HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1PARTIES -OF RECORD
Elliot Spawning Reconstruction
LUA11-061, SME
Colin Worsiey, PWS
Parametrix
411 108th Avenue NE Ste:
# 1800
Bellevue, WA 98004
tel: (425) 458-6200
eml: eworsley@parametrix.com
(party of record)
Updated: 07/26/11 (Page 1 of 1)
!I
0
S
PPP44-rM
Idor
40�
Apr
- ; 400
�.' 4k -!,
4Y
� �-
�.^`��
;||!|l;;;;|;|||
�■■■■,■I■;■.�;|
•.._��.l;•;-44
;;,|,I,•�„;.
� �-
�.^`��
;||!|l;;;;|;|||
�■■■■,■I■;■.�;|
•.._��.l;•;-44
PPP-b&T rrr
m
J �,
:1
PPP4WTM
nrp.asrm
WFA 5+50 AN&A FON CONTMUATiON
a ■ X, -1, y ■ ■
}s.w -
�I
�g
B
■ eel} ]OS]
isQ
ep.l9 ]E M P� .
♦y 6
eG iE • K,� .
fr
]E92
Y •—Jl
iy
E667 ��q
NO
n� TyI14
4 ! l
\� }42,
1IIJI a 91
i
191
ron
}eM
sol
STA 544M ■■i ■[LOW FON COKMUATNM
`�•�tl
een
-
IN SIA Vrtl V
N42
m.m
Iv
-
bi. e
eo.00
`
""ll
191
ron
}eM
sol
STA 544M ■■i ■[LOW FON COKMUATNM
fill
ly
1
�F; g
PPP4$-TTrr I
., a a a a a i
ED 16
Jd
F117
"s ""g a a a a
a
ji—
., a a a a a i
ED 16
Jd
F117
"s ""g a a a a
BY
C
cz
Q
0
I
oil
all
ta-
LP F"
a
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 11, 2012
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Stacy M Tucker
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office.
Project Name:
Elliot Spawning Channel
LUA (file) Number:
LUA-11-061, SME, CAR
Cross -References:
AKA's:
Project Manager:
Vanessa Dolbee
Acceptance Date:
August 8, 2011
Applicant:
City of Renton
Owner:
Same as applicant
Contact:
Steve Lee, City of Renton
PID Number:
2223059141
ERC Decision Date:
ERC Appeal Date:
Administrative Approval:
August 8, 2011
Appeal Period Ends:
August 22, 2011
Public Hearing Date:
Date Appealed to HEX:
By Whom:
HEX Decision:
Date:
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
Council Decision:
Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: Repair/reconstruction of approximately 900 feet of the Elliot Spawning
Channel, and replacement of spawning
channel gravel.
Location:
Cedar River mile 4.8
Comments:
��gNT DFT �NVICA
United States Department of the Interior
4 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
510 Desmond Dr. SF, Suite 102
Lacey,.Washington 98503
In Reply Refer To:
13410-2010-1-0159
x -ref: 13410-2007-1-0401
Mark Eberlein, Regional Environmental Officer
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
DR -1671 -WA
130 228'h Street SW
Bothell, Washington 98021-9796
Dear Mr. Eberlein:
LIAR 18 2010
Subject: FEMA DR -1817 -WA: PW -1900; City of Renton, Cedar River Elliott Spawning
Channel
This correspondence is in response to your letter dated January 8, 2010, and Specific Project
Information File for rehabilitation of the CedarRiver Elliott spawning channel located in the
City of Renton, King County, Washington (T23N, R05E, Sec 23).
The original construction of the Elliott spawning channel occurred in 2001. The spawning
channel was reconstructed in 2007 after flood waters in November 2006 caused severe erosion of
the channel. In January 2009, storm and flood waters again caused erosion of the channel and
scoured away wood debris, erosion control measures, and habitat plantings. The proposed
project includes building temporary coffer dams on the upstream and downstream ends of the
channel. An impact driver mounted on a boom crane will be used to install approximately 100 ft
of metal sheet piling to prevent water from infiltrating the permeable berm during construction.
All dewatering and fish handling will follow the Dewatering and Fish Capture Protocol found in
Appendix A of the Washington State Fish Passage and Habitat Enhancement Restoration
Programmatic Consultation by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and
TAKE PR I OER
I rel AMERICA_ � .
Mark Eberlein '2
Wildlife Service (2008). Rehabilitation of the stream channel consists of repairing the 1,600 -ft
channel, removing silt, replacing the spawning gravel, placing large woody debris in the stream
channel, and planting the riparian habitat with native vegetation. The boom crane will operate
from the existing maintenance road, and Best Management Practices for erosion control and spill
prevention will be followed.
Your letter and Specific Project Information File were received in our office on January 12,
2010. Additional information was requested on February 4, 2010, and received on March 11,
2010. Your letter requests our concurrence with your finding that the proposed project "may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). This request
was submitted in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act).
Based on the information provided, we have concluded that effects to the federally Iisted bull'
trout associated with the proposed project would be insignificant or discountable. Therefore, we
concur with your "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determination for bull trout.
Specifically, our concurrence is based on the following rationale.
Bull Trout
The proposed project will occur along the Cedar River. Adult and subadult bull trout have been
observed infrequently in the lower Cedar River and Lake Washington. No spawning or juvenile
rearing areas have been documented in the lower Cedar River (USFWS 2004, p. 129), and
habitat in the action area is unlikely to be used by bull trout. The proposed project will occur
during the in -water work window (August 1 to August 31) when there is a low likelihood of bull
trout being present in the action area or exposed to potential impacts from project construction.
Based on long-term water quality monitoring conducted by the Washington State Department of
Ecology; 7 -day average maximum water temperatures in the Cedar River near Renton (station
08C070) are near or exceed 20 °C during the summer (July and August). Based on the location
and conditions of the channel, bull trout presence in the action area is highly unlikely at the time
the construction activities will occur. Therefore, direct effects of the proposed project to bull
trout are considered discountable.
Prey species for bull trout are likely to be in the action area during construction activities and
exposed to potential construction -related turbidity and to dewatering of the channel. Potential
impacts to prey species from turbidity are not expected to result. in measurable effects. Turbidity
from construction activities will be short-term and minimal_ All dewatering and fish handling
activities will follow the Dewatering and Fish Capture Protocol. Construction activities are not
expected to result in measurable effects to riparian areas, aquatic macro -invertebrates, or forage
fish in the action area. Restoration of the stream channel will provide spawning gravel, large
woody debris, and riparian habitat that are beneficial to forage fish and aquatic macro -
invertebrates. Effects to prey species from..construction-related activities are not likely to result
in measurable effects to bull trout. Therefore, indirect effects to bull trout via their prey
resources are considered insignificant.
4_� .
Mark Eberlein
This concludes informal consultation pursuant to the regulations implementing the Act, 50 CFR
402.13. This project should be reanalyzed if new information reveals effects of the action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner, or to an extent, not considered in this
consultation. The project should also be reanalyzed if the action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to a listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this
consultation, and/or a new species or critical habitat is listed that may be affected by this project
that was not previously considered:
If you have any questions about this letter or our joint responsibilities under the Act, please
contact Shirley Burgdorf at (360) 534-9340 or Martha Jensen at (360) 753-9000.
cc:
WDFW, Region 4, Mill Creek, WA
WDOE, Bellevue, WA (R. Padgett)
Sincerely,
Ken S. Berg, Manager
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office
LITERATURE CITED
3
National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Appendix A:
Dewatering and Fish Capture Protocol, Pages 121-129 in Washington State Fish Passage
and Habitat Enhancement Restoration Programmatic Consultation (NMFS Reference #
2008/03598, FWS Reference # 13410-2008- F-0209). Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office, Lacey, Washington. (July 8, 2008). 166 pp.
USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal -Puget
Sound Distinct Population Segment -of Bull Trout (5alvelinus conjluentus) Volume I (of
II): Puget Sound Management Unit. Portland, Oregon. 389 pp.
0 or or
'? Wq UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
4;., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
TNATIONAL
MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE;
. Northwest Region
'ftruof 7500 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. I
Seattle, Washington 98115
`MFS Tracking No.:
2010/00081
Mir. Mark Eberlein
Regional Environmental Officer
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
.Region,X
1.30 2281h Street S.W.
Bothell, WA 98021-9796
.January 26, 2010
RE: Endangered Specics Act Section 7 Informal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens fishery
Conservation and Management Act l;ssential Dish Habitat Consultation for the Cedar
River Elliot Spa�%,ning Channel Repair. King County, Washington 1-1 UC 1711001301
(Cedar River).
Dear Nir. Eberlein:
This letter is in response to your request for Section 7 informal consultation under the
Endangered Specics Act (ESA) on Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhy-itchus rshmi-vischu)
and Puget Sound steelhead (0. invkiss), ESA threatened. Additionally, this letter serves to meet
the requirements for consultation under the iMagmuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA).
E.ndangered Species Act
The National ,I4arine Fisheries Service (NINIFS) has reviewed the January 8, 2010 Individual and
Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) for
Washington State for the WIIKDO35 Repair Cedar River Elliot Spawning Channel Project.
FEMA Disaster Number FEMA -18f 7-DR-1VA. This consultation is conducted under section
7(a)(2) of the FSA, and Its implementing regulations. 50 CFR Part 402.
Januar° 2009 flooding in the Cedar River. declared a Federal disaster. damaged the Elliot
sockeye salmon spawning channel. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FE.MA)
proposes to fund the City of Renton to reconstruct the spawning channel to pre -flood conditions
by: (1) repairing a 95' by 25' berm; (2) removing silt; (3) restoring, side -slopes: and. (4) replacing
spawning gravel, woody debris and vegetation last in the flood event.
The project area is adjacent to the Cedar River at River Mile 4.5 in a suburban area east of the
City of Renton in King. County, "Township 23N, Range 5E, Section 22. The action area is
approximately 1600' of off -channel spaxvning and rearing habitat in the nffl�M46ie Cedar
River ivithin a 0.5 mile radius of the prolcct- location.
FEMA REGION'4�,y.,N��°
The project area will be isolated with approximately 1017' of sheet pile, driven in with a boom
crane operated from the existing maintenance road. As the work site is isolated from river flows.
any stranded fish will be carefully removed with dip nets under the supervision of a qualified
biologist, and placed into the river.
Additional project detail can be found in the SPIE. To minimize potential adverse effects on
Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, all appropriate BMPs shall be followed, including;
1) Limit in -water work to August 1 — August 31 when aquatic species are at least risk.
2) New riparian plantings will be monitored, and replanted as necessary, for at minimum
of 3 years following project completion.
3) follow all relevant technical guidance from Washington Dept. of Dish and Wildlife.
4) Proper intake screens shall be used on pumps used to draw down water in the channel..
5) Fish exclusion and removal ujill he conducted as described in the SP1F and in
accordance with NMFS guidelines (NMFS 2000)_
Species Determination
Puget Sound Chinook salmon
Puget Sound steelhead
The Cedar River provides seasonal habitat for Chinook salmon and the action area is used f'or all
life history stages. While the spawning channel was constructed for sockeye salmon. it is also
used by a feu' Chinook salmon for autumn spawning and spring rearing. During_ August juvenile
Chinook are not likely to be in the action area because the}, emigrate befiore summer. Adults
enter the river to spawn stating about mid to late September. Sediment disturbance and turbidity
are expected to be minimal and temporary. 13ccause potential effects to tills species are
discountable, NMFS concurs that the project "may affect. but is not likely to adversely affect"
Puget Sound Chinook salmon.
Low numbers of Puget Sound steelhcad tnay be present year-round in the action area in various
life -stages. Juvenile steelhead will likely be in faster water of the main channel rather than the
slower water of the spawning channel during the construction window. Appropriate use of
l3MPs as listed above, and use of proper exclusion and removal methods, will ensure that pr( jcct
effects are insignificant for this species. NMFS concurs that the proposed action "may affect, but
is not likely to adversely affect" Puget Sound steelhead.
3
Critical Habitat Determination
Puget Sound Chinook salmon
The final rule designating critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon was published on
September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630) and became effective on January 2, 2006. In the action area
are three Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs):
1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate
supporting spawning, incubation and larval development;
2) Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and
maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; (ii) Water quality
and forage supporting juvenile development; and (iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged
and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and
boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water
quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large
wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting
juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
The NMFS has analyzed the potential effects of the proposed action on the three PCEs and
concurs effects will be insignificant. As noted in the previous section, following standard BMPs
will minimize water quality changes in the action area. Project activities will not affect the
suitability of the area as a migration corridor and spawning habitat, and will likely enhance the
area's suitability for rearing. Because the conservation value of PCEs in the action area will be
maintained or improved, the NMFS concurs the proposed action "may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect" Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat.
Overall, this sockeye salmon spawning channel has provided additional habitat for various life
history stages of several species of salmonids in the Cedar River and repairing it will likely
provide continued benefits to all species. This is the second reconstruction of the site after
storms or floods, and NMFS encourages FEMA and the City of Renton to consider re-
engineering this spawning channel to eliminate the need for regular repairs after flood events,
which cause unnecessary impacts to riparian. instream and off -channel habitats and aquatic
species in the area.
This concludes informal consultation on this proposed action in accordance with 50 CFR
402.14(b)(1). FEMA must reinitiate this ESA consultation if (1) new information reveals
effects of the action that may affect listed species in a way not previously considered; (2) new
information reveals the action causes an effect to listed species that was not previously
considered; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the
identified actions.
4
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Federal agencies are required, under section 305(b)(2) of the MSA and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 600 Subpart K), to consult with NMFS regarding actions that are
authorized, funded, or undertaken by that agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH). The MSA section 3 defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity". If an action would adversely affect EFH,
FEMA is required to provide the Federal action agency with EFH conservation recommendations
(MSA section 305(b)(4)(A)). This consultation is based, in part, on information provided by the
Federal action agency and descriptions of EFH for Pacific salmon contained in Appendix A to
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (August 1999) developed by the Pacific Fishery
Management Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce (September 27, 2000).
The proposed action and action area are described in this letter and in the SPIF. The action area
includes habitat which has been designated as EFH for various life stages of Chinook salmon and
coho salmon (D, kistach).
EFH Conservation Recommendations: Because the habitat requirements (i.e., EFH) for the
MSA -managed species in the action area are similar to that of the ESA -listed species, and
because the conservation measures that NMFS has analyzed as part of the proposed action to
address ESA concerns are also adequate to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse
effects to designated EFH, conservation recommendations pursuant to (MSA section
305(b)(4)(A)) are not necessary. Since NMFS is not providing conservation recommendations at
this time, no 30 -day response from FEMA is required (MSA section 305(b)(4)(13)).
This concludes consultation under the MSA. If the proposed action is modified in a manner that
may adversely affect EFH, or if new information becomes available that affects the basis for
NMFS' EFH analysis, FEMA will need to reinitiate EFH consultation with NMFS in accordance
with implementing regulations for EFH at 50 CFR 600.920(k).
The efforts of FEMA and the City of Renton to design this project to minimize environmental
impacts are appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Randy McIntosh at 360-534-
9309 or rand),.mcintosh@noaa.gov.
Since Y.
Barry A.ViZal
Acting RAdministrator
s
cc: Bert Bowen, FEMA
Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Larry Fisher, WDFW
Deborah Needham, City of Renton
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Steve Lee
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98057
Dear Mr. Lee:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 3755
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755
OCT - 7 2011
Reference; NWS -2011-506
Renton, City of
OCT i nn
We have reviewed your application to excavate 700 cubic yards of material and discharge
670 cubic yards of excavated fine sediments and spawning gravel below the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) in a constructed spawning channel connected to the Cedar River, excavate
310 cubic yards of fill material and discharge 185 cubic yards of large riprap below the OHWM
in the Cedar River, and construct six temporary sand bag dams below the OHWM in a
constructed spawning channel connected to the Cedar River at Renton, Washington. Based on
the information you provided to us, Nationwide Pen -nit (NWP) 27, Aquatic Habitat Restoration,
Establishment, and Enhancement Activities and NWP 33, Temporary Construction, Access, and
Dewatering (Federal Register, March 12, 2007, Vol. 72, No. 47), authorizes your proposal as
depicted on the enclosed drawings dated May 2011. In order for this NWP authorization to be
valid, you must ensure the work is performed in accordance with the enclosed Nationwide
Permit 27 and 33, Terms and Conditions and the following special conditions:
a. In order to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) you must, prior to
commencing construction, submit to the U,S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District,
Regulatory Branch, documentation demonstrating that the requirements of the ESA and MSA
have been met. All submitted documentation must prominently display the reference number
NWS -2011-506.
b. In order to protect the listed threatened and endangered species in the project area, the
permittee may conduct the authorized activities in the work window as agreed to and
documented in writing through consultation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or
National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) in any year this permit is valid. If changes to the
originally authorized work window are proposed, the permittee must re -coordinate these changes
with the Services and receive written concurrence on the changes. Copies of the concurrence(s)
must be sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, within 10 days of the
date of the revised concurrence.
The authorized work complies with the Washington State Department of Ecology's
(Ecology) Water Quality Certification and the Coastal Zone Management Act requirements for
these NWPs. No further coordination with Ecology is required.
-2 -
For this project, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is the Federal lead agency
responsible for compliance with Section 7 of the ESA, the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The 2007 concurrence letters from the Services that you submitted with your application appear
to be related to a previous effort to restore the Elliot Spawning channel after a November 2006
flood event. For the purpose of this Department of the Army authorization, the U.S: Army Corps
of Engineers has determined that this project will comply with the requirements of the above
laws, provided you comply with special conditions "a" and "b" made part of this verification.
We have prepared and enclosed a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (JD), which is a
written indication that wetlands and waterways within your project area may be waters of the
United States. Such waters will be treated as jurisdictional waters of the U.S. for purposes of
computation of impact area and compensatory mitigation requirements associated with your
permit application. If you believe the Preliminary JD is inaccurate, you may request an
Approved JD, which is an official determination regarding the presence or absence of waters of
the U.S. If one is requested, please be aware that we may require the submittal of additional
information to complete an approved JD and work authorized in this letter may not occur until
the approved JD has been finalized.
This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the
existing NWPs are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked on March 18, 2012. It is
incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a public notice
when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence
this activity before March 18, 2012, you will have until March 18, 2013, to complete the activity
under the present terms and conditions of this NWP.
Upon completing the authorized work, you must fill out and return the enclosed Certificate
of Compliance with Department of the Army Permit form. Thank you for your cooperation
during the permit process. We are interested in your experience with our Regulatory Program
and encourage you to complete a customer service survey form. This form and information
about our program is available on our website at httu://www.nws.usace.army.mil/ select
Regulatory, Regulatory / Permits. A copy of this letter without enclosures will be furnished to
Ms. Jenna Friebel, Parametrix, Incorporated, 411 - 108'h Avenue, Bellevue, Washington 98004.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (206) 764-6071 or via email at
david.l.shaeffer sace.arm .mil.
Sincerely,
� I - %r,
David L. Shaeffer, Project Manager
Regulatory Branch
Enclosures
Tukwila
�1l
F781d , , RR
Issaquah
LOCATION
ON REGI , PARK '.-
VA R
PURPOSE TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING PROPOSED: ELLIOTT SPAWNING CHANNEL
CHANNEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
RIVER VICINITY MAP
DATUM: VERT. NAVD 88 (CORPS) 4 500 LOCATION: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
HORIZ: NAD 831$1 (CORPS) 5. 22 T. 23 N. R. 5E, W. M.
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH SCALE 1'- 5W FROM: LATITUDE • 47' 22'
I LONGITUDE - 422' 08 08'5Y
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: APPUCAMP CITY OF RENTON, WA TO: LATITUDE - 47.28'10'
CITY OF RENTON LONGITUDE - 12208'08'
j DATE: MAY 2011 SHEET: 1 OF 10
' SANDBAG DAM
i TYP.
i
EXIST. CHANNEL �\ ISH EXCLUSION NET
ROCK EDGE SANDBAG DAM (PLACED AT
ENTRANCE FROM RIVER) N
I \ XISTiNG
t \�; CHANNEL
3 DEWATERING PIT fir.
LAND APPLY----Ilk"`
3 r '
LEVEL f `,
� SPREADER � rn,%F RDINARY
j _ I HIGH! WATER
k WETLAND 1 TEMPORARY _ ) ACCESS
WETLAND 50' 1 j Y ROAD
BUFFER MITS OF
IMPACT XISTiNG
'f r ACCESS
APPROXIMATE EXIST. Jf r
CHANNEL CENTERLINE ROAD
i�
PROPOSED CHANNEL
E yj CENTERLINE
TEMPORARY
s \` �RACCE
OADSS
EXIST. 6' HIGH
CHAINLINK FENCE
LEGEND:
NOTES
VVETLAND -- — —
—WETLAND BUFFER
IMPACTS WITHIN OHW ARE
COUNTED AS STREAM IMPACTS AND
---"`
TEMP. NIETLANR
N, WIETLA^IDDOUNDARY
NOT AS WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS,
BUFFER IMPACT ----ORDINARY
HIGH WATER LINE
SEE TABLE Be OF JARPA.
`I-----t-----e- CUT LINE {DAYLIGHT)
S ----F-----r- FILL LINE {DAYUGn
— • -• --
— E70STING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
— -
—PROPOSED CENTERLINE CHANNEL
EXISTING RIPRAP
'smMEZZ132213M
EXISTING LEVEE
2
i ffi
SANDBAG DAM
PROPOSED: ELLIOT SPAWNING CHANNEL
PURPOSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING
TEMPORARY EROSION
CHANNEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
CONTROL
S RIVER
DATUM. VERT: NAVD 88 (CORPS)
o Bo
LOCATION: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
HORIZ: NAD 83191 (CORPS)
S. 22, T. 23 N, R. 5E, W. M.
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH
SCALE V • W
FROM: LATITUDE -47'28'10"
LONGITUDE - 122'08'51"
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS,
APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON, WA
TO: LATITUDE - 47'28'10"
CITY OF RENTON
LONGITUDE-122.09GBSHEET
DATE: JULY 2011 2 of
OHWL TYP.
12-6-2010
N
(vvi XISTING
ACCESS
G� ROAD
i
V EXISTING
��/ LEVEE/RIPRAP
44
RDIA
TEMPORARY
IMPACTOF �GHNWATER -ROAD55 _
DAM
PROPOSED CHANNEL
CENTERLINE
-APPROXIMATE EXIST.
