No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1 - 1 of 2King County Parks and Recreation Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center, KSC-NR-0700 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206-477-4527 Fax 206-588-8011 TTY Relay: 711 February 9, 2017 City of Renton/Community Services Dept. Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning & Natural Resources Director 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Project -Temporary Construction Easement Dear Ms. Betlach: Please find enclosed one conformed copy of the fully executed Temporary Construction Easement document for the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A. Please do not hesitate to contact me atjason.rich@kingcounty.gov or at 206-477-4582 if you have any questions. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important trail project. AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: King County Parks Attn; Jason Rich 201 S. Jackson St., Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 DOCUMENT TITLE: GRANTOR: GRANTEE: ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON PAGE: ASSESSOR'S TAX PARCEL NO. PROJECT: CONFORMED COPY 20170206000242 KC PARKS CAP P EAS 84 . 00 PAGE-001 OF 012 02/06/2017 13: 51 Temporary Construction Easement City of Renton King County SW Y., Sec. 13, Twn. 23, Rng. 4 Exhibits A and B 377920-0119 132304-9012 377920-0118 132304-9024 377920-0117 132304-9088 377920-0116 132304-9089 Lake to Sound Trail Segment A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Thij TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT is granted this k{p day of (v'('l,!,cvvi , 20.l.2, by the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation, hereinafter ref rred to as "Grantor," to King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee." WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of certain parcels of land located near 14299 Monster Rd. SW, Renton, in the County of King, State of Washington, ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Grantee is considering construction of what is known as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail ("Project"), a 16 mile non-motorized, multi-use recreational trail spanning from the south end of Lake Washington in Renton to the shoreline of Puget Sound in Des Moines; WHEREAS, the Grantee has provided the Grantor with the design drawings for the Project, and the Grantor accepts and agrees to allow construction of the Project in the Easement Area identified in Exhibit A and B, located on the Property, in accordance with the conditions set forth in this Temporary Construction Easement; Page 1 of 6 WHEREAS, the Grantee has complied with all regulatory requirements that apply to the Project, and has obtained all necessary permits and regulatory approvals allowing construction of the Project, including the following: City of Renton, Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit LUA15-00257 SSDP, City of Renton, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit LUA15-00257 S-CUP, and City of Renton, Shoreline Variance LUA15-00257 S-V. Grantee agrees that if the Project is constructed, it shall be constructed in accordance with these permits and approvals; WHEREAS, it has been found necessary, in the construction and improvement of the Project, to acquire certain surface rights and privileges on, across, and over a portion of said Property; and WHEREAS, the Granter hereby represents and warrants to the Grantee that it has sufficient property interests in the Property to grant this Temporary Construction Easement to Granter; NOW THEREFORE, the Granter and Grantee agree as follows: 1. Grant of Temporary Construction Easement: The Granter, for and in consideration of the benefit to the Tukwila Community of the Lake to Sound Trail, to the same extent and purposes as if the rights granted had been acquired under the Eminent Domain Statute of the State of Washington, hereby grants to Grantee a temporary construction easement on, across, and over that portion of Grantor's Property, together with the right to enter upon and have access to said Easement Area for the purpose of the Project work, and to take such other actions upon the Easement Area as are necessary and/or convenient for the construction of Grantee's Project. Granter understands that the temporary easement rights donated herein to King County for public use is made voluntarily and with full knowledge that Granter shall receive just compensation in the form of surface improvements. Additionally, Granter understands that it has the right to request an appraisal of the property, and hereby gives up that right. 2. Purpose: Grantee may utilize the Easement only for the purpose of construction of the Project. Grantee may elect, but is not bound to construct the project. If the Project is constructed it will be perfonmed in accordance with the project plans and conditions set forth in the following penmits: City of Renton, Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit LUA15-00257 SSDP, City of Renton, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit LUA 15-00257 S-CUP, and City of Renton, Shoreline Variance LUA 15-00257 S-V. Access to the Easement Area over Grantor's Property shall be maintained during the Project work. 3. Term: The rights, title, privileges and authorities hereby granted shall begin upon written Notice of Construction to the Granter and shall continue in force for twenty-four (24) months from the date of the Notice of Construction, or January 30, 2020. whichever is later. It is understood and agreed that the delivery of this Temporary Construction Easement is tendered and that the tenms and obligations hereof shall not become binding upon Grantee unless and until accepted and approved in writing by the Grantee. 4. Access and Encroachments: The Granter hereby grants to the Grantee and its employees, agents, representatives, invitees, consultants, contractors and Page 2 of 6 subcontractors performing work on behalf of the Grantee the following access rights to the Easement Area: (a) The non-exclusive right and license to enter onto the Easement Area to analyze, assess, investigate, inspect, measure, survey, study and gather information for purposes of construction of the Project, including but not limited to completing borings and other subsurface investigations. This right and license shall begin upon the effective date of this Temporary Construction Easement and continue throughout the term of this Temporary Construction Easement. (b) The non-exclusive right and license to enter onto, and take actions on, the Easement Area necessary for construction of the Project.. This right and license shall begin upon the Grantee's issuance of the Notice to Proceed and continue until the later of twenty-four (24) months or completion of the Project. This right and license shall not be exclusive of the Grantor's right to enter the Easement Area for the purposes of inspections or other actions necessary to implement this Temporary Construction Easement, or for any other purpose, provided that the Grantor's entry onto the Easement Area shall not impair, impede or delay construction of the Project. (c) The Granter hereby represents and warrants to the Grantee that it has sufficient property interests and the legal authority to remove Encroachments; and that there are no easements, covenants, restrictions, encumbrances or defects on or to the title of the Property that will in any way affect or impair the Grantee's or the Grantor's ability to perform their respective obligations under this Temporary Construction Easement. (d) If the Grantee's Contractor removes Encroachments in accordance with the Grantor's direction, the Granter shall protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless the Grantee, its officers, officials, employees, agents, Contractor and subcontractors, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from any and all suits, costs, claims, actions, losses, penalties, judgments, and/or awards of damages arising from removal of said Encroachments except when caused by the negligence of the Grantee, its officers, officials, employees, agents, Contractor and subcontractors. 5. Restoration: The Grantee shall upon completion of the Project described herein remove all debris and restore the surface of the Property as nearly as possible to the condition immediately prior to the Grantee's entry thereon, excepting any modifications or improvements made as a part of the Project or otherwise approved in writing by the Granter. 6. Indemnification: Each Party shall protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless the other Party, its officers, officials, employees and agents while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from any and all suits, costs, claims, actions, losses, penalties, judgments, and/or damages of whatsoever kind ("Claims") arising out of, or in connection with, or incident to the breach of any warranty under this Temporary Construction Easement or the exercise of any right or obligation under this Temporary Construction Easement by the indemnifying Party, including any negligent acts or omissions, except to the extent such Claims arise out of or result from the other Party's own negligent acts or omissions. Each Party agrees that it is fully responsible for the acts and omissions of its own contractors, employees and agents, acting within the Page 3 of6 scope of their employment as such, as it is for the acts and omissions of its own employees and agents. Each Party agrees that its obligations under this paragraph extend to any claim brought by or on behalf of the other Party or any of its employees, or agents. The foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance act, RCW Title 51, as respects the other Party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a full and complete indemnity of Claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The Parties acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. Nothing in this Paragraph modifies or limits in any way the Grantor's obligations in Paragraph 4. 7. Insurance: Each Party shall maintain, for the duration of each Party's liability exposures under this Temporary Construction Easement, self-insurance and/or insurance coverage against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property, which may arise from or in connection with performance of the work hereunder by each Party, their agents, representatives, employees, contractors or subcontractors. King County, a charter County government under the constitution of the State of Washington, maintains a fully funded Self-Insurance program as defined in King County Code chapter 4.12 for the protection and handling of the Grantee's liabilities including injuries to persons and damage to property. The Granter acknowledges, agrees and understands that the Grantee is self-funded for all of its liability exposures and that the Grantee's self-insurance program meets the requirements of this paragraph. The Grantee agrees, at its own expense, to maintain, through its self-funded program, coverage for all of its liability exposures for this Temporary Construction Easement. The Grantee agrees to provide the Granter with at least 30 days prior written notice of any material change in the Grantee's self-funded program and will provide the Granter with a certificate of self-insurance as adequate proof of coverage. The Granter further acknowledges, agrees and understands that the Grantee does not purchase Commercial General Liability insurance and is a self-insured governmental entity; therefore the Grantee does not have the ability to add the Granter as an additional insured. The Granter maintains a combination of a fully funded self-insurance program and excess insurance coverage for the protection and handling of the Grantor's liabilities, including injuries to persons and damage to property. The Grantee acknowledges, agrees and understands that the Grantor's self-insurance program and excess insurance meet the requirements of this paragraph. The Granter agrees, at its own expense, to maintain, through its self-funded program and excess insurance, coverage for all of its liability exposures for this Temporary Construction Easement. The Granter agrees to provide the Grantee with at least 30 days prior written notice of any material change in the Grantor's self-funded and insurance programs and will provide the Grantee with a certificate of insurance as adequate proof of coverage and naming the Grantee as an additional insured. 8. General Conditions: Page 4 of 6 (a) Joint Drafting Effort. This Temporary Construction Easement shall be considered for all purposes as prepared by the joint efforts of the Parties and shall not be construed against one Party or the other as a result of the preparation, substitution, submission or other event of negotiation, drafting or execution hereof. (b) Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Temporary Construction Easement is intended to. nor shall be construed to give any rights or benefits in the Temporary Construction Easement to anyone other than the Grantor and the Grantee, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Temporary Construction Easement will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Grantor and the Grantee and not for the benefit of any other Party (c) Exhibits. All Exhibits referenced in this Temporary Construction Easement are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. (d) Entire Agreement. This Temporary Construction Easement contains the entire agreement of the parties and any representations or understandings, whether oral or written, not incorporated herein are excluded. (e) Amendment. This Temporary Construction Easement may be amended only by an instrument in writing, duly executed by both Parties. (f) Relationship of the Parties. The Parties execute and implement this Temporary Construction Easement as separate entities. No partnership, joint venture or joint undertaking shall be construed from this Temporary Construction Easement. (g) Governing Law. This Temporary Construction Easement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. (h) Survivability. The provisions of Sections 4 and 7 shall survive termination of this Temporary Construction Easement. Each Party executing this Temporary Construction Easement represents that the Party has the authority to execute the Temporary Construction Easement and to comply with all terms of this Temporary Construction Easement. WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: c~~ES;" t, By: 4ff~ Printed Name: enis Law "{}~~:Mayor Vul!?- t Page 5 of 6 ATIEST: By: ----"-H-'"-+"""-~-"------ Printed Na Title: City Date: ____ .....,. ___ _ GRANTEE: King County By: KJ:\, k Printed Name: ' ~ Title: M),'~\:w: ::J),\·<cb:: Date: 1·2)2.y/2.•11,, I Page 6 of6 EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR CITY OF RENTON LAKE TO SOUND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AN AREA OF LAND LYING WITHIN THOSE PARCELS DESCRIBED IN DEEDS FILED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO.'S 199205201349, 199406302135 AND 199301130109 ALL LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETIE MERIDIAN, CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13 FROM WHICH THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13 BEARS SOUTH 87°27'18" EAST A DISTANCE OF 2692.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33°47'56" EAST A DISTANCE OF 424.76 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED FILED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 199205201349 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED AREA OF LAND; THENCE NORTH 34°20'52" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED FILED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 199205201349 A DISTANCE OF 43.59 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED FILED UNDER RECORDING NO. 199205201349 THROUGH THE FOLLOWING FIFTEEN (15) COURSES: 1) ALONG A 696.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 06°31 '06'' WEST THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3°47'52" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 46.13 FEET; 2) ALONG A 1055.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11°24'08" FORAN ARC LENGTH OF 209.95 FEET; 3) ALONG A 727.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL OF 16°55'35" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 214.77 FEET; 4) ALONG A 1571.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°32'02" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 206.57 FEET; 5) NORTH 43°49'17" EAST A DISTANCE OF 271.00 FEET; 6) ALONG A 4030.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL OF 2°48'32" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 197.57 FEET; 7) ALONG A 1853.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6°01'18" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 194.75 FEET; 8) ALONG A 10,543.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1°00'49" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 186.51 FEET; 9) ALONG A 1657.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6°42'20 FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 193.93 FEET; 10) ALONG A 6738.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 1 °40'54" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 197.76 FEET; 11) ALONG A 1768.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6°18'06" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 194.45 FEET; 12) ALONG A 8603.00 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1°21'44" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 204.54 FEET; 13) ALONG A 1922.12 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 5°19'42" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 178.75 FEET; 14) ALONG A 2814.93 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°25'22" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 659.45 FEET; 15) ALONG A 1165.09 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7°48'53" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 158.91 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE ALONG A 705.08 FOOT RADIUS COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 08°50'27" WEST THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 68°57'31" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 848.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12°01'39" EAST A DISTANCE OF 238.86 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77°33'04" WEST A DISTANCE OF 68.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14°22'42" WEST A DISTANCE OF 380.72 FEET; THENCE ALONG A 657.23 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 62°25'59" WEST THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 73°33'25" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 843. 76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 81°19'59" WEST A DISTANCE OF 578.49 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66°10'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 818.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32°07'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 631.59 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED FILED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 199301130109; THENCE SOUTH 41°16'15" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 316.16 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ALONG A 627.46 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 39°41 '39" WEST THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°58'19" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 306.33 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE NORTH 00°00'00" EAST A DISTANCE OF 380.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED FILED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING N0.199205201349; THENCE NORTH 78°41 '16" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED FILED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING N0.199205201349 A DISTANCE OF 57.74 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE NORTH 37°34'36" WEST A DISTANCE OF 74.46 FEET; THENCE ALONG A 1965.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 37°34'36" EAST THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3°24'24" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 116.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49°00'59" WEST A DISTANCE OF 318.31 FEET; THENCE ALONG A 465.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25'20'24" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 205.65 FEET; THENCE ALONG A 385.00 FOOT RADIUS REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°52'29" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 86.51 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN DEED FILED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING N0.199205201349; THENCE SOUTH 59°53'55" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 159.28 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE SOUTH 74°13'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 443.93 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 13.43 ACRES, MORE OF LESS; Parametrlx ,1=3'47'52" L=46.13' R=696.00' 4} 1"=200' 200' . ..,.; ~<,':i • t,f n.,~'.0 di ·-i~oi '-:.,,,v· . ~""' 5 ,, ,1=12"52'29" L=86.51' R=385.00' APN 3779200119 AFN 199205201349 I ----I i1=25·20·24· ---i_ / L=205.65' - R=465.00' /.2./7/16 1.~'l.Og,gO(i •~ \_N59'53'55"E APN 3779200090 R~·-j;?~'(" -159.28' / '\ ~ .ft ~ \ \\_S74'13'27"W / ~ WU , .P.0.t:J;--.,..,__~ . ~, \\ ____ _ APN 722950-0281 ------EXHIBIT B MONSTE~D.SW LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL -----cc."="~ •• = .. = .. ::-... ~.----'-CITY OF RENTON TEMPORARY 13 TOTAL AREA= 13.43 ACRES 24 SW 1/4 SECTION 13 T. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHEET 1 OF 4 DATE: December 7, 2D16 FILE.· SV-1521-08-4-TCERENTON-R1 APN 1323049020 %~'*' "'"' i~ i~ ,., I I I J Parametrix 0 ~ 200' 1"=200' I /// ~ <f.l'''i:, \ !:2.l7/t6 ·"" .,11-.-v ,'§J'r;fl "~ '°'°''§J' TOTAL AREA= 13.43 ACRES SW 1/4 SECTION 13 T. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. EXHIBIT B LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL CITY OF RENTON TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHEET2 OF 4 DATE Decamber7, 2016 FILE: SV-1S21-084-TCE RENTON-R1 APN 132304901 2 AFN 199206302135 11=7'48'53" ~=13"25'22" L=158.91' L=659A5', R=1165.09' t"68"sJj • -2s1~.9J --"818 r -~~'L R~~Q0\11 _ fl.,,). ·60• ~ .. ~~~~ --:,~~~-L --:::;:---::_,;;-, ,o~o·..___ --~----r----~~ ~ --;;;,{!:. "'"" ...... --~ • I ~ .. "' "> ~~......_......._ ..,.;§~ -ss\'19'59"14 57M9 g Ii? /;; ,. 4"JJ·' "' ....-_;::'.,--/'\[_~MM ---~ /#!f! l.,,o,/"~s~'~" ~ _,,., r PROPOSED -,W /:}'--11"'6SJ /6' ,1,,, ...,.: ~ I TRAIL r:!: • ;;J'IAi --........ .... ·<',]• ;:ii,- <I! 'Ill APN 1323049024 : • ' ~ ~"-1<..t '\; ~ \ / AFN 199205201349 Ji · ~~f0:f"'o,, ~ l<! ::,.e><< ,;. ~ I APN 1323049090 ~-ts ~.;, I -------' I /,,,/· I ; I / -Lj-\ <$)\\~ ,,M ;i\~'l! ,-;(),~ t<~ ,~~-;()\ \ '"---------1.----- EXHIBITS Parametrlx ~ 1"=200' !,2./-7/;6 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL 200' TOTAL AREA= 13.43 ACRES CITY OF RENTON TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHEET3 OF4 SW 1/4 SECTION 13 T. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. DATE: Dei;ember 7, 20111 FILE: SV-1521-084-TCE RENTON-R1 .- / ~ < \ --' ' _>--I, / I r~~ /~~ ,~i~ , S7T33'04"'. I "' ~ / 68.24 APN 1323049089 AFN 199406302135 I ~t I I I I I t APN 1323049088 AFN 199406302135 ---------- TOTAL AREA= 13.43 ACRES SW 1/4 SECTION 13 T. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. Parametrlx ~ 200' 1"=200' /.2./7/16 EXHIBIT B LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL CITY OF RENTON TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHEET40F4 DATE: Oecembllr 7, 20HI FILE: SV•1521•064•TCE RENTON·R1 April7,2016 King County Parks Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects King Center, 7th Floor 201 S. Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 Re: City of Renton Local Permit-LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich -Applicant SIMULTANEOUS FILLING OF Permit #2016-NW-3177 Approved Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #2810 Approved Shoreline Conditional Use Permit #910 Approved Shoreline Variance #389 Dear Mr. Rich: On March 7, 2016, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) received the City of Renton decision on your Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Shoreline Variance authorizing the construction of a 1.2-mile, 12-foot wide non- motorized trail within the Natural shoreline environment designation. This regional trail system is identified as Lake to Sound Trail Segment A. Portions of the trail located within the Natural shoreline environment designation require a CUP, and portions of the trail in excess of four feet in width, or located within the inner 50 percent of associated wetland and stream buffers, also require a Shoreline Variance. Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. Your approved SDP has been received and filed with Ecology. By law, Ecology must review all Shoreline CUPs and Variances for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). • Ecology's Conditional Use Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-160 WAC). • Ecology's Variance approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-170 WAC). • The City of Renton Local Shoreline Master Program. After reviewing CUPs and Variances for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove them. Lake to Sound Trail Segment A-SDP, SCUP & VAR April 7, 2016 Page 2 of2 Our Decision on Your CUP and Variance: Ecology approves your CUP and Variance provided your project comply with the conditions required by the City. Please note, however, that other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to these shoreline permits. What Happens Next? Before you begin any remaining activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days from April 7, 2016, the "date of filing." This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend that you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure that no appeal has been received. They can be reached at (360) 664-9160 or http://www.eluho.wa.gov/Board/SHB. If l'.!!.!! want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461--08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above or on the website of the Washington State Legislature at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Misty Blair at (425) 649-4309. Sincerely, ~~ Erik Stockdale, Section Manager Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program By certified mail: 7005 1820 0000 6707 8667 E-cc: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager, City of Renton Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe STATE OF WASIDNGTON, COUNTY OF KING AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on January 15, 2016. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $129.75. ~ ,{'4bL. Wilda Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscrib~d sworn to me this 15th day of January, 2016. Gale Gwin, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Puyallup, Washington ., - " - " NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Detenni• nation of Non-Significance Miti- gated (DNS-M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal code Lake to Sound Trail Segment A LUAIS-000257 Location: Extends from Naches Ave SW through Black River Riparian Forest to end at the Green River Trail.. The applicant requests SEPA Review, Shore- line Conditional Use Pemut, a Shoreline Variance, and Shore- line Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informaJ 1.2-mile trail mto a nonmotorized multi-purpose route and includes a new 114 ft pedestrian bridge over the Black River. The project is "Segment A" of the the Lake to Sound Trail, a continuous 16-mile-long regional corridor linking Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Segment A travels through the Black River Riparian Forest from Naches Ave SW in City of Ren- ton, crossing Monster Rd SW, to arrive at Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila. Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before S:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016. Appeals must be filed m writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, I055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more infonnation may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office. 425-430-6510 A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on February 16, 2016 at 11:00 am to consider the submitted applica- tion. If the DNS-M is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing Publshed in the Renton Reporter on Januaiy 15. 2016, #1514912. CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 9th day of February, 2016, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Report to the Hearing Examiner and Exhibits documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Jason Rich, King County Applicant Jenny Bailey Contractor Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Party of Record Suzanne Krom, Kate Stenberg Party of Record Phil Olbrects Hearing Examiner I (Signature of Sender): ~\?mlhN{) :0 - STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that S "-"' ,..., "'"' c;... ""'-·, r "'-"-.\ e signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Notary (Print): ____ _.-__ __,_......_"""_._."'-----++.---"l...,,w--,E,,----'--- My appointment expires: Lake to Sound Regional Trail, Segment A LUAlS-000257, ECF,SSDP, S-CUP, S-V template -affidavit of service by mailing Jack Pace City ofTukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 100 Tukwila. WA 98188 Kate Stenberg 23022 SE 48th St Sammamish, WA 98075 Jason Rich King County Parks; ATIN: Jason Rich 201 S Jackson St, Rm 700 Seattle. WA 981043855 Suzanne Krom 4819 49th Ave SW Seattle, WA 981164322 Jennv Bailey Parametrix March 4, 2016 Jason Rich King County Parks 201 S. Jackson St, Room 700 Seattle, WA 98104 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC SUBJECT: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision for the Lake to Sound Regional Trail File No. LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, 5-CUP, S-V Dear Mr. Rich: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Final Decision dated March 2, 2016. Vanessa Dolbee, Renton's Current Planning Manager, has issued a letter to the State Department of Ecology dated March 4, 2016. Both of these documents are immediately available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov); • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner's Decision is $4.65, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057, (425) 43Q-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov • RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100{G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of a reconsideration decision. I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, /I~ . . eth City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council liaison Parties of Record (4) --~~•r---. Denis Law _....... C' f Mayor -r·~-. Ity Q t ~:.........__,,,,._..... •• ~ ri r r tc··., I "' ..! ~~~ March 4, 2016 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Community & Economic Development Department C.E. 'Chip'Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance for Lake to Sound Regional Trail - Segment A File No. LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and a Shoreline Variance for the above referenced project. The permit was approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on March 2, 2016. A Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated was issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee on January 15, 2016. The appeal period ended on January 29, 2016, and no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at {425) 430-7314 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Enclosures: 1. Hearing Examiner Decision 2. Legal Descriptions 3. Copy of Master Applications 4. Project Narrative 5. Hearing Examiner Report and Exhibits 6. Neighborhood Detail Map 7. Notice of Application Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Washington State Oepartm Page 2 of 2 March 4, 2016 Ecology 8. SEPA Checklist 9. SEPA Determination, Mitigation Measures, and Advisory Notes cc: Office of Attorney General Jason Rich/Applicant Jenny Bailey, Parametrix/Contractor Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Suzanne Krom, Kate Stenberg, Jack Pace/City of Tukwila, Carol Lumb/City of Tukwila Senior Planner, Party{ies) of Record SM cover letter LUAlS..000257.2 March 4, 2016 Jason Rich King County Parks 201 S. Jackson St, Room 700 Seattle, WA 98104 City Clerk -Jason A. Seth, CMC SUBJECT: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision for the Lake to Sound Regional Trail File No. LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Dear Mr. Rich: The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Final Decision dated March 2, 2016. Vanessa Dolbee, Renton's Current Planning Manager, has issued a letter to the State Department of Ecology dated March 4, 2016. Both of these documents are immediately available: • Electronically online at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov); • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above project number; and • For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the Hearing Examiner's Decision is $4.65, plus a handling and postage cost (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110{E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 43Q-6510 / Fax (425) 43o-6516 • rentonwa.gov • RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8- 100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of a reconsideration decision. I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you. Sincerely, LI:~ Jason A~~ City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Sabrina Mirante, Secretary, Planning Division Ed Prince, City Councilmember Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Parties of Record (4) I -" \ -~~·-----Denis Law ~ c· f -~Mayo:._, ___ __. ...... *J~]:Wi! March 4, 2016 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance for Lake to Sound Regional Trail - Segment A File No. LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and a Shoreline Variance for the above referenced project. The permit was approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on March 2, 2016. A Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated was issued by the City's Environmental Review Committee on January 15, 2016. The appeal period ended on January 29, 2016, and no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at {425) 430-7314 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Enclosures; 1. Hearing Examiner Oeclslon 2, Legal Descriptions 3. Copy of Master Applications 4. Project Narrative 5. Hearing Examiner Report and Exhibits 6. Neighborhood Detail Map 7. Notice of Application Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Washington State Departmen.o!ogy Page 2 of 2 March 4, 2016 8. SEPA Checklist 9. SEPA Determination, Mitigation Measures, and Advisory Notes cc: Office of Attorney General Jason Rich/Applicant Jenny Bailey1 Parametrix/Contractor Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Suzanne Krnm, Kate Stenberg, Jack Pace/City of Tukwila, Carol Lumb/City of Tukwila Senior Planner, Party{ies) of Record 5M cover letter LUAlS-000257.2 March 4, 2016 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) § ) JASON A. SETH, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 4th day of March, 2016, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision for the Lake to Sound Regional Trail (LUA-15-0002S7) to the attached parties of record. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 4th day of March, 2016. Washington, residing in Renton My Commission expires: 8/27/2018 Jack Pace City a/Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 100 Tukwila. WA 98188 Kate Stenber~ 23022 SE 48th St Sammamish, WA 98075 Jason Rich King County Parks; ATIN: Jason Rich 201 s Jackson St, Rm 700 Seattle, WA 981043855 Suzanne Krom 4819 49th Ave SW Seattle, WA 981164322 Jenny Bailey Parametrix -/ / c:'l 7""'e!/L,,2_11-c)c:_'. S-;~-_,,---/1.J.._1 l,(,-,'--'/S/0; • Hearing Examiner's Decision CITY OF RENT~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: February 11, 2016 To: City Clerk's Office From: Sabrina Mirante Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Lake to Sound Regional Trail, Segment A LUA {file} Number: LUA-13-000257, ECF SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Kris Sorensen Acceptance Date: May 4, 2015 Applicant: King County Parks, Jason Rich Owner: City of Renton, City of Tukwila, BNSF/UPR Contact: Jason Rich, Jenny Bailey PID Number: ERC Determination: DNS-M Date: January 11, 2016 Aooeal Period Ends: Januarv 29 2016 Administrative Decision: Date: Aooeal Period Ends: Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Aooeal Period Ends: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit approval, Shoreline Variance approval, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. This trail segment is 14,317 feet (1.2 miles) long and 12 feet wide and a new pedestrian bridge crossing for the trail is proposed east of the existing Monster Road bridge. A portion of the trail corridor is located within the City of Tukwila city limits. The City of Renton has taken SEPA Lead Agency Status for the entire trail corridor, however separate permits from the City of Tukwila will be required for that portion of the trail within the Tukwila city limits. The trail corridor is located within the Commercial Office (CO), Resource Conservation (RC), and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations. The trail corridor runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest which contains the Black River (a Shoreline of the State), six wetlands (Categories II, III, and IV), and a Blue Heron nesting colony. Portions of the trail corridor are located within the Shoreline Management Act Natural Environment desianation. Location: Comments: Black River Riparian Forest in Tukwila 1e City of Renton to Fort Dent Park ERC Determination Types: DNS -Determination of Non-Significance; DNS-M -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated; DS -Determination of Significance. ADVISORY NOTES TO --""JLICANT LUA15-000257 Application Date: April 17, 2015 Name: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Engineering Review Comments Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. Site Address: Version 1 I January 11 , 2016 Contact: Vicki Grover I 425-430-7291 I vgrover@rentonwa.gov A Technical Information Report (TIA) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TDA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 els of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SW PPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (GOA) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doinq construction work based on various criteria from each of the reoorts. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen I 425-430-6593 f ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Planning: 1. AMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install imoervious surfaces, or compact the earth in anv wav within the area defined bv the drip line of anv tree to be retained. Ran: February 11, 2016 Page 1 of 1 City of Renton Deportment of Com ty & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 !earing Examiner RecommendaUon LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 8 of 40 conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on-or off-site. iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Staff Comment: The ecological functions and natural character of the shoreline and associated wetland has been evaluated in the Environmental Review Committee Report, dated January 11, 2016 (Exhibit 1/. The Environmental Review Committee Report and applicant's submitted biological studies find that there would be no net loss of ecological function and values of the Black River/Springbrook shoreline and associated wetlands through development af the trail corridor as proposed and that any ecological impacts would be mitigated for through mitigation measures such as the proposed restoration planting areas and construction best practices for the construction of the Black River bridge crossing. Potential ecological impacts of the proposal are analyzed in reports submitted with the application. These reports include the Critical Areas Study (Exhibit 6/, Stream Report (Exhibit 7/, Vegetation and Wildlife Report (Exhibit 8), Bridge Biological Assessment {Exhibit 14/, and Floodplain Studies (Exhibits 6 and 5). The reports' analyses document that: • Impacts of the proposal are limited in magnitude because the route of the trail HEX Report_Lake to Sound Trail Segment A_LUAlS-000257 February 9, 2016 Parties of Record Various Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: Report to the Hearing Examiner Lake to Sound Regional Trail, Segment A, LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Dear Parties of Record: A public hearing on The Reserve at Tiffany Park will be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:00 am in the City Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, located at 1055 S Grady Way, The Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, including exhibits and public comment letters, is available: • Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov) • To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7'h Floor at Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the project number LUA15- 000257. • Purchased for a copying charge of $0, 15 per page. The estimated cost for the staff report and exhibits is $23.40, plus a handling and postage cost of $2.00 (this cost is subject to change if documents are added). Please contact me at (425) 430-6593 or ksorensen@rentonwa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kris Sorensen Senior Planner Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov City of Renton Department of Com 'ty & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 fearing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000Z57, ECF, 5SDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 9 of 40 follows an existing gravel roadway east of Monster Road and an existing informal pedestrian path and roadway west of Monster Road. The impacts on vegetation and related elements of the natural environment are limited because the existing trail corridor has previously disturbed natural vegetation communities within the area affected by elements of the proposed trail. • Additional impervious surface will not have an adverse impact on receiving waters or nearby wetlands due to starmwater management. The trail is a non- pollutant-generating surface. The trail hos been located and designed ta minimize impacts of additional human use of the trail corridor on affect wildlife in the vicinity. Construction activities likely to disturb nesting herons will not be allowed near the Black River heron colony during sensitive periods. Areas between the nesting colony and the trail will be planted with native trees and shrubs to provide additional visual screening for herons. • Mitigation measures including wetland buffer restoration, plantings to further screen the heron colony, and fencing and a variety of construction mitigation in each report and summarized below will mitigate impacts to result in no-net lass of ecological functions. An evaluation of mitigation sequencing has been provided to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been token to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not resultin net/ass of ecological functions (Exhibit 4, pages 2-12 to 2-13). The following is the mitigation sequence analysis in order of "a" through "e." a. Alternative trail corridors were evaluated in the development of the subject proposal and are depicted in Exhibit 4, Figure 2-4. Four alternative trail alignments were considered with the proposed trail corridor alignment. Alternatives 1 and 2 are not feasible and prudent due to cost and safety considerations. Alternative 3 would not provide the same benefits or safety of the preferred two-way multi-use trail on a separate right-of-way. Alternative 4 would require the removal of numerous trees in close proximity to an existing Heron colony and more extensive grading. b. and c. The proposal would limit the degree and/or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, and by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts by: • Alignment. The proposed trail follows the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, avoiding habitat fragmentation and disturbance within the central portion of the natural area. • Use of existing disturbed areas. The proposed trail follows existing paths, maintenance roads and disturbed areas (see Section 1.3, Project Area and Setting) and uses an existing bridge crossing of the Black River to minimize disturbance of adjacent, existing forest, significant trees, wetlands and buffers, stream buffers, and the species that use these areas. • Strategic widening. In the Black River Riparian Forest, trail widening would occur toward the perimeter, again to avoid the central portion of the natural area and the associated habitat. • Minimizing earthwork. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more HEX Report_Loke to Sound Trail Segment A_LUAlS-000257 City of Renton Department of Com, :y & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 earing Examiner Recommendation LUA15-000Z57, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 24 of 40 Staff Comment: The proposol provides for the performance stondord of enhancing the existing City of Renton trail as o segment of the regional King County Lake to Sound Trail corridor. The proposed trail improvements within the Riparian Forest are consistent with ecological functions. 8. Building and Development Location -Shoreline Orientation: Shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependent, water-related, and water-enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline. Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site to maximize vegetation conservation; minimize impervious surfaces and runoff; protect riparian, nearshore and wetland habitats; protect wildlife and habitats; protect archaeological, historic and cultural resources; and preserve aesthetic values. i. Location of Development: Development and use shall be designed in a manner that directs land alteration to the least sensitive portions of the site. Stoff Comment: The trail corridor uses an already established trail/gravel road, improved right-of-way, and undercrossing of developed railroad crossings over the Black River. The trail alignment within the Black River Forest Riparian area parallels a developed east- west railroad corridor. No wetlands would be impacted. The wetland buffers that would be impacted are minimal and the impacts would be mitigated, see subsection "2a. Environmental Effects -No Net Loss of Ecological Function" in FOF 18 above. ii. Stream/Lake Study Required: An assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by topographic, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the site shall accompany development proposals; provided, that an individual single family residence on a parcel less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet shall not be subject to this requirement. Such assessments shall include the following general information: (a) Impacts of the proposed use/development on ecological functions with clear designation of existing and proposed routes for water flow, wildlife movement, and other features. (b) Infrastructure requirements such as parking, services, lighting and other features, together with the effects of those infrastructure improvements on shoreline ecological functions. Staff Comment: The applicant submitted Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report {Exhibit 8), Critical Areas Report {Exhibit 6), Stream Discipline Report (Exhibit 7), Drainage Report (Exhibit 5), Endangered Species Act No Effect document (Exhibits 27 and 28}, and NEPA Exemption by Washington State Department of Transportation (Exhibit 18} that describe impacts on ecological functions, water flaw, wildlife, and other features. The discipline reports provide assessment of the existing ecological functions provided by the topography, physical, and vegetation characteristics of the trail corridor. No parking is allowed within the Shoreline Natural Overlay and na new parking areas are proposed. There are no other infrastructure improvements are proposed that may create shoreline impacts. iii. Minimization of Site Alteration: Development shall minimize site alteration in sites with substantial unaltered natural features by applying the following criteria: (a) Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to limit clearing, grading, and alteration of topography and natural features. HEX Report_Lake to Sound Trail Segment A_LUAlS-000257 City of Renton Deportment of Com '.y & Economic Development 'earing Examiner Recommendation WA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Public Hearing Date: February 16, 2016 Page 25 of 40 (b) Impervious surfacing for parking lot/space areas shall be limited through the use of under-building parking or permeable surfaces where feasible. (c) Utilities shall share roadway and driveway corridors and rights-of-way wherever feasible. (d) Development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses, particularly water-dependent uses, where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result. Staff Comment: The praposed impravement does not require structural shoreline stabilization and is not anticipated to require such stabilization over its life. iv. Location for Accessory Development: Accessory development or use that does not require a shoreline location shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction unless such development is required to serve approved water-oriented uses and/or developments or N/A unless otherwise allowed in a High Intensity designation. When sited within shoreline jurisdiction, uses and/or developments such as parking, service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs and storage of materials shall be located inland away from the land/water interface and landward of water-oriented developments and/or other approved uses unless a location closer to the water is reasonably necessary. v. Navigation and Recreation to Be Preserved: Shoreline uses shall not deprive other uses of reasonable access to navigable waters. Existing water-related recreation shall be preserved. ,/ Staff Comment: The proposal is not anticipated to deprive other uses of reasonable access to navigable waters nor impact existing water-related recreation along the trail corridor. The applicant provides a description of the applicable navigable waters access rights in the Critical Areas Study that includes requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Clean Water Act regulations (Exhibit 6, page 1-4 to 1-5). 5. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources: i. Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required: The City will work with tribal, State, Federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical, cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable State and Federal laws protecting such information from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural resources. Staff Comment: The project proposal and notice of opplicatian were provided ta ,/ reviewing agencies including the State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP}. No agency comments were provided from DAHP or other agencies that would require additional assessments or mitigation measures related to archaeological, historical, and cultural resources. As part of the SEPA DNS-M determination, staff recommended a similar mitigation measure, and a mitigation measure has been placed on the project; that if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources are found that construction activity stop and coordination with the state, city, and concerned Tribal institutions occur prior to project re-start. HEX Report_Loke to Sound Trail Segment A_WAlS-000257 Notes None 953 0 -477 953 Feel S_ 19B4_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere City of Renton{~ Finance & IT Division city of Renton Zoning EXHIBIT% Legend City and County Boundary ~ -I Other [ ! City of Renton Zoning • RC-Resource Conse~at1on R1-Resrdential 1 dU/ac R4-Residen\ial4du/ac R6-Res1dent1al • 6 DU/AC R10-ResidEln~al 10du/ac Information Technology • GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 1/5/2016 II • • • • • • l R-14 R-10 R·IO s 134/h St sit·S l. R·B R,8 R-8 I)~ Eartlngton Pane R-e Si¥ :Jr<1 P1 R·8 R·B CN-Commercial Ne1ghDOrhood CV-Center Village CA-Commerc1al Artenal UC-Urban Center CD-Center Downtown COR-Commerc,al Office1Res1denl!al CO.Commemal Offica IL-1ndus1nal-Lrght IM-!ncustnal-Medium IH-lndllstnal-Heavy THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Zoning Districts, Overlays, and Sub-Areas o,-,,-- ~ City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan &Zoning Map ,f ~-.. ~--·-::~1·--""'"u""" .,,...,-~,,.. =~~f;~.: ~·,,; /J:~/ '." ::::::;-/;, : ";,.,_' ... ·--/ -. ' •' ··-~--·----. /.·''" .'--··:~--.:~""""-·:,_~·\ 11111!:~::::::.-·--.-0.~'1 , .. ·, / ·,) ,c,.:;,1 ....... , .... c ... "-l · . ,·-···'°'~·: ,a .... ,,,,_,,_ ___ ,'9..,.,-~-- ·!