SDJIt the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points.. -5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points_�3� The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above l� I D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or r 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 r„ valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the fallowing indicators of opportunity apply. — Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding prdblems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier -- Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 D Add score to table on p. l Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 6 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points (only t score HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat per box) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is Y4 acre or more than 10% of the 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) I t ze unit has a forested class check if �4he forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation .structures that qualify. ff you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures poirif = 22 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 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 '/e acre to count. (see text for, of hydroperiods) C r.c 'cdescriptions Permanently flooded or inundated ' 4 or more types present points= 3 tt tU Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundatedr 2 types present point = 1 °' Yes rs { " � `� `r 0 1 type = 0 01-1/07 Saturated only present points f1 Jr, G. fi. t i i or riveri�in, o4djacent to, the wetland Permanently flowing strea V Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland__ Lake fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wedand = 2 points 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 ft2. (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, CanadiaaZistle If you counted: > 19 species '--points-z 2'.- List species below if you want to., S - 19 species points = 1 5_ PrOA j e < 5 species points = 0 �s 06 vo .q Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described its H 1. 1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. CD(ao) None = 0 points Low= 1 point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High�ore ��� NOTE: If yo es or three vegetation classes and open water the ratin is alwa s "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation 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 ofpoints youput into the next column. \r Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). 'TStanding snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) i•4r. ,.y . 6 r . Stable steep banks of fine materia�,��}r that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver act' ity are present (cut shrubs or trees that f I f- have not yet turned greylbrown) p � 1 e b SQ.v; (7_ �C At least % acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants Pojl �= NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. -� �)5 H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat I�— Add the scores om H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 I ` Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number o- v' H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure 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. " — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 --- 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for> r 50% circumference. Points = 3 t If buffer does not meet any of the 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. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate gazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = I --- 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 Points = 0. Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = ] 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) ----- YES M 4 H 2.3) _ N_O = to H 2.2 points (go to go 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? YES= 2 points (go to H2.3) NO = H 2.23 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi ($km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR .`:fF'i fir.."Y'�1 !L�fl c � S I° �, t :'� within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR r -`t"l C*" 1 ; .{ within I mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES =1 point "~ NO – 0 pcints Total for page—L Wetland Rating Form –western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 3 vv, t (_ C� tom. `-" . ('k� � C.�.4A. 01h Wetland name or number J H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats, listed, by_WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report htto:7/wdfw.)Pa.zov/hab/phslist htm) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOPE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFWPHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and (orbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growthlMature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree 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 age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100%; 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; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). ) Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions ofhabitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: 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. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of> 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) if wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points :k If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points � If wetland has 1 priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note, All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H2.4) Wetland bating Form -- western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number �� ��' Cp/. 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 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light gazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within %z mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 j The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake4ringe- wetland within '/ mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat 1 I Add the scores #om H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 J 6� Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on P. 1 r a� Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new W©FW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or numberba�� CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the apprEeriate criteria Are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO. SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category 1 NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (1111). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category 11 while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least'/ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 fl: 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 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 -� 'j Wetland name or number I -- SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Cat. I 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 unit 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 WNHP/DNR) 5/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site " YES .. — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO L 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? YES = Category I NO knot a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify ifthe wetland is a bog. Ifyou answer yes you will still need to rate lire wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit 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 pM ile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - ' go to Q. 3 No - go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit 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? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating Does the unit 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 Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to 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. 1. Is the unit 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)? 