CHANNEL CENTERLINE
EXIST. 6' HIGH
CHAINLINK FENCE
i LEGEND:
5
WETLAND — — ——WSIIANDBUFFER
8
--N—:--- WETLAND BOUNDARY
TEMP. A
BUFFERR IMPACT -----ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE
-----c-----c— CUT LINE (DAYLIGHT)
ti----r-----r—FILL UNE (DAYLIGHT)
EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
—PROPOSED CENTERLINE CHANNEL
y EXISTING RIPRAP
' EXISTING LEVEE
SANDBAG DAM
Q
PROPOSED: ELLIOT SPAWNING CHANNEL
PURPOSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING
TEMPORARY EROSION
CHANNEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
CONTROL
S RIVER
DATUM: VERT. NAVD 88 (CORPS)
0 80
LOCATION: 1VNG COUNTY, WASHINGTON
HORIZ: NAD 8W91 (CORPS)
S. 22, T. 23 N. R. SE, W. M.
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH
SCALE 1' s W
FROM: LATITUDE - 47'28'70"
LONGITUDE • 122.0851"
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON. WA
TO: LATITUDE - 4T28'10" ,
CITY OF RENTOIV
LONGITUDE -122"49'06"
DATE: JULY 2011 $HEFT: 3 Of 10
i
k
9
k
6
A
SELECTIVE REMOVAL OF
DEBRIS FOR FISH PASSAGE
WITHIN CHANNEL ------i
--- -------------
/�RDINARY
HIGH WATER
1,r ;
1 � I
I OF I
`•
IMPACT
�� II
------------
\
LEGEND:
WETLAND
ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
TEMP. WETLAND
-----c-----o— CUT LINE {DAYLIGHT)
BUFFER IMPACT
-----v-----r—FILL LINE (DAYLIGHT)
LARGE WDODY
-� —. EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER UNE
DEBRIS
—PROPOSED CENTERLINE CHANNEL
— — — — WETLAND BUFFER
EXISTING RIPRAP
W -- w WETLAND BOUNDARY
EXISTING LEVEE
PROPOSED: ELLIOT SPAWNING CHANNEL
PURPOSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING
CHANNEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
IMPACTS PLAN
S RIVER
DATUM: VERT: NAVD Be (CORPS)
0 20
LOCATION: WNG COUNTY, WASHINGTON
1 HORIZ: NAD 83181 (CORPS)
S. 22, T. 23 N, R. 5E, W. M.
BASIN: CEDAPJSAMMAMISH
SCALE t" - 20'
FROM: LATITUDE - 47'28'10'
51"
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON, WA
APPLICANT-
LATITUDE 475 28'10'
CITY OF RENTON
LONGITUDE - 122149108"
DATE: JULY 2011 SHEET: 4 of 10
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 4
LEGEND:
WETLAND
----ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE
11
BUFFERIMPACT
w7\ SPO
LARGE WOODY
.Y —EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
DEBRIS
)II cq
I
�.IL
X11
o7
, j f
4
1
1
1 !
•
1µ7: SP3
1 1
I
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH
'SCALE I"- 20'
y i
i
i'
I
I
CE T
CENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
ADJACENT
APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON, WA
TO: LATITUDE; - 47.28'10"
LIME
IMP)
S
DATE: JULY 2011 SHEET-. 5 0110
I
SI
11
,1I
4-
I
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 4
LEGEND:
WETLAND
----ORDINARY HIGH WATER UNE
-----�-----�-CUT LINE {DAYUGHT)
BUFFERIMPACT
---- '-"--°- FILL UNE (DAYLIGHT) -
LARGE WOODY
.Y —EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
DEBRIS
—PROPOSED CENTERUNE CHANNEL
--- — — — WETLAND BUFFER
®® EXISTING RIPRAP
WETLAND BOUNDARY
EXISTING LEVEE
A
PROPOSED: ELL)OT SPAWNING CHANNEL
PURPDSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING
NEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
IMPACTS PLAN
RIVER
DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 (CORPS)
0 20
LOCATION: KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON
HORIZ: NAD 83/91 (CORPS)
S. 22, T. 23 N. R. SE, W. M.
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH
'SCALE I"- 20'
FROM: LATITUDE.- 47'21110"
LONGITUDE • 122'0851"
CE T
CENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
ADJACENT
APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON, WA
TO: LATITUDE; - 47.28'10"
CITY NTONPROPS
LONGITUDE • 12Y09%"
DATE: JULY 2011 SHEET-. 5 0110
i
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 5
\Oil1 -
1 \ EXISTING
WVLAND LEVEE
BUFFER �' ` n1 �� 1
It
1111'1 \ � , , •� -�'-_
\ ! 84 ------
\ RDINARY
\ HIGH WATER
11; 1 ? IfdITS OF
+ I �I
ti WPAC1
l
0
TCE SET9ktt7?_
LEGEND:
WETLAND ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
IMPACT --^-e-----o– CUT LINE (DAYLIGHT)
BUFFER
TEMP. R4MPAT� r_--�-r_ FILL LINE (DAYLIGHT)
•
LARGE MODY --- EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
DEBRIS —PROPOSED CENTERLINE CHANNEL
— — -- ---WETLAND BUFFER — EXISTING RIPRAP
— `v WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING LEVEE
PURPOSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING
CHANNEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
RIVER
DATUM: VERT: NAVD BS (CORPS)
HORIZ: RAO 83/81 (CORPS)
S BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH
Ik¢� ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
CITY OF RENTON
IMPACTS PLAN
0 20
SCALE I'- 2P
APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON, WA
PROPOSED: ELUOT SPAWNING CHANNEL
LOCATION: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
S. 22, T. 23 N, R. 5E, W. M.
FROM: LATITUDE • 47'28'10'
LONGITUDE- 122108'51"
TO: LATITUDE - 47'28'10'
LONGITUDE - 122'08'08'
DATE: JULY 2011 SHEET: B of 10
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 6 _
ZZ
LIMITS OF
IMPACT --
ORDINARY
HIGH WATER
6 14
mrr 'OF `
- 1kfPAC7 . _ 1-i co
_- --- - W
------------------
I W
_ U
=----
ah. '__------------------------------
--------------------
LEGEND:
- --------------------- I�
•- i
-------------�
LEGEND:
WETLAND
----ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
TEMP. WETLAND
-----c-----c— CUT LINE (DAYLIGHT)
BUFFER IMPACT
---�__ __� FILL LINE (DAYLIGHT)
-- �` HT)
LARGE WOODY
— EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
DEBRIS
—PROPOSED CENTERUNE CHANNEL
--- ---—1METUWDBUFFER
EXISTING RIPRAP
— 'y— .1 - VVETWJD BOUNDARY
EXISTING LEVEE
PURPOSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING
PROPOSED: ELLIOT SPAWNING CHANNEL
CHANNEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
IMPACTS PLAN
RIVER
DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 (CORPS)
0 20
LOCATION: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
HORIZ: NAD 83191 (CORPS)
S. 22, T. 23 N. R. 5E, W. M.
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH
SCALE 1'- 20
FROM: LATITUDE - 47'28'10"
LONGITUDE - 122'O8'51"
ADJA CENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
GIN CE RENTON
APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON, WA
TO: LATITUDE - 47'28'10'
LONGITUDE -122.06'06'
DATE: JULY 2011 SHEET: 7 of 10
v_---------------
WETLAND
----ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
TEMP. ND
-----c-----c—CUT UNE (DAYLIGHT)
W ORDINARY
--- ---�-----�— FILL LINE fDAYLIGHTI
W HIGH WATER
LIMITS OF
IMPACT
DEBRIS
— — PROPOSED CENTERLINE C!V WNEL
-- — -- --- WETLAND BUFFERS
EXISTING RIPRAP
N.------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
EXISTING LEVEE
W-- -----I
S. 22, T. 23 N, R. 6E, W. M.
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH
SCALE 1'- 20
------
--64-00
- :_:-------- ------------------------------------------------ ==. -- __
------------------------------------------------
----------------------
A
Im
' !
lul
ILU
=_$4_ --- j W
Lu
1uj
Z
------
HIGH WATER
F,.-.•�.v=�=_--.Q. -mac= --- _ -
LIMITS OF
IMPACT-
--------------------------------- _ -
--------------------- 86 --------------
- -- ----- -$7-------- - - .��
LEGEND:
WETLAND
----ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
TEMP. ND
-----c-----c—CUT UNE (DAYLIGHT)
BUFFER iMAAmPACT
--- ---�-----�— FILL LINE fDAYLIGHTI
LARGE WOODY
= ` — EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
DEBRIS
— — PROPOSED CENTERLINE C!V WNEL
-- — -- --- WETLAND BUFFERS
EXISTING RIPRAP
"' WETLAND BOUNDARY
EXISTING LEVEE
It
PROPOSED: ELLIOT SPAWNING CHANNEL
PURPOSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING
CHANNEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
pqCTS PLAN
RIVER
DATUM: VERT: NAVD B8 (CORPS)
C
LOCATION: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
HORIZ: NAD 83191 (CORPS)
S. 22, T. 23 N, R. 6E, W. M.
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH
SCALE 1'- 20
FROM: LATITUDE -47'28'10'
LONGITUDEst'
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
A_ PPWGANT: CITY OF RENTON, WA
TO: LATITUDE 0
CITY OF RENTON
LONGITUDE -122'09'06"
DATE: JULY 2011 SHEET: 8 Of i0
--------------
to
- 87----------- •- ORDINARY
HIGH WATER
_
tiF�frFS OF_------------
"_ _ ---1111
_-
------ Z
�-..
`-
----------- -------- 1r.1
*. _... _. �.
C-7- - ------------- -------- - ^l (,
----------------------------
00
W �' Lu
��y I
AHTS OF
W'� I - - -- f—� fMPACT -
i
___ _
RDINARY I
� 1-- -_- - - n � �iGH WATER,_ ------- - _ -"-
LEGEND:
WETLAND
------ORDINARY KOH WATER UNE
rc�"tLi�L TEMP. WETLAND
-----c-----c- CUTLINE (DAYUGHD
% BUFFER IMPACT
"---F-----F- FILL LINE (DAYLIGHT)
WGE WOODY
= _ —EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
DEBRIS
—PROPOSED CENTERLINE CHANNEL
— — Y47LAND BUFFER ° EXISTING RIPRAP
WETLAND BOUNDARY MIZZ1=201M EXISTING LEVEE
PURPOSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING PROPOSED: ELLIOT SPAWNING CHANNEL
CRVER ELADJAC£NTTOTHECEDAR IMPACTS PLAN
DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 (CORPS) 0 20 LOCATION: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
HORI2` NAD 83191 (CORPS) S. 22, T. 23 N, R. 5E, W. M.
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH SCALE 1'- 20 FROM: LATITUDE - 47'28'10"
LONGITUDE - 122'08'51"
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: APPUCANT: CITY OF RENTON, WA TO: LATITUDE -47'28`10'
CITY OF RENTON
LONGITUDE - 122'D6'W
DATE: JULY 2011 SHEET: 9 Of 10
a� ,`
r
ORDINARY
E"' I HIGH WATEa—
WI
W
r U)
s W 1=
uj
N-----------
Lu i -
�J
L CI+C11t%.
CEDAR RIVER
ELEGPVC REMOVAL OF .
. ___iEBR18<_4YLTHibLNEW-CF{,4N NEL
—-BACK4VA�`�i7 CHA�lNEL------------- ---3--------------- --------------------
84 -------------
---
ALL L4Yl-l- -----------
_--
V_____________________•-_-
- PF, -
--------------
-----
--------- B5------------"----
--87 -----
------------
�ROINARY
80- - HIGH.WATER.••'' "
--86
------------gg
I
NRTLAND
----------ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
F'
- �
TEMP. WETLAND
SUFFER IMPACT
CUT LINE (DAYLK3HT)
-----j'--'F— FiLL LINE (DAYLIGHT)
LARGE MOODY
= _ EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
DEBRIS
—PROPOSED CENTERLINE CHANNEL
— — — —
WETLAND BUFFER
"m"m EXISTING RIPRAP
"' .—
WETLAND BOUNDARY
EmonaaRU22M EXISTING LEVEE
PURPOSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING
CHANNEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
S RIVER
DATUM: VERT: NAVA 88 (CORPS)
HORIZ: NAD 83191 (CORPS)
9ABIN: CEDARlSAMMAMISH
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
CITY OF RENTON
IMPACTS PLAN
0 20
SCALE i" a 20
APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON, WA
PROPOSED: ELLIOT SPAWNING CHANNEL
LOCATION: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
S. 22, T. 23 N, R. SE. W. M.
FROM: LATITUDE -4712811W
LONGITUDE - 122'08'51'
TO: LATITUDE -47'28'10"
LONGITUDE - 122'08'06"
DATE: JULY 2011 SHEET:
SO Of 10 .
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 27
Army corps
of Enginosrs Terms and Conditions
of
seaiaa oistrM
Effective Date: September 10, 2007
A. Description of Authorized Activities
B. Corps National General Conditions for all NWPs
C. Corps Seattle District Regional General Conditions
D. Corps Regional Specific Conditions for this NWP
E. State 401 Certification General Conditions
F. State 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
G. EPA 401 Certification General Conditions
H. EPA 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
I. Spokane Tribe of Indians 401 Certification General Conditions
J. Tribal 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
K. CZM Consistency Response Specific Conditions for this NWP
L. - Additional Limitations on the Use of NWPs
In addition to any special condition that may be required on a case-by-case basis by
the District Engineer, the following terms and conditions must be met, as applicable,
for a Nationwide Permit 27 authorization to be valid in Washington State.
A. DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES
27. Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities. Activities in waters of the United
States associated with the restoration, enhancement, and establishment of tidal and non -tidal wetlands and riparian
areas and the restoration and enhancement of non -tidal streams and other non -tidal open waters, provided those
activities result in net increases in aquatic resource functions and services.
To the extent that a Corps permit is required, activities authorized by this NWP include, but are not limited to:
the removal of accumulated sediments; the installation, removal, and maintenance of small water control structures,
dikes, and berms; the installation of current deflectors; the enhancement, restoration, or establishment of riffle and
pool stream structure; the placement of in -stream habitat structures; modifications of the stream bed and/or banks to
restore or establish stream meanders; the backfilling of artificial channels and drainage ditches; the removal of
existing drainage structures; the construction of small nesting islands; the construction of open water areas; the
construction of oyster habitat over unvegetated bottom in tidal waters; shellfish seeding; activities needed to
reestablish vegetation, including plowing or discing for seed bed preparation and the planting of appropriate wetland
species; mechanized land clearing to remove non-native invasive, exotic, or nuisance vegetation; and other related
activities. Only native plant species should be planted at the site.
This NWP authorizes the relocation of non -tidal waters, including non -tidal wetlands and streams, on the
project site provided there are net increases in aquatic resource functions and services.
Except for the relocation of non -tidal waters on the project site, this NWP does not authorize the conversion of a
stream or natural wetlands to another aquatic habitat type (e.g., stream to wetland or vice versa) or uplands. This
NWP does not authorize stream channelization. This NWP does not authorize the relocation of tidal waters or the
conversion of tidal waters, including tidal wetlands, to other aquatic uses, such as the conversion of tidal wetlands
into open water impoundments.
Reversion. For enhancement, restoration, and establishment activities conducted: (1) In accordance with the
terms and conditions of a binding wetland enhancement, restoration, or establishment agreement between the
landowner and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), the
Farm Service Agency (FSA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), or
their designated state cooperating agencies; (2) as voluntary wetland restoration, enhancement, and establishment
actions documented by the NRCS or USDA Technical Service Provider pursuant to NRCS Field Office Technical
Guide standards; or (3) on reclaimed surface coal mine lands, in accordance with a Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act permit issued by the OSM or the applicable state agency, this NWP also authorizes any future
discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the reversion of the area to its documented prior condition and
use (i.e., prior to the restoration, enhancement, or establishment activities). The reversion must occur within five
years after expiration of a limited term wetland restoration or establishment agreement or permit, and is authorized
in these circumstances even if the discharge occurs after this NWP expires. The five-year reversion limit does not
apply to agreements without time limits reached between the landowner and the FWS, NRCS, FSA, NMFS, NOS, or
an appropriate state cooperating agency. This NWP also authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material in waters
of the United States for the reversion of wetlands that were restored, enhanced, or established on prior -converted
cropland that has not been abandoned or on uplands, in accordance with a binding agreement between the landowner
and NRCS, FSA, FWS, or their designated state cooperating agencies (even though the restoration, enhancement, or
establishment activity did not require a section 404 permit). The prior condition will be documented in the original
agreement or permit, and the determination of return to prior conditions will be made by the Federal agency or
appropriate state agency executing the agreement or permit. Before conducting any reversion activity the permittee
or the appropriate Federal or state agency must notify the district engineer and include the documentation of the
prior condition. Once an area has reverted to its prior physical condition, it will be subject to whatever the Corps
Regulatory requirements are applicable to that type of land at the time. The requirement that the activity result in a
net increase in aquatic resource functions and services does not apply to reversion activities meeting the above
conditions. Except for the activities described above, this NWP does not authorize any future discharge of dredged
or fill material associated with the reversion of the area to its prior condition. In such cases a separate permit would
be required for any reversion.
Reporting: For those activities that do not require pre -construction notification, the permittee must submit to the
district engineer a copy of: (1) The binding wetland enhancement, restoration, or establishment agreement, or a
project description; including project plans and location map; (2) the NRCS or USDA Technical Service Provider
documentation for the voluntary wetland restoration, enhancement, or establishment action; or (3) the SMCRA
permit issued by OSM or the applicable state agency. These documents must be submitted to the district engineer at
least 30 days prior to commencing activities in waters of the United States authorized by this NWP.
Notification. The permittee must submit a pre -construction notification to the district engineer prior to
commencing the activity (see general condition 27), except for the following activities:
(1) Activities conducted on non -Federal public lands and private lands, in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a binding wetland enhancement, restoration, or establishment agreement between the landowner and
the U.S. FWS, NRCS, FSA, NMFS, NOS, or their designated state cooperating agencies;
(2) Voluntary wetland restoration, enhancement, and establishment actions documented by the NRCS or USDA
Technical Service Provider pursuant to NRCS Field Office Technical Guide standards; or
(3) The reclamation of surface coal mine lands, in accordance with an SMCRA permit issued by the OSM or the
applicable state agency.
However, the permittee must submit a copy of the appropriate documentation. (Sections 10 and 404)
Note: This NWP can be used to authorize compensatory mitigation projects, including mitigation banks and in -
lieu fee programs. However, this NWP does not authorize the reversion of an area used for a compensatory
mitigation project to its prior condition, since compensatory mitigation is generally intended to be permanent.
B. CORPS NATIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ALL NWPS
1. Navigation. (a) No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. (b) Any safety
lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, must be installed and
maintained at the permittee's expense on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States. (c) The
permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or
other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his
authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the
navigable waters, the permittee will he required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate,
or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be
made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration.
2. A uatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those
species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area,
unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. Culverts placed in streams must be installed to maintain
low flow conditions.
3. Spawning Areas, Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., through excavation, fill, or downstream
smothering by substantial turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized.
4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for
migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
5. Shellfish Beds. No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is
directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48.
6. Suitable Material. No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.).
Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of
the Clean Water Act).
7. Water Sunply Intakes. No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake, except where
the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization.
8. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the
aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
9. Management of Water Flows. To the maximum extent practicable, the pre -construction course, condition,
capacity, and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream channelization and
storm water management activities, except as provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand
expected high flows. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless the
primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The activity may alter the pre -
construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g.,
stream restoration or relocation activities).
10. Fills Within 100 -Year Floodplain. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA -approved state or local
floodplain management requirements.
11. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats, or other measures
must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and
maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any
work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable
date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low -flow or
no -flow.
13. Removal of Temporary Fills. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas
returned to pre -construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated, as appropriate.
14. Proper Maintenance. Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to
ensure public safety.
15. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River
System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system while
the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility
for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic
River designation or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate
Federal land management agency in the area (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
16. Tribal Rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to,
reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.
17. Endangered Species. (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified
under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which will destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of
such species. No activity is authorized under any NW? which "may affect" a listed species or critical habitat, unless
Section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the proposed activity has been completed. (b) Federal agencies
should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of the ESA. Federal permittees must
provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those
requirements. (c) Non-federal permittees shall notify the district engineer if any listed species or designated critical
habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat,
and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the ESA have
been satisfied and that the activity is authorized, For activities that might affect Federally -listed endangered or
threatened species or designated critical habitat, the pre -construction notification must include the name(s) of the
endangered or threatened species that may be affected by the proposed work or that utilize the designated critical
habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. The district engineer will determine whether the proposed
activity "may affect" or will have "no effect" to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non -
Federal applicant of the Corps' determination within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre -construction notification.
In cases where the non -Federal applicant has identified listed species or critical habitat that might be affected or is in
the vicinity of the project, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin work until the Corps has
provided notification the proposed activities will have "no effect" on listed species or critical habitat, or until
Section 7 consultation has been completed. (d) As a result of formal or informal consultation with the FWS or
NMFS the district engineer may add species-specific regional endangered species conditions to the NWPs. (e)
Authorization of an activity by a NWP does not authorize the "take" of a threatened or endangered species as
defined under the ESA. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological
Opinion with "incidental take" provisions, etc.) from the U.S. FWS or the NMFS, both lethal and non -lethal "takes"
of protected species are in violation of the ESA. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species
and their critical habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the U.S. FWS and NMFS or their world wide
Web pages at hnn:/AiniwAvs.gov/and h11 ://i+-dnv.nouu. oif/rsherier.himl respectively.
18. Historic Properties. (a) In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may affect properties
listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, the activity is not authorized, until the
requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied. (b) Federal
permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation
to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre -construction
notification to the district engineer if the authorized activity may have the potential to cause effects to any historic
properties listed, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties. For such activities, the pre -construction notification
must state which historic properties may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the
location of the historic properties or the potential for the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding
information on the location of or potential for the presence of historic resources can be sought from the State
Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, as appropriate, and the National Register of
Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(8)). The district engineer shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry
out appropriate identification efforts, which may include background research, consultation, oral history interviews,
sample field investigation, and field survey. Based on the information submitted and these efforts, the district
engineer shall determine whether the proposed activity has the potential to cause an effect on the historic properties.
Where the non -Federal applicant has identified historic properties which the activity may have the potential to cause
effects and so notified the Corps, the non -Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the district
engineer either that the activity has no potential to cause effects or that consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA
has been completed. (d) The district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a
complete pre -construction notification whether NHPA Section 106 consultation is required. Section 106 .
consultation is not required when the Corps determines that the activity does not have the potential to cause effects
on historic properties (see 36 CFR §800.3(a)). If NHPA section 106 consultation is required and will occur, the
district engineer will notify the non -Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin work until Section 106
consultation is completed. (e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section 110k of the NHPA (16 U.S.C.
470h -2(k)) prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid
the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property
to which the permit would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to
occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACNP), determines
that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.
If circumstances justify granting the assistance, the Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide documentation
specifying the circumstances, explaining the degree of damage to the integrity of any historic properties affected,
and proposed mitigation. This documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPO/THPO,
appropriate Indian tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects
properties of interest to those tribes, and other parties known to have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the
permitted activity on historic properties.
19. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA-designated marine
sanctuaries, National Estuarine Research Reserves, state natural heritage sites, and outstanding national resource
waters or other waters officially designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance
and identified by the district engineer after notice and opportunity for public comment. The district engineer may
also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for comment. (a) Discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35,
39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, and 50 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including
wetlands adjacent to such waters. (b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and
38, notification is required in accordance with general condition 27, for any activity proposed in the designated
critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The district engineer may authorize activities
under these NWPs only after it is determined that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than
minimal,
20. Mitigation. The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and
practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal: (a) The
activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to
waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site). (b) Mitigation in all
its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating) will be required to the extent necessary to
ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. (c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum
one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses that exceed 1/10 acre and require pre -construction
notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that some other form of mitigation would be more
environmentally appropriate and provides a project -specific waiver of this requirement. For wetland losses of 1/10
acre or less that require pre -construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case-by-case basis
that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic
environment. Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced,
wetland restoration should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered. (d) For losses of streams or other
open waters that require pre -construction notification, the district engineer may require compensatory mitigation,
such as stream restoration, to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment.