·,~cC"C u, ... & .. ~"HCOR'flr """"'-"-·'""'""'"'"· --,.,:,;;,o,_.....,,_ ,_,_ ...... _ ~hc>r .. .,.Qvorloyl"-i>f>rQ>,mll•f)-J.OO'ot<!, o!d•ol!Nrll...er) -r o'. rt/ City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Overlay 0 .. w .... :::J 1953 477 953 Feet iWGS_ 1 9B4_Web_Mercator _Auxiliary _Sphere EXHIBIT 3 City and County Boundary Cltyo'Renton Environment Designations D NatJr31 D Srore,me H1~h Intensity O Shore1melsolatedH1ghlnlens1ty O ShoreilneRes1den11al I O UrtanConservancy , n J11ri .. rlirlinns;, Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa gov 115/2016 lype Np Type Ns EXHIBIT 4 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Prepared for King County ~ King County ----------------·.... i'J!!IJW...,.,... _____ _ April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 5 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Prepared for King County Division of Capital Planning and Development Facilities Management Division, DES King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 320 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com April 2015 I 554-1521·084 (A/3T200B) EXHIBIT 6 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Areas Report Prepared for ti KingCounty ________________ ...,, :;Jf!!!I/..,. .. ____ _ April 2015 Prepared by Parametrlx I I I I I I [ ( l EXHIBIT 7 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report RECEIVED APR 1 7 2015 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Prepared for King County [; .. -------------~.:'Z!JI ....... _____ _ r April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 8 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound-Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report Prepared for UI King County _______________ ...,.,.,,,,, J§J'llll..,,. _____ _ April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 9 Entire Document DRAFT Available Upon Request DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON HWA Project No. 2010-1001200 February 24, 2015 Prepared for: Parametrix, Inc. u~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC EXHIBIT 10 WAC 197-11-960 Purpose of checklist: Environmental checklist ENVIRONMENT Entire Document Available Upon Request The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDlTION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A 2. Name of applicant: King County Parks 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jason Rich, Capital Improvement Project Manager King Street Center 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 4. Date checklist prepared: April 9, 2015 425-430-6593 ksorensen@rentonwa.gov EXHIBIT 11 From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:43 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: Jill Ding Subject: FW: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Kris, We have reviewed King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project referenced above and offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty-protected fisheries resources: 1. The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (seepage 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? 2. Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. 3. Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. 4. Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Green River and the Black River. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's/applicant's responses. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Sabrina Mirante (mailto:SMirante@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:01 PM To: DOE; DOE (misty.blair@ecy.wa.gov); DNR; Erin Slaten; Karen Walter; Laura Murphy Cc: Kris Sorensen; Jill Ding Subject: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail • Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV PLEASE SEE ATIACHED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION. COMMUNITY SI DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 12 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 23, 2015 TO: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner FROM: Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director Revised Lake To Sound Trail Review Comments LUAlS-000257 SUBJECT: Upon further review of the Lake to Sound Trail project, the Community Services Department would like to submit the following revised comments: 1. There are several locations in the Plan Set where cottonwood and alder trees are proposed to be removed along the trail with no indication about how the area is to be restored. After reviewing the Final Critical Areas Report, only some of the tree removal locations are proposed to be restored. It is recommended that all disturbed areas noted in the Plan set be restored; more detail is required. In addition, we recommend that the trunks of the trees that are to be removed, be left on the ground. Stumps should be ground and the area re-vegetated. 2. There is no landscaping plan for planting along the trail. A landscape plan should be submitted as a condition of approval for the CUP and that the replanting plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 3. In areas identified with a 20' tree removal area, a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers, followed by densely planted shrubs and ending with trees in the outer 20' in order to minimize trail upheaval caused by tree roots. 4. The current plans call for Cottonwood trees only to be removed within the 20' buffer. Five additional trees have been identified to be included for removal, two of which are alder trees. Please add the additional five trees for removal. 5. In areas identified with a 10' tree removal area from the paved edge of the trail (treed section north of Naches), a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers followed by densely planted shrubs. Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Page 2 of 2 July 23, 2015 6. Areas along the trail that have had clearing, tree removal, restoration, and at rest stops should include a split rail-type fence to deter public access into the riparian area. This should be noted on the plans; a detail of the fencing should be included. 7. Temporary irrigation should be included for all areas that are to be restored and for the duration of the 5 year monitoring plan. Include plans and details. 8. Interpretive Sign age, particularly at rest stops about the habitat at the Black River Riparian Forest should be included as part of the design. 9. "Sensitive Area -"Please Stay on Trail" signage should be located at rest stops, near the split rail fencing and other locations as determined. 10. A greater variety of plant materials should be added to the plant list such as Ribes spp.-native currant, Vaccinium ovatum -Evergreen huckleberry and Rosa spp.· single flowers native roses. 11. The City's standard bollard and bench details should be considered. cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Terry Flatley, Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator EXHIBIT 13 EXHIBIT 14 Parametrix ENGlNEEfi!NG. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SC1El'I August 28, 2015 Mr. Kris Sorensen Economic & Community Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Lake to Sound Trail Segment A -Biological Assessment Hi Kris, ...... 719 2ND AVENUE, SJITE 200 I SlAlllf, Ws 98104 I P 206 394 3700 CITY OF l'\ENTON • OJ RECEIVED V '~I AUG 31 2015 ~ BUILDING DIVISION On behalf of Jason Rich, King County Parks, I am submitting the enclosed Biological Assessment (BA) for the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project This submittal responds to your email request dated August 18th. Please note that, because the project has federal transportation funding, the BA follows the template and guidance used by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration is the federal lead agency. We've provided some additional language below intended to assist you with your floodplain compliance needs. In addition to fulfilling the requirements for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation between the Federal Highway Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the enclosed BA supports compliance with the terms of NMFS' 2008 biological opinion for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The City of Renton, as the local jurisdiction with permitting authority under the NFIP, is required to demonstrate that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA-listed salmonids. The project element with the greatest potential to affect ESA-listed salmonids or their habitat is the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River. The potential effects of bridge installation and operation are the primary subject of analysis in the BA Documentation of the compliance of the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A pedestrian bridge with the terms of the NMFS NFIP biological opinion is presented in Section 6 (Floodplain Analysis) of the BA Potential effects of other elements of the proposed trail are addressed in Appendix A, October 2011 No-effects Determination for Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A In addition, as discussed in the April 2015 City of Renton Critical Area Study for the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project, the project will result in no net fill below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. No compensatory storage is required or proposed. The findings in these analyses support the determination that the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA-listed salmonids. Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss further or need additional information in order to advance the processing of the shoreline conditional use permit application. Best regards, Jenny Bailey ~W\j ~ Consultant Project Manager Cc: Jason Rich, King County Jenny Bailey, Parametrix File Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Biological Assessment Prepared for King County Parks w KingCounty ________________ .., .J';.':]J'i.,., _____ _ August 2015 Prepared by Parametrlx DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNll AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME EXHIBIT 15 Construction Mitigation Description Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Construction Mitigation Description: Please provide 5 copies of a written narrative addressing each of the following: • Proposed construction dates (begin and end dates} Proposed construction dotes are unknown and will be dependent upon permitting restrictions, fish windows, seasonal roin conditions, and habitat restrictions for nearby nesting herons. • Hours and days of operation Construction operations will be generally limited between Monday and Friday during an 8-hour consecutive period between 7:00am and 6:00pm. • Any special hours proposed for construction or hauling (i.e. weekends, late nights} Night, weekend and holiday work will not be permitted. • Proposed hauling/transportation routes Haul and construction site access with be from Monster Road and Naches Avenue, depending on the section of trail to be constructed. • Preliminary traffic control plan Traffic control along Monster Road will generally include single-lane traffic and sidewalk closures using floggers and standard WSDOT Work Zone Traffic Control plans. Traffic control at Naches Avenue and the trailhead will be limited to parking restrictions; this is a cul-de-sac and serves as parking for infrequent trail users. • Measures to be implemented to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics Temporary erosion and sediment control measures from the King County Surface Water Design Manual (2009), Appendix D, will be applied during construction to limit dust, erosion, mud, and noise and other noxious characteristics of the construction. EXHIBIT 16 ~~1 .. -· """' '°""' ,\SeaTac/ ;@.\ f--.-/~/_:_ ~entl@ /i .. · ..... Lo;:!!°!.~ ·-.@I Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Contract No. XX ,11,,.1 ""'~TEo '1 r I tf"''"~ ~""'."rv / ,;,~~·.,,,, \_ _ -J/"'<ti, ,:,. · ------~ _ '''lo \ ;-.; I ,.,..,...., \ ef ...--,--1 ~ 'r--S.~ I I I I ,.di-.:--... END 0, \\ \~ ,,..~ ---PROJECT 900 >tV Sunset I,\'< ;:\ °' I 9· ~ \. ·-..._ i..,\.\\ ' '1 :A. c.;t" , -I 4' ~· ~ ~l \,\ ~ ~ ~. S\Jli r VICINITYMAP --- ~"" ~"' 'If ~ ::,,o o'> ~" i ~9 ,, ...,. ·. . . .,. _-u - 167, . m >< ::c 1-1 DJ ~ lo-.... ~ D~ 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTiON ::.~:::..-::-'"'""' LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGNENT"' COVER SHEET Washington State Department of Transpor EXHIBIT 18 NEPA Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form Federal Aid Project Number: I ~~~;/2015 I Intent of Submittal: CM2017(110) D Preliminary D Final IZJRe-Evaluate Agency: King County Department I ProjectTitle: of Transportation Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A County: King County Beginning MP: NA Township(s): 23N Ending MP: NA Range(s): 4E Miles:Ll Section(s): 13, 14 Part 1-Project Description The Lake to Sound Trail is a continuous, 16-mile-long regional corridor linking Lake Washington to Puget Sound through the Cities of Renton, Tukwila, SeaTac and Des Moines. This project develops a multi- purpose, nomnotorized route for "Segment A" of the Lake to Sound Trail and is 1.06 miles in length. Included in the project is a 114 ft. pedestrian bridge over the Black River. Segment A travels through the Black River Riparian Forest from Naches Avenue SW (City of Renton), crossing Monster Road SW, to arrive at Fort Dent Park (City of Tukwila). Part 2 -Categorical Exclusion Select Q!lg CE from 23 CFR 771.117 (CE Guidebook -Appendix A) that fits the entire project: (£)ill Federal Highway idministration . Completed by (Print Official's Name): . Lindsey Miller DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/201S NEPA Approval Signatures Date Date Date Date Telephone (include area code): 206-477-3549 Page 1 of9 E-mail address: Lindsey.miller@kingcounty.gov Part 3 -Permits, Approvals & Right of Way (ROW) Yes Mo Permit or Approval Yes No Permit or Approval D 12:J Corps of Engineers 0 Sec.10 D Sec. 404 D [8J Water Rights Permit 0 Nationwide Type D [8J Water Quality Certification-Section 401 D Individual Permit No. Issued by D IZJ Coast Guard Permit D [8J Tribal Permit(s)(il any) D [8] Coastal Zone Management Certification [8J D Other Permits (List] Right-of-way use 11ermits, 12$1 0 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Permit Ci!Y of Renton and Tukwil,!; Conditional Use D IZJ Forest Pra ctlces Act Permit 11e1mit. City of Tukwila 12$1 0 Hydraulic Project Approval 1:81 D ROW acquisition required? If yes, amount 12$1 0 Local Building or Site Development Permits needed, 6,000 square feet 12$1 0 Local Clearing and Grading Permit D [8J Is relocation required? 12$1 D National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System D [8J Has ROW already been acquired for this project? If (NPDES) Baseline General for Construction l8l 0 Shoreline Permit yes, attach responses to Appendix Fin the CE Guidebook. D IZI State Waste Discharge Permit D [81 Has an offer been made or have negotiations begun 112$1 0 TESC Plans Completed to acquire ROW for this project? If yes, attach responses to Appendix Fin the CE Guidebook. I D [8J Is a detour requlred? If yes, please attach detour information. Other Federal Agencies -Does the project involve any federal properties, approvals or funding from other/additional federal agencies? 0 Yes 0 No If Yes, please describe. Part 4 -Environmental Considerations Will the project involve work in or affect any of the_ following? Identify proposed mitigation. Attach additional pages or supplemental information if necessary. 1. Air Quality-Identify any anticipated air quality issues. . Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements? 0 Yes D No If Yes, identify exemption -please refer to Appendix Gin the CE Guidebook for a list of exemptions. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. . Is the project included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan? 0 Yes D No If Yes, date Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted: June 25, 2015 . !s the project located in an Air Quality Non~Attainment Area or Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide, ozone or PM 10? 0 Yes D No DOT form 140-lOOEF Revise,d 5/2015 Page 2 of 11 Part 4 • Environmental Considerations (continued) Z. Critical and Sensitive Areas Is this project within a sole source aquifer 0 Yes 0 No If located within a sole source aquifer, is the project exempt from EPA approval? If Yes, please list exemption: If No, date of EPA approval: Will this project impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed species? 0 Yes 0 No Explain your answer. The project area provides habitat to Great Blue Heron and Bald Eagles. No nests were observed within the clearing limits of the bridge; the remainder of the project will occur in areas currently improved gravel paths ( old railroad). To minimize any potential for disturbance to breeding herons outside of the immediate project area, activity restrictions will be implemented for trail construction between January 15 and August 31. Additionally, noise in the surrounding area was typical of an industrial area (Renton Concrete Recyclers, Stoneway Concrete Black River, and Rabanco Black River Transfer Station). To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project will implement measures to minimize impacts to nesting birds. The Black River and nearby Duwamish river provides habitat for salmonids including coho, sock:eye, and chum. No in-water work will occur as part of this project. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will be 14 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river will be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 616 square feet of the river will be affected by shading from the bridge. The bottom of the bridge deck will be at least 3 feet above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain, which is approximately IO feet higher than the OHWM. The height of the bridge above the water will reduce the intensity of any shade-related effects, The bridge will be oriented on a north-south axis, minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day. The effects of clearing (mostly invasive species) in the riparian area will be mitigated by replanting native vegetation at a nearby location in the riparian area of the Black River. Over the long term, the native grasses, shrubs, and trees planted at the mitigation site may provide greater ecological function than the mostly non-native vegetation that will be affected at the project site. Is this project within one mile of a Bald Eagle nesting territory, winter concentration area or communal roost? l8J Yes D No Please see the attached Bald Eagle Form for more information. Are wetlands present within the project area? 18] Yes D No If Yes, estimate the impact in acres: 0 acres Please attach a copy of. the proposed mitigation plan. Direct stream and wetland impacts have been completely avoided. Approximately I acre of native species would be planted to compensate for stream and wetland buffer impacts. DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 3 of 11 3. Cultural Resources/Historic Structures -Identify any historic, archaeological or cultural resources present within the project's Area of Potential Effects. Does the project fit into any of the exempt types of projects listed in Appendix J of the CE Guidebook? 0 Yes iZJ No If Yes, note exemptions below. If No: Date of DAHP concurrence: April 27, 2015 (original concurrence on 9-15-2011) Date ofTribal consultatlon(s) (if applicable): ____________ _ Adverse effects on cultural/historic resources? 0 Yes [,2:J No If Yes, date of approved Section 106 MOA: ------------- 4. Floodplains and Floodways ls the project located in a 100-yearfloodplaln? [,2:J Yes D No If Yes, is the project located within a 100-year floodway? [,2:J Yes D No Will the project impact a 100-year floodplain? [,2:J Yes D No If Yes, describe impacts. The proposed vertical alignment of the trail is adjacent to the Green and Black Rivers with a finished grade as close as possible to existing grade while still providing smooth transitions for ADA compliance and positive drainage towards the river. However, between A-Line Stations I +00 and 12+25, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill would be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation would occur, for an overall net removal of approximately 25 cubic yards of material below the floodplain elevation. This is the only fill and excavation activity below the floodplain elevation, and the net difference will not impact floodplain storage or function. DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revrsed 5/2015 Page 4 of 11 Part 4 -Environmental Considerations (continued) 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste -Identify potential sources and type(s). a) Does the project require excavation below the exiscing ground surface? @ Yes D No b) Will groundwater be encountered? @ Yes D No c) Will any properties be acquired as part of this project? 181 Yes D No d} ls this site located in an undeveloped area (i.e. no buildings, parking, storage areas or agriculture? Oves r8J No e) Is the project located within a one-mile radius of a known Superfund Site? D Yes @ No fl Is this project located within a ~-mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the following Department of Ecology databases? @ Yes D No If Yes, check the appropriate boxes below. 181 Voluntary Oeanup Program (VCP), State Cleanup Site (SCS), or Independent Cleanup Program (ICP) @ Underground Storage Tank (UST) @ Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) @ Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List (CSCSL) g) Has site reconnaissance (windshield survey) been performed? @ Yes D No (Please identify any properties not identified in the Ecology or ERS database search as an attachment-name, address and property use). In the September 2012 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Hazardous Materials Discipline Report, five Ecology regulated sites, located adjacent to the proposed trail, were Identified as having the potential to release contaminants to shallow soils or surface water based on their generator status or active permits. The stte reconnaissance (conducted on November 2, 2015) confirmed that, with the exception of Multichem Analytical Services, the regulated sites located adjacent to the project corridor were still In operation. No spills or releases were identified for these facilities during the review of Ecology's FSID database and no evidence of spills or releases were observed during the site reconnaissance. Based on the lack of regulated USTs and lack of suspected or confirmed spills or releases; the risk of encountering contamination from these regulated and observed facilities, located adjacent to the project corridor, is low. h) Based on the information above and project specific activities, is there a potential for the project to generate, acquire or encounter contaminated soils, groundwater or surface water? 0 Yes [8J No Please explain: As part of the Hazardous Materials Discipline Report Addendum (dated November 3, 2015) which expands the project scope to include the construction of the pedestrian bridge; King County conducted a review of Ecology's Facility/Site Identification System (F/SID) and compared the updated review to the original screening (2012). Based on a review of Ecology's F/SID (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/fs/. accessed on October 15, 2015) no National Priorities List sites (Superfund sites) were located within a one-mile radius of the project limits. A review of Ecology's F/SID revealed eight sites within Y, mile radius of the project corridor that had documented contamination. Seven of the eight sites were immediately eliminated from further consideration based on the criteria described below: A hazardous materials and waste professional reviewed each site using a screening process to identify sites of concern where it was likely that contamination would be encountered during excavation and/or dewatering. A site may pose a liability to the project if the site is located within close proximity (adjacent to the proposed project area), or hydraulically upgradient, or has a confirmed release of hazardous materials or petroleum products to soils or groundwater (traditionally 1/2 mile or less in distance). A Y,- mile search radius was selected because it was judged to encompass areas from which contamination DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 5 of 11 could reasonably be expected to migrate to the project footprint. Seven of the eight sites (DJB Trucking-FS#2304, Arco Station & Mini Mart -FS#4552344, Anderson Joseph 8-FS#8509656,, Becker Trucking Inc. Tukwila -FS# 17036781, Jumbo Deli-FS# 59337954, K & N Meats-FS#72559666, and Southland Facility -FS# 99853513) were considered to have a very low likelihood of adversely impacting the project and were eliminated from further consideration due to one or more of the following reasons: o the sites have been remedlated to levels below MTCA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted in impacts to soil only; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned project area (and those activities that would encounter groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. The eighth facility, Graphic Packaging International Inc. -FS# 14693954 -located at 601 Monster Rd, was physically situated about 500 feet southeast of the pedestrian bridge foundations (which is the only location within the project limits where project excavations will be deep enough to encounter groundwater and any contaminants that have migrated from off-site sources). To further characterize the site, King County reviewed the City of Renton permit history for the site {https://permitsearch.mybuildingpermlt.com/SimpleSearch.aspx, accessed on October 31, 201S) and historical aerial photographs at Historical Aerials by NETROnline (http:ljwww.historicaerials.com/, accessed October 31, 2015), and contacted the Ecology Site Manager via e-mail (November 3, 201S), and had a phone interview with the Tricia Sweat the Health, Safety, and Environmental Manager of Graphic Packaging (November 3, 2015}. Based on a review of the available Information, the underground vaults that resulted in a release to soil and groundwater were abandoned in place in the Jate 1980s (about 700 feet southeast of the bridge foundations). Between the early 1990s and 2001, a number of monitoring wells were installed on the site to determine the extent of the groundwater contamination. The Ecology LUST database notes (as provided by Donna Musa Site Manager for Ecology) stated that, in 1997, th~ petroleum hydrocarbon impacts appeared to be localized around the abandoned oil/water separator {one of the underground voults) and the adjacent monitoring wells, and that the results from the perimeter monitoring wells suggested that the impacts were generally confined to the site. Ms. Sweat reported that a contractor was hired in October 2015 to remove the abandoned vaults (including a sanitary sewer lift vault and the oil/water separator and its associated waste tank) and the surrounding impacted soil (this statement was confirmed by the City of Renton permit summary for the site). Based on the lack of off-site migration of the detected groundwater contamination, the recent removal of the source of the groundwater contamination, and the direction of groundwater flow (westerly); it is unlikely for the project to encounter contaminated groundwater or soil as a result of off-site migration from this facility. It is unlikely forWSDOT to assume liability for cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater as part of this project for the following reasons: None of the adjacent properties appeared to have evidence of routine spills or releases to surface water or soils; None of the adjacent properties (regulated or otherwise) had documented releases to soil, surface water or groundwater; The eight sites located within~ mile of the project limits, that were identified as having a confirmed or suspected release to soils or groundwater, were deemed unlikely to migrate contaminants into the project footprint for the following reasons: o the sites have been remediated to levels below MTCA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted in impacts to soil only; 0 groundwater impacts were confined to the site and the source was removed; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned reject area (and those activities that would encounter DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 6 of 11 groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. For these reasons, it is concluded that no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to result from the proposed project. No further investigation is warranted at this time. It is recommended that a HazMat Specialist be contacted if additional project changes are made that can potentially alter the conclusions made in this updated investigation; such as the addition of other project work that requires excavations below 10 feet bgs {local groundwater elevation), realignment, or property acquisitions. Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated November 3, 2015 for more information, If you responded Yes to any of the following questions (SA-SC, SF and SH), contact your Region LPE for assistance as a "Right- sized" HazMat Analysis Report/Memorandum most likely will be required. 6. Noise Does the project involve constructing a new roadway? D Yes l:8J , No Is there a change in the vertical or horizontal alignment of the existing roadway? D Yes IZJ No Does the project increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing roadway? 0 Yes IZJ No Is there a change in the topography? 0 Yes 0 No Are there auxiliary lanes extending 1-Yi miles or longer being constructed as part of this project? D Yes ~ No If you answered Yes to any of the preceding questions, identify and describe any potential noise receptors within. the project area and subsequent impacts to those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the noise a~alysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified, describe proposed mitigation measures. Not applicable. Part 4 -Environmental Considerations (continued) 7. 4(1)/6(f) Resources: parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, historic properties, wild & scenic rivers, scenicbyways ~ ~ L:,\l\c.,r <..(~ ~ C..,,..c..,,1('/Jr.,e. \.,..,-F. L a. Please identify any 4(f) properties within the project limits and the areas of impacts. f,..,.,,.,,.,. 'rt "-~ 'f The Black River Riparian Forest, a park property owned by the City of Renton;, ~ Je 5,'t" 1 ~~ Fort Dent Park, a park property owned by the City of Tukwila; and an archaeological site, Y' v located in the north end of Fort Dent Park, eligible for listing on the National Register of ,, Historic Places (NRHP). Please see the attached 4(f) documentation. b. Please identify any properties within the project limits that used funds from the Land & Water Conservation Fund Act. None c. Please list any Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenic Byways within the project limits. None DOT Form 140-lDOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 7 of 11 -- 8. Agricultural Lands-Are there agricultural lands within 300 feet of the project limits? D Yes IZl No JfYes, describe impacts: Are impacted lands considered to be unique and prime farmland? D Yes IZJ No lf Yes 1 date of project review by Natural Resource Conservation Service {NRCS): 9. Rivers, Streams (continuous or intermittent} or Tidal Waters a. Identify all waterbodies within 300 feet of the project limits or that will otherwise be impacted. Green River (09.0001) Black River (09.0004) b. Identify stream crossing structures by type. The Black and Green Rivers are both located in WRlA 9. The proposed trail alignment is adjacent to the south side of the Black River and will cross over the Black River on a new pedestrian bridge. 10. Tribal lands-Identify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, including reservation, trust and fee lands. Please de not list usual and accustomed area. Not applicable. 11. Water Quality/Stormwater WHI this project's proposed stormwater treatment facility be consistent with the guidelines provided by either WSDOT's HRM, DOE~s stormwater management manual for eastern/western Washington or a local agem:y equivalent manual? IZJ Yes D No If No, explain proppsed water quality/quantity treatment for the new and any existing impervious surface associated with the proposed project. Amount of existiog impervious surface within the project limits: 54,450 square feet ( l.25 acres) Net new impervious surface to be created as a result of this project: 37,424 square feet (0.86 acres) The trail is considered a non-pollutant generating surface. It is exempt from flow control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the I 00-year peak flow to equal to or greater than 0.1 cubic feet per second. The trail has been designed to direct runoff to the river side of the trail for rnspersion as sheet flow. I Part 4 -Environmental Considerations (continued) 12. Previous Environmental Commitments Describe previous environmental commitments that may affect or be affected by the project-if any. The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be re;'Ponsible for long-term maintenance of the trail; however, King County will maintain it until an agreement is reached (please see the Long-Term Maintenance Commitment Letter dated and signed February 12, 2013). DO f form 14D-1DDEF Revised 5/2Dl5 Page 8 of 11 13. Environmental Justice Does the project meet any of the exemgtions noted in Appendix L of the CE Documentation Guidebook? D Yes ISi No If Yes, please note the exemption and appropriate justification in the space below. lf No, are minority or low~income populatlons located within the limits of the project's potential impacts? ISl Yes O No If No, attach appropriate data to support findings. If Yes, describe impacts and attach appropriate supporting documentation. Findings should be confirmed using at least~ information sources. Please refer to the CE Guidebook for more information. King County reviewed Washington State Report Card and an EPA summary of United States Census Bureau American Community Survey {ACS), 2008-2012, data for low income and minority populations within% mile of the project limits. Based on the school data, 80. 7 percent of the students at the closest elementary school qualify for free or reduced price meals and the school has a total minority population of 95.9 percent. The ACS data indicated that 80 percent ofthe study area population consisted minority populations and 24 percent of the population (5 years or older) speaks English "less than very well" (which is above the LEP threshold of 5 percent of the population). Exceedance of the LEP threshold for people in the study area requires public outreach. As such, future outreach will include: updates and information on the King County website and signs posted on site to communicate the project details in Vietnamese, Tagalog, Chinese and Spanish. Because the right of way acquisitions are from railroad companies, there are no relocations or detours, a public outreach plan will be developed and implemented to include the needs of minority populations, and the project will affect non-motorized users equally; King County does not anticipate any adversely high and disproportionate effects from this project on any minority or low-income populations identified in the area. We conclude that the project meets the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order 13166, as supported by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ; Part 5 -Biological Assessments and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed species potentially occur in the project's action area and/or is any designated critical habitat present within the project's action area? ISl Yes O No Attach species listings. Affected ESA Listed Species Oregon Spotted Frog proposed critical habitat or suitable habitat? Yellow-billed Cuckoo suitable habitat? Spotted Owl management areas, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Marbled Murre!et nest or occupied stand, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Western Snowy Plover designated critical habitat? Is the project within 0.5 mile of marine waters? If Yes explain potential effects on DOT form 140-lOOEf Revised 5/2015 2. Will any construction work occur within 0.5 mile of any of the following? LJ Yes~ No D Yes IZI No D Yes~ No U Yes ~ No LJ Yes ts! No 0 Yes 161 No Page 9 of 11 3. Does the project involve blasting, pile driving, concrete sawing, rock-drilling or rock-scaling activity within one mile of anv of the followin•? U Yes ~ No U Yes IZ! No U Yes IZ! No LJ Yes ts! No LJYes 1251 No LJ Yes ISl No Killer Whales and on Marbled Murrelet fora in areas. Killer Whale designated critical habitat? No Grizzly Bear suitab(e habitat? No Gray Wolf suitable habitat? No Canada Lynx habitat? No Columbia White-tailed Deer suitable No habitat? Woodland Caribou habitat? No Streaked Horned Lark designated critical No habitat or suitable habitat? Taylor's Checkerspot designated critical No habitat or suitable habitat? Mazama Pocket Gopher designated No critical habitat or suitable habitat? Eulachon designated critical habitat or No suitable habitat? Rockfish proposed critical habitat or No suitable habitat? A mature coniferous or mlxed forest No .?tand,? 4. wm the project involve any in~water work? S. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any perennial or intermittent waterbody that either supports ordrafns to waterbody supporting listed fish? 6. wm any construction work occur within 300 feet of any wetlq,nd, pond or lake that is. connected to any permanent or intermittent waterbody? 7. Does the action have the potentlal to directly or indirectly impact designated critical habitat for salmon ids (induding adjacent riparian zones)? 8. vYill the project discharge treated or untreated stormwater runoff or utilize water from a waterbodythat suppo~ or drains into a listed-fish supporting waterbody? 9. Will construction occur outside the existing pavement? If Yes go to 9a. 9a. Will construction activities occurring outside the existing pavement involve clearing, grading, filling or modification of vegetation ortree-cutting7 10. Are them any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant species located within the project lfmits? If Yes, please attach a list of these plant species within the action area. No No No No No No No No No No No No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes O No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes r8] No 0 Yes O No [8l Yes O No 0 Yes O No 0 Yes 0 No 11. Does a mature coniferous or mixed forest stand occur within 200' of the ro·ect site? Yes No Analysis for No Effects Determination -If there are any Yes answers to questions in Part 5, additional analysis is required. Attach additional sheets if needed. An analysis under the Endangered Species Act determined that the project will have No Effect on listed species or critical habitat, and No Adverse Effect on Essential Fish Habitat. The only listed species with the potential to occur in the project area are salmonids which will not be present in the project area during the summer months due to unfavorable river conditions. In addition, no in-water work is proposed. Effects to critical habitat are not expected because riparian habitat in the project area is poor quality, and effects to this habitat during project construction have been minimized. Please see the attached analysis for additional details. DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 10 of 11 Analysis for RRMP ESA 4{d) determination for NMFS-A local agency must be certified by the Regional Road Maintenance Forum to utilize 4(d). Maintenance Category (check all that apply) D 1. Roadway Surface 0 6 Stream Crossings D 11. Emergency Slide/Washout Repair D 2. Enclosed Drainage Systems 0 7. Gravel Shoulders 0 12. Concrete 0 3. Cleaning Enclosed Drainage Systems 0 8. Street Surface Cleaning D 13. Sewer Systems 0 4. Open Drainage Systems 0 9. Bridge Maintenance 0 14. Water Systems 0 5. Watercourses and Streams 0 10. Snow and Ice Control 0 15. Vegetation Describe how the projectfrts in the RRMP 4(d) Program: Effect Determinations for ESA and EFH If each Of the questions in the preceding section resulted In a "No" response or if any of the questions were checked r'Yes," but adequate justification can be provided to support a "no effect" determination 1 then check "No Effect'' below. If this checklist cannot be used for Section 7 compliance {i.e., adequate justification cannot be provided or a "may effect" determination is anticlpated)1 a separate biological assessment document is required. C8'J No Effect 0 NLTAA~ Date of Concurrence D LTAA -Date BO Issued 0 RRMP4(d) D0Tfom, 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 N7¥ uhs 1'1,.. ",!Jf[r 11,. r 1' I ; Part 6. FHWA Comments Page 1i of ll EFH Determination [gl No Adverse Effect 0 Adverse Effect-Date of NMFS concurrence Local Agency Environmental Classification Summary Part 1 Project Dascrtotton Federal Aid Project Number I Route I Date CM2017{1 tOl Near Stnte Route900 9-12-2012 I Intent of Submltlal D Preliminary 181 Fina! O~aluate Agency I Federal Program ntle Kina Countv Oenartment of'Tnmsoort.ntion 020.205 1810ther Project Title Lake to Sound Trail • Sewnent A Beginning MP Townships 23 N EndlngMP Ranges 04 E MIies I.I Sections 13 County KinaCountv Project Deacriptlon • Describe the proposed project, Including the purpose and need fa' the project. This projed develops preliminary engineering for the construction of a multi-purpose, non motorized route for ''Segment A~ oflhe Lake 10 Sound Trail. Set!J11ent A travels through the Black Forest from Naches Avenue SW (Renton) to arrive at fort Dent Park (Tukwila). Part 2 Envlronmanlal Clasaiflcatlon NEPA SEPA D Class I • Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) D Categorically exempt per WAC 197.11.aoo 181 Class It • Categorically Excklded (CE) 181 Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) CE Type (from 23 CFR 771.117) (al(Jl 181 Projects Requiring Documentation D Environmental Impact Slatement (EIS) (Documeotad CE) (LAG 24.22) D AdopHon D Programmatic CE MOU D Mdendum D Class Ill • Environmental Assessment (EA) D Supplemental (for informational purpose only) / 1 ) NEPA Approval Signatures C Ya:TiHl±-:Aw1«c~-<--r /17 /µ Local Agency Approving Authorily -D-at-e--7+-.....,--,7._.-"---- < :0 / );~~··· ~) .:l£..:k:(2; A"'! ,e::--- Ragio~~ sEnglneer Date 'C::: Hlghtays and L<fal Programs Environmental Engineer Date/ / ~iu11i~ ih1a1i/ Federal Highway! ICompleled By (Print Official's Name) Tina Morehead COT Form 140-1DOEF Ra'llsed 0112011 Date r 1 !Telephone (Include an,e code/ 206-296•3733 Page 1 of8 Fax (include 8188 code/ 206-2%-0567 E-mail tina.moreheadliilkinacountv. Part 't Dermlta ~" .. &nnO'ftv~•-"'--····--' Yes No Permit o• A""r-val Yes No Permil or Annroval D 181 Corps of Engineers 0 Sec.10 D Sec.4o4 D 181 Water Rights Permit 0 Nationwide Type D 181 Water Qualily Certification -Sec. 401 0 Individual Permn No. Issued by D ll!I Coast Guard Perm" D 181 Tribal Parmit(s), (If any) D 181 Coastal Zone Management Certification 181 D Crttlcal Area Ordinance (CAO) Permtt D 181 Forest Practice Act Permn 181 D Olher Permilo (Lisi): D lll:I Hydraulic Project Approval Billl!t of:i\!•~ yse Pe!]Jil1;-Ci!i•; of Renton and D lll:I Local Building or Sile Development Permtts Tukwilai Conditi2!Ji!I y~e Pe!JllU ~ s;:isx !i![ 181 D Local Cleadng and Grading Permit Tukwila l!!I D ROW acquisiUon requil1ld? If yes, amount ll!I D National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syslem needed 6,202 SE (NPDES) Baseline General for Construction D 181 Is relocaton required? ll!I D Shoreline Permn D l!!I Has ROW already beeo acquired ror this project? D lll:I State Waste Discharge Permil a 181 Is a detour required? If yes, please attach 181 0 TESC Plans ComDleted detour information . ......... . - WIii the proJ•!.!.:.~':o~~~!~~-!n_~~~~~t any of the followlng? ld•~:ry propoeed mitigation. 1. Air Quality • Identify any anUclpated air quality issues. Is Iha project included in Iha Metropolitan Transportation Plan? 181 Yes O No If Yes, dale MetropolKan Transportation Plan was adopted. 12'!"~ 1 s the project located In an Air Quallly Non-Attainment Area or Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide, ozone, or PMIO? 181Yes 0No 1 s the project exempt from Air Qualily conformily requirements? 181 Yes O No If yes, identify exemption, please refer to appendix H In the ECS Guidebook for the list or exemptions: Air Quality: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities (ECS Guidebook, October 4, 2011) 2. CrltlcaUSenalttve Areae • Identify any known Critical or Sensitive Area, as designated by local Growth Management Aet ordlnancee. a. Is this project wilhin an aqurFerrecharga area O Yes rill No a wellhead protection area []yes m!No a sole source aquifer 0Ye1 !!ii No If located within a sole source aquifer, is the project exempt from EPA approval? If yes, please Hat exemption If no, date of EPA approval b. Is this project located in a Geologically Hazardous Araa? 0Yes IS!No If yes, please describe c. WIii this project impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed species? llllYes 0No Explain your answer The project .area provides habitat to Bald Eagle and Great Blue Hi:ron. fmpiicts Io habirat will b1: minimized by I01.11ting 1he proi,oiil!d improvements in lhc 11rellS wh.:rc paths nnJ gravel roads already i:xist. Is the project within Bald Eagle nesting tertilorias, winter concentration areas or bald eagle communal roosts? ml Yes 0No WiN blasling. pie driving, co9ete saw cutting, rock drilling, or rock scaling activities occur wijhin one mile of a Bald Eagle nesting area? Yes O Na nnT Fri,'" 14.0.100 EF Page2 of 8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations -Continued d. Are wetlands present within the project area? 181 Y09 D No II Yes, eatimated area of impact in acra(s): Q!__ Pleaoe attach a copy of the proposed mmgaHon plan. 3. Cultural Resources/Historic Structures -ldenlify any historic, archaeological, or cultural reaourcea present within the projecl's area of potenHal effects. 4. Does the project fit Into any of the exempt types of projects listed io Appendix C of the ECS Guidebook D Yes 181 No If Yn, note exemption below. If No: Date of DAHP concurrence 9/1S/1 j Dale ofTribal consultation(s) (if applicable) 8/!4/11 AdvBJse effect& on cultural/historic resources? 0Yes 181No If Yeo, dale of approved Section 106 MOA Floodplal1111 and Floodways Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain? 181 Yes 0No If yes, Is the project located In a 1 QO.year floodway? 181 Yes 0No· wm the project impact a 100-ye..-floodplain? 181Yes 0No If Yes, describe impacts. Thi= l1rodflains orthi:: Green River und &he Bllk:k River 11tc. lo'-llkd udjmccnl 10 thlJ trail alignment lrom Statiun 1+00 Ill Utt t.'llnncdion to lhc <Jm:n Rivtr Tn1il to Staliml 14 + 86 nrar Mons1cr Road. The proposed !.ltSign provides orHite camJ)ffl51lof)' storage through a cum bi nation ul' eut and fill in the l1oodph1in IUld addltlooal exca.wtlon adja1:i:nt lO the nisting trail. The proP,:t will provide m net cul of SI cubic yurd5 below 1ht l1oodpl1in cli..~othm. See the mtDchcd mffltO on Plootlphltn Impact Anulysis thlted lktober 2011. 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste -ldenUfy potential sources and type. Does this project require excavetlon below the existing ground surface? 181 Yes O No Is this site located in an undeveloped area (bi,., no buildings, parking or storage areae, and agriculture (other than grazing), based on historical research? D Yes 181 No Is this project located within a one-mile radius of a site llf. a Conflm,ed or Suspected Contaminalea S~es List (CSCSL) maintained by Deportment al Ecology? 181 Yes D No Is this project localed within a 112-mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the foUowing Department of Ecology Databases? 181 Yes D No If yes, check the appropriate box(es) below. 181 Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) 181 Underground Storage Tank (USl) 181 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUSl) Has site reconnaissance (windshield survey) been perfonned? 181 Yes D No If so identify any properties not ldentifted In the database search that may affect the project (name, address and property use). Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated September_, 2012. Based on the information above and projec! specific activi«es, is there a potential for the project to genBJate contaminated soils and/or groundwater? D Yes CBI No Pleau explain: =-:i~~-=:n.==a:J:::1::r.=,.,~~t:,,~~~~~1~:~:fo1°::!=:~~:n~c:.~:~~~~ Malfflffl D1sctp11n111 ;i;,p«1.allled s.ptemw 2012. If you responded yes to any of the above questions contact your Region LPE for assislence before continuing with this forrn. OOT Fotm 1"0-100 EF Revised 0112011 Page3of8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations • Continued 6. Noise Does this project involve constructing a new roadway? D Yes !l!I No ls there a change in the vertical or horizontal alignment of the exis~ng roadway? D Yes !l!I No Does lhls project Increase the number of through traffic Janes on en existing roadway? D Yes 181 No ts there change in Jhe topography? DYes !l!INo Are auxiliary lanes extending 1-112 milea or longer being constructed as part of this project? DYes 181No If you answered yes to any of the preceding questions, identify and describe any potential noise receptors within the project area and subsequent impacts to those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the noise analysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified, describe proposed mitigation measures. Not applicable. 7. Parka, Recreation Areas, WIidiife Refuges, Historic Properties, Wild and Scenic Rlvel'9/Scentc Byways, or 4 (f)/6 (f). a. Please Identify any 4(!) properties within the project limits and areas of Impacts. The project would use portions of two Section 4(1) properties, the Black River Riparian Forest and Fort Dent Park. Please see the attached Lake to Sound Segment A Section 4(f) Evaluation. b. Please Identify any 6(1) properties within the project limitS and areas of impact. None c. Please 11st wild scenic rivers and scenic byways. None 8. Resource Lands· Identify any of1he following resource lands within 300 feet of the project llmils and those otherwise impacted by the project. a. Agricultural lands 0Yes ll!INo lfyes,pleasedescribealllmpacta. Not applicable. If present, is resource considered to be prime and unique farmland? D Yes O No If Yes, date of approval from Natural Resources Conservalion Service (NRCS) b. ForesVTimber 181 Yes O No If yes. please describe all impacts. n1e project is localed adjacent 101hc !Jlw:k Rivtr Ripa.nnn forest a Ki.)ttvcly undisturbed riparian h:mtWOfld forest Approxim~lcly O. 9 11,1.n:-s of ripRriim•\1ctJand area will hi:: i:lcarcd, however this :irc11 is h1ricl)' free from tfc:Cj and is nol i::icpi::i;tcd 10 reduce spei:i~ di'olinity or n::sl.llt nt subsW!UaJ reduction in plant cowr in the U-acrc ~ttuiy Mell c. Mineral D Yes IBI No If yes, please describe all impacts. DOT Fonn140.100EF Page4of8 Part 4 Environmental Conslderatlona • Continued 9. Rivera, Sll'eams (Continuous, Intermittent), or Tidal Waters a. Identify all waterbodles within 300 feel of the project limits or that will otherwise be Impacted. Fisheries WA Stream No. Ecology 303d Report No. (ifknawn) Reason for 303d listing Eml ~2Jif2DQ Date ofReport 11112§ Wate!body common name Black River and the Green River b. ldenbfy stream crossing structures by type. The Green and Black Rivers are both in WRIA 9. The project will create non-motorized improvements on the east side of the existing Monster Road Bridge over the Black River (WRIA 09.0004). c. Waler Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) No. & Name 9 Duwamish-Green 10. Tribal Lands -Identify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, including reaervatton, trust and fee lands. None. 11. Vlsual Quality Will the project impact roadside classlflcallon or visual aspects such as aesthetics, light, glare or nlghl sky, 0Yes ll!INo If Yes, please identify the impacts. 12. Water Quality/Storm Water Has NPDES municipal general permit been issued for this WRIA? !Bl Yes 0No Amount of existing Impervious surface within project limtts: S.J.·UO square feet t US acre,} Net new impervious surface to be created as a result of project: J6.J44 squure feet (0.S3 acre) Will !his project's proposed stormwater treatment fac!ity be consistent with the gUidel ines provided by either WSOOTs HRM, DOE's western or eastern Washington stormwater manuals, or a local agency equivalent manual? 181 Yes 0No If no, explain proposed water qualitylquanlity treatment for new and any exisUng impervious surface associated with proposed project. The trail is exempt from flow control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the 100-year peak tlow of equal to or more than 0.1 cubic feet per second. However, the trail has been designed to direct stonnwater to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. The trail is considered a non-pollutant generating surface. OOT fom, HCMOC EF R~ised 01/2011 Page5of8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations • Continued 13. Commllmenta a. Environmental Commitments • Describe existing environmental commitments that may affect or be affecled by the project· If any . None. b. Long-Tenn Maintenance Commitments • Identify the agency and/or department responstble for implementing maintenance commitments associated with this project. The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be responsible for long-tenn maintenanc':ithis Ira~ t<~ ~ ~ ~~---;·· ~ . J10.1 14. Environmental Justice Doe• the project meet any of the exemptions. as noted In Appendix F of the ECS Guidebook a!I Yes O No If Yes, Please note exemplion and appropriate justifcation In the space below. Findings should be confirmed using st least two information sources. Refer to ESC Guidebook for more Information. Exemption 7: Installation of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths and facilties within the existing right of way limits. II no, are minority and/or low income populationo located within the limtts of the project's potential impacts? 