2. YES= Category I No Y Is not a bog for purpose of ratings Cat. I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number Wetland Rating Form— western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit 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? Ifyou answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. ---- 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. — 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 L,,k to old-growth. a_ 3/ YES = Category I NO >4ot a forested wet] and with special characteristics Cat. I 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 measuredear the bottom) ). YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets 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 314 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. Cat. I --- The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form— western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number 1� ( L' SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO,- - not an interdunal wetland for rating 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 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category I1 NO -- go to SC 6,2 Cat 11 SC 6.2 Is the unit 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 Cat. III Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics 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.1 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number VJ ) WETLAND RATING FORM -- WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new WDFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if .known): i ; t f=4mfklr G, e,k We -i(04 Date of site visit: r t z o L? q Rated b -e -e. i Trained by Ecology? Yes? -No Date of training a SEC: 9b TWNSHP:230 RNGE: 5 E- Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ No X Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II IIITY IV Category I = Score >=70 CateIt_,= Score 51-69 _ *gory III = Scare 30-50 __-- Cateizory IV = Sc6re 0 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply, n Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) (( } Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit'bas Special Characteristics Wetland HGM Class. used for Ratio Estuarine De ressional X Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 Wetland name or number "/0 PCVJ Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit With multiple HGM classes. in this case, identify which hydrologic'eiriteria in questions i 7 apply, and go to Question S. . . A,,re-the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO go to 2 YES --- the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can he classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it 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. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. oundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. (' NO, — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; A' least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? CNO } go to 4 YES --The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does'tthe entire wetland unit 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 l I <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO -;go to 5 YES -- The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number � rL(J D.,Depnssional and Fiats Wetlands..: Points WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Yndicators that. the wetland unit fi;lnctions #a to►►ty t. Wore i2grove water: uali ]] D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) D 1. l Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (zoo outlet) oints­-3_. D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outletoints = Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = 1 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 points = 1 (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing') Provide photo or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS D definitions) YESNO oinis = D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area 5 D __points-= Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 112 of area paints __ 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1110 of area points Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes DIA Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure _ This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out D sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > %2 total area of wetland = r, 7" Area seasonally ponded is >'/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of H dro eriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 1—'q D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (seep. 44J 75 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 any single source would quay as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft 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 — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen E multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D U - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new "FW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number [A) e( V J These questions apply to wetlands of all HGHclasses. Points (only 1 score HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat Per box) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the notential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size thresholdfor each class is r/ acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed k Emergent plants k Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have X30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if. The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the numher of vegetation structures thal qualify. Ifyou have: 4 structures or more Cfoints = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points — 2 2 structures points _ 1 1 structure points — 0 H 1.2. H dr_ xoperiods_(seep. 73) Figure _ Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the ivetland. The tivater regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or % acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present is-7-=-3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present 2 �points Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 X Saturated only _ 1 type present points = 0 _ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points 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 ft2_ (d�fferent 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, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 speciespoin _= 2 List species below ifyou want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 - 0 species points A r0cv- Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetiand name or number b-� P,C l,j H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure 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 " — 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vcgctated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ii) of wetland > 95°/o circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or L.wns are OK. Points -- No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for>50% circwaafcrence. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.611t) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland flints 0, Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = 1 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 YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) N = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed an Token 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? YES = 3 points (go to H 2.3) N H 2.23 H 2,2.3 Is the wetland: (� within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 rni of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? DNO0 YES =1 point points Total for page—/— Wetland age Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number V-' (`,CW H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landveape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within VZ mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within %2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/z mile, BUT the connections between them jre� g i disturbed ,nts = 3 } The wetland is Lake -fringe on a take with disturbance and there are 3 other lake-ge---- wetland within `/s mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within % mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/2 inile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores fi-orn H2.1, H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H l from page 14 r Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, 11 2 and record the result cin P. 1 �4 ) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 )414 Wetland name or number `) 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 unit 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) S/T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site Y\ YES — contact WNHP DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 CNO X 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 spies? YES = Category I O Xnot a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wethind based o►j its f onctimi . 