Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc0 2010 WASHINGTON STATE Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form' USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN WHITE SPACES BELOW. Part 1—Project Identification i -------------------------- i AGENCY USE ONLY LIS any Corps Date received: o1 Engine i s�dle Agency reference #: Tax Parcel #(s): -----------------------------------i 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development)hf jp12 Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Part 2—Applicant The person or organization responsible for the project.tgip� 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Clement, Mark, D., Permit Administrator, The Boeing Company Planning Division DEC -2 6 1012 2b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) P.O. BOK 3707, MC 1 W-09 2c. City, State, Zip Seattle, WA 98124 2d. Phone (1) 2e. Phone (2) 2f. Fax 2g, E-mail (206) 617-2944 NA (206) 655-5043 mark.d.clement@boeing.com Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b. of this application.)h[ elp] 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Stuart, Robert, E., AMEC 3b. Mailing Address (street or PO Box) 3500 188" St. SW, Suite 601 1Additional forms may be required for the following permits: -If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495. -If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to rill out a Specific Project Information Form (SP IF) or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at http:llwww.nws.usace.army.mil/PublicMenu/Menu.cfm?sitename=REG&pagename=mainpage_ESA -If you are applying for an Aquatic Resources Use Authorization you will need to fill out and submit an Application for Authorization to Use State - awned Aquatic Lands form to DNR, which can be found at http:f/www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/agr_use_auth_app.dor- • Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you think you will need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they will accept the DARPA. 2 T access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to http:llwww.epermitting.wa.gov/sitelalias_resourcecienterljarpa_iarpa form19984/jarpa_form.aspx . For other help, contact the Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at 1-800-917-0043 or help@ora.wa.gov. JARPA 2010 v1 3/3012010 Page 1 of 21 3c. City, State, Zip Lynnwood, WA 98037-4763 3d. Phone (1) 3e. Phone (2) 3f. Fax 3g. E-mail F(425) 921-4424 (206) 313-7917 (425) 921-4040 bob.stuart@amec.com Part 4—Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. hei ❑ Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ® There are multiple property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. 4a. Name (Last, f=irst, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Sunderland, Trina (Washington Department of Natural Resources 4b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) Aquatic Resources Division, P.O. Box 47027 4c. City, State, Zip Olympia, WA 98504-7027 4d. Phone (1) 4e. Phone (2) M. Fax 49. E-mail (246) 455-1014 (206) 455-1414 ( ) Trina.Sunderland@dnr.wa.gov Part 5 -Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. hf gjp] ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g., linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location, 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) ffigm ® State Owned Aquatic Land (If yes or maybe, contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) at (360) 902-1100) ❑ Federal ® Other publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) City of Renton ❑ Tribal ® Private 5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) lhelol 737 Logan Ave N. 5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) h[ ell j Renton, WA 98038 JARPA 2010 v1 313012010 Page 2 of 21 5d. Countyh[ eV King 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location.t[ elol 1/, Section Section Township Range NE 7 23N 5E 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. Le_iPJ • Example; 47.03922 N lat. 1-122.89142 W long. (NAD 83) 47.5005 N latl -122.2159 W long (NAD 83) 5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [heal • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. 0723059001 and 0723059007 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) [help] Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) City of Renton 1011 Perimeter Road W., Renton, WA 98055 0723059007 Washington Department of Aquatic Resources Division, Unknown (Lake Washington Natural Resources P.O. Box 47027 and the Cedar River) Olympia, WA 98504-7027 5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location.h[ e[p] Not applicable 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location.h[fel ] Cedar River and Lake Washington 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100 -year flood plain?h[ ellp]] ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. h[ ela] The bridge itself, and the surrounding property, is paved and developed. The proposed project site borders the Cedar River and the Lake Washington shoreline (Sheet 1; Appendix A, Photos 1 and 2). The Cedar River shoreline (up to 100 feet [ft] south of the project site) consists of riparian vegetation (Appendix A, Photo 3). A vegetation survey was conducted along each bank of the Cedar River. extending 100 ft upstream of the bridge deck. Because the bridge is located at the mouth of the Cedar River where it enters Lake Washington, the vegetation survey was also conducted along the shoreline of Lake Washington 100 ft east and west of the bridge. The western bank of the Cedar River within 100 ft of the bridge consists of a steel -pile and timber -lagging bulkhead, above which is located a steep bank approximately 15 -ft wide (Appendix A, Photos 4 and 5). Riparian vegetation along the western bank consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), butterfly bush (Buddleia davidh), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). All of these species are listed as noxious weeds by King County. A small, unidentified species of willow (Salix spp.) was also growing along the west bank along with various, unidentified grasses. The riparian area is bordered to the west by a narrow strip of lawn, beyond which is the Renton Municipal Airport. The eastern bank of the Cedar River within 100 ft of the bridge is similar to that described for the western bank, consisting of a steel -pile and timber -lagging bulkhead, above which is located a steep bank approximately 20 -ft wide (Appendix A, Photo 6). South of the bridge and immediately adjacent to the Cedar River is the Cedar River Trail Park (Appendix A, Photo 7). A portion of the riparian area along the eastern bank of the river within 100 ft of the bridge appears to have been JARPA 2010 v1 3!3012010 Page 3 of 21 landscaped with native vegetation consisting of Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), redosier dogwood (Comus sericea), and mock orange (Philadelphus lewish). Additionally, the same noxious weeds found on the western bank also occurred on the eastern bank, including Himalayan blackberry, common tansy, and reed canarygrass. A number of unidentified grasses were also observed on the eastern bank. Immediately east of the eastern bank is the Cedar Trail Park, consisting of a vegetated strip immediately adjacent to the riparian area, a sidewalk, and driveway. The vegetated strip beyond 100 ft south of the bridge is planted with larger trees (trunks ?10 inches in diameter) that appeared to be bigleaf maples (Acer macrophyllum) (Appendix A, Photo 7). The Lake Washington shoreline east and west of the North Cedar Bridge is steep, a portion of which on each side of the bridge consists of a sheet-pile bulkhead and riprap. Vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline east of the bridge is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and butterfly bush. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and unidentified grasses were also observed along the shoreline east of the bridge (Appendix A, Photos 8 and 9). The shoreline west of the bridge and adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry and butterfly bush, along with some unidentified grasses (Appendix A, Photo 10). Immediately south and adjacent to the western shoreline is a narrow strip of maintained lawn (approximately 10- to 15-ft wide), beyond which is the asphalt runway of the Renton Municipal Airport. Large woody debris occurs at the mouth of the Cedar River along the Lake Washington shoreline (Appendix A, Photo 11). Aquatic vegetation observed during the survey included Canada waterweed (Elodea canadensis), white-stemmed pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus), curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), and common duckweed (Lemna minor). 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. nel The project site is used to manufacture commercial aircraft (Boeing 737). The bridge provides access from the Boeing manufacturing site to the Renton Municipal Airport, which is used by Boeing to launch and land airplanes. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. LbLetW The Renton Municipal Airport is operated by the City of Renton to launch and land private and commercial aircraft, as well as for aircraft storage and maintenance. Lake Washington is used for recreation (boating, fishing, swimming), as well for commercial purposes (i.e., commercial vessel operations). The Cedar River adjacent to the proposed project is used primarily for recreation. so. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s).h� The surrounding topography is flat and highly developed. Properties on both sides of the proposed project site, as well as the project site, are paved and populated with buildings used for airplane manufacturing, maintenance, and storage; offices; and vehicle parking. Utilities to the project site and surrounding properties are provided by the City of Renton and include water, sewer, and electric and the belowground and aboveground infrastructure to support these services. The Cedar River Trail Park parallels the Cedar River adjacent to and south of the proposed project site. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. leim DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM 1-5 (Sheet 2): From 1-5, merge onto 1-445 Northbound at Exit 154. Merge onto WA-167 N. 1 Valiey Freeway via Exit 2 toward Renton/Rainier Avenue. Merge onto Rainier Avenue S. Turn Right onto Airport Way S. Airport Way S. becomes Logan Avenue S. (Gate access required onto Boeing property). End at 737 Logan Ave. N., Renton, WA 98057. JAR PA 2010 v1 3!30!2010 Page 4 of 21 Part 6 --Project Description 16a. Summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6d.h[ email 1.0 Project Description An existing bridge (Sheets 2 and 3), originally constructed during World War 11 (Appendix A, Photo 12) and owned by the Boeing Company, spans the Cedar River at its confluence with Lake Washington (Appendix A, Photo 1). The entire bridge structure consists of three components: the approaches on each bank, the center bridge span, and the aprons on each bank. The bridge is used by Boeing to transport aircraft, primarily 737s, from the Boeing manufacturing site to the Renton Municipal Airport, from which aircraft are launched and landed. A bridge inspection identified seismic deficiencies in the bridge. Bridge replacement is also necessitated by the future manufacture of the next generation 737, the 737 Max, which is heavier than the current 737. The proposed action will consist of the following components: • Partial demolition of apron deck and apron piles (Stages 1A and 1 B) (Sheet 4); • Construction of temporary trestle (Stages 2A and 2B) (Sheets 5 and 6); • Removal of existing bridge center deck, remaining aprons, and piles (Stage 3A); and removal of existing bridge approaches, remaining portions of bridge aprons, and piles (Stage 3B) (Sheet 7); • Install new bridge center piles (Stage 4A) and complete new bridge installation (Stage 4B) (Sheets 8, 9, and 10); • Remove temporary trestle (Stage 5); and • Shoreline regrading and restoration along each bank of the Cedar River formerly covered by the bridge aprons (Stage 6) (Sheets 11 through 13). Each of these project elements is described in detail below. 1.1 PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF APRON DECK AND APRON PILES A temporary trestle (Sheets 5 and 6) will be constructed immediately south of the existing bridge to allow the demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the replacement bridge. The existing bridge is incapable of supporting the construction equipment necessary for its demolition and the construction of the replacement bridge, therefore the temporary trestle will be used as a construction platform. Prior to construction of the temporary trestle, portions of the existing bridge aprons on each shore of the river will be demolished (Sheet 4) because the temporary trestle will be placed where the aprons currently exist. Each apron consists of a concrete deck supported by 8 concrete bridge piers on pier footing foundations and 60 12 -inch (in) steel H -piles, 48 of which are located below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The concrete bridge piers are square in cross section and about 2 ft on a side. A total of 16 concrete bridge piers, 24 pier foundations, and 96 12 -in steel H -piles will be removed from below the OHWM. The combined overwater coverage of the two aprons is 7,692 square feet (sf). About 5,040 sf of apron deck will be removed initially (Stage 1A), along with 60 of the 12 -in H -piles and 8 of the concrete pier piles (Sheet 4) (Table 1). The remainder of the bridge aprons and supporting piles will be demolished at a later date under Stages 3A and 313 as described in Section 1.3. Removal of the bridge aprons was not included in Boeing's original project plans and their removal is not essential to the construction of the new bridge. After meeting with the Muckleshoot Tribe and the regulatory and natural resources agencies. Boeing agreed to remove the bridge aprons as part of their restoration plan, which is described in Section 1.5. As such, bridge apron removal, while being described in this section, is considered part of Boeing's restoration plan. Two treated -timber bulkheads are located beneath the existing bridge and bridge aprons on each shore of the Cedar River. One of the bulkheads is located near the river channel and is supported by the existing bridge piers and piles. The other bulkhead is located shoreward of the bulkhead described above and is supported by a bent of steel H -piles (Sheet 2), Both of these bulkheads on each shore of the river will be removed during bridge apron and bridge demolition. JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 5 of 21 The shorelines where the bridge aprons and underlying bulkheads will be removed and where the temporary trestle is to be located will be regraded to an approximate 2:1 slope to support the temporary trestle. Stages 1A and 1 B are each expected to require about 3 weeks to complete, for a total of 6 weeks (Table 1). 1.2 TEMPORARY TRESTLE CONSTRUCTION The temporary trestle will be 32 -ft wide by 225 -ft long, of which approximately 215 ft will span the river between the OHWMs on each shore. The overwater coverage of the temporary trestle will be approximately 6,880 sf. The temporary trestle deck will be constructed of 12 -in x 12 -in wood timbers supported by seven cap beams and 35 14 -in H -piles. The piles will first be vibrated into place and then proofed with an impact hammer. Twenty-five (25) of these piles will be placed below the OHWM. Noise attenuation will be achieved by inserting a sound -absorbing block between the hammer and the pile, as well as the use of a bubble curtain. The first stage of temporary trestle construction (Stage 2A) will consist of the installation of 2 piles bents above the OHWM (Bents 1 and 7 in Sheets 5 and 6). Each pile bent will consist of 5 14 -in steel H -piles (Table 1). The second stage of temporary trestle construction (Stage 2B) will consist of the installation of 5 pile bents below the OHWM (Bents 2 through 6 in Sheets 5 and 6). Each bent will contain 5 14 -in steel H -piles (25 piles). Following each bent installation, the pile cap beams and wood decking will be placed (Sheet 6) (Table 1). Stage 2A is expected to require about 2 weeks to complete, while Stage 2B should be completed in about 6 weeks (Table 1). A layer of decking will be subsequently placed on the wood timbers to provide smoother travel for the aircraft and for containment during construction. 1.3 EXISTING BRIDGE DEMOLITION The existing bridge (Sheets 2 and 3) is approximately 250 -ft long, including approaches, and 32 -ft wide at the center span. The 2 (two) remaining partial concrete aprons located on each bank are approximately 90 -ft long each and are being removed, as described above. For the overall project demolition scope, the bridge deck and aprons cover an area of about 17,570 sf, of which 14,670 sf is located between the OHWMs on each bank. The overwater coverage of just the bridge and approaches without the aprons is approximately 6,978 sf. The existing bridge, not including the aprons, is supported by four pile bents consisting of a total of 20 16 -in -diameter, concrete -filled steel -pipe piles (SPPs), as well as 10 pile bents consisting of a total of 80 12 -in steel H -piles. Sixty-four (64) of the H -piles are located below the OHWM (Sheet 4). Under Stage 3A of the bridge demolition process, the existing bridge center deck, the bridge approaches, and portions of the remaining bridge aprons will be removed. Additionally, 12 of the concrete -filled SPPs, 8 of the concrete bridge piers, and 16 concrete pier foundations will be removed (Sheet 7) (Table 1). Under Stage 3B, the bridge approaches and remaining portions of the bridge aprons will be removed, as well as 140 12 -in steel H -piles and 8 concrete -filled SPPs (Sheet 7) (Table 1). Two (2) treated -timber bulkheads are located beneath the bridge on each bank (Sheet 2) and will be removed along as part of the bridge demolition, as described above. Stage 3A of bridge demolition is expected to require 8 weeks to complete, 4 weeks of which will be in -water work. Stage 3B will require about 6 weeks to complete, all of which will be in -water work (Table 1). 1.4 NEW BRIDGE INSTALLATION Upon demolition of the existing, approaches and aprons, construction will begin on the replacement bridge (Sheets 7 and 8), which will be a 3 -span steel -girder bridge 253 -ft long by 50 -ft wide, covering an area of 12,650 sf, of which 10,625 sf will span the river between the OHWM on each bank. The bridge deck will be constructed of poured -in-place concrete. No uncured concrete will be allowed to come in contact with surface waters of the Cedar River or Lake Washington. Twelve (12) 4 -ft -diameter poured -in-place concrete bridge piers will be installed to support the new bridge, six of which will be located below the OHWM (Sheet 7). Red navigation lights will be placed on the new bridge. JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 6 of 21 Under Stage 4A of the new bridge installation, six four -foot diameter concrete bridge piers will be placed in the Cedar River below the OHWM (Sheets 8 and 9). Construction of the concrete bridge piers will require the construction of temporary reaction -pile platforms from which the pier piles can be constructed. The reaction -pile platform will consist of 8 16 -in -diameter SPPs or steel H -pile supporting a timber deck that is 25 ft on each side (625 sf). The deck will have a circular opening in the middle through which a casing can be advanced into the substrate (Sheet 10). Two temporary reaction -pile platforms will be constructed at a time, such that after one pier pile is completed, the contractor can immediately move to the next reaction -pile platform to begin construction of the next bridge pier. The abandoned reaction - pile platform will be dismantled and relocated to the next location. Therefore, there will be 2 reaction -pile platforms in the river at a time. Under Stage 4B of the new bridge installation there will be no in -water work. The remaining 6 pier -piles will be installed above the OHWM, pile caps constructed, and the bridge deck constructed (Sheets 8 and 9). Stage 4A will require about 6 weeks to complete, all of which will be in -water work, while Stage 4B will require about 17 weeks to complete, none of which will require in -water work (Table 1). Boeing is developing a stormwater management plan for the new bridge that is consistent with King County's stormwater regulations, as well as those of the City of Renton. Additional shoreline work along the Lake Washington shoreline located on the north side of the east and west bridge approaches may be necessary to extend wing walls from the new bridge. if this construction occurs, existing sheet -pile bulkheads along the shoreline adjacent to the east and west bridge approaches (Sheet 2) will be removed to allow placement of the wing walls. The shoreline in these areas will be regraded. Currently, there is insufficient information to describe in detail this possible component of the proposed bridge construction. Should Boeing proceed with this project component, Boeing will then provide an addendum to the BA with a detailed description of this project component. 1.5 TEMPORARY TRESTLE REMOVAL After completion of the replacement bridge, the temporary trestle will be completely removed, including all supporting piles (Stage 5). Removal of the temporary trestle is expected to require about 6 weeks to complete, 3 of which will be in -water work (Table 1). 1.6 SHORELINE REGRADING AND RESTORATION Shoreline areas on each bank of the Cedar River will be regraded to an approximate slope of 2:1. The shoreline areas that were formerly covered by bridge aprons and located behind treated -timber bulkheads will be backfilled with amended soils, regraded to a more natural slope (e.g., 2:1 to 3:1), and planted with native vegetation. A conceptual shoreline restoration plan has been developed (Sheets 11 through 13). The shoreline restoration area will cover approximately 2,500 sf along 125 lineal ft of shoreline. A final restoration plan will be prepared when all aspects of the bridge design have been finalized. Native vegetation will be limited to low -growing shrubs and ground cover that will not attain heights of more than 10 ft to prevent interference with the transportation of airplanes across the new bridge. The shoreline restoration plan will need to be consistent with the City of Renton's floodplain regulations to ensure that the proposed pian does not result in an increase in the 100 -year flood elevation. A post -implementation maintenance and monitoring plan has also been prepared outlining maintenance and monitoring requirements to ensure the long-term success of the shoreline restoration (Appendix B). Removal of the bridge aprons is considered part of the restoration plan, as it was necessary to remove the bridge aprons to access the underlying shorelines. Removal of the bridge aprons will reduce overwater coverage by more than 4,000 sf. Shoreline regrading and restoration is expected to require about 8 weeks to complete, some portion of which may require in -water work (Table 1). Table 2 provides an overall project summary. JARPA 2010 v1 3130/2010 Page 7 of 21 6b. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply)hf elal ® Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational ❑ Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement 6c. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help] ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Road ® Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam /Weir ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Scientific ❑ Boat House ❑ Dike ! Levee 1 Jetty ❑ Land Clearing Measurement Device ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Marina 1 Moorage ❑ Stairs ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock ! Pier ❑ Mining ❑ Stormwater facility ® Bridge ® Dredging ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ® Piling ❑ Utility Line ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway (upland) ® Other: Shoreline restoration 8d. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6c. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. Lqgigi • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year flood plain. 1.7 CONSTRUCTION METHODS Construction activities associated with the project elements are described below. Because construction activities employed in one project element may be the same as those used in other project elements, this section does not follow the same project staging format as used in Section 1.0 above, but combines some of these for ease of discussing construction methods. All of the proposed project elements will occur within the 100-year flood plain of the Cedar River. 1.7.1 Bridge Apron Removal and Temporary Trestle Construction Portions of the existing bridge aprons will need to be removed prior to construction of the temporary trestle. The concrete deck of the bridge aprons will be removed using a wire saw. To the extent practicable, best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to minimize and avoid the possibility of construction debris entering the Cedar River. A heavy-duty mesh fabric will be suspended beneath the bridge aprons to retain demolition debris and keep it from entering the Cedar River. A floating debris boom will also be deployed in the Cedar River/Lake Washington to capture any floating debris that may enter the water. An effort will be made to retrieve any sunken demolition debris that enters the Cedar River. Demolition debris may be stockpiled on site and above the OHWM for later transport to an approved, off-site landfill. Steel H-piles and concrete-filled SPPs will be removed by cutting them off a minimum of 2 ft below the surveyed dredge depth for the Cedar River. Removal will be accomplished by using cofferdams (large-diameter steel casings). The piles will first be isolated from the surrounding water through use of cofferdams placed around the piles. It is anticipated that the cofferdams will be vibrated into the sediments. Ten-ft-diameter cofferdams will be used to surround 2 to 3 H-piles at a time, while a 10-ft-diameter cofferdam will be used to surround one concrete-filled SPP at a time (Table 1). Water within the cofferdams will be pumped out and the substrate within the cofferdams removed to a depth extending at least 2 ft below the surveyed bed elevation for dredging. Sediments removed from the cofferdams will not be allowed to re-enter the river during excavation. Instead, sediment and water will be pumped into onshore Baker tanks that have been rinsed prior to use. After pile removal, water and sediment will be pumped back into the cofferdam to allow for settling of any suspended sediments. After a day to several days, the cofferdam will be carefully removed to minimize increased turbidity during extraction. JARPA 2010 v1 3130!2010 Page 8 of 21 Information from the Corps indicates that there are no chemical constituents within project -area sediments that exceed sediment management standards so that chemical characterization of sediments would not be necessary (Personal communication: R. Stuart, AMEC, with D. Fox, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Dredged Materials Management Office, May 16, 2012). Water will be removed from the cofferdam using a screened pump nozzle. The nozzle will be placed in a screened container that is about 1.5 to 2 ft deep with a screen on top. The pump nozzle and container will be placed into the cofferdam and the water pumped out. Placing the pump nozzle in the screened container prevents the entrainment of both fish and sediments in the water that is removed from the cofferdam. Water within the cofferdam will be returned directly to the Cedar River until the water depth within the cofferdams has reached the top of the screen container. At this point, a fisheries biologist will determine if any fish have been trapped within the cofferdam. Any fish within the cofferdam will be netted and returned unharmed to the Cedar River. After fish removal, the pump nozzle will be removed from the screened container and the remaining water pumped into a Baker tank. This will be done to minimize and avoid the possibility of returning water to the Cedar River that is high in suspended sediments, causing increased turbidity. The water will remain in the Baker tanks to allow settling of any suspended sediments, after which the water will be returned to the cofferdam, as described above. The 16 concrete bridge pier foundations supporting the bridge aprons located in the dredge channel of the Cedar River are supported on timber piles that penetrate below the river substrate, precluding removed by vibratory extraction. These will also be removed using a cofferdam as described above. A 16 -ft -diameter cofferdam will be placed around a single concrete bridge pier foundation (Table 1). It is anticipated that 8 previously removed concrete piers for the construction of the existing bridge deck have their concrete foundations still remaining, and these will be removed as well. Once the concrete pier piles are exposed, they will be removed using a combination of jack hammers, wire saws, and cutting torches. All demolition debris associated with removal of the concrete pier piles will be removed from the river. Demolition debris may be temporarily stockpiles on site, but above the OHWM for later off-site recycling or for off-site disposal in an approved landfill. Once portions of the bridge aprons are removed, construction of the temporary trestle will begin. The steel H -piles supporting the temporary trestle will be lifted into place using an onshore crawler crane, vibrated to refusal, and finally proofed with an impact hammer. Initial pile driving will be achieved from shore. Subsequent piles will be installed from the deck of the temporary trestle as it extends across the river. Noise attenuation will be achieved by inserting a sound - absorbing block between the hammer and the pile, as well as the use of a bubble curtain. It is anticipated that 2 days will be required to install one pile bent (5 piles) using a vibratory driver, after which the piles will be proofed using an impact hammer in a half day period. The deck of the temporary trestle will then be advanced over those piles over 2 days. Construction will continue in this fashion until the temporary trestle spans the river. Steel girders will be placed on top of each pile bent using a shore -based crawler crane. The 12 -in x 12 -in timbers for the bridge deck will be lifted into place with an onshore crawler crane. Other heavy equipment may include a backhoe and various trucks. Various power and hand tools will be used by construction crews in building the temporary trestle. No heavy equipment will be placed in the water or OHWM. 1.7.2 Existing Bridge Demolition The existing bridge will be demolished from shore and from the temporary trestle in a manner similar to or identical to that described for demolition of the bridge aprons, with the exception that there are no concrete bridge piers to be removed although the foundations are anticipated for removal. Various pieces of heavy equipment, power tools, and hand tools will be used to demolish the bridge. The concrete bridge deck will be demolished using wire saws. Heavy-duty mesh fabric will be placed beneath the bridge to minimize and avoid demolition debris entering the river. JARPA 2010 0 3/30/2010 Page 9 of 21 Once the bridge deck and aprons are removed, the supporting piles will be removed with the aid of cofferdams as described above under Section 1.3.1. Piles will be cut a minimum of 2 feet below the surveyed dredge depth for the Cedar River using various power tools and hand tools Demolition debris will be loaded into dump trucks using front-end loaders and/or a crane for off-site removal to an approved landfill facility. Any debris entering the Cedar River will be removed from the river for off-site disposal. 1.7.3 Replacement Bridge Construction The replacement bridge will be supported by 12 poured -in-place concrete bridge piers, 6 of which will be located below the OHWM. The bridge piers will be constructed using a rotary drill rig to drill into the soil/river substrate through a cofferdarn/ as follows: • Construction of temporary reaction -pile platforms for cofferdam and drilled -shaft casting installations; • Installation of a steel casing (i.e., cofferdam about 8 ft in diameter) twisted into sediment about 20 ft. The cofferdam will be installed using a vibratory hammer (Appendix A, Photo 13); • Installation of 4 -ft -diameter steel casings using rotator/oscillator until design depth; • Upon reaching the load-bearing depth, the bottom of the shaft will be cleared of debris, a rebar cage installed, and then concrete placed from the bottom up using a tremie pipe; • Drilled shaft casings (4 -ft -diameter) will be removed by rotator/oscillator as the concrete is poured; and • The 8 -ft -diameter cofferdam casing will be removed after the drilled shaft installation is complete. The temporary reaction -pile platforms will be constructed using 8 16 -in diameter SPPs supporting a timber deck. The piles will be vibrated to a depth of about 80 ft below mudline and the deck frame and deck placed on the piles. Once in place, a rotator/oscillator (Appendix B, Photo 13) will be placed on the reaction -pile platform and will be used for twisting the drilled - shaft casing (4 -ft -diameter) into the substrate. Upon completion of a pier pile, the temporary reaction -pile platform will be dismantled and moved to the next location. The excavated material from the shaft will be conveyed to the shore, loaded onto dump trucks by conveyor or front-end loader, and transported off site for either recycling or disposal in an accredited landfill. No excavated material will be allowed to enter the river. Raw, uncured concrete will not be allowed to come into contact with surface waters of the Cedar River. Once the concrete has cured and the bridge piers are capable of supporting the bridge deck, a crawler crane working from shore or from the temporary trestle will be used to place cross beams and 10 steel girders on the concrete bridge piers. Various power and hand tools will also be used in the bridge construction. The bridge deck will be poured -in-place concrete. As stated above, no uncured concrete will be allowed to enter the Cedar River. 1.7.4 Dismantling Temporary Trestle Upon completion of the replacement bridge, the temporary trestle will be dismantled using a crawler crane to remove the trestle deck. Various power and hand tools will also be used to dismantle the temporary trestle_ Heavy-duty mesh fabric will be placed beneath the temporary trestle to minimize and avoid demolition debris entering the Cedar River. A debris boom will also be placed downstream of the construction area to confine any floating debris that may enter the river. To the extent practicable, demolition debris entering the river will be retrieved and all debris generated by removal of the temporary trestle will be recycled off site. The steel H -piles supporting the temporary trestle will be removed using a cofferdam as described above. A 10 -ft -diameter cofferdam will be placed around 2 H -piles at a time. The piles will be cut off at least 2 feet below the surveyed bed elevation for dredging. Any demolition debris that cannot be recycled may be temporarily stockpiled on site above the OHWM for later removal to an accredited off-site landfill. JARPA 2010 v1 3130/2010 Page 10 of 21 1.7.5 Shoreline Regrading and Restoration The shoreline where the replacement bridge is to be located will have to be regraded after removal of the bulkheads. Regarding will be accomplished from above the OHWM using excavators and other heavy equipment. Construction crews may have to work below the OHWM using some hand and power tools. The shoreline will be regraded to a slope of 2:1. A filter fabric fence will be placed along the shoreline to minimize and avoid erosion during shoreline regrading. To the extent possible, shoreline restoration on each bank of the Cedar River will be accomplished from above the OHWM using excavators to remove debris and to regrade the shoreline to a slope specified in the restoration plans. Top soil, soil amendments, and other material necessary for use in the shoreline restoration will be transported to the site using dump trucks or other heavy trucks. Plants used to revegetate the shoreline will be planted by hand. A filter fabric fence will be placed along the shoreline in the shoreline restoration area to minimize and avoid erosion. 1.8 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The proposed action will be phased to occur over 3 construction seasons (2013 through 2015). Although the in -water work window for the Cedar River is from July 1 to August 31, work may have to begin as early as June 1 and extend to August 15 to allow work to be completed within a 3 -season schedule. Table 1 lists the proposed construction schedule for each year during which construction is expected occur. Be. What are the start and end dates for project construction? (monthlyear) LL1W • If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start date: 4129113 End date: $131115 ® See JARPA Attachment D ef. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it.hLelo The existing bridge, used by Boeing to transport aircraft to and from the Renton Airport, has reached its designed life span and needs replacement. Boeing will soon begin increasing production rates on the next generation 737s and the new 737 MAX. Recent studies revealed that the existing bridge may not be able to withstand a seismic event. These factors raised the concern to improve safety for people and airplanes using a critically essential bridge and to improve the bridge's ability to remain functional following a seismic or flood event. Because the North Cedar River Bridge is the sole existing delivery point from the factory to the Renton Airport with no alternate route available, a bridge failure will significantly impede, if not completely shut down, 737 production and the P-8 anti-submarine military program. This risk of damage or loss also creates economic risk and employment impact concerns to the City of Renton, King County, and the State of Washington, as well as potential ecological risk to an important salmonid migratory corridor and foraging habitat. 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. (gyp] $9,000,000 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding?[Lem • If yes, list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know JARPA 2010 v1 3/30/2010 Page 11 of 21 Part 7-Wetiands: Impacts and Mitigation ❑ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [help] 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. hel ® Not applicable 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? Lel ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? hl elnl ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared?her V • If yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ❑ No 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? hei • If yes, submit the wetland rating forms and Sheets with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? hel ■ If yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation pian should not be required_ ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. hel 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted; the extent and duration of the impact; and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. hel Activity (fill, drain, excavate, flood, etc.) Wetland Namef Wetland type and ratin category Impact area (sq. ft. or Acres) Duration of impact3 Proposed mitigation type' Wetland mitigation area (sq. ft. or acres) 'If no official name for the wetland exists, create a unique name (such as "Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents, such as a wetland delineation report. Z Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System. Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter "permanent" if applicable. `Creation (C), Re-establishment/Rehabilitation (R), Enhancement (E), Preservation (P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee (B) Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available! 7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h., describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. 11eI 7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h., describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed.L[ ems] JARPA 2010 v1 3/34/2010 Page 12 of 21 Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.)hLel ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) 8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. M21 I ❑ Not applicable 1.9 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following conservation measures and best management practices (BMPs) will be incorporated into the proposed action to minimize and avoid potential impacts to listed species and their critical habitat: • All in -water work (i.e., pile driving) will be conducted from the shoreline or the temporary trestle. No heavy equipment will be placed into or enter the Cedar River. • Filter fabric fencing will be placed along the shoreline in areas where shoreline regrading will occur to avoid and minimize erosion. A temporary erosion control plan, approved by the City of Renton, will be in place during the project. • To the extent possible, pile driving will be accomplished with a vibratory driver, although load-bearing piles will have to be proofed with an impact hammer; however, a shock -absorbing pad will be placed between the hammer and the pile and a bubble curtain will be employed when using an impact hammer. • Cofferdams will be used to isolate in -water work areas from the surrounding surface waters of the Cedar River to minimize and avoid water quality degradation. • To the extent possible, demolition and construction debris will not be allowed to enter the Cedar River. Heavy-duty mesh fabric will be placed beneath structures to be removed and a debris boom will be placed in the Cedar River just downstream of the work area to contain any debris that may enter the water and any debris that does enter the water will be retrieved for off-site disposal. • All mechanized equipment will be maintained in proper operating condition and any necessary maintenance will be conducted away from the water. Equipment found to be leaking petroleum products or hydraulic fluid will be removed from the site for maintenance. • A spill kit will be kept on site to contain any potential petroleum spills that might occur in areas near or over the water. • Concrete for the replacement bridge piers will be poured inside of a cofferdam to prevent raw concrete from coming into contact with surface waters of the Cedar River or Lake Washington. • To the extent practicable, construction debris will be recycled rather than being placed in a landfill. • A stormwater management plan will be implemented that is in compliance with both the City of Renton and King County stormwater regulations. • A fish screen will be placed on the pump nozzle used to remove water from the cofferdams to avoid the potential for entraining fish and sediments in the water that is removed from the cofferdams. • Any fish trapped in cofferdams will be removed by fisheries biologists and released unharmed to the Cedar River. Potential impacts to listed species and their critical habitats or to essential fish habitat (EFH), as discussed below, will be mitigated by the following: • The removal of the old bridge aprons to reduce overwater coverage by more than 4,000 sf; • Substantial reduction in the number of in -water structures within the Cedar River, thereby reducing possible predator habitat and exposing more benthic habitat for recolonization by benthic invertebrates, as discussed below; and Restoration of shoreline on both banks of the Cedar River in the areas where the bridge aprons are to be removed, providing improved near -shore habitat for juvenile salmonids. JAR PA 2010 v1 3/3012010 Page 13 of 21 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? h[ gplj ® Yes ❑ No Be. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non -wetland waterbodies?hf eM • If yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable A conceptual shoreline restoration plan has been developed (Sheets 11 through 13). A final restoration plan will be prepared when all aspects of the bridge design have been finalized. Native vegetation will be limited to low -growing shrubs and ground cover that will not attain heights of more than 10 ft to prevent interference with the transportation of airplanes across the new bridge. The shoreline restoration plan will need to be consistent with the City of Renton's floodplain regulations to ensure that the proposed pian does not result in an increase in the 100 -year flood elevation. A post - implementation maintenance and monitoring plan has also been prepared outlining maintenance and monitoring requirements to ensure the long-term success of the shoreline restoration (Appendix B). Removal of the bridge aprons is considered part of the restoration plan, as it was necessary to remove the bridge aprons to access the underlying shorelines. Removal of the bridge aprons will reduce overwater coverage by more than 4,040 sf. Shoreline regrading and restoration is expected to require about 8 weeks to complete, some portion of which may require in -water work (Table 1). 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. • If you already completed 7g., you do not need to restate your answer hese.hergtl Based on information discussed at the pre -application meeting for this project, the consensus of the attending agencies was that on-site and in-kind restoration was the preferred option. Thus, removal of bridge aprons on each side of the river, as well as shoreline restoration was selected at the advice of the agencies to improve shoreline habitat for use by juvenile salmonids that may use these areas for foraging and nursery habitat. The restoration will be designed to optimize shoreline habitat for juvenile salmonids, while avoiding and minimizing the creation of habitat that could be used by salmonid predators and avoiding design elements that could snag and trap large woody debris carried by the Cedar River during high-flow events. The latter possibility could result in a situation that creates log jams at the bridge. JARPA 2010 v1 3/3012010 Page 14 of 21 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. hf elpt Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration of Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or linear dredge, fill, pile name° location impact, to be placed in or ft.) of waterbody drive, etc.) removed from directly affected waterbody Remove a total of Remove 196 piles, 14,670 sf of overwater bridge piers, & coverage Demolish existing g foundations Disturb ^22,574 sf of bridge & bridge Cedar River In 24 wks Remove &replace river substrate aprons 5,016 cy of sediment Expose 111.8 sf of within cofferdams previously buried benthic habitat Install & remove 6,880 sf of decking Build & remove Cedar River In 15 wks Install & remove 25 Disturb — 982 sf of river temporary trestle 14 -in H -piles substrate during H -pile removal Area of new bridge 20 wks to build below OHWM will be Construct new bridge, after Six 4 -ft -diameter 10,604 sf replacement bridge Cedar River In which bridge will concrete bridge piers Approximately 75.4 sf of be in place will be placed in river river substrate will be permanently buried by new bridge piers A small, unspecified Shoreline restoration Cedar River In 8 wks volume of fish gravel Total of 2,504 sf. and & soil may be placed 125 lineal ft below the OHWM If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as "Stream 1 ") The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100 -year flood plain. 3Indicate the days, months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter "permanent" if applicable. 8f. For all activities identified in 8e., describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody.IPJ Based on the project description provided above, approximately 23,556 sf of benthic habitat may be disturbed by the placement of cofferdams. To remove many of the piles, bridge piers, and bridge foundations, it will be necessary to excavate sediment around these structures to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the survey dredge depth of the Cedar River. Assuming 6 feet of sediment will be removed over the 23,556 sf of disturbed area, then 141,336 cubic feet (5,235 cubic yards) of sediment may have to be removed from the cofferdams. The removed sediment will be stockpiled and returned to the original location (cofferdam) from which it was removed, as described in Section 1.7 above. 8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e., describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. hl et Sediment within the cofferdams will be removed either by suction and/or by excavator. Approximately 5,235 cubic yards of sediment may be removed from the cofferdams and will be handled as described in Section 1.7 above. JARPA 2010 v1 3/3012010 Page 15 of 21 Part 9 --Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. 9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below.hl eM Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lori Lull (206) 766-6438 02/29/12 NOAA-Fisheries Janet Curran (206) 526-4452 01/17/12 City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee (425) 430-7314 02/23/12 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Larry Fisher (425) 313-5683 01/12/12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ryan McReynolds (360) 753-6047 01/12/12 Washington State Department of Ecology Rebekah Padgett (425) 649-7129 01/12/12 Washington Department of Natural Resources Cindy Rathbone (360) 791-4755 01/24/12 Washington Department of Natural Resources Trina Sunderland (206) 455-1014 01/25/12 Muckleshoot Tribe Karen Walters (253) 876-3116 01/12/12 JAFRPA 2010 v1 3130/2010 Page 16 of 21 9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(4) List? h( ell • If yes, list the parameter(s) below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: http://www.ea.wa.govlprogramslwq/303d/. ® Yes ❑ No Cedar River: Category 5 -- temperature, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliform; Category 2 — pH 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? hel • Go to h llc ub.e a. ov/surfllocate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC. HUC 17110012 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in?h[ eM • Go to http:l/www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/wria.htm to find the WRIA #. WRIA 8 9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity?hf eid • Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swgs/criteria.htmi for the standards. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? hf elpl • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. • For more information, go to: http:/!www.ecy.wa.gov/programslsealsmallaws rules/173-261211 designations.html_ ❑ Rural ® Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ❑ Other 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? hem • Go to htt :/lwww.dnr.wa. ov/BusinessPermits/To icslForestPracticesA licationslPa esl watertyping.aspx for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. ® Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non-Fish Perennial ❑ Non-Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? [Lel • If no, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. ® Yes ❑ No Name of manual: 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Boeing's stormwater management plan will also be consistent with King County and City of Renton stormwater regulations. 9i. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below.h[ elpl Commercial aircraft manufacturing 9j. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? h[ Epp] • If yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ❑ Yes ® No JARPA 2010 v1 313012010 Page 17 of 21 9k. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work.hf elpl Puget Sound Chinook salmon; Puget Sound steelhead trout; and Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout 91. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work.DISI J A bald eagle's nest is identified as occurring approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the project site. Fish species identified by WDFW PHS as occurring in the project site are: coho salmon, Dally Vardenlbull trout, Fall Chinook salmon, resident cutthroat trout, sockeye salmon, and winter steelhead trout. JARPA 2010 v1 3/3012010 Page 18 of 21 Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas]. • Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help@ora.wa.gov. • For a list of agency addresses to send your application, click on the "where to send your completed JARPA" at http://www.epermitting.wa.gov. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.)hf 2M • For more information about SEPA, go to www.eco.wa,gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.htmi. ❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ® A SEPA determination is pending with the City of Renton (lead agency). The expected decision date is unknown at this time_ ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 1 Ob.)hf elpl ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) hm2m LOCAL GOMERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ® Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance ❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): Other city/county permits: ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GGWRNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: ® Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption JARPA 2010 Y1 3/30/2010 Page 19 of 21 Washington Department of Ecology: ® Section 401 Water Quality Certification Washington Department of Natural Resources: ® Aquatic Resources Use Authorization FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); 0 Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ® Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) Part I1—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the DARPA package. The DARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. nfttpj 11a. Applicant Signature (required)nLe.�] I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that i have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and 1 agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. (initial} By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. (initial) Mark D. Clement Applicant Printed Name Applicant Sig ature Date 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature het I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued_ Robert E. Stuart a� Authorized Agent Printed Name Authorized A rd signalwe Date 11c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant).h[�l Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. JARPA 2010 v1 3MI2010 Page 20 of 21 Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -019-09 JARPA 2010 v1 3/3012010 Page 21 of 21 ATTACHMENTS JARPA Attachment A — Additional Property Owners JARPA Attachment D — Construction Sequence 2009 US Any Corps WASHINGTON STATE Q"" Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA) Form hl elp] JARPA Attachment A: For additional property owner(s)hf elpl Use this attachment only if you have more than one property owner Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below r--------------------------------------- AG'.NCY USE ONLY Date received: Agency reference #• Tax Parcel #(s): -------------------------------------- 10 BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT hf eloi i UPI #• Project Name: Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project --------------------------------------- 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) Dolbee, Vanessa (City of Renton) 4b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 1055 South Grady Way 4c. City, State, Zip Renton, Washington 98057 4d.-Phone(l) 4e. Phone (2) 4f. Fax 49. E-mail (425) 430-7314 ( ) ( } Vdolbee@Rentonwa.gov Address or tax parcel number of property you own: Shorelines on each side of bridge 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) and Organization (if applicable) 4b. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 4c. City, State, Zip 4d. Phone 1 4e. Phone z 4f. Fax 49. E-mail Address or tax parcel number of property you own: If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -020-09 JARPA 2009 Attachment A: Additional property owners (see JARPA Part 4) Page 1 of 1 2009 AGENCY USE ONLY ' i USA yCorps ' WASHINGTON STATE ° ' Date received: Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA) Form JARPA Attaehment D. Agency reference #: ' Tax Parcel #(s): Construction Sequence hel I-------------------------------------- Use this attachment pM TO B[ ('OMPLETIiU 13S'.APPLIC'A\T hE 01g1 if your project will be constructed in UPI #: phases or stages. Complete the outline showing the construction sequence and timing of activities, including the Project Name: Boeing North Bridge start and end dates of each phase or stage. Replacememnt Project (pg. 113) Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below or fill in electronically by clicking on fields. Phase or start Date End Date Activity Description Stage 1A 4129113 5117113 Partial demolition of apron deck (remove 5,040 square feet [sf] of deck) (no in -water work) — 3 wks 1 B 613113 715113 Remove 60 steel H -piles, 8 concrete piles and concrete foundations — 6 wks 2A 5120113 5131113 Start construction of temporary trestle with installation of 10 steel H -piles above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (no in -water work) — 2 wks 2B 711113 8116113 Install 25 steel H -piles below the OHWM (6 wks) and install decking on temporary trestle (no in -water work) (1 wk) — total of 7 wks If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -623-09 JARPA 2009 Attachment D: Construction sequence (see JARPA question 6e) Page 1 of 1 200AGENCY USE ONLY us Army Corps , WASHINGTON STATE �S4*i Date received: ' Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Formes , JARPA Attachment D: Agency reference#: Tax Parcel ##(s): Construction Sequencehl elpl------------------------------------- Use this attachment only if your project will be constructed in UPI #: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT h[ elv, phases or stages. Complete the outline showing the construction sequence and timing of activities, including the Project Name: Boeing North Bridge start and end dates of each phase or stage. Replacement Project (pg. 2/3) Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below or fill in electronically by clicking on fields. Phase or Start Date Enid Date Activity Description Stage 3A 515!94 6127114 Remove center bridge deck and remaining aprons (no in -water work) (4 wks) and piles of existing bridge (4 wks) — total of 8 wks 36 7/7114 8115115 Remove approaches and remaining piles of existing bridge — 8 wks 4A 6116114 7125114 Install new bridge center piles below OHWM — 6 wks 46 8118114 10131/14 Complete new bridge installation (install shore piles above OHWM, install pile caps, and install bridge deck) (no in -water work) — 14 wks If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833-6341. ORA publication number: ENV -023-09 JARPA 2009 Attachment 0: Construction sequence (see JARPA question Se) Page 1 of 1 2 D D 9 '' '' ' AGENCY USE ONLY US Army Corps WASHINGTON STATE p"'' ' Date received: Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form h(� JARPA Attachment D: agency reference #: Tax Parcel #(s): Construction Sequencehf ekgl--------------------------------------' help] Use this attachment only if your project will be constructed in UPI #: TO BE COMPLETED BY AYPLIC'AV r phases or stages. Complete the outline showing the construction sequence and timing of activities, including the Project Name: Boeing North Bridge start and end dates of each phase or stage. Replacement Project (pg. 313) Use black or blue ink to enter answers in white spaces below or fill in electronically by clicking on fields. Phase or Stage Start Date End Date Activity Description 5 1113114 6129115 11/21/14 7/17115 Remove trestle deck (no in -water work) — 3 wks Remove 25 -inch water piles — 3 wks 6 7112115 8131115 Regrade shoreline and conduct shoreline restoration (may be some minimal in -water work) — 8 wks If you require this document in another format, contact The Governor's Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA). People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (677) 633-6341, ORA publication number: ENV -023-09 JAR PA 2009 Attachment D: Construction sequence (see JAR PA question fie) Page 1 of 1 TABLES a 1 r LU J M H W J W S U 0 z a Z5 z ,N � D a` G ❑ E O Mcc W CD 8" 2 x z 0 O� V m Z z O U W O n O a a d 7 ; m m m ' m m r ' m ' �`' m e2 � ' V ' � ' V � r O O —0 O O 4 O 4 N4 r Q N N r 4 Q [tet N r Q N N w r d 1 Q n N r N 1 N LO i W J m W J D O W 2 U Z Q S.� Z N a O LU 2 z 0 0 Z O U 13 w 0 0 w CL 4O O r O{ d Y O r p O 0 1 4 o O cy O N O N O N ON N N N a N 0 u [O N CO Q N m N co Lo LO Q M _ M r M u V7n r°O �w 'o4nrr=a`��r n � � Q T N Y tp p N nl y Y X Y Y Y Y Y 0 (O L c0 k a O N f N m m m o C) m v m raz 11 y U y a t° E �vo, 0N rn � C II N `7 0x a ao W- }i v 3 L;� v C fO N ffl 7 N w N N a- _ CO ti "O O f6 y a p7 Ca. T l71 E G. .2 nl U n .cl [T 3 r - ca w 4 ID =O R a -o cn w $ LL cmO N y E N m E a m o N CD E v m o n a E of y y E o c> o a 47 0 t0 10 O 9 N a00 E Y m E o p 3 @ �-� E m _ 0)a — E n u O } m c° m o N CL t 3 na d N � 2� E o N Q a m N Q N 2 6,7 O C °' nj Y Y O Nva N m `off o�aoi3 'Ewe' Cu .�n a o°' E> v U y v C z o Y E o o Q> Y m E s ¢ vi o O '� H O V E �f1 O0 w O 742 °p p N C a E o p E O a o io ns NE E gc E c 3 o c Q y C 4 m cva !E a = w C p t N N� D Y r 61 C IV Q •_'CD 'O ns c `O Nut y0�, U 6 m .0 Cci ol l4 ° C V U OU O N O` N U cu— — O 40 NCL O W O w_ ° U L a V m N O t N Ed N 11 C — L 49 } 10 m 3 u r Z } 2 2 Z Z Ld } =a a — a cu m r a? N p a m N y t U N to N l4 U N a U O C N .a N N= `7 v x N Q} 8 'Q N —Q spa =� N U tT co N `° m u v.2 C L O y C N N N y Q� = L = U E U CL :2 7 41 a d } a 0 �2 f Ewa �° 0 o� o E — m m o o � u d— m o o E � m E o= a g� � m 105 4o OL CL _ m 4u m w a m c IM = d E H00am ca a 3 a W u �' m m ;� F r Vi GrO C m Z— '� N w } v R= o a E o m CL °' �� da 0) CL m d c w a o a' }a U W CJ4 m v m m a N H U W 7 a H z W w N V W Q J J m W H � w 0 In 2 Z Q LU U) 0 a 0 w 0- c 0 a+ 0 Ea mY x C E w ~ N m N co co C> CL �' a� c 0 U 00 E `o 1-2 m ?r m m a v ,n m c4 'n Q Q E y= rn r ns CD �y r N Z Z 3a0 m Za CL m aD 16.2 Q }1 E EL rn c n N 9 o= 9- v N N Q dmf Z o-a°�= 'C _a.a� ca 2 Z o 0 m N C a i .c m 0 t1 a N C _ ;� LL r— CL yr N 1 1 N T N � •V+ 1 a_ -1 O� E cRc� C) o2N 00 m � mN ra N oo ZZ LT Cop¢ Q CL � O � 2$ o o M M m N f) Z Z .mC a C(14 ..e •8 o a .1 ml a E L a a z Z co Q m m N a J � Q m L 0 C 47 ao mE a,.0 E and E 'xm To w m CL mm � m� C ¢ N o r N m IL � 0 N 43 v CO � @ N Z 4J Q 4] H E10ocaa � m �0m Wo cn oovo OL 6 r-asm 000< WF m OHS CO UN a � ro w -j Cm � y 0: « � � D W R Q w 02 a= Z� LU c wE 0(D2 m CL CL � » e w %f Dmf _ B/ 22 F- O Z 93 w O (L O w a L <\ <w tma. 2 a/ ` E© e § E < < < < < « < < 2 0 C z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 CL CL «2 k U % ■ % �_ < 2 / \ \ \_ E ` ' / % \ B.2 0 � 2� . E � ■ % o 5— t ± § < < i E k CL z z /� 0 �A R §A f + u E \ % m ■ $2 m k $ k k k k 7% 7 < ■ z z z 7 z z z z §0 � ■ 0s t© z z z z k = z z z c0 � b % E / a % ) f w 2 I2 2 § ■ \ 2 § : -f k \ tm \ 7 7 a \ / U�� @ $ � X000 2§\ %(ik§k z2c) moi c0ao«a L <\ <w tma. FIGURES LAKE WASHINGTON PROJECT LOCATION SECTION: NE SECTION: 7 TOWNSHIP: 23 N RANGE: 5E )T 7 IT 8 PUGET SWN0 PMVM J CITY OF RENTON LOT 6 DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM 1-5 From 1-5. merge onto 1405 Northbound at EA 154. Merge onto WA -167 IN I Valley Freeway via Exit 2 toward RentonlRainier Ave. Merge onto Rainier Ave. S. Tum Rigid onto Airport Way S. Airport way S. becomes Logan Ave- S- {Gate access required onto Boeing properly) End at 737 Logan Ave. N., Renton, WA 913057 LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longitude VICINITY MAP APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 400 800 1600 PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARK CLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 1 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012 1 05 1 30 l L l 4 , , CIP X33 L o SECTION: NE SECTION: 7 TOWNSHIP: 23 N RANGE: 5E )T 7 IT 8 PUGET SWN0 PMVM J CITY OF RENTON LOT 6 DRIVING DIRECTIONS FROM 1-5 From 1-5. merge onto 1405 Northbound at EA 154. Merge onto WA -167 IN I Valley Freeway via Exit 2 toward RentonlRainier Ave. Merge onto Rainier Ave. S. Tum Rigid onto Airport Way S. Airport way S. becomes Logan Ave- S- {Gate access required onto Boeing properly) End at 737 Logan Ave. N., Renton, WA 913057 LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longitude VICINITY MAP APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 400 800 1600 PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARK CLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 1 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012 1 05 1 30 a^ SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude EXISTING CONDITIONS SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longitude PLAN VIEW TOWNSHIP: 23 N RANGE: 5E U 35 70 140 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARKCLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 2 of 13 CIN OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012/06/1 r. LL W QtoJ d J VT• W H 0 W lA a_ J . Q coft- W C OC co L4 a G] EL J Lucf) W W Ix 0 LL- IMTCH LW F 52 LU k C) 0 cb 3� S ' —, 0 Q u' 0 v a W C7 II � x J W oO 111_ LLW 0 ..`ll a { 0 J � —5 L =tea SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude EXISTING BRIDGE SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longitude CROSS SECTION TOWNSHIP: 23 N 0 35 RANGE: 5E �� APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARK CLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 3 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012105/30 LAKE WASHINGTON N EXISTING BRIDGE 3 N yR 13 x x F x X . Z Y M -�Mcog 'SPAT M J r J HW =15.49 FOLLOWS EX. BULKHEAD OHW = 15.49 1 FOLLOWS EX. — BULKHEAD ' STAGES 1A & 1B: REMOVE EXISTING AP .� BULKHEAD, APPRd . �M SUPPORTING" " ES, STAGE S 1A & 1 B: I ` APPROX. 4 S E REMOVE EXISTING APRON, CONCRETE S BULKHEAD, APPROX. 30 "H" SUPPORTING PILES, AND ... -C APPROX. 4 SQUARE CONCRETE PILES EXISTING BULKHEAD 1 I`•I SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude PARTIAL BRIDGE APRON SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longitude REMOVAL STAGES IA & IB TOWNSHIP: 23 N RANGE: 5E Q �� 50 Boa APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARK CLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 4 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012/05/30 A LAKE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APPROACH & EXISTING BRIDGE REMAINING APRON CENTER SPAN BRIDGE APPROACH & REMAINING APRON_ cw - I- ESTIMATED OHW (15.4$ STAGE 2B; (TYP) INSTALL 5 PILE BENTS ( 5 PILESIBENT) BEOW'HWM x _ _ CUT OFF PILES A INSTALL " ieffvi ' DECK ESTIMATED RESTORATION CONTOURS (TYP) STAGE 2A: INSTALL PILES AB VE OHWM EXISTING BULKHEAD 1 PILE BENT ON EA H BANK ` WITH 5 PILE/BENT 1 1 1 1 � ll OHW 15.4P, t N n � :1 SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude TEMPORARY TRESTLE SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longitude CONSTRUCTION - TOWNSHIP: 23 N 0 25 50 100 PLAN VIEW STAGES RANGE: 5E 2A � �� APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARKCLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 5 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 201210611 OHW EL=15.49' 100 YR HW BENT EL 17.94 1 2 4 5 6 7 To -------- –^ ------- SHORELINE SHORELINE ------ ---- --- --- --- --- ------- —!– RESTORATION DEMOLISH EX. RIVER BED AT CL EL�3 (tj BULKHEAD TEMPORARY TRESTLE BRIDGE - ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 50' 100 YR HW EL=17.94' OHW EL=15.49 -- BOTTOM OF GIRDER RIVER BED AT CL EL=9' (t) TEMPORARY TRESTLE BRIDGE - SECTION SCALE: 1" = 50' SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude TEMPORARY TRESTLE SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longitude ELEVATION - CROSS TOWNSHIP: 23 N 0 RANGE: 5E 25 50 100 SECTION VIEW APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARK CLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 6 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012106/1 . I . r 1 • 1 . ' NIlk ql wR110 rr Sim \ � i� � N �r* 111-1,133NIS IMP •, 1 r 1 1 , 1 SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47,5005 N Latitude REMOVAL OF SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -1222159 W Longitude BRIDGE PLAN VIEW TOWNSHIP: 23 N 0 25 50 00 STAGES 3A & 3B 5E EQIiIIIIIIII�� APPROXIMATERANGE: PURPOSE: BRIDGE .NAME: MARKCLEMENT . r THE BOEING COMPANY1' DATUM: 1 29 REFERENCE #: .• r ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: LOCATION ADDRESS: , DEPT. OF • • CITY OF •N RENTON, WA 980381 Ir LAKE WASHINGTON STAGE 4B: STAGE 4A: INSTALL REPLACEMENT BRIDGE INSTALL NEW BRIDGE CENTER PILES, 6 DRILLED SHAFTS t [" ESTIMATED OHW (15.49) (TYP) X r�vtmr u STAGE 5: ESTIMATED RESTORATION TEMPORARY TRESTLE CONTOURS (TYP. REMOVAL I EXISTING BULKHEAD �s CR "ti N i SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude REPLACEMENT BRIDGE SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159W Longitude INSTALLATION & TEMPORARY TOWNSHIP: 23 N 0 25 50 100 RANGE: 5E TRESTLE REMOVAL APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET (STAGES 4A, 4B, & 5) PLAN VIEW PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARKCLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 8 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 201210611 PIER 1 SHORELINE RESTORATION (TYPy DEMOLISH EX. BULKHEAD (TYP.) 1.8' CLR AT PIER 1 OHW EL=15.49' 100 YR HW PIER 2 EL 17.07 1 -- 3.4' CLR uuu a f= - FINISHED SURFACE OF BRIDGE PIER 3 PIER 4 ............. ......... ....... 4' DIA SHAFT, TYP BOTTOM 4F GIRDER w RIVER BED ATCL EL=9 $N a a Lu $uj 2.8' CLR AT PIER 4 `rf w CL 1= REPLACEMENT BRIDGE - ELEVATION SCALE: 1" = 50' 10 GIRDERS AT 6-0" OC 100 YR HW EL=17.07' BOTTOM OF GIRDER OHW EL=15.49 RIVERBED AT CL EL --9' (t) 0 uj cn w REPLACEMENT BRIDGE - SECTION SCALE: 1" = 50' SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude REPLACEMENT BRIDGE SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longitude ELEVATION - CROSS SECTION TOWNSHIP: 23 N 0 25 50 100 RANGE: 5E APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARKCLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 9 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012105 130 a z Lu 0 m a ui J Plan View JM � 15.49ft NGVD 29 PiDe Piles Cross Section View Mudline 8 ft dia. SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude TEMPORARY REACTION -PILE SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longitude PLATFORM FOR CONCRETE PIER TOWNSHIP: 23 N PILE CONSTRUCTION RANGE: 5E 0 12 24 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARKCLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 10 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012 105 131 I I, SYM SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPACING MAX. HT. QTY. AU ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI KINNIKINNICK 2O.C. LIX 29 I FI FESTUCA RU9RA RED FESCUE 7' O.C. 3.3' 146 COUNTY: KING STATE: WA Li LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWINBERRY 4'0.0. 9' 2 I Mn MAHONIA NERVOSA DULL OREGON -GRAPE 2' O.C. 2' 39 Pm POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN 2' O.C. 4.5' 18 RS RISES SANGUINFUM RED CURRANT 4'0.C. 9' 1 Rn ROS0. NUTKANA NDOTKA ROSE 4'0 C. 9' 2 1 Sm 51'IRPUS MACROCARPUS SMALL -FLOWERED BULRUSH i' O.C. 4.5' 74 UVE STAKES: SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPACING MAX. HT. QTY. CORNUS STOLONIFERA REO -OSIER DOGWOOD 1' O.C- 15' 1 S TED RESTORATION CONTOURS tTYPI SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude VEGETATION PLAN SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W LongRude WEST BANK - STAGE 6 TOWNSHIP: 23 N APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET RANGE: 5E 0 5 10 20 PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARKCLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 11 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 GATE: 2012/05/30 S_YM SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPACING MAX. HT. CITY, Au ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI KINNIKINNICK 2' O.C. DT 63 Fr FESTUCA RUBRA RED FESCUE 1' O.C. 3.3' 310 Lk LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWINBERRY 4'0 C. 9' 3 Ma MAHONIA AQUIF0JUM TALL OREGON -GRAPE 410C. 9' 6 Mn MAI IONIA NERVOSA DULL OREGON -GRAPE T O.C. 2' 129 Pm POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN 2' O.C. 4.5' 85 Rs RISES SANGUINEUM RED CURRANT 4' O.G. 9' 6 Rn ROSANUTXANA NOOTKAROSE 4'0.C. 9' 7 Rp ROSA PISOCARPA PFA FRUIT ROSE 4' O.C. B' 6 Sm SCIRPUS MACROCARPUS SMALL -FLOWERED BULRUSH VO C_ 45' 71 Ve VIBURNUM EOULE SQUASHBERRY 4'O.C. 10.5' 5 LIVE STAKES: SCIENTIFIC N6ME OOMMON NAME SPACING MAX- HT- QTY, _ , CORNUS STOLONIFERA _ RED -OSIER DOGWOOD 1' O.C_ 15' 33 coin OG 1 3RAVE44 ( RSH MM COIR L9G u Mn(6) IPOPOSED ,/� mn[N 1 Au{7) � i /— PRLANTING MP.1 J Fr(38) Pm(7) Pm(5) Mn(7) Mn(?) Au(7) LI Z7(9) �Au(7) }� Fr(53) Mn(4J)Mn(7} �Vl ESTIMATED RESTORATION r I Lf Rp Fr(28) M0(7) Mn(7) CONTOURS ITYPJ 11 I Rp Au(7) I I Ve Mn(7) Rp Pm(3 'Fr(19 Au(9) Rs I V Ma P n(3) r1� I Rs Rs Fr(SB) I J a Rs Ma Rp Rp Me fj (j Pmp Au(7) e Rs Rs MaInnMa Ma I f Ve Rn Rn Rn Rn Rn Rn Fr(2B) Pm(5) Au(6) EsnrxaTED oFrv+ (15.5) SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude VEGETATION PLAN SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W LongRude EAST BANK - STAGE 6 TOWNSHIP: 23 N APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET RANGE: 5E 0 5 10 20 PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARK CLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE f NEAR/AT: CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL_ RESOURCES 737 LAGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 12 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012/05130 ------------------------------------..- -. FA',Y 1V1^.5CLEP.RANCE -33 E3 _---_-----___--._____-__-._____________ LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude 10-14. VING - hAMANC�; -2- 2no------------------------------ZIYE q 7 LfvESTAKE MAK. HT 9-15" f a q $1-NiuB MAX. HT. P-10' 7 La APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET RANGE: 5E ' MAX. HT. 4-5' 0 5 10 20 1SHRUB VER:DGE EL -21 — W 6 NAME: MARK CLEMENT —SHRUB MA%. NT, ?' SHRUB MAX. HT. B' IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 t NEAR/AT:. CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COIR LOG PLANTED WITH LIVE STAKES -- — SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: 1 3 WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ HABITAT GRAVEL - FISH MI%�- ' .T _... _ OHW S 49' T — T — _... �. — — ' u"e:—le 1'911 de ...— a m x,ea: ur,de, mm. wing deamnce. STANDARD SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL SLOPE SHRUB PLAN71NG DETAIL SEE NOTE 5 FORM 6` HIGH CONTINUOUS -SHRUB jTYP) BACKFILL WITH WATER BASIN PREPARED SOIL PREPARED TOPSOIL SEE NOTE 1 SEE NOTE 5 EXISTING GRADE 1:1 MAX PLANTING PIT 2 X DIA. OF CANTING PI ROOT BALL 2 X DIA. OF Planting Notes: ROOT BALL 1. Planting pit sizes shall be a minimum of twice the root ball width and have their lop true root no more than 1 inch above the soil surface 2. Prior to planting, containers shall be completely removed and the roots loosened by appropriate pruning technique. 3 Planting pits shall be backfilled with native soils that have been amended with compost, are free of rocks over 2 Inches, lumps and other foreign materials. Backfilling around trunks or stems shall not be permitted. 4. The backfill material and root balls shall be thoroughly watered on the same day that planting occurs regardless of season. 5. Provide 4' of mulch within 18" diameter grass free water basin. 6. On slopes, plants shall be set vertically; not perpendicular to slope. LIVE STAKE --1 ADJACENT ROLLS SHALL TIGHTLY ABUT WOOD STAKE SEDIMENT, ORGANIC MATTER, AND NATIVE SEEDS ARE CAPTURED BEHIND COIR l,oG —LIVE STAKE WOOD STAKE 3" - Coir Log Notes: 1. Coir logs shall be installed on OHW at EL +15.49. 2. Coir logs shall be placed and secured in trench, 3"-5" deep, dug on contour. 3- Wood stakes shall be spaced 6" from and of wattle and spaced at 3' centers, leaving 1%2' of stake above top of log. 4- Live stakes shall be driven through coir log on 1' centers, angled towards the water. SECTION: NE LATITUDE: 47.5005 N Latitude VEGETATION PLAN SECTION: 7 LONGITUDE: -122.2159 W Longilude SECTION AND DETAILS - STAGE 6 TOWNSHIP- 23 N APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET RANGE: 5E 0 5 10 20 PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT NAME: MARK CLEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER: THE BOEING COMPANY IN: CEDAR RIVER DATUM: NGVD 29 REFERENCE #: NEAR/AT:. CITY OF RENTON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE LOCATION ADDRESS: COUNTY: KING STATE: WA WASH. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 737 LOGAN AVE. N. SHEET: 13 of 13 CITY OF RENTON RENTON, WA 98038 DATE: 2012/05/30 APPENDIX A Project Photographs Photo 1 PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington ameO t.! L Fry r ARM �:! - !Tn ff,� -. i9vsSJily• .. � :k-. .. .i[75*II1". North Bridge (arrow) at mouth of Cedar River (note Renton Municipal Airport to the left of the Cedar River and the Cedar River Trail Park and Boeing to the right) Photo 2 Looking north from the right bank of the Cedar River at the North Cedar River Bridge AMEC Project No. LY11160130 A-1 Boeing RentoNLY11160130Nprojectpholos_060412.docx Photo 3 Photo 4 FW M11 I �� PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Looking south at Cedar River from bridge deck Looking at timber bulkhead along west bank of Cedar River AMEC Project No. LY11160130 A-2 Boeing Renton/LY111601301projectphotos_060412.docx Photo 5 PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington ameO I Looking at west bank of Cedar River from bridge deck (Renton Municipal Airport in background) Photo 6 Looking at east bank of Cedar River from bridge deck (note timber bulkhead) AMEC Project No. LY11160130 A-3 Boeing RentonlLY111601301projectphotos_060412.docx Photo 7 ameO PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Cedar River Trail Park located on east bank of Cedar River, south of project site Photo 8 Lake Washington shoreline west of bridge apron (Renton Municipal Airport runway at center left) AMEC Project No. LY11160130 A-4 Boeing RentonlLY111601301projectphotos_060412.docx ameO PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Photo 9 Lake Washington shoreline west of bridge AMEC Project No. LY11160130 A-5 Boeing RentonlM 11601301projeclphotos_060412.docx M a,� . i ^ '4" Ai— i—Photo Photo10 Lake Washington shoreline east of bridge AMEC Project No. LY11160130 A-5 Boeing RentonlM 11601301projeclphotos_060412.docx ameO PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Photo 11 Large woody debris in Lake Washington at mouth of Cedar River (bridge at center left) or s' Photo 12 Bridge under construction in 1943 AMEC Project No. LY11160130 A-6 Boeing RentonlLY1116013Mprnjectphotosw06D412.docx PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington 141 ,I1, a Photo 13 Rotator/oscillator used for advancing caissons for concrete bridge piers ameO AMSC Project No. LY11160130 A-7 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lprojectpholos_086412.docx APPENDIX B Shoreline Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring Plan ameO SHORELINE RESTORATION MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING PLAN North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Prepared for: The Boeing Company Renton, Washington Prepared by. AMSC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 11810 North Creek Parkway North Bothell, Washington 98011 June 4, 2012 Project No. LY11160130 Printed on recycled paper mwl rlwrs * TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 VEGETATION MONITORING........................................................................................ 1 2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.................................................................................... 2 2.1 YEAR 1................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 YEARS 2, 3, 4, AND 5............................................................................................ 2 3.0 CONTINGENCY PLANS................................................................................................ 2 4.0 WEED CONTROL WORK PLAN (WCWP).................................................................... 3 5.0 MAINTENANCE............................................................................................................. 4 AMEC Project No. LY11160130 C -I Boeing Renton/LY111601301mon and maint plan_060412.docx ameO SHORELINE RESTORATION MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING PLAN North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington 1.0 VEGETATION MONITORING Vegetation within revegetated areas will be monitored for a total of 5 years to assess the performance of the restoration. During the monitoring period, plant survival and establishment will be documented and compared to performance standards specified below. Monitoring would begin by providing as -built plans immediately following completion of the installation. Subsequent monitoring will occur at the end of each growing season (late August — September) in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 following construction. A memorandum summarizing existing conditions at the time of each monitoring event and compliance with specified performance standards for each monitoring year will be submitted to the appropriate agency for review and approval within 90 days of each monitoring event. Prior to the first monitoring event, the location of four permanent sampling plots (two each bank) will be selected in representative areas of the riparian buffer plantings zones. The size, location, and shape of sample plots will be determined using the as -built plans, and will encompass approximately 100 square feet. The center of each sample plot will be marked with rebar and a tall white polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe during the first monitoring event to enable relocation during subsequent monitoring events. During each monitoring event at the identified locations, plant species observed within the site will be identified and recorded to confirm percent survival. Overall development of the planted communities will be documented through photographs taken during 5 monitoring years. Photo points will be established during year 1 monitoring and identified on the as -built plan. These photos points will be used for the duration of the project. Plant survival and growth will be assessed throughout the entirety of the restored area during the first year of monitoring. During the first monitoring event, all individual plantings will be identified as living or dead. Dead plants will be flagged in the field for replacement, and their species noted. Site -wide plant survival will be calculated by subtracting the total number of dead plantings observed during the monitoring event from the total number of plants installed as listed in the as -built plans. During the 5 -year monitoring period, non-native invasive species such as Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan and evergreen blackberry (Rebus procerus and R. laciniatus, respectively), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), English holly (Ilex aquifolium), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense), and English ivy (Hedera helix) shall be removed and disposed of off-site at an approved facility. AMSC Project No. LY11160130 C-1 Boeing Renton/LY1116G1301mon and maint plan_0604124ou ameO 2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2.1 YEAR 1 Plant survival during the first year would be the responsibility of the landscape contractor and would be ensured through correct installation procedures, ongoing maintenance, and replanting, if needed. Growth during the first year would be minimal as plants are becoming established. Specific performance standards for the first year include: • 100°1% survival of plants; and Not more than 10% coverage by non-native invasive species. 2.2 YEARS 2, 3, 4, AND 5 Following the first year of monitoring, performance of vegetation would be measured in plant survival and percent. Some plant mortality is expected during years 2, 3, 4, and 5. Planted vegetation is expected to perform well. Plants will receive supplemental watering to maintain plants vigor and routine maintenance. With proper growing conditions, it is assumed that 80% of the plants will survive and be present during monitoring years 2, 3, 4, and 5. Specific performance standards for years 3 and 5 should include: • 100°1% survival for year 2 for container plants and 80% for live stakes; • 80% plant survival for years 3, 4, and 5; and • Not more than 10% coverage by non-native invasive species in any year. 3.0 CONTINGENCY PLANS Depending on the data collected during the monitoring period, it may be necessary to implement contingency measures to ensure that the original goals and objectives of the project are met. Several factors, both man-made and natural, could have a detrimental effect on the success of the shoreline plantings. The following table lists factors that may have an adverse effect on the plants and contingencies that can help ensure success of the project. No contingency plan can foresee all problems and their solutions. In all cases, if a more effective remedy is identified, it will be considered. AMEC C-2 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130/mon and maint plan_060412.docx ameO Shore Line Potential Component Factors Contingency Hydrology Insufficient Drought season could result in inadequate hydrology for plantings. Depending on the cause, contingencies could include supplemental irrigation in drier months. Hydrology Excessive Controlled by reducing frequency and duration of irrigation. Hydrology Pollution The type and source of the pollutants would be determined and proper corrective measures established to manage the source. Soils Erosion Causes of erosion would be identified, and remedies could include use of erosion control fabric and supplemental planting of species with dense, strong root systems conducive to erosion control. Vegetation Loss Some plant mortality is expected. If applicable, contingencies for hydrology and soils described above may be employed. Care would be taken to match proposed plantings with onsite environmental conditions existing at time of project implementation. Vegetation lost as a result of drought or other unforeseen circumstances would be replaced to ensure survival rates as stated above. Vegetation Invasive Invasive species would be identified and species eradicated or controlled during the plant establishment period. If invasive species were found during this period and mechanical controls were unsuccessful, other measures might be recommended to assist in the control. If herbicides were determined to be necessary, a detailed application plan would be developed in coordination with the Washington State Department of Ecology and other resource agencies. Disturbances Wildlife Excessive predation and/or grazing could be an adverse effect on the success of shore line plantings, especially during the establishment period. Depending on the disturbance, fencing would be placed around the perimeter of the plantings or mesh cylinders would be placed around individual plants. Disturbances Human If identified as a problem, human intrusion would be prevented through proper signage and fencing. 