0Yes 0No If no, attach appropriate data to support finding. If yes. describe impacts and attach appropriate supporting documentation. Part 5 Blologlcal Asseasment and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed 1pecies potentially occur in the projecfa action area and/or is any designated critical habitat within the project's action area? 181 Yes D No Please attach species llstlnga. 2. WIii any construction 3 Does the project involve blasting, pile Affecled ESA Listed Species W<lrk occur within 0.5 driving, concrete sawing, rock drilling, or miles of any of the rock scaling activities within 1 mile of any following: of the followlnQ? Spotted OWi management areas (C SAs, MOCAs, designated critical habitat, and/or potenllally suitable nesting/roosting/foraging habitat? DYeo 181No Oves 181No Marbled Murralet nest or oa:upied stand, designated critical habitat and/or po1entlally Oves 181 No Oves 181 No suitable habitat? Western Snowy Plover designated critical Ove, 181 No 0 Yes 9No habttat? Is the project within 0.5 miles of marine watem? If yes explain potential effects on KIiier Whales and Steller'& Sea Lion, and on Marbled Murrelet D Yes !Bl No Oves 9No Foraging areas. Killer Whale designated critical habitat? 0Yes 181 No 0Yes 181 No Grizzly bear potentially suitable habitat? Dves lt!INo av •• 181No OOT FOl'n'I 140, HIO CF Page6of8 Part 5 Biological Assessment and EFH Evaluations • Continued Gray Wolf potentially suitable habitat? D Yes 181No DYes ll!INo Canada Lynx habitat DYea 181 No 0Yea 181 No Columbia White-tailed Deer potentially suijable DYes habitat? 181 No 0Yes 181No Woodland Caribou habitat? DYes 181No 0Yes 181No A mature coniferous or mixad ftXad forest stand? 181 Yea DNo 181 Yes CJ No 4. Will the project Involve any In-water work? 0Yes 181 No 5. Will any construclion work occur within 300 fee1 of any perennial or lntem,ittent watarbody that either 1uppao111 or dralna to a !lated flah supporting waterbody7 181 Yes 0No 6. WIii any construction work occur within 300 feet of any wettand, pond, or lake lhat la connected to any pem,anant or intermittent waterb0dy7 181Yes DNo 7. Does the action have the potential to directly or Indirectly impec1 designated critical habitat for salmonids (including adjacent riparian zones)? 181ves 0No 8. Will the projeet discharge treatad or unlraatad.stom,waler runoff or utilize water from a waterbody that support, or drains Into a listed ftsh-supponlng waterbody, wetland, or waterbody? DYes !lllNo 9. Will construction work occur outside the elCisting pavement? H Yes, go lo 9a. 181 Yes 0No 9a. Will construcllon ac11vities occurring outside Iha existing pavement Involve clearing, grading, filling, or modifications of vegeta11on or tree cutting? 181 Yes 0No 10. Are there any Federal liated, threatened or endangered plant species located Within the project 0Yes 181 No liml!s? If yes, please attach a list of plant epecles within the action area. Determination If each of the question& in the preceding aecilon resulted in a "no" response or if any of the questions were checked "yes", but adequate Ju•tification can be provided to support a ·no elfecf detenninatlon, then check "No effect· below. If this checklist cannot be used for ESA Section 7 compliance (I.e., adequate jusM1cation cannot be provided or a ·may alfecf determination i& anticipated), a separate biological assessment document is requ~ad. ' ./ NOAA Fisheries USFWS Essential Fish Habitat Determination: 181 No Effect l < /-/_ 181 No Adverse Effect I I 0 NLTAA Date of Concurrence 0 Adverse Effect. Date of NOAA 0 LT AA Date BO Issued Concurrence Analysis for No Effects. Determination · If th.re are ""Yt "yea" answers to questions In Part 5, additional analysis Is required. Please attach additional sheets f needed. Please see the attaclled No Effects Letter dated October 24, 2011 for an analysis of effects. The proposed project will have no effect on bull trou~ Chinook salmon or Puget Sound steelhend because: The project will not result in additional pollutant generating impervious surface within tile action area; there will be no alteration of peak flows or base flows in the project area; and there will be no in-waler or over-water work and appropriate Best Management Practices will be implemented to eliminate the risk of erosion and thechance of sediments entering the action area waterbodies. Temporary Erosion Sediment Control and Spill Prevention Control Plans will be prepared and implemented. OOT F,nm 140-100 EF Re,.il11td 0112011 Page 7 of 8 Part 6 FHWA Comments Use Supplement Shaet If addWonal space Is required to complete this section. nnT Fonn 140-100 EF Page 8 of 8 LUA 15-000257 Segment A, Lake to Sound, Slopes Notes None 128 0 64 S_ 1984_Web_Mercator_Aux~iary _Sphere 128Feet r, .. ,~,D~:,,, ~lllUll ft~1 Finance & IT Division EXHIBIT 19 Legend 0 .-, ,__, 0 0 rt City and County Boundary ; I Other [:! CityofRl!l'lton Addresses Parcels 1st Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor 1st Floor OthPr R11ilrlinn,:, lntonnatlon Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 6110/2015 / / >25% & <a:40% (Seositive) • :.40% & <'=00% (Protected) • >90% (Protected) Environment Designations o Natural ffl Shoreline High Intensity O ShorelinelsolatedHigt,tntensity ~ Shoreline Resiclenbal O UrtlanConservancy n .luri~rlir.tion~ This map rs a user genera!ed sta1ic outpu1 from an !ntemet mapping s,te and 1slorreferenceonly Dalalayerstha1appearonth1s,napmayormaynotbe .tcc:urate.c:urf'<!nt,orotherw1sereliable THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 20-40~ Scale: 1~=20' BIH + BORING APIORXIMATE LOCATION ANO DESIGNATION t/. ~ ·r .· .4+00 ........ , .... . : i114 --~,-:~.:..:~·;_;~ .: ! .1: ,.· .· : . _. : : . _· : : . : ,: : . . : : . '. :1.· .. · ........... ·.: /_ ......... \ ..... -........... .\. . ·i·.-· .... ·x· ................. \ .......... ·:. I .......... : . . . . ... : . :. ~1, ... · : ... : : ... : : 1 ...... ' ,1 \ .. : . . ......... .':·11·\ · 1 · ... -· · .. · : .· · · ·1 : : .... · · · j. . ·1·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . I ....... · .~ .· ..... .'I:: ... · um IHWAGEOSclENCESINC. BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WASHINGTON a:W"1Gl'flOJfeT&-a10-1G0-21~T09ClaGTRM.\T,'8(2!XIBlAO(fflVSl811lDOE'C,1,()2011).100~l'll"\l).1(10f100.l)l'IO.<F,a:t>,,__.2/21W"lGl5:t:Ul'M ----~-. o~~ ~\· ~(")', '. of:?· :i:!;1 \\ I:! ' '-' . f) ~ 5/~ c,; " J ~ SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN , / i / ~ ~ ~ '; '/; f /' ./ J m >< ::c 1-1 0:, ~ N 0 S 143rd Sr -----"---r-·- _ S 1P3rd St___ __ s_144Lh s, Parametrix L.\ N 300 GOO -Feet UNINC. KING COUNTY CITY OF TUKWILA Concrete Recycling Plant 0:!J Q~stArea ~ Black River ~ Pump Station CITY OF RENTON Sources King County, City of Renton, WDFW 2014, WSDOT Legend: -Proposed Trail City Boundary ........ Existing Trail --+--+-Railroad Black River Riparian Forest Wetlands Martin Luther King Ways ,--· "'I ;1------- i! ··-,-- -"' uj ;r-·-<,) \ \ - m >< ::c .... m ~ N .... Figure 1-2 Site Location Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A EXHIBIT 22 I ! L_ _______ ~ ~j]l l JI ~ ~ t-tr emB1:1 ees eu,14:>Jew l -----i;, ·71 --------\ ----Q. ~ .E ' 10 ~ ~ I ... ~ § ..... I ~ E ~ I ~. s ~. ~ ..2)::. I "-"' I l " I f \---~~ !. j [ I j ! I I j f I E I ! I ~ I Ii/ j I &I ti/ IDD .!!/ I "'1 I l j j I I j • 1 I i I / I ~ I ! i ~ I ~ ~ I I i f I I ~~; / / // / / / J ! I I •• r 1l I i ~ ] J I D I I I I \ \ \ I \ • > ~ I p~ I in i II ; I n,. I n ~ ! \ ' ' \ ' ' ' ' \ ' ' ' ' \ ' ii ' ' \ ' ' c, \ \ •, 'i •I ~ I _.,, I t I ~ I ~! I ~ .I: I " C l I . I ! " ' I., j l ]' ~\ )I i w fvz ~ I \ I ~ I ~ 0 00 ~ i ! ~ , ~ s ~~ ] e ~ " §t ~ ... ., • u • I " j a I !. ! i ! ! E ! l ~ I ~ i j ! I IDD " !. i I • • E J I j ~ ~ ' i i • ~ ~ E I i ~ ~~m 1. I I : I , I 1 ! -I! I I ~ . 0. § ~ 'T,i "'E ~ . i, .. ., 1 • [ ~ ~ ! ' j ' ' ' ' ) ! c, ~l i j ! t I < l ' ] ~ ~ a ~ i • " i ~ j ' .! i I r I ,0,~ir ,,,~ ,.., .... , ... ------;-------- /" \ ( \ ) I : : I ~ r~ ~ ~ " § I ' t 2 "'a 1 •"' !!:! I • a m .2'!> ~ .. ., j 1 • R [ • E I ~ 1 • I I ~ IDD D L I H 0 Ip~ .. ~ ~ I I ii i ! ! g ~ I§ 1 ~ ! ~ '!!P•a·,a·m-e·tr"!'ix ~ N 25'.) !'ilO Feet Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Vegetation and Vl/ildlife Study Area Land Cover Type Riparian-Wetland Herbaceous Wetland ~Urban Open Water Figure 3-1 Vegetation and Wildlife Study Area Base Map Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A m >< ::c .... 0:, ~ IIJ w i i, 13 S 143rd St >--~---~r-----~_ ; I ~ _ -~ _ St~3rd ~t 9 e 61 ~i C, ' SprlngbroQk 18 Black River Basin Martin Luther King Way s Black River <f> ~ 3· "' 0-a ~ 0 <ti (!) ~·-\ '·--. --~-----~· ,-\;·---~ ... -\ End Project I . . \ ' . ,,\ \ \ ----'\ \. \.,..-\ ' -~----------·, ~ I \ --- ··~ ·1- !I---:~-= z~~ \ ( I \ 'i CITY OF CITY OF / \,__ ___ .--·--Springbrook y_ ,_ ', TUKWILA RENTON \ BJeg~~Hl!lf:!~HfMlt, ~ t:5asm 11 o.. Parametrix Sources· Krng County City of Renton. WDFW 2014, WSDOT. j ~ TDA1a-Tukwila -TDA3 -ExistmgTra1I -TDA1b-Renton -TOA4 City Boundary N 300 000 !!!!!!!!!liiiiiiiiiiiiiilree1 -TOA 2 -TOA 5 -+-+-Railroad C:J Subbasin weuanas Figure 1-3 Floodway Drainage Basins, Subbasins, Floodp\a,ns (100-year) and Site Characteristics Black River Riparian Forest Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A ~ ::c .... m !:I "" ~ LUA15-000257 Floodplain ' I ,. i i EXHIBIT 25 ..,. .... -~--·-·-·-~ Notes None 1,023 0 512 1,023Feet '1f'..GS_ 1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere ~~ Finance & IT Division Legend City and County Boundary r~, other [:J CityotRanton £21 Floodway ffl Special Flood Hazard Areas (100 year flood) Streams (Classified} Information Technology. GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 6110/2015 ... Thismapisausargenerate<:ls1atcoutpu1framan1n1ernelmappil'lgsiteand 1~ ror reference only Dal a layers that appear on this map may or may net be accuratecurrenl,orctherw,serehaoJe THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION EXHIBIT 26 253-876-3116 From: Kris Sorensen [mailto:KSorenser1~1,.;.:111.v11no,~vYJ Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:32 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Hi Karen, For the Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A (Renton LUA15-000257) project, I am providing King County's responses to the four comments you provided in the May 13 email below. Please let me know if you have further comments on these responses by December 28, 2015. Thank you. 1. Comment: The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (see page 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/1ibrary/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? #1 Response: KC remains committed to the restoration of salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. A portion of the trail project is in the vicinity of the salmon habitat restoration project LG-18 but does not conflict with it. The trail design includes replacement of trees removed during construction. Replacement trees will be planted in the 50 foot wide riparian buffer on publicly-owned property along the bank of the Black River in the project vicinity. In addition existing plantings from the 2005 volunteer effort will be protected during construction. 2. Comment: Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoic causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in th, Green River that are contributing to pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. #2 Response: The trail has been sited to minimize the number of trees that need to be removed. Where tree removals are required great effort has been taken to have these be as far away from the river as feasible. Trees removed by the project will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio (requested below in question #4) or as directed by local permitting requirements whichever is greater. 3. Comment: Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. #3 Response: The project has committed to replanting trees in the riparian buffer and revegetating areas disturbed by construction. There are no plans for placing wood debris in the river as mitigation for this project because it already meets the overall criteria of no net loss of ecological processes and functions. 4. Comment: Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Greer River and the Black River. #4 Response: We have determined that there is adequate space and we will accommodate this request. Kris Sorensen Associate Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Parametrix l!NGINl!IPiRING • PLANNING • &H1 411108th AVF.Nl!E NE, SUITE 1800 BELLEVUE, WA 98004•5571 T. 4Z5 • 458 , 6200 F. 425 • 458 , 6363 October 24, 20 l l PMX No. 554-1521-084 (A/2T300F) Jason Rich EXHIBIT 27 Entire Document Available Upon Request King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division 20 l South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Re: No Effects Letter Lake to Sound Trail Improvements -Segment A Dear Mr. Rich: King County is proposing to develop a I.I-mile segment (Segment A) of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The project is a non-motorized trail located in the jurisdictions of Renton and Tukwila in King County, Washington. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non-motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non- motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. We have prepared this assessment on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in response to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. We also evaluated the presence of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as indicated in the Magnuson Stevens FishefY Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). The federal nexus for this project is federal-aid funding provided by FHWA, as administered by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to determine whether species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and potentially occurring in the project vicinity will be affected by project construction or operation. Effects upon critical habitat, as applicable, are also evaluated. The USFWS and NMFS species lists were accessed on their websites on September 15, 2011 (attached). Based on information provided at those websites, the following ESA-listed species could occur within the action area: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Threatened) Steelhead trout (0. mykiss) Puget Sound ESU (Threatened) EXHIBIT 28 Entire Document Available Upon Request ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT EVALUATION: NO EFFECT DOCUMENTATION Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 and Washington State Department of Transportation Local Programs Division P0Box47390 Olympia WA 98504 Prepared by Mike Hall Parametrix 719 2nd Ave, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 September 2015 EXHIBIT 2q Kris Sorensen From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM Sent: To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A- LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested infonmation about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11. 7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further infonmation and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 '~ ' ' {il' I ' i I I I I I ~I 'I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~i ;1 'I I I I i I I I I I . i/ V A • ~! jo ei .. ~.,.Jt o~<•"•.~ ,I ·-~1·· ~ ,I 1:M~!I 11 '1 l'T~~. 1~i ='"'3 I ~lo i:;i•I I o Soo~fo I I I I ffi ~ ~ f' , /1 i /1; .. I • ; I I I I I i I i I. f._ i ,! ' .1 ~ .1 ;; ( /j @ ~: : -i u I ~p ~~ : / ~:.__. 1~:1 ~ l ·' 1/i~ 1; ~6 i --JJ I Ei ~ ' ' ' C lj' ----.j I 111 I 'l ' Ii I. !l . ii'! ~, !'" ·l" EXHIBIT 31 Appendix E Mitigation Plans I 1,- 1 ·~~ M~ I I I I I I 11,!(i i / / / / / / / i .. ()drn !I! ~! ;ii Chl ~I 1', ~o' ,, "I '• Q~- ;~n[ ': ~ 1- ' l 0 01 -1 i ' ' ! l•! f , 111m T I'• 'i ti ,. I , 11: :1:1 I ! :, !i!1 I ! lj I!!, i I i'1 11 !II . 11 11 I . ·:i I i, Ii I I I ! EXHIBIT 3Z Project start, looking west at Green River Trail (near A-line Station 1 +00) Looking west (near A-Line Station 3+00} Looking west (near A-Line Station 5+50) Looking west (near A-Line Station 6+00) Looking east at railroad crossings (near A-Line Station 5+25) Looking west at railroad crossings (near A-Line Station 8+25) Looking west (near A-Line Station 11 +00) Looking east at Monster Road driveway (near A-Line Station 13+50) Looking north at Monster Road (near A-Line Station 14+00) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A-Line Station 14+50/C-Line Station 201+75) Looking north at Monster Road (near A-Line 15+00/C-line Station 202+20) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A-Line Station 16+20/C-Line Station 202+50) Looking south at pedestrian crossing location over the Black River (near A-Line 17+50/B-Line 102+50) Looking east at Monster Road (near B-Line Station 102+50) Looking west (near B-Line Station 105+00) Looking east (near B-Line Station lOS+OO) Looking west (near B-Line Station 121+00) Location of proposed box culvert, looking west (near B-Line Station 126+00) Project End, looking north (B-Line Station 143+17) EXHIBIT 33 Kris Sorensen From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kris Sorensen Monday, January 11, 2016 830 AM Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) jason.rich@kingcounty.gov; Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov Response to Comments; RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUA15·000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Attachments: 6. L2ST Seg A Proj Narritive-Permit Descr & Justif.pdf; ESA NE documentation L2SA to Renton.pd!; L2S Seg A_Landscape Plan.pdf :(r1ren, Thani, you for the follow-11p comments. I arn providing responses helow. Pdso, I have attached an upciatecl study for the Endr1ngered Species .£\ct f\Jo-Effects Oeterrnin,~tion for the Lake to Sound Trail '1Segment A" pecJestrian bridge ':iubrnitted 1n Dece111ber. ) .. ppPndix ;)., is the original No-Effects Oeten11w1at1on for the f1il! i rc1il c;e:5me11t Relow are responses to your comments, with response ff L tocused on [he \Nf~lA 9 LG 18 iJnd LG-17 plans .. rnd response 112 focused on no net loss: #1: The LG-17 project is nor 111 the vicinitv of the Luh:e ta Sound TrJil Segment A project under review. LG-17 is locJteci roughly Yi mile aw.Jy. ror LG-18, the mzirsh zirea thJt is to be restoreci is outside of the trail project area and the SO-foot wide shoreline riparian buffer is with111 the proposed project area. l\tlult,ple trail route JlternJtives \Vere considered for this segment of the regionc1I trail. The Segment A route was designed to have the le,1st i111pact on the shorelines, mi:.1ture trees, the existing sports complex, and ruilroacl bridges in this are,1 rn:ar the Black niver and confluence with the Gn:;en River The subject proJect will pl.111t 21,330 square: feet of the LG-13 ripJrian buffer area berwet:11 the Black River shoreline and trail (see "BVC 1'' on the attached 'Lanclsc,1pe Plan'}. The Countv is npen to discussing placing a split rad fence adjacent the trail 1/vhere the trail is tlose to the LG-18 project in c)nsiderat1on uf incredsed use of tl1e dre,=i by people dnd rJog:i. Shoreline permits ,·ire req111red for this project ,1ml fui ther con.c;ideration of lhe com1nenr can be c.011siclered at that time Caiol Lumb is rhe Cilv of Tukwila sL1if contcict that would lik2lv review tile Shoreline Pern11ts in thcit jurisdiction (email ronLJct is Carol.Lumh@Tul<v ... da\;VA gov). ;12: nw ov21 <111 proiecr lldS lwen revie,,ved ~or nu net loss of riparian tunctions. The applic~1nt h,1•,; submitted multiple b1ologic?,I 11ssessmcnts thJt detail pi oJect irnpaccs r1nd 111itig;:;ition. Trees are be1n~ r<:·f'JL.1ntt!d at a rni11imum 2:'l 1.1tio, 111 pa! t. to ,v~coun~ fo1 rile ternpor-11 !oss of n1-1ture Lre':'s. I am c.ltt.1ching to thi~. email the ,ubrrnttP-cl Permit r,Jc11T,1t1ve -ind Ju:itificJtlon, 1,1,,he1 e p:ige 2 l 1 dfscusses the No Net Loss requiren1ent for ,111 dev?loprnent within 'jhon~l1nP f1:l.=inage1nern ;\ct ju{isUiction I believe the studies l1~ted 1n the 110 net lo'.:.>s ·.;um11ury 1Nf:rP sent to you ,h p,:in or tht"' Not1::e uf f.pµlic.,, cion fnr the project (Critic.JI .1-\rras Study, StrPdm 1\eport, \t;,r~Ptatiori .1r1cl 1/./ikfffe Report, Flnorlplr1i11 Study} .-rnd I can provide them a':i needP.d. I ·.viii ful\ow up th1'i- :"1111<11I with the 1w1N B1nlogic1I .t,:;sessrnl':•nt of rhe oedi"Stri;:in h11dg,.~ from t\ugust 201 ~ d-S it re)~ ldrger tile ;iz<:" so y<,ti J!·,o h.wi-: tll1..:; study. :, n,; :.)(JH~n·;(""'fl \ ;soc1,1tP PL1rirn~r, J'! 1rnw'< l)i1w,1un Dt•pdrtrrn.1nt of (.un1rn11111ty :'.! [LL•l1orn1'. D2v:.:?loprnr'nt c,1·1 ol l1e11to11 I.~ r; · !.·11 Hi')'J ~ ksorensen(iiJ rentonwa .gov From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoor Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 Gree~b \ (-·-·-·-~·- Clty of Tukwl~ ! I City of Renton ·-\,!g!!!l!; c::=:=.J FEMA Floodplu, Bounda,y OSCALE#, ~ FEMAB&NlloodE~(NAVDtltl) ' --,.! ,.; ,·' ,' &Z_i --·---~f•c1r ft"'8r ) \ Blaek River \ Pumpstallon ',,,~ 18.57 Black River Forest " FEMA Boundarl .. from 1995 ARM. ~ ........ ,, '·, Figure 1 Project Site Map ii :j !2 ~ :::c: 1-1 g:, 1-1 -f w ~ \ \ \ -\ I 1 I I f H n r·, ! ! I! LJ EXHIBIT 3$ Project LG-18: Black River Marsh at RM 11.0 (Right Bank) Project Description This project would improve the confluence of the remnant Black River with the Green/Duwamish as an emergent marsh, increasing nutrient productivity for the surrounding system and improving access for salmonid refuge and rearing. The project is located along the lower Black River, which empties into the Green River at river mile I LO, right bank. The project would remove about 200 cubic yards of fill from the left bankline of the Black River at the confluence with the Green just west of the railroad tracks. This small area would then be planted with appropriate native marsh vegetation and a few large stumps with root wads would be placed to provide cover. A 50 foot wide riparian buffer would be created along the banks of the Black River from the Black River Pump Station to the confluence. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Opportunities and Constraints The site has significant infrastructure that will make site rehabilitation challenging. Invasive plant species now dominate the site. In 2005, volunteers organized by a Renton resident began planting native trees and shrubs on the south bank of the Black River just west of the Black River Pump Station. Black River confluence with the Green!Duwamish. Black River is to right. Railroad bridges are visible in the di,tance. February ZOOS photo. LINKAGES OD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Proteaing and improving riparian vegetation (A/1-ZJ • Preventing new /Jank armoring and removing exisffng armoring (A/1-6) • Proteaing and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge, habitat complexity (Low-I) OD Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetarian along /Jonks of the mainstem and tributaries • Substirute loss of sk!w water areas by creating new off- channel habitatJ ond/or placement of large woody debris along /Jonklines • Substitute ecological processes with habftac features Page7-75 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habffat Plan-Augusr 2005 ProjectLG-17: Levee Setback Between RM 11. 7 and 11.4 (Right Bank) Lower Green River looking downstream at river mile 11.7. To right is Fort Dent Park ,hawing levee and possible bank ,et back area. February 2005 photo. LINKAGES <JD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Proteding and improving riparian vegetation (All-2) • Protecting and m!Oting!restoring habitat that provides refug~ habitat romplexity (low-1) <JD Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabilitate exiiting banklines to aeate low vel-Odty and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile migrotion • Rehabilitate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the mainstem and tributaries • Substitute Joss of slow water areas by placement of/arge woody debris along banklines Project Description Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11. 7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. This project would provide low velocity and/ or shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon. Opportunities and Constraints • Permission must be obtained by the City of Tukwila, and implementers will need to work with the company that manages the soccer complex on this parcel to design this project in a way that minimizes impacts on current park operations. Sewer infrastructure may also present challenges for implementation. Page7-74 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed S<llmon Habitat Plan-August 2005 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT LUA 15-000257 Application Date: April 17, 2015 Name: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A PLAN -Plannin Review -Land Use En ineering Review Comments Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. EXHIBIT 36 ~Cityof, 1_t Il IC; J! Version 1 Contact: Vicki Grover 425-430-7291 v rover@rentonwa. ov A Technical Information Report (TIA) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TOA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SW PPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (GOA) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doin construction work based on various criteria from each of the re arts. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen I 425-430-6593 I ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Planning: 1. AMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any e ui ment, install im ervious surfaces, or com act the earth in an wa within the area defined b the dri line of an tree to be retained. Ran: January 07, 2016 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 3S •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ' c~ ;:;~~~:~,, , c-, • . <• -s ,,.,-"'_.Ji,., :·, . I". 1'1 .. ,,, ,.., , e · ."ish . . " si ·"~·"•' , • --c'c.. _ • ' . ' . • ' .• / -· ··~! • \ ,, ' '""'' • ' -.• •,• '?a· ·'""-~""'"'=>I•• l,'11.''..L I~·"' 1< ~,,. ' .. ~~ .;,,., ,,;,,, ... ....-"11 i~ P.art 19 1 ~p'...-' 1:r.1 "' \ \: --~~"'-, ': ,o: -{,._,,~ I j ,";::;:;,· ·1'[ ,r'f-f{JW;l~ N \ " _, .. _..... ''.., • ••• , I. ' r.:~c.-,f1 ~-1• 1 ;~~ f.J?;,':f-12 MAP (scale va!~es) ' . ' ,,.. "· "···~ ' ----='"" . "'""' ,. ·-' .,i#f' """" .;. ~"""r,,_ .;,f,;->{e_-1· pt,.GL.b<Jilr .,, ='"r ;,,,1'l; ,.. f "" ~ -~\(';;'!"~-t;' 1:'/ 1':1;:,~ "'""' •• ,.cs&• --'"t'" ,, .. a-,., p--, ... , •• ; •. ·/,jf!t --"'," .•• ;~ .. I\.: ~ ->ll~~r-~·"" ,• Cw, ·I~'-" .. f' .... aa'" ';"'--..:>*''''~I.~.:,. ~1 1til~/ ! '1 1 !"' \ . ,. ,-,--,Ai I• :•: -t I ~r .. fJi, l ' I'• I ,...,.., ....... ' ,1 ""'"" : ,,_ .-a ' . ' -,, fe¥ II'-"' cf' -~-·C , . ..,,,,,_.<-"> ', , ' :, .. ""' , '\ :i<i:.:C~_;.J, .... ~~.c;;-;i,''"t )'1;/1' . I ,,!: .. , \ C '-'.,,, ' -~"----I ,a -'.-::' -'I' ' r• ' [a. ' "' ' •;,-"'°·-_:]• -~~ ..'.i!l..J ~-•-··• t/ PN> \t>_}· M;:-w=~~-ir''" :'-'" ~' I! ' 101;z-:-~r1·11 ~;,?c-"'1Q<"' "' I .,,,-,.,.,_:,I '(/i,:.;''·'""'"' · l-\ --=--"°" ' '" ' I C,tj-O• I I ; • ·~· ,,-: '. \I '-II ' ~11 !' ! Ta<~!. \I' ,, I . 111 :, "'.' ;;r~:o \\ \I\ . • l~ ~~ •! \ _,IL ,~Ii TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION(s) RIGHT-OF-WAY ,. ~------·- WIDTH VARIES MUI.Ti-USE TRAIi. 10'0" MIN. 12'-011 PREFERRED Project Status Origin and Destination Project Length Existing Condition Proposed Cross-section User Groups Connections Project Description Constraints and Considerations Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan Proposed lmprove:mau.s TWO RIVERS TRAIL: BLACK RIVER RAILROAD R.O.W. TRAIL PROPOSED (Part of proposed Lake to Sound Regional Trail) Monster Road SW to Naches Avenue SW 0.9 mile this segment, 3.1 miles total trail 1 Rough path parallel to Union Pacific and Burling- ton Northern Santa Fe railroad right-of-way ..--------- Separated multi-use trail, paved -········ Bicyclists and pedestrians Tukwila, Downtown Renton PARKS AND SCHOOLS: Fort Dent Park, Black River Riparian Forest, Renton Wetlands, Burnett Linear Park TRAILS: Green River, Interurban, Black River, Springbrook Trail, Burnett, Cedar River BICYCLE LANES: Monster Road SW Multi-use trail through Black River Riparian Forest, separate from wetland trail Possible permitting challenges 153 , ..••....................................... IVIAP (seal~ \/ari~s_) •••---=•L_,. ''" :·t~"'"~~;:~~~,ty¥t~~~~I~ -........ " ~ 1~1.,·- • fl •• ftr ... ;""~ ~ , _ --~J~ ~~ 1 1 p,.,..,.,, ~~ ~~~~~-/~/~~1:'.JF-J f ,,.. .. ~..... mm \'\'·"··'-' ~-. +·" t'{-1;> ' I ...... , ";; ,l,7;,A, '~ ! __ ,,._ I ---..;\:;" __ _._. 1;.·-""~-~·-••li•'--. ~,;:: .. _.,t .. ,- ' " I \ ti 11--,•~\ot~ )V Ve"" 'I-i 't' \\fi, ,.,, _,. 'i 1 1 1 ~-~y.Lt 0--"d'i 0 \ , ~ ,,,,.• ,·l".;J __ ---· -5 c,,_,,,J'\: fl" I ,,,,;,·,_ ~, "·, ' _ _.,.->=--.:--JL; . ..J -c,,, ,.,,_1'11/ ;o •. /}.'< o ' -__ .-·,,., ------JI.J ~ "'" -:-?.' ,'i ~ ~-•l., •z?:~-:lf.· ,~ 11 0 ~-1i1 ,i:::,. ~--;.•;c--'c'..,,. ,-~----, ,-(,, .• ,.' ,,, -.. :.-f-:;,.r"·· 1'1 ~,<;,.~ ~; ,(I~.;,"' _ 1·1·· L -~""""~1:..r, ,1 I Ct I ! • ' t,, ~-')"• ,', '' ' 11 ":" ;': ! I: !•''"' I \\'• ,, '" 11 , "'I • """"""~ I \' • , 111 , \ ••g• -\ ~ ,, -· I._ :f, ___ 11 TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIOl\l(s) 2'-0" SHOULDER . RIGHT-OF-1"1A'f / ------------il'llDTH VARIES \ 11010 11 MIN. 12'-0 11 -1-c)f,'-~ PREFERRED e + N Project Status Origin and Destination Project Length Existing Condition Proposed Cross-section User Groups Connections Project Description Constraints and Considerations Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plc.t, Proposed lrnprO'itiH1121,,-J: TWO RIVERS TRAIL: FORT DENT CONNECTOR --··----~-----·-------·---- PROPOSED (Part of proposed Lake to Sound Regional Trail) Fort Dent Park to Monster Road SW 0.2 mile this segment, 3.1 miles total trail Rough path under Union Pacific railroad trestle .... -------- Separated multi-use trail, paved ............ Bicyclists and pedestrians Tukwila, Downtown Renton PARKS AND SCHOOLS: Fort Dent Park, Black River Riparian Forest, Renton Wetlands, Burnett Linear Park TRAILS: Green River, Interurban, Black River, Springbrook Trail, Burnett, Cedar River BICYCLE LANES: Monster Road SW Connection to T ukwila's Fort Dent Park connects the two cities and links regional trails. Use of railroad right-of-way needs, dimensions of existing railroad trestle, crossing of Monster Road 1 SW necessitate thoughtful approach. 152 EXHIBIT 3CI SHORELINE MANAGEMENT F· 4'°'~. J('<.,; -Fulfilling the vision of the state Shoreline Manageme,, "~6 ~ (). ·,mmunity - ~ Oc IN! INTRODUCTION ~ I.,">,. 'te their o_., (:)~ ,15 of of all use of sti, human utility ana the Act relate both to the extremely valuable a,. resources of the state. The ac ~~ .,. (Jf 9t,. &,s-f accommodation of "all reason ab, priate uses" consistent with 11 protecting ag1. Jverse effects to the public hea1<n, the land The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (the Act) passed in 1971 and is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of our state are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural resources and that unrestricted development of these resources is not in the best public interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful effects of uncoordinated and piece-meal development of our state's shorelines. There are over 18 miles and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life" and consistent with "public rights of navigation. The planning policies of master programs (as distinguished from the of shoreline in the City of Renton's planning area are under the Shorelines are of limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for uses such as marinas, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as recreation, private housing, commercial and industrial uses. jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. development regulations) may be achieved by a number of means, Lake Washington from Coulon Park, Credit: City of Renton The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for conflict. The Act recognizes that the shorelines and the waters they encompass are "among the most valuable and fragile" of the state's natural resources. They are valuable for economically productive industrial and commercial uses, recreation, navigation, residential amenity, scientific research and education. They are fragile because they depend upon balanced physical, biological, and chemical systems that may be adversely altered by natural forces and human conduct. Unbridled use of shorelines ultimately could destroy their utility and value. The prohibition only one of which is the regulation of development. Other means, as authorized by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.240, include, but are not limited to: the acquisition of lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other local governments, and accepting grants, contributions, and appropriations from any public or private agency or individual. Additional other means may include, but are not limited to, public facility and park planning, watershed planning, voluntary salmon recovery projects, and incentive programs. Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration, and preservation of "fragile" shoreline, "natural resources," "public health," "the land and its vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," "ecology," and "environment," the Act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal consistent with the other policy goals of the Act. It is recognized that shoreline ecological functions may be impaired not only by shoreline development subject to the substantial development permit requirement of the Act but also by past actions, unregulated activities, -11"1 . ' ' SHORELINE REACH LOCATION PUBLIC ACCESS OBJECTIVES Green River Reach A Black/Springbrook A Springbrook B Springbrook C below the pump station Grady Way From Grady Way to SW 16th Street From SW 16th Street to the City Limits RENTON-(Ofv1PREHENSIVE PLAN because further subdivision and non~sing1e family use is not likely but should be pursued if such development occurs. Public agency actions to improve public access should include improved visual access area west ot Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical access tram a water should be provided as private lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should include acquisition of trail rights to connect the Lake to Sound trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River Forest where interpretive trails area west of Monster Road provides no public access. Public physical access trom a water should be provided as private lands redevelop. Public agency actions to improve public access should include acquisition of trail rights to connect the trail system to the Green River Trail and Fort Dent Park. The area west of Monster Road is part of the publicly owned Black River Forest where jnterpretive trails exist. Expansion of public access should occur only if consistent with ecological functions. Interpretive trails are present in the Black River Forest. Expansion of public access should occur only if consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on the west side of the stream adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and should be retained and possibly enhanced. A trail system is present on WSDOT right of way and crosses under 1-405. Enhancement should be implemented as p<1__r:! of future highway improvements or other e_u_blic age~~y actions. A public trail parallel to the stream was developed as part of the Boeing Longacres Office Park and extends from SW 16th Street under Oaksdale. Avenue and terminates at the alignment of 19th Street at the parking lot of a pre-existing industrial building. If future development occurs in this area, a continuous trail system connecting to the continuous system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation. There is no trail system along the stream from SW 19th Street to the approximate alignment of SE 23rd Street. A continuous trail system is provided from 23rd Street to the city limits including portions through the Springbrook Wetland Mitigation Bank. If future development occurs in the area of the missing trail link, a trail system connecting to the continuous system to the south should be planned, consistent with protection of ecological values of wetlands and streamside vegetation buffers. Public actions should include interim linkages of the existing trail systems, which may include interim trails or routing on public streets and sidewalks. In the future, if vegetation buffers are developed within the stream corridor and Parametrix _\ N 100 200 Feel Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Sources King County, City of Renton, Parametnx, WSDOT, Aerials Express 2009 Wetland ---River Ordinary High water Mark Wetland Buffer River Buffer ~ .... a, ~ ~ D Figure 3-1 Critical Areas Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Parametrix ~ N 100 200 ~~~-iiiiiii-Feet Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Sources King County, City of Renton, Pararnelnx, WSDOT, Aenals Express 2009 Wetland ---River Ordinary High Water Mark Welland Buffer River Buffer Figure 3-2 Critical Areas Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Parametrix j N mo 200 ~~~-.iiiiiiioreet Legend: Proposed Trail Alignment City Boundary Sources King County, City of Renton, Parametnx WSDOT. Aenals Express 2009 Wetland Wetland Buffer Figure 3-3 Critical Areas Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Denis !.aw Mayor EXHIBIT 41 January 14, 2016 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 11, 2016: SEPA DETERMINATION: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM} Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segement A LUA15-0002S7, ECF, SSDP, S·CUP, S-V Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6593. For the Environmental Review Committee, Kris Sorensen Associate Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tr!be Melissa calvert~ Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Ouwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers Benton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7'h Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LOR). The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City ofTukwila City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-0700 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: January 15, 2016 January 11, 2016 1/ 11 /i6 Date j-lf·/¢2 Date C£. t), -~ C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development l~I~---· Date r, Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, J'h Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segement A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial {HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR). The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City ofTukwila LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Pl,nning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report-Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015, Exhibit 9, or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. 3. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No-Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A, Exhibit 27. 4. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Native American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes ore provided as information only, they ore not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. PLAN Planning Review Land Use Version 1 I January 11, 2016 Engineering Review Comments Contact: Vicki Grover I 425 430 7291 I vgrover@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. A Technical Information Report (TIR) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TDA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SWPPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (COR) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction ERC Mitigation Meas.ures and Advisory Notes Page2of3 phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doing construction work based on various criteria from each of the reports. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen I 425 430 6593 I ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Planning: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that Is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL-SEGEMENT A LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, 5-CUP, S-V BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST IN CITY OF RENTON AND FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT REQUESTS SEPA REVIEW, SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A SHORELINE VARIANCE, AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO IMPROVE AN EXISTING INFORMAL 1.2-MILE TRAIL INTO A NONMDTORIZED MULTI-PURPOSE ROUTE AND INCLUDES A NEW 114 FT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER THE BLACK RIVER. THE PROJECT IS "SEGMENT A" OF THE THE LAKE TO SOUND TRAI~ A CONTINUOUS 16·MILE-LONG REGIONAL CORRIDOR LINKING LAKE WASHINGTON TO PUGET SOUND. SEGMENT A TRAVELS THROUGH THE BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST FROM NACHES AVE SW IN CITY OF RENTON, CROSSING MONSTER RD SW, TO ARRIVE AT FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMlmE [ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the re1:1uired fee with: Hearing EJCaminer, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4·8·110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELO BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 16, 2016 AT 11:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER , , PARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNl1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME EXHIBIT 42 I TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Total number of trees over 6" diameter1, or alder or cottonwood trees at least 8" in diameter on project site _1_6~,o_o_o ___ trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: 3. Trees that are dangerous' Trees in proposed public streets Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts Trees in critical areas3 and buffers Total number of excluded trees: Subtract line 2 from line 1: O trees -----0 trees ----- 0 trees -----_8-',_oo_o __ trees _8~,_o_o_o ____ trees _8-',_oo_o ____ trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 5. 0.3 in ,ones RC, R-1, R-4, R-6 or R-8 0.2 in all other residential zones 0.1 in all commercial and industrial zones List the number of 6" in diameter, or alder or cottonwood trees over 8" in diameter that you are proposing5 to retain 4: 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: {if line 6 is zero or less, stop here. No replacement trees are required) 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: ~2,_4_0_0 ____ trees _7,_8_6_9 ____ trees 0 0 trees inches I 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 211 caliper trees required) 0 inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6: (If remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 0 trees ------- 1 Measured at 4.5' above grade. 2 A tree certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in RMC 4-3-050. 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a. 6 When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least six feet (6') tall, shall be planted. See RMC 4-4-130.H.1.e.(ii) for prohibited types of replacement trees. U :\PSO\Projects\Clients\1521-KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\02WBS\PH-A 2 Rivers\Shoreline CUP\ TreeRetentionWorksheet.docx 03/2015 Minimum Tree Density A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot (exempting single-family dwellings in R-10 and R-14). The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, or a combination. Detached single-family development': Two (2) significant trees8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. For example, a lat with 9,600 square feet and a detached single-family house is required to have four (4) significant trees or their equivalent in caliper inches (one or more trees with a combined diameter of 24"). This is determined with the following formula: ( lot Area ) ----x 2 = Minimum Number of Trees 5,000sq.ft. Multi-family development (attached dwellings}: Four (4) significant trees8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. ( LotArea ) ----X 4 5,000sqJt. Minimum Number of Trees Example Tree Density Table: Lot Lot size Min significant New Trees Retained Trees Compliant trees required 1 5,000 2 2@ 2" caliper 0 Yes 2 10,000 4 0 1 tree (24 caliper Yes inches) 3 15,000 6 2 @ 2" caliper 1 Maple-15 Yes caliper inches 1 Fir -9 caliper inches. 7 Lots developed with detached dwellings in the R-10 and R-14 zoned are exempt from maintaining a minimum number of significant trees onsite, however they are not exempt from the annual tree removal limits. 8 Or the gross equivalent of caliper inches provided by one (1) or more trees. 2 LI :\PSO\Projects\Clients\1521 "KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\02WBS\PH-A 2 Rivers\Shoreline CUP\ TreeRetentionworksheet.docx 03/2015 Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Renton Permits NOTES ON TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees The site traverses a site of about 80 acres. We did not do a tree survey over the entire site We estimate 200 trees per acre, based on the tree density in a mature Pacific Northwest Forest from the following publications: Hardwoods of the Pacific Northwest, S.S. Niemiec, G.R. Ahrens, S. Willits, and D.E. Hibbs. 1995. Research Contribution 8. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory http://owic.oregonstate.edu/ red-alder-alnus-rubra Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas-fir Curtis, Robert O.; Clendenen, Gary W.; Reukema, Donald L.; DeMars, Donald J. 1982. Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas- fir. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-135. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 182 p. _11.trrd L V:J vv.V:J.J2cfgg_,~_,;LQ1.!.V:JL~~e.!l.P_n_efQr1_\o\/__gtrJ'15j p1_1'ill. _gtrU Se, pgf Portions of the site have been cleared with limited tree cover, however this estimate is likely to be relatively accurate. 2. The deduction for 60 Critical Areas includes both wetlands and buffers. Wetlands have not been fully delineated, so this is a rough estimate. It is intended to be conservative. If wetlands and buffers are a greater percent of the sit, the number of trees required to be retained would be lower. 4. Trees that must be retained: The estimate of 2,400 was based on the maximum multiplier of .3. This is the tree count for the entire site outside Critical Areas, not just the portion within or near the trail corridor. 5. Trees proposed to be retained are all trees, minus 151 designated for removal= 7849 which is 98 percent of the trees on the non-critical portion of the site. 9. Tree replacement is proposed for all trees removed. Kris Sorensen LM 15: DOOd"{,'9: From: Sent: To: Cc: Kris Sorensen Monday, January 11, 2016 8:30 AM Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) jason.rich@kingcounty.gov; Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov Subject: Response to Comments; RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Attachments: 6. L2ST Seg A Proj Narritive-Permit Descr & Justif.pdf; ESA NE documentation L2SA to Renton.pd/; L2S Seg A_Landscape Plan.pd/ Karen, Thank you for the follow-up comments. I am providing responses below. Also, I have attached an updated study for the Endangered Species Act No-Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail "Segment A" pedestrian bridge submitted in December. Appendix A is the original No-Effects Determination for the full trail segment. Below are responses to your comments, with response #1 focused on the WRIA 9 LG-18 and LG-17 plans and response #2 focused on no net loss: #1: The LG-17 project is not in the vicinity of the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project under review. LG-17 is located roughly Y, mile away. For LG-18, the marsh area that is to be restored is outside of the trail project area and the 50-foot wide shoreline riparian buffer is within the proposed project area. Multiple trail route alternatives were considered for this segment of the regional trail. The Segment A route was designed to have the least impact on the shorelines, mature trees, the existing sports complex, and railroad bridges in this area near the Black River and confluence with the Green River. The subject project will plant 21,330 square feet of the LG-18 riparian buffer area between the Black River shoreline and trail (see "BVCl" on the attached 'Landscape Plan'). The County is open to discussing placing a split rail fence adjacent the trail where the trail is close to the LG-18 project in consideration of increased use of the area by people and dogs. Shoreline permits are required for this project and further consideration of the comment can be considered at that time. Carol Lumb is the City of Tukwila staff contact that would likely review the Shoreline Permits in that jurisdiction (email contact is Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov). 112: The overall project has been reviewed for no net loss of riparian functions. The applicant has submitted multiple biological assessments that detail project impacts and mitigation. Trees are being replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio, in part, to account for the temporal loss of mature trees. I am attaching to this email the submitted Permit Narrative and Justification, where page 2-11 discusses the No Net Loss requirement for all development within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. I believe the studies listed in the no net loss summary were sent to you as part of the Notice of Application for the project (Critical Areas Study, Stream Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Report, Floodplain Study) and I can provide them as needed. I will follow-up this email with the new Biological Assessment of the pedestrian bridge from August 2015 as it is a larger file size so you also have this study. Thank you for your comments. Kris. Sorensen Associate Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton 425-430-6593 ksorensen@rentonwa.gov From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. Wtth respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank. without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Kris Sorensen [mailto:KSorensen@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:32 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Hi Karen, For the Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A (Renton LUA15-000257) project, I am providing King County's responses to the four comments you provided in the May 13 email below. Please let me know if you have further comments on these responses by December 28, 2015. Thank you. 1. Comment: The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (see page 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? #1 Response: KC remains committed to the restoration of salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. A portion of the trail project is in the vicinity of the salmon habitat restoration project LG-18 but does not conflict with it. The trail design includes replacement of trees removed during construction. Replacement trees will be planted in the 50 foot wide riparian buffer on publicly-owned property along the bank of the Black River in the project vicinity. In addition existing plantings from the 2005 volunteer effort will be protected during construction. 2. Comment: Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. #2 Response: The trail has been sited to minimize the number of trees that need to be removed. Where tree removals are required great effort has been taken to have these be as far away from the river as feasible. Trees removed by the project will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio (requested below in question #4) or as directed by local permitting requirements whichever is greater. 3. Comment: Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. #3 Response: The project has committed to replanting trees in the riparian buffer and revegetating areas disturbed by construction. There are no plans for placing wood debris in the river as mitigation for this project because it already meets the overall criteria of no net loss of ecological processes and functions. 4. Comment: Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Green River and the Black River. #4 Response: We have determined that there is adequate space and we will accommodate this request. Kris Sorensen Associate Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton 425-430-6593 ksorensen@rentonwa.gov From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:43 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: Jill Ding Subject: FW: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Kris, We have reviewed King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project referenced above and offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty-protected fisheries resources: 1. The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (seepage 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? 2. Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. 3. Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. 4. Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Green River and the Black River. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's/applicant's responses. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015172ndAve SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Sabrina Mirante [mailto:SMirante@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:01 PM To: DOE; DOE (misty.blair@ecy.wa.gov); DNR; Erin Slaten; Karen Walter; Laura Murphy Cc: Kris Sorensen; Jill Ding Subject: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV PLEASE SEE ATTACHED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION. 4 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development {CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: May 7, 2015 LAND USE NUMBER: LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SMV, SM PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit approval, Shoreline Variance approval, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. This trail segment is 14,317 feet (1.2 miles) long and 12 feet wide. A portion of the trail corridor is located within the City of Tukwila city limits. The City of Renton has taken SEPA Lead Agency Status for the entire trail corridor, however separate permits from the City ofTukwila will be required for that portion of the trail within the Tukwila city limits. The trail corridor is located within the Commercial Office (CO), Resource Conservation (RC), and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations. The trail corridor runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest which contains the Black River (a Shoreline of the State), six wetlands (Categories II, Ill, and IV), and a Blue Heron nesting colony. Portions of the trail corridor are located within the Shoreline Management Act Natural Environment designation. PROJECT LOCATION: 14299 Monster Road SW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: April 17, 2015 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: May 7, 2015 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Jason Rich/King County Parks/King Street Center, 7'" Fl/ 201 S Jackson St./Seattle, WA 98104/ SEPA Review, Shoreline CUP and Variance, SSDP Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permit Requested Studies: Location where application may Critical Areas Report, Geotechnical Report, Habitat Report, Stream/Lake Study, Wetland Assessment be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED)-Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for June 23, 2015 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 11:00 am on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Employment Area Valley (EAV) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and IM, CO, and RC on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPAi Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shall comply with the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report prepared by HWA GeoSciences, Inc. (dated February 24, 2015}. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner, CED -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on May 20th. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on June 23, 2015, at 11:00 am, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-6578. Following the issuance of the SEPA Determination, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments regarding the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6593; Eml: ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Sabrina Mirante, Planning Secretary City of Renton I CED I Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way I 6th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6578 I Fax: 425.430.7300 I smirante@rentonwa.gov OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE Of A. cml!MINA.TION OF NONSIGNIRCANCE. MmliATED (DNS-MJ P0Sl£DTONOTIFYINrrRESTEOPER50NSOFANENVIAONMENTAlACTION LAl(e.TCISOU!CIRE~OHAI.TM.1.-S(GEMaflll W4.ll-ODOU'/,=,5SDP,s.-a.JP,5-V ~:=IIIIIAIIIFOllDTl"CJTYDFlliNTCIIIIANDFDRTD£NTPAAKIN CERTIFICATION I, k-n 5 So(Vl(ls--M . hereby certify that __1_ copies of the above document were posted in _2_ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Signed: ~5' ~_.,..~ ~· · .,.-Date: i / / lf / It;, I I STATE OF WASHINGTON <,,,\\\\ll\1t1 >'':..,_-< PO~ ,,,,, ss ov .. , ... , ... ,,\~\\\\111, ~1? ,,,. COUNTY OF KING , .--'\""ION~_:,,., Ill ~ '--~~ ~oTAftJ. \\ ~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Kr,5 5r5u"50~ '::; -. -'"l § signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and volunta_rJ,,~c~~{ J l § uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 1 ,:,,,,,f-29·'.,,,,~_/; E ~.~ Ill\\\\\\"\'" ;\",;:" ~ . ,1 . . o 'Jf:wp,.s'<' ~ Dated. o"W'+:y ,~ ;).(Ji{,, I ,'-' Notary (Print):_ --""'Hµ.,.CJJ.~'+---'L""·""'·,u,.._•""''"")-------- My appointment expires: U). 1--.,q 10 rc1 /:\Ld'cS :L ·x 1 9' n ::,/,' ":,,,;/ > ,>,;\\': ,':!;iffi:}j'.F,_yq!i'.?' '. . ;1;; /, .. /ii::t(:IPl!'.OFRENTClN ·i,h .· .·. . : ,, cii!ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY: & ec9r:,10M1c DEVJWi>~NT -"-PLANNING D1v1s10N .'AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING p;;!P( - On the 14th day of January, 2016, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination and Notice documents. This information was sent to: Agencies See Attached Jason Rich, King County Parks Contact Jenny Bailey, Parametrix Contractor Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON , ........ ,\\\\\\\\111 __ ,,, --{ PO\lt,: ,,,,, _:::-~'\,,, ,,,,,\\\\\\\lh ~-'?\P 111 :c .:P ;'"~9,10N ~_;:,,,,, /,;. COUNTY OF KING ~ f.:,./1 +o-fAIIJ.. t~ ~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Sabrina Mirante ~ 8 -· -~ 2 § signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for thij>~es i!'o<t~Jf~_e f mentioned in the instrument. 1/11,,,18-29·\$_.f.:> :: Dated: ff q fl44:J l'i, )01& I . .0 llh\\\\\\''' ~,, ~ Of:wp,.,S ,, ...... ~ .,, Notary (Print): ____ f-~· ra=I~.,,. . .,..,_A<>-~~'J.OJI~.--~~./. ,...,,.;_· ....,-/]---------- My appointment expires: () " ~,"' o< -1 :;io q ' / Lake to Sound Regional Trail-Segment-A LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology ** Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers• Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers*** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 35030 SE Douglas St. #210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Timothy C. Croll, Attn: SEPA Responsible Official 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY {DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. ** Attn: Misty Blair Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program** 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Laura Murphy Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program** Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Erin Slaten Ms. Shirley Marroquin 39015172"' Avenue SE 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 WDFW -Larry Fisher* Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Issaquah, WA 98027 PO Box48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Charlene Anderson, AICP, ECD Director of Community Development 220 Fourth Avenue South 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Newcastle, WA 98056 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Wendy Weiker, Community Svcs. Mgr. Jack Pace, Responsible Official 355 110th Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Mailstop EST llW Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98004 Puget Sound Energy Doug Corbin, Municipal Liaison Mgr. 6905 south 228th st Kent, WA 98032 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. "'"'Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecv.wa.gov "'"' Karen Walter, Laura Murphy and Erin Slaten with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. are emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email addresses: KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us / Laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us L erin.slaten@muckleshoot.nsn.us ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template -affidavit of service by mailing Jack Pace City ofTukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 100 Tukwila. WA 98188 Kate Stenberg 23022 SE 48th St Sammamish. WA 98075 Jason Rich King County Parks; ATIN: Jason Rich 201 S Jackson St, Rm 700 Seattle. WA 981043855 Suzanne Krom 4819 49th Ave SW Seattle, WA 981164322 Jennv Bailev Parametrix Department of Community~ -d Economic Development NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE AND PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) for the following project under the authority of the Renton municipal code. Lake to Sound Trail Segment A LUA15-000257 Location: Extends from Naches Ave SW through Black River Riparian Forest to end at the Green River Trail.. The applicant requests SEPA Review, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail into a nonmotorized multi-purpose route and includes a new 114 ft pedestrian bridge over the Black River. The project is "Segment A" of the the Lake to Sound Trail, a continuous 16-mile-long regional corridor linking Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Segment A travels through the Black River Riparian Forest from Naches Ave SW in City of Renton, crossing Monster Rd SW, to arrive at Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila. Appeals of the DNS-M must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Examiner c/o City Clerk, City of Renton, 1055 5 Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, 425-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on February 16, 2016 at 11:00 am to consider the submitted application. If the DNS-M is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: January 15, 2016 Hearing __ D.:e~:::.~:w __________ r Ji} Or r r \' r \ -. ..:;.,_.J ............ ~-- January 14, 2016 Community & Economic Development Department Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPAi THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 11, 2016: SEPA DETERMINATION: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segement A LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-6593. For the Environmental Review Committee, Kris Sorensen Associate Planner Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Boyd Powers1 Department of Natural Resources Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Ramin Pazooki, WSOOT, NW Region Larry Fisher, WDFW Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: -MITIGATED (DNS-M) LUA15-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7'h Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR). The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: LEAD AGENCY: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City ofTukwila City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: January 15, 2016 January 11, 2016 1/J, li6 ' i Date /-If·/¢ Date C£. Ll )/-: C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development I I Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ---------Renton® DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7'h Floor; 201 S. Jackson St.; Seattle, WA 98104 Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segement A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR). The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 DFIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and last 12 months. PROJECT LOCATION: Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City ofTukwila LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: l. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report-Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015, Exhibit 9, or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. 3. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No-Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A, Exhibit 27. 4. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Native American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they ore not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. PLAN Planning Review land Use Version 1 I January 11, 2016 Engineering Review Comments Contact: Vicki Grover I 425 430 7291 I vgrover@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. A Technical Information Report (TIR) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TOA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments l. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SWPPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (COR) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doing construction work based on various criteria from each of the reports. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen I 425 430 6593 I ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Planning: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 o/3 --------ltentOK® NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL-SEGEMENT A LUA15-000Z57, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST IN CITY OF RENTON AND FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT REQUESTS SEPA REVIEW, SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A SHORELINE VARIANCE, AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO IMPROVE AN EXISTING INFORMAL 1.2-MILE TRAIL INTD A NONMOTORIZED MULTI-PURPOSE ROUTE AND INCLUDES A NEW 114 FT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER THE BLACK RIVER. THE PROJECT IS "SEGMENT A" OF THE THE LAKE TD SOUND TRAIL, A CONTINUOUS 16-MILE-LONG REGIONAL CORRIDOR LINKING LAKE WASHINGTON TO PUGET SOUND. SEGMENT A TRAVELS THROUGH THE BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST FROM NACHES AVE SW IN CITY OF RENTON, CROSSING MONSTER RD SW, TO ARRIVE AT FORT DENT PARK IN CITY OF TUKWILA. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON FEBRUARY 16, 2016 AT 11:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEA CONTACT THE CITY OF REN , ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI .. AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Project Number: Project Manager: Owner: Applicant/Contact: Project Location: Project Summary: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: January 11, 2015 Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner City of Renton; City ofTukwila; Burlington Northern Santa Fe; Union Pacific King County Parks, Attn: Jason Rich, Capital Projects; King Street Center, 7'" Floor; 201 S. Jackson St; Seattle WA 98104 Black River Riparian Forest in City of Renton and Fort Dent Park in City of Tukwila The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, a Shoreline Variance, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to improve an existing informal 1.2-mile trail within the cities of Tukwila and Renton with a 12-foot wide paved trail and new bridge over the Black River. The proposal is part of a larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail that links Lake Washington to Puget Sound. Additional approvals for the Tukwila portion of the trail are required. A Renton Shoreline Variance from RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f is required for the trail areas located in wetland buffers because the proposal exceeds a 4-foot width and is paved. In Renton, the trail is located on city owned and railroad owned parcels that are zoned· Commercial Office (CO) and Resource Conservation (RC). In Tukwila, the trail is located on private and public parcels that are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI) and Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation. The trail area within Renton is located in the Black River-Springbrook Creek 'Natural' shoreline and associated wetland buffers. Within Tukwila, the trail is located within the 200-foot Green and Black River shoreline buffer regulation areas. Parts of the trail are located in the 1995 FIRM Floodplain area. 1,500 cubic yards of grading and 3,000 cubic yards of fill are proposed. Trees would be removed along the trail alignment and within shoreline buffer areas. 98,297 square feet of mitigation and planting areas are proposed with native species. Other project elements include a new pedestrian crossing at Monster Road, undercrossings of railroad bridges, retaining walls, fences, signage, and stormwater improvements. Work would be limited to specific times of the year based on reducing impacts to nearby wildlife and overwater work for the new bridge. The project is anticipated to have no net loss of ecological function of the regulated shoreline areas as required by state, federal, and local regulations. Studies submitted include a Bridge Geotechnical Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, Critical Areas Report, Stream Discipline Report, Drainage Report, Endangered Species Act No Effect document, and NEPA Exemption. Construction work would begin in spring 2016 and is anticipated to last 12 months. N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 3.94 acres paved Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 5.26 acres w/ shoulder 1.2 mile length in Total Building Area GSF: 5.26 acres w/ shoulder Tukwila & Renton Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). ERC Report 15-000157 City of Renton Department of Community & Ee 1ic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Project Location PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND ronmental Review Committee Report LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 2 of 13 King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop an approximate 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. There is an existing trail where the subject improvements but it is not fully improved to accessibility standards or with a paved surface. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A extends from the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park to Naches Avenue SW. Most of the trail is within the City of Renton, with the municipal limit roughly between the two sets of railroad tracks west of Monster Road. The proposed trail is typically 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The trail section is 14,317 feet long and 12 feet wide for a total paved footprint area of 3.94 acres. With the addition of two-foot shoulders on either side, the trail footprint is 5.26 acres. Between Fort Dent Park and Monster Road, the trail alignment lies south of the Black River. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. It follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The 150 feet west of Monster Road is on existing paved surfaces. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a new pedestrian bridge. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east-west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, and within wetland buffer areas. The east trail terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The project is estimated at about $3,000,000 and would take approximately 12 months to complete. No net loss of ecological functions is required as the trail improvements are located in the Black River and Green River shoreline jurisdictions within the cities of Tukwila and Renton. The proposed bridge crossing of the Black River also requires a no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life for state approvals. Within Renton, wetland buffers in the Black River Forest Riparian area would be impacted and mitigated for. The proposed trail route is designed so that no wetlands would be impacted, that no construction activities would be below the Ordinary High Water Mark of any stream, and with an Endangered Species Act No Effects Determination. The applicant submitted multiple biological discipline reports describing impacts and mitigation of environmental impacts resulting in a no net loss determination for the project as a whole (Exhibit 4, page 2-12). The project is subject to federal funding through Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration and therefore requires federal regulatory review in addition to local jurisdictional review by the Cities of Tukwila and Renton. Streams, wetlands, and other sensitive resources in the project vicinity area also subject to federal and state regulations (Exhibit 4, page 1-4). Approvals have been provided for National ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & E ?ic Development LAKE TO SOUNO REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 ronmentaf Review Committee Report LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSOP, S-CUP, S-V Page 3 of 13 Environmental Policy Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Exhibit 18 and 27). Additional federal regulations or statutes that apply to the protection of vegetation and wildlife in the study area are the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404. Federal evaluation of the presence of Essential Fish Habitat as required of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has occurred. State and local regulations that apply to the project include the Shoreline Management Act and critical areas ordinances for the Cities of Renton and Tukwila. The City of Tukwila requires separate shoreline permit approvals. Other approvals that may be required are a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), as necessary. Comments were provided by the Muckleshoot Tribes Watersheds and Land Use Team. Initial comments from the Tribes, provided May 13, 2015 (Exhibit 11) asked that trees along the Green River not be removed, that all trees to be removed along the river be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio, that trees removed along the Black River be placed in the river, and information about how the proposal would ensure there are no conflicts with two WRIA 9 restoration projects near the confluence of the Green and Black Rivers. King County staff provided a response to the comments (Exhibit 26). Based on the applicant's response, the Muckleshoot provided additional comments December 28, 2015 (Exhibit 29) that ask for greater detail of how the trail route in Fort Dent was considered in regards to the WRIA 9 restoration projects and that further explanation of no net loss of riparian functions with respect to the proposed trees along the rivers be provided. Staff provided a response to the Muckleshoot on January 5, 2015 following discussion with the applicant (Exhibit 33). I PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report-Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015, Exhibit 9, or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. 3. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No-Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A, Exhibit 27. 4. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Native American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Report of January 11, 2015 C. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Exhibit 8: Exhibit 9: Exhibit 10: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Exhibit 13: Exhibit 14: Exhibit 15: Exhibit 16: Exhibit 17: Exhibit 18: Exhibit 19: Exhibit 20: Exhibit 21: Exhibit 22: Exhibit 23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: Exhibit 30: Exhibit 31: Exhibit 32: Exhibit 33: Exhibit 34: Exhibit 35: Exhibit 36: ERC Report 15-000257 Environmental Review Committee Report Zoning Maps -Cities of Tukwila Renton and Tukwila Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Vicinity Map Permit Narrative and Justification, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Page 4 of 13 Final Drainage Technical Information Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Stream Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 Draft Geotechnical Report -Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences lnct for Parametrix, dated February 24, 2015 Environmental Checklist, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 17, 2015 Agency Comment; Muckleshoot Tribes, email dated May 13, 2015 Agency Comment; City of Renton Department of Community Services, dated July 23, 2015 Project Vicinity Map Biological Assessment-Bridge, prepared by Parametrix, dated August 2015 Construction Mitigation Plan Lake to Sound, 16-mile Conceptual Regional Trail Corridor 60% Construction Drawings, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 NEPA Exemption Determination, Washington State Department of Transportation document, dated September 12, 2012 and Addendum, WSDOT, dated November 3, 2015 Slopes Map, City of Renton Black River Bridge Location, Site and Exploration Plan, prepared by HWA GeoSciences, dated January 1, 2015 Wetlands Vicinity Map Stream and Wetland Buffer Impacts Maps Vegetation and Wildlife Study Area Map Project Drainage Basin Map Floodplain Map; 1995 DFIRM Response email to Muckleshoot Tribes Comments, email from Kris Sorensen, dated December 10, 201S Endangered Species Act No Effects Letter for Segment A, prepared by Parametrix, dated October 24, 2011 Endangered Species Act No Effects Letter for Segment A Pedestrian Bridge, prepared by Parametrix, dated September 30, 2011 Second Muckleshoot Tribes Comments, email December 28, 2015 Bridge Ground Improvements Limits, Plan, and Elevation Landscape Plan and Mitigation Plantings Plan Photos of Trail Route Response to Muckleshoot Comments #2, email from Kris Sorensen, dated January 7, 2016 Floodplain Impact Area WRIA 9 -Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Habitat Plan Projects Advisory Notes City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 D. Environmental Impacts Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, 5-CUP, S-V Page 5 of 13 The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions ta determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated ta occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely ta have the fa/lawing probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: Proposed earthwork consists of clearing, grading, and fill along the trail route and foundation work for the new non motorized bridge that would span the Black River. The proposed paved trail surface covers approximately 3.94 acres of area over its 1.2-mile length (Exhibit 4). The existing trail alignment is generally flat. The steepest area of the completed trail is approximately 5 percent for the approaches to the new bridge. The steepest slopes in the project vicinity are the slopes along the Black River and are identified between 40 and 90 percent slope according to City of Renton software (Exhibit 19). The applicant submitted a Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 that evaluates the grading along the trail and also submitted a Draft Geotechnical Report-Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015 that identifies earthwork associated with the new bridge (Exhibits 6 and 9 respectively). Grading along the non-bridge portion of the trail consists of approximately 0.72 acres outside the trail footprint (Exhibit 6, page 1-1). Grading is estimated at approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards of fill (Exhibit 17, sheets Cl to ClS). Much ofthe trail segment is already improved as a 10 to 12- foot wide gravel maintenance and-recreational trail within the Black River Riparian Forest. From the Forest, the trail is currently paved as it crosses Monster Rd SW and heads west towards railroad undercrossings where the existing trail becomes a dirt footpath and dirt road. The western most 600 feet of the trail is existing maintained lawn at Fort Dent Park. Earthwork is also required for the new bridge foundations on the north and south banks of the Black River to be located east of the existing Monster Rd S bridge (Exhibit 27 and Exhibit 30). The Geotechnical Report finds that the subsurface within the area of the proposed bridge supports is underlain by fill over loose alluvium, over medium dense alluvium, over Glacial Till or Bedrock, and are relatively deep, liquefiable soils that are prone to settlement and lateral spreading during a seismic event. According to the geotechnical report, suitable bearing material for bridge foundations was encountered at approximately 45 feet on the north bank and at 67 feet at the south bank (Exhibit 9, page 3, Subsurface Conditions). To establish the bridge foundations, approximately 60 soil columns would be constructed to stabilize a 16-foot by 35-foot area on the south side of the river and a 16-foot by 25-foot area on the north side of the river (Exhibit 27). Each column would be approximately 4 feet in diameter and extend 30 to 40 feet below existing grade. All ground improvements for the bridge are above the Black River Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Drilling equipment is anticipated to remain upslope of the OHWM at all times. The Draft Geotechnical Report-Black River Bridge states the probability of catastrophic bridge failure and human life fatalities will be significantly small when the pile foundations combined with stone columns are used for the bridge support (Exhibit 9). Because the submitted report is a draft, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge as part of required building permit submittal. Staff also recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report-Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015 or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall provide any updated geotechnical report for the Black River Bridge which shall be submitted as part of required building permit application. ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA1S-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 6 of 13 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Draft Geotechnical Report-Black River Bridge, prepared by HWA GeoSciences Inc, dated February 24, 2015 or any updated geotechnical report created for the project. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Renton Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-090, and Tukwila Shoreline Regulations TMC 18.44. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The trail alignment is proposed through six wetlands within the City of Renton and within the shoreline jurisdictions of the Green River and Black River in the City of Tukwila and the Black River within the City of Renton. A total of 1.31 acres of wetland buffers and stream buffers would be permanently and temporarily impacted by the proposal. There are no construction activities within 25 feet of the Green River or below the OHWM of the Black River so no temporary or permanent stream impacts are anticipated as long as best management practices are followed during bridge construction (Exhibit 27, page A-9). The applicant submitted two reports specific to impacts of wetlands and the rivers/streams associated with the project: a Stream Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 7), and a Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 6). Additional analysis of wetland and stream impacts is provided through the two submitted Endangered Species Act (ESA) No Effects Documents (Exhibits 27 and 28). No trail or construction work is proposed through wetlands (Exhibit 6, page 4-1). The applicant proposes mitigation plantings and revegetation of areas within the project as part of overall project mitigation. The mitigation planting plans are described in the "Vegetation" report subsection of this staff report. Permanent and temporary impacts to wetland buffers would occur. The area of permanent impacts to wetland buffers is approximately 0.49 acres (21,321 square feet). The area of temporary impacts to wetland buffer during construction is approximately 0.12 acres (5,302 square feet) (Exhibit 6, page 4-1 and Exhibit 22). These areas would be graded and existing vegetation and trees would be removed. The submitted Stream Discipline Report identified the potential stream impact area as within 200 feet of the Green and Black Rivers to cover the shoreline jurisdictional areas of the cities of Tukwila and Renton (Exhibit 7, page 3-1). The Black River Riparian Forest is also included because the forest is regulated as a shoreline within the City of Renton. The area of permanent impact of stream buffers is approximately 0.73 acres (31,641 square feet) although 0.13 acres overlaps with impacted wetland buffers and was assigned to the wetland section for impact analysis. About 0.40 acres of the permanently impacted stream buffer area is already permanently impacted by pavement, gravel, or other impervious surfaces (Exhibit 28, page 7). Temporary impacts to stream buffers would occur due to clearing and grading and may occur from potential erosion, sedimentation, and noise disturbance during construction. The total amount of temporarily impacted stream buffer is anticipated at about 0.10 acres (4,455 square feet). The Stream Discipline Report states that because the portions of the affected buffer are already degraded and that these areas would be replanted once construction is complete, temporary clearing along the streams are not expected to have a substantial effect on stream habitat or fish resources (Exhibit 7, page 4-2). All proposed bridge components would be designed and installed in accordance with the provision of the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) (Exhibit 7). The HPA review and approval is provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The permit requires that no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life and that unavoidable impacts be addressed through compensatory mitigation of the bridge project. The proposed prefabricated steel girder pedestrian bridge is approximately 109 feet long and 14 feet wide. Bridge construction sequencing is proposed as construction of the foundation system, lifting the preconstructed bridge on a crane onto the foundation. The crane would operate from the level area above the Black River bank crest (Exhibit 14, page 1-7). Bridge work is anticipated to begin in May of 2016 and is expected to last approximately 5 months with over-water work expected to be accomplished ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report WAlS-000257, ECF, SSOP, S-CUP, S-V Page 7 of 13 in approximately two weeks (Exhibit 27, page 11). Impact avoidance and project minimization measures for the bridge construction are provided in the No Effect Documentation for ESA·listed Species and Critical Habitat document (Exhibit 27, page C-1). The outlined measures cover bridge design, bridge installation, equipment use, construction materials, and containment. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that all of the bridge related impact avoidance measures be followed by the applicant as listed in the No Effect Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat document Appendix C (Exhibit 27). A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife is required by the state for overwater work for the bridge crossing of Black River and any conditions of the HPA are required to be followed. The Muckleshoot provided comment that a WRIA 9 restoration project at the confluence of the Black and Green Rivers may be impacted by the proposed trail (Exhibit 29). This project is known as LG-17 and is part of the WRIA 9 plan for the area (Exhibit 35). Project LG-17 consists of restoration of a 50 feet width riparian area along the bank of the Black River from the Black River Pump Station to the confluence with the Green River. The applicant provided a response that portions of the restoration project within Renton would be restored as part of this project, approximately 21,330 square feet from the City of Renton line to the Monster Rd Bridge, and that the riparian area along the trail corridor could potentially be fenced as part of the project to limit trail users from accessing the area (Exhibit 33). Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall follow the bridge construction impacts avoidance measures as listed in Appendix C of the September 2015 No-Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A, Exhibit 27. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Renton Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-090, and Tukwila Shoreline Regulations TMC 18.44. b. Ground Water Impacts: Ground water was observed in the areas of the new Black River bridge crossing during boring drilling at a depth of approximately 13.5 feet on the north bank and 19 feet below the existing ground surface on the south bank and due to the relatively high permeability of the fill soils and silty sand, it is expected that ground water levels are reflective of the river level (Exhibit 9, page 4). According to the submitted geotechnical report, because of relatively high permeability of the fill soils and silty sand, it is expected that ground water levels will be reflective of river level (Exhibit 9). The project Environmental Checklist states that no groundwater will be withdrawn and no water would be discharged to ground water (Exhibit 10, pages 8-9) as a part of the project. A review of nearby non project sites was evaluated for potential contamination of the project area in the WSDOT NEPA documentation (Exhibit 18). The evaluation found that the risk of encountering contamination from regulated and observed facilities, located adjacent to the proposed project corridor, is low. Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not applicable. c. Storm Water Impacts: No permanent impacts are anticipated from stormwater runoff once the trail project is complete (Exhibit 5, page 3-3). Some grading work will impact the 100-year floodplain where the trail alignment is located within the flood hazard area. The applicant submitted with the project application a Final Technical Information Report (TIR) for Drainage and Floodplain, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 5). Additional floodplain analysis specific to the new bridge is provided in the Biological Assessment, prepared by Parametrix, dated August 2014 (Exhibit 14). The TIR states that stormwater from the completed paved trail would sheetflow and be infiltrated or intercepted by vegetated areas between the trail and waterbodies along the trail. No impacts to the hydrology of the Green River or Black River would result from ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report WAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 8 of 13 operation of the project. The project would not add any pollution-generating impervious surface that could contaminate or change water quality ofthe nearby streams (Exhibit 7, page 4-2). Portions of the trail route are located within the 100-year floodplain area in both the cities of Tukwila and Renton and the net impact of the proposal would be more excavated area than fill (Exhibit 25). Approximately 1,050 feet of the trail alignment near the western end (Tukwila side) of the proposed trail corridor would be below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain (Exhibit 6, page 4-21). The majority of the existing trail alignment is elevated above the floodplain. The proposed bridge and abutments are designed to be above the 100-year floodplain elevation with the bottom of the bridge approximate 6 feet above the floodplain elevation. In the areas where the trail is below floodplain elevation, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill will be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation is proposed (Exhibit 5, page 6-1 and Appendix F, and Exhibit 32). Within Tukwila, approximately 115.64 cubic yards of fill and 5.47 cubic yards of excavation are proposed within the floodplain. Within Renton, approximately 100.89 cubic yards of fill and 236.39 cubic yards of excavation are proposed within the floodplain. The net result for the project is approximately 25 cubic yards of material excavated from below the floodplain elevation (Exhibit 5, page 6- 1). Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not applicable. 3. Vegetation Impacts: Permanent and temporary impacts of existing vegetation would occur along the trail alignment, within stream and wetland buffer areas, and through the removal of trees. Approximately 150 trees are proposed for removal. The applicant submitted reports specific to analysis and impacts of vegetation, critical areas, and critical habitat for fish: a Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 8), a Final Critical Areas Report, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 (Exhibit 6), and two ESA No Effect Determination documents, prepared by Parametrix, dated September 2015 and October 2011 (Exhibits 27 and 28). The ESA documents found that the trail improvements and bridge would have no effect on ESA-listed species or critical habitat. Temporary impacts of vegetation are anticipated to be limited to the areas along the trail. Trees and lower vegetation would be cleared along the trail as identified on the submitted clearing plan (Exhibit 17). The Final Critical Areas Report states that trail construction is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover within the critical area buffers (Exhibit 6, page 4-1). All temporarily affected areas would be restored to pre-construction conditions and would be re-planted or seeded with native species. Mitigation plantings and restoration areas along the project alignment are proposed to offset the permanent impacts of the lost vegetation and functions and values of the shoreline and project areas. The proposed plantings along the trail, mitigation plantings, conservation area plantings, and tree replacements for the project are proposed to help offset impacts within the shoreline and critical areas. Vegetation in temporarily affected areas would likely return to a state resembling pre-construction conditions within a few growing seasons after the completion of construction. The City of Renton has provided specific requests of the applicant for plantings of native plants along the trail segment within Renton that include submitting a landscape plan for areas cleared along the trail (Exhibit 12). As part of the project shoreline permit, staff will recommend that the applicant submit a landscape plan for the City of Renton Community Services to review and approve. Within Fort Dent Park within Tukwila, approximately 20 deciduous and fir trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter would be cleared for trail construction (Exhibit 6, page 4-1). Other trees may be affected by disturbance of understory vegetation within the areas shaded by the trees' canopies, or through root compaction by construction activities. Because these trees are located within the shoreline zone for the Green River, trail construction would be subject to the requirements of a Tree Clearing Permit per TMC 18.54.070. This permit would identify all affected trees, along with the measures that would be ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUNO REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report WA15-000257, ECF, SSOP, S-CUP, S-V Page 9 of 13 implemented to protect them. Any tree larger than 4 inches diameter that is removed within the City of Tukwila would be replaced with one or more new trees, based on the replacement ratios in TMC 18.54.130(3). The City of Renton has determined that all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail should be removed, as should all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection of public safety and the trail surface (Exhibit 12). In total, approximately 129 trees would be removed within the City of Renton, primarily consisting of cottonwoods (Exhibit 6, page 4-1). Approximately 53 of the trees proposed for removal are between 6 inches and greater in diameter including 16 cottonwoods. Most of the trees proposed for removal in the City of Renton are within the regulatory buffers of streams and/or wetlands. As discussed in the Final Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a) and summarized below, compensatory mitigation for the loss of trees in these areas would focus on enhancing ecological functions and to provide equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. All cleared trees adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest larger than 6 inches in diameter, whether they are inside or outside of a regulatory buffer, would be replaced by new trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. The Muckleshoot Tribes provided comments regarding the no net loss assessment for the project especially with the removal of mature trees within the shoreline areas (Exhibits 11 and 29). They request that trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along the rivers. The Muckleshoot also asked if trees to be removed as part of the project can be added to the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. King County has provided response that the request for a 2:1 ratio can be accommodated but there are no plans for placing wood debris in the Black River as mitigation because the project and proposed mitigation provides for no net loss of ecological processes and functions of the shoreline areas (Exhibit 26). The number of trees to be planted in the City of Renton as part of the project is approximately 900. The proposed deciduous and evergreen trees are a mixture of Bigleaf Maple, Paper Birch, Sitka Spruce, Douglas Fir, Pacific Willow, Sitka Willow, Western Red Cedar, and Vine Maple. The City of Tukwila does not specify required compensatory mitigation ratios for impacts to wetland buffers or stream buffers. Any trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter that are removed within sensitive areas or shoreline zones in the City of Tukwila would be replaced as prescribed by TMC requirements. The subject proposal includes multiple replanting areas for project mitigation impacts, screening for the heron colony, and as part of shoreline buffer conservation (Exhibit 31). The Final Critical Areas Study states that this type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat (Exhibit 6, page 5-4). The Critical Areas Study further states that the riparian functions that would benefit from mitigations include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. All planting areas are proposed within the City of Renton. In total, these planting areas are approximately 98,297 square feet of area (2.26 acres). Three mitigation planting areas are proposed that total 48,768 square feet and are located on the Black River banks and in the north-central area of the Black River Riparian Forest area. Two shoreline buffer vegetation conservation areas of approximately 42,741 square feet are proposed to be replanted on the north and south banks of the Black River. A screening planting area is proposed of approximately 6,788 square feet to provide fuller screening of the heron colony from the trail route. All areas are to be planted with native tree and shrubs species (Exhibit 31). A maintenance and monitoring plan for the plantings was submitted with performance and contingency measures as part of a 5-year reporting period following installation (Exhibit 6). Based on the submitted Final Critical Areas report and mitigation plan proposed, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to follow the proposed or future updated planting plan and monitoring and maintenance provided in the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015. Mitigation Measures: ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUA15·000l57, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S·V Page 10 of 13 1. The applicant shall follow the planting plan or an updated planting plan and monitoring and of the Final Critical Areas Study Appendix E, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, Exhibit 6. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Renton Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-090, and Tukwila Shoreline Regulations TMC 18.44. 4. Wildlife Impacts: A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report was submitted with the application, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, and provides analysis of anticipated impacts to non-fish wildlife (Exhibit 8). A Final Critical Areas Report was submitted with the application, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015, and provides analysis of anticipated impacts to special status fish and habitat (Exhibit 6). The applicant also submitted an ESA No Effects Document evaluation (Exhibit 27), which evaluate impacts of regulated fish. Essential fish habitat was assessed in the No Effects document and it was determined that the project and new bridge would not have an adverse effect on the ESA listed fish and their critical habitat (Exhibit 27). Staff has recommended a mitigation measure in the "Water" report subsection that the project follow the recommend avoidance actions in the submitted Biological Assessment to reduce potential impacts to fish and water. These avoidance actions include construction best management practices, a temporary erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance ESA Program Guidelines, SPCC plan, and requirements and conditions specified in the HPA issued by WDFW. The trail project alignment is home to more than SO species of birds including osprey, red-tailed hawk, bald eagles, a variety of songbirds, and a colony of great blue herons that has actively nested in the Riparian Forest every year since 1986 (Exhibit 10, page 10). Data from the WDFW indicate that the Black River Riparian Forest is also used by many waterfowl species, including bufflehead, mallard, gadwall, wigeon, scaup, and green-winged teal. Mammals present in the area are likely to include coyotes, raccoons, beavers, mice, voles, and moles. Reptiles and amphibians that use the project area habitats include garter snakes, Pacific chorus frogs, and long-toed salamanders. Impacts to area wildlife and habitat would occur due to construction and increased use and activity of humans of the corridor. The Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report assessed the potential for project- related noise and human activity to disturb sensitive wildlife species up to 1,300 feet from the trail alignment based on published guidelines to avoid disturbance to sensitive species that may occur in the project vicinity. The degree of disturbance during construction would depend on the noise level, the timing and during of construction activities, and the sensitivity of individual animals. Construction activity is expected to begin in late spring 2016 and likely be completed within 12 months (Exhibit 8, page 4-3). Clearing in spring and summer may damage or destroy the nests of migratory birds. The Vegetation and Wildlife Report states that wildlife sensitive to disturbance would likely avoid the area during construction in the short-term and not likely influence the long-term viability of wildlife in the project corridor area (Exhibit 8, page 4-3). Much of the project area is already graveled or well worn dirt pathways and any permanent loss of habitat along the project corridor is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in habitat availability. Also, within wetlands in the study area, no temporary or permanent impacts are anticipated and therefore local populations of wetland dependent wildlife species are not expected to be affected by the project (Exhibit 10, page 4-3). There may be adverse effects on sensitive wildlife as the frequency of use and increase in numbers of users are expected on the trail with full operation and use of the trail following construction. Trash may also increase along the corridor and can attract wildlife species such as crows, jays, and/or mammals that could in-turn create impacts. Bald eagle, great blue heron, and pileated woodpecker are special-status wildlife species that have been observed in the project area and special-status wildlife that may occur (not observed) are Western toad, Peregrine Falcon, and Townsend's big-eared bat. Special-status species include (1) species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, (2) species that are candidates or proposed for listing under the ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, S-CUP, S-V Page 11 of 13 ESA, (3) species listed by WDFW as endangered, threatened, candidate, or sensitive, and (4) other species for which critical habitat areas are designated by the City of Renton or for which fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are designated by the City of Tukwila. Analysis of impacts to the Western toad, Peregrine Falcon, and Townsend's big-eared bat are provided in the submitted Vegetation and Wildlife Report (Exhibits 8). A summary of potential impacts to bald eagles, herons, Chinook salmon, and bull trout are provided below. Bald Eagles: The Vegetation and Wildlife Report states that the project would not be expected to affect the availability of suitable habitat for bald eagles in the study area (Exhibit 8, page 4-3). No trees proposed to be removed by project construction are suitable for bald eagle nesting, roosting, or perching. The nearest bald eagle nest is more than 1,000 feet from the trail. Construction noise and activity has the potential to disturb foraging activities in the Black River Riparian Forest and there are other readily available areas for foraging in the general vicinity and along nearby bodies of water (Exhibit 8, page 4-4). Long-term, the USFWS says that non-motorized recreational activities greater than 330 feet from active bald eagle nests are unlikely to disturb nests (Exhibit 8, page 4-11). Blue Heron: Although not a state-listed or ESA-listed species in Washington, the great blue heron is a species of special concern in British Columbia due to declining productivity. For many years, the Black River Riparian Forest supported one of the largest breeding colonies of great blue herons in Washington State, with more than 100 nests distributed throughout much of the forested area. For much of that time, the greatest density of nests was near the eastern edge of the lagoon above the Black River pump station, near the confluence with Springbrook Creek. Portions of the trail alignment north of the Black River pump station are approximately 250 to 500 feet from stands that have been used as pre-nesting congregation areas. No vegetation clearing would take place in forested stands within or immediately adjacent to the Black River nesting heron colony during for trail construction. Herons could possibly be impacted due to their sensitivity of trail use (Exhibit 8, page 4-10). The potential for disturbance to nesting herons would be minimized by the distance from the trail and continued vegetated buffer screening between the colony and trail. The selected location of most of the trail alignment, at the edge of the Riparian Forest and adjacent to currently developed areas reduces the likliehood that nesting birds would perceive the trail use as a new disturbance according to the Vegetation and Wildlife Report (Exhibit 8, page 4-10). Improvements to the existing trail could allow for an increase in heron observers determined to get close to the colony. WDFW recommends a year-round buffer of 656 feet around nesting colonies and seasonal buffer of 1,312 feet. Grading, construction, and vegetation clearing are discouraged within the year-round buffer and loud activities are discouraged from February to September in the seasonal buffer area. WDFW provides a number of management recommendations for the colony. The effects of grading and construction could be visible to nesting herons-as they fly in and out of the nesting colony. Noise from construction machinery may be audible within the colony site. Sudden, loud noises may frighten birds off nests, rendering eggs and young more vulnerable to predation. Such disruptions may diminish reproductive success during the season in which they occur, and could contribute to abandonment of nests or even of the colony. Also, the additional noise sources could exacerbate stress levels for a nesting colony that has been subject to noise and other disturbance from ongoing activities at the concrete recycling plant and light industrial development nearby. The average maximum noise levels associated with trail construction equipment would not exceed 83 decibels or the 92-decibel threshold that defines unusually loud activities according to WDFW's management recommendations. Nevertheless, to minimize the potential for disturbance to breeding herons, activity restrictions would be implemented for trail construction between January 15 and August 31. Fish: Fish habitat and fish are present in both the Green River and Black River areas where the project is located. Fish habitat and fish presence and potential impacts to fish along the project alignment are described in the submitted Final Critical Area Study, prepared by Parametrix, dated April 2015 and the two ESA No Effect Determination documents, prepared by Parametrix, dated September 2015 and October 2011 (Exhibits 27 and 28). The ESA No Effect Determination document for the whole project excluding the new ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUND REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report LUAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, 5-CUP, S-V Page 12 of 13 bridge states that the project will have no effect upon designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon or bull trout, and Puget Sound Steelhead and that the project will not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (Exhibit 27, pages 10-11). The ESA No Effect Determination document for the new bridge states that the project will have no effect on ESA-listed species or critical habitat {Exhibit 28). Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not Applicable. 5. Parks and Recreation Impacts: The subject project would impact park systems of both cities by improving the trail systems at Fort Dent Park in Tukwila and in the Black River Riparian Forest within Renton. The Black River Riparian Forest is approximately 94 acres of wetlands, shoreline, and natural areas with an established trail system. Fort Dent is approximately 54 acres with soccer fields, a playground, picnic area, and other park amenities and includes the privately run Starfire Sports Complex. A new connection to the regional Green River Trail would be created at Fort Dent. No temporary closures of the Green River Trail are anticipated during project construction. The existing trail currently receives low levels of use for walking, running, bicycling, pet exercise, and bird-watching. The uses would likely be increased through proposed project improvements. The Black River Riparian Forest recreation and natural area was acquired with a variety of funding sources including a grant from what is now the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). King County consulted with RCO to ensure the consistency of the subject trail corridor project with the intent of the grant. RCO confirmed that the grant program encourages public access to wildlife areas and the trail is consistent with the grant. Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater regional trail system network. Segment A provides a much needed improved trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy railroad lines. Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not Applicable. 6. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: The trail alignment passes through the boundaries of the White Lake historic and cultural site. The White Lake site is located on the south bank of the Black River at its confluence with the Green River. The applicant conducted a cultural resource survey found no evidence of the archaeological site during field investigations {Exhibit 10, page 16). The submitted Environmental Checklist states that although no historic properties were found in the investigation, the western portion of the project area is nonetheless considered sensitive for the presence of precontact archaeological resources because of the White Lake site and other known ethnographic villages {Exhibit 10, page 16-17). Excavation to construct the trail within archaeological site boundaries is anticipated to be minimized as designed and is not proposed to exceed 9 to 12 inches within the construction area. Staff recommends a mitigation measure that if any archeological/cultural resources are found that construction stop and the applicant contact the City of Renton Planning Division, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Mitigation Measures: 1. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources {Native American artifacts) are found all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA 7. Transportation ERC Report 15-000257 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development LAKE TO SOUNO REGIONAL TRAIL -SEGMENT A Report of January 11, 2015 Environmental Review Committee Report WAlS-000257, ECF, SSDP, 5-CUP, 5-V Page 13 of 13 Impacts: The subject 1.2-mile trail project would improve a non-motorized corridor through South King County. The subject Segment A of the Lake to Sound regional route would establish a new street crossing over Monster Rd S, a stream crossing over the Black River, and improve the safety of under crossings of functioning railroad lines. The project could result in the reduction of the number of vehicles and bicyclists using the streets by transitioning some drivers into trail users. The trail would connect Naches Ave SW in Renton to Fort Dent Park, Starfire Sports Complex, and the Green River Trail in Tukwila. A new signalized crossing would be installed for trail users to cross Monster Rd S. Traffic that uses the arterial would be slowed and stopped at the new signal. For the trail to cross the Black River, an improvement of the existing Monster Road Bridge was considered, but ultimately a new 114-foot non-motorized bridge is proposed to cross the Black River just east of the Monster Road Bridge. Crossing of the existing bridge was deemed unsafe due to the structural integrity of the existing structure. No new motor vehicle trips per day would be generated by the subject project (Exhibit 10, page 17). Trail users are anticipated to access the trail from residences, places of employment, or from the existing Fort Dent and Black Forest parks areas. Vehicular parking would not be added or eliminated. Existing parking for trail users would be available at Fort Dent and around the Black River Riparian Forest area. The trail alignment requires railroad under crossings in both City of Renton and City of Tukwila just west of Monster Road, on the south bank of the Black River, where the two elevated railroad bridges cross the Black River heading north-south. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company has requested that the trail potentially be covered within 30 feet of the overhead railroad bridges to prevent debris from falling on trail users. If required, the cover would be approximately 12 to 14 feet above the trail for vertical clearance and safe passage of trail users (Exhibit 10, page 15). King County is coordinating with the railroad companies regarding design features to protect the railroad operations and railroad property. Trail right-of-way acquisition from the railroad companies is proposed by King County to be done following environmental review and prior to trail construction for the north-south railroad lines. No acquisition of railroad owned property is needed along the east-west railroad corridor that runs just north of the proposed trail alignment in the northerly area of the Black River Riparian Forest. Mitigation Measures: None. Nexus: Not applicable. E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant" (Exhibit 36). >I' Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 p.m. on January 29, 2016. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. ERC Report 15-000257 <Jl Notes None 953 S 133rd St \ \ \ . \ Fort Deni Parle '\ 0 477 953 Feet WGS_ 1984_Web_Mercator_Aux1l1ary _Sphere r;h,nfD~{; ~-llLUJl( __ ;, Finance & IT Division City of Renton Zoning EXHIBIT% Legend City and County Boundary Other [. ! City of Renton Zoning • RC-Resource Conseruat1on R1-Res1dentia11 du/ac R6-Res1dential -6 OU/AC Ra-Res1dent1al8du/ac R10-Res1dent1al 10du/ac Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 11512016 R· 14 R·lO R·lO R·lO Carlington flD,k R -.~ '~'11 -,1roµ, CN-Commercial Ne1ghbarhoad • CV-Center Village • CA-Commerc1al Artenal • UC-Urban Center • CD-Center Downtown COR-Cammerc1al OfficeJRes1dent1al • CO-Commerc1al Office IL-lndustnal-L1ght :ffi IM-lndustnal-Med1um • IH-lndustnal-Heavy swrs, ,\ .. \ f::1 !l -· l r,, ji w,~mU~ Zoning Districts, Overlays, and Sub-Areas o,,..,,.,,"- ,.,_~, ,,,.,.,,.,.,., .... ~ "'""'"' -"'.Jl. -~ '"'"'"""'"""'~' ,, .... w ...... ,,.. • .,.... Sn01el11JOO,erlay(Appr,;<am11ely200'oacho,dooftho,iver) @ I City of Tukwila ! Comprehensive Plan &Zoning Map 1~., __ 11 I City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Overlay None 0 -953 0 477 953 Feet IWGS~ 1984_Web~Mecca1oc_A,"l"cy_Sphece ~ton-. Finance & IT Division EXHIBIT 3 Legend City and County Boundary Ulher City o!Rer,ion Environment Designations D ~Jatural D Shcrel1reHghlrc8nst1 D Shorel1relsoaledH1ghln:ens,1y D Shorel1reRes1den:a1 O Urb6nConserva11~)' I .l11n,;:;.rl1ri1nnc. Information Technology -GIS ' RenlonMapSupport@Rentonwa gov 1/5/2016 ype Np Typfl Ns EXHIBIT 4 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Prepared for King County King County -----------------'JIIIIIII ll[f!JflllflfJl/l//lll',81 _____ _ April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 5 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Final Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain Prepared for King County Division of Capital Planning and Development Facilities Management Division, DES King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue, Room 320 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com April 2015 I 554-1521-084 (A/3T200B) EXHIBIT 6 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Final Critical Areas Report Prepared for King County -----------------lllr:'Jfllllllll IUl1!iffi;if.lllllllr:811111--IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix 1 ] ] ~ D m ] l 1 1 1 1 1 I, J, EXHIBIT 7 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Stream Discipline Report RECEIVED APR 1 7 2015 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING DIVISION Prepared for King County 1l ______________ ...,,;,;;.:'6Ja//l..., _____ _ I I ) April 2015 Prepared by Parametrix EXHIBIT 8 Entire Document Available Upon Request Lake to Sound-Segment A Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report Prepared for King County April 2015 Prepared by l'aramctrix EXHIBIT 9 Entire Document DRAFT Available Upon Request DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON HWA Project No. 20 I 0-100 T200 February 24, 2015 Prepared for: Parametrix, Inc. u~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC EXHIBIT 10 WAC 197-11-960 Purpose uf checklist: Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENT Entire Document Available Upon Request The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part DJ. For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project." "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, ifapplicable: Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A 2. Name ofapplicant: King County Parks 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jason Rich, Capital Improvement Project Manager King Street Center 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 4. Date checklist prepared: April 9, 2015 425-430-6593 ksorensen@rentonwa_gov EXHIBIT 11 From: Karen Walter (mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:43 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: Jill Ding Subject: FW: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Kris, We have reviewed King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project referenced above and offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty-protected fisheries resources: 1. The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (seepage 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? 2. Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. 3. Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. 4. Trees should be replanted at a rninimurn 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Green River and the Black River. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's/applicant's responses. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Sabrina Mirante (mailto:SMirante@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:01 PM To: DOE; DOE (misty.blair@ecy.wa.gov); DNR; Erin Slaten; Karen Walter; Laura Murphy Cc: Kris Sorensen; Jill Ding Subject: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV PLEASE SEE ATIACHED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED)-Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: May 7, 2015 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SMV, SM PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit approval, Shoreline Variance approval, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. This trail segment is 14,317 feet {1.2 miles) long and 12 feet wide. A portion of the trail corridor is located within the City of Tukwila city limits. The City of Renton has taken SEPA Lead Agency Status for the entire trail corridor, however separate permits from the City of Tukwila will be required for that portion of the trail within the Tukwila city limits. The trail corridor is located within the Commercial Office (CO), Resource Conservation (RC), and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations. The trail corridor runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest which contains the Black River (a Shoreline of the State), six wetlands (Categories II, Ill, and IV), and a Blue Heron nesting colony. Portions of the trail corridor are located within the Shoreline Management Act Natural Environment designation. PROJECT LOCATION: 14299 Monster Road SW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: April 17, 2015 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: May 7, 2015 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Jason Rich/King County Parks/King Street Center, 7th Fl/ 201 S Jackson St./Seattle, WA 98104/ SEPA Review, Shoreline CUP and Variance, SSDP Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permit Requested Studies: Location where application may Critical Areas Report, Geotechnical Report, Habitat Report, Stream/Lake Study, Wetland Assessment COMMUNITY SI DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 12 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 23, 2015 TO: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner FROM: Leslie Betlach, Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director Revised Lake To Sound Trail Review Comments LUAlS-000257 SUBJECT: Upon further review of the Lake to Sound Trail project, the Community Services Department would like to submit the following revised comments: 1. There are several locations in the Plan Set where cottonwood and alder trees are proposed to be removed along the trail with no indication about how the area is to be restored. After reviewing the Final Critical Areas Report, only some of the tree removal locations are proposed to be restored. It is recommended that all disturbed areas noted in the Plan set be restored; more detail is required. In addition, we recommend that the trunks of the trees that are to be removed, be left on the ground. Stumps should be ground and the area re-vegetated. 2. There is no landscaping plan for planting along the trail. A landscape plan should be submitted as a condition of approval for the CUP and that the replanting plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance. 3. In areas identified with a 20' tree removal area, a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers, followed by densely planted shrubs and ending with trees in the outer 20' in order to minimize trail upheaval caused by tree roots. 4. The current plans call for Cottonwood trees only to be removed within the 20' buffer. Five additional trees have been identified to be included for removal, two of which are alder trees. Please add the additional five trees for removal. 5. In areas identified with a 10' tree removal area from the paved edge of the trail (treed section north of Naches), a hierarchy of planting is recommended starting from the outside edges of the gravel shoulders with grasses/groundcovers followed by densely planted shrubs. Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Page 2 of 2 July 23, 2015 6. Areas along the trail that have had clearing, tree removal, restoration, and at rest stops should include a split rail-type fence to deter public access into the riparian area. This should be noted on the plans; a detail of the fencing should be included. 7. Temporary irrigation should be included for all areas that are to be restored and for the duration of the 5 year monitoring plan. Include plans and details. 8. Interpretive Signage, particularly at rest stops about the habitat at the Black River Riparian Forest should be included as part of the design. 9. "Sensitive Area -"Please Stay on Trail" signage should be located at rest stops, near the split rail fencing and other locations as determined. 10. A greater variety of plant materials should be added to the plant list such as Ribes spp.-native currant, Vaccinium ovatum -Evergreen huckleberry and Rosa spp.-single flowers native roses. 11. The City's standard bollard and bench details should be considered. cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Terry Flatley, Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager Todd Black, Capital Project Coordinator EXHIBIT 13 EXHIBIT 14 Parametrix ENGINEERING. PLANNING. ENVIRONMENTAL SC!E~ August 28, 2015 Mr. Kris Sorensen Economic & Community Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Lake to Sound Trail Segment A-Biological Assessment Hi Kris, ---719 2ND AVENUE. SUITE 200 I SEATI LE, WA 98104 I P 206 394.3708 v1~1 ~w BUILDING DIVISION CITY OF P.ENTON RECEIVED AUG 3 1 2015 On behalf of Jason Rich, King County Parks, I am submitting the enclosed Biological Assessment (BA) for the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project. This submittal responds to your email request dated August 18th. Please note that, because the project has federal transportation funding, the BA follows the template and guidance used by the Washington State Department a/Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration is the federal lead agency. We've provided some additional language below intended to assist you with your floodplain compliance needs. In addition to fulfilling the requirements for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation between the Federal Highway Administration and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the enclosed BA supports compliance with the terms of NMFS' 2008 biological opinion for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The City of Renton, as the local jurisdiction with permitting authority under the NFIP, is required to demonstrate that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA-listed salmonids. The project element with the greatest potential to affect ESA-listed salmonids or their habitat is the proposed pedestrian bridge over the Black River. The potential effects of bridge installation and operation are the primary subject of analysis in the BA. Documentation of the compliance of the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A pedestrian bridge with the terms of the NMFS NFIP biological opinion is presented in Section 6 (Floodplain Analysis) of the BA. Potential effects of other elements of the proposed trail are addressed in Appendix A, October 2011 No-effects Determination for Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A. In addition, as discussed in the April 2015 City of Renton Critical Area Study for the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project, the project will result in no net fill below the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. No compensatory storage is required or proposed. The findings in these analyses support the determination that the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project is not likely to adversely affect water quality, water quantity, spawning substrate, flood volumes or velocities, or floodplain refugia for ESA-listed salmonids. Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss further or need additional information in order to advance the processing of the shoreline conditional use permit application. Best regards, Jenny Bailey &»W\j ~ Consultant Project Manager Cc: Jason Rich, King County Jenny Bailey, Parametrix File Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Biological Assessment Prepared for King County Parks ~ King County August 2015 Prepared by Parametrix DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNl1 AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME EXHIBIT 15 Construction Mitigation Description Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Construction Mitigation Description: Please provide 5 copies of a written narrative addressing each of the following: • Proposed construction dates (begin and end dates) Proposed construction dates are unknown and will be dependent upon permitting restrictions, fish windows, seasonal rain conditions, and habitat restrictions for nearby nesting herons. • Hours and days of operation Construction operations will be generally limited between Monday and Friday during an 8-hour consecutive period between 7:00am and 6:00pm. • Any special hours proposed for construction or hauling (i.e. weekends, late nights) Night, weekend and holiday work will not be permitted. • Proposed hauling/transportation routes Hou/ and construction site access with be from Monster Rood and Naches Avenue, depending on the section of trail to be constructed. • Preliminary traffic control plan Traffic control along Monster Road will generally include single-lane traffic and sidewalk closures using floggers and standard WSDOT Work Zone Traffic Control plans. Traffic control at Naches Avenue and the trail head will be limited to parking restrictions; this is a cul-de-sac and serves as parking for infrequent trail users. • Measures to be implemented to minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics Temporary erosion and sediment control measures from the King County Surface Water Design Manual (2009), Appendix D, will be applied during construction to limit dust, erosion, mud, and noise and other noxious characteristics of the construction. EXHIBIT 16 Pugel &wod @ Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Green River Trail to Naches Avenue SW King County, Washington Contract No. XX ~tf~. ftl) UNJ~ORA.TED ') ~ {"fl,.. KING \ 'r~""i,, COUNlY / ~--J,,..~.: I \ ::j I ··-;,·r---..~- \ ;t) --,--1 ... 'r-~~ I I I \ J ~ -~~ ~:~ \\ \ ....,. 900 St; t, ~ ~.~ -\ I-& ~,A_ ~ ~ "' r l m >< ::c 1-4 c:, :i .... ..... s~ 6t,.,rl1W.t1 L~!!o~.~ ·:;~ ~ ' D H~ ~!N~~~ LAKETOSOUJIID"fflAJL SEGMEJIITA ~_.;.~-:.:-·--11 GREENRIVERTR"'L TOt..'.CllESA\/ESW L ~~ ~~ ~~--~--~--~- 167 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL Nor FOR CONSTRUCllON I ,~·· COVER SHEET I Washington State Department of Transpor EXHIBIT 18 NEPA Categorical Exclusion Documentation Form Federal Aid Project Number: I Date: I Intent of Submittal: CM2017(110) 11/3/2015 D Preliminary D Final i2JRe-Evaluate Agency: King County Department I Project Title: of Transportation Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A County: King County Beginning MP: NA Township(s): 23N Ending MP: NA Range(s): 4E Miles:Ll Section(s): 13, 14 Part 1-Project Description The Lake to Sound Trail is a continuous, 16-mile-long regional corridor linking Lake Washington to Puget Sound through the Cities of Renton, Tukwila, SeaTac and Des Moines. This project develops a multi- purpose, nonmotorized route for "Segment A" of the Lake to Sound Trail and is 1.06 miles in length. Included in the project is a 114 ft. pedestrian bridge over the Black River. Segment A travels through the Black River Riparian Forest from Naches Avenue SW (City of Renton), crossing Monster Road SW, to arrive at Fort Dent Park(City of Tukwila). --- Part 2 -Categorical Exclusion Select one CE from 23 CFR 771.117 (CE Guidebook -Appendix A) that fits the entire project:@} NEPA Approval Signatures Date Date Date Federal Highway Administration Date Completed by (Print Official's Name): · Telephone (include area code): E-mail address: Lindsey Miller 206-477-3549 Lindsey.miller@kingcounty.gov --------------~-· DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 1 of9 Part 3 -Permits, Approvals & Right of Way (ROW) Yes No Permit or Approval Yes No Permit or Approval D !Zl Corps of Engineers D Sec.10 D Sec. 404 D [SJ Water Rights Permit D Nationwide Type D [SJ Water Quality Certification-Section 401 D Individual Permit No. Issued by D IZJ Coast Guard Permit D [SJ Tribal Permit(s) (if any) D IS] Coastal Zone Management Certification [SJ D Other Permits (List) Right-of-way use gennits, [gl 0 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Permit City of Renton and Tukwil,!; Conditional Use D IS] Forest Practices Act Permit ne1mit. City of Tukwila ['] D Hydraulic Project Approval [SJ 0 ROW acquisition required? lf yes, amount ['] 0 local Building or Site Development Permits needed: 6,000 square feet ['] D Local Clearing and Grading Permit D ~ ls relocation required? ['] 0 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System D [SJ Has ROW already been acquired for this project? If (NPDES) Baseline General for Construction I~ 0 Shoreline Permit yes, attach responses to Appendix Fin the CE Guidebook. IZl State Waste Discharge Permit D [SJ Has an offer been made or have negotiations begun to acquire ROW for this project? If yes, attach responses to I ['] D TESC Plans Completed Appendix Fin the CE Guidebook. I D [SJ Is a detour required? If yes, please attach detour information. Other Federal Agencies -Does the project involve any federal properties, approvals or funding from other/additional federal agencies? D Yes [SJ No If Yes, please describe. Part 4 -Environmental Considerations Will the project involve work in or affect any of the following? Identify proposed mitigation. Attach additional pages or supplemental information if necessary. ·----· 1. Air Quality-Identify any anticipated air quality issues. . ls the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requirements? rgj Yes D No If Yes, identify exemption -please refer to Appendix Gin the CE Guidebook for a list of exemptions. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. . !s the project included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan? [SJ Yes D No I/Yes, date Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted: June 25, 2015 . Is the project located in an Air Quality Non-Attainment Area or Maintenance Area for carbon monoxide, ozone or PM 10? [SJ Yes D No DOT Farm 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 2 of 11 I Part 4 -Environmental Considerations (continued) 2. Critical and Sensitive Areas Is this project within a sole source i.3quifer D Yes lg] No If located within a sole source aquifer, is the project exempt from EPA approval? If Yes, please list exemption: If No, date of EPA approval: Will this project impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed species? D Yes lg] No Explain your answer. The project area provides habitat to Great Blue Heron and Bald Eagles. No nests were observed within the clearing limits of the bridge; the remainder of the project will occur in areas currently improved gravel paths (old railroad). To minimize any potential for disturbance to breeding herons outside of the immediate project area, activity restrictions will be implemented for trail construction between January 15 and August 31. Additionally, noise in the surrounding area was typical of an industrial area (Renton Concrete Recyclers, Stoneway Concrete Black River, and Rabanco Black River Transfer Station). To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the project will implement measures to minimize impacts to nesting birds. The Black River and nearby Duwamish river provides habitat for salmonids including coho, sockeye, and chum. No in-water work will occur as part of this project. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will be 14 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river will be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 616 square feet of the river will be affe6ted by shading from the bridge. The bottom of the bridge deck will be at least 3 feet above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain, which is approximately 10 feet higher than the OHWM. The height of the bridge above the water will reduce the intensity of any shade-related effects, The h1idge will be oriented on a north-south axis, minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day. The effects of clearing (mostly invasive species) in the riparian area will be mitigated by replanting native vegetation at a nearby location in the riparian area of the Black River. Over the long term, the native grasses, shrubs, and trees planted at the mitigation site may provide greater ecological function than the mostly non-native vegetation that will be affected at the project site. Is this project within one mfle of a Bald Eagle nesting territory, winter concentration area or communal roost? tgJ Yes D No Please see the attached Bald Eagle Form for more information. • Are wetlands present within the project area? [8J Yes O No lf Yes, estimate the impact in acres: 0 acres Please attach a copy of.the proposed mitigation plan. Direct stream and wetland impacts have been completely avoided. Approximately I acre of native species would be planted to compensate for stream and wetland buffer impacts. JOT Form 140·100EF Revised 5/2015 Page 3 of 11 3. Cultural Resources/Historic Structures -Identify any historic, archaeological or cultural resources present within the project's Area of Potential Effects. Does the project flt into any of the exempt types of projects listed in Appendix J of the CE Guidebook? CJ Yes ~ No If Yes, note exemptions below. If No: Date of DAHP concurrence: April 27. 2015 (original concurrence on 9-15-2011) Date ofTribal consultation(s) (if applicable):------------- Adverse effects on cultural/historic resources? D Yes (:;;] No If Yes, date of approved Section 106 MOA: ------------- 4. Floodplains and floodways Is the project located in a 100-year floodplain? (:;;] Yes D No If Yes, is the project located within a 100-year floodway? (:;;] Yes D No Will the project impact a 100-year floodplain? (:;;] Yes D No If Yes, describe impacts. The proposed vertical alignment of the trail is adjacent to the Green and Black Rivers with a finished grade as close as possible to existing grade while still providing smooth transitions for ADA compliance and positive drainage towards the river. However, between A-Line Stations 1 +00 and 12+25, approximately 217 cubic yards of fill would be placed and approximately 242 cubic yards of excavation would occur, for an overall net removal of approximately 25 cubic yards of material below the floodplain elevation. This is the only fill and excavation activity below the floodplain elevation, and the net difference will not impact floodplain storage or function. DOTform 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 4 of 11 Part 4 • Environmental Considerations (continued) 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste-Identify potential sources and type(s). a) Does the project require excavation below the existing ground surface 7 0 Yes D No b) Will groundwater be encountered? 0 Yes D No c) Will any properties be acquired as part of this project? 0 Yes D No d) Is this site located in an undeveloped area (;.e. no buildings, parking, storage areas or agrlculture? 0Yes (8J: No e) Is the project located within a one-mile radius of a known Superfund Site? D Yes 0 No f) Is this project located within a Y,-mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the following Department of Ecology databases? 0 Yes D No If Yes, check the appropriate boxes below. 0 Voluntary Cleanup Program {VCP), State Cleanup Site (SCS), or Independent Cleanup Program (ICP) 0 Underground Storage Tank (Usn @ Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) 0 Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List {CSCSL) g) Has site reconnaissance {windshield survey) been performed? @ Yes D No (Please identify any properties not identified in the Ecology or ERS database search as an attachment-name, address and property use). In the September 2012 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Hazardous Materials Discipline Report, five Ecology regulated sites, located adjacent to the proposed trail, were identified as having the potential to release contaminants to shallow soils or surface water based on their generator status or active permits. The site reconnaissance (conducted on November 2, 2015) confirmed that, with the exception of Multichem Analytical Services, the regulated sites located adjacent to the project corridor were still in operation. No spills or releases were identified for these facilities during the review of Ecology's FSID database and no evidence of spills or releases were observed during the site reconnaissance. Based on the lack of regulated USTs and lack of suspected or confirmed spills or releases; the risk of encountering contamination from these regulated and observed facilities, located adjacent to the project corridor, is low. h) Based on the lnformation above and project specific activities, is there a potential for the project to generate, acquire or encounter contaminated soils., groundwater or surf.ace water'? 0 Yes 18] No Please explain: As part of the Hazardous Materials Discipline Report Addendum (dated November 3, 2015) which expands the project scope to include the construction of the pedestrian bridge; King County conducted a review of Ecology's Facility/Site Identification System (F/SID) and compared the updated review to the original screening (2012). Based on a review of Ecology's F/SID (http:/lwww.ecy.wa.gov/fs/, accessed on October 15, 2015) no National Priorities List sites {Superfund sites) were located within a one-mile radius of the project limits. A review of Ecology's F/SID revealed eight sites within Y, mile radius of the project corridor that had documented contamination. Seven of the eight sites were immediately eliminated from further consideration based on the criteria described below: A hazardous materials and waste professional reviewed each site using a screening process to identify sites of concern where it was likely that contamination would be encountered during excavation and/or dewatering. A site may pose a liability to the project if the site is located within close proximity (adjacent to the proposed project areal, or hydraulically upgradient, or has a confirmed release of hazardous materials or petroleum products to soils or groundwater (traditionally 1/2 mile or less in distance). A }1- mile search radius was selected because it was judged to encompass areas from which contamination DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 5 of 11 could reasonably be expected to migrate to the project footprint Seven of the eight sites (DJS Trucking-FS#2304, Arco Station & Mini Mart-FS#4552344, Anderson Joseph B -FS#8509656,, Becker Trucking Inc. Tukwila-FS# 17036781, Jumbo Deli-FS# 59337954, K & N Meats -FS#72559666, and Southland Facility-FS# 99853513) were considered to have a very low likelihood of adversely impacting the project and were eliminated from further consideration due to one or more of the following reasons: o the sites have been remedlated to levels below MTCA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted in impacts to soil only; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned project area (and those activities that would encounter groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. The eighth facility, Graphic Packaging International Inc. -FS# 14693954 -located at 601 Monster Rd, was physically situated about 500 feet southeast of the pedestrian bridge foundations (which is the only location within the project limits where project excavations will be deep enough to encounter groundwater and any contaminants that have migrated from off-site sources). To further characterize the site, King County reviewed the City of Renton permit history for the site (https://permitsearch.mybuildingpermit.com/Simple5earch.aspx, accessed on October 31, 2015) and historical aerial photographs at Historical Aerials by NETROnline (http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed October 31, 2015), and contacted the Ecology Site Manager via e-mail (November 3, 2015), and had a phone interview with the Tricia Sweat the Health, Safety, and Environmental ivianager of Graphic Packaging (November 31 2015). Based on a review of the available information, the underground vaults that resulted in a release to soil and groundwater were abandoned in place in the late 1980s (about 700 feet southeast of the bridge foundations). Between the early 1990s and 2001, a number of monitoring wells were installed on the site to determine the extent of the groundwater contamination. The Ecology LUST database notes (as provided by Donna Musa Site Manager for Ecology) stated that, in 1997, the petroleum hydrocarbon impacts appeared to be localized around the abandoned oil/water separator (one of the underground vaults) and the adjacent monitoring wells, and that the results from the perimeter monitoring wells suggested that the impacts were generally confined to the site. Ms. Sweat reported that a contractor was hired in October 2015 to remove the abandoned vaults (including a sanitary sewer lift vault and the oil/water separator and its associated waste tank) and the surrounding impacted soil (this statement was confirmed by the City of Renton permit summary for the site). Based on the lack of off-site migration of the detected groundwater contamination, the recent removal of the source of the groundwater contamination, and the direction of groundwater flow (westerly); it is unlikely for the project to encounter contaminated groundwater or soil as a result of off-site migration from this facility. It is unlikely for WSDOT to assume liability for cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater as part of this project for the following reasons: None of the adjacent properties appeared to have evidence of routine spills or releases to surface water or soils; None of the adjacent properties (regulated or otherwise) had documented releases to soil, surface water or groundwater; The eight sites located within y, mile of the project limits, that were identified as having a confirmed or suspected release to soils or groundwater, were deemed unlikely to migrate contaminants into the project footprint for the following reasons: o the sites have been remediated to levels below MTCA cleanup levels, received a No Further Action (NFA) determinations from Ecology, and were not immediately adjacent to the project area; o the sites resulted in impacts to soil only; o groundwater impacts were confined to the site and the source was removed; and/or o the sites were too far from the planned project area (and those activities that would encounter DOT Form 140· lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 6 of 11 I groundwater) with respect to groundwater flow. For these reasons, it is concluded that no significant, unavoidable adverse impacts are expected to result from the 1 proposed project. No further investigation is warranted at this time. It is recommended that a HazMat Specialist be I contacted if additional project changes are made that can potentially alter the conclusions made in this updated investigation; such as the addition of other project work that requires excavations below 10 feet bgs (local groundwater elevation), realignment, or property acquisitions. Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated November 3, 201S for more information. If you responded Yes to any of the following questions (SA-SC, SF and SH), contact your Region LPE for assistance as a "Right- sized" HazMat Analysis Report/Memorandum most likely will be required. 6. Noise Does the project involve constructing a new roadwayl O Yes 0 No Is there a change in the vertical or horizontal alignment of the existing roadway? 0 Yes 0 No Does the project increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing roadway? 0 Yes 0 No Is there a change in the topographyl D Yes 0 No Are there auxiliary lanes extending 1~%: mlles or longer being constructed as part of this project? D Yes ~ No If you answered Yes to any of the preceding questions, identify and describe any potential noise receptors within the project area and subsequent impacts to those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the noise analysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified, describe proposed mitigation measures. Not applicable. Part 4 -Environmental Considerations (continued) 7. 4(f)/6(f) Resources: parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, historic properties, wild & scenic rivers, scenic byways ~ ~ l,..__~ <..f&~ ~ C-C,;,tJ('/J(JC \s.r-F. l -l a. Please identify any 4(f) properties within the project limits and the areas of impacts. f ,,...µ.r \sf o_\-1'~ I The Black River Riparian Forest, a park property owned by the City of Renton; ~ Je >•"'/"-c/.4 Fort Dent Park, a park property owned by the City of Tukwila; and an archaeological site, ',,,/ th f .,,Y'' located in the north end of Fort Dent Park, eligible for listing on e National Register o Historic Places (NRHP). Please see the attached 4(f) documentation_ b. Please identify any properties within the project limits that used funds from the Land & Water Conservation Fund Act. None c. Please list any Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenic Byways within the project limits. None DOT Form 140·1DDEF Revised 5/2015 Page 7 of 11 ------ 8. Agricultural Lands-Are there agricultural lands within 300 teet of the project limits? 0 Yes [Z] No If Yes, describe impacts: Are impacted lands considered to be unique and prime farmland? 0 Yes [Z] No If Yes, date of project review by Natural Resource Conservation Ser.lice {NRCS): 9. Rivers, Streams (continuous or intermittent) or Tidal Waters a. Identify all waterbodies within 300 feet of the project limits or that will otherwise be impacted. Green River (09.0001) Black River (09.0004) b. Identify stream crossing structures by type. The Black and Green Rivers are both located in WR1A 9. The proposed trail alignment is adjacent to the south side of the Black River and will cross over the Black River on a new pedestrian bridge. 10. Tribal lands-Identify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, including reservation, trust and fee lands. P!ease do not list usual and accustomed area. Not applicable. 11. Water Quality/Stormwater Will this project's proposed stormwater treatment facility be consistent with the guidelines provided by either WSDOT's HRM, DOE~s stormwater management manual for eastern/western Washington or a local agency equivalent manual? [Z] Yes D No If No, explain prop.osed water quality/quantity treatment for the new and any existing impervious surface associated with the proposed project. Amount of existing impervious surface within the project limits: 54,450 square feet (1.25 acres) Net new impervious surface to be created as a result of this project: 37,424 square feet (0.86 acres) The trail is considered a non-pollutant generating surface. It is exempt from ±low control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the 100-year peak ilow to equal to or greater than 0.1 cubic feet per second. The trail has been designed to direct nmoffto the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. Part 4 -Environmental Considerations (continued) 12. Previous Environmental Commitments Describe previous environmental commitments that may affect or be affected by the project-if any. The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be responsible for long-term maintenance of the trail; however, King County will maintain it until an agreement is reached (please see the Long-Term Maintenance Commitment Letter dated and signed February 12, 2013). DOfForm 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 Page 8 of 11 13. Environmental Justice Does the project meet any of the exemptions noted in Appendix L of the CE Documentation Guidebook? D Yes l2J No If Yes, please note the exemption and appropriate justification in the space below. If No, are minority or low-income populations located within the limits of the project1s potential impacts? l2J Yes D No If No, attach appropriate data to support findings. If Yes, describe impacts and attach appropriate supporting documentation. Findings should be confirmed using at least two information sources. Please refer to the CE Guidebook for more information. King County reviewed Washington State Report Card and an EPA summary of United States Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), 2008-2012, data for low income and minority populations within Y, mile of the project limits. Based on the school data, 80.7 percent of the students at the closest elementary school qualify for free or reduced price meals and the school has a total minority population of 95.9 percent. The ACS data indicated that 80 percent of the study area population consisted minority populations and 24 percent of the population (5 years or older) speaks English "less than very well" (which is above the LEP threshold of 5 percent of the population). Exceedance of the LEP threshold for people in the study area requires public outreach. As such, future outreach will include: updates and information on the King County website and signs posted on site to communicate the project details in Vietnamese, Tagalog, Chinese and Spanish. Because the right of way acquisitions are from railroad companies, there are no relocations or detours, a public outreach plan will be developed and implemented to include the needs of minority populations, and the project will affect non-motorized users equally; King County does not anticipate any adversely high and disproportionate effects from this project on any minority or low-income populations identified in the area. We conclude that the project meets the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order 13166, as supported by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Part 5 -Biological Assessments and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed species potentially occur in the project's action area and/or is any designated critical habitat present within the project's action area? l2J Yes D No Attach species listings. Affected ESA listed Species Oregon Spotted Frog proposed critical habitat or suitable habitat? Yellow-billed Cuckoo suitable habitat? Spotted Owl management areas, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Marbled Murrelet nest or occupied stand, designated critical habitat or suitable habitat? Western Snowy Plover designated critical habitat? ls the project within 0.5 mlle of marine waters? If Yes explain potential effects on DOTForm 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 2. Will any construction work occur within O.S mile of any of the following? LJ Yes l2$J No LJ Yes l2J No LJ Yes l2$J No LJ Yes l2$J No LJ Yes l2$J No lJ Yes l2J No Page 9 of 11 3. Does the project involve blasting, pile driving, concrete sawing, rock-drilling or rock-scaling activity within one mile of any of the following? LJ Yes 12$J No LJ Yes ~ No LJ Yes ~ No D Yes 12$J No LJ Yes [:>Q No LJ Yes [8J No Killer Whales and on Marbled Murrelet ~~aging areas. Killer Whale designated critical habitat? LJ Yes iZ:J No Grizzly Bear suitable habitat? LJ Yes l2J No I Gray Wolf suitable habitat? D Yes 12:,J No Canada Lynx habitat? [] Yes IXI No Columbia White-tailed Deer suitable LJ Yes 12:,J No habitat? Woodland Caribou habitat? LJ Yes 12:,J No Streaked Horned Lark designated critical LJ Yes 12J No habitat or suitable habitat? Taylor's Checkerspot designated critical LJ Yes 12:,J No habitat or suitable habitat? Mazama Pocket Gopher designated LJ Yes [?:g No critical habitat or suitable habitat? ·-·-· Eulachon designated critical habitat or [] Yes IXI No suitable habitat? Rockfish proposed critical habitat or [] Yes i2SJ No suitable habitat! A mature coniferous or mixed forest l2J Yes LJ No stand_? 4. Will the project involve any in~water work? 5. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any perennial or intermittent waterbody that either supports or drains to waterbody supporting listed fish? 6. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any wetlqnd, pond or lake that is connected to any permanent or intermittent waterbody? 7. Does the action have the potential to directly or indlrectly impact designated critical habitat for sa!monids (including adjacent riparian zones)? 8. Will the project discharge treated or untreated stormwater runoff or utilize water from a waterbodythat suppo~ or drains into a listed-fish supporting waterbody? 9. Will construction occur outside the existing pavement? If Yes go to 9a. LJ Yes l2J No LJ Yes 12:,J No 0 Yes l2J No LJ Yes iZ:J No LJ Yes 12:,J No LJ Yes l2J No D Yes /XI No LJ Yes l2J No LJ Yes l2J No LJ Yes IXI No LJ Yes l2SJ No l2Sl Yes [J No D Yes l2J No l2J Yes D No l2J Yes D No D Yes [gJ No l2J Yes D No 9a. WIii construction activities occurring outside the existing pavement involve clearing, 12J Yes l2J Yes D No D No grading, filling or modification of vegetation or tree-cutting? 10. Are there any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant species located within D Yes l2J No the project limits? If Yes, please attach a list of these plant species within the action area. 11. Does a mature coniferous or mixed forest stand occur within 200' of the project sfte? [8J Yes O No Analysis for No Effects Determination -If there are any Yes answers to questions in Part 5, additional analysis is required. Attach additional sheets if needed. An analysis under the Endangered Species Act determined that the project will have No Effect on listed species or critical habitat, and No Adverse Effect on Essential Fish Habitat. The only listed species with the potential to occur in the project area are salmonids which will not be present in the project area during , the summer months due to unfavorable river conditions. 1n addition, no in-water work is proposed. Effects i to critical habitat are not expected because riparian habitat in the project area is poor quality, and effects to I this habitat during project construction have been minimized. Please see the attached analysis for additional details. DOT form 140· lOOEf Revised 5/2015 Page 10 of 11 Analysis for RRMP ESA 4(d) determination for NMFS -A local agency must be certified by the Regional Road Maintenance Forum to utilize 4(d). Maintenance Category (check all that apply) D 1. Roadway Surface D 6 Stream Crossings D 11. Emergency Slide/Washout Repair D 2. Enclosed Drainage Systems D 7. Gravel Shoulders 0 12. Concrete D 3. Oeaning Enclosed Drainage Systems 0 8. Street Surface Oeaning 0 13. Sewer Systems D 4. Open Drainage Systems D 9. Bridge Maintenance 0 14. Water Systems D 5. Watercourses and Streams 0 10. Snow and Ice Control D 15. Vegetation Describe how the project fits In the RRMP 4(d) Program: Effect Determinations for ESA and EFH If each of the questions in the preceding section resulted ln a "No'' response or if any of the questions were checked "Yes," but adequate justification can be provided to support a "no effect" determination, then check 11 No Effect'' below. If this checklist cannot be used for Section 7 compliance {i.e., adequate justification cannot be provided or a "may effect'' determination is anticipated), a separate biological assessment document is required. [3J No Effect 0 NLTAA-Date of Concurrence 0 LTAA-Date BO Issued 0 RRMP4(d) DOT Form 140-lOOEF Revised 5/2015 NtFS uhs 11-5Pr I 1--..Jglf J- I I ' Part 6 • FHWA Comments Page 11 of 11 EFH Determination 0 No Adverse Effect 0 Adverse Effect-Date of NMFS concurrence Local Agency Environmental Classification Summary Part 1 Project Description Federal Aid Pro)t,ci Number I Route I Date CM2017(110) Near State Route900 9-12-2012 I Intent of 5ubmlt1al 0 Prallmlnarv 181 Fina! 0 Re-Evaluate Agency Kin'1. County Deoartment ol'Transportntion I Federal Program Tille 0 20.205 181 01her Project TIUe Lake to Sound Trail -Semnent A Beginning MP Townships 23 N Ending MP Ranges 04 E MIies I.I Section• 13 County Kin2Countv Pro)t,ci Description -Describe the proposed projed, Including the purpose and need for the project. This project develops preliminary engineering for the construction of a multi-purpose, non motorized route for "Segment A" of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A travels through the Black Forest from Naches Avenue SW (Renton) to arrive at Fort Dent Park (Tukwila), Part 2 Environmental Classiflcatlon NEPA SEPA 0 Class I -Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 0 Categorically exempt par WAC 197-11-800 181 Class II -Categorically Excluded (CE) 181 Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) CEType(from23CFR771.117) laXJ) 181 Project!, Requiring Documentation 0 Environmenlal Impact Statement (EIS) (Documented CE) (LAG 24.22) 0 AdopUon 0 ProgrammaUc CE MOU 0 Addendum 0 Class Ill -Environmental Assessment (EA) 0 Supplemenlal (For lnforma«onal purpose only) Dale t:::::::~ Hlghk,ys and L.lca1 Programs Environmental Engineer !Completed By (Pr1nt Official's Name) Tina Morehead DOT Form 140-IOOEF Revls.ed01,2011 Date ' 1 !Telephone (lncluda area code) 206-296-3 733 Page 1 of8 Fax (Include area code) 206-296-056 7 E-mail tina.morehead@kin11.county. Part3 Permits and Annrovals R--· Ired Yes No Permit or Annroval Yes No Permit or Annroval D 181 Corps of Engineers D Sec.10 D Sec. 404 D 181 Water Rights Permit 0 Nationwide Type D 181 Water Quality Certif1eallon -Sec. 401 0 Individual Pem,it No. Issued by D 181 Coast Guard Permit D 181 Tribal Parmit(s), (If any) 0 181 Coastal Zone Management Certification 181 0 Crltlcal Area Ordinance (CAO) Permit D 181 Forest Practice Act Permit 181 0 Other Permits (List): D 181 Hydraulic Project Approval Ri~ht of Wax Use Permits-Cities of Renton ond D 181 Local Bultdlng or Site Development Permits Tukwila; Condilional Use Permit -Ci!): of 181 0 Local Cleartng and Grading Permit Tukwila 181 D ROW acquisition required? If yes, amount 181 0 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System needed 6 000 SF (NPOES) Baseline General for Construction 0 181 Is relocaton required? 