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either pcats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B f field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 No go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit 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 ajake or pond? Yes- go to Q. 3 No Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cow 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 purpose of rating No - go to 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. 1. Is the unit 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)? 2. YES= Category I No Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form -- western Washington 19 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number. SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep, 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 N not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will stil eet to rate ifie wetland basad oi! its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO -- go to SC 6.2 Cat. 11 SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and I acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and I acre? YES = Category III Cat, III Category of wetland based on Slee Choose the "highest" waling if wetland falls into sevei-C1I call ories, U17CI 1"E,Wl-d o!1 //� P. 1. 111" � If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p.I Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number PSI C(�A, 11' WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2008 with the new "FW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): t;r-moi#✓r C►,uk �n1� �^^�i Date of site visit: r z u o`( Rated by Ga x,11 _ Trained by Ecology Ye01-No_ Date of training' SEC: �0 TWNSHP:230 RNGE: 5 E Is S/T/R in Appendix D? Yes_ _ No X Map of wetland unit: Figure Estimated size ,- 6, 5 ok�, SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III_X IV Category I = Score >=70 Cateory. II. -Score 51-69. _ ate ory III = Score 30-50 Category IV= Score —<J0 -- Score 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply, Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) �= i _____ Summary of basic information about the wetland unit Wetland Unit`has'Special Characteristics Wetland':HGMCIass. . used fur Rating Estuarine De ressional X Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Rog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above Check if unit has multiple X HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form -- western Washington 1 August 2004 version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 Wetland name or number v'omU" Does the wetland unit 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. Check List for Wetlands. That May Need Additional Protection YES NO atdditionjoi the :orotectioji recommendedfor alts 'cate o SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit 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. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit 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. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland beiM 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 Hydrogeomozphic 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 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number I.I k vo Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington If:the.liydrologic criteria: listed in each question do no apply to the enfire unit being retail, You pirobably have a unit with multiple HGM classes In this case"Jdenfify h#ch hydraogic criteria linlY questions:l�.app,.and S gu to Ques#rori 1. a water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO --- Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it 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. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. oundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. N — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? ( NO go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Do the entire wetland unit 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 c3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). (NO -go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 3 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number 'R "f -'J 5. Does the entire wetland unit 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 of fl4 ooding. Oo NO, go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine, �1 �` 6. Is a entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, ifpresent, is higher than the interior of the wetland— NO — go to 7 YES The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetlar,uni{ ocated 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. NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. 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. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). 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 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM Classes within the wetland unit bein • rated HGM Class to Use in Rat.in . Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional De ressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake -fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland 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 if 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 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number spbl) ] Devi enional and Flans Wetlands.. - . Points:' WATER ,QUALI'TY: FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit funetions to (only t sore per ;Im rove water uality D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (see p.38) This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Estimate Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points -3_ D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet � Area seasonally ponded is > %z total area of wetlandnnin Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points = I Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and Area seasonally ponded is < 'A total area of wetland points = 0 no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 Map of M dro eriods (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing' ) D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I Provide photo or drawing D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the oauortunity to improve water quality? S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use MRCS D definitions) coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the fallowing conditions NO oints provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingfrom several D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area _points= 5. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 1/2 of area _points - 3 '' Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > = 1110 of area points — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <I/ 10 of area points = 0 — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, Mao of Cowardin vegetation classes Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 131.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation. Figure This is the area of the wetland unit 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. Area seasonally ponded is > %z total area of wetlandnnin Area seasonally ponded is > '/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is < 'A total area of wetland points = 0 Map of M dro eriods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I _ ick —i 1 ._L.. D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the oauortunity to improve water quality? (seep. 