(e) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage limits of the
NWPs. For example, if an NWP has an acreage limit of 112 acre, it cannot be used to authorize any project resulting
in the loss of greater than 112 acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory mitigation is provided that
replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, compensatory mitigation can and should be used, as
necessary, to ensure that a project already meeting the established acreage limits also satisfies the minimal impact
requirement associated with the NWPs. (f) Compensatory mitigation plans for projects in or near streams or other
open waters will normally include a requirement for the establishment, maintenance, and legal protection (e.g.,
conservation easements) of riparian areas next to open waters. In some cases, riparian areas may be the only
compensatory mitigation required. Riparian areas should consist of native species. The width of the required riparian
area will address documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns. Normally, the riparian area will be 25 to
50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address
documented water quality or habitat loss concerns. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site,
the district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., riparian areas and/or wetlands
compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas
are determined to be the most appropriate form of compensatory mitigation, the district engineer may waive or
reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses. (g) Permittees may propose
the use of mitigation banks, in -lieu fee arrangements or separate activity -specific compensatory mitigation. In all
cases; the mitigation provisions will specify the party responsible for accomplishing and/or complying with the
mitigation plan. (h) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely
affected, such as the conversion of a forested or scrub -shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently
maintained utility line right-of-way, mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse effects of the project to the
minimal level.
21. Water QMlitv. Where States and authorized Tribes, or EPA where applicable, have not previously certified
compliance of an NWP with CWA Section 401, individual 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained or
waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). The district engineer or State or Tribe may require additional water quality
management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of
water quality.
22. Coastal Zone Management. In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone
management consistency concurrence, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must
be obtained, or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). The district engineer or a State
may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone
management requirements.
23. Regional and Case -By -Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may
have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the
Corps or by the state, Indian Tribe, or U.S. EPA in its section 401 Water Quality Certification, or by the state in its
Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination.
24. Use of Multistle Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is
prohibited, except when the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the
acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, if a road crossing over tidal waters
is constructed under NWP 14, with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss
of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 113 -acre.
25. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications. If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide
permit verification, the permittee may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a
letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer. A copy of the nationwide permit verification
must be attached to the letter, and the letter must contain the following statement and signature:
"When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence at the time the property
is transferred, the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit, including any special conditions, will continue to
be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit and the associated
liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below."
(Transferee)
(Date)
26. Compliance Certification. Each permittee who received an NWP verification from the Corps must submit a
signed certification regarding the completed work and any required mitigation. The certification form must be
forwarded by the Corps with the NWP verification letter and will include: (a) A statement that the authorized work
was done in accordance with the NWP authorization, including any general or specific conditions; (b) A statement
that any required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions; and (c) The signature of the
permittee certifying the completion of the work and mitigation.
27. Pre -Construction Notification. (a) Timing. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective
permittee must notify the district engineer by submitting a pre -construction notification (PCN) as early as possible.
The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt and, as a
general rule, will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once. However, if the
prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information, then the district engineer will notify the
prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not continence until al I of the
requested information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective permittee shall not begin the
activity: (1) Until notified in writing by the district engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any
special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer; or (2) If 45 calendar days have passed from the
district engineer's receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from
the district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to notify the Corps pursuant to general
condition 17 that listed species or critical habitat might affected or in the vicinity of the project, or to notify the
Corps pursuant to general condition 18 that the activity may have the potential to cause effects to historic properties,
the permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that is "no effect" on listed
species or "no potential to cause effects" on historic properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) and/or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation (see 33
CFR 330.4(g)) is completed. Also, work cannot begin under NWPs 21, 44, or 50 until the permittee has received
written approval from the Corps. If the proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of an
NWP, the permittee cannot begin the activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the district or division
engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a
complete PCN, the permittee cannot begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently,
the permittee's right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with
the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2).
(b) Contents of Pre -Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include the following
information: (1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed
project; (3) A description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental
effects the project would cause; any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual pennit(s) used or
intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity. The description should be
sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse effects of the project will be minimal
and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation. Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that
the activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the project and when provided result in a
quicker decision.); (4) The PCN must include a delineation of special aquatic sites and other waters of the United
States on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by
the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters of the United
States, but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is large or contains
many waters of the United States. Furthermore, the 45 day period will not start until the delineation has been
submitted to or completed by the Corps, where appropriate; (5) if the proposed activity will result in the loss of
greater than 1110 acre of wetlands and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a statement
describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may submit
a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan. (6) If any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is
in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, for non -Federal applicants the
PCN must include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed
work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. Federal applicants must
provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and (7) For an activity that may
affect a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the
National Register of Historic Places, for non -Federal applicants the PCN must slate which historic property may be
affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. Federal
applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
(c) Form of Pre -Construction Notification: The standard individual permit application form (Form ENG 4345)
may be used, but the completed application form must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must include all of the
infonnation required in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this general condition. A letter containing the required
information may also be used.
(d) Agency Coordination: (1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies
concerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for
mitigation to reduce the project's adverse environmental effects to a minimal level. (2) For all NWP 48 activities
requiring pre -construction notification and for other NWP activities requiring pre -construction notification to the
district engineer that result in the loss of greater than 112 -acre of waters of the United States, the district engineer
will immediately provide (e.g., via facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a copy of
the PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (U.S. FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA,
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), and, if appropriate, the
NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will then have 10 calendar days from the date the material is
transmitted to telephone or fax the district engineer notice that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific
comments. If so contacted by an agency, the district engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making
a decision on the pre -construction notification. The district engineer will fully consider agency comments received
within the specified time frame, but will provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The
district engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each pre -construction notification that the
resource agencies' concerns were considered. For NWP 37, the emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation
activity may proceed immediately in cases where there is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of
property or economic hardship will occur. The district engineer will consider any comments received to decide
whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, or revoked in accordance with the procedures at
33 CFR 330.5. (3) In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency, the district engineer will
provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation
recommendations, as required by Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. (4) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps multiple copies of pre -construction
notifications to expedite agency coordination. (5) For NWP 48 activities that require reporting, the district engineer
will provide a copy of each report within 10 calendar days of receipt to the appropriate regional office of the NMFS.
(e) District Engineer's Decision: In reviewing the PCN for the proposed activity, the district engineer will
determine whether the activity authorized by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual or cumulative
adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to the public interest. If the proposed activity requires a PCN and
will result in a loss of greater than 1110 acre of wetlands, the prospective permittee should submit a mitigation
proposal with the PCN. Applicants may also propose compensatory mitigation for projects with smaller impacts.
The district engineer will consider any proposed compensatory mitigation the applicant has included in the proposal
in determining whether the net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the proposed work are
minimal. The compensatory mitigation proposal may be either conceptual or detailed. If the district engineer
determines that the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse effects on the
aquatic environment are minimal, after considering mitigation, the district engineer will notify the permittee and
include any conditions the district engineer deems necessary. The district engineer must approve any compensatory
mitigation proposal before the permittee commences work. If the prospective permittee elects to submit a
compensatory mitigation plan with the PCN, the district engineer will expeditiously review the proposed
compensatory mitigation plan. The district engineer must review the plan within 45 calendar days'of receiving a
complete PCN and determine whether the proposed mitigation would ensure no more than minimal adverse effects
on the aquatic environment. If the net adverse effects of the project on the aquatic environment (after consideration
of the compensatory mitigation proposal) are determined by the district engineer to be minimal, the district engineer
will provide a timely written response to the applicant. The response will state that the project can proceed under the
terms and conditions of the NWP.
If the district engineer determines that the adverse effects of the proposed work are more than minimal, then the
district engineer will notify the applicant either: (1) That the project does not qualify for authorization under the
NWP and instruct the applicant on the procedures to seek authorization under an individual permit; (2) that the
project is authorized under the NWP subject to the applicant's submission of a mitigation plan that would reduce the
adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level; or (3) that the project is authorized under the NWP
with specific modifications or conditions. Where the district engineer determines that mitigation is required to
ensure no more than minimal adverse effects occur to the aquatic environment, the activity will be authorized within
the 45 -day PCN period. The authorization will include the necessary conceptual or specific mitigation or a
requirement that the applicant submit a mitigation plan that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic
environment to the minimal level. When mitigation is required, no work in waters of the United States may occur
until the district engineer has approved a specific mitigation plan.
28. Single and Complete Project. The activity must be a single and complete project. The same NWP cannot be
used more than once for the same single and complete project.
C. Corps Seattle District Regional General Conditions
1. Aquatic Resources Requiring Special Protection. The following restrictions apply to activities in Washington
State requiring Department of the Army authorization:
(a) Activities resulting in a loss of waters of the United States in a mature forested wetland, bog, bog -like
wetland, aspen -dominated wetland, or alkali wetland are not authorized by NWP, except the following NWPs:
NWP 3 — Maintenance
NWP 20 — Oil Spill Cleanup
NWP 32 — Completed Enforcement Actions
NWP 38 — Cleanup of Hazardous and Toxic Waste
NWP 47 — Pipeline Safety Program Designated Time Sensitive Inspections and Repairs
(b) For activities in or affecting a mature forested wetland, bog, bog -like wetland, wetland in a dunal system
along the Washington coast, vernal pool, aspen -dominated wetland, alkali wetland, camas prairie wetland, or marine
water with eelgrass beds (except for NWP 48) and not prohibited by the preceding generalregional egional condition La.,
the permittee must submit a pre -construction notification to the District Engineer in accordance with Nationwide
Permit General Condition 27 (Pre -Construction Notification).
2. Access. You must allow representatives of this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed
necessary to ensure that the work is being, or has been, accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of
your permit.
3. Commencement_ Bay. Activities requiring Department of the Army authorization and located in the
Commencement Bay Study Area are not authorized by the following NWPs:
NWP 12
— Utility Line Activities (substations)
NWP 13
— Bank Stabilization
NWP 14'
— Linear Transportation Projects
NWP 23
— Approved Categorical Exclusions
NWP 29
— Residential Developments
NWP 39 —
Commercial and Institutional Developments
NWP 40
— Agricultural Activities
NWP 41 — Reshaping Existing Drainage Ditches
NWP 42 — Recreational Facilities
NWP 43 — Stormwater Management Facilities
4. Bank Stabilization, All bank stabilization projects require pre -construction notification to the District Engineer in
accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition 27 (Pre -Construction Notification), Each notification must
include a planting plan using native riparian plant species unless the applicant demonstrates that a planting plan is
not appropriate or not practicable. Each notification must also include the following information, except as waived
by the District Engineer.
(a) Need for the work, including the cause of the erosion and the threat posed to structures, infrastructure,
and/or public safety.
(b) Current and expected post -project sediment movement and deposition patterns in and near the project area.
(c) Current and ekpected post -project habitat conditions, including the presence offish, wildlife and plant
species in the project area.
(d) Demonstration that the proposed project incorporates the least environmentally damaging practicable bank
protection methods. These methods include, but are not limited to, the use of bioengineering, biotechnical design,
root wads, large woody debris, native plantings, and beach nourishment in certain circumstances. If rock must be
used due to site erosion conditions, explain how the bank stabilization structure incorporates elements beneficial to
fish.
(e) Assessment of the likely impact of the proposed work on upstream, downstream and cross -stream
properties (at a minimum the area assessed should extend from the nearest upstream bend to the nearest downstream
bend of the watercourse). Discuss the methodology used for determining effects.
NOTE: Information on designing bank stabilization projects can be found in the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife's Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines wdftwa.Qov/lrab/uhe/isy2doc.html; King
County's Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Near shore Ecosystem
htt ://dnr.rnetrokc, or,/N+Jr/tvatersheds/err et/nearshore/sonr him ; and three technical (white) papers—Marine and
Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues, Ecological Issues in Floodplain and Riparian Corridors, and Over -Water
Structures: Marine, Freshwater, and Treated Wood Issues (httr�://x�dfiv.wrr.�U>>/ha6/ahs/crh�xlrite.hrm).
5. Cultural Resources and Human Burials. Permittees must immediately slop work and notify the District Engineer
within 24 hours if, during the course of conducting authorized work, human burials, cultural resources, or historic
properties, as identified by the National Historic Preservation Act, are discovered and may be affected by the work.
Failure to stop work in the area of discovery until the Corps can comply with the provisions of 33 CFR 325
Appendix C, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other pertinent laws and regulations could result in a
violation of state and federal laws. Violators are subject to civil and criminal penalties.
6. Essential Fish Habitat. An activity which may adversely affect essential fish habitat, as identified under the
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), may not be authorized by NWP until
essential fish habitat requirements have been met by the applicant and the Corps. Non-federal permittees shall
notify the District Engineer if essential fish habitat may be affected by, or is in the vicinity of, a proposed activity
and shall not begin work until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the essential fish habitat
provisions of the MSA have been satisfied and the activity is authorized. The notification must identify the type(s)
of essential fish habitat (i.e., Pacific salmon, groundfish, and/or coastal -pelagic species) managed by a Fishery
Management Plan that may be affected. Information about essential fish habitat is available at
h ttv:1A~v. rnvr. noaa. eov/
7. Ve etation Protection and Restoration. Permittees must clearly mark all construction area boundaries before
beginning work and minimize the removal of native vegetation in riparian areas and wetlands to the maximum
extent practicable. Areas subject to temporary vegetation removal in wetlands or riparian areas during construction
shall be replanted with appropriate native species by the end of the first planting season following the disturbance
except as waived by the District Engineer.
10
D. Corps Regional Specific Conditions for this NWP:
1. For projects subject to pre -construction notification and involving work that would result in any loss of waters
of the U.S, in a special aquatic site (e.g., mudflat, wetland or riffle and pool complex), the notification must explain
why the loss is necessary and show how it would be fully offset by the beneficial impacts of the project. The
notification must describe pre -project site conditions (including photographs), general wetland and other aquatic
functions the site provides, and proposed maintenance and monitoring plans.
2. The permitee must submit a pre -construction notification to the District Engineer in accordance with NWP
General Condition 27 (Pre -construction Notification) for any proposed project located in a Department of the Army
permit compensatory mitigation site, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(Superfund) site, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste clean-up site, or Washington State
Model Toxics Control Act clean-up site.
NOTE: The restoration offormer waters may occur in either tidal or non -tidal waters. However, NWP 27 may not
be used for the enhancement or creation of tidal waters other than wetland and riparian areas. (See the NWP
definition section for more information).
NOTE: Conversion of wetlands dominated by native vegetation to open water habitat is not opically viewed as
environmentally beneficial and would typically not be authorized under NWP 27.
NOTE: Restoration projects involving shel f sh seeding must use steel f sh naturally present within the watershed
(native shellfish) to be considered a restoration proposal under NWP 27.
E. State 401 Certification General Conditions
1. For in -water construction activities. Individual 401 review is required under this condition for projects or
activities authorized under NWPs that will cause, or be likely to cause or contribute to an exceedence of a State
water quality standard (WAC 173-201 A) or sediment management standard (WAG 173-204).
.State water quality standards can be located on Ecology's website: hltn://www.ecy.wa.gov/LrogranrsAva/",gsl
Sediment management standards can be located on Ecology's website:
htt r/Avww.ec �wa. ov/bibliohvaeI73204.ht»rl.
Information is also available by contacting Ecology's Federal Permit staff.
2. Pro'ects or Activities Discharging to Im aired Waters. Individual 401 review is required by this condition for
projects or activities authorized under NWPs if the project or activity may result in further exceedences of a specific
parameter the waterbody is listed for on the state's list of impaired waterbodies (the 303(d) list).
The current 303(d) listed waterbodies can be identified using search tools available on Ecology's website:
lrtt :lAvrov.ec v.wa, ov/ ro amshv /303d/2002/2002-index.html or by contacting Ecology's Federal Permit staff.
3. Notification. For projects or activities that will require individual 401 review, applicants must provide Ecology
with the written documentation provided to the Corps (as described in Corps Nationwide Permit General Condition
27, Pre -Construction Notification), including, when applicable:
(a) A description of the project, including site plans, project purpose, direct and indirect adverse environmental
effects the project would cause, any other Department of the Army permits used or intended to be used to authorize
any part of the proposed project or any related activity.
(b) Delineation of special aquatic sites and other waters of the United States. Wetland delineations must be
prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps and shall include Ecology's Wetland Rating
form. Note: Forms are available at Ecology's Wetlands website:
http:/Ainv ecy. wa.,eov/pr•oeranrs/seaAi,ellands/index.html or by contacting Ecology's Federal Permit staff,
(c) Coastal Zone Management Program "Certification of Consistency" Form if the project is located within a
coastal county (Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit,
Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum, and Whatcom counties).
Note: Forms are available at the Army Corps of Engineers websile: h1U2:11 ,vw.mvs,usace.nrmti mil
or by contacting Ecology's Federal Permit staff"
I
(d) Other applicable requirements of Corps Nationwide Permit General Condition 27, Corps Regional
Conditions, or notification conditions of the applicable NWP.
Ecology's review time shall not begin until the applicable documents noted above have been provided to Ecology
and Ecology has received a copy of the final Nationwide Permit verification letter from the Corps.
4. Aquatic resources requiring special protection. Certain aquatic resources are unique, difficult -to -replace
components of the aquatic environment in Washington State. Activities that would affect these resources must be
avoided to the greatest extent possible. Compensating for adverse impacts to high value aquatic resources is
typically difficult, prohibitively expensive, and may not be possible in some landscape settings.
Individual 401 review is required for activities in or affecting the following aquatic resources (and not prohibited by
Regional Condition 1), except for:
NWP 20 — Oil Spill Cleanup
NWP 32 —Completed Enforcement Actions
NWP 38 — Cleanup of Hazardous Waste
NWP 47 — Pipeline Safety Program Repair
(a) Wetlands with special characteristics (as defined in the Washington State Wetland Rating Systems for
western and eastern Washington, Ecology Publication #s04-06-025 and #04-06-015):
• estuarine wetlands
• Natural Heritage wetlands
• Bogs
• old-growth and mature forested wetlands
• wetlands in coastal lagoons
• interdunal wetlands
• vernal pools
• alkali wetlands
(b) Bog -like wetlands, aspen -dominated wetlands, camas prairie wetlands, and marine water with eelgrass beds
(except for NWP 48).
(c) Category I wetlands
(d) Category H wetlands with a habitat score X29 points.
S. Mitigation. 401 Certification is based on adequate compensatory mitigation being provided for wetland and other
water quality -related impacts of projects or activities authorized under the NWP Program.
Mitigation plans submitted for Ecology review and approval shall be based on the guidance provided in Wetland
Mitigation in Washington State, Parts 1 and 2 (Ecology Publication #s06-06-011 a and #06-06-011 b) and shall, at a
minimum, include the following:
(a) A description of the measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S.
(b) The nature of the proposed impacts (i.e., acreage of wetlands and functions lost or degraded)
(c) The rationale for the mitigation site that was selected
(d) The goals and objectives of the compensatory mitigation project
(e) How the mitigation project will be accomplished, including proposed performance standards for measuring
success and the proposed buffer widths
(f) How it will be maintained and monitored to assess progress towards goals and objectives. Monitoring will
generally be required for a minimum of five years. For forested and scrub -shrub wetlands, 10 years of monitoring
will often be necessary.
(g) How the compensatory mitigation site will be legally protected for the long-term.
Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology Publication #06-
06-01 lb) for guidance on developing mitigation plans.
Ecology encourages the use of alternative mitigation approaches, including advance mitigation and other
programmatic approaches, such as mitigation banks and programmatic mitigation areas at the local level. If you are
12
interested in proposing use of an alternative mitigation approach, consult with the appropriate Ecology regional staff
person. (see 1rltn:llxrnMJ.eco.rva.goiL/vrograrns/seaAvetland.cicolttacts.htm
For information on the state wetland mitigation banking program go to:
h ttb: l/www. eco. wa. eay/Urogymns/sea/tivet7mids/mitigat ion/bankin-elindex.htrnl
6. Tem o�Fills. Individual 401 review is required for any project or activity with temporary fill in wetlands or
other waters of the State for more than 90 days, unless the applicant has received written approval from Ecology.
7. Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan. This condition applies to all NWPs within the boundaries described
in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), King County, Washington, dated April 2000 (SAMP).
The boundaries of the SAW encompass all sub -basins and tributaries drained by Algona Creek, Auburn Creek,
Bingaman Creek, Midway Creek, Mill Creek, and Mullen Slough. The area is bounded roughly on the south by 8`s
Avenue N in Algona and 4'b Street NE in Auburn, on the east and north by the Ordinary High Water Mark of the
Green River, and on the west by the plateau that parallels Interstate 5 above the Green River valley.
Individual 401 review is required for projects or activities authorized under the NWPs unless:
(a) The project or activity will result in fill -related impacts to only wetlands designated as developable under
Alternative #8, as shown on Figure 4-8 of the SAMP.
(b) Compensatory mitigation for such impacts is onsite and/or within the areas designated on Figure 3-3,
"Maximum Areas for Restoration by Target Habitat Type," in the SAMP Aquatic Resources Restoration Plan (April
2000).
(c) Mitigation plans comply with the requirements of the SAMP and, in general, with the guidance in the
interagency Wetland Mitigation in Washington State (March 2006; Ecology publications #06-06-01 la and #06-06-
011 b). Note: You can download the SAMP and Aquatic Resources Restoration Plan at
httn://`tote.nu,s.trsace.ai7nv.nrillPublicAlenulMenif.cfn?sitencinie=REG&pggenrinje=Mill Geek SAMP.
8. State Certification for PCNs not receiving 45 -day response. In the event the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does
not respond to a complete pre -construction notification within 45 days, the applicant must contact Ecology for
Individual 401 review.
F. State 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
Certified, subject to conditions. Individual 401 review is required for projects or activities authorized under this
NWP if
1. The projector activity involves fill in tidal waters.
2. The project or activity has impacts to wetlands.
G. EPA 401 Certification General Conditions
In order for any NWP authorization to be valid in Washington State, permittees must comply with all applicable 401
Certification general conditions. EPA 401 Certification general conditions apply to all NWP authorizations involving
Section 404 activities on Native American Indian Tribal lands (excluding the tribal lands of the Chehalis Tribes, Port
Gamble S'Klallum Tribe, Kalispel Tribe, Makah Indian Tribe, Puyallup Tribe, Spokane Tribe, and Tulalip Tribe) and
Federal land with exclusive jurisdiction within Washington State.
A. Special Aquatic Sites. Any activities in the following types of wetlands and waters of the U.S. will need to apply
for an individual 401 certification: Mature forested wetlands; bogs; bog -like wetlands; wetlands in dunal systems
along the Washington coast; vernal pools; aspen -dominated wetlands; alkali wetlands; camas prairie wetlands; salt
marshes; or marine water with eelgrass beds.
B. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. An individual 401 certification is based on the project or activity meeting
established turbidity levels. EPA will be using as guidance the state of Washington's water quality standards [WAC
13
173-201 a] and sediment quality standards [WAC 173-204]. Projects or activities that are expected to exceed these
levels or that do exceed these levels will require an individual 401 certification.
C. Compliance with Stormwater Provisions. Individual 401 certification is required for projects or activities not
designed in accordance with Ecology's most recent stormwater manual or Ecology approved equivalent manual.
D. Compliance with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. For projects and
activities requiring coverage under an NPDES permit, certification is based on compliance with the requirements of
that permit. Projects and activities not in compliance with NPDES requirements will require individual 401
certification.
E. Projects or Activities Discharging to Impaired Waters. Individual 401 certification is required for projects or
activities authorized under NWPs if the project will discharge to a waterbody on the list of impaired waterbodies
(the 303(d) List) and the discharge may result in further exceedence of a specific parameter the waterbody is listed
for.
EPA may issue 401 certification for projects or activities that would result in further exceedence or impairment if
mitigation is provided that would result in a net decrease in listed contaminants or less impairment in the waterbody.
This determination would be made during individual 401 certification review.