181 D Shoreline Permit D 181 Has ROW already been acquired for this project? D 181 State Waste Discharge Permit 0 181 Is a detour required? If yes, please attach 181 0 TESC Plans Com•leted detour information. P-.. .. Environment•• C"nsidera+lon• WIii the proJ•;!~~~o~".'.~!~'.!'_!n_~~~act any of the following? lde~ 1 11fy proposed mitigation. 1. Air Quality -Identify any anticipated air quality issues. Is the project Included In the Metropolilan Transportation Plan? ill!Yes 0No If Yes, dala Metropolitan Transportation Plan was adopted. 1011/10 Is the project located in an Alf Quality Non-Attainment Area or Maintenance Area for carton monoxide, ozone, or PM10? i:!!IYes 0No Is the project exempt from Air Quality conformity requlremenls? ill!Yes 0No If yes, identify exemption, please refer to appendix H In the ECS Guidebook for the list of exemptions: Air Quality: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities ( ECS Guidebook, October 4, 20 l l) 2. CrHicaUSensltive Areas -Identify any known Critical or Sensitive Areas as designated by local Growth Management Act ordlnancea. a. Is this project within an aquifer recharge area 0Yes J81No a wellhead protection area 0Yes 181No a sole source aquifer 0Yes 181 No If located within a sole source "aquifer, is tho project exempt from EPA approval? If yes, please list exempllon If no, date of EPA approval b. Is this project located in a Geologically Hazardous Area? 0Yes ill!No If yes, please descrtbe c. WIii this project Impact Species/Habitat other than ESA listed species? 181 Yes 0No Explain your answer rhe project o.rea provides habitat to Bald Eagle and Great Blue Heron. tmputts to habitat will bi: minimized by locating the proposed improvements in the o.rell5 where paths and gravel ronds alremJy ~ist. Is the project within Bald Eagle nesting territories, winter concentration areas or bald eagle communal roosts? 181 Yes 0No Wm blasilng, pie driving, concrete saw cutting, rock drilling, or rock scaling activities occur within one mile of a Bald Eagle nesting area? 181 Yes O No nnT Fnnn 140.100 EF Page2of8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations • Continued d. Are wetlands present within the project area? 181 v.. 0 No If Yes, estimated area of impact in acre(s): Q2.._ Please attach a copy of the proposed mitigation plan. 3. Cultural Resources/Historic Structures· Identify any hislOric, archaeological, or cultural resources present within the project's area of potential effects. 4. Does the project fit into any of the ••empt types of projects listed in Appendl• C of the ECS Guidebook D Yes 181 No tr Yu, note ••emption below. If No: Date of DAHP concummce 9115/11 Date ofTribal consultation(s) (if applicable) 8/14/11 Adverse affects on culturalnilstoric resources? 0Yes 181 No If Yes, date of approved Section 106 MOA Floodplains and Floodways Is the project located in a 1 OO·year floodplain? 181 Yes 0No If yes, Is the project located in a 100-year Roadway? ll!l Yes 0No Will the project impact a 100-year floodplain? 181Yes 0No If Yes, describe impacts. The llnOOplains or1hc Gn;en Riv.:,r mtd 1hc Ol~k Ri1i1ct un: located .udjaci:nl to the 1ruil illignmcnt li"om Sbtlion 1-HH) at tlu:: 1.:onnection lo the Green River Trail 10 Station 14 + ll6 MW Monster Rond. The proposed design provides on-site compcn,atory stGnige through 111:ombinotion of cut and fill in lhe lloodplain nni.1 1Jtlditioml14!Mcavu1lon adjacent lo the existing trail. The projt:et will provide 11 net cllt of 51 c.utfic yards below the !looJplain i.:levutiun. See the attached memo on fk,odplain lmpuct Annlysis dnled October 2011. 5. Hazardous and Problem Waste • Identify potential sources and type. Does this project require excavation below the existing ground surface? 181 Yes O No Is this site located in an undeveloped area (bl>., no building•. parking or storage areas, and agriculture (other than grazing), based on htstorical research? [J Yes 181 No Is this project located within a one-mile radius of a site lZf. a Conflm,ed or Suspected Contaminated Sites Us\ (CSCSL) maintained by Department of Ecology? !!!I Yes U No Is this project located within a 1/2-mile radius of a site or sites listed on any of the following Department of Ecology Databases? 181 Yes O No If yes, check the appropriate box(es) below. 181 Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) 181 Underground Storage Tank (US1) 181 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Has site reconnaissance (windshieM survey) been performed? 181 Yes D No If so Identify any properties not Identified in the database search that may affect the project (name. address and property use). Please see the attached technical memo regarding hazardous waste property impacts dated September_. 2012. Based on the information above and project specific aclivilles, is there a potential for the project to generate contaminated soils and/or groundwater? D Yes 181 No Please explain: t.to 1aQOr1-Ur•!HM 1itn wtirto 111~ itdjacent to \ht, projec1 corridor 111 thftregull!l10fJ 11".ni;y w,t11base 1illltdt Due to d11(arn;eol rt'il\,!l!ed artn from !he ~oject comdof. tad! of ~-~ ~j~:I:: :=~w: ~nr~-:. 1o~zar rolaatel, arid mtnlffllll amauni of ;rourd llrolvahon, lh• rllk of e/'IOOUl'ffl!ngcontam,naJian 11 !OW. 5 .. lhe artlK119d Hazardoul If you responded yes to any of the above questions contact your Region LPE for assistance before continuing with this form. DOT Form 140-100 EF Revised 0112011 Page 3 of 8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations· Continued 6. Noise Does this project involve constructing a new roadway? 0Yes 181No Is there a change in the vertical or horizontal alignment of the existing roadway? D Yes 181 No Does this project Increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing roadway? D Yes 181 No Is there change in the topography? D Yes 181No Are auxiliary lanes extending 1-112 miles or longer being constructed as part of this project? 0Yes i81No If you answered yea to any of the preceding questions. identify and describe any potential noise receptors within the project area and subsequent Impacts lo those noise receptors. Please attach a copy of the noise analysis if required. Not applicable. If impacts are identified, describe proposed m!Ugatlon measures. Not applicable. 7. Parks, Recreation Areas, WIidiife Refugaa, Historic Properties, Wild and Scenic Rivers/Scenic Byways, or 4 (f)/6 (I). a. Please Identify any 4(1) properties within the project limits and areas of Impacts. The project would use portions of two Section 4(1) properties, the Black River Riparian forest and fort Dent Park. Please see the uttached Lake to Sound Segment A Section 4{f) Evaluation. b. Please ldanlify any 6(1) properties within the project limits and areas of impact. None c. Please list wild scenic rivers and scenic byway$. None 8. Resource Lands • Identify any of tho following re,ource rands within 300 feet of the project limits and those otherwise impacted by the project. a. Agricultursl Lands O Yes 181 No If yes, please describe all lmpects. Not applicable. If present, is resource considered lo be prime and unique farmland? D Yes D No If Yes, date of approval from Nalursl Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) b. ForesVTlmber 181 Yes D No If yes, please describe all impacts. nie project 1s localed adjtteenl to lhc Ulack River Rip:umn Forest. a rcl::i.11vc:ly undisturbed rtparnm hardwood fvrcst. App.roximatdy O 9 acrn of ripll!um-wetlllf!d arta will be cleared, however this an-a is Jargt;ly free from trees and is not C:t:pt:cicd to reduce spcccies d1veBity or resull m substimt1al reduction in plo.nl co'l'er in the 38-acre stuLly area c. Miners! 0Yes ll!INo lfyes,pleasedescribealllmpacts. DOT Fam, 140,100 SF Page 4 of 8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations. Continued 9. Rivers, Slreams (Continuous, lntennlttent), or Tidal Waters a. ldenlify all waterbodies within 300 feet of Iha project limlts or that will otherwise be impacted. Fisheries WA Stream No. Ecology 303d Report No. (if known) Reason for 303d listing Fecal coliform Date of Report IIIIQ~ Waterbody common name Black River and the Green River b. Identify stream crossing structures by typo. Tl1e Green and Black Rivers are both in WRIA 9. The project will create non-motorized improvements on the east side of the existing Monster Road Bridge over the Black River (WRIA 09.0004). c. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) No. & Name 9 Duwamish-Green 10. Tribal lands · Identify whether the project will impact any Tribal lands, including reservation, lrust and fee lands. None. 11. Visual Quality Will the project impact roadside classlflcation or visual aspects such as aesthetics, light, glare or night sky. 0Yes CillNo II Yes. please identify the impacts. 12. Water Quality/Storm Water Has NPDES municipal general permit been issued for this WRIA? 181 Yes 0No Amount of existing Impervious surface within project limits: S4.450Sql1l1l'C f«t(t.2$ o.ercs} Net new impervious surface to be created as a result of project 36.3-14 sqtwe feet (0.83 llf.ff) WIii this project's proposed stormwater treatment fac!ity be consistent with the guidelines provided by either WSDOTs HRM, DOE's westem or eastem Washington stormwater manuals, or a local agency equivalent manual? 181Yes ONo If no, explain proposed water qualltylquantity treatment for new and any existing impervious surface associated with proposed project. The trail is exempt from flow control in both the cities of Renton and Tukwila because the proposed land cover does not increase the 100..year peak !low of equal to or more than 0.1 cubic feet per second. However, the trail has been designed to direct stormwater to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. The trail is considered a non-pollutant generating surface. DOT FOlffl 140-,100 EF Re¥ised0112011 Page 5 of 8 Part 4 Environmental Considerations • Continued 13. Commitments a. Environmental Commitments • Describe exisling environmental commitments that may affect or be affected by the project. If any. None. b . Long-Tenn Maintenance Commitments • Identify the agency and/or department responsible for implementing maintenance commitments associated with this project. The cities of Renton and Tukwila will be n:sponsible for long-term maintenanceJ[this Im~ /<,. ~ _...u ~ ~ ------" 'a' tf . J-1¢,;, 14. Environmental Justice Does the project meet any of the exempHons, a& noted in Appendix F of the ECS Guidebook il!!Yes 0No If Yes. Please note exemption and appropriate justification In the space below. Findings should be confirmed using at least two information sources. Refer to ESC Guidebook for more Information. Exemption 7: Installation of bicycle nnd pedestrian lanes, paths and facilties within the existing right of way limits. If no, are minority and/or low income populations localed within the llmlts of the project's potential impacts? 0Yes 0No If no, attach appropriate data to support finding. If yes, describe Impacts and attach appropriate supporting documentation. Part 5 Blologlcal Assessment and EFH Evaluations 1. Do any listed species potentially occur in the project's action area and/or is any designated critical habitat within the proJect's action area? ll!I Yes O No Please attach species llstlnga. 2. Will any construction 3. Does lhe project involve blasting, pile Affected ESA Listed Species work occur within 0.5 driving, concrete sawing, rock drilling, or miles of any of the rock scaling activities within 1 mlle of any followina: or the followlnR? Spotted Owi management areas (CSAs, MOCAs, designated critical habitat, and/or potenlially suitable nesting/roostlnglforaging habitat? DYes il!INo 0Yes 181No Marbled Murrelet nest or occupied stand, designated critical habitat and/or potentially suitable habitat? 0Yes il!INo 0Yes i81No Western Snowy Plover designated critical DYes 181 No DYes il!INo habitat? Is the project within 0.5 miles of marine waters? If yes explain potential effects on KIiier Whales and Steller's Sea Lion, and on Marbled Murrelet [J Yes 181 No DYes 181No Foraging areas. Killer Whale designated critical habitat? 0Yes 181 No [JYes f8I No Grizzly bear potentially suitable habitat? 0Yes f8I No DYes 181 No 110T Form uo.1 oo EF Page 6 of 8 Part 5 Biological Assessment and EFH Evaluations -Continued Gray Wolf potentially suitable habitat? 0 Yes 181 No O Yes 181 Na Canada Lynx habitat O Yes 181 Na O Yes 181 No Columbia Whtte-tailed Deer potentially suttable 0Yes habilat? 181 No 0Yes Woodland Caribou habitat? 0Yes 181 No 0Yes A mature coniferous or mixed fixed forest stand? 181 Yea 0No 181 Yes 4. WIii the project Involve any In-water work? 5. Will any construction work occur within 300 feet of any perennial or Intermittent waterbody that either supporte or drains lo a listed flah supporting waterbody? 6. WIii any construction work occur within 300 feet of any wetland, pond, or laka lhat is connected lo any permanent or inlermtttant walerl>Ody? 7. Does the action have the potential to dlreclly or Indirectly impact designated critical habitat for salmonids (including adjacent riparian zones)? 181 No 181No 0No 0Yes 181 Yes 181 Yes 181Yes 8. Will the project discharge treated or untreated.stormweter runoff or utilize waler from a walerbody that supports or drains into a listed fish-supporting waterbody, wetland, or waterbody? 0Yea 9. WIii construction work occur outside the existing pavement? If Yes, go to 9a. 9a. Will construction activities occurring outside the existing pavement Involve cleartng, grading, filling, or modifications of vegetation or tree cutting? 10. Are there any Federal listed, threatened or endangered plant species located within the project limits? If yes, please attach a list of plant species wllhin the action area. Determination 181 Yes 181 Yes Oves 181 No 0No 0No 0No 181No 0No 0No 181No If each of the questions In !he preceding section resulted in a "no' response or If any of the questions were checked 'yes", but adequate justification can be provided to support a "no effect" determination, then check ·No eflecr below. If this checklist cannot be used for ESA Section 7 compliance (I.e .. adequate justification cannot be provided or a 'may affect" determination ia antieipaled), a separate biological assessment document Is required. ·. ;,A;/ NOAA Fisheries USFWS Essential Fish Habitat Determination: 181 No Effect 0 NL T AA Date of Concurrence 0 LT AA Dale 80 Issued f'.!/,·1/1 ;' ,Y:1,1,l:: I I / f 181 No Adverse Effect 0 Adverse Effect. Dale of NOAA Concurrence Analysis for No Effects Determination • If there are any "yes" am1weni to questions In Part 5, additional analysis Is required. Please attach additional sheets if needed. Please see the attached No Effects Letter dated October 24, 2011 foran analysis of effects. The proposed project will have no effect on bull trout. Chinook salmon or Puget Sound steelhead because: The project will nol result in additional pollutant generating impervious surface within the action area; there will be no alteration of peak flows or base flows in the project area; and there will be no in-water or over-water work and appropriate Best Management Practices will be implemented to eliminate the risk of erosion and thechance of sediments entering the action area waterbodies. Temporary Erosion Sediment Control and Spill Prevention Control Plans will be prepared and implemented. DOT Form 140-100 EF Re'lised 0112011 Page 7 of 6 Part 6 FHWA Comments Use Supplement Sheet If additional space ls required to complete this section. nnT Fonn 1-10-100 EF Page 8 of 8 LUA 15-000257 Segment A, Lake to Sound, Slopes Notes None 128 0 64- WGS_ 1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 128 Feet r;h,nfn~_-> ~-llLUJir;,,:::.; Finance & IT Division EXHIBIT 19 BR SC-A Legend City and County Boundary Other [:J C1tyofRenton Addresses Parcels 1st Floor 1st Floor [] 2nd Floor 0 1stFloor r·-J OthAr R11ilrlinn~ lnfonnatlon Technology • GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 6/10/2015 >25% & <=40% (Sens1\1ve) • >40% & <=90% (Protected) • >90% (Protected) Environment Designations D Natural • ShorelineH1ghlntensrty D ShorelinelsciatedH1ghlntens1ty IJ ShorelITTe Residen~al D Urban Conservancy n .h1ri!:.rlir:tinn~ 550 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION --------------- 20»40~ Scale: 1 ~=20' BH-2 + BORING APPORXIMATE LOCATION AND DESIGNATION .· .· .1.· .... : · l \ . :'1· .... · J: · DRAFT·.·.:l·:··.··: .... t~ . . . . . . .. : ·1· : : : . · I· 11 ........... r . J: .. · ... :.J~ ! .· .. ·1·i·· ... · ... · .. ·ii.· ................ t •...•...•. i.· .. J! ~ .·f ::.··· .. ··::{:: .. ·:/.g _& r ...... · .. · .... · ........ J ... :· .. iPJ\ ·1· . . : : . . . : .. r .. · .. ,.,\\1 . ' ... ·.. . . ·:\.:: :.z.,'~\ ··:/ ·1· ........ 1 .... . tiJ__ ~(!0:.·.· .. ·.·:1···.·~ :T ___ :~::_.1.-·~.-~·~:':1 :- ,, l%J um IHWA GEOSC,ENCES INC. BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WASHINGTON s=!DPRO.m;T$120il).1oo.atL.ltl(£TO~TRAl,,\T~:IOl)ev,QtRI\IERelUPGE~:I010.100T20WNM2011).lOOraJODM3 ~,g2>-2l2IY.Z01S2:15PM cl Si;;9· stf·\' ~{j'.·,' -.,, I ~ ' ,.., S!TEAND EXPLORATION PLAN t~ r, s: /Jl{:') "' .J 2 m >< :::J:: 1-1 o:i 1-1 -4 "" 0 S 143rd Sl s 1~3rrj s1:__ ~[ \ S-14'.l~t 8 -;, <S>\ 't-% UNINC. KING COUNTY Concrete Recycling Plant CITY OF TUKWILA ii CITY OF Parametrix RENTON 1 N 300 600 Feel .--,unn•• ,.,,_,...,,....,.. Sources King County, City of Remon, vvurvv L.U I'+, vv~uu1 . Legend: -Proposed Trail City Boundary ~ Existing Trail ---+---+-Railroad Black River Riparian Forest Wetlands Martin Luther King Way s End l'roject m >< :I: 1-4 OJ 1-4 -I "' ..... Figure 1-2 Site Location Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A EXHIBIT 22 ' ' ' ' \ ~\ --'-'~~------\ \ ~ ' 1l t [ ! § ' :I! ] N~ ) '"' " E e • 2 il, e ~ u: U) ! I l ! ! j ~ ! i f i ~ ' J I i E I ~ I • • !DD } " " ~ 1 ~ ;; ! ' I ~ I ! ;; i I • i • ' • ! • ~~~ ~ e ~ ~ ! ~ n c 8 ~ . D ;; • ' ' I t I ~ ' ' ' ' it c, G, j! D I I : I '! 'I '1 I I ', 'j i, ,1 ' I ' I I r I .. r ' I.J: t~' l --~n-r::- El,s< -..____ .:i'! ·;1 ~ l i2 tJ -l!1 "' I I / 1• // /, tl /' ! I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I + I I I I I ~ I I <1-0~ I/ I •• 0 .. ~' 0 ' /f I,. .. // I I ,,./ ;___ j./ I ,,.,/1 I ) :;( ~ "I If isl -/o I ·1 ~-----...l.. ____ _ £:-i,a.m ! ~ ~ < I C. .§ ' ~ ] ,. ~ ] ,,.a, e; Q ~ ~ ~ !:!),!:: LL<I) i li E !. E i ' i R § E i ~ I I a ~ E i ' • • • ! J • • I ~ I u D l i j ~ J J I i ! j • i i E i I ~~i J! ~ ! .§ l ' 1l ] £ D I I : 1 I! I I I I I ~ < I .§ £ ~ "'~ ] ,,;.m ! ffi e ~ ~ 5 .SP.!:: "-., i " I i. I ~ R § ! ~ • i R ~ ! I I i I ~ ~ fflDD i. l i. § § § J e ! ' ! ! i j j • i j I • w~I ! .! H " = ! l ;;: a D i i f I ! ii c, ~. jJ Parametrix ~ N 250 5GO Ftct Legend: 1-'roµosed Trail Alignment City Boundary \/eQetat1011 and W1idllfe Study .Area Land Cover Type Riparian V\..'etlanc Herbaceous VVeilancl Urban Open \/Vatc1 Figure 3-1 Vegetation and Wildlife Study Area Base Map Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A m >< ::c .... 0, ~ "" w S 143rd St --r~-- ~~1~_8!_ j N 300 600 CITY OF TUKWILA CITY OF RENTOJI/ Sources King County. City of Renton, VVDFW 2014, WSDOT Legend: TOA 1 a-Tukwila TOA 3 TOA 1b-Renton -TOA4 Existing Trail City Boundary Feet-TDA2 -TOA 5 -+---+-Railroad Subbasin Wetlands Martin Luthfr King Way S Springbrook 17 Black River Basin Black River {/) ""' ~- 0- i:3 f \ End Project \ -~ \ I Spri~g~_rook 117 . _.\r--· _ .• Bl@&pyngHl:\tf~{~tWtion~lG~ograph1c Society, 1-cubed Figure 1-3 Floodway Drainage Basins, Subbasins, Floodplains (100-year) and Site Characteristics Black River Riparian Forest Lake ro Sound Trail -Segment A ~ :c .... O:J =i ~ .,:a. \ \ \ Notes None \ \ I ~ ~,l .:,,? p;~.,) 0 LUA15-000257 Floodplain EXHIBIT 25 ("''"'\ \,, \../ \, Legend City and County Boundary Other ['? OtyofRenton fa Floodway Iii Special Flood Hazard Areas (100 year flood) Streams (Classified) 1,023 0 512 1,023Feet WGS_ 1984_ \/\leb_Mercator_Auxlltary_Sphere r;h,nf n ~.:;:·, ~JlLUll'~t~ Finance & IT Division Information Technology -GIS RentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov 6/10/2015 EXHIBIT 26 253-876-3116 From: Kris Sorensen [mailto:KSorenser,"""~"'v""~.,,v,, Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:32 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Hi Karen, For the Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A (Renton LUA15-000257) project, I am providing King County's responses to the four comments you provided in the May 13 email below. Please let me know if you have further comments on these responses by December 28, 2015. Thank you. 1. Comment: The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (see page 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch7-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? #1 Response: KC remains committed to the restoration of salmon habitat in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed. A portion of the trail project is in the vicinity of the salmon habitat restoration project LG-18 but does not conflict with it. The trail design includes replacement of trees removed during construction. Replacement trees will be planted in the 50 foot wide riparian buffer on publicly-owned property along the bank of the Black River in the project vicinity. In addition existing plantings from the 2005 volunteer effort will be protected during construction. 2. Comment: Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. #2 Response: The trail has been sited to minimize the number of trees that need to be removed. Where tree removals are required great effort has been taken to have these be as far away from the river as feasible. Trees removed by the project will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio (requested below in question #4) or as directed by local permitting requirements whichever is greater. 3. Comment: Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. #3 Response: The project has committed to replanting trees in the riparian buffer and revegetating areas disturbed by construction. There are no plans for placing wood debris in the river as mitigation for this project because it already meets the overall criteria of no net loss of ecological processes and functions. 4. Comment: Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Green River and the Black River. #4 Response: We have determined that there is adequate space and we will accommodate this request. Kris Sorensen Associate Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Kris Sorensen From: Karen Walter < KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM Sent: To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A- LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. ~ecifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. ([h.e r.ssponses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11. 7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Parametrix ENGINEERIMO • PLANNING ~ EMi .111108th AVE't',,;UE !'t,,iE, SUITE 1800 BELLEVUE, WA 98004-5571 T. 425 .. 458 • 6200 F. .i25 • ..iss • 6363 October 24, 20 11 PMX No. 554-1521-084 (A/2T300F) Jason Rich EXHIBIT 27 Entire Document Available Upon Request King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division 20 I South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Re: No Effects Letter Lake to Sound Trail Improvements -Segment A Dear Mr. Rich: King County is proposing to develop a 1.1-mile segment (Segment A) of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The project is a non-motorized trail located in the jurisdictions of Renton and Tukwila in King County, Washington. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part ofa Regional Trail System that provides non-motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non- motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. We have prepared this assessment on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in response to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. We also evaluated the presence of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as indicated in the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). The federal nexus for this project is federal-aid funding provided by FHW A, as administered by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to determine whether species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and potentially occurring in the project vicinity will be affected by project construction or operation. Effects upon critical habitat, as applicable, are also evaluated. The USFWS and NMFS species lists were accessed on their websites on September 15, 2011 (attached). Based on information provided at those websites, the following ESA-listed species could occur within the action area: • Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Threatened) Steelhead trout ( 0. mykiss) Puget Sound ES U (Threatened) I • I I I I I I I • • • • • • • • • ' EXHIBIT 28 Entire Document Available Upon Request ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT EVALUATION: NO EFFECT DOCUMENTATION Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 and Washington State Department of Transportation Local Programs Division POBox47390 Olympia WA 98504 Prepared by Mike Hall Parametrix 719 2nd Ave, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 September 2015 EXHIBIT 2<:/ Kris Sorensen From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM Sent: To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A- LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee lo the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11. 7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly'' replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know ii you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 I\ I' / i,1 I ~/ / I/ ;! i I I I i ~1 'I 11 I I I I I i I I EXHIBIT 30 I\ "1 I ~ I ~ ~ I I I I I i I I I I I : i I /-I I / ~i I/ i "I f I I I I I I I i I I / I. V ~ / i i ·,,/ /;/ '/ ;, l</1' '/ / /:i./ :: I , /, .. ~ Ei Q EXHIBIT 31 Appendix E Mitigation Plans 'm 1!11 1tl• m • i i i II 11 ! i ,~ ' ;i ! ' i '"- ~ = o' .......... ... m ~ ;[~ ·-·-" L.Al(E::r°ATRAIL -1·~,,.-;; '~'""'"'"~""~""""· 0::t,!.'~~--··- 0::::rs:;·..:::r~~~~.;"""'-0 ;i'"t.,~;';a •~ra, =o•= <' =• GENERAL NOTES: -·~'--""''°""""""°DCJ.\LS --, lOOS£N1MrSOI.S11f>W(J>t,,;AA£1,S,:OW,OW tJIC(NSTRUCIDll.«:JM!EStJ1-.;0R11W,.;; ll<[Ni[O.lOAOi.PlH~)4' l PIHIIH,.of:£1,U.rf'S/.M0"1!JlPW,alCL.OUT',Jt<S SIW..l.1'£st""1l .. ll<Ef'IWlNlON'Pl<CPICD8' Pf<OJEClliJEPO[S[NlAllYEPRlllllOPlNl!Mi < .<t1.P1.'"1STOl'£s.o\Ul'l<OPROTEC1W"'1"" '"'"'"'"""Ct,MltG""-ll>U.Slfl'IU.B[ fl.OG(;ElltJl""'llECrllf.PRlSOll"•ll>l'""Tl"r tlfGIIW'jOl\'S""'°"TUST.offJOl'Cl£,liN; ...::TMTY<iSE:CtUIW4J100.S_liW«xlS_H M)RKJNGIHSllflH[tJillPLKNID.cr[XISTltG 5 lfflCtW<GCSIONf<l~Tt:RW..SJZf.CIRSIIID"' o,JSI I'£ APF'IICP,'l~ 8' TH[ P!l(l,J(c:1 111'.P11£S0<1AIM: 6 C<:t<TR/£TDIISIWJ.""'1WlGETO~ON-li!llt '"""""'....,e.owc.r:;11o~=ul01'SOI' "°'"'"'Dll[)><)(lS.ClNST•>JCll(IO,cfM!flSIW..L. NOJOJIIIO!HCEUWROCCESS.lJl,il';tlf"°"".- 11£1><XISAAf.-=mlllJ!lf£PIIOJ[Cl ~::::~~ ---llROl""""ll(:H"'fE"-------· ~=-= 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLAN MP3 a: ::; ii(!I! ir11; 11; 0800 0 ci l!i ii! i: £j I I !•!! "! ::1 111111 0 .I! 11,j;'t ,i~ ~r !; ~1~ ~1 :: :i z ,, 'Ill 11 11 l,i !;j 1,! '! , ' ~. •! i: ~ !,i ,!; ! '1 (;i1b z ! 0 > •l!,j '' 1111 •, !' 11 Ii!,;, !! 'i '" 11 ~ ~ 5 r ~~ E~ lj, !! ;i li" ;1. ;11; I; ! ! !l ii Iii I ifi ~i •! 1, I 11, I !, ' EXHIBIT 32 Project start, looking west at Green River Trail (near A-Line Station 1+00) Lo oking west (near A-Line Station 3+00) Looking west (near A-Line Station 5+50) Looking west (near A-Line Station 6+00) Looking east at r ailroad crossings (near A-Line Station 6+25) Looking west at railroad crossings (near A-Line Station 8+25) Looking west (near A-Line Station 11+00) Looking east at Monster Road driveway (near A-Line Station 13+50) Looking north at Mon ster Ro ad (near A-Line Station 14+00) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A-Lin e Station 14+50/C-Line Station 201 +75) Looking north at Monster Road (near A-Line 15+00/C-Line Stat ion 202+20) Looking northwest at Monster Road (near A-Line Station 16+20/C-Line Station 202+50) Looking so uth at pedes t ria n crossi ng locat io n over the Bl ack River (near A-Line 17+50/B-Line 102+50) Looking east at Monster Road (near B-Line Station 102+50) Looking west (near B-L ine Station 105+00) Looking east (near B-Line Stat io n 105+00) Looking west (near B-Line Station 121+00) Lo cat ion of proposed box cul ve rt, looking west (near B-Lin e Station 126+00) Proj ect End , looking north (B-Line Station 143+17) EXHIBIT 33 Kris Sorensen From: Sent: To: Cc: Kris Sorensen Monday, January 11, 2016 8:30 AM Karen Walter (KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) jason.rich@kingcounty.gov; Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov Subject: Response to Comments; RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Attachments: 6. L2ST Seg A Proj Narritive-Permit Descr & Justif.pdf; ESA NE documentation L2SA to Renton.pdf; L2S Seg A_Landscape Plan.pdf Karen, Thank you for the follow-up comments. I am providing responses below. Also, I have attached an updated study for the Endangered Species Act No-Effects Determination for the Lake to Sound Trail "Segment A" pedestrian bridge submitted in December. Appendix A is the original No-Effects Determination for the full trail segment. Below are responses to your comments, with response 111 focused on the WRIA 9 LG-18 and LG-17 plans and response 112 focused on no net loss: 111: The LG-17 project is not in the vicinity of the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project under review. LG-17 is located roughly Y, mile away. For LG-18, the marsh area that is to be restored is outside of the trail project area and the SO-foot wide shoreline riparian buffer is within the proposed project area. Multiple trail route alternatives were considered for this segment of the regional trail. The Segment A route was designed to have the least impact on the shorelines, mature trees, the existing sports complex, and railroad bridges in this area near the Black River and confluence with the Green River. The subject project will plant 21,330 square feet of the LG-18 riparian buffer area between the Black River shoreline and trail (see "BVCl" on the attached 'Landscape Plan'). The County is open to discussing placing a split rail fence adjacent the trail where the trail is close to the LG-18 project in consideration of increased use of the area by people and dogs. Shoreline permits are required for this project and further consideration of the comment can be considered at that time. Carol Lumb is the City of Tukwila staff contact that would likely review the Shoreline Permits in that jurisdiction (email contact is Carol.Lumb@TukwilaWA.gov). 112: The overall project has been reviewed for no net loss of riparian functions. The applicant has submitted multiple biological assessments that detail project impacts and mitigation. Trees are being replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio, in part, to account for the temporal loss of mature trees. I am attaching to this email the submitted Permit Narrative and Justification, where page 2-11 discusses the No Net Loss requirement for all development within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. I believe the studies listed in the no net loss summary were sent to you as part of the Notice of Application for the project (Critical Areas Study, Stream Report, Vegetation and Wildlife Report, Floodplain Study) and I can provide them as needed. I will follow-up this email with the new Biological Assessment of the pedestrian bridge from August 2015 as it is a larger file size so you also have this study. Thank you for your comments. Kris Sorensen Associate Planner, Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton 425-430-6593 ksorensen@rentonwa.gov From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:30 PM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A·LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM,SMV Kris, Thank you for sending us the applicant's responses to our comments to the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. We have reviewed them and offer follow-up comments as noted below: 1. With respect to the proposed salmon habitat restoration projects LG-17 and LG-18 and the trail, the applicant has only partially responded to the concern. We specifically requested information about how the trail is avoiding any conflicts with these restoration projects. The responses should include further discussion about how the trail was located or designed to avoid the proposed habitat restoration areas and how the trail is compatible with habitat restoration designs. In our experience, the location of trails and their uses can very much affect the remaining areas to do restoration as well as the types of restoration. The responses describe plans for tree removal/restoration and avoidance, but does not address these other issues. For example LG-17 involves a potential levee setback which could be constrained by the location of a trail that may not otherwise be relocated. The descriptor in the WRIA 9 plan for this project says: "Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11.7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. "(LG-17) The existing trail already limits the extent of levee setback and likely the creation of a low vegetated bench for juvenile salmon. Similarly, LG-18 involves creating a marsh at the confluence of the Black River and the lower Green River, which may be limited in size and scope because of the trail. The trail may limit the restoration components of these projects because of the increased use by people, dogs, etc disturbing salmon using these restored areas. A more detailed analysis and response is needed to show that the trail will not limit or preclude these restoration projects. 2. The applicant needs to explain how the project is meeting "no net loss" for riparian functions with respect to the removal of trees within 200 feet of the Green or Black Rivers and temporal losses to future wood recruitment. Neither of these waterbodies are close to having their natural wood loading rates that we would expect based on the data from Fox and Bolton (2007). The removal of trees that could otherwise recruit to these rivers through wind, snow/ice, natural decay, flooding, etc. will not be "instantly" replaced by planting 1-2 gallon sized trees. The lack of wood in these rivers is a key habitat limiting factor per the WRIA 9 habitat limiting factors report. Further information and analysis is needed to support the claim that this project is fully mitigating for its impacts to riparian functions. We appreciate the opportunity to continue coordination with the City to resolve our concerns with this project. Please let me know if you have questions regarding these follow-up comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 ~ametrlx 0 200 -SCALE IN FEET ' ' ' ' City of Tukwila Legend: r·-·-·-·-·-, City of Renton FEMAFloodplainBoundary ~ FEMA8a58ftoodE1avatlon{~VD88) ;iJ ~ __ ...... ~"'- . t~=-' > ii ei,;., / · :i ____ .,, *tt,.it_,r _ · -Ii ' 1 Black River Forest ' ~ \ Black.River Pump Station 18,;} ~ * FEMA Boundarlas from 1995 FIRM. Figure 1 Project Site Map m >< ::c 1-1 c,:, 1-1 -I w ~ \ \ \ 1 I I I\ :.l -·' ' f ~ t I ii: ~ ~ i r, '' '' '' ! ! L.J ~---------Ji\[J~ I -~ 1 \; \ / ii /\ l / I \ J y t \ ' Al'. 11 \ 0~ i ~ l I l I ( \ : \ j / .\ ' I V: I rl i \ / I; / Ii I ' I : \ ,' \,' I' (\ I\ I\ / \ I , I ( I J I i J! ,,,> m I\, \,.- EXHIBIT 3b Project l.G-18: Black River Marsh at RM 11.0 (Right Bank) Project Description This project would improve the confluence of the remnant Black River with the Green/Duwamish as an emergent marsh, increasing nutrient productivity for the surrounding system and improving access for salmonid refuge and rearing. The project is located along the lower Black River, which empties into the Green River at river mile 11.0, right bank. The project would remove about 200 cubic yards of fill from the left bankline of the Black River at the confluence with the Green just west of the railroad tracks. This small area would then be planted with appropriate native marsh vegetation and a few large stumps with root wads would be placed to provide cover. A 50 foot wide riparian buffer would be created along the banks of the Black River from the Black River Pump Station to the confluence. This is a Green/Duwamish Ecosystem Restoration Project. Opportunities and Constraints • The site has significant infrastructure that will make site rehabilitation challenging. Invasive plant species now dominate the site. • In 2005, volunteers organized by a Renton resident began planting native trees and shrubs on the south bank of the Black River just west of the Black River Pump Station. Black River confluence with the Green/Ouwamish. Black River is to right. Roi/rood bridges are visible in the distance. February 2005 photo. LINKAGES OD Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (All-l) • Prevenffng new bank armoring and removing existing armoring (All-6) • Protecting and creating/resniring habitat that provides refuge, habitat complexity (Low-1) OD Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabi/i/l/tl! riporion areas by establishing suitable native vegetation alcng banks of the mainstem and triburaries • 51/bstitute loss of slow water areas by creating new off- channel habiratJ and/or placementoflarge woody debris along banklines • Substitute ecological processes with habitat features Pagel-75 Green/Duwomish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan-August 1005 Project LG-17: Levee Setback Between RM 11. 7 and 11.4 (Right Bank) Lower Green River looking downstream at river mile 11.7. To right is Fort Dent Park showing levee and possible bank set back area. February 2005 photo. LINKAGES CID Conservation Hypotheses Addressed • Protecting and improving riparian vegetation (A/1-l) • Protecting and creating/restoring habitat that provides refuge, habitat complexity (Low-1) CID Habitat Management Strategies • Rehabilitate existing bonklines to aeote low velocity and/or shallow water habitat during juvenile migrotion • Rehabilltate riparian areas by establishing suitable native vegetation along banks of the moinstem and tributaries • Subsritvre loss of slow water areas by placement of Jorge woody debris along bonklines Project Description Set back the Fort Dent levee to the maximum extent possible to create a low vegetated bench between river miles 11. 7 to 11.4, right bank, without affecting the existing soccer fields or trail. Plant native riparian vegetation and add large woody debris along the toe of slope and on the created bench. This project would provide low velocity and/or shallow water habitat for juvenile salmon. Opportunities and Constraints • Permission must be obtained by the City of Tukwila, and implementers will need to work with the company that manages the soccer complex on this parcel to design this project in a way that minimizes impacts on current park operations. Sewer infrastructure may also present challenges for implementation. Pagel-74 Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan-August 2005 ADVISORY NOTES TO APP LUA 15-000257 Application Date: April 17, 2015 Name: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A ANT PLAN -Planning Review -Land Use Engineering Review Comments Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS Water service is not a requirement of this project. Sanitary sewer is not a requirement of this project. EXHIBIT 36 Version 1 I Contact: Vicki Grover I 425-430-7291 I vgrover@rentonwa.gov A Technical Information Report (TIR) was submitted, dated April 2015 and prepared by Parametrix. The project is exempt from water quality as the new impervious surface will not be pollution generating. The project is exempt from flow control when for a given Threshold Drainage Area (TDA); the 100 year peak runoff flow rate is within 0.1 cfs of the existing 100 year peak runoff flow rate. Testing of the runoff from the concrete recycling plant should be conducted prior to piping the flow into a wetland. General Comments 1. All construction permits will require civil plans to include a TESC Plan and a SW PPP. Plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards and be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. A draft Geotechnical Report Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge dated February 24, 2015 and authored by HWA Geosciences Inc. was submitted to the City of Renton (COR) on April 17, 2015. A "Final" geotechnical report will be required. 3. When construction plans are ready for review, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, three (3) copies of the Drainage Report and permit application. What is the timing of the construction phase? There are various recommendations for when and when not to be doinq construction work based on various criteria from each of the reports. Planning Review Comments Contact: Kris Sorensen! 425'430-6593 I kscirensen@rentonwagov Recommendations: Planning: 1. RMC section 4 4 030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. 5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. Ran: January 07, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Denis Law ----~--~·--------- ---=Mayo~r ---~jJ~J1ft"9J]j December 21, 2015 Jason Rich, Capital Project Manager Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator King County Parks, Mail Stop KSC-NR-0700 201 S Jackson St, Rm 700 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Lake to Sound Trail Segment A/ LUAlS-000257 Dear Jason Rich: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on May 7, 2015. Staff determined that additional information was necessary in order to proceed. Staff requested that additional information be submitted before September 17, 2015. Not all items were able to be submitted by that date and on September 17, 2015 you requested an extension of the on-hold status. Staff approved a new extension date.and items were to be submitted by December 17, 2015. Your request was based on your ongoing coordination Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). WSDOT requested that the submitted biological assessment that includes the pedestrian bridge be updated with a "No Effect Determination." At this time, you have submitted all requested items as listed below. The updates you provided include: • Biological Assessment & No Net Loss Evaluation: The report was submitted on August 28, 2015. The report is titled Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Biological Assessment, prepared by Parametrix, and dated August 2015. Responses to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments: You provided responses on September 15, 2015. The responses have been provided to the Muckleshoot for review. • Sept. 30. 2015 King County Letter to WSDOT. Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Pedestrian Bridge, Endangered Species Act No Effect Documentation: You provided a letter to me dated December 17, 2015 with the ESA No Effect Determination letter sent to WSDOT. Your letter to me states that WSDOT has accepted the document. There are no other outstanding review items requested by City of Renton staff. A preliminary date and time has been established for the required public hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner for February 16, 2016 at 11:00 AM. At this time, your project has been taken "off hold" to continue the review process. Please contact me at (425) 430-6593 if you have any questions. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov , Sincerely, ,f:::iA.t ~·· --- Kris Sorensen Associate Planner cc; Jenny Bailey-Parametrix / Contractor Leslle Betlach-Cityof Renton, Suzanne Krom, Kate Stenberg, Jack Pace-City of Tukwila, Andrea Cummins-City ofTukwila / Party(ies) of Record Sabrina Mirante From: Sent: To: Subject: Kris Sorensen Thursday, December 17, 2015 8:34 AM Sabrina Mirante FW: Renton; Lake to Sound -On-hold items still needed Hi Sabrina -Please print the email request and add to the project file for LUA15-000257. Thank you, Kris From: Rich, Jason [mailto:Jason.Ricl1@ki1J9£Q1J_ll\:Y,goy] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 4: 15 PM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: RE: Renton; Lake to Sound -On-hold items still needed Kris, We have been in lots of conversations with WSDOT over the past few days on this, but I am not certain that I will receive their approval letter by tomorrow. I am writing to request that you extend our on hold status. Jason Rich 0:206-477-4582 M:206-427-8576 From: Kris Sorensen [mailto:KSorensen@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:20 PM To: Rich, Jason Subject: RE: Renton; Lake to Sound -On-hold items still needed Hi Jason, Next Thursday, December 17, is the end of the on-hold extension for the Lake to Sound Segment A project (Renton file LUAlS-000257). If you don't foresee the WSDOT letter being submitted to me by that date, I recommend responding to this email with a request to extend the on-hold status. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. Best- From: Rich, Jason [mailto:Jason.Rich(ii)kingcounty.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:44 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: Jenny Bailey; Hartje, Toni Subject: RE: Renton; Lake to Sound -On-hold items still needed We are waiting on WSDOT's review/concurrence. I would anticipate receiving it by the middle to end of November. From: Kris Sorensen [KSorensen@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:41 PM To: Rich, Jason Subject: FW: Renton; Lake to Sound -On-hold items still needed Hi Jason -I am checking in. Has WSDOT accepted the revised biological assessment determination? I am wondering how soon I might receive the information and start the project back into the review. Also, I am reviewing the draft Mucklesroot ~esponses, so our city n should have some comments if any in next week so we can jointly provide respon;es to Karen Walters and the Muckleshoot. Thanks. Take care, Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner, Planning Division, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton, 425-430-6593 From: Rich, Jason [mailto:Jason.Rich@kingcounty.gov) Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 1:42 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: Jenny Bailey (JBililey@lparametrix.com); Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black Subject: RE: Renton; Lake to Sound -On-hold items still needed Kris, Please see our responses attached. Let me know if you have questions or would like to discuss these further. Also based on direct feedback from WSDOT (received yesterday) I will be directing Parametrix to prepare a No Effect Determination (letter) for the bridge to amend the previous No Effect Determination. WSDOT determined that our effect justification reads more like a No Effect, for the following reasons: Aquatic Species are not present during the summer (water temp too high to support Bull Trout, no Chinook spawning or rearing, water quality would prevent use of project area by Chinook during the summer, water quality hinder juvenile Steelhead survival in the project area, etc..) No suitable habitat for terrestrial species Project sequencing and timing Avoidance and Minimization Measures (BMPs, TESC, etc ... ) Quality of existing riparian area and quantity of impacts to existing riparian veg. Critical habitat designation in comparison to existing conditions Jason Rich 0:206-477-4582 M:206-427-8576 From: Kris Sorensen [mailto:KSorensen@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:57 PM To: Rich, Jason Cc: Jenny Bailey (JBailey@paramelrix.com); Leslie A Betlach Subject: Renton; Lake to Sound -On-hold items still needed Hi Jason -To provide an update on the Lake to Sound Segment A, Jenny with Parametrix submitted the Pedestrian Bridge Biological Assessment, and Leslie has provided an updated memorandum regarding removal of trees near Naches that yourself and City staff met on site about in July. To take the Lake to Sound Segment A off-hold and continue review the responses from the county for the Muckleshoot's concerns. See the attached letter. The information is due by September 17 or an extension request would be needed. Let me know if you have questions. Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner, Planning Division, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton, 425-430-6593 September 17, 2015 Jason Rich, Capital Project Manager Community & Economic Development Department C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator King County Parks, Mail Stop KSC-NR-0700 201 s Jackson St, Rm 700 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Lake to Sound Trail Segment A/ LUAlS-000257 Dear Jason Rich: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on May 7, 2015. During our review, staff has determined that additional information was necessary in order to proceed further. Staff requested that additional information be submitted before September 17, 2015 including responses to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division comments, updated biological assessment including the proposed bridge impacts and evaluation of net loss or no net loss of ecological functions within the shoreline jurisdiction of both Cities of Renton and Tukwila. To date, you have provided these requests although you have been coordinating with other jurisdictions including Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). WSDOT has requested that the submitted biological assessment that includes the pedestrian bridge be updated with a "No Effect Determination" letter. A copy of the letter to WSDOT will need to be submitted to Renton staff before December 17, 2015 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application. At this time, your project has been provided an extension of the "on hold" pending receipt of the letter. Please contact me at (425) 430-6593 if you have any questions. Sincerely, f:::;A-t ~c. ... ..,_ Kris Sorensen Associate Planner cc: Jenny Bailey-Parametrix / Contractor Leslie Betlach-City of Renton, Suzanne Krom, Kate Stenberg, Jack Pace-City of Tukwila, Andrea Cummins-City of Tukwila/ Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov -~~··----~ Denis Law -C' t f _ _:M:ayor _______ :LR@JllkIDl]! June 18, 2015 Jason Rich, Capital Project Manager Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator King County Parks, Mail Stop KSC-NR-0700 201 S Jackson St, Rm 700 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Lake to Sound Trail Segment A / LUAlS-000257 Dear Jason Rich: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on May 7, 2015. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be submitted before September 17, 2015 so that we may continue the review of the above subject application. The below described item is needed: Responses to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments: Please work with the City of Renton to provide responses to the May 13, 2015 comments. Biological Assessment: Please provide background regarding the assessment for this project and relationship to the project's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. The City of Renton provides biological assessments and information regarding projects within floodplains to Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA) annually. No Net Loss Statement: Please provide a cover letter specific to the no net loss of ecological function for the subject project as it is within shoreline jurisdiction of both Cities of Renton and Tukwila. Renton no net loss requirement is found in Renton Municipal Code subsection 4-3-090D.2.a. Please include the proposed non-motorized bridge. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-6593 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~ ~-4 "'""" Kris Sorensen Associate Planner cc: Jenny Bailey-Parametrix / Contractor Leslie Betlach-City of Renton, Suzanne Krom, Kate Stenberg, Jack Pace-City of Tukwila, Andrea Cummins-City of Tukwila/ Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ~-----r, ,_;:-}J' t () 1 Jo NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) AMulllrAP11lk:lltlanhaoONnfllod1nd•<=<lpta4wllhtha~ofC<>mmui1ty•Eainom11:o....i..pm,nt ~::-::;=.10hldonaltMCltvalR1nton. Tt.lullowiJ11brl.itv-001lfl1appllatk>nandtho--..,y DATIOFNOTICEClf/ltPUrATlON: Ma~7. ,015 lUAl.l-OO!ll57,ECf,CU.H,5MV,5M Th, oppllci.nlli ,.,,,..,,~nl EnYln,n..,.ntal ISEPA) ~n,ew, Shon,l<ne <:ondl~onal US.Petmlt,-(ShorellneV1rlanctoppr.,..,•ndShorolnll5"bmnt1111DnotopmontPwmltappnMlllwthe ,,,.,,lfu<llanlrlS..,men!AoftheL.ahlto5oundTra•LThl,mul,.ll'Wl<hll.,llJfHT.(1.lmiHllo01andllfeet"'•d•. A?Qrtionoflhlllnili:=mdar!iiDclltKwilhlnlh1CityalT......i,c11y1m11>.Tl'loC1tyolflentonha1.11<enSEPAI.U<I fil~It~~E¥l~¥~~~ii]~ Q'PUCAN'T/PIIDJEtfCOlfTACl'PEIISOHt 1 ...... RldlJl(lrcCollD1yParb/l(lrcStnEt.nm, 1•F1/ l015.uclson 5t./5ottll,WA,HIM/ ~-~--fllport.ll1bltat11._t, 51n1m/Lab5tudt',w.t11N- D,part,rmrtrzfcoml'lltn'llly•Ecanomlc:O,m,loplMl\'l(CEDf-Pl•nnl .. ~,5bcd!Fl-llenQn.Ot,lbll,.1055Sauth~W.,,Mnton,WA ::;",;d~u:~wmc':,:i"::.;.;:.'2:1-";:~:;'0':'.:. i:;·~1nf..