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 fallowing conditions provide the sources ofpollutants. A unit may have pollutants comingfrom several sources, but any single source would qualify as opportunity, — Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft '' 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 — Residential, urban areas, golf courses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier — Wetland_ is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen ` ES multiplier is 2 NO multi lier is l D 0T- - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from D1 by D2 Add score to table on p. I Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number I �� D Depressional and Flats Wetlands - Points HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to (only t score per box) reduce flooding and stream de adation D 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) p rots = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet oints. = Unit is a "flat' depression (Q, 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow as no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = I (If ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing ") Unit has an unconstricted, or sliEhtly constricted, surface outlet erinanentl owin) points = 0 D 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). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet-Iio`ints = 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = 1 Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D 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 unit pests_=_.5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit Coints – 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above l I —�---I D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) 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. 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 in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. — Wetland 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 /night otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier YESyvm lti lien is 2 NO multiplier is 1 1� D YOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 i Add ,score to table on p. l Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number 1Aff ( J These questions upplX to wetlands of all HGM classes. Points. (only.I scorn HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that unit functions to pzovide important habitat perbox) H 1. Does the wetland unit have the otential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is `4 acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants k_Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) ,<Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: A'The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (ca' ropy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon ,odd the number of vegetation structures that qualify, If you have: 4 structures or more (pints = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure—points = 0 11 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 of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present poi Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 5� Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake -fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points 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 t12. (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 Milfail, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species poen 2 List .species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points 5 species points L�O- ->AS1 GoS� Total for page 7___ Wetland Rating Foran – western Washington 13 August 2404 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number 1r 1" (- 111.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1. 1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. 0 9M D 14410W None = 0 points Low = I point Mode�2points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vebctation classes and open water the rating is always "high". Use map of Cowardin vegetation 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). 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 vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (lm) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (10m) 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 (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey/brown) x At least %a acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structuresfor egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scoresfrom H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 Comments Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 14 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number fAJ (1 1, -) H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) f=igure _ 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. " — 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 in (3 30 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 ---- 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 — 50 m (f 70ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 in (80ft) of wetland > 95°/. circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or I;Nuns arc OK. Points - 2 ---- No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wciland for X50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points = 1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6 -ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled l fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland oirtts-L 0., / Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points = I 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 YES = 4 points (go to 1-12.3)= go to H 2.2.2 an H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed Token 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? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) N H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: (� within 5 mi (Skm) 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? YES = I point (�Xo)o points Total for page Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 15 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number 4J � H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFWpriority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report htt :Lwd v.)va. ov/lirrb/Jh.vlisihtrrr) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ba (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 em (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbb; crown cover may be less that 100%; crown cover may be less that 100°/x; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or m1 /conifer associations �xhcrc canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in PPDFTV PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161)_ lnstream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition ofrelatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 in (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 in (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 ft) long, If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats - 3 points If wetland has I priority habitat = 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note_ All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H2.4) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 16 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number V" I %cu 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 1/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT he bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within %2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 11,2 mile, BUT the connections between them disturbed oints = The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake- . �3 wetland within '/z mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within '/?. mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within % mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 lr r Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, 112 and record the result ony } P. l Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 17 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 14f 4 I��>�V\� Wetland name or number' r,` CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? --- The