F. Notification. For projects requiring individual 401 certification, applicants must provide EPA with the same
documentation provided to the Corps (as described in Corps National General Condition 27, Pre -Construction
Notification), including, when applicable:
(a) A description of the project, including site plans, project purpose, direct and indirect adverse environmental
effects the project would cause, any other U.S. Department of the Army permits used or intended to be used to
authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity.
(b) Delineation of special aquatic sites and other waters of the United States. Wetland delineations must be
prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps.
(c) A statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied. A conceptual or detailed
mitigation or restoration plan may be submitted.
(d) Other applicable requirements of Corps National General Condition 27, Corps Regional Conditions, or
notification conditions of the applicable NWP.
A request for individual 401 review is not complete until EPA receives the applicable documents noted above and
EPA has received a copy of the final authorization letter from the Corps providing coverage for a proposed project
or activity under the NWP Program.
G. Mitigation. An individual 401 certification is based on adequate compensatory mitigation being provided for
wetland and other water quality -related impacts of projects or activities authorized under the NWP Program.
Mitigation plans submitted shall be based on the Joint Agency guidance provided in Welland Mitigation in
Washington Stale, Paris I and 2 (Ecology Publication #06-06-01 la and #06-06-011 b) and shall, at a minimum,
include the following:
1. A description of the measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S.
2. The nature of the proposed impacts (i.e., acreage of wetlands and functions lost or degraded).
3. The rationale for the mitigation site that was selected.
.4. The goals and objectives of the compensatory mitigation project.
5. How the mitigation project will be accomplished, including proposed performance standards for measuring
success and the proposed buffer widths.
6. How it will be maintained and monitored to assess progress towards goals and objectives. Monitoring will
generally be required for a mWmum of five years. For forested and scrub -shrub wetlands, 10 years of monitoring
will often be necessary.
7. How the compensatory mitigation site will be legally protected for the long-term.
14
H. Temporary Fills. An individual 401 certification is required for any activity where temporary fill will remain in
wetlands or other waterbodies for more than 90 days. The 90 day period begins when filling activity starts in the
wetland or other waterbody.
H. EPA 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
Partially denied without prejudice. An individual 401 review is required for projects authorized under this NWP if:
1. The project or activities impact greater than %: acre, or
2. Any project that involves shellfish seeding activities.
I. Spokane Tribe of Indians 401 Certification General Conditions
Specific to the Reservation and the Tribal Water Quality Standards, the applicant must comply with the following
when there could be a discharge to waters of the Spokane Indian Reservation:
1. The applicant shall be responsible for achieving compliance with the Spokane Tribal Water Quality
Standards.
2. The applicant shall submit copies of applications materials to the Spokane Tribal Water Control Board for
review and approval at the same time they are submitted to Army Corps of Engineers and prior to any disturbance
activities.
3. The applicant shall comply with all Spokane Tribal Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP)
guidelines for land use activities and disturbances.
4. The applicant shall allow the Tribal Water Control board and Interdisciplinary Team to inspect the area in
question and adopt recommendations made throughout its operation.
5. Monitoring of the discharge shall occur at a level indicated by EPA and the Tribe, are subject to change, and
shall be submitted to both entities.
J. Tribal 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
Denied without prejudice by the Chehalis, Kalispel, Makah, Port Gamble S'Klallum, Puyallup, and Tulalip tribes.
Certified subject to general conditions by the Spokane Tribe,
K. CZM Consistency Response Specific Conditions for this NWP
Concur, subject to the following condition:
1. Where individual 401 review is triggered, an individual CZM Consistency Response must be obtained for
projects located within the 15 coastal counties. A "Certification of Consistency" form must be submitted in
accordance with State General Condition 3 (Notification).
L. ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF NWPs
1. District Engineers have authority to determine if an activity complies with the terms and conditions of an NWP.
2. NWPs do not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local permits, approvals, or authorizations required
by law.
15
3. NWPs do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges,
A. NWPs do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
5. NWPs do not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal.project.
16
NATIONWIDE PERMIT 33
of �nglnsrs �
Army Corps Terms and Conditions
a1 a
Beattie DEstrfcl
Effective Date: September 10, 2007 40
A. Description of Authorized Activities
B. Corps National General Conditions for all NWPs
C. Corps Seattle District Regional General Conditions
D. Corps Regional Specific Conditions for this NWP
E. State 401 Certification General Conditions
F. State 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
G. EPA 401 Certification General Conditions
H. EPA 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
I. Spokane Tribe of Indians 401 Certification General Conditions
J. Tribal 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
K. CZM Consistency Response Specific Conditions for this NWP
L. Additional Limitations on the Use of NWPs
In addition to any special condition that may be required on a case-by-case basis by
the District Engineer, the following terms and conditions must be met, as applicable,
for a Nationwide Permit 33 authorization to be valid in Washington State.
A. DESCRIPTION OF AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES
33. Tem Construction Access and Dewa erin . Temporary structures, work, and discharges, including
cofferdams, necessary for construction activities or access fills or dewatering of construction sites, provided that the
associated primary activity is authorized by the Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Coast Guard. This NWP also
authorizes temporary structures, work, and discharges, including cofferdams, necessary for construction activities
not otherwise subject to the Corps or U.S. Coast Guard permit requirements. Appropriate measures must be taken to
maintain near normal downstream flows and to minimize flooding. Fill must consist of materials, and be placed in a
manner, that will not be eroded by expected high flows. The use of dredged material may be allowed if the district
engineer determines that it will not cause more than minimal adverse effects on aquatic resources. Following
completion of construction, temporary fill must be entirely removed to upland areas, dredged material must be
returned to its original location, and the affected areas must be restored to pre -construction elevations. The affected
areas must also be revegetated, as appropriate. This permit does not authorize the use of cofferdams to dewater
wetlands or other aquatic areas to change their use. Structures left in place after construction is completed require a
section 10 permit if located in navigable waters of the United States. (See 33 CFR part 322.)
Notification: The pernuttee must submit a pre -construction notification to the district engineer prior to
commencing the activity (see general condition 27). The pre -construction notification must include a restoration
plan showing how all temporary fills and structures will be removed and the area restored to pre -project conditions.
(Sections 10 and 404)
B. CORPS NATIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ALL N"s
1. Navigation. (a) No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. (b) Any safety
lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, must be installed and
maintained at the permittee's expense on authorized facilities in navigable waters of the United States. (c) The
permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal, relocation, or
other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his
authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the
navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate,
or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be
made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration.
2. Aquatic Life Movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the necessary life cycle movements of those
species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species that normally migrate through the area,
unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. Culverts placed in streams must be installed to maintain
low flow conditions.
3. Spawning Areas. Activities in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable. Activities that result in the physical destruction (e.g., through excavation, fill, or downstream
smothering by substantial turbidity) of an important spawning area are not authorized.
4. Migratory Bird Breeding Areas. Activities in waters of the United States that serve as breeding areas for
migratory birds must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
S. Shellfish Beds. No activity may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish populations, unless the activity is
directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWPs 4 and 48.
b. Suitable Material. No activity may use unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, asphalt, etc.).
Material used for construction or discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of
the Clean Water Act).
7. Water Supply Intakes. No activity may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake, except where
the activity is for the repair or improvement of public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization.
8. Adverse Effects From Impoundments. if the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the
aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, and/or restricting its flow must be minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
9. Management of Water FIows. To the maximum extent practicable, the pre -construction course, condition,
capacity, and location of open waters must be maintained for each activity, including stream channelization and
storm water management activities, except as provided below. The activity must be constructed to withstand
expected high flows. The activity must not restrict or impede the passage of normal or high flows, unless the
primary purpose of the activity is to impound water or manage high flows. The activity may alter the pre -
construction course, condition, capacity, and location of open waters if it benefits the aquatic environment (e.g.,
stream restoration or relocation activities).
10. Fills Within -I00 -Year Floodplains. The activity must comply with applicable FEMA -approved state or local
floodplain management requirements.
11. EEguipment Heavy equipment working in wetlands or mudflats must be placed on mats, or other measures
must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
12. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls, Appropriate soil erosion and sediment controls must be used and
maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills, as well as any
work below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line, must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable
date. Permittees are encouraged to perform work within waters of the United States during periods of low -flow or
no -flow.
13. Removal of Temporary Fills. Temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas
returned to pre -construction elevations. The affected areas must be revegetated, as appropriate.
14. Proper Maintenance. Any authorized structure or fill shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to
ensure public safety.
15. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River
System, or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system while
the river is in an official study status, unless the appropriate Federal agency with direct management responsibility
for such river, has determined in writing that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the Wild and Scenic
River designation or study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the appropriate
Federal land management agency in the area (e.g., National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service),
16. Tribal Rights, No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to,
reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.
17. Endangered Species. (a) No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified
under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or which will destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of
such species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which "may affect" a listed species or critical habitat, unless
Section 7 consultation addressing the effects of the proposed activity has been completed. (b) Federal agencies
should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of the ESA. Federal permittees must
provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with those
requirements. (c) Non-federal permittees shall notify the district engineer if any listed species or designated critical
habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat,
and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of the ESA have
been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. For activities that might affect Federally -listed endangered or
threatened species or designated critical habitat, the pre -construction notification must include the name(s) of the
endangered or threatened species that may be affected by the proposed work or that utilize the designated critical
habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. The district engineer will determine whether the proposed
activity "may affect" or will have "no effect" to listed species and designated critical habitat and will notify the non -
Federal applicant of the Corps' determination within 45 days of receipt of a complete pre -construction notification.
In cases where the non -Federal applicant has identified listed species or critical habitat that might be affected or is in
the vicinity of the project, and has so notified the Corps, the applicant shall not begin work until the Corps has
provided notification the proposed activities will have "no effect" on listed species or critical habitat, or until
Section 7 consultation has been completed. (d) As a result of formal or informal consultation with the FWS or
NMFS the district engineer may add species-specific regional endangered species conditions to the NWPs. (e)
Authorization of an activity by a NWP does not authorize the "take" of a threatened or endangered species as
defined under the ESA. In the absence of separate authorization (e.g., an ESA Section 10 Permit, a Biological
Opinion with "incidental take" provisions, etc.) from the U.S. FWS or the NMFS, both lethal and non -lethal "takes"
of protected species are in violation of the ESA. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species
and their critical habitat can be obtained directly from the offices of the U.S. FWS and NMFS or their world wide
Web pages at h1(p:/Av►vtiv, ws.gov/and hyp://ry vmry noan.QovI isheries.html respectively..
18. Historic Properties. (a) In cases where the district engineer determines that the activity may affect properties
listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places, the activity is not authorized, until the
requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied. (b) Federal
permittees should follow their own procedures for complying with the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Federal permittees must provide the district engineer with the appropriate documentation
to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. (c) Non-federal permittees must submit a pre -construction
notification to the district engineer if the authorized activity may have the potential to cause effects to any historic
properties listed, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places, including previously unidentified properties. For such activities, the pre -construction notification
must state which historic properties may be affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the
location of the historic properties or the potential for the presence of historic properties. Assistance regarding
information on the location of or potential for the presence of historic resources can be sought from the State
Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, as appropriate, and the National Register of
Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(8)). The district engined shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to carry
out appropriate identification efforts, which may include background research, consultation, oral history interviews,
sample field investigation, and field survey. Based on the information submitted and these efforts, the district
engineer shall determine whether the proposed activity has the potential to cause an effect on the historic pmperties.
Where the non -Federal applicant has identified historic properties which the activity may have the potential to cause
effects and so notified the Corps, the non -Federal applicant shall not begin the activity until notified by the district
engineer either that the activity has no potential to cause effects or that consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA
has been completed. (d) The district engineer will notify the prospective permittee within 45 days of receipt of a
complete pre -construction notification whether NHPA Section 106 consultation is required. Section 106
consultation is not required when the Corps determines that the activity does not have the potential to cause effects
on historic properties (see 36 CFR §800.3(a)), If NHPA section 106 consultation is required and will occur, the
district engineer will notify the non -Federal applicant that he or she cannot begin work until Section 106
consultation is completed, (e) Prospective permittees should be aware that section I l0k of the NHPA (16 U.S.C.
470h -2(k)) prevents the Corps from granting a permit or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid
the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property
to which the permit would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to
occur, unless the Corps, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), determines
that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the applicant.
If circumstances justify granting the assistance, the Corps is required to notify the ACHP and provide documentation
Specifying the circumstances, explaining the degree of damage to the integrity of any historic properties affected,
and proposed mitigation. This documentation must include any views obtained from the applicant, SHPO/THPO,
appropriate Indian tribes if the undertaking occurs on or affects historic properties on tribal lands or affects
properties of interest to those tribes, and other parties known to have a legitimate interest in the impacts to the
permitted activity on historic properties.
19. Designated Critical Resource Waters. Critical resource waters include, NOAA-designated marine
sanctuaries, National Estuarine Research Reserves, state natural heritage sites, and outstanding national resource
waters or other waters officially designated by a state as having particular environmental or ecological significance
and identified by the district engineer after notice and opportunity for public comment. The district engineer may
also designate additional critical resource waters after notice and opportunity for comment. (a) Discharges of
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States are not authorized by NWPs 7, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 29, 31, 35,
39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, and 50 for any activity within, or directly affecting, critical resource waters, including
wetlands adjacent to such waters. (b) For NWPs 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and
38, notification is required in accordance with general condition 27, for any activity proposed in the designated
critical resource waters including wetlands adjacent to those waters. The district engineer may authorize activities
under these NWPs only after it is determined that the impacts to the critical resource waters will be no more than
minimal.
20. Mitigation. The district engineer will consider the following factors when determining appropriate and
practicable mitigation necessary to ensure that adverse effects on the aquatic environment are minimal: (a) The
activity must be designed and constructed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent, to
waters of the United States to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e., on site). (b) Mitigation in all
its forms (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, or compensating) will be required to the extent necessary to
ensure that the adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. (c) Compensatory mitigation at a minimum
one-for-one ratio will be required for all wetland losses that exceed 1110 acre and require pre -construction
notification, unless the district engineer determines in writing that some other form of mitigation would be more
environmentally appropriate and provides a project -specific waiver of this requirement. For wetland losses of 1/I0
acre or less that require pre -construction notification, the district engineer may determine on a case-by-case basis
that compensatory mitigation is required to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic
environment. Since the likelihood of success is greater and the impacts to potentially valuable uplands are reduced,
wetland restoration should be the first compensatory mitigation option considered. (d) For losses of streams or other
open waters that require pre -construction notification, the district engineer may require compensatory mitigation,
such as stream restoration, to ensure that the activity results in minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment.
(e) Compensatory mitigation will not be used to increase the acreage losses allowed by the acreage limits of the
NWPs. For example, if an 14WP has an acreage limit of 1/2 acre, it cannot be used to authorize any project resulting
in the loss of greater than 112 acre of waters of the United States, even if compensatory mitigation is provided that
replaces or restores some of the lost waters. However, compensatory mitigation can and should be used, as
necessary, to ensure that a project already meeting the -established acreage limits also satisfies the minimal impact
requirement associated with the NWPs. (0 Compensatory mitigation plans for projects in or near streams or other
open waters will normally include a requirement for the establishment, maintenance, and legal protection (e.g.,
conservation easements) of riparian areas next to open waters. In some cases, riparian areas may be the only
compensatory mitigation required. Riparian areas should consist of native species. The width of the required riparian
area will address documented water quality or aquatic habitat loss concerns. Normally, the riparian area will be 25 to
50 feet wide on each side of the stream, but the district engineer may require slightly wider riparian areas to address
documented water quality or habitat loss concerns. Where both wetlands and open waters exist on the project site,
the district engineer will determine the appropriate compensatory mitigation (e.g., riparian areas and/or wetlands
compensation) based on what is best for the aquatic environment on a watershed basis. In cases where riparian areas
are determined to be the most appropriate form of compensatory mitigation, the district engineer may waive or
reduce the requirement to provide wetland compensatory mitigation for wetland losses. (g) Permittees may propose
the use of mitigation banks, in -lieu fee arrangements or separate activity -specific compensatory mitigation. In all
cases, the mitigation provisions will specify the party responsible for accomplishing and/or complying with the
mitigation plan. (h) Where certain functions and services of waters of the United States are permanently adversely
affected, such as the conversion of a forested or scrub -shrub wetland to a herbaceous wetland in a permanently
maintained utility line right-of-way, mitigation may be required to reduce the adverse effects of the project to the
minimal level.
21. Water Quality. Where States and authorized Tribes, or EPA where applicable, have not previously certified
compliance of an NWP with CWA Section 401, individual 401 Water Quality Certification must he obtained or
waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). The district engineer or State or Tribe may require additional water quality
management measures to ensure that the authorized activity does not result in more than minimal degradation of
water quality.
22. Coastal Zone Management. In coastal states where an NWP has not previously received a state coastal zone
management consistency concurrence, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must
be obtained, or a presumption of concurrence must occur (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). The district engineer or a State
may require additional measures to ensure that the authorized activity is consistent with state coastal zone
management requirements.
23. Regional and Case -By -Case Conditions. The activity must comply with any regional conditions that may
have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CPR 330.4(e)) and with any case specific conditions added by the
Corps or by the state, Indian Tribe, or U.S. EPA in its section 401 Water Quality Certification, or by the state in its
Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination.
24. Use of Multiple Nationwide Permits. The use of more than one NWP for a single and complete project is
prohibited, except when the acreage loss of waters of the United States authorized by the NWPs does not exceed the
acreage limit of the NWP with the highest specified acreage limit. For example, if a road crossing over tidal waters
is constructed under NWP 14, with associated bank stabilization authorized by NWP 13, the maximum acreage loss
of waters of the United States for the total project cannot exceed 113 -acre.
25. Transfer of Nationwide Permit Verifications. If the permittee sells the property associated with a nationwide
permit verification, the permittee may transfer the nationwide permit verification to the new owner by submitting a
letter to the appropriate Corps district office to validate the transfer, A copy of the nationwide permit verification
must be attached to the letter, and the letter must contain the following statement and signature:
"When the structures or work authorized by this nationwide permit are still in existence at the time the property
is transferred, the terms and conditions of this nationwide permit, including any special conditions, will continue to
be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer of this nationwide permit and the associated
liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below."
(Transferee)
(Date)
26. Compliance Certification. Each permittee who received an NWP verification from the Corps must submit a
signed certification regarding the completed work and any required mitigation. The certification form must be
forwarded by the Corps with the NWP verification letter and will include: (a) A statement that the authorized work
was done in accordance with the NWP authorization, including any general or specific conditions; (b) A statement
that any required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions; and (c) The signature of the
permittee certifying the completion of the work and mitigation.
27. Pre -Construction Notification. (a) Timing. Where required by the terms of the NWP, the prospective
permittee must notify the district engineer by submitting a pre -construction notification (PCN) as early as possible.
The district engineer must determine if the PCN is complete within 30 calendar days of the date of receipt and, as a
general rule, will request additional information necessary to make the PCN complete only once. However, if the
prospective permittee does not provide all of the requested information, then the district engineer will notify the
prospective permittee that the PCN is still incomplete and the PCN review process will not commence until all of the
requested information has been received by the district engineer. The prospective permittee shall not begin the
activity: (1) Until notified in writing by the distridengineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any
special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer, or (2) If 45 calendar days have passed from the
district engineer's receipt of the complete PCN and the prospective permittee has not received written notice from
the district or division engineer. However, if the permittee was required to notify the Corps pursuant to general
condition 17 that listed species or critical habitat might affected or in the vicinity of the project, or to notify the
Corps pursuant to general condition 18 that the activity may have the potential to cause effects to historic properties,
the permittee cannot begin the activity until receiving written notification from the Corps that is "no effect" on listed
species or "no potential to cause effects" on historic properties, or that any consultation required under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) and/or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation (see 33
CFR 330.4(g)) is completed. Also, work cannot begin under NWPs 21, 49, or 50 until the permittee has received
written approval from the Corps. If the proposed activity requires a written waiver to exceed specified limits of an
NWP, the permittee cannot begin the activity until the district engineer issues the waiver. If the district or division
engineer notifies the permittee in writing that an individual permit is required within 45 calendar days of receipt of a
complete PCN, the permittee cannot begin the activity until an individual permit has been obtained. Subsequently,
the permittee's right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with
the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2).
(b) Contents of Pre -Construction Notification: The PCN must be in writing and include the following
information: (1) Name, address and telephone numbers of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed
project; (3) A description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental
effects the project would cause; any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s), or individual permit(s) used or
intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity. The description should be
sufficiently detailed to allow the district engineer to determine that the adverse effects of the project will be minimal
and to determine the need for compensatory mitigation. Sketches should be provided when necessary to show that
the activity complies with the terms of the NWP. (Sketches usually clarify the project and when provided result in a
quicker decision.); (4) The PCN must include a delineation of special aquatic sites and other waters of the United
States on the project site. Wetland delineations must be prepared in accordance with the current method required by
the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special aquatic sites and other waters of the United
States, but there may be a delay if the Corps does the delineation, especially if the project site is large or contains
many waters of the United States. Furthermore, the 45 day period will not start until the delineation has been
submitted to or completed by the Corps, where appropriate; (5) If the proposed activity will result in the loss of
greater than 1110 acre of wetlands and a PCN is required, the prospective permittee must submit a statement
describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied. As an alternative, the prospective permittee may submit
a conceptual or detailed mitigation plan. (6) If any listed species or designated critical habitat might be affected or is
in the vicinity of the project, or if the project is located in designated critical habitat, for non -Federal applicants the
PCN must include the name(s) of those endangered or threatened species that might be affected by the proposed
work or utilize the designated critical habitat that may be affected by the proposed work. Federal applicants must
provide documentation demonstrating compliance with the Endangered Species Act; and (7) For an activity that may
affect a historic property listed on, determined to be eligible for listing on, or potentially eligible for listing on, the
National Register of Historic Places, for non -Federal applicants the PCN must state which historic property maybe
affected by the proposed work or include a vicinity map indicating the location of the historic property. Federal
applicants must provide documentation demonstrating compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
(c) Form of Pre -Construction Notification: The standard individual permit application form (Form ENG 4345)
may be used, but the completed application form must clearly indicate that it is a PCN and must include all of the
information required in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this general condition. A letter containing the required
information may also be used.
(d) Agency Coordination: (1) The district engineer will consider any comments from Federal and state agencies
concerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the NWPs and the need for
mitigation to reduce the project's adverse environmental effects to a minimal level. (2) For all NWP 48 activities
requiring pre -construction notification and for other NWP activities requiring pre -construction notification to the
district engineer that result in the loss of greater than 112 -acre of waters of the United States, the district engineer
will immediately provide (e.g., via facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a copy of
the PCN to the appropriate Federal or state offices (U.S. FWS, state natural resource or water quality agency, EPA,
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Office (TIVO), and, if appropriate, the
NMFS). With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will then have 10 calendar days from the date the material is
transmitted to telephone or fax the district engineer notice that they intend to provide substantive, site-specific
comments. If so contacted by an agency, the district engineer will wait an additional 15 calendar days before making
a decision on the pre -construction notification. The district engineer will fully consider agency comments received
within the specified time frame, but will provide no response to the resource agency, except as provided below. The
district engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each prc-construction notification that the
resource agencies' concerns were considered. For NWP 37, the emergency watershed protection and rehabilitation
activity may proceed immediately in cases where there is an unacceptable hazard to life or a significant loss of
property or economic hardship will occur. The district engineer will consider any comments received to decide
whether the NWP 37 authorization should be modified, suspended, or revoked in accordance with the procedures at
33 CFR 330.5. (3) In cases of where the prospective permittee is not a Federal agency, the district engineer will
provide a response to NMFS within 30 calendar days of receipt of any Essential Fish Habitat conservation
recommendations, as required by Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. (4) Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps multiple copies of pre -construction
notifications to expedite agency coordination. (5) For NWP 48 activities that require reporting, the district engineer
will provide a copy of each report within 10 calendar days of receipt to the appropriate regional office of the NMFS.