=;~.·~:;:::,roJect. '""''°"" th~ llomo/FlleNo. Cll:l!,oo;oundTnl1Sqment1'/LUA1S-OOC12S7,EC!',CU·H,5MY,SM ________ City/State/lip: ____ _ CONS1snNC10VERYIEW: Pul>llc he•""I '< trn"Jyrlyjched•I•~' :Juno ii zqn bplgrp the R•n gg 1<:;,rln,efqmiM£lnBrn!pn(ponpL(hambC!1i"llcOOamonth17th~oo,ol RentonC1tj'Hailloutedat1D555outhG.ro<fyWay. lllning/WldU .. , llre,ubJertskelsO"ip;natedEm!)ioymentAnoV•lloy(UIV)<>11lnec.cyol ::~onC,moro~n•~•l.lndU.oMlpandOM,CO.•ndACnnU,oClt(,<Oe1<11 Enylronment1ID<><1Jm1nt:1that Ovaluotath,Pro......iPtolt,:t:. !a.,r°'""ental15£PAIO>o<Jcl,II D0Y1lc,pmontA•l"l&ll•"" UUld f<>tPn>lodMltlptbn: The poojectwil be ,u~JICl.lo th• City', .EP~ otdln.on~, l!MC ,i..J--050 and<>ffl•• applla~11codesand,ejU!otJoo,u,pprop,1,1, Pro?03odM!tlpllonMeasUtU: Tho fol.,..,ng Mloptk,n MH>lJ"" wl! l!la!ly bll rn.,e>ed oo ti.. pn,palOd orolect.Th1Hr-=r>mendtdM~lp~onMtv.Jr<,I-..Sprojl<llmpactsnot COYen!dbyO"<IS!ln1aidosondregu!a<10Mualtd-. • Project ,onstruetlon shall ,omply with the rec.ommendatlons pro11lded in the Geotechnlcal Report prepared by HWA GeoSclences, Inc. (dated February 24, 201S}. (omm0flt1ontha1bav,"""'ll<aa1111mustlM1lllimltladlowrilloatol'.rll-....,,iP,uodWIP-..,C10.f'latlfq DMsk>n,1fflSo""'GIW'/wa<t,-,Wll.'IIIDSl',11J5;Qlll'MonM.,-zath. Thll...-11a1so1en1111vety ,modlH'lllor• pubic 1>ur1n11111J..,. z,, iou,., u,oe1..., couoctlChomblln, Sonnth ~-. R1nton0t, H••< ios; Sou1h<;,odywa,-,Roemn.~r,uo19lnt•tHted1n,thlndln11""h•"'1,....olo110a>nll<lthtl'lanoln&OMl1Dntu""'"'" ln1tlh1h"'rlrlllha,n<>tbunrmdladultdotl42S)430-657B. foUcM"9the...,._""'"'theSEPAPetonnlnrt1<1n,.r,• mAY!lllloppoar,tt!-.hnrirc1nd?'9<11ntr,..-common1><eprdnatl!aJm>p,osajbofc18tlioHHrin1E,..mlrler. W~ou hay,q•uUo"'abo<ll:thboropcsal.otl"1111tatioJlam1p1,ryofr«Drd1!Kl,ecel..,1dd~onotlofarm1Uont,,,m,1, PlnH t0nt>ct tht ,m,Jacl m,n,..,. Mr,no """ 5U:lmltS wrmon comm1n1> M~ .....,macicolty boa>ml • party of re<ordmd..,lbenotllledorany<IB::illOnonlh""'°Jt<:t. CONTACf PERSON: Kris Scmmsen, Associate Planner; Tel: (4251 430-6593; Eml: ksorensen@rentcnwa.gov CERTIFICATION I, J 1' ! I ·-t;,, ~ . hereby certify that _3 __ copies of the above document were posted in --2c_nspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: ___ S"'+/__.1 /_·1'-+/_,_(_')..__ ___ _ ' .· J a· Signed: ~kl /~ / STATE OF WASHINGTON G,/ ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that--,--~~---------- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/t uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. "'"\\\\\\\\1 -~'f~~··J~ --=---l ~ ....... ,,"''~ 1,l _._-"~~ax.~\ '"..;, : O {.I o"'.,-" ~ .,_ ,;/ · ::t •I a • ) o ~-i o •• $! I-~ Notary (Print): \: ~u•v ,~if,· ... ~,... 8-'L!--' ~ = u'J:'°"""""°''-"<>.:C . -1 rE Of 'tl I",,-:-- My appointment expires: ___ ._k-""''1*-"'"'"''"'-l---';;l'--'cl"l"--"Jo"'""i..,_/ ____ _ U I ,',,,,,,,, Leslie Betlach Plan Review Routing Slip Plan Number: LUAlS-000257 Name: Lake to Sound Trail Site Address: Extends from Naches Av. SW through Black River Riparian Forest to end at the Gre·en River Trail. Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit approval, Shoreline Variance approval, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail . This trail segment is 14,317 feet (1.2 miles) long and 12 feet wide. A portion of the trail corridor is located within the City of Tukwila city limits. The City of Renton has taken SEPA Lead Agency Status for the entire trail corridor, however separate permits from the City of Tukwila will be required for that portion of the trail within the Tukwila city limits. The trail corridor is located within the Commercial Office (CO), Resource Conservation (RC), and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations. The trail corridor runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest which contains the Black River (a Shoreline of the State), six wetlands (Categories II, Ill, and IV), and a Blue Heron nesting colony. Portions of the trail corridor are located within the Shoreline Management Act Natural Environment designation . Review Type: Date Assigned: Community Services Review-Version 1 05/04/2015 Date Due: 05/21/2015 Project Manager: Kris Sorensen Environmental Impact Earth Animals Air Environmental Health Water Energy/Natural Resources Plants Housing Land/Shoreline Use Aesthetics Where to enter your comments: Manage My Reviews Which types of comments should be entered: Light/Glare Historic/Cultural Preservation Recreation Airport Environmental Utilities 10,000 Feet Transportation 14,000 Feet Pub Ii c Service Recommendation -Comments that impact the project including any of the Enivornmental Impacts above. Correction -Corrections to the project that need to be made before the review can be completed and /or requesting submittal of additional documentation and/or resubmittal of existing documentation. What statuses should be used: Reviewed -I have reviewed the project and have no comments. Reviewed with Comments -I have reviewed the project and and I have comments entered in Recommendations. Correction/Resubmit -I have reviewed the project and the applicant needs to submit and/or resubmit documentation and I have added corrections in Corrections. Date Sabrina Mirante From: Kris Sorensen Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 8:03 AM Sabrina Mirante To: Subject: LUAlS-000257; FW: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail - Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Attachments: NOA DNSM_Lake to Sound Trail_lS-000257.pdf; Environmental Checklist_lS-000257.pdf Hi Sabrina -Please print and add agency response to file, LUAlS-000257. Thank you, Kris From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:43 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: Jill Ding Subject: FW: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A-LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV Kris, We have reviewed King County's proposed Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project referenced above and offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty-protected fisheries resources: 1. The trail appears to be proposed within or adjacent to the area of the Green and Black Rivers that were identified as a salmon habitat restoration project (LG-17 and LG-18) in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Salmon Habitat Plan (August 2005). (seepage 7-75 in http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/2005/kcr1876/CHAPTERS/Ch?-LowerGreen.pdf). How will the project ensure that there are no conflicts with these proposed salmon habitat restoration project or alternatively what alternative projects would be proposed in lieu? 2. Existing trees along the Green River should not be removed and fully avoided by this project to avoid causing further reductions in shade and contributions to the existing temperature water quality violations in the Green River that are contributing to pre-spawning mortality of adult Chinook salmon. 3. Any tree that is at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the Black River should be placed back into the Black River as partial mitigation for the loss of future wood recruitment function. 4. Trees should be replanted at a minimum 2:1 ratio to improve riparian functions along both the Green River and the Black River. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's/applicant's responses. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Sabrina Mirante [mailto:SMirante@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:01 PM To: DOE; DOE (misty.blair@ecy.wa.gov); DNR; Erin Slaten; Karen Walter; Laura Murphy , ' Cc: Kris Sorensen; Jill Ding Subject: City of Renton (SEPA) Notice of Application-Lake to Sound Trail· Segment A·LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU·H, SM, SMV PLEASE SEE ATIACHED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND NOTICE OF APPLICATION. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development {CED) -Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: May 7, 2015 LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: LUA15-000257, ECF, CU-H, SMV, SM Lake to Sound Trail Segment A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit approval, Shoreline Variance approval, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval for the construction of Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. This trail segment is 14,317 feet (1.2 miles) long and 12 feet wide. A portion of the trail corridor is located within the City of Tukwila city limits. The City of Renton has taken SEPA Lead Agency Status for the entire trail corridor, however separate permits from the City of Tukwila will be required for that portion of the trail within the Tukwila city limits. The trail corridor is located within the Commercial Office (CO), Resource Conservation (RC), and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations. The trail corridor runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest which contains the Black River (a Shoreline of the State), six wetlands (Categories 11, Ill, and IV), and a Blue Heron nesting colony. Portions of the trail corridor are located within the Shoreline Management Act Natural Environment designation. PROJECT LOCATION: 14299 Monster Road SW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED {DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: April 17, 2015 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: May 7, 2015 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Permits/Review Requested: Jason Rich/King County Parks/King Street Center, 7'" Fl/ 201 S Jackson St./Seattle, WA 98104/ SEPA Review, Shoreline CUP and Variance, SSDP Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permit Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: Critical Areas Report, Geot 1ical Report, Habitat Report, Stream/Lake Study, Wetland Assessment Department of Community & Economic Development (CED)-Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Public hearing is tentatively schedu or June 23, Z01S before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers at 11:00 am on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. The subject site is designated Employment Area Valley (EAV) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and IM, CO, and RC on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Project construction shall comply with the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report prepared by HWA Ge0Sciences1 Inc. (dated February 241 2015). Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner, CED -Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on May 20th. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on June 23, 2015, at 11:00 am, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Planning Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-6578. Following the issuance of the SEPA Determination, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments regarding the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6593; Eml: ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Sa6rina :Mirante, <Pfanning Secretary City of Renton I CED I Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way I 6th Floor I Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425.430.6578 I Fax: 425.430.7300 I smirante@rentonwa.gov -~::::=--··-:.:; 4 Sabrina Mirante From: Sent: To: Subject: Kris Sorensen Monday, May 18, 2015 8:01 AM Sabrina Mirante LUAlS-000257; FW: request to be party of record for Lake to Sound Trail project Hi Sabrina Please print and add to file as a public response to Lake to Sound LUAlS-000257 and add 2 people as PORs. Thank you. Kris Suzanne Krom, Pl"esident Herons Forever 4819 -49tl1Ave. SW Seattl~; WA 98116-4322 http:ljherons.circaconsulting.com 206-~2dc'.OOZ3 szkrohi@gmail.com Kate Stenberg, Same address as above, no phone or email From: Suzanne Krom [mailto:szkrom@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 2:41 PM To: Kris Sorensen Cc: 'Kate Stenberg -· Quailcroft Environmental Consulting'; Kate Stenberg --work; Leslie A Betlach; Todd Black; 'Suzanne Krom' Subject: request to be party of record for Lake to Sound Trail project Hi Kris, Thank you for taking the time today to discuss some of the topics of concern after Kate Stenberg and I met with Leslie Betlach and Todd Black on Wednesday (5/13) to discuss the 60% design set plan for the Lake to Sound Trail. We provided informal comments to them, and Todd took notes. Some of the primary areas of concern that came up are - • Fencing-needs to be clearly delineated on the next plan. It needs to effectively keep people on the trail and out of the wildlife habitat. • Tree removal -Not just generically apply the 20 ft. rule to keep the roots from affecting the path. The groundwater will flow downhill and the vast majority of the roots for many of the trees are lower than the trail, so their root growth will be concentrated on following that water. Also, would be ideal to phase the removal of any trees that need to be taken out, but it sounds like the funding may be available only for a very limited amount of time. If this changes, please phase the removal of trees. • Proposed vegetation list is very limited. Needs much more diversity with plants that will be drought tolerant. I would like to work with a couple of native plant stewards who can provide guidance in the plant selection. • I have a long term concern with fire danger as the region gets hotter and drier. Plants must be drought tolerant. Homeless camps represent a danger since the people will be using fire to cook with, smoke cigarettes, etc. If I think of other items of concern, I'll let you know. Please add Herons Forever's primary expert, Kate Stenberg, and me to your party of record list (highlighted contact information below). Al;o, please do report the tents t rou saw on the Black River site. It's impe •e that this extraordinary place remain safe to the gen~ral public and not become a haven for illicit and dangerous activities. Thank you! Suzanne Suzanne Krom, Preside.nt Herons Forever 4~19 ;49t~11\ve. SW ' '' ,,, Seattle, WA.98116-4322 http:ljherons.circaconsulting.com 206-920-0023 szkrom@gmail.com l<af~ Stenberg 23Q22 S(48ttl Street Sammamish, WA 98075 {425) 495-5095 kate@guailcroft.com stenbergkj@ccfrn.com Agencies Jason Rich, King County Parks Jack Pace, City of Tukwila 300' Surrounding Property Owners (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ss ) See Attached Applicant Party of Record See Attached Notary (Print): ___ ___cHc,o'--'r'--'~--'t ......... m ....... v""~ ...... ----------- My appointment expires: ~(>.(+ ~ q 1 ;).o(~ Lake to Sound Trail Segment A LUAlS-000257, ECF, CU-H, SM, SMV template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology ** Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region • Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers *** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: $EPA Section 35030 SE Douglas St. #210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Seattle Public Utilities Timothy C. Croll, Attn: SEPA Responsible Official 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS} Dept. of Ecology * • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. ** Attn: Misty Blair Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box47703 39015 -172"d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office • Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program ** 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Laura Murphy Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program** Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Erin Slaten Ms. Shirley Marroquin 39015172"d Avenue SE 201 s. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 WDFW • Larry Fisher• Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Issaquah, WA 98027 PO Box48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Tim McHarg Attn: Acting Community Dev. Director Director of Community Development 220 Fourth Avenue South 12835 Newcastle Way, Ste 200 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Newcastle, WA 98056 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Wendy Weiker Jack Pace, Responsible Official 355 110" Ave NE 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Mailstop EST 11W Tukwila, WA 98188 Bellevue, WA 98004 Puget Sound Energy Doug Corbin, Municipal Liaison Mgr. 6905 South 228" St Kent, WA 98032 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that It Is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov ** Karen Walter, Laura Murphy and Erin Slaten with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. are emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email addresses: KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us / Laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us L erin.slaten@muckleshoot.nsn.us ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov template • affidavit of service by mailing Jacl:.Pace City a/Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Ste 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Jason Rich King County Parks; ATIN: Jason Rich 201 S Jackson St, Rm 700 Seattle, WA 981043855 Jenny Bailey Parametrix 3779200160 3779200150 8119900000 501 MONSTER ROAD LLC ANMARCO BACANI ALEJANDRO D+MARIA LO 9125 10TH AVES 9125 10TH S 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #C-12 SEATTLE,WA 98108 SEATTLE,WA 98108 RENTON, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 BACZYNSKI JORDAN BARAJAS PATRICIA L BATSCHI JERRY A JR/YOUNG Ml 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #K53 833 SW SUNSET #K52 10843 SE 173RD ST RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 1323049020 8119900000 8119900000 BNSF BOWSER MICHAEL L BRECKENRIDGE SCOTT PO BOX 961089 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #G35 833 SW SUNSET BLVD FORT WORTH, TX 76161 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 BROOKS SHANNON N CANADAY JOHN DAVID+VERONICA MARIBEL CHI HOW-YO 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #A-2 1034 84TH AVE NE 833 SW SUNSET BLVD RENTON, WA 98055 MEDINA, WA 98039 RENTON, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 DAI WEI QIANG DELELEGN ASHENAFI DO TUAN Q+KHOA T LE 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #G-34 833 SW SUNSET BLVD UNIT J48 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #E24 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 DOMINGUEZ FRANKLIN R DORSEY RHONDA L FERRIES TRACY N 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #G-36 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #D-20 833 SW SUNSET BLVD UNIT B-7 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 FISHER RICHARD C FISSEHA DANIEL H+YEHARERWOR FOWLER THOMAS+AMY M 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #D19 833 SW SUNSET BLVD UNIT M-60 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #E 23 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98056 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 GO EMMANUEL S+MARISSA F GOODWIN VIRGIL L HASSAN SUAAD 833 SUNSET BLVD #L-57 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #B-8 833 SW SUNSET BLVD UNIT A-1 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 HENDERSON MEAGAN L HENNINGS LENNIE L HOIDA SPENCER 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #M59 833 SW SUNSET BV #I 44 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #F32 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8119900000 3779200045 3779200170 HOLM JEFF A HUGHES LP & MARY ELLEN HUGHES L P+MARY ELLEN 15221 SE FAIRWOOD BLVD 8865 OVERLAKE DR W 8865 OVERLAKE DR W RENTON, WA 98058 MEDINA, WA 98039 MEDINA, WA 98039 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 JOHNSON GLORIA M JONES KELVIN R KAZMI SYED A 833 SW SUNSET BLVD# 1-43 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #J-47 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #58 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 KHALIFE MARILYN KING ERNEST+ANN L KNOLL ROBERT 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #E-25 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #F30 4788 BAE MAR ST RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 ANTIOCH, CA 94531 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 LAMOAIQUOC LEATHERMAN HISAKO LEMMA SINTAYEHU K 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #H38 833 SW SUNSET BLVD E-26 833 SW SUNSET A-3 BLVD RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 1323049087 LU HIEP LUBOWIECKI PIOTR J+RENATA MARVIN F POER & COMPANY 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #C-15 14203 42ND AVES #116 18818 TELLER AVE #277 RENTON, WA 98057 TUKWILA, WA 98168 IRVINE, CA 92612 8119900000 2423049120 8119900000 MEKONEN ASTER MONSTER ROAD LLC NAKAGAWA DEEAN S 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #B-10 600 UNIVERSITY ST #1925 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #D-18 RENTON, WA 98057 SEATTLE,WA 98101 RENTON, WA 98055 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 NGUYEN KIM-THAO THI PATTON CHARLENE A PERKINS MIE 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #H41 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #C-13 833 SW SUNSET BLVD RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98005 8119900000 8119900000 1323049010 PHAM STEVE PHAN HAU VAN+THANH-TAM THI POINTE HERON LLC 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #A6 33242 139TH TERSE 9125 10TH AVES RENTON, WA 98057 AUBURN, WA 98092 SEATTLE,WA 98108 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 RABAGO GINNY S RACOOSIN ELIZABETH R REIN GOLD EVELYN JOYCE 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #F31 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #A-5 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #L-56 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT Al 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT A2 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT A3 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT A4 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT AS 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT A6 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT B10 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT B11 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT B7 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT B8 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT B9 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT C12 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT C13 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT C14 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT C15 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT C16 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT Cl 7 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT D18 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT D19 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT D20 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT D21 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT E22 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT E23 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT E24 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT E25 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT E26 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT E27 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT F28 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT F29 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT F30 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT F31 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT F32 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT G33 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT G34 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT G35 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT G36 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT G37 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT H38 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT H39 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT H40 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT H41 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT 142 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT 143 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT 144 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT 145 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT J46 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT J47 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT J48 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT J49 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT J50 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT J51 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT K52 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT K53 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT K54 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT L55 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT L56 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT L57 Renton, WA 980S7 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 Resident Resident Resident 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT M58 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT MS9 833 SW Sunset Blvd APT M60 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 3365901795 3365901795 RICKEY JEANNE S SANFT LOUIE SANFT LOUIE 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #Bll 6120 52ND AVES 6458 S 144TH ST RENTON, WA 98055 SEATTLE,WA 98118 Tukwila, WA 98168 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 SAVAGE HUYEN MAl+JOHN SEBIAL MARIE ALEMIL B SHOGE HAILEGABRIEL 351 LIND AVE W 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #C17 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #E22 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 1323049087 SILVEO ALMAS SLADE JEFFREY D Tenant 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #14-C 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #C 16 500 Naches Ave SW UNIT 201 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 1323049087 1323049087 1323049087 Tenant Tenant Tenant 500 Naches Ave SW UNIT 101 500 Naches Ave SW UNIT 300 500 Naches Ave SW UNIT 109 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 THERESA PROPERTIES LLC THORLEIFSON KATIE A TONG DONALD 2117 138TH AVE SE 3788 NE 4TH ST #A-305 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #E7 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 RENTON, WA 98056 RENTON, WA 98057 7229500340 8119900000 8119900000 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD URH MARIAN WROBLEWSKA EWA 1400 DOUGLAS ST #STOP 1640 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #F-29 833 SW SUNSET BLVD UNT H-39 OMAHA, NE 68179 RENTON, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98055 8119900000 8119900000 8119900000 WU BAI XING YUEN WING YIU ZENG STEPHEN YULEI 3585 S MORGAN ST 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #F28 833 SW SUNSET BLVD #H-40 SEATILE, WA 98118 RENTON, WA 98057 RENTON, WA 98055 Denis Law ... of City 0~ --=Mayo,------1~L~1!1W1Jl May 1, 20155 Community & Economic Development Department C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Department of Community Development Attn: Jack Pace 6300 South center Blvd, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Notice of SEPA Lead Agency Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, LUAlS-000257 Dear Mr. Pace: The City of Renton recently received an application for SEPA Environmental Review, Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from King County Parks for the construction of the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A. The City of Renton has determined under WAC 197-11-932 that we are the SEPA lead agency for this proposal because the greatest area of the project is located within the City of Renton. Following this letter your department will receive standard SEPA notification typically provided by the City of Renton including a copy of the SEPA Checklist and a project proposal. Please contact me at (425) 430-6598 if you have any questions. Sincerely, JP11{;P7) Jill Ding Senior Planner cc: Jason Rich, King County Parks/Applicant/Contact Gregg Zimmerman/ ERC Chair Enclosure Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov I Planning Division LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Ctty of Renton PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: Ctty of Tukwila Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Union Pacific Railway ADDRESS: PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: ZIP: 14299 Monster Road SW 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: King County Parks EXISTING LAND USE(S): Public Open Space Railroad Right of Way COMPANY (if applicable}: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Regional Trail ADDRESS: King Street Center, 7'" Floor 201 S. Jackson St EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: EAV: Employment Area Valley PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98104 DESIGNATION (if applicable) No change EXISTING ZONING: 1-M, Industrial, Medium TELEPHONE NUMBER: RC, Resource Conservation CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): None NAME: Jason Rich SITE AREA (in square feet): Not applicable t··; C : . .. APR 1 7 2015 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): King County Parks DEDICATED: Trail easement across railroad right of way approximately 0.5 acre King Street Center, 7'h Floor SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS ADDRESS: 201 S. Jackson St EASEMENTS: None PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER CITY: Seattle ZIP: 98124 NET ACRE (if applicable) None TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) None 206.477.4582 jason.rich@kingcounty.gov NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): None NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if PROJECT VALUE: applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not applicable ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): Not applicable 0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-0 AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): Not applicable 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA ___ sq.ft. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): Not applicable 0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD ___ sq.ft. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 0 HABITAT CONSERVATION ___ sq.ft. (if applicable): Not applicable 0 SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES ___ sq.ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): Not applicable 0 WETLANDS ___ sq.ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY !Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON --- AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) __ __;J,.,a,.s"'o"'n"-'-R.,,i""c'-'h _________ _ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am {please check one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or __x__ the authorized representative to act for a corporation {please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature of Owner/Representative STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Jason Rich signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purpose 4 1~tti? the instrument. 0MtAYJ. ~~ Dated Notary Public in antl for th,e State of Washington JWJ\ N. ~M'@f\: Notary (Print): My appointment expires: Date PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR .~PR. ! 7 20 Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A Located between Naches Ave SW, Monster Rd SW & City Boundary PRE 15-000075 CITY OF RENTON Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division February 26, 2015 Contact Information: Planner: Kris Sorensen, 425.430.6593, ksorensen@rentonwa.gov Public Works Plan Reviewer: Jan Illian, 425.430.7216, jillian@rentonwa.gov Fire Prevention Reviewer: Corey Thomas, 425.430. 7024, cthomas@rentonwa.gov Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell, 425.430.7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). Fire & Emergency Services Department DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM 2/13/2015 12:00:00AM Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Corey Thomas, Plan Review/Inspector (Lake to Sound Trail) PRElS-000075 No comments or concerns from the fire department. D'!llao 1 nf 1 DEPARTMENT OF CO VlUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: 2/25/2015 12:00:00AM Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer (Lake to Sound Trail) PRElS-000075 City of NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non -binding and may not subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision-makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced proposal. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. Storm Drainage ~ Erosion control shall comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual. v1. City Code requires compliance with the Critical Area Ordinance. 0. A drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall com pl\ with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the report. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Existed Site Conditions . 4. The project involves work within FEMA's 100-year floodplain. Filling or grading below FEMA's regulated floodplain elevation FIRM (NGVD 29) shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. If grading or other activity will reduce the effective storage volume, compensatory storage shall be created on the site or off the site if legal arrangements can be made to assure that the effective compensatory storage volume will be preserved over time. Compensatory storage shall be configured so as not to trap or strand salmonids after flood waters recede and may be configured to provide salmonid habitat or high flow refuge whenever suitable site conditions exist and the configuration does not adversely affjt~t I bank stability or existing habitat. c ' ~ C r /n-,, ,:, ' 2,0l/ I 5. Surface Water System Development fees of $1).540 per square foot of new impervious surface will apply. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. ~ ..,___ 6.A Construction Stormwater Permit from Department of Ecology is required . ~,., 1 o. ,c}i\a t-e / ll"W I ,, , ~er and Sewer 1. Protect existing water main and sewer main in place. Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 26, 2015 TO: Pre-Application File No. 15-000075 FROM: Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting Issues are based on the pre-application submlttals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g:, Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, Planning Director, Development Services Director, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or online at www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal: The proposal is to Improve an existing pathway within City of Renton and the Black River Riparian Forest as part of the regional Lake to Sound Trail, a multi-use non-vehicular trail that will connect Puget Sound to Lake Washington. King County, together with the City of Renton, City of Tukwila, Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration, proposed to develop a 1.1-mile trail segment In Renton and Tukwila of what will ultimately be a 16-mile regional trail. The majority of the proposed 1.1-mlle segment Is within Renton extending from Naches Ave SW, running parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Rd SW, and under railroad bridges. The project ultimately connects to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park in Tukwila. Project design Includes a two-way 12-foot wide paved width for bicycles and pedestrians, installation of a non-vehicular bridge for the trail over the Black River on the east side of Monster Road Bridge, a new pedestrian crossing on Monster Rd SW, crossing of private railroad right-of-way, and other improvements includi · · I area enhancement, retaining walls, a railroad bridge undercrossing cover, a d vehicular parkin . Existing vegetation including trees would be removed and replaced as part o mporary and manent impacts. The proposed trail segment within City of Renton boundaries is located on private railroad property, public right-of-way, and multiple city-owned properties. A City of Tukwila property is identified in Renton boundaries (PID 1323049080) along the south side of Monster Road SW. The properties involved are located within three zoning designations which include the Lake to Sound Regional , , al-Segment A, PRElS-000075 Page 2 of 8 February 26, 2015 ) Industrial Medium (IM), Resource Conservation (RC), and Commercial Office (CO) zones. The existing pathway and proposed improvements are located within Renton Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction which includes wetlands associated with the shoreline program regulations. Access to the trail within Renton is primarily from Monster Rd SW and from Naches Ave SW. Other critical areas near the trail corridor identified by the City of Renton mapping software are floodplain, steep slopes, and seismic hazards. Current Use: The subject pathway is partly developed through Renton, consisting of a improved graveled, approximate 10-foot wide, maintenance road and path located on the east side of Monster Rd SW at the Black River bridge, that runs parallel east-west railroad right-of-way and turns to the south to connect to Naches Ave SW. Monster Road Bridge is currently used to cross the Black River. Zoning: The subject trail area has multiple zoning designations -Industrial Medium (IM), Resource Conservation (RC), and Commercial Office (CO) zones, with the industrial designation in the most westerly area, the resource designation for the majority of the trail, and the commercial designation closer to the business parks and commercial buildings nearer to Naches Ave SW. The.trail would be considered an accessory use on all properties involved. The shoreline master progr;;_;;,overlay (RMC 4-3-090) and critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050) apply to the project, where a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit with Hearing Examiner decision be processed for any review and approval oftheprciposed req.uest. Development Standards: The underlying zoning designations' development standards found in RMC 4-2 "Zoning Districts -Uses and Standards" are S!Jperseded by the Ren\2!1.~pr.eline Master Program (SMP) development standards of RMC 4-3~e project is located within two SMP overlays, the "Natural" overlay which covers all of the Black River Forest area, and the "Black River/Springbrook Creek" overlay (Reach A). The Natural overlay is the most restrictive overlay of the SMP. These two SMP overlays overlap each other in the most westerly portion of the proposed project. Specific policies and goals are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan for both overlay areas but for development standards found in RMC, the development standards for the m~re restrictive_~a_!~~!I ov~~Yl~.c:>l!!_d be used. ---· · The proposed improvements to this existing trail have been previously adopted in multiple citywide plans including the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (May 2009) and the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas Plan (November 2011). The design concepts for the improved trail within the previously adopted plans identify an approximate travel width of 12-feet hard surface and 2-foot shoulders on either side. Access: Access to the proposed portions of the 1.1 trail segment are provided for in both Tukwila and Renton. Access for both vehicle and non-vehicular travel is limited due to the nearby railroad lines, existing natural features (wetlands, river, and forest), and few developed J ;. streets along the project route. Within Renton, vehicular access to the trail Is limited to the (!, · · ·' areas along Monster Rd SW and Naches Ave SW. Parking: Public vehicle and bicycle parking for the proposal should be considered. Parking areas , , ,. i within the SMP Natural overlay are prohibited per RMC 4-3-090E. The a licant will be required __ . at the time of land use permit application to prov~eaiiiiin_g ~~~iiili.if th~uQi¥ctsite. -- -,,~-·-- ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of B feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. The appropriate amount of ADA accessible stalls based on the total number of spaces must be provided. See RMC 4-4-080 for more details. It should be noted that the parking regulations specify standard stall dimensions of ./ r,, Lake to Sound Regional T;alf-. Segment A, PRElS-000075 Page 3 of 8 February 26, 2015 9 feet x 20 feet, compact dimensions of gy, feet x 16 feet, and parallel stall dimensions of 9 feet x 23 feet. Parking area landscaping requirements apply to off-street parking areas. The applicant has identified that two parking stalls are being considered as part of the project, one in Renton within proximity of the Monster Rd Bridge area and the other within City of Tukwila. The applicant shall identify on-street and off-street parking areas that may provide access for users as part of a parking analysis. Additionally, discussion of where users of the regional trail facility are provided vehicular parking shall be Identified as part of the land use application. Bicycle Parking is a requirement for all non-residential zones based on the number of vehicle stalls required to be provided on site. Specific bicycle parking location, dimensions, marking, lighting, and other standards are located in the parking standards code section (RMC 4-4- 0SOF.11). It is unclear whether the SMP Natural overlay allows for bicycle parking, where the applicant may want to consider bicycle parking areas along the trail for users to take a break r"c;+ or enjoy the natural features along the path. The applicant may want to consider identifying bicycle parking areas along the trail corridor and nearby street right-of-ways. ~ Refuse and Recycling Areas -a narrative should be provided as part of the land use application -1'!: \' ~ that identifies recycling and refuse locations, whether existing or proposed along the trail ¢1 ei:f( r1 route. Significant Tree Retention: Unless exempted by critical areas (RMC 4-3-050) or Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC 4-3-090), no tree removal, or land clearing, or ground cover management is permitted. Trees 6-inches or greater in diameter, and those proposed for removal, shall be identified on a tree inventory along the trail corridor and provided as part of application. The applicant has Identified that some existing vegetation would be Impacted temporarily and permanently as part of the development of the trail. The SMP requires replacement and enhancement for existing vegetation that would be Impacted as part of approved development, where trees that may be taken down would be Identified and "--replacement mitigation evaluated. Trees 6-inches or greater In diameter shall be identified on ~ ~ tree.)nventory along the trail corridor. · Fences/and Retaining Walls-If the applicant intends to install any fences and/or retaining walls asp;rt of this project, the location must be designated on the landscape plan or grading plan. A fence and/or wall detail should also be included on the plan as well. The applicant has Identified installation of both fencing and retaining walls. The retaining walls are identified where a box culvert Is proposed to avoid Impacts to adjacent wetlands. The walls would be on either side of the culvert, the north retaining wall would be 2 to 3 feet in height and no more than SO feet long and the south retaining wall would be 4 to 6 feet in height and no more than 150 feet long. The fence, as identified In the submitted materials, would be _a split-rail .type along portions of the pathway to minimize potential disturbance to sensitive w/ldlife • ....-· Shoreline Master Program Regulations: The project site is within the Shoreline area of the Black River and would therefore be subject the regulations within the City's Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090). The site is designated as ,!!la_!11cal over!av, pursuant to the Shoreline environment overlay. The Black River is a regulated Shoreline and any development within 200· feet of the ordinary high water mark of the River would be required to comply with the Shoreline Master Program. The regulations include any areas below within the 200-foot buffer and extend to critical areas that overlap into the SMP buffer, including: ) Lake to Sound Regional , , oll -Segment A, PRE15-00007S Page4of8 February 26, 2015 ) • lands within 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of the river; or • lands within 200 feet from floodways, whichever is greater; and • contiguous floodplain areas; and • ;wetlands, and other critical areas listed in RMC 4-3-090B. Non-vehicular multi-use trails constructed for public access/alternative transportation/recreation are permitted through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (RMC 4-3- 090E.1}. For the trail (overland and overwater), a Hearing Examiner decision process is required and must show that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area. For the portion of the trail over water, i.e. the bridge, the same Hearing Examiner decision process is required where no new over-water trails shall be allowed unless it is part of the expansion of an existing over-water trail or over-water trail system, where such expansions shall be considered a conditional use if allowed in the Public Access Requirements by Reach Table and if impacts are limited. Development and design criteria for both overland and overwater trails are specified in RMC 4- 3-090. These criteria include: • Subsection D.2.a "Environmental Effects": Impact evaluation is required according to a mitigation sequence to first avoid and lastly compensate for impacts, where no net loss of ecological functions must be determined. • Subsection D.2.c "Critical Areas within Shoreline Jurisdiction": Additional regulations are applied to areas of special flood hazards, steep slopes, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation area that are associated with a regulated shoreline. • RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.f "Allowed Activities in wetlands and buffers" within Shoreline Jurisdiction: Recreational activities are allowed within wetlands and buffers where the activity does not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer / within Category II, Ill, IV wetlands or buffers or Category I wetland buffers. The I r ,rrl,, 1( proposed bridge is not located in a wetland or wetland buffer. Limitations for trail / width, location, maintenance, and mitigation are provided. The maximum width of a]-rt, ,, trail in a wetland area under SMP Jurisdiction is 4 feet, and up to 6 feet for ADA \!(I, , ,,. applicability. The proposed trail on land Is 18 feet wide with 12 feet paved. A 1 ~~ Shoreline Variance (RMC 4-9-1908.5 ) Is required when a development or activity is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional, and/or performance 11 , standards of the SMP. Criteria for evaluating variances Is providing in RMC 4-9-1901.4. Justification for each criteria is required at time of land use submittal. • RMC 4-3-090D.x "Wetland Mitigation Requirements": There are replacement ratios for activities that adversely affect wetland and/or wetland buffers that are to achieve no net loss of wetland function and values. • RMC 4-3-090D.2.d.ix.f "Recreational and Educational Activities" in Wetlands within Shoreline Jurisdiction: Recreational activities are allowed within wetlands and buffers where the activity does not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer within Category II, Ill, IV wetlands or buffers or Category I wetland buffers. Subsection D.3 "Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects": Maximum stair and walkway widths, lighting requirements, and community disturbances. • Subsection D.4 "Public Access": For non-water dependent development such as a trail, public access consistent with the Public Access Requirements by Reach as identified in '.J Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A, PRElS--000075 Page5of8 February 26, 2015 both the Shoreline Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and within RMC 4-3-090D.4.f. Public access shall incorporate specific location and design criteria for access, width of trails, and resolution for different standards when City of Renton trail or transportation plans identify specific dimensions that differ from those listed. Additional public access development standards identify preferred location, public vehicle parking areas, and trails indicated in city plans be constructed. • Subsection D.5 "Building and Development Location": Location of development, minimization of site alteration, stream study, and navigation and recreation by others. • Subsection 0.7 "Standards for Setbacks and Height": Setback, building height, and impervious coverage standards are provided. Limited activities are exempt from buffers and setbacks including essential public facilities. • Subsection E.8 "Recreation": Standards are established for location of overland and overwater recreation facilities, and when accessibility, minimization of impacts on adjoining property, parking, and facility management are considered. • Subsection E.10.d "Transportation -Trails": Location, width, surface materials, and other standards are provided for both overland and overwater structures. Overwater structures may be allowed for key trail links for local or regional trails, interpretive facilities, and to protect sensitive areas. • Subsecti E.10.e "Public Parking": Criteria for location and other standards. • For that portion of the project that is already an existing improved trail, the established trail is considered nonconforming where it is located within a wetland or wetland buffer. Within wetlands or wetland buffer regulated by the SMP, pathways are limited to 4 to 6 feet in width. The existing gravel maintenance road/trail is greater than the maximum width. The project would be required to comply with the standards of RMC 4- 10-095 Shoreline Master Program, Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures and Sites. Additionally a Shoreline Variance wlll be required to approve that portion of the trail within the wetland buffer. Pursuant to sub-section F. the following would be applicable for those specific areas within wetland or wetland buffer areas: Alteration of an Existing Structure Compliance Standard Remodeling or renovation that equals more than 50% ofthe replacement value of the existing structures or Improvements, excluding plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems • Install site improvements that protect the ecological functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting of either: 0 Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-090Fl, Vegetation Conservation, consisting of revegetatlon of a native community of the full required' bu~r. or 100% of the area between an existing building and the water's edge If the full buffer cannot be planted, or at least 10 ft., or o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would provide at least equal protection of ecological functions and processes as the full required• setback and buffer. • Remove over water structures that do not provide public access, or do not seive a water-dependent use. Lake to Sound Regional Trai?-Segment A, PRElS-000075 Page 6 of8 ) February 26, 2015 • and normal repair and • Piers and docks shall be required to replace any solid decking with light maintenance. penetrating surfacing materials. • Developments with existing shoreline stabilization shall mitigate for the impacts of shoreline stabilization in one of the following ways: o Shoreline stablllzation structures not conforming to, or otherwise permitted by, the provisions of this Code shall be reviewed and up1raded according to the standards of RMC 4-3-090F4alll, Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy, or o An alternative mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would identify near shore mitigation to improve shoreline function or values on-site, or o If the two alternatives above are Infeasible, then the project proponent shall contribute to an off-site vegetation conservation fund, In accordance with RMC 4-3-090Flk. State requirements: The State would be provided any approval by the City. Additionally, the applicant may need to work with DNR to receive approval of the use of the State owned land covered by water and provide the approval as part of a City land use application. • Tribes: The applicant is encouraged to work with tribal authorities in review of the Qli( ( proposal and mitigation measures prior to submittal of land use application. /., ... i 0 1\.1 .