4.0 WEED CONTROL WORK PLAN (WCWP) Depending on project conditions such as location, sensitive environments, permit requirements, jurisdictional regulations, or other items, there may be limits on the use of chemicals or other weed control methods and use of fertilizers. Before submitting the initial WCWP, determine if there are restrictions or all potential for restrictions on weed control methods on project sites. At the preconstruction conference, submit a WCWP with the following: • Name and contact information for the approved weed control coordinator; • Weed management area with existing specified weeds mapped on project plan sheets where possible; • Botanical and common name of each species of weed to be removed; • The proposed methods of weed removal and continuing control for each weed species listed; AMEC Project No. LY11160130 C-3 Boeing Renton/LY11160130Nmon and maint plan_060412.dou ameO • Schedule of weed control measures; • If necessary request to use wheeled or tracked construction equipment in sensitive areas_ • If changes of the WCWP are necessary, resubmit a revised WCWP for approval before proceeding; and • Identify disposal facilities. 5,0 MAINTENANCE During the first year, every failed planting must be replaced and any replacement plants shall receive 1 inch of water at minimum once weekly June 15 through September 15, inclusive. Other maintenance must be performed twice every year at a minimum for the length of monitoring period. Weeding shall be performed within the following constraints: • Use of herbicides or pesticides, if required, must be approved by state and local agencies. All work shall be performed by hand wherever possible_ If toxic substances are used, they shall not be allowed to enter the Cedar River or Lake Washington. • Fertilizers shall not be applied to bare soils that may allow runoff into bodies of water. Fertilizers shall be directly applied to the planting pit. No mechanical devices shall be used to apply the fertilizer. Herbicides, pesticides (if approved for use), and fertilizer shall not be applied to areas inundated with water. • Weed control in all areas shall be conducted as follows: At least 3 calendar days prior to beginning weed control activities, walk through the site with the landscape architect and confirm the identity, location, type, and approximate number of specified weeds. Verify that control methods in the WCWP are acceptable to meet the plan requirements. Remove specified weeds and receive approval. As much as practicable, ensure that weed seeds or reproducing plant parts such as vines, runners, or rhizomes don't remain or become disbursed during control activities. - As soon as practicable, place weeds and related materials in an approved container and transport to an approved off-site disposal facility according to applicable laws and regulations. During transport, ensure that materials are fully enclosed at all times to prevent escape. - Keep the site weed free, including weeds that were not initially present in the walk through. - Unless otherwise approved in writing, use only hand or light mechanical weed control methods. Hand methods include the use of hand tools. Light mechanical methods include the use of hand carried, motorized machinery. - Remove all of plant including roots. Inside sensitive areas, obtain approval before using wheeled or tracked construction equipment. • Maintain a 3 -inch -thick mulch around individual plantings. AMEC C-4 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton1LY111601301mon and maint plan_060412.docx BOEING RENTON NORTH BRIDGE REPLACEMENT SPECIFICATIONS - APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL REPORT MAP - � 2011 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NORTH BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BOEING RENTON PLANT S&EE JOB NO. 1201 MAY 17, 2012 1201 rpt S&EE 115"e, SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 RedmondWay, Suite M 124 Redmond.Wash' on 98052 425 868-5868 May 17, 2012 Mr. Bill Rockwell The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 MC 61-90 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Report Geotechnical Investigation North Bridge Replacement Boeing Renton Plant Dear Bill: We are pleased to present herewith our Report of Geotechnical Investigation for the referenced project. Our services were authorized via Boeing's Work Order Number 2211201#111216. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, SOIL &. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 166 WAL C.1. Shin, MD., P.E. 06President 1201 rpt ii S&EE TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.................................................................................. ................. ........ ................ ..... 3 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................................._.... 3 3.1 SITE HISTORY & GEOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 3 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT TUE PROJECT AREA............................................................................. 4 3.3 GROUNDWATER AND RIVERBED ............................................................................................................. 5 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................»................................................................. 6 4.1 GENERAL.........................................................................................................................................................6 4.2 BRIDGE SUPPORT— DRILLED SHAFT........................................................................................................ 6 4.3 TRESTLE SUPPORT—PILE FOUNDATION.................................................................................................. 8 4.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES................................................................................................................... 10 4.5EARTHWORK................................................................................................................................................ II 4.6 SLAB-ON-GRADE......................................................................................................................................... [2 4.7 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EXCAVATIONS................................................................................. 12 4.8 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND HAZARDS.......................................................................................... 12 5.0 CLOSURE...........................................................................»............................................................................. 13 FIGURE l: SITE PLAN PLATE 1: OLD BLACK RIVER CHANNEL PLATE 2: ACTIVE FAULTS IN PUGET SOUND AREA FIGURE 2: SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 3: SOIL PROFILE APPENDIX A: FIELD EXPLORATION AND LOGS APPENDIX B: DRILLED SHAFT CAPACITIES AND RESPONSES TO LATERAL LOADS 1201rpt iii S&EE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NORTH BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BOEING RENTON PLANT For The Boeing Company 1.0 INTRODUCTION We present in this report our geotechnical recommendations for the replacement of the north bridge at Boeing's Renton Plant. The project site is located at the northwest corner of the plant where it connects to Renton Airport. A project location plan is shown in Figure 1 which is included at the end this report. The project scope is to replace the existing north bridge which consists of a concrete 3 -span bridge and adjacent trestle structures. This 3 -span bridge was built in 1969 to replace the main span of a World War II era structure. The trestles are remnants of that older structure. Portions of the original structure serve as east and west approaches to the 3 -span bridge, while other portions ("aprons") are unused. The existing bridge is a post -tensioned concrete deck supported on 16 -inch, close -ended, steel pipe piles driven into the riverbed. The deck is in a reasonably good condition, but the pile foundations steel shells exhibit moderate pitting. Designed and built over 40 years ago, this bridge does not meet current seismic design codes, which have changed significantly with advances in knowledge of earthquakes and developments in seismic -resistant design and construction. Specifically, the pile foundations are inadequate, partly due to the bettered pile arrangement and insufficient lateral displacement capacity. The existing east and west approaches are trestle structures consisting of concrete slabs supported by timber pile caps on piles. Sometime after 1969, the original WWII -era timber piles were cut off at the mudline and replaced with steel H -pile posts, apparently due to rot and deterioration in the timber. The posts stand on end atop the timber pile stubs, are shimmed to support the pile caps, and are held in place with horizontal and diagonal steel bracing. This system is vulnerable to collapse in a strong earthquake, and is further compromised by ongoing corrosion of the steel members. Replacing the existing bridge is best facilitated by constructing a temporary trestle to the south of the bridge alignment. The trestle will serve both as a work platform and as an alternate route for airplane crossings. The new bridge will be a 3 -span bridge that is 253 feet long and 50 feet wide. r ao ] rpt S&EE 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our investigation is to develop geotechnical recommendations regarding the design and construction of the new bridge and temporary trestle. Specifically, our services included: 1. Attend project meetings. 2. Review of regional and local geologic information, reports, and studies relevant to the project design. 3. Exploration of the subsurface soil conditions by the drilling of two soil test borings. 4. Evaluations, engineering, and recommendations regarding: • Foundation support for the bridge and trestle • Soil pressures for retaining wall design • Seismic hazard and mitigation • Earthwork 5. Preparation of this written report which presents our findings and recommendations. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SITE HISTORY & GEOLOGY Boeing Renton Plant is located at the south end of Lake Washington. The Black River used to run out of the lake, flowed south through the site and then veered west. Plate 1, which is included at the end of this report, shows that until 1912, Cedar River emptied into the Black River and became part of the Black River, which then emptied into the Duwamish River. In 1911, the Cedar River flooded Renton. In the following year the town dug a 2000 -foot -long, 80 -foot -wide canal to reroute the course of the Cedar to the north so that it flowed directly into Lake Washington, in the hope of avoiding floods in the future. From July to October 1916, the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal lowered Lake Washington 8.8 feet. In the process, the Black River dried up, and the outfall from Lake Washington became the ship canal (reference: Suzanne Larson, Hstory of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, King County Arts Commission, 1975, Introduction, 23.) During WW U, the plant area was leveled by about 2 to 5 feet thick of fill. The native soils immediately under the fill include alluvial deposits that are over 100 feet in thickness. Published geologic information (Geologic Map of The Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington by D.R. Mullineaux, 1965) indicates that the alluvial soils are underlain by Arkosic sandstone. The upper portion of the alluvial soils is typically loose, soft and unconsolidated. A liquefaction map (Preliminary Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of the Renton Quadrangle, Washington by Stephen Palmer) indicates that the project area has high liquefaction susceptibility. 1201rpt 3 SME Seattle Fault Plate 2, which is included at the end of this report, shows that Seattle Fault is the prominent active fault closest to the site. The fault is a collective term for a series of four or more east- west-trending, astwest-trending, south -dipping fault strands underlying the Seattle area. This thrust fault zone is approximately 2 to 4 miles wide (north -south) and extends from the Kitsap Peninsula near Bremerton on the west to the Sammamish PIateau east of Lake Sammamish on the east. The four fault strands have been interpolated from over -water geophysical surveys (Johnson, et al., 1999) and, consequently, the exact locations on land have yet to be determined or verified. Recent geologic evidence suggests that movement on this fault zone occurred about 1,100 years ago, and the earthquake it produced was on the order of a magnitude 7.5. 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THE PROJECT AREA We have retained a sub -contractor to perform two soil test borings, one at each end of the existing bridge. The boring locations are shown on Figure 2 at the end of this report and the boring logs are included in Appendix A. A Soil Classification Chart and Key to Boring Logs are shown at the end of the appendix. Both borings B-1 and B-2 were drilled to a depth of 180 feet and they found relatively similar subsoil conditions. A soil profile is shown in Figure 3. This profile is superimposed on the as -built drawing of the existing bridge. The top part of Figure 3 shows the plan view of the bridge deck and pile foundations. The bottom part of Figure 3 shows a profile that includes the driving records of the existing piles and our interpreted subsoil strata. The blow -counts or N -values from our soil test borings are shown next to the borings. These values are the indicatives of the soil density for the granular soils or consistency for the cohesive soils. In general, the subsoils can be identified by the following strata. Please note that the stratum depths are approximate. Details of the soil classifications are presented in the boring logs. (I)t)c�h to top of stratum = 0 feet (ground surface) Medium dense, mixture of sand and gravel. This is a fill that was placed over the original river bed. (II) Depth to top of stratum = 14 feet Loose and soft sand, silty sand and silt. These soils are alluvial deposits. The soils are susceptible to liquefaction during strong earthquakes. (III) Depth to top of stratum= SQfeet at B-1.60 feet at B-2 Medium dense sand and stiff silt. These soils are alluvial deposits. The soils are more competent than the stratum above, indicating older and consolidated deposits. Some of the existing piles are embedded in this stratum. 1201,pr 4 S&EE (IV) th to top of stratum = 60 feet at B-1 Dense gravel. This layer exists within stratum (III) and was only encountered by B-1. Drilling of B-1 through this layer was very difficult. The borehole was advanced with mud -rotary technique and steel casing had to be installed through this layer to prevent loss of drill fluid. The formation was dense and soil particles were not bonded (poorly graded with no fines or binders). It took about two-day to drill through this layer. (V) Depth to top of stratum =105 feet at B-2. 110 feet at B-1 Stiff to very stiff silt. This soil is an alluvial deposit. Judging from its consistency, the soil is older and more consolidated than stratum (111). (VI) De th to top of stratum = 115 feet at B-2 135 feet at 11-1 Stiff to very stiff silt This soil is also an alluvial deposit. Judging from its consistency, we believe that the soil is even older and more consolidated than stratum (V). All of the existing vertical piles at Bent "I "are embedded in this layer. (VII) Degh to W of stratum= 140 feet at B-2, 165 feet at B-1 Hard silt. Judging from its consistency and appearance, we believe that this soil is glacially deposited and consolidated. All of the existing vertical piles at Bend "2" are embedded in this layer. The profile shows typical alluvial deposits in the upper 150 feet or so of the explorations. One particular feature in these deposits is the gravel layer (Stratum IV) that was encountered by B -I at depths of 60 to 76 feet but not by B-2. As most of the existing piles in the eastern portion of the existing bridge met driving refusal near the depth of this gravel layer, we believe this is a prevailing layer in the eastern portion of the site. Also, two batter piles at the westernmost bent were recorded as "ruptured" near similar depths, suggesting that pockets of dense gravel may be present in the western portion of the site. 3.3 GROUNDWATER AND RIVER BED The project site is located at the mouth of Cedar River where it flows into Lake Washington. We believe that the groundwater table at the site will follow the river level closely. At the time of our field exploration (January 13 to 27, 2012), the top of river was measured at 7.5 feet below the top of the bridge deck, near the center of the bridge. The depth of water was 6 feet at the same location. We understand that future riverbed dredging may lower the riverbed about 4 to 5 feet from its existing elevation. 1201rpt 5 S&EE 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL 1. We recommend that the proposed new bridge be supported on deep foundations which should penetrate the liquefaction zone and be embedded in competent soils. We have considered both pile and drilled shaft foundations, and recommended the latter due to the high demand on lateral capacity and the necessity of penetrating the dense gravel later. During the course of our study, we examined the loading information and the supporting conditions with the structural engineers at KPFF. The iterations between the soil and structure evaluations resulted in an optimal shaft size of 4 feet in diameter and 110 feet in length, measuring from the existing ground surface or elevation 20 feet. 2. The trestle for the temporary bridge and any work platform can be supported on steel H piles or pipe piles. We recommend H piles as they would generate less under -water sound disturbance than pipe piles. 3. The current design requires no new Ell at any location with the exception of backfill behind the proposed abutments and wingwalls. This backfill will be minimal, about 12 to 18 inches above the existing grade. As the subsoils include soft and compressible soils at shallow depths, new fill may incur large ground settlement. Therefore, if any other new fill becomes necessary, we should evaluate the potential impact and provide recommendations for mitigation. Details of our evaluations and recommendations are presented in the following sections. 4.2 BRIDGE SUPPORT — DRILLED SHAFT The new 3 -span bridge will be supported by eastern and western on -shore bridge abutments and two in - water piers. These structural elements will be supported on a row of three shafts that are spaced at about 19 feet on -center and oriented in the north -south direction. We understand from the structural engineer that the maximum factored load on the drilled shafts include 726 kips downward load, 160 kips lateral load for the fixed head condition and 80 kips lateral load for the free head condition. 4.2.1 Vertical Capacities Based on the design loads and subsoil conditions, we recommend that the foundation system be consisted of 4 -foot diameter drilled shafts, installed to a tip elevation of -90 feet. The shaft length is about 110 1201,pt 6 S&EE feet, measuring from the ground surface at either side of the river bank. The anticipated soils at this depth include dense silty sand and silt. Our evaluation show that the drill shaft will develop vertical downward and upward capacities of 730 and 230 kips, respectively. These values include a safety factor of 2.5 and have considered the liquefaction condition. Figure 1 in Appendix B shows the graphs of depths vs. vertical capacities of the drilled shaft. 4.2.2 Responses to Lateral Loads The responses of drilled shafts under lateral loads were analyzed using methods developed by Dr. Lymon Reese. We examined both the fixed and free head conditions. The results are presented in the following figures in Appendix B. Figure Number Shaft Head, Plot Details 2A Fixed Deflection -Moment -Shear vs_ Depth 2B Fixed Deflection vs. Load 2C Fixed Moment vs. Load 3A Free Deflection -Moment -Shear vs. Depth 3B Free Deflection vs. Load 3C Free Moment vs. Load Our recommended soil parameters for the analyses are shown on Figure 2A and the analyses were performed with a program, ALLPILE. We understand that the structural engineer performed similar analyses using the program L -PILE and obtained comparable results. 4.2.3 Settlement We estimate that the drilled shafts will experience about 112 to one inch settlement under the anticipated maximum load. Differential settlement between adjacent piers in the proposed expansion is estimated at 1l2 inch or less. These settlements are expected to be elastic in nature and will occur essentially simultaneously with the application of load. 4.2.4 Construction Prior to the drilled shaft installation, the contractor should submit a construction plan which includes construction sequence, method, machine, materials and any other pertinent information. The plan should be reviewed and approved by the design team. 120lipt 7 S&EE We recommend that the shaft be installed per WSDOT specifications (Section 6-19, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal construction, 2012.). The following items should also be included in the drilled shaft specifications. 1) The project site is located at the northeast corner of Renton Airport and at the edge of airplane flight line. Per airport personnel, the height of any tall construction equipment such as a crane or drill rig should be evaluated and approved by the airport. As a reference, the airport approved the drill rig used for our field exploration. This rig has a maximum height of 60 feet above the runway surface. 2) In order to eliminate the risk of borehole collapse, we recommend that the shafts be installed with fmH temporary casing. With the shaft length of 110 feet, we envision that the casing be installed with a rotator/oscillator. The contractor should install necessary piling for the operation of this machine. 3) We envision that the shaft will be installed in wet. To avoid a "soft bottom", we recommend that the drilled shaft base be cleaned with a cleanout bucket and airlift pipe. 4) CrosshoIe Sonic Log (CSL) testing is commonly performed for drilled shafts and is parts of l WSDOT specifications. The purpose of this test is to confirm the integrity of the shaft. We recommend that the test be performed for all shafts. We further recommend that steel access tubes be used_ 5) Drilled shaft installation should be monitored by an engineer from our office and the boreholes should be approved by us before the placement of reinforcement and concrete_ 4.3 TRESTLE SUPPORT -- PILE FOUNDATION 4.3.1 Pile Capacity We understand that the temporary trestle will have 7 bents and each bent have 5 piles. Based on the load information provided by the structural engineer, each pile will have a servicetworking load of 70 kips. Our evaluations indicate that this allowable load can be provided by 14 -inch, steel H -pile driven to either a depth of 100 feet (elevation -80 feet), or refusal. The refusal condition can be taken as 50 blows per 6 inches of penetration by a medium to heavy duty hammer having an energy rating on the order of 39,000 foot-pounds. The refusal may occur if the pile encountered the dense gravel layer at depths of 70 to 80 12011pr 8 S&EE feet. As previously mentioned, most of the existing piles in the eastern portion of the bridge met refusal at these depths. The allowable downward and upward capacities of the I4 -inch, steel H -pile will be 70 kips and 40 kips, respectively. These allowable loads include a safety factor of at least 2 and have considered the Iiquefaction conditions. For a static state condition, i.e., no liquefaction, the allowable downward and upward capacities can be increased to 100 and 50 kips, respectively. Increase of pile capacities due to pile group effect should be ignored as the densification effect in the embedment layer is not reliable. 4.3.2 Settlement We estimate that the pile foundation will experience about 1/2 inch total settlement under the working load. Differential settlement between adjacent piles should be 114 inch or less. These settlements are expected to be elastic in nature and will occur essentially simultaneously with the application of load. 4.3.3 Construction Prior to pile installation, the contractor should submit a construction plan which includes construction sequence, method, machine, materials and any other pertinent information. The plan should be reviewed and approved by the design team. Similar to drilled shaft installation, the height of tall equipment needs to be reviewed and approved by Renton Airport personnel. A medium to heavy section such as 14HPI02 is recommended. If piles are installed with a vibratory hammer, the pile capacity should be confirmed by a medium to heavy duty percussion hammer. If piles are refused at depths shallower than the anticipated depths of the bearing materials, the situation should be evaluated by our on-site engineer. The factors to be considered may include the depth of refusal, consistency of the driving resistance, and the driving records of the neighboring piles. A replacement pile may be requested if refusal by obstructions is suspected. Pile installation should be monitored by an engineer from our office. Our field representative will evaluate the adequacy of the construction methods and procedures. Any problems which might arise, or deviations from specifications, will be considered during our evaluations and approval of each pile installed. 1201rpt 9 S&EE 4.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES Lateral earth pressures on retaining walls or permanent subsurface walls, and resistance to lateral loads may be estimated using the following recommended soil parameters: Soil Density MI I 130 32 50 Of ;. Fnciha�a � 4-4 ti 0.5 Note: 1) Hydrostatic pressures are not included in the above lateral earth pressures. 2) Lateral earth pressures are appropriate for level structural fill placed behind and in front of walls. The active case applies to walls that are permitted to rotate or translate away from the retained soil by approximately 0.002H, where H is the height of the wall. This would be appropriate for a cantilever retaining wall. The at -rest case applies to unyielding walls, and would be appropriate for walls that are structurally restrained from lateral deflection such as basement walls, utility trenches or pits. SURCHARGE INDUCED LATERAL LOADS Additional lateral earth pressures will result from surcharge loads from floor slabs or pavements for parking that are located immediately adjacent to the walls. The surcharge -induced lateral earth pressures are uniform over the depth of the wall. Surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "active" case may be calculated by multiplying the applied vertical pressure (in psf) by the active earth pressure coefficient (Ka). The value of Ka may be taken as 0.3. The surcharge -induced lateral pressures for the "at -rest" case are similarly calculated using an at -rest earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of 0.5. SEISMIC INDUCED LATERAL LOADS For seismic induced lateral loads, the dynamic force can be assumed to act at 0.6 H above the wall base and the magnitude can be calculated using the following equation: Pe = 12H (psf per lineal foot along wall) Where Pe = seismic -induced lateral load H = wall height in feet 1201rpt 10 S&EE BACKFILL IN FRONT OF RETAINING WALLS Backfill in front of the wall should be structural fill. The material and compaction requirements are presented in Section 4.5. The density of the structural fill can be assumed to be 130 pounds per cubic feet. BACKFILL BEHIND RETAINING WALLS Backfill behind the wall should be free -draining materials which are typically granular soils containing less than 5 percent fines (silt and clay particles) and no particles greater than 4 inches in diameter. The backfill material should be placed in 6 to 8 -inch thick horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density in accordance with ASTM D-1557 test procedures. Care must be taken when compacting backfill adjacent to retaining walls, to avoid creating excessive pressure on the wall. DRAINAGE BEHIND RETAINING WALLS Unless the wall is designed to support hydrostatic pressure, rigid, perforated drainpipes should be installed behind retaining walls. Drainpipes should be at least 4 inches in diameter, covered by a layer of uniform size drain gravel of at least 12 inches in thickness. An adequate number of cleanouts should be installed along the drain line for future maintenance. As an alternative, a drainage blanket that consists of minimum 12 inches thick/wide drain gravel can be installed next to the wall and weep holes installed near the base of the wall. The holes should be 2 inches in diameter and spaced at 5 feet on center. 4.5 EARTHWORK The reconstruction of bridge approach and surrounding slabs should begin with stripping of existing concrete pavement and asphalt overlay. The subgrade should then be re -compacted by at least 6 passes of a vibratory roller compactor that weighs at least 12 tons. The compaction should be observed by an engineer from our office. Any wet, soft or organic soils encountered at the subgrade should be removed by over -excavation. The over -excavation should then be backfilled with the structural fill material. Structural fill materials should meet both the material and compaction requirements presented below. Material Reguirements: Structural fill should be free of organic and frozen material and should consist of hard durable particles, such as sand, gravel, or quarry -processed stone. The onsite, existing fill soil is a suitable structural fill material. However, due to its silty nature the soil is moisture -sensitive and should be conditioned to +/- 2% from it optimum moisture content prior to use. Suitable imported structural fill materials include silty sand, sand, mixture of sand and gravel (pitrun), and crushed rock. All structural fill material should be approved by our engineer prior to use. 12o?rpt 11 S&EE Placement and Compaction Requirements: Structural fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not exceeding a thickness of 6 to 12 inches, depending on the material type, compaction equipment, and number of passes made by the equipment. Structural fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined using the ASTM D-1557 test procedures. 4.6 SLAB -ON -GRADE Assuming that the site is prepared per recommendations presented above, a subgrade reaction modulus of 200 pci (pounds per cubic inches) can be used for slab -on -grade design. Slab -on -grade subgrade may be disturbed by foot and vehicular traffic. If so, the subgmde should be re -graded and re -compacted prior to the placement of re -bar and concrete. 4.7 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EXCAVATIONS When temporary excavations are required during construction, the contractor should be responsible for the safety of their personnel and equipment. The followings cut angles are provided only as a general reference: Temporary excavations in existing fill should be sloped no steeper than I H:1 V (one horizontal to one vertical). Excavation in native soils below the fiII should be sloped at 1.5H.- IV or flatter. The slope should continue from top to bottom (without vertical cut). Flatter slopes for all temporary cuts may be required if seepage occurs. All permanent slopes should be no steeper than 2H: IV. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanent slopes should be seeded with the appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and maintain the slope stability. 4.8 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS AND HAZARDS We recommend that Site Class E as defined in the 2009 IBC be considered for the seismic design. Our evaluations show that the subsoils below groundwater table and to elevations of -30 to -40 feet are liquefaction prone during strong earthquakes (M = 7.5). The deep foundations recommended in this report will mitigate the adverse impact of liquefaction. However, damage to the slab -on -grade should be anticipated, 120 rrpt 12 S&EE 5.0 CLOSURE The recommendations presented in this report are provided for design purposes and are based on soil conditions disclosed by field observations and subsurface explorations. Subsurface information presented herein does not constitute a direct or implied warranty that the soil conditions between exploration locations can be directly interpolated or extrapolated or that subsurface conditions and soil variations different from those disclosed by the explorations will not be revealed. The recommendations outlined in this report are based on the assumption that the development plan is consistent with the description provided in this report. If the development plan is changed or subsurface conditions different from those disclosed by the exploration are observed during construction, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions, and if necessary, reconsider our design recommendations. 12Ozrpr 13 S&EE Washington — Renton North Sth and Park Avenue North, Renton, WA 98055 52 _ 5s 54 5& From ■i From Seattle _ °� Bellevue —� LAKE WASHNGTON i` Goad SITE D$Qge— ,` Shack �4-% From + i p Shed Issaquah 44, Medl2al , A, Boeing Clinic`. a Emptayeas Safety', x Assoeiatian < ST Q 5 t s 4-M N3Ts n87K5T B 15 agge -2 a 9Or� all L"i' t5 la 13k 'z D < z z �L s m Renton s -r o e Airport �` 'y '1_ bP en N 67tH ST [ t�73 J a -c °�' FXIT N 5Y VVV { SFH 1 4� l� -C' tHr•16n z pp 4 1g Mc^� 1'gl r'I�YI wl X1111I z W —N a7H ST �r� M z 3RD $7 a From z 2's 2 x s _ Seattle �T19�, Y 4 - AIRPORT WAY 4 {'h"i -tom 2 4a +*S 4 SIT !], Q 5 2ND 5T — 169 90O 5 3RD Sr w p S 4T1H 5T 405 Fromi CEtaR anreA :�� U RiYei'teCh 167 � K Enumclaw � Corporate Center000 9\ Z SW 71'M S7 O N < T•2Ci ' . Triton Tower Three E, 7m s�+16T"ST Triton Tower Two w E29 N� 5* 26 4RppY'��Y i Employee gates From 4F AMS Turnstile gates I-6 40 SW wrH ST Fence lines Q Boeing property From I_ongacres167 [] General parking F' Park oa sW %9TrH ST x4 F E:j Restricted parking From o 515 y !g. Bus stop Kenaand 19 Helistop a Aubum 51 52 57 54 55 Revised 03-09 Co h; py+Hg 2009o7h a 30eing GcmFany w -,grls'sse�ed. Figure 1 +o G$ lake lake Ip• �$shir�8fon , lYas��xgton I+47' 30L •$ate �a 47` 30' ,RIBCOG; @day' Rifer P.i�er Ricer ${ 4 { Lake level lowered and 4 Cedar Cnd 9#ock Rivers C7 � D diverted in 1917 C Diverted �py6T in 1906. Ilk `rte 47' 15' 447' 15'- A 0 2 4mi ~`?a A 112* 15' 5km � i ] 2' 15'i°., Reference: Holocene Geologic History and Se&mentolopy of the Duw€ sb and Puyallup Valley, Wdshingtom ,Stephen P. Palmer, Washington Department of Natural Resources, September 29, 1997 Plate 1. Reference: Washington Department of Natural Resource, New Release April 16, 2009. S&EE SITE Plate 2 - Prominent Active Faults in Puget Sound Area 705R6Z1 3 00996ZL 3 R1V�R r e w LJ +� + 1 + 4 r � _ T �UNICIPALI+VRPORT—, RENTON _� r e w LJ a to Ar O�nJ.O �---n---I�o: dd .AJ•'J-w�` is Depth (Feet) a N m m g n R Q L {amen -N} - a LL .0 luno:) mo mM^all.`+`HMoK°.''srvN aa. °.y�,.1Ni.o Mm rY2 LL 11 e Hl � p N J• �} � t?- a � ¢ � i I• �I• Is rf �� ° 1 Y .�'I�� I 7 •• i I � 4 4 i L� �..a� I •,� � i I l I .� � s.►Ivgl •.P4� f O � Ijj V � �• Y m .n Ot .�. n ' - I•'h M - — •� � � � 'BLIP. � I �� I ,� i i � � I I I • l 11 e Hl � p N J• �} � t?- a � ¢ � _ ' i I• �I• Is rf �� ° 4 I � a i 1 a r f � 11 V � _ ' i I• �I• Is rf �� ° 4 I � a r E Y 3vv 2� E� F s� I � V � �• Y m .n Ot .�. n ' - I•'h M - — •� � � � 'BLIP. � C%- _ ' i I• �I• Is rf �� ° 4 � r E Y 3vv 2� E� � C%- l ` ~ M. I III s a C (anlen-N) I,Q`l °°�amhcOUwoho wmub �h!a i � m�I2 C `tepa�pp I�� m a y =unQo mo;e I I - - —j. i.•n�. E m £ p O O O k u i 6 9 4 05 d O O O 3 O Q (;ea_A) tgdap vv�7777 '� i APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LOGS The subsurface conditions at the project site were explored with the drilling of two soil test borings, B-1 and B-2 from January 13 to 27, 2012. The test borings were advanced using a truck -mounted drill rig and mud rotary technique. A representative from S&EE was present throughout the exploration to observe the drilling operations, log subsurface soil conditions, obtain soil samples, and to prepare descriptive geologic logs of the exploration. Soil samples were taken at 2.5- and 5 -foot intervals in general accordance with ASTM D-1586, "Standard Method far Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils" (1.4" I.D. sampler). The penetration test involves driving the samplers 18 inches into the ground at the bottom of the borehole with a 140 pounds hammer dropping 30 inches. The numbers of blows needed for the samplers to penetrate each 6 inches are recorded and are presented on the boring logs. The sum of the number of blows required for the second and third 6 inches of penetration is termed "standard penetration resistance" or the "N -value". In cases where 50 blows are insufficient to advance it through a 6 inches interval the penetration after 50 blows is recorded. The blow count provides an indication of the density of the subsoil, and it is used in many empirical geotechnical engineering formulae. The following table provides a general correlation of blow count with density and consistency. DENSITY GRANULAR SOIL CONSISTENCY -GRAINED SOILS N -value < 4 very loose N -value < 2 very soft 5-10 loose 3-4 soft 11-30 medium dense 5-8 medium stiff 31-50 dense 9-15 stiff >50 very dense 16-30 very stiff >30 hard After drilling, the test borings were backfilled with bentonite chips and the surface is patched with quick set concrete. The boring logs are included in this appendix. A chart showing the Unified Soil Classification System is included at the end of this appendix. BORING B -'I Surface condition: Airplane Tow Path Q AC 6 inches asphalt pavement over 6 inches concrete G a ; 10 SP Brown fine to coarse sand with some fine to coarse gravel (medium dense to dense)(fill) F 26 i I ' I I I ;13 la 16 I ' I I ' 1 I ' 1 I ' 1 8 ' 14 ; a 17 1 ' I I ' I � 4 � Q - depth of groundwater table based on river level at the time of drilling I I I I I I I ' 7 118 11 + 8 1 14 I ' 1 I ' I I ' I 10+ ' 7 119 X14 Id 17 I sp Gray fine sand (loose) I ' I iSI 3 118 I 5 12 I 5 1 ' 1 1 ' I 1 , , f � I ' 4 201-- I--J---I (Boring log continued on Figure A-1 b) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by buck -mount drill rig Sampling Method: SK sampler driven by 1404b auto hammer r� Drilling Date: January 23, 2012 Drilling Contractor: Holocene Drilling Figure A-1 a ,v$.1`2M Boeing North Bridge y y SP dray Tine sane (very loose) -wood at 20.5 feet ML Brownish gray silt with trace fine sand (very soft) BORING B-1 (Continued) sP I Gray fine sand with trace sift, lenses of peat, brown and white specks (loose) - thin gravel layers between 30 and 35 feet ML� Gray sift with trace very fine sand, wood debris and peat (soft) (Boring log continued on Figure A-1 c) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -Ib auto hammer m January 23, 2012 Drilling Contractor. ME m l a3 -Z = vs 20 , 16 1 + ' ' = I 1 1 I � I , , , —26, f I ' � , I I , 1 3 16 I 5 ' 1 I , + 1 I I , 30 3 I,B ` 4 I 0 + ' I I I I I , 1 ' , I , ss' I , 1 I ' I I 2 '16 I + I I ' 7 ' ' ' 1 1 1 1 I I 401 p I -- I + ' --�- I I I y y SP dray Tine sane (very loose) -wood at 20.5 feet ML Brownish gray silt with trace fine sand (very soft) BORING B-1 (Continued) sP I Gray fine sand with trace sift, lenses of peat, brown and white specks (loose) - thin gravel layers between 30 and 35 feet ML� Gray sift with trace very fine sand, wood debris and peat (soft) (Boring log continued on Figure A-1 c) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -Ib auto hammer Drilling Date: January 23, 2012 Drilling Contractor. Holocene Drilling Figure A-9 b Job No. S&IM1 Boeing North Bridge — 40 45 00 58 so BORING B-1 (Continued) (Boring log continued on Figure A-1 d) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by trUck-mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 1404b auto hammer Drilling Cate: January 24, 2012 Grilling Contractor, Holocene Drilling SUE Job No. 1201 Figure A-1 c Boeing North Bridge � 24 19 13 8 Gray fine to coarse, sub -rounded gravel with fine to coarse sand I ' 29 1 ' SP � I j - driller report loss of drill mud in gravel layers I - driller install steel casing to 76 feet I I y I I r 60 BORING B-1 (Continued) CUent: The Boeing Company DrIlling Method: Mud rotary advanced by tr;tck-mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -Ib auto hammer Dril®ng Date: January 24 and January 25, 2012 Wing Contractor. Holocene Drilling SME dols No. 1201 Figure A -1d Boeing North Bridge 24 19 GP/ Gray fine to coarse, sub -rounded gravel with fine to coarse sand I ' 29 1 ' SP and layers of clean gravel (dense to very dense) I j - driller report loss of drill mud in gravel layers I - driller install steel casing to 76 feet I I y I I 17 ' �14 _ I - � 1 I 7Q I '13 118 1S IB 1 I I 17 ' ' � ' t I I I I , 76 I I :18 :21 118 I 2a '12 I I I sP Gray fine sand with trace organics (medium dense) driller installed steel casing to 80 feet (Boring log continued on f=igure A -le) CUent: The Boeing Company DrIlling Method: Mud rotary advanced by tr;tck-mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -Ib auto hammer Dril®ng Date: January 24 and January 25, 2012 Wing Contractor. Holocene Drilling SME dols No. 1201 Figure A -1d Boeing North Bridge I •88 10d zz BORING B-1 (Continued) (Boring log continued on Figure A -1f Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method; Mud rotary advanced by tri4ek-mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -lb auto hammer r� Drilling Date: January 26, 2012 Drilling Contractor: Holocene Drilling Figure A-1 e ,&EE Boeing North Bridge N 3 Ilk r - driller report gravel at 144 to 105 feet srw Gray silty fine sand and sandy sift, trace organics (dense) MLI (Boring log continued on f=igure A-1 g) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 14CHb auto hammer �--� Drtlling Date: January 26, 2012 Drilling Contractor: Holocene Drilling BORING B-1 (Continued) Figure A -If S&EE ,lob No. 1201 Boeing North Bridge BORING B-1 (Continued) (Boring log continued on Figure A -4h) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -Ib auto hammer Drilling Date: January 27, 2012 Drilling Contractor: Holocene Drilling Figure A-1 g A�12M Boeing Noah Bridge BORING B-1 (Continued) 7 is ML Gray silt, trace very fine sand, trace organics (stiff to very stiff) 12 1 ' I I , I I 14ti 14 '18 B its 13 , I ' I I ' I I ' I q a U BORING B-1 (Continued) 7 is ML Gray silt, trace very fine sand, trace organics (stiff to very stiff) 12 1 ' I I , I I 14ti 14 '18 B its 13 , I ' I I ' I I ' I 1e�I , I 2 110 ML Blueish gray silt, trace very fine sand (no organics) (stiff' to very stiff) 17 , i ' I i ' I I ' I le 3 11B ' , e '1B I ' I I ' I I ' I I ' 1 y (Boring log continued on Figure A-1 i) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 1404b auto hammer r 1 Drilling Date: January 27, 2012 Drilling Contractor: Holocene Drlping Figure A-1 h Job No. 12M SUE Boeing North Bridge 1 r BORING BW1 31 la Boring completed at a depth of 180 feet on January 27, 2012 3 Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced bytruk-mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -Ib auto hammer Drilling Data: January 27, 2012 Drilling Contractor: Holocene Drilling SUE ,lob No. 1201 Figure A-1 i Boeing North Bridge a d 1 Go —Z � I I (A j ry AC C BORING B-2 Surface candifion: Airplane Tow PaM 6 inches asphalt pavement over 12 inches concrete , I ' I I ', o sP Brown fine sand with some fine to coarse gravel, trace slit (medium dense)(fill) 1 I I ! [ I e 1 � , � l � I � I I � I ti I I 1 10 ; 3 I I 1 10 , ' 1 I I I SZ I I I 1 , I 1 1 I 1 -depth of groundwater table based on river level at the time of drilling I I ' 1 , 1 I + + 1 + 7 418 7 0 1 1 1 I 1 r S � > I f I I 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 + , sP Gray fine sand with gravel lenses (loose) I 13 i I I I I 1 I 3 17e I 4 I 0 I i 1 I � I � I ' 1 I I I I 20 _ I I _ _ _ _ ; _ _ - driller installed steel casing to 20 feet (Boring log continued on Figure A -2b) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -Ib auto hammer �1 Drilling Date: January 11, 2012 Drilling Contractor. Holocene Dulling Figura A -2a JJobNo. 1201 $cEE Boeing North Bridge —20 26 30 311" 40 �m A BORING B-2 (Continued) (Boring log continued on Figure A -2c) Client The SoebV Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by tniiek mount drill dg Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -lb auto hammer i� Drilling Date: January 11, 2012 Drilling Contractor: Holocene Drilling SUE Job No. 1201 Figure A -2b Boeing North Bridge -11 I - 40 a BORING B-2 (Continued) A So (Boring log continued on Figure A -2d) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler drtven by 140 -Ib auto hammer �1 Drilling Date: January 11 and 12, 2012 Drilling Contractor. Holocene Drilling S&EE Jab No. 1201 Figure A -2c Boeing North Bridge 5P BORING B-2 (Continued) Brownish gray sandy silt, silky fine sand and fine sand, trace organics (very soft to stiff) - stiff below 65 feet sp I Gray fine sand, trace sift (medium dense) (Boring log continued on Figure A -2e) Client: bm Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 1404b auto hammer Drilling Date: January 12, 2012 Drilling Contractor. Holocene Drilling 0 r 60 5P BORING B-2 (Continued) Brownish gray sandy silt, silky fine sand and fine sand, trace organics (very soft to stiff) - stiff below 65 feet sp I Gray fine sand, trace sift (medium dense) (Boring log continued on Figure A -2e) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 1404b auto hammer Drilling Date: January 12, 2012 Drilling Contractor. Holocene Drilling SUE Job No. 1251 Figure A -2d Boeing North Bridge q BORING B-2 (Continued) ga s 118 I 18 sw Cray silty fine sand and sandy sift, trace fine to medium gravel, trace peat o i I ' I Ix III nnl {medium dense and stiff] I 1 I I I I 7 i18 IfII f ' I I ' I I ' I A 901 ' 7 '18 Illi Ifll I ' I I ' I I 95 13 ' 18 � 115 X14 -gray fine sand at 95 feet (dense) r ' 20 r r � r jll II IIII III 3 (Boring log continued on Figure A-2f Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck-mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140ab auto hammer .—� Dniling Date: January 12, 2012 Drilling Contractor: Holocene Drilling Figure A-2e �NoNo`.1XE Boeing North Bridge Job No. 1M1 SUE Boeing North Bridge BORING B-2 4R 8 y (Continued) -SS c 1 I ' e 118 12 : 16 smi Gray silty fine sand and sandy sift, lenses of peat, trace fine to medium gravel 13 � II hAl. (medium dense to dense) I —100aF18 14 .18 I I - dense below 105 feet 17 , I ' k I ' 1 I ' I t II � k � I ' I ' 11 i 14 :18 1 ; 17 1a II II jjjII Ii14 1 � 11a I 1 ' I I I1H 11$ 4 ' 18 08 Gray sandy silt with trace organics (stiff) I ' 7 I F ' I k ' I I ' 12d -- -- L--' (Boring log continued on Figure A -2g) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 1404b auto hammer r� DrilIng pate: January 12, 2012 OrilBng Contractor, Holocene Drilling Figure A -2f Job No. 1M1 SUE Boeing North Bridge l BORING B-2 (Continued) (Boring log continued on Figure A -2h) Client: The Boeing Company Dulling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rfg Sampling (Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -lb auto hammer i- Drilling Date: January 12 and 13, 2012 Drilling Contractor: Holocene Drilling SEE ,lob No. 1201 Figure A -2g Boeing North Bridge BORING B-2 (Continued) (Boring log continued on Figure A -2i) Client: The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140 -Ib auto hammer y-- Drilling Date: January 13, 2012 Drilling Contractor. Holocene Drilling S&EE Jab No. IMI Figure A -2h Boeing North Bridge ISO 170 l I lad BORING B-2 � is The Boeing Company ML Gray silt, trace very fine sand (hard) 4 I I I , I I ; 1 SPT sampler driven by 140-1b auto hammer r1 Drilling Date: January 13, 2012 I , 1 I , i I , I , I I , I I , I I , I I , I I I I Holocene Drilling I , I I , I I I I I , I 128 ,12 6W, 42 I , I , I I I 1 , i I I I I I I k I I I , I 1 , I I , 1 k , f t , I k I , 1 , I i , I 4 , I I I I I I I j 25 112 5018" 112 I I I , I , I I , c I , i r I � � r � e � � I d � I � I I � I I 3 I I I I I , I I , I I , I I , I 25 112 12 IIY/jam(\ !I I I I i I I , I I , I I , I I , � I , � I , 1 I � k I , I 1 , I 1 } I i , I I , I I , I I I I bultr e � Boring completed at a depth of 180 feet on January 13, 2012 Client The Boeing Company Drilling Method: Mud rotary advanced by truck -mount drill rig Sampling Method: SPT sampler driven by 140-1b auto hammer r1 Drilling Date: January 13, 2012 Drilling Contractor. Holocene Drilling Figure A -2i �ob No, 1201 S&EE Boeing North Bridge S&EE APPENDIX B DRILLED SHAFT CAPACITIES AND RESPONSES TO LATERAL LOADS 1201 rpt S&EE 4 LL 0 z 0 W' W Old N 41 019 'O � z � to .0 'O o= z� c do mLL. F C 'i A ... ., .,,,lit I...,�, v 0 D l `i = ca � LL m t � z a Ci Q 0LL W4 V m Fa 8 49 IA i l 4 ! F C 'i A ... ., .,,,lit I...,�, v 0 D l `i = ca � LL m t � z a Ci Q 0LL W4 V m 21 1K i a 98888' S V 0 4 0 A 1A t4 nY - V "i T h U 10M eoCaeo Sti000 Q R yyny OOb �+NM lnfuA litIrrrrrrrrrlrrrrr rrrlrrrrrrrrr I[11 rr Clrrrii ii rlrrip_i_ri >i c 04 0 z� 0� LL m �t m 0 Z� � O 0 LL 0v 4 0 z O 'P o2 2. LU LU Pi CL a W. 1=i ua 1 p ti A mpj G �T�.i ie Reese 30000 A !V PJ! M -W nl ti M7 � aoea�o rtcicioo OOG CD Q F F F F II - Nm T"w 8 � Lill III litholloill t -I [1111 1 11 11 1 loll If- a� T Q N T 0 z .0'a 0 l4 nCD W= W 'fl N� d � z W� zth L i C 0 LL m4 # R � § A � § n �■ �§ � ! ° m 9 S ■ § S m |■ �m § � | � |■ � �a � � � K � � | | | | � | � | | & � � a 2 \ I | � � � d § 2k 0 � W e me i 0 z � Im� A ©0 IL Qt _ � � � § E � k � 9 ■ § Ut � � B X24 w 2co � � �1..w ,,.i��: �� eJ•, �� , o ....7...0 .,.,7,........1,,,,,.E ■ § � # R � § § n �■ �§ � m |■ �m § � | � |■ � �a � � � � � | | | | � | � | | & � � a 2 | � � �� n av8a w SP39uR 104R'#10 A id ai .: tq h F gaann aaaaa o�d 4efC O a 0 a n a a h NP1 Pa fe Yti 9 O %� 0n 19.I 11" RR MOM a o0 Cho 6Ood4 trngeaoca .Q w N PJ r iA W A W. a WO R V e a F F T '5d2l SOU, & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. 16625 Redmond Way, Suite M 124, Redmond Washington 98052, (425) 868-5868 Mr. Bili Rockwell The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 MC 61-90 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 January 15, 2013 Report Addendum Geotechnical Investigation North Bridge Replacement Boeing Renton Plant S&EE has performed a geotechnical investigation for the project in 2012, the report of which is dated May 17, 2012 and has been submitted previously. Since the report, Boeing has retained BergerABAM for the detailed design. The design modifies the previous foundation support and includes 2 -meter - diameter drilled shafts for the support of the in -water piers, and 2 -foot -diameter pipe piles for the support of the bridge abutments. Pipe piles are also proposed for the support of the temporary bridge and falsework. The latter will be used for the removal of the current bridge. According to BergerABAM, the load demands for foundation support are listed below. *Axial force demand due to seismic loads (kips) per shaft/pile Bridge Drilled Shaft Composite Pile** Pipe Pile Max Min Max Min Max Min Permanent 870 440 170 5 NIA*** NIA Temporary NIA NIA NIA NIA A 320 70 *Axial force demand due to seismic loads include dead and superimposed loads "Concrete- filled pipe pile ** Not Available The service and strength demands for the temporary bridge piles are 250kips and 410kips respectively. The service and strength demands for the permanent bridge piles are 175kips and 285kips respectively. The service and strength demands for the permanent bridge shafts are 945kips and 1370kips respectively. S&EE 1201 RptAdd Mr. Bill Rockwell January 15, 2013 Page 2 Per your request, I have provided geotechnical support for the detailed design. This report addendum summarizes the following my geotechnical recommendations. FOUNDATION SUPPORT Drilled Shafts: I have performed engineering evaluations for the geotechnical capacities of the drilled shafts. The results are included in TABLE A1. The soil parameters used in my evaluations are shown in Figures Al -1 and Al -2. Both the table and figures are included at the end of this report addendum. Pipe Piles: I have performed engineering evaluations for the geotechnical capacities of the piles. The results and soil parameters are included in the following tables and figures: Table Number Hizures Pile Locations Bl B1-1,131-2 Abutment at Boeing (east) Side B2 B2-1, B2-2 Abutment at Airport (west) Side CI C1-1, C1-2 In -water support For the support of the permanent bridge, I recommend that: 1) the piles be driven close -ended; 2) the piles be filled with concrete; and 3) the piles be embedded at a tip elevation of -80 feet or below. DESIGN REVIEW I have reviewed the 90% design package prepared by BergerABAM. It is my opinion that the geotechnical parameters utilized in the design are consistent with my recommendations. I appreciate the opportunity to provide my continuous services for the project. Please let me know anytime if you have any question. Very truly yours, SOIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC. .r T �A 4. r 901VAL sl C. J. Shin, Ph.D., P.E. President t rSIiSV • ZO J�G� Attachment: Tablestm etifes 5&EE 1201 RptAdd c 2 c k \ § S - 2 � 2 a S 0 § § § .Ln Z. n m L $ n / 2 Q f@ co 2 q a m v � � � FL p er®� Ln 0 0 0 2 k U Lr-I� a, q 2 ■ CL E 2 � t § � IN w rA � 11 C \ k§ S R 2 o 0 g o Q m Ln 7'� rq M� $= rq m LU m LU 2 & 2 Z u f3CL z �4k a 9 o o E c 2 c k \ § S - 2 � 2 a S 0 § § § .Ln Z. n m L $ n / 2 Q f@ co 2 q a m v � � � FL p er®� Ln 0 0 0 2 k U Lr-I� a, q 2 ■ CL E 2 t § � IN w rA ®c: _ 11 C \ k§ S R 2 o 0 g o Q m Ln 7'� rq M� $= rq m LU m LU 2 & 2 Z u f3CL z �4k a 9 o o E 7 q) o o 00 $ c & a _ _ � ¥ - 7 f t m 2 0 2 to C Im t � 10 I Iff § § b 8 R i i u. a., i , , i i. § o § § 2 § § § § k � _ m 2�� � _ � % \ \ W Ln k \ / � Ln / 2 L - ccCL k k v LLJ r _ CL § § R Ln § L4 7% \ ki /k\LD §tn CL \ $ C 7 2 CL tlo c � Ld @ § i - r- / m © $ g § ' w 00 Q ma c' � 2 k k / m � / c 2 uj u 43 it u m S m Ln d 2 0 k § LM 0 to C Im t � 10 I Iff § § b 8 R i i u. a., i , , i i. § o § § 2 § § § § k � _ m 2�� � _ � % \ \ W Ln k \ / � Ln / ccCL CLu v r _ CL § § R Ln L4 7% \ ki /k\LD §tn CL $ C 7 CL tlo c � § i - r- / m © $ g § ' w 00 Q ma c' � q k k / m / c 2 uj u 43 it u m � z �/ a 7$ 2 2 2$ 2 a _ c ® o § � - - . § t - - 2 2 7 in k 2 2 2 2 2 2 w t a (U m CL as CL cu a a en D N Q1 Ln C C2 r♦ m W J oS i5 fw } j 0 ! N ri 81 01 ao 91 L E by C C.CLL � u •L m oo c N 0 Gr 0] LL Q 00 o [— O g$ � Y n m n � o m a W CA i- Q a c C. y. ri un d " Q1 oo ri w G n m dr C) m v Ln Lm tO E �y U. � Ln to � CL a a O e•i QJ 0 N d t a 00 jp o = e. 0 t n II Q m On M 00 On V to Q 0 p •ri cNn rNrl le lln co N (NV N N "0 cu W S.1 impp W C.] im r4 ri r.i fw } j 0 ! N ri 81 01 ao 91 L E C.CLL m oo c N 0 M~ m m Q 00 o [— O g$ coo c n m n co a m a C.CLL m oo c N 0 M~ m m Q 00 0 n c n 00 04 co a m a Q c C. y. ri un d " Q1 oo ri w G n m dr C) m v Ln Lm tO E �y U. � Ln to � CL a a QJ N d t a jp o = e. t II Q m On M 00 On V to Q lC 0a p •ri cNn rNrl le lln CO 0 N N (NV N N "0 cu W S.1 impp W C.] im C O C Z 00 G: m ri V4 47 J Y o0 cs Q ri � N E •gv Q! as �t,3az cn u 0 a G a r, m L4 caJ Q D1 V K §i 9I .9I RI 8 Q �,.SSgB �S L C O �C �. I� m U Y_ +m+ Z o o •� 00 h io co r� of v tin m IL a +� VLu o N O c a o ei y _ 4 Li+ �D c '•'- s» rr Op v In N i' L lit u N N Q1 N ri m M M n m c 61 0 � � o -tea to c� s {tea a c °- u F- M � Sv _ rM-I 1'n rmiN M� 00 In ry 0�0IT H N D1 V K §i 9I .9I RI 8 Q �,.SSgB �S L �C �. I� m U Y_ +m+ Z o o •� 00 h io co r� of v tin P� O c a o y _ Li+ �D c '•'- s» `I cr Op v In N i' L lit u N N Q1 N ri m M M n m c 61 � � o -tea to c� s {tea a c °- u F- M _ rM-I 1'n rmiN M� 00 In d1 +�+ CO CO • 0�0IT H N qT M V C V V r-1 m mLU L Li 'C C CL co a CL W CL CP +! U U R L v m Q ` W Q;� CL CL 3 '� a z OL a oaoa c , CD CD -°0 +� W e 11 Y J w 00 C) V J 00 CD Q a) f- +tea FA y a^4 ❑ d 0. 0 z Q 0 •U m ` CL t 01 a as S CL L d 41-0 c� G u u G N ai a U) t: 0 CL N LL .I a ^N LD Le o 00 4T n QO :-t rQ IH Q C� c � o Q Y Lfl t � � 00 Ln N 000 m C Q LA LO Q y c a o y? N M OL (71 LOrN [rS ei C IL y Ct u G C m y LPL O m m Wt en V m La LLA cu 'O LU m m Q C u a m LL .c 0 r4 Q)pp00 U = m m R r_I LU v L) 4, Z, toLA Co o Z CL O d C 00 C3 (5 G Lu N H d d N H rl O rl O Q1 O co O n ^N LD Le o 00 4T n QO :-t rQ IH Q C� C O u CU LM LL _ Ql � Y u O 00 c � o Q Y Lfl t � � 00 Ln N 000 m RT Ln LA LO Q y c a o y? N M OL (71 LOrN [rS ei C IL y Ct u G C m y LPL O m m Wt en V m La LLA cu 'O LU m m Q C u a V m .c 0 r4 Q)pp00 U = m m R r_I LU v L) 4, Z, toLA Co o Z CL C O u CU LM LL _ Ql � Y u O 00 Lfl n LO N v N 000 m fLl Q y c a o y? S+ O (71 LOrN [rS ei C IL y Ct tt LM LO �_`� V m c CO M N m m R r_I LU v L) Z, O d C 00 C3 (5 G V d CO k A � � } W gl R I 88 8 2@ 8 8§ Go r- to Ln qr m cm _ i m k q 7 o # L . 4m n q o= v Ln � & CL g � � � c c � 2 § k F- C-4 n00 § m n#� �% 2 m �� N eq g m E 2 06 '0 CL . � 2 § � � k In : 2: 7: �C14 S 0 �' m> o c o CO k A � � } W gl R I 88 8 2@ 8 8§ Go r- to Ln qr m cm _ i | 2r i E § �ƒ �a k q 7 o # . 4m n q o= v Ln 2 r- CL g � c c � 2 k F- C-4 n00 m n#� �% 2 m �� N eq g m E 2 06 '0 CL 2 ■41 2 � k In : 2: 7: �C14 �' m> _'� % o g n Ln m 0 Ln # m n K q § 7\ 7 f o CL CL m t - LU w L) 0 m Qj A 2 (0■ _ CL . CL � 2 u ovo � 0200 � C$ 0 0 00 ■ c ■ 5 a� u a 00«� I A 7 co 0 a k CL ® � | 2r i E § �ƒ �a s Q a .9 CL CL w a CL a� a E m d uu T LZ et N 4J c e1 C.i a Q. Y Y_ f0 Ln N Of L,fl m LA m @ 41 O rl m Ln m w m N N r• 0 v Y m1, m m e i -w p rl Ln LD g C Q iv moons m0loollm molowls u r� Y i LO Ln M N MONSM, O Ln O Ln LT Trd7 Ln (SLn Bvim mooklmilEMMONS,■ rl ri N N PV rn ri MEMEN6,10 N N m CL w 1�pp Vf LJ sommom V q1 V- � o s s c a a Q. Y Y_ f0 Ln N Of L,fl m LA m @ 41 O rl m Ln m w m N N r• 0 v Y m1, m m e i -w p rl Ln LD g C Q iv u r� Y i LO Ln M N O Ln O Ln LT Trd7 Ln (SLn Bvim rl ri N N PV rn ri rl N N m CL w 1�pp Vf LJ V q1 V- � o s s c a u i. � c �� s u•LY. O O m N m N m N m N oo m mc O m Ln 0 in G1 Ln Ln m m Tr O y y CO r1 N N N N N Ct = 'Lj 0) N7-1 LT ei LT r -I N m W N }}` 40 cow u U Zr V s a a s C16 z`~�, w T7 Iwo Y u CL m c a N m Ln g pOOOO n w c' oo � oOOOOOO Q Ln Ln r- oo a, 4 V v m 0 Z a a �0 = � § k � 41 OL 0 CL � � 2 % AL CL � E 2 9 u , k uia � c b m � 9L_ #$ g Ln 2 K 2 -#$ q$ v Ln to&__ m m � a E EC4 as � o Ln co _■ �& 0= q� M 2 o - % MW � k � � a �Can § m g q rq Cq M B v#rn o o • t m g m#' e-- "0 0) C 0 2 m 2r 2 v $ � ■ n v o 0 0 0 c/M■ 2 E 2$ -- 7% a■ o e - w 2 k 2 2 G o Z 2in 2 a rt co o 0) LU xfs V � U N a Le S� t 0 93zz 4 v J Vi 0 rL c3qG Ix a z O a 0 z L I r� 0 i CL I c Z T h i _0to IN A i O a 3 LL =; T1+ r � I i 3 Q C Y +J h C pp ! r O �0. N m 4 I I r� 9 Ila. m W - t G N CLI cr cr c� J to RL CO) rrz r O V J ad " )W J LL C3 a a z O D O L c w F a u CL O 4 z o , a z v LL _ i 9 p a ;p a� L d �a N r ++ Z O Lu EW VI VJ a r.► � t �n m ,err a: O L ZD C to N V v i ti U y i a J Q K E� o 0 4 0 0 0 4 2 a'i M ii o P oc 0 C �a c Ir O SV V m ca E0 _ Q N Z T- 0, ow ca .o co m r � w CM In W U) 0= D Za �r � C v � O C mN m 4 i W � iSi P 0 LU a. Z T�� a,n q O Icl� Z g,m O a`~ U- cj �P �C ld �C rr C T� O N ? m ro Ow E 1 � m a� � m i L •r N C� c CD 'o N m z o 8 W tmE L � O Za � L O mN a a EQ F o N Q O � � (a � n c 2 Cld W 6 4F p 8 r N CD L T 40, d o rn Z t O CL wQ W lu IMy% s a jr CD o ,a Z C. m� =c ti MN CD V �J Z I Z d 6 U d W s JAY cS � a wil J �g o�$r z 0 0 )W O w IL z 0 a v z L N V C/�.N �j AW �yf L p Vf CL L `a T � D N .0 T C z O J2 a Or 7 W v 4 ,O v) ` a) M= t:w o .a Z C- � m C 0 N v 0. i Lo V 4 4 CL T TrT r- ___�__�----F7 �r T I- r T �--7TTT-T �TT`�- as b o o c o 0 E v oo ec o T Z NI`'I Fn TI� O a LL I r I jN Ila O 'O iI� p m I 1 1 1! I I I 1 1 4 1 1_l ; 3 I I I I I I I I .t Q !i 2 0 N r o Z o +� w LU 062 �. z° E �L � C C 0T mN V V V e N W H Ira O p Q. �9to 10 S a •ate � � z O H z V J U) as x �J LL C'1 D w n z 0 H Q z 0 LL J a c i N CE ui w IL g' 0 N CL z O �i~ Q i91 T zM y O a, �n iv io y� o o j k F O n Oa v O o m m Storm Drainage - Technical Information Report North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project The Boeing Company 12 December 2072 Submitted by BergerABAM 33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 308 Federal Way, Washington 98003-2600 Job No. A13.0084 Citjr of Renton Planning Division DEC0,2 6 Mil P2DDYEDD �BOFlI�V� �� BergerABAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1 Section1- Project Overview...............................................................................................................1 ExistingConditions...................................................................................................................1 ProposedConditions................................................................................................................2 Section 2 - Condtions and Requirements Summary..........................................................................3 CoreRequirements...................................................................................................................3 SpecialRequirements..............................................................................................................6 Section3 - Offsite Analysis..................................................................................................................7 Section 4 - Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design........................................7 Section 5 - Conveyance System Analysis and Design........................................................................7 Section6 - Special Reports and Studies............................................................................................7 Section7 - Other Permits....................................................................................................................7 Section 8 - CSWPPP Analysis and Design..........................................................................................7 Section 9 - Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant .............................7 Section 10 - Operation and Maintenance Manual.............................................................................7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1: Vicinity Map..........................................................................................................................1 Figure2: Impervious Areas..................................................................................................................5 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Background Information Appendix B Plans Storm Drainage —Technical Information Report A13.0084, BergerABAM North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project 12 December 2012 Boeing Page ii INTRODUCTION The Boeing Company is proposing to replace the existing North Boeing Bridge, The North Boeing Bridge Replacement project will provide a new bridge to move the future 737 Max commercial airliner from the Boeing manufacturing plant to the Renton :Municipal Airport. The project is located in the City of Renton, Washington (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map.) NE 24th St NE20thSt } 4 a ;Fpa�ka[ 9th 5r I'N6th St RPh 5128th51 :FWj c' ?441h5t 5 Langston Rd S 132nd St _ S I34th5t 900 S3rd51._ `\ ,�-'.���,unsetB��a-.—.--- ;,:•r, 169 Figure 1: Vicinity Map SECTION 1 - PROJECT OVERVIEW Existing Conditions The existing bridge is 32 -foot wide concrete slab on concrete filled pipe piles. Stormwater from the existing bridge currently sheet flows north to Lake Washington. A small portion of the bridge =off sheet flows to a landscaped area west of the project site. The runoff enters into an existing structure which discharges into the Cedar River through a 6 -inch diameter pipe. storm Drainage — Technical Information Report A13.0084, BergerABAM North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project 12 December 2012 Boeing Page 1 of 7 The stormwater runoff from the paved area immediately cast of the bridge is collected by slot drains and conveyed to a treatment system on the Boeing property. After the runoff is treated it is discharged into the Cedar River through an existing 30 -inch diameter pipe_ Topography The project area is relatively flat with an approximate change in grade over the site of 15 feet. In the project vicinity, the elevation varies from +7 to +22. The Cedar River flows through the project area. The majority of the project area is at Elevation +20. Soils According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's King County Soil Survey Sheet No. 5, the dominant soil is Urban Land (Ur). Urban land is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate. See Appendix A for a copy of the King County Soil Survey and descriptions of the soil properties. Additional soil information can be found in the Report of Geotecllnical Investigation North Bridge Replacement dated 17 May 2012. Geological Hazards According to the City of Renton's geographic information systems (GIS) data, there are no geological hazards within the project vicinity. See Appendix A for landslide, steep slope, and erosion hazard maps. Floodplain The proposed bridge structure is located within Zone AE of the 100 -year floodplain and within the floodway. The base (100 -year flood) profile slopes steeply in the vicinity of the North Boeing Bridge as it falls from the confined upstream river reach into the much lower flood elevation of Lake Washington. The floodplain elevation at the upstream face of the proposed bridge is +17.05 (NGVD29 with a 3.56 conversion factor from NAVD88) as reported in the updated No -Rise and Scour Report (December 2012) prepared by AMEC. See Appendix A for the FEMA floodplain. Additional floodplain and hydraulic information can be found in the No - Rise and Scour Report dated December 2012. Wetlands There are no wetlands in the project vicinity. Existing Utilities There are numerous utilities in the project area: underground power, storm, sanitary sewer, and compressed air. All of these utilities will need to be protected during construction. Underground power that crosses the existing bridge will need to be relocated during construction. Proposed Conditions The proposed North Boeing Bridge project will remove the existing 32 -foot wide bridge and construct a wider 50 -foot bridge structure to span the Cedar River. The proposed bridge is a steel plate girder supported on pilings and drilled shafts. The existing aprons on each side of Storm Drainage—Technical Information Report A13.0084, BergerABAM North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project 12 December 2012 Boeing Page 2 of 7 the bridge will be removed, resulting in the removal of approximately 7,470 square feet of impervious surface area. See Appendix B for Demolition and Site Plan. SECTION 2 - CONDTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The proposed storm drain system analysis and design will comply with the following core and special requirements set forth by the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) (2009) and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM (2010). The core requirements are listed below. ■ Core Requirement No. 1: ■ Core Requirement No. 2: ■ Core Requirement No. 3: ■ Core Requirement No. 4: ■ Core Requirement No. 5: ■ Core Requirement No. 6: ■ Core Requirement No. 7: ■ Core Requirement No. 8: Discharge at the Natural Location Offsite Analysis Flow Control Conveyance System Erosion and Sediment Control Maintenance and Operations Financial Guarantees and Liability Water Quality The special requirements are listed below_ ■ Special Requirement No. 1: ■ Special Requirement No. 2: ■ Special Requirement No. 3: ■ Special Requirement No. 4; ■ Special Requirement No. 5; ■ Special Requirement No. 6: Other Adopted Requirements Flood Hazard Area Delineation Flood Protection Facilities Source Control Oil Control Aquifer Protection Area Not all of the core and special requirements apply to all projects. Which requirements shall apply to a project is based on the type of drainage review that the project triggers. The North Boeing Bridge Replacement project has approximately 20,435 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surfaces; therefore, it triggers a "Full Drainage Review". Per the KCSWDM, the proposed project will be required to comply with Core Requirement Nos. 1 to S and Special Requirements Nos. 1 to 6. Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1- Discharge at the Natural Location The existing storm water runoff sheet flows into Lake Washington or is collected in a conveyance system and discharged into the Cedar River. The proposed bridge, approach slabs, and adjacent pavement will be graded to convey storrnwater runoff to their natural location. Storm Drainage — Technical Information Report A13.0084, BergerABAM North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project 12 December 2012 Boeing Page 3 of 7 Core Requirement No. 2 - Offsite Analysis Per Section 1.2.2 in the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM, the project is exempt from offsite analysis because it adds less than 2,000 square feet of impervious surface, adds less than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface, does not construct or modify drainage, and does not contain or lie adjacent to a landside, steep slope, or erosion hazard. Additionally, the project is located at the confluence of the Cedar River and Lake Washington. There are no downstream impacts within a 1/4 mile of the project and no further downstream analysis is required. See Appendix A for landslide, steep slope, and erosion hazard maps. Care Requirement No. 3 - Flow Control Per Table 1.2.3.B in the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM, the project is located adjacent to two major receiving waters. These are the Cedar River, downstream of Taylor Creek confluence; and Lake Washington. Therefore, this project is exempt from the flow control facility requirement. Core Requirement No. 4 - Conveyance System The project is not proposing any new conveyance systems. Therefore, the existing drainage patterns will remain unchanged. Core Requirement No. 5 - Erosion and Sediment Control The erosion and sediment control plan was designed in accordance with Section 1.2.5.3 of the KCSWDM. See Appendix B for TESC plan. Core Requirement No. 6 - Maintenance and Operations The project is not proposing any new drainage systems or facilities. Boeing and the City of Renton will continue the existing maintenance and operations of the existing drainage systems and facilities. Core Requirement No. 7 - Financial Guarantees and Liability The project will comply with any applicable financial liabilities and guarantees as required by the Boeing Company. Core Requirement No. 8 - Water Quality The area -specific water quality for the site is the basic water quality. The basic water quality requirement is to treat pollution generating impervious surfaces and to remove suspended solids and metals from stormwater runoff before discharging the runoff into its natural discharge location. The proposed bridge will add approximately 1,410 square feet of new impervious surface. Removing the existing aprons south of the bridge will remove approximately 7,470 square feet of existing impervious surface, In addition, 19,025 square feet of existing impervious surface will be replaced. Overall, there will be a net reduction of 6,060 square feet of impervious surface (see Figure 2, Impervious Areas). Therefore per Section 1.2.5 of the City Storm Drainage—Technical Information Report A13.0084, BergerABAM North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project 12 December 2012 Boeing Page 4 of 7 MANOR OR/ ■ � � cn I'm )k < + C, E+ \\� IG < =ems (\$rj / / k5\ % \ E®© t/§ § ƒQ- +/7 CC\ / §mE d < + / 3+\ Ln Ln w°\ %$\ \ƒ x%% ea m [§E // «< / << < .} ggg L LD 2 777 ;>s = cu � \ rL E E E \ E E E U)<_= R/ z CL w/FE �3 @»=a o=== c_ §j j3 Ef}f Wj ■ � � cn I'm of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM, the project is exempt from providing a water quality treatment facility by meeting the following criteria: • The total new impervious surface within the project limits is less than 50% of the existing impervious surface, AND • Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be added, AND • Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added Special Requirements Special Requirement No. Y - Other Adopted Requirements The project site is located within the Cedar River basin. Currently, there are no special drainage requirements for development projects within this basin. Special Requirement No. 2 - Flood Hazard Area Delineation The project site is located within the 100 -year floodplain and floodway. A No -Rise and Scour Report (December 2012) was prepared by AMSC. For the proposed bridge, the clearance between the bottom of the structure and the 100 -year water surface elevation increases from the abutments to the mid -span. The main river channel lies between Piers 2 and 3 and for approximately 112 -ft of the 128 -ft clear span, the clearance exceeds 3 -feet (minimum 2.4 -feet and maximum of 4.1 -feet). The project is not located within a channel migration zone as mapped by King County and is not applicable per Section C.1.2.1 of the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM, Special Requirement No. 3 - Flood Protection Facilities The project site does not rely on an existing flood protection facility. Special Requirement No. 4 - Source Controls The project does not require a commercial building or commercial site development permit. Therefore, water quality source control is not applicable_ Special Requirement No. 5 - Oil Control Oil control is required on project that will have high -use characteristics. High -use is defined as a commercial site that has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count equal to or greater than 100 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area, is subject to petroleum storage or transfer in excess of 1,500 gallons per year, or is subject to use, storage, or maintenance of a fleet of 25 or more vehicles that are over 10 tons net weight. On average two trips with an aircraft tug pulling an empty (no fuel) aircraft across the bridge will occur per day. Therefore, the project is not characteristic of a high -use site and oil control is not required. Storm Drainage — Technical Information Report A13.0084, BergerABAM North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project 12 December 2012 Boeing Page 6 of 7 Special Requirement No, 6 - Aquifer Protection Area The project is not located within the Aquifer Protection Area (APA). Therefore, the project is exempt from Special Requirement No. b. See Appendix A for Aquifer Protection Zone map. SECTION 3 - OFFSITE ANALYSIS The project is exempt from the offsite analysis as it meets the exemptions outlined in Section 1.2.2 of the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. SECTION 4 - FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The project is exempt from both flow control and water quality. SECTION 5 - CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The project is not proposing a new conveyance system. SECTION 6 - SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES None SECTION 7 - OTHER PERMITS None SECTION 8 - CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESL) Plan will be prepared prior to construction. This plan will establish the when, where, and how specific erosion control techniques will be implemented. This plan will be constantly changing as site conditions and construction activities change. The TESC Plan will be the responsibility of the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead. At minimum, filter fabric fences will be installed downslope of all construction areas, and baker tanks will be used to treat construction water prior to being discharged into Lake Washington or the Cedar River. Further measures will be considered when construction methods and schedules are set. SECTION 9 - BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT None SECTION 10 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL None storm Drainage - Technical Information Report A13.0084, BergerABAM North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project 12 December 2012 Boeing Page's of 7 Storm Drainage - Technical Information Report North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project The Boeing Company Appendix A - Background Information KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner The Boeing Company Phone Address 800 Logan Avenue Renton, WA 98055 Project Engineer Bob Griebenow Company BergerABAM„ __.. Phone (206) 431-2300 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION M Landuse Services Subdivison / Short Subd. i UPD ❑ Building Services MIF I Commerical 1 SFR ❑ Clearing and Grading ❑ Right -of -Way Use ❑ Other Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name North Bridge Cedar River DDES Permit it Location Township 23 North Range 5 East Section 6 Site Address Confluence of Cedar River and Lake Washington Part4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline ❑ ❑ LJ ❑ COE 404 DOE Dam Safety FEMA Floodplain COE Wetlands Management ❑ Structural RackerylVaulU ❑ ESA Section 7 ❑ Other Small Site Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review Full I Targeted I Type (circle ane): Full I Modified I (circle): Large Site Small Site Date (include revision 09/14/2012 - Draft Date (include revision dates): dates): Date of Final: 12/12/2012 - Final Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Complex i Preapplication 1 Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Not Applicable Date of Approval - 2009 roval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 142009 ICING COUNTY_ WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Not Applicable Monitoring Required: Yes f No Start Date: Completion Date: Describe: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan : City of Renton Special District Overlays: Drainage Basin: Cedar River Stormwater Requirements: _ Part9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS RiverlStream Cedar River Lake Lake Washington ❑ Wetlands ❑ Closed Depression Floodplain FEMA Zone AE ❑ Other Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Urban Land Slopes 2%-5% M High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) ❑ Other ❑ Additional Sheets Attached ❑ Steep Slope ❑ Erosion Hazard _ ❑ Landslide Hazard ❑ Coal Mine Hazard ❑ Seismic Hazard _ ❑ Habitat Protection El Erosion Potential Slight to Moderate ❑ Sole Source Aquifer ❑ Seeps/Springs 2009 Surface Water Design Manual I+9 2009 2 ICING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. SURFACE u'ATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS Not Applicable REFERENCE ❑ Care 2 — Offsite Analysis ❑ Sensitive/Critical Areas ❑ SEPA ❑ Other ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION 1 SITE CONSTRAINT Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET(provide one TIR Summary Sheet 22r Threshold Discharge Area Threshold Discharge Area: North Cedar River Bridge (see Figure 2) name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: 2 Offsite Analysis Not Applicable Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 1 2 1 3 or Exemption Number Major Receiving incl. facility summary sheet Small Site BIIAPs Water Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Not Applicable Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: To be determined, provided by Contact Phone: Contractor After Hours Phone.- hone:Maintenance Maintenanceand Operation Responsibility:rivate I Public If Private, Maintenance L29 Required: Yes No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes OND Liability Water Quality Type: Basic I Sens_ Lake / Enhanced Basicm I Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. 2 Landscape Management Plan: Yes / No Special Requirements as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO 1 MDP I BP ! LMP 1 Shared Fac. tjone Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major Minor /Exemption !None 100 -year Base Flood Elevation (or range): 17.07 Datum: NGVID 29 Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Bridge has been designed to be above 100 -year flood elevation Source Control Describe landuse: Bridge for transporting commercial airplanes (comm.lindustrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: 2009 Surface Nater Dcsign Manual 1/9f2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DFSiG:N MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High -use Site: YesNo Treatment BMP: Not Applicable Maintenance Agreemen Yes No with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: No new drainage structures are being proposed. Existing drainage structures will continue to be maintained by Boeing and the City of Renton. Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS Note; Include Facility Su mary and Sketch MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION Clearing Limits ❑ Detention ❑ Infiltration ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Flow Control BMPs Ll Other ® Stabilize Exposed Surfaces Cover Measures ❑ Biofiltration ❑ Wetpool ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Oil Control ❑ Spill Control Ll Row Control BMPs ❑ Other Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ® Perimeter Protection ® Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure ® Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities Sediment Retention ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space ® Surface Water Collection preservation areas ❑Other Dewatering Control Dust Control Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Note; Include Facility Su mary and Sketch Flow Control Type/Description Water Quali Type/Description ❑ Detention ❑ Infiltration ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Flow Control BMPs Ll Other Not Applicable ❑ Biofiltration ❑ Wetpool ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Oil Control ❑ Spill Control Ll Row Control BMPs ❑ Other 2009 Surface Watcr Design Manual ii9.{2(109 4 KING COUNTY- WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTSITRACTS Part. 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Covenant Not Applicable ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Native Growth Protection Covenant ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Tract ❑ Structural on Steep Slope Not Applicable ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER i, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the nest of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9'27009 i 36 ,oath Coleman Potrlt',;,:• PROJECT SJTF._ Barn Mawr _ __ .. 4 E. rd 5 E. �r.'�Mrt:.w •,a u� TI • ' � ' i" „ p SOIL SERIES DESCRIPTION Urban Land Mapping Symbols: Ur Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. In the Green {diver Valley the fill ranges from about 3 to more than 12 feet in thickness, and from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam in texture. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate. No capability or woodland classification. City of Renton r✓ x �._ Sensitive Areas l i'-, 1.� � 1 PRWECT ;; r � I .r �r - 'i ce �'"_ �,• 1' \ SITE IL I^7IT . s„ •.�-}--..��`^, F� 14 `• 7� _ > a i t i_ r4 r I 7 �--�-�'i,� ' -i ��� �� �.�,i '�}- ._ '�t��� ��I_,t- �^ rte', ••'� ,.-\i 1 r{JI �LL� , —�; i i ',1�'�! 7' 1�•'�1!�` ' © ;J� . �,t.I s��, ruL �. ,�,.. �-- '}{r•,.....^ -�� � `� P � --a{ 1��1 - y'- ` \��;;�'� `�1 i7l' i .., }- n i 1 I P I n v_i '} •rte, �hyt r MI }` �''— �f� ,r\ TM/�+ li i l�_j 3 —i� I� A 0 0.25 0.5 `I _ - II r"` , i r,r .', %r n r r Maes Information Technology - GISRenton City Limits Landslide Hazard mppP (� 9a su ort rentonwa . ov Printed on: 08113121712Severity j Education Cala Sources: City of Renton, King County 4& Fire Stations 96 Very High Department 94 High Ce This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed Police * P to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information Moderate available as of the date shown. This map is intended for © Valley Medical Center City display purposes only. Unclassified Coordrnera Splf : NAD 1983 HARK SlalePfene WashriV n North F,PS 4601 Feer Projection_Lambed Conlwmal Co m.- Dat North Amencen 1983 HARK t 7-1 City of Renton .�' IN"� } _ ' , t Sensitise Areas �}} r 4.� +.l'� r,.,—: }}�11ryS�.' Lam• � W �, �# � } - -_ is . r PROJECT SITE � ;C. ' '�; * ,rr � �'--'�'ri--;-'WL `��L may_ L �✓' _j u l�� �{ �:.; �—•+ty � _ .q __ - � .F �LL I {'Y' =_� ',L��y-�� �'rl — — i— � Ti -- �' ✓-�' � �--� 1. � --- ki �; �' �,-} _' � �., ,r -,—?r - i ;� j -A-.?/- k1 c� i'✓ -�1. ( �-- r -_ '.s" t y gat. '--- r '-. ,.I' �- � � I 3 '�-+ ! Ill��n 'j 'f` .--• e` -T�-'Y5 1 � I,� ' 1 ?, �.' \ r - �jl T \ayjy� " ` - _-i 3 ' N'{Ft1t" rTl.\ j -•--y({ 1h� F:. ` 't .� ~ '' • \ i- -, V - 4 i 4 .. s.��� j r i I.,.l-..r `�-rJ - rr, • 1 .�-'_W_,I`--�I-� I� ��-'�:�1 �� a =y, r Imo` � '1-' 4'til` �YY=����• �� ti —1 f� jIi �` �'. 3 +_. i 1 �_i ••-y'—'-.-`�.I.._. ..+.ur��.«� fi� ! ,. ~,'�..I,\�,-,r,1 � it ¢.--ayl I IST J ' ,1 1 '-- ti - f, r T Jt r. Y Information Technology - GIS {r� Steep Slopes mapsupport@rentonwa.gov Renton City Limits Printed on: 0811312012Education Percent Range Data Sources: City of Renton, King County 4& Fire Stations >16% & —25% This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed * Police Department >25% & ¢=40% to survey accuracy, and is Based on the best information Valle Medical Center > 0 available as of the date shown. This map is intended for © y 40 /o & =90% City display purposes only. >90% Caoidmara System: NAD 1487 HARN StatePfane WasMngton North FIPS 4EQt Feet V.1-:lan: Lambert a nlormaf Conk City - alum: NorBrAmerican P983 HARN City of Renton Sensitive Areas it s PROJECT r� n — J SITE _ _ �— ` - !`s SFJ. 3 bi! _/ 1h� /moi; , \ - ._ s _ •!-� ice.. �71 �' �� .1 •� '1 8 " - — r 44 L' it b b r Ct.. i � + i 1 !il} � � � rra-��r! i TnF � r5• � ^�'� t' . �� J f ,I � � ter- � � 2 -(' I —� �9 �C* �' I � ' �; `� �l''/ ?• �.�, i si I gig —` Y'i j f �i�-• _4 i ? ,w 1'j�--r_A � .f 4 j ;��----' � 'I �� r��°,lr14 PL v'Y -T i a. if �' -�♦ :8I' it i L ::1 ) �+ _ I r• z-� I -��» r-J ice,-�- + } 1.17 �' .�.'.�.. (7--Y T.+.y_� , f I 1 ��r s.l 0 0.25 0.5 1 .I.11�T�4 �;� � Mies Information Technology- GIS r- mapsupport@renlonwa.gov ,.i a Renton City Limits Erosion Hazard Printed on; 4871312012 j Education Data Sources: City of Renton, King County Q� Fire Stations Severity This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed * Police Department to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information , ^s High available as of the dale shown. This map is intended for © Valley Medical Center e_;<� •' City display purposes only. CoonrinaM System.- NAD 1983 HARN SratePt.- Washrngton North FPS 4601 Feet C nf. Oatue ion.' Lambert en 1983 Aortic �� lY, ;k Dahim_ North American 1983l1AfiN .� f'� _. City of Renton Sensitive Areas PROJECT ' SITE � a 4 ' I `--41..ryl E't 4 �.. •-.J�= • Yr _Y?- w,1 Kr , �'CY t- �V �.-7•r....�..� ISI 71, •� a-, I 4 p - v / 1` F K "'fir r 'j L_"._` ---•,<,.�..r \ 3 - J V m ti l r- I j z i i I L f i`r tNilr IT` yT � `f�� frP'�,�� ..,...+++"°nr•� rn...-�}�. ` � F € J� �+ 3 V r fj'/ C I 'r✓n�_�-f �� ,� } ; ' • y �' r .J �a +Y! r— + h :-r- 'Ti �• �--� r ? =� � � -}-� -" , �'I�°_•# _ Yui t i i I � r I j�'-j � , 1 f �� ^. .;f _ •I.,�t ''� { I .�, - -yr _ /•� 0 0.25 0.5 I- r. ` �` -.f 1 I` �; • i�_ � a ; rl / � i � ---`� . _, Miles Information Technoiogy - GISr mapsupport@rentonwa-gov �5�j Renton City Limits Printed on: D6f1312012 . Education Flood Hazard Data Sources: City of Renton. King County 4& l=ire Stations ' This document is a graphic representation, not guaranteed * Polite Department , �;; Hazard Areas to survey accuracy, and is based on the best information Valley Medical Center W available as of the date shown. This map is intended for City display purposes only. Coordhate Sysfem: NAD M3 HARN SfatePla- Waahrrfg North FPS 4601 Feet Cr pF on: tam6ari Conformal Conic r t Oetumf North American i983 HARN PmjecH���.y� 5, v Jr i � r i i I .atcF u:asltivrmv PROJECT \41 a ! ! SITE rill qt- ij 122 LLLLIII P- - r' t,� �P c Q 1��i � @' �,� 4Y�� !, _ �. i � \�e.. I f 7 l'i tl 1V' � �� �P � .. ./e ..'moi � ��( �' y i'`•R'SC'/ - r9. _:.