dominant water regime is tidal, -- Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES– Go to SC 1.1 Nn SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Category 1 NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least l acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category 11 Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category Il while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a I/II Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 3/4 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 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Wetland name or number 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 unit 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) S/T/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHPfDNR web site X, YES -- contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 6io)—X— 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? YES = Category I not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to idea ify if the wetland is a bog. If yoit answer yes you will still need to rate the ;vefland based on ifs fitnctitm s. 1. Does the unit 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 f field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 (NO) go to Q. 2 2. Does the unit 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 ajale or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cov 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 purpose of rating No - go to 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. 1. Is the unit 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)? 2. YES = Category I No Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington t9 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 Cat. I Cat. I Wetland name or number V VG Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2009 SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit 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 functions. -- Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree specics, 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. — Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees arc 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 grrncrally less than that found in old-growth. Cat. I YES — Category I N not a forested wetland with special characteristics 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 me red near the bottom) not a wetland in a coastal lagoon YES = Go to SC 5.1 �7A SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets 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 1/4 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. Cat. I — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (4350 square feet) YES = Category I NO = Category II Cat. II Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 20 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2009 Wetland name or number Wec V SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 N not an interdunal wetland for rating If yo" answer yes you will str! eed to rate the Welland haled on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of 5R 103 • Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shares-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category I1 NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. 11 SC 6.2 Is the unit 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 Cat, III Category of wetland based oil Slee Choose the "highest" Y-ating if wetlancl falls into sevel-al categories, and i-ecoj-d on � //� P. 1. �"' If you answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p.1 Wetland Rating Form — westem Washington 21 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WD)~ W definitions Oct. 2008 Appendix F WSDOT (2000) Wetland Functions Data Forms v O C) N U a) Q N t m C CL p A m '0CL1 N N a) Q7 E C O b C co O 0 a) ca �, t� o n y (0 i U) E2 a) 03 C L ® 7to Q) a) ?• C a) E o rn 0) E �e a `o E O Ci U m w V L) O t7 C O a ro (D "O L A a5 (n 47 A P N Ij V) a)L3 Vf u U q 'E O O = O_ n U N m O c C y c� m as a04 E 03 o Z ii U m G Q C Y Z z Z Z CL L C •N C Q V ti a) () E N m 2 m N �n C O v°, o n m a) c Co 20 �°' CCC Vic¢ o � -0om '� oo SG° Qv) �� o 'L [n 01 di CL :P n (� (6 QN7 O Cp US L O Vi n -O t t O N C. C 3 C_ c CO CO y¢y1 O U �E a "6 !0 n �` �[ > N '� C d m'N n Os Q) N C; .O O' O0. C N A ro sri Q �j .p L O 3 O Ott w O 106 YI CO0 ' O- 0-0C +� �'�O .� actD)ay t C.1 .9 V a) a,—''r C 4) 70C J n -O y U w ,,. CL)O_ m 0. 7 a�iY O O l0 7 N O) c O G O �4 O O� 'S > N C 'O C 7 'O - C C N .— 2 n jj O C c D. ro L aY N � u Ul y LL N Q. CD �) 4=. tC O- {d n N 7 a) [O N U� n O D U 0'r- U n :_, m U) O c O ci +�. N N rn y y O) C a+ p �n rn Y; C a) O).c u d) LA -0 y j L O N O C m m O— �. ,L U .-. 0. W J N Vl R) f4 Q) ; O _ W— m C Q 9 R c N a) c N E N p '� S 7 N a c O a) Q �? . V 'r, N !0 N m a -O iJ N �6 U) �. J��m C '� ea zi () Y (nm :1m �rn� a E m > Q v z ayi h cz x x x 0� x x x x X x x x x x x C N O R N rmi W w E OLn j m N O a) C: in E in ro am �° aNi m O N C a) .� } L En � � QC) � m 4: UU) c n O rn L C L O O L V Q - m NC a ' LQ Q. CtlUCl O IL p a) p 1p m OCE C) Z LL zi y d C C) Y : V a Z c _ A W O 0 Z W O a.. v O C) N U a) Q 19 Key to IHGM Wetland Classification: Washington Wetland Type Wetland Name:_ � T "V / ( Q �LV .`� 1 �1 ( . �PC-Uj Date: —_ 1) edand usually controlled by tides No — Igo Yes — Tidal Fringe 2} Topo r�aphX i lat and precipitation is only source (>90%) of -water to the wetland 20 — go to 3 Yes — Flat 3) Wetland is contiguous with 7 8 ha (19.8 ac) open water, and water is deeper than 2 m (6.6 ft) over 30% of oen water area No -- go to 4 Yes — Lacustrine Fringe 4) Open water is < 8 ha (19.8 ac) and > 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, but wetland is a fringe narrower than '/2 the radius of open water o —~go to S� Yes — Lacustrine Fringe 55) WAmr_fl� n„yueQand is unidirectional on a slope, water is not impounded in the wetland No —go to 6 Yes — Slope 6) Wetland islocated in a topographic valley with stream or rivet in the middle --.w; - go to 9 Yes —go to 7 7) Have data showing area flooded more than once every 2 yrs.; or indicators of flooding are present: ❑ Scour marks common ❑ Recent sediment deposition ❑ Vegetation that is damaged or bent in one direction ❑ Soils have alternating deposits ❑ VSEetation along bank edge has flood marks No for all indicator�—go toYes for any indicator — go to 8 8) Flood waters retained No — Riverine Flow-through Yes — Riverine Impounding ❑ Depression in floodplain ❑ Constricted outlet ❑ Permanent water 9) Has surface water outflowDe ressional Outflow Has no surface outflow — Depression los' ecl Rationalefor Choices (based on best available information - what can be seen orpreviousy knoum information about the wetland system); Wetland Functions Field Data Form — WSDOT's BPJ Characterization Project: �yt�� <<u I �`� �- ' Date: C D Wetland Name: o�Si� c �•� � t( i Biologist: '�)c"V6e— $ A A. Flood Flow Alteration (Storage and Desynchronization) 1. Wetland occurs in the upper portion of its watershed. 'No 2. Wetland is in a relatively flat area and is capable of \( retaining higher volumes of water during storm events, than under normal rainfall conditions. 3. Wetland is a closed (depressional) system. ^ i 4. If flowthrough, wetland has constricted outlet with signs of%. r6 fluctuating water levels, algal mats, and/or lodged debris. 5. Wetland has dense woody vegetation. 6. Wetland receives floodwater from an adjacent water course. 7. Floodwaters come as sheet flow rather than channel flow. B. Sediment Removal 1.- Sources of excess sediment (from tillage or construction) are present upgradient of the wetland. y-6 2. Slow-moving water and/or a deepwater habitat are present in the wetland. I es 3. Dense herbaceous vegetation is present. jQ-" 4. Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland. � o 5. Ponding of water occurs in the wetland. C.5 6. Sediment deposits are present in wetland. 1O 20 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) VjA- .� j0 UJI) Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). C. Nutrient and Toxicant Removal Likely or not likely to provide. 1. Sources of excess nutrients (fertilizers) and toxicants (State your rationale.) (pesticides and heavy metals) are present upgradient of the wetland. ,��5 �61 - 2. Wetland is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season. y -e5 3. Wetland provides long duration for water detention. 