(e) District Engineer's Decision: In reviewing the PCN for the proposed activity, the district engineer will
determine whether the activity authorized by the NWP will result in more than minimal individual or cumulative
adverse environmental effects or may be contrary to the public interest. If the proposed activity requires a PCN and
will result in a loss of greater than 1110 acre of wetlands, the prospective permittee should submit a mitigation
proposal with the PCN. Applicants may also propose compensatory mitigation for projects with smaller impacts.
The district engineer will consider any proposed compensatory mitigation the applicant has included in the proposal
in determining whether the net adverse environmental effects to the aquatic environment of the proposed work are
minimal. The compensatory mitigation proposal may be either conceptual or detailed. If the district engineer
determines that the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse effects on the
aquatic environment arc minimal, after considering mitigation, the district engineer will notify the permittee and
include any conditions the district engineer deems necessary. The district engineer must approve any compensatory
mitigation proposal before the permittee commences work. if the prospective permittee elects to submit a
compensatory mitigation plan with the PCN, the district engineer will expeditiously review the proposed
compensatory mitigation plan. The district engineer must review the plan within 45 calendar days of receiving a
complete PCN and determine whether the proposed mitigation would ensure no more than minimal adverse effects
on the aquatic environment. If the net adverse effects of the project on the aquatic environment (after consideration
of the compensatory mitigation proposal) are determined by the district engineer to be minimal, the district engineer
will provide a timely written response to the applicant. The response will state that the project can proceed under the
terms and conditions of the NWP.
If the district engineer determines that the adverse effects of the proposed work are more than minimal, then the
district engineer will notify the applicant either: (1) That the project does not qualify for authorization under the
NWP and instruct the applicant on the procedures to seek authorization under an individual permit; (2) that the
project is authorized under the NWP subject to the applicant's submission of a mitigation plan that would reduce the
adverse effects on the aquatic environment to the minimal level; or (3) that the project is authorized under the NWP
with specific modifications or conditions. Where the district engineer determines that mitigation is required to
ensure no more than minimal adverse effects occur to the aquatic environment, the activity will be authorized within
the 45 -day PCN period. The authorization will include the necessary conceptual or specific mitigation or a
requirement that the applicant submit a mitigation plan that would reduce the adverse effects on the aquatic
environment to the minimal level. When mitigation is required, no work in waters of the United States may occur
until the district engineer has approved a specific mitigation plan.
28. Single and Complete Project. The activity must be a single and complete project. The same NWP cannot be
used more than once for the same single and complete project.
C. Corps Seattle District Regional General Conditions
1, Aquatic Resources Requiring Special Protection. The following restrictions apply to activities in Washington
State requiring Department of the Army authorization:
(a) Activities resulting in a loss of waters of the United States in a mature forested wetland, bog, bog -like
wetland, aspen -dominated wetland, or alkali wetland are not authorized by NWP, except the following NWPs:
NWP 3 _ Maintenance
NWP 20 — Oil Spill Cleanup
NWP 32 — Completed Enforcement Actions
NWP 38 - Cleanup of Hazardous and Toxic Waste
NWP 47 — Pipeline Safety Program Designated Time Sensitive Inspections and Repairs
(b) For activities in or affecting a mature forested wetland, bog, bog -like wetland, wetland in a dunal system
along the Washington coast, vernal pool, aspen -dominated wetland, alkali wetland, camas prairie wetland, or marine
water with eelgrass beds (except for NWP 48) and not prohibited by the preceding gener ul regional condition La.,
the permittee must submit a pre -construction notification to the District Engineer in accordance with Nationwide
Permit General Condition 27 (Pre -Construction Notification).
2. Access. You must allow representatives of this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed
necessary to ensure that the work is being, or has been, accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of
your permit.
3. Commencement Bay. Activities requiring Department of the Army authorization and located in the
Commencement Bay Study Area are not authorized by the following NWPs:
NWP 12 —
Utility Line Activities (substations)
NWP 13 —
Bank Stabilization
NWP 14 --
Linear Transportation Projects
NWP 23 —
Approved Categorical Exclusions
NWP 29 —
Residential Developments
NWP 39 —
Commercial and Institutional Developments
NWP 40 —
Agricultural Activities
NWP 41 —
Reshaping Existing Drainage Ditches
NWP 42 —
Recreational Facilities
NWP 43 —
Stormwater Management Facilities
4. Bank Stabilization. All bank stabilization projects require pre -construction notification to the District Engineer in
accordance with Nationwide Permit General Condition 27 (Pre -Construction Notification). Each notification must
include a planting plan using native riparian plant species unless the applicant demonstrates that a planting plan is
not appropriate or not practicable. Each notification must also include the following information, except as waived
by the District Engineer.
(a) Need for the work, including the cause of the erosion and the threat posed to structures, infrastructure,
and/or public safety.
(b) Current and expected post -project sediment movement and deposition patterns in and near the project area.
(c) Current and expected post -project habitat conditions, including the presence of fish, wildlife and plant
species in the project area.
(d) Demonstration that the proposed project incorporates the least environmentally damaging practicable bank
protection methods. These methods include, but are not limited to, the use of bioengineering, biotechnical design,
root wads, large woody debris, native plantings, and beach nourishment in certain circumstances. if rock must be
used due to site erosion conditions, explain how the bank stabilization structure incorporates elements beneficial to
fish.
(e) Assessment of the likely impact of the proposed work on upstream, downstream and cross -stream
properties (at a minimum the area assessed should extend from the nearest upstream bend to the nearest downstream
bend of the watercourse). Discuss the methodology used for determining effects.
NOTE: Information on designing bank stabilization projects can be found in the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife's Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines(httl2://N-iti,iv.iiA6i,.wa.zov/hab/ahglispgdoc,htni; King
County's Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem
(hity://dnr.metrokc.tor/x,hhvatersheds/pujzet/nearslrore%votir.him}; and three technical (white) papers --Marine and
Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues, Ecological Issues in Floodplains and Riparian Corridors, and Over -Water
Structures: Marine, Freshwater, and 7realed Wood Issues (http.-Ilm dhti�wa.gov/hab/ahjz/ahjV+ljite.htni .
5. Cultural Resources and Human Burials. Permittees must immediately stop work and notify the District Engineer
within 24 hours if, during the course of conducting authorized work, human burials, cultural resources, or historic
properties, as identified by the National Historic Preservation Act, are discovered and may be affected by the work.
Failure to stop work in the area of discovery until the Corps can comply with the provisions of 33 CFR 325
Appendix C, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other pertinent laws and regulations could result in a
violation of state and federal laws. Violators are subject to civil and criminal penalties.
b. Essential Fish Habitat. An activity which may adversely affect essential fish habitat, as identified under the
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), may not be authorized by NWP until
essential fish habitat requirements have been met by the applicant and the Corps. Non-federal permittecs shall
notify the District Engineer if essential fish habitat may be affected by, or is in the vicinity of, a proposed activity
and shall not begin work until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the essential fish habitat
provisions of the MSA have been satisfied and the activity is authorized. The notification must identify the type(s)
of essential fish habitat (i.e., Pacific salmon, groundfish, and/or coastal -pelagic species) managed by a Fishery
Management Plan that may be affected. Information about essential fish habitat is available at
h11 :1Air w.tnvr.noaa. ov/
7. Vegetation Protection and Restoration. Permittees must clearly mark all construction area boundaries before
beginning work and minimize the removal of native vegetation in riparian areas and wetlands to the maximum
extent practicable. Areas subject to temporary vegetation removal in wetlands or riparian areas during construction
shall be replanted with appropriate native species by the end of the first planting season following the disturbance
except as waived by the District Engineer.
D. Corps Regional Specific Conditions for this NWP:
1. Temporary fills maybe left in place no longer than six months unless the permitee requests and receives an
extension from the District Engineer.
E. State 401 Certification General Conditions
1. For in -water construction activities. Individual 401 review is required under this condition for projects or
activities authorized under NWPs that will cause, or be likely to cause or contribute to an exceedence of a State
water quality standard (WAC 173-201A) or sediment management standard (WAC 173-204).
State water quality standards can be located on Ecology's website: hrtn:/Aininv.ecv.iva.gov/pro_gramshvn/snY
Sediment management standards can be located on Ecology's website:'
htm:/Av►viv.ecY rva.gov/biblioAvac173204.1tont.
Information is also available by contacting Ecology's Federal Permit staff.
2. Projects or Activities Dischaming to Impaired Waters. Individual 40I review is required by this condition for
projects or activities authorized under NWPs if the project or activity may result in further exceedences' of a specific
parameter the waterbody is listed for on the state's list of impaired waterbodies (the 303(d) list).
The current 303(d) listed waterbodies can be identified using search tools available on Ecology's website:
httn:/Aiiti,%,.eci.ii,a.:eoi�/yrozramsAvq/303d/2002/2002-irrdex.html or by contacting Ecology's Federal Permit staff.
3. Notification. For projects or activities that will require individual 401 review, applicants must provide Ecology
with the written documentation provided to the Corps (as described in Corps Nationwide Permit General Condition
27, Pre -Construction Notification), including, when applicable:
(a) A description of the project, including site plans, project purpose, direct and indirect adverse environmental
effects the project would cause, any other Department of the Army permits used or intended to be used to authorize
any part of the proposed project or any related activity.
(b) Delineation of special aquatic sites and other waters of the United States. Wetland delineations must be
prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps and shall include Ecology's Wetland Rating
form. Note: Forms are available at Ecology's Wetlands website:
htt :/Avww.e .wa. ov/ ro rams/sea/wetlands/index.htrnl or by contacting Ecology's Federal Permit staff.'
(c) Coastal Zone Management Program "Certification of Consistency" Form if the project is located within a
coastal county (Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason, pacific, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit,
Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum, and Whatcom counties).
Note: Forms are available at the Army Corps of Engineers website: http://lAviv.rnvs.usace.arnty mil
or by contacting Ecology's Federal Permit staff.
(d) Other applicable requirements of Corps Nationwide Permit General Condition 27, Corps Regional
Conditions, or notification conditions of the applicable NWP.
Ecology's review time shall not begin until the applicable documents noted above have been provided to Ecology
and Ecology has received a copy of the final Nationwide Permit verification letter from the Corps.
4. Aquatic resources reguiring special protection. Certain aquatic resources are unique, difficult -to -replace
components of the aquatic environment in Washington State. Activities that would affect these resources must be
avoided to the greatest extent possible. Compensating for adverse impacts to high value aquatic resources is
typically difficult, prohibitively expensive, and may not be possible in some landscape settings.
Individual 401 review is required for activities in or affecting the following aquatic resources (and not prohibited by
Regional Condition 1), except for:
NWA 20 — Oil Spill Cleanup
NWP 32 — Completed Enforcement Actions
NWP 38 — Cleanup of Hazardous Waste
NWP 47 — Pipeline Safety Program Repair
(a) Wetlands with special characteristics (as defined in the Washington State Wetland. Rating Systems for
western and eastern Washington, Ecology Publication #s04-06-025 and #104-06-015):
• estuarine wetlands
• Natural Heritage wetlands
• Bogs
10
• old-growth and mature forested wetlands
• wetlands in coastal lagoons
• interdunal wetlands
• vernal pools
• alkali wetlands
(b) Bog -like wetlands, aspen -dominated wetlands, camas prairie wetlands, and marine water with eelgrass beds
(except for NWP 48).
(c) Category I wetlands
(d) Category Il wetlands with a habitat score >29 points.
5. Mitigation. 401 Certification is based on adequate compensatory mitigation being provided for wtland and other
water quality -related impacts of projects or activities authorized under the NWP Program.
Mitigation plans submitted for Ecology review and approval shall be based on the guidance provided in Wetland
Mitigation in Washington State, Parts 1 and 2 (Ecology Publication #s06-06-01 la and #06-06-01 lb) and shall, at a
minimum, include the following:
(a) A description of the measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S.
(b) The nature of the proposed impacts (i.e., acreage of wetlands and functions lost or degraded)
(c) The rationale for the mitigation site that was selected
(d) The goals and objectives of the compensatory mitigation project
(e) How the mitigation project will be accomplished, including proposed performance standards for measuring
success and the proposed buffer widths
(f) How it will be maintained and monitored to assess progress towards goals and objectives. Monitoring will
generally be required for a minimum of five years. For forested and scrub -shrub wetlands, 10 years of monitoring
will often be necessary.
(g) How the compensatory mitigation site will be legally protected for the long-term.
Refer to Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology Publication #06-
06-01 lb) for guidance on developing mitigation plans.
Ecology encourages the use of alternative mitigation approaches, including advance mitigation and other
programmatic approaches, such as mitigation banks -and programmatic mitigation areas at the local level. If you are
interested in proposing use of an alternative mitigation approach, consult with the appropriate Ecology regional staff
person. (see hyR:/fx-Aw.gcv.m a.goiL1 rams/sea/wellands/conlacLs.hlrir)
For information on the state wetland mitigation banking program go to:
hltn: /lwmy. eci,. wa. ttov/yrrok7-ains/seahyelland s/nril igal iou/hanldn e/index. h lm!
6. Temporary Fills. Individual 401 review is required for any project or activity with temporary fill in wetlands or
other waters of the State for more than 90 days, unless the applicant has received written approval from Ecology.
7, Mill Creek Special Area Manaptement Plan. This condition applies to all NWPs within the boundaries described
in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), King County, Washington, dated April 2000 (SAMP).
The boundaries of the SAMP encompass all sub -basins and tributaries drained by Algona Creek, Auburn Creek,
Bingaman Creek, Midway Creek, Mill Creek, and Mullen Slough. The area is bounded roughly on the south by 8`"
Avenue N in Algona and 4`h Street NE in Auburn, on the east and north by the Ordinary High Water Mark of the
Green River, and on the west by the plateau that parallels Interstate 5 above the Green River valley.
Individual 401 review is required for projects or activities authorized under the NWPs unless:
(a) The project or activity will result in fill -related impacts to only wetlands designated as developable under
Alternative #8, as shown on Figure 4-8 of the SAMP.
(b) Compensatory mitigation for such impacts is onsite and/or within the areas designated on Figure 3-3,
"Maximum Areas for Restoration by Target Habitat Type," in the SAMP Aquatic Resources Restoration Plan (April
2000).
(c) Mitigation plans comply with the requirements of the SAMP and, in general, with the guidance in the
interagency Wetland Mitigation in Washington State (March 2006; Ecology publications #06-06-011 a and #06-06-
lI
011b). Note: You can download the SAMP and Aquatic Resources Restoration Plan at
ht / wv. w .usace rnr nr'l/Pub icMenu/Merru.c r?sitena a=REG )a enarne=AfilI Creek SAMP.
8. State Certification for PCNs not receiving 45 -day response. In the event the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does
not respond to a complete pre -construction notification within 45 days, the applicant must contact Ecology for
Individual 401 review,
F. State 401. Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
Certified, subject to conditions. Individual 401 review is required for projects or activities authorized under this
NWP if:
1. The project or activity has temporary fills left in place for more than 90 days. The 90 day period begins
when fill is initially placed in wetlands or other waters of the state.
G. EPA 401 Certification General Conditions
In order for any NWP authorization to be valid in Washington State, permittees must comply with all applicable 401
Certification general conditions. EPA 401 Certification general conditions apply to all NWP authorizations involving
Section 404 activities on Native Arncrican Indian Tribal lands (excluding the tribal lands of the Chehalis Tribes, Port
Gamble S'KlaBum Tribe, Kalispel Tribe, Makah Indian Tribe, Puyallup Tribe, Spokane Tribe, and Tulalip Tribe) and
Federal land with exclusive jurisdiction within Washington State.
A. Special Aquatic Sites. Any activities in the following types of wetlands and waters of the U.S. will need to apply
for an individual 401 certification: Mature forested wetlands; bogs; bog -like wetlands; wetlands in dunal systems
along the Washington coast; vernal pools; aspen -dominated wetlands; alkali wetlands; camas prairie wetlands; salt
marshes; or marine water with eelgrass beds.
B. Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls. An individual 401 certification is based on the project or activity meeting
established turbidity levels. EPA will be using as guidance the state of Washington's water quality standards [WAG
173-201a] and sediment quality standards [WAG 173-204]. Projects or activities that are expected to exceed these
levels or that do exceed these levels will require an individual 401 certification.
C; m
Compliance with Storwater Provisions. Individual 401 certification is required for projects or activities not
designed in accordance with Ecology's most recent slormwater manual or Ecology approved equivalent manual.
D. Compliance with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. For projects and
activities requiring coverage under an NPDES permit, certification is based on compliance with the requirements of
that permit. Projects and activities not in compliance with NPDES requirements will require individual 401
certification.
E. Pro'ects or Activities Discharging to Im aired Waters. Individual 401 certification is required for projects or
activities authorized under NWPs if the project will discharge to a waterbody on the list of impaired waterbodies
(the 303(d) List) and the discharge may result in further exceedence of a specific parameter the waterbody is listed
for.
EPA may issue 401 certification for projects or activities that would result in further exceedence or impairment if
mitigation is provided that would result in a net decrease in listed contaminants or less impairment in the waterbody.
This determination would be made during individual 401 certification review.
F. Notification, For projects requiring individual 401 certification, applicants must provide EPA with the same
documentation provided to the Corps (as described in Corps National General Condition 27, Pre -Construction
Notification), including, when applicable:
12
(a) A description of the project, including site plans, project purpose, direct and indirect adverse environmental
effects the project would cause, any other U.S. Department of the Army permits used or intended to be used to
authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity.
(b) Delineation of special aquatic sites and other waters of the United States. Wetland delineations must be
prepared in accordance with the current method required by the Corps.
(c) A statement describing how the mitigation requirement will be satisfied. A conceptual or detailed
mitigation or restoration plan may be submitted.
(d) Other applicable requirements of Corps National General Condition 27, Corps Regional Conditions, or
notification conditions of the applicable NWP.
A request for individual 401 review is not complete until EPA receives the applicable documents noted above and
EPA has received a copy of the final authorization letter from the Corps providing coverage for a proposed project
or activity under the NWP Program.
G. Mitigation. An individual 401 certification is based on adequate compensatory mitigation being provided for
wetland and other water quality -related impacts of projects or activities authorized under the NWP Program.
Mitigation plans submitted shall be based on the Joint Agency guidance provided in Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State, Parts I and 2 (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a and 406-06-011 b) and shall, at a minimum,
include the following:
I , A description of the measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S.
2. The nature of the proposed impacts (i.e., acreage of wetlands and functions lost or degraded).
3. The rationale for the mitigation site that was selected.
4. The goals and objectives of the compensatory mitigation project.
S. How the mitigation project will be accomplished, including proposed performance standards for measuring
success and the proposed buffer widths.
6. How it will be maintained and monitored to assess progress towards goals and objectives. Monitoring will
generally be required for a minimum of five years. For forested and scrub -shrub wetlands, 10 years of monitoring
will often be necessary.
7. How the compensatory mitigation site will be legally protected for the long-term.
H. Temporary -Fills. An individual 401 certification is required for any activity where temporary fill will remain in
wetlands or other waterbodies for more than 90 days. The 90 day period begins when filling activity starts in the
wetland or other waterbody.
H. EPA 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWP
Denied without prejudice. Individual 401 certification required.
I, Spokane Tribe of Indians 401 Certification General Conditions
Specific to the Reservation and the Tribal Water Quality Standards, the applicant must comply with the following
when there could be a discharge to waters of the Spokane Indian Reservation,
1. The applicant shall be responsible for achieving compliance with the Spokane Tribal Water Quality
Standards.
2. The applicant shall submit copies of applications materials to the Spokane Tribal Water Control Board for
review and approval at the same time they are submitted to Army Corps of Engineers and prior to any disturbance
activities.
13
3. The applicant shall comply with all Spokane Tribal Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP)
guidelines for land use activities and disturbances.
4. The applicant shall allow the Tribal Water Control board and Interdisciplinary Team to inspect the area in
question and adopt recommendations made throughout its operation.
5. Monitoring of the discharge shall occur at a level indicated by EPA and the Tribe, are subject to change, and
shall be submitted to both entities.
J. Tribal 401 Certification Specific Conditions for this NWT
Denied without prejudice by the Chehalis, Kalispel, Makah, Port Gamble S'Klallum, Puyallup, and Tulalip tribes.
Certified subject to general conditions by the Spokane Tribe.
K. CZM Consistency Response Specific Conditions for this NWP
Concur, subject to the following condition:
1. Where individual 401 review is triggered, an individual CZM Consistency Response must be obtained for
projects located within the 15 coastal counties. A "Certification of Consistency" form must be submitted in
accordance with State General Condition 3 (Notification).
L. ADDITIONAL LEMTATIONS ON THE USE OF NWPs
1. District Engineers have authority to determine if an activity complies with the terms and conditions of an NWT.
2. NWPs do not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local permits, approvals, or authorizations required
by law.
3. NWP% do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
4. NWPs do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
5. NWPs do not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
14
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
M-161=1011110 r• r
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 8130/2011
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Renton,glty of
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Se le Di tdc NWS -2011.
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State: WA County: King City: RgIm
Center coordinates of site (latAong In degree decimal formal): Lai. 4ZA6X ON, Long. -122.1504°W
Name of nearest walerlmdy: Cedar River
Name of any water bodies on the site, In the review area, [hat have been Identified as Section 10 waters:
Tidal:
Non -Tidal:
Identify (estimate) amount of waters In the review area (if there are multiple sites, use the table Instead): '
Non -wetland waters (total for site): linear feet M and width (ft) L7 or acres.
Stream Flow: $per Flow path: FIgN north dImelty Into Lgke Washington, navigaNeWaters
Wetlands: 0,03 acres (total for site).
Cowardin Class(es): Bioadan Wetlands
Site
number
Latitude
Longitude
g
Cowardin
Class
Estimated amount of aquatic
resource In review area
Class of aquatic resource
1
47.46933
-122,15037
alverine
1,100 feet
2
47.46895
-122.15208
Rivedne
850 feet
3
47.4696
-122.15262
Riparian
Wetlands
0.03 acres
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
® Office (Desk)Determination. Date:8130120il
❑ Field Determination. Dale(s):
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply - checked items should be included Incase file and, where checked and
nested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, pians, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the appllcandoonsultant: Sheet 1 -10.
® Data sheets prepared/submltted by or on behalf of the applicanticonsultant.
® Office concurs with data sheeWdelineation report
❑ Office does not ooncur with data sheetsldellneatlon report. Explain:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Alas:
❑ USGS NHD data. ❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit NUC maps.
❑ U.S, Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
❑ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ StateA-ocal wetland Inventory map(s):
❑ FEMAIFIRM maps:
❑ 100 -year Fioodplaln Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
❑ Photographs: ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s), File no., date (and findings) of response letter (determination and coordination):
❑ Other information (please spa*):
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected
party who requested this preilmtnary JD Is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit applicant or other person who requested this preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD In this
Instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification
requiring 'pre -construction notificalion" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not
requested an approved JD for the activity, the permlt applicant Is hereby made aware of the following: (1) the permit applicant has elected to seek a permit
authorization based on a preliminary JD, which does not make an official determination of jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request
an approved JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could
possibly result In less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that the applicant has the right to request an individual
permit rather than accepling the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) that the applicant can accept a permit
authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that permit, Including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking any activity In reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an approved JD constitutes
the applicants acceptance of the use of the preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as Is pfacticable; (6) accepting a permit
authorization (e.g;, signing a proffered individual permil) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit authorization based on a
preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all wetlands and other water bodies on the slte affected in any way by that activity are jurisdictional waters of the
United States, and precludes any challenge to such jurisdlction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative
appeal or In any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD will be processed as soon as
Is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered Individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or Individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331, and that In any administrative appeal, jurisdictional Issues can be raised (see 33 C.F.R.