� >_ I �"� `- +�f a ?.=��11A t� - ,`i Fio ♦ � �1 �;.. �, .e ter. _ —. � - •' 1..� �1 tom_: d.lnf �, a ,u a s,.�i �r',� '° Ya ,a '� i'�,'� ra fr�..�1�� I f 1��..-f t�"�'al.'+= P�- j �-`o `�� ^R ,. — 31 � .���, -�-1. ! � _,� �'�_�;� t"j, �, .J-� ,�•j,�' Irk •\4 � ,' 1 'I .�sf`f 1 A,3�._ t-1 � I1ti �^ €, _`I :f L�� Yfi7� :' � � ��• �`_ lid 'x�%. .fir- �.-:-s"•'.r7sa",..I , ir v �r ' K L LAKE. Yf11 NCS I -7 '... S<.•i I P - e `....i4c r 6111'0 AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES Rmftn TechnM sentes dvwq zz. zoos Zan, `,'•3 Zone 1 Mensa -� Zane 2 Pb Ulm 'a v � m m D m a c w COD V V O n Cj� s µ k ec c� a iri 6 m g QQ M W W UA G! q o rrryyyyy ;m coLU W z ! yr FUQ tL.i a W o C- I = V IZ ^ y I Z o v z `� � an >M. L 4 m N" [0 =3m m Lo ig z ZDEi � s �sgo0 r. - n QC3 ow avm < rF �V�] Fti Z 6 r3 G Z O�4 .J i ZQ'U g 0. rir�o 2 paa�-$ 3 N E LC - om cti o m c 9 x m m10 o � d li 1 � k m m � 4 C Cb tl �O Cm OF p PES A � 10N d o p 4MW LU ~ m a N 9 d d _ O y Q G S a 0 y{ D- 01 O uj Z S ¢ m p aW a .N p a f• •UI Lz a ��; a S a �LL q A 'a W • � � W = C R} 4� $ L sg y o n a- '! Z L A!3 $ g F Oo x aq c S h L 3 X M1 ,^ —z E x E 4 v€ f A c 5 ri 1+'7 41 c E u m v o O E8� " 5 N O O O r: i Q N 4 t N � N E m m d C N S b ro c w F !� 6 n d O F A N d c - : o n E ai c � L m o n o c a c a w � n u a a a Storm Drainage - Technical Information Report North Boeing Bridge Replacement Project The Boeing Company Appendix B - Plans z L -j LLJw _ I cD r 'j, 00 0 00000 0 L=:,- -, L m 0 L uj b us LO Q x x K x x x x x x x x x �t � a� z �e z r�� ci � nnr�.ia a�°� u�"immaonw�ri cd �N,+AAr [L ... �^ i++ LLH Q^•• W m M N fV iV N N LV M SV CV 17 r•1 x x x x x x x x �t � a� z �e z r�� ci � nnr�.ia a�°� u�"immaonw�ri cd [L � 0 LLH 8+* 0 O O O O O G O O 0 0 0 0 0+ N coal W d 9 a 0 Z ca W O OC Q Z W fta I p L) 0 RI z C [L � 0 LLH 0 z W � g E a coal W d 9 a 0 Z ca W O I Ai w1 1 —CG I I II I II I I I I II I I I I� I I I I 'qI I I I U 'o z z w s it z 5 z Z o O w Co = - U El =O m � V: w d U � }p �� �� p � O 4 ¢ ;� O li OO�i I F fY4zL U. = r OM O c Z O nx U i �I„f _a= in woo Wnz in xa z i z z ?vai U Za �c�'io LLA�= U Uoc- a o w1 1 —CG I I II I II I I I I II I I I I� I I I I 'qI I I I a 9 _ v a. I l�r�l •I p y a aq - !1I•f K II � il'II Ill '� r i 5;:6D ?,AD/O+ 'hM7lllryn"G:.Cn;. 'o z z 5 a 9 _ v a. I l�r�l •I p y a aq - !1I•f K II � il'II Ill '� r i 5;:6D ?,AD/O+ 'hM7lllryn"G:.Cn;. Z 0 o Z 0 w w PL x o F w S.7 V Rl �pj }�F2 q r f I II I Lj 7 LLJ N ca w V) FW— r� I;, b o a o o g m o � O( pp z J _ W U W � J LLJ LLI z o C -D � R o � 9 -i 0 0 as a esaa000(o t _z a i z 9 I �I I N g I �I p 4 I � 3 � I �I U z m z I _ =I m I U S I O � I J � I { � W o Q i LL F- Y "l CL p w LU ol ww gCD ��� I I � �I �Cr, I I V O 1=- o LLJ } r a *i I I �oC) LU W _z a i z 9 1 TOD v ,. .mss, •� �` 1 s •� --------------- - - - - - o r GS a � cc CO CL 2 rL 1p�p -- -__� / z '- U IC1 th 1 �' /� I �I I I �I I I � I �I I � =I m I U S I N � I I I I { � i 14 IA O "l z I I � �I I I V I gl } r I I I *i I I 1 TOD v ,. .mss, •� �` 1 s •� --------------- - - - - - o r GS a � cc CO CL 2 rL 1p�p -- -__� / z '- U IC1 th 1 �' /� No -Rise and Scour Report North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington Prepared for: The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, MC 96-11 Seattle, Washington 98124 Prepared by: amet.�' AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon 97224 (503)639-3400 December 14, 2012 Project No. 2-61 M-127230 Copyright © 2012 by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. All rights reserved. City of Renton Planning Division DEC:'2 e lu�l � � Q�Eto amed'' Engineering Certification for No -Rise Finding North Boeing Bridge and Temporary -Work Trestle The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington This is to certify that I am a duly qualified registered professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Washington_ This is further to certify that the attached report supports the finding that the proposed North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle as described on Figures S001 and S951 of plan files RTN-NBRDG-S001.DWG and RTN-NBRDG-S951.DWG , both dated December 13, 2012 (both attached as Appendix D) will not increase the 100 -year base (1°lo-annual chance) flood elevations on the Cedar River at published or unpublished cross-sections as shown on the Revised Flood Insurance Study Report for the Cedar River dated April 2006. The attached report dated December 14, 2012 supports this finding. in addition to this report and its attachments, a hydraulic model and work map are provided to support this finding. This certification was prepared exclusively for the Boeing Company (Boeing). The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in AMEC services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This No -Rise Certification is intended to be used by Boeing for the Boeing North Bridge project only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with AMSC. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at that party's sole risk, While this report was prepared in accordance with standard engineering practice by qualified engineering professionals, Boeing should understand that this report evaluated a specific storm recurrence interval and assumes free-flowing hydraulic conditions. It is reasonable to assume that a storm event of greater magnitude or changes in water -way conveyance capacity might cause higher stages than estimated for this assignment. L. MOM 00/1221 SEAL: EXPIRES: 3/12/2013 Seth Jelen, PE (WA 31539), CFM, CWRE AMSC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, OR 97224 503-639-3400 ameO December 14, 2012 Project No. 2-61 M-127230 Mr. William Rockwell, LEED, AP The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, MC 96-11 Seattle, Washington 98124 Attention: Mr_ William Rockwell Subject: No -Rise Report and Certification for Boeing North Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle on Cedar River The Boeing Company Renton, Washington Dear Bill: The following report documents AMEC's finding that both the proposed North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle satisfy the no -rise requirement based on Figures S001 and S951 dated December 13, 2012. The report includes tables and figures that document our analysis. Model input and output data are appended to the report along with a copy of the proposed plans. Digital copies of the hydraulic model and an updated work map are also provided for your reference. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to Boeing and look forward to future opportunities to serve you. Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, AMEC Environment &, Infrastructure, Inc. Seth Jelen, PE, CFM, CWRE Principal Engineer Attachments Reviewed by: Habib Matin, PE, PhD Principal Engineer AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon USA 97224 Tel+1 (503) 639-3400 Fax+1 (503) 620-7892 www.amec.com K:tAMEC US OFFICESlynnwocditeing North Bridge Norise\ReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Norise-Report-20121214-Docz The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle ameO TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................... ......................................................................................... 1 3.0 NO -RISE ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Hydrology............................................................................................................3 3.2 FIS Base Model and Existing North Boeing Bridge .............................................. 3 3.3 Proposed North Boeing Bridge............................................................................ 6 3.4 Temporary Work Trestle...................................................................................... 6 4.0 CLEARANCE ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 7 5.0 SCOUR ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 8 6.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................. 9 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................... 10 TABLES Table 1 No -Rise Analysis (attachment) Table 2: Cedar River Peak Flow Rates............................................................................. 3 Table 3: Regulatory Base (100 -Year) Flood Elevations..................................................... 5 Table 4 Clearance Analysis (attachment) FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Work Map for Cedar River with New Cross -Section Locations Figure 3 Scour Analysis for Proposed North Boeing Bridge AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61 M-127230 1 KAAMEC US CFF ICESILynnwood\Boeing North Bridge Norise\ReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle ameO APPENDICES Appendix A FIS Base Model Output and Cross Sections Appendix B Proposed North Boeing Bridge Model Output and Cross Sections Appendix C Temporary Work Trestle Model Output and Cross Sections Appendix D Plans and Cross -Sections of Existing and Proposed Structures Appendix E Scour Analysis for Proposed North Boeing Bridge AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. H Project No.: 2-61 M-127230 KC AMEC US oFFICESILynnwoodlBoeing North Bndge Nonse�Reportl3oeing,N,Bridge•Norise•Report-20121214.Dccx ameO No -Rise and Scour Report North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington 1.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AMEC found that the Proposed North Boeing Bridge and the Temporary Work Trestle across the Cedar River meet the no -rise requirement if constructed in accordance with plans and cross- sections shown on Plan Figures S001 and S951 dated December 13, 2012 and attached as Appendix D. AMEC also found that in the channel between the pier faces, the proposed North Boeing Bridge provides 3 ft of clearance for most of the opening and provides 2 ft of clearance in all of the opening relative to the published 100 -year base flood elevation. The proposed North Boeing Bridge would provide an additional 0.96 -ft of clearance if compared to the proposed condition instead of the existing published FIS profile. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Boeing proposes to replace the existing North Boeing Bridge and to construct a temporary work trestle to be used during construction. Both bridges cross the Cedar River at its confluence with Lake Washington. The bridge lies within the regulatory floodway of the Cedar River, so the project requires a no -rise certification finding that neither (1) the proposed new bridge including the fixed sediment elevations nor (2) the proposed temporary work trestle with surveyed sediment elevations plus temporary coffer dam at the west end, piers for the new bridge and two pier sets from the existing bridge will not increase the base (1% -annual -chance) flood elevations on the Cedar River. AMEC prepared a previous no -rise analysis and certification for Boeing dated June 6, 2012. This report and certification update that analysis, and is prepared under subcontract to Berger/ABAM for project owner Boeing. The work was for AMEC to perform a revised hydraulic analysis of the proposed improvements to obtain the required "no -rise" certification and thus demonstrate no adverse impact for the proposed improvements. Figure 1 shows the study vicinity. The Cedar River drains a watershed of approximately 186 square -miles to Lake Washington. Near the project site, Cedar River flows north in a straightened course that appears to confine the 100 -year flow to the river channel in places using levees. The existing flood insurance study (FIS) calibrated Manning's-n roughness values in the vicinity of the project to range from 0.020 to 0.026 for the channel and from 0.030 to 0.045 for the overbank and floodplain area. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61 M-127230 1 KAAMEC US OFFICESILynnwoodlBoeing North Bridge NorisetiReport\Boeing-N-Bridge-Norise-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle Unless otherwise noted, all elevations in this report and attachments use units of feet above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (ft NAVD88). To convert elevation values from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (ft NGVD29) to ft NAVD88, add 3.56 ft (based on analysis using the VERTCON program on the website of the National Geodetic Survey, www.ngs.gov), and consistent with the two benchmarks referenced on the April 2006 FIS workmap, and with communication with the City of Renton. Figure 2 shows a portion of the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) workmap Panel 1 dated April 2006. The proposed bridge structures are between cross-section "A" and "B" just south of the confluence of the river with Lake Washington, and are within Zone AE of the 100 -year floodplain and within the floodway. This means a detailed study with base flood elevations has been published, and that a no -rise certification is required for both the proposed bridge and temporary work trestle. The figure includes the location of two new cross-sections labeled "New #1" and "New #2" located between cross-sections "A" and "B" that were used in modeling the Temporary Work Trestle. 3.0 NO -RISE ANALYSIS The no -rise analysis process involved obtaining the FIS base hydraulic model used for the April 2006 FIS restudy, confirming it reproduced the water surfaces tabulated in the report, and then replacing the North Boeing Bridge in the model. The hydraulic modeling of the Cedar River used for the 2006 FIS restudy used the US Army Corps of Engineers HEC -RAS version 3.12. This no -rise analysis used the more current Version 4.1.0. The water surface elevations for the FIS Base model were compared with those tabulated in the report and found to be identical for both versions. The FIS base hydraulic model extended from Lake Washington upstream to near Maple Valley. This project area and any effects from the project are contained with only the lowermost reach, named "Cedar -Lower". So the hydraulic modeling trimmed all upstream reaches, junctions, and structures from the model and only considered this one reach in the analysis. The FIS model used a starting (downstream) water surface elevation in Lake Washington of 17.06 ft (NAVD88; NWHC 2006). The FIS report states that water levels in Lake Washington are regulated by the Chittenden Locks. This elevation corresponds to the maximum expected water surface elevation in Lake Washington between November 1 and March 31 (USACE, June 1997), as well as the elevation used in the design of the flood protection project by USACE (NWHC 2006). However, within the HEC -RAS hydraulic model the starting water surface (at cross-section # 0.03) defaults to the higher critical -depth value of 17.32 ft (NAVD88). AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2 Project No.: 2-61M-127234 K:IAME0 US OFF IOES1LynnwooMBoeing North Bridge Nodse\Report\Boeing-N-Bridge-Norise-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle ameO Two no -rise comparisons were made: first for the proposed bridge, and second for the temporary work trestle used during construction. Models for each proposed condition were compared cross-section by cross-section versus the FIS Base model water surface elevations to ensure that both proposed conditions did not result in an increase in water surface elevation relative to the regulatory 100 -year base flood elevation. Table 1 presents the results of both no -rise analyses, demonstrating that the no -rise requirement is satisfied for both the proposed bridge and the temporary work trestle. The table lists the cross-section location (by workmap letter, HEC -RAS model ID, and profile distance in ft above cross-section "An), followed by 100 -year water surface elevations for the FIS Base model and for the proposed bridge and temporary work trestle models (described in the following sections). The table lists three different locations for the upstream face of the bridges because the existing bridge, proposed bridge, and temporary work trestle structures each have a different location for their upstream face. For comparison, elevations for the FIS Base model are interpolated for the two proposed upstream face locations. Additional information about the hydraulic modeling for this no -rise analysis is provided in the subsections that follow. 3.1 HYDROLOGY The hydrology (flows) for this study used the same flows as in the FIS report dated April 2006. (NHC2005). Peak flow rates used are summarized in Table 2. The same flows were used for all hydraulic modeling. 3.2 Table 2: Cedar River Peak Flow Rates Modeled Peak Flow (CFS) Location Recurrence Intervals 500 -Yr 100- 50 -Yr 10 -Yr (Gross -section Letter, model ID, and Distance in ft above Cross -Section "A") 18,400 12,000 9,860 3,000 Mouth to AM, 220.7 (11,600 ft above "A") 18,170 11,830 9,708 2,958 To AS, 275 (14,481 ft above "A") FIS BASE MODEL AND ExISTING NORTH BOEING BRIDGE The FIS Base model was developed for the April 2006 FIS restudy of the Cedar River and Includes the existing North Boeing Bridge. It models fixed sediment elevations in the lower river reach (including the area of this no -rise analysis) that raise the minimum bed elevation in cross-sections AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 K:IAMEC US OFFICESlynnwooMBoeing North Bridge NoriselReport\Boeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 ameO No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle in this reach to account for projected sedimentation over future years. Appendix A includes a modeled profile, summary of output results, and model cross-sections for the FIS Base model. The FIS Base is modeled as HEC -RAS plan file "P01". Appendix D1 illustrates plan and cross-section views of the existing North Boeing Bridge (copied as -is from the previous no -rise report). The existing bridge was modeled by others as part of the 2006 FIS restudy of the Cedar River, and was used as -is for this no -rise analysis. The existing bridge begins 1.5 ft upstream of model cross-section "A". The bridge combines two structures: downstream, a 32.7 -ft wide portion spans the river and has two bents of 1.4 -ft diameter circular pier sets in the channel. South (upstream) of this, two aprons on either side extend the structure by 61.8 ft and add another two bents of concrete, rectangular piers in the channel. The structure was modeled as a single bridge that is 94.5 -ft from upstream to downstream. This may seem reasonable, however only the piers affect model results because the bridge deck is above the 100 -year water surface and each set of piers is shorter than the composite 94.5 ft. The structure is skewed 9 degrees relative to the river approach. This has no discernable effect on the cross-section of the ground. However, the upstream bent of the existing piers are modeled as 15 -ft wide each (versus their approximate 5 -ft width when viewed head-on) because the 9 -degree skew means the river "sees" the four piers as a wider obstruction to flow (the downstream piers are not "hidden" behind the upstream pier). A single base (100 -year) flood elevation does not apply to the Boeing North Bridge site. The base (100 -year) profile slopes steeply in the vicinity of the North Boeing Bridge as it falls from the confined upstream river reach into the much lower flood elevation of Lake Washington. Flood elevations differ by several feet from upstream to downstream, and differ between the upstream and downstream faces and centerline locations of the three bridge structures modeled. Base (100 -year) flood elevations are summarized in Table 3 with values for both NAVD88 and NGVD29. The locations reference the distance upstream from the downstream face of the existing Boeing North Bridge; that location is the same as the downstream face of the proposed bridge. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 4 Project No.: 2-61M-127230 KAAMEC US OFF ICES1Lynnwood\Boeing North Bridge Nodse%ReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214,Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No -Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle Table 3: Regulatory Base (100 -Year) Flood Elevations ameO Location and Description Distance' (ft) FIS Base Flood Elevations (ft NAVD88) (ft NGVD29) Downstream - Lake Washington' Lake Washington" NIA 17.06 13.5 FIS section "A" -1.5 18.64 15.08 _Existing Brigge_plus Apron DS face existing 0 19.38 15.82 Centerline (both) 47.25 20.54 16.98 UP face existing apron 94.5 21.7 18.14 Existina Bridge (only) DS face existing 0 19.38 15.82 Centerline existing 16.75 19-79 16.23 UP face existing 33.5 20.2 16.64 Proposed Bridge DS face proposed 0 1938 15.82 Centerline proposed 25 19.99 16.43 UP face proposed 50 20.61 17.05 Temporary Work Trestle DS face temporary 54 20-71 17.15 Centerline temporary 70 21.1 17.54 UP face temporary 87 21.51 17.95 Upstream of Bridges FIS Section "B" 117.5 24.19 20.63 (interpolated location) 245.5 24.27 20.71 (interpolated location) 420.5 24.39 20.83 FIS Section "C" 973.5 24.75 21.19 Notes: 1 = Distance is measured in feet upstream of the downstream face of existing (and proposed) bridge. 2 = Elevations in ft NGVD29 are converted to ft NAVD88 by adding 3.56 fit consistent with City, The existing FIS study benchmarks, and analysis using NOAA's VERTCON online tool. The Base Flood elevation is for the 100 -year event from the 2006 FIS model and study, All elevations except those at FIS lettered sections and the existing bridge faces were interpolated, 3 = Lake Washington elevation from 2006 FIS report; the FIS model defaulted to a higher elevation of 17.32 ft (NAVD88) as the minimum required for critical depth. DS = downstream. CL = centerline. UP = upstream. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 K:IAMEC US OFFICESILynnwoodlBoeing North Bridge NonseVReport\Boeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle ameO 3.3 PROPOSED NORTH BOEING BRIDGE The Proposed Bridge model represents the condition after completion of the proposed North Boeing Bridge and removal of all elements including piers of the existing bridge, and removal of the temporary work trestle and its piers. When removing these piers, they need to be cut sufficiently below the channel bottom elevation to allow clearance for future dredging of river sediment - The Proposed Bridge model replaces the existing bridge with the proposed bridge cross-section and width. All other geometry of the FIS Base model is retained, including the channel cross- sections and the fixed sediment elevations that represent projections of potential future channel aggradation. The Proposed Bridge is modeled as HEC -RAS Plan File P02. Appendix D Figure S001 illustrates plan and cross-section views of the proposed North Boeing Bridge. The proposed bridge was modeled as matching the downstream face of the existing bridge (1.5 ft upstream of cross-section "A"), with a deck width of 50 ft, and with 2 sets of 2 circular, 4 -ft -diameter piers capped by a 6 -ft -wide element. The piers are 36 ft long along the flow direction. The alignment of the west pier is skewed 9 degrees to the river approach so a wider effective pier width of 9.4 ft was modeled. The east pier was modeled as parallel to the flow direction because the sudden drop in water surface would cause flow to take the shortest route to Lake Washington. 3.4 TEMPORARY WORK TRESTLE Because the construction of the replacement North Boeing Bridge will occur in stages spanning more than one year, a second no -rise analysis was required to consider a worst-case wet -season condition. The Temporary Work Trestle represents the following condition: • The Temporary Work Trestle (described below) is constructed to carry traffic and from which to construct the replacement bridge • The concrete piers of the apron portion of the existing bridge are removed; the concrete piers that underlie the existing bridge are retained • A temporary coffer dam is in place effectively blocking flow in the left portion of the channel; no such obstruction is in place in the right portion of the channel The existing, circular pier bents of the existing bridge are still present (the existing bridge deck is removed, but it was above the 100 -year flood elevation and did not affect model results) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 6 Project No.: 2-61M-127230 KAAMEC US 0FFICES1Lynnwood\Boeing North Bridge NoriselReportiBoeing-N-Bridge-Norise-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle The piers for the proposed bridge are present in the channel (the presence of the proposed deck was not modeled-, it is above the 100 -year flood elevation and would not affect model results). • When removing these piers, they need to be cut sufficiently below the channel bottom elevation to allow clearance for future dredging of river sediment. The Temporary Work Trestle model replaces the existing bridge with the proposed bridge cross- section and width in the HEC -RAS hydraulic model. The model also includes survey points used to update mapped cross-sections "A" and "B" near the downstream and upstream of the North Boeing Bridge site and to insert two new cross-sections upstream of mapped cross-section "B". Finally, because the design life of this structure is only two seasons, no fixed sediment elevations were used: no aggradation of sediment bed material was included. The Temporary Work Trestle is modeled as HEC -RAS Plan File P03, Appendix D Figure 5951 illustrates plan and cross-section views of the Temporary Work Trestle. The proposed temporary bridge would begin 3 ft upstream of the proposed bridge face and have a deck width of 34 ft, with 7 sets of 4 circular, 2 -ft -diameter piers that are 27 ft long along the flow direction. Most piers were modeled as parallel to the flow direction because the sudden drop in water surface would cause flow to take the shortest route to Lake Washington. 4.0 CLEARANCE ANALYSIS The clearance is the height of the structure low chord above the published base flood (100 -year) elevation corresponding to the upstream face of the structure. The City of Renton requires a clearance of at least 3 ft in most of the channel for the Proposed Bridge, and at least 2 ft in all of the channel, and this requirement is satisfied. It is important to note that this clearance analysis does not include the 0.96 -ft drop in base flood elevation that will result from the opening of the bridge cross-section as the river banks are restored and obstructions by the existing approach apron are removed. Thus the actual clearance will be 0.96 ft more across the whole cross-section. Table 4 presents the clearance analysis of the Proposed Bridge and also includes an analysis for the Temporary Work Trestle. The 100 -year water surface (interpolated from the published FIS profile) at the upstream face of each structure was compared to the low chord elevations at several points across the cross-section of each structure's upstream face. The upstream faces of each structure (existing bridge, proposed bridge, and temporary work trestle) are in different locations so their 100 -year water surface elevations also differ. Elevations are provided both as ft NAVD88 for comparison to the HEC -RAS hydraulic modeling results and FIS, and as ft NGVD29 for comparison to the Boeing bridge plans. These elevations will differ from the elevation obtained from the City during preliminary application meetings that was based on interpretation of FEMA AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.! 2-61M-127230 KAAMEC US OFFICESILynnwood\Boeing North Bridge Norise\ReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Norise-Report-20121214.Rocx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 ameO No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle flood profiles, and also from elevations at the centerline of the structures that might be shown on the plans. For the Proposed Bridge, the low chord elevation increases moving toward the channel from both banks, and the structure's low beam is gradually arched. The clearance exceeds 3.0 ft between the two piers (i.e. the channel) for 85% of the 130 -ft wide opening between the pier faces and exceeds 2.0 ft for 100% of that opening. The clearance exceeds 2.0 ft for 90% of the full 236 -ft wide opening between the bridge abutments. The clearance drops to 1.7 ft at both the right and left abutments. As discussed earlier, if the widened channel banks were also accounted for, the clearance would be 0.96 ft more, even when including the fixed sediment elevations. For the Temporary Work Trestle, the low beam is at a constant elevation of 18.85 ft (NGVD29) between piers 3 and 7 (i.e. the channel) and the clearance is 0.90 ft. The low beam increases at a uniform rate from elevation 18.49 ft (NGVD29) at the left coffer dam face and from elevations 18.53 ft (NGVD29) at the right coffer dam face towards piers 3 and 7, respectively. The temporary work trestle deck is above the published FIS 100 -year water surface for its entire length; however, both ends of the low beam are below it (behind the coffer dam faces). If the widened channel banks were also accounted for, the clearance would be 0.22 ft more. No fixed sediment was modeled for the temporary work trestle condition. 5.0 SCOUR ANALYSIS A scour analysis was performed to assess the potential depth of total scour including contraction scour of the bed, abutment scour, and pier scour. AMEC found that the minimum elevation across the profile (i.e. maximum scour depth) was (-7.64) ft below NAVD88 (-11.2 ft below NGVD). The proposed bridge will be built on piles driven more than 70 feet deep, so scour is not found to be a problem for this structure. The Proposed Bridge was analyzed for scour risk following the methodology in HEC18, 4th edition (May 2001). Output from the HEC -RAS hydraulic model (described above) was used. The bed material was observed and measured in the field, and the D50 and D95 diameters were estimated to be about 2 inches (50 mm or 0.05 m) and 4 inches (100 mm or 0.05 m) respectively. The river is channelized in the reach where this project is located. In this area the stream banks were vegetated, suggesting that any overbank scour would be clear -water. In addition, because the river is channelized there is in essence no overbank to be subject to scour. The channel bed material appeared to be mobile, and to have varied laterally between successive surveys. The existing FIS report applies a fixed sediment elevation to the lower river profile. For these reasons, live -bed channel scour was found to apply. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 K:IAMEC US OFFICESILynnwoodlBoeing North Bridge Nodse\ReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214.Oocx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 ameO No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle The HEC -RAS scour analysis results are summarized as follows: • Channel contraction scour depth 4.9 ft using live -bed equation • Pier scour depth 13.3 ft using the Colorado State University (CSU) equation • Abutment scour depth was 7.36 ft using the default HIRE methodology • Total pier and contraction scour depth was 18-2 ft • Total abutment and contraction scour depth was 7.36 ft Details of the HEC -RAS scour analysis input and output are included as Appendix E. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the detailed analysis described above, AMEC found that the Proposed North Boeing Bridge and the Temporary Work Trestle across the Cedar River meets the no -rise requirement if constructed in accordance with plans and cross-sections shown on Plan Figures S001 and S951 of plan files RTN-NBRDG-S001.DWG and RTN-NBRDG-S951.DWG, both dated December 13, 2012 and attached as Appendix D. AMSC also found that the Proposed North Boeing Bridge meets requirements to provide 3 ft clearance above the 100 -year flood elevations within most of the channel between the pier faces and 2 ft clearance for all of that opening, and that the deck of the temporary work trestle is above the 100 -year flood elevation for its full length but that its low beam is below the 100 -year flood elevation at both ends. For potential scour depth, AMSC found that the lowest scoured elevation across the profile (location of maximum scour depth) was (-7.64) ft below NAVD88 (-11.2 ft below NGVD), and the maximum scour depth was 18.2 ft. Because the proposed bridge will be built on piles driven more than 70 feet deep, scour is not found to be a problem for this structure. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please contact the undersigned at (503) 639-3400. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 K:IAMEC US OFF ECES1Lynnwood\Boeing North Bridge NodselReport\Boeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No -Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle amec LIMITATIONS This report was prepared exclusively for Boeing and ABAM by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC). The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in AMEC services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This No -Rise Report and Certification is intended to be used by Boeing and ABAM on the North Boeing Bridge Replacement project only, subject to the terms and conditions of ARAM's contract with AMEC. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at that party's sole risk. While this report was prepared in accordance with standard engineering practice by qualified engineering professionals, Boeing and ABAM should understand that this report evaluated a specific storm recurrence interval and assumes free-flowing hydraulic conditions. It is reasonable to assume that a storm event of greater magnitude or chbnges in water -way conveyance capacity might cause higher stages than estimated for this assignment. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc, Seth Jelen, PE, CFM, CWRE Principal Engineer SJ/cw AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Reviewed by: Habib Matin, PE, PhD Principal Engineer 10 - Project No.: 2-O I M-127230 K:AMEC US OFFICEMLynnYroodlBoeing North Bridge NoriselReportleoeing-N-Bridge-Norise-Report-20121214.Aoex TABLES Table 1: No -Rise Analysis Table 4: Clearance Analysis TABLE f. No -Arse Analysis for North Boeing Bridges Notes: All values are from 90% -Plan Configuration 1 - All modeled elevations are ft NAVD88; values are 3.56 it higher than values in It NGVD29 2 - Distance is It above the downstream lace of the existing (and proposed) bridge (modeled as 1.5 II upstream of crass-seclion "A") 3 = Proposed Bridge is 50 it wide (piers are 36 it along flow but modeled as 50 -ft) with downstream face matching existing bridge's inserted into FI model geometry (i.e. retaining FIS cross-section geometry and projected sedimentation 4 = Work Trestle (temporary bridge) deck is 34 It wide (3 it upstream of UPF of proposed bridge) with piers 27 ft long along flaw:. modeled as 87 ft (width and pier lengths) to include the proposed bridge piers and includes two 4 -ft diameter pier bents for proposed bridge plus twD 1.4 -ft pier bents from existing bridge plus 7 sets of 2 -ft diameter circular piles supporting work trestle; temporary work trestle modeled using revised geometry from FIS that added 2 new crass -sections (some piers are combined, some are aligned with expanding flow and some at edges modeled as slightly skewed) plus did not include sedimentation projected in FIS Base model Included blockage of temporary coffer dam on west bank - but net on east bank (where piers modeled instead) 5 = The upstream face distance for the FIS Base model does 'not' represent the face of the existing 315-t1 bridge deck but the projected distance at the upstream edge of the two approach aprons c - Water surface elevation modeled as critical depth (water surface would be less than this) i - Water surface elevation Interpolated (to compare with UPF locations that differ from existing UPF locations) DSF - Downstream face of bridge (internal to model) UPF - Upstream lace of bridge (internal to model) na = Change in water surface not assessed for interpolated FfS Base cross-section Cross -Section Location 10D -Year Water Surface (k NAVD88)' Map Letter Model ID Distance (fl)z FIS Base Proposed' Change Work Trestle' Change 0.03 -321.5 17.32 c 17.32 c 0-00 17.32 c 0,00 0.48 21.5 17.60 17.60 0.00 17.60 0.00 A 0.1 -1.5 18.64 c 18.64 c 0.00 17,61 c -1.03 1.3 DSF 0 19.38 c 18.86 c -0,52 19.18 c -0.20 UPF Proposed 50 am W 19.65 c -0.96 na UPF Trestle 87 :HM a na 21.29 -0.22 UPF FIS Base 94.5 21.70 cs na na B 3 117.5 24.19 20.70 c -3.49 22.21 -1,98 4.7 245.5 , ":...1$T ia;: na 22.11 -2.16 8 420.5 1li.lig i - na 22.24 -2.15 C 19.2 973.5 24.75 23-38 -1.37 23.46 -1.29 D 317 1638.5 25.36 24.46 -0,90 23.70 -1.66 E 46.9 2436.5 26.37 26.01 -0.36 24.06 -2.31 F 64-6 3362-5 28.10 27.99 -0,11 25.02 -3.08 G 74.8 3905-5 29.39 29.34 -0.05 26.57 -2.82 H 75.9 3960.5 29.55 29.51 -0.04 26.84 -2.71 1 77.7 4061,5 29.57 29.53 -0.04 26.86 -2.71 J 804 4176.5 29.76 29.72 -0.04 27.12 -2.64 K 64.2 4342.5 30.00 29.97 -0.03 27.44 -2.56 L 90.2 4717.5 31.00 30.98 -0.02 28.29 -2.71 M 100-2 5253.5 32.13 32.12 -0.01 29.70 -2.43 N 1063 5563.5 33.17 33.16 -0.01 30.89 -2.28 0 107.1 5634-5 33.55 33.55 0.00 31.44 -2.11 P 109-5 5744.5 33.77 33.77 0.00 31.46 -2.31 Q 111.6 5848.5 33.95 33.94 -0.01 31.43 -2.52 R 123.7 6483.5 34.31 34.30 -0.01 32.36 -1.95 S 124.5 6528-5 35.00 35.00 0.00 33.06 -1.94 T 127.9 6706.5 35.22 35.22 0.00 33.29 -1.93 U 131.8 6915.5 3532 35.71 -0.01 33.93 -1.79 V 132.8 6959.5 37.48 37.48 0-00 34.10 -3.38 W 134.1 7029.5 37-55 37.54 -0.01 34.16 -3.39 X 141.8 7442.5 37.97 37.97 0.00 35-20 -2.77 Y 146 7656.5 38.24 38.24 0.00 35.78 -2.46 7 147.4 7734.5 39.13 39.13 0.00 36.20 -2.93 AA 149.5 7846.5 39.46 39.46 0.00 36.54 -2.92 AB 153.1 8009.5 39-80 39.80 0.00 37.16 -2.64 AC 1597 8381.5 40-17 40.17 0.00 37.73 -2.44 AD 160.8 8441.5 41.60 41.60 0.00 38.03 -3.57 AE 165 8662.5 42.21 42.21 0.00 39.27 -2.94 AF 165.6 8692.5 42.30 42.29 -0.01 39.39 -2.91 AG 169.3 8889.5 41.99 41.89 0.00 38.88 -3.11 AH 179.5 9424.5 42.55 J 42,55 0.00 40.43 -2.12 Notes: All values are from 90% -Plan Configuration 1 - All modeled elevations are ft NAVD88; values are 3.56 it higher than values in It NGVD29 2 - Distance is It above the downstream lace of the existing (and proposed) bridge (modeled as 1.5 II upstream of crass-seclion "A") 3 = Proposed Bridge is 50 it wide (piers are 36 it along flow but modeled as 50 -ft) with downstream face matching existing bridge's inserted into FI model geometry (i.e. retaining FIS cross-section geometry and projected sedimentation 4 = Work Trestle (temporary bridge) deck is 34 It wide (3 it upstream of UPF of proposed bridge) with piers 27 ft long along flaw:. modeled as 87 ft (width and pier lengths) to include the proposed bridge piers and includes two 4 -ft diameter pier bents for proposed bridge plus twD 1.4 -ft pier bents from existing bridge plus 7 sets of 2 -ft diameter circular piles supporting work trestle; temporary work trestle modeled using revised geometry from FIS that added 2 new crass -sections (some piers are combined, some are aligned with expanding flow and some at edges modeled as slightly skewed) plus did not include sedimentation projected in FIS Base model Included blockage of temporary coffer dam on west bank - but net on east bank (where piers modeled instead) 5 = The upstream face distance for the FIS Base model does 'not' represent the face of the existing 315-t1 bridge deck but the projected distance at the upstream edge of the two approach aprons c - Water surface elevation modeled as critical depth (water surface would be less than this) i - Water surface elevation Interpolated (to compare with UPF locations that differ from existing UPF locations) DSF - Downstream face of bridge (internal to model) UPF - Upstream lace of bridge (internal to model) na = Change in water surface not assessed for interpolated FfS Base cross-section TABLE 4. Clearance Analysis for North Boeing Bridges Structure and Location Discs Station h fl Soffit Elevations° fl NAVD86 f3 NGVD29 Clearance tt Temporary Work Trestle FIS 100 -year Water Surface' 87 21.51 17.95 (for reference the modeled water surface for this condition is 0.22 it lower than the published FIS) Low Chord of Sfructura s Inside face of W coffer dams 21+01 22.05 18.49 0.54 Left angle point / Pier 3 21+10 22.41 18.85 0.90 Right angle point / Pier 7 22+30 22.41 18.85 0.90 Inside face of E coffer dams 22+37.70 22.09 18.53 0.58 Proposed Bridqe FIS 100 -year Water Surface 50 20.61 17.05 (for reference the modeled water surface for this condition is 0.96 ft lower than the published FIS) Low Chord of Struclure 3 Inside face of W abutment 10+42 22.37 18.81 1.76 Left station of 2 -ft clearance 10+54 22.61 19.05 2.00 Center of left pier 10+93 23.4 19.84 2.79 Left station of 3 -ft clearance 11+05 23.61 20.05 3.00 Highest point of low beam 11+60 24.75 21.19 4.14 Right station of 3411 clearance 12+15 23.61 20.05 3.00 Center of right pier 12+27 23.41 19.85 2.80 Right station of 2 -ft clearance 12+66 22.61 19.05 2.00 Inside face of E abutment 12+78 22.37 18.81 1.76 Fraction of 130 -ft opening between pier faces with 3 -ft clearance = 85% Fraction of 130 -ft opening between pier faces with 2 -it clearance = 100% Fraction of 236 -ft opening between abutments. with 2 -ft clearance = 90% Notes: 1 = FIS Water surface interpolated for location at upstream face of temp. work trestle 2 = FIS Water surface interpolated for location at upstream face of proposed bridge 3 = Elevations of low chord were measured from the cross sections drawing files provided 4 = Elevations in ft NGVD29 are converted to ft NAVD88 by adding 3.56 ft consistent with City, the existing FIS study benchmarks, and analysis using VERTCDN; soffit elevations provided by KPFF 5 = Distance is from downstream face of existing (and proposed) bridge to upstream face of respective bridge 6 = Data corresponds to 9D% -Design Submission 7 = These clearances represent the difference in elevations between the bridge soffit and the published FIS Base Flood (100 -year) elevation - the actual clearances would be more after accounting for the increased conveyance under the proposed- or temporary -bridge conditions 8 = The coffer dams are modeled on both ends to represent the worst-case temporary condition where part of the right and left channel bank areas are obstructed from flow during construction ameO FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Work Map for Cedar River with New Cross -Section Locations Figure 3: Scour Analysis for Proposed North Boeing Bridge KAAMEC US OFFICEMLynnwood\Boeing North Bridge Norise%dwg rigure 1 1.2 1 ® t iVL a , III Al - ♦ IL ! 1 1 1 - - N CLIFqT AMEC 7376 SVV -.. _ �� BOEING -.O LOCATIONTITLE SITE A- HYDRAULICPRUJECT .. SCOUR. BOEING RENTON NORTH BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT SCALE: FIGURE 14. WASHINGTON KAAMEC US OFFICEMLynnwood\Boeing North Bridge Norise%dwg rigure 1 u4plar'41as - wd8L:4 ZLOZ 'SZ 'AON - - - fia•p-suol}oao-1 uoy3aS-ssoj0 mQN 411m jenly jope0 joy dory )Ijoµ - Z ajnBU\gµ0\sel4lol-puo-sojn6y\POdOa\6auoN 0608 4IJON 6ul00g\pO0MuUA-1\S301-4J0 Sn 03W\:N :3�V0S trZZLfi 'H'S'n 210 'p�lpll�od "ONM21nDIJ SNOLVOOI NOIlO3S-SSMJ0 M3N NMOHSSV i9we PPoauiE!Ajn4W'S 9LEL 0£ZLZ4 W49Z HIM AAAI l dd4301804 dVh Ni IOAA :NO110-11 NMOHS SV ON :37111 :vynivo Z40Z 89avJDAONrs W`d8'd1�130�138 :31va 1N3W3la�O OVId3�i 3Ja8 N1308 HiZAON nao.�H� 1bOd3�J 3SW ON as Puy ANddWOa `JN1308 3Hl :'ON'A3J :103fOLld :A9 NMO :1N3I1'J '9WZ 41L ludq'Z }o L aleld - deA �AuM'sluellnsuog ollneApdH Isa-VON "9021n05 'uol}9na13 88 OAVN wOJ j 3! 99T %-3oJ4-gnS 62 UADN O# 88 QAVN wOJJ }JaAua3 01 +uolsjaAuao wn}DU 1931}JaA +00L = 4 #! '88 (1AVN +wn}DU 1831}jaA auoZ 444ON %Mo DUMSVA 16/£BUVN +Wq oa In}uozlJDH lMrlvR9ff-lu-RnIR },} 0504 ,00L .05£ !;,I a} I jo s41,dap 4}lx Bulpaolj mollo45 soy auoz 0 sl41 •spoy}aw papa}ap Rq paulw4al,ap aJv y314s 's"vldpool.+ jva -001 ay} o} spuodsa-AJOa 4314r auoz rlsp a3uDinsul poOLj a41 q,I y}da(E) pV auoZ 'Bulpuad jo svauo 4#IAA Allonsn %}A £ o}1 40 94}dap pool.+ sv4 soy auoz 5141 ~auoz sly} my}lr ua04s >NoH aoua,Aajab uall AW I -M3- aq W s33g 'spvy}aw pall°}ap Aq paulwJa}ap aim 4314M 'sulvldpool,+ Joan-nnj a4} O; spuOdsaJJoD 43I4o auoz >Isla a3UDJMSUl pool.+ a41 +HV auoZ A[jvpu g a}Uacdio3 ,auoz 514} u14}1w UAAOy3 a.Ao 53,49 •5po41aw papv}ap dq paulwaa}ap 4JD y314r 'sulDldpaolj JOBA-001 ay} 04 5puods"Jo3 y314a aw02 >IsIJ a3uoJnsul poolj a41 13V auoZ ucu} s_ssoj0 r r uoI}Dnal3 POQU asag—yam •auoz sl4} u14}la urOys aJD s3.+g ON 'saanaL Rq pool.+ JvaA[..pgl ay} uoJj pa}3a;oud RJDpunog uloldpoolj .AoaA-OOG sD3JO Jo 'allu •hs I uay# asal sl aBDuloJp 6ul}nglJ}uO3 ay} aje4x BuWolj woaj}s aDaAC-001 jo soaJD '}Ooj I uo4} ssal aim sy}dap aBDJaAD aja4w Bulpo% Moly }aa4s joaA-00T jo 50aJD 'Uloldpoolj JvaA(-oUL a4} apls}no svaJD o; spuOdsaJ40a 47140 auoz >Is14 aDUDJnsul pool} a41 +papD4S X auoZ RJvpunog ulnldpool_j AwA-Ml AcJvpunog AwApoolj - - u1Dldpoolj jnaA(-p85 ay} aplsj�no soauD o; spuodsaJJO3 43l4a auoz >IsIJ a7uDansul pnolj ayl Ix auoZ "ja}ua3 lauU040 LS O L7 J, LiD 4q X auoZ PIJ8 uul Alsapad ix a 0 C=DUCIZ n Xpn'S 90 vurl a 3-0 � .0 v �4❑ p 0 3v a La e 3 1 Auu eseW o7 BupuatlS �\ r] � ' ❑ f"� - ��•� Wi+cwo wrld `.`lL_-iTJL _ �_ _ \ L.AC31iieF.',el��I lu wululvwn�O F'%n X.0 �If' a; : (pa o S) X auoz r \ A ,CO3 Cr- �i �, � Do X auoZ' d ❑tl°a+ u �g Ijj�El p� © . co o r� O �°de Qp W 4..J -Oa r �� Q - --co: D- I-� trLJ' ❑ 4-_.. _....._.-._ _ ............... [30 4 L,4 _} -QgO. p o QBe� 14 rpj f V o., �I o �. o a Rp -0:5 � p o o �p L�- d p .� ..! ca aqf}❑o 0 0 � .0 Q Bol. 3b auoZ r�alEtlz J, C7 U L� �A� �C�f}3� a . �.4 p .���. ..rte:: '-}�-,.C�:. wO .4 M pIl�0oQ 413. C:IE30 }( auoz O e1:I f� p p o O q'1v7� CI'J O L p .G G O� p� O ❑ ', O 06 4 �� i 0 { a�luH 1�1 6ula00 l4r* (Ioapa4S) X auoZ j i 3tl a 1 (papnuS) X auoz ❑ c 5 �- 9 O, - �l ( a �4S)au Z d° X auoZ d �" z J '�Mo�s ae Cumaw AAbpl ey, al tiuouoaaawv i Rudrvvlcam eaoy+ANO 'ulaMlxxxl ,: ,: roas �a w saranaNw m waaycuauW Pace 1h 641041gtAlp Wll�ai690F11ua,aHi¢ +»x 1' (papn4S) X SU lL# ^^aN� 02 ` (papID S) X auoZ Y. aBpljg G-la08 t4 -ADN J :i fj 25�t4NClOfl 31VadS03 A(pn4-S pallo:�a4 3o q jq-1 / �� uo}6ulyson a>lo-1 -O C CD O 70 CA L) 7 a Y co J 40' coJ O LON a NO O 1 II ti ~ C7 r I ............ !! fY II w � I ti4 O p L U 1 l m C1) f ` Cl) U7 Cb � / •�"rr I m I i ti ti I ti O { 1 ti i l}1 � ! I i ` 1`111 :..... 1 � 1 I 1 ................ IV ''�� •err...... � �r _________._- O 1 , rrYr O O r LO O T - T LO LO Q L9Or C3 N N r r (l}) U011PAGID ameO APPENDIX A FIS Base Model Output and Cross Sections Flood Profiles Output Summary Cross -Sections (With Projected Sedimentation) a } O a CD CO O O N � LO CD _N to t � a � M Q LL LL " 0 0 M 5992 X0 6,9V C:. N J Z N Q O () N T W C Q � J O Q O p r LU O d d O lL J p J r d S991 X0 Z.l£ `� v 11C w [ � a N U = a CO Ci 7 0 m Z FE N O o fU L0 m LLJ T a w w SS6 XO Z'61 N C) N W L ?Q Q } c O O ❑ O J O 0 N C, Cl O N N y (� - z d a O -d m � c E'l ...lsnr - 500 sX 800 0 0 Z - olbulys'W Opel ul - E0.0 5X Co.(] .n f7 b m �n o Ln a Ln o CV N r r (4) uoi}en813 Appendix A: Output Summary - FIS Base Model Rlver St. Map Letter Distance Profile D Total Min Ch EI W.S. Elr r Crit W.S. EG. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flaw Area Top Width Frauds p Chi (fl) (ofsl Vtl IRI {1`0 lflt (ti l (fus) 11"; IK) 0.03 -321.5 100Yr 121700 13.55 17.32 17.32 17.9 0005562 6.09 197 1. 7 2700.98 1 0,08 21.511 12000 7.93 17.6 1931 0.302227 10.16 119189 211.5 074 0.1 A 1.510oYr 12000 1343 1664 18.64 tel 0104155 1235 99021 22097 098 1.3 BR D 0 1 BOY r 1200D 19.38 19.38 21.95 12.97 187.23 t 3BRU 94.51COW 12000 21.7 217 24.87 14.39 16998 3 B 117.5100Yr 12000 13.43 2419 1992 25.12 0000617 7.92 1780.99 29111 0.43 19.2 C 973.5100Yr 1200D 15.35 24.75 21.19 25.74 0.0001313 8,1 1501.94 220.82 0.47 3'..7 D 1638.51COY, 12000 16.64 2536 2263 2642 0.001273 8.5 1580.64 24037 0.52 45.9 E 2436.51OOYr 12000 17.74 26.37 2388 27.64 0.001778 9.32 1399.36 1900. 0.56 64,6 F 3362.5130Yr 12000 19.02 28,1 25,46 2949 0.002159 9.51 130636 169.72 0.57 74,8 G 39011COY, 12000 20.09 2939 2626 30.54 0.001676 864 1427.14 166.58 0.51 75,9 H 3960.51COY r 1200D 20.22 29.55 26.25 30.64 0.0015 8.38 1453,22 166.56 0.49 77.7 l 4061511 12000 2045 29.57 2685 30.89 0.001996 9.26 1339.11 1693 0-55 80.4 J 4176.51CODY" 12090 20.63 29.76 27 31.14 0.092107 9.48 1291.91 158.45 0.55 64,2 K 4342.513OYr 12000 2081 30 27.53 31.56 0.002324 !0.14 7242,62 155.7'1 0.6 90.2 L 4717.5100Yr 12000 21.53 31 28A8 32.41 0.002089 9.7 1318.05 171.97 0.57 100,2 M 5253.5100Yr 12000 22.38 32.13 29.84 33.56 0.002169 10.12 1329.5 176.02 C.58 106.3 N 5563-5 tCOYr 12000 22-76 33.77 2944 34.15 0.001434 6.56 1666-58 185.85 047 107,1 U 5634.5 ''COYr 12000 22.83 33.55 28.83 34,25 0.000903 7.06 20D2.04 250.86 0.38 10836RD $635-5 'iOOYr 12OGO 33.51 28.9 3427 731 10241 108.3 BR U 5743.5 '1 COY r 12000 33.56 29.63 34.62 8.21 53.56 1025 P 5744.5 130Yr 12000 2928 33.77 29.56 34,63 0.00' 137 7.82 1758 !94.11 0.43 111.6 0 5548.510oYr 12000 23.82 33.95 30.64 34.76 0.90118 7.79 1824 295.07 0.44 123,7 R 6493.5 tCOYr 12000 24.63 34.31 36,11 C.D02532 11.06 1196,35 149.56 0,63 '.24.1 BR D 6484-5 t00Yr 12000 34.08 32.3 3622 12.06 141.19 '' 24.1 BR U 6527.5 100Yr 12000 34.76 32.15 36,42 1 D.56 140.41 124.5 S 6.928.510CYr 12000 24.69 35 37.9 36.45 0-001883 9.91 1321.65 148-69 0.55 127.9 T 6706.5100Yr 32000 24.97 35.22 32.36 36.86 0.002128 10.55 1234.6 145.52 0.58 131.8 U 6915.5100Yr 12000 25.sfi 35.72 32.78 37,3 0.002045 10.36 1258,39 137 056 132.3 BR D 6916.5 i00Yr 12000 35.24 32.9 373 1157 132.3 BR U 6958.5 100Yr 12000 36.15 33.12 38.6 11.78 132.8 V 6959.5 103Yr 12000 257 374$ 3381 38.6 0.001207 6.79 1536.77 168.1 D.45 1341 W 715100Yr 12000 25.811 37.55 3869 6,001293 8.93 159293 215.01 046 1418 X 7442,5 IOOYr 12000 26,fi2 37.97 39.34 0.001507 9.58 1355,2 132.54 0.5 146 V 7656.5100Yr 12000 26.86 3824 34-33 39.7 0-001611 9.72 1270.11 74286 051 146.7 BH D 7657.5 11 12000 37.95 34.41 39.83 11.03 146.7 BFi U 77335 100Yr 12000 38.39 34.54 40.32 11.17 147.4 Z 7734.5101 12000 27.01 39.13 34.45 4039 0.001283 9.07 '36846 145.78 0.46 149.5 AA 78465103Yr 12000 27,23 39.46 40.55 0,001184 8.47 1498.89 148,45 0.44 151 3 BR D 71 6 100Yr 1200c 39-42 34.99 40.57 8-74 14426 151.3 BR U 8008.5 100Yr 12000 39.71 35.21 40.9 8.88 147.04 153.1 AS 8009.5103Yr 12000 27.67 398 35.02 40.91 0,001167 8.56 147982 151.4 044 154.7 0.0 8361.5 i00Yr 12000 26.26 40.17 41.36 0.001136 8.85 1433.96 134.17 044 160-3 RR D 8362.5 100Yr 12000 38.75 35.03 41.36 1025 160.3 BP U 8440.5 101 12000 39.3 35.35 42.53 10.3 160.8 AD 8441,5 'I DOYr 12000 25,04 41.6 35.4 42.53 6.00078 8.07 165 1.6 139,05 0.38 165 AF 8662.5101 12000 26.16 42.21 42.71 0.00045 5-9 2395.1 290.05 028 165.3 BR D 8671.5 1 O 12000 42.1 7 35.3 42.74 6.28 129.55 165.3 BR U 8663.5 100Yr 12000 42,17 35.29 42.76 645 128,94 1656 4F 86925100Y: 12000 2816 42-3 35.09 42.78 0.00044 5.03 239628 2964 028 169.3 AG 68895100Yr 12000 2793 4'.99 36.69 43.09 D001062 8,62 1824.47 256 042 179.5 AH 9424.5 IOOYr 12000 28,8 42,55 43.7 0.001157 8,66 1538.01 166.61 0.44 784-6 Al 9801511 12000 30.32 43-08 3644 44.1$ Do01162 8.56 1&8563 367.91 044 192.3 A3 101D1.5 tODl 72000 31.53 43.34 39.53 44.65 0001872 9.34 1501.79 300.09 0.5' 2:•4.7 AK 10774.5 7COYr 12000 32.58 44.1 41,63 46.5 0.002798 12,51 1013.48 144.56 0.67 211.2 Al, 11094.5100Yr 12000 32.63 45.07 4206. 47.35 0002409 12.17 1045.64 19713 0.63 226.7 AM 111' 98.5 12co0 31.27 46.61 43.27 48.5 3002029 11.17 1178.57 12678 0.58 2314 AN 12171.516DYr 11830 35.36 48,25 49.56 0.001531 9,23 13'6.44 13551 0.5 242.2 AO 12739.51COY, 1'830 3647 48.73 61 If 0902954 12.26 991.49 10911 0.68 250.6 AP 13185.5 100Yr 1x830 37.82 50.76 52.14 0.001755 9.41 1275.26 150.93 D.52 2607 AO 13724.51COY r 11830 38.07 51.29 53.67 0.003088 12,44 999.71 71141 0.69 274.7 AR 144:5.51o0Yr 11830 40 54.09 55.33 0.001495 8.93 1346.44 12514 0.46 274,85 BFC 144fi6.51COY r 11830 54.05 48,89 55.35 9,18 12111 274.85 BR U 14478.5 100Yr t 1830 54.07 48.93 55-36 9.19 127 47 275 AS 14479.51COYr 11830 40.04 54.16 48.79 55.39 000148 8.9 1350.67 125.22 0.46 Notes, Crass -section outpul for project vicinity is highlighted in 4old about Key 10 11014 names: River Sl Inlemal IO in HEC -RAS (about nundredl'1s of n rake above cross-seclion'A': unillessl -BR D- is the downstream face of the bridge: 'BR U- is the upstream lace Map teller Letter that labels the crass -section on the work maps {some cross-seclions have no letter label) Distance Distance (71) upstream Imm dovmslream face cl erisling land proposed) North Boeing Bridge 11511 above cross-section 'A:) Profile 100 Yr is the base flood i annual chance hood) 0 Total Flow rale (cls] Min Ch E1 Thalweg (minimum channel elevation; It NAVD88j W.S. Flit, Water surface eleraticn III NAVD88) Crit W.S. Critical water surface elevalton (ft NAVD981 E.G, Eiev Energy grado elevation (11 NAVD88) E.G. Stupe Fnergy grade slope hl'it: unillessj Ve: Chn'! Average velocity "Itlew m channel Ohsecond) Flow Area Wetted fro. cross section area (square I0 Top' idOr Wetted top-wldlh of Dow Of) Frou4e 9Chl Fmude Number{unillessj A2 FIS Base Outpul Page 1 Lu 15J North Boeinq Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: OLD BASE: Cedar -Lower 100 -Yr Only: Cedar-2003-ris - Aggradatino 4.16,2012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR -LOWER ONLY 2003 -FIS RS = 19.2 CX 955 < .04 >i< .023 x.08* -- o3 --- i - FLegend WS 100Yr Sediment Fill i - Ground Levee it Bank Sta i 5 : I --ter _ _..- r y 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 26 241 22 ' c 18 D y ar 16 Lu 14 12 10 10b -50 Tr0 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: OLD BASE: Gedar.Lower 100 -Yr Only: Cedar -2003 -FIS - Aggradatino 4716%2012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR -LOWER ONLY 2003 -FIS RS = 3 XS 3 (140) Upstream North Boeing Bridge - Centered .045 .022 — - - -.035— Legend 50 100 150 200 Station (ft) WS 100Yr Sediment Fill ' I Ground Levee 0 Bank St, 250 0 0 ca 0) Lu North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Pian OLD BASE, CedarLower100-Yr Only, Cedar -2003 -FIS - Aggradatino 41162012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR -LOWER ONLY 2003 -FIS RS - 1.3 BR 045>!4 - ---.022- .035 26 24 22 - 20 1 B- 16 14' 12- to - _100 2t0 --100 Legend - WS 100Yr Sediment Fill ■ Ground [Le>.ee Bank' St, -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan', OLD BASE: Gedar-Lower 100 -Yr Only, Cedar -2003 -FIS - Aggradatino 4116;2012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR -LOWER ONLY 2003 -FIS RS = 1.3 BR - - .022 - -.035)' 26 24 22J 20- 18 j 16 14 12 to- 8 - 61 0861 -150 0 3 100 -50 0 50 Station (11) 100 150 Legend WS 1 00Y Sediment Fill i Ground s Sank Sta 24 22-. 20 i i 16 0 c a 14 w 12- 10 8 North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan, OLID BASE, Gedar-Lower 100 -Yr Only; Cedar -2003 -FIS - Aggradatino 4:162012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR -LOWER ONLY 2003 -FIS RS = 0.1 XS 0.1 - Downstream face North Boeing Bridge - Centered .022-.035a n -150 -100 -50 0 Station (tt) 50 100 150 Legend WS 100Yr Sediment Fill Ground • Bank Sta ameO APPENDIX B Proposed North Boeing Bridge Model Output and Cross Sections Flood Profiles Output Summary Cross -Sections (Geometry from FIS Base Model with Projected Sedimentation) Velocity Distribution Output Detail L O C C N O A N d N a to 0 Nr N N 0917E X0 9.179 IL M C 0 i (D N O Q �a O O c m co � a m` 9892 XO 6'917 jMo tA a w a m O J I U C W y 0 § 0 a 7 O N C [[ W va CC 5994 X0 LEI O "' co c < cil a c d a LU U cu Q N O � N � � Q I o Ul o a { ; 996 XO 3'6l d v cr C. o L ; r 6 Z i W of i 00 m C c°0 ...N weojisdn (otil) £ sX £ sodOad OuleO8 4laON E' l .. lspr - 8TO sx 90,0 z co N N l[7 O LO (lll uopenalj] Appendix B: Output Summary � Proposed Bridge Model using Crass -Si lon Geometry of FIS Base Model River Sia Map Letter Distance Prolile 0 Total Min Ch EI W.S. Elev, Cril W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Clint Flow Area Top Width Froude It Chi h cls) (10 k ill ft (il ft's s ft k 0.03 321 5 100Yr 12000 13 56 17.32 17.32 17,9 0.005562 6.09 1971,7 2700, 9B - D.08.21 5100Yr 12000 793 17-6 1921 0-002227 10.18 119109 211.5 0.74 0.1 A 1.5100Yr 12000 1343 18,64 '8.64 20.99 0.004155 12.35 990.21 220.07 0.98 t 3 BR D 0 100Yr 1$.86 '•8-86 21.26 12.49 210.'5 1 SBR U 50 100Vr 1965. 18.65 21.24 10.14 22049 3 B 117.5100Yr 12000 1343 20.7 19.92 2368 0.002601 12.42 9B6.18 157,76 0.63 19.2 C 973.5100Yr 12000 15.36 23.38 21.19 24.78 0-00141 9.6 1316.99 19688 05 317 D 163851D0Yr 120DO 16.84 24.46 22.83 25.85 0.001834 9.59 1367.43 233.81 0.62 45.9 E 2436.5 t00Yr 12000 17.74 26.01 23.86 27.41 0-00207 9-77 1330-62 18$06 0.6 646 F 3362,51DOYr 120DO 19.02 2799 25.46 29.42 0.002255 9.63 1288.34 169.13 0.58 748 G 39D5.51OOYr 12060 26.09 29.34 2626 30.5 0,001708 8.69 1418.78 16658 0.52 75.9 H 39DO51001 1200D 20.22 2951 26,25 30.6 0.00t 629 8-43 144545 166.56 0.5 77.7 1 4061.51DOYr 120OD 20.45 29.53 26.85 30.86 0.002035 9.33 1331.38 1591 6.56 804 417651001 12000 20-63 2972 27 31.12 0.002141 9.53 1285.45 1593 0.57 842 K 4342.5100Yr 1200D 20.91 29.97 27.53 31.54 0.002355 10.18 1237.13 155.57 0.6 90.2 L 47175100Yr 12400 21-53 3098 28.48 32.39 0,062115 9.72 13'4.71 171.69 0.57 10D.2 M 5253.5100Yr 12000 22.38 32.12 2984 33.55 0002178 10.14 1327.64 17598 0" '=06.3 N 5563.5100Vr 12000 22.78 33.16 29.44 34.14 0.001437 8.57 1667.47 185.64 0.47 107.1 O 5634.5100Yr 12000 22.63 33.55 2883 3425 0000904 7.06 200072 250.73 038 108.3 BR D 5635.5 1 DOW 33.51 28.9 34.27 7.31 102.93 108.3 BR U 5743.5 100Yr 33-65 2963 34.62 8.21 5402 109.5 P 5744.5100W 12000 23.28 33.77 29.56 34.63 0.001139 7.83 1754.6 1941 0.43 1')1.6 D 564a.511 12000 23.82 33.94 3064 34.75 D.601183 7.8 1822.07 295.05 0.44 123.7 P 6483.5 1 00Y 12000 24.63 34 3 36.11 0.002535 11.07 1195.74 149-56 0.63 124.1 BF D 6484.5 11 34.07 32.3 36.22 1206. 141.19 124.1 DR U 6527.5 100Yr 34 76 32.15 36.42 10.66 140A1 124.5 5 6528.51COW 12000 24,69 35 31,9 36,45 0.001884 9.91 1321.27 148.89 0.55 127.9 T 6706.5 1 OOYr 12000 24.97 2522 3236 36,86 0.002129 10.55 123429 145.46 058 131.8 U 59155 100W 12040 25.56 35.71 32.78 37.3 0.002047 1036 1256 U4 137 0.56 1323 BR D 6916.5 t00Yr 35.24 32.9 37.3 11.57 132.3 BR 6958.510CY* 36.15 33.12 38.6 1178 132.8 V 6959.5100Yr 12000 25,7 37.48 33.01 38.6 0.001208 8.8 1536.22 168.03 045 134.1 W 7029-51UUYr 120D0 25.88 3754 38.69 0.601294 B94 1592.25 214.7 0.46 14'-.8 X 7442.5 101 12000 25.62 37.97 3933 0.001508 958 135484 132.53 06 146 Y 76565100Yr '2000 26.86 38,24 34.33 3969 0.0016129.72 1269.61 142,85 D.51 146.7 BR D 7657.5 100Yr 37.94 3441 3982 11.33 146.7 BR U 7733.5 IOOYr 38.39 34.54 40.32 11.17 147.4 7 7734.5100Yr 12000 2761 39.13 34.45 4D 39 O.OD1284 9.D7 136813 14578 0.46 1495 AA 7846.5 100Yr 120W 2723 39.46 4055 0001184 8.47 i 498 53 148.44 044 151.3 SRO 7847.5 100Yr 3941 34.99 40.57 8.74 144.27 151.313R U 8008.5 100Yr 39.71 35-21 40.9 B.BB 147,03 153,1 AS 8D09,5 100Yr 12000 27.67 39.8 35.02 40.91 6.001166 8.56 147949 15139 044 159.7 AC 838,5100Yr 12000 26.26 40,17 41.36 0.001137 B.85 1433.72 134.16 0.44 560.3 BR D 8382.5 100Y' 3576 35-03 41.36 1025 160.3 BR U 8440.5 100Y- 39.3 35.35 42.53 10.3 160.8 AD 8441.5100Y; 12000 26.04 41.6 354 42.53 0-OW78 8.07 1657.31 13905 6.38 165 AE 86625100Yr 120DO 28.16 42.21 42.71 0.000451 5.9 2304.53 29004 0.28 165.3 BR D $671.5 100Yr 42.16 35.3 42.74 6.28 129.69 165.3 BR U 8683.5 1 OOYr 42.16 35.29 42 76 6 45 129.0$ 1656 AF 8692.5100Yr 12000 2B.16 42.29 35,09 42.78 0.DOD44 5.83 2395.71 290.37 0.28 1693 AG 88695100Yr 12DDn 2793 4199 36,69 43.09 0,001063 8.83 1823.91 255.98 0.42 179.5 AH 9424.51001 12000 28.8 4255 437 0.001158 8-66 1537.73 16661 044 184.6 At 9801 5 100y 120OD 30.32 43.08 36.44 44.14 0001162 8.56 1885.22 387.83 044 192.3 AJ 10101.5100Yr 12c00 31-53 4334 39.53 44.65 0401873 9.34 1501.39 299.99 0.51 204.7 AK 10774.5 1 00Y 12000 32.58 44.1 4163 46.5 0002799 12.51 1013.41 144.56 0-67 211.2 AL 11094.5 1 DOW 12000 32.63 45.07 4206. 47.35 0.00241 12.17 1045.8 197.1 0.63 220.7 AM 11598.5100Yr 12000 31.27 46.61 4327 48.5 0002029 11.17 1178.54 126.78 0.56 231.4 AN 12171.5 1 DDYr 11830 35.35 48.25 49.56 0.001531 9.23 1316.42 'i 35.51 11.5 242.2 AO 12739.51COY, 11830 36.47 48.73 51.04 0.002984 1226 991.49 09.71 0.611 250.6 AP 13185.5 100W 11830 37.82 50.75 52.14 0.DOI 75$ 9.41 127526 '.50 93 0.52 260.7 AO 13724.510DYr 11830 38.07 51.28 53.67 0.003088 12.44 999.71 111.01 0.69 274.7 AR 14465.51COY, 11830 40 54.09 55.33 0.001495 8,93 1346.44 125.14 0.46 27485690 14465.5 10OW 54.05 4889 55.35 9.18 121.11 274.85 BR N 14478.5 10OYr 54.07 48.93 55.38 9.19 121.07 275 AS 14479.5100Yr 11830 40.04 54.1$ 48.79 55,39 090148 8,9 1350,67 125.22 0,46 Notes- Cross -Mellon output for pro(ect vicinity Is highlighted in bold above Key to field names: River $1a Internal ID in Hii )about hundfedths e1 a mile abate cross-section "A"; until "BR D' is Ine downstream lace of the bridge; "BR U" is the upstream lace Map Lelier Letter that labels the cross-section on the work maps ISDme cross-sections have no letter label) Dlslance Distance (111 upstream tram downstream lace of existing (and proposed) North Bneirg Bridge 11-511 above cross section "A"} Profile 10) Yr is the base flood { 1% annualchance hood) O Tolal Flow rate (cis} Min Ch EI Thalweg (minimum channel elevallon. 11 NAVC88i W_5. Rev Waler su9ace elevation (11 NAVDl Crit W S. Critical water sudace elevation (it NAVi E.G, Elev Energy grade elevation Ot Ni E 1. Slope Energy grade slope Ovft; unitlessl Vel Chnl Average velocily of flew in channel r[Vsisuii Flow Area Waked Ill cross-section area (square hi Top Width Wellec lop -width of flow 01) Froudc k Chi Froude Number Wri, essi 92 Proposed Bridge Output Page 1 North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan. PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 1216,2012 Geom: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 19.2 CX 955 .04 - - .023 -- %<.08)14 03 — Legend WS 100Yr 0 itis 2ft/s 4 ft/s 6 ft/s 8 Its 10 it/S Sediment Fill 5 - 30 1000 1050 25 20- North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 52il 2012 C O id + 7 - .035 -- w 15- 10- Legend WS 100Yr 0 itis 2ft/s 4 ft/s 6 ft/s 8 Its 10 it/S Sediment Fill 5 - , , - , r — . �—I . --- -T - -, 1000 1050 1100T 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 52il 2012 Geom: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted R5 = 3 XS 3 (140) Upstream North Boeing Bridge - Centered .045 + .022 — - .035 -- F C 0 LU 26 24 22 20 i8 16 14 12 10 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Station (ft) 250 Bank Sta Legend vvJ i w Y r 0 ills D 211/s �I 4 it/s 611/5 8 ills 10 fl/s 12 fl/s 14 ft/s Sediment Fill Ground Levee • Bank Sta C G LU im North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 12,16'2012 Geom: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing Proposed Bridge - 4241 Width is PIER width Deck is .022 — .035 0 Legend 4 • V -1. L 0 itis 211/s 4 ft/s 8 ft/s 8 ft/s � 1ftfs �i 12 ft/s Sediment Fill Ground Levee Bank Sta 51 1 - r-._. -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan. PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 12/1612012 Geom: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing Proposed Bridge -42-ft Width is PIER width Deck is 30 0 .022 -035 3 Legend 150 -1UU -5U U 5U 11JU Station (ft) 2 150 WS 100Yr 0 ft/s 2 ft/s 4 ills 6 it/, 8 ills 10 itis 12 it/s 14 it/, Sediment Fill Ground • Bank Sta 24 North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Penton WA 2012 Plan, PROPOSED BASE. Aggradalion - Propased Bridge Inserted 1216.!2412 Geom: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted R5 = 0.1 XS 0.1 - Downstream face North Boeing Bridge - Centered M2 .035 BI a 22 20- 1 16- 14-1 614— LIJ 12� 10� 8J 6 i— — -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Station (ft) 3 150 Legend WS 100Yr 0 ft/s 2 fUs �I 4 ftls �I 6 fus �I 8 ftls 10 ft's 12 ftls 14 fus Sediment Fill Ground Bank Sta APPENDIX B4 • VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION -NEC-RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS (100 -YR PROFILE) DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Codar-Lower RS: DA Protlle: I00Yr FIS "A" Pos Left Ste Right S1a Flaw Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (tt) (ft) leis) (sq it) Ih) Cony Depth(ft) (flys) (Iblsq ft) (Ib1R s) 1 Char. -85.71 -77.61 12.07 3.21 5-03 0-1 0.66 376 0,29 1.08 2 Chan -77.81 .89,91 145.48 17.31 0.13 1.21 2.19 8,41 0.96 8.03 3 Chan -69-91 -62.02 93.31 13.2 8.04 0.78 1.67 7.07 074 5.2 4 Chan -62.02 54.12 171.76 20-74 9-96 1A3 2,63 8,28 0.93 7.74 5 Chan 54.12 -46.22 420.7 32.83 8.19 351 4,16 12.81 1.8 23.04 6 Chan -46.22 38.32 268.1 24.76 7.96 2.23 3.14 1083 1.4 15-11 7 Chan -38.32 -3042 355-26 29-25 T91 2,96 37 12.14 1.66 20.14 a Chan -30.42 -22.53 564.94 40.02 8,63 4.71 5.07 14.12 2.011 29.35 9 Chan -22.53 -14.63 1019.05 55.07 7.92 8,49 6.97 18.5 3.12 57.72 10 Chan -14.63 -673 958-33 53.1 7,93 7,99 672 18.05 3 54.24 11 Chan -6.73 1.17 737.79 45.49 7.97 6,15 5,76 16,22 2.56 41.5 12 Chan 117 9.07 630.36 41,26 7.91 525 5.22 1528 234 35.76 13 Chan 9,07 16.96 580-69 39,26 7.9 4.84 4.97 14.79 2.23 32.97 14 Chan 1696 24.86 567.31 38,71 79 473 4.9 14.65 2.2 32,22 15 Chan 24,86 32.76 676.41 43,41 8.08 5.64 5.5 15.58 241 37.55 16 Chan 32.76 40.66 1062.5 56.78 8.03 8.85 7.19 18.71 3.17 59.37 17 Chan 40.66 48.56 1201.2 6105 801 10.01 7.73 19.67 3.42 67,28 16 Chan 4856 5645 334.59 31.52 10.43 2.79 3.99 10.61 1,36 14.38 19 Chan 56.45 64.35 501 36.52 8.23 4.18 4.52 13.72 1,99 27.32 20 Chan 64.35 72.25 587.66 39.57 7.91 4.9 5.01 14-85 2,24 33,3 21 Chan 72.25 80.15 631,27 41.44 7.98 5.26 525 15.23 2,33 3549 22 Chan 80.15 80.05 317,22 28.11 8.49 2.64 3.56 11.28 1,49 16.76 23 Chan 88.05 95.94 91.28 13.22 8-34 0-76 1.67 6.9 071 4.91 24 Char 95.94 103.84 54 9.45 7.91 0.45 1.2 5-72 0.54 306 25 Chan 103-84 111.74 17.72 4.2 5.54 U.15 0.79 4.22 0.34 143 DSF IDMrnaI Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Geciar River Cedar -Lower RS: 1.3 BR D Pro11k: 100Yr Pos Lell Ste Right Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (ttl (N) (cfs) (sq It) (1t) Cony Depih(ft) (ftls) (Ih+sq ft) (Ituft s) 1 LOB -08.41 -8571 0-02 0.03 0,76 0 0,04 0.53 0.01 0.01 2 Chan -85.71 -77.81 39.9 9.02 8,19 0.33 1.14 442 0.34 1.49 3 Chan -77.81 -69.91 210.18 24,37 8.13 1.75 309 8.63 0-92 7.91 4 Chan -69.91 -62.02 155,64 20.26 8,04 1.3 2.57 7.68 0.77 5.92 5 Chan -62,02 -54.12 26.56 5.64 4,66 022 243 4.71 0.37 1.74 6 Chan -54.12 -46.22 270,3 34,08 12.89 2.25 4.95 7.93 0.81 641 7 Chan -46.22 -38.32 332,66 31.82 796 2.77 4.03 10.45 1.22 12.78 0 Chan -36.32 -30.42 416.1 36.31 7.91 3.47 4.5 11.46 1.4 16.08 9 Chan -30.42 -22.53 605.03 4708 653 5.04 5.95 12.85 1.87 21,42 10 Chan -2253 -14.63 1017,85 62.13 7.92 8.48 7.87 16.38 2.4 39.3 11 Chan 1463 -6.73 963.94 60.15 7.93 8.03 7.62 16.02 2.32 37,19 12 Chan -6.73 1.17 766.51 52.55 7.97 6.39 6.55 14.59 2.02 29,39 13 Chan 1.17 9.07 670,03 48.32 7.91 5.58 6.12 13-87 1,87 25,91 14 Chan 907 16.96 624,89 46.32 7.9 5.21 5.86 13A9 1.79 24.18 15 Chan 16.96 24.06 612.7 45.77 7.9 5.11 5.8 13.39 177 23.72 16 Chan 24.86 32.76 71031 50.47 8-08 5.92 6.39 14.07 1,91 26.88 17 Chan 32.75 40.66 1055.21 63.83 8.03 8-79 8 c 16-53 2,43 40.19 18 Chan 40.66 48-56 1177.59 68.11 8.01 9.81 8.62 17.29 2.6 44.96 19 Chan 48.56 56,45 382.79 38-58 10.43 3.19 4.89 9.92 1.13 11.22 20 Chan 56.45 64,35 549.46 43.58 8.23 4-58 5.52 12.61 162 20.42 21 Chan 64.35 72,25 631.13 46.63 7.91 5.26 5.9 1353 18 24.38 22 Chan 72.25 80.15 301.69 35.32 11.95 251 6.2 8.54 0.9 7.72 23 Chan 80.15 88.05 166.06 24.59 11.84 1.38 4.1 6,75 0.53 4.29 24 Chan 88-05 95.94 152.13 20.28 8.34 1.27 257 75 0.74 5-58 25 Chan 95-94 10384 111.81 16.51 7,91 0,93 2,09 6.77 0.64 4.32 26 Chan 103.84 111.74 4949 10,27 6.21 0.41 1.3 4,82 0.38 1.84 27 FOR 111.74 114.94 0.04 0,08 1.22 0 0,06 0.47 0.02 0.01 B4 ProposeC 100yr VBI Dislr Page 1 APPENDIX B4 -VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION- HEC -RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS (100 -YR PROFILE) DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NOSED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 0.1 Prollic 100Yr LOB -110 -106.7 0.19 0.36 FIS "A" Poe Lefl Sts, Right Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power tt tt ch s H ft Conv De ry fik rare ri Ib;ri s APPENDIX B4 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION- HEC -RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS (100 -YR PROFILE) -Page 2 0.04 0.97 1,36 0.14 6.19 Plan: Prop SCOUP NO SEU Cedar Piver Cedar -Lower RS: 1,3 BR U Profile, I OOYr Chan -1W,4 -94.86 136,11 23.79 UPF Internal Pas Lett Sta Rlgtlt Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velochy Shear Power (ft) (ll) (sfs) (sq N) (fl) Conv Deplh(ry) (Ills) (Iblsq tt) (IbAt s) 1 LOB -110 -106.7 0.19 0.36 1.62 0 023 053 0.03 0.02 2 LOB -1067 -103.4 4,36 3.2 3.45 0.04 0.97 1,36 0.14 6.19 3 Chan -1W,4 -94.86 136,11 23.79 8.93 1,13 279 572 04 2.26 4 Chan -94.86 -85.33 467,6 45.88 8-9 3.4 537 888 0.77 6.86 5 Chan -86.33 -77.79 694.13 62.45 8.66 5.76 7.32 11,11 1.08 12.01 6 Chan -77.79 -69.26 725,83 63.79 8.54 6.C5 747 1138 1.12 12-74 7 Chan -69.26 -60.72 306.29 46.02 13.63 257 7.48 6.7 0.51 3.39 8 Chan -60,72 -52.18 100.06 32.28 11.79 1.57 7.48 5.83 0.41 2.39 9 Chan -52.18 -43.65 72738 63.87 8.54 6,66 748 11.39 1.12 12.77 10 Chan -43.65 -35.11 72769 63.89 8.54 6,67 7.49 11.39 1.12 12,78 11 Chan -35.11 -26.58 739.62 64.63 8.57 6,17 7.57 11,45 1.13 12.93 12 Chan -26.511 -18.04 877 71.57 8.57 7,31 8.38 12.25 1.25 15.33 13 Chan -16.04 -9-5 890-55 72.23 8.57 742 8.46 12,33 1.26 15.57 14 Chan -9.5 -0.97 665.39 61.08 8.73 5,54 7,16 10.89 1-05 11.42 15 Chan -0.97 7.57 435.73 47.19 8.64 3.63 5.53 923 0.82 7.56 16 Chan 7.57 151 324.67 39.42 0.56 2.71 4,62 8,24 0.69 5.69 17 Chan 16.1 24.64 319.68 39.06 8.57 2,66 4.58 8.18 0-68 5,59 18 Chan 24.64 33.18 474.23 49.91 875 3,95 5.85 9.5 0.85 8.12 19 Chan 33.18 41.71 740,47 64.91 8.65 6.17 7.6 11.41 1.12 12.92 20 Chan 41,71 50.25 829.64 69.4 8.62 6,91 8,13 11,95 1.21 14.41 21 Chan 50.25 58.78 637.38 59.24 8.62 5.31 6.94 1076 1.03 11.06 22 Chan 58-78 67.32 494.46 50.76 0.58 4.12 5,95 9,74 0.89 8.64 23 Chan 67,32 75.86 92.35 23.06 14.78 077 5.2 4 0.23 0.94 24 Chan 75.86 84.39 277.12 35.91 8-6 2.31 421 7.72 0.63 4.03 25 Chan 84.39 92.93 170,1 26.79 8.6 1.42 3.14 6,35 0.47 2.98 26 Chan 92,93 101.46 85.05 17.68 8.6 071 2,07 4,81 0.31 1.48 27 Chan 101.46 110 25,4 8.55 8-6 0.21 1 2,97 0.15 0.44 28 FOR 110 12635 0,69 1.13 4.85 0,01 0,23 0,79 0.03 0.03 UP XS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 3 Profile: 100Yr FIS "B" Poe Lett Ste Rlght Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (fly (1t) (cps) (sq R) (Ill) Conv Depth1h) (ryes) (lblsci ft) 11b,9t s) 1 LOB -64.29 -60.18 0,49 0.93 4.58 0 035 0.52 0.03 0.01 2 Chan -60.18 -54.68 103.59 16.86 5.50 0.86 3.06 6.14 0.39 2,4 3 Chan -54.68 -49.17 191,32 24.91 5.91 1,59 4.53 7.68 0.55 4.19 4 Chan -49.17 -43.67 355,21 35.62 5.71 2,96 647 9.97 0.81 0.04 5 Chan -43.67 -38.17 447,17 40.38 5.53 3.73 7.34 11.07 0.94 10.46 6 Chan -38,17 -32.66 518.44 44.36 5.6 4,32 8.06 11.69 1.02 11.97 7 Chan -32.66 -27.16 620,93 49.29 5.56 5.17 8.96 128 1.15 14.43 0 Chan -27.16 .21.66 713,26 5347 5.54 5,94 9.72 13.34 1.25 16.65 9 Chan -21.66 -16.15 761.5 55.51 5.51 6,35 10.09 13.72 1.3 17.66 10 Chan -16.15 -10.65 746.86 54.92 5.52 6.22 9.98 136 1.29 17.40 11 Chan -10.65 -5.15 649.49 50.8 5-61 5,41 9.23 12.79 1.17 14.97 12 Chan -5.15 0.36 515.19 44.26 5.62 4,29 8,04 11,64 1.02 11.64 13 Chan 0.36 5.86 415.11 38.75 5.58 3,46 7.04 10.71 0.9 9.62 14 Chan 5.86 11.36 346.26 34.78 5.54 2.9 6.32 10.01 0.81 8.13 15 Chan 11.36 16.86 323.98 33.22 5.5 27 6,04 9,75 0.78 7.61 16 Chan 16.86 22.37 324.96 33.28 5.5 271 6.05 9.76 0.78 7.63 17 Chan 22.37 27.87 362.27 35.82 5.62 3,02 6.51 10.11 0.82 8.33 18 Chan 27,67 33.37 402 42.59 5.64 4,02 774 11,32 0.98 11.04 19 Chan 33.37 38.88 615.18 49.15 5-6 5-13 8,93 1252 1.13 14.2 20 Chan 38.SS 44.38 705-12 53.1 5.54 5,68 9.65 13,28 1.24 16.46 21 Chan 44.38 49.88 694,2 52.74 5.57 579 9,588 13.16 1.22 16-11 22 Chan 49.118 55.39 591.85 47.92 5.57 4.93 8.71 12,35 1.11 13.74 23 Chan 55-39 60.89 511.01 43.79 5.54 4.26 7,96 11,67 1.02 11.92 24 Chan 60.09 66.39 452.73 40.67 5.52 3.77 7,39 11.13 0.95 10.59 25 Chan 66.39 71.9 404.57 3802 5.52 3.37 6,91 10.64 0.89 9.47 26 Chan 71.9 77.4 140.59 23.92 8.47 1.17 4,35 5,88 0.37 2.15 27 ROD 77,4 99.18 4.71 3.93 9.32 0.04 0.61 1.2 0.05 0.07 B4 Proposed 100yr Vel Dish Page 2 APPENDIX B4- VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION. HEC -RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS (100 -YR PROFILE) DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower R5- 0.1 Profile: 100Yr FIS "N Pos Left Sta Right Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (ft) (111 „(cfs) Isq 1t) 00 C4n9 DeptNh} (f6's) (IWag fl) (lbrh s) APPENDIX B4 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS (100 -YR PROFILE) - Page 3 Approach XS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 19.2 Profile: 1DOYr PIS "C" Pos Lett Sts Rlglit Sta Flow Area W.P, Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power {1111 (1q (cm (sq 1111 {111 Conv Depth(ti) ifya) (lblsq ft) (1bM s) 1 LOB 1052.15 1058.63 4,66 5,26 545 0.04 1.04 0.89 0.04 0,03 2 LOB 1058,63 1065.1 71,94 21,42 6.85 0.6 3.31 3.36 0.12 0.39 3 Chan 1065.1 10712 216.12 44,65 8.11 1.8 7.32 4.84 0.21 1 4 Chan 1071.2 1077.31 396.87 5958 6.64 3.32 9-76 6.7 0.34 2,25 5 Chan 1077,31 1083.41 596.61 75 6.46 4.97 12.29 7.95 0-43 3.46 6 Chan 108341 1089-51 613.44 7487 6.17 5.11 12.27 8.19 0.45 3.72 7 Chan 1089.51 1095.61 534.52 6892 6.17 445 11-29 7.76 042 3.24 8 Chen 1095.61 1101.72 483.13 64.71 6.13 4.03 10.6 7,47 0.4 295 9 Chan 1101.72 1107.82 455.8 6242 6.11 3.8 10.23 7.3 0,38 2.79 10 Chan 1107.82 1113.92 461.85 62.9 6.11 3.85 10-31 734 0.39 2.83 11 Char 1113.92 1120.03 470.01 63.54 6.1 392 10.41 7,4 0.39 2.85 12 Chan 1120.03 1126-13 47444 63.9 6.1 3.95 10.47 7.42 0.39 2.91 13 Chan 1126.13 1132.23 493.4 64.63 6,1 4.03 10-59 7,48 0.4 2.96 14 Chan 1132.23 1138.33 491.68 65.29 6.1 4.1 107 7,53 04 3.01 15 Chan 1138.33 1144.44 491.26 65.25 6,1 4,09 10,69 7.53 0.4 3.01 16 Chan 1144.44 1150.54 477.43 64.17 6-11 3.98 1051 7,44 0.39 2.92 17 Chan 1150.54 1156,64 465.9 63.24 6,11 3,88 10.36 7.37 0.39 2.85 18 Chan 1156-64 1162.75 485.77 64.84 6,11 405 10,62 7.49 0.4 2.97 19 Chan 1162.75 1168,85 506-9 66-51 6.11 4.22 10.9 7.62 9.41 3.11 20 Chan 1168.85 1174,95 526.35 60.03 6.11 439 11.15 774 0.42 3.22 21 Chan 1174.95 118105 546.55 69.59 6,11 4.55 11.4 3.85 0.43 3,35 22 Chan 1181.05 118716 563-02 70-62 6.1 4.69 11.6 7.95 0.43 3.45 23 Chan 1187.16 1193.26 578.07 71.97 6.11 4.82 1179 8.03 0.44 3,54 24 Chan 1193-26 tt99.36 602.94 73,85 6,12 5.92 12.1 8.16 0.45 3.69 25 Chan 1199,36 1205.86 530,84 70.33 641 4.49 11.52 7.66 0.41 3,15 26 Chan 1205,46 1211.57 307.03 52,55 719 2.56 8.61 5.84 0-27 1.6 27 Chan 1211,57 1217.67 146-95 32.63 6.6 1.22 5.35 4.5 0.19 0.63 28 ROD 1217.67 1236.81 652 14.14 1852 0.05 0.86 0.46 0.03 0,01 Notes Kev to field names: DS Downsoeam Face of bridge DSF Internal UPF Internal UP Upstream lace of bridge Approach Approach ' expanded section above bddge FIS "A" Flood Insurance Study Map Letter le.g "A") PCS Pos@ion i portion of section: LOC (Left overbank) - Chan {channel] - ROB fright overbank) Left' Right 518 Leh and right sta cr (h) within which parameters are tabulated for this cross-section and profile Flow Flow rate (cls: within the two noted stations of the Moss -section Area Wetted flow cross-sechor area (square Iq between the two noted stations W _ Wetted perimeter IR) between the two noted slalions Percent Conv Percent conveyance Of total cross-section (Cfs) Hydr Depth Hydraulic Depth {Radius: ft) . welled area; welled perimeler Velm y Average velocity within this slice of cross-seclion (I6sec) Shear Shear velocity (Ibfsq II) Power Stream power (Ib41-sect D4 Proposed 100yr Vel Dish Page 3 ameO APPENDIX C Temporary Work Trestle Model Output and Cross Sections Flood Profiles Output Summary Cross -Sections (Geometry includes new survey and no projected sedimentation) N O N ogn X0 9. -Vg CL 0 � N 'K LU I a �a 4 O E 4 a 0 o Vj �X M (n w d Q 589E X0 6'9t, o � o °' d Ir U � CL EO `a) c o Z � c� a 6i a C)to o Mn ¢ m b 5991 XO L' lc CO oy CL Z L ul N c X IF LU a z w N Lo O m N d g 996X3964 w H C , o E c p m y ¢ m m r 0 Z ID L' PuZ - 60? OZ 03M MON 8 SX 8 _ -g m w - "E Wee OZ 03Wtl MON L'17 SX L'b c Q m dwal - 6u1909 yuoN E' 4 L o jsnr - eo'0 SX 90,0 z M Lr) N f {11) U011BA813 Appendix C: Output Summary- Temporary Work Trestle Model using New CrossSection Geometry near Bridge River Sta Map Letter Distance Profile O Total Min Ch EI W,5- Elev Crl W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chol Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chi Thalweg (minimum cha-reel eleva(ion; II NAVD68) W.S. Ell (B) (cis) (it) VQ (ll) 14) (tbtt) (fVs) A 6) (h) Wetted flow cross-section area (square fl) 0.03 Wetled top -width of flow (Iq 321.5 '00Yr 12000 13.56 17.32 '7.32 179 6.005562 6.09 197' .7 2700-96 1 0.08 -21 5160Yr 12Do0 .793 17.6 19.2' 0,002227 10.18 1191.09 211.5 0.74 0.1 A 5 160Yr 12000 9.4 17.61 17.61 20.03 0.004285 1249 96425 206.68 1 1.3 BR 01UOYr 1918, 19,18 22.42 14.47 13'.16 13 BR U 87 100Yr 21 29 19.05 23.13 10.99 11',37 3 R 117.5 10CYr '2000 9.D2 22,21 18.05 23.25 0.000679 8.27 1585 -5 227.21 0.45 4.7 'New 41- 245.5100Yr 12000 11.71 22.11 23.45 0,001062 9.31 1320 150.11 0.54 8 New 42" 4205, 1 O 12000 11.76 22.24 23.67 DAD, 151 9-62 128236 156,67 0.56 19.2 C 9736 100Y- 12000 9.09 23.46 16.97 24.08 0,000357 6.34 1970.15 197.66 0.32 31.7 D 1638,5 100Y, 12COD 9.7 23.7 17.93 24-35 0.000513 6.66 1905.52 22821 0.35 46.9 E 2436.5100Yr 12600 iD 24.06 19.48 25.01 0.000971 7.89 1591.16 17644 443 64.5 F 3362.5100Yr 12000 14.65 2502 228 28.6 0.002667 10.09 1194.99 152.5 0.62 748 G 39055160Yr 12000 15.94 26.57 2393 27.92 0002158 9.32 130455 16632 0.57 75.9 H 396051o0Yr 12000 15.97 26.84 23.83 28.04 0.001933 B.83 1368.55 16611 0-53 77.7 1 4061.51DOYr 12000 16.88 26.66 2434 28-34 0.002377 978 1242.02 1589 0.59 504 J 4176.5 I OOYr 12000 17.05 27.12 24.54 28.62 0.002349 9.81 1229.31 146.68 0.59 84.2 K 4042.5100Yr 12000 1743 2744 24.79 29.04 0.002328 10,16 1207.1 145.6 0.59 90.2 L 4717.5 1 DOW 12060 17.76 28.29 26.17 30.03 0.002764 10.64 116126 159.27 064 100.2 M 5253.5 1 OOYr 12000 '798 29.7 27.59 3'- 42 D.062432 10.8 12:1.19 165.25 0.61 106.3 N 5563.5 1DOW 12000 19.63 30.89 2782 32.1 0.001717 9.27 1507.62 181.28 051 107.1 O 5634.51COY, 12000 1949, 31.44 26.91 32,23 0.000999 7.38 1618.67 216.23 04 106.3 BR D 5635.5 1 COW 31 42 26.97 $2.24 7.49 205.44 100.3 art 5743.51COY, 31.42 27.61 32.47 849 '8497 1D9.5 P 5744.5100Yr 12000 19.19 3146 2757 32,48 C.DO1313 8.33 1604.85 '-89.07 046 Ill O 5648.51COW 12006 2073. 3143 267 32.72 0.00183 938 1400.91 206.31 0,53 123.7 R 6483-5 10OY1 12000 2078 32.36 34.33 0.002748 11.4 1119.68 140.12 0 65 124.1 BR D 6484.5 1COYr 32.16 30.39 34.42 12.22 130.9 124.1 On U 6527-5 )COYr 3278 30.27 34.62 11.04 135.91 124,5 S 0520.5100Yr 12000 2086 33.06 30-12 3465 000208 10.24 1247,25 14554 0.57 1279 T 6706.5 100Yr 12000 21.4 33.29 30.87 35.13 0,002482 11.08 1154.07 130.92 0.62 1318 U 6915,5100Yr 12000 2266 33.93 31.21 35.63 6,002264 10.65 1202.27 '37 0.59 132.3 OR D 69165 10CYr 3384 31 26 35.67 ' 101 133.3 132.3 BH U 6958.5 10CYr 33.91 31 59 35.8 ' 1.22 131.68 132.8 V 6959.5 100Yr :2000 2345 34.1 3'•.53 35.82 0.602242 '0.73 ' 192.57 145.82 06 134.1 W 7029,5 100Yr 12COD 23.92 34.16 36.04 0002594 11.16 ' 172.53 157.87 0.63 141.5 X 74125 Way, 12000 24. U6 35.2 37.08 0.602447 11.14 1141.12 126.92 0.62 146 Y 7656,5 IOGYr 12600 24.1 35.78 32.87 37-59 0.002$12 10.83 1122.61 13376 0.6 146,7 BR C 7657.5 100Yr 35.66 3282 37.64 11 3 110.9 1467 BF U 7733.5 100Yr 3599 3292 2785 10.94 111.65 147.4 2 7734.5100Yr 1200D 24.1 362 32.87 37.87 0.0020' 10-36 1173.72 13546 0.56 149.5 AA 78465100Yr 12000 24.17 36.54 38.11 0.902103 10.11 1224.61 139.83 0.57 151,3 BR 6 7847.5 100Yr 36.45 33 72 38-15 10.51 135.61 151 3 OR U 8006.5 100Yr 35.97 34.04 38.68 10,55 134.07 153.1 AB 6009.5100Yr 12000 26-01 37.16 3387 38.7 6.061928 10 1227.68 139.13 0.55 159-7 AC 8381.51OOYr 12900 25.5 37.73 3956 0.062246 18.9 1139-35 125.54 0.6 150.38RD 8382.5100Yr 377 3484 39.58 11,06 120.67 1603 RR U 8440.5 100Yr 37.82 34.93 39.72 11.27 123.91 160.8 AO 8441.51OOYr 12000 23.67 3B.03 34.98 3974 0.001953 10.79 1199.81 132.99 0.57 165 AE 8562.51COW 12000 27,47 39.27 40.14 0.001039 7.71 1694,17 197.03 042 165.3 RR D 8671.5 1 COY, 39.2 35.07 46.18 6 ':6 184.47 165.3 BR U 8683.5 1COYr 39.2 35.07 46,21 8.21 '84.51 165,6 AF 8692.51COY, 12000 27.47 39-39 3487 40.23 0.000994 7.56 1719.45 :98.08 0.41 169.3 AG 8889.5100Yr 12000 2652 38.88 36 4086 0,002325 1145 1229-07 143.68 061 179.5 AH 9424.5 WUYr 12000 26.54 4043 42.05 C.OD1997 10.23 1236.87 158.26 0.57 184.6 At 9861.51COYr 12000 28.87 41,15 3829 4268 0-002227 10.61 1268.2 256.98 0.59 1920. A.; 10101.510CYr 12000 3103 41.81 39.32 43.72 6.003157 111 10812 209-77 064 2047. AK 10774.5 1OCYr 12030 32 58 4346 41 63 46.18 0,003436 13.31 947,61 141 .03 0.73 2112 AL 11094.5100Yr 12000 31.74 44.84 41.87 4715 0002446 12.23 1037.69 175.8 0.63 220.7 AM 11598,510CYr 12009 3127 46,37 43.27 48.34 6,002185 11.43 1147.6 125.51 06 231.4 AN 12171 5 l 11830 35.36 48.12 49.47 0,001592 9.34 129977 135,18 0.5'' 242.2 AO r2739,5166Yr 11830 36.47 48.64 51 0.003074 1237 98185 109.43 0.69 250.6 An 13155.5100Yr 11830 37.82 5073 52.11 0.001774 9.44 1 270 55 150.33 0.53 260.7 AO 13724,5 1 O 11830 38.07 51.26 53.66 OA03�1 1247 99738 110,93 D.59 274.7 AR 14465.5 100Yr 11830 40 54,69 55.32 0.001498 8.93 1345 77 125 13 0.4E 274.85 BR D 14466.5 100Yi 5404 48,89 55.35 9.16 121.09 274,85 OR U 14478.5 IDOYr 54.07 46.93 55-36 9J9 121.05 275 AS 14479.5100Yr 11830 4C.04 54.15 48.82 55.38 0061462 891 1350.02 12521 0.46 Nolen Cross-secllon output for project vicinity is highlighted in bold above River Sta Internal ID n HEii {abcul hundredths of a mile above crass-sechon'A': unilless) "BR D' is the downsVeam face of the bridge; 'RR U' is the upstream face Map Letter Lefler that labels the cross-section or the work maps (some crass-sect,ons have no letter lobe,) Dislance Distance (fl) upstream from downstream race of existing {and proposed( North 8oemp Bridge (1.5 11 above cross-section' A') Profile 100 -Yr is the base flood i 1% -arcual -chance flood) 0 761A Flow rate (Cfs) Min Ch EI Thalweg (minimum cha-reel eleva(ion; II NAVD68) W.S. Ell Water surface elevation 0 NAV0881 Cril W.S. Critical water Surface elevation {ft NAVD88) E.G E'ev Energy grade elevation PI NAVD85l E.G. Slope Energy grade slope III+11; i Iles} Vel Choi Average velocity of flow in channel (fUsecond) Frew Area Wetted flow cross-section area (square fl) Top Width Wetled top -width of flow (Iq Froude A Chi Rroude Number (unitless) C2 Temp Welk Trestle Oulpul Page 1 Notch Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: TEMP SASE: No Projected Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop 12 15'2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 19.2 CX 955 .04 .023 - - .08�� 03 30-, -- -- Legend i WS 100Yr — -- I, 0 ftfs 25. 2 ills 4 ills 6 ills 20 � 8 ftls a - Ground d Levee ui 15 1 Bank Sta 10j 1000 10513 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2612 Plare TEMP BASE, No Projwled Aggradation -Piers from Temp Exist Prop 12'16;2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 8 XS 8 New AMEC 201203 - 2nd above North Boeing Bridge 045 -.022 - .035-- -- 28 , Legend 26 WS 100Yr F -_.. 0 ft/s 24 2 ft/s 4 fUs 22- 6 ft/s 201 8 ftls - D 10 fi/s � 18^ 12 ftls LU■ Ground 16- • Bank Sta 14-i i 12 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Station (it) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan', TEMP BASE: No Projected Aggrad iion - Piers frem Temp Exist Prop 12116;2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 4.7 XS 4.7 New AMEC 201203 - above North Boeing Bridge W.045 )�C .022 +—,035--- 30-1 .035 -- 30 1 J 25 0 20 7 a LU 15 10 -100 - T 1 0 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Station (11) North Boeing Bndge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: TEMP BASE: No Projected Aggradalion - Piers from Temp Exist Prop 12;16,2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 3 XS 3 (140) Upstream North Boeing Bridge - Centered 022 -.. ---- .. -.--.035-- 4 035 —4 5 24- 22 20 � 18 a 2 16 UjI 14 12- 101 8 - - -100 , T -7T T— I .rte . r� -50 0 50 100 150 200 Station (it) 250 Legend WS 100Yr 0 ills 2 flls 4 ft/s 6 flls 8 ftls 10 fUs 12 ft/s Ground Bank Sta F— 1 0 ft/s 2® � 4 fUs 6 fl/s 8 ft/s 10 tt/s Ground • Bank Sta North Boeing Bridge No Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: TEMP BASE: No Projected Aggradatipn - Piers from Temp Exist Prop 12'16'2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop FIS - 1.3 BR North Boeing - Temporary Work Trestle (2013-2015) .022 - ¢ .035 D 28- Legend 1 J 26-- WS 100Yr / 0 ft/s.24- ft/ 1 � 5 it/s 22- 10 fEls 15 fits 20-, 20 fl/s e a 18 � Ground I Bank Sta 16 14- 12 10 g -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: TEMP BASE: No Proiecled Aggradation - Piers Irom Temp Exist Prop 12116.'2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW X5's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing - Temporary Work Trestle (2013-2015) 28 ' Legend 26� — _-_ WS 100Yr � s 241 r- -� 5 ft/s 22 ', ` 10 iv, 15 it/s 20 20 1t/s 18 25 it/, Lu Ground 16 Bank Sta 14 12 10 i ;II -�--rte-- -150 •100 -50 0 50 100 150 Station (it) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: TEMP BASE: No Projected Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop 12'16�2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS - 0.1 XS 0.1 - Downstream face North Boeing Bridge - Centered .022 --- 035 � 24-, - Legend WS 10OYr 22-� 0 ftls 5 1Us 20 10 fits 18 151115 20 fUs c 16 ■ Ground Bank Sta LU 14,' 12- 10 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Station (ft) ameO F-11=14:111VAC Plans and Cross -Sections of Existing and Proposed Structures Existing North Boeing Bridge: Plan Figure S1-1 Dated March 29, 2012 Proposed North Boeing Bridge: Plan Figure S001 Dated December 13, 2012 Temporary Work Trestle: Plan Figure S951 Dated December 13, 2012 4 1 _ 0 II ? ❑ ` oV 4 `11JJ 4 p f/o O� d rill Ifs L 11J W O 2 V W r ~~~^ C3 -z 4__l d 2 n w • I! I I N e M P W J= T F m II 4 II L Lu Q 1� CHAMFER I ooaa a W Of w W C7 C> LLJ a5 « m�,aa�ns w H c� z m U z W O = J a CM LU z a W x W Z �❑�. a o z¢ f W CLJ r 71 a I � rn zO N £1 > w m � �I x I o I Z o 11 410 o� J hi ip � b 1 AL3^ w W ❑ i I W N 38 1 I fi • I � I Q h' r N i p ❑ m W m d „ I BS I z U I j w _ I` I C S, W 3 1. I io C O � � n � � N yy Lrl Z N 6 m 1 z z m 6µPvwv—IS—PuDid puo uqd a6pug duel auoltluy 4PoN\4anars1aeuoN a6pug 41JON 6waoe1poQAuuCl1S3. WD SIl �iYgv\ i! wd �dB7,'tr°-71Di 91 :dt/ a�oD ual�'41as :�a�la�a o � m � 4 o I N} O m �` SiP� m i II. N FF�� 3 I of QQ 4 S � O� lon a - ---- .I _ 69 oz 13 � ¢ w l •� oszs+Zl als v. r• Ln Z > Som `•-� _- _ - ..... --�— 1735 1L'•tld 30 Al? I ',�ti ,.. � C9 � j 2> '.m—> _ << -- - LLJ O C_ � a d l7 J S w w O p U Lu 2f r -a n I { LLJ w ID w a aL`r UiI U7 Ljff e O LIJ �_ a � � to t L ..... 167Z 13 ooYZ+LI Vis - J J+ + } 4 N Z o 1. n 17/31 13171 v4~i o z m$� � - O < 3 a I I t a.1 W N m i Z q a w N J f I I Z fly � � wi m n. Li w and w v Li w z W V O CO zw+ V� LLJ W K III I I I � m x � 2 I I J H • I, + I II._ g g � � � I � 19 U� g SqNS a � epi 40 w - I .6ZZ 73 cross+ol vis, ,a, i CD 0009+1 l 71s tl, g W � d v z I o z � LT a o U II I I I = F 2 � Q i I L U V � 69 oz 73 Vis I -�- NLC+01 t G lass 1,nad o No I Aid d I or, n m l I Qo 0 O¢ 8 qo o= LLJ II II II II V 3 II LLI F9'BL+ZZ a15 1 �I it N � II I I rl I I 10 15 - - L d31d F I' - - +-- �I T, - i ri o I w ti I L o I z O w x W z ~ M] rrrlll o LJ w I lJl w U Lel d I LL IT J = co z Na a� o Zo Llj I � r' I I a OOLO� 4LZ VIS J, 1 . —? �` "�� ! 4 831d a' IIS, 4 = \ s k \ m , ., \N L,), 0oo�+1s 113f — +; d --- 773 oa+aZ a1s • • x = _ Z�'19+OZ a15 1 iL— - III U -I I .D -'S1 lI o �o Z Qd�ow C7 m¢�o> WW m � 0 �nb =Q - az =W w� U ro i=Qw �K f? oN Sf tl t'.IA2/ll 'A33NallN] o 206Z =wm ��m 3z G a �p oas W i �13 _gm �S E 2 in 4 YgI aw "�� J � - mem p3o oaf-. ✓� U w ¢}w-� 4 -�o m� 7 ow o VY 4 z yj N K W C7 2LZ7-1 F9'BL+ZZ a15 1 �I it N � II I I rl I I 10 15 - - L d31d F I' - - +-- �I T, - i ri o I w ti I L o I z O w x W z ~ M] rrrlll o LJ w I lJl w U Lel d I LL IT J = co z Na a� o Zo Llj I � r' I I a OOLO� 4LZ VIS J, 1 . —? �` "�� ! 