4. Wetland has at least 30°/n,4real cover of live dense. herbaceous vegetation. g 5. Fine-grained mineral or organic soils are present in the wetland. -s O U/ D. Erosion Control and Shoreline Stabilization Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) If associated with water course or shoreline. 1,2,5 1. Wetland has dense, energy absorbing vegetation bordering '��-Q— the water course and no evidence of erosion. \m Q� n cI l� vz o 2. A herbaceous layer is part of this dense vegetation.1e5� f V 'k U` 3. Trees and shrubs able to withstand erosive flood events are also part of this dense vegetation. E. Production of Organic Matter land its Export Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) 1. Wetland has at least 30% areal cover of dense herbaceous vegetation. �4'- [00--k �'V cc� 2. Woody plants in wetland are mostly deciduous. �� �� ` 4 l 3. High degree of plant community structure, vegetation density, and species richness present. 4, Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland. z - d 5. Wetland is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season. P� G. Wetland has outlet from which organic matter is flushed. Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COF, 1995). F. General Habitat Suitability ' 1. Wetland is not fragmented by development. 2. Upland surrounding wetland is undeveloped. 3. Wetland has connectivity with other habitat types. \I&S 4. Diversity of plant species is high. y--e-s 5, Wetland has more than one Cowardin Class, i.e., ( , PSS, PE PAB, POW, etc.) ` 6. Has high degree of Cowardin Class interspersion,l2..I 7. Evidence of wildlife use, e.g., tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present \'� -�. S G. Habitat for Aquatic. Invertebrates 1. Wetland must have permanent or evidence o seasonal inundation for this function to be provided. e5 2. Various water depths present in wetland yes 3. Aquatic bed vegetation present.f � o 4. Emergent vegetation, present within ponded area. 5. Cover (i.e., woody debris, rocks, and leaf litter) present within in the standing water area. �P- S 6. A stream or another wetland within 21an (1.2 mi) of wetland. yep H. Habitat for Amphibians 1. Wetland contains areas of seasonal and/or permanent standing water in most years. (Must be present for this function to be provided) l 0 2. Thin -stemmed emergent and/or floating aquatic vegetation present within areas of seasonal and/or perennial standing water. I � S 3. Wetland buffer < 40% developed, i.e., by pavement and/or buildings. pc.c� 22 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Likely or not likely to provide. /(State your rationale.) Piet- 10A k s VCS-s�y O Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) "oc S `i`v 'Foo'C Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). 4. Woody debris present within wetland. ;. 5. Lands within 1 km (0.6 mi) of wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland, agricultural). NO 6. Other wetlands and/or an intermittent or perennial stream within 1 krn (0.6 mi) of wetland. �& I. Habitat.for Wetland -Associated Mammals 1. Permanent water present within the wetland. (Must be present for this function to be provided.) o 2. Presence of emergent vegetation in areas of permanent water. 3. Areas containing dense shrubs and/or trees are present within wetland or its buffer. 4. Interspersion between different strata of vegetation. 5. Interspersion between permanent open water (without vegetation) and permanent water with vegetation. 6. Presence of banks suitable for denning. 7. Evidence of wildlife use, e.g., dens, tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present. J. Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds 1. Wetland has 30 to 50% shallow open water and/or aquatic bed classes present within the wetland. 'NO 2. Emergent vegetation class present within the wetland. 3. Forested and scrub -shrub classes present within the wetland or its buffer. 4. Snags present in wetland or its buffer. 5. Sand bars and/or mud flats present within the wetland. 23 Likely or not likely to provide, (State your rationale.) Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Nd_ Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) NO h.. L 00c ,F T' "t -o" { e'v\ 0i.V ch t t IIAAS �L yc-tb SF'i' * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995), N 6. Wetland contains invertebrates, amphibians, and/or fish. 7, Buffer contains relatively undisturbed grassland shrub and/or forest habitats. 8. Lands within 1 km (0.6 mi) of the wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland, agricultural). K. General Fish Habitat (Must be associated with a fish -bearing water.) 1 . Wetland has a perennial or intermittent surface -water connection to a fish -bearing water body Y-0) 2. Wetlaftd has sufficient size and depth of open water so as not to freeze completely during winter. 3. Observation of fish.< -- 4. Herbaceous and/or woody vegetation is present in wetland and/or buffer to provide cover, shade, and/or detrital matter. YC --I T - 5. Spawning areas are present (aquatic vegetation and/or gravel beds). No L. Native Punt Richness 1. Dominant and codominant plants are native. ! J 2. Wetland contains two or more Cowardin Classes. �P5 3. Wetland has three or more strata of vegetation. 4. Wetland has mature trees.f j M. Educational or Scientific Value 1. Site has documented scientific or educational use. " 2. Wetland is in public ownerships" 1 3. Parking at site is suitable for a school bus. 24 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yes IN f Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) c9f#1oAs PA a �`�. � (� � �-4•t ��:_�' �:�� f GLS S 1 S � �'' 11 l �. 1ilan� .� Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) F. Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). R6, QJ 25 N. Uniqueness and Heritage 1. Wetland contains documented occurrence of a state— or federally listed threatened or endangered tspecies. Ie5 ckv.,IOLl 5f 0ec4 fftjev\+F 2. Wetland .contains documented critical habitat, high quality,ecosystems, or priority species respectively designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the WDNR's Natural Heritage Program, or WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species Program. P 0 3. Wetland is part of a National Natural Landmark designated by the National Park Service or a Natural Heritage Site designated by WDNR. ! Jo 4. Wetland has biological, geological, or other features that are'determined rare by the local jurisdiction. �J o i 5. Wetland has been determined significant by the local jurisdiction because it provides functions scarce for the area. �D 6. Wetland is part of... 1,-3 c7:� ➢ an estuary, ➢ a bog, ➢ a mature forest. i Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) ! C VVOVd VY Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COF, 7.995). 014 c _ O � a U t a .r. r C m w 0. CL y N y N C � � 3 � o � V C c V1 Q a 10 p L 7 y j 4 3 _ 0 � n L H py dp O Y U G tR 'C ayr =3r.+ Q 0 7 �+ 0 'm N a L1.. O F N N c in C cm c ED C V) p p 7 i o o ro O g 1h � 'o �a � a N N >CL O OL ccm C, c CC(pL a C c� C L U a o U E N CD c '.�07 c as ro po c m W Li ii a m z LL U- c CL C C } } } } Z Z 2 I I Z I z CL U. cc a ci � ro Ia c o a .. a c ( 7 O a as .L.+ Lll 0 c in a N m QF Q G C a O -0N 0 « c 1A= U ILN 00-rl.0 L7 Q p �2 y� a7 _ro G Ur- M p O'vy O E 02 y"�C rC 'a c?O ro ,C rn� f0 `a N U Zi ac °c uai -0 G3 oma d .0 roU Caa and >�c m Y aEim C i N ua y N a�p ? p O E 7 G fa U .Q (DQ uj C ca U 0 6 O O C C Qi c0 > y 0 'O}'O G. qNj s p Q , Q C m O > N o W C W p.2 @ L L N O N CL '� -0 Ea U O O m fi a O ,p Vl a O a U j cpn .1 p p G O cgN�1 L 3 p t7fi C �j m c N R iA c` a N L " c �j Ill rn a Oi o> .fro ins a c [a P1 roa '� �. HJ O a) c C 2 fn O p a f6 U a aW m $ C c o? ni C� a4 Qi o a a c ro .0 a -p -o p= �� C a z m fao °' m I Y N a Zz $i � v `c° ro aa� mo` W LL ro� a co 43 E w C= x x x x 7 ;? } a x x x x x x x x x x 0 a W m a m a M a in E (D 14a Ln o m a ro is w 7Sa O d1 a t4 .0 a O VV) L 06a o � r w o 0 3 c c m w °6 a m o c 'c FG m w C o E -@ D rn ro ro m — m G a > c O (D3 ZI U. 0 rn o O o c o w v 3 o q> L7 z a c 3 = O 7 Z C O O U W th _ Wm W O` a Wedand Name: L Key to H'GM Wetland Classification: Washington Wetland Type �.t W Date: 19 1) Water levels in wetland usually controlled by tides �_�Yes —Tidal Fringe 2) TQpography-is.