331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, €1 becomes necessary to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a she, or to
provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as Is practicable,
This preliminary JD finds that there 'may be' waters of the United States on the subject project site, and Identifies all aquatic features on the site that could
be affected by the proposed activity, based on the Information In this document.
PO A T NOTE: The InLormationcorded on this form hpsO92 necessaft been veflflqd by the Cofpg and should not be reliedlate
igtdictional determinations,
Signature:
—� S- , QL—
Regulatory Project Manager
Person' Requesting Preliminary JD
3q/1r
Dale
Date
Permit applicant, landowner, a lease, easement or option holder, or indivldual with Identillable and substanttat legal ingest in the property; this signature Is not required for
Preliminary JDs associated with enforcement actions.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
US Army Carps WITH DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
of Engineers 0
Seattle [Jlet6o
Permit Number: NWS -2011-506
Name of Permittee: City of Renton
Date of Issuance: OCJ — 7 2011
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit, please check the applicable boxes below, date
and sign this certification, and return it to the following address:
Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District, Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 3755
Seattle, Washington 981243755
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of your authorization, your
project is subject to suspension, modification, or revocation.
Printed Name:
Signature:
Date:
The work authorized by the above -referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the
❑
terms and conditions of this permit.
Date work complete:
❑ Photographs and as -built drawings of the authorized work are attached.
Printed Name:
Signature:
Date:
If applicable, the mitigation required {not including monitoring (e.g., construction and plantings)
❑
in the above -referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this permit.
Date work complete:
❑ Photographs and as -built drawings of the mitigation are attached.
Printed Name:
Signature:
Date:
DEPARTMENT OF COkv MUNITY ciryoff:
z -i i fl
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �— �,. ,�,� � �
PLANNING DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATION
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE:
LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT MANAGER:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
CONTACT:
PROJECT LOCATION:
CRITICAL AREA:
August 8, 2011
.LUA11-061, SME, CAR
Elliott Spawning Channel Reconstruction, Critical Areas
Exemption
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
City of Renton, Surface Water, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
Steve Lee, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
In the flood plain, along the south side of the Cedar
River approximately at river mile 4.4
Wetland, Category 2
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposed to restore The Elliott
Spawning Channel that was originally built in 2001 as part of a mitigation project to offset the
loss of sockeye salmon spawning habitat as a result of over dredging during the lower Cedar
River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. In 2006 and 2009 flooding events in the
Cedar River resulted in water overtopping the banks of the channel and scoured the spawning
channel deposing silt and woody debris in the upper 900 feet. Woody debris, erosion control
structures, and habitat plantings were washed away or damaged during theses flood events.
In addition, spawning gravels were displaced and silt was deposited on the channel bottom.
The permeable level was also damaged in the floods resulting in the loss of the hydrologic
connection to the Cedar River due to sediment deposition on the waterside of the levee.
i� 1 .
MII�SA,,cG
r
r
* =D
Elliott Spawning Channel Reconstruction, Critical Areas
Exemption
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
City of Renton, Surface Water, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
Steve Lee, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
In the flood plain, along the south side of the Cedar
River approximately at river mile 4.4
Wetland, Category 2
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposed to restore The Elliott
Spawning Channel that was originally built in 2001 as part of a mitigation project to offset the
loss of sockeye salmon spawning habitat as a result of over dredging during the lower Cedar
River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. In 2006 and 2009 flooding events in the
Cedar River resulted in water overtopping the banks of the channel and scoured the spawning
channel deposing silt and woody debris in the upper 900 feet. Woody debris, erosion control
structures, and habitat plantings were washed away or damaged during theses flood events.
In addition, spawning gravels were displaced and silt was deposited on the channel bottom.
The permeable level was also damaged in the floods resulting in the loss of the hydrologic
connection to the Cedar River due to sediment deposition on the waterside of the levee.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: August 8, 2011
LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: LUA11-061, SME, CAR
PROJECT NAME: Elliott Spawning Channel Reconstruction, Critical Areas
Exemption
PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Renton, Surface Water, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
CONTACT: Steve Lee, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
PROJECT LOCATION: In the flood plain, along the south side of the Cedar
River approximately at river mile 4.4
CRITICAL AREA: Wetland, Category
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposed to restore The Elliott
Spawning Channel that was originally built in 2001 as part of a mitigation project to offset the
loss of sockeye salmon spawning habitat as a result of over dredging during the lower Cedar
River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. In 2006 and 2009 flooding events in the
Cedar River resulted in water overtopping the banks of the channel and scoured the spawning
channel deposing silt and woody debris in the upper 900 feet. Woody debris, erosion control
structures, and habitat plantings were washed away or damaged during theses flood events.
In addition, spawning gravels were displaced and silt was deposited on the channel bottom.
The permeable level was also damaged in the floods resulting in the loss of the hydrologic
connection to the Cedar River due to sediment deposition on the waterside of the levee.
City of Renton Deportment of Co. City & Economic Development Certificate oj nption from Critical Areas Exemption
Elliott Spawning Channel Reconstruction LUA11-061, SME, CAR
August 8, 2011 Page 2 of 3
As a result of the 2006 and 2009 flooding events the spawning channel requires reconstruction
to provide sockeye salmon spawning habitat. The proposed project would include removing
silt, restoring spawning gravel with smooth river rock along the channel bottom, and replacing
large woody debris. Any riparian areas distributed during the work would be restored with
topsoil refinishing, reseeding, mulching, and replanting native plants on the channel banks. All
work would occur within the footprint of the original Elliott Spawning Channel. In order to re-
establish the hydrologic connection to the channel, a 10 -foot -wide backwater channel would
be constructed from the edge of the Cedar River to the levee to allow a pathway for water to
reach the permeable levee. This backwater channel would result in the removal of
approximately 310 cubic yards of sand and gravel. The overall project would result in the
removal of approximately 1,130 cubic yards of sediment of which 340 cubic yards would be
replaced with streambed gravels. A small amount of fill, 46 cubic yards, would be placed in
the channel to form the sides of the new channel. The applicant has received funding
approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to reconstruct, restore,
and rehabilitate the spawning habitat within the channel to pre -flood conditions with NMFS
and USFWS concurrence.
A Technical Memorandum, prepared by Parametrix, dated July 20, 2011 identifies there is one
Category 2 Wetland located in the vicinity of the Elliott Spawning Channel. Category 2 wetland
requires a 50 -foot buffer. The proposed project would have no impacts on the wetland;
however there would be temporary impacts to the wetland buffer. The restoration of the
spawning channel as described above would result in approximately 0.04 acres (1,644 square
feet) of temporary impacts to the buffer. The applicant has proposed to utilize best
management practices (BMPs) to avoid or reduce impact to all critical areas during
construction and to replant the disturbed area once the channel restoration has been
completed.
EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C.5.a.i Conservation,
Enhancement, and Related Activities, of the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby granted:
X RMC 4-3-050C.5.a.i exempts conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation,
fish and other wildlife.
FINDINGS: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to
RMC section 4-3-050C.5:
1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state or federal
law or regulation.
2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry
standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles if submitted plans are
followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met.
3. Impacts will be minimized and disturbed areas will be immediately restored, if
submitted plans are followed and the conditions of approval of this exemption are met.
City of Renton Deportment of Co. nity & Economic Development Certificate of ption from Critical Areas Regulations
ElliottSpawning Channel Reconstruction Critcal Areas Exemption LLlA11-061, CAR
DATE OF PERMIT: August 8, 2011 Page 3 of 3
4. Where wetland or buffer disturbance occurs during construction or other activities in
accordance with this exemption, the site will be revegetated with native vegetation as
required as a condition of approval for this exemption.
DECISION: An exemption from the critical areas regulations is approved for temporary
impacts to a wetland buffer to restore the Elliott Spawning Channel, a wildlife conservation
project.
DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURE:
14
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Plank4 Director
Planning Division Date
APPEALS: Appeals of permit issuance must be filed with the City of Renton Hearing Examiner
by 5:00 p.m. on August 15, 2011. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required
fee to the City of Renton Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057. City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing
Examiner. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the
decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if
material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds
there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the
approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further
extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal
appeal within the 14 -day appeal time frame.
EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of decision (date of signature).
DEPARTMENT OF COIr41UNITY t
r� City of _
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE:
LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT MANAGER:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
CONTACT:
PROJECT LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
SEC-TWN-R:
WATER BODY/WETLAND:
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION:
August 8, 2011
LUA11-061, SME, CAR
Elliott Spawning Channel Reconstruction
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
City of Renton, Surface Water, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
Steve Lee, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
In the flood plain, along the south side of the Cedar
River approximately at river mile 4.4
That portion of government lot 3 in the northeast
quarter of Section 22, Township 23 north, Range 5
east, W.M., lying northerly of the Burlington Northern
Railroad right of way.
Legal SEC 22 -TWN 23 N -R 5 E
Cedar River
The applicant is proposed to restore The Elliott
Spawning Channel that was originally built in 2001 as part of a mitigation project to offset the
loss of sockeye salmon spawning habitat as a result of over dredging during the lower Cedar
River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. The channel was originally constructed to
provide additional habitat for various life history stages of salmonids present in the Cedar
River. In 2006 and 2009 flooding events in the Cedar River resulted in water overtopping the
banks of the channel and scoured the spawning channel deposing silt and woody debris in
the upper 900 feet. Woody debris, erosion control structures, and habitat plantings were
washed away or damaged during theses flood events. In addition, spawning gravels were
displaced and silt was deposited on the channel bottom. The permeable level was also
441
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY r, City of,, -rI
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM & DECISION
DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: August 8, 2011
LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: LUA11-061, SME, CAR
PROJECT NAME: Elliott Spawning Channel Reconstruction
PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Renton, Surface Water, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
CONTACT: Steve Lee, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
PROJECT LOCATION: In the flood plain, along the south side of the Cedar
River approximately at river mile 4.4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of government lot 3 in the northeast
quarter of Section 22, Township 23 north, Range 5
east, W.M., lying northerly of the Burlington Northern
Railroad right of way.
SEC-TWN-R: Legal SEC 22 -TWN 23 N -R 5 E
WATER BODY/WETLAND: Cedar River
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposed to restore The Elliott
Spawning Channel that was originally built in 2001 as part of a mitigation project to offset the
loss of sockeye salmon spawning habitat as a result of over dredging during the lower Cedar
River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. The channel was originally constructed to
provide additional habitat for various life history stages of salmonids present in the Cedar
River. In 2006 and 2009 flooding events in the Cedar River resulted in water overtopping the
banks of the channel and scoured the spawning channel deposing silt and woody debris in
the upper 900 feet. Woody debris, erosion control structures, and habitat plantings were
washed away or damaged during theses flood events. In addition, spawning gravels were
displaced and silt was deposited on the channel bottom. The permeable level was also
City of Renton Department of Commt < Economic Development Certificate of Exer, from Shoreline Substantial Development
EJJlott Spawning Channel Reconstructlan LUA11-061, SME, CAR
DATE of PERMIT: August 8, 2011 Page 2 of 4
damaged in the floods resulting in the loss of the hydrologic connection to the Cedar River
due to sediment deposition on the waterside of the levee.
As a result of the 2006 and 2009 flooding events the spawning channel requires
reconstruction to provide sockeye salmon spawning habitat. The proposed project would
include removing silt, restoring spawning gravel with smooth river rock along the channel
bottom, and replacing 27 pieces of large woody debris. Any riparian areas distributed during
the work would be restored with topsoil refinishing, reseeding, mulching, and replanting
native plants on the channel banks. All work would occur within the footprint of the original
Elliot Spawning Channel.
In order to re-establish the hydrologic connection to the channel, a 10 -foot -wide backwater
channel would be constructed from the edge of the Cedar River to the levee to allow a
pathway for water to reach the permeable levee. This backwater channel would result in the
removal of approximately 310 cubic yards of sand and gravel and would be sized to allow
flow through into the spawning channel. To prevent the need to reconstruct after future
storm events, the levee is proposed to be heavy enough to reduce the risk of damage from
future flood events. The overall project would result in the removal of approximately 1,130
cubic yards of sediment of which 340 cubic yards would be replaced with streambed gravels.
A small amount of fill, 46 cubic yards, would be placed in the channel to form the sides of the
new channel. The applicant has received funding approval from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to reconstruct, restore, and rehabilitate the spawning habitat
within the channel to pre -flood conditions with NMFS and USFWS concurrence.
A Technical Memorandum, prepared by Parametrix, dated July 20, 2011 identifies a number
of measures the applicant is taking to reduce the impact to the Cedar River during the
construction process. These include utilizing best management practices (BMPs) to avoid or
reduce impact to the aquatic environment and all critical areas during construction. The
applicant proposes to follow the Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines. The
Parametrix memo indicates that all work would occur during the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife work window, to the extent possible, and water control
structures for the spawning channel would minimize the potential for sediment flushing
when the channel is reactivated. Sandbag dams and fish exclusion nets would be temporarily
placed within the spawning channel, the side channel connecting the spawning channel to
the Cedar River, and the Cedar River. These dams would be used to prevent water from the
Cedar River entering the work zone during summer storm events. The dams would be
removed once the channel has been stabilized and is ready to be reconnected with the Cedar
River. Any riparian areas disturbed during the work will be restored and replanted once the
channel restoration has been completed.
An exemption from a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby granted
on the proposed project in accordance with RMC 4-9-190C.3 and/or for the following reason(s):
Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including
damage by accident, fire or elements.
City of Renton Department of Commt Economic Development Certificate of Exen from Shoreline Substantial Development
Elliott Spawning Channel Reconstruction 1UA11-061, SMF, CAR
DATE of PERMIT: August 8, 2011 Page 3 of 4
a. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or
cessation from a lawfully established condition.
b. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its
original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration,
location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial
destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the
shoreline resource or environment.
c. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where
such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or
development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the
original structure or development including, but not limited to, its size, shape,
configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not
cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment.
City of Renton Department of Comm[ i Economic Development Certificate of Exer from Shoreline Substantial Development
Elliott Spawning Channel Reconstructs—Y CUA11-061, SME, CAR
DATE DF PERMIT: August 8, 2011 Page 4 of 4
The proposed development is consistent or inconsistent with (check one):
CONSISTENT
X
INCONSISTENT
Policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
N/A The guidelines of the Department of Ecology
where no Master Program has been finally
approved or adapted by the Department.
X
DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURE:
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, PlanninyDirector
Planning Division
The City of Renton Shoreline Master Program.
G, ,r 'Alp VIMC44f
Attachments: Elliott Spawning Channel Repair — Cover Sheet
Site Access and Sheet Layout
Channel Alignment and Control Plan A-1 and A-2
Site Preparation and TESL Plan T-1 and T-2
Cannel Restoration Plan C-1 and C-2
Channel Restoration Profile
Channel Restoration Details
Planting Plan LS -1 and LS -2
Planting Details
cc: Owner/Applicant
Contact
City of Renton Official File
g S 2s1
Date
k l l l-ss•aad
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
FJ Q
R U
g . O
s
LZJrz
F y' TG 4 x634 Z
�6 O O
w u
W
�
� D xx C
w N�N_er�NM inn
CL
.
000
uj
tzw
LLI
It
LLI
tj
ZZ
W
p
�
V
z
_
!
LJ+'�I
�,l t O
CY'
w
-Y�R.ix
_
I
,•,Y
1. �. � .,=.`1 � .`.
_
01
'i °' w
k l l l-ss•aad
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
-------------------
I
a
I
i
1
i
w I
rw ii x II rNi R •/ ww•a Yi0 .tw .i pl•iL 'w.NM .V\w w�ah•�eMw+wiMr�wl rti�ur i�T .+• i Rf-�i nrV,.lrr.a M•n n • • � 1r4r1 •e�ruiAiulx.w i4 I
I
I
I
I
1
-----------------------�
p
�
2
m
W
•4'
1
i
w I
rw ii x II rNi R •/ ww•a Yi0 .tw .i pl•iL 'w.NM .V\w w�ah•�eMw+wiMr�wl rti�ur i�T .+• i Rf-�i nrV,.lrr.a M•n n • • � 1r4r1 •e�ruiAiulx.w i4 I
I
I
I
I
1
-----------------------�
LLLLSSddd
!It!'Kii'yda!d!
S G
i:
'• L
G:
L G
G s
L L i
�•R•
-?b�k
f
�6F5�`-9a!$1BR
s
lsAa_�Ys__g2
i
R�
a!E
� A
A ee R
A !1
�saasaaaacg"vg
A
r�:1
a
as--3-
LLLLSSddd
� ,..�. ,� �..i � �... uA .—.� a �,n. v.a rn• �,w.n ..� r.w-tiw we-.,n�.w ... •.ru.����.�av+n, w.. ,. ,�., ,.�.a�w.w��.c.r iv �
i
I � ,
1
I
R�
a!E
� A
A ee R
A !1
�saasaaaacg"vg
� ,..�. ,� �..i � �... uA .—.� a �,n. v.a rn• �,w.n ..� r.w-tiw we-.,n�.w ... •.ru.����.�av+n, w.. ,. ,�., ,.�.a�w.w��.c.r iv �
i
I � ,
1
I
Pry
�=ttz
m
----------------------
----------------------- -----------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111!'SS•ddd
s
as e.l �nC x w rrw aaa .-w.. �• Gya04 •.SPH .w\r r.�nOM•a.u�.wawMwnh w+u�-nn»�». • �W.�<f�a.+dw�•w.n .[.. 1 ✓rn �h1.a+Mnvr�wti TI
s
r
I
------------- -----------------------
---'---'----
—'------'--40
co
at L6
id—
-----------------------
I
I
I
I s
I
I
I �
I
I
I
� w w[� I� not V M tir7� 1H .+e'I .. 1L..•4 ..-In.e I n wl.w.f w.�+w�.t.ro wWi�n. ry M A+u., C W W.n w.. � Ver. s %x.�tM.I.1.M lY �
1 I
I
I I
, I
,S
� w w[� I� not V M tir7� 1H .+e'I .. 1L..•4 ..-In.e I n wl.w.f w.�+w�.t.ro wWi�n. ry M A+u., C W W.n w.. � Ver. s %x.�tM.I.1.M lY �
1 I
I
I I
, I
I
NouvnN LNO9 NO -3 M0139 936 009+9 VJX
61
64 7
I Y6!
00 w
= f
1 I I 11 Z y 11
• Kit , y 1 _ L1 w
.__wiles lliw
I w-SYHt6w ; '_�2JT i a
r 61;6! r W L9
'1
7 1[�
1 , 0
2162 1 Iiw � r�
YI
I I
OS CC
RN i. J
,
,
I n
1
I
I
• I
l
1 E
Ep
I
: uu ccm
I
e
I ,
ii
1-
I �
iN
bot S.
it
671
I
_ 1teL__
1 a]
I
II I
I I
a I
• I
NallrnNUMOO 110-3 3AO9r 33S 09+9 Y18
YY, Il>r2�a
w ] rlv IIOP Y[ K .rw YK ��� .I Y1ry v-Y,n r: a 11�f..•gw•:�w�s::�V wHlslyll: :ti ISY.I->,uy�i. � yy o :ron V-arl�rwsulKlV ]L I
1
I I
I f
I I
I I
a.
__
_.!_ . _ _I...._
Ij
I
I
� 1 g
1
!
ry
(� M 0
g
i
/}•�
vqe
Q-
o
cc
SSW
O
3
W f!
w --
I
j
f
i C i
to
G i :9
ao
,
I
d oU
Cc
1
!
ry
(� M 0
g
i
/}•�
vqe
Q-
o
cc
O
3
W f!
00 A
rz
tz L.,
U I}.
71
CF
rf�l
MR,
• . r ,-- as
II
I
I
� I
i LLLLSS-ddd
I rA K •i i, .•IG n' 4r 'www 1.0 rMir '.I SYWL l�-4.ro rh\K M4�odf�•nf•a��rwnurr] �[o-•i�l-�w•.�..• ,. M-�.��•�Tv�urnAr. wu q i.Wr q-wLw�ta.��RaM ]L I
II
{ I
I
I I
I I
------------------------ _______________________r
1J11-SS"ddd
..w.. ii „c.ce�+�•+.. um ,+ .m„e.� c..or.Www,m.n�ru,......-o.s.an..o-w,-+m.«.. n,cw-��.�..*r�«+.r,wr.r w.. :-n na.� 4-s.awwe«„ruw �..
I
I
a
I
I
inn
_1,
------------------------
I
I
I
y
O4r``
!
C_M
ZZ
I I
�yi �
//Iyy4��LJ
t
ti
�� $~
r
I
10
0
1
rr :. � le iid d M w.tir >rm .^M � vWo1 f.rc�ro .ri to Wn url�wY.b.r�.�il�ll <�K:u-w�...wr i w`+IJf��tl�•allw^�.w n w�� lit lren f-f�.w�idu�Kry l4
I
I
I
-_.-_______________________
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D Ciryof
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 (4) (c) and WAC 197-11-625
Addendum to Elliott Rearing/spawning Channel Mitigation LUA00-046, ECF, SME
Determination of Non -Significance (DNS)
Date of Addendum:
August 8, 2011
Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: May 25, 2000
Proponent: City of Renton, Surface Water Utility, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
WA 98057
Application File: LUA11-061, SME, CAR
Project Name: Elliott Spawning Channel Reconstruction
Proposal / Purpose of Addendum: The City of Renton issued a Determination of Non -
Significance for the construction of the Elliott Rearing/Spawning Channel Mitigation
Project. The project consisted of the following; 1) the reconstruction of a low spot in
the existing Elliott Levee to allow water to pass through a 60 -foot wide permeable levee
section; 2) the construction of a rearing/spawning channel from the reconstructed
levee section downstream through an old system of rearing ponds to connect with an
existing side channel system downstream of the levee; and 3) the planting of native
vegetation around the new channel.
The spawning channel was originally built in 2001 as part of a mitigation project to
offset the loss of sockeye salmon spawning habitat as a result of over dredging during
the lower Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. In 2006 and 2009
flooding events in the Cedar River resulted in water overtopping the banks of the
channel and scoured the spawning channel deposing silt and woody debris in the upper
900 feet. Woody debris, erosion control structures, and habitat plantings were washed
away or damaged during theses flood events. In addition, spawning gravels were
displaced and silt was deposited on the channel bottom. The permeable level was also
damaged in the floods resulting in the loss of the hydrologic connection to the Cedar
River due to sediment deposition on the waterside of the levee.
As a result of the 2006 and 2009 flooding events the spawning channel requires
reconstruction to provided sockeye salmon spawning habitat. The proposed project
would include removing silt, restoring spawning gravel with smooth river rock along the
channel bottom, and replacing large woody debris. Any riparian areas disturbed during
the work would be restored with topsoil refinishing, reseeding, mulching, and
replanting native plants on the channel banks. All work would occur within the
footprint of the original Elliott Spawning Channel. In order to re-establish the
hydrologic connection to the channel, a 10 -foot -wide backwater channel would be
constructed from the edge of the Cedar River to the levee to allow a pathway for water
to reach the permeable levee. This backwater channel would result in the removal of
approximately 310 cubic yards of sand and gravel. The overall project would result in
the removal of approximately 1,130 cubic yards of sediment of which 340 cubic yards
would be replaced with streambed gravels. A small amount of fill, 46 cubic yards,
would be placed in the channel to form the sides of the new channel. The applicant has
received funding approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
reconstruct, restore, and rehabilitate the spawning habitat within the channel to pre -
flood conditions with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish
and Wildlife Services (USFWS) concurrence. Moreover, the proposed work is the same
project evaluated under the 2000 SEPA DNS. The City of Renton is hereby issuing a
SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-6000.