4 831d a' IIS, 4 = \ s k \ m , ., \N L,), 0oo�+1s 113f — +; d --- 773 oa+aZ a1s • • x = _ Z�'19+OZ a15 1 iL— - III U -I I .D -'S1 lI o �o Z Qd�ow C7 m¢�o> WW m � 0 �nb =Q - az =W w� U ro i=Qw �K f? oN o 206Z =wm ��m 3z G a �p oas W i �13 _gm �S E 2 in 4 YgI w J � ✓� U w ¢}w-� 4 -�o m� 7 ow o 2 K W C7 2LZ7-1 F9'BL+ZZ a15 1 �I it N � II I I rl I I 10 15 - - L d31d F I' - - +-- �I T, - i ri o I w ti I L o I z O w x W z ~ M] rrrlll o LJ w I lJl w U Lel d I LL IT J = co z Na a� o Zo Llj I � r' I I a OOLO� 4LZ VIS J, 1 . —? �` "�� ! 4 831d a' IIS, 4 = \ s k \ m , ., \N L,), 0oo�+1s 113f — +; d --- 773 oa+aZ a1s • • x = _ Z�'19+OZ a15 1 iL— - III U -I I .D -'S1 lI o �o Z Qd�ow C7 m¢�o> WW m � 0 �nb =Q - az =W w� U ameO APPENDIX E Scour Analysis for Proposed North Boeing Bridge HEC -RAS Model Report Scour Input Screens for HEC -RAS HEC -RAS Supercritical 500 -Year Flow Profile through Proposed Bridge (No Sedimentation) Cross -Sections (Geometry includes new survey and no projected sedimentation) HEC -RAS Output Table Velocity Distribution Detailed Output APPENDIX El • BOEING NORTH BRIDGE SCOUR REPORT • Deoember 14, 2012 Contraction Scour Lett Channel Right Input Daly Average Depth (I1). 3-59 13.14 2.04 Approach Velocity (IVs): 3.60 9.01 1.12 Br Average Depth (it)- 0.95 638 0.45 BR Opening Flaw (cfs}: 12.5 18380.39 7.11 BR Top WD (ft): 6.3 202.7 9,35 Grain Size D50 (mm)' 50 50 50 Approach Flow (cfs): 239.99 18063-64 96.38 Approach Top WD (It): 16.18 152.57 42.16 K1 Coefficient: 0.59 0.59 0.59 Resulls Scour Depth Ys (fl): 0 4-9 0.08 Critical Velocity (IVs): Equation: Live Live Live Pier Scour Pier: #1 (CL = -59.8) Input gala Pier Shape: Round nose Pier Width (ft): 6.6 Grain Size D50 (mm): 50 Depth Upstream (ft): 11.27 Velocity Upstream (ft's): 17.9 Ki Nose Shape: 1 Pier Angle: 9 Pier Length (it): 42 K2 Angle Cost: 1.56 K3 Bed Cond Goof: 1,1 Grain Size D901mm): ion K4 Armouring Coef: 0,5 Set K1 value to 1.0 because angle i 5 degrees Results Scour Depth Ys (ft): 13.3 Froude #: 0.94 Fquatien: CSU equation Pier: 42 (CL = 71,9) Input Data Pier Shape: Round nose Pier Width Ift): 4,1 Grain Size D50 (mm): 50 Depth Upstream (R}: 11.27 Velocity Upstream (tUs): 179 K1 Was Shape: 1 Pier Angle: 0 Pier Length (ll): 36 K2 Angle CDL I: 1 K3 Bed Cond Coe?: 1,1 Grain Size D90 (mm): 109 K4 Armouring Coel: 0.51 Results Scour Depth Ys (fl): 6.38 Fraude M 0.94 Equation: CSU equation Abutment Scour Left Right Input Data Station at Toe (ft): -112.01 124.01 Toe Sta al appr (ft): 1065.1 1217.67 Abutment Length (It): 0 12 Depth at Tee (ft): 1.54 0.91 Ki Shape Coef- 1.00 - Vertical abutment Degree of Skew (degrees}: 90 90 K2 Skew Coef: 1 1 Projected Length L' jt): 0 212.9 Avg Depth Obstructed Ya (.it): 10.13 Flow Obstructed Oe (cts(: 18400 Area Obstructed Ac (sq fl): 2156,28 Results Scour Depth Ys (ft}: 7.36 3,86 Fraude #- 0.28 0.2 Equation: HIRE HIRE Combined Scour Depths Flier: #1 (CL = -59.8} (Conlr r Pier) (ft): 18.2 Pier: #2 (CL = 71.9) (Contr+ Pier) (ft): 11.28 Left abutment scour+ contraction scour (ft): 7.36 Right abutment scour r contraction scour (it): 3,95 Gpnhact on pi, AblRm t E2 - SCOUR ANALYSIS HEC -RAS INPUT TBBe .ad 0.ridaaSw HD fiaV3AEC U90FFI�5LL1,rwmdEoanaNaAr Bndae Rhw� CtlaRiwr s pyy DfaW -V AppdJ Reach' Letlaia..a Rrv.l S% 1.7 GR ✓f t F�ef+a. Regale_ AEUP I Bridge Scour RS= 1.3 --LP-B - Ch . RUB Yt:?1 54 11314 - N _- VI:F -fifi— i3O 111 E YJS SWVr ru cxa.m q 638 9111 ievae 02 17�� Jim0 f711 m P5tr 50.00 5600': 4 [otr Scw Eaulm FL---D-[L--rLLive-J `•�` laa sew Live B.dSpwk Osla Q1 23593 18CG36/ %38 �e 5 `- W1: 1019 16257 1716 Kl: K7 ., 0.590 0.990 0.596 D ApprnechxSA'rrw Sl . 19.7 .. -lw -190 50 0 50 im ,EO 20p a . CL 11.9) Ys [Pr .6- HIRE SIMMn (h7 In 9aar ' M la- 9891 IL -b - R.1[h) 11.77 Lop AleMwi Ys [ml 7.36 r...I. p'. Ewu 078 HFl pi. of Yl P':'. t...k. rdhf. dpsi 0.00. Ago 0. W Uva L" LNe %314 Y. Q1L 497 7131 Y. IEL 1,39 FM Tl 16.r Nab lib. Brdm Sea. HO Fie' -%A EDUS —N RP1m Lwdw Riva . Prdia FEF— Hl DW.A. Ap* Rwek Cadwiosa Rirer Slm: 1-3 BR t Lar.pq Regale_ Cva,a- Pi-rl /m co At B.idga Sur RS= 13 r M—%I Ylf L -d W Y1 Pa B ws swr. 9rprew c 6.60 DSR 5000 - n - m x ee YI: ii i7 Y1: 17.50 Frl: FT91� _--_.... ... . ............... 1 Bai 9 e 'i Marod JCSU aRa.9an- � 1S I.e Go.irSmx _LSU.EFS Dela. y[ Kl, 1 m 10 51 X. jf A,&P 9m L sem: K2 1,56 '� K3 11Srnr Dl.m &la P DS3 lmm re. QSQ 130 .100 -50 0 w lop 150 mQ 2Fl F— Pk:.:1�� 3aeon lnl _ 587 1.38 Rom 196 D20 MIRE T&W n BddosSpas HD BiaHD EimFyMELUS PFRLES%---dlBaaYro No9rBido. Rive.Carla Rirer - RpXP Rede[a�� DeleW Fc --W4.- 3 R-Sle: 1.3 BR - i t CarrWe R.pal... Caa 1 P. 1,FdnOge scow AS = 1.3 - Lam Ri1jd 30 Lwwn.d Teewarrl Bridge. F1 7m— 12191 7->AMApp: 10�1Q 171757 +"+ N590PYo O artl L -oh 0.m 1290 Y1'. 1Si 091 Lriee K7' 1.OD • Ve9cr dwrr.i .. g°- sL..[rl.gr 99m 9D9a n ,s I,r caesoo,e 1 Ict r--Id9 F—, EwtlPAo HFIE IL L.'.. I.. Ijum -n: 21250 Y. F-- 191: p Ek F-- 18/_91 m Aa 215676 1150 -1m ---w 0 99 ,m 190 a00 7:a HIRE Eq Sped Dtl .. .... _ _ _ (p) . N: 197 1.06 _........ _-. .._. ... ...... ... ; Lah 411CL-&9BI Y.@r 386 . CL 11.9) Ys [Pr .6- HIRE AbM 5 - e wd Scan Dgft ' M la- 9891 IL -b - R.1[h) 11.77 Lop AleMwi Ys [ml 7.36 r...I. p'. Ewu 078 HFl pi. of Yl P':'. t...k. rdhf. dpsi 587 1.38 Rom 196 D20 MIRE T&W n BddosSpas HD BiaHD EimFyMELUS PFRLES%---dlBaaYro No9rBido. Rive.Carla Rirer - RpXP Rede[a�� DeleW Fc --W4.- 3 R-Sle: 1.3 BR - i t CarrWe R.pal... Caa 1 P. 1,FdnOge scow AS = 1.3 - Lam Ri1jd 30 Lwwn.d Teewarrl Bridge. F1 7m— 12191 7->AMApp: 10�1Q 171757 +"+ N590PYo O artl L -oh 0.m 1290 Y1'. 1Si 091 Lriee K7' 1.OD • Ve9cr dwrr.i .. g°- sL..[rl.gr 99m 9D9a n ,s I,r caesoo,e 1 Ict r--Id9 F—, EwtlPAo HFIE IL L.'.. I.. Ijum -n: 21250 Y. F-- 191: p Ek F-- 18/_91 m Aa 215676 1150 -1m ---w 0 99 ,m 190 a00 7:a HIRE Eq Sped Dtl .. .... _ _ _ (p) . N: 197 1.06 _........ _-. .._. ... ...... ... ; Lah Riyr r Ana+Y. 1112 735 386 del 076 0.m .6- HIRE HIRE 1 e wd Scan Dgft ' M la- 9891 IL -b - R.1[h) 11.77 }` AS O d Uj I N � y O N [D N 091VE X0 9119 b 41 b v y C d 4� m b N 0O CL co O I co Q` c d 0 .tG 9892 X0 6,9b m I ca (D rn o rn n Q o Q a - � C N U l0 N D z > 999L X3 L' LE a `v a> U D b c FL O FL U U) `o IL N Q "s• Q CL 3: .. c 996 X0 Z'6 L O Q d Q1 rr y D o N T4 , z d CD b C ...ON weeilsdn (ot, E sx E s sodoJd Bwaog ylJoN E' L o ... lsnp - B0'0 SX 80'0 Z I (coN N N � r• (11J uollenel3 North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROD: SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Brdge Inserted 12,11620112 Geom: PROPID: for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS - 19.2 CX 955 .04 .023 30] iLegend 1 WS 500Yr 0 fUs 2 ftls 4 fills 6 itls Imo', 811/s 10 itls ■ 07— 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROD: SCOUR -NO Aggradation -Proposed Bridge Inserted 12;16M12 Gloom: PROP: for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 3 XS 3 (140) Upstream North Boeing Bridge - Centered 26- .r.445+ .022 1oj-------.035 10 Bank Sta Legend 24- WS 500Yr 22 20 I 18 0 7 a 16 - Lu 14 12-1 10 - g{ . , ..., , I -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (it) 0 ftls IIIIIIIIIiiiiii 5 ills 10 fUs 15 flls 20 ft/s • Bank Sta 30� 25 20 c 0 7 N UI 15 10 North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROD: SCOUR -NO Aggradation- Proposed Bridge kmrted 12%162012 Geom; f ROPD; for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 1.3 SR North Boeing Proposed Bridge - 42 -ft Width is PIER width Deck is � I - - .022 - .035 0 4 5+_ - -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Legend WS 500Yr 0 ft/s 5 ft/s 10 tus� 15 ft/s 20 ft/s Bank Sta Station (1t) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROP' SCOUR -NO Aggradation- Proposed Bridge Inserted 12r16f2012 Geom; PROPD: for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing Proposed Bridge - 42 -ft Width is PIER width Deck is I .035> 31 0 3 Legend 25 20 C 7 d W 15 I — 1 , , . - - I --r --T—T -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Station (ft) W91 500Yr I 0ft/s 5 ft/s 10 tvs I� 15 ft/S 20 ft/s 150 Ground Bank Sta North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROD: SCOUR -NO Aggradation -Proposed Bridge Inserted 1216%2012 Geom: PROM for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 0.1 XS 0.1 Downstream Lace North Boeing Bridge - Centered �[ — - -.022 -- — -- .035 24 . 0 ' Legend 3 5 22 WS 500Yr 0 ft/s 20- � M 5 ft/s 10 ft/s 18 � 15 it/, c 16 20 ft/s Ground 14 - Bank Sta w 12 10 8 6 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Station (ft) Appendix E: Output Summary - 560 -Year Scour Analysis Output - Proposed Geometry but No Fined Sediment Elevations and Mixed -Mode (Sub, and Super�crtltcal) River Sla Map Letter Distance Profile O Total Min Ch EI W.S. Elev Crit W.5- E -G. Eley E.G. Slope Vel Chn1 Flow Area Top Width Froude Jt Chi Flow rate IciS) Min Ch EI (11) (cls) (h) (D) (it) 01} E.G. El- (R11q (h's) (sq it) (D) Average velocily of llow in channel IfOsecond) 003 Welled flow cross-section area Isquare 11) -32 550CY- 12000 1356 17.4 '7.7 '8.59 n.O10614 8.77 2099'1 2701 62 14 0.08 -2' 5 5c9Y' 12000 7 93 17 79 18.13 21.33 U.004705 15.11 1231.28 211.54 1.08 0 1 A -1.5 500Y. 12000 7 c4 18.26 18.26 21.45 0.004021 14.38 '295 89 215 96 0.99 1.3 BE 0 0 500Y' is 55 18.55 21 79 14.47 208 61 1.3 BE U 50 500Y, 18.47 18,47 21.61 14.22 218i5 3 B 117550cYi 12W0 9."s8 2D 71 20.26 24-33 0.002907 15.29 122376 15783 091 19.2 C 973.5 5DDYr 12000 9.09 24.37 18.93 25.61 O.D00655 9.01 2156.28 212.9 0.44 317 0 1638.5 500Yr 12000 97 24.64 19.91 26.11 0-000852 9.18 217165 23657 0.46 46C E 2436.55OOYr 12000 10 25.42 21,63 27,13 O.DD1497 10.62 '839.04 185.96 0.54 54 6 c 3362 5 SooY, 12000 14.65 2664 24.76 29.31 0-003194 12.62 '403 24 16297 07 74.8 G 3905.5 500Yr 12000 15.94 28.89 25.92 30.8 0.002217 11.12 1689.85 166.52 D.6 750 H 2980.5 500Yr 12000 15.97 2921 25.81 30,93 0.001991 10.56 1763 166.53 0.56 77.7 1 4061550OYr 12000 16.88 2917 26.43 31,27 0.002451 ',1.68 1618.93 167.66 0.63 80.4 J 4176.550DYr 1200D 17.05 2941 26,58 31,57 D.D0252 11.84 ?57B.08 157.15 0.63 84.2 K 4342 5 500Yr 12000 17.43 2971 26.97 32.05 0.002563 '2.36 1547.41 154.55 0.65 90.2 L 4717.55DOYr 1200D 17.76 30.69 28,43 33,04 0.002721 '2.46 1557.87 170,6 0.67 1002 M 52535 500Y, 12000 17.98 32.17 2986 3443 0-002447 1256 1633.28 17621 0.63 106.3 N 5563.5 500Yr 12000 19.63 33.48 29.79 35.14 0.00179 0.99 1983.57 186.45 0.54 107.1 O 5634.5 500Yr 12000 19.49 34.18 28.87 35,29 17.0011743 8.79 2467.95 265.53 042 ''.08.3 BR D 5635.5 51(1 34,08 2695 3534 9.37 44.27 'its 3 OR U 5743.5 500Yr 34.23 2973 35,91 10.84 8.18 109 5 P 5744S S(l 12000 19-19 34 68 2965 35.95 0.001178 945 2224.37 196.09 0.45 1 1 1.6 O 5848.5 500Yr 12000 20.73 34.97 30.92 36.09 0.001147 9.15 2391.46 298.12 0.45 123.7 R 6483.5 500Yr 12000 20.78 34.94 37.64 G.002785 13.48 1499.06 149.58 0.65 124.1 BH D 64tH 500Yr 34.62 32 61 37 78 '4.b 141.19 124.1 BR U 6527.5 500Yr 35.35 32.7 38.09 13.58 1245 5 6528.5 it 12000 20.66 36.08 324 38 '.6 0 001941 11 83 1695.35 149.32 0.58 '27.9 T 6705.5 500Yr 12000 21.4 36.19 33.'7 36.66 0 OD2386 12.91 1571.64 175.66 0.64 '31.8 U 6915.5 Sony, 12000 221 36.64 3349 3915 0.002147 1247 1601.11 137 0.61 132.3 BR D 5916.5 500Yr 38.26 33.6 40.1 11.68 132.3 BE U 6958.5 Si 38.26 33.88 40,1 11.95 308.29 `32.8 V 5959.5 SOOYr 12000 23.45 38.26 33.77 40.1 0.001545 11.24 2009.01 479.98 0.53 134.1 W 7029.5 500Yr 12000 23.92 38.33 4023 ( 17 11.48 1995.23 364.33 0-5a 141.8 A 7442.5 51 12000 24.06 38.83 41.1 0.001977 12.33 1614.38 134.34 C.59 146 Y 7655.5 500Yr 12000 24.1 39.22 35.32 41.54 0,002007 12.213 1546.16 145.95 0.59 1467 BR D 7657.5 Sony, 3846 3541 41 67 14.84 146.7 BR U 7733.5 51 39.18 35.41 42.59 14.04 147.4 Z 7734.5500x, 12000 24.1 40.96 3532 4275 0.001326 in 82 1769.67 151.09 049 149.5 AA 7846.5 51 12000 24.17 41.35 42.92 0.001252 1( 19 1932.78 156.07 0.47 151.3 BR 0 7847.5 St 41.3 36.07 42,94 10.46 151.86 151-3 BR 8008.5500Yr 41-63 3647 4332 10,64 156.55 153.1 AS 8009.5 5COYr 12000 26.01 41.73 35.21 43.34 C.DD*25 10.31 1913.26 161.15 0.47 159.7 AC 8381.5 SCOW 12000 25.5 41.95 4399 0001618 11.64 1700.17 141.6'. 0.54 160-3 BR D 63825 Sony, 4424 37,35 4497 10.46 431.33 160.3 BR U 8440.5 Sony, 44.24 37.45 45.63 11.8 300.74 160-6 AD 84415500Y, 12000 23-67 44.24 3741 4563 0000926 9,97 2313.61 413.18 1)42 165 AE 8662.5 500Yr 12000 27.47 45.2 45.84 0.000457 6.85 3345.93 323.93 0.3 165.3 BRC 8671.5 500Yr 45.2 37.14 45,84 8.53 8993 165,3 BR U 5683.5 Sony, 46.08 37.13 4663 8.56 93.87 165.6 AF 8692.5 5c0Yr 12DDC 27.47 45.08 36.83 46.63 0 CDDS72 6,38 3600.66 327.87 0.27 169-3 AG 6889.5 Sony, 12000 26.$2 45.84 all 46 67 0,000739 a.99 2933.45 286.86 C.37 179.5 AH 9424.5 5COYr 12000 26.54 45 47.47 0,001041 9,8B 2202.15 1908. 0.44 184-6 Al 9801-5500Y, 12000 28.87 47-05 4083 4786 0.W07 81 3518.79 571.91 0.36 192.3 AJ 101C1.550UYr 12004 31.03 47.17 41.72 48.16 0.001074 8,76 3139.52 41 0.4 204.7 AK 10774.5 501 12000 32.58 46.4 44.35 50.2 0,003443 15.77 1254.76 '55.65 0-76 211.2 AL 11 U94.5 bil 12000 31.74 48.86 44.76 51.12 0.001766 12.67 2060.49 270.57 C.57 2207 AM 11598.5 S(i 12000 31.27 49.65 45.99 52.15 0.002049 t3-1 1766-0 436-67 0.6 231.4 AN 12171.5 Sol 11830 35.36 51.44 53.21 0.001469 10.78 1821.27 290.51 C.51 242.2 AO 12739.5501 11 KID 3647 51.59 54.79 0,002993 14,49 1318.31 11884 071 250-6 AP 13185-5 Sony, 1183n 37.82 54.21 55.85 0 W1455 10.43 1964.3 237.97 U.5 260.7 AO 13724.5 501 11830 38.07 54.09 57.5 000321 14,91 1317.95 114.45 0.73 274.7 AR 14465.5501 11830 40 57.5 59.23 0.W1491 10.58 1766.38 13273 045 274.85 BR D 14466.5 500YT 57.43 51.8 59.26 10.89 128.59 274,85 BE U 14478.5 50OYr 57.46 51.84 59.29 10,89 128.68 275 AS 14479.5 500Yr 11630 40.04 57.59 51.73 59.31 0OU1471 10.54 17942 ':32.85 0.40 Notes: Crc ss•seclion output for project vicinity is highlighted in bold above W to field narl Rover Eta Internal 10 in HEC RAS (about hundredths of a mile above cross-sactlon "A"; uni0ess) 'BR D' i3 the downstream lace of the bricge:'BR tY is the upstream lace Map Letter Letter that labels the cross-section on the work maps (same cross-sections have no lette� label) Dlslance Distance 01) upstream from downstream lace of existing {and proposed) North Boeing Bridge ,1.511 above cross-section'A-) Pfo'ils 100 -Yr is the base flood (1% -annual -chance f ci 0 Tolal Flow rate IciS) Min Ch EI Thalweg {minimum channel elevalian: II NAVD88) W 5- Elev Water surlace elevation ift NAVOBBI CnT W.S. Critical water surface elevation Vt NAVAII) E.G. El- Energy grade elevation pt NAVD88i E.G. Slope Energy grade slope 0011; unilless) Vel Char Average velocily of llow in channel IfOsecond) Flow Area Welled flow cross-section area Isquare 11) Top Width Welled lop -width of How (Iti Froude P Chi Froude Number (unilless) E5 Proposed SCOUR Plan Output -age 1 APPENDIX E6 -VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SCOUR ANALYSIS DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO BED Ceder River Ceder -Lower RS: 0.1 Protlle: SOOYr FIS "N' Pos Lefl Sta Rlghl Sla Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (tt) {hl (ats) (Sq1t) (it) Conv Depth(h) (fit's) (Ibiaq fl) {IbAt a) 1 LOB -91.11 88.41 9 2-64 3,33 0,05 1.11 3.41 0.2 0.60 2 LOB -80.41 8571 19.67 3.73 2.72 0.11 1.38 528 0.34 1.62 3 Chan -85.71 77.81 149.67 20.38 8,19 081 2.58 7.34 0.62 4.59 4 Chan -77.81 .6991 383.38 35.73 8,13 2.08 4.52 10.73 1.1 11.04 5 Chan -69.91 -6202 315.03 31.63 8.04 171 4 9.96 0.99 9.83 6 Chan -62.02 -54.12 390.12 39.16 996 212 4.96 9-96 0-99 9-83 7 Chan -54.12 46.22 695.BB 51.25 8.19 3.78 6.49 13.58 1.57 21.33 8 Chan -46,22 -3832 533-31 43.19 796 2.9 5.47 12.35 1.38 16.82 9 Chan -38.32 -30.42 631,3 47,68 791 3.43 6-04 13-24 1-51 2003 10 Chan -30,42 22.53 836.09 58,44 8.63 4.54 7.4 14.31 1.7 24.31 11 Chan -2253 -1463 1297.85 73,49 7.92 7.05 9.31 17.66 2.33 41,14 12 Chan -14,63 -6.73 1239.53 71.52 7.93 6.74 9.06 1733 2-27 3926 13 Chan 6,73 1.17 1023,7 83,92 7.97 5.56 8.09 16.02 2.01 32.23 14 Chan 1.17 9.07 918-22 59.68 7.91 4.99 7.58 15.39 1.89 29,15 15 Chan 9,07 16.96 868.11 57.69 7.9 4.72 7.3 15.05 1,83 27.58 16 Chan 1696 24.86 854.53 57.14 7.9 4.64 7.23 14.96 1,62 27.16 17 Chan 2486 32.76 960,27 6184 BOB 5.22 7.83 15.5$ 1,92 29.84 18 Char. 32.76 40.66 1336,25 75.2 8.03 7.26 9.52 17.77 2,35 4179 19 Chan 4066 48-56 1467,68 7948 8.01 7.98 10.06 18.47 2,49 46.01 20 Chan 48% 56,45 567.24 49.95 1043 3.08 6.32 11.36 1,2 13.65 21 Chan 56.45 64.35 779.14 54.94 8.23 4.23 6,96 14,18 1.68 23.77 22 Chan 64.35 72.25 874,85 58 7.91 4.75 7.34 15,08 1.84 27.75 23 Chan 72.25 80-15 917.42 59.87 7.9B 4.99 7.58 15,32 1,88 28.86 24 Chan 80.15 88.05 578.53 46.53 8.49 3-14 5.89 12.43 1.38 17.11 25 Chan 88.05 95.94 307.76 31.64 0.34 1,67 401 973 0.95 926 26 Chan 95.94 103.84 258 27.87 7.91 1,4 3,53 9,26 0.88 8.19 27 Chan 103.84 111.74 160.34 21.64 8.21 0-67 2.74 7.41 066 4.9 20 ROB 111.74 114.94 12.99 4.47 3.21 0,07 14 2.8B 035 1.01 29 ROB 114.94 118.13 8.21 3.41 3.21 0,04 1,07 2.41 0.27 0.64 30 ROB 118.13 121,33 4.4 2.35 3,21 0.02 0.73 188 0.18 0.34 31 ROB 121.33 124.53 1.57 1.26 3,22 0,01 04 124 0.1 0-12 32 RCB 124.53 12772 0.09 0.17 1,65 0 0.1 0.51 0.03 0.01 DSF Internal Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 1.3 BR D Pro111e: 50OYr Poe Lett Sta Rlghl Sts Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power IN IN (cts) (Sq it) (fill Conv Depth(fl) (Iva) (Ib/sg 11) (lb'R s) 1 LOB .91.11 -88.41 13.57 3,34 3.62 0.07 1.39 4.07 0.26 1.04 2 LOB -88,41 -85.71 28.52 4.52 272 D16 1.67 6.32 0.46 2,92 3 Chan -8571 -77.81 182.27 22,69 8.19 0.99 2.07 0.03 0.77 6,18 4 Chan -77,81 -69.91 43337 38,04 8.13 2.36 4.82 11.39 1,3 14,81 5 Chan -69.91 -6242 360.79 $394 8.04 1.96 4.3 10.63 1.17 12,46 6 Chan .62.02 -54.12 51,69 9,65 639 028 4.17 5.36 0.42 2,25 7 Chan 54,12 -46.22 401,95 45.99 14.63 2.18 6.68 8,74 0-87 7.64 8 Chan 46,22 -38.32 59235 45.5 7.96 3.22 5.76 13.02 1.59 2065. 9 Chan -38.32 -30.42 69561 4999 7.91 3.78 6.33 13.92 1.76 24.43 10 Chan -30.42 -2253 906,23 60.75 8.63 4.94 7.69 14.95 1.96 29.23 11 Chan 22.53 -14.63 1391,59 75.8 7.92 7.56 9.6 18.36 2.66 48,84 12 Char 1463 -6.73 1330,93 73.83 7.93 7.23 9.35 18.03 259 46.67 13 Chan -673 1.17 1106 6633 7.97 6.01 8.39 16,7 2,31 38.54 14 Chan 1.17 9.07 996,14 61.99 7.91 5.41 7.65 16,07 2,18 3501 15 Chan 9.07 16.96 943.8 60 7.9 5.13 7,6 15,73 2.11 33.2 16 Chan 16.96 24.86 929,61 59.45 7.9 5X5 7.53 15.64 2,09 32.71 17 Chan 24.96 32.76 1039.5 64.15 8.08 5.65 6,12 16.21 231 35.75 18 Chan 32.75 40.66 1431,11 77.51 8.03 7.78 9,81 18,46 2.68 49.54 19 Chan 40.66 48.56 156768 8179 8X1 8.52 1036 1917, 2.84 54.4 20 Chan 48.56 56.45 622.84 52.26 10.43 3,39 6,62 11,92 139 1659 21 Chan 56.45 64.35 849.79 57.25 8.23 4.62 7.25 14.84 1.93 28.7 22 Chan 64.35 72.25 950.8 60.31 791 5,17 7,64 15.77 2.12 33.38 23 Chan 72.25 00,15 407.94 45.19 13.69 2,22 7.93 903 0.92 8.28 24 Chan 80.15 86.05 287.62 34.97 13.57 1 45 5.83 7.65 0.72 5.40 25 Chan BB -05 95.94 35244 33.95 8,34 1,92 4.3 10.36 1.13 11.74 26 Chan 95.94 103,84 300.01 30-18 7.91 1,63 382 994 1.06 10.54 27 Chan 103.84 111,74 199.02 23.95 8.21 1.08 303 631 0.81 6-73 28 ROB 11174 114,94 18.6 5.41 3,21 0.1 1.69 3.44 0.47 1.61 29 ROB 114.94 118.13 12.93 4.35 321 0.07 1.35 2.97 0.38 1.12 30 RCB 118.13 121.33 8.1 - 3.20 331 044 103 247 0-28 0-7 31 ROB 121.33 12453 4.15 2,2 3.22 0.02 0.69 1.89 0.19 0.36 32 ROB 124.53 127.72 1-03 0.95 3.22 0.01 0.3 1.08 0.08 0.09 aa ROB 127.72 130.92 0.01 0,04 078 0 0-05 0-32 0.01 0 E6 Proposed SCOUR Vel 05trilo Page 1 APPENDIX E6 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SCOUR ANALYSIS DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 0.1 Proille: 500Yr FIS 'A" Fos Left Sta Right Sia Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power ft h cis) (Sq tt tt Canv De Ih tt tliS 14'8 tt Ib1tl 9 APPENDIX E6 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION -HEC -RAS SCOUR ANALYSIS -Page 2 UPF Internal Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Ceder -Lower RS: 1.3 BR U Prp111e: 500Yr POS Leh Sta Right Ste Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power tt h cts) lag tt) (tt) Canv Depth(ft) (ftle) (Ib a ft) (IbM e 1 LOB -110 106.7 1.51 1.36 3,13 001 0.45 1 11 0.12 0.14 2 LOB -106.7 -103,4 10.99 4.65 3,45 005 141 2,37 0.38 0.89 3 Chan -103.4 -94.66 238.73 27,53 8,93 1.3 3.23 8.67 0.86 7.49 4 Chan -94.86 -06.33 638.55 49.63 8.9 3.47 5.81 12,87 1.56 20.1 5 Chan -86.33 77.79 1051.38 662 8,66 5.71 7.75 1568 2.14 34.03 6 Chan -77.79 .69,26 1097.23 67.53 8.54 596 7.91 16.25 2.22 36.02 7 Chan -69.26 -60.72 456.28 48.72 14,07 2.48 7.91 9,37 0.97 9.09 8 Chan -60.72 -52.18 277.41 34.18 12,23 1,51 7.92 8,12 0.78 6.35 9 Chan -52.18 43,65 1099.43 67.61 8.54 598 7.92 16.26 2.22 36.09 10 Chan -43.65 -35,11 1100.17 67.64 8,54 5,98 7.92 16.26 2.22 36.11 11 Chan -35.11 -2658 1117.02 613.311 857 6.07 8.01 16-54 2.23 36.51 12 Chan -25.58 -18.04 131243 75.32 6,57 7.13 8.82 17.43 2.46 42.91 13 Chan -18.04 -9.5 1331.71 75.97 6,57 7.24 8.9 17.53 248 43.54 14 Chan -9.5 -0,97 1009.98 64.83 873 549 7.59 15.58 2.08 32.43 15 Chan -0.97 757 68025 50-94 6.64 3.7 5.97 13.35 1.65 22.06 16 Chan 7.57 i6.1 519.49 43.16 8,56 2.82 5.06 12.04 141 17.01 17 Chan 16.1 24,64 511.88 42.81 857 278 5.01 11,96 1.4 16.74 18 Chan 24.64 33.18 73541 53.65 8.75 4 6.29 13.71 1.72 23.54 19 Chan 33.18 41 71 1117.57 6B.66 9,65 6.07 B.n4 16.28 2.22 36.19 20 Chan 41.71 50,25 1244.79 73.14 6.62 677 8.57 17.02 2.38 40.44 21 Chan 50.25 58,78 970.36 62.99 8.62 5.27 7.38 15.41 2.05 31.53 22 Chan 58.78 67.32 765.29 54.5 B,58 4,15 6.39 14.04 1.78 25.01 23 Chan 67.32 75.86 139,82 25X1 15.66 0.76 5.64 5.59 0.45 2.5 24 Chan 75.86 64,39 449.43 39.65 8.6 2.44 4.65 11.33 1.29 14.54 25 Chan 84.39 92.93 290.8 30.54 8.6 1,56 3.50 9.52 0.99 947 26 Chan 92.93 101.46 16105 21.42 8.6 0.88 2.51 7.52 0.7 5.25 27 Chan 10146 110 63.94 12.31 8.6 0,35 1.44 5.2 0.4 2.08 28 ROB 110 126.35 7.11 4.24 939 0,04 0.45 1.67 0.13 0.21 UP XS Pian: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS:3 Protlle: 500Yr RS "I" Pot Left Sta Right Ste Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (tt) (h) (cis) logtt) (it) Cony Degth(ft){ttrs) (Ibhgtl) (mins) 1 LOB -72.5 .6839 0.35 047 1 56 0 0.33 0.78 0.06 0.04 2 LOB -68.39 -64.29 4.9 3.26 4,12 0.03 O.B 1.49 0.15 0.22 3 LOB -64.29 60.18 9.22 5.6 6,07 0,05 1.36 1.65 0.17 0.28 4 Chan -50.18 -54,68 216.05 23-35 5,58 1.17 4.24 9,25 0.78 7.22 5 Chan -54.66 .49.17 341.08 31 4 5.91 1.85 5.71 10.86 0.99 10.77 6 Chan -49.17 -43,67 569.05 42.11 5,71 3.09 7.65 13.51 1.38 18.59 7 Chan -43.67 -38,17 694.82 46-137 5,53 378 8.52 14.62 1.58 23.44 8 Chan -38.17 -32,66 788.96 50.85 5.6 4,29 9.24 15.52 1.69 2627 9 Chan -32.66 -27,16 924.9 55.76 5.56 5.03 10.14 16,56 1.87 31.01 TO Chan -27.16 .21 .66 104637 59.96 5,54 5.69 10.9 11.45 2.02 35.23 11 Chan -21.66 -16.15 110936 fit 5.51 6,03 11.27 179 2.1 37.55 12 Chan -16.15 .10.65 1090,48 6141 5-52 5.93 11.16 17.76 2.07 36.81 13 Chan -10.65 -5.15 961.87 57.29 5,61 5.23 10.41 16.79 1.91 31.99 14 Chan -5.15 0.36 784.37 50.75 5,62 4,26 9.22 15.45 168 2601 15 Chan 0.36 5.86 651,28 45.24 5-58 354 8.22 14.4 1.51 21.78 16 Chan 5.86 11.36 561.42 41.27 5,54 3.05 7.5 13.6 1.39 18.91 17 Chan 11.36 16.86 526.7 39.71 55 2,87 7.22 13.31 f.35 1791 18 Chan 16.86 22.37 530,06 39.77 5.5 2.88 7.23 13.33 1.35 17.96 19 Chan 22.37 27.87 579.55 42-31 5.62 3.15 7.69 13.7 1.4 19.24 20 Chan 2787 33.37 740.01 49.08 5.64 4,02 8.92 15.08 1,62 2445 21 Chan 33.37 38.88 916,85 55.64 5.6 4,98 10.11 1648 1.85 3054 22 Chan 38.89 44.36 103574 59-59 5.54 5.63 10.83 17.38 2,01 34.89 23 Chan 44.38 49.06 1020.97 59.23 5.57 5,55 10.76 17.24 1 98 34.17 24 Chan 49.88 55.39 BB6,49 54.41 5.57 4.82 9.89 16.29 1 82 29.68 25 Chan 55.39 60.69 779.79 50.28 5.54 4.24 9.14 15.51 1,69 26,23 26 Chan 60.89 66.39 702.31 47.16 5.52 3,82 8.57 14.89 1,59 23.71 27 Chan 66.39 71,9 637,68 44.51 5.52 3,47 8.09 14.33 1,5 2153 28 Chan 71.9 77.4 254,25 30.41 8.47 1 38 5.53 8.36 0,67 5.6 29 ROB 774 99-18 32.7 14.03 13.93 0.18 1.32 2.33 0,19 0,44 E6 Proposed SCOUR Vel Distrib Page 2 APPENDIX E6 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - NEC -RAS SCOUR ANALYSIS DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NOSED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 0.1 Profile: 500yr FIS „A„ Pas LeN Sta Right Sla Flow Arca W.P. Percent Hydr velocity Shear Power M N) (efs) (s tttt Coni De th N111 Ibis k lbAt s APPENDIX E6- VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SCOUR ANALYSIS • Page 3 Approach %S Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 19.2 Profile: 500Yr FIS „C„ Pas Lett fila Right Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Nytlr Velocity Shear Power M N cfs N) (tt) Cony De th tt }Vs Iblsq ft IWft s 1 LOB 1045,68 1052.15 4,27 5 5.62 0.02 0-96 0-85 0.04 0,03 2 LOB 1052.15 1056-63 4303 21,85 7.01 0.23 3.37 1.97 0,13 0.25 3 LOB 1058.63 1065.1 192,68 3844 6.85 1.05 5.94 5,01 6,23 1.1s A Chan 1065.1 1071.2 378.63 60.7 8.11 2.06 9-95 624 0,31 1,91 5 Chan 1071.2 1077.31 623.44 75.61 6.64 3.39 12,39 8,25 0.47 383 6 Chan 1077.31 1083.41 66569 91.04 6.46 4.7 14,92 9,51 0.58 5.48 7 Chan 1083.41 1089.51 690.56 90.91 6.17 4.84 14,9 9.8 06 5.9 8 Chan 1089.51 1095.61 795.81 84.96 6.17 4.33 13.92 937 056 527 9 Char 1095.61 1101.72 734.07 80.75 6.13 3.99 13,23 9.09 0.54 4.89 10 Chan 1101.72 1107.82 701 78.45 6.11 3,81 12.86 8.94 0.52 4.69 11 Char 1107.82 1113.92 708.45 78.93 6.11 3.85 12,93 898 0.53 474 12 Chan 1113.92 1120.03 71849 79.58 6.1 3,9 13,04 9.03 0.53 4.81 13 Chen 1120.03 1126.13 723.88 79.94 6.1 3,93 13.1 905 0.54 4.85 14 Chan 1126-13 1132.23 734.79 80.66 6,1 3.99 13.22 9.11 0.54 4-92 15 Char 1132.23 1138,33 744.88 81.32 6.1 4,05 13.33 9.16 0.54 4.99 16 Char. 11311.33 1144,44 744.37 81.29 6.1 4.05 1332 9.16 0-54 4.98 17 Cham 114444 115054 727.44 80.21 6.11 3.95 13.14 9.07 0.54 4.87 18 Chan 1150.54 1156.64 713.37 79,27 6.11 389 12.99 9 0.53 4.77 19 Chan 1156.64 116275 737.59 80.88 611 401 1325 9.12 0.54 4,93 20 Chan 116275 1168.85 763.29 82,55 6.11 4.15 13.53 9.25 0.55 5.11 21 Chan 1168,85 1174.95 786.05 84,07 6.11 4.28 13.78 9.36 0.56 5.26 22 Chan 1174,95 1181.05 811.26 85.62 6.11 441 14.03 9.47 0.57 5,43 23 Chan 1161,05 1187.15 831.16 86,86 6.1 4.52 14.23 9.57 0.510 5.56 24 Chan 1187.16 1193.26 849.19 08.01 6.11 4.62 14.42 9.65 0.59 5.68 25 Chan 119326 1199.36 878.89 89.89 6.12 478 14.73 9.78 0.6 5.87 26 Chan 119936 1205.46 797,17 B6.37 6.41 4.33 14.15 9.23 0.55 508 27 Chan 1205.46 1211.57 502.8 6858 7.19 2.73 11.24 7.33 0.39 286 28 Chan 1211.57 1217.67 30057 4867 6-6 1.63 7.98 6.18 0,3 1.86 29 Roe 121767 1236.81 68,13 64.02 21.31 0.37 3,34 1,06 0.12 0.13 30 ROB 123681 1255-95 28,09 21.34 19.26 0.15 1.11 1.32 0.05 006 31 ROB 1255.95 1275.09 0.15 049 3-89 0 0.13 0,31 0.01 0 Nates- Kew to field names: US Downstream Face of bridge DSF Internal UPF Internal UP Upstream face of barge Approach Approach 1 expanded section above bridge FIS "A" Flood Insurance Study Map Letter (e. g. "A") POS Position! portion of section: LOC (Lett everbank) - Chan (channeq - ROB (right overbanlr) Left +' Right Sfa Left and right station (fq within which parameters are tabulated Tor this cross-seclion and profile Flow Flaw rate (cfs) within Ire two noted stalious 01 the cross-section Area Wetted flaw cross-section area (square B) between the Iwo noted slalions W P. Wetted perimeter (`,) helween the two noted stations Percent Conv Percent conveyance of total cross -Section (cfs) Hydr Depth Hydraulic Depth (Radius: I0 - welled area , waned perimeter Velocity Average velocity wlhin this slice of crass -section (fVsecl Shear Shear velocity (Itnsq ft) Power Stream power (Ib,ft-sec) E6 Proposed SCOUR Vel Disiril Page 3 STANDARD STREAM STUDY NARRATIVE AND HABITAT DATA REPORT Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project (Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101) Renton, Washington Prepares! for: The Boeing Company Renton, Washingtone Prepared by: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3500 188th Street SW, Suite 601 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 (425) 921-4000 December 2012 Project No. LY11160130 ameO City of Renton Pierining Division DF . ? `t iUiL fliEcc EQV c -a TABLE OF CONTENTS w' -re �• s Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 STANDARD STREAM STUDY NARRATIVE................................................................. 5 2.1 STREAM CLASSIFICATION...................................................................................... 5 2.2 VEGETATIVE COVER............................................................................................. 5 2.3 ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION....................................................................................... 7 2.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE.............................................................................................. 8 2.4.1 Mammals................................................................................................ 8 2.4.2 Birds....................................................................................................... 8 2.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................... 10 2.4.4 Fish....................................................................................................... 10 2.5 MEASURES TO PROTECT TREES AND VEGETATION .............................................. 12 2.6 No NET Loss OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION........................................................... 12 3.0 HABITAT DATA REPORT............................................................................................ 15 3.1 HABITAT DIVERSITY............................................................................................ 15 3.2 MIGRATION CORRIDORS..................................................................................... 16 3.3 SPECIES AND COVER TYPES............................................................................... 17 3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF DISTURBED AREAS................................................................ 17 3.5 EXISTING HABITAT VALUES AND FUNCTIONS........................................................ 18 3.5-1 Temperature......................................................................................... 18 3.5.2 Water Quality........................................................................................ 19 3-5.3 Reach Sinuosity.................................................................................... 19 3-5.4 Vegetative Conditions........................................................................... 19 3.5.5 Floodplain Condition............................................................................. 19 3.5.6 Habitat Values and Functions at the Proposed Project Site ................. 19 3.5.7 Habitat Alterations and Impacts and Proposed Habitat Management Program.......................................................................... 19 4.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................21 APPENDICES Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B Draft Biological Assessment Appendix C Revised Project Description AMEC Project No. Ly11160130 i pAboeing rentonUy11160130 renton north bridgetreportslstream&habitat\streamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712,docx ameO (This page intentionally left blank) AMEC TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Project No. LY 11160130 p:%boeing rentonly11160130 renton north bddgelreportslstream&habitat%streamstudy_habilabdatarpt_121712.docx ameO STANDARD STREAM STUDY NARRATIVE AND HABITAT DATA REPORT Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project (Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101) Renton, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION Under the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-120C (Submittal Requirements — Specific to Application Type: Land Use Applications), the City requires the following environmental reports to be included with Boeing's permit application submittal for the proposed North Bridge Replacement project: Stream or Lake Study, Standard: A report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, unless otherwise determined by the Administrator, and include the following information: a. Site Map: Site map(s) indicating, at a scale no smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') (unless otherwise approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee): i. The entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including one hundred feet (100') of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies) flow(s); ii, The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determined in the field by a qualified biologist pursuant to RMC 4-3-05OL1 b (the OHWM must also be flagged in the field); iii. Stream or lake classification, as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map in RMC 4-3-05004 or RMC 4-3-090 (if unclassified, see "Supplemental Stream or Lake Study" below); iv. Topography of the site and abutting lands in relation to the stream(s) and its/their buffer(s) at contour intervals of two feet (2') where slopes are less than ten percent (10%), and of five feet (5') where slopes are ten percent (10%) or greater; v. One hundred (100) year floodplain and floodway boundaries, including one hundred feet (100') of the abutting parcels through which the water body(ies) flow(s); vi. Site drainage patterns, using arrows to indicate the direction of major drainage flow; vii. Top view and typical cross-section views of the stream or lake bed, banks, and buffers to scale; AMEC Project No. Ly11160130 p:lboeing rer toMy11160130 renton north badgeVeporlslstream&habitatlstreamstudy_habKatdatarpt_121712 doex ameO viii. The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or lake, banks, riparian area, and/or abutting wetland areas, extending one hundred feet (100') upstream and downstream from the property line. Include position, species, and size of all trees at least ten inches (10") average diameter that are within one hundred feet (100) of the OHWM; ix. The location, width, depth, and length of all existing and proposed structures, roads, stormwater management facilities, wastewater treatment and installations in relation to the stream/lake and its/their buffer(s); and x. Location of site access, ingress and egress. b. Grading Plan: A grading plan prepared in accordance with RMC 4-8-120D7, and showing contour intervals of two feet (2) where slopes are less than ten percent (10%), and of five feet (5') where slopes are ten percent (10%) or greater. c. Stream or Lake Assessment Narrative: A narrative report on eight and one-half inch (8.5") by eleven inch (11") paper shall be prepared to accompany the site plan and describes: i. The stream or lake classification as recorded in the City of Renton Water Class Map in RMC 4-3-050Q4 or RMC 4-3-090; ii, The vegetative cover of the site, including the stream or lake, banks, riparian area, wetland areas, and flood hazard areas extending one hundred feet (100') upstream and downstream from the property line, including the impacts of the proposal on the identified vegetation; iii_ The ecological functions currently provided by the stream/lake and existing riparian area and the impacts of the proposal on the identified ecological functions; iv. Observed or reported fish and wildlife that make use of the area including, but not limited to, salmonids, mammals, and bird nesting, breeding, and feeding/foraging areas, including the impacts of the proposal on the identified fish and wildlife; v. Measures to protect trees, as defined per RMC 4-11-200, and vegetation; and vi. For shorelines regulated under RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program, the study shall demonstrate if the proposal meets the criteria of no net loss of ecological functions as described in RMC 4-3-090D2. If the proposal requires mitigation for substantial impacts to the existing vegetation buffer in order to demonstrate no net loss of ecological functions, a supplemental stream or lake study may be required by the Administrator of the Department AMEC 2 Project No. LY11160130 p,lboeing rentonti y11160130 renton north bridge\reports\stream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx ameO of Community and Economic Development or designee. (Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005; Ord. 5633, 10-24-2011). Habitat Data Report: Habitat data reports include: a. Site Plan: The site plan shall indicate: i. The vegetative cover types reflecting the general boundaries of the different plant communities on the site; ii. The exact locations and specifications for all activities associated with site development including the type, extent and method of operations; iii. Top view and typical cross-section views of critical habitat/wildlife habitat to scale; iv. The results of searches of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Heritage and Non -Game Data System databases; v. The results of searches of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species database. b. Narrative Report: A narrative report shall be prepared to accompany the site plan which describes: i. The layers, diversity and variety of habitat found on the site; ii. The location of any migration or movement corridors; iii. The species typically associated with the cover types, including an identification of any critical wildlife species that might be expected to be found; iv. Identification of any areas that have been previously disturbed or degraded by human activity or natural processes; v. A summary of existing habitat functions and values, utilizing a habitat evaluation procedure or methodology approved by the City; vi. A summary of proposed habitat alterations and impacts and proposed habitat management program. Potential impacts may include but are not limited to clearing of vegetation, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, expected decrease in species diversity or quantity, changes in water quality, increases in human intrusion, and impacts on wetlands or water resources. (Ord. 4835, 3-27-2400) AMEC Project No. Ly11160130 3 paboeing rentonUy11160130 renton north bridgelreportslstream&habitatlstreamstudy_haWtatdatarpt_121712.docx amecI9 This report provides a description of the environmental and habitat attributes of the project site where the proposed Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project is to occur, as defined by RMC 4-8-120C. Sections 2,0 and 3.0 present the requisite information for the Standard Stream Narrative and Habitat Data Report, respectively. AMSC 4 Project No. LY11160130 paboeing rentoMy11160130 renton north bridgelreportslstream&habitallstreamstudy_habRatdatarpt_121712,docx amec19 2.0 STANDARD STREAM STUDY NARRATIVE The Boeing Company (Boeing) proposes to replace the existing North Bridge spanning the Cedar River at its confluence with Lake Washington (Appendix A, Photo 1; Appendix B, Figure 1). Boeing uses the bridge to transport commercial jet aircraft (primarily 737s) from its assembly plant to the Renton Municipal Airport, which Boeing uses to launch and land aircraft. The existing bridge has reached the end of its service life and will be unable to support the heavier weight of the next - generation 737 -Max soon to be produced at Boeing's Renton facility. The Draft Biological Assessment (BA) and Revised Project Description prepared for Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for this project (Appendices B and C) provide a detailed description of the proposed project, as well as figures depicting existing bridge conditions, proposed bridge construction activities, shoreline regrade, and shoreline restoration. Much of the information required as outlined in RMC 4-5-120C is provided in Appendix B. 2.1 STREAM CLASSIFICATION According to RMC 4-3-05004 (City of Renton Water Class Map), the Cedar River in the vicinity of the project site is Class 1 water_ 2.2 VEGETATIVE COVER AMEC biologist, Bob Stuart, conducted site surveys during August 2009 and April and August 2012, to assess habitat conditions and vegetative cover along the Cedar River and Lake Washington shoreline within 100 feet of the project site. The project site is defined as the portion of the bridge aprons and bridge spanning the Cedar River at its confluence with Lake Washington. Proposed construction activities are described in detail in the Draft BA and Revised Project Description (Appendices B and C). The North Bridge (Appendix A, Photos 1 and 2) is a steel -reinforced concrete bridge (Appendix A, Photo 3)_ The Cedar River is approximately 136 feet wide where it enters Lake Washington. The property immediately east of the bridge is owned by Boeing and consists primarily of paved roadways, parking lots, taxiways, manufacturing facilities, and administrative offices (Appendix B, Figure 1). The Renton Municipal Airport is located immediately west of the bridge and consists primarily of concrete and asphalt surfaces used for launching and landing commercial and recreational aircraft (Appendix B, Figure 1). A vegetation survey was conducted along each bank of the Cedar River, extending 100 feet upstream of the existing North Bridge. Because the bridge is located at the mouth of the Cedar River where it AMSC Project No. Ly11160130 5 paboeing rentonUy11160130 renton north bddgelreportststream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx ameO enters Lake Washington, the vegetation survey was also conducted along the shoreline of Lake Washington 100 feet east and west of the bridge (Appendix A, Photos 3 through 11). The western bank of the Cedar River within 100 feet of the bridge consists of a steel -pile and timber - lagging bulkhead, above which is located a steep bank approximately 15 feet wide (Appendix A, Photos 4 and 5). Riparian vegetation along the western bank consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). All of these species are listed as noxious weeds by King County. A small, unidentified species of willow (Salix spp.) was also growing along the west bank along with various, unidentified grasses. The riparian area is bordered to the west by a narrow strip of lawn, beyond which is the Renton Municipal Airport (Appendix A, Photos 1 and 5). The eastern bank of the Cedar River within 100 feet of the bridge is similar to that described for the western bank, consisting of a steel -pile and timber -lagging bulkhead, above which is located a steep bank approximately 20 feet wide (Appendix A, Photo 6). South of the bridge and immediately adjacent to the Cedar River is the Cedar River Trail Park (Appendix A, Photo 7). A portion of the riparian area along the eastern bank of the river within 100 feet of the bridge appears to have been landscaped with native vegetation consisting of Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and mock orange (Philadelphus lewisir). Additionally, the same noxious weeds found on the western bank occur on the eastern bank, including Himalayan blackberry, common tansy, and reed canarygrass. A number of unidentified grasses were also observed on the eastern bank. Immediately east of the eastern bank is the Cedar Trail Park, consisting of a vegetated strip immediately adjacent to the riparian area, a sidewalk, and roadway. The vegetated strip beyond 100 feet south of the bridge is planted with larger trees (trunks z10 inches in diameter) that appeared to be bigleaf maples (Acer macrophyllum) (Appendix A, Photo 7). The Boeing facility is located to the east of the park (Appendix B, Figure 1). The Lake Washington shoreline east and west of the North Cedar Bridge is steep, a portion of which on each side of the bridge consists of a sheet -pile bulkhead and riprap (Appendix A, Photos 8, 9, and 10; Appendix B, Figures 2 and 3 ). The shoreline west of the bridge and adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry and butterfly bush, along with some unidentified grasses. Immediately south and adjacent to the western shoreline is a narrow strip of maintained lawn (approximately 10 to 15 feet wide), beyond which is the asphalt runway of the Renton Municipal Airport. AMEC 6 Project No. LY 11160130 pAboeing rentongy11160130 renton north bddgelreportslstream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.decx ameO Vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline east of the bridge is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and butterfly bush. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and unidentified grasses were also observed along the shoreline east of the bridge. No trees with trunks greater than or equal to 10 inches in diameter are located within 100 feet of the property line of the proposed project. Aquatic vegetation observed during the August 2009 survey included Canada waterweed (Elodea canadensis), white -stemmed pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus), curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), and common duckweed (Lemna minor). 2.3 ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION Riparian habitats have important ecological functions other than providing habitat for birds and other wildlife. Healthy riparian vegetation protects banks from erosion, influences in -channel aquatic habitats, maintains favorable water temperature for fish through shading, filters runoff, and provides nutrients. Riparian vegetation creates meanders, increases habitat complexity, and can protect against scour during severe storm events. Riparian habitats link upland and aquatic habitats. Upland habitats have a critical role in watershed function and affect riparian and aquatic habitats, particularly in drier, low -elevation sites. The riparian areas along the banks of the Cedar River in the project area are dominated by invasive species, as discussed in Section 2.2, above. The primary ecological functions provided by riparian vegetation along the lower Cedar River within 100 feet of the proposed project site include: • Nesting and foraging habitat for birds and small mammals, • Input of terrestrial insects from overhanging vegetation, • Input of allochthonous organic matter (via leaf fall), • Some erosion control, and • Limited habitat complexity. The lower Cedar River is a manmade channel created in 1912 when the river was diverted as a tributary to the former Black River directly to Lake Washington. The lower Cedar River is channelized and substantially altered, so that there is very limited riparian area that to provide all of the potential ecological functions of an unaltered habitat. Riparian vegetation provides very little, if any, shading to the lower Cedar River because of the dominance of small shrubs and the lack of large trees. Both banks of the river in the project area are bulkheaded, so there is no potential for the creation of meanders or off -channel habitat. Because of extensive development along both banks of the river in AMEC Project No. Ly11160130 paboeing rentonly11160130 renton north bridgelreportslstream&habdatVstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712,docx "rd& -dowl the project area (Boeing to the east and the Renton Municipal Airport to the west), there is little, if any, transition between riparian and upland habitats. Similarly, riparian vegetation along the shoreline of Lake Washington east and west of the project vicinity is dominated by invasive plant species, so that ecological functions are very limited, as described above. Large woody debris deposited in the delta formed by the Cedar River (Appendix A, Photo 11) may provide some nursery and refugia habitat for juvenile salmonids; however, water depths in the nearshore area of the project site are very shallow (54 feet), likely resulting in warming of nearshore areas by solar radiation. 2.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE This section addresses fish and wildlife species that may use the project vicinity. 2.4.1 Mammals No mammals or signs of mammal use were observed during the site visits. Given the level of development in the project area, it is likely that only small mammals such as squirrels, mice, rats, voles, moles, raccoons, opossums, muskrats, and river otters use the riparian areas along the Cedar River and the Lake Washington shoreline within 100 feet of the project area. Richter and Azous (1997), conducting small -mammal surveys in a wetland along the lower Cedar River, reported 13 species of mammals (see table below). These, as well as other small mammals common to the Puget lowlands, may occur in the project vicinity. SMALL -MAMMALS REPORTED TO OCCUR ALONG THE LOWER CEDAR RIVER' Note(s) 1. Source: Richter and Azous, 1997. 2.4.2 Birds Several bird species were observed during the site visit, including American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) American robin (Turdus migratorius), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), domestic -wild goose hybrids, mallard duck (Arras platyrhynchus), AMSC 8 Project No. LY 11160130 p:fteing renton\4y11160130 renton north bridge\reports\stream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx Species (Common Name) Creeping vole Montane shrew Deer mouse Shrew -mole Ermine Southern red -backed vole Forest deer mouse Townsend's chipmunk Long-tailed vole Trowbridge's shrew Marsh shrew Vagrant shrew Masked shrew Note(s) 1. Source: Richter and Azous, 1997. 2.4.2 Birds Several bird species were observed during the site visit, including American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) American robin (Turdus migratorius), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), domestic -wild goose hybrids, mallard duck (Arras platyrhynchus), AMSC 8 Project No. LY 11160130 p:fteing renton\4y11160130 renton north bridge\reports\stream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx ameO common merganser (Mergus merganser), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Richter and Azous (1997) conducted bird surveys in a wetland of the lower Cedar River between late May and mid-June in 1988, 1989, 1991 1992, and 1995 to determine distribution and relative abundance. They reported 58 species of birds (see table below). It is likely that these, as well as other species of birds common to the Puget lowlands, nest or forage in the project vicinity. BIRDS REPORTED TO OCCUR ALONG THE LOWER CEDAR' Note(s) 1. Source: Richter and Azous, 1997. AMEC ProjeO No. Ly11160130 9 p:lboeing rentonl y11160130 renton north bridge\reportslstream&habitat�streamsludy_habitatdatarpt_121712,docx Species Common Name American crow Northern pygmy owl American goldfinch Orange -crowned warbler American robin Pine siskin Black -capped chickadee Pacific -slope flycatcher Belted kingfisher Purple finch Bewick's wren Red -breasted nuthatch Brown -headed cow bird Red -breasted sapsucker Black -headed grosbeak Red crossbill Brewer's blackbird Red -eyed vireo Brown creeper Rufous -sided towhee Black -throated gray warbler Ruffed grouse Bushtit Ruby -crowned kinglet Chestnut -backed chickadee Red -winged blackbird Cedar waxwing Sora Cooper's hawk Song sparrow Common raven Sharp -shinned hawk Common yellow throat Steller's jay Dark -eyed junco Swainson's thrush Downy woodpecker Townsend's warbler European starling Vaux's swift Evening rosbeak Violet -green swallow Fox sparrow Virginia rail Great blue heron Warbling vireo Golden -crowned kinglet Western tanager Ha4y woodpecker Willow flycatcher Hermit thrush Wilson's warbler Marsh wren Winter wren Mac illivra 's warbler Wood duck Northern flicker Yellow warbler Note(s) 1. Source: Richter and Azous, 1997. AMEC ProjeO No. Ly11160130 9 p:lboeing rentonl y11160130 renton north bridge\reportslstream&habitat�streamsludy_habitatdatarpt_121712,docx ameO 2.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles No amphibians or reptiles were observed during the site visit; however, it is likely that amphibian (e.g., Anurans) and reptile species (e.g., turtles) found in the Lake Washington basin may use the areas within the site vicinity. Richter and Azous (1997) reported the occurrence of six amphibian species in the lower Cedar River: • Ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii), • Long -toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylus), • Northwestern salamander (A. gracile), • Pacific tree frog (Pseudoacris regilla), • Red -legged frog (Rana aurora), and • Western red -backed salamander (Plethodon vehiculum). No information was located listing reptile species occurring in the lower Cedar River in the project vicinity; however, reptiles listed for King County (King County, 2008) that could occur in the project area include: • Common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), • Northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea), • Northwestern garter snake (T. ordinoides), • Painted turtle (Chrysemys picfa), • Rubber boa (Charina bottae), • Slider (Trachemys scripta), • Western fence lizard (5celoporus occidentalis), and • Western terrestrial garter snake (T. elegans). 2.4.4 Fish No fish were observed during the site visit. The Lake Washington system, including the project area, hosts many fish species, including five salmonid species: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), sockeyelkokanee salmon (O. nerka), coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki clark►), and steelhead/rainbow trout (O. mykiss). Anadromous forms of each of these species are present, so individuals are present in the lake both as adults during migrations to AMEC 10 Project No. LY 11160130 p lboeing renton1 y111601 M renton north bridgelreportslstream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx ameO spawning grounds and as juveniles. Sockeye are known to spawn along some beaches of the lake while there are unconfirmed reports of Chinook spawning in littoral areas of the lake (Kerwin, 2001). All of these species occur in the project area seasonally. Nonanadromous forms of winter steelhead (rainbow trout), sockeye (kokanee), and cutthroat trout also occur in the lake. Resident rainbow trout spend their entire life in Lake Washington. The resident rainbow trout population was sustained with hatchery plants because they rarely successfully reproduce in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8; however, releases of hatchery rainbow trout have been all but eliminated. Nonanadromous coastal cutthroat trout also occur in Lake Washington and are much more abundant than the anadromous form. Kokanee salmon is the freshwater, resident form of O. nerka. Some progeny from the parents of anadromous sockeye may also remain in Lake Washington for all or a portion of their lives (resident/anadromous sockeye) (Kerwin, 2001). The largest single population of adfluvial bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in western Washington is found above Cedar Falls in the upper Cedar River watershed. It is believed that a small number of bull trout pass through the reservoir and downstream hydroelectric facilities to the river reaches below Cedar Falls. However, it is apparently not sufficient to support the establishment of bull trout populations under the current ecological conditions (Corps, 2002). Native char, presumably bull trout, have been observed in the fish ladder viewing pool at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks as recently as 1997, while isolated reports of native char being caught in or around Lake Washington occur every few years. A large juvenile char, again, presumably a bull trout (-250 millimeter [mm], 3 year old), was caught in the lower Cedar River in July 1998. An adult char was also caught in the lower Cedar River in April of 1993 (Corps, 2002). Based on this information, occurrence of bull trout in the project area is expected to be extremely limited, if they occur at all. Species endemic to the Lake Washington system include the northern pike minnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), sculpins (Coitus spp.), and longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) (Weitkamp et al., 2000; Wydoski and Whitney, 2003). Twenty-four non-native fish species (see table below) have been identified in Lake Washington. A number of these species are now believed to be no longer present in the system. Some of these species are known to prey on juvenile salmon (e.g., smallmouth bass) while others are potential competitors with juvenile salmonids for food (Kerwin, 2001). AMEC Project No. Ly11160130 11 p_lboeing rentoMy11160130 renton north bridgelreportslstream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx ameO NON-NATIVE FISH SPECIES INTRODUCED INTO THE LAKE WASHINGTONILAKE UNION SYSTEM' Common Name Scientific Name Status American shad Alosa sa idissima Uncommon strays Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Can exceed 1,000 per year Black bullhead Ictalurus metas Extinct Black crappie Pomoxis ni romaculatus Common Blue ill Le omis macrocheilus Common Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis Rarely caught Brown bullhead tctalurus nebulosus Rare, may be extinct Brown trout Salmo trutta No observed reproduction Channel catfish tctalurus punctatus Rarely caught Chen salmon Oncorh nchus mason Extinct Common carp Cyprinus car to Abundant Fathead minnow Pime hales notatus Unknown Goldfish Carassius auratus Intermittent Grass carp Cteno haren odors idella Triploids only Lake trout Salvelinus nama tush Extinct Lake whitefish Core onus clu eaformis Extinct Largemouth bass Micro terus salmoides Common Pumpkinseed sunfish Le omis gibbosus Abundant Smallmouth bass Micro teras dolomieui Common Tench Tinca tinca Abundant Warmouth Le omis ulosus No observed reproduction Weather loath Mis urnus an itlicaudatus No observed reproduction White crappie Pomoxis annularis Uncommon Yellow perch Perca flavescens Abundant Note(s) 1. Source: Kerwin, 2001. 2.5 MEASURES TO PROTECT TREES AND VEGETATION The proposed project will not occur in areas with existing trees or riparian vegetation, although once construction is complete, a proposed shoreline restoration plan will be implemented to plant native vegetation along both banks that were previously occupied by bridge aprons. No direct or indirect impacts to riparian vegetation or trees are expected from the proposed action; therefore, no measures to protect vegetation or trees have been incorporated into the proposed work plan. 2.6 No NET Loss OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION The proposed North Bridge Replacement Project will result in no net loss of ecological function. As described in Section 4.0 above, the immediate project site provides limited ecological function due to AMEC 12 Project No. LY11 160130 paboeing rentoMy14160130 renton north bridge\reports\stream&habitatlstreamstutly_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx ameO low habitat diversity and complexity. Under the proposed project plan, ecological function in the immediate project area is expected to improve because of the following project elements: • Removal of a total of approximately 4,000 square feet of overwater structure from the nearshore area along each bank of the river; • Removal of a total of timber bulkheads from the two banks; • Replacement of 196 timber, steel, and concrete piles and piers with just 4 concrete bridge piers below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM); • Restoration of a total of approximately 8,500 square feet of shoreline (260 linear feet) along both banks, including a total 2,529 square feet of native riparian vegetation (Appendix B). The native vegetation to be planted will be limited to low -growing native shrubs and groundcover, as required by the Renton Municipal Airport, the owner of the shoreline areas to be restored. Native, low -growing shrubs and groundcover must be used in the restoration areas to avoid interference with the transport of Boeing aircraft over the replacement bridge and to avoid attracting avian wildlife that may pose a threat to aircraft using the Renton Municipal Airport. The proposed project is expected to result in a net gain in ecological function in the immediate project area through the reduction in overwater coverage by approximately 4,000 square feet and shoreline restoration of the shoreline areas previously covered by the bridge aprons. AMEC Project No. Ly11160130 13 p:lboeing rentoOy11160130 renton north bridgelreporislstream&habitatlstreemstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx ameO (This page intentionally left blank) AMEC 14 Project No. LY 11160130 paboeing rentonUy11160130 renton north bddgelmports%stream&habftatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712_docx amec'9 3.0 HABITAT DATA REPORT The habitat data report, as required by the City of Renton and described in RMC 4-8-120C, will provide pertinent habitat and ecological function information for the immediate project site where the proposed North Bridge Replacement project is to occur. Subsequent sections of the report will discuss following: • The layers, diversity and variety of habitat found on the site; • The location of any migration or movement corridors; • The species typically associated with the cover types, including an identification of any critical wildlife species that might be expected to be found; • Identification of any areas that have been previously disturbed or degraded by human activity or natural processes; • A summary of existing habitat functions and values; and • A summary of proposed habitat alterations and impacts and proposed habitat management program. Much of the information provided in this report is also provided in Appendices B and C (Draft BA and Revised Project Description). Supporting figures and tables are also provided in Appendix B and will be referred to when necessary (e.g., Appendix B, Figure 1). 3.1 HABITAT DIVERSITY The lower Cedar River downstream of 1-405 (approximately 1.6 miles) is an artificial channel created early in the 20th century and is completely constrained between levees and revetments. This reach was regularly dredged to prevent flooding from the time of its completion in 1912 until the mid-1970s. Portions of the reach were again dredged in 1999 for the first time since the mid-1970s. In -stream habitat in the reach is almost entirely glide, with little habitat complexity. Land uses prevent floodplain connectivity and have eliminated the potential for re -connection with a natural floodplain or the establishment of a riparian corridor. Channelization and existing land uses also prevent significant large woody debris (LWD) from accumulating in the channel. The reach is also very low -gradient and depositional, and the substrates have high levels of fine sediments (Corps, 2004; Parametrix and Adolfson, 2010). Large woody debris has been deposited in Lake Washington at the mouth of the Cedar River (Appendix A, Photos 10 and 11). A shallow delta has developed at the mouth of the Cedar River, consisting of fine sediments. The shoreline along the proposed project site consists of developed property belonging to Boeing and the City of Renton. The shorelines beneath the existing bridge and bridge aprons consist of two treated -timber bulkheads on each shore, as well as the piles supporting the bridge and bridge aprons (Appendix B, Figures 2 and 3). The outer bulkheads are a continuation of the bulkheads supporting AMSC Project No. Ly11160130 15 p:vboeing rentonklyl1160130 renton north bddgekreports\stream&habital5streamstudy_habitatdatarpt_12n12_docx ameO the shorelines along the Cedar River south of the bridge, while the inner bulkheads are located shoreward of the first bulkheads where the bridge and bridge aprons transition to the land above the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The shoreline between the two bulkheads consists of fine sediments and gradually slopes from the inner bulkhead to the outer bulkhead, where the shoreline gradient increases sharply. There is no riparian vegetation along the shorelines beneath the bridge and bridge aprons where the new bridge will be constructed. With realignment of the Cedar River into Lake Washington in 1912, the zone of sediment deposition was localized through the City of Renton (Perkins, 1994). The vast majority, if not all, of the non- suspendable sediment load is now deposited along this reach because Lake Washington lies at the river's mouth. With the path of the river fixed by armored banks, progressive infilling of the channel resulted. Sediment is continually deposited in the downstream 2 miles of the river and in an enlarging delta in Lake Washington. During a site visit on April 18, 2012, a surrey of the project site included surveying the current elevation of the river bottom along the south side of the bridge between the two aprons. Elevation measurements were taken at 11 locations along bridge deck. From this information, it was possible to calculate water depth at each of the survey locations. Water depths ranged from 5.50 feet to 7.86 feet, with a mean depth of 6.70 feet. Aquatic habitat within the lower Cedar River at the proposed project site consists of a low relief benthic habitat composed of silty sand with some gravel, with no boulders, cobbles, or large woody debris. Channelization of the lower Cedar River has eliminated meanders within the lower river, such that the lower 1.6 miles of river consists of a uniform glide habitat with a nearly complete absence of riffles and pools. Habitat diversity at the project site is extremely limited. 3.2 MIGRATION CORRIDORS A query of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) database (http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/) (Appendix B, Appendix A) identified five salmonid species that use the lower Cedar River as a migration corridor: • Chinook salmon; • Coho salmon; • Sockeye salmon; • Steelhead and rainbow trout; and • Coastal cutthroat trout. AMEC 16 Project No. LY11160130 paOoeing rentonlly11160130 renton north bridge%reports\stream&habitat\streamstudy_hahitatdatarpt_121712.docx A 4 L� Two of the above species, Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead trout, are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), a member of the char family, is also found in the Cedar River and is also listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Population status information and extent of use of this area is currently unknown. Adult and subadult size individuals have been observed infrequently in the lower Cedar River (below Cedar Falls), Lake Washington, and at the Locks. No spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been observed and no distinct spawning populations are Known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse (not accessible to bull trout within Lake Washington) (NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS, 2008). It is unlikely that bull trout use the Cedar River as a migratory corridor. 3.3 SPECIES AND COVER TYPES The complete absence of riparian vegetation and the highly developed shorelines along both banks of the lower Cedar River at the proposed project site (Appendix A, Photos 12 through 14) severely limit habitat availability and use by multiple plant and animal species. Site visits in August 2009, April 2012, and August 2012 did not identify any plant or animal species in the immediate project vicinity. Only American crow, American robin, European starling, Canada goose, domestic -wild goose hybrids, mallard duck, common merganser, and great blue heron were observed during the August 2009 site visit. Typical plant and animal assemblages and associations that would be expected along the riparian corridor of the Cedar River are, for the most part, absent at the project site. A query of the Washington Department of Natural Resources' Natural Heritage Program online database (http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchSciencelHowTo/ConservationRestoration/Pages/ amp_nh_data_order.aspx) did not identify any plant or animals species of special concern at the proposed project site. Critical wildlife species occurring at the project site include those salmonids identified in Section 3.2 above. 3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF DISTURBED AREAS The entire project area is highly developed and disturbed. As stated in Section 1.0 above, the lower 1.6 miles of the Cedar River is an artificially -created channel with extensive development along both banks. AMEC Project No. Ly11160130 17 paboeing renton1 y11160130 renton north bridge\reports)stream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx amec19 3.5 EXISTING HABITAT VALUES AND FUNCTIONS The proposed project site has very limited habitat value and is low functioning. A combination of two habitat assessment methods was used to provide a qualitative assessment of the existing habitat values and functions. One of these was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers (Barbour et al., 1999) and the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS's) Stream Inventory Handbook: Levels I and It (2010). Both methods incorporate the use of physicochemical and biological parameters to assess habitat value and functionality. The EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols incorporates both benthic invertebrate and fish assemblages' data in evaluating habitat value and function. For the purposes of this project, neither benthic invertebrate nor fish assemblage data were collected as part of the evaluation process due to the necessity of applying for and receiving the necessary permits to gather such data. The habitat assessment is based on physicochemical conditions observed at the project site: • Temperature; • Water quality; • Reach sinuosity; • Vegetative conditions of the stream banks and the riparian zone; and • Condition of the floodplain (e.g_, accessibility from the bank, overflow, and size). Each of the above parameters is discussed below. 3.5.1 Temperature Mean monthly temperatures for the lower Cedar River in Renton are discussed in Section 5.2.1 of the Draft BA (Appendix B). The warmest water temperatures occur during the months of July, August, and September; however, even the highest mean monthly temperatures are compliant with Washington State aquatic life temperature criteria (see table below). DIFFERENT AQUATIC LIFE USES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED NUMERIC CRITERIA' Beneficial Use Temperature2 (°C) Char Spawning and Rearing 12 Core Summer Salmonid Habitat 16 Salmonid Spawning, Rearing, and Migration 17.5 Salmonid Rearing and Migration only 17.5 Note(s) 1. Source: Ecology, 2012. 2. Based on the 7 -day average of the daily maximum temperatures. AMEC 18 Project No. LY 11160130 paboeing rentonVy11160130 renton north bridge%reportslstream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.doex 3.5.2 Water Quality No site-specific water quality data were found for the proposed project site; however, water quality monitoring has been conducted in south Lake Washington by Ecology. Washington State's Water Quality Assessment [303(d) & 305(b) Report) (Ecology, 2008) identified exceedances of water quality standards for ammonia and fecal coliforms in south Lake Washington, while the Cedar River has exceedances for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliforms. No chemical exceedances of state water quality criteria were identified for the lower Cedar River at the project site. 3.5.3 Reach Sinuosity As discussed above, the lower 1.6 miles of the Cedar River are channelized and much of the shoreline on both banks is restrained by bulkheads. There is no sinuosity within the entire 1.6 miles of the lower Cedar River. Stream sinuosity can provide increased habitat complexity through the creation of pools, riffles, and glides, as well as the creation of off -channel habitat. 3.5.4 Vegetative Conditions As described previously, riparian vegetation is completely lacking at the proposed project site and is relatively limited along the entire lower Cedar River. As such, habitat diversity and functionality at the project site is severely limited. 3.5.5 Floodplain Condition The lower Cedar River is an artificially -created channel confined by levees and bulkheads on each bank. Except in extreme discharge conditions, the lower Cedar River has very little connectivity with its floodplain and virtually no potential for formation of off -channel habitat within the floodplain. Because of the low gradient of the lower Cedar River, it functions as a depositional zone. The City of Renton and the Army Corps of Engineers periodically dredge the lower Cedar River for flood -control purposes. 3.5.6 Habitat Values and Functions at the Proposed Project Site A qualitative assessment of the proposed project site indicates that it provides very low habitat value and function due primarily to the absence of riparian vegetation and habitat complexity. 3.5.7 Habitat Alterations and Impacts and Proposed Habitat Management Program Appendix B (Draft BA) provides a detailed discussion of potential habitat alterations and impacts associated with the proposed North Bridge Replacement Project. The habitat alterations and impacts discussed in the draft biological assessment are presented in the context of their impacts on listed salmonid species using the lower Cedar River and adjacent areas. Section 5.0 (Environmental Baseline) of Appendix B discusses the environmental baseline at the project and potential effects of AMEC Project No. Ly11160130 19 p:Nboeing rentoMy11160130 renton north J)6dgeVeportsWream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx ameO the proposed project on the existing baseline. Section 6.0 (Effects of the Action on Listed Species and Their Critical Habitats) of Appendix B discusses potential project effects on listed salmonid species using the lower Cedar River and adjacent areas. During active construction, there will be some short-term environmental impacts: • Localized increase in turbidity during pile removal and driving; • Increase in underwater noise; and • Disruption of benthic habitat. These temporary impacts are discussed in detail in Sections 4.0 and 6.0 of Appendix B. Generally, the proposed project is expected to have a net beneficial effect on the habitat of the project area by: • Reducing overwater coverage; • Reducing the number of in -water structures (i.e., piles and bridge pier piles); • Replacing bulkheads on each bank and regarding each bank to a more natural gradient; and • Restoring shorelines on each bank with native vegetation. A maintenance and monitoring plan for the shoreline restoration (Appendix B, Appendix C) will be implemented to insure the success of the proposed shoreline restoration so that it will eventually become self sustaining. The intent of the shoreline restoration plan is to improve nearshore habitat value and functionality for fish and terrestrial wildlife. AMSC 20 Project No. LY11160130 p:\boeing rentoMly11160130 renton north bddgelreportslstream&habitatlstreamstudy_habitatdatarpt_121712.docx 4.0 REFERENCES Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.C. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers. U.S_ Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 841-B-99-002, Washington, D.C. Corps (U.S_ Army Corps of Engineers). 2002_ Montlake Cut Slope Stabilization Project Environmental Assessment Biological Evaluation — Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, Washington. Corps, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Corps. 2004. Cedar River at Renton Flood Damage Reduction Operation and Maintenance Manual — Cedar River Section 205 (Renton, Washington). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Supplemental Aquatic Life Criteria Information. Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, http.//www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ swgs/AquaticLifeTempSupp.htmWtimeframes (accessed December 15, 2012). Ecology. 2008. Washington State's 2008 Water Quality Assessment [303(d) & 305(b) Report). Ecology, Olympia, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.htmi (accessed April 15, 2012). Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission, Olympia. King County. 2008. King County Biodiversity Report 2008. King County, Seattle, Washington, http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/biodiversity/king-county- biodiversity-report.aspx (accessed September 1, 2009). NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. The 1-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2) Lower Cedar River, Cedar River Sixth Field HUC: 171100120106, 171100120302, King County, Washington. NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS, Lacey, Washington, https:l/pets.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pets-pub/sxn7.pcts_ upload. down 1oad?p_file=F13441/200704219_405_trip_03-03-2008.pdf (accessed May 19, 2012), Parametrix and Adolfson (Adolfson Associates, Inc.). 2010. City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Update Restoration Plan. Prepared for the City of Renton, Washington, http://rentonwa.gov/ uploadedFiles/ Business/EDNSP/planning/4.3%20Final%20Restoration%20PIan%20Qune- 10).pdf?n=2474 (accessed April 13, 2012). Perkins, S_J. 1994. The shrinking Cedar River — Channel changes following flow regime regulation and bank armoring, in Proceedings of Effects of Human -Induced Changes on Hydrologic Systems. American Water Resources Association 1994 Annual Summer Symposium, p. 649- 658. AMEC Project No. Ly11160130 21 p:Woeing rentonlly11160130 renton north bridge/reports)stream&habitatlstreamstudy_habtatdatarpt_121712.docx ameO Richter, K.O., and Azous, A.L. 1997. Amphibian distribution, abundance, and habitat use, in Azous, A.L., and Horner, R.R. (eds.), Wetlands and Urbanization — Implications for the Future, final report. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, King County Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington, and University of Washington, Seattle, http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/ libra ry/archive-documents/wlr/wetlands-urbanization- repo rt/wet-rept.pdf (accessed September 1, 2009). USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2010, Stream Inventory Handbook: Levels I and II (Version 2.10). USFS, Pacific Northwest Region, Region 6, Portland, OR. Weitkamp, D.E., Ruggerone, G.T., Sacha, L., Howell, J., and Bachen, B_ 2000. Factors Affecting Chinook Populations — Background Report. City of Seattle, Seattle, Washington. Wydoski, R.S., and Whitney, R.R. 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, and University of Washington Press, Seattle. AMEC 22 Project No. LY11160130 _ p:fteing rentoMy11160130 renton north bridgelreportslstream&habitat�streamstudy_habitatdatorpt_121712.docx ameO SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101 (The Boeing Company) Renton, Washington i .r e %volt Photo 1 Aerial view of bridge at mouth of Cedar River Photo 2 Looking north toward bridge at mouth of Cedar River (photo taken from east bank) p:Zoeing renlonllyl1160130 renlon north hridgLVreports\stream&habitatlappendix_alsitephotos_121712.docx AMEC A-1 ameO SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101 (The Boeing Company) Renton, Washington AMEC A-2 paboeing renlonVyl 1160130 renton north bridgelreportslstream&habitatlappendix_alsitephotos_121712.docx ameO SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Corps Ref. No. NWS -20'11-1101 (The Boeing Company) Renton, Washington Photo 5 Looking at west bank of Cedar River from bridge deck (Renton Municipal Airport in background) Photo 6 Looking at east bank of Cedar River from bridge deck (note timber bulkhead) p:%hoeing ren tonlyl1160130 renton north bridgelreporsistream&habiiatlappen dix_a%itepholos_121712,docx AMSC A-3 ameO Photo 7 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101 (The Boeing Company) Renton, Washington Cedar River Trail Park located on east bank of Cedar River south of project site Photo 8 Lake Washington shoreline west of bridge apron (Renton Municipal Airport runway at center left) AMEC A-4 p:lboeing rentcMy11160130 renton north b6dgelreportslstream&habktatlappendix_a%itephotos_121712.docx ameO SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101 (The Boeing Company) Renton, Washington Photo 9 Lake Washington shoreline west of bridge apron 4 Photo 10 Lake Washington shoreline east of bridge apron p'%boeing rentonVy11160130 rentcn north bndgelreportslsiream8.habRatWppendix_a\sitephotos_121712.docx AMEC A-5 ameO SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101 (The Boeing Company) Renton, Washington Photo 11 Large woody debris in Lake Washington at mouth of Cedar River (bridge at center left) Photo 12 Bulkhead and shoreline on east bank beneath bridge AMEC A-6 pAboeing rentonVy11160130 renton north bridgekeportslstream&habitatlappendix_alsitephotos_121712.docx amecw19 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101 (The Boeing Company) Renton, Washington i r - Photo 13 Shoreline beneath bridge on east bank of lower Cedar River �Y 4. ` Photo 14 Shoreline beneath bridge on west bank of lower Cedar River AMEC p:iboeing rentonly11160130 renton north bndgelreports\stream&habitatlappendix_alsitephotos_121712.docx A-7 ameO SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101 (The Boeing Company) Renton, Washington (This page intentionally left blank) AMEC A-8 pAboeing renlonVyl 1160130 renton north bndgelreportslstream&habitattiappendix_al5ilepholos_121712.docx 0 AN 170- Wo La DRAFT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Prepared for: The Boeing Company Renton, Washington Prepared by: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 3500 1881h Street SW, Suite 601 Lynnwood, Washington 98037-4763 (425) 921-40000 June 2012 Project No. LY11160130 TABLE OF CONTENTS ameO Page ABBREVIATIONSAND ACRONYMS ......................... ........................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................ 3 2.1 PROJECT AREA................................................................................................1.. 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION......................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Partial Demolition of Apron Deck and Apron Piles ............................................. 4 2.2.2 Temporary Trestle Construction........................................................................ 5 2.2.3 Existing Bridge Demolition................................................................................. 6 2.2.4 New Bridge Installation...................................................................................... 6 2.2.5 Temporary Trestle Removal............................................................................... 7 2.2.6 Shoreline Regrading and Restoration................................................................ 8 2.3 CONSTRUCTION METHODS............................................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Bridge Apron Removal and Temporary Trestle Construction ............................ 8 2.3.2 Existing Bridge Demolition............................................................................... 10 2.3.3 Replacement Bridge Construction................................................................... 11 2.3.4 Dismantling Temporary Trestle........................................................................ 12 2.3.5 Shoreline Regrading and Restoration.............................................................. 12 2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE........................................................................................... 13 2.5 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................. 13 3.0 ACTION AREA................................................................................................. ........... 15 4.0 LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT......................................................................... 19 4.1 LIFE HISTORY STAGES OF LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE ACTION AREA ................ 19 4.1.1 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon......................................................................... 19 4.1.2 Puget Sound Steelhead Trout.......................................................................... 20 4.1.3 Coastal/Puget Sound Buil Trout....................................................................... 21 4.2 CRITICAL HABITAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA................................................................. 22 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE................................................................................ ... 25 5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF EKISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THEACTION AREA......................................................................................................... 25 5.2 WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER.............................................................................. 25 5.2.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 25 5.2.2 Effects of the Action......................................................................................... 26 5.3 SHORELINE, SEDIMENT, SUBSTRATE, BATHYMETRY, AND HABITAT DIVERSITY ................. 26 5.3.1 Shoreline..........................................................................................................27 5.3.2 Sediment, Substrate, and Bathymetry............................................................. 28 5.3.3 Habitat Diversity.........................................................................--....._............ 29 5.3.4 Effects of the Action......................................................................................... 29 5.4 ACCESS AND REFUGIA................................................................................................... 30 5.4.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 30 5.4.2 Effects of the Action......................................................................................... 31 5.5 FLOW AND CURRENT PATTERNS.................................................................................... 31 5.5.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 31 5.5.2 Effects of the Action......................................................................................... 31 AMEC Project No. LY11160130 i Boeing RentonlLY111601301norihbridgereplacementba_060612.docx amec19 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES Table 1 ESA -Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Action Area Table 2 Proposed Construction Methods, Timing, and Schedule Table 3 Proposed North Bridge Replacement Project Summary Table 4 Area of Benthic Habitat Temporarily Disturbed by Project Activities Table 5 Fish Injury and Behavioral Disturbance Thresholds for In -water Construction Activity Table 6 Summary of Effects Determinations for Listed Species and Their Critical Habitats in the Action Area FIGURES Figure 1 5.6 BENTHEG FAUNA.............................................................................................................31 Figure 2 Existing Conditions Plan View 5.6.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................31 Existing Conditions Cross Section Figure 4 5.6.2 Effects of the Action..........................................................................................32 Figure 5 6.