# at and precipitation is only source (>909/6) of -water to the wetland No -- go to 3 Yes — Flat 3) fWetland is contiguous with > 8 ha (19.8 ac) open water, and water is deeper than 2 m (6.6 ft) over 30% of open water -area No -- go to 4` 5 Yes — Lacustrine Fringe 4)y 00c' n water is < 8 ha (19.8 ac) and > 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, but wetland is a fringe narrower than 1/2 the radius_ of open water. _ No -- go to 5 , Yes — Lacustrine Fringe 5) Witer flow in wetland is unidirectional on a slope, water is not impounded in the wetland No — go to Yr Yes — Slope `G)—W1fft 21r .Hs. ocated in a topographic valley with stream or river in the rniddle No'— go to 9 } Yes —go to 7 't. 7)--Havv­dAfa showing area flooded more than once every 2 yrs.; or indicators of flooding are present: ❑ Scour marks common ❑ Recent sediment deposition ❑ Vegetation that is damaged or bent in one direction ❑ Soils have alternating deposits ❑ Vegetation along bank edge has flood marks No for all indicators — go to 9 ` Yes for any indicator — go to 8 8) Flood waters retained No — Riverine Flow-through Yes — Riverine Impounding ❑ Depression in floodplain ❑ Constricted outlet ❑ Permanent water 9) Has surface water outflow ` Depressional Outflow Has no surface outflow -- DZsiortal-Claos-"d ^ .Rationale for Choicer (based on best available information - what can be seen orpreviously known information about the wetland system); Wetland Functions Field Data Form — WSDQT's BPJ Characterization )� �� (�..c�Se Date: Project: �' t Wetland Name: (i c i r e. U � -� � C} Biologist: b, -CAJ _ 5 L' A. Flood Flow Alteration (Storage and Desynchronization) l 1. Wetland occurs in the upper portion of its watershed. I� 2. Wetland is in a relatively flat area and is capable of retaining higher volumes of water durin storm events, than under normal rainfall conditions. e5 3. Wetland is a closed (depressional) system. (� 4, if flowthrough, wetland has constricted outlet with signs of fluctuating water levels, algal mats, and/or lodged debris. Po 5. Wetlano has dense wood vegetation. �� i r� r 6— 6. Wetlandrec ives floodwater from an adjacent water course. F1 7. Floodwaters come as sheet flow rather than channel flow. P cD B. Sediment Removal 1. Sources of excess sediment (from tillage pr construction) are present upgradient of the wetland. e 2. Slow-moving water and/or a deepwater habitat are present in the wetland. N 0 3. Dense herbaceous vegetation is present. 4. Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland y 5. Ponding of water occurs in the wetland�,�s 6. Sediment deposits are present in wetland. Ife. 20 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) ��-H rS �C UA_ J 1Uan.C!c' r Likely or not likely to provide. ��Jfj�(State your rationale.) I I s i `` ! see v,,,d - Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). C. Nutrient and Toxicant Removal 1. Sources of excess nutrients (fertilizers) and toxicants (pesticides and heavy metals) are present upgradient of the wetland. Y e_' (�')k'C ('J 21 Likely or not likely to provide. le'V' (State your rationale.) tov ��}lr D om' C��_r-h -A^— 're A^- Se _A 2. Wetland :is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season. �6 3. - Wetland provides long duration for water detention. 4"" 4. Wetland has at least 30% areal cover of live dense herbaceous vegetation. Yo 5. Fine-grained mineral or organic soils are present in the wetland. *.5 D. Erosion Control and Shoreline Stabilization If associated with water course or shoreline. 1. Wetland has dense, energy absorbing vegetation bordering the water course and no ev'dence of erosion. OA 2. A herbaceous laver is nart of this dense vegetation. `l. o� 3. Trees and shrubs able to withstand erosive flood events are also part of this dense vegetation. V E. Production of Organic Matter and its Export 1. Wetland has at least 30% areal cover of dense herbaceous vegetation. \k � 17 2. Woody plants in wetland are mostly deciduous. G 3. High degree of plant community structure, vegetation density, and species richness present. 4. Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland. 5. Wetland is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season. b. Wetland has outlet from which organic matter is flushed. Likely or not likely to provide, (State your rationale.) vzt CvIke- Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) 6_� �" * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and I Values (COE, 7.995). F. General Habitat Suitability ' 1. Wetland is not fragmented by development. 2. Upland surrounding wetland is undeveloped. N o 3. Wetland has connectivity with other habitat types. 4. Diversity of plant species is high. �JG 5.rd d as mo than one Cowardin Class, i.e., FO ,S PEM AB, POW, etc.) \-f .Qj i llII 6. Has high degree of Cowardin Class interspersion. I 0 7. Evidence of wildlife use, .g., tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present 'P`0 G. Habitat for Aquatic.invertebrates 1. Wetland must have permanent or evidence of seasonal inundation for this function to be provided )ye) J ) 2. Various water depths present in wetland Q 3. Aquatic bed vegetation present.tjo 4. Emergent vegetation present within ponded area. 5. Cover (i.e., woody debris, rocks, and leaf litter) present within in the standing water area. i - 5 6. A stream or an ther wetland within 2 km (1.2 mi) of wetland. ti�V j H. Habitat for Amphibians 1. Wetland contains areas of seasonal and/or permanent standing water in most years. (Nl;upt lie present for this function to be provided) � 2. Thin -stemmed emergent and/or floating aquatic vegetation present within areas of seasonal and/or perennial standing water. 3. Wetland buffer < 40% developed, i.e., by pavement and/or buildings. NO r y 22 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Nu - 1 o- k" c_ 5+rvUfi' v; ' Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) P . btu CA a V i (f Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Cu I * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). 4, Woody debris present within wetland, `lP5 5. Lands within 1 'km (0.6 n- i) of wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland, agricultural). N 6. Other wetlands and/or an intermittent or perennial stream within 1 km (0.6 mi) of wetland. � e j 1. Habitat for Wetland -Associated Mammals 1. Permanent water present within the wetland. (Must be present for this function to be provided.) 010 2. Presence of emergent vegetation in areas of permanent water. 3. Areas containing dense shrubs and/or trees are present within wetland or its buffer. 4. Interspersion between different strata of vegetation. 5. interspersion between permanent open water (without vegetation) and permanent water with vegetation. 6. Presence of banks suitable for denning. 7. Evidence of wildlife use, e.g., dens, tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present. J. Habitat for Wetland -Associated Birds 1. Wetland has 30 to 50% shallow open water and/or aquatic bed classes present within the wetland. N D 2. Emergent vegetation class present within the wetland 3. Forested and scrub -shrub classes present within the wetland or its buffer. 4. Snags present in wetland or its buffer. 5. Sand bars and/or mud flats present within the wetland. P�6tj 23 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) oe. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) PO 1zA-Se- * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). I 6. Wetland contains invertebrates, amphibians, and/or fish. i 7, Buffer contains relatively undisturbed grassland shrub and/or forest habitats. ' S. Lands within 1 krn (0.6 mi) of the wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland, agricultural). K. General Fish Habitat (Must be associated with a fish -bearing water.) 1. Wetland has a perennial or intermittent surface -water connection to a fish -bearing water body I o 2. Wetland has sufficient size and depth of open water so as not to freeze completely during winter.�� 3. Observation of fish. 4. Herbaceous and/or woody vegetation is present in wetland and/or buffer to provide cover, shade, and/or detrital matter. �e-� , . 