This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor new information not
included in the original Determination and there are no significant environmental
impacts related to inclusion of the new information.
Location: In the flood plain, along the south side of the Cedar River
approximately at river mile 4.4
Lead Agency: City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development
Review Process: Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non -
Significance (DNS)
Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact
Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic
Development, Planning Division at (425) 430-7314.
There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated August 8, 2011 issued by the
City of Renton Environmental Review Committee.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
SIGNATURES:
Gregg ZimmbrfnavAdministrator
Public Works Department
DATE
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator DATE
Community Services Department
Mark Peterson, Administrator
Fire & Emergency Services
Alex PiXsch, Administrator
Department of Community & Economic Development
DATE
DATE
_-()Ln
City of Renton
LAND USE PERMIT
MASTER APPLICATION
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
NAME: City of Renton
ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way
CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98057
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-430-7205
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME: Same as owner
COMPANY (if applicable):
ADDRESS:
CITY: ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
CONTACT PERSON
NAME: Steve Lee (City of Renton)
COMPANY (if applicable):
ADDRESS: Same as owner
CITY: ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS:
425-430-72051 Slee@rentonwa.gov
City Of Rento
Planning DIViSfnr
JUL 2 2 101?
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
Elliot Spawning Channel Reconstruction Project
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
No address. The project is located in the Cedar River
watershed a1 about river mile (RM) 4.8, in Section 22 of
Township 23N, Range 5E. From 1-405 head east on SR 169.
Continue approximately 2 miles and then tum left (north) onto
149th Avenue SE. Turn left into Ron Regis Park and park at
the west end of the parking lot. Walk west across the
ballfields and tum right at the access road. The access road
turns into the levee leading west along the Cedar River to the
easternmost end of the spawning channel.
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
2223059141
EXISTING LAND USE(S):
The property is currently used as a spawning channel. The
spawning channel was originally constructed in 2001 to
provide additional habitat for various life history stages of
salmonids present in the Cedar River. It achieved this
purpose until the 2006 and 2009 floods when the Cedar River
overtopped the levee and scoured and deposited debris in the
spawning channel. The site is also used for passive
recreation.
PROPOSED LAND USE(S):
The proposed land use is the same as existing,
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
Residential Low Density
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
(if applicable). NA
EXISTING ZONING:
RC -Resource Conservation
PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NA
SITE AREA (in square feet):
21,330 square feet
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
DEDICATED: NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
NA
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable): NA
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NA
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA
C:\Documents and Settings\slee\Local Settings\Tempomry Intemet Files\Content.Outlook\2YHO03TG\LUPmastempp_FILLED OUT.doc
PkOJECT INFORMAZ
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA
NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if
applicable): NA
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW
PROJECT (if applicable): NA
'ION continued
PROJECT VALUE: $750,000
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE
✓ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO
✓ FLOOD HAZARD AREA _entire site_ sq. ft.
✓ GEOLOGIC HAZARD _entire site_ sq. ft.
HighSeismic Severity
Moderate to High Liquefaction Susceptibility
HABITAT CONSERVATION I sq. ft.
✓ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES—entire site_ sq. ft.
✓ WETLANDS sq. ft.
Project is within the 50' buffer of a Category 2
Wetland (City of Renton CAO). Only temporary
impacts to the buffer will result. No impacts to the
wetland will result.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included
SITUATE IN THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION _22_, TOWNSHIP _23N_, RANGE _5E_, IN THE CITY
OF RENTON, KIN_G COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Name/s) Steve Lee , declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved in this application or _X_ the authorized
representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein
contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
7 1 et
Signature of Owner resentative Date Signature of Owner/Representative Date
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that) know or have satisfactory evidence that `Ti n,
signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hismerltheir 1
uses and purpose mentioned in the instrument.
711gIaai!
Dated
Notary(Print): Aw%7Q..v—
My appointment expires: D- \q `kit _
CM,ocumems and SettingsWee\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.Outlook\2YHO03TG\LUPmasterapp_ lLLED OUI'.doc - 2 -
PkOJECT INFORMATION (continued)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That portion of government lot 3 in the northeast quarter of Section 22, Township 23 north, Range 5 east,
W.M., lying northerly of the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way.
SITUATE IN THE _NE QUARTER OF SECTION —22—, TOWNSHIP _23N—, RANGE _5E_, IN THE
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
CADocuments and SettingAslecTocal Settingffemporary lntemet Files\Content.Outlook\2YHO03TG\LUPmasterapp_ lLLED OUT.doc - 3 -
e
PhANNING DIVISION
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL RE•QUIRE.MENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
���...M�'t''I'ski»::€:�::::;.�:��€���i�
Calculations
Construction Mitigation Description 2AN64
��•:;:;�:y:.i��r:•. ;::'t7J.- '.��:; i:•�.:: is
,,``•�,�.i � �% 'i'i'i'i�iii'i"�`ii
.Ill'.' 44i►ii i i ii ii iii i i E•:•:•::•:•:•:•::::::•
'i
i Ni�:: i:;:iiiii'i�:ii iiii�
Density Worksheet 4
W . , lan .z
Drainage Report 2
�����'`�`�`�'���•�``i�lti`�ttur2�li'`'�`'=��`��=€is����������ii��'�'
Environmental Checklist 4
����'���� .(� . . tom:: _:`�:��:�.•:
Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4
:.....
Floor Plans 3 ANI:' 4
Grading Plan, Conceptual 2
�I
SaW}
Habitat Data Report 4
QLD
Irrigation Plano
Landscape Plan, Conceptual4
Legal Description 4 .
:`� . �is�si<li�`'� • `t��� ��ortdlt)€iris`°���`�
��
Master Application Form 4.On
��f..��1 �! . .fit'... 4�� �•:rt�
Neighborhood Detail Map 4
22 2911: -
:�t�l . :l•�tzt�'�°s/H� • • d ...i'.E� . ds� � . i�ili��l��i
..� •• .•.gyp.•.•.•..,•,..•...•••........ .�..•........�...
Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4
�`
i';;:;'`'y?'s'•;l�;';`'`
Rea
This requirement may be waived by.
1. Property Services PROJECTNAME:
2. Public Works Plan Review
3. Building DATE:
4. Planning
R%CED\Data%Forma-TemplabWSelt-Help HandoutsnanningLWaM ratsubmlltatrega.)ds 0WW
OVEM
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR, LAND USE -APPLICATIONS
Plat Name Reservation 4
•`:i� iii::2:isisisi:Ea:i:i:i:i:iii�i�i:iiE:iiii:i
.•�,...•.�.•.•.•.•.•...�i .. • •u:.,.:.•.•,•.:..•.:: , : i' Si=::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::Eii2iic:i;;c;i`iiiii:i�i�s�;�iiiii
tPublic Works Approval Letterz
Screening Detail 4
Stream or Lake Study, Standard 4 V&r j f;.
:...tn'..
ONO I
> .4.
Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4
Title Report or Plat Certificate 4
i ci fi::l�li
t1raffic StudyOR
2
Urban Design Regulations.Analysis4
777: 77
Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4
Wetlands Report/Delineation 4
Applicant Agreement Statement '2AND3
Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Of
Lease Agreement, Draft 2 ANN s
Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3
Map of View Area 2 AND 3 ?Oil
Photosimulations 2.4ND3
This requirement may be walved by:
1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: �! b~�' S C"l 461 rb
2. Public Works Plan Review
3. Building DATE:/11
4. Planning I;' . 4
H:ICMDat kFamia-Templatos%etf-Heap Handouts4PtanningiNDhmrofaubmlftlregsxls OW09
--,rI /."
City
Of
p/4�0in9 Denton
Ision
PROJECT NARRATIVE JUt 22 zi,
Elliot Spawning Channel Reconstruction Projectec
PROJECT NAME, SIZE AND LOCATION D
Elliot Spawning Channel Reconstruction Project; Site area includes approximately 26,780 square feet of
the Elliot Spawning Channel, and approximately 1,919 square feet of the Cedar River. The project is*«
located in Section 22 of Township 23N, Range 5E. From I-405, head east on SR 169. Continue r'a
approximately 2 miles and then turn left (north) onto 149th Avenue SE. Turn left into Ron Regis Park and tV 1t{
park at the west end of the parking lot. Walk west across the ballfields and turn right at the access road.
The access road turns into the levee leading west along the Cedar River to the easternmost end of the
spawning channel.
ZONING DESIGNATION
RC -Resource Conservation
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK
The project is a spawning channel maintenance project. The channel was originally built in 2001 as part
of a mitigation project to offset the loss of sockeye salmon spawning habitat as a result of over -dredging
in the lower river. The overdredging resulted during the USACE's dredging of the lower 1.25 miles of the
Cedar River as part of the lower Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. The channel
successfully provided additional habitat for various life history stages of salmonids present in the Cedar
River until the 2006 and 2009 flooding events when the Cedar River overtopped its banks and scoured
and deposited silt and woody debris in the upper 900 feet of the spawning channel. Woody debris, erosion
control structures, and habitat plantings were either washed away or damaged during these flood events.
In addition, spawning gravels were displaced and silt was deposited on the channel bottom. The original
design also included a permeable segment of levee. This segment of levee was also damaged in the floods
and the hydrologic connection to the Cedar River was altered due to sediment deposition on the waterside
of the levee. The project will include removing silt, restoring spawning gravel with smooth river rock
along the channel bottom, and replacing large woody debris. In addition, any riparian areas disturbed
during the work will be restored with topsoil refinishing, reseeding, mulching, and replanting native
plants on the channel banks. Until riparian planting matures, erosion control measures are required.
Materials such as straw bales, filter fabric, and sand bags will be incorporated. The City of Renton
(applicant) has received funding approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
reconstruct, restore, and rehabilitate the spawning habitat within the channel to pre -flood conditions.
All activities will occur within the 100 -year floodplain of the Cedar River, and within the footprint of the
existing/original Elliot- Spawning Channel. See attached drawings for specific locations of the project
elements.
CHANNEL MODIFICATION: Repair/reconstruction of approximately 900 feet of the Elliot Spawning
Channel, and replacement of spawning channel gravel. Since the permeable levee was first constructed,
sand and gravel bars have built up against the levee, disconnecting the mainstem Cedar River from the New
permeable levee. To re-establish the hydrologic connection, a 10 -foot -wide backwater channel will be
constructed from the edge of the Cedar River to the levee to allow a pathway for water to reach the
permeable levee. �J
Elliot Spawning Channel Reconstruction Project 558-1779-038
Project Narrative I July 2011
P
DREDGING AND FILLING: Approximately 1,130 cubic yards of sediment will be removed from the
channel to re-establish the original channel grade to a free-flowing channel during spawning periods.
Approximately 340 cubic yards of the dredged material will be replaced with streambed gravels to
reestablish spawning habitat. In certain places the existing channel is wider than the new channel. A small
amount of fill 46 cu! bic y3�ds be placed in the existing channel to form the sides of the new channel.
Approximate) 310 ccubic yards o sand and gravel will be removed from the Cedar River to create the
backwater channe .
LEVEE REPAIR: The project includes repair of a 100 -foot -long section of the Elliot Levee located at the
head of the spawning channel. The repair will entail placement of approximately 185 cubic yards of
heavy loose riprap at the base of the levee. This permeable material will allow water from the Cedar River
to flow through the base of the levee to provide a source of hydrology to the spawning channel in
accordance with the original design. The permeable levee rock will be sized to allow flow through it and
will be heavy enough to reduce the risk of damage during future flood events. Approximately
70 cubic yards of 2"-8" minus quarry rock and 30 cubic yards of quarry spalls will be placed on top of the
permeable layer of the levee to re-establish the gravel road. All placement of materials will occur outside
of the Cedar River ordinary high water line (see drawings).
FISH REMOVAL: The downstream end of the work area will be netted off to separate the lower portion
of the spawning channel with the construction area. If there is water in the construction zone, a fisheries
biologist will make two passes of the site with a net to relocate fish to the reach downstream of the
construction area. During dewatering activities of surface water, a fisheries biologist will be on the site to
dip net and relocate any stranded fish. It is expected that the channel will be dry and dewatering will only
be required for groundwater flows.
BASIS FOR SHORELINE EXEMPTION REQUEST
The project is repair of an existing development that was constructed to improve fish habitat.
ANTICIPATED DATES OF WORK
Start date: September 15, 2011
End date: August 30, 2012
OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED
City of Renton — Grade & Fill Permit Exemption
Shoreline Exemption
Critical Areas Exemption
US Army Corps of Engineers — Section 404 Nationwide #3
Washington Department offish and Wildlife— Hydraulic Project Approval (H PA)
Washington Department of Ecology — Section 401 Water Quality Certification (subject to
conditions through the USACE)
Elliot Spawning Channel Reconstruction Project
Project Narrative
558-1779-738
July 2011
R
CURRENT AND PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE
The proposed use of the property will remain the same as existing. The property is currently used as a
spawning channel. The spawning channel was originally constructed in 2001 to provide additional habitat
for various life history stages of salmonids present in the Cedar River. It achieved this purpose until the
2006 and 2009 floods when the Cedar River overtopped the levee and scoured and deposited debris in the
spawning channel. The site is also used for passive recreation.
SPECIAL SITE FEATURES
Project work will occur within the 50 -foot buffer of a Category 2 wetland (City of Renton CAO). Only
temporary impacts to the wetland buffer will occur. No impacts to the wetland will occur. The project
site is also within the ordinary high water mark of a stream, a Zone 2 Aquifer Protection Area, a Flood
Hazard Area, and within High Seismic Severity and Moderate to High Liquefaction Susceptibility areas.
SOIL TYPE AND DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
The spawning channel consists of sand and gravel.
CONSTRUCTION COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE
$750,000
EXCAVATION QUANTITIES AND TYPES
DREDGING (Cedar River): A backwater channel will be excavated to hydraulically connect the river to
the reconstructed permeable levee in order to re-establish a positive flow path through the levee.
Approximately 310 cubic yards of sand and gravel will be removed to create the backwater channel. The
channel will be excavated to elevation 80 into the Cedar River. Based on river gauge data, the water
elevation in the Cedar River is typically around 80.5 feet during the summer months; therefore, there
should only be a minor amount of channel excavation into the wetted area of the river. Sandbag dams and
fish exclusion nets will be set up around the excavation area during construction to contain sediment and
exclude fish from the work zone. The excavated material will be used to line the spawning channel if
suitable; or if unsuitable, the material will be disposed off-site.
DREDGING (Spawning Channel): Approximately 1,130 cubic yards of sand and sediment will be
removed from the existing channel to re-establish the original channel profile. Approximately 2 feet of
material below the finished grade will be removed in preparation for the placement of streambed
sediment. The material will be disposed off-site. The ends of the channel will be blocked with sandbag
dams during construction to isolate the channel from the Cedar River and its side channel.
LOG JAM REMOVAL: There are two locations along the existing spawning channel where log debris
from floods has blocked the spawning channel. A portion of these jams will be removed to ensure fish
passage once the channel has been restored. Logs that are removed will be placed outside the channel and
used for riparian habitat to the extent possible.
FILL QUANTITIES AND TYPES
SOIL: In certain places the existing channel is wider than the new channel. A small amount of fill
(46 cubic yards) will be placed in the existing channel to form the sides of the new channel. The fill will
likely be the material excavated from elsewhere in the channel.
Elliot Spawning Channel Reconstruction Project
Project Narrative
558-1779-038
July 2011
LWD: The large woody debris will be from coniferous trees and will be either with or without rootwads
as shown on the plans. The logs will be approximately 12 to 18 inches in diameter. Some of the existing
logs may be re -used.
STREAMBED SEDIMENT: Approximately 340 cubic yards of the dredged material will be replaced
with streambed gravels. The streambed sediment will be used to line the bottom of the new spawning
channel. The material will meet the standard specification provided in the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.
Streambed cobbles and boulders may also be used to create channel diversity and habitat.
SANDBAG DAMS: Sandbag dams (or other equivalent methods) will temporarily be placed within the
spawning channel and the side channel connecting the spawning channel to the Cedar River. The dams
will be used to prevent water from the Cedar River from entering the work zone during summer storm
events. The dams will also contain any groundwater that upwells during the channel excavation process
within the limits of construction. The dams will be removed once the channel has been stabilized and is
ready to be reconnected with the Cedar River.
LEVEE REPAIR: The project includes repair of a 100 -foot -long section of the levee located at the head
of the spawning channel. The repair will entail replacement of approximately 185 cubic yards of heavy
loose riprap at the base of the levee. This permeable material will allow water from the Cedar River to
flow through the base of the levee to provide a source of hydrology to the spawning channel in
accordance with the original design. The permeable levee rock will be sized to allow flow through it and
will be heavy enough to reduce the risk of damage during future flood events. Approximately
70 cubic yards of 2"-8" minus quarry rock and 30 cubic yards of quarry spalls will be placed on top of the
permeable layer of the levee to re-establish the gravel road. All placement of these materials will occur
outside of the Cedar River ordinary high water line.
TREES TO BE REMOVED
None
DISTANCE TO OHWM
The project is reconstruction of a fish spawning channel. Accordingly, all finished project work will
occur within the ordinary high water mark of the spawning channel and the Cedar River.
NATURE OF EXISTING SHORELINE
The project is located in a spawning channel along the left bank of the Cedar River. It is separated from
the main Cedar River channel by a small levee. The project is vegetated primarily with deciduous trees,
shrubs, and invasive weeds. There are several large woody debris piles on the site, and much of the site
has silt and sand deposition from Cedar River flooding events. The spawning channel receives flow from
groundwater and the Cedar River. The surrounding environment includes a city park, regional trail, and
golf course. There are currently no structures on the property.
Elliot Spawning Channel Reconstruction Project 558-1779-038
Project Narrative 4 Ju!}' 2011
ENGINEERING . PLANNING . ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMFI
p� tk O-�
Date: July 20, 201 l nnin90i@S�`'n
To: Steve Lee; City of Renton
�2
From: Jenna Friebel 21��j
Subject: Flood Hazard Technical Memorandum e
cc: Permit File �D�
�Lf
Project Number: 558-1779-038
Project Name: Elliot Spawning Channel
FLOODPLAIN ANALYSES
rtfload pyo m
The proposed project is located within the FEMA Zone AE 100 -year floodplain of the Cedar River; the
project is located outside the floodway. The project is located between FEMA Cross Section BQ and
BBV/DC.
As part of this project, a hydraulic analysis was performed to determine whether or not the Cedar River
could be a source of flow to the spawning channel at the three low flow values established in the previous
section. An existing HEC -RAS model, originally created by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants for a 2003
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood study, was updated and used for this analysis.
This model was used to verify water surface elevations at low -flow and design flows.
The project was designed to avoid impacts to the floodplain and floodway. The historic levee and the
spawning channel back will be restored to the original conditions to the extent possible with FEMA, state,
and City funding. The levee will be constructed to an elevation of 87.0, which is level with the historic
levee elevation. In addition, the project will results in a net cut of approximately 750 cubic yards of
material from the spawning channel. An additional 310 cubic yards of sand and gravel will be removed
from the Cedar River to create a backwater channel. This will increase the amount of floodplain storage
on the site and should have little to no effect on fldod stages in the Cedar River.
EXIST. CHANNEL
ROCK EDGE—
DEWATERING PIT
LAND APPLY—
LEVEL
SPREADER-"
WETLAND
BUFFER
APPROXIMATE EXIST.
CHANNEL CENTERLINE 1_
EXIST. 6' HIGH
CHAINLINK FENCE
LEGEND:
WETLAND ---- — -- --- WETLAND BUFFER
ImTEMP. WETLAND WETLAND BOUNDARY
BUFFER IMPACT—'""""—"—ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
-----c-----c— CUT LINE {DAYLIGHT)
-----r-----r— FILL LINE (DAYLIGHT)
— — — -- EXISTING CHANNEL CENTER LINE
— — — PROPOSED CENTERLINE CHANNEL
�® EXISTING RIPRAP
c======== EXISTING LEVEE
SANDBAG DAM
PURPOSE: TO REPAIR THE EXISTING SPAWNING
CHANNEL ADJACENT TO THE CEDAR
RIVER
DATUM: VERT: NAVD 88 (CORPS)
HORIZ: NAD 83/91 (CORPS)
BASIN: CEDARISAMMAMISH
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
CITY OF RENTON
TEMPORARY EROSION
CONTROL
FISH EXCLUSION NET n
SANDBAG DAM (PLACED AT
ENTRANCE FROM RIVER) N
HIGH WATER
TEMPORARY
ACCESS
ROAD
LIMITS OF
ILIPerT
w
City of Renton
Planning Division
JUL 2 2 2011
1RcE#V
ED
NOTES
IMPACTS WITHIN OHW ARE
COUNTED AS STREAM IMPACTS AND
NOT AS WETLAND BUFFER IMPACTS.
SEE TABLE Be OF JARPA.
PROPOSED: ELLIOT SPAWNING CHANNEL
0 80 LOCATION: KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
S. 22, T. 23 N. R. 5E, W. M.
SCALE I"- W FROM: LATITUDE - 47'28'10"
LONGITUDE - 122108151"
APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON. WA TO: LATITUDE - 47'28'10"
LONGITUDE - 122'09'06'
DATE: JULY 2011 SHEET: 2 of 10
Parametax 558,177903&07(051 5/11 IBI
A
0 N 600
APPROXIMATE
SCALE IN FEET
Source: King County WAP - Property Information (http llwww.metrokc gov1GIS1iMAP). 5/1212011
%,sty ut i�tr�wrl
Planning Division
JUL 2 2 1011
Elliot Spawning Channel
D Neighborhood Detail Map
WED
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of,,,
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT��..:'
REQUEST FOR CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION
(FOR SEPA EXEMPT ACTIVITIES) C11y Of Rentor,
+On
Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 JUL 2 2 2011
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
Applicant Name Project Name mr1 N"imtrgU
City of Renton Elliot Spawning Channel Reconstruction 425-430-7205
(Contact: Steve Lee)
Parcel Number Project Address
2223059141 (No address)
Brief Description of Project
The project is a spawning channel maintenance project. The channel was originally built in 2001 as part of a
mitigation project to offset the loss of sockeye salmon spawning habitat as a result of over -dredging in the lower
river. The overdredging resulted during the USACE's dredging of the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River as part of
the lower Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. The channel successfully provided additional
habitat for various life history stages of salmonids present in the Cedar River until the 2006 and 2009 flooding
events when the Cedar River overtopped its banks and scoured and deposited silt and woody debris in the upper
900 feet of the spawning channel. Woody debris, erosion control structures, and habitat plantings were either
washed away or damaged during these flood events. In addition, spawning gravels were displaced and silt was
deposited on the channel bottom. The original design also included a permeable segment of levee. This segment
of levee was also damaged in the floods and the hydrologic connection to the Cedar River was altered due to
sediment deposition on the waterside of the levee. The project will include removing silt, restoring spawning
gravel with smooth river rock along the channel bottom, and replacing large woody debris. In addition, any
riparian areas disturbed during the work will be restored with topsoil refinishing, reseeding, mulching, and
replanting native plants on the channel banks. Until riparian planting matures, erosion control measures are
required. Materials such as straw bales, filter fabric, and sand bags will be incorporated. The City of Renton
(applicant) has received funding approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
reconstruct. restore.'and rehabilitate the soawnine habitat within the channel to pre -flood conditions.