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS .......35 Temporary Trestle Elevation Cross Section View 6.1 PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON..................................................................................35 6.1.1 Long -Term Direct Effects..................................................................................35 6.1.2 Long -Term Indirect Effects...............................................................................37 6.1.3 Short -Term Direct Effects.................................................................................38 6.1.4 Short -Term Indirect Effects...............................................................................42 6.1.5 Effects Determination.......................................................................................42 6.1.6 Effects on Critical Habitat.................................................................................44 6.2 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD TROUT.................................................................................45 6.3 COASTAL/PUGET SOUND BULL TROUT............................................................................45 6.3.1 Long -Term Direct Effects.................................................................................46 6.3.2 Long -Term Indirect Effects...............................................................................46 6.3.3 Short -Term Direct Effects.................................................................................46 6.3.4 Short -Term Indirect Effects...............................................................................47 6.3.5 Effects Determination.......................................................................................47 6.3.6 Effects on Critical.............................................................................................49 7.0 INTERRELATED/INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.................51 8.0 SUMMARY.........................................................................................................53 9.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................55 TABLES Table 1 ESA -Listed Species Potentially Occurring in the Action Area Table 2 Proposed Construction Methods, Timing, and Schedule Table 3 Proposed North Bridge Replacement Project Summary Table 4 Area of Benthic Habitat Temporarily Disturbed by Project Activities Table 5 Fish Injury and Behavioral Disturbance Thresholds for In -water Construction Activity Table 6 Summary of Effects Determinations for Listed Species and Their Critical Habitats in the Action Area FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Existing Conditions Plan View Figure 3 Existing Conditions Cross Section Figure 4 Partial Bridge Apron Removal, Stages 1 A& 1 B Figure 5 Temporary Trestle Construction Plan View, Stages 2A & 2B Figure 6 Temporary Trestle Elevation Cross Section View AMEC Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbddgereplacementba_060612.docx i L� TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Figure 7 Removal of Existing Bridge Plan View, Stages 3A & 3B Figure 8 Replacement Bridge Installation & Temporary Trestle Removal Plan View (Stages 4A, 4B, & 5) Figure 9 Replacement Bridge Cross Section Figure 10 Temporary Reaction -Pile Platform for Concrete Pier Pile Construction Figure 11 Vegetation Plan West Bank — Stage 6 Figure 12 Vegetation Plan East Bank — Stage 6 Figure 13 Vegetation Plan Section and Details (Stage 6) Figure 14 Bridge Replacement Action Area Figure 15 Run Timing of Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout In The Cedar River Watershed Figure 16 Cedar River Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout Escapement Figure 17 Underwater Sound Level Thresholds for Behavioral and Injury Effects in Fish Figure 18 Estimated Locations of Underwater Sound Level Thresholds for Behavioral and Injury Effects in Fish APPENDICES Appendix A Agencies Species Lists Appendix B Project Photographs Appendix C Shoreline Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring Plan Appendix D Species Life Histories Appendix E No -Rise and Scour Report Appendix F Essential Fish Habitat Assessment AMSC Project No, LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130Vnorthbridgereplacementba_060612.docz amecI9 (this page left blank intentionally) AMSC TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.doox ameO ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AMEC AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. BA biological assessment BMP best management practice °C degrees Celsius CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second Corps U -S. Army Corps of Engineers cy cubic yards dB decibels dBpeak instantaneous peak sound pressure level dBRMS decibels — root mean squared average dB SEL decibels — sound exposure level Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EFH essential fish habitat ESA Endangered Species Act OF degrees Fahrenheit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FMO foraging, migration, and overwintering ft feet g grams HUC Hydrologic Unit Code in inches L liters LWD large woody debris m meters mg milligrams mg/L milligrams per liter mm millimeter NOAA-Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service OHWM ordinary high water mark PCE principal constituent element PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council PHS I Priority Habitat and Species AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111601341northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (continued) re referenced to RMS root mean square SEL sound exposure level sf square feet SPL sound pressure level SPP steel -pipe pile TL transmission loss pPa micropascal ppa2 sec micropascals squared -seconds (units of sound exposure level) USGS U.S. Geological Survey USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WS DOT -------rWashington State Department of Transportation AMEC VI Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton1LY11160130�northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO DRAFT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that actions of federal agencies should be "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any (listed) species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species." Issuance of permits by federal agencies falls under this requirement. The Boeing Company (Boeing) is applying for a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to replace an existing bridge crossing the Cedar River at its confluence with Lake Washington (Figure 1). Because this work requires Sections 10 and 404 permits from the Corps, it qualifies as an action by a federal agency, and must comply with Section 7 of the ESA. Under ESA Section 7(c), the Corps is required to produce a biological assessment (BA) of the potential influence of its action (issuing the permit) on listed species or their critical habitat. To help the Corps evaluate the potential effects of the proposed action on listed species, Boeing has prepared this BA. To determine if listed species or their critical habitat are in the vicinity of the proposed action, AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC), consulted the websites of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-Fisheries), Northwest Region (2012) (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/upload/l-pgr-8-11.pdf), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2012) (http.-Ilwww.fws.gov/wafwo/speciesmap/KingCountyO3l2.pdf , and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) program (http://wdfw.wa.gov/mappingiphs/). Based on information from these websites (Appendix A), the following listed species may occur in the action area and are therefore addressed in this BA (Table 1): • Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), listed as threatened in 1999; • Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), listed as threatened in December 1999; and • Puget Sound steelhead trout (O. mykiss), listed as threatened in May 2007. The USFWS also indicated that the following listed animal and plant species occur in King County: • Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis); * Gray wolf (Canis lupus); • Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U_ a. horribilis); AMSC Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111601 301northbridgereplacementba_060612.dotx ameO Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus); • Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina); and • Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta). Although these species may occur in some areas of King County, it is extremely unlikely that any of these species use the action area. Therefore, the proposed action will have no effect on these species and they will not be addressed further in this assessment. AMEC Project No. LY11160430 Boeing RentonLY111601301nor1hbndgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO 2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This section provides a brief description of the project area and proposed action. 2.1 PROJECT AREA The proposed project area is located at the mouth of the Cedar River in Renton, King County, Washington along the shoreline .at the south end of Lake Washington at Township 23N, Range 5E, Section 7 (Figure 1). Photographs of the project area are provided in Appendix B. The bridge itself, as well as the surrounding property, is paved and developed. The Renton Municipal Airport is located immediately west of the project area. Boeing's Renton facility is used for the manufacture of commercial aircraft (Boeing 737). The bridge to be replaced provides access from the Boeing manufacturing site to the Renton Municipal Airport, which is used by Boeing to launch, test, and land airplanes. The surrounding topography is flat and highly developed. Properties on both sides of the proposed project site, as well as the project site, are paved and populated with buildings used for airplane manufacturing and storage, offices, and vehicle parking. Utilities to the project site and surrounding properties are provided by the City of Renton and include water, sewer, and electric. Both below - ground and above -ground infrastructure supports these services. The Cedar River Trail Park parallels the Cedar River adjacent to and south of the proposed project area. 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION The existing bridge, used by Boeing to transport aircraft to and from the Renton Airport, has reached its designed life span and needs replacement. Boeing will soon begin increasing production rates on the next generation 737s and the new 737 MAX. Recent studies revealed that the existing bridge may not be able to withstand a seismic event. These factors raised the concern to improve safety for people and airplanes using a critically essential bridge and to improve the bridge's ability to remain functional following a seismic or flood event_ Because the North Cedar River Bridge is the sole existing delivery point from the factory to the Renton Airport with no alternate route available, a bridge failure will significantly impede, if not completely shut down, 737 production and the P-8 anti-submarine military program. This risk of damage or loss also creates economic risk and employment impact concerns to the City of Renton, King County, and the State of Washington, as well as potential ecological risk to an important salmonid migratory corridor and foraging habitat. The existing bridge (Figures 2 and 3), originally constructed during World War II (Appendix B, Photo 12) and owned by the Boeing Company, spans the Cedar River at its confluence with Lake AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton1LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO Washington (Appendix B, Photo 1). The bridge is used by Boeing to transport aircraft, primarily 737s, from the Boeing manufacturing site to the Renton Municipal Airport, from which aircraft are launched and landed. The proposed action will consist of the following components: • Partial demolition of apron dick and apron piles (Stages 1A and 1 B) (Figure 4); • Construction of temporary trestle (Stages 2A and 2B) (Figures 5 and 6); • Removal of existing bridge center deck, remaining aprons, and piles (Stage 3A); removal of existing bridge approaches, remaining portions of bridge aprons, and piles (Stage 38) (Figure 7); • Install new bridge center piles (Stage 4A) and complete new bridge installation (Stage 4B) (Figures 8, 9, and 10); • Remove temporary trestle (Stage 5); and • Shoreline regrading and restoration along each bank of the Cedar River formerly covered by the bridge aprons (Stage 6) (Figures 11 through 13). Each of these project elements is described in detail below. 2.2.1 Partial Demolition of Apron Deck and Apron Piles A temporary trestle (Figures 5 and 6) will be constructed immediately south of the existing bridge to allow the demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the replacement bridge. The existing bridge is incapable of supporting the construction equipment necessary for its demolition and the construction of the replacement bridge, therefore the temporary trestle will be used as a construction platform. Prior to construction of the temporary trestle, portions of the existing bridge aprons on each shore of the river will be demolished (Figure 4) because the temporary trestle will be placed where the aprons currently exist. Each apron consists of a concrete deck supported by 8 concrete bridge piers on pier footing foundations and 60 12 -inch (in) steel H -piles, 48 of which are located below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The concrete bridge piers are square in cross section and about 2 feet (ft) on a side. A total of 16 concrete bridge piers, 24 pier foundations, and 96 12 -in steel H -piles will be removed from below the OHWM. The combined overwater coverage of the 2 aprons is 7,692 square feet (sf). About 5,040 sf of apron deck will be removed initially (Stage 1A), along with 60 of the 12 -in H -piles and 8 of the concrete pier piles (Figure 4) (Table 2). The remainder of the bridge aprons and supporting piles will be demolished at a later date under Stages 3A and 3B, as described in Section 2.2.3 below. AMEC Project No, LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgerepkacementba_060612.docx ameO Removal of the bridge aprons was not included in Boeing's original project plans and their removal is not essential to the construction of the new bridge. After meeting with the Muckleshoot Tribe and the regulatory and natural resources agencies, Boeing agreed to remove the bridge aprons as part of their restoration plan, which is described in Section 2.2.6. As such, bridge apron removal, while being described in this section, is considered part of Boeing's restoration plan. Two (2) treated -timber bulkheads are located beneath the existing bridge and bridge aprons on each shore of the Cedar River. One of the bulkheads is located near the river channel and is supported by the existing bridge piers and piles. The other bulkhead is located shoreward of the bulkhead described above and is supported by a bent of steel H -piles (Figure 2). Both of these bulkheads on each shore of the river will be removed during bridge apron and bridge demolition. The shorelines where the bridge aprons and underlying bulkheads will be removed and where the temporary trestle is to be located, will be regraded to an approximate 2,1 slope to support the temporary trestle. Stages 1A and 1B are each expected to require about 3 weeks to complete, for a total of 6 weeks (Table 2). 2.2.2 Temporary Trestle Construction The temporary trestle will be 32 -ft wide by 225 -ft long, of which approximately 215 ft will span the river between the OHWMs on each shore. The overwater coverage of the temporary trestle will be approximately 6,886 sf. The temporary trestle deck will be constructed of 12 -in x 12 -in wood timbers supported by 7 cap beams and 35 14 -in H -piles. The piles will first be vibrated into place and then proofed with an impact hammer. Twenty-five (25) of these piles will be placed below the OHWM. Noise attenuation will be achieved by inserting a sound -absorbing block between the hammer and the pile, as well as the use of a bubble curtain. The first stage of temporary trestle construction (Stage 2A) will consist of the installation of 2 pile bents above the OHWM (Bents 1 and 7, Figures 5 and 6). Each pile bent will consist of 5 14 -in steel H -piles (Table 2). The second stage of temporary trestle construction (Stage 28) will consist of the installation of 5 pile bents below the OHWM (Bents 2 through 6, Figures 5 and 6). Each bent will contain 5 14 -in steel H -piles (25 piles). Following each bent installation, the pile cap beams and wood decking will be placed (Figure 6) (Table 2). AMSC Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO Stage 2A is expected to require about 2 weeks to complete, while Stage 213 should be completed in about 6 weeks (Table 2). A layer of decking will be subsequently placed on the wood timbers to provide smoother travel for the aircraft and for containment during construction. 2.2.3 Existing Bridge Demolition The existing bridge (Figures 2 and 3) is approximately 250 -ft long, including approaches, and 32 -ft wide at the center span. The two remaining partial concrete aprons located on each bank are approximately 90 -ft long each and are being removed, as described above. For the overall project demolition scope, the bridge deck and aprons cover an area of about 17,570 sf, of which 14,670 sf is located between the OHWMs on each bank. The overwater coverage of just the bridge and approaches without the aprons is approximately 6,978 sf. The existing bridge, not including the aprons, is supported by 4 pile bents consisting of a total of 20 16 -in -diameter, concrete -filled steel -pipe piles (SPP), as well as 10 pile bents consisting of a total of 80 12 -in steel H -piles. Sixty-four (64) of the H -piles are located below the OHWM (Figure 4). Under Stage 3A of the bridge demolition process, the existing bridge center deck, the bridge approaches, and portions of the remaining bridge aprons will be removed. Additionally, 12 of the concrete -filled SPPs. 8 of the concrete bridge piers, and 16 concrete pier foundations will be removed (Figure 7) (Table 2). Under Stage 313, the bridge approaches and remaining portions of the bridge aprons will be removed, as well as 140 12 -in steel H -piles and 8 concrete -filled SPPs (Figure 7) (Table 2). Two (2) treated -timber bulkheads are located beneath the bridge on each bank (Figure 2) and will be removed along as part of the bridge demolition, as described above. Stage 3A of bridge demolition is expected to require 8 weeks to complete, 4 weeks of which will be in -water work. Stage 313 will require about 6 weeks to complete, all of which will be in -water work (Table 2). 2.2.4 New Bridge Installation Upon demolition of the existing, approaches and aprons, construction will begin on the replacement bridge (Figures 7 and 8), which will be a 3 -span steel -girder bridge 253 -ft long by 50 -ft wide, covering an area of 12,650 sf, of which 10,625 sf will span the river between the OHWM on each bank_ The bridge deck will be constructed of poured -in-place concrete. No uncured concrete will be allowed to come in contact with surface waters of the Cedar River or Lake Washington. Twelve (12) 4 -ft -diameter poured -in-place concrete bridge piers will be installed to support the new bridge, 6 of AMEG 6 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111 601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO which will be located below the OHWM (Figure 7). Red navigation lights will be placed on the new bridge. Under Stage 4A of the new bridge installation, 6 4 -ft -diameter concrete bridge piers will be placed in the Cedar River below the OHWM (Figures 8 and 9). Construction of the concrete bridge piers will require the construction of temporary reaction -pile platforms from which the pier piles can be constructed. The reaction -pile platform will consist of 8 16 -in -diameter SPPs or steel H -piles supporting a timber deck that is 25 ft on each side (625 so. The deck will have a circular opening in the middle through which a casing can be advanced into the substrate (Figure 10). Two temporary reaction -pile platforms will be constructed at a time, such that after one pier pile is completed, the contractor can immediately move to the next reaction -pile platform to begin construction of the next bridge pier. The abandoned reaction -pile platform will be dismantled and relocated to the next location_ Therefore, there will be two reaction -pile platforms in the river at a time. Under Stage 4B of the new bridge installation, there will be no in -water work. The remaining 6 pier - piles will be installed above the OHWM, pile caps constructed, and the bridge deck constructed (Figures 8 and 9). Stage 4A will require about 6 weeks to complete, all of which will be in -water work, while Stage 4B will require about 17 weeks to complete, none of which will require in -water work (Table 2). Boeing is developing a stormwater management plan for the new bridge that is consistent with King County's stormwater regulations, as well as those of the City of Renton. Additional shoreline work along the Lake Washington shoreline located on the north side of the east and west bridge approaches may be necessary to extend wing walls from the new bridge. If this construction occurs, existing sheet -pile bulkheads along the shoreline adjacent to the east and west bridge approaches (Figure 2) will be removed to allow placement of the wing walls. The shoreline in these areas will be regraded. Currently, there is insufficient information to describe in detail this possible component of the proposed bridge construction. Should Boeing proceed with this project component, Boeing will then provide an addendum to the BA with a detailed description of this project component. 2.2.5 Temporary Trestle Removal After completion of the replacement bridge, the temporary trestle will be completely removed, including all supporting piles (Stage 5). AMEG Project No, LY11160130 7 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbndgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO Removal of the temporary trestle is expected to require about 6 weeks to complete, 3 of which will be in -water work (Table 2). 2.2.6 Shoreline Regrading and Restoration Shoreline areas on each bank of the Cedar River will be regraded to an approximate slope of 2:1. The shoreline areas that were formerly covered by bridge aprons and located behind treated -timber bulkheads will be backfilled with amended soils, regraded to a more natural slope (e.g., 2:1 to 3:1), and planted with native vegetation. A conceptual shoreline restoration plan has been developed (Figures 11 through 13). A final restoration plan will be prepared when all aspects of the bridge design have been finalized. Native vegetation will be limited to low -growing shrubs and ground cover that will not attain heights of more than 10 ft to prevent interference with the transportation of airplanes across the new bridge. The shoreline restoration plan will need to be consistent with the City of Renton's floodplain regulations to ensure that the proposed plan does not result in an increase in the 100 -year flood elevation. A post -implementation maintenance and monitoring plan has also been prepared outlining maintenance and monitoring requirements to ensure the long-term success of the shoreline restoration (Appendix C)_ Removal of the bridge aprons is considered part of the restoration plan, as it was necessary to remove the bridge aprons to access the underlying shorelines. Removal of the bridge aprons will reduce overwater coverage by more than 4,000 sf. Shoreline regrading and restoration is expected to require about 8 weeks to complete, some portion of which may require in -water work (Table 2). Table 3 provides an overall project summary. 2.3 CONSTRUCTION METHODS Construction methods associated with the project elements are described below. Because construction activities employed in one project element may be the same as those used in other project elements, this section does not follow the same project staging format as used in Section 2.2 above, but combines some of these for ease of discussing construction methods_ 2.3.1 Bridge Apron Removal and Temporary Trestle Construction Portions of the existing bridge aprons will need to be removed prior to construction of the temporary trestle. The concrete deck of the bridge aprons will be removed using a wire saw. To the extent practicable, best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to minimize and avoid the possibility of construction debris entering the Cedar River. A heavy-duty mesh fabric will be suspended beneath the bridge aprons to retain demolition debris and keep it from entering the Cedar AMEC g Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY11160130lnorthbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO River. A floating debris boom will also be deployed in the Cedar River/Lake Washington to capture any floating debris that may enter the water. An effort will be made to retrieve any sunken demolition debris that enters the Cedar River. Demolition debris may be stockpiled on site and above the OHWM for later transport to an approved, off-site landfill. Steel H -piles and concrete -filled SPPs will be removed by cutting them off a minimum of 2 ft below the surveyed dredge depth for the Cedar River. Removal will be accomplished by using cofferdams (large -diameter steel casings). The piles will first be isolated from the surrounding water through use of cofferdams placed around the piles. It is anticipated that the cofferdams will be vibrated into the sediments. Ten (10) -ft -diameter cofferdams will be used to surround 2 to 3 H -piles at a time, while a 10 -ft -diameter cofferdam will be used to surround one concrete -filled SPP at a time (Table 2). Water within the cofferdams will be pumped out and the substrate within the cofferdams removed to a depth extending at least 2 ft below the surveyed bed elevation for dredging. Sediments removed from the cofferdams will not be allowed to re-enter the river during excavation. Instead, sediment and water will be pumped into onshore Baker tanks that have been rinsed prior to use. After pile removal, water and sediment will be pumped back into the cofferdam to allow for settling of any suspended sediments. After a day to several days, the cofferdam will be carefully removed to minimize increased turbidity during extraction. Information from the Corps indicates that there are no chemical constituents within project -area sediments that exceed sediment management standards so that chemical characterization of sediments would not be necessary (personal communication: R. Stuart, AMEC, with D. Fox, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Dredged Materials Management Office, May 16, 2012). Water will be removed from the cofferdam using a screened pump nozzle. The nozzle will be placed in a screened container that is about 1.5 to 2 ft deep with a screen on top. The pump nozzle and container will be placed into the cofferdam and the water pumped out. Placing the pump nozzle in the screened container prevents the entrainment of both fish and sediments in the water that is removed from the cofferdam. Water within the cofferdam will be returned directly to the Cedar River until the water depth within the cofferdams has reached the top of the screen container. At this point, a fisheries biologist will determine if any fish have been trapped within the cofferdam. Any fish within the cofferdam will be netted and returned unharmed to the Cedar River. After fish removal, the pump nozzle will be removed from the screened container and the remaining water pumped into a Baker tank. This will be done to minimize and avoid the possibility of returning water to the Cedar River that is high in suspended sediments, causing increased turbidity_ The water will remain in the Baker tanks to allow settling of any suspended sediments, after which the water will be returned to the cofferdam, as described above. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 9 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO The 16 concrete bridge pier foundations supporting the bridge aprons located in the dredge channel of the Cedar River are supported on timber piles that penetrate below the river substrate, precluding removed by vibratory extraction. These will also be removed using a cofferdam as described above. A 16 -ft -diameter cofferdam will be placed around a single concrete bridge pier foundation (Table 2). It is anticipated that 8 previously removed concrete piers for the construction of the existing bridge deck have their concrete foundations still remaining, and these will be removed as well_ Once the concrete pier piles are exposed, they will be removed using a combination of jack hammers, wire saws, and cutting torches. All demolition debris associated with removal of the concrete pier piles will be removed from the river. Demolition debris may be temporarily stockpiles on site, but above the OHWM for later off-site recycling or for off-site disposal in an approved landfill. Once portions of the bridge aprons are removed, construction of the temporary trestle will begin. The steel H -piles supporting the temporary trestle will be lifted into place using an onshore crawler crane, vibrated to refusal, and finally proofed with an impact hammer. Initial pile driving will be achieved from shore. Subsequent piles will be installed from the deck of the temporary trestle as it extends across the river. Noise attenuation will be achieved by inserting a sound -absorbing block between the hammer and the pile, as well as the use of a bubble curtain. It is anticipated that 2 days will be required to install one pile bent (5 piles) using a vibratory driver, after which the piles will be proofed using an impact hammer in a half-day period. The deck of the temporary trestle will then be advanced over those piles over 2 days. Construction will continue in this fashion until the temporary trestle spans the river. Steel girders will be placed on top of each pile bent using a shore -based crawler crane. The 12 -in x 12 -in timbers for the bridge deck will be lifted into place with an onshore crawler crane. Other heavy equipment may include a backhoe and various trucks. Various power and hand tools will be used by construction crews in building the temporary trestle. No heavy equipment will be placed in the water or OHWM. 2.3.2 Existing Bridge Demolition The existing bridge will be demolished from shore and from the temporary trestle in a manner similar to or identical to that described for demolition of the bridge aprons, with the exception that there are no concrete bridge piers to be removed although the foundations are anticipated for removal. Various pieces of heavy equipment, power tools, and hand tools will be used to demolish the bridge. The concrete bridge deck will be demolished using wire saws. Heavy-duty mesh fabric will be placed beneath the bridge to minimize and avoid demolition debris entering the river. AMEC 10 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY11160130lnorthoridgereplacementda_060612.docx ameO Once the bridge deck and aprons are removed, the supporting piles will be removed with the aid of cofferdams as described above under Section 2.3.1. Piles will be cut a minimum of 2 ft below the surveyed dredge depth for the Cedar River using various power tools and hand tools. Demolition debris will be loaded into dump trucks using front-end loaders and/or a crane for off-site removal to an approved landfill facility. Any debris entering the Cedar River will be removed from the river for off-site disposal. 2.3.3 Replacement Bridge Construction The replacement bridge will be supported by 12 poured -in-place concrete bridge piers, 6 of which will be located below the OHWM. The bridge piers will be constructed using a rotary drill rig to drill into the soil/river substrate through a cofferdam/ as follows: • Construction of temporary reaction -pile platforms for cofferdam and drilled -shaft casting installations; • Installation of a steel casing (i.e., cofferdam about 8 -ft in diameter) twisted into sediment about 20 ft. The cofferdam will be installed using a vibratory hammer (Appendix B, Photo 13); • Installation of 4 -ft -diameter steel casings using rotator/oscillator until design depth; • Upon reaching the load-bearing depth, the bottom of the shaft will be cleared of debris, a rebar cage installed, and then concrete placed from the bottom up using a tremie pipe; • Drilled shaft casings (4 -ft -diameter) will be removed by rotator/oscillator as the concrete is poured; and • The 8 -ft -diameter cofferdam casing will be removed after the drilled shaft installation is complete. The temporary reaction -pile platforms will be constructed using 8 16 -in diameter SPPs supporting a timber deck. The piles will be vibrated to a depth of about 80 ft below mudiine and the deck frame and deck placed on the piles. Once in place, a rotator/oscillator (Appendix B, Photo 13) will be placed on the reaction -pile platform and will be used for twisting the drilled -shaft casing (4 -ft -diameter) into the substrate. Upon completion of a pier pile, the temporary reaction -pile platform will be dismantled and moved to the next location. The excavated material from the shaft will be conveyed to the shore, loaded onto dump trucks by conveyor or front-end loader, and transported off site for either recycling or disposal in an accredited landfill. No excavated material will be allowed to enter the river. Raw, uncured concrete will not be allowed to come into contact with surface waters of the Cedar River. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 11 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612_docx ameO Once the concrete has cured and the bridge piers are capable of supporting the bridge deck, a crawler crane working from shore or from the temporary trestle will be used to place cross beams and 10 steel girders on the concrete bridge piers. Various power and hand tools will also be used in the bridge construction. The bridge deck will be poured -in-place concrete. As stated above, no uncured concrete will be allowed to enter the Cedar River_ 2.3.4 Dismantling Temporary Trestle Upon completion of the replacement bridge, the temporary trestle will be dismantled using a crawler crane to remove the trestle deck. Various power and hand tools will also be used to dismantle the temporary trestle. Heavy-duty mesh fabric will be placed beneath the temporary trestle to minimize and avoid demolition debris entering the Cedar River. A debris boom will also be placed downstream of the construction area to confine any floating debris that may enter the river. To the extent practicable, demolition debris entering the river will be retrieved and all debris generated by removal of the temporary trestle will be recycled off site. The steel H -piles supporting the temporary trestle will be removed using a cofferdam as described in Section 2.3.1 above. A 10 -ft -diameter cofferdam will be placed around 2 H -piles at a time. The piles will be cut off at least 2 ft below the surveyed bed elevation for dredging. Any demolition debris that cannot be recycled may be temporarily stockpiled on site above the OHWM for later removal to an accredited off-site landfill. 2.3.5 Shoreline Regrading and Restoration The shoreline where the replacement bridge is to be located will have to be regraded after removal of the bulkheads. Regarding will be accomplished from above the OHWM using excavators and other heavy equipment. Construction crews may have to work below the OHWM using some hand and power tools. The shoreline will be regraded to a slope of 2:1. A filter fabric fence will be placed along the shoreline to minimize and avoid erosion during shoreline regrading. To the extent possible, shoreline restoration on each bank of the Cedar River will be accomplished from above the OHWM using excavators to remove debris and to regrade the shoreline to a slope specified in the restoration plans. Top soil, soil amendments, and other material necessary for use in the shoreline restoration will be transported to the site using dump trucks or other heavy trucks. Plants used to revegetate the shoreline will be planted by hand. AMEC 12 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lnorthbridgereplacementba_060612,docx ameO A filter fabric fence will be placed along the shoreline in the shoreline restoration area to minimize and avoid erosion. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The proposed action will be phased to occur over 3 construction seasons (2013 through 2015). Although the in -water work window for the Cedar River is from July 1 to August 31, work may have to begin as early as June 1 and extend to August 15 to allow work to be completed within a 3 -season schedule. Table 2 lists the proposed construction schedule for each year during which construction is expected occur. 2.5 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES The following conservation measures and BMPs will be incorporated into the proposed action to minimize and avoid potential impacts to listed species and their critical habitat: • All in -water work (i.e., pile driving) will be conducted from the shoreline or the temporary trestle. No heavy equipment will be placed into or enter the Cedar River_ • Filter fabric fencing will be placed along the shoreline in areas where shoreline regrading will occur to avoid and minimize erosion. A temporary erosion control plan, approved by the City of Renton will be in place during the project. • To the extent possible, pile driving will be accomplished with a vibratory driver, although load- bearing piles will have to be proofed with an impact hammer; however, a shock -absorbing pad will be placed between the hammer and the pile and a bubble curtain will be employed when using an impact hammer. • Cofferdams will be used to isolate in -water work areas from the surrounding surface waters of the Cedar River to minimize and avoid water quality degradation. • To the extent possible, demolition and construction debris will not be allowed to enter the Cedar River. Heavy-duty mesh fabric will be placed beneath structures to be removed and a debris boom will be placed in the Cedar River just downstream of the work area to contain any debris that may enter the water, and any debris that does enter the water will be retrieved for off-site disposal. • All mechanized equipment will be maintained in proper operating condition and any necessary maintenance will be conducted away from the water. Equipment found to be leaking petroleum products or hydraulic fluid will be removed from the site for maintenance. • A spill kit will be kept on site to contain any potential petroleum spills that might occur in areas near or over the water. • Concrete for the replacement bridge piers will be poured inside of a cofferdam to prevent raw concrete from coming into contact with surface waters of the Cedar River or Lake Washington. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 13 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx amecI9 • To the extent practicable, construction debris will be recycled rather than being placed in a landfill. • A stormwater management plan will be implemented that is in compliance with both the City of Renton and King County stormwater regulations. • A fish screen will be placed on the pump nozzle used to remove water from the cofferdams to avoid the potential for entraining fish and sediments in the water that is removed from the cofferdams. • Any fish trapped in cofferdams will be removed by fisheries biologists and released unharmed to the Cedar River. Potential impacts to listed species and their critical habitats or to essential fish habitat (EFH), as discussed below, will be mitigated by the following: • Removal of the old bridge aprons to reduce overwater coverage by more than 4,000 sf; • Substantial reduction in the number of in -water structures within the Cedar River, thereby reducing possible predator habitat and exposing more benthic habitat for recolonization by benthic invertebrates, as discussed below; and • Restoration of shoreline on both banks of the Cedar River in the areas where the bridge aprons are to be removed, providing improved nearshore habitat for juvenile salmonids. AMSC 14 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130northbridgereplacementba_064612,docx ameO 3.0 ACTION AREA The Action Area is the defined geographic area that maybe directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action. For the purpose of establishing baseline conditions from which to evaluate potential effects of the project, the project activities as well as physical site conditions such as substrate composition and bathymetry were reviewed. An in -water Action Area can be defined based on project activities resulting in underwater noise and changes to water quality. No ambient (in -air) Action Area is defined because there are no listed terrestrial species known to occur in the area of King County where the project will occur. The in -water Action Area for the proposed project will be defined by two project elements, noise and water quality, with in -water noise being the primary element defining the in -water Action Area_ When establishing the in -water Action Area based on project -related noise, it is necessary to have an understanding of haw underwater sound is measured. Sound is usually measured in decibels (dB), which is a relative measure that must be accompanied by a reference scale_ When describing underwater sound pressure, the reference scale is usually 1 micropascal (pPa) and is expressed as "dB re: 1 pPa." In this document, underwater sound is referred to in units of dB re: 1 pPa and will be denoted as dB. Sound level is generally reported as decibels -peak (dBpeak) or decibels — root mean square (dBRMs). Peak levels are generally 10 to 15 dB higher than root mean square (RMS) levels. In this BA, dBpeak will be converted to dBRMs by subtracting 10 dB from the dBpeak value. Likewise, to convert from RMS to peak, it is necessary to add 20 dB to the RMS value (WSDOT, 2012). The primary sources of project -related underwater sound will be from the vibratory installation of cofferdams (steel casings), steel H -piles, the vibratory installation of steel -pipe piles, and the proofing of load-bearing steel H -piles with an impact hammer. it is anticipated that the largest steel -pipe pile to be potentially installed for this project will be 16 -in in diameter, although the largest cofferdam that will be used could be 16 -ft in diameter. No studies were found reporting the underwater sound levels associated with the vibratory installation of 16 -ft -diameter casings or 16 -in -diameter SPPs; however, hydroacoustic monitoring of a 24 -in -diameter SPP during installation using a vibratory driver in San Francisco Bay indicates that the maximum measured sound pressure level at 10 meters (m) is 165 dBRMs (Federal Register 75:207, October 27, 2010, p. 66066). This sound level is above the lowest recorded underwater background sound level of 120 dBRMs in Lake Washington taken during monitoring for the R-520 Test Pile Program (Illingworth & Rodkin, 2010). Underwater sound levels associated with the vibratory extraction of 16 -in -diameter SPP are expected to be less than those reported for a 24 -in -diameter SPP; however, for the purposes of this BA, it is assumed that the underwater sound levels for the vibratory extraction of 16 -in- and 24 -in -diameter SPPs are identical. AMSC Project No. LY 11160130 15 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO Currently, the Services (NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS) use the practical spreading loss equation to calculate noise transmission loss (TL) underwater (WSDOT, 2012), where: TL = 15* Log (R,IR2) Where: R1 = the distance at which transmission loss is estimated. R2= the distance from the measured sound level. The distance at which the source sound level attenuates to a pre -determined sound level (e.g., ambient noise level) can be calculated by rearranging the above equation to give: R, = R2*1OJI-115) Where: TL = the difference between the sound source level and the ambient sound level at some distance. The calculation assumes that noise energy decreases at a rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance (WSDOT, 2012). Assuming an underwater background sound level of 120 dBRMs and a sound level of 165 dBRMs for extraction of steel -pipe pile with a vibratory driver, the distance at which the source sound level attenuates to the ambient underwater sound level can be calculated as follows: R1 = (10 m)*10(165-120115) R1 = (10 m)*103 = 10 m (1,000) = 10,000 m = 32,800 ft = 6.2 miles Twenty-five (25) 14 -in steel H -piles will be installed below the OHWM to support the temporary trestle using a combination of vibratory driving and impact driving (proofing). A bubble curtain will be used when proofing the 14 -in steel H -piles. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, 2009) reported the underwater noise levels for the vibratory installation of 10 -in steel H -piles to be 161 dBpeak and 147 dBRMs (at 10 m). WSDOT (2012) reported the single -strike underwater noise levels for installing steel H -piles with an impact hammer to be 190 dBwak, 180 dBRMs, and 155 dB — sound exposure level (SEL) (at 10 m)_ These data demonstrate that installation with an impact hammer produces greater underwater noise. Assuming that the underwater noise generated by the impact installation of a 14 -in steel H -pile would be very similar to the values reported by WSDOT (2012) for the installation 10 -in steel H -piles, the underwater noise levels for the 10 -in steel H -pile will be used to represent the underwater noised produced by the impact installation of the 14 -in piles. AMEC 16 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lnorthbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO A bubble curtain will be used to attenuate the underwater noise levels associated with the impact installation of the 14 -in steel H -piles. Because of the large variability in the effectiveness of bubble curtains (and fabric barriers), there is no standard rate of attenuation. WSDOT (2012) reports a mean reduction in underwater noise of 11.9 dB with unconfined bubble curtains. It is expected that the use of bubble curtain will result in at least a 5 dB reduction in underwater noise. Assuming an underwater background sound level of 120 dBRMs and a sound level of 175 dBRMS (180 dBRMS to 5 dBRMS) for installation of 14 -in steel H -piles with an impact hammer, the distance at which the source sound level attenuates to the ambient underwater sound level can be calculated as follows'. R1 = (10 m)*10(175-124115) R1 = (1 C) m)*10367 = 10 m (4,641.6) = 46,416 m = 152,244 ft = 28.8 miles Therefore, the underwater sound level attributable to impact driving of 14 -in steel H -piles will attenuate to the ambient underwater sound level at approximately 28.8 miles. Therefore, the underwater Action Area is defined by the impact installation of 14 -in steel H -piles and extends approximately 28.8 miles from the project site. A number of factors contribute to underwater sound reduction, including: • Hydrographic conditions that alter noise transmission such as strong currents; • Bottom topography and sediment composition; and • River sinuosity. A line -of -sight rule, meaning that noise may propagate into an area that is within line -of -sight of the noise source, is used to determine the extent of noise propagation in river systems (WSDOT, 2012). The in -water Action Area determined by project -related noise is depicted on Figure 14. Although project -related noise is expected to be the primary determinant in defining the in -water Action Area, sediment resuspension caused by pile extraction and pile driving may also contribute to defining the Action Area, but to a much lesser extent. The extent of sediment resuspension from pile extraction and pile driving depends on many site- and operations -specific variables, including: • Site characteristics — waterway shape, water depth, and structures (bridges, docks, pilings, etc.); • Sediment characteristics — grain -size distribution, water content, density, specific gravity, organic content, and debris content; AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 17 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbndgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO • Site hydrology, hydraulics, and hydrodynamics; and • Site ambient water quality — salinity, temperature, suspended solids concentration, and background water chemistry (Anchor, 2003). Any sediment resuspension is expected to be primarily localized and of shore duration. The in -water Action Area defined by resuspended sediments resulting from pile extraction and installation is likely substantially smaller than that attributable to project -related noise. AMEC 18 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO 4.0 LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT This section discusses species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that may occur in the Action Area (Table 1), including specific life history stages that may occur in the Action Area. The presence of critical habitat within the Action Area is also addressed. Appendix D provides general life history information about each of the listed species addressed in this BA. 4.1 LIFE HISTORY STAGES OF LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE ACTION AREA This section presents information on the life history stages of species that may occur in the action area. 4.9.1 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Adult Chinook salmon that spawn in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 are classified as "ocean type" fish because they typically spend less than 6 months in fresh water after emerging from spawning gravels before entering estuarine habitats. Adult Chinook salmon enter the lake from June through the end of November (Williams et al., 1975). Differences in timing between years may reflect differences in water temperature as adult Chinook entered the lake earlier during the year when water temperatures were cooler. The average time spent by adult Chinook in Lake Washington in 1998 was 2.9 days (Kerwin, 2001), Based upon data collected in migrant traps located at the mouths of the Cedar River and Bear/ Cottage Lake Creek, there are two different life history trajectories of naturally produced juvenile Chinook that enter the lake. The first group consists of Chinook fry that enter Lake Washington from at least mid-January through mid-March. These fish spend little or no time rearing in riverine habitats before entering Lake Washington, where they rear for a number of months before migrating to Puget Sound. While rearing in the lake, the most important area used by Chinook fry appears to be the littoral zone (Kerwin, 2001). Chinook juveniles are rarely found in limnetic habitats until after early May. Portions of the littoral zone that are most heavily utilized by Chinook include areas around creek mouths and areas that are not heavily developed. Studies of microhabitat use of littoral areas found that Chinook fry prefer areas that have small substrates (sand and small gravel) (Kerwin, 2001; Tabor, R., LISFWS, Fisheries Biologist, pers. comm., 2007). The second group of juvenile Chinook that enter Lake Washington is smolts, which enter the lake from mid-May through at feast late July and are of a much larger size than fry at the time they enter the lake. These fish rear for a number of months in riverine habitats before entering the lake where AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 19 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplaoementba_064612.docx "W11fir, they spend much less time than fry rearing; smolts use the lake primarily as a migratory corridor to exit the watershed (Kerwin, 2001). Based upon observations at the Ballard Locks, juvenile Chinook salmon migrate from Lake Washington to Puget Sound from May through the summer. During this period, Chinook juveniles can be found using much of the littoral zone of the lake as well as limnetic habitats. Increasing water temperature probably plays a key role in determining when juvenile Chinook depart from Washington in any given year. Changes in water temperature help regulate the rate of smoltification. In addition, the littoral zone of the lake eventually warms to the point where water temperatures can be stressful and then eventually lethal to the fish (Kerwin, 2001). Figures 15 and 16 summarize Chinook salmon run timing and escapement data for the Cedar River from 1964 through 2011, respectively. 4.1.2 Puget Sound Steelhead Trout The Lake Washington watershed hosts wild winter steelhead that spawn in tributaries to Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish, including the Cedar and Sammamish rivers. Winter steelhead are native to the basin, while hatchery -origin (Chambers Creek) winter steelhead have been stocked into the system as fry or smolts for many years. Data indicate that there is little contribution to the wild stock from hatchery fish spawning in the wild. The status of this stock is depressed (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994), Figure 16 summarizes steelhead escapement data for the Cedar River from 1983 through 2011. Run timing in the Lake Washington watershed is summarized in Figure 15. Wild winter steelhead generally enter the Lake Washington watershed from mid-December to mid-May, spawning from early March to mid-June (WDFW and WWTIT, 1994). Lake Washington Basin -origin steelhead usually spend 1 to 3 years in fresh water, with the greatest proportion spending 2 years. Because of this, juvenile steelhead rely heavily on the freshwater habitat are present in streams all year long (Kerwin, 2001). The residence time of outmigrant Puget Sound steelhead in Lake Washington is unknown. Outmigrant steelhead collected at the Hiram M. Chittenden locks on the Lake Washington ship canal by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife appeared to have grown substantially before reaching marine waters of Puget Sound, indicating that the steelhead may have resided in Lake Washington for some time, although there are no data describing residence time in Lake Washington itself versus residence time in Lake Washington tributaries (Leland, B., WDFW, Fisheries Biologist, Pers. comm., April 28, 2006)_ The inshore migration pattern of steelhead in Puget Sound is not well understood; it is generally thought that steelhead smolts move quickly offshore (Hartt and Dell, 1986). AMEC 20 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lnorthbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO 4.1.3 Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout The largest single population of adfluvial bull trout in western Washington is found above Cedar Falls in the upper Cedar River watershed. A naturally producing population of bull trout is known to occur in the upper Cedar River subbasin in Chester Morse Lake (Kerwin, 2001). It is believed that a small number of bull trout pass through the reservoir and downstream hydroelectric facilities to the river reaches below Cedar Falls. However, it is apparently not sufficient to support the establishment of bull trout populations under the current ecological conditions (Corps, 2002). Anecdotal reports point to a historic population at the headwaters of Issaquah Creek in the Sammamish Lake Basin. Recent surveys have not confirmed these reports (Corps, 2002). Native char, presumably bull trout, have been observed in the fish ladder viewing pool at the Locks as recently as 1997, while isolated reports of native char being caught in or around Lake Washington occur every few years. A large juvenile char, again presumably a bull trout (-250 millimeters [mm], 3 year old) was caught in the lower Cedar River in July 1998. An adult char was also caught in the lower Cedar River in April 1993 (Corps, 2002). Based on this information, occurrence of bull trout in the Action area is expected to be extremely limited, if they occur at all. Foraging, migration, and overwintering (FMO) habitats are believed to be critical to the persistence of the anadromous bull trout life history form. Anadromous adult and subadult bull trout from nearby core areas may migrate through the marine environment into the Lake Washington FMO habitat_ The Lake Washington FMO habitat is located within foraging and migratory distances of the Snohomish- Skykomish and the Puyallup River core populations. Their use of the Lake Washington FMO habitat is presumed to be related to the abundance of these core populations as well as the distance from the core area to Lake Washington (NOAH -Fisheries and USFWS, 2008). Population status information and extent of use of this area is currently unknown_ Adult and subadult size individuals have been observed infrequently in the lower Cedar River (below Cedar Falls), Lake Washington, and at the Locks. No spawning activity or juvenile rearing has been observed and no distinct spawning populations are known to exist in Lake Washington outside of the upper Cedar River above Lake Chester Morse (not accessible to bull trout within Lake Washington) (NOAH -Fisheries and USFWS, 2008). The potential for spawning in the Lake Washington Basin is believed to be low as a majority of accessible habitat is low elevation, below 152 m (500 ft), and thus not expected to have the proper thermal regime to sustain successful spawning. There are, however, some Coldwater springs and tributaries that may come close to suitable spawning temperatures and that may provide thermal refuge for rearing or foraging during warm summer periods, including Rock Creek, a tributary to the Cedar River below Landsburg Diversion Dam_ Rock Creek is relatively short in length, but has high AMEC Project No. LY11160130 21 Boeing Renlon1LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO quality riparian forest cover and is formed by springs emanating from glacial outwash deposits (NOAH -Fisheries and USFWS, 2608). 4.2 CRITICAL HABITAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA This section discusses the occurrence of critical habitat and the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of species-specific critical habitats within the action area. The action area contains critical habitats for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout. The PCEs for each of these species are listed below, although not all of the PCEs listed occur within the action area. Critical habitat has not yet been designated for Puget Sound steelhead trout. The critical habitat PCEs for Puget Sound Chinook salmon are: 1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and 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 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. 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh and salt water; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels_ 6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Of the PCEs listed above for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, only the attributes described in PCEs 2 and 3 occur in the Action Area. AMEC 22 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lnorthbddgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO The PCEs for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout are: 1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. 2. Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including, but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent or seasonal barriers. 3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroi nverte b rates, and forage fish. 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15°C (36 to 59°F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life -history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence. 6. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young -of -the -year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g., less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 millimeters (mm; 0.03 in) in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of these conditions. 7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph. 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. 9_ Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g., brown trout) species present. Of the PCEs listed above for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout, only the attributes described in PCE 6 would not apply in the Action Area. Critical habitat has not yet been developed for Puget Sound steelhead trout. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 23 Boeing Renton1LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO (this page left blank intentionally) AMEC 24 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton1LY11160130lnorthbridgereplacementba_060612.docx "I- 5.0 Lw ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE This section provides a brief description of the general habitat and environmental conditions within the Action Area. Additionally, this section provides descriptions of habitat elements, significant to the species being addressed, that could be affected by the proposed action or that would affect the use of the Action Area by listed species. 5.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE ACTION AREA The proposed project site is located on the south end of Lake Washington on the extreme southern shore where the Cedar River enters Lake Washington (Figure 1; Appendix B, Photo 1). The river is approximately 136 -ft wide where it enters Lake Washington. The project site is bordered to the east and west by Boeing's Renton plant and the Renton Municipal Airport, respectively. The Boeing plant site consists primarily of paved roadways, parking lots, taxiways, manufacturing facilities, and administrative offices. The Renton Municipal Airport is located immediately west of the bridge and consists primarily of concrete and asphalt surfaces used for launching and landing commercial and recreational aircraft (Figure 1; Appendix B, Photo 1). The Cedar River downstream of 1-405 (approximately 1.6 miles) is an artificial channel created early in the 20th century and is completely constrained between levees and revetments. This reach was regularly dredged to prevent flooding from the time of its completion in 1912 until the mid-1970s. Portions of the reach were again dredged in 1999 for the first time since the mid-1970s. In -stream habitat in the reach is almost entirely riffle, with little habitat complexity. Land uses prevent floodplain connectivity and have eliminated the potential for re -connection with a natural floodplain or the establishment of a riparian corridor. Channelization and existing land uses also prevent significant large woody debris (LWD) from accumulating in the channel. The reach is also very low -gradient and depositional, and the substrates have high levels of fine sediments (Corps, 2004; Parametrix and Adolfson, 2010). Large woody debris has been deposited in Lake Washington at the mouth of the Cedar River (Appendix B, Photos 10 and 11). A shallow delta has developed at the mouth of the Cedar River, consisting of fine sediments. 5.2 WATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER This section describes existing water quality conditions in the action area and the possible effects of the proposed action on water quality. 5.2.1 Existing Conditions No site-specific water quality data were found for the proposed project site; however, water quality monitoring has been conducted in south Lake Washington by the Washington State Department of AMSC Project No. LY11160130 25 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba-060612.doex ameO Ecology (Ecology). Washington State's Water Quality Assessment [303(d) & 305(b) Report] (Ecology, 2008) identified exceedances of water quality standards for ammonia and fecal coliforms in south Lake Washington, while the Cedar River has exceedances for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and fecal coliforms. The Boeing Renton site operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Industrial Stormwater General Permit (Permit 5O3-000232) issued by Ecology. This permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and quarterly stormwater monitoring. This plan includes BMPs necessary to prevent, control, and treat pollution of stormwater. This plan is maintained on site and can be made available upon request. Boeing is developing a stormwater management plan for the new bridge that is consistent with King County's stormwater regulations, as well as those of the City of Renton. Mean monthly water temperatures (°C) in the Cedar River at Renton for the period of 1992 through 2011 (USGS, 2012) are as follows: • January — 6.1; • February — 6.4; • March — 7.7; • April — 9.5; • May — 11.5; • June — 13.2; • July — 15.6; • August —15.9; • September — 13.7; • October — 10.9; • November — 8.2; and • December — 6.3. As can be seen from the above data, the warmest water temperatures occur during July, August, and September. 5.2.2 Effects of the Action The proposed action will incorporate a stormwater management plan that is consistent with state and local regulations. The proposed action is expected to have no effect on surface water temperatures of the Cedar River. Therefore, no short-term or long-term adverse impacts to water quality in the Action Area are expected to result from the proposed action. 5.3 SHORELINE, SEDIMENT, SUBSTRATE, BATHYMETRY, AND HABITAT DIVERSITY This section describes existing conditions for the shoreline, sediment, substrate, bathymetry, and habitat diversity in the Action Area and the possible effects of the proposed action on these attributes_ AMEC 26 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lnorthbridgereplacementba_069612.docx ameO Appendix B (Photos 2 through 11) provides photographs of the Cedar River and Lake Washington shorelines in the vicinity of the project site. 5.3.1 Shoreline The shoreline along the proposed project site consists of a mix of undeveloped and developed property belonging to Boeing and the City of Renton (Appendix B, Photo 1). The shoreline south of the project area occurs along both banks of the Cedar River. The Cedar River in the vicinity of the project site has been channelized and the banks within 100 ft of the project site bulkheaded (Appendix B, Photos 3 through 7). The shoreline beneath the existing bridge and bridge aprons consists of two treated -timber bulkheads on each shore, as well as the piles supporting the bridge and bridge aprons (Figure 2). The outer bulkhead is a continuation of the bulkhead supporting the shorelines along the Cedar River south of the bridge, while the inner bulkhead is located shoreward of the first bulkhead where the bridge and bridge aprons transition to the land above the CHWM. The shoreline between the two bulkheads consists of fine sediments and gradually slopes from the inner bulkhead to the outer bulkhead, where the shoreline gradient increases sharply. There is no vegetation along the shoreline beneath the bridge and bridge aprons. AMEC conducted a vegetation survey on August 25, 2009 along each bank of the Cedar River, extending 100 ft upstream of the bridge. Because the bridge is located at the mouth of the Cedar River where it enters Lake Washington, the vegetation survey was also conducted along the shoreline of Lake Washington 100 ft east and west of the bridge (Appendix B, Photos 3 through 7). The western bank of the Cedar River within 100 ft of the bridge consists of a steel -pile and timber - lagging bulkhead, above which is located a steep bank approximately 15 -ft wide (Appendix B, Photos 3 through 7). Riparian vegetation along the western bank consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armeniacus), butterfly bush (Buddleia davidir), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). All of these species are listed as noxious weeds by King County. A small, unidentified species of willow (Salix spp.) was also growing along the west bank along with various, unidentified grasses. The riparian area is bordered to the west by a narrow strip of lawn, beyond which is the Renton Municipal Airport (Appendix B, Photos 1, 3, and 5). The eastern bank of the Cedar River within 100 ft of the bridge is similar to that described for the western bank, consisting of a steel -pile and timber -lagging bulkhead, above which is located a steep bank approximately 20 -ft wide (Appendix B, Photo 5). South of the bridge and immediately adjacent to the Cedar River is the Cedar River Trail Park (Appendix B, Photos 6 and 7)_ A portion of the riparian area along the eastern bank of the river within 100 ft of the bridge appears to have been AMEC Project No. LY11160130 27 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO landscaped with native vegetation consisting of Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and mock orange (Philadelphus lewish). Additionally, the same noxious weeds found on the western bank also occurred on the eastern bank. A number of unidentified grasses were also observed on the eastern bank. Immediately east of the eastern bank is the Cedar Trail Park, consisting of a vegetated strip immediately adjacent to the riparian area, a sidewalk, and driveway. The vegetated strip beyond 100 ft south of the bridge is planted with larger trees (trunks X10 in in diameter) that appeared to be bigleaf maples (Acer macrophyllum) (Appendix B, Photos 6 and 7). The Boeing facility is located to the east of the park (Figure 1; Appendix B, Photo 1). The Lake Washington shoreline east and west of the North Cedar Bridge is steep, a portion of which on each side of the bridge consists of a sheet -pile bulkhead and riprap (Appendix B, Photos 8 through 11). The shoreline west of the bridge and adjacent to the Renton Municipal Airport consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry and butterfly bush, along with some unidentified grasses. Immediately south and adjacent to the western shoreline is a narrow strip of maintained lawn (approximately 10- to 15 -ft wide), beyond which is the asphalt runway of the Renton Municipal Airport. Vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline east of the bridge is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and butterfly bush. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and unidentified grasses were also observed along the shoreline east of the bridge (Appendix B, Photo 10). Large woody debris has been deposited in Lake Washington at the mouth of the Cedar River (Appendix B, Photos 9 through 11). A shallow delta has developed at the mouth of the Cedar River, consisting of fine sediments. Aquatic vegetation observed during the survey included Canada waterweed (Elodea canadensis), white -stemmed pondweed (Potamogeton praeloogus), curly leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), and common duckweed (Lemna minor). 5.3.2 Sediment, Substrate, and Bathymetry The proposed project site is located at the mouth of the Cedar River. The nearshore area adjacent to the site in Lake Washington is dominated by the Cedar River delta, which resulted in shoaling caused by sediment deposition from the Cedar River. The nearshore area along Lake Washington in the immediate project vicinity has a gently sloping bottom with depths from 0 to about 4 ft (NOAA, 2008), AMSC 28 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentoWLY11160130/northbridgereplacementba_064612.docx ameO With realignment of the Cedar River into Lake Washington in 1912, the zone of sediment deposition was localized through the City of Renton (Perkins, 1994). All of the non-suspendable sediment load is now deposited along this reach because Lake Washington lies at the river's mouth. With the path of the river fixed by armored banks, progressive infilling of the channel resulted. Sediment is continually deposited in the downstream 2 miles of the river and in an enlarging delta in Lake Washington. According to Perkins (1994), periodic dredging of sediment from the channel and delta was discontinued in about 1982. Since that time, the sediment buildup has severely reduced the flood conveyance of the channel (Perkins, 1994). However, the Corps conducted dredging operations along the lower 1.5 miles of the Cedar River that extended into the delta in July 1998. During a site visit on April 18, 2012, a survey of the project site included surveying the current elevation of the river bottom along the south side of the bridge between the two aprons. Elevations were taken at 11 locations along bridge deck_ From this information, it was possible to calculate water depth at each of the survey locations. Water depths ranged from 5.50 ft to 7.86 ft, with a mean depth of 6.70 ft. The substrate appeared to consist of silty sand with some gravel. 5.3.3 Habitat Diversity Habitat diversity along the shoreline is in the project vicinity is limited. The lower Cedar River in the project area has been channelized and substantially altered, so that there is a limited riparian area that cannot provide all of the potential ecological functions of an unaltered habitat. Because small shrubs dominate the riparian vegetation and there is a lack of large trees, there is very limited, if any, shading provided by the riparian vegetation. Both banks of the river in the project area are bulkheaded and highly developed, so that there is no potential for the creation of meanders or off -channel habitat. Because of extensive development along both banks of the river in the project area (Boeing to the east and the Renton Municipal Airport to the west), there is little, if any, transition between riparian and upland habitats. Similarly, riparian vegetation along the shoreline of Lake Washington in the project vicinity is dominated by invasive plant species, so that ecological functions are very limited, as described above. Large woody debris deposited in the delta formed by the Cedar River (Appendix B, Photo 11) may provide some nursery and refugia habitat for juvenile salmonids; however, water depths in the nearshore area of the project site are very shallow (S4 ft), likely resulting in warming of nearshore areas by solar radiation in the summer months. 5.3.4 Effects of the Action The proposed action will affect the existing shoreline conditions in the immediate project site. Removal of the existing bridge and supporting structures will require the removal of existing bulkheads and regrading of the shoreline to support the replacement bridge and to allow for AMEC Project No. LY11160130 29 Boeing Renton/LY 111601 301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO restoration of the shoreline beneath the area occupied by the aprons. The shoreline south of the existing bridge to be exposed after removal of the aprons will be regraded to a more natural slope (e -g-, 2:1 to 3:1) and revegetated with native species. The shoreline regrade and installation of native vegetation is expected to improve existing shoreline conditions, as well as improve habitat diversity in the immediate project vicinity. Removal of over 4,000 sf of overwater structure is expected to improve habitat diversity by reducing shading of the underlying benthic habitat, allowing the growth of aquatic vegetation and improving conditions for the benthic community (Carrasquero, 2001). Sediment, substrate, and bathymetry are not expected to be substantially affected by the proposed action. Some sediment will likely have to be removed to allow extraction of various piles and concrete bridge piers; however, these sediments will likely be removed during the relatively near future as part of mandatory dredging of the lower river as detailed in the Cedar River at Renton Flood Damage Reduction Project Operation and Maintenance Manual (Corps, 2004) to control flooding. The proposed project is not expected to alter bathymetry. AMEC (2012) conducted a hydraulic analysis and scour study, as mandated by the City of Renton, using the Corps of Engineers' HEC -RAS model (versions 3.12 and 4.1.0) to determine if the proposed bridge project would be compliant with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the City's floodplain regulations. Based on a detailed analysis of the available data, AMEC found that the Proposed North Boeing Bridge and the Temporary Work Trestle across the Cedar River meets the no -rise requirement. Furthermore, AMEC found that both the proposed North Boeing Bridge and temporary trestle meet requirements to provide 3 -ft clearance above the 100 -year flood elevations. A copy of AMEC's hydraulic analysis is provided in Appendix E. 5.4 ACCESS AND REFUGIA This section describes existing conditions for access and refugia in the Action Area and the possible effects of the proposed action on these attributes. 5.4.1 Existing Conditions No fish -passage barriers exist in the project area. The lower Cedar River provides a migratory corridor for anadromous salmonids returning to the Cedar River watershed to spawn, as well as a migratory corridor and nursery and foraging habitat for outmigrant juvenile salmonids. The lower 1.6 miles of the river are channelized and bulkheaded, providing minimal habitat diversity. Refugia habitat in the Cedar River Action Area is extremely limited, but expands in the nearshore areas of Lake Washington within the Action Area. AMEC 30 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612,docx ameO 5.4.2 Effects of the Action Both juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead trout may be present in the Action Area during in -water and overwater construction components of the proposed action. During actual construction of the proposed action, there are expected to be no physical barriers to access, although project -related noise may temporarily deter salmon from using portions of the Action Area; however, the proposed action is not expected to limit access to the Cedar River and refugia in the area of the shoreline restoration is expected to improve. 5.5 FLOW AND CURRENT PATTERNS This section describes existing conditions of flow and current patterns in the action area and the possible effects of the proposed action on these attributes. 5.5.1 Existing Conditions No studies were located describing currents in the nearshore area of the action area. Given the site location at the mouth of the Cedar River, it is expected that currents in the Action Area are dominated by river flow and discharge to Lake Washington. Peak discharge occurs between December and February (1,020 to 1,130 cubic feet per second [cfs)), while minimum discharge (191 cfs) occurs in August (USGS, 2012). 5.5.2 Effects of the Action There are currently 194 piles in the Cedar River supporting the bridge and bridge aprons. All of these will be removed under the proposed action_ The new bridge will result in the placement of only 6 4 -ft -diameter concrete bridge piers in the Cedar River_ The temporary trestle will result in the temporary placement of 25 steel H -piles in the river below the OHWM, but all of these will be removed when the temporary trestle is removed_ The proposed action is not expected to adversely affect flow or currents in the Action Area. 5.6 BENTHIC FAUNA This section describes the benthic faunal community in the action area and the possible effects of the proposed action on benthic fauna. 5.6.1 Existing Conditions No site-specific information is available describing benthic faunal communities in the project area. Mature and larval terrestrial insects and small crustaceans are the main prey for juvenile salmonids in fresh water (Groot and Margolis, 1991). Several of the habitat indicators listed above are important in determining the productivity and composition of the epibenthic community. Terrestrial insects can comprise as much as 95 percent of the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon (Becker, 1973). It is expected AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 31 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO that a number of invertebrate species occur in sediments of the project area, including chironomids (midges), members of the insect orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies), as well as others. Bennett and Cubbage (1992) conducted benthic macroinvertebrate sampling at stations in Lake Washington located northeast of the proposed near the J.H. Baxter and Quendall Terminals sites. The benthic community was dominated by sponges (Porifera), bivalves (Gastropoda), oligochaete worms (Oligochaeta), and chironomids (Diptera). Because substrate type can affect benthic macro invertebrate assemblages, whether the benthic community in the Action Area is similar to that reported by Bennett and Cubbage (1992) is unknown. 5.6.2 Effects of the Action The proposed action will likely result in a temporary reduction in benthic habitat attributable to the removal of sediments from the cofferdams that will be employed to remove the various piles and concrete bridge piers during demolition of the bridge and bridge aprons, as well as the extraction of the piles used to support the temporary trestle. Table 4 summarizes the approximate area of substrate to be disrupted by project activities in the Cedar River. The area of sediment disturbed by the use of cofferdams could be as high as 23,556 sf, or about 0.54 acre; however, as stated above, these sediments will likely be removed in the relatively near future (next 5 years) during dredging operations conducted by the City of Renton to reduce the potential for flooding in the lower Cedar River. Any impacts to benthic fauna resulting from removal of sediments are expected to be temporary. Recolonization of disturbed sediments by benthic biota occurs via four mechanisms: vertical migration of buried assemblages from the underlying natural bottom, horizontal migration from the surrounding ambient bottom, larval recruitment from the plankton, and active and passive dispersion of adult organisms (Scott et al., 1987). The recolonization of disturbed sediments occurs in successional development of colonizing species. The early successional stage of colonization begins with relatively short-lived, shallow burrowing organisms. The second component of the recovery process, which may begin concurrently with the initial colonization, is the progressive development of subsurface-bioturbation associated with the reestablishment of the long-lived species. The time scale of this process may on the order of 1 to 2 years or more (Scott et al., 1987). Guerra -Garcia et al. (2003), studying benthic recovery after a small-scale (28,255 sf) dredging project in a chemically -polluted, enclosed harbor in North Africa, reported that the macrobenthic community recovered to near pre -dredging conditions within 6 months. Merkel and Associates (2009), studying benthic recolonization of dredged areas within the San Diego Harbor, reported that the benthic community recovered in 14 to 28 months. Kotta et al. (2009), studying the impacts of large-scale AMEC 32 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lnorthbridgerepiacementba_060612.docx ameO dredging (approximately 2 million cy) on recovery of benthic communities in the Gulf of Finland in the Baltic Sea, reported that dredging had weak but consistent effects on benthic invertebrate assemblages and recovery of the communities took place within one year after dredging. Bridge demolition will result in the removal the following pile types: 160 12 -in steel H -piles; • 18 16 -in -diameter SPPs; and • 16 concrete pier piles (square and -2 ft on a side). The area of benthic habitat occupied by these piles can be calculated as follows: • 12 -in steel H -pile - Flange dimensions: 0.5 in x 12 in = 0.042 ft x 1 ft - Total flange area = 2(0.042 ft x 1 ft) = 0.084 sf - Web dimensions: 0.5 in x 11 in = 0.042 ft x 0.92 ft - Web area = 0.042 ft x 0.92 ft = 0.0385 sf - Total area of one H -pile = 0.0385 sf + 0.084 sf = 0.1225 sf - Total area: 160 x 0.1225 sf = 19.6 sf • 16 -in -diameter SPP - Tr(0.67 ft)2 = 1.41 sf - Total area: 20 X 1.41 sf = 28.2 sf * Concrete Bridge Piers (^-2 ft on a side) - 2ftx2ftx16=64sf The total area of benthic habitat covered by these piles is 19.6 sf + 28.2 sf + 64 sf = 111.8 sf. The proposed action will install 6 4 -ft -diameter concrete pier piles below the OHWM within the Cedar River to support the new bridge. Each concrete pier pile will occupy an area of 12.6 sf [Tr (2 ft)2]. The total area occupied by the 6 piles will be 75.4 sf. Thus, the proposed action will result in a gain of 36.4 sf of benthic habitat compared to current conditions. Although the proposed action will likely result in a short-term reduction in benthic infauna, it is expected to have a long-term, net beneficial effect on benthic infauna by reducing the area of benthic AMEC Project No. LY11160130 33 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612,docx amecI9 habitat occupied by piles. Additionally, the reduction of overwater coverage by approximately 4,000 sf is expected to further enhance benthic habitat and productivity (Carrasquero, 2001). AMEC 34 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lnorthbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO 6.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ON LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS This section discusses potential long-term and short-term direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on listed species and their critical habitats, and concludes with an effects determination. Only attributes of listed species that are relevant to the Action Area and that are likely to be affected by the proposed action are addressed. Three species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) potentially occur in the Action Area (Table 1). General life history information for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout, and Puget Sound steelhead is presented in Appendix D. An assessment of essential fish habitat (EFH) is presented in Appendix F, describing habitat for federally -managed commercial fish species, potential project impacts, and proposed conservation measures. 6.1 PUGET SOUND CHINOOK SALMON This section discusses potential long- and short-term direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on Puget Sound Chinook salmon. The long-term direct and indirect impacts are those potential beneficial effects associated with reduced shading caused by decreasing overwater coverage by over 4,000 sf, as well as the beneficial effects associated with shoreline restoration_ Short-term direct and indirect impacts to Chinook salmon may result from increased underwater noise attributable to the extraction and installation of piles and cofferdams, as well as localized increases in turbidity due to in -water work, and temporary and localized impairment of benthic habitat. 6.1.1 Long -Term Direct Effects This section addresses the long-term direct effects associated with shading and shoreline restoration. Shading — The proposed action will result in a reduction of overwater coverage of over 4,000 sf when compared to existing conditions. That portion of the new bridge below the OHWM will cover an area of 10,600 sf (212 ft x 50 ft) compared to the existing overwater coverage of 14,670 sf (existing bridge and aprons combined). For about 9 months in 2013 to 2014, once the temporary trestle is constructed, there will be the combined shading of both the existing bridge and the temporary trestle (Table 2); however, once the temporary trestle is constructed, the existing bridge will gradually be demolished until only the temporary trestle is in place. For about 9 months, the combined overwater coverage of the temporary trestle (6,880 sf) and existing bridge (6,978 sf) will be 13,858 sf. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 35 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba-060612.docx ameO Once the existing bridge is demolished, overwater coverage will be provided for about 4 months only by the temporary trestle (Table 2). As work on the new bridge begins, the overwater coverage will gradually increase as the new bridge is constructed. After the new bridge is completed, there will be about 8 months during 2014 to 2015 when the combined overwater coverage of the temporary trestle (6,880 so and new bridge (10,600 so will be 17,480 sf. This overwater coverage will rapidly decrease to 10,600 sf as the temporary trestle is dismantled (about 3 weeks) (Table 2). Salmonids, including juvenile Chinook salmon, use nearshore areas for feeding and rearing, and as a migratory corridor. As small individuals, they stay in shallow waters and macroalgal beds to avoid large fish predators found in deeper water. Light attenuation can impact both fish migration and prey capture. Many studies have indicated that overwater structures can affect fish migration patterns; however, the reported effects are not consistent between studies with results indicating that some individuals pass under overwater structures, some pause and go around the structures, schools break up upon encountering overwater structures, and some pause and eventually go under overwater structures (Jones & Stokes, 2004). These studies also indicate that juvenile salmon may use shadow edges for cover during migration (Jones & Stokes, 2004). Simenstad et al. (1999) noted that salmon tend to migrate along the edges of shadows rather than penetrate them. Overwater structures cast shadows on the underlying substrate, reducing light availability. The underwater light environment also impacts the ability of fishes to see and capture their prey (Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001a). The reduction in overwater coverage by over 4,000 sf is expected to reduce some of the potential long-term direct negative effects associated with shading. Shoreline Restoration — The proposed action will permanently remove two bridge aprons covering a total of over 4,000 sf, approximately 2,000 sf on each bank of the Cedar River, as well as associated bulkheads. Although much of this area is waterward of the OHWM, the shoreline area above the OHWM will be regraded and vegetated with native riparian vegetation to create a shoreline that is expected to improve nearshore foraging and nursery habitat for juvenile salmonids. Riparian zones are transition areas between aquatic and upland habitats, containing elements of both. As such, they provide a rich and vital resource for both fish and wildlife. Depending on the type, extent, and density of riparian vegetation, riparian areas may provide the following critical functions to streams: • Shade, which helps moderate stream temperature; Improved water quality, by retaining sediment and pollutant runoff; AMEC 36 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY1 1 1601301northbridgereplacementba_06061 2.docx LmAdh wllme • Water retention during storm events; • Bank stabilization and erosion control; • Small and large woody debris, as well as organic matter, including insects; and • Nearshore cover for fish (Saldi-Caromile et al., 2004). The proposed shoreline restoration is expected to improve nearshore habitat in the Action Area for juvenile Chinook salmon resulting in a long-term beneficial effect. 6.1.2 Long -Term Indirect Effects This section discusses long-term indirect effects associated with shading. Shading — While no studies have quantified the effects of overwater structures on predator -prey interactions, NOAA-Fisheries, and the USFWS believe overwater structures may impact juvenile salmonid migration and may introduce artificial structure that provides habitat for juvenile salmonid predators (Jones & Stokes, 2004). The shadow cast by overwater structures may discourage the passage of small fish, forcing these fish to deeper waters and potentially increasing their chance of being preyed upon. The following discussion is taken from Jones & Stokes (2004). Overwater structures can increase the exposure of juvenile salmon to potential predators by -- * y: • providing rearing and ambush habitat for fish species that prey on juvenile salmonids; • reducing refugia areas, due to shading, prop cutting and boat wakes; • diverting juveniles into deeper waters upon encountering overwater structures; or • Altering prey detection through alterations of light and turbidity. However, there is very little empirical evidence to support the above possibilities of increased predation. Lists of potential predators have been cited through the literature of the past 30 years with very little empirical validation. Simenstad et al. (1999) reported that the significance of predation to migrating populations has never been empirically assessed. No studies have examined mortality due to predation much less that mortality is attributable to overwater structures. In his evaluation of the impacts of overwater structures in freshwater systems, Carrasquero (2001) also reported that there is no empirical evidence supporting a direct link between overwater structures and increased predation on salmonids. Carrasquero (2001) identified a number of data gaps in the available literature: AMEC Project No. LY11160130 37 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.doex ameO • What are the effects of in-, on-, and overwater structures on predator -prey interactions? • What are the predator -prey behavioral responses to each type of overwater structure and to shore -zone development in general? • Do the overwater structures affect the predation rate on salmonids or other species? Would changes in design eliminate or minimize the effect? • What is the effect of overwater structures and shoreline development in general on avian predation? Carrasquero (2001) reported that no data were found supporting a direct link between lighting and an increase in predation of fishes. In freshwater systems, it has been documented that smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieur) (a known predator of juvenile salmonids) have a strong affinity to overwater structures and may use such habitat for spawning, rearing, and foraging (Carrasquero, 2001). Contrasting studies, however, found that in still waters (protected harbors) with steeply -sloped shorelines, the northern pikeminnow preferred areas of fast-moving water with low-velocity microhabitats. Such habitats can be created by pilings. Thus the construction of overwater structures seems to benefit smallmouth bass in lakes where current velocities are reduced, while benefiting northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) in free-flowing river systems where in -water obstructions create low-velocity microhabitats (Carrasquero, 2001). Juvenile salmonids utilize nearshore, shallow -water, low-velocity habitats for rearing and foraging within free-flowing streams and still -water reservoirs and lakes. Overwater structures can create an overlap of predator and juvenile salmonid habitat use within the nearshore environment, which may cause increased predation on juvenile salmonids. Therefore, it may be that the construction of new or expansion of existing overwater structures will create additional predator habitat and may contribute to juvenile salmonid predation; however, the proposed action will reduce overwater coverage by over 4,000 sf and will substantially reduce the number of in -water structures from the current 194 piles to just 6 pier piles. The reduction in the number of in -water structures would be expected to reduce habitat for potential piscivorous predators. $.1.3 Short -Term Direct Effects This section discusses the possible short-term direct effects associated with underwater sound and temporary and localized increases in turbidity. Underwater Sound — Under the proposed action, all existing piles, with the exception of the concrete pier piles, will be removed by vibratory extraction. Twenty-five (25) steel H -piles will be installed below the OHWM to support the temporary trestle. These piles will initially be installed using a AMEC 38 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RemonlM 11601301north bridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO vibratory driver, but because these piles will be weight-bearing, an impact hammer will be required to proof the piles. Impulsive sound generated by impact hammers has the potential to produce underwater sound levels that may cause physiological or anatomical damage, interrupt or impair predator avoidance, foraging, migration, and other behaviors of salmonids. The effects of underwater sound created by pile driving on fish may range from a brief acoustic annoyance to instantaneous lethal injury depending on many factors including: • Size and force of the hammer, • Distance of the fish from the pile; • Depth of the water around the pile; • Depth of the fish in the water column; • Amount of air in the water; • The texture of the surface of the water (amount of waves on the water surface); • The bottom substrate composition and texture; • Size of the fish; • Species of the fish; and • Physical condition of the fish (WSDOT, 2012). Because the area where the piles are to be installed is very shallow (mean depth of about 2 m), the actual distance that underwater sound attributable to pile driving will travel within the Action Area is likely much less than that depicted in Figure 14 (Action Area). The Services use "dual criteria" to assess the likelihood of injury to fish: a single -strike sound pressure level (SPL) of 206 dBpeak (-196 dBRMS) and, cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) of 183 (fish <2 grams) or 187 (fish ?2 grams). The SEL is calculated by summing the cumulative pressure squared (p2), integrating over time, and normalizing to 1 second. This metric accounts for both negative and positive pressures because p is positive for both and both are treated equally in the cumulative sum of p2. The units for SEL are dB re: 1 pPa2 sec (WSDOT, 2012). The behavioral effects threshold for fish has been established at 150 dBRMS (=170 dBpeak) (Table 5) (WSDOT, 2012). Caltrans (2009) reported the underwater noise levels for the vibratory installation of 10 -in steel H -piles to be 161 dBpeak and 147 dBRMS (at 10 m). WSDOT (2012) reported the single -strike underwater noise levels for installing steel H -piles with an impact hammer to be 190 dBpedki 180 dBRMS, and 155 dB SEL (at 10 m)_ These data demonstrate that installation with an impact hammer produces greater underwater noise. Assuming that the underwater noise generated by the impact installation of a 14 -in steel H -pile would be very similar to the values reported by WSDOT (2012) for installation of a 10 -in AMEC Project No. LY11160130 39 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO steel H -pile, the underwater noise levels for a 10 -in steel H -pile will be used to represent the underwater noised produced by the impact installation of a 14 -in pile. A bubble curtain will be used to attenuate the underwater noise levels associated with the impact installation of the 14 -in steel H -piles. Because of the large variability in the effectiveness of bubble curtains (and fabric barriers), there is no standard rate of attenuation. WSDOT (2012) reports a mean reduction in underwater noise of 11.9 dB with unconfined bubble curtains. It is expected that the use of bubble curtain will result in at least a 5 dB reduction in underwater noise. The distances at which the source sound level attenuates to the injury and behavioral thresholds summarized in Table 5 was estimated assuming an underwater sound level of 175 dBRMS (180 dBRMS to 5 dBRMS) for installation of 14 -in steel H -piles with an impact hammer. The cumulative SEL for each pile was estimated based on the assumption that impact pile driving would be required to drive the piles for the final 10 ft of their penetration, with 500 strikes per pile. The anticipated pile installation rate is only one pile per day, so that the total number of piles strikes per day will be 500. The distances at which the source sound level attenuates to the injury and behavioral thresholds was calculated using an Excel spreadsheet developed by NOAH -Fisheries for calculating the distance at which the source noise attenuates to the injury and behavioral thresholds (WSDOT, 2012) (Figure 17). The distances to the injury and behavioral thresholds are: • Injury (Fish >_2 grams [g]) — 2 m; • Injury (Fish <2 g) —4 m; • Behavioral (all fish) — 215 m. Figure 18 depicts the locations of the injury and behavioral thresholds relative to the location in the Cedar River where the 25 steel H -piles will be installed. It is expected that a total of 25 days will be required to install the 25 H -piles below the OHWM. Juvenile Chinook salmon are present in the Cedar River from January to July and appear to have two rearing strategies: (1) rear in the river and then emigrate to the lake in May or June as a presmolt; and (2) emigrate to the lake as fry in January, February, or March and rear in the lake for several months. Both groups then emigrate as smolts to Puget Sound in June or July (Tabor et al., 2004). Underwater sound generated by both vibratory and impact pile driving may cause juvenile Chinook salmon to avoid the project area, thereby potentially inhibiting foraging behavior. Impact pile driving has the potential to result in injury to juvenile salmonids. Water Quality/Turbidity — Temporary, localized increases in turbidity (as measured by suspended sediment concentration) may occur during the extraction and installation of piles and cofferdams. The AMEC 40 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lnorthbridgereplacementba_660612.docx ameO turbidity levels at a site are a function of a combination of factors that include substrate type, currents, and operational parameters. Turbidity plume size decreases exponentially with increasing distance, horizontal and vertical, from the disturbance site (Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001b). Potential increases in turbidity during the extraction and installation of piles and cofferdams could potentially affect salmonids in the immediate project area through decreased visibility, which could affect behaviors such as feeding and homing, territoriality, and avoidance responses. Duration, timing, and particle size and shape have been shown to influence the potential effect of increased turbidity on juvenile Pacific salmon, but there is little specific information on thresholds of physical, physiological, or behavioral tolerances for particular species. It is unknown what threshold of turbidity might exist that serves as a cue to fish to avoid light -reducing turbidity. The primary determinate of risk level for a particular species is likely to lie in the spatial and temporal overlap between the area of elevated turbidity, degree of turbidity elevation, occurrence of the fish, and options available to fish for carrying out the critical function of their particular life -history stage (Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001 b). The available evidence indicates that total suspended solids concentrations sufficient to cause such effects would be limited in extent during pile extraction and pile installation. LeGore and Des Voigne (1973) conducted 96 -hour bioassays on juvenile coho salmon using resuspended estuarine sediments. Acute effects were not observed at suspended sediment concentrations up to 5 percent (28,800 milligrams per liter [mg/L] dry weight), well above concentrations expected during pile extraction and pile driving activities. Salo et al. (1979) reported a maximum of only 94 mg/L of sediment in solution in the immediate vicinity of a working dredge in Hood Canal. Palermo et al. (1986) reported that up to 1.2 percent of sediments dredged by clamshell became suspended in the water column, thus substantially less sediments are expected to resuspend during pile extraction and installation. The potential negative effects of turbidity on juvenile salmonids, even of limited duration, due to the proposed action will likely be negligible because the proposed action will be timed to occur during the allowed work window specifically to avoid juvenile outmigration periods. This timing will dramatically reduce the temporal overlap between possible localized increases in turbidity during the proposed action and the presence of juvenile salmonids within the project area. Sediment chemistry data collected near the project area as part of two dredging projects indicate that there were no exceedances of Sediment Management Standards (personal communication: R. Stuart, AMEC, and D. Fox, Corps of Engineers, Dredge Materials Management Office, May 16, 2012). Resuspension of sediments during project activities is not expected to result in impaired water quality due to toxic chemicals. AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 41 Boeing Renton1LY111601341northbridgereplacementba_a60612,doex ameO The above information indicates that turbidity (suspended solids) may be elevated on a temporary and localized basis by the proposed action, but that total suspended sediment concentrations sufficient to cause adverse effects to Puget Sound Chinook salmon would be very limited in extent and duration. Therefore, temporary increases in turbidity during pile extraction and installation are expected to be insignificant and discountable and are not expected to result in long-term degradation of the existing water quality conditions within the Action Area. 6.1.4 Short -Term Indirect Effects This section discusses the possible short-term indirect effects associated with disruption of benthic habitat. Impaired Benthic Habitat — Extraction of various piles and concrete bridge piers supporting the existing bridge and bridge aprons, as well as the extraction of piles that will support the temporary trestle and the installation of 6 concrete bridge piers to support the new bridge will require the temporary installation of cofferdams around these areas. The various piles and bridge piers will have to be cut off at a depth of at least 2 ft below the surveyed dredge depth for the Cedar River, requiring the removal of sediments from within the caisson surrounding each pile. As summarized in Table 4, up to 23,556 sf of substrate may be removed, resulting in the temporary destruction of benthic habitat over this area. Foraging area for juvenile Chinook salmon in the project area would thus be reduced, possibly causing them to move to adjacent foraging areas. Benthic infauna would likely recolonize the disturbed area within 1 to 2 years; however, the City of Renton will likely be dredging the lower 1.6 miles of the lower Cedar River within the next several years for flood -control purposes. Such dredging would result in a large-scale disruption of benthic and foraging habitats, perhaps occurring within the recovery period of the areas disturbed by the proposed action. 6.1.5 Effects Determination The proposed action is expected to have long-term beneficial effects on Puget Sound Chinook salmon, as well as short-term adverse effects. Long-term beneficial effects, both direct and indirect, may result from the permanent reduction in overwater coverage by over 4,000 sf. The reduction in overwater coverage is expected to result in a long-term beneficial effect by eliminating shading of over 4,000 sf of benthic and riparian habitat. Additionally, the proposed restoration of shoreline areas on each bank of the Cedar River exposed by removal of the bridge aprons is also expected to result in a long-term beneficial effect by creating riparian habitat and improving the nearshore, shallow -water habitat along the lower Cedar River_ AMEC 42 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO Potential short-term adverse effects to Puget Sound Chinook salmon may result from the production of underwater sound associated with the vibratory installation and extraction of cofferdams and piles, as well as the installation of piles with an impact hammer. Underwater sound associated with the impact installation of 14 -in steel H -piles has the potential to attain levels that could result in physical injury to juvenile Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Pile extraction and installation by both vibratory and impact hammers has the potential to produce underwater sound that could result in behavioral effects in juvenile salmon, causing them to avoid foraging and nursery areas in the Action Area. The proposed action may also result in temporary disruption of about 23,556 sf of benthic habitat, reducing benthic foraging habitat in the Action Area. Additionally, it is possible that in -water activities could result in localized and temporary increases in turbidity that could potentially reduce foraging efficiency of juvenile salmonids, as well as affecting the predator -avoidance behavior_ When viewed as a whole, considering both long- and short-term adverse and beneficial effects, the proposed action may affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon because: • Suitable Chinook migration and rearing habitat is present in the Action Area; • Overwater coverage and shading will be reduced by over 4,000 sf in the Action Area, likely resulting in a long-term beneficial effect; • The numbers of in -water structures will be substantially reduced, decreasing possible predator habitat; • Shoreline restoration along both banks of the Cedar River will likely result in a long-term beneficial effect to Puget Sound Chinook salmon; and • Localized and temporary increases in turbidity may occur as a result of in -water work. The proposed action is likely to adversely affect Puget Sound Chinook salmon because: • Chinook salmon are known to rear in the Action Area during the time of year when project activities will occur; • Installation of steel H -piles using an impact hammer has the potential to produce underwater sound levels that could reach thresholds reported to result in physical injury to juvenile salmonids possibly using the immediate project site; • Installation of steel H -piles and steel -pipe piles using a vibratory driver has the potential to produce underwater sound levels that could result in behavioral disturbance of juvenile Chinook salmon, possibly causing them to avoid the Action Area during active construction; • For a period of up to 8 or 9 months, the area of overwater coverage will increase due to the presence of both a temporary trestle and the existing bridge or the replacement bridge; AMEC Project No. LY11160130 43 Boeing Renton/LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO Disruption of benthic habitat may reduce foraging habitat (up to 23,556 sf) of juvenile Chinook salmon for a period of up to 2 years. 6.1.6 Effects on Critical Habitat The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are presented in Section 4.2. Of the PCEs listed for Puget Sound Chinook salmon, only the attributes described in PCEs 2 and 3 occur in the Action Area: 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and 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 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. Many of the habitat attributes listed in PCEs 2 and 3 do not occur in the Action Area, such as: • Floodplain connectivity; • Natural cover (e.g., shade provided by riparian vegetation); • Overhanging large wood; • Log jams; • Beaver dams; • Large rocks and boulders; • Side channels; and • Undercut banks. The proposed action may result in: • Localized and temporary increases in turbidity caused by in -water work; • Temporary disruption of foraging habitat used by juvenile salmonids; • Decreased shading (4,000 sf) from overwater shading; and • Improved shoreline habitat. AMEC 44 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renlon1LY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO A may affect determination is warranted for Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat because the proposed action: Occurs within designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon; and • May temporarily reduce foraging habitat within the Action Area and may result reduced water quality in the Action Area due localized and temporary increases in turbidity. A not likely to adversely affect determination is warranted for Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat because the proposed action: • Will improve natural habitat conditions by shoreline restoration along both banks of the Cedar River within the project area; and Will increase habitat complexity through shoreline restoration and decreasing overwater coverage by over 4,000 sf, which will reduce shading of Cedar River substrate in the project area. 6.2 PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD TROUT This section discusses potential long- and short-term direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on Puget Sound steelhead trout. The long-term direct and indirect impacts are those potential beneficial effects associated with reduced shading caused by decreasing overwater coverage by over 4,000 sf, as well as the beneficial effects associated with shoreline restoration. Short-term direct and direct impacts to steelhead trout may result from increased underwater noise attributable to the extraction and installation of piles and cofferdams, as well as localized increases in turbidity due to in -water work, and temporary and localized impairment of benthic habitat. Project -related effects on Puget Sound steelhead trout are expected to be nearly identical to those described in Section 6.1 for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. Therefore the effects determination for Puget Sound steelhead trout is that the proposed action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect Puget Sound steelhead trout. Critical habitat has not yet been designated for Puget Sound steelhead trout. 6.3 COASTALIPUGET SOUND BULL TROUT This section discusses potential long- and short-term direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout. The long-term direct and indirect impacts are those potential beneficial effects associated with reduced shading caused by decreasing overwater coverage by over 4,000 sf, as well as the beneficial effects associated with shoreline restoration. Short-term direct and direct impacts to bull trout may result from increased underwater noise attributable to the extraction AMEC Project No. LY11160130 45 Boeing RenlonlLY111601 301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO and installation of piles and cofferdams, as well as localized increases in turbidity due to in -water work, and temporary and localized impairment of benthic habitat. Potential project effects on bull trout may be somewhat similar to those described for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead trout, but certainly not identical. Project effects are discussed below. 6.3.1 Long -Term Direct Effects This section addresses the long-term direct effects associated with shading and shoreline restoration. Shading — The extent to which overwater coverage and shading may affect subadult and adult bull trout that may occasionally occur in the Lake Washington Basin is unknown, but it is expected that the reduction in overwater coverage would not adversely affect bull trout, but provide some may provide some beneficial effects to bull trout. No studies were located addressing whether or not shading affects the bull trout behavior. Shoreline Restoration — The proposed shoreline restoration is expected to improve habitat complexity in the nearshore area of the project site. An improvement in habitat complexity, especially by creating vegetative shading in the nearshore area may provide better habitat for bull trout. 6.3.2 Long -Term Indirect Effects This section addresses the long-term indirect effects associated with shading and shoreline restoration. Shading — The reduction in overwater coverage and shading resulting from the proposed action may create improved foraging habitat for bull trout as prey species (e.g., juvenile Chinook salmon) move into the areas previously shaded by the bridge aprons. Shoreline Restoration — As with the reduction in shading provided by the removal of the bridge aprons, the shoreline restoration may provide improved foraging habitat for bull trout, as the increased habitat complexity is expected to provide nursery and forage habitat for other species of fish preyed upon by bull trout. 6.3.3 Short -Term Direct Effects This section discusses the possible short-term effects associated with underwater sound and temporary and localized increases in turbidity. AMSC 46 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO Underwater Sound — As discussed in Section 6.1.3 above, project -generated sound created by vibratory and impact pile drivers may reach levels that could behaviorally affect bull trout. The available information indicates that only sub -adult and adult bull trout have been recorded in Lake Washington, so it is unlikely that juvenile bull trout would occur in the project area in close enough proximity to incur physical injury from pile driving with an impact pile driver. Underwater sound levels generated by pile driving may displace bull trout from the Action Area during pile driving activities, thus temporarily diminishing their foraging area. Water Quality/Turbidity — Temporary, localized increases in turbidity (as measured by suspended sediment concentration) may occur during the extraction and installation of piles and cofferdams. The turbidity levels at a site are a function of a combination of factors that include substrate type, currents, and operational parameters. Turbidity plume size decreases exponentially with increasing distance, horizontal and vertical, from the disturbance site (Nightingale and Simenstad, 2001b). Any increase in turbidity is expected to be minor, temporary, and localized, but could discourage bull trout from using portions of the Action Area affected by the increased turbidity. 6.3.3 Short -Term Indirect Effects This section discusses the possible short-term indirect effects associated with disruption of benthic habitat_ Impaired Benthic Habitat — As discussed in Section 6.1.4, project -related activities may disrupt up to 23,556 sf of benthic habitat, thus reducing foraging habitat for juvenile salmonids. The prey base for sub -adult and adult bull trout foraging in the affected area could be reduced, thereby diminish foraging opportunities for bull trout the Action Area. However, such reduced foraging opportunities are expected to be only temporary and will recover as the benthic habitat recovers. Benthic infauna would likely recolonize the disturbed area within 1 to 2 years; however, the City of Renton will likely be dredging the lower 1.6 miles of the lower Cedar River within the next several years for flood -control purposes. Such dredging would result in a large-scale disruption of benthic and foraging habitats, perhaps occurring within the recovery period of the areas disturbed by the proposed action. 6.3.4 Effects Determination The proposed action may have long-term beneficial effects on Coastal/Puget bull trout, as well as short-term adverse effects. Long-term beneficial effects, both direct and indirect, may result from the permanent reduction in overwater coverage by over 4,000 sf. The reduction in overwater coverage is expected to result in a long-term beneficial effect by eliminating shading of over 4,000 sf of benthic AMEC Project No. LY11160130 47 Boeing RentonlLY111 601301northbridgereplacementba_060612-docx ameO and riparian habitat. Additionally, the proposed restoration of shoreline areas on each bank of the Cedar River exposed by removal of the bridge aprons is also expected to result in a long-term beneficial effect by creating riparian habitat and improving the nearshore, shallow -water habitat along the lower Cedar River. Potential short-term adverse effects to Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout may result from the production of underwater sound associated with both vibratory installation and extraction of cofferdams and piles, as well as the installation of piles with an impact hammer. Underwater sound associated with the impact installation of the 14 -in steel H -piles has the potential to attain levels that could result in behavioral effects in Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout, causing them to avoid the Action Area during pile driving events. The proposed action may also result in temporary disruption of about 23,556 sf of benthic habitat, reducing benthic foraging habitat in the Action Area. Additionally, it is possible that in -water activities could result in localized and temporary increases in turbidity that could potentially reduce foraging efficiency of juvenile salmonids, as well as affecting the predator -avoidance behavior. When viewed as a whole, considering both long- and short-term adverse and beneficial effects, the proposed action may affect Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout because: • Suitable bull trout foraging habitat is present in the Action Area; • Overwater coverage and shading will be reduced by over 4,000 sf in the Action Area, likely resulting in a long-term beneficial effect; and Shoreline restoration along both banks of the Cedar River will likely result in a long-term beneficial effect to Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout. The proposed action is not likely to adversely affect Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout because: • They could potentially occur in the Action Area during the time of year when project activities are scheduled; • Installation of steel H -piles and steel -pipe piles using a vibratory driver or impact hammer has the potential to produce underwater sound levels that could result in behavioral disturbance to subadult or adult bull trout, possibly causing them to avoid the Action Area during active construction; • Disruption of benthic habitat in the Action Area may reduce foraging habitat (up to 23,556 sf) for prey species for a period of up to 2 years, which may reduce foraging opportunities for any bull trout that may occur in the Action Area. AMEC 48 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY 1 1 5601361northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO • Localized and temporary increases in turbidity may occur as a result of in -water work, but water quality is expected to return to pre -construction levels shortly after in -water activity is completed. 6.3.5 Effects on Critical The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook salmon are presented in Section 4.2. Of the PCEs listed below for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout, only the attributes described in PCE 6 would not apply in the Action Area: 6. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young -of -the -year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g., less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in) in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of these conditions. Many of the attributes described in the various PCEs for bull trout critical habitat are not well represented in or are absent from the Action Area: • An abundant food base of riparian origin; • Complex river, stream, lake, and reservoir aquatic environments and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure; • A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges; and • Few or no nonnative predatory species. The proposed action may result in: • Localized and temporary increases in turbidity caused by in -water work; • Temporary disruption of foraging habitat used by bull trout prey species; • Decreased shading (>4,000 sf) from overwater shading; and • Improved shoreline habitat. A may affect determination is warranted for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout critical habitat because the proposed action: • Occurs within designated critical habitat for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout; and • May temporarily reduce foraging habitat within the Action Area and may result in reduced water quality in the Action Area due localized and temporary increases in turbidity. AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 49 Boeing Renton/M 11601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO A not likely to adversely affect determination is warranted for Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout critical habitat because the proposed action: • Will improve natural habitat conditions by shoreline restoration along both banks of the Cedar River within the project area; and Will increase habitat complexity through shoreline restoration and decreasing overwater coverage by over 4,000 sf, which will reduce shading of Cedar River substrate in the project area. AMSC 50 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lnorthbddgereplacementba_060612.docx ameO 7.4 INTERRELATED/INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Interdependent actions are those from actions with no independent utility apart from the proposed action. Interrelated actions include those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for justification. Cumulative effects are those from state or private activities not involving activities of other federal agencies that are reasonably certain to occur within the area of the federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02 Definitions). The proposed project will replace an existing bridge used to transport aircraft from Boeing's manufacturing facility to the Renton Municipal Airport where the planes will be launched and retrieved. The new bridge is needed in response to Boeing's plans to increase production of 737s over the next several years. Although more plan trips across the new bridge are anticipated, this is not expected to result in any interdependent or interrelated actions, as the new bridge will not allow more access to the Cedar River nor is it expected to result in increased recreational or commercial use of the river and surrounding areas. Federal actions unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, there is another action within the lower Cedar River with a federal nexus that may occur in the near future that is within close proximity to the proposed action described in the biological assessment. The City of Renton may conduct dredging of the lower 1.6 miles of the Cedar River for flood -control purposes. There are no other state or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the area as a result of the proposed action. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected as a result of the proposed action. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 51 Boeing Renton/LY11166130�northbridgereplacementha_060612.docx (this page left blank intentionally) AMEC 52 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111601301norihbndgereplacementba_060612,docx ameO 8.0 SUMMARY The proposed action has the potential to affect listed species or their critical habitat, as discussed in Section 6.0. The determinations of effects for the proposed action for each listed species that may occur in the Action Area are summarized in Table 6. AMEC Project No. Ly 11160130 53 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612,docx ameO (this page left blank intentionally) AMEC $4 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton7LY111601301northbridgerep�acementha_060612.docx amec19 9.0 REFERENCES AMEC (AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc,), 2012, No -Rise and Scour Report: North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle, Prepared for The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington. Anchor (Anchor Environmental CA, LP). 2003. Literature Review of Effects of Resuspended Sediments Due to Dredging Operations. Prepared for the Los Angeles Contaminated Sediment Task Force, Los Angeles, California, http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sediment/Lit- ResuspendedSediments.pdf (accessed October 28, 2010). Becker, C.D. 1973. Food and growth parameters of juvenile Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in central Columbia River: Fisheries Bulletin (U.S.), v. 71, p. 387-400. Bennett, J., and Cubbage, J. 1992. Effects of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Sediments from Lake Washington on Freshwater Bioassay Organisms and Benthic Macroinvertebrates (92-e01): Washington State Department of Ecology, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services Program, Toxics, Compliance, and Ground Water Investigations Section, Olympia, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/ 92101.html (accessed September 12, 2009). Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2009. Final Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. for the California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/bio/filesl Guidance_Manual_2_09.pdf (accessed April 3, 2012). Carrasquero, J. 2001. Overwater Structures — Freshwater Issues: Prepared for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. City of Seattle. 2000. Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan for the Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered Species. City of Seattle, Seattle, Washington, http:/twww.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/HCP/City%20of%2OSeattle%20Cedar%20River— HCP.pdf (accessed April 3, 2012). Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2002. Montlake Cut Slope Stabilization Project Environmental Assessment Biological Evaluation — Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, Washington: Corps, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2004. Cedar River at Renton Flood Damage Reduction Operation and Maintenance Manual: Cedar River Section 205 (Renton, Washington). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington_ Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008. Washington State's 2008 Water Quality Assessment [303(d) & 305(b) Report]: Ecology, Olympia, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/ wq/303d/2008/index.html (accessed April 15, 2015). AMEC Project No. LY11160130 55 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612,dacx ameO Groot, C., and Margolis, L. 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories — Government of Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Biological Services Branch, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Guerra-Garcia, J.M., Corzo, J., and Garcia-Gbmez, C. 2003. Short-term benthic recolonization after dredging in the Harbour of Ceuta, North Africa. Marine Ecology, v. 24, p. 217-229. Hard, J.J., Myers, J.M., Ford, M.J., Cope, R.G_, Pess, G.R., Waples, R.S., Winans, G.A., Berejikian, B.A., Waknitz, F.W., Adams, P.B., Bisson, P.A., Campton, D.E., and Relsenbichler, R.R. 2007. Status Review of Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS- NWFSC-81, Seattle, Washington. Hartt, A.C., and Dell, M.B. 1986. Early Oceanic Migrations and Growth of Juvenile Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Trout. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin Number 46, Vancouver, British Columbia. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.. 2010. Underwater Sound Levels Associated with Driving Steel Piles for the State Route 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Project Pile Installation Test Program. Report to Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle, http://wsdot.wa.gov/NRlydonlyresl El 2A70C2-7A1 1-4F83-A37B-6C1 D4F22694B10/ SR520PileHydroacousticRpt.pdf (accessed April 2, 2012). Jones & Stokes. 2004. Biological Evaluation, Regional General Permit for Modification and Construction of Residential Overwater Structures in Inland Marine Waters of Washington State. Prepared by Jones & Stokes, Bellevue, Washington, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, Washington. Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar-Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission, Olympia. Kotta, J., Herkul, K., Kotta, I., Orav-Kotta, H., and Alps, R. 2009. Response of benthic invertebrate communities to the large-scale dredging of Muuga Port. Estonian Journal of Ecology, v. 58, p. 286-296. LeGore, R.S., and Des Voigne, D.M. 1973. Absence of acute effects on threespine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeates) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) exposed to resuspended harbor sediment contamination: Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, v. 30, p. 1240-1242. Merkel and Associates, Inc. 2009. Post-dredging Recolonization Study. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Port of San Diego, and U.S. Navy NAVFAC, http://www.port of sandiego.orglcomponent/document/doc_download/ 2168-091009benthicpd_html (accessed March 9, 2011), Nightingale, B., and Simenstad, C_ 2001 a. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. Prepared for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia. AMSC 56 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba-060612.docx ameO Nightingale, B., and Simenstad, C. 2001 b. White Paper, Dredging Activities — Marine Issues: Prepared for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2008, Washington — Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Washington (Chart 18447): U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey, Washington, D.C., http://www.charts.noaa.gov/ OnLineViewer/18447.shtml (accessed August 21, 2009). NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. The 1-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project (1-5 to SR 169 — Phase 2) Lower Cedar River, Cedar River Sixth Field HUC: 171100120106, 171100120302, King County, Washington. NOAA-Fisheries and USFWS, Lacey, Washington, https:/Ipcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pcts-pub/sxn7.pcts— upload.download?p_file=F13441/200704219_405_trip_03-03-2008.pdf (accessed May 19, 2012). Palermo, M.R., Brannon, J.M., Zappi, M.E., Skogerboe, J.G., Adamec, S.A., Sturgis, T.C., Wade, R., Gunnison, D., and Myers, T.E. 1986. Dredged Material Disposal Design Requirements for U.S. Navy Homeport at Everett, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Parametrix and Adolfson (Adolfson Associates, Inc.). 2010. City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Update Restoration Plan. Prepared for the City of Renton, Washington. http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Business/EDNSP/planning/4.3%20Final%2ORestoration%2 0Plan%200une-10).pdf?n=2474 (accessed April 13, 2012)_ Perkins, S,J. 1994. The Shrinking Cedar River — Channel Changes Following Flow Regime Regulation and Bank Armoring, in Proceedings of Effects of Human -Induced Changes on Hydrologic Systems. American Water Resources Association 1994 Annual Summer Symposium, p. 649-658 Saadi-Caromile, K., Bates, K_, Skidmore, P_, Barenti, J., and Pineo, D. 2004. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines, Final Draft. Co -published by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. Salo, E.O., Prinslow, T.E., Campbell, R.A., Smith, D.W., and Snyder, B -P. 1979. Trident Dredging Study — The Effects of Dredging at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base at Bangor on Outmigrating Juvenile Chum Salmon, Oncorhynchus keta, in Hood Canal, Washington_ University of Washington, College of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute, FRI-UW-7918, Seattle. Scott, J., Rhoads, D., Rosen, J., Pratt S., and Gentile, J. 1987. Field Verification Program (Aquatic Disposal) — Impact of Open -Water Disposal of Black Rock Harbor Dredged Material on Benthic Recolonization at the FVP Site. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report D-87-4, Vicksburg, Mississippi. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 57 Boeing RentonlLY111601301northbridgereplacementba_060612.doex ameO Simenstad, C.A., Nightingale, B.J., Thom, R.M., and Shreffler, D -K. 1999. Impacts to Ferry Terminals on Juvenile Salmon Migrating along Puget Shorelines, Phase I — Synthesis of State of Knowledge. Prepared by the Washington State Transportation Center, Seattle, for Washington State Department of Transportation Commission and in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Tabor, R.A., Celedonia, M.T., Mejia, F., Piaskowski, R.M., Low, D.L., Footen, B_, and Park, L_ 2004. Predation of Juvenile Chinook Salmon by Predatory Fishes in Three Areas of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Fisheries Division, Lacey, Washington. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2012. USGS Surface -Water Monthly Statistics for Washington — USGS 12119000 Cedar River at Renton. Department of the Interior, USGS, National Water Information System, http-./twaterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly?referred_module= sw&site—no=12119000&po r_12119000_19=1179603,00060,19,1945-09,2011- 09&format=html_table&date—format=YYYY-MM-DD&rdb—compression=file&submitted—form= parameter—selection—list (accessed May 13, 2012). WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Salmon5cape. WDFW, Olympia, hftp://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/ index.html (accessed April 12, 2012). WDFW and WWTIT (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory, Appendix One — Puget Sound Stocks, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Volume. WDFW and WWTIT, Olympia. Williams, R.W., Laramie, R.M., and Ameces, J.J. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization; Volume 1 — Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia_ WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), 2012. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects — Advanced Training Manual. WSDOT, Environmental Services, Olympia, http-.//www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/BAguidance_htm (accessed February 20, 2012). AMEC 58 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130Inorihbridgereplacementba_060612-docx ameO TABLES ameO TABLE 1 ESA -LISTED SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE ACTION AREA Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Abbreviation(s) ESA = Endangered Species Act Boeing RentonlM 11601301table 1 listedspecies.docx AMEC Page 1 of 1 Listing Status Species Date Critical Habitat Fish Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Threatened Designated (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (03/24199) Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout Threatened Designated (Salvelinus confluentus) (06110/98) Puget Sound Steelhead Trout Threatened Under Development (O. mykiss) (0517/07) Abbreviation(s) ESA = Endangered Species Act Boeing RentonlM 11601301table 1 listedspecies.docx AMEC Page 1 of 1 W d W Ci 0 Z a Z_ F" N a O I— cW C Z O H U at Z O U G W N O IL O a U a) 0 CL c m E S6 CL Q> N ¢1 m 0 Z G 0 m Pm r of r - r r r O N N N O N r 0 O N O OC -4 r 0 N N b o N O o N O O N L A N r N N M N V fA N ZZ in N C4} u7 (`7 r� h °D r 47 m N r = N [D O c0 to [D co co O UI Ji SA ul i I r i/i r 41 + Vl Vi Vf A 3 3 3 3 Y m" ofl d 3 3 3 a r N M up r c N a m u c G D O .ca 0 ca N O N a Y aw x N O - Q j c o 3 m cr m @ a C m �' 'a m Y s M s 7 O 0 N N .�. 'Q g N 9 45 O d CC N z a p 'p_ 3 'a 3 n� z �c ; > 370 y Cl Md r T o d) r 4, Q O c�i Q w O y E E� > o �" m E ID ID m ° u) o a N S.1 N M U N > Q N> CN] N 4} ir, to L Or p N E E a O C G to N 0 O m lD 0 X W [4 L N aY U C C L p m j X O 4 01 .0 C] y in E E E N y o m mE 4ym.c �a a an �� LN °'ami a o © 0 L � ay ay al � � � N [CO o o c'o � ° a a E a c c M N Q #9 > C) cmi �6 ro NcL G 7 ~ _a m u N LV M U OV yUlj a (O r r l0 O tD m v C a =t c °u a m c o a '� .� C ° M N cn C O N O m C C C O 4 .a w E C O o -0 .0 E F a E -p m CL m o 0� m d ?3 Pvv n a 'u ° ° c a ' E m 0 n m F $ v o r `m uw m a E o L c�� cpm t N Ora Za)di E P y U P m L P 4� 3 d ff 6 m is a Z Z Z Z LU Y Ga y N P C C c4v U �[ p N C 8 ID ID m '6 w V o C C Q 111 C- a ° v m y y n r v y i a o .Q x m m co C C � a] o m n O co ° m m0 00 i N'� w al o y6 m P d 0 c N c E m as P N E C c Q N C E m - (D a D 2 U (D 'n 0 0 m 0) 'a e m ° " ° 4a a c d A d° OCL—c m Y E W m 'm a E a �+ E t fA m a m in ta a a R a m c m Y° a a y a o o m U mea � a w N N LU J N W J w S Q 0 Z Q 0 Z N O r H LU 2 Z d H U D d' H Z Q L? D w CAO A O w CL m a' t 13 O m (] N w o N a � IL Q LO ro L�, �g ' CD O N O 4 r QT O N N 4 O N N Q p N O 4 N p 0 N N p N N 4 O N o o N a7 N� sp N N iD 00 jn V r o`o N N to 22 Z! N v `� N r N r r N r= N— r m ryl r r ao C31 r n m r �p `- r- co o`o C O I I r Y N �[ U N Q Y y N N UI t/ VI V] 1n ID N ay aJ m CO m co M m Q Q p cD c0 o N � y c 10 a O N a yYr > U CD y L 'a E O N a II Ey oa°° E y a� yr 3 W v 3 o N :gam N N co S N m (6 m t a5 a N Y � �. z b o w E O r (D C C a a w o= a S Y 3 'Cl m d 7 O m o U-1 f y 3 io ai c E °' m M' C co E ra p� U 0 0 CL N N p y .E W C ` w - m r o� > a .Ew Na> — CL CO W o E 3 v o 4� E u E p , u- c� > m c a 'o c a m E Qf a s 0 a 3 n ¢ m o X n E E o w y ° a `° y a ❑ rp y MCD 3 a d m C �.� 0 U Q Q a1 n V 04 E LL C 0Lf> �� S Qy in .gym E�cy N owo'v� �� fl N o .a 2 u o o u N a5 0 > p m y ) E E 0 o o E E r E rg Q c c m w c _ a w ft p ai j 4 y � O a o m a)p w .y w w c 4 E c Q e ° 2 C d w o c co rz Q p o Z o w c� o y 0. t o f m — a L10 N a3 flf v f — — C DD p c C � m w t J w > w z z w O z O z O z O z w 3 w } 0) a } y y 0 — ' r N p C Q w l6 d y U w M CDO N C �_ 'a �_ en Y N C N U W N y ID 0 m a s `�' y °4)v Q ° u o E vc }o R — ac daa s y �a 'o T- y C: M N a v E N T m d ja — w ar G o E CL 'a C m z o p E w _ v = c=il 41as v, w rn ao 3 a w U °' a C m 3 =6 d = u, 4f df Z A 4� 7d S rp 2 ry w w > N Q} m s6 d C G E O d C 0 A CL yV maw h a— 0 m m C Q G R > CS � m N (] N w o N a � IL M W J M Q H D N H V W 7 Ir CL z W W �.i a J CL W W Q m 2 H O z W V) O a a CD C .5 O m C D O 14 E D X C E 0N 0 N (D 00 r� CL''' ~ 3 CL C1 Q H C O U 0 3 °fm3of yam a(9 � w �� �� a a E g x rn r N N a r Cv z z 0-0 0 m z 'a a_ o 0g U rW Q m E Q �' in Q ) a1 acl w _ o y = 2 w m 0� z z CD A N O a� ss N C c o.a`s ca ~ Q CL in 00 z Q= X00.= CL._ r r O NN baa a)o oQ 4 m= y r LI ao (D `I d N r z z 00 ¢ m Q a E d � m N ax O G N N Gl o � x � co � cn co � t[5 Z Z 3 � o � my� S as ao N c- {n r N 0 6 r l4 Ln u� r Q Q 00 i N ¢rm N C N a m N N z z d a1 J � M m a3 al C C Q7 CCO y� m cq ca V 'O E O E V 01 d X m r 6 m f 0 of E w W a W w m 00) N ar Wo Zw c co (D 0 Odc(D Eic°c�-o �� oma) tm oQas Q� = Q 6 ❑m< m a�iai� Wf-� m vEia�� QHs - N rmso � � « � � � @ R w2 2.6 aa- �2 m E o W / (n � LU X ® 2 LU \ w �2\ Wim\ 1 of 20 mz �\_ z O LU V) O IL O 0: IL w0 2m E 0 Q) � { aE E : ' © 7 ■ $ \ X $ f $ < « < « « « < « $ z z 2 2 2 2 2 z �\ \ 7 m </ 22 =■ C14 % 2 \� b2 2 2'E 7& '20- t2 o\\ Mm 0 j 0 0 g§ off» $ 0 ■ E 0 $s o � 2 E w 00\ f � 7 w 9 za E k E CL o i � m %/ } 7 (D (D g) \ z z \±0 b§ 2§3 /k m e - E2CL- E ) 'T0 f o 2k CL CL 2 CN -qr a " « q: z ■ J(D < { $s t® $ k k k 7 k k m 7 ■0 « m& < < « < « « « « _= a z z 2 2 2 2 2 z ao � » 2 ©2 f f© z z z z z z k z mo � / 2 § / § (D w z 32 �a a) 'E ok;/ z K -a §� ■ c 2 = @ Etm _ 8 < ' <R 0. o 0 ¥ g 2 2G £ J 2§ 2 ID z�O�a Q)8 oo= =0a oo202— I0E�«a w0 2m E Q) � { E : 7 $ \ � (D\ Q- + 2 0 E \ 7 m %2 Go 22 =■ C14 % 2 \� b2 2'E 7& '20- t2 o\\ Mm j 0 g§ off» $ 0 E M a R � 2 / CL E k E CL o E } \ §k /k m e - E2CL- E ) © g 0 2k /It\ a " « q: z \ J(D < { TABLE 4 AREA OF BENTHIC HABITAT TEMPORARILY DISTURBED BY PROJECT ACTIVITIES Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Stage Description Equation Area (Square Feet Remove 60 H -piles using 1 B a 10 -ft -diameter cofferdam that will surround Tr " (5 ft)2 " 30 2,356 2 piles at a time 1 B Remove 8 concrete bridge piles using Tr * (8 ft)2 ' 8 1,609 16 -ft -diameter cofferdam/pile 3A Remove 12 concrete -filled steel piles using rr • (5 ft)2 ' 8 628 16 -ft -diameter cofferdam/pile Remove 8 concrete pile and 3A 16 concrete foundations using Tr * (8 ft)2 '24 4,826 16 -ft -diameter cofferdam Remove 140 H -piles using 36 15 -ft -diameter coffer dam Tr * (7.5 ft)2 * 70 12,370 (assume cofferdam surrounds 2 piles at a time 313 Remove 8 concrete -filled steel piles using Tr * (5 ft)2 * 10 785 15 -ft -diameter cofferdam/pile Remove 25 H -piles using 6 10 -ft -diameter cofferdam rr * (5 ft)2 * 12.5 982 (assume cofferdam surrounds 2 piles at a time Total NA NA 23,556 Abbreviation(s) ft = foot or feet NA = not applicable Boeing Renton/LY11160130Vable 4 benthic.docx AMEC Page 1 of 1 ameO TABLE 5 FISH INJURY AND BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE THRESHOLDS FOR IN -WATER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY' Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Fish Underwater Noise Thresholds (dB,.,) Impact Pile Driving Disturbance Threshold Injury Threshold Fish >_2 grams Behavior Effects Threshold 150 187 (cumulative SEL) Fish <2 grams 183 (cumulative SEL) Fish All Sizes 206 dBpeak Note(s) 1. Source: WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2012. WSDOT Biological Assessment Guidance — Noise Assessment Guidance: NMFS Calculator, Washington State Department of Transportation, Environmental Services, Olympia, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/ Biology/BA/BAguidance.htm (accessed May 17, 2012). Abbreviation(s) dBpeak = decibels peak dBrns = decibels root mean square SEL = sound exposure level Boeing RenlonlLY1116013MOble 5 fishinjury.dou AMEC Page 1 of 1 amec19 TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS FOR LISTED SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABITATS IN THE ACTION AREA Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Species/PCEs NE NLAA LAA Puget Sound Chinook Salmon X Critical Habitat PCE 2 and 3 X Critical Habitat PCEs 1, 4, 5, and 6 X Puget Sound Steelhead Trout x Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout X Critical Habitat PCEs 2, 3, 4 and S X Critical Habitat PCEs 1, 5, 6, 7, and 9 X Abbreviation(s) LAA = likely to adversely affect NE = no effect NLAA = not likely to adversely affect PCE = primary constituent elements Boeing RentonlY1116D13Mtable 6 effects.docx AMEC Page 1 of 1 ameO FIGURES LAKE WASHINGTON 0I.- BOE/NO DRIVING DiREGTIONS FROM 1-5 7 `n 4 ii'. From I-5. 1405 Northbound at Exit -;o• merge onto 154. - - " •� O .pf' / Merge onto WA -167 N. i Valley Fre vayvia F:xd .4J r'. 6 2 toward RenlonlRal Ave. .;.,,U ;iI i,r �,r... b - r $ � Merge onto Rainier Ave. S. Turn Right onto Airport Way 5 0 r p J - Airport Way $_ becomes Logan AV 5. (Gate access required onlo Boeing property) i IFnd at 737 Logan Ave. IN Rerdon, wA 98057 d C _ j l R � m Z .: a CITY OF RENTON a m 6 n 33 C z APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 i_ Y 0 400 800 1604 0I.- BOE/NO rf.r�q d..vuiH L f ft.� off.~!fit 1 U KE wASNINGTON rw Wa .. J ------- EX, ---- E ISTIN BRID P R t rn ------------ I iOOPV C1 1 FUM VIEW J 7 d m S Q Vertical Datum: NGVD 29 U APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET @ a m 0 35 70 140 r 0 z C a c v 0 a m Y a EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW Z Z Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project m � Renton, Washington r7ameO Date: 6-6-2012 Project No. LY11160130 /V�i Figure 2 , 11 `— �i a - MATCH LNE i� 01 - 7 m 3 qv, V m - Z rn r F�-- & II, a 06 t r 0 Z C 0 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET M a 0 35 70 Vertical Datum: NGVD 29 EXISTING BRIDGE CROSS SECTION z W Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project LU � Renton, Washington By: GSM Date: 6-6-2012 Project No. LY11160130 a BSE/IVB -- 0 ameco Figure s EXISTING BRIDGE STAGES 1A & 18: y REMOVE EXISTING APRON, BULKHEAD,APPRQX.30 SUPPORTING "H" PILES, AND APPROX.4 SQUARE CONCRETE PILES EXISTING BULKHEAD --_----w HW =15.49 FOLLOWS EX. BULKHEAD OHW =15.49 FOLLOWS EX. BULKHEAD � rn 1 Vertical Datum: NGVD 29 i�L- 11110A LAKE WASHINGTON 10- STAGES 1A & 1B: REMOVE EXISTING BULKHEAD,APPRO { SUPPORTING" S, APPROX.4 E CONCRETE S 1 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 25 50 100 =C LAKE WASHINGTON BRIDGE APPROACH & REMAINING APRON BRIDGE APPROACH $ EXISTING BRIDGE REMAINING APRON CENTER SPAN �i I CUC i PORr4 y TRE TLE T - ° STAGE 2B: ESTIMATED OHW (15.49) (nP) INSTALL 5 PILE BENTS ( 5 2 PILESIBENT)BE OW HWM CUTOFF PILES A INSTALL X d DECK ESTIMATED RESTORATION CONTOURS (TYP) STAGE 2A: 1 INSTALL PILES AB VE OHWM EXISTING BULKHEAD 1 PILE BENT ON EA H BANK WITH 5 PILEIBENT I Z l I m 1 OHW 15.49" y ti 6 0 c 0 c v ccZ O M w APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Z d 400 804 1600 TEMPORARY TRESTLE CONSTRUCTION PLAN VIEW Qf STAGES 2A & 2B wBoeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington By: GSM Date: 6-6-2012 Project No. LY11160130 B�Ef/V� n ameO Figure 5 Al ..-TEMPORARY TRESTLE BRIDGE ELEVATION SCALE: = 50' TEMPORARY TRESTLE BRIDGE SECTION SCALE: 1 50' APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 25 50 100 91- Affiff"W" LAKE WASHINGTON STAGE R REMOVE EXISTING BRIDGE AND PARTIAL APRONS, APPROX 8 CONCRETE FILLED STEEL PILES, 4 CONCRETE PILES, AND 16 — CQNC$ E FOUNDATIONS 4 1 ESTIMATED OHW (15.4$ (TYP) X ESTIMATED RESTORATION CONTOURS —(I m TAG 3& REMOVE RIDGE APPROACHES, REMAINI APRONS AND $ ASSOCIA D PILES: M APPROX 1 CONCRETE FILLED I E ` STEEL PILE AND 140 H-PILES EXISTING BULKHEAD l d A i 1 Z 0 1 1 / 0 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET r z 0 400 800 1600 REMOVAL OF EXISTING BRIDGE PLAN VIEW STAGES 3A & 3B Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project 99 Renton, Washington CL By: GSM I Date:6 6 2012froject No. LY11160130 amecoFigure 7 OL - MA OF" OHW EL=15.49' FINISHED SURFACE 100 YR HW OF BRIDGE PIER 1 PIER 2 EL 17.07 PIER 3 PIER 4 1.B' CLR 3.4CLR 2.$' CLR AT PIER 1 AT PIER 4 --------------- - --- ---- SHORELINE I I RESTORATION (TYP) 4' DIA SHAFT, TYP DEMOLISH EX. BOTTOM OF BULKHEAD (TYP) GIRDER RIVER BED AT CL > LU ui Lu Ed a- o a o r j a S N a o � j ;=rw p 7 w w w REPLACEMENT BRIDGE — ELEVATION SCALE. 1" = 50' BOTTOM OF GIRDER E 10 GIRDERS AT 5'-0" OC 100 YR HW EL=17.0T OHW EL=15.49' RIVER BED AT CL EL=9' (t) n REPLACEMENT BRIDGE — SECTION r SCALE: 1" = 50' APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 25 50 100 Plan View Cross Section View R ft dia. Rotatorloscillator 25i i I o — Wood Deck oCCCCo OHWM = 1S.49ft NGVD 29 — Mudline 16 in. Diameter Steel Pipe Piles O R U O R s z c m ❑ j c� rn a m r 0 z c s v 0 0 12 24 0 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET TEMPORARY REACTION -PILE PLATFORM FOR CONCRETE PIER PILE CONSTRUCTION z Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project U Renton, Washington a aQ�f� By: GSM Dale: 6-6-2412 Project No. LY11160130 ame O Figure 10 ------- N1DOD S -'-- � EARANCtE --- A u Fr{3$1 Li ) RS c Rn a Mn( Rn v ES nlMTED OHW (15.5) APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 5 10 20 OL- AffA r4ff SYM SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPACING MAX HT.. QTY Au ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI KINNIKINNICK 2' O.C. OX 29 I 1 Fr FESTUCA RUBRA RED FESCUE 1' O.C. 3 3' 146 Li LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWINBERRY 4'O.C. 9' 2 ` I I Mn MAHONIA NERVOSA DULL OREGON -GRAPE 2' O.C. 2' 39 4 1 Pm POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN 210G. 4.5' 1$ I Rs RIBES SANGUINEUM RED CURRANT 4' O.C. 9' 1 I Rn ROSA NUTKANA NOOTKA ROSE 4' D.C. 9 2 Sm SCiRPUS MACROCARPUS SMALL -FLOWERED BULRUSH T O.C. 4.5' 74 LIVE STAKES, SCIENTiF C NAME COMMON NAME SPACING MAX. HT. QTY ` CORNUS STOLONIFERA RED -OSIER DOGWOOD 1' O.C. 15 11 I 1 Y m( ` Mn(3) 1 , Au(5) , COIR L� Mn(5 r 5 { 1 TG Va (FIS M1) 1KAB Oi} , , ES IMATEDRESTORAT[ON Au(7) Pm( '-# 1 ! I I CON70UR3 (TYP.) ------- N1DOD S -'-- � EARANCtE --- A u Fr{3$1 Li ) RS c Rn a Mn( Rn v ES nlMTED OHW (15.5) APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 5 10 20 OL- AffA r4ff Pm{7) AU(7) 41 Mn(5) I LI PM(9) Au(7) fr(531 Mn(9} Mn(7} COIR N W Pm(3) PM(3) r YM SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMONNAME SPACING MAX. H7. QTY. Li Rp Fr(26} Mn{7) a ESTIMATED RESTORATION CONTWRS (TYP) a AU ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI KINNIKINNICK 2' O.C. 07 63 Ve j n Mn(7) J Fr FESTUCA RUBRA RED FESCUE 1' O.C. 3.3' 310 Au(9) Rs v { Li LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWINBERRY 4' D.C. 9' 3 I II Ma MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM TALL OREGON -GRAPE 4' O.C. 8' 6 (3 f!f 1 Mn MAHONIA NERVOSA DULL OREGON -GRAPE 2' O.C. 2' 128 e R6 Rs Ma Rn Ma Ms v Pm POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM SWORD FERN T O.C. 4.5' 85 , Rs RIBES SANGUINEUM REDCURRANT 4' D.C. 9 6 c C � Rn ROSA NUTK4NA NOOTKA ROSE 4' O.C. 9' 7 Mn(5) Au(7) PROPOSED Rp ROSA PISOCARPA PEA FRUIT ROSE 4'0,C, 6' 6 MR(5) RANTING (TYPj Sm SCIRPUS MACROCARPUS SMALL -FLOWERED BULRUSH 1'0.C. 4.5' 71 Ve VIBURNUM EDULE SQUASHBERRY 4' O.C. 10.5' 5 Pm(3) Fr(38) LIVE STAKES: x Pm{7) SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 5PACING MAX. HT. QTY. ' Pm(5) CORNUS STOLONIFERA RED -OSIER DOGWOOD 1' O.C. 15' 33 ..- ! Mn{7} J 1I I i Mn(7) COIR OD Mn 7 f) 1 1Y � Au(7) m( Pm(3) Fr( IJ Pm(3) I Sm I1 (71 n(7 I` Fr(48) Au{7} HBTAT f FISH MIXT I GRACOIR j 'j, Pm(7) 1 ROM L Mn(5) Pm{7) AU(7) 41 Mn(5) I LI PM(9) Au(7) fr(531 Mn(9} Mn(7} n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET VEGETATION PLAN z EAST BANK - STAGE 6 L 0 5 10 20 Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington BY: GSM Dat -6-2012 Project No. LY 11160130 COIR N W Pm(3) PM(3) W ST P ) Li Rp Fr(26} Mn{7) a ESTIMATED RESTORATION CONTWRS (TYP) a � I .. Rp Mn(i) Au(7) a Ve j n Mn(7) J Rp Pm(3 Fr(19 Au(9) Rs v is V Ale P n(3) a + 1 RS RS Fr(58) e RS Me RP RP Me � f!f PM(3) Au{7) B I e R6 Rs Ma Rn Ma Ms v . Ve Rn Rn Rn Rn Rn Rn Er(28) Pm(5) AU(5) v , n c C � ESTIMATED OHW f 15.E r' c - 0 c m n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET VEGETATION PLAN z EAST BANK - STAGE 6 L 0 5 10 20 Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington BY: GSM Dat -6-2012 Project No. LY 11160130 -- ------------------------------------- a LIVE STAKE MAX, HT.9-15" QB ap$ ,,,! a ——------------- ------ v SHRUB MAX. HT. &10' �N o 1' SHRUB MAX HT A.5' ----��� ---- SHRUH MAX HT. 2 -- SHRLIR MAX- HT W oa + COIR LOG PLANTED WITH LIVE STAKES 1 --------- OHW 15.49' ------_ --- ---- udeFmi.wingdeaPILe. aea. HABITAT GRAVEL -FISH MIX � u„de,mi,,.,,.i„9de„a„Le. STANDARD SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL SEE NOTE 5 FORM 6' HIGH CONTINUOUS BACKFILL WITH YWATER BASIN PREPARED SOIL PREPARED TOPSOIL Planting Nates: ROOT BALL ROOT BALL SHRUB (TYP) SEE NOTE 1 SEE NOTE 5 EXISTING GRADE al1-1 MAX 1. Planting pit sizes shall be a minimum of twice the root ball width and have their top true root no more than 1 inch above the soil su 2. Prior to planting, containers shall be completely removed and the roots loosened by appropriate pruning technique. 3 Planting pits shall be backfilled with native soils that have been amended with compost, are free of rocks over 2 inches, lumps and other foreign materials. Backfilling around trunks or stems shall not be permitted. 4. The backfill material and root balls shall be thoroughly watered on the same day that planting occurs regardless of season. 5. Provide 4” of mulch within 18” diameter grass free water basin. 6. On slopes, plants shall be set vertically; not perpendicular to slope. COIR LOG I LIVE STAKE DETAILS LIVE STAKE ...11,3 WOOD STI ADJACENT ROLLS SHALL TIGHTLY ABUT SEDIMENT. ORGANIC MATTER. AND NATIVE SEEDS ARE CAPTURED BEHIND COIR LOG —LIVE STAKE WOOD STAKE T - Coir Log Notes: 1. Coir logs shall be installed on OHW at EL +15.49. 2. Coir logs shall be placed and secured in trench, Y-5" deep, dug on contour. 3. Wood stakes shall be spaced 6" from and of wattle and spaced at 3' centers, leaving 1"-2" of stake above top of log. 4. Live stakes shall be driven through coir log on T centers, angled towards the water, 6 M O C4 T Z N J a7 _ L ZI J ❑ Z 7 (D LL Ui c Y o a Q p w U rn O L? Q U j Q 'pl F— CL 7 LC N C m m = ❑ 0Eom m QT�-0 sa o E u] O `� m ZW N c1 o m _ -ate r Y CL m .V p c F— Q t! M Ico N�=E r -L E a �❑wz W nom" U) Z Z U o Z)a 1 Z�m� m! a LL.�UL U D N x U N m 3 Nuri S (Dc Q �= rn = CL ¢ m U m i` ° 41 m .0 c a m m W N L71 C fi nN za N m E j c m n b=�I H O LD rw ` U N- ,D .9 - m a � Q e 2 xl m r 10 10 -mE o O CQ m = C C, _T 6 _ D LGL. V) N 7 W m ' O ° m m v L� } ID AD m a o Z cm G cc c m ao.� r t m 4 Z N : 3 m p m= m 9t g c � .5 U p.c = Ch S a, � +�� Eo m n*s cY Q" Q m v L cm D vi z C N 10,[ O~1 W m JA W G m G a O �f : Q �cn a m osg C; s- c m Z m mN °C .,t G a v ID O LL % U () tx N a l7 �U m'- N W I y Z y Lo n w N c +� r U oC -0 0 w� lip �W. F m c o ° m E-8 o °= o ii U m m m° '@ m g $@m cecU) E°' mE Q1 N E° W .� d J G EL of �" m _mu7N �wmLo ❑o � m ❑ p e ° 77 m N g+ 0 C T N C ��� E c o ti E'cLL $.� 2U we 2C?zZrs ova z cn z a AC c 4 C 3 7 i Q ° e y e CL Bmp'elep LISH :aweN 6uimeiO 'ti%alnb4 VG\GVOla6pu9 WON uolua2l 0£40944 UATNO1N2N ONI30F3i�d :Wd 6ulAnei4 IleMxew Ae8 -A9 Pallold 'wd44:4- 24!90!90 :eleO Told o E c is o Ea � W � � O � a m � 'c � n n a � LL Y O 9 � c U � L Bmp'elep LISH :aweN 6uimeiO 'ti%alnb4 VG\GVOla6pu9 WON uolua2l 0£40944 UATNO1N2N ONI30F3i�d :Wd 6ulAnei4 IleMxew Ae8 -A9 Pallold 'wd44:4- 24!90!90 :eleO Told \ � / o / w 2 ) : ? = L , � m <© 2-0 2 % 0R ƒk / Z-/ %k 6 ! 0 PCD ma ! �o I2 / k w 0 < ) UJ U)w \ & CL � I | 3 � \ �4-0\ E � _� / \ o f E/ -®■— —_--- cp § -- — �--------------- 0 -- -- - --- / O | . / . 5§ {7 ■ � e /E IP �cal CL � \/ � ! [ \ _ of ; a Igm,&"■ ° }/\ 6MP a, AWmp_o A_a»m9 mw m_Mmam__e»me _a w_, jjamxLuj"hjeb:Aq mw _s saa aO1 Project Title Boeing North Bridge Replacment Project - Cedar River Pile information (size, type, number, pile strikes, etc.) 14 -in H -piles; vibrated then proofed; 1 pilelday; 500 strikesiday FT in green cells: estimated sound levels and distances at @-were measured. estimated number of pile IsWes per da and IransqjJWfi loss constant easured sinqle strike level aistance m Estimated number of strikes Cumulative SEL at measured distance Peak I SEL Acoustic Metric RMS I Effective Quiet Distance m' to threshold Onset of Physical Injury Behavior Peak I Cumulative SEL dB*' I RIMS dB I Fish > 2 q Fish < 2 9 1 d B Transmission loss constant (15 if unknown) 1 206 1 187 183 1 150 ' This calculation assumes that single strike SELs < 150 dB do not accumulate to cause injury (Effective Quiet) 91- BOE/NG ameO APPENDIX A Agencies Species Lists Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead I l� INN kh— F,.A F�r F—F. jnw. NIIAA �—Ijpt,�;I,-d Jwmo rTu�.nw. �Vlentl fDP%Ij rM 4�nSwaa!;N1 ak �T.rle! tile 46 NVOfic", ( 1,91- E.,fa"gered M Litring .4cliom 5lCLlw,.J S�I" Call "k I P ( mwil CjlVm�cwv Speciew Act Vndrr Achifft. Ulfj� C"O 19 1 A's o Fwl,- 41 Ul soendvi.a OfGEN114 J� Nj A3 UIPI�, WillattszIn Rl'o rTP M-Adk Cubwol. R�vo 04arrtbw R,, v 44 PqL.-Set 104�wd 4h O� wb LL, %" d 4-, 0 -�,rrd 4� cjl,Trwi� Pct—wl- V.j jl,,rI;wit,vO 44 I*P�wr czjumb-A RIN�I 'sillpoplur �� - (!�fiw, 5c, K4"t.01 %1,,lwl,.e-, P"—cq 4w a a,--t,d 51 19"ke Ri— "T'"mF S-Illw"t-rul' Vr.4 Nw—u.-d oft 1—ko'll"r I L stitk. Rl-, ll-&!� Wit 51, Vuj�t S"V4 1,�wzo i Witdu k.%,i 14 Upprl-wd'antlett, Ri,.l 0 11 C-U.l VA:.,vs. Fail and I.al, I llj-n,m 11i Uppff klamalh.'rmitv Rive,� Ill �-�,pd i Aw 11 —'r, i W&Amg6llri Cvsm x., tra,,—r,.d I.Ablp R,rt Pritz-fun %.,( 01 - —1.1d Upp.7 4'r,!vrr0- � Kii " jewo. ijkl mit %4,f ft... —,,.f 3 Svvll,� O-m�, i;,d Notlhm 4 1- r�m. C"Q 24 D�chwc� Ricr jim�vfall.run 1 Kar I l� INN kh— F,.A F�r F—F. jnw. NIIAA �—Ijpt,�;I,-d Jwmo rTu�.nw. �Vlentl fDP%Ij rM 4�nSwaa!;N1 ak �T.rle! tile 46 NVOfic", ( 1,91- 5lCLlw,.J S�I" Call "k UVI— C��wnhz Rivv, P ( mwil CjlVm�cwv U'. C, Colurl�hlj Ri, er Ulfj� C"O 19 1 A's o Fwl,- 41 Ul soendvi.a OfGEN114 J� Nj A3 UIPI�, WillattszIn Rl'o rTP M-Adk Cubwol. R�vo 04arrtbw R,, v 44 PqL.-Set 104�wd I l� INN kh— F,.A F�r F—F. jnw. NIIAA �—Ijpt,�;I,-d Jwmo rTu�.nw. �Vlentl fDP%Ij rM 4�nSwaa!;N1 ak �T.rle! tile 46 NVOfic", ( 1,91- 5lCLlw,.J -;7 UVI— C��wnhz Rivv, ( mwil CjlVm�cwv satr.s Ccr.171 callf"n1w Alt A's o Fwl,- 41 L"er Cv!�H� Rived J� K,411(orin. ( witful %,Akl" A3 UIPI�, WillattszIn Rl'o Ad M-Adk Cubwol. R�vo 45 4h 4-, 0 -�,rrd 4� cjl,Trwi� Pct—wl- V.j jl,,rI;wit,vO 44 l*,tSw,ur6i �� - (!�fiw, 5c, K4"t.01 %1,,lwl,.e-, P"—cq 4w a a,--t,d 51 1 IL" s�lt Vr.4 Nw—u.-d oft 1—ko'll"r 51, I l� INN kh— F,.A F�r F—F. jnw. NIIAA �—Ijpt,�;I,-d Jwmo rTu�.nw. �Vlentl fDP%Ij rM 4�nSwaa!;N1 ak �T.rle! tile LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN KU40 COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised March 15, 2012) LISTED Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marrnoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Major concems that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal species include: Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) [historic] Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed plant species Include: 1. Distribution of taxon in project vicinity. 2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss of habitat. 1 _ Changes in hydrology where taxon is found. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl PROPOSED None XLKI III IJ�XY 4 Fisher (Martel pennanfi) — West Coast DPS North American wolverine (Gula gulp luteus) — contiguous U.S. DPS Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiose) [historic] Yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) SPECIES OF CONCERN Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belieri) Cascades frog (Rana cescadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi) Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) Long-eared myotis (Myofis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accrpitergentiiis) Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) mannorata marmorata) Olive -sided flycatcher (Contopus coopers) Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) Valley silverspot (Speyeria serene br+emeri) Western toad (Sufo boreas) Aster curtus (white -top aster) Botrychium peduncuiosum (stalked moonwort) Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane) U U u Q LL u Z Z z Z N N Y[ 0 r 4 F CL c or cc LL Q u Q u Q u Q LLg 0 ZI o o d o 0 o a r U o c ro c r o c v c a i0 2 ui � o fG L li A IG W0 Q I�i y b C. u LL N yy LL +� }y }} W W LLE W W w W CL a a a a a a 41 41 V) rc o z¢ x¢ x a z� z¢ z a z a w C D Q H Lu F O h [J] w WQ_ m Q_ VI iL V3 i W LL N a Z Z Cl. Z z m U Z 6 z Z A. Z Z d Z Z d r z d CR Cl) u N 4D E O V r L 9 n 0 0 71 p F a ti- ti o ti n o- u n ci a n• u n �• �' L d � c a o a a a a 0�y a a x z.� z �.� � �.� Z �`� z ,z�{{ �{ CY az 30 W € rn808a 0 0 m 0 0 m a a$ L 0 0 ,.Q,rnm W a 0 o 0 cr a tae LL 0ui .g CL Z Vl p u E u a is'', n moo. G ri fl y g ri u n a a W Q d d v c c m m c c t c m m i O c r Q O t r O L L 2z � � a 0 LL1 O~ Q jo Vi Rv1§ m 2 � a � o �? � � gg V In o� ¢ S+►1 a a o o a m di LI) m v a, in w Q $a flu '�i2 R $m mT II as f 1'i VZ_ 4D toqn if7 Vl U LL W U LL i.} Vf `� ii LL U LL N U LL �'•� U (nIT F- r3 � W V! /a¢yy V LJ 'Eo E W C W w IL Lu� zz 'h N 4L O a G E O G �, O C �a X Y X t 0 uj �P p iY _q - a 7 a ^ W u C G u .0 G c C a p c r8 c c N [7 Z me �� coo coo Uo coo u0 0 LL L z i i s dc df LL LL OL OL IL LL 1 0 0� 3� p W W W W W W W 9L 06 I I I z of z d z a z K z a z a z a z a 0 0 o a i T u f# as x Zo as cul, as as WE as x {j a 4 � d Z �y Z Z z Z Z z Z yLo 22to Fs rn a a" a� as ii o, as ai L m L Y b€ L 101 L L L j 0 8$ Q� 3A mLn € E 4E Q f MI LV Q d Cil t e Wmt M 4 Y m a 2 gym° t � p w G y� y7 A G z e sm � w r: hum a� A F. t A L.L w CL as 15 a m � G G C6 �D n7 LK y z re M 4 Y m a 2 gym° t � p w G y� y7 A G z e sm � w r: hum a� A F. t A L.L w CL as 15 a m � G G C6 �D n7 let '1�� � 1;.� .� "Tr' { �� ♦ter •� S Nr L [u M O N O r N N N O [D 0 w M m � d p o U' N z o 0 Z o m ameO APPENDIX B Project Photographs Photo 1 amecr5+ PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington FG J 4 North Bridge (arrow) at mouth of Cedar River (note Renton Municipal Airport to the left of the Cedar River and the Cedar River Trail Park and Boeing to the right) Photo 2 Looking north from the right bank of the Cedar River at the North Cedar River Bridge AMEC Project No. LY11160130 B-1 Boeing RentonlLY111601341projectphotos_060412.docx '�1 "4WPI a PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington - -1 r -- Photo 3 Looking south at Cedar River from bridge deck Photo 4 Looking at timber bulkhead along west bank of Cedar River AMEC B-2 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY111601301projectphotos_060412.docx ameO PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Photo 5 Looking at west bank of Cedar River from bridge deck (Renton Municipal Airport in background) Photo 6 Looking at east bank of Cedar River from bridge deck (note timber bulkhead) AMEC Project No LY11160130 B-3 Boeing Ren[onlLY111601 301projectphotos-060412.dou ameO Photo 7 PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Cedar River Trail Park located on east bank of Cedar River, south of project site Photo 8 Lake Washington shoreline west of bridge apron (Renton Municipal Airport runway at center left) AMEC B-4 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY1116t}1301projectphotos_060412.docx ameO PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Photo 9 Lake Washington shoreline west of bridge 4 Photo 10 Lake Washington shoreline east of bridge AMEG Project No LY11160130 B-5 Boeing RentonlLY111601301projectphotcs_060412.doex ameO PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington - 7 y �6` q vr. Photo 11 Large woody debris in Lake Washington at mouth of Cedar River (bridge at center left) Y MEN _411061 'Elmo t - � a Photo 12 Bridge under construction in 1943 AMSC B-6 Project No, LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111601301projectphotos_060412.docx PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington i� t . . will -- r Photo 13 Rota tor/asci Ilator used for advancing caissons for concrete bridge piers ameO AMSC Project No. LY11160130 B-7 Boeing RenlonlY111601301projectphotos_060412-dccx amecI9 PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Renton North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington (this page left blank intentionally) AMEC B-8 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonlLY11160130Iprejectphotos_060412.doex amec'9 APPENDIX C Shoreline Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring Plan ameO SHORELINE RESTORATION MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING PLAN Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Prepared for. The Boeing Company Renton, Washington Prepared by. AMEC Environment $ Infrastructure, Inc. 11810 North Creek Parkway North Bothell, Washington 98011 June 4, 2012 Project No. LY11160130 Printed on recycled paper amec,9 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 VEGETATION MONITORING........................................................................................ 1 2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.................................................................................... 2 2.1 YEAR 1................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 YEARS 2, 3, 4, AND 5............................................................................................ 2 3.0 CONTINGENCY PLANS................................................................................................ 2 4.0 WEED CONTROL WORK PLAN (WCWP).................................................................... 3 5.0 MAINTENANCE.............................................................................................................4 AMEC Project No. LY11160130 C -I Boeing Renton/LY1 1 1601Mmon and me int plan_060412.docx M L"M — SHORELINE RESTORATION MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING PLAN Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington 1.0 VEGETATION MONITORING Vegetation within revegetated areas will be monitored for a total of 5 years to assess the performance of the restoration. During the monitoring period, plant survival and establishment will be documented and compared to performance standards specified below. Monitoring would begin by providing as -built plans immediately following completion of the installation. Subsequent monitoring will occur at the end of each growing season (late August — September) in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 following construction. A memorandum summarizing existing conditions at the time of each monitoring event and compliance with specified performance standards for each monitoring year will be submitted to the appropriate agency for review and approval within 90 days of each monitoring event. Prior to the first monitoring event, the location of four permanent sampling plots (two each bank) will be selected in representative areas of the riparian buffer plantings zones. The size, location, and shape of sample plots will be determined using the as -built plans, and will encompass approximately 100 square feet. The center of each sample plot will be marked with rebar and a tall white polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe during the first monitoring event to enable relocation during subsequent monitoring events. During each monitoring event at the identified locations, plant species observed within the site will be identified and recorded to confirm percent survival. Overall development of the planted communities will be documented through photographs taken during 5 monitoring years. Photo points will be established during year 1 monitoring and identified on the as -built plan. These photos points will be used for the duration of the project. Plant survival and growth will be assessed throughout the entirety of the restored area during the first year of monitoring. During the first monitoring event, all individual plantings will be identified as living or dead_ Dead plants will be flagged in the field for replacement, and their species noted. Site -wide plant survival will be calculated by subtracting the total number of dead plantings observed during the monitoring event from the total number of plants installed as listed in the as -built plans. During the 5 -year monitoring period, non-native invasive species such as Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan and evergreen blackberry (Rubus procerus and R. laciniatus, respectively), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), English holly (Ilex aquifolium), ,Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense), and English ivy (Hedera helix) shall be removed and disposed of off-site at an approved facility. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 C-1 Boeing Renton/LY111601301mon and maint plan_060412.docx ameO 2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2.1 YEAR 1 Plant survival during the first year would be the responsibility of the landscape contractor and would be ensured through correct installation procedures, ongoing maintenance, and replanting, if needed. Growth during the first year would be minimal as plants are becoming established. Specific performance standards for the first year include: • 100% survival of plants; and • Not more than 10% coverage by non-native invasive species. 2.2 YEARS 2, 3, 4, AND 5 Following the first year of monitoring, performance of vegetation would be measured in plant survival and percent. Some plant mortality is expected during years 2, 3, 4, and 5. Planted vegetation is expected to perform well. Plants will receive supplemental watering to maintain plants vigor and routine maintenance. With proper growing conditions, it is assumed that 80% of the plants will survive and be present during monitoring years 2, 3, 4, and 5. Specific performance standards for years 3 and 5 should include: • 100% survival for year 2 for container plants and 80% for live stakes; a 80% plant survival for years 3, 4, and 5; and • Not more than 10% coverage by non-native invasive species in any year. 3.0 CONTINGENCY PLANS Depending on the data collected during the monitoring period, it may be necessary to implement contingency measures to ensure that the original goals and objectives of the project are met. Several factors, both man-made and natural, could have a detrimental effect on the success of the shoreline plantings. The following table lists factors that may have an adverse effect on the plants and contingencies that can help ensure success of the project. No contingency plan can foresee all problems and their solutions. In all cases, if a more effective remedy is identified, it will be considered. AMEC C-2 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111 601301mon and maint plan_060412.docx Shore Line Potential Component Factors Contingency Hydrology Hydrology Hydrology Soils Vegetation Vegetation ameO Insufficient Drought season could result in inadequate hydrology for plantings. Depending on the cause, contingencies could include supplemental irrigation in drier months. Excessive Pollution Erosion Loss Invasive Disturbances Wildlife Controlled by reducing frequency and duration of irrigation. The type and source of the pollutants would be determined and proper corrective measures established to manage the source. Causes of erosion would be identified, and remedies could include use of erosion control fabric and supplemental planting of species with dense, strong root systems conducive to erosion control. Some plant mortality is expected. If applicable, contingencies for hydrology and soils described above may be employed. Care would be taken to match proposed plantings with onsite environmental conditions existing at time of project implementation. Vegetation lost as a result of drought or other unforeseen circumstances would be replaced to ensure survival rates as stated above. Invasive species would be identified and species eradicated or controlled during the plant establishment period. If invasive species were found during this period and mechanical controls were unsuccessful, other measures might be recommended to assist in the control. If herbicides were determined to be necessary, a detailed application plan would be developed in coordination with the Washington State Department of Ecology and other resource agencies. Excessive predation and/or grazing could be an adverse effect on the success of shore line plantings, especially during the establishment period. Depending on the disturbance, fencing would be placed around the perimeter of the plantings or mesh cylinders would be placed around individual plants. Disturbances Human If identified as a problem, human intrusion would be prevented through proper signage and fencing. 4.0 WEED CONTROL WORK PLAN (WCWP) Depending on project conditions such as location, sensitive environments, permit requirements, jurisdictional regulations, or other items, there may be limits on the use of chemicals or other weed control methods and use of fertilizers. Before submitting the initial WCWP, determine if there are restrictions or all potential for restrictions on weed control methods on project sites. At the preconstruction conference, submit a WCWP with the following: • Name and contact information for the approved weed control coordinator; • Weed management area with existing specified weeds mapped on project plan sheets where possible; • Botanical and common name of each species of weed to be removed; • The proposed methods of weed removal and continuing control for each weed species listed, AMEC Project No. LY11160130 C-3 Boeing Renton/LY11160130Unon and maint plan-060412.docx ameO • Schedule of weed control measures; • If necessary request to use wheeled or tracked construction equipment in sensitive areas. • If changes of the WCWP are necessary, resubmit a revised WCWP for approval before proceeding; and • Identify disposal facilities. 