5. Spawning areas are present (aquatic vegetation and/or gravel beds). I " 0 L. Native Plant Richness I . Dominant and codominant plants are native. N d 2. Wetland contains two or more Cowardin Classes. 3. Wetland has three or more strata of vegetation. 4. Wetland has mature trees. M. Educational or Scientific Value 1. Site has documented scientific or educational use. c) s 2. Wetland is in public ownership. e5 3. Parking at site is suitable for a school bus. fVf �"f j /'t 24 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) � r� oe_v�� CA I Likely or not likely to provide. (State T1your 1r�attiona!`le,) u Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) y Gk C * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COF,1995). M N. Uniqueness and Heritage 1. - Wetland contains documented occurrence of a state— or federally listed threatened or endangered species. 2. We 1and,contains documented critical habitat, high quality ecosystems, or priority species respectively designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the WDNR's Natural Heritage Program, or hh JJ WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species Program. I )b 3. Wetland is part of a National Natural Landmark designated by the National Park Service or a Natural Heritage Site designated by WDNR. 0'0 4. Wetland has biological, geological, or other features that are'determined rare by the local jurisdiction. ! O 5. Wetland has been determined significant by the local jurisdiction because it provides functions scarce for the area. Ib. Wetland is part of .. . ➢ an estuary, 00 ➢ a bog, 9 a mature forest. 25 Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE,1995). •I Appendix G NHC (2009) Hydraulic Analysis Scenario Descriptions The scenarios modeled are described in the matrix included as Appendix A. Following is a brief description highlighting the key features of the scenarios related to this analysis_ • Scenario 1 represents the future hydrologic baseline condition and is the scenario against which other future land use scenarios will be compared_ The HSPF model for this scenario uses the existing (2001) land -use condition for areas along the WSDOT highway corridors (SR -167 and 1-405) and the full build out land -use condition for the remainder of the basin. • Scenario 10 represents the existing hydrologic baseline condition and is the scenario against which other existing land use scenarios will be compared. The HSPF model for this scenario uses the existing (2001) land -use condition throughout the basin. • Scenario 11 is based on Scenario 1 but includes the WSDOT "Master Plan" improvements along the SR -167 highway corridor and plugging of culverts 65 and 66 at the south end of the Panther Creek Wetland (PCW). Scenario 11 does not include modifications to the SW 23rd Street outlet from PCW. • Scenario 12 is based on Scenario 1 but includes a 320 -foot fish -passable culvert replacing culvert 72 under SR -167. Scenario 12 also includes other WSDOT project elements including "Master Plan" improvements along the SR -167 highway corridor and plugging culverts 65 and 66 at the south end of PCW. • Scenario 13 is based on Scenario 12 with the fish -passable culvert extended 100 feet to also replace the existing culvert under East Valley Highway. • Scenario 15 is analogous to Scenario 13 for the existing land use condition. • Scenario 16 is analogous to Scenario 12 for the existing land use condition. • Scenario 17 is based on Scenario 10 but includes a 220 -foot fish -passable culvert replacing culvert 72 under SR -167. Scenario 17 includes plugging of culverts 65 and 66 but does NOT include the WSDOT Master Plan improvements. SW 23rd Street Outlet Improvements The existing outlet from the PCW to the SW 23rd Street channel consists of a 72 -inch (6 -foot) diameter steel culvert under SR 167 headed by a fish ladder tying the upstream culvert inlet to the main body of the wetland at elevation 14 feet (all elevations referenced to the NAVD88 vertical datum). The proposed fish passable culvert is a 19'2" by 11'9" aluminum structural plate pipe arch culvert set at a bottom slope of 0.7 percent. The culvert is proposed to be filled with 6.2 feet of sediment at the upstream end to an elevation of 12.73 feet. The proposed sediment slope through the culvert is set to tie in with existing channel elevations. The characteristics of the existing and proposed culverts are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. SW 23rd Street Outlet Culvert Characteristics Scenario Culvert Size Culvert Length (ft) Culvert Slope (%) Sediment Depth (ft) Culvert I.E. (ft NAVD) UIS DIS UIS DIS 1110111 6' circular 190 -0.3 n/a n/a 9.90 10.40 12116 19'2" x 11'9" arch 320 0.7 6.20 5.24 6.53 4.29 13115 19'2" x 11'9" arch 420 0.7 6.20 4.94 6.53 3.59 17 197' x 11'9" arch 220 0.7 6.20 5.54 6.53 4.99 Hydrologic Analysis Results The attached tables and figures document the performance of the unrestricted 99'2" by 19'9" aluminum structural plate pipe arch culvert at the SW 23rd Street outlet from PCW for the eight modeled scenarios. 9. Flow frequency plots and tabulated peaks for each of the three wetland outlets (SW 34th Street, SW 23rd Street, SW 99th Street) for all scenarios. 2. Annual stage duration analysis plots for the Panther Creek Wetland for all scenarios. 3. Average daily stage hydrograph plots for the Panther Creek Wetland for all scenarios. 4. Annual stage duration analysis and average daily stage hydrograph plots for the 34th Street channel just downstream of SR -967 for all scenarios. 5. Annual stage duration analysis and average daily stage hydrograph plots for the 23rd Street channel just downstream of East Valley Highway for all scenarios. 6. Annual stage duration analysis and average daily stage hydrograph plots for the 231' Street channel just downstream of SR -167 for Scenarios 1, 19, 11, 12, 16, and 17. This location is not applicable for Scenarios 13 and 15, where the SR -167 culvert is extended through East Valley Highway. Note that stages for the 34th Street and 23`d Street channels are based on fairly crude hydraulic modeling of these channels and do not reflect annual variation in roughness due to vegetation that could significantly affect actual water surface elevations (in the 34th Street channel particularly). Stage data for these tributaries should thus be used with care, though they should be adequate for purposes of scenario comparison. Table 2. Flow Frequency Comparison for SW 34`h Street Tributary Table 3. Flow Frequency Comparison for SW 23`d Street Tributary Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval Scenario 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 37.3 38.1 38.4 38.7 38.9 11 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 12 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 13 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 10 37.3 38.1 38.4 38.7 38.9 15 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 16 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 17 36.1 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.1 Table 3. Flow Frequency Comparison for SW 23`d Street Tributary Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 96 130 139 144 147 11 105 141 151 155 158 12 107 147 159 163 167 13 113 162 174 178 181 10 73 113 124 131 137 15 101 141 156 165 171 16 97 130 142 149 155 17 96 130 142 150 155 Table 4. Flow Frequency Comparison for SW 19`h Street Tributary Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 62.1 69.7 73.2 75.8 78.2 11 62.1 69.7 73.2 75.7 78.2 12 62.1 69.7 73.2 75.7 78.2 13 62.1 69.7 73.2 75.7 78.2 10 55.8 64.7 68.4 70.9 73.3 15 55.8 64.7 68.4 70.9 73.2 16 55.8 64.7 68.4 70.9 73.2 17 55.8 64.7 68.4 70.9 73.3 Table 5. Flow Frequency Comparison for Springbrook Creek Upstream of SW 23r8 Street Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 561 790 909 999 1090 11 551 785 907 999 1094 12 551 785 907 999 1094 13 551 785 907 999 1094 10 492 693 796 875 955 15 482 687 794 876 959 16 482 687 794 876 959 17 482 687 794 876 959 Table 6. Flow Frequency Comparison for Springbrook Creek Downstream of SW 19'" Street Scenario Flow (cfs) for Given Return Interval 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 50 -yr 100 -yr 1 724 994 1128 1227 1326 11 728 996 1132 1234 1337 12 732 999 1133 1234 1336 13 738 1010 1148 1252 1357 10 616 866 992 1086 1181 15 638 882 1006 1100 1195 16 634 873 995 1086 1179 17 633 873 995 1087 1180