Type of Critical Area
Stream/wetland buffer
C,A—
® Work Occurs in ® Work Occurs in
Critical Area Buffer
PURPOSE: Exempt activities provided with a letter of exemption from the Development Services Administrator
may intrude into a critical area or required buffer (Subject to any conditions or requirements provided by the
Administrator).
APPLICABILITY OF EXEMPTIONS: The following is a general list of activities that may be exempt from the critical
areas regulations. More specific descriptions of the activities are contained in the Critical Areas Regulations. Some
of the listed activities may not be exempt in certain critical areas. The Planning Division will evaluate you request
according to the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations in RMC 4-3-050C, J, L, and N.
I AM REQUESTING A CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES:
® Conservation, Enhancement, and Related Activities:
Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, and other wildlife
Enhancement activities as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC.'
Any critical area, buffer restoration, or other mitigation activities that have been approved by the
City
❑ Research and Site Investigation:
• Nondestructive education and research
• Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs, etc.
❑ Agricultural, Harvesting, and Vegetation Management:
• Harvesting wild foods
• Existing/Ongoing agricultural activities 1
• Removal of dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or dangerous ground cover or hazardous trees
which have been certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist
❑ Surface Water Alteration:
• New surface water discharges provided the discharge meets the requirements of the Storm and
Surface Water Drainage Regulations 12 3
• New or modified regional stormwater facilities 12 3
• Flood hazard reduction 1346
❑ Roads, Parks, Public and Private Utilities:
• Relocation of Existing Utilities out of Critical Area and Buffer
• Maintenance, operation, and repair of existing parks, trails, roads, facilities, and utilities 12
• Installation, construction, replacement, or operation of utilities, traffic control, and walkways
within existing improved right -if -way or easement 12
• Modification of existing utilities and streets by 10% or less 12 s
• • Management and essential tree removal for public or private utilities, roads and public parks 1
❑ Wetland Disturbance, Modification, and Removal:
• Any activity in small Category 3 wetlands 1 2 34 5
• Temporary disturbances of a wetland due to construction activities that do not include permanent
filling 12 3 s
❑ Maintenance and Construction for Existing Uses and Facilities:
• Remodeling, replacing, or removing existing structures 12
• Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private uses and facilities where
no alteration of the critical area and required buffer or additional fill materials will be placed 1 2
• Construction activity connected with an existing single family residence or garage, provided that no
portion of the new work occurs closer to the critical area or required buffers than the existing
structure 12
• Existing activities which have not been changed, expanded or altered provided they comply with
the applicable requirements of chapter 4-10 RMC 1
❑ Emergency.Activities:
• Removal of trees or ground cover by a City department, agency, public, or private utility in an
emergency situation
• Public interest emergency use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials by governmental
organizations in an Aquifer Protection Area
ADDITIONAL PERMITS: Additional permits from other agencies may be required. It is the applicant's
responsibility to obtain these other approvals. Information regarding these other requirements may be found at
bttp.//ar)ps.egy.wa.gov/opas/
ri
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that to the best of
my knowledge the above informaiian is true and complete.
Applicant Signature: Date: 7 L.2"/�
F3�, ' r ss�l. d Y.t)) -As• r - a` y�v s � `" .x4� �� t f i,.� - f � ,i s' 3 c- 7 •= �' `' ¢♦ � ° s .�'Z 'r P - r
.[ R�-4y���FiF{:t S r%-'] LT3^ i•+ IH- .P ��,Yf��� � -;. �'A�si ��M1RL {� Y �n � I'ii" y�y•.! er� L1�Y�1
�if;,r �:a• Y YT' �. r3� , L,..� ,�.`4 * r ,. ix :r. �-,^"�"Y �•�.,, , .r,.. � �y r��.�. .i: "{_L-irt. �- as. ^cCu t t�"
�7� rrt=�iCL:::. y��'�..�.�'�*�t. .�astr�r`t�;.:r't'?_a_��r.�i•.r,M;:'�.��t��t;a:!'i�:-. �i'� �.��t[r":�:f?;w. ' �-,:�a,.!�-. �t�rR;-...xn�>t!��?f��`� ] �e;
❑ Exemption Granted ❑ Exemption Denied
C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director Date
Planning Division
Conditions of Approval:
Exemption does not apply in Aquifer Protection Areas
zExemption does not apply in Flood Hazard Areas
3Exempt! on does not apply in Geologic Hazard Areas
4Exemption does not apply in Habitat Conservation Areas
5Exemption does not apply in Streams and Lakes: Class z to 4
6Exemption does not apply in Wetlands
PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLI
r415,
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231
PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: ��S%deD
D
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires a overnmental
agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable
significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is
to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to
reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide
whether an EIS is required.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal.
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of
your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly,
with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In
most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project
plans without the need to hire, experts. if you really do not know the answer, or if a question
does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers
to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark
designations. • Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental
agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a
period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help
describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this
checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably
related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered
"does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT
ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the
references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be
read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
- 1 _ 06/09
CADocuments and SettingslsleelLocal Settingsk temporary Internet FileslContent.OutlooklZYHD03TG1ElliotSC_SEPA_EnvChklst2011.doc
SEpA
-z-
C:11]ocuments and SettingsWeellocal Settings7emporary Intemet Files\Content.Outlookl2YHO03TG1ElliotSC_SEPA_EnvChktst2011.doc
06/09
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Elliot Spawning Channel Reconstruction Project
2. Name of applicant:
City of Renton
3. Address -and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Steve Cee/Project Manager/1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057/425-430-7205
4. Date checklist prepared:
July 15, 2011
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Renton
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
September 15, 2011 to August 30, 2012
7. Do you have any pians for future additions, expansion, or'further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
The City of Renton Surface Water Utility will be required to some monitoring of
spawning salmon in the channel.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
• Stream Impacts Technical Memorandum
• Wetland Impacts Technical Memorandum
• Biological Assessment Form (2007), Individual and Specific Project Information
File (SPIF) Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) for Washington State
(2010), Section 7 ESA Addendum Letter (2011)
The following were prepared for the original project:
• Biological Assessment (USA CE)
• Environmental Assessment (USACE)
• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Design Memorandum (USACE)
• Salmon Rearing Channel Production Analysis (R2 Resource Consultants)
• Additional Mitigation Alternative Analysis Reconnaissance Report (HDR)
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
Does not apply
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if
known.
- 3 - 06109
Mocuments and SettingslsleelLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook12YH003TG4ElliotSC_SEPA_EnvChklst2D11.doc
Section 7 Consultation (USFWS & NMFS)
Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 (USAGE)
• Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Section 401 Water Quality
Ceftification (Ecology - subject to conditions through the USACE)
• HPA (WDFW)
• Shoreline Exemption (City of Renton)
• Critical Areas Exemption (City of Renton)
• Grade and Fill Permit Exemption (City of Renton)
The following were needed/obtained for the original project:
• Finding of No Significant Impact (USACE)
• USACE 404(b)1 /Section 10 Equivalency Evaluation (USACE)
• Section 7 Consultation (USFWS & NMFS)
• HPA (WDFW)
• Floodplain development (City of Renton)
• Critical Areas Ordinance (City of Renton)
• Shoreline Exemption (City of Renton)
• Ecology Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Ecology - subject to conditions
through the USACE)
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the
size of the project and site.
The project is a spawning channel maintenance project. An Environmental Checklist
for the original project was prepared May 10, 2000. The channel was originally built in
1001 as part of a mitigation project to offset the loss of sockeye salmon spawning
habitat as a result of over -dredging in, the lower river. The overdredging resulted
during the USACE's dredging of the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River as part of the
lower Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction Project. The channel
successfully provided additional habitat for various life history stages of salmonids
present in the Cedar River until the 2009 flood event when the Cedar River overtopped
its banks and scoured and deposited silt and woody debris in upper 900 feet of the
spawning channel. Woody debris, erosion control structures, and habitat plantings
were either washed away or damaged during these flood events. In addition,
spawning gravels were displaced and silt was deposited on the channel bottom. The
original design also included a permeable segment of levee. This segment of levee was
also damaged in the floods and the hydrologic connection to the Cedar River was
altered due to sediment deposition on the waterside of the levee.
The project will include removing silt, restoring spawning gravel with smooth river
rock along the channel bottom, and replacing large woody debris. There are two
locations along the existing spawning channel where log debris from floods has
blocked the spawning channel. A portion of these jams will be removed to ensure fish
passage once the channel has been restored. togs that are removed will be placed
outside the channel and used for riparian habitat to the extent possible. In addition,
any.riparian areas disturbed during the work will be restored with topsail refinishing,
reseeding, mulching, and replanting native plants on the channel banks. Until riparian
planting matures, erosion control measures are required. Materials such as straw
bales, filter fabric, and sand bags will be incorporated. The City of Renton (applicant)
has received funding approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to reconstruct, restore, and rehabilitate the spawning habitat within the
channel to pre flood conditions with NMFS and USFWS concurrence already.
- 4 - 06109
CADocuments and Set ingstleelLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FIIeslContent.Outlook12YHO03TCIEIIiotSC_SEPA_EnvChkist2611.doc
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section,
township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide
the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity
map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans
required by the agency, you are -not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans
submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The project is located in the floodplain along the left bank at RM 4.4 on the Cedar
River In the City of Renton, WA, just north of Maplewood Golf Course and northwest
of Ron Regis Park. The site area includes approximately 19,300 square feet of the
Elliot Spawning Channel, and approximately 2,030 square feet of the Cedar River. It is
located in Section 22, Township 23 N, Range 05 E, W.M.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH
a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other Side channel in.floodplain
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)
Existing slope is approximately 30%. All graded slopes will be between 2:1 and
3:1.
C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel,
peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland.
Floodplain deposits
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
For this reconstruction effort, approximately 1,130 cubic yards of mostly fine
sediment will be removed from the channel to re-establish the original channel
grade to a free-flowing channel during spawning periods. Approximately 340
cubic yards of the dredged material will be replaced with streambed gravels to
reestablish spawning habitat. This material will meet the standard
specification provided In the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction. Streambed cobbles and boulders may also be used to create
channel diversity and habitat.
In certain places the existing channel Is wider than the new channel. A small
amount of fill (46 cubic yards) will be placed In the existing channel to form the
- 5 - 06/09
C:10ocuments and SettingsWeelLocal SeUingMTemporary Internet ReslContent.Outlook\2YHO03TGOliotSC_SEPA_EnvChklst2otl.doc
sides of the new channel. The fill will likely be the material excavated from
elsewhere in the channel.
A backwater channel will also be excavated in the Cedar River to hydraulically
connect the river to the reconstructed permeable levee. Approximately 310
cubic yards of sand and gravel will be removed to create the backwater
channel. Twenty-seven pieces of large woody debris will also be placed in the
spawning channel.
The project includes repair of a 100 -foot -long section of the levee located at
the head of the spawning channel. The repair will entail replacement of
approximately 185 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap at the base of the levee.
This permeable material will allow water from the Cedar River to flow through
the base of the levee to provide a source of hydrology to the spawning channel
in accordance with the original design. The permeable levee rock will be sized
to allow flow through it and will be'heavy enough to reduce the risk of damage
during future flood events. Approximately 70 cubic yards of 2"-8" minus quarry
rock and 30 cubic yards of quarry spalls will be placed on top of the permeable
layer of the levee to re-establish the gravel road. All placement of these
materials will occur outside of the Cedar River ordinary high water line.
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally
describe.
Best management practices (BMPs) will be used during construction to ensure
that impacts to the aquatic environment are avoided and/or minimized. The
Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines (ISPG) will be followed, work will
occur during the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
work window to the extent possible, and water control structures for the
spawning channel will minimize the potential for sediment flushing when the
spawning channel is reactivated.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Does not apply
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth,
if any:
BMPs will be implemented for spill control and erosion and sediment control.
Measures used may Include mulching, matting, and netting; filter fabric
fencing; and surface water interceptor swales • and ditches. Significant long-
term water quality impacts are not expected if erosion control BMPs, and spill
containment measures are properly implemented, monitored, and maintained
during construction. A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan will
be Implemented to minimize and control pollution and erosion from
stormwater.
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
.automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities
if known.
- 6 - 06109
C:%Documents and SettingstleMLocal Settingffemporary Intemet Files\Content.Outlook~2YHO03TG1EIllotSC_SEPA_EnvChklst2011.doc
During construction, machinery and equipment will emit a minor amount of
exhaust.
Air emissions post -construction at the site are not expected to change from
existing conditions.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any:
Equipment will have mufflers and exhaust systems in accordance with State
and Federal standards.
3. WATER
a. Surface Water:
1) is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or
river it flows into.
Streams — The Cedar River and two associated channels are located within the
project boundary. The primary associated channel is the Elliot Spawning
Channel, which is where the majority of the work will occur. This channel runs
along the left bank of the Cedar River and is separated from the main Cedar
River channel by a small levee. The other associated channel is located at the
west end of the project, approximately station 0+60, and connects the Cedar
River with the Elliot Spawning Channel during high flows. The Cedar River is a
Class 1 (City of Renton rating)/Type S water (Washington Department of
Natural Resources water typing classification system).
Wetland — One 0.03 acre wetland (Wetland 1) was identified In the project
boundary._ It is located north of the Maplewood Golf Course and southwest of
the Elliot Spawning Channel, near the west end of the channel. This wetland is
classified as palustrine scrub -shrub (PSS) (USFWS classification) and riverine
(HGM classification). It is rated a Class 2 (City of Renton rating)/Category Il!
(Washington Department of Ecology rating). This wetland is in a depression in
the floodplain of the Cedar River, frequently flooded by the Elliot Spawning
Channel and Cedar River. No inlet or outlet is present, except during flood
events.
2) Will the project require any work over; in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
The project is a spawning channel maintenance project. The project will
include removing silt, restoring spawning gravel with smooth river rock along
the channel bottom, and replacing large woody debris. In addition, any
riparian areas disturbed during the work will be restored with topsoil
refinishing, reseeding, mulching, and replanting native plants on the channel
_ 7 _ 08/09
CADocuments and Settingslslee\Local Settings\Temporary Internet FileslContentOutlookl2YHO03TG`EIIIotSC_SEPA_EnvChklst2gl f.doc
banks. Therefore, nearly all of the work will occur within the ordinary high
water of the Elliot Spawning Channel, the Cedar River, and within 200 feet of
the Cedar River. Additionally, there will be temporary impacts to the buffer of
Wetland 1, which overlaps the riparian buffer of the Cedar River and Elliot
Spawning Channel. No impacts will occur to the wetland.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
For this -reconstruction effort, approximately 1,130 cubic yards of mostly fine
sediment will be removed from the channel to re-establish the original channel
grade to a free-flowing channel during spawning periods. Approximately 340
cubic yards of the dredged material will be replaced with streambed gravels to
reestablish spawning habitat. This material will meet the standard
specification provided in the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal
Construction. Streambed cobbles and boulders may also be used to create
channel diversity and habitat.
in certain places the existing channel is wider than the new channel. A small
amount of fill (46 cubic yards) will be placed in the existing channel to form the
sides of the new channel. The fill will likely be the material excavated from
elsewhere in the channel.
A backwater channel will also be excavated in the Cedar River to hydraulically
connect the river to the reconstructed permeable levee. Approximately 310
cubic yards of sand and gravel will be removed to create the backwater
channel. Twenty-seven pieces of large woody debris will also be placed in the
spawning channel.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No surface water withdrawals or diversions will be needed for this project.
However, sandbag dams (or other equivalent methods) and fish exclusion nets
will temporarily be placed within the spawning channel, the side channel
connecting the spawning channel to the Cedar River, and the Cedar River. The
dams will be used to prevent water from the Cedar River from entering the
work zone during summer storm events. The dams will also contain any
groundwater that upwells during the channel excavation process within the
limits of construction. The dams will be removed once the channel has been
stabilized and is ready to be reconnected with the Cedar River. Any turbid
water encountered will be pumped out of the work area and dispersed in
adjacent vegetation.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so, note location on the
site plan.
Yes.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters?
If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Does not apply.
- 8 - 06109
CMocuments and SettingsWeO-ocal SettingslTemporary Intemet FileslContentOutlook12YH603TG\ElliotSC_SEPA EnvChkfst2U11.doc
b. Ground Water:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Does not apply.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve.
Does not apply.
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection
and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe.
Storm water runoff from the resource conservation area will enter the
reconstructed channel and subsequently flow directly into the Cedar River.
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? if so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: aide maple, aspen,the — black cottonwood
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs — salmonberry, Indian plum, willow, snowberry
grass
pasture
crop or grain
X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
_X other types of vegetation -- Invasive species including Japanese knotweed,
reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Vegetation described in 4.a may all be affected during construction.
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
- g - 06109
CADocuments and Settings%sleelLocal Settings7emporary Internet Files%Content.Otdtook%2YH003TG%ElliotSC_SEPA EnvChklst2OI tdoc
No known species of threatened or endangered plants are known to be on or
near the project site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Any riparian areas disturbed during the work will be restored with topsoil
refinishing, reseeding, mulching, and by replanting native plants on the
channel banks. Species to be planted on the sides of the spawning channel are
pacific willow (Salix lucida) and Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis). Additionally, the
channel access and road restoration areas will be planted with native riparian
buffer trees and shrubs. See Planting Plans (Plan Sheets LS -1 through LS -3).
S. ANIMALS
Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: Fh—a-w-Q, heron, E& lsongbirdsother-waterfowl,
Mammals: dee bear, elk, lbeave other - cougar, muskrat, coyote, raccoon,
Easterngra s ulrrel opossum, cottontail rabbit, skunk, various rodents.
Fish: bass, almonrout herring, shellfish, other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
The species listed as threatened or endangered that may occur in the vicinity of
the project area are Chinook salmon, Puget Sound ESU (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscho), steelhead trout, Coastal/Puget Sound DPS (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Chinook salmon and steelhead
utilize the mainstem Cedar River for spawning, rearing, and migratory
transport. Bull trout have not been observed in the vicinity of the proposed
project, but they may occur.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain
The site Is likely used as part of a migration route by some species.
There are at least 22 species offish present in the Cedar River. in the vicinity of
the spawning channel there are sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, coho
salmon, steelhead trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish,
northern squawfish, peamouth chub, three -spine stickleback, largescale sucker,
longnose dace, brook lamprey, Pacific lamprey, and several species of sculpin.
The Cedar River adjacent to the proposed project is heavily utilized for
spawning by adult sockeye, Chinook and coho salmon. The existing natural
side channels downstream of the Elliot levee are utilized for rearing by sockeye
fry, Chinook fry and juveniles, coho and steelhead smolts.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
_10- 06109
CADocuments and SettingsWeeltocal SetUngs7emporary Internet FIeslConterntOctlook12YH003TG1@IliotSC SEPA EnvChklst2011.doc
The original channel included a series of pools and riffles in the upper end with
approximately 2,000 square feet suitable for sockeye spawning, and 15,000
square feet suitable for sockeye, chinook, coho and steelhead fry and juvenile
rearing. The original project reduced the potential for stranding and allowed
the rearing channel to be accessible from October - June each year. This project
will re-establish these features.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used
for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Does not apply.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
Does not apply.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste; that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
Refueling of small machinery will occur near the site in an approved staging
area that will be located more than 100 ft from the Cedar River.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Typical emergency services by the Fire Department in case of afire, injury, or
fuels spills. The Department of Ecology spill response hot line and WDFW
would be notified immediately in case of a fuel spill.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Does not apply.
b. Noise
1) What types -of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Does not apply.
06109
C:10ocuments and Settings%sleelocal SettingsWemporary Internet FileslContenLoutlookl2YHO03TG1ElliotSC_SEPA_EnvChklst2U11.doc
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Short-term noise from equipment used to construct the new channel and from
trucks hauling material on- and off-site. No long-term noise would be created
from this project.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Construction equipment will have mufflers and exhaust systems in accordance with
Federal and State standards, and that are in good operating condition. Construction
activities will be limited to day light hours.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Adjacent properties are all owned by the City of Renton and are the
Maplewood Golf Course, Ron Regis Pork, or vacant commercial land. The
project site is owned by the City of Renton and is used for resource
conservation.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Does not apply.
C. Describe any structures on the site.
Does not apply.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
77.1
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Resource Conservation
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Residential Rural
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the
site?
Urban Conservancy
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area?
If so, specify.
The site is classified as Urban Conservancy by the shoreline master program.
-12- 06109
CADocurnents and SettingsWeelLocal SeWngsUernporary Internet FledContent.0utlookl2YHO03TG011otSC SEPA EnvChklst20t7.doc
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
Does not apply.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Does not apply.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
Does not apply.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
Does not apply.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
Does not apply.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
10. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed.
Does not apply.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Does not apply.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
Does not apply.
-13- 06109
CADocuments and SetGngMsleelLocal SettingslTemporery Intemet FileslContentoutlookl2YHO03TGXEl[iotSC_SEPA_EnvChklst2Oi i .doc
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
Does not apply.
C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Does not apply.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
Walking trails through the resource conservation area.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
Does not apply.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Does not apply.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally
describe.
No known cultural or historic sites occur in the project area. A record search at
the Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) on
March 24, 2000 and a cultural resources reconnaissance survey conducted by a
Corps professional archaeologist on March 27, 2000 revealed no recorded or
previously unrecorded historic properties within the project area. if any
artifacts are discovered during construction, all work will be stopped and an
archaeologist will be called to the site to investigate before work continues.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Does not apply.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
-14- 06109
CADocuments and Settingssleellocal Settings%Ternporary Internet FileslContent.oudook12YHO03TGStiotSC_SEPA EnvChklst2o11,doc
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Maple Valley Road (Highway 169) is the main roadway serving the site.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
Does not apply.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
Does not apply.
d.. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private?
A temporary access road (haul route), is proposed adjacent to the channel. To
the extent possible the haul route will be located on the exiting levee.
Vegetated areas disturbed for by the temporary haul route will be restored
according to planting plans upon completion of the channel reconstruction.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
Does not apply.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Does not apply.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example:
fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.
Does not apply.
b.. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Does not apply.
-15- 06109
CADocuments and SetUngsWeell.ocal Seftings\Temporary Intemet Files\Content.OuUookl2YHO03TGSliotSC SEPA EnvChklst2011.deC
16. UTILITIES
Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water,
refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
Does not apply.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
Does not apply.
C. SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct,
and complete. it is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of
non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any
willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent Signature: -
Name Printed: i -e ve-e, e-
Date: 11
-16-
C:10ocuments and SettingsWeelLocal SeiGngslTernporary Internet FileslContent.Outlook%2YHO03TG1ElliotSC SEPA_EnvChklst2011.doc
06109
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(Th.ese':sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies,; pla'n.s and
programs:` You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in
general terms.
How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of
noise?
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life
are:
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as
parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,
historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands?
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
-17- 06109
CADocuments and SetiingMslaelLocal SetGngslTemporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2YHO03TG1EIliotSC_SEPA EnvChkist2D1 t.doe
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws
or requirements for the protection of the environment:
SIGNATURE
1, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct,
and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of
non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any
willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent Signature:
Name Printed:
Date:
16-
C:Mocuments and SetUnpsWeellocal Setftsffemporary Internet FileslContentOutook12YH003TG1EItiotSC SEPA EnvChklst2011.doc