5.0 MAINTENANCE During the first year, every failed planting must be replaced and any replacement plants shall receive 1 inch of water at minimum once weekly June 15 through September 15, inclusive. Other maintenance must be performed twice every year at a minimum for the length of monitoring period. Weeding shall be performed within the following constraints: • Use of herbicides or pesticides, if required, must be approved by state and local agencies. All work shall be performed by hand wherever possible. If toxic substances are used, they shall not be allowed to enter the Cedar River or Lake Washington. • Fertilizers shall not be applied to bare soils that may allow runoff into bodies of water. Fertilizers shall be directly applied to the planting pit. No mechanical devices shall be used to apply the fertilizer. Herbicides, pesticides (if approved for use), and fertilizer shall not be applied to areas inundated with water. Weed control in all areas shall be conducted as follows: At least 3 calendar days prior to beginning weed control activities, walk through the site with the landscape architect and confirm the identity, location, type, and approximate number of specified weeds. Verify that control methods in the WCWP are acceptable to meet the plan requirements. Remove specified weeds and receive approval. As much as practicable, ensure that weed seeds or reproducing plant parts such as vines, runners, or rhizomes don't remain or become disbursed during control activities. - As soon as practicable, place weeds and related materials in an approved container and transport to an approved off-site disposal facility according to applicable laws and regulations. During transport, ensure that materials are fully enclosed at all times to prevent escape. - Keep the site weed free, including weeds that were not initially present in the walk through. - Unless otherwise approved in writing, use only hand or light mechanical weed control methods. Hand methods include the use of hand tools. Light mechanical methods include the use of hand carried, motorized machinery. - Remove all of plant including roots. • Inside sensitive areas, obtain approval before using wheeled or tracked construction equipment. • Maintain a 3 -inch -thick mulch around individual plantings. AMEC C-4 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton1LY111601301mon and ma int plan 060412.docx ameO APPENDIX D Species Life Histories ameO SPECIES LIFE HISTORIES Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington CHINOOK SALMON GENERAL LIFE HISTORY (CORPS, 2000) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus fshawytscha) is the largest of the Pacific salmon. Also known as "king" salmon, adult Chinook salmon migrate from a marine environment into freshwater streams and rivers of their birth where they spawn and die. Among Chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. (1) A "stream -type" Chinook is found most commonly in headwater streams. Stream -type Chinook have a longer freshwater residency and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their natal streams in the spring or summer months. (2) An "ocean -type" Chinook is commonly found in coastal streams in North America. Ocean -type Chinook typically migrate to sea within the first 3 months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in fresh water prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in coastal waters. Ocean -type Chinook salmon return to their natal streams or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and late -fall runs, but summer and fall runs predominate (Healey, 1991). The difference between these life history types is physical, with both genetic and morphological foundations. Adult female Chinook will prepare a spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel composition, water depth, and velocity. Depending on the Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), redds may be created in the spring or through the fall months. Redds will vary widely in size and in location within the stream or river. The adult female Chinook may deposit eggs in 4 to 5 "nesting pockets" within a single redd. After laying eggs in a redd, adult Chinook will guard the redd from 4 to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon water temperatures, between 90 to 150 days after deposition. Streamflow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the survival of developing Chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile Chinook may spend from 3 months to 2 years in fresh water after emergence and before migrating to estuarine areas as $molts, and then into the ocean to feed and mature. Juvenile ocean -type Chinook tend to utilize estuaries and coastal areas more extensively for juvenile rearing. Juvenile Chinook salmon feed primarily on aquatic insect larvae and terrestrial insects, typically in the nearshore areas. PUGET SOUND CHINOOK EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT (CORPS, 2000) The Puget Sound Chinook ESU is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The range for the Puget Sound Chinook salmon ESU includes all marine, estuarine and river reaches accessible to listed Chinook salmon in Puget Sound, Puget Sound marine areas include South AMSC Project No. LY11160130 D-1 Boeing Renton/LY111601WfishIdehistories_060412.docx amec19 Sound, Hood Canal, and North Sound to the international boundary at the outer extent of the Strait of Georgia, Haro Strait, and the Strait of Juan De Fuca to a straight line extending north from the west end of Freshwater Bay, inclusive. Excluded are areas above Tolt Dam (Washington), Lansburg Diversion (Washington), Alder Dam (Washington), and Elwha Dam (Washington), or above longstanding, natural impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). Adult Chinook salmon migrate from a marine environment into the freshwater streams and rivers of their birth where they spawn and die. Among Chinook salmon, two distinct races have evolved. (1) A "stream -type" Chinook is found most commonly in headwater streams. Stream -type Chinook have a longer freshwater residency and perform extensive offshore migrations before returning to their natal streams in the spring or summer months. (2) An "ocean -type" Chinook, which is commonly found in coastal streams in North America. Ocean -type Chinook typically migrate to sea within the first 3 months of emergence, but they may spend up to a year in fresh water prior to emigration. They also spend their ocean life in coastal waters. Ocean -type Chinook salmon return to their natal streams or rivers as spring, winter, fall, summer, and late -fall runs, but summer and fall runs predominate (Healey, 1991), The difference between these life history types is physical, with both genetic and morphological foundations. Adult female Chinook will prepare a spawning bed, called a redd, in a stream area with suitable gravel composition, water depth and velocity. Redds will vary widely in size and in location within the stream or river. The adult female Chinook may deposit eggs in 4 to 5 "nesting pockets" within a single redd. After laying eggs in a redd, adult Chinook will guard the redd from 4 to 25 days before dying. Chinook salmon eggs will hatch, depending upon water temperatures, between 90 to 150 days after deposition. Streamflow, gravel quality, and silt load all significantly influence the survival of developing Chinook salmon eggs. Juvenile Chinook may spend from 3 months to 2 years in fresh water after emergence and before migrating to estuarine areas as smolts, and then into the ocean to feed and mature. Juvenile ocean -type Chinook tend to utilize estuaries and coastal areas more extensively forjuvenile rearing. Juvenile Chinook salmon feed primarily on aquatic insect larvae and terrestrial insects, typically in the nearshore, areas. Puget Sound Chinook salmon hatch and rear in streams and rivers flowing into Puget Sound, and the Dungeness River and its tributaries. STEELHEAD TROUT GENERAL LIFE HISTORY (CORPS, 2000) The life history of O. mykiss is one of the most complex of any of the salmonid species. The species exhibits both anadromous forms (steelhead) and resident forms (usually referred to as rainbow or redband trout). They reside in the marine environment for 2 to 3 years prior to returning to their natal AMEC D-2 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY111601301fishlifehistories_060412.docx ameO stream to spawn as 4- or 5 -year-old fish. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelhead trout are iteroparous or capable of spawning more than once before they die. However, it is rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice before dying, and those that do are usually females. Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive ecotypes, based on their state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry_ These two ecotypes are termed "stream -maturing" and "ocean - maturing." Stream -maturing steelhead enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and require from several months to a year to mature and spawn. These fish are often referred to as "summer run" steelhead. Ocean -maturing steelhead enter fresh water with well-developed gonads and spawn shortly after river entry. These fish are commonly referred to as "winter -run" steelhead. In the Columbia River basin essentially all steelhead that return to streams east of the Cascade Mountains are stream maturing. Ocean -maturing fish are the predominate ecotype in coastal streams and lower Columbia River tributaries. Native steelhead in California generally spawn earlier than those to the north with spawning beginning in December. Washington populations begin spawning in February or March. Native steelhead spawning in Oregon and Idaho is not well documented. In the Clackamas River in Oregon, winter -run steelhead spawning begins in April and continues into June. In the Washougal River, Washington, summer -run steelhead spawn from March into June whereas summer run fish in the Kalama River, Washington, spawn from January through April. Among inland steelhead, Columbia River populations from tributaries upstream of the Yakima River, Washington, spawn later than most downstream populations. Depending on water temperature, fertilized steelhead eggs may incubate in redds for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as "alevins." Fallowing yolk sac absorption, young juveniles or "fry" emerge from the gravel and begin active feeding. Juveniles rear in fresh water for 1 to 4 years, then migrate to the ocean as smolts. Downstream migration of wild steelhead smolts in the lower Columbia River begins in April, peaks in mid-May, and is essentially complete by the end of June (FPC, 1993, 1995, 1997). Previous studies of the timing and duration of steelhead downstream migration indicate that they typically move quickly through the lower Columbia River estuary with an average daily movement of about 21 kilometers (Dawley et al., 1979 and 1980). PUGET SOUND STEELHEAD LIFE HISTORY (NMFS, 2005) Winter -Run Steelhead In general, winter -run, or ocean -maturing, steelhead return as adults to the tributaries of Puget Sound from December to April (WDF et al., 1973). Spawning occurs from January to mid-June, with peak spawning occurring from mid-April through May. Prior to spawning, maturing adults hold in pools or in side channels to avoid high winter flows. AIVIEC Project No. LY11160130 D-3 Boeing RentonlLY11160130Ifishlifehistudes_060412.docx Steelhead tend to spawn in moderate to high -gradient sections of streams. In contrast to semelparous Pacific salmon, steelhead females do not guard their redds, or nests, but return to the ocean following spawning (Burgner et al., 1992). Spawned -out females that return to the sea are referred to as "kelts." Summer -Run Steelhead The life history of summer -run steelhead is highly adapted to specific environmental conditions. Because these conditions are not common in Puget Sound, the relative incidence and size of summer -run steelhead populations is substantially less than that for winter -run steelhead. Summer - run steelhead have also not been widely monitored, in part, because of their small population size and the difficulties in monitoring fish in their headwater holding areas. Sufficient information exists for only 4 of the 16 Puget Sound summer -run steelhead populations identified in the 2002 Salmon Steelhead inventory (SaSI) to determine the population status (WDFW, 2002). Juvenile Life History The majority of steelhead juveniles reside in fresh water for 2 years prior to emigrating to marine habitats, with limited numbers emigrating as 1- or 3 -year-old smolts. Smoltification and seaward migration occur principally from April to mid-May (WDF et al., 1973). Two-year-old naturally produced smolts are usually 140 to 160 millimeters in length (Wydoski and Whitney, 1979; Burgner et al_, 1992). The inshore migration pattern of steelhead in Puget Sound is not well understood; it is generally thought that steelhead smolts move quickly offshore (Hartt and Dell, 1986). Ocean Migration Steelhead oceanic migration patterns are poorly understood. Evidence from tagging and genetic studies indicates that Puget Sound steelhead travel to the central North Pacific Ocean (French et al., 1975; Hartt and Dell, 1986; Burgner et al., 1992). Puget Sound steelhead feed in the ocean for 1 to 3 years before returning to their natal stream to spawn. Typically, Puget Sound steelhead spend 2 years in the ocean, although, notably, Deer Creek summer -run steelhead spend only a single year in the ocean before spawning. BULL TROUT GENERAL LIFE HISTORY (CORPS, 2000) Bull trout (Salvellnus confluentus) are native to western North America, are widespread throughout tributaries of the Columbia River basin, including the headwaters in Montana and Canada. Bull trout are generally nonanadromous and live in a variety of habitats including small streams, large rivers, and lakes or reservoirs. However, Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout are anadromous, migrating and maturing in Puget Sound or the Pacific Ocean. They may spend the first 2 to 4 years in small natal AMEC D4 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130Ifishlifehistories_060412.docx ameO streams and then migrate through the larger rivers, lakes, and reservoirs to Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean. Bull trout exhibit resident and migratory life history strategies through much of the current range (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). Resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary (or nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary streams where juvenile fish rear from 1 to 4 years before migrating to either a lake (adfluvial), river (fluvial), or in certain coastal areas, to salt water (anadromous), where maturity is reached in one of the three habitats (Fraley and Shepard, 1989; Goetz, 1989). Resident and migratory forms may be found together and it is suspected that bull trout give rise to offspring exhibiting either resident or migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). In some stocks of bull trout, maturing adults may begin migrating to the spawning grounds in spring or early summer. Female bull trout may deposit up to 5,000 or 10,000 eggs in the redds they build, depending on their size. The embryos incubate during the fall, winter, and spring; and the surviving fry emerge from the redds in April and May. The rate of embryo development is dependent upon temperature. After they emerge, the young bull trout disperse up and downstream to find suitable areas to feed. Feeding areas for CoastallPuget Sound bull trout include estuaries and nearshore marine waters. Young fish feed primarily on aquatic invertebrates in the streams during their first 2 or 3 years but become more piscivorous as they get larger. The bull trout has been eliminated from some of its native range and seriously reduced in abundance in most of the remaining drainages. Excessive exploitation, habitat degradation, and introductions of exotic species are probably the major causes of the declines. Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements compared to other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). Habitat components that appear to influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, spawning and rearing substrates, and migratory corridors (Oliver, 1979; Pratt, 1984, 1992; Fraley and Shepard, 1989; Goetz, 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn, 1989; Sedell and Everest, 1991; Rieman and McIntyre, 1993, 1995; Rich, 1996; Watson and Hillman, 1997). Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures. However, migratory bull trout frequently begin spawning migrations as early as April. Bull trout require spawning substrate consisting of loose, clean gravel relatively free of fine sediments (Fraley and Shepard, 1989). Depending upon water temperature, incubation is normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt, 1992), and after hatching, juveniles remain in the substrate. Time from egg deposition to emergence may surpass 200 days. Fry normally emerge from early April through May depending upon water temperatures and increasing streamflows (Pratt, 1992; Ratliff and Howell, 1992). Bull trout are opportunistic feeders with food habits primarily a AMEC Project No. LY11160130 D-5 Boeing Renton1LY11160130Nfishlifehisiories_060412.docx ameO function of size and life history strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, macro zooplankton and small fish (Boag, 1987; Goetz, 1989; Donald and Alger, 1993). Adult migratory bull trout are primarily piscivorous, known to feed on various fish species (Fraley and Shepard, 1989; Donald and Alger, 1993). COASTALIPUGET SOUND BULL TROUT DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT (CORPS, 2000) The Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout population segment encompasses all Pacific Coast drainages within Washington, including Puget Sound. This population segment is discrete because the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range geographically segregate it from subpopulations. The population segment is significant to the species as a whole because it is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the conterminous U.S., thus, occurring in a unique ecological setting. No bull trout exist in coastal drainages south of the Columbia River. A 1998 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) study found 80 bull trout/Dolly Varden populations in Washington: 14 (18%) were healthy, 2 (3%) were in poor condition, 6 (8%) were critical, and the status of 58 (72%) of the stocks were unknown. Bull trout are estimated to have occupied about 60 percent of the Columbia River basin, and presently occur in 45 percent of the estimated historical range (Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997). Land and water management activities that degrade bull trout habitat and continue to threaten all of the bull trout population segments include dams, forest management practices, livestock grazing, agriculture, and roads and mining (Beschta et al,, 1987; Chamberlain et al., 1991; Furniss et al., 1991; Meehan, 1991; Nehlsen et al_, 1991; Sedell and Everest, 1991; Craig and Wissmar, 1993; MBTSG, 1998). Fish barriers, timber harvesting, agricultural practices, and urban development are thought to be major factors affecting "native char" in the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS (64 Federal Register [FR] 58909-58933). AMEC D-6 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton1LY111601301fishlifehistories_060412.docx ameO REFERENCES Beschta, R.L., Bilby, R -E., Brown, G.W., Holtby, L.B., and Hofstra, T.D. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat — fisheries and forest interaction, in Salo, E.O., and Cundy, T.W. (eds.), Streamside Management — Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 57, Seattle, 41 p. Boag, T.D. 1987. Food habits of bull char, Salvelinus confluentus, and rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, coexisting in a foothills stream in Northern Alberta. Canadian Field -Naturalist, v. 101, p. 56-62. Burgner, R.L., Light, J.T., Margolis, L., Okazaki, T,, Tautz, A., and Ito, S. 1992. Distribution and Origins of Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Offshore Waters of the North Pacific. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin Number 51. Chamberlain, T.W., Harr, R.D., and Everest, F.H. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and watershed processes, in Meehan, W.R. (ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, 24 p. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2000. Appendix B — Species Life Histories. Corps, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/publicmenu/DOCUMENTS/REG/appendix_b-- _general_fish—life_histories.pdf (accessed May 15, 2005). Craig, S.D., and Wissmar, R.C. 1993. Habitat Conditions Influencing a Remnant Bull Trout Spawning Population, Gold Creek, Washington, Draft Report. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute, Seattle. Dawley, E.M., Sims, C.W., Ledgerwood, R.D., Miller, D.R., and Thrower, F.P. 1979. A Study to Define the Migrational Characteristics of Chinook and Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout in the Columbia River Estuary. 1978 Annual Report to Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, 90 p. (available Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, Washington 98112-2097). Dawley, E.M., Sims, C.W., Ledgerwood, R.D., Miller, D.R., and Williams, J.G. 1980. A Study to Define the Migrational Characteristics of Chinook and Coho Salmon and Steelhead Trout in the Columbia River Estuary. 1979 Annual Report to Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, 53 p. (available Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, Washington 98112-2097). Donald, D.B., and Alger, J. 1993. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 71, p. 238-247. FPC (Fish Passage Center). 1993. 1992 Annual Report. Fish Passage Center of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. FPC. 1995, 1994 Annual Report. Fish Passage Center of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 D-7 Boeing Renton7LY111601301fishlifehistofies_060412.docx ameO FPC. 1997. 1996 Annual Report_ Fish Passage Center of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. FR (Federal Register). 1999. Part II, Department of the Interior — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR Part 17), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule Notice of Intent To Prepare a Proposed Special Rule Pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act for the Bull Trout; Proposed Rule, v. 64, no. 210, November 1, 1999. Fraley, J.J., and Shepard, B.B. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake river system, Montana. Northwest Science, v. 63, p. 133 -143. French, R.F., Bakkala, R.G., and Sutherland, D.F_ 1975. Ocean Distribution of Stock of Pacific Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp_, and Steelhead Trout, Salmon gairdneri, as Shown by Tagging Experiments. NOAA Technical Report, NMFS SSRF-689. Furniss, M.J., Roelofs, T.D., and Yee, C.S. 1991. Road construction and maintenance, in Meehan, W.R. (ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, 26 p. Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the Bull Trout, Salvelinus confluentus, a Literature Review. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Willamette National Forest, Eugene, Oregon. Hartt, A.C., and Dell, M.B. 1986. Early Oceanic Migrations and Growth of Juvenile Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Trout. International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin Number 46. Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), in Groot, C., and Margolis, L. (eds.), Pacific Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 82 p. Hoelscher, B., and Bjornn, T.C. 1989. Habitat, Density, and Potential Production of Trout and Char in Pend Oreille Lake Tributaries. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Project F -71-R-10, Subproject III, Job No. 8, Boise. MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1998. The Relationship Between Land Management Activities and Habitat Requirements of Bull Trout_ The Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. Meehan, W.R. 1991. Introduction and overview, in Meehan, W.R. (ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, 15 p. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005_ Status Review Update for Puget Sound Steelhead. 2005 Puget Sound Steelhead Biological Review Team, NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, http://www.nwr_noaa.gov/Publications/ Biological-Status- Reviews/upload/SR2005-steelhead.pdf (accessed May 10, 2007). Nehlsen, W., Williams, J.E., and Lichatowich, J.A. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads — stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries, v. 16, p. 4 21. AMEC D-8 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/M 11601301fishlitehistories_060412.docx ameO Oliver, G. 1979. A Final Report on the Present Fisheries Use of the Wigwam River with an Emphasis on the Migratory Life History and Spawning Behavior of Dolly Varden Char, Salvelinus malma (Walbaum). Fisheries Investigations in Tributaries of the Canadian Portion of Libby Reservoir, British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria. Pratt, K.P. 1984_ Habitat use and species interactions of juvenile cutthroat (Salmo clarkii lewisl) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the upper Flathead River Basin. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. Pratt, K.P. 1992. A review of bull trout life history, in Howell, P.J., and Buchanan, D.V. (eds.), Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, 4 p. Quigley, T.M., and Arbelbide, S.J. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portion of the Klamath and Great basins, volume III, in Quigley, T.M. (ed.), The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Scientific Assessment, USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR-405, Portland, Oregon, 656 p. Ratliff, D.E., and Howell, P.J. 1992. The status of bull trout populations in Oregon, in Howell, P.J., and Buchanan, D.V. (eds.), Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, 7 p. Rich, C.F. 1996. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors on occurrence of resident bull trout in fragmented habitats, western Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. Rieman, B.E., and McIntyre, J.D. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation of Bull Trout. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT -308, Ogden, Utah. Rieman, B.E., and McIntyre, J.D. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat patches of varied size_ Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v, 124, p. 285-296. Sedell, J.R., and Everest, F.H. 1991. Historic Changes in Pool Habitat for Columbia River Basin Salmon Under Study for TES Listing, Draft USDA Report. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon. Watson, G., and Hillman, T.W. 1997. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance of bull trout — an investigation at hierarchical scales. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 17, p. 237-252. WDF (Washington State Department of Fisheries), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington State Department of Game. 1973. Joint Statement Regarding the Biology, Status, Management, and Harvest of Salmon and Steelhead Resources, of the Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsular Drainage Areas of Western Washington. WDF, Olympia. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2002. Salmonid Stock Inventory. WDFW, Olympia, http:l/www.wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/ (accessed May 10, 2007). Wydoski, R.S., and Whitney, R.R. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle. AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 D-9 Boeing RentorVLY111601301fishlifehistories_060412.docx ameO (this page left blank intentionally) AMEC D-10 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130lfishlifehistories_060412.doex ameO APPENDIX E No -Rise and Scour Report No -Rise and Scour Report North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington Prepared for: The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, MC 96-11 Seattle, Washington 98124 Prepared by: amec19 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon 97224 (503) 639-3400 December 14, 2012 Project No. 2-61 M-127230 Copyright O 2012 by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. All rights reserved. amec, Engineering Certification for No -Rise Finding North Boeing Bridge and Temporary -Work Trestle The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington This is to certify that I am a duly qualified registered professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Washington. This is further to certify that the attached report supports the finding that the proposed North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle as described on Figures 5001 and S951 of plan files RTN-NBRDG-S001.DWG and RTN-NBRDG-S951,DWG , both dated December 13, 2012 (both attached as Appendix D) will not increase the 100 -year base (1% -annual chance) flood elevations on the Cedar River at published or unpublished cross-sections as shown on the Revised Flood Insurance Study Report for the Cedar River dated April 2006. The attached report dated December 14, 2012 supports this finding. In addition to this report and its attachments, a hydraulic model and work map are provided to support this finding. This certification was prepared exclusively for the Boeing Company (Boeing). The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in AMEC services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This No -Rise Certification is intended to be used by Boeing for the Boeing North Bridge project only, subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with AMEC. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at that party's sole risk. While this report was prepared in accordance with standard engineering practice by qualified engineering professionals, Boeing should understand that this report evaluated a specific storm recurrence interval and assumes free-flowing hydraulic conditions, It is reasonable to assume that a storm event of greater magnitude or changes in water -way conveyance capacity might cause higher stages than estimated for this assignment. r oarn� SEAL: EXPIRES: 3/12/2013 Seth Jelen, PE (WA 31539), CFM, CWRE AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc, 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, OR 97224 503-639-3400 ameO December 14, 2012 Project No. 2-61 M-127236 Mr. William Rockwell, LEED, AP The Boeing Company PO Box 3707, MC 96-11 Seattle, Washington 98124 Attention: Mr. William Rockwell Subject: No -Rise Report and Certification for Boeing North Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle on Cedar River The Boeing Company Renton, Washington Dear Bill: The following report documents AMEC's finding that both the proposed North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle satisfy the no -rise requirement based on Figures S001 and S951 dated December 13, 2012. The report includes tables and figures that document our analysis. Model input and output data are appended to the report along with a copy of the proposed plans. Digital copies of the hydraulic model and an updated work map are also provided for your reference. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to Boeing and look forward to future opportunities to serve you. Please feel free to call if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Seth Jelen, PE, CFM, CWRE Principal Engineer Attachments Reviewed by: Habib Matin, PE, PhD Principal Engineer AMEC Environment 8 Infrastructure, Inc. 7376 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon USA 97224 Tel+1 (503) 639-3400 Fax+1 (503) 620-7892 www.amee.com KAAMEC US OFFICES1LynnwoodlBoeing North Bridge NoriselReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No -Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle amec6l TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 3.0 NO -RISE ANALYSIS... ................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Hydrology. ................................................................................................... 3.2 FIS Base Model and Existing North Boeing Bridge .............................................. 3 3.3 Proposed North Boeing Bridge............................................................................ 6 3.4 Temporary Work Trestle...................................................................................... 6 4.0 CLEARANCE ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 7 5.0 SCOUR ANALYSIS........................................................................................................ 8 6.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................. 9 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................... 10 TABLES Table 1 No -Rise Analysis (attachment) Table Z Cedar River Peak Flow Rates............................................................................. 3 Table 3: Regulatory Base (100 -Year) Flood Elevations..................................................... 5 Table 4 Clearance Analysis (attachment) FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Work Map for Cedar River with New Cross -Section Locations Figure 3 Scour Analysis for Proposed North Boeing Bridge AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 KAAMEC US QFFICES1LynnwoodlBoeing North Bridge NoriselReport\Boeing-N-Bridge-Norise-Report-20121214.Qocx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle APPENDICES Appendix A FIS Base Model Output and Cross Sections Appendix B Proposed North Boeing Bridge Model Output and Cross Sections Appendix C Temporary Work Trestle Model Output and Cross Sections Appendix D Plans and Cross -Sections of Existing and Proposed Structures Appendix E Scour Analysis for Proposed North Boeing Bridge AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project leo.: 2-61 M-127230 K:IAMEC US OFFICES1Lynnwoo&Boeing North Bridge Nodse\ReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Repori-20121214.Doex ameO No -Rise and Scour Report North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington 1.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AMEC found that the Proposed North Boeing Bridge and the Temporary Work Trestle across the Cedar River meet the no -rise requirement if constructed in accordance with plans and cross- sections shown on Plan Figures S001 and 5951 dated December 13, 2012 and attached as Appendix D. AMEC also found that in the channel between the pier faces, the proposed North Boeing Bridge provides 3 ft of clearance for most of the opening and provides 2 ft of clearance in all of the opening relative to the published 100 -year base flood elevation. The proposed North Boeing Bridge would provide an additional 0.96 -ft of clearance if compared to the proposed condition instead of the existing published FIS profile. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Boeing proposes to replace the existing North Boeing Bridge and to construct a temporary work trestle to be used during construction. Both bridges cross the Cedar River at its confluence with Lake Washington. The bridge lies within the regulatory floodway of the Cedar River, so the project requires a no -rise certification finding that neither (1) the proposed new bridge including the fixed sediment elevations nor (2) the proposed temporary work trestle with surveyed sediment elevations plus temporary coffer dam at the west end, piers for the new bridge and two pier sets from the existing bridge will not increase the base (1% -annual -chance) flood elevations on the Cedar River. AMEC prepared a previous no -rise analysis and certification for Boeing dated June 6, 2012- This report and certification update that analysis, and is prepared under subcontract to Berger/ARAM for project owner Boeing. The work was for AMEC to perform a revised hydraulic analysis of the proposed improvements to obtain the required "no -rise" certification and thus demonstrate no adverse impact for the proposed improvements. Figure 1 shows the study vicinity. The Cedar River drains a watershed of approximately 186 square -miles to Lake Washington. Near the project site, Cedar River flows north in a straightened course that appears to confine the 100 -year flow to the river channel in places using levees. The existing flood insurance study (FIS) calibrated Manning's-n roughness values in the vicinity of the project to range from 0.020 to 0.025 for the channel and from 0.030 to 0.045 for the overbank and floodplain area. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 1 KAMEC US 0FFICES1Lynnwocd\Boeing North Bridge Nodse\ReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle ameO Unless otherwise noted, all elevations in this report and attachments use units of feet above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (ft NAVD88). To convert elevation values from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (ft NGVD29) to ft NAVD88, add 3.56 ft (based on analysis using the VERTCON program on the website of the National Geodetic Survey, www.ngs.aov), and consistent with the two benchmarks referenced on the April 2006 FIS workmap, and with communication with the City of Renton. Figure 2 shows a portion of the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) workmap Panel 1 dated April 2006. The proposed bridge structures are between cross-section "A" and "B" just south of the confluence of the river with Lake Washington, and are within Zone AE of the 100 -year floodplain and within the floodway. This means a detailed study with base flood elevations has been published, and that a no -rise certification is required for both the proposed bridge and temporary work trestle. The figure includes the location of two new cross-sections labeled "New #1" and "New #2° located between cross-sections "A" and "B" that were used in modeling the Temporary Work Trestle. 3.0 NO -RISE ANALYSIS The no -rise analysis process involved obtaining the FIS base hydraulic model used for the April 2006 FIS restudy, confirming it reproduced the water surfaces tabulated in the report, and then replacing the North Boeing Bridge in the model. The hydraulic modeling of the Cedar River used for the 2006 FIS restudy used the US Army Corps of Engineers HEC -RAS version 3.12. This no -rise analysis used the more current Version 4.1.0 - The water surface elevations for the FIS Base model were compared with those tabulated in the report and found to be identical for both versions. The FIS base hydraulic model extended from Lake Washington upstream to near Maple Valley. This project area and any effects from the project are contained with only the lowermost reach, named "Cedar -Lower". So the hydraulic modeling trimmed all upstream reaches, junctions, and structures from the model and only considered this one reach in the analysis. The FIS model used a starting (downstream) water surface elevation in Lake Washington of 17.06 ft (NAVD88; NW HC 2006). The FIS report states that water levels in Lake Washington are regulated by the Chittenden Locks. This elevation corresponds to the maximum expected water surface elevation in Lake Washington between November 1 and March 31 (USAGE, June 1997), as well as the elevation used in the design of the flood protection project by USACE (NWHC 2006). However, within the HEC -RAS hydraulic model the starting water surface (at cross-section # 0.03) defaults to the higher critical -depth value of 17.32 ft (NAVD88). AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2 Project No.: 2-61M-127230 KAAMEC US OFF iCESILynnwoodEoeing North Bridge Nonse\ReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Nonse-Report-20121214.aocx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle ameO Two no -rise comparisons were made- first for the proposed bridge, and second for the temporary work trestle used during construction. Models for each proposed condition were compared cross-section by cross-section versus the FIS Base model water surface elevations to ensure that both proposed conditions did not result in an increase in water surface elevation relative to the regulatory 100 -year base flood elevation. Table 1 presents the results of both no -rise analyses, demonstrating that the no -rise requirement is satisfied for both the proposed bridge and the temporary work trestle. The table lists the cross-section location (by workmap letter, HEC -RAS model ID, and profile distance in ft above cross-section "A"), followed by 100 -year water surface elevations for the FIS Base model and for the proposed bridge and temporary work trestle models (described in the following sections). The table lists three different locations for the upstream face of the bridges because the existing bridge, proposed bridge, and temporary work trestle structures each have a different location for their upstream face. For comparison, elevations for the FIS Base model are interpolated for the two proposed upstream face locations. Additional information about the hydraulic modeling for this no -rise analysis is provided in the subsections that follow. 3.1 HYDROLOGY The hydrology (flows) for this study used the same flows as in the FIS report dated April 2006. (NHC2005). Peak flow rates used are summarized in Table 2. The same flows were used for all hydraulic modeling. 3.2 Table 2: Cedar River Peak Flow Rates Modeled Peak Flow (CFS) Location Recurrence Intervals 500 -Yr 100- 50 -Yr 10 -Yr (Cross-section Letter, model ID, and Distance in ft above Cross -Section "A") 18,400 12,000 9,860 3,000 Mouth to AM, 220,7 (11,600 ft above "A") 18,170 11,830 9,708 2,958 To AS, 275 (14,481 ft above "A") FIS BASE MODEL AND EXISTING NORTH BOEING BRIDGE The FIS Base model was developed for the April 2006 FIS restudy of the Cedar River and includes the existing North Boeing Bridge. It models fixed sediment elevations in the lower river reach (including the area of this no -rise analysis) that raise the minimum bed elevation in cross-sections AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 KAAMEC US QFFICESlynnwoodZoeing North Bridge NoriselReport\Boeing-N-Bridge-Norise-Repors-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle ameO in this reach to account for projected sedimentation over future years. Appendix A includes a modeled profile, summary of output results, and model cross-sections for the FIS Base model. The FIS Base is modeled as HEC -RAS plan file "P01". Appendix D1 illustrates plan and cross-section views of the existing North Boeing Bridge (copied as -is from the previous no -rise report). The existing bridge was modeled by others as part of the 2006 FIS restudy of the Cedar River, and was used as -is for this no -rise analysis. The existing bridge begins 1.5 ft upstream of model cross-section "A", The bridge combines two structures: downstream, a 32.7 -ft wide portion spans the river and has two bents of 1.4 -ft diameter circular pier sets in the channel. South (upstream) of this, two aprons on either side extend the structure by 61.8 ft and add another two bents of concrete, rectangular piers in the channel. The structure was modeled as a single bridge that is 94.5 -ft from upstream to downstream. This may seem reasonable, however only the piers affect model results because the bridge deck is above the 100 -year water surface and each set of piers is shorter than the composite 94.5 ft. The structure is skewed 9 degrees relative to the river approach. This has no discernable effect on the cross-section of the ground. However, the upstream bent of the existing piers are modeled as 15 -ft wide each (versus their approximate 5 -ft width when viewed head-on) because the 9 -degree skew means the river "sees" the four piers as a wider obstruction to flow (the downstream piers are not "hidden" behind the upstream pier). A single base (100 -year) flood elevation does not apply to the Boeing North Bridge site. The base (100 -year) profile slopes steeply in the vicinity of the North Boeing Bridge as it falls from the confined upstream river reach into the much lower flood elevation of Lake Washington. Flood elevations differ by several feet from upstream to downstream, and differ between the upstream and downstream faces and centerline locations of the three bridge structures modeled. Base (100 -year) flood elevations are summarized in Table 3 with values for both NAVD88 and NGVD29. The locations reference the distance upstream from the downstream face of the existing Boeing North Bridge; that location is the same as the downstream face of the proposed bridge. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 K: AMEC US OFFiCESILynnwoodlBoeing North Bridge NoriselRepor[\Boeing-N-Bridge-Nor se-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No -Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle Table 3: Regulatory Base (900 -Year) Flood Elevations ameO Location and Description Distance' [ft) FIS Base Flood Elevations` (ft NAVD88) (ft NGVD29) Downstream - Lake Washington3 Lake Washington3 N/A 17.06 13.5 FIS section "A" -1.5 18.64 15.08 Existing Bridge plus Apron DS face existing 0 19.38 15.82 Centerline (both) 47.25 20.54 16.98 UP face existing apron 94.5 21.7 18.14 Existing Bridge (only) DS face existing 0 19.38 15.82 Centerline existing 16.75 19.79 16.23 UP face existing 33-5 20.2 16.64 Proposed Bridge DS face proposed 0 19.38 15.82 Centerline proposed 25 19.99 16.43 UP face proposed 50 20.61 17.05 Temporary Work Trestle DS face temporary 54 20.71 17.15 Centerline temporary 70 21.1 17.54 UP face temporary 87 21.51 17.95 Upstream of Bridges FIS Section "B" 117.5 24.19 20.63 (interpolated location) 245.5 24.27 20.71 (interpolated location) 420.5 24.39 20.83 FIS Section "C" 973.5 24.75 21.19 Notes: 1 = Distance is measured in feet upstream of the downstream face of existing (and proposed) bridge. 2 = Elevations in ft NGVD29 are converted to ft NAVD88 by adding 3.56 ft consistent with City, The existing FIS study benchmarks, and analysis using NOAA's VERTCON online tool. The Base Flood elevation is for the 100 -year event from the 2006 FIS model and study. All elevations except those at FIS lettered sections and the existing bridge faces were interpolated. 3 = Lake Washington elevation from 2006 FIS report; the FIS model defaulted to a higher elevation of 17.32 ft (NAVD88) as the minimum required for critical depth. DS = downstream. CL = centerline. UP = upstream. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 5 KAMEC US OFFICESILynnwoodToeing North Bridge NodselReportleoeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214.Doex The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle 3.3 PROPOSED NORTH BOEING BRIDGE The Proposed Bridge model represents the condition after completion of the proposed North Boeing Bridge and removal of all elements including piers of the existing bridge, and removal of the temporary work trestle and its piers. When removing these piers, they need to be cut sufficiently below the channel bottom elevation to allow clearance for future dredging of river sediment. The Proposed Bridge model replaces the existing bridge with the proposed bridge cross-section and width. All other geometry of the FIS Base model is retained, including the channel cross- sections and the fixed sediment elevations that represent projections of potential future channel aggradation. The Proposed Bridge is modeled as HEC -RAS Plan File P02. Appendix D Figure 5001 illustrates plan and cross-section views of the proposed North Boeing Bridge. The proposed bridge was modeled as matching the downstream face of the existing bridge (1.5 ft upstream of cross-section "A"), with a deck width of 50 ft, and with 2 sets of 2 circular, 4 -ft -diameter piers capped by a 6 -ft -wide element. The piers are 36 ft long along the flow direction. The alignment of the west pier is skewed 9 degrees to the river approach so a wider effective pier width of 9.4 ft was modeled. The east pier was modeled as parallel to the flow direction because the sudden drop in water surface would cause flow to take the shortest route to Lake Washington. 3.4 TEMPORARY WORK TRESTLE Because the construction of the replacement North Boeing Bridge will occur in stages spanning more than one year, a second no -rise analysis was required to consider a worst-case wet -season condition. The Temporary Work Trestle represents the following condition: The Temporary Work Trestle (described below) is constructed to carry traffic and from which to construct the replacement bridge The concrete piers of the apron portion of the existing bridge are removed; the concrete piers that underlie the existing bridge are retained • A temporary coffer dam is in place effectively blocking flow in the left portion of the channel; no such obstruction is in place in the right portion of the channel The existing, circular pier bents of the existing bridge are still present (the existing bridge deck is removed, but it was above the 100 -year flood elevation and did not affect model results) AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 KaAMEC US OFFICESlynnwood\Boeing North Bridge Nonse\Report%Boeing-N-Bridge-Nonse-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle ameO The piers for the proposed bridge are present in the channel (the presence of the proposed deck was not modeled; it is above the 100 -year flood elevation and would not affect model results). When removing these piers, they need to be cut sufficiently below the channel bottom elevation to allow clearance for future dredging of river sediment. The Temporary Work Trestle model replaces the existing bridge with the proposed bridge cross- section and width in the HEC -RAS hydraulic model. The model also includes survey points used to update mapped cross-sections "A" and "B" near the downstream and upstream of the North Boeing Bridge site and to insert two new cross-sections upstream of mapped cross-section "B". Finally, because the design life of this structure is only two seasons, no fixed sediment elevations were used: no aggradation of sediment bed material was included. The Temporary Work Trestle is modeled as HEC -RAS Plan File P03. Appendix D Figure S951 illustrates plan and cross-section views of the Temporary Work Trestle. The proposed temporary bridge would begin 3 ft upstream of the proposed bridge face and have a deck width of 34 ft, with 7 sets of 4 circular, 2 -ft -diameter piers that are 27 ft long along the flow direction. Most piers were modeled as parallel to the flow direction because the sudden drop in water surface would cause flow to take the shortest route to Lake Washington. 4.0 CLEARANCE ANALYSIS The clearance is the height of the structure low chord above the published base flood (100 -year) elevation corresponding to the upstream face of the structure. The City of Renton requires a clearance of at least 3 ft in most of the channel for the Proposed Bridge, and at least 2 ft in all of the channel, and this requirement is satisfied. It is important to note that this clearance analysis does not include the 0.96 -ft drop in base flood elevation that will result from the opening of the bridge cross-section as the river banks are restored and obstructions by the existing approach apron are removed. Thus the actual clearance will be 0.96 ft more across the whole cross-section. Table 4 presents the clearance analysis of the Proposed Bridge and also includes an analysis for the Temporary Work Trestle. The 100 -year water surface (interpolated from the published FIS profile) at the upstream face of each structure was compared to the low chord elevations at several points across the cross-section of each structure's upstream face. The upstream faces of each structure (existing bridge, proposed bridge, and temporary work trestle) are in different locations so their 100 -year water surface elevations also differ. Elevations are provided both as ft NAVD88 for comparison to the HEC -RAS hydraulic modeling results and FIS, and as ft NGVD29 for comparison to the Boeing bridge plans. These elevations will differ from the elevation obtained from the City during preliminary application meetings that was based on interpretation of FEMA AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 KAAMEC US OFFICESIynnwoodlBoeing North Bridge Norise\ReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-Nodse-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle ameO flood profiles, and also from elevations at the centerline of the structures that might be shown on the plans. For the Proposed Bridge, the low chord elevation increases moving toward the channel from both banks, and the structure's low beam is gradually arched. The clearance exceeds 3.0 ft between the two piers (i.e. the channel) for 85% of the 130 -ft wide opening between the pier faces and exceeds 2.0 ft for 100% of that opening. The clearance exceeds 2.0 ft for 90% of the full 236 -ft wide opening between the bridge abutments. The clearance drops to 1.7 ft at both the right and left abutments. As discussed earlier, if the widened channel banks were also accounted for, the clearance would be 0.96 ft more, even when including the fixed sediment elevations. For the Temporary Work Trestle, the low beam is at a constant elevation of 18.85 ft (NGVD29) between piers 3 and 7 (i.e. the channel) and the clearance is 0.90 ft. The low beam increases at a uniform rate from elevation 18.49 ft (NGVD29) at the left coffer dam face and from elevations 18.53 ft (NGVD29) at the right coffer dam face towards piers 3 and 7, respectively. The temporary work trestle deck is above the published FIS 100 -year water surface for its entire length; however, both ends of the low beam are below it (behind the coffer dam faces). If the widened channel banks were also accounted for, the clearance would be 0.22 ft more. No fixed sediment was modeled for the temporary work trestle condition. 5.0 SCOUR ANALYSIS A scour analysis was performed to assess the potential depth of total scour including contraction scour of the bed, abutment scour, and pier scour. AMEC found that the minimum elevation across the profile (i.e. maximum scour depth) was (-7.64) ft below NAVD88 (-11.2 ft below NGVD). The proposed bridge will be built on piles driven more than 70 feet deep, so scour is not found to be a problem for this structure. The Proposed Bridge was analyzed for scour risk following the methodology in HEC18, 4th edition (May 2001). Output from the HEC -RAS hydraulic model (described above) was used. The bed material was observed and measured in the field, and the D50 and D95 diameters were estimated to be about 2 inches (50 mm or 0.05 m) and 4 inches (100 mm or 0.05 m) respectively. The river is channelized in the reach where this project is located. In this area the stream banks were vegetated, suggesting that any overbank scour would be clear -water. In addition, because the river is channelized there is in essence no overbank to be subject to scour. The channel bed material appeared to be mobile, and to have varied laterally between successive surveys. The existing FIS report applies a fixed sediment elevation to the lower river profile. For these reasons, five -bed channel scour was found to apply. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61M-127230 K:IAMEC US OFFICES1LynnwoodlBoeing North Bridge NoriseNReportlBoeing-N-Bridge-NDdse-Report-20121214.Docx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 110 No-Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle amec The HEC -RAS scour analysis results are summarized as follows: • Channel contraction scour depth 4.9 ft using live -bed equation • Pier scour depth 13.3 ft using the Colorado State University (CSU) equation • Abutment scour depth was 7-36 ft using the default HIRE methodology • Total pier and contraction scour depth was 18.2 ft • Total abutment and contraction scour depth was 7.36 ft Details of the HEC -RAS scour analysis input and output are included as Appendix E. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the detailed analysis described above, AMEC found that the Proposed North Boeing Bridge and the Temporary Work Trestle across the Cedar River meets the no -rise requirement if constructed in accordance with plans and cross-sections shown on Plan Figures 5001 and S951 of plan files RTN-NBRDG-SO01.DWG and RTN-NBRDG-5951.DWG, both dated December 13, 2012 and attached as Appendix D. AMEC also found that the Proposed North Boeing Bridge meets requirements to provide 3 ft clearance above the 100 -year flood elevations within most of the channel between the pier faces and 2 ft clearance for all of that opening, and that the deck of the temporary work trestle is above the 100 -year flood elevation for its full length but that its low beam is below the 100 -year flood elevation at both ends. For potential scour depth, AMEC found that the lowest scoured elevation across the profile (location of maximum scour depth) was (-7.64) ft below NAVD88 (-11.2 ft below NGVD), and the maximum scour depth was 18.2 ft. Because the proposed bridge will be built on piles driven more than 70 feet deep, scour is not found to be a problem for this structure. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please contact the undersigned at (503) 639-3400. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Project No.: 2-61 M-127230 KaAMEC US OFF IC ES%LynnwoodlBoeing North Bridge NodselReport\Boeing-N-Bridge-No6se-Report-20121214.Oocx The Boeing Company, Renton, Washington - December 14, 2012 `' No -Rise and Scour Report, North Boeing Bridge and Temporary Work Trestle amec, LIMITATIONS This report was prepared exclusively for Boeing and ABAM by AMSC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMSC). The quality of information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein is consistent with the level of effort involved in AMEC services and based on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions, and qualifications set forth in this report. This No -Rise Report and Certification is intended to be used by Boeing and ABAM on the North Boeing Bridge Replacement project only, subject to the terms and conditions of ABAM's contract with AMSC. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third party is at that party's sole risk. While this report was prepared in accordance with standard engineering practice by qualified engineering professionals, Boeing and ABAM should understand that this report evaluated a specific storm recurrence interval and assumes free-flowing hydraulic conditions. It is reasonable to assume that a storm event of greater magnitude or changes in water -way conveyance capacity might cause higher stages than estimated for this assignment. AMSC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc, r .8' 03Ntii?! � __J Seth Jelen, PE, CEM, MIRE Principal Engineer SJIcw Reviewed by., Habib Matin, PE, PhD Principal Engineer AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 10 Project No.: 2-61M-127234 K:tiAMEC US OFFICE S1Lyner:oadOoeing Norte Bridge NoriselReportl8oeing-N-Bridge-Nor se-Report-20121214.t]ocx TABLES Table 1: No -Rise Analysis Table 4: Clearance Analysis TABLE 1. No -Rise Analysis for North Boeing 9ridges Notes: All values are from 909 -Plan Configuration 1 = All modeled elevations are It NAVD88; values are 3.56 It higher than values in it NGVD29 2 = Distance Is it above the downstream face of the existing (and proposed} bridge (modeled as 1.5 it upstream of crass -section "A") 3 = Proposed Bridge is 50 ft wide (piers are 36 it along flow but modeled as 50 -ft) with downstream face matching existing bridge's inserted into FI model geometry (i.e. retaining H9 crass -section geometry and projected sedimentation 4 = Work Trestle (temporary bridgel deck is 34 it wide (3 ft upstream of UPF o1 proposed bridge) with piers 27 it long along flow; modeled as 87 It (width and pier lengths) to include the proposed bridge piers and includes two 4 -It diameter per bents for proposed bridge plus two 1.4 -ft pier bents from existing bridge plus 7 sets of 2 -ft diameter circular piles supporting work trestle: temporary work trestle modeled using revised geometry from FIS that added 2 new cross-sections (same piers are combined; some are aligned with expanding how and some at edges modeled as slightly skewed) plus did not include sedimentation projected in FIS Base model Included blockage of temporary cefier dam on west bank - but not on east bank {where piers modeled instead) 5 - The upstream face distance for the FIS Base model does *not' represent the lace of the existing 33.5-11 bridge deck but the projected distance at the upstream edge of the two approach aprons c - Water surface elevation modeled as critical depth (water surface would be less than this) i = Water surface elevation Interpolated (to compare with UPF locations that differ from existing UPF locations) DSF = Downstream face of bridge (internal in model) UPF = Upstream face of bridge (internal to model) na = Change in water surface not assessed for interpolated FIS Base cross-section Cross -Section Location 100 -Year Water Surface (ft NAVD88)' Map Letter Model ID Distance (11t)2 FIS Base Proposed' Change Work Trestle° Change 0.03 -321.5 17.32 c 17.32 c 0.00 17.32 c 0.00 0.06 -21.5 17.60 17.60 0.00 17.60 000 A 0.1 -1.5 18.64 c 18.64 c 0.00 17.61 c -1.03 1.3 DSF 0 19.38 c 16.86 c -0.52 19.18 c -0-20 UPF Proposed 50 2W C1 19.65 c -0.96 na UPF Trestle 87 21St C1 na 21.29 -0.22 UPF FIS Base 94.5 21.70 c` na na B 3 117.5 24.19 20.70 c -3.49 22.21 _1.98 4.7 245.5 24.271 na 22.11 _2.16 e 420-5 24.991 na 22.24 -2,15 C 19.2 973.5 24.75 23.38 -1.37 23.46 -1.29 D 31.7 1638.5 25.36 24.46 -0.90 23.70 -1.66 E 46.9 2436-5 26.37 26.01 -0.36 24.06 -2.31 F 64.6 3362.5 28.10 27-99 -0.11 25.02 -3.08 G 74.8 3905.5 29.39 29.34 -0.05 26.57 -2-82 H 75.9 3960.5 29.55 29.51 -0.04 26.84 -2.71 1 77.7 4061.5 29.57 29.53 -0.04 26.86 -2.71 J 80.4 4176.5 29.76 29.72 -0.04 27-12 -2,64 K 842 4342.5 30.00 29.97 -0.03 27.44 -2.56 L 902 4717.5 31.00 30.98 -0.02 28.29 -2.71 M 1002 5253.5 32.13 32.12 -0.01 29.70 -2,43 N 106.3 5563.5 33.17 33.16 -0.01 30-89 -2.28 0 107.1 5634-5 33.55 33.55 0.00 31.44 -2,11 P 109.5 57445 33.77 33.77 0.00 31.46 _2.31 0 111.6 5848.5 33.95 33.94 -0.01 31.43 -2.52 R 123.7 6483.5 34.31 34.30 -0.01 32.36 -1.95 S 124.5 6528.5 35.00 35.40 0.00 33.06 -1.94 T 127.9 6706.5 35.22 35.22 0.00 33.29 -1.93 U 131.8 6915.5 35.72 35.71 -0.01 33.93 -1.79 V 132.8 6959.5 37.48 37.48 0.00 34.10 -3.38 W 134.1 7029-5 37.55 37.54 -0.01 34.16 -3.39 K 141.8 7442.5 37.97 37.97 0.00 35.20 -2.77 Y 146 7656-5 38.24 38.24 0.00 35.78 -2.46 2 147.4 7734.5 39.13 39.13 0.00 36.20 -2.93 AA 149.5 7846.5 39.46 39A6 0.00 36.54 -2.92 AB 153.1 8009.5 39.80 39.80 0.00 37.16 -2.64 AC 159.7 8361.5 40.17 40.17 0.00 37.73 -2.44 AD 160.6 8441.5 41.60 41.60 0.00 38.03 -3.57 AF 165 8662.5 42.21 42.21 0.00 39.27 -2.94 AF 165.6 8692.5 42.30 42.29 -0.01 39.39 -2.91 AG 169.3 8889,5 41.99 41.99 0.00 38.88 -3.11 AH 179.5 9424.5 42.55 42.55 0.00 40.43 -2.12 Notes: All values are from 909 -Plan Configuration 1 = All modeled elevations are It NAVD88; values are 3.56 It higher than values in it NGVD29 2 = Distance Is it above the downstream face of the existing (and proposed} bridge (modeled as 1.5 it upstream of crass -section "A") 3 = Proposed Bridge is 50 ft wide (piers are 36 it along flow but modeled as 50 -ft) with downstream face matching existing bridge's inserted into FI model geometry (i.e. retaining H9 crass -section geometry and projected sedimentation 4 = Work Trestle (temporary bridgel deck is 34 it wide (3 ft upstream of UPF o1 proposed bridge) with piers 27 it long along flow; modeled as 87 It (width and pier lengths) to include the proposed bridge piers and includes two 4 -It diameter per bents for proposed bridge plus two 1.4 -ft pier bents from existing bridge plus 7 sets of 2 -ft diameter circular piles supporting work trestle: temporary work trestle modeled using revised geometry from FIS that added 2 new cross-sections (same piers are combined; some are aligned with expanding how and some at edges modeled as slightly skewed) plus did not include sedimentation projected in FIS Base model Included blockage of temporary cefier dam on west bank - but not on east bank {where piers modeled instead) 5 - The upstream face distance for the FIS Base model does *not' represent the lace of the existing 33.5-11 bridge deck but the projected distance at the upstream edge of the two approach aprons c - Water surface elevation modeled as critical depth (water surface would be less than this) i = Water surface elevation Interpolated (to compare with UPF locations that differ from existing UPF locations) DSF = Downstream face of bridge (internal in model) UPF = Upstream face of bridge (internal to model) na = Change in water surface not assessed for interpolated FIS Base cross-section TABLE 4. Clearance Analysis for North Boeing Bridges Structure and Location Disf Station ft ft Soffit Elevations° ft NAVD88 ft NGVD29 Clearance ft Temporary Work Trestle FIS 100 -year Water Surface' 87 21.51 17.95 (for reference the modeled water surface for this condition is 0.22 ft lower than the published FIS) Low Chord of Structure 3 Inside face of W coffer dame 21+01 22.05 18.49 0.54 Left angle point ! Pier 3 21+10 22.41 18.85 0.90 Right angle point 1 Pier 7 22+30 22.41 18.85 0.90 Inside face of E coffer dame 22+37.70 22.09 18.53 0.58 Proposed Bridge FIS 100 -year Water Surface2 50 20.61 17.05 (for reference the modeled water surface for this condition is 0.96 ft lower than the published FIS) Low Chord of Structure Inside face of W abutment 10+42 22.37 18.81 1.76 Left station of 241 clearance 10+54 22.61 19.05 2.00 Center of left pier 10+93 23.4 19.84 2.79 Left station of 3 -ft clearance 11+05 23.61 20.05 3.00 Highest point of low beam 11+60 24.75 21.19 4.14 Right station of 3 -ft clearance 12+15 23.61 20.05 3.00 Center of right pier 12+27 23.41 19.85 2.80 Right station of 2411 clearance 12+66 22.61 19.05 2.00 Inside face of E abutment 12+78 22.37 18.81 1.76 Fraction of 130 -ft opening between pier faces with 3 -ft clearance = 85% Fraction of 130 -ft opening between pier faces with 2 -ft clearance = 100% Fraction of 236 -ft opening between abutments. with 2 -ft clearance = 90% Notes: 1 = FIS Water surface interpolated for location at upstream face of temp. work trestle 2 = FIS Water surface interpolated for location at upstream face of proposed bridge 3 = Elevations of low chord were measured from the cross sections drawing files provided 4 = Elevations in ft NGVD29 are converted to ft NAVD88 by adding 3-56 ft consistent with City, the existing FIS study benchmarks, and analysis using VERTCON; soffit e{evations provided by KPFF 5 - Distance is from downstream face of existing (and proposed) bridge to upstream face of respective bridge 6 = Data corresponds to 90% -Design Submission 7 = These clearances represent the difference in elevations between the bridge soffit and the published FIS Base Flood (100 -year) elevation - the actual clearances would be more after accounting for the increased conveyance under the proposed- or temporary -bridge conditions 8 = The coffer dams are modeled on both ends to represent the worst-case temporary condition where part of the right and left channel bank areas are obstructed from flow during construction ameO FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Work Map for Cedar River with New Cross -Section Locations Figure 3: Scour Analysis for Proposed North Boeing Bridge ualef,U3es - wd81:b Z1OZ '9Z -AON - - - 6MP-suO!)O301 u0!loas-ssal0 xaN 41!x ■aA!a JOPao /ol dory MOM - Z ajn6!j\SMO\salgOl-PuO-sam61;\luodey\e8uoN e6pug y}IoN 6u!e0g\po0xuuFl\S3aIjj0 Sn 03VW\:N Z "CN3llfl0ij SNOLV001 NOUO3S-SSMdO MIN H-LIM ?:EIAI?A 1JVG30 cIOJ dl4'W Al JOM :31111 V35 ��� &? 4ZZL6'V'S'n'210 'PuelYad pcoM-ie4in0'M'S9LEL 03VIV NMOHSS'd Noila3road 0EzlzL-H19Z aN ia3road NMOHS Sb :wnlva WVSVI2130b18 Put ANlddWOO ON1309 3H1 ZIN 839W3AONrS :31va 1N3W30b'Id3�1 3JOI�iB JN1308 H1�ION l lOd3�l �Sl�l ON '1ogro�d �eo,NH� - 'A as 'A9 NNIO ON ail '90OZ 41L I!JIV 'Z 10 i aleld - OOyt WOM 'SluelJnsu00 9!1ne1PAH ISaMylloN :30anos v01}onal3 88 f1AVN WOJ$ l -j 95'E 3]oJ}gnS 62 QADN 014 88 QAVN uOJ$ }JanuOO al ,uOlsranu03 un}o8 loo!}JaA }j `88 QAVN .un}o0 1o01}JaA auoz 4}JON •u00414soA 16J688VN ,un}oa 104.uozlJOH TMORRTIRT-W90 OOL ,45£ ,0 050L }$ S•1 o} 1 ;0 sy}dap 4:1-1m BulpOol$ K011n45 soy 8u02 �, sI41 'sPO4}aw Pallo4ap ✓ al paulura;ap aro 4014• 'suloldpool; JI)OA-001 a4} o} spuodsaJJoO 4314a auoz Ms1J a]uDansul pool.} a41 SLI 4}dao) f]V auoz 'Bulpuod ;o soars ;4),l%� llnnsn '}; £ o} 1 ;o s4}dap pool; sn4 sn4 auoz sl41 •auoz sly} my}lx ux04s aq �(ow 93jg •spo4}} au palloap �Iq paulura}ap aim 43M •suloldpO014 Joal(-001 a4} 0} SpO 4 uodsaJJ314x auoz ISPaDuvinsul P001; a41 11, auaZ >IJSN aOuaJa;ab ug}anal$ S-H2l3• 1Jopun�e a}oJOdJoa 'du°2 s!4} a+g44.1x ur04s aro s3jg -spo4}aw pally}ap Aal pauluda}ap aim 4014r 'suloldpovl$ Joan -001 a4} o} spuodsaJJo] goJlyr auoz ,IsIJ aOuoJnsul Po01; a41 .34 auoz uq1ona13 PWIJ asog w- -auoz sly} u14"ur045 aro s336 ON •seanal /(q pool,} JOa,(-001 ay} WOJ$ pa}]d}Ord Rropunog Aoldp-kj rya,( -005 soado JO 'aw '6s 1 uoL4 ssal sl 88ouloJp 8M;nc1J4uo7 a'4 a,,aga Sulpoal; uoaJ}s Joan -001 $a snara gvoj 1 uo4} ssal ado s4}dap a8viano ada4r BulpOal$ aol$ }aa4s Jos,( -001 jO soaro 'uloldpool; roaA-001 a44. apls#no soaro o} spuOds"JOP 4a14r auoz 4s1J aOuoJnsul pool$ ay1 ,papo45 x auoz /IJnplaing lyoldpoolj J°aA_001 --- dJnpunog FnrpoO!j -- 'u!oldpool$ coal( -005 ay} ap15}no soaJy o} 5puvd5arr03 4314r duv2 „51.1 7auyJnsul p4O1; a41 'Yf auoZ au11Ja}wa3 lauuwa SUINMISM 3734 111.113 14 'M= .-_ .Cd p L--.1 a-� O � �. L¢7.6 D.. - l --I a �y'x'- 1} % J IJ8 uny asapad a'�� J0 +�--�J C `.I �`\ X auoZ Xpnis do I!u!-1 X auoz l El nn �' +x ems+ 7=- 9d ua�. CCCIII �o v x 4, ❑ g Cpa a S) X auoZ Eaf 'Z o a s a D CT" 84 [� ° �l C3 U Q �[RRO°tJ X�yauoz L7 �tl° 0a> f] ❑ p Qo E3 p q L� �s ° °RJB �6 ❑ J { M.1 b4e cl li i R.0 11 ,UUUI �. 0 0� Li a ❑ Q E! o a � � u. �tl��---•l1 6 SPO �S� ��p4 - I r e on.a Uqn°g M �9LI as �a ° ] 0-w0 Q 6" d auoz I 1 ES ��, t5 coUr r 9045) pDa0 Z J a° go°d 0 3ti Z o y auo ❑o N �i Q 0 p iS A N d El Qjf81$ ao �m -X auaZ •, o ' 13 _ C] l x , f H 0 6uupog g2wo 1 G ` 3 (paplD4S) X auaZ �_ �� =P1 yea, ; 3d a (papD4S) X auoZ CPa o4S X au z s a X auoz �u5 an mew ,A�o, �u of w»P„oe5a„� x-uoluwsaon eaaW ANO 'u,eMPooll . Wl�ry SnbdelwlW yo wea4su.wP p•Sn SWPBILBIA Wg�Yr5Mp1UB�jlh] �N 1 (papa4S) X au -Lit M014 ]d21d� �Xpn 1-10}13UMsoM aND-1 3 6ula06 41 -JON palln4-a4 do 1-I14I-1 J iqn J R C : fC J Q to N 4 O N O - 4? 7 rf !_ 7 � i 7 I lti F 77 i+ � Ch / 4..........., I C!1 r ! :3 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 O O T 4 � � if] 4 O Lf] O T ['J N N N (y) uOIMeAGJ3 amec19 APPENDIX A FIS Base Model Output and Cross Sections Flood Profiles Output Summary Cross -Sections (With Projected Sedimentation) 4nO C LL — C i d O 47 3 c 6 LO N m o � I a 0 to � m L U- C�o C� 98sZ x3 6.9- j CDC N N I } J Z OLO a U IC C LU } OO J O O Q Q LU U LU 0 U ' 0 9994 X0 L,46 m O c U m � j y O W CO cr 7 C A Z o ¢coo t U O D U m L a w I z w j 996 XO Z'61 N C3 a w U) - yN C � O r C O � 4 I I N_ I c O Z ID � 4 I o m ... Isnr - so'o sx 9(1 L z ol6uiysem a)1e-1 ul - Eo'o sx eo-o a U i co O m LOO l!'i O In O N N � r (4j) uoIJBnO13 Appendix A: QutpW Summary - FIS Base Model River Ste Map Letter Distance Profile 4 Total Min Ch EI W.S. Eley Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E G. Slope Vel Chn1 Flow Arae Top Width Froude A Chi lil lweg (minimum channel elevation: ft Ni W.S. Elev (N1 Icfs} (N} all (fl) (ft) -__ _ (flirt) (Nrs) (sq 111 IN Welled !low cross section area (square It) 0.03 Welled lop -width of Dow {Ip --S21.5100Yr 12000 ':3.56 17.32 17.32 17.9 0.005562 6.09 19717 2700.98 I 0.06 -21.511 12000 7.93 176 1921. 0.002227 10.18 1191.69 211.5 074 0 1 A 1.5 1 00y 12060 13.43 18.64 18,64 20.99 0.604155 12 35 919021 220.07 0.98 1.3 BR D 0 11 12000 1939. 19-35 21.95 12,97 `87.23 1.3 BR U 94.5 '' Ol 12000 21.7 21.7 24 67 14.39 169.98 3 B 117-5 '.00Yr 12060 13.43 24.19 1992, 25.12 0600617 7.92 1780.99 291.11 043 19.2 C 9735100Yr 12000 15.36 24.75 21.19 25-74 0000813 8.1 1601.94 220.82 047 31.7 D 1638-5100Yr 12000 16,84 25.35 22,83 26.42 0.001213 8.5 1580.64 240.37 052 46,9 E 2436.5 lCi 12000 17.74 26-37 23.88 27-64 0.901778 9.32 1399,36 190.3 056 64.6 F 3362.5 100Yr 12006 1902. 28.1 25.46 28.49 0002159 9.51 130678 169-72 0.57 74.8 G 3905.5100Yr 12000 2069. 29.39 2626 30,54 D.D01 U76 8.64 1427.14 166.58 0.51 75,9 H 3960.514cyr 12000 2022. 29.55 2625 30.64 0.0016 8.38 145322 166.66 0.49 77.7 1 406'.5100YF !2000 2045, 29.57 26.85 30.89 0.001998 9.28 133911 169.3 0.55 B04 J 4171.51o0Yr 12000 2063 29.76 27 31.14 0.002107 9.48 129191 158,45 0.56 $42 K 43425100Yr 12000 2D.91 30 27.53 31.56 0.002324 10.14 124262 155.71 06 90.2 L 4717.51D1Yr 12000 21-53 31 28.48 32.41 0.002099 9.7 1318.05 17`.97 0.57 1002 M 5253.5100Y' '2000 2238 32.13 29. B4 33$6 0-002169 1.0.12 1329,5 176,02 0.58 106.3 N 5563.5100Yr 12000 22.78 33,17 29.44 34.15 0.001434 8.56 1668.58 185.85 0.47 107.1 ❑ 5634 5 100Y: 12000 22.83 33.55 28.83 34.25 0.000903 7.D6 2602.04 250.86 0.38 108.3 BR D 5635.5 1DOYr 120DO 33.51 28.9 34.27 7-31 102.41 1 ci BR U 5743 5 IOOYr 12000 33.66 29.63 34.62 0.21 53.56 109.5 P 5744.51DOYr 12000 23.26 3377 29.55 34.63 0-001137 7.82 1756 19411 0.43 111 5 0 5846.5 100Yr 12000 23.52 33.95 30.64 34.76 0.00118 7.79 1624 29507 044 123.7 R 541 IODYr 121100 24.63 3431 36.11 0,002532 11,06 1196.35 149.58 0.63 124-1 BR D 6484.5 11 12600 34.08 32.3 36 22 12 06 141.19 124.1 ER U 6527.5 11 12000 34.76 32-15 36.42 1065 140.41 '24.5 S 652B.5 I00Yr 12600 24.69 35 31.9 36.45 0.001883 3.91 1321-65 14889 0,55 '.27.9 T 6706.5100Yr 12000 24.97 35.22 32,36 36.86 002128 10.55 1234.6 145.52 0.56 131.6 U 691 S.51o0Yr 12060 2556 35.72 32.7$ 37.3 3.002045 10,36 1258.39 137 0.5B 132.3 OR D 6916.5 1(1 12000 35.24 32.9 37.3 it 57 132.3 OR U 6958.5 100Yr 12000 35-15 33-12 38.6 11.78 1328 V 6959.51007: 120011 25.7 37.48 33.01 38.6 0001207 879 1536-77 168.1 9.45 134.1 W 7029.51007: 12000 25,88 37.55 38.69 D.Dc 1293 8.93 1592.93 215.01 046 141.8 % 7442.51c0Yr 12606 26.62 37.97 39-34 0.001507 958 1355.2 132.54 0,5 146 Y 7656-5 100Yr 12000 26,86 38.24 34.33 39.7 0.001611 972 1270 ' 1 142 66 0 Si 1467 OR D 7557.5 101 12000 37-95 34.41 39,83 11.03 148.7 BR U 7733,5 161 12000 38.39 34.54 40.32 11.17 147.4 Z 7734,5160Yr 12000 27.01 39-13 34.45 40,39 0.061283 9.07 1368.46 145.78 040 1495 AA 78465 IDOYr 12000 27.23 39 46 4055 0.001184 8.47 1496.89 148.45 D.44 151 2 BR D 7847.5 100Yr 12000 39.42 34.99 40.57 6.74 144.28 151 3 BR U 8008.5 100Yr 12000 39.71 3521 40.9 6.68 147.04 153.1 AS 800951007: 1200D 27.67 39.8 35.02 4091 0.001167 6.56 147982 1514 0.44 159.7 AC 8361$ 10OYr '.2000 2626 40,17 41.36 0.001136 8.85 '43396 134.17 0.44 160 3 8R D 8382.5 100Y, "2000 38.75 35.03 41 36 1025 160 3 BR U 8440.5 100Yr 120DO 39.3 35.35 42.53 103 160.5 AD 8441 5 100Yi 12000 26.04 4i 6 354 42.53 1 B.07 1651.6' 139.05 0.38 165 A2 8662.5 1 00Y 12000 28.16 42.21 42.71 0-00045 5.9 2395.1 290.05 0.26 165.3 OR 0 8671.5 100Yr 12000 42.17 35.3 42.74 6.28 12955 165.3 OR U 8683.5 I OOYr 12000 42 17 35.29 42.76 6.45 128.94 166.6 AF 8692.5 100Yr 12000 28.16 42.3 35.09 42.78 0 00044 5.83 2396.28 2904 0-28 169.3 AG &889.5 100Yr 12000 27.93 41.99 36.69 43.DS 0.001062 8.82 182447 256 042 179.5 AH 9424.510OYr 12000 28.6 42.55 437 0,001157 8,6B 1538.01 168.61 0.44 1.84 .6 At 9801.51007: 12600 30.32 43.08 38.44 44.15 0,001162 $.56 1885-83 38791 0.44 192.3 AJ 10101.5100Yr 12000 31-53 43.34 3953 44.65 0,001872 9.34 1511.79 300.99 0.51 204.7 AK ID774.5 I1 12000 3258 441 41.63 46.5 0.002798 12,51 1013.46 144.56 0,67 211.2 AL 11094-5100Yr 12000 32.63 45.07 4206, 47.35 9.002409 12.17 1045.84 19713 0.63 220.7 AM 11598.51007: 12000 31,27 46.61 43.27 48.5 0002029 11,17 1178.57 126.78 0.58 2314 AN 12171-5100Yr 11830 35.36 48.25 49.56 0001531 923 1316.44 13551 0.5 242.2 AC 12739.5 11 11830 36.47 48.73 51.04 D.002984 12.26 991.49 109.71 0 68 250.6 AP 13185.51COY, 11836 37,82 50.76 5214 0401755 9,41 127526 150.93 0.52 250-7 AO 13724.5 '' 00Yr 11830 38,07 51.29 53.67 0 003088 1244 999.71 11 1-01 0.69 274.7 AS 14465.511)07: 11830 40 54-09 55.33 0.001495 6,93 134644 125.14 046 274. S5 BR D 14466 5 1007: 11830 54.05 48.89 55.35 9 18 121it 274 85 BR L 1447$.5 10CYr 11830 54.07 48.93 55.38 9 19 121 07 275 AS 14479.5100Yr 11830 40.04 54.16 48.79 55,39 0.00148 8.9 135).67 125.22 046 Notes Cross-aection output for project vkinity Is highlighted In bold above Key 10 neld names: River Sla Internal ID In HEC RAS labont hund•edths of a mile above cross -section -A-; unitless] '130 0' is the downstream lace of the bridge "BR U' is the upstream lace Map Letter Lauer that labels the crass -section on the work maps (some Cross sections have no letter labell Distance Distance 01; upslream Irom downstream race of esisling land proposed! Noah Boeing Bridge t 1 5 It above crass-seclion'A-) Frolile 100 -Yr is the base Ill (1% -annual -chance flood) 0 Total Flow rate (clsl Min Ch EI lil lweg (minimum channel elevation: ft Ni W.S. Elev WAla, sarlace elevation pt NAVD88i Cnl W.S. Criltcal wale: surface elevation (11 NAVDm E.G. Elev Energy grade elevation {It NAVDBO; E.6 Slope Energy grade slope (fl'fl. unitless] Vel Cho[ Average velocity of 1(ow in cfiannel IWsecond) Flow Area Welled !low cross section area (square It) Top Width Welled lop -width of Dow {Ip Froode 4 Chi Florida Number (unitless) A2 FIS Base Outpul Page 1 30-1 ` 20 J c 0 0 L 15 I 10 5-- 1000 26 24 I 22 20 18 _i 16 14 12 - 10- - -100 -50 0 50 100 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: OLD SASE: Cedar -Lower 100 -Yr Only: Cedar -2003 -FIS - Aggradatino 4� 16,2012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR -LOWER ONLY 2003 -FIS RS = 19.2 CX 955 q _...... __...--�-- -- -- -- .04 ra 023 - x.08 03 LegendI - _ _.._ WS 100Yr Sediment Fill 0 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 Station (it) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Hanlon WA 2012 Plan: QLD BASE: Cedar -Lower 100 -Yr Only: Cedar -2003 -FIS - Aggradatino 4,1612012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR -LOWER ONLY 2003 -FIS RS = 3 XS 3 (140) Upstream North Boeing Bridge - Centered -K.045 -- .022 - — .035 - 150 Ground i Levee • Bank Sta Legend ' WS 100Yr Sediment Fill 200 250 Ground Levee Bank Sta North Boeing Bridge No-Rise Renlon WA 2012 Plan: OLD BASE', Cedar-Lower 100-Yr Only, Cedar.20M+IS - Aggradatino 416;2012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR-LOWER ONLY 2003-FIS R5 = 1.3 BR .045)' - - .022 -- .035 — 26 .I Legend 24 - --� WS 100Yf Sediment Fill 22: i Ground Levee 20- Bank• S1a o 16 wm 14' 12- 10 g.-. . - 1 1 - [ . ,-----I ---- r____ - ...— , -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No-Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: OLD BASE: Cedar-Lower 100-Yr Only- Cedar-2003-FIS -Aggradatino 4�16"2012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR-LOWER ONLY 2003-FIS RS = 1.3 BR .. .022 035>I 26- 0 I 3 Legend - 24 � ~� _ WS 100Yr — Sediment Fill 221 Ground • 20- Bank Sia 18 0 16- � a� - w 14- 12 10 8� 150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge Nn -Rise Renlor; WA 2012 Plan: OLE) BASE Cedar -Lower 100 -Yr Only: Cedar -2003 -FIS - Aggradatina 4'16 2012 Geom: OLD BASE: CENTERED AT NORTH BRIDGE - CEDAR -LOWER ONLY 2003 -FIS RS = 0.1 XS 0.1 - Downstream face North Boeing Bridge - Centered 022 -... - ---- — 24--, 0 Legend - 22 WS 100Yr Sediment Fill 20 • Ground Bank Sta C 16J 147 LU 12 10 8- 6 7T� -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Station (it) APPENDIX B Proposed North Boeing Bridge Model Output and Cross Sections Flood Profiles Output Summary Cross -Sections (Geometry from FIS Base Model with Projected Sedimentation) Velocity Distribution Output Detail IM CV p = V N c o9bE X0 9'49 a� � I y m v m C o N —M a C C a ❑, op 989Z XO 6'9ti Q a 6i o � a w a m c p Q J CO W `d S2 o o ¢ o CL ocli 999 t X0 Z' L E "' U • a rom m m 2 w () 2 0 N o_ r D o n- N fl_ yQ 7 O C N o 996 XO Z'6 C Q} Q7 q o O � Z N LSi CO cm C m...N ureaalsdN (o4l) E SX E ••.sodojd Bwa09 ylJoN Cl 0 1 ... lsnf — 8a'o SX 8o'o Z I T —r o Ln M N N r Ln r (ll) u014an613 Appendix B: Output Summary- Proposed Bridge Model using Cross-Seotlon Geometry of FIS Base Mudel River Sta Map Letter Distance Profile 0 Total Min Ch EI W.S. Elev Crll W.S. E.G, Eli E.G. Slope Vol Chnl Flow Area Tap Width Froude k Chi Min ChEI Thi(minimum channel elevation; It NAVD88) {8) Water surface elevation (It NAVD88) (cis( (0) (a) (H) 111) (tvit) (tusl (sq ft) (11) Wetted flow cross section area (souare II) U.03 Welted lop-dlh of how III! -321.5 ICi '2000 13,56 17,32 17-32 17.9 0-005562 609 197'7 2700.98 ' 0.0E 2L.9 c0Yr '200D 793 176 19.2' 0.002227 10.18 1 191 09 211.5 0.74 01 A -15100Yr '2000 13.43 18.64 18.64 20.99 1-104155 12-35 99021 220.U7 U.K 3 BR 01o0Yr 18.86 t8-85 21.26 12.49 210.15 ' 3 BR U 50 100Yr 19.65 ' 8.65 21.24 10.14 226.49 3 B 117,5 11 12000 13.43 20.7 '992 2.108 0.002601 1242 986.18 157.75 0.83 19.2 C 9735 10CYr 12000 15 36 23.38 21 .19 24.78 0.00141 9.6 1315.99 19688 0.6 31 7 D 1638 5 10UYr 12000 1684 24.46 22.83 25.85 0.001834 9.69 13674.1 233.81 062 46 C E 24365 ll}CYr 12000 17 74 26.01 23.86 27.41 0.002177 9.77 1330.62 168,06 06 646 F 3362.51o0Yr 12000 1902 27.99 25.45 29.42 0.002255 9.63 128834 169.13 0.58 74.8 G 3905.5 IOOYr 12000 2009 29,34 26.26 31-5 0-001708 8.69 141878 166.58 0.52 75.9 H 3960510CYr 12000 2022 29.51 26,25 306 0.001629 8.43 1445.45 166,66 05 777 1 40f;' 5 100Yr 12000 20.45 29.53 26.85 30.86 0.002035 9.33 1331 38 169.1 0.56 80.4 J 4176,5 IOQYr 12000 2063 2072. 27 31.12 0 UO2'.41 9.53 1285.45 158.3 0.57 842 K 4342.5 7p6Yr 12000 2091 29.97 27.53 31.54 0.002355 '.0.18 1237.:3 155.57 06 90.2 L 4717.5 10OYr 12000 21.53 30,98 28-4B 32.39 0-002115 9.72 1314 71 17' 89 0.57 1002 M E25SS IXYr 12000 2236 32.12 29.B4 33.55 0.002178 10.14 1327,64 175,98 0.58 t O6 3 N 5563.5 1 OQYr 121700 22.78 33,1 fi 29.44 34.14 1.001437 8-57 166147 t 85.84 0.47 107.1 O 56345 1007! 12110 2283 33.55 28.83 34.25 0.000904 7.06 2000.72 25C 73 0.36 108.3 BR D 5635.5 10GYr 3351 28.9 34.27 7.31 102.93 148.3 BR U 5743,5 106Yr 3365 29.63 3462 8.21 54.02 109.5 P 5744.5 1 00y 12000 23 28 33.77 29.56 34.63 0.001139 7.83 1754,8 194-1 0.43 1116 O 58485 100Y, 12000 23.82 33,94 50,64 34.75 0.001183 73 182207 295.05 0.44 123.7 R 64835 100Yr 12000 24.63 34.3 36.71 0.002536 11.07 119574 149,58 0.63 124-18111D 64"510oYr 34.07 32.3 35.22 12.06 14;.19 124.1 BR U 6527.5 100Y, 34.76 32,15 26.42 10-66 140.41 1245 S 6528.511QYr 12000 2459 35 31.9 36.45 0.001884 9.91 '321.27 148,89 0.55 127.9 T 670551007, 12000 24.97 35.22 32,36 36.86 0,002129 10.55 '23429 145.46 0.56 "1 U 6915,5 100Y, 12000 25.56 35.71 32.78 373 0.002047 10.36 '25804 137 0.58 132-3 6R D 6916.5 1 OCY' 35.24 32.9 37.3 11.57 132.3 BR U 6958.5 1007, 36.15 33,12 38.6 1178 '32.8 V 6959,51007- 12000 25.7 37.48 33.01 386 0001208 8.8 '_536.22 168.63 0.45 34.1 W 7U29.5100Y- 12000 25.88 37.54 38.69 0.001294 8.94 '-59225 2147 0.46 'i 41.8 X 7442.5 I00Y, 12000 26.62 3797 39-33 0.001508 9-56 'U54 84 132.53 0.5 146 Y 76565 100Y, 12000 2686 3824 34.33 39.69 Q.001512 9.72 '269.81 142,85 0-51 146.7 Bn D 76575 1007, 37.94 34,41 39.82 11-03 146.7 BA U 7733,5 I00Y• 3839 34.54 40.32 11.17 '-47.4 7 77345100Y: 12000 27.01 3913 34.45 40.39 0,001284 9.07 '368.13 145.78 0.46 '41.5 AA 7846,5 IOQYr 12000 27.23 39.46 40-55 0.001184 847 '499 53 148.44 0.44 151.3 8R D 7847.5 1OOYr 3941 34.99 40.57 8.74 14427 151.3 BR U 8008.5 100Y39.71 3521 40.9 8-88 147.03 153.1 AH 8000 5 100Y 12000 27.67 39.8 35.02 40.91 0.601168 8.56 '-479.49 151,39 0.44 159.7 AC 83615100Yi 12000 26.26 4017 41.36 0,001137 8.85 :433.72 134.16 0.44 160.3 BR D 8382.5 IOCNr 38.75 35.63 41-36 10-25 160.3 BR U 8440.5 IOOYr 39.3 35.35 42.53 10.3 16U.8 AD 8441.510QYr 12000 26.04 41,6 35.4 42.53 0-00078 8-07 '.6513' 139.05 0.38 165 AS 86825100Yr 12011 28.15 4221 42.71 0.000451 5.9 2394.53 290,04 0.26 165-3 BR D 8671 5 100Yi 42.16 35.3 42.74 6.28 129.69 165.3 BR U 8683.5 IQOYr 42.16 35.29 42-76 6 45 129.08 165.6 AF 8692-5100Yr 12100 28.16 4229 35.09 42.78 0.00044 5.83 2395.7' 290,37 1.28 169.3 AG 8889510071 12000 27.93 41.98 36.69 43.09 0.001063 B.B3 1823.9' 255.98 042 179.5 AH 94245 i00Yr 12660 28.8 42.55 43.7 0.001158 8-66 153773 16861 U.44 184.6 At 9801-5100Yr 12000 30.32 43.08 38.44 44.14 9.001162 8.55 1885.22 387,83 044 192.3 AJ 10101 5 100Y 12400 31.53 43.34 39 ,53 44.65 00 01873 9-34 1501.39 29999 0.51 204.7 AH 10774.5 100Yr 12000 12 32.58 44,'1 41.63 46.5 0.002799 12.51 1013.4 144.56 0.67 211.2 AL 1,094.500Y 12001 32.63 4507 42.06 47.35 0.00241 12.17 1045.8 197,1 0.63 220.7 AMt15935100Yr 12600 3..27 46.61 43,27 4B.5 0.002029 11-17 1178.54 12678 U.58 231.4 AN 12171 51 00Y 11830 35.36 4825 49-56 0.001531 9.23 1316.42 135.51 0.5 2422 AO 127395 100y, 11830 36.47 48.73 51.04 0,002984 12.26 99149 109.71 U-68 250.6 AP13185.510QYr 11830 37.82 50.76 52-14 0.001755 9-41 1275.26 150.93 0.52 260.7 AO 13724.5100Yr 11830 38-07 51.28 53.67 0.003088 12.44 999.71 111,01 0.69 274.7 AR 144655 ]ODYr 11830 40 54.09 55.33 0,001495 8.93 134644 125.14 0.46 274.85 BR D 14466.5 l OOYr 54.05 48.89 56 359.16 121.11 274.85 8R U 14478.5 tQQYr 54.97 48.93 55.38 9.19 121.07 275 AS 14479.5100Yr 11830 40.04 54.16 48.79 55-39 600148 8.9 1350.67 125.22 6.46 Notes_ Cross•secilan output for project vicinity is highlighted in bald above 5SY 1 2-7121112 games. River 51. Inl9rnal ID m HEC -RAS raboUI hundredths of a !Wile above cross-secllon -A-: unitlessl -BR ❑" is the downstream lace of the bridge:'BP U" Is the upstream face Map Letter Letter that labels the cross-section on the work maps (some cross-sections have no letter label) D�slance Dislance (fl) upstream traindownstream face of existing land propesed) Noll Boeing Bridge )1.511 above cross-seoi- "A", Profile 100 Yr is the base Ilood (13e,annuabchance Hood) G 76ial FIUw ,to (cfs) Min ChEI Thi(minimum channel elevation; It NAVD88) W.S. EIev Water surface elevation (It NAVD88) GritW_S- Critical wale' surface elevation l0 NAV0881 E.G. Elev Energy grade elevation (it NAVD88) E,G. Slope Energy grade slope VVR: uiritless) Vel Civil Average veloc ly of lbw in channel dt'sei Flow Area Wetted flow cross section area (souare II) Top Width Welted lop-dlh of how III! Froude 0 Ch'l Froude NOmber fur tlessi B2 Proposed Bridge Cowpul Page 1 I North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan. PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation- Proposed Bridge Inserted 12116%2012 Geom: PROPOSED SASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 19.2 CX 955 .04 .023 x.08) I K .03 Legend WS 100Yr F ------------- I 0 ft/s I 2 ft/s I� 4 ft/s 6 ft/s 8 ft/s 10 ft/s Sediment Fill ■ Ground Levee i Bank Sta 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1340 1350 Station (11) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROPOSED BASE, Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 12'1612012 Geom: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 3 XS 3 (140) Upsiream North Boeing Bridge - Centered <.045)­� .022------ — 035 26 22 100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Station (ft) leg�end W' S 100Yr �I 0 ft/s O � 2 fUs i 4 ft/s 6 fus 8 ft/s I� 10 ft/s 12 fUs 14 ft/s I Sediment Fill Ground Levee 0 Bank Sta 250 North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan PROPOSED BASE- Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 1216.'2012 Geom: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing Proposed Bridge - 42 -ft Width is PIER width Deck is — .-.-.-..-- --- --....022 - .035 301 4 Legend J -15 301 2 2 C 4? LU 1 0 0 ft's iii 2 itis 4 ft/s �I 611/5 8 ft/s 1 12 W, i Sediment Fill Ground Levee i • Bank Sta 0 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Pian: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 12i 16.2012 Geom: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing Proposed Bridge - 42 -ft Width is PIER width Deck is .022 ��.035 � a 3 C -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 151) Station (ft) I 0 fits 2 1t/s 4 tits 6 It/s 8 fits 10 ft/s 12 ft's 1411/8 �! Sediment Fill Ground Bank SIA 3 North Boeing Bridge No- Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROPOSED BASE'. Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 1216.2012 Geom: PROPOSED BASE: Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 0.1 XS 0.1 - Downstream lace North Boeing Bridge - Centered .022 24 0 3 Legend 5 ---- 22- WS 100Yr 0 ftls 20- � 2 ft's �i 4 #t!s 18� � 1 6 ftls � 16 JI 8 ills c o 10f11s w14 1�I 14 ftls 121 Sediment Fill 10 � Ground • Bank Sta 8-j 6 , -, --., ..7­.1_T-�rT�T -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Station {ft} 3 APPENDIX B4 -VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS (100•YR PROFILE) DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO 5E0 Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 0.1 Profile: 100Yr FIS SL" Poe Left Sta Right Sto Flow Area W.P- Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (h) (ft) (cis) (sq fl) (h) Conv Depth(ft) (fl+e) {ihlaq ft) pwft s) 1 Chan .8571 -77.81 1207. 321 5.03 0.1 0.66 3.76 0.29 1.08 2 Chan -77.81 -69.91 145.48 17.31 8.13 1-21 2.19 8-41 0-96 8.03 3 Chan 69.91 -62.02 93.31 13.2 8.04 0.78 1.67 7,07 0,74 52 4 Chan -62.02 .54 12 171.76 20.74 9.96 1.43 2,63 0,28 0,93 7.74 5 Chan -54.12 -46.22 420.7 32.03 8-19 3-51 4.16 12.81 1.8 2304 5 Chan -45.22 -38,32 268.1 24.76 7.96 2.23 3.14 10,83 14 1511 7 Chan -38.32 -30.42 355.26 29.25 7.91 2.96 3,7 12,14 1,66 20.14 8 Chan -30.42 -22.53 564.94 40.02 8-63 471 507 14.12 2.08 29.35 9 Chan -22.53 -14,63 1019.05 55.07 7.92 8,49 697 18.5 3.12 57.72 10 Chan -14.63 -6,73 958.33 53.1 7.93 7,99 6.72 18.05 3 54.24 11 Chan -6.73 1.17 737.79 4549 7,97 6,15 5,76 16,22 2.56 41.5 12 Chan 1.17 9,07 630.36 41.26 7.91 525 522 15.28 234 35.76 13 Chan 9-07 1696 580.69 39.26 7.9 4,84 4.91 14.79 2.23 32.97 14 Chan 16.96 24.86 567-31 38-71 7.9 4,73 4.9 14,65 2.2 32.22 15 Chan 24.86 32.76 676.41 43.41 8,08 5.64 5.5 1558 241 37.55 16 Chan 32.76 4065 1062.5 5678 S03 8.85 7.19 18.71 3.17 59.37 17 Chan 40,66 4856 1201.2 61,05 801 10.01 7.73 19.67 3.42 67.28 IS Chan 48.56 56.45 334.59 31.52 10.43 2.79 3.99 10.51 1.36 14.38 19 Chan 56,45 64.35 501 36,52 8.23 4.18 4.62 13.72 1.99 27.32 20 Chan 64,35 7225 567.66 3957 7.91 4.9 5.01 14.85 2.24 33.3 21 Chan 72,25 80.15 631.27 41.44 7.98 5.26 5.25 1523 2-33 35.49 22 Chan 80.15 88.05 317.22 26,11 8.49 2.64 3.56 11.28 1.49 1676 23 Chan 88,05 95.94 91.28 1322 8.34 0.76 1.67 6.9 0.71 4,91 24 Chan 95,94 103.84 54 9.45 7.91 0.45 1-2 572 0-54 3.06 25 Chan 103,84 111.74 1772 4.2 5.54 0.15 0.79 4.22 0.34 1,43 DSF Internal Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 1.3 BR D Profile: 100Yr Pos Leh S1a Right 51a Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocdy Shear Power (h) (ft) (cis) (eq It) (h) Conv Dop1h(M) MIS) (ibfaq pl (Ihift a) 1 LOB -58.41 -85.71 DA2 0.03 0.76 0 0,04 0,53 0,01 0.01 2 Chan -85.71 -77.81 39.9 9.02 8.19 0-33 1.14 4,42 0,34 1.49 3 Chan -77.81 -69,91 210.18 24.37 8,13 1,75 3.09 8.63 0.92 7.91 4 Chan -69-91 -6202 155.64 20.26 8,04 1.3 2.57 7.68 0.77 5.92 5 Chan -62.02 54.12 26-56 5-64 4,66 0,22 2.43 4,71 0.37 1.74 6 Chan -54.12 -46.22 270.3 34.06 12,89 2.25 495 793 081 6.41 7 Chan -46.22 -38.32 332.66 31.82 7.96 2.77 403 1045 1 22 12.78 B Chan -38.32 -30.42 416.1 36.31 7.91 347 4.6 1146 1.4 16.08 9 Chan -30.42 -2253 605-03 4708 8.63 5.04 5.96 12.85 1.67 21.42 1C Chan -22.53 -14.63 1017.85 62.13 7.92 848 787 1638 24 39.3 11 Chan -14.63 -6.73 963.94 60.15 7.93 803 762 1602 2.32 37.19 12 Chan -6-75 1.17 766.51 5255 7.97 6.39 6.65 14.59 2.02 29.39 13 Chan 1.17 9.07 670.03 48,32 7.91 5.58 6.12 13.87 1.87 25.91 14 Chan 9,07 16.96 624.69 46.32 7.9 5.21 5.86 1349 179 24.18 15 Chan 16.96 24.86 612,7 45,77 7.9 5.11 5.8 13.39 1.77 23.72 16 Chan 24,86 32.76 710.31 5047 8.08 5.92 6.39 14.07 1.91 26.B8 17 Chan 3276 40.66 1055,21 63.83 0.03 8.79 8.08 16.53 243 40,19 18 Chan 40,66 48.56 117759 68.11 8.01 9.81 8.62 17.29 2.6 44.96 19 Chan 4856 5645 382.79 3858 10.43 3.19 4.89 9.92 1.13 11,22 20 Chan 56.45 64.35 549.46 43.58 8-23 4.58 5-52 12.61 1.62 2042, 21 Chan 64.35 72.25 631,13 46.63 7.91 5.26 5.9 13.53 1.8 24,38 22 Char. 72.25 80.15 301,69 35.32 11.95 2.51 6.2 8.54 09 7,72 23 Chan 80.15 88.05 16606 24.59 11.84 1.38 4.1 6.75 0.63 4.29 24 Chan 88.05 95.94 152.13 20.28 0.34 1.27 2.57 7,5 0.74 5.58 25 Chan 95.94 103.84 111.81 16.51 7.91 0.93 2.09 6.77 0,64 4.32 26 Chan 103.84 111.74 49.49 13.27 0.21 0.41 1,3 4.82 0,38 1.84 27 ROB 111.74 114.94 0.04 0.00 1-22 0 006 0-47 002 0.01 B4 Proposed 100yr Vef Dis;r Page 1 APPENDIX 64 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS 1100 -YR PROFILE) DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 0.1 Prollle: 100Yr 110 -106.7 0.19 0.36 FIS "A„ Pos Lett Sts Right Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power �N, (it) (or$) (sq R) (rl) Cony Deplh(h) (W51 (Ib+sq @) (tb'H s) APPENDIX B4 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS 1100 -YR PROFILE) - Page 2 3.45 0.04 0.97 1.36 Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SEU Cedar River Cedar. Lowar R5- 1.3 BR U Pr0lile. 100Yr 0.19 Chan 103.4 -94.86 UPF Internal Pas Lett Ste FlightSi Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (Ft) (it) (c(s) (sq H) IH) Cony Depth(H) gtys) (Ipisq fit) (Wirt s) LIVE 110 -106.7 0.19 0.36 1.62 0 0.23 0.53 0.03 0.02 LOB -106.7 -103.4 436 3.2 3.45 0.04 0.97 1.36 0-14 0.19 Chan 103.4 -94.86 136.11 23.79 8.93 1.13 2.79 5.72 0.4 2.28 Chan -94.86 -56.33 407,6 45.88 0.9 3,4 5.37 8.88 0.77 6.86 Chan 86,33 -77.79 694,13 6245 8-66 5-78 732 11.11 1.00 12.01 Chan 77,79 -59.26 725.83 6379 8.54 6.05 7.47 11.38 1.12 12.74 Chan -69,26 -80.72 301.29 46.02 13.63 2.57 7.48 6.7 0.51 3-39 Chan -60,72 -52.18 188,05 3228 1179 1-57 7.48 5.83 0.41 2.39 Chan -52.18 -43-65 72738 63.87 0.54 6.06 7.48 11.39 1.12 12.77 Chan -43.66 -35.11 727.89 63.89 8.54 6.07 749 11.39 1.12 12,78 Chan -35,11 -25.58 739.82 6463 8-57 6-17 757 11.45 1.13 12,93 Chan -2658 -18.04 677 7157 8.57 1.31 8.38 12.25 1.25 15.33 Chan .16,04 -9.5 890.55 72.23 8.57 7.42 846 12.33 126 15-57 Chan -9,5 -0.97 665.39 61.08 8-73 5-54 7.16 10.89 1.115 11.42 Chan -0,97 7.57 435-73 47.19 8-64 3.63 5.53 9.23 0.82 7.56 Chan 7.57 16.1 324.87 39.42 8.56 2.71 4,62 8.24 0.69 5-69 Chan 16.1 24.64 319.68 3906 8.57 2-66 4.55 8.18 0.68 5.59 Chan 24,64 33.18 474.23 4991 8.75 395 5.85 9.5 0.85 8.12 Chan 33.18 41.71 740.47 64.91 8.65 6.17 7.6 11.41 1.12 12.82 Chan 41.71 50.25 829.64 69.4 8.62 6.91 8.13 11.95 1-21 14,41 Chan 50,25 58.78 63238 5924 8.62 5.31 6.94 10.76 1.03 11.08 Chan 58,78 67.32 494.46 50.76 8.58 4.12 5.95 9.74 0-89 8-64 Chan 67,32 75.86 92.35 23.06 14.78 0-77 52 4 0.23 0.94 Chan 75,86 84.39 277.12 3591 0.6 2.31 4.21 7.72 0.63 4.83 Chen 64.39 92.93 170,1 26.79 8.6 1.42 3.14 635 047 2.96 Chan 92,93 101.46 85.05 1768 B-6 0-71 2.07 4.81 0.31 1.48 Chan 101.46 110 25,4 8.56 0.6 0.21 1 2.97 0.15 0.44 ROB 110 126.35 0.89 1.13 4.85 OO1 023 0.79 0.03 0.03 UP XS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 3 Prattle: 100Yr FIS"B" Pas LettSta Right Sia Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (11) (1t) (ora) (sq R) IN) Coni Deoth(Ny SNIsj _ (Ihisq ft) (IbAt s) 1 LOB -64,29 -60.18 0.49 093 4.58 0 035 0.52 0.03 0.01 2 Chan .60,18 -54.68 103-59 1686 5.50 0.86 3.06 6.14 0.39 2.4 3 Chan -54,68 -49.17 191.32 24.91 5.91 1.59 4.53 7.58 0.55 4.19 4 Chan -49.17 -43.57 355.21 3562 5.71 2-96 647 9.97 0.81 8.04 5 Chan 43.67 -38-17 447.17 4038 5.53 3.73 7.34 11.07 0.94 10.46 6 Chan -38,17 -32.66 510.44 44.36 5.6 4.32 806 11.59 102 11-97 7 Chan -32,66 -27.16 620.93 4,929 5-56 5-17 8.96 12.6 1.15 14.43 8 Chan -27,16 -21-56 713 265347 5.54 5.94 9.72 13.34 1.25 16.65 9 Chan -21.66 -16.15 761.5 55.51 5.51 6.35 1009 13.72 1-3 17.86 10 Chan -16,15 10.55 746.86 5492 5.52 6.22 9.98 13.6 1.29 17.48 11 Chan -10-65 -5.15 649.45 50.8 5.61 5.41 9,23 12,79 1.17 14.97 12 Chan .5 16 0.36 515.19 44.26 5.62 4.29 8.04 11.64 1.02 11.84 13 Chan 0.36 5.86 415-11 3875 5.58 3.46 7,04 10,71 0.9 9.62 14 Chan 5.86 11.36 340.26 34.78 5.54 2.9 632 10,01 0.81 8.13 15 Chan 11.36 16.86 323.90 3322 5.5 27 6,04 9.75 0.78 7.61 16 Chan 16.86 22.37 324.96 3328 5.5 2.71 6,05 9,75 0.78 7.63 17 Chan 22,37 2787 362.27 35.82 5.62 3.02 6,51 10,11 0.82 8.33 18 Chan 27.07 33.37 482 42.59 5.64 4.02 7,74 11.32 0.98 11.04 19 Chan 33.37 3886 615-18 49.15 5.6 5.13 6,93 12.52 1.13 14.2 20 Chan 38-68 4436 705.12 53.1 5.54 5.88 9,65 13,28 1.24 15.46 21 Char; 44.38 49.88 694.2 52,74 5.57 5.79 9.58 13.16 1.22 16.11 22 Chan 49.08 55.39 591.85 47.92 5.57 4.93 8.71 12.35 1.11 13.74 23 Chan 55-39 6089 511.01 43.79 5.54 4.26 7,96 11,67 1.02 11.92 24 Chan 60.09 66.39 452.73 40,67 5.52 3.77 7.39 11,13 0.95 10.59 25 Chan 66.39 71.9 404.57 38.02 5.52 3.37 6.91 10.64 0.89 9.47 26 Chan 71 9 774 140.59 23.92 8.47 1.17 4.35 5,88 0.37 2.15 27 ROB 77.4 99.18 4.71 3,93 9.32 0.04 0.61 12 0.05 0.07 64 Proposed 100W Vel Uistr Page 2 APPENDIX 64 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION -HEC-RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS (100 -YR PROFILE) DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cadar-Lower RS: 0.1 Profile: 100Yr FIS „A,• Pos Lefl Sta Rlght Sia Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (fl) (11) (cis) (sg fU (fl) Conv Doplh(R) (itis) (Ill fl) (101 s) APPENDIX 64 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SHEAR ANALYSIS (100 -YR PROFILE) - Page 3 Approach XS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 19.2 Profile: 100Yr FISC" Pos Lel'! Sts Right SIS Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Val Shear Power 00 (H) (Chs) (Sq 1t) (it) Conv Depth{n) (Wal (lb'sq fl) (Ib1fl a) 64 Proposed 100yr Vel Dislr Page 3 1 LOS 1052.15 1058.63 4-66 5-26 5.45 0.04 1.04 0.89 0.04 0.03 2 LOB 1058.63 1065.1 71.94 21.42 6.85 0.6 3.31 3.36 0.12 0-39 3 Ghan 1065,1 t071.2 216.12 44.66 8,11 1.8 7.32 4.84 0.21 1 4 Chan 1071,2 107731 398-87 59.58 6,64 3.32 9.76 6.7 0.34 2.25 5 Chan 1077.31 1063.41 596,61 75 646 4.97 12.29 7.95 0.43 3.46 6 Chan 1083,41 1089.51 613,44 74.87 6.17 5.11 12.27 8-19 045 3.72 7 Chan 1089.51 109551 53452 68,92 6.17 4.45 11.29 7.76 0.42 3.24 8 Chan 1095.61 1101.72 483,13 64.71 6.13 4.03 10.6 7.47 0.4 - 2,95 9 Chan 1101,72 1107.82 455,8 62.42 6.11 3.0 10.23 T3 0-38 2.79 10 Chan 1107.82 1113.92 461,S5 62.9 6.11 3.85 10.31 7.34 0.39 2.83 11 Chan 1113.92 1120.03 470.01 6354 5.1 3.92 10.41 7.4 0.39 2,88 12 Chan 1120.03 1126.13 474,44 63.9 6.1 3.95 10.47 742 0.39 2.91 13 Char 112613 113223 4834 64.63 6.1 4.03 10.59 7.48 0.4 2.96 14 Chan 1132.23 1138.33 491.68 65.29 6.1 4.1 10.7 7.53 0,4 3.01 15 Chan 1138.33 1144.44 491.26 65.25 6.1 4.09 10.69 7,53 0.4 301 16 Chan 114444 1150-54 47743 64.17 6.11 3.98 10.51 7.44 0,39 2.92 17 Chan 1150.54 1156.64 465.9 63.24 6-11 3.88 10.36 7,37 0,39 2.85 18 Chan 1156.54 11 E2.75 485.77 64.84 6.11 4.06 10.62 7.49 0,4 2.97 19 Chan 1152.75 1168-85 505.9 56.51 6.11 4.22 10,9 7,62 0.41 3.11 20 Chan 1168.85 1174.95 526.35 68.03 6-11 4.39 11,15 7,74 042 3.22 21 Chan 1174.95 1181,05 546.55 69.59 6.11 4.55 11.4 7.85 043 3.35 22 Chan 1181-05 1167,16 563.02 70.82 6,1 4,69 11.6 7.95 0.43 3.45 23 Chan 1187.16 1193.26 578.07 71.97 6.t1 482 11,79 8.03 0.44 3.54 24 Chan 1193.26 1199,36 602.94 73.85 6.12 5.02 121 816 045 3-69 25 Chan 1199.36 1265,46 538.54 70.33 6,41 4.49 11.52 7.66 0.41 3,15 26 Chan 1205.46 121157 307.03 52.55 7.19 256 861 5.84 0.27 1.6 27 Chan 1211.57 1217.67 146.95 32.63 6.6 122 535 4.5 0.19 0-83 28 ROE 1217.67 1236.81 E.52 14,14 18.52 0.05 0.86 0.46 0.03 0-01 Notes: Key to field names: DS Downstream Face of bridge DSF Internal UPF Internal UP Upstream lace of bridge Approach Approach,' expanded section above bridge FIS "A^ Flood Insurance Study Map Letter re.g. W) PCS Position , portion of section. LOC !Left overbank) - Chan (channel) - ROB [right overbankj Left � Right Ste Left and right station fft) within which patamelers are tabulated for this cross-section and profile Flow Flow rale Icfsj within the two noted stations o! the cross-section Area Welled Ill Cross-section area Isquare hi between the two noted stations W.P. Welled perimeter (II) between the Iwo noted slalions Percent Conv Percent conveyance of total cross-section (cfs) Hydr Dep!h Hydraulic Depth (Radius. ft) = wetted area 1 wetted perimeter Velocity Average veli within this slice of crass-seclion (ftigool Shear Shear velocity flbisq ft) Power Stream power lib'ft-sec) 64 Proposed 100yr Vel Dislr Page 3 ameO APPENDIX C Temporary Work Trestle Model Output and Cross Sections Flood Profiles Output Summary Cross -Sections (Geometry includes new survey and no projected sedimentation) C C � Q N O N I 0917£ X0 9'179 a CLI a` w CL 0 0 q o N � w a � 9892 XO 6'9b O E � P X73 N U1 N I a � � N C _ m ca Z a w o 0 Q m y S991 X0 f Lc N c a Z c E N x � ca � m EL w z w a cn CL 996 X0 Z'61 LU cm 0 0.. c o CC w � r r a 0 z m E PuZ £OZLOZ 03Wtl MGN S SX 9 EOZ10Z 03M m@N L'V SX L'V c m ...dwal - OU1009 4uoN £' l r isnr - g0'0 SX SO'O z I U co N N r O LO 4 (4) UOIJUADI3 Appendix C: ill Sm Output Summary Map Letter - Temporary Work Tressle Model using New Distance Profile O Total Min Ch EI (4) Ill Iiq Cross-Seclion Geometry W.S. Eiev Cril WS. IRI (R) near Bridge E.G- Eley 111 E.G. Slope (ttlf) Vel Chnl (H;s) Flow Area lag fit Top Width Froude d (R) Ohl 0.03321.5 Flow rate (eisl 100Y• 12000 13 56 17.32 7.32 17 6 0.005562 6,09 '97 1.7 27D0.98 1 0.06 Flnw Area -215104Yr 12000 7.92 17,6 Frnude Numher piniless) 19.21 0.002227 10.18 1'91.09 21'.5 074 0.1 A -1.51WY, 12000 94 17 S1 17.61 20.31 6.1704285 12.49 964.25 20668 1 ' 3 BR D 9 100Yr 19.18 19.16 22.42 1447 131 16 3 SR U 67 10Yr 21 29 19.05 23.13 10.99 111 37 3 B 117 5 100Yr 12000 9.02 22.21 1609 23.25 0.0D679 8,27 1585.15 227.21 045 4.7 "New 1 245.5 10DYr 1200D 11.71 22.11 23.45 0,001062 9.31 1320 160 17 G54 B "New 92" 4205. 1 OOYr 12000 11.76 22 24 2367 0.001151 9.62 1282.36 156.67 0.56 19.2 C 973.5 1 00Y 12000 9.09 23.46 1697 24.08 0,000357 8.34 1970-15 197 86 0 32 31.7 D 1638.51DOW 12000 97 23.7 17,93 24.38 0000513 6.08 1905.52 228.21 0.35 46.9 F 2436.5100Yr 12000 10 24.06 1948 25.01 0.000971 7,89 1591.16 179.04 6.43 64.5 F 3362.5100Yr 12000 14.65 2502 22.6 26.6 0.0O2667 10.09 1194.99 1525 062 74.6 G 39C5.5100Yr 12000 15-94 26.57 23.93 27.92 0.602158 9.32 1304.55 166.32 0.57 75.9 H 3960.51COY, 12000 15.97 26.84 23.83 2B.D4 0,601933 8,83 1368.55 186 ll 6-53 77.7 f 4061.5100Yr 12000 la BB 2686 24.34 28-34 OA02377 9.76 124202 1589 0.59 8C 4 J 4'.76.5 100Yr 12000 17,05 27 12 24.54 28.62 0.002349 9.81 1229.31 146.88 0.59 84.2 K 4342.51ODVr 12000 17.43 27.44 2479 29.04 0,002328 In is 1207.1 1456 059 90.2 L 4717.51CDYr 12000 :7.76 2829 26.17 30-03 0.002764 1064 1161.26 159.27 0.64 '00.2 M 5253.5100Yr 12000 17.98 29.7 27.59 31.42 9.002432 1C.8 1211.19 165.25 6 6 106.3 N 5563.5 1(1 12000 19.63 3D.89 27,82 32.1 0001717 927 1507 62 1 at 28 0 51 107.1 O 5634.51COY, 12000 1949 3144 26.91 32.23 0.000999 7.3B 1818.67 216.23 0.4 108.3 BP D 5635.5 1 00Y 31.42 26,97 32.24 7.49 205.44 108.3 BR U 5743.5 1 CDYr 31 42 27.61 0247, 849 184.97 109.5 P 5744.5100Yr 1200 19.19 31.46 2'57 32.48 0.001313 8.33 1604_B5 18907 0.46 111.6 O 5848.5 I(1 12000 20.73 31.43 28.7 3272 0.00183 9.38 1400.91 206.3' 0.53 123.7 R 6483.5 1 COW 12000 20-78 32.36 34 33 0 002748 11.4 1119.68 140.12 C,65 124.1 BR D 6484.5 Iti 32.16 30,39 34.42 12.22 1309 124.1 BR U 6527.5 1 COW 32.78 3o27 34 62 11.04 135.91 124-5 S 6528.5 IOOYr 12000 20.85 33.06 30.12 34.65 0,00206 10.24 124725 '45.54 0.57 127.9 T 67Cl I COY, 12000 21.4 33.29 30.87 35.13 0.002482 11 08 1154.07 '30.92 0.62 131.6 V 6915.51COY, 12000 22.66 3393 31.21 35.63 0.002204 1065 1202.27 137 0,59 132.3 BR D 6916.5 1 00Y 33.84 31,26 35.67 11.01 133.3 132,3 BR U 6958.5 1 COY, 33.91 31 59 35.8 11.22 ' 31.08 132.8 V 6969.5:00Yr 12000 23.45 34.1 31.53 35.82 D.002242 1073 1192.57 X45.82 0-6 134.1 W 7029.510OYr 12000 23.92 34.16 36.04 0002594 11 le 1172.53 157.87 0.63 141.8 % 7442.5'COY, 12000 24.06 352 37.08 0.002447 1114 114`.12 '.26.92 062 146 Y 7656.5 'COW 12000 24.1 35.78 32.87 37.59 0.002312 1083 1122 fit !33.76 0-6 146.7 BR D 7657.5 ' COW 35.66 32S2 37.64 11.3 110.9 146.7 BR U 7733-5 '' OOYr 35.99 32.92 37.85 10.94 111.65 147.4 2 7734.510(1 12000 24.1 36.2 32.87 37.87 0.60201 1038 1173-72 1.1646 0,56 149.5 AA 7846.5 ' 06Yr 12000 24.1 7 36.54 38.11 0 002103 10 11 1224.61 139.83 0.57 151.3 RR D 7547-5 t00Yr 36.45 33.72 38.15 10.51 135.61 151.3 BR U 8008.5 100l 36.97 34.04 S& B 10.55 134.07 153.1 AB 8009.5130Yr 12000 2641 37.16 3387 38,7 3.001926 1C 1221.09 139.13 055 159.7 AC 8381.5 1013Y, 12600 25.5 37.73 39,56 0.002246 ion 1139.35 125.54 (1.6 16),3 BR D B382.5 100Yr 377 34.84 39-58 11 06 120.67 160.3 RR V 6440 $ IOOYr 37.82 34.93 39.72 11.27 12391 160.8 AD 9441.51DOYr 12000 23.67 38.03 3498 39.74 0.001953 1079 1199,81 132.99 0.57 165 AE 8662-5100Yr 12000 2747 39.27 40.14 0.001039 7.71 1694,17 197.03 3.42 165.3 BR D 6671.5 li 39.2 35.07 40.18 8.16 184.47 165.3 BR U 8683.5 looYr 39.2 35.67 4021 521 184.51 165.6 AF 8692-511 120D0 2747 39.39 34.87 40.23 0.000994 7.56 171945 198.08 0.41 169.3 A3 Baal 100Yr 12000 26,52 38.68 36 40,86 0.002325 1145 1229.07 143.66 0.61 179,5 AH 9424.5 100Yr 12600 26.54 40 43 4245 0 001997 10.23 1236.87 158.26 957 154.6 At 9801 5100Yr 12000 28.87 41.15 38.29 42.88 0.002227 10.61 1268.2 25698 a.59 1923. AJ 10101.5100Yr 12000 3`.,C3 41.61 39.32 4372 0.003157 111 1051.2 20977 0.64 2047. AK 10774.5100Yr 12000 32,58 43.46 4163 46.16 0.03436 13.31 947,61 141.03 0.73 211.2 AL 11094.5 100Yr 12000 3`,74 44.94 41.87 47,15 0.002446 12.23 1037.69 '76 5 0 0 2207, AM 115985 10CYr 12000 31.27 4637 4327 48.34 0.002185 1143 1147.6 125.51 0.6 231.4 AN 12171.5101 11830 35,36 48.12 4947 0.001592 9.34 1299,77 125.18 0.51 242.2 AO 12739.5101 11830 36,47 48.64 51 0.003074 12.37 981.85 109.43 069 250,6 AP 131855 10CYr 11830 37.82 50.73 52.11 0401774 944 127D.55 150.33 0.53 260.7 AO 13724.5 10UYr 11830 38.07 51.26 53.66 0.0311 12.47 997,38 11693 0.69 274.7 AR 14465.5100Yr 11630 40 54.09 55.32 0.001498 6.93 13457; 125.13 0.46 274.85 BR D 14456.5 10CYr 54.04 48 89 55.35 9.18 121.09 274 85 BR V 14478,5 10CYr 54.07 48.93 55,38 9.19 12105 275 AS 14479,5 101 11830 40,04 54.15 48.82 55.3a 000`462 8.91 135002 125.21 D46 Notes: Crass-seclion output for project vicinily is highlighted in bold above Key to neld names: River Sta Infernal 13 in HEORAS iaboul hundredths of a mile above cross-section "A'; anitlessl 'RR D' is the cownstream face of the bridge: "13R U' is the upslream lace Map Lefler Letter that labels the c ossseefon on the work maps (some cross-sections have no letter label) Cislance Distance (Il) upstream IrOT cownstream face of existing rand propesedl North Roeing Rridge 11.5 `i above -stil lion "A'; Profile 100 -Yr is the base llood (1 i,-anrwal-chance flood? 0 Total Flow rate (eisl Mm Ch EI Thalweg lminimum channel elevation 11 NAVD88) W.S. Elev Water surlace elevation(tt Ni Crit W.S. Critical water surface elevation (f1 NAVD881 E.G_ Elev Friel grade elli itt NAV088i E.G. Slope Energy grade slope 0141; urlillessl Vel Chnl Average velocity of Ilow in channel (ft:secordl Flnw Area Wetled flow does-seclion are?. (square ftl Top W-dlh Wetted lop-w-dth o' flow (Il) Froude a Chi Frnude Numher piniless) 02 Temp Work Trestle Oulpul Page 1 North hoeing Bridge No,RiSe Revlon WA 2012 Plan: TEMP BASE: No Projected Aggradation - Piers rrort Temp Exist Prop 1216!2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No lied Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 19.2 CX 955 - .04 >k .023 — —... - >-<.08� - .03- 03-30 30 Legend WS 100Yr 0 ftls 25- 2 ftls 4 ft/s �I 6 tt/s 20ji JI8 � -2 � Ground i Levee LU 15 Bank Sta 101 i 5 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan; TEMP BASE, No Projected Aggradation -Piers from Temp Exist Prop 12,'W2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 8 XS 8 New AMEC 201203 - 2nd above North Boeing Bridge fz.045z� .022 -+ - .035 - I 2a- Legend 26- WS 100Yr 0 ttls 24 2 TV s 4 ft/s 22 6 ftls 20 I 8� c 10 ft/s a w 18 12 ft+s Ground 16, • Bank Sta 14 12� 0 I� 10-L- -100 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Station (ft) Norlh Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: TEMP BASE No Projected Agpradalion - Piers From Temp Exist Prop 12� 162012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS - 4.7 XS 4.7 New AMEC 201203 - above North Boeing Bridge .045---- ---.022 - -- .035 30- Legend WS 100Yr i 0 fUs 25 2 ftls I� 4 fUs $SII c ' 20� 10 it S Lu � 1�I ■ Ground Bank Sta 15- 10 — ---- - r- I - - — -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Station (it) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan, TEMP BASE: No Projected Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop T211 612 01 2 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 3 XS 3 (140) Upstream North Boeing Bridge - Centered --- - - -022 + .035 - - 25i 0 I 4 Legend l 5 24 WS 100Yr 0 ft/s 22 2 itis 4 ft/s 20- 6 tvs t e a fv5 - o 10 ft/s a 16- ■ Ground W 14� Bank• Sta __. 12-1 1 t o-� 100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (ft) 0 0 a w 0 0 a� LU 28 26- 24 22 20 i 18 16- 14 12 10� North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan. TEMP BASE. No Projected Aggradation - Piers from Temp Ekist Prop 12:16'2012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing -.Temporary Work Trestle (2013-2015) '2� 045 .022 .035 8 - - .. - - - -- -- -- -- -- ----T — T -- --- - -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 28 26 I 24 22 20�. i 1$� i 16-+, 14- 12- 10 81 -150 100 Station (ft) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Rentan WA 2012 Plan: TEMP BASE, No Projected Aggradation - Piers from Ternp Exist Prop 12;162012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS - 1.3 BR North Boeing - Temporary Work Trestle (2013-2015) J 03 —.022 -50 0 50 100 Station (it) Legend WS 100Yr 0 ft/s 5 fus 10 ft/s 15 ftls 20 ftrs Ground f Bank Sta Legend WS 100Yr 0 ftls 5 fus 10 fvs 15 fvs 20 ft/s 25 ft/s Ground • Bank Sta L . -. . 150 North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Rerilon WA 2012 Plan: TEMP BASE, No Projected Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop 12'162012 Geom: TEMP BASE NEW XS's: No Bed Aggradation - Piers from Temp Exist Prop RS = 0.1 XS 0.1 - Downstream lace North Boeing Bridge - Centered Y 035 — .422 -- --41.0351 24 22- 20- 18 16 14 121 10� a $..I.- -150 -100 -50 0 50 Station {ft} r Legend WS 100Yr 0111s 100 150 Ground • Bank Sta amec6l APPENDIX D Plans and Cross -Sections of Existing and Proposed Structures Existing North Boeing Bridge: Plan Figure S1-1 Dated March 29, 2012 Proposed North Boeing Bridge: Plan Figure S001 Dated December 13, 2012 Temporary Work Trestle: Plan Figure S951 Dated December 13, 2012 Im z 4 J m; TIS �Z W o r O w. li BS LLJ rd W v �Z C/ O r ^ V Z O P I f Z I r Z +I l m a w ' YFER �^ w tL 6 73 /C V r Q Q it 4 a m Im z 4 J a as Imo_ d N CA a m G o r O w. rA rd W v X �ww N 0I I I I 1/II Z O P O �I n CM 1) I w Z Z +I l m a w ' YFER �^ w tL 6 Im z 4 J S it 0 a - I w K a � CA a m G o r O w. rA rd W v X �ww N 0I I I I 1/II } m m � CM 1) I w Z Z +I l m a w ' w Ct 6 73 Q Q it 4 a m F M1 i c n i[i w� 2 b � W LU 1:3 20 0� oC'o �i V m l I I 4 I I f2 - y o<!�ea J °. w CW7 p O t O V 66 A/ w cq LLjvTS� �- �xIW � tis_ — Y�1 y J z w LL, p-2 m Z- ¢Qm >0) CLW OJ fn d W i, Z W Z Z Q O O Q WJ l wa. II � S it 0 a - I w K : :aa x 6+p ouoy-IS-aIJad puo OD�da6pug dLWI auaIdnV a6pug uijcq 6viaa81pO3*ULAdrS]DUAO Sp 3YIY n 4iad WdRL 40-ZLN '9l !del .slop-F'ylas JPWJq i i � I v N 0I I I I 1/II } m m � I w Z Z +I l m a w ' w Ct z c n i[i CO b � : :aa x 6+p ouoy-IS-aIJad puo OD�da6pug dLWI auaIdnV a6pug uijcq 6viaa81pO3*ULAdrS]DUAO Sp 3YIY n 4iad WdRL 40-ZLN '9l !del .slop-F'ylas JPWJq i i v : :aa x 6+p ouoy-IS-aIJad puo OD�da6pug dLWI auaIdnV a6pug uijcq 6viaa81pO3*ULAdrS]DUAO Sp 3YIY n 4iad WdRL 40-ZLN '9l !del .slop-F'ylas JPWJq i i ----- Z9T. ZI/tl Zi-SSWII0 m ry g a 2 gL5 �.p z A111%tar T� v JJ U O 2 nO q ;€ II w Z O # LL 4 O w � ~ K - t• - _ ---- 1 ._. 0528+z1 V15 a• was 1•rad ro e Ln r• 0 7 0(DX � � mcuj - a IT - ... J CIS �[5-00 CD o Z J a U.1a LY- rn L O a U + C� �V r Lu Z: W C-) w C7 w w r� q C2— Q C) � I I 0 oo .� a U t6'zz T3 II oa cz+z I vas .v. J w ca31d 2 ry 1331 T3A31..Y � ^ Z-- ^ U C V G- wU� aq W zw I a o C1i m � i cn If `a •n �✓� � V L�J x Y lob'. S } y II 11 w N j I m U L=j w Q 4 N O W S ze = x W , ��y■+I r m W I W c ))) � � l 20 l O _ J O .Bid 13 4 adld - J- - LLJ �. o 'I o W W _ , m ! xLL dA CD w LL IL �o �w w 1 6904 13 a 1035 1,Avd X 10 , a.U l mild I .lt �•i��hlli� rte` O c.O.i ry U p� m �I li I� 1 o Z i II ,1 Il II S 3 II O q qz W i I.� y 40 4p 4 � _... -_ C+'.ii Ll/9Lill .%5ANH11 HJ HE cn LO o2E39 ?4m a � p s 0 4 r H« O n0 0 W N 00 l cn m�6 itCD 30 «oo� aha xu, iti- ,nm wu+ 3a a� U z 00 o W I I I Z z w U. all6 831d Z Lu ss sr+zz vis i xs = Q Lu 00 os+az a ass � 11 H Fi ai d � 00 X+ZL 71S J,_ �. L a31d �W � ca n ZT I' a l 7 00'00+ZZ 715 9 831d I I � � o w Z = m ---'--- - Lv 40'OL _+ I d V15 1 - ~ x } LLJ QQ LL a o . u} OO-Ob+L7 71S ,L, a31d 3j -i -- 00'Ol LZ V15 1 - 0 J} 1 'd 10 17 wt ' IH w r III 0o va+oZ 7is a, � —a a31d - �' L£: L9+0Z 7fS 1 I I o O N a O yy m Q Q0. 4 0. ameO APPENDIX E Scour Analysis for Proposed North Boeing Bridge HEC -RAS Model Report Scour Input Screens for HEC -RAS HEC -RAS Supercritical 500 -Year Flow Profile through Proposed Bridge (No Sedimentation) Cross -Sections (Geometry includes new survey and no projected sedimentation) HEC -RAS Output Table Velocity Distribution Detailed Output APPENDIX E1 -BOEING NORTH BRIDGE SCOUR REPORT- December 14, 2012 Contraction Scour Left Channel Right Input Data Average Depth (ft): 3.59 13.14 2.04 Approach Velocity (IUs1 3-68 9-01 1.12 Br Average Depth (It}: 0.95 6.36 0.45 BR Opening Flow (clsi: 12.5 18380.39 7.11 8R Top WD (1 6.3 202.7 9.35 Grain Size 050 (mm): 50 50 50 Approach Flaw (cfs): 239.99 18063.64 96.36 Approach Top WD (ft): 18.18 152.57 42.16 K1 Coeflicient 059 0-59 0-59 Results Scour Depth Ys tft): 0 4.9 0.05 Critical Velocity (t6's): Equation: Live Live Live Pier Scour Pier: #1 (CL = -59.1 Input Data Pier Si Round nose Pier Width (ft1: 6-6 Grain Size D50 (mm}: 50 Depth Upstream (II 11.27 Velocity Upstream Iftis)- 17,9 I Nose Shape: 1 Pier Angle: 9 Pier Length (ft): 42 I Angle Coef: 1.56 I Bed Cand Coef: 1.1 Grain Size D90 (mm): 100 I Armouring Coel: 0-5 Set I value to 1.0 because angle > 5 degrees Results Scour Depth Ys (ft): 13,3 Froude #: 0-94 Equation: CSU equation Pier: 92 (CL = 71.9) Input Data Pier Shape: Round nose Pier Width (ft): 4.1 Grain Size D50 (mmi: 50 Depth Upstream (111 11.27 Velocity Upstream TVs): 17,9 I Nose Shape: 1 Pier Angle: 0 Pier Length (ft): 36 I Angle Coef: 1 I Bed Cand Coef: 1.1 Grain Size D90 (mm)� 100 IC4 Armouring Coef: 0.51 Results Sceur Depth Ys (ft}: 638 Froude #: 0-94 Equation: CSU equation Abutment Scour Lefl Right Input Data Station at Toe (it): -112.01 124.DI Toa Sta at appr (ft): 1065,1 1217,67 Abutment Length (ft): 0 12 Depth at Toe (hi: 1.54 6,91 I Shape Coef: 1.00 Vertical ahutment Degree of Skew (degrees): 90 90 I Skew Cool: 1 1 Projected Length I (ft): 0 212.9 Avg Depth Obstructed Ya (tt): 10.13 Flow Obstructed Ce (cfs)' 18400 Area Obstructed Ae Isq ft): 2156,28 Results Scour Depth Ys (1 7-36 3,86 Froude #: 0.28 0.2 Equation: HIRE HIRE Combined Scour Depths Pier: 41 (CL = -59.8) (Contr+ Pier) (it;: 18.2 Pier: 42 (CL = 71.9) (Contr+Pier( (ft}: 11.28 Left abutment scour+ contraction scour (ft): 7.36 Right abutment scour + contraction scour (tt)- 3.95 Convacllon Pic, Ab,t—rl E2 -SCOUR ANALYSIS HEC -RAS INPUT 70* IP—dws—NO Fie.KAMFE US OMCKS�w—d%9— Wthlkl- R-- Leda Riva -�j A� I socy. J D.I.A, AD* Rbbsk — — — — — - :-:] lIfivw Sl,- fl T —&Pt — — — — — -- C.W. Flw. Fi.. I AW~ I 8,Idg. S-., AS 1 3 LOB ch—w ROB 30 0.0a tevmrl 176-9— 713-1-4 F—N— Eq -,.i- L" vi pw 901 1112 pi. 6— yo: ro -- FG-- Fn 4 _9 41 -Sao) Y. pq 9972 1-250— 18380 3 3 7.11 �UL : CL 71 31 Y.M 4.38 \,n Fb -ju— F -m— Fv DSD Fso —rin rso —Un Fs—nm—o Qt' [---J64 F%—,Q— wl Fl —8, 0— F 72 '—,7 4T. SF I Fo--- Fo --- 10590 App... Xg R6. SW. 19.2 Hl B. IR Wm ileo TO, dd.eS— HO Fk B—NthBd. R— I Cd. ft- E F-- DOIAd Appt? Rw fl- SW: l7 BR !1 !j -tTnj pi. eewex3 E,,dg. S..., PS 1.3 III r. PA—VIYI LoDw%m VI F. 0 SWepa R P- D 90.00 - Levee Yj: 1127 — VI: fl -79U F11: r -5-Q M*.d ICSUw.6m loo 19 A.* r9 OU L F42 00 K2. ri su 095. 10007 K4. 050 F Ou M -58 0) Y� F) �q 97 7191 Y. ml 33 ws— L.ft IRK" Y. oft t 736 3.86 028 020 HIRE HIRE .J Pw . Al P6. tc:�� -% 1. .1 i.. TA. Aw RM* judwta Rh.Sk. 1.3 BIR C -v.% RwA.. [Q-vel. I Pi. I Am— Enou. S..., PS 1-3 Lem fham L-9-1 7-deWR.IIW 11—Z01 1124 91 ws . 7.mmApp: F --1 0 Flii-767- m Lwqh rp--- F--oD Uanrt yl. F)g--- Fa 9-1 Kl Skew (14 Ki —im Eqm HIRE 10 A�J Fo 5F 71790 F 1u13 0 pp F-- rlzoa A. F-- r2l Sb I m lon I w 200 m ORE Em Spftk DMa V7Fl —92— F -06—; E �Y,mr 736 IBG R- a M Oat C Qh� HIRE pw 5— — I .141 a- 5563ro,7r-P.M 14.77 1 Y* Jh). V.mi. 0.0a 4.90 cog Eq -,.i- L" pi. 6— 41 -Sao) Y. pq 9972 �UL : CL 71 31 Y.M 4.38 B. IR Wm ileo TO, dd.eS— HO Fk B—NthBd. R— I Cd. ft- E F-- DOIAd Appt? Rw fl- SW: l7 BR !1 !j -tTnj pi. eewex3 E,,dg. S..., PS 1.3 III r. PA—VIYI LoDw%m VI F. 0 SWepa R P- D 90.00 - Levee Yj: 1127 — VI: fl -79U F11: r -5-Q M*.d ICSUw.6m loo 19 A.* r9 OU L F42 00 K2. ri su 095. 10007 K4. 050 F Ou M -58 0) Y� F) �q 97 7191 Y. ml 33 ws— L.ft IRK" Y. oft t 736 3.86 028 020 HIRE HIRE .J Pw . Al P6. tc:�� -% 1. .1 i.. TA. Aw RM* judwta Rh.Sk. 1.3 BIR C -v.% RwA.. [Q-vel. I Pi. I Am— Enou. S..., PS 1-3 Lem fham L-9-1 7-deWR.IIW 11—Z01 1124 91 ws . 7.mmApp: F --1 0 Flii-767- m Lwqh rp--- F--oD Uanrt yl. F)g--- Fa 9-1 Kl Skew (14 Ki —im Eqm HIRE 10 A�J Fo 5F 71790 F 1u13 0 pp F-- rlzoa A. F-- r2l Sb I m lon I w 200 m ORE Em Spftk DMa V7Fl —92— F -06—; E �Y,mr 736 IBG R- a M Oat C Qh� HIRE pw 5— — I .141 a- 5563ro,7r-P.M 14.77 1 C C:, J V) N � O N r N i 094E X3 9,49 a v r t a � CL o N M o m g A ' 5892 X0 6'9V is m 1N Y� 1 •. N Q1CL Q O Od Z � d O � 0 � U C) 0 V o 0 o ° ? 9991 X3 C 4E 4 � ILOC mm ; a: o CL N O Q a �: .I - 996 XO Z'U a � O � y O O O Z a CD m...ON muoilsdn (ot, E SX E F L sodoid 6uwaog yuoN E' l r O ... 1snE - 130,0 SX 80,0 Z C) M LO N o Ln o N + LO (l)) uaJ►En0l3 30- 25 20-1 15 I 10, I North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROD: SCOUR -NO Aggradalion - Proposed Bridge Inserted 12,16%2012 Geom: PROPD: for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge inserted RS = 19,2 CX 955 .04 - --- - .023 - - - - -.08 __.03__ Legend I i WS 50OYr i 0 ft/s 2 tUs 4 ft/s 6 ftls 8 ft/s 10 ft/s Ground Levee Bank SI, 5 _._...r_ I I I Iz---- ---7-- -1 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 21 24] 22 20-1 18- 16- LU $1fiw 14 12 10 Station (1t) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROD: SCOUR -NO Aggradarior -Proposed Bridge Irsened 1211612012 Geom: PROPD: for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 3 XS 3 (140) Upstream North Boeing Bridge - Centered i<.045> .022 -- _.--- .035 8 f- , - -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Station (ft) 250 Legend 0 ft/s 5 fUs 10 ft/s 15 fds 20 ft/s Ground Levee • Bank Sta North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: PROD: SCOUR - NO Aggradation -Proposed Bridge Inserted 12+'162012 Geam: PROPD: for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing Proposed Bridge - 42 -ft Width is PIER width Deck is I i 4 - — .022 .035 30 0 4 c 0 m W WS 500Yr 011/s 5 ft/s 10 it/, 15 tt/S 20 lits • Bank Sta -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (fl) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: Pi SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 12116,12012 Geom: PROPD: for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing Proposed Bridge - 42 -ft Width is PIER width Deck is 30- 0 .022------ .035 1 3 I Legend -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Station (ft) WS 500Yr 0 ft/s. •�I 5 ft/s 10 ft/s 15 ft/1 20 ft/, ■ Ground • Bank Sta 150 5 25 20- 4 - 61 w 15- 10 - c 0 m W WS 500Yr 011/s 5 ft/s 10 it/, 15 tt/S 20 lits • Bank Sta -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (fl) North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan: Pi SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted 12116,12012 Geom: PROPD: for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 1.3 BR North Boeing Proposed Bridge - 42 -ft Width is PIER width Deck is 30- 0 .022------ .035 1 3 I Legend -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Station (ft) WS 500Yr 0 ft/s. •�I 5 ft/s 10 ft/s 15 ft/1 20 ft/, ■ Ground • Bank Sta 150 North Boeing Bridge No -Rise Renton WA 2012 Plan- PROD- SCOUR - NO Aggradation -Proposed Bridge inserted 1215,2012 Geom: PROPD: for SCOUR - NO Aggradation - Proposed Bridge Inserted RS = 0.1 XS 0.1 - Downstream face North Boeing Bridge - Centered 24- p Legend 3 5 22 WS 500Yr 0 ft/s 20 5 ftls 1 � 10 ftls 18� 15 ttis, 16 20 fVs C ■ - Ground 14 - Bank 5ta LU I 12� to- 8 - 6 086 - 150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Station (ft) Appendix E: Output Summary- 500 -Year Scour Analysis Output - Proposed Geometry but No Fixed Sedimanl Elevations and Mixed -Mode (Sub- and Supercrftfcal) Map Lefler River Sta Map Letter Distance profile 0 Tolal Min Ch EI W.S. Eav Crit W.S. E.G. Ell E.G. Slope Vel ChnE Fbw Area Top Width Fral p Chi F - Flev Energy grade elevation t4 NAVDBB) Int Icfs} (11) It Iftt (61 fh,h) flys) i H) Ig) 6.03 221.550DYr 12000 '3.56 174 177 185" 0.6106'.4 8.77 2099.11 2701.02 1.4 008 21.5 Sall 12060 7-93 '7.79 18.12 21.33 0.004705 15.11 1231.28 21154 'OB 0-1 A -1.5 SCOW 12009 7.94 18.26 18.26 2145 0.004021 1436 1295-89 216.96 6.96 13OnD OSony, '8.55 18.55 21.79 1447 206.61 1.3 BR U 50 500Yr '8 47 1847 21.61 14,22 218.35 3 B 11 7.5 BODY, 12000 9.38 20.71 2U.26 24 33 0.1192987 1529 1223 75 '57 5,, 0.91 19.2 C 973.55COYr 12000 9.09 24-37 ',9-93 25.61 0000655 9,01 2156.28 212.9 944 31,7 D 1638.8 SCOW 12040 9.7 24.U4 19.91 26.11 0000652 918 2171.65 236-57 0.46 46.9 L 2436.55COYr 12000 10 2542 21.63 27.13 D001497 1062 1839.D4 185.D6 0.54 64.6 F 3362.5 5COYr 12000 14.85 26.84 24.76 29.31 0003194 12.82 1483.24 162-97 07 74.8 G 3905-5 500Yr 12000 15,94 28.69 25,92 30.8 D.002217 11.'2 1689.115 166.52 U.6 75,9 H 3960.5 500Yr 12000 15.97 29.21 25.81 30.93 0.001991 1056 1763 166 53 0,56 77.7 1 4061.5 51 12D00 16,88 29.17 26,43 31.27 0.042451 11.6e 1618.93 167.66 063 60.4 J 4176-5 5(1 12000 17.05 2941 26.58 31.57 000252 1184 1578,9B 157.15 063 84.2 K 4342.5 500Yr 12000 17.43 29.71 26.97 32.05 0.002563 1236 1547.41 154.55 065 902 L 4717-5 500Yr 12000 17.76 30,69 28,43 33.04 D.D02721 12.46 1557,87 170.6 0.67 100.2 V 5253.5 500Yr 12000 17 98 32.17 29.86 34.43 0.002447 12.58 1633.28 176-21 6.63 106.3 N 55635 500Yr 12000 19.63 33,40 29.79 35.14 0.00179 10.98 1983.87 18645 054 1071 G $634-5 500Yr 12000 1949 34,18 28.87 35.29 0.7701043 6.79 2467,95 265.53 0.42 108.3 OR D 5535.5 501 34 08 28 95 05-34 9.37 44.27 1063 RRU 5743.5500Yr 34.23 2073, 35.91 10.84 8.18 109.5 P 5744.5501 12000 1919 3468 2965 35.95 0.001178 945 2224.37 196.09 045 111.6 0 5848,5 BOGY, 12000 2073 34,97 30.92 36.09 0.001147 9.16 2391 46 298.12 045 1237 R Ills BUOY' '2000 2076. 34.94 37.64 0.002785 13.48 1499,06 149,58 0.68 124.1 BR D 6484,5 BOGY, 34.62 3281 37.76 148 141.19 124.1 BR U 6527.5 500Yr 35.35 32,7 38,09 13.58 124.5 S 6528.5 5001 12000 20.86 36.08 32.4 38.16 0.001941 11.83 169535 149.32 0.58 1279 T 6708.5 500Yr 12060 21 4 3619 33 17 38,66 0.002386 12.91 1571.64 175.66 0.64 131.8 U 6915.5500Yr 12000 22.66 3684 3349 39.15 0-002147 1247 1601.1..1 137 0.61 132.3 BR D 6916.5 500Yr 38.26 33,6 40,1 1 1.68 132.3 BR U 6958.5 500Y, 38.26 33 88 40.1 '. 195 306.29 132.8 V 69595 500Yr 12000 23.45 38.26 33.77 40.1 11.001545 11.24 2101 47998 0.53 134.1 W 70295500Y, 12000 23.92 3533 49.23 6.0017 '-146 199523 36433 0.54 141.5 x 7442.5 500Yr 12000 24.05 38.83 41 1 11.00'977 12.33 '614 38 134 34 0.59 146 Y 7656.5 500Yr 12000 24.1 39.22 35.32 41,54 6.002607 12.28 1546.16 145.95 0.59 14G.7 BR D 7657.5 500Yr 36.46 3541 41.67 14-84 146.7 Big U 7733.5 5DDYr 39.18 35.41 42.59 14.84 '47 4 2 7734 5 500Y, 12000 24.1 40.96 35S2 42.75 0.001326 10.82 '769.67 151 09 0.49 149.5 AA 7840.5 5DDYr 12000 24.17 41.35 42.92 0.001252 19.19 1932 78 15607 047 151-3 BA D 7847.5 500Yr 41.3 36,07 42,94 10.46 151,86 151.3 OR U 8U08.5 500Yr 41.53 3647 43.32 1064 156.55 153.1 AB 8009.5 5DDYr 12000 26.01 41.73 35.21 43.34 C.Do125 10.31 1913.26 161 '5 U.47 159.7 AC W81 5 500Y, 12000 25.5 41.95 43.99 0.001618 11-64 1700.17 141 61 0.54 160.3 BRD 8382.5 500Yr 44.24 37.35 4497 1048 431 33 1603 OR U 8440.5 500Yr 44.24 37.45 4563 ' 1.8 3DO.74 160.8 AD 8441.5500Yr 12000 23.67 44.24 37.41 4563 0000926 9,97 2313.61 413.18 042 165 AF 8662.5 SOOW 12000 27.47 45.2 45.84 0OD0457 6.86 3345.93 323.93 0.3 155.3 BR D 8671.5 500Yr 452 37.14 45.84 8-53 8993 165-3 BR U 8683.5 500Yr 46.08 37.13 46.53 8.56 93.87 165.6 AF 8692.5 SCOW 12000 27-47 46-08 36.63 46.63 0 CODS72 6.38 3600.66 327.87 0.27 169.3 AG 8889.5 51 12000 26.52 45.94 38.56 46.87 0 COD709 8.93 2933.45 286.86 0.37 179.5 AH 9424.5 SCOW 12000 26-54 46 47.47 0,001041 9.88 2202.15 1908 0.44 184.6 Al 9601.5 SCOW 12000 28.57 47.05 40.83 47.86 O.00C7 8.1 3816.79 671 91 0-36 192-3 AJ 10101-5 Sol 12000 31.63 47.17 41.72 48.16 0,601074 8,76 3139.52 484.03 0.4 204.7 AK 10774.5 SCOW 12000 32.58 46.4 44.35 $02 0.003443 15.77 1254.75 155.85 0-76 211.2 AL 11094.5 SCOW 12000 31.74 48.110 44.78 51.12 0.001766 12.67 2060.49 270.67 C.57 220.7 AM 11596.5 SCOYr 12000 31 27 49.65 45.99 52.15 0002949 '.3-1 1766-09 436.87 0-6 2314 AN 12171.5 51 11830 35.36 51.44 53.2' 0.001469 10.78 1621.27 290.5; 0.51 2422 A4 12739-5 SCOW 11830 36.47 51-59 54.79 D602993 14,49 1318.31 118.84 0.71 250.6 AP 13185.5 SUOYr 11630 37.62 54.21 55.85 O 1101455 10.43 19CA 3 237.97 U 5 260.7 AC 13724.5 500Yr 11830 38,07 54.09 57.5 0.00321 14.91 13'7.95 114.45 0.73 274.7 AR 14465-5 500Yr 11630 40 57.5 5923 0.061491 1058 1786.33 132.73 048 274,35 BR D 14466.5 51 57.43 51.8 59.26 10.89 128.69 274.85 RR U 14478-5 506Yr 5746 51-84 59.29 1D,89 123.68 275 AS 14479.5 50UYr 11830 40.04 57.59 51 73 59.31 0 CC 1471 10.64 17942 132.65 048 Nolen. Crass -section outpul For pre]ect vicinity is highlighted in bold above Key to field namoa: River Sta Internal ID in HEC -RAS laboul hundredths of a mile above cross -sec Pon -A'. un.11essl -BR D" is the downstream lace of the bridge: "BR U" is the upstream lace Map Lefler Letter that labels the crass-secliun on the work maps (some cross secl:ons have no letter labeh Distance Distance rf0 upstream from downstream face of existing (and proposedl North Boeing Bridge (1.5lt above cross -section -A-) Prof -le 100 -Yr is the base flood (1%-annualchanee flood) O Total Flow rate Icis) Min Ch FI Thalweg Immimum channel elayatiorr; II NAVDBB) W.S. Ell Water surface elevalwn ift NAVDBB) Crit W.S. Critical water surface elevation ill NAVDBB) F - Flev Energy grade elevation t4 NAVDBB) E.G. Slope Energy grade slope OP(L unitless) Vel Cl Average veiccity of flow in channel OUsecoodl Flow Area Wetted Ilow cross-secllon area (square fp Top W,dlh Wetted lop-widO1 of flow (11) Frouda 4 0311 Frcude Number (unilless) E5 Proposed SCOUR Plan Output Page I APPENDIX E6- VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SCOUR ANALYSIS D5 Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Ceder -Lower RS: 0.1 Prafile: 500Yr FIS "A" Pas Lett Sta Rlghl Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Ve100ily Shear Power (It) {h) (ef$) (ag ft) (1t) COlry Depth(h) (hisp (Ibrsg h) (Ib,ft s) 1 LOB 91.11 88.41 9 2.64 3,33 0.05 1.11 3.41 0.2 0.58 2 LOB .88.41 -8571 19-67 3,73 2,72 011 1.38 5.28 0.34 1.82 3 Chan -85.71 -77.81 149.67 2038. 8.19 0.81 2.58 7.34 0.62 4.59 4 Chan -77,61 -69.91 383.38 35,73 8,13 2.08 4.52 10.73 1.1 11.84 5 Chan -69.91 -62.02 315.03 31.63 8.04 171 4 9.96 0.99 9.83 6 Chan -62.02 -54.12 390.12 39.16 9.96 2.12 4.96 9.96 0.99 9.83 7 Chan 54,12 -46.22 695,88 51,25 8,19 3.78 6.49 13.58 1.57 21.33 8 Chan -46.22 -38.32 53331 43,19 796 2.9 5.47 12.35 1.36 16.82 9 Chan -38.32 -30.42 631.3 47.68 791 3.43 6.04 13.24 1.51 20.03 10 Chan 30,42 22.53 HEM 58,44 863 4.54 7.4 14.31 1.7 24-31 11 Char. 22.53 -14.63 129785 73.49 792 7.05 931 17.66 2.33 41,14 12 Char -14.63 -6.73 1239.53 71.52 7.93 6.74 9.06 17.33 2.27 39,26 13 Chan -673 1.17 1023.7 6392 7.97 5.56 8-09 16-02 2-01 3223 14 Chan 1.17 9.07 918,22 5968 7.91 4.99 7.56 15.39 1.89 29,15 15 Chan 9.07 16.96 B68, 11 57.69 7.9 4.72 7.3 15.05 1.63 27,50 15 Chan 16.96 24.86 65453 57.14 7.9 4.64 7.23 14-96 1.82 27.16 17 Chan 24.86 32.76 96027 61.84 8.08 5.22 7.83 15.53 1,92 29,84 18 Chan 32.76 40.66 1336,25 75.2 8.03 7.26 9.52 17.77 2,35 41,79 19 Chan 40.55 48.56 1467,68 79.48 8.01 7.98 10.06 18.47 2,49 4601 20 Chan 48.55 5645 56724 49.95 1043 3-08 6-32 11-36 1.2 13.65 21 Chan 56.45 64.35 779.14 54.94 8.23 4.23 6.96 14.18 1.68 23.77 22 Chan 54.35 72.25 874.85 58 7.91 4.75 7.34 15.08 1,84 27.75 23 Chan 72.25 80.15 91742 59.87 7.98 4.99 7.5S 15.32 1,88 28 a6 24 Chan 80.15 80.05 578.53 46.53 8.49 3.14 5.89 12.43 1.38 17.11 25 Chan 88.05 95.94 307.76 31.64 8.34 1.67 4.01 9.73 0.95 9.26 26 Chan 95.94 103.84 258 27.87 7.91 1.4 3.53 9.26 0,88 8.19 27 Chan 103.84 111.74 16034 21.64 8.21 0.67 2.74 7.41 0.66 4.9 28 ROB 111.74 114.94 12.89 4.47 3.21 0.07 1,4 2,88 0.35 1.01 29 FOR 114.94 116.13 B21 3.41 3.21 0.04 1.07 2,41 027 064 30 ROB 118.13 121,33 4.4 2.35 3.21 0,02 0.73 1.88 0.18 0.34 31 ROB 121.33 124,53 1.57 1.26 3.22 0.01 0,4 124 0.1 0.12 32 ROB 124-53 127.72 0.09 0-17 1.65 0 0.1 0.51 003 0.01 DSF Internal Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 1.3 6R D Pro111e: 500Yr Pas LeI[ Sta Rlghi ata Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Woolly Shear Power (h) (h) (cfs) (sg 1[) (110 Conv Depth(h) (tys) (Iblsq h) {Iblft s) 1 LOB -91,11 88.41 13.57 3.34 3,62 0.07 1.39 4.07 0.26 1.04 2 LOR -88.41 -8.571 28-53 4.52 2.72 0-16 1.67 632 0.46 2-92 3 Chan -65.71 -77.81 182.27 22,69 8.19 0.99 2.87 8.03 0.77 6.10 4 Chan -77,81 -69.91 433.37 2004, 8.13 2.36 4.82 11.39 1.3 14.81 5 Chan 69,91 -62.02 360.79 33,94 8.04 1.95 4.3 10.63 1.17 12.48 6 Chan -62.02 -54.12 51-69 9.65 639 028 4.17 5-36 0.42 2-25 7 Chan -54.12 -46.22 401_95 45.99 14.63 2.18 6.68 8.74 0.87 7.64 8 Chan 46,22 -38.32 592,35 45.5 7.95 3.22 5.76 13.02 1.59 20.68 9 Chan 38,32 -30.42 695,61 49,99 7.91 3.78 6.33 13.92 1.78 24.43 10 Char 30.42 -22.53 906.23 60.75 8.63 4.94 7.69 14.95 1.96 2923 11 Char. -22.53 -14.63 1391.59 75,8 7.92 7.56 9.6 18.36 2.66 48.84 12 Char. 14.63 -6.73 1330.93 73,83 7.93 7.23 9.35 18.03 2.59 46,67 13 Chan -6.73 1.17 1106 6623 7.97 6.01 8.39 16.7 2.31 38.54 14 Chan 1.17 9.07 996.14 61.99 7.91 5.41 7.85 16.07 2.18 35.01 15 Chan 9.07 16.96 943,8 60 7.9 5.13 7.6 15.73 2.11 33.2 16 Chan 1696 24.86 929.61 5945 7.9 5-05 7.53 15-64 2-09 3271 17 Chan 24.86 32.76 1039.5 64.15 8.08 5.65 8.12 16.21 2.21 35,75 18 Chan 32.76 40.66 1431,11 77.51 8.03 7.78 9.81 18.46 2.68 49,54 19 Chan 40.66 48.56 1567.68 81.79 8.01 8.52 10.36 19.17 2.64 54.4 20 Chan 48.56 56.45 622.84 52.26 10.43 3.39 6.62 11.92 1.39 1659 21 Chan 56.45 64.35 849,79 57.25 8.23 4.62 7.25 14.84 1,93 28,7 22 Chan 64.35 72.25 9508 60.31 7.91 5.17 7.64 15.77 2,12 33,38 23 Chan 72.25 80-15 407.94 45.19 13-69 2-22 7.93 9.03 0.92 8.28 24 Chan 80.15 88.05 267.62 34.97 13.57 1.45 5.83 7.65 0,72 5.4B 25 Chan 88.05 95.94 35244 33.95 8.34 1.92 4.3 10.38 1,13 1174 26 Chan 95.94 103-e4 300.01 30.18 7.91 1.63 3.82 9-94 1,06 1054 27 Chan 103.84 111.74 199.02 23.95 8.21 1.08 3,03 8,31 0.01 673 28 ROB 111.74 114.94 18.6 5.41 3.21 0.1 1.69 3.44 0,47 1.61 29 ROB 114.94 11 8. 13 1293 4.35 3.21 0.07 1.36 2.97 0$8 1.12 30 ROB 118.13 121,33 6.1 3.28 3.21 0,04 1,03 2,47 028 0.7 31 ROB 121.33 12453 4.15 2.2 3.22 0.02 0.69 1.89 0.19 0.36 32 ROB 124.53 12772 1.03 0.95 3.22 0.01 0,3 1,08 0,08 0.09 533 ROB 127.72 130.92 0.01 0-04 078 0 0.05 032 0.01 0 E6 Proposed SCOUR Vel Disthb Page 1 APPENDIX E6 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HECAAS SCOUR ANALYSIS DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Ceder River Cedar -Lower RS: 0.1 Profile: 500Yr FIS 'W' Pos Left Sta RIgh1 Sta flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocdy Shear Power (tt) (H) (cts) (sg Hl (M Conv Depth(ft) (k's) (IWsq ft) ;IbAi s) APPENDIX E6 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SCOUR ANALYSIS - Page 2 UPF Internal Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 1.3 BR U Profile: 500Yr Pos Left Sta Right Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Veloc0y Shear Power (H) (H) (cfs) (sq H) (tt) Conv Deplh(h) (ft's l (lb,sgft) (lblta) I LOB -110 -106.7 1.51 1.35 3.13 0.01 045 1.11 0-12 0-14 2 LOS -1067 -103.4 10.99 465 3.45 0.06 1.41 2.37 0.30 0.09 3 Char -103.4 -94.86 238.73 27.53 8-93 1.3 $23 8.67 0.86 7.49 4 Char. -94,86 -86.33 638.55 49.63 89 3.47 5.81 12.87 1-56 20.1 5 Char: -8633 -77.79 1051.38 66.2 8.66 5.71 7.75 15.88 2.14 34.03 6 Chan -7779 69.26 109723 67.53 8-54 5.96 7.91 16.25 2.22 36,02 7 Chan -69,26 -60.72 456.28 48.72 14.07 2.46 7.91 9.37 0.97 9,09 8 Chan -60,72 -52.18 277.41 34.18 12.23 1.51 7.92 8.12 0.78 6,35 9 Chan -52.18 "3.65 1099,43 67.61 8-54 5-98 7.92 15.26 2.22 3609 10 Chan -43.65 -35.11 1100.17 67.64 8.54 5.98 7.92 16.26 2,22 36,11 11 Chan 35,11 -26.58 1117.02 68.38 8.57 6.07 8.01 16.34 2.23 36,51 12 Chan -26.58 -18.04 1312.43 7532 8-57 7.13 8.82 17.43 2,46 42,91 13 Chan 18.04 -9.5 1331.71 75.97 0.57 724 8.9 17.53 2.48 43.54 14 Chan -9.5 -0.97 1009,98 64.83 8.73 5.49 7.59 15.58 2.06 32.43 15 Chan -09-1 7-57 600.25 50-94 8.64 37 5.97 13.35 1 65 2206 16 Chan 787 16.1 519,49 43.16 856 2.82 5.06 12.04 1,41 17.01 17 Chan 16.1 24.64 511,88 42.81 0.57 2,76 5.01 11.96 1.4 1674 18 Chan 24.64 33.18 735.41 53-65 6.75 4 6.29 13.71 1,72 23.54 19 Chan 33.18 41.71 1117.57 68.66 0,65 6,07 8.04 16.28 2.22 3619 20 Chan 41.71 50.25 1244,79 73.14 8,62 677 8.57 17.02 2.38 40.44 21 Chan 50.25 50.76 97036 62.99 8.62 527 7.38 15.41 2.05 31.53 22 Chan 58.78 67.32 765.29 54.5 0.56 4.16 6.39 14.04 178 2501 23 Chan 67.32 75.86 13982 25.01 15,66 0,76 5.64 5.59 0.45 2.5 24 Chan 75.86 04.39 449.43 39.65 86 244 4.65 11-33 129 14b4 25 Chan 84.39 92.93 290.8 30.54 8.6 1.58 3.50 9.52 099 947 26 Chan 92.93 101.46 161.05 21.42 86 0.88 2.51 7.52 0.7 5.25 27 Chan 101.46 110 63.94 12.31 86 035 144 52 04 2.08 28 ROB 110 126.35 7.11 4.24 9.39 0.04 6.45 1.67 013 0.21 UP XS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS:3 Profile:500Yr 15.11. Pos LeH Sta Rlghl Sta Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (tt) (H) (cis) (sq it) (tt) Conv Depth(R) (ftfs) (1b!sq H) {Ibltl s) 1 LO13 -72.5 6839 0.35 0.47 1.56 0 0,33 0,78 0.06 0.04 2 LOB -68-39 64.29 4.9 3.28 4.12 0.03 0.6 1,49 0.15 0.22 3 LOB -64.29 -60.18 9.22 5.6 6.07 0.05 136 1,65 0.17 028 4 Chan -60.18 54.68 215.06 23,35 5.58 1.17 4,24 9,25 0.78 7.22 5 Chan -54.68 -49.17 341.08 31.4 5.91 1.85 5,71 10.86 0.99 10.77 6 Chan -49.17 -43.67 569.05 42,11 5.71 3.09 7.65 13.51 1.30 18.59 7 Chan -43.87 38.17 694.82 46,87 5.53 3.78 B52 14.82 1.58 23.44 8 Char -38.17 -32.66 788.96 50,85 5.6 429 9.24 1552 1.69 26.27 9 Chan -32.66 -27.16 924.9 55,78 5.56 5.03 10,14 16.58 1.87 31.01 10 Chan -27.16 21.65 1)46.37 55,96 5.54 5.69 10,9 17,45 2.02 35.23 11 Chan -21.66 16.15 1109.76 62 5.51 603 1127 179 2.1 37.55 12 Chan -16.15 -10.65 1090.48 61 Al 5.52 5.93 11.16 1776 2.07 36.81 13 Chan -10.65 -5.15 951.87 57,29 5.61 5.23 10.41 1679 1.91 31.99 14 Char .5.15 036 784.37 50,75 5.62 4.26 922 15.45 1-68 26-01 15 Chan 0.36 5.86 651.28 45,24 5.58 3.54 8,22 14.4 1.51 21.78 16 Chan 5.86 11.35 551.42 41,27 5.54 3.05 75 13.6 1.39 18.91 17 Chan 11 361686 528.7 39.71 5-5 2.87 7.22 13.31 1-35 17.91 10 Char 16.86 22.37 530.06 39.77 5.5 2.88 7.23 13.33 1.35 17.96 19 Chan 22.37 27.87 579.55 42.31 5.62 3.15 7,69 13.7 1.4 19.24 20 Char 27.67 3337 740.01 49.08 5.64 4.02 8.92 15.08 1.62 24.46 21 Chan 33,37 38.88 916.85 55.64 5.6 4.96 10,11 1648 1.85 30-54 22 Chan 38.88 44.36 1035.74 59.59 5.54 5.63 10,83 17,38 2.01 34.89 23 Char 44,38 49.88 1020.97 5923 5.57 5-55 10.76 17.24 1-98 34.17 24 Chan 49.88 5S.39 886.49 5441 5.57 4.02 9,89 1629 1.82 29.66 25 Char. 55,39 60.89 779.79 50.28 5.54 4.24 9,14 15.51 1.69 26.23 26 Chan 60.89 6639 702-31 47.16 5.52 3-82 8.57 1489 1-59 23-71 27 Chan 66.39 71.9 637.68 44.51 5-52 347 8.09 1433 1-5 21-53 28 Chan 71,9 77.4 254.25 3041 8.47 1.38 5.53 8.36 0.67 5.6 29 ROB 774 99.18 32.7 1403 13.93 0.16 1.32 2.33 0.19 0.44 F6 Proposed SCOVR Vel DiStrih Page 2 APPENDIX E6 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - NEC -RAS SCOUR ANALYSIS DS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar•Lower RS: 0.1 Profile: 500Yr FIS'A" POS LetISIa Right Sia Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power 01) (it) (cis) (sq ry) (ry) conn Depill (fus) 416lsg 1t) [Itn t S) APPENDIX E6 - VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION - HEC -RAS SCOUR ANALYSIS - Page 3 Approach XS Plan: Prop SCOUR NO SED Cedar River Cedar -Lower RS: 19-2 Profile: 500Yr FIS 'C" POS Left She Right Site Flow Area W.P. Percent Hydr Velocity Shear Power (11) (h) (cis) (sq II) III) cony Depth(It) (1115) (Ibrsg ft) (Ibm 81 1 LOB 1045.68 1052,15 4.27 5 5.62 6.62 6.96 0,85 C,04 0,03 2 LOB 1052.15 1058,63 43.03 21.85 7.01 0,23 3.37 1.97 0.13 025 3 LOB 1958.63 1065.1 192.68 38.44 6.85 1,05 5,94 5.01 0.23 1.15 4 Chan 1065.1 1071,2 378.63 60.7 B.11 2.06 9,95 6,24 0,31 1.91 5 Chan 1071.2 1077.31 52344 75.61 6.64 3,39 12,39 8.25 0,47 3.63 6 Chan 1077.31 1083.41 865.69 91.04 6,46 4,7 14.92 951 0.56 548 7 Chan 1083.41 1089.51 890.56 90.91 6,17 4,84 14.9 9.8 0.6 5.9 8 Char 1089.51 109561 795.81 114.96 6,17 4,33 13.92 9.37 0.56 5.27 9 Char 1095.61 1101.72 734.07 80.75 6,13 3,99 1323 9.D9 0.54 4.89 10 Char: 1101.72 1107,82 701 78.45 6,11 3,81 12,86 8.94 0.52 4.69 1t Chan 1107.82 111.392 70845 78.93 611 3.85 12.93 898 0.53 4.74 12 Chan 1113.92 1120.03 718.49 79.58 6.1 3.9 13.04 9.03 0.53 4.81 13 Chan 1120,03 1126.13 723.118 79,94 6.1 3.93 13.1 9.05 9.54 4.85 14 Chan 1126.13 113223 73479 80.66 6.1 3.99 13.22 9.11 0.54 4.92 15 Chan 1132,23 1138.33 744.88 81.32 6.1 4.05 13.33 9.16 0.54 4,99 16 Chan 1138,33 1144.44 744.37 81,29 6.1 4.05 13.32 9.16 0.54 4.98 17 Chan 1144.44 1150.54 727.44 80.21 6.11 3.95 13.14 9.07 0.54 4.87 18 Chan 1150.54 1156.64 713.37 79.27 6.11 3.88 12.99 9 0.53 477 19 Chan 1156,64 1162.75 737,59 80.88 6.11 4.01 13.25 9.12 0.54 4.93 20 Chan 1162.75 1168.85 76329 62.55 6.11 4.15 13.53 9.25 0.55 5, t 1 21 Chan 1168.85 1174.95 76685 64.07 6.11 4.28 13.78 9.36 0-56 526 22 Chan 1174.95 1181.05 811.26 85.62 6.11 4.41 14.03 9.47 0-57 5.43 23 Chan 118105 1187.18 831,16 86.86 6.1 4.52 14.23 9.57 0.58 5.56 24 Chan 1187.16 1193.26 849.19 88.01 6-11 4.62 1442 9-65 0.59 5,68 25 Chan 1193.26 1199.36 678.89 89.89 6.12 4.76 14.73 9.78 0-6 587 26 Chan 1199.35 1205.46 797.17 86.37 6.41 4.33 14.15 9.23 0.55 5.08 27 Chan 120546 1211.57 502.8 68.58 7.19 2.73 11.24 7.33 0,39 2.86 28 Chan 1211.57 1217.67 300.57 48.67 6,6 1.63 7.98 6.18 0.3 t86 29 ROB 1217.67 1236.111 68.13 64.02 21.31 0.37 3.34 1.06 0,12 0.13 30 BOB 1235.81 1255.95 28.09 21-34 19.26 0.15 1 i 1.32 6,05 0.06 31 ROB 1255.95 1275.09 0.15 0.49 3,89 0 0,13 0,31 0.01 0 Notes- Key to field names: DS Downstream Face of bridge DSF Internal UPF Internal UP Upstream lace of bridge Approach Approach 1 expanded Section above bridge FiS'A" Flood Insurance Study Map Leizer (e.g. "A") FOS Position 1 portion of section: LDC (Left overbanki - Chan Ichannel) - ROB (right overbank) Left % Right She Left and right Station (II) within which parameters are tabulated for this cross-seclion and profile Flow Flow rate (c's) within the two noted stations of the crossseclion Area Wetted 'Iow cross-section area {square R) between the Iwo noted sl a liens W.P. Weved perimeter 011 between the two noted stations Percent Cony Percent Conveyance of total cross -Section (CIS) Hydf Depth liydraufic Depth IRadius: Iq - wetted area r wetted perimeter Velocity Average velocity within this slice of cross-section (Wsecq Shear Shear velocity iib'Sq fit Powe, Stream power (ibft-sec) E6 Proposed SCOUR Vel Dlsirb Page 3 ameO APPENDIX F Essential Fish Habitat Assessment ameO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington ACTION AGENCY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District LOCATION Cedar River, Renton, King County, Washington, Township 23N, Range 5E, Section 7 PROJECT NAME Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT BACKGROUND The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires federal agencies to consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH), National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-Fisheries) on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." "Waters" include "aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish_" They may include aquatic areas historically used by fish. "Substrate" includes "sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities" (NMFS, 1999). The MSA requires consultation for all actions that may adversely affect EFH, and does not distinguish between actions within and outside of EFH. Any reasonable attempt to encourage the conservation of EFH must take into account actions that occur outside of EFH, such as upstream and upslope activities that may have an adverse effect on EFH. Therefore, EFH consultation with NOAA-Fisheries is required by federal agencies undertaking, permitting, or funding activities that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of its location. This assessment evaluates the impacts of the proposed project to determine whether it "may adversely affect" designated EFW for federally managed fisheries species in the proposed action area. The assessment also describes conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects of the proposed action on designated EFH. AMEC Project No. LY 11160130 F-1 Boeing Renlon1LY111601301efh assessment_060412.docx ameO IDENTIFICATION OF EFH The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for federally managed fisheries within the waters of Washington, Oregon, and California. The designated EFH for groundfish (PFMC, 1998a; Casillas et al., 1998) and coastal pelagic species (PFMC, 1998b) encompasses all waters from the mean high water line and upriver extent of salt water to the boundary of the United States exclusive economic zones (370.4 kilometers [km]) (PFMC, 1998a, 1998b). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho, except areas upstream of certain impassable manmade barriers (as identified by the PFMC), and longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (e.g., natural waterfalls in existence for several hundred years) (PFMC, 1999). In estuarine and marine areas, designated salmon EFH extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km) offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception, to the Canadian Border (PFMC, 1999). Groundfish, coastal pelagic, and salmonid fish species that have designated EFH in Puget Sound are listed in Table 1. Some of these species may occur in the action area. Refer to the relevant EFH designations (Casillas et al., 1998; PFMC, 1998a, 1998b, 1999) for life -history stages of these species that may occur in the project vicinity. Assessment of the impacts to these species' EFH from the proposed project is based on this information. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The major activities of the proposed action include: • Removal of portions of bridge apron decks and some of the supporting piles; • Construction of temporary trestle; • Removal of existing bridge center deck, a portion of remaining bridge aprons, and piles; removal of existing bridge approaches, remaining portions of bridge aprons, and piles; • Installation of new bridge center piles and complete new bridge installation; • Remove temporary trestle; and • Shoreline regrading and restoration along each bank of the Cedar River formerly covered by the bridge aprons. For a more detailed project description, please refer to Section 2.0 of the biological assessment (BA). AMEC F-2 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160130/efn assessment_060412.docx ameO POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT The EFH designation for the Pacific salmon fishery includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above the impassible barriers identified by the PFMC (1999). In estuarine and marine areas, proposed designated EFH for salmon extends from nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial waters out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone offshore of Washington, Oregon, and California north of Point Conception (PFMC, 1999). The Pacific salmon management unit includes Chinook (Oncorhynchus fshawytscha), coho (D. kisutch), and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha). Only Chinook and coho salmon use the Lake Washington basin for adult migration, juvenile outmigration, and rearing where suitable habitat is present. The EFH designation for groundfishes and coastal pelagics is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to ensure the production needed to support a long-term sustainable fishery. The marine extent of groundfish and coastal pelagic EFH includes those waters from the nearshore and tidal submerged environment within Washington, Oregon, and California state territorial waters out to the exclusive economic zone (370.4 km [239.5 miles]) offshore between Canada and the Mexican border. Lake Washington does not support groundfishes or coastal pelagics; therefore, the proposed action will not affect EFH for these groups of fish. EFH for Pacific salmon is present in the Action Area, as defined in the BA. The proposed action may result in the following long- and short-term impacts to Pacific salmon EFH: • Reduction in overwater coverage and shading by more than 4,000 square feet (sf) is expected to result in a long-term improvement in nearshore, shallow -water habitat; • Shoreline restoration along both banks of the Cedar River in the project area is expected to result in a long-term improvement in nearshore, shallow -water habitat. The total shoreline restoration will cover an area of about 2,500 sf along 125 lineal feet of shoreline; + Reduction in the number of in -water piles and bridge piers will reduce the area of benthic habitat occupied by these structures from the current 109 sf to 75.4 sf, a reduction of 33.6 sf; • Disruption of about 23,556 sf of benthic habitat during in -water construction activities that may be used by juvenile salmon as foraging habitat. Recolonization of this area could take one to two years; however, the City of Renton may be conducting flood -control dredging of the lower 1.6 miles of the Cedar River within the next several years, which could overlap the recovery period for the disturbed benthic habitat; and • Short-term and localized increases in turbidity. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 F-3 Boeing Renton/LY1 1 160130Wh assessmeni_060412.docx ameO The proposed action is expected to have a long-term, net beneficial effect on Pacific salmon EFH, primarily through reduction in overwater coverage and shoreline restoration. No permanent adverse effects to Pacific salmon EFH, or their prey species, will result from the proposed action. CONSERVATION MEASURES Implementing the conservation measures specified in Section 2.5 of the BA will help to avoid and minimize any potential effects of the proposed project on Pacific salmon EFH. CONCLUSION The proposed action is expected to have a long-term, net beneficial effect on Pacific salmon EFH, primarily through reduction in overwater coverage and shoreline restoration. No permanent adverse effects to Pacific salmon EFH, or their prey species, will result from the proposed action_ Therefore, the project will not adversely affect Pacific salmon EFH. REFERENCES Casillas, E., Crockett, L., deReynier, Y., Glock, J., Helvey, M., Meyer, B., Schmitt, C., Yoklavich, M., Bailey, A., Chao, B., Johnson, B., and Pepperell, T. 1998. Essential Fish Habitat West Coast Groundfish Appendix. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance. NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland. NMFS. 2001. Endangered Species Act—Section 7 and Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Biological Opinion – Port of Olympia Cascade Pole Sediment Remediation (WSB-00-453). NMFS, Northwest Region, Washington State Habitat Branch, Lacey, Washington. PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998a. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan – Amendment 8 (December 1998). PFMC, Portland, Oregon. PFMC_ 1998b. Final Environmental Assessment/ Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October 1998). PFMC, Portland, Oregon. PFMC. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan – Appendix A, Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999). PFMC, Portland, Oregon. AMSC F-4 Project No. LY11160130 Boeing RentonILY111601307efh assessment_060412.docx ameO TABLE 1 SPECIES OF FISH WITH DESIGNATED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IN THE ACTION AREA' Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Renton, Washington Common Name Scientific Name Salmonid Species Chinook salmon Oncorh nchus tshawytscha Coho salmon O. kisutch Note(s) 1. Source: NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2041. Endangered Species Act—Section 7 and Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Biological Opinion – Port of Olympia Cascade Pole Sediment Remediation (WSB-04-453). NMFS, Northwest Region, Washington State Habitat Branch, Lacey, Washington. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 F-5 Boeing RentonlLY111601301efh assessment_060412,docx ameO (this page left blank intentionally) AMSC F-6 Project No. LY 11160130 Boeing Renton/LY11160134fefh assessment_060412.docx An L�T�� L� REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Boeing North Bridge Replacement Project Corps Ref. No. NWS -2011-1101 Renton, Washington 1.0 INTRODUCTION Since submitting the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA) for The Boeing Company's (Boeing) proposed North Bridge Replacement Project (Figures 1 and 2) on June 6, 2012, Boeing's engineering contractor for bridge design has prepared and submitted the 90% design plans for the proposed bridge replacement. The updated plans provide details regarding bridge design and construction that were unavailable last June and also include changes to the construction methods that differ from those presented in the JARPA. The purpose of this revision is to update the project descriptions for the proposed project so that it is consistent with the current design plans. The five primary elements of the proposed bridge replacement project remain unchanged: 1 _ Demolish existing bridge aprons and construct temporary trestle (Figures 3, 4, and 9); 2. Demolish existing bridge; I Construct new bridge (Figures 5, 6, and 9); 4. Remove temporary trestle; and 5_ Regrade and restore shoreline (Figures 7 and 8). The proposed design changes are summarized in Table 1, some of which are expanded upon below. Some changes are not addressed in Table 1, however, because they require a more detailed discussion than is suitable for inclusion in a table format. 2.0 DEMOLITION OF APRON DECK AND APRON PILES Prior to removal of the apron decks, modified coffer dams will be created on each bank of the river using the existing timber bulkheads. The coffer dams will be created by covering the bulkheads with silt curtains and then sealing the open ends located on the north end of the bulkheads with sandbags. The modified coffer dams will allow in -water work to occur, while minimizing or avoiding increased turbidity and impacts to surface water quality. Coffer dam creation is expected to take about 3 days. This work is proposed to occur in April or May, outside of the authorized in -water work window of 2013, the only year for which a variance is being requested. All subsequent in -water work will be AMEC Project No. LY11160130 C-1 paboeing renton11y11160130 renton north bridgelreportslstream&habitatappendix_clrevisedprojectdescription_121712.docx ameckO restricted to the in -water work window of June 1 through August 15 that has been established for this project. Once the coffer dams are in place, the apron decks will be removed, requiring no in -water work. Additional work within the coffer dams that will occur during the April/May timeframe will include: • Removal of H -piles sitting on timber piles and steel cross bracing (in -water); • Removal of upper bulkhead under temporary bridge footprint (in -water); • Cut-off timber piles upon which the H -piles rested below future dredging grade (in -water); • Regrade bank under temporary bridge footprint to the extent possible; • Install temporary bridge piles to support nearshore spans of temporary bridge (in -water); and • Install temporary bridge span (steel girders, precast deck panels for nearshore spans. 3.0 SHORELINE REGRADE AND RESTORATION Removal of the bridge aprons and bulkheads will allow for enhancement of the existing shoreline areas on each bank of the lower Cedar River. The shoreline will be regraded to an approximate slope of 3:1. The shoreline areas that were formerly covered by bridge aprons and located behind treated - timber bulkheads will be amended with organic materials to create a suitable planting medium, regraded to a more natural slope (e.g., 2:1 to 3:1), and planted with native and adaptive vegetation. A conceptual shoreline restoration plan has been developed (Figures 7 and 8). The shoreline restoration area will cover approximately 8,500 square feet along 260 lineal feet of shoreline and will include the planting of approximately 2,500 square feet of riparian vegetation. A final restoration plan will be prepared when all aspects of the bridge design have been finalized. The lower Cedar River in this location occupies a linear constructed channel with the bank protected by bulkheads with areas of riprap. The removal of the bulkhead and the risk of scour on the exposed banks results in the need for bank protection to reduce risks to the proposed bridge and restored riparian areas. A roughened rock toe will be installed below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) consisting of an approximately 2 -foot layer of rock over a filter stone layer. This rock toe will extend below the current sediment line to accommodate the normal flood -control dredging conducted by the City of Renton in this reach of the river as identified in the King County 2006 Flood Hazard Management Plan (King County, 2006) and Lower Cedar River Section 205 f=lood Control Project. The riprap used for the toe will be setback from the current bank to create additional aquatic habitat and a vegetated buffer will be planted above the OHWM in the areas formerly occupied by the bridge aprons. Additionally, a gravel fish mix will be placed over the riprap at the OHWM. The bank AMEC C-2 Project No. LY11160130 paboeing rentoMy11160130 renton north bridge\reports%stream&habitat\appendix_c%revisedprojectdescription_121712.docx ameO restoration will involve approximately 5,200 cubic yards (cy) of cut and the placement of 205 cy of filter stone, 690 cy of riprap, and 123 cy of soil amendment. The majority of the cut and fill is located above the OHWM. Above the OHWM, the planting design for the project uses native and adapted riparian and upland plants that will establish quickly and that have extensive root systems. The presence of significant infrastructure on both sides of the channel, as well as the restrictions placed by the Renton Municipal Airport on the types and quantities of vegetation that can be planted, has limited the extent of restoration and available options for restoration. The selected plants are based on the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT's) Aviation Stormwater Design Manual, Table A-1 — Recommended Plants for Airports West of the Cascades (2008). These plants are species that are recommended for use in and around airports and are not known to attract wildlife or have other characteristics undesirable in the airport environment. To prevent interference with the transportation of airplanes across the new bridge and avoid impacts to airport operations, planting will be limited to low -growing species that will not attain heights of more than 10 feet. The landscape design includes installation of an engineered soil lift along the OHWM to reduce the risk of erosion while plants are established. Organic compost soil amendments will be added to the planting soil to provide the best possible growing medium for establishment of the plants. Organic wood mulch will also be placed on all planting areas to protect the soil from extreme heat, reduce irrigation demand by limiting evaporation from exposed soil, and reduce soil erosion. A temporary irrigation system will be installed during the initial plant establishment period. A post -implementation maintenance and monitoring plan has been prepared outlining maintenance and monitoring requirements to ensure long-term success of the shoreline restoration (Appendix C in Draft Biological Assessment)_ Removal of the bridge aprons is considered part of the restoration plan, as it was necessary to remove the bridge aprons to access the underlying shorelines. Removal of the bridge aprons will reduce overwater coverage by more than 4,040 square feet. Shoreline regrading and restoration is expected to require about 8 weeks to complete, some portion of which may require in -water work. The shoreline will be regraded after removal of the bulkheads and the existing bridge and aprons. Regrading will be accomplished from above the OHWM using excavators and other heavy equipment. Placement of the rock toe will require excavation and placement of riprap and filter stone below the OHWM. Work below the OHWM will occur during the authorized in -water work window, occurring within a coffer dam or turbidity curtain. All material to be placed below the OHWM will be clean and AMEC Project No. LY11160130 C-3 paboeing renton11y11160130 renton north bridgelreportslstream&habitatlappendix_clrevisedprojectdescription_121712.docx ameO free of dirt and other pollutants helping to minimize and avoid deviations from state water quality standards. In accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology, a water quality monitoring plan will be developed and implemented to ensure compliance with state water quality standards. The first step in the process will be to remove any remaining elements of the bulkhead. Existing materials will be excavated to the required elevation and to create the base for the filter stone and riprap. To minimize turbidity, the filter stone will be placed first and will not be allowed to free -fall. Riprap will be placed using an excavator followed by the fish mix and upland grading and planting. The shoreline will be regraded to a slope of 3:1 and the soil amended to create a suitable planting medium. A filter fabric fence will be placed along the shoreline and organic wood mulch placed on all planting areas to minimize and avoid erosion during shoreline regrading. Shoreline restoration on each bank of the Cedar River will be accomplished from above the OHWM using excavators to remove debris and to regrade the shoreline to a slope specified in the restoration plans. Top soil, soil amendments, and other material necessary for use in the shoreline restoration will be transported to the site using dump trucks or other heavy trucks. Plants used to revegetate the shoreline will be planted by hand_ 4.0 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES In addition to the general best management practices (BMPs) presented in the original project description, specific erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures have been developed for the project site to minimize and avoid potential water quality impairment attributable to site -related activities. The following ESC measures are intended to be minimum requirements to meet anticipated site conditions. As construction progresses and unexpected seasonal conditions dictate, additional ESC measures may be necessary to ensure complete siltation control on the proposed project site during the course of construction. The appropriate ESC measures will be implemented, as needed, to protect adjacent properties and water quality. 1. Before beginning any construction activities, establish the clearing limits. All required sedimentation/erosion control facilities must be constructed and in operation prior to land clearing and/or construction to prevent transportation of sediment to surface water, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. All erosion and sediment facilities shall be maintained in a satisfactory condition until such time that clearing/construction is complete and the potential for on-site erosion has passed. Additional measures, such as constructed wheel -wash systems or wash pads, may be required to ensure that all paved areas are kept clean and track out to road right-of-way does not occur for the duration of the project. 2. ESC measures, including all perimeter controls, shall remain in place until final site construction is complete and permanent stabilization is established. AMEC CA Project No. LY11160130 paboeing rentomly11160130 renton north bridgelreports\stream&habitat\appendix_c\revisedprooctdescription_121712,docx ameO 3. From May 1 through September 30, provide temporary and permanent cover measures to protect the disturbed areas that will remain unworked for 7 days or more. 4. From October 1 through April 30, provide temporary and permanent cover measures to protect the disturbed areas that will remain unworked for 2 days or more. Additionally, protect stockpiles and steep cut and fill slopes if unworked for more than 12 hours. Sufficient cover materials shall be stockpiled on site to cover all disturbed areas. 5. The BMP facilities shall be inspected daily by the contractor and maintained to ensure continued proper functioning. Written records shall be kept of weekly reviews of the BMP facilities during the wet season (October 1 to April 30) and monthly reviews during the dry season (May 1 to September 30). 6. Prior to the beginning of the wet season (October 1), all disturbed areas shall be reviewed to identify which areas can be seeded in preparation for winter rains. Disturbed areas shall be seeded within one week of the beginning of the wet season. A sketch map of those areas to be seeded and those areas to remain uncovered shall be submitted to the City of Renton for review. All seeded areas will be mulched. 7. Any area needing ESC measures not requiring immediate attention shall be addressed within 7 days. 8. The BMP facilities on inactive sites shall be inspected and maintained a minimum of once per month or within 48 hours following a storm_ 9. Before any development or construction activities occur, a pre -construction meeting must be held with the City of Renton Public Works design engineer. 10. The boundaries of the clearing limits shall be clearly flagged by a continuous length of survey tape, or fencing, if required, prior to construction and during the construction period. No disturbance beyond the clearing limits shall be permitted. The clearing limits will be maintained for project duration. 11. At no time shall more than 6 inches of sediment be allowed to accumulate within a catch basin/inlet. All catch basins/inlets and conveyance lines shall be cleaned prior to paving. The cleaning operation shall not flush sediment -laden water into the downstream system. 12. Stabilized construction entrances and roads shall be installed at the beginning of construction and maintained for project duration. Additional measures, such as wash pads, may be required to ensure that all paved areas are kept clean for project duration. 13. Straw mulch for temporary erosion control shall be applied at a minimum thickness of 3 inches. 14. Stockpiles are to be located in safe areas and adequately protected by temporary secured plastic cover, seeding, or mulching. Hydroseeding is preferred. 15. Prior to the beginning of the wet season (October 1), all disturbed areas shall be seeded and/or covered in preparation for winter rains. 16. Remove all temporary ESC measures upon project completion. AMEC Project No. LY11160130 C-5 paboeing renton11y11160130 renton north bridgelreports\stream&habitatlappendix_clrevisedprojectdesCription_121712.docx ameO 5.0 REFERENCES King County. 2006. Flood Hazard Management Plan, King County, Washington. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, Washington, http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/flooding/documents/flood- hazard-management-plan,aspx (accessed December 2012). WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2008. Aviation Stormwater Design Manual: Managing Wildlife Hazards near Airports (M 3041.000). WSDOT, Environmental and Engineering Programs Design Office, Aviation Division and Environmental Services Office, Olympia, http://www.wsdot.wa,gov/aviation/AirportStormwaterGuidanceManual.htm (accessed December 2012). AMEC C-6 Project No. LY11160130 pAboeing rentoNy11160130 renton north bridge\reports\stream&habitat\appendix_c%revisedprojectdescription_121712.docx ameO APPENDIX C TABLE W W 0 Z a U Z V N MJ � W W Q 0 0 m 0 W a 0 a a II O Z C a m U W Q r U 0 N n U 4 m va N CL w rn L 0 0 c O C O 0 M am a O Y Co0 o ° a? E U7 a1 U 5 N (0 E O }r Vl C 0 N O v C) 0.- N C O O'N" � i a) O O y N q5 c 3 c 0 0 Z vm�co� Z � E ow 3ID a 9L N al m ai , V m N Z a a ai C tv O C L t E 0 d O C 0 O N a a) DI N a. O L `N Z L l0 o i6 m to m :. C Ip N O S ACL En �j C CLC �q O E O Nl '� UI a CL a 0o O CQ� 0 7 .— C 0 f0 CL co 2 _ O C< Z as 0 3 U CID CA C [n M 0 [p to . . . . . . . . . . E rn a Y ui v v o � L)i 63 o c u c N N ro p CL C a0_0 L) }c� c y rn (U U _CL 4) a7 O o C C CLO E L a — C Qy E - 0 C .N E O '� N 41 C q U= a.+ 12 7 U 'y `O 'nX Q) Mn •� a`� � N a `°, '"' c*7 c7 En 6� 0 VU a c v m c`a W a t E a�(ja0i3 n� Magi 2 4 �' o c N `� N �c°��-04) 0 E a4 m� a�Ei _ra cLi �a� a v, .°' 0 a� E 'u`� v a m Co C �� a OU a�@ N� Ln Z C) N G O m LL r- V N ttn US R ren L U d 2 U <0 '0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 CL so a .� o O L C1 N M O (q N $ S = @ 7 0 A a) U = L E.0 6 Z o p (D O 3 — C m Q ay 0 w 0 L Q a C) . u p a i m CO m v, .c o N a -0-0 Q o O CD t6 e C 0 E .0 C C r — x C O' Ca a Q} d L 7 L O C A N S� O 0 m Lf7 L6.0 2 *+ m 6J 0 v m aEi w oM w E +.� V m m cx — C4 Q N — CL a� C) 6f c`p w N O N C a) a) ° 7 o f as o � OU [`n4)� U W Q r U 0 N n U 4 m va N CL w rn L 0 0 c O C O 0 M am N w 0 Z a 2 U z T N J L7 m W a � L7 m Ll} U) 0 0- 0 w CL N U :E a N a lV L 4? -t� N M Q�2 U0 q(a CV CL y,U _ go apa�+0 `a C 3 m m =ams 2 2- X E U NO (D w C 4 a d� E'a °''a o CL > E N m p O L cu CM tn y C Cj m iECD T C 7 -¢ 'Q t C cc f6 — a 'o E C j N Q7 t0 v -- 2 iA 01 7 a L N j N E td c OU N LL u 2-0 0- O N oc 3 0<m= a °ark to z c E 0-0w qn iD m- a 3 mmCD 3 Mom U � y '4 = a .0 O a y-0:? x��d 3 cl E v C _Q� W m t 0 im 'o r- `�° m o md'EL a U �� v a> mr p 0 c EE a — ?m=�CL l9 10in a3 U m (0 W "4 w 1` E X U L t. w o o m O xN N 6 a }T = O N O tnwEo ¢u)o.N F- CL a co Ln 3r m E l4 L) ` m "mac a N o. = (D -b ar 3 Eb.° d Nm� �,@ C N=-0 O E N in CD N Oi Q L1 O .` C a E U O .p- c O CL U W O Q 3 X� LLi 2 CCL U v O N E .c T M N 0 OL U DCd cn E N NU'O m m a U U o'§ a CLz o f LO' 27 o a e -Y o , a o ata QN O E .N N C=6 U UCi E N O Q LOl1 Lai O C�fl 0 4P • . • . E E 0 CD c 0o a � m 3 a m CL U U O E r _ N Z d O .D) N O � C OI E ri N (0 NCL N SA p ori � O .` = 4 O C .0 .; y) 0 U N Q 12 C F T .0 Q CD 0 Q X Q Z� NO v M = U dl � Ok U E LU > o Z y O V LU u o o a m E a� EUS o _ Q Q a E ca U IL "� H d lb LL n N U :E a T T r O 1N �Z LU 6 OZ Z a� U N c Z�o 0 0} a Wm cz V •O J3 o mOJ C Q � W Oa IL O� v a -CY) m L Z C Ica U w Q U a QO -5iu N N N 0-0 �m3Qm c ...- m.+nT- -x w M.2n x ct CD E 0 3 .� w E U t-0 N O.L+ O O N 0� N al 3 j 'O -0 q`y U O N C N w 3 L C O a) 0 76 U5 E U L rn m3� P (D 32 `-° �� h- 30� c 4n a) a) C !_ m m m o a E L) v '-- c .4 0 O M S) OL o 0 U O C m Z :? U y 3 m m o o cr c (a N U �rph c1 N ,E py �' C i7 N v U a o cc L ,roi, t5 a S4 c Oi m tri m c 3 .0 U U- a) C � c 0 L °' co mm o m o e O C In C ¢ p i a1 0Y d1 C.c- V n r w to c, m G v v U L ccC OU a=' O a t U U .��"' .L N c r 3 M . O Q 61 Q T O c vi 3 in N in Ll .� C L U T p O p In (tl m O U ]•, U O(Y) �—` U U U (O [O v m x a �[ �[ O U N �� rsc c o N Oo 0 a` a 4� c i cv 7-0n CD LO �co L CL L U CL - a) Sit = `i N O 0 U C C L U U N C N L) N Im r.CL ��y Q_ T ' a 0 c c O) 4 to O- a xv 0 0 C] U U cD CA C C Q O) C a) Mc a) W N c of `o o of [) C iL C 0 CO CO (V U w Q U 7'+ 1 O NEW C e� U ameO APPENDIX C FIGURES I LF K,_ '.4 Ar I- NGT{.T PROJECT LOCATION SECTION: S7 T23N R5E LATILONG: 47.5005 N / 122.2159 W , x ac:; s.�.ii�o -o.'; �'� �'�• i 1 to , 1 , 1 Pj ' ,•11 '1 � gY - 1 'TSY ,1 `, r�. , J x s•�� s,�rn � ar a '.- '�V II I! h 7' l CITY OF RENTON i I l -P-AN 'v'1 E'vV QCALE N —S. t, PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DATUM: NGVD 29-47 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. Washington Department of Natural Resources 2. City of Renton FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP The Boeing Company 737 LOGAN AVENUE N. RENTON, WA 98038 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF: KING STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY LATILONG: 47.5005 N 1122.2159 W DECEMBER 2012 LAKE WASHINGTON EXISTING SHEET SHORELINE ' PILE WALL 140' i EXISTING BRIDGE / T � APPROyACH ,01 L EDGE OF ? PAVEMENT APRON PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DATUM: NGVD 29-47 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. Washington Department of Natural Resources 2. City of Renton — EXISTING BULKHEAD — ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK 15.49' FOLLOWS EXISTING BULKHEAD 1 CEDAR RIVER FIGURE 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN The Boeing Company 737 LAGAN AVENUE N. RENTON, WA 98038 PAGE 2OF9 SCALE: 1"=50' I, SHORELINE, ,y EXISTING SHEET PILE WALL, , EDGE OF : APPROACH PAVEMENT i �� APRON EDGE OF T- PAVEMENT —, i t: l � .'d*I. RIVERSIDE _ DRIVE IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF: KING STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY LAT/LONG: 47.5005 N 1122.2159 W DECEMBER 2012 EDGE OF PAVEMENT r ACCESS ROAD RUNWAY PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DATUM: NGVD 29-47 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. Washington Department of Natural Resources 2. City of Renton CEDAR RIVER FIGURE 3 - TEMPORARY BRIDGE PLAN The Boeing Company 737 LAGAN AVENUE N. RENTON, WA 98038 PAGE 3OF9 IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF: KING STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY LATILONG: 47.5005 N 1122.2159 W DECEMBER 2012 SCALE: 1"=50' SHORELINE 7 LAKE WASHINGTON EXISTIPGE HEET WALL -EXISTING SHEET SHORELINE PILE WALL EDGE OF PAVEMENT ''. EX WING APRON EXISTING APRON- EXISTING BRIDGE 1�11 (TO BE REMOVED) (TO BE REMOVED) �. TEMPORARY BRIDGE TEMPORARY I- - I7�'��1,1///}tom ``' GRADING EDGEOF�� 1i PAVEMENT PILE BENT WITH 4PILES. TYPICAL � _1;.1,.1+1+-�,�- -- -'-'` ���1, ��I�� �— _ �..-f-•�'T�'���--�f._��--��f�l :a- �" APPROACH�� APPRDAC'ri � 1 � ` r } � ' ��"�'/r -r--��— EDGE OF PAVEMENT ti �rtT1 DECK LIGHTING ON INSIDE FACE OF 6 CURB DIRECTEDTOWARDS a�\ -INCH OF y/1 , CENTER BRIDGE EXISTING BULKHEAD TEMPORARYGRADING �� _ ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK 55.49' FOLLOWS EXISTING BULKHEAD EDGE OF PAVEMENT r ACCESS ROAD RUNWAY PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DATUM: NGVD 29-47 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. Washington Department of Natural Resources 2. City of Renton CEDAR RIVER FIGURE 3 - TEMPORARY BRIDGE PLAN The Boeing Company 737 LAGAN AVENUE N. RENTON, WA 98038 PAGE 3OF9 IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF: KING STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY LATILONG: 47.5005 N 1122.2159 W DECEMBER 2012 PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DATUM: NGVD 29-47 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1_ Washington Department of Natural Resources 2. City of Renton FIGURE 4 - TEMPORARY BRIDGE ELEVATION The Boeing Company 737 LOGAN AVENUE N. RENTON, WA 98038 PAGE 4OF9 " = PER 2012 AMSC HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND 2006 FIS IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF: KING STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY LATILONG: 47.5005 N / 122.2159 W DECEMBER 2012 SCALE: 1"=50' SHORELINE REGRADING • WEST BANK = 136 LF • EAST BANK = 124 LF • CUT (BELOW OHW) = 3125 CY • FILL (BELOW OHW): EMBANKMENT RIP RAP = 690 CY FILTER STONE = 205 CY DRIVE PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FIGURE 5 - PROPOSED IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON BRIDGE PLAN COUNTY OF: KING STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY DATUM: NGVD 29-47 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: The Boeing Company LAT/LONG: 47.5005 N/ 122.2159 W 1. Washington Department of Natural 737 LOGAN AVENUE N. Resources RENTON, WA 98036 DECEMBER 2012 2. City of Renton PAGE 5 OF 9 PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DATUM: NGVD 29-47 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. Washington Department of Natural Resources 2. City of Renton PER 2012 AMEC HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND 2006 FIS ` = MEASURED AT BOTTOM OF GIRDER AT UPSTREAM FACE OF BRIDGE FIGURE 6 - PROPOSED IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON BRIDGE ELEVATION COUNTY OF: KING STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY LATILONG: 47.5005 N / 122.2159 W The Boeing Company 737 LOGAN AVENUE N. RENTON, WA 98038 PAGE 6OF9 DECEMBER 2012 Lr0510N CWi',OL SLED VIN. AT TOP OF DANK —SLO'E SIRUB FLANT-NG OF EAV{ EEL4',-19,C 36' UP E STAKES. _' STANCS PER LINEAR �00T EMEED 15% Of S11,KE N S; IL. "OR YR F ;5,07 F-- _ 7-1 fUF 07F - -Y `S O�V' F1..- IC.S '2 7L'V0KEJ `OIL LIFT. l ' HL HMI Al GKA CLTC? fPER v. RONDCGRAGADLC CSI^, t V i, S'ECIA_ °R04SIGVs, jJ a TOP EL - 15.5'. BO7TOV E' 133' IVVER L 9 ', C. \CVN'C1 �. CC''. J -.._ <5E � � „P L IAS BOTTOM LL. 15 29" ,pNG. h'E? E MPP -L 7k4 STAXFS AT k4xMIJU 3 SPA(i, 3 71 SECURF — / - _LX -7.0 (KsTPIU�Ll CI AW L ' -- KL"L7-IN GEOTE%TILE FR6P.IC C U1ATIDN; 1 p' FIL ER c'0NE SFE f \\ \` EVEANKMENT R: A.' J N0115 \- EXCMTON LIMITS FOR I. A F A1GiNS SHOWN WE AT U'SItiFhIJ TACE Of `fIOFOSEEI LRIL-X. RIPRAP PROTECTION 2- 10 -YEAR FLUDD WATER SURFACc E_EVAMN VAR;ES FIDY 17.9' A. JP' -FLAY FADE GF `UCC MENI, "YF TEV�URAFY DR7GE TO 15.B AT )DIAKS7B--1.M ",ACE OF PRODOSED MIME. CCTI�I_ C-ihNN=_ L_M5, \NKhrFN- KA..E, h'S PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT DATUM: NGVD 29-47 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. Washington Department of Natural Resources 2. City of Renton FIGURE 7 - CROSS SECTION The Boeing Company 737 LOGAN AVENUE N. RENTON, WA 98038 PAGE 7 OF 9 IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON COUNTY OF: KING STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY LATILONG: 47.5005 N 1122.2159 W DECEMBER 2012 SYM COMMON NAME {} DESCHAMPSIA CAFSPITOSA 1 LUPINUS POLYCARPUS C LUPINUS POLYPHYLLUS rte PHILADELPHUS LEWISII TUFTED HAIRGRASS PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS 2' OC SALIX SITCHENSIS 100 SMALL FLOWERED LUPIN G SPIRAEA BETULIFOLIA 2' SPIRAEA DOUGLASII LARGE LEAF LUPIN LIVE STAKES 3' OC SAL1X HOOKERIANA PLANT MATERIALS SCHEDULE 0 EDGE OF EDGE OF PAVEMENT O BOTANICAL NAME SIZEICONDITION SPACING HT, NO. TUFTED HAIRGRASS 1 GAL CONT 2' OC 2' 100 SMALL FLOWERED LUPIN 1 GAL CONT TOC 2' 46 LARGE LEAF LUPIN 1 GAL CONT 3' OC 4' 75 MOCK ORANGE 1 GAL CONT 6' OC 10' 8 PACIFIC NINEBARK 1 GAL CONT 6' OC 8' 4 SITKA WILLOW 1 GAL CONT 6' OC 10' 10 EXISTING SHEET PILE WALL SHORELINE TO BE CUT TO MATCH GRADE 20 SHINY -LEAF SPIRAEA 1 GAL CONT 2' OC 2' 85 DOUGLAS SPIREA 1 GAL CONT 4' OC 6' 51 HOOKERS WILLOW LAKE WASHINGTON PROPOSED BRIDGE MITIGATION PLANTING 41344 SF} REINFORCED SOIL WITH LIVE STAKES, TYP. HABITAT GRAVEL, TYP. PROPOSED OHW EXISTING SHEET PILE WALL TO BE CUT TO MATCH GRADE 0 MITIGATION PLANTING (1185 SF) PROPOSED OHW 31 LF 10' 531 1 k, SHORELINE EDGE OF PAVEMENT SCALE: 1"=50' 0 EDGE OF EDGE OF PAVEMENT O O PROPOSED BRIDGE o ABUTMENT e� ROAD d - d RUNWAY, ; SHINY -LEAF SPIRAEA 1 GAL CONT 2' OC 2' 85 DOUGLAS SPIREA 1 GAL CONT 4' OC 6' 51 HOOKERS WILLOW LAKE WASHINGTON PROPOSED BRIDGE MITIGATION PLANTING 41344 SF} REINFORCED SOIL WITH LIVE STAKES, TYP. HABITAT GRAVEL, TYP. PROPOSED OHW EXISTING SHEET PILE WALL TO BE CUT TO MATCH GRADE 0 MITIGATION PLANTING (1185 SF) PROPOSED OHW 31 LF 10' 531 1 k, SHORELINE EDGE OF PAVEMENT SCALE: 1"=50' EXISTING BULKHEAD EDGE OF ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK 15.49 PAVEMENT FOLLOWS EXISTING BULKHEAD ACCESS ROAD CEDAR RIVER PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FIGURE 8 IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON LANDSCAPE PLAN AND COUNTY OF: KING SCHEDULE STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY DATUM: NGVD 29-47 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: The Boeing Company LAT/LONG: 47.5005 N/ 122.2159 W 1. Washington Department of Natural 737 LOGAN AVENUE N. Resources RENTON, WA 98038 DECEMBER 2012 2. City of Renton PAGE 8 OF 9 SCALE: 1 "=20' A J\r LAKE WASHINGTON SHORELINE —� TEMPORARY SUPPORT PILES FOR DEMOLITION J J OF EXISTING BRIDGE TEMPORARY REACTION PILES TEMPORARY WORK PLATFORM (% T 1 EXISTING BRIDGE TEMPORARY WORK PLATFORM PILES DRILLED SHAFTS 7 Z":4 APPROACH Ja TEMPORARY I I BRIDGEZ.I �� i Z. EXISTING APRON 1� (TO BE REMOVED) PURPOSE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FIGURE 9 IN: CEDAR RIVER, CITY OF RENTON TEMPORARY PILE PLAN COUNTY OF: KING STATE OF: WASHINGTON APPLICATION BY: THE BOEING COMPANY DATUM: NGVQ 29-47 The Boeing Company LATILONG: 47.5005 N / 122.2159 W ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: 1. Washington Department of Natural 737 LOGAN AVENUE N. Resources RENTON, WA 98039 DECEMBER 2012 2. City of Renton PAGE 9 OF 9