-,,,vr~, Critical Areas: For all critical areas, specific report requirements are listed in RMC 4-8-120 , "Submittal Requirements". Qualified professionals and their credentials are required as part of project submittals. Geological Hazards: Steep slopes and seismic hazards have been identified on or near the subject site. A geotechnical study shall be provided by a qualified professional with the land use application If slopes are to be worked within, where city approval would be required for work in sensitive or protected slope area. The study shall demonstrate that the proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond the pre-development conditions, the proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas, and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. In addition, the study shall assess soil conditions and detail construction measures to assure building stability. Portions of the Black River bank appear to be identified as "sensitive" and "protected" slopes where the proposed bridge crossing may occur. Protected slopes are defined as topographical features that slope in excess of 40% and have a vertical rise of 15 feet or more. The applicant has Identified an alternative crossing of the Black River near the Monster Road Bridge through a new pedestrian bridge that is within proximity of steep slopes. If steep slope are to be worked within or may be impacted by the project, a geotechnical report would be required, a critical areas exemption or other approval from the city may be required. If any work is planned on a "protected slope" a Variance from the Critical Areas regulations would be required. Please note, the burden would be on the applicant to demonstrate that there is no feasible alternative other than to disturb the "protected slopes." A geotechnical 'J Lake to Sound Regional Trail -Segment A, PRElS--000075 Page 7 of8 February 26, 2015 report addressing the geological hazards would be required as part of the land use and environmental review process if geological hazard areas are to be worked in or where project development may impact existing geological hazards. Flood Hazard: The whole of the project within City of Renton is located within the floodplain. Flood Hazard Data shall be submitted with formal land use application pursuant to RMC 4-8- 1200. All development proposals shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. If grading would reduce the effective storage volume, compensatory storage shall be created on the site or off the site if legal arrangements can be made to assure that the effective compensatory storage volume will be preserved over time. Compensatory storage shall be configured so as not to trap or strand salmonids after flood waters recede and may be configured to provide salmonid habitat or high flow refuge whenever suitable site conditions exist and the configuration does not adversely affect bank stability or existing habitat. If development is proposed within the adopted 1995 floodplain, the applicant should address the issues raised in the Final Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation and propose mitigation for any anticipated impacts as it would relate to the referenced publication, in the SEPA review for the project. The SEPA checklist should be provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for their review and comment. In addition, a Floodplain Biological Assessment shall be provided. Limited areas of the trail are located within the preliminary 2010 DFIRM regulatory zone, although the DFIRM has not been adopted. The applicant wlll be required to provide Flood Hazard data In their SEPA checklist and identify their intent to either use the 1995 FIRM or the DFIRM and Compensatory storage requirements. The proposed bridge on the east side Monster Road Bridge is assumed to be 3 feet above the 100-year floodplain elevation for the adopted 1995 FEMA Flood Map. Wetlands: Wetlands are identified in the City of Renton mapping software. A wetland delineation was provided applicant's preapplication submittal which identifies wetland borders and buffers within 100 feet of the proposed trail. On the submitted materials, there are seven wetlands which vary in size. A wetland delineation is required for the project. In addition, if there are proposed impacts to the wetland or its buffer, a mitigation plan should also be submitted. Wetlands identified on the properties within the subject proposal's area are all regulated under the regulations of the Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-080D.2.d). The applicant has provided wetland reconnaissance and Identification and preliminary mitigation plan for those wetlands and/or buffer areas that may be impacted by the proposal. The submitted information identifies the permanent and temporary impacts to each of the wetlands. The wetland buffers are where impacts are proposed, and no Impacts are proposed to wetlands. Environmental Review: The proposed project is not exempt from Environmental (SEPA) review due to the wetlands, shoreline jurisdiction, floodway, and protected slopes. Therefore, an environmental checklist is a submittal requirement. The applicant has Identified that King County may process the SEPA review. The City of Renton would like ta be notified and Included in the SEPA process. Upon submittal for the shoreline land use app/lcation, a copy of the SEPA determination and any associated mitigation measures would be provided to the City. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require a Hearing Examiner Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Hearing Examiner Shoreline Variance, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Lake to Sound Regional~ Segment A, PRElS-000075 Page 8 of 8 February 26, 2015 ) and Environmental (SEPA) Review. The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. General review criteria include the following as found in RMC 4-9-190I: compatibility, public use, design, meets purpose of SMP, and meets the conditional use criteria In WAC 173-27-160. Specific review criteria can be found i_~ RMC 4-9-190 for Conditional Use Permits. All applications can be reviewed concurrently in an estimated time frame of 12 weeks once a : 1 complete application is accepted. The Shoreline Conditional Use Permit review application fee \ is $2,500. The Shoreline Variance review application fee is $2,500. The Shoreline Substantial ( Development Permit is $2,000. The application fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is $1,000. There is an additional 3% technology fee charged at the time of land use application. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction, building and sign permi~. would be required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review ofl the land use permits, but cannot be Issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods. mpact Mitigation Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the following 2015 impact fees may be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Fees change year to year. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Note: When the formal application materials are complete, the applicant is strongly encouraged to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the 6th floor front counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Please call Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner at 425-430-6593 for an appointment. Expiration: Upon conditional use approval, and variance approval if required, the conditional use approval it is valid for two years with a possible two-year extension. 'I,,, (")('' ((L 1£ I V(pl ( ( f) ZONING MAP BOOK PLANNING· TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED DATE: 10/02/2013 ma document 18 a 1rapt1lc.-.prt1111talon, naf fJJll"a,INd to,ur•"J ICCIHCY, a,d It ba..:I «tlh11bea!Jnfannallonavailllbleaafhdllll ehown.Thl,maplllntendadlcrCttyclspbrJ llUIDOMSonly, Community & Economic Development c.,-u.s,-~ ......... A.I,....,-..;, , __ r~·- ___...,--r;:..,r:fr,r1 __ :·_: IH G2W24 T23N R4E W 1/2 0 420 h'-1 1:9,560 13 T23N R4E W 112 Paga31of80 aty Limits CJ (CORI Corrman:::IM'Ollce/Rllldental D (R-4) Ralldfrtlllll 4du/K C'JRENTCtl CJ(CV)C..nt1r'w'illg1 D(R-8)Raidaill1Bdulllt: QPo11s.i1IAnntx11kxlAru CJ(IH)lnckJ&tillHea,y 0(RC)RlllllfatCOlllltrYl1ion Zonl119 D11lgn1tlon CJ (IL) lndllnlfll Light c:J (RM-F) Resid&nbl ... 11-fanlly O!CA)~metelalArtlliat CJ~M)lnclullll'IIIMedum CJ(RM-T)RtslfAl1i-F1mllyT111dilP1al c::J (CO)Cal'illr Oowntiwn CJ (R-1) Re&ldS1tl111dulao D (RM-U) R8Sl f.lllli-Fanit, Ut111 C..111" c::::::J {CNJCtJTTmercialNal;ttr,omood CJ(R-10)RHldtntill 1M.J/E c:::J(RM-11 AesiH~I Manufadlulld lt!mM c:::::J!CO)CommerclalOflce CJ(R-t•JResldtnllal14d.ll.: [:J(UC.fol1)UrbstC111tarNCf1111 r---'ln,,..,.,,,,.,._,.._...,.~,-1 • From: Kris Sorensen [mailto:KSorensen@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:50 AM To: 'Rich, Jason' Cc: Jenny Bailey Subject: RE: Waiver request See attached with original email and attachment from Jason. From: Kris Sorensen Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:49 AM To: 'Rich, Jason' Cc: Jenny Bailey (JBailey@parametrix.com) Subject: RE: Waiver request APR / 'i ?:Ji:i Hi Jason -I reviewed the waiver form you provided and it identifies correctly what is needed and what is not needed. I won't need to provide another one. Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner, Planning Division, Community & Economic Development, City of Renton, 425-430-6593 From: Rich, Jason [mailto:Jason.Rich@kinqcounty.gov) Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:52 AM To: Kris Sorensen Subject: Waiver request Kris, Please find attached our waiver requests for the Lake to Sound Trail Segment A project. Same content, 2 different file types. {I wasn't sure how you process these). Let me know if there are questions. I will likely see you at 12:30 today for a meeting with Leslie. Jason Rich Capital Project Manager, Parks CIP King Street Center 201 S Jackson St. Rm. 700 Seattle. WA 98104-3855 office: 206-477-4582 fax: 206-26:,.6217 cell: 206-427-8576 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVc" OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREM-,. TS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Calculations 1 Colored Maps for Display • Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND, Deed of Right-of-Way Dedication Density Worksheet 4 Drainage Control Plan 2 Drainage Report 2 Elevations, Architectural 3 AND, Environmental Checklist• Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) 4 Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Hazard Data 4 Floor Plans 3 AND, Geotechnical Report 2AND 3 Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading Plan, Detailed 2 Habitat Data Report 4 Improvement Deferral 2 Irrigation Plan 4 King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site, Landscape Plan, Conceptual• Landscape Plan, Detailed, Legal Description 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form • Monument Cards (one per monument) 1 Neighborhood Detail Map, Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1 . Property Services 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: BY: BY: Not applicable Not applicable No buildings proposed Bridae elevations orovided In Hie Report In Title Report No buildings proposed Defer to construction perm its Not applicable Not proposed Defer to construction permits Not applicable In Conceptual Drainage Plan PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A DATE: 3.17.15 Rev: 02/2015 PLANNING DIVISION V.rnVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIRcMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: Plan Reductions (PMTs), Post Office Approval 2 Plat Name Reservation 4 Preapplication Meeting Summary 4 Public Works Approval Letter, Rehabilitation Plan 4 Screening Detail 4 Shoreline Tracking Worksheet 4 Site Plan 2 AND 4 Stream or Lake Study, Standard 4 Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4 Street Profiles 2 Title Report or Plat Certificate , Topography Map, Traffic Study 2 Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 Urban Design Regulations Analysis 4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Final 4 Wetlands Mitigation Plan, Preliminary 4 Wetlands Report/Delineation 4 Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND, Inventory of Existing Sites 2AND Lease Aareement, Draft , "'" 3 Map of Existina Site Conditions, •Nn, Map of View Area , AND, Photosimulations 2 AND, This requirement may be waived by: 1 . Property Services 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building 4. Planning WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS: BY: BY: Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Standard Study Not applicable Not applicable Defer to construction permits Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable PROJECT NAME: Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A DATE: 3.17.15 Rev: 02/2015 Parks and Recreation Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks Street Center, KSC-NR~0700 Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104·3855 206-477-4527 Fax 206·296·8686 TIY Relay; 711 December 17, 2015 Kris Sorenson, Associate Planner City olRenton Planning Division -Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 RE: Lake to Sound Trail Segment A ESA · No Effects Document Dear Mr. Sorenson: For your records, please find enclosed one paper copy of the following Lake Lo Sound Trail-Segment A NEPA documentation: • Endangered Species Act fay1/uation: .Yo Ff!ect [)ocwnentation Phil Scgami at WSDOT has related that this document will be signed programrnatically by WSDOT and not require federal approval. WSDOT will be signing the NEPA document within the week and as such felt comfortable with us releasing this document to you. If you need any additional documentation, please do not hesitate to contact me at 206-477-4582 or ··.o.,c:.c,,ec,,, .. ,,,:c.,·'"""'·''-·'.'•'·'··''·2· Sincerely, fason Rich Project tvlanager King County Parks C!P Cnit Enclosure: 1 Paper copy of the ESA '-:o Effect Documentation September 30, 2015 Phil Segami Assistant Local Programs Engineer Northwest Region Washington State Department of Transportation P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Subject: No Effect Documentation, Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Dear Mr. Segami: Enclosed is a copy of the no effects assessment for the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge. The bridge is part of a trail project proposed by King County, the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), as part of the larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The federal nexus for this project is federal-aid funding provided by FHW A, as administered by the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Division. The enclosed analysis amends one that was completed in October 2011. That analysis found that the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project will have no effect on all species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or on designated or proposed critical habitat for these species. The design considered for the previous analysis included a crossing of the Black River on an existing bridge at Monster Road. To address constructability and safety concerns, the design was subsequently modified to add a new pedestrian crossing approximately 150 feet east of the Monster Road bridge. The construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will result in potential environmental impacts that were not addressed in the previous analysis, triggering the need for a new analysis. No other changes have been made to the project design that would alter the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason the new analyses presented here address only the construction of the new pedestrian bridge. Based on the information and analyses presented in the enclosed document, we have determined that the proposed project will have no effect on ESA-listed species or critical habitat. The species and critical habitat addressed in detail are Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, bull trout, designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon and bull trout, and proposed critical habitat for steel head. The City of Renton participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFlP), a Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) program that is required to comply with the ESA. As directed by the September 22, 2008, biological opinion issued by NMFS for the NFIP, FEMA requires projects proposed in the floodplain to be assessed to determine Phil Segami September 30, 20 l 5 Page2 whether they will adversely affect ESA-listed species or their habitat. By demonstrating that the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge project will have no effect on these resources, the enclosed analysis also documents the project's compliance with the terms of the NFIP biological opinion. This assessment satisfies FHWA's responsibilities under Section 7(c) of the ESA at this time. We are sending you this copy of our assessment for your files. We will continue to remain aware of any change in status of these species and will be prepared to reevaluate potential project impacts if necessary. In compliance with the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, essential fish habitat (EFH) was assessed for the project. It was determined that the project will not have an adverse effect on EFH. Please contact Mike Hall at 206-394-3700 if you require additional information or have any questions about this project. Sincerely, ~: ,2~ Capital Project Manager, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Enclosure: Endangered Species Act No Effect Documentation: Lake To Sound Trail- Segment A Pedestrian Bridge ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT EVALUATION: NO EFFECT DOCUMENTATION Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 and Washington State Department of Transportation Local Programs Division PO Box47390 Olympia WA 98504 Prepared by Mike Hall Parametrix 719 2nd Ave, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 September 2015 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................. I Project Location and Setting ................................................................................................. 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 7 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures ................................................................ 12 Action Area ............................................................................................................................ 13 Species and Habitat Information ........................................................................................ 16 Species and Critical Habitat Addressed in this Analysis .............................................. 16 Species and Critical Habitat Occurrence ....................................................................... 18 Analysis of Effects ................................................................................................................. 22 Conclusions and Effect Determinations .............................................................................. 27 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................... 29 Tables Table I. ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat Addressed in this Analysis ...................... 16 Table 2. Effects Determinations for Species and Designated Critical Habitat.. ..................... 28 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. Project Features ......................................................................................................... & Figure 3. Project Action Area ................................................................................................. 14 Appendix A Appendix B AppendixC Appendix D AppendixE Appendices October 2011 No-effects Determination for Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Bridge Plan and Elevation and Proposed Ground Improvement Areas Species Lists from NMFS and USFWS Essential Fish Habitat Analysis Essential Fish Habitat Analysis Introduction Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile-long segment of what will ultimately be part of the larger 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The project is a non-motorized trail located in the jurisdictions of Renton and Tukwila in King County, Washington. The 1.2-mile-long segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a regional trail system that provides non- motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non-motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Construction work for the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A pedestrian bridge is anticipated to start in May 2016 and is expected to la.st approximately 5 months, excluding landscaping and minor finishes. Once complete, Segment A will be part of a larger planned system that serves employment and residential centers in South King County and connects to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A will provide a much-needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. This analysis amends a no-effects assessment that was completed in October 2011 (Appendix A). The design considered for the previous analysis included a crossing of the Black River on an existing bridge at Monster Road. To address constructability and safety concerns, the design was subsequently modified to add a new pedestrian crossing approximately 150 feet east of the Monster Road bridge. The construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will result in potential environmental impacts that were not addressed in the previous analysis, triggering the need for a new analysis. No other changes have been made to the project design that would alter the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason the new analyses presented here address only the construction of the new pedestrian bridge. We have prepared this assessment on behalf of FHW A in response to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. We also evaluated the presence of essential fish habitat (EFH) as indicated in the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). The federal nexus for this project is federal-aid funding provided by FHW A, as administered by the WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Division. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to determine whether species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and potentially occurring in the project vicinity will be affected by project construction or operation. Effects upon critical habitat, as applicable. are also evaluated. September 2015 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Project Location and Setting The project site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in the City of Renton in King County, Washington. The proposed bridge crossing is at approximately river mile 0.25 of the Black River in the Lower Green River sub-basin of Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 (Green/Duwamish). The project site is in Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) number 171100130305, Green River. The approximate geographic coordinates of the project site are 47.475° N, 122.247° W. The proposed pedestrian bridge is part of Lake to Sound Segment A, which extends from Naches Avenue SW in Renton, runs parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, and enters Tukwila at the two railroad bridges over the Black River. Segment A joins the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (Figure I). September 2015 a ~ u: UNINC. KING COUNTY ,,.. ...... __ , ____ ..,-------------· \ \ \ \ Foster\ \ r"""---..... ,,_G,olf L:ks\\ \\ Concrete Recycling Plant \" \ ·(,., ~-\ ·~ '"'-\'\"' ~--- l . _,., \ e,\acK River (\\ \ 'vi <\\\ %\\ ",\ '\ ) A\ Fort Deni f;?.aik \\ and Star:flre , \ Sports.Complex \\ /' ( l '\·. --\ i CITYOF -\\ I \ CITY OF RENTON \ TUKWILA \·. ,J ~\ ,. Black River Riparian Forest j "-~---~------~~-~------------~--~~----~----------~-------------Parametrix ~ N 300 600 !!!liiiiiiiiiiiFeet Sources Kmg County, City of Renton, \i\'DFW2014, WSDOT Legend: Pedestrian Bridge and City Boundary Approach Trail Segments ---+--+-Railroad Proposed Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Existing Trail Parl<s and WDFW Priori(y Habitat Areas Figure 1 Vicinity Map Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Pedestrian Bndge Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat The project action area is located in a developed setting, zoned primarily for industrial uses. with large amounts of impervious surface area. A large gravel pit and concrete recycling plant are located north of the Monster Road Bridge, warehouses and an industrial operation are located to the north and south of the trail alignment, and railroad tracks run both parallel and perpendicular to the trail alignment. The project action area also includes a portion of the Black River Riparian Forest, which is designated as a resource conservation area under the City of Renton code. The Black River Riparian Forest is largely natural open space with forested riparian and wetland habitats. The area supports a diverse wildlife community, including bald eagles, great blue herons, and many waterfowl species, along with several species of raptors, songbirds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. A gravel maintenance road in this area that parallels the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe railroad tracks is commonly used for walking and pet exercise. Historically, the Black River drained Lake Washington and received waters from the Cedar River and Springbrook Creek before joining with the Green River to become the Duwamish River. Ever since the diversion of the Cedar River into Lake Washington in 1912 and the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916, the primary source of water in the Black River has been Springbrook Creek (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). [nstream habitat of the Black River within the project action area is dominated by run-type channel morphology, with maximum stream depths greater than 6 feet. During a site visit in February 2011, the wetted width was approximately 25 feet, and no pools or riffles were observed. Bank-full width was estimated at 30 feet. Stream bed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts. The streambanks are relatively steep ( approximately a SO-degree angle) and bank condition appears to be relatively stable. The streambanks at the project site, and extending a substantial distance upstream and downstream. are extensively covered with riprap, most of which is overgrown with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and other non-native species. No LWD is present in the Black River within the project action area. and the presence of the Black River pump station above the project site precludes L WO recruitment from upstream. Overall, the quality of fish habitat is poor, with little habitat diversity. Salmonids could use the Black River in the project action area for migration or possibly rearing, although instream cover is limited. Mobility and survival of juveniles and adults are impeded by the lack of cover provided by the steep, armored Photo 1. Oblique aerial view of the Black River in the project action area, looking east. Black River pump station at top, Monster Road Bridge at bottom. Dashed red box indicates approximate location of proposed pedestrian bridge. streambanks that are dominated by invasive shrubby species. September 2015 4 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-/isted Species and Critical Habitat Riparian vegetation in the project action area is sparse. with only a few scattered deciduous trees (Photo 1). Non-native shrub vegetation is dominant; the right (north) bank of the Black River between the pump station and the Monster Road Bridge is covered almost entirely by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) (Photo 2). Overall. the vegetated buffer of the Black River in the project action area is generally degraded, of limited width, and dominated by herbaceous, shrub, and non-native species. A few black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and red alder (A/nus rubra) are greater than 15 feet tall; bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) seedlings and saplings are also present (Photo 3). Other vegetation in the riparian area includes reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus). Under existing conditions, the riparian corridor in the project action area is not fully functioning, but it does provide some functions that support aquatic species, including some level of small woody debris or L WO recruitment, overhead stream cover, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality maintenance. \1\ J~4;, Photo 2. The Black River m the project action area. looking east (upstream) from the existing Monster Road bridge, toward the Black River pump station. The Douglas-fir sap/mg at left (on the north bank) is near the upstream edge of the ground improvement area and will not be removed for bridge construction. September 2015 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat m ~ ~,,,,,, '''" ,"'>.'~ \JJ , Photo 3. South bank of the Black River in the project action area. The alder tree improvement area and will be removed, as will the western redcedar saplings visible to its left. The Black River is on Ecology's current 303(d) list for violation of water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria (Ecology 2015). King County has monitored water quality at a station approximately 1 mile upstream of the project action area since 1977. Water quality conditions at that station have consistently been characterized as poor, with low dissolved oxygen concentrations, high temperatures, high fecal coliform bacteria, high turbidity. high total phosphorus and ammonia, and high conductivity (King County 201 Sa). In its most recent water quality report. King County (2015b) assigned the stream a water quality index score of 27, indicating a high level of concern for water quality. The primary factors behind the score are high concentrations of bacteria and nutrients, and low concentrations of dissolved oxygen (King County 2015b). Temperatures in Springbrook Creek upstream of the Black River regularly exceed 15° C during the months of June. July, August, and September, (King County 2015a), indicating conditions functioning at risk for salmonids. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are consistently below Ecology's minimum level for salmonid rearing and migration (6.5 milligrams per liter) from May through October, and below the minimum level for spawning (8.0 milligrams per liter) during most other months (King County 20 I Sa). September 2015 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Data from WDFW (2015a, b) data indicate that Chinook salmon. chum salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout all have documented presence within the Black River in the project action area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho. which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. The author of this assessment conducted a site visit on April 3, 2015, verifying instream and riparian habitat conditions within project action area. Additional information about site-specific habitat conditions was collected by scientists conducting field visits for studies to support federal, state, and local permitting. Information from those field visits was also incorporated into this analysis. Before conducting fieldwork, project biologists reviewed maps and materials on the soils, hydrology, topography, land use, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat at and near the project site. Project Description The project elements that are the subject of this analysis are a pedestrian bridge spanning the Black River, and approach trail segments connecting the bridge with the rest of Lake to Sound Trail Segment A. The trail will typically consist of approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders and I-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. Currently, the Black River in the vicinity of the project site is crossed by Monster Road. a principal arterial that carries approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project will construct a new crossing structure upstream of Monster Road for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other trail users. Project Elements A prefabricated steel girder pedestrian bridge, approximately I 09 feet long and 14 feet wide, will be installed to allow trail users to cross the Black River separately from vehicle traffic. The bridge will be located about 150 feet east of the existing Monster Road bridge (Figure 2). A detailed plan and elevation of the bridge is provided in Appendix 8. The contractor will construct the foundation system, then hoist the bridge on a crane and place it on the foundation. The crane will operate from the level area above the bank crest. All above-ground bridge elements will be situated upslope of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and outside of the IOO-year floodplain elevation. September 2015 ~ Parametrix 6 N 50 100 Feel Source<,: City ot 1-<cnton Legend: Pedestrian Bridge and --Approach Trail Segments ... Foundations Ground Improvement Areas Areas of Temporary Impacts Proposed Lake to Sound T raJI -Segment A River Ordinary High Water Mark 100-_year Floodplain Elevation Figure 2 Project Overview Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Substrates in the vicinity of the bridge are relatively deep. liquefiable soils that are prone to settlement and lateral spreading during a seismic event. To improve seismic stability and to prevent undue passive pressure on the bridge foundation, ground improvements will be necessary. The method to be employed is wet soil mixing, also known as the deep mixing method. This ground improvement technique improves weak soils by mechanically mixing them with cementitious binder slurry. A powerful drill constructs columns of stable soil by advancing an auger with radial mixing paddles located near the bottom of the drill string. The binder slurry is pumped to the tool as it advances; additional soil mixing is achieved as the tool is withdrawn. Schemaffc depiction of the deep mixing method. The deep mixing method creates columns of stabilized soil upon which the bridge foundations can be constructed. A total of approximately 60 soil columns will be created in this manner, stabilizing an approximately 16-foot by 35-foot area on the south side of the river and an approximately 16-foot by 25- foot area on the north side of the river (Appendix B). It is estimated that 4 soil columns can typically be mixed per day. Each column will be approximately 4 feet in diameter and will extend 30 to 40 feet below existing grade. Excavation for bridge foundations can begin the day after the completion of ground improvements. All ground improvement areas will be above the OHWM, and the drilling equipment will remain upslope of the OHWM at all times. The drilling equipment will be outfitted with extension arms that will allow access to the ground improvement areas from level ground; some benching may be necessary iftrackhoe- mounted equipment is used for drilling. Existing riprap will be removed from the areas slated for ground improvement. Temporary three-sided sheet pile containment walls with plastic lining will be installed to prevent soil and binder slurry from entering the river. The containment walls will be installed at the downslope end and along either side of each ground improvement area. The containment walls will be installed above the OHWM and the ground improvement areas will be set back from the containment walls by approximately 5 feet, meaning the lowest portions of the ground improvement areas will be at least 5 feet above the OHWM. The sheet pile walls will be embedded approximately 10 feet and will extend about 7 feet above the ground surface. Installation and removal of the sheet pile walls will be conducted with a crane-suspended vibratory hammer, such that the piles can be installed on a slope distant from where equipment actually sits. While wet soil mixing is underway, a trackhoe will be used to gather excess slurry and spoils, which will be delivered to an approved upland disposal site. such as a gravel pit, for backfilling or reprocessing. ft is September 2015 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat estimated that about 1,500 cubic yards of soil-cement spoils will need to be hauled off for disposal. After ground improvements are complete and riprap has been reestablished on the banks, the sheet pile walls will be removed. The bridge will have a corrugated metal form deck during installation. Once the bridge is in place, concrete will be pumped onto the bridge to create the final deck surface. Concrete will be pumped from equipment that is located above the OHWM. Edge containment will be employed to ensure that no concrete enters the river below. There will be no permanent light fixtures on the bridge. The Black River I 00-year floodplain elevation at the proposed pedestrian bridge is calculated at 22.57 feet (NA VD 88) using the 1995 Flood Insurance Rate Map. The trail surface across the bridge will be 6 feet above the floodplain elevation, which will allow at least 3 feet of clearance from the bottom of any bridge element to the JOO-year floodplain elevation. Construction machinery that will be used includes trucks, backhoes, a trackhoe, compressors, pumps, a drill rig (for wet soil mixing), and a crane for bridge placement. Equipment staging, fueling, and washing- out will take place in upland areas along the Monster Road corridor. Because the ground improvement areas are entirely within the regulatory buffer of the Black River, some staging of equipment in that buffer may be necessary. The project will result in no net cut or fill within the 100-year floodplain. Above the floodplain, the project will entail approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards offill. Overwater work for bridge installation will be performed in accordance with the requirements and conditions specified in the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Conditions may include limiting such work to the fish window established for the project. Approximately 45 linear feet of trail will be constructed to connect the bridge to the rest of Lake To Sound Trail Segment A; the trail will be built the using the same methods as described for the rest of the trail (Appendix A). The approach trail segments will be asphalt pavement, approximately 12 feet wide, bounded by a 2-foot-wide gravel shoulder and a I-foot-wide clear zone on each side. The proposed project is a non-motorized facility and therefore will not add any pollutant-generating impervious surface (PGIS) to the landscape. For this reason, no stormwater treatment is required per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Similarly, flow control facility requirements are waived because the anticipated increase in the JOO-year peak runoff flow rate under developed conditions will not exceed 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) in each of the four threshold drainage areas that were identified within the project boundaries (Parametrix 2015). The trail has been designed to direct stormwater to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. The surface of the pedestrian bridge and associated project features will add approximately 1,080 square feet of impervious surface (Parametrix 2015). For bank stability, the existing riprap that is temporarily removed for wet soil mixing will be put back in place or replaced with similarly sized riprap after construction work is complete. Riprap removal and replacement will be limited to areas above the September 2015 10 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat OHWM. Areas that are not covered by impervious surfaces or riprap will be hydroseeded with native grasses. Project Sequencing and Timeline Construction work for the Lake to Sound Trail~Segment A pedestrian bridge is anticipated to start in May 2016 and is expected to last approximately 5 months, excluding landscaping and minor finishes. Construction activities will occur primarily during daylight hours. The actual start dates of construction will be dependent on approval of permits, including the HPA. It should be noted that the construction sequence listed below is only a likely representation of what the actual schedule may be and that variations in work timing may occur due to contractor delays or adverse weather conditions. Some of the elements will overlap and likely shift as deemed necessary and appropriate by the construction manager. It is expected that all over-water work (activities #6 and #8 below) for the installation of the bridge will be accomplished in approximately two weeks. The general sequence of major construction activities is listed below. I. Mobilization and installation of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) according to the temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan 2. Removal of existing vegetation and riprap in ground improvement areas (approximately I week) 3. Installation of sheet piles (approximately 1.5 weeks) 4. Ground improvements (deep mixing method) (approximately 4 weeks) 5. Installation of bridge foundations (approximately 3 weeks) 6. Placement of prefabricated bridge on foundations (approximately 2 weeks) 7. Placement of crushed surfacing top course for approach trail segments (less than 1 week) 8. Installation of asphalt pavement on trail surface and concrete on bridge deck (less than I week) 9. Replacement ofriprap on river bank (approximately 1 week) 10. Revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas 11. Removal of BMPs (including sheet piles) and demobilization (2 weeks) Overwater work for bridge installation will be performed in accordance with the requirements and conditions specified in the HPA issued by WDFW. Conditions may include limiting such work to the fish window established for the project. Ground improvement will be timed to correspond with low water levels. typically influenced by tide and season. Approved work windows for Green River and its tributaries typically extend from August I through August 31. September 2015 11 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures The project is subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations that protect wetlands, streams, and other natural resources. Many laws require avoidance or minimization of impacts to resources, and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Examples of regulatory review and/or permitting processes likely to result in the implementation of impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures include the following: Clean Water Act section 404 permitting, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act section 40 l water quality certification, administered at the federal level by the U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency and implemented at the state level by Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit • The WDFW HPA review process Review under the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program • City of Renton building, grading, clearing and other applicable permits King County will consult with WDFW and/or the City of Renton to determine appropriate measures to minimize anticipated effects. Specific impact avoidance and minimization measures for the project are identified in Appendix C. All areas temporarily affected by construction, where revegetation is possible, will be restored to pre- construction conditions and re-planted or seeded with native species. Disturbed banks and riparian zones will be restored as close as possible to pre-project condition. Native vegetation damaged or destroyed by construction in the riparian zone will be replaced where feasible, using a proven methodology and species composition, planting densities, and a maintenance plan approved by WDFW and King County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review. Compensatory mitigation for effects related to installation of the pedestrian bridge will be achieved through implementation of a plan developed by King County for the Lake to Sound-Segment A project. The plan includes habitat improvement and restoration to mitigate for project-related effects on stream buffers. All unavoidable impacts to stream buffers will be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-3-090). Specific mitigation plans will be included in permit applications for construction of the project. The mitigation plans will focus on providing riparian buffer and wetland buffer mitigation that provides equal or greater functions than were impacted. The mitigation site will be planted at a ratio of at least 1: I to offset project impacts. The riparian buffer component of the overall mitigation plan consists of planting native trees and shrubs within the regulated riparian buffer of the Black River. The effects of clearing trees greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) will be offset by replanting native trees at a ratio of 1 :1 or greater. On-site mitigation (in the vicinity of the Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A project and within the regulated buffer of the Black River) was selected as the preferred option. Riparian mitigation will consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing riparian conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation will offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat. The riparian functions that will benefit from mitigation include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. September 2015 12 Action Area Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat The project action area is defined as the area with the potential to be affected directly or indirectly by the project actions. Project components with the potential to affect the species addressed in this analysis include construction activities (which may contribute to increased turbidity and sedimentation in waterbodies and elevated noise levels in terrestrial areas), modifications to riparian areas, and increases in the amount of non-pollutant-generating impervious surface area (which may affect the quantity of storm water discharges to waterbodies). The action area for this project includes all aquatic habitats extending from 100 feet upstream of the proposed bridge location to 200 feet downstream, as well as all terrestrial habitats within a 3,800 foot radius of the project footprint (Figure 3). The following subsections describe the basis for these determinations. September 2015 13 6 N 0 300 600 1,200 e--1 Feet CITY OF TUKWILA Sources: King County, City of Renton. Legend: Terrestrial Portmn of u,e Project Action Area Aquatic Portion of the Project Action Area \ (') \ g \-,, ~,,,,\'>' /'----- { 't·"l 9 i,<• ,e (BNSFJ Ra. ', . ~ \. ,J'\J'I % Concrete Recycling Plant "'o<,s.e<" I/way "rl· ~G,.... s 143rd St ~o" <c~~~ \ \ '%. ~ Black River PtJmp Stat!or \, ~!'le! "-" Monster Rd sw S 143rd St S 144th St -rs %s. c~ di 9,\1> \ 3: Oakesdale A~e SIN "' -· %~ ~· "'\}l 'b \}l ·<;, .·~ ~ I?, -< t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~\ Ji 2 J CITY OF RENTON ~ J j Figure 3 Pedestrian Bridge and Approach Trail Segments Proposed lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Project Action Area Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge City Hn· •ndary Aquatic Considerations Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Construction activities in or adjacent to waterbodies and wetlands have the potential to introduce and transport sediment into the aquatic environment at and downstream of the immediate construction or work area. The proposed project will have no potential for effects related to in-water construction because no ground-disturbing activities will take place below the OHWM of any project action area waterbodies. It is possible that areas where ground-disturbing activities remove existing vegetation may contribute to elevated levels of turbidity during subsequent rain events; however, this possibility will be minimized by using BMPs in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002). Overwater construction activities will comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the HPA and other permits issued for the project, including provisions designed to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects on habitat in receiving waters. Permits for overwater construction activities in the Green River watershed commonly require in-water or overwater work to be conducted during the summer (primarily August). Mean daily flows in the Black River at that time of year are consistently between 10 and 100 cubic feet per second. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has established a 200-foot mixing zone for construction-related turbidity in streams with flows in that range. Based on the above, the aquatic portion of the project action area is conservatively defined as extending from I 00 feet upstream of the proposed bridge location to 200 feet downstream. This is the extent of potential construction-related increases in turbidity. Terrestrial Considerations Noise from construction defines the in-air portion of the project action area. Nearly all project elements occur near Monster Road, a principal arterial. Therefore, traffic noise was considered to be part of the baseline (ambient) noise level in the project action area. The baseline noise level along Monster Road was determined by the volume of traffic and speed of traffic. The average daily traffic volume of Monster Road is approximately 11,000 vehicles, which equates to approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour (WSDOT 2014). The posted speed limit near the project site is 35 miles per hour. Based on these numbers, the baseline (ambient) noise level along Monster Road is approximately 66 decibels on the A- weighted scale (dBA) at 50 feet. Background noise levels in the project action area are conservatively estimated to be approximately 50 dBA, similar to levels in suburban and residential areas. The surrounding area includes industrial areas (e.g., concrete recycling plant and BNSF railway corridor) as well as undeveloped areas (e.g., Black River Riparian Forest); the 50-dBA estimate falls between typical noise levels for those types of areas. The threshold level for detection of construction noise by ESA-listed terrestrial species is approximately 4 dBA above background levels. Therefore, the detection level for construction noise is 54 dBA. The loudest construction activity will be vibratory driving and removal of sheet piles, which is expected to generate noise levels of approximately 10 I dBA at 50 feet (WSDOT 2014) during two relatively brief periods (approximately I to 1.5 weeks) near the beginning and end of the construction sequence. No impact pile driving or other activities that generate extremely loud noises will occur. Noise from other construction equipment is not expected to exceed 90 dBA. Because the noise level of other equipment is more than 10 dBA less than that of vibratory pile driving, other equipment will not make a measurable September 2015 15 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat difference in overall project-related noise levels (WSDOT 2014). Therefore, the maximum construction- related noise level will be 101 dBA. Surface conditions in the project vicinity are soft (i.e., ground cover exists between the noise source and the receptor), meaning construction noise (a point source) will attenuate at a rate of about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Similarly, the traffic noise (a line source) will attenuate at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Based on these estimates, noise from the loudest construction activity (vibratory pile driving) will attenuate to the 54 dBA detection threshold approximately 3,800 feet from the project footprint. Noise from other equipment will attenuate to that threshold approximately 1,300 feet from the project footprint. Traffic noise attenuates to that level at approximately 300 feet, meaning construction noise will not be masked by traffic noise before it attenuates to background levels. The extent of project-related noise is thus calculated as the distance at which construction noise is expected to be less than or equal to background noise levels. This distance, calculated as 3,800 feet, defines the terrestrial extent of the project action area. Indirect Effects Considerations The project action area for the proposed action does not reflect any potential indirect effects associated with land use development. This is because the project has independent utility and is not linked to, or dependent on, any other projects or developments in the area. The project is not dependent on any land use development or changes in land use or zoning, and no land use development projects depend directly on completion of this project. Species and Habitat Information Species and Critical Habitat Addressed in this Analysis Lists of species that are listed or proposed for listing under the ESA and that may be present in the project action area were obtained from the NMFS and USFWS websites in July 2015 (Appendix D). Based on a review of habitat associations and conditions, as well as known and expected distribution, three ESA- listed or proposed species have the potential to be affected by project activities and are addressed in this BA. These are Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead trout, and bull trout (Table 1 ). Table 1. ESA-Listed Species and Critical Habitat Addressed in this Analysis Species Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Puget Sound ESU) Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Puget Sound DPS) Bull trout (Sa/velinus conf/uentus) ESU -Evolut1onanly Significant Unit DPS -Distinct Population Segment September 2015 Status Threatened Threatened Threatened 16 Federal Jurisdiction Critical Habitat Status NMFS Designated; present in project action area NMFS Proposed; present in project action area USFWS Designated; none in project action area Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat The USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System identified five ESA-listed wildlife species as potentially occurring in areas that might be affected by the proposed project (Appendix D). None of these species is expected to occur in the project action area, however, for the following reasons: • Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and gray wolf(Canis lupus) are identified as potentially occurring in King County. However, the project action area is in a lowland setting with relatively high levels of human activity and no nearby roadless areas and thus does not provide suitable habitat for either of these species. No observations of either species have been documented within 5 miles of the project action area (WDFW 2015a). Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) require old-growth forest for nesting and marine habitat for foraging. No breeding or foraging habitat is present in the project action area and no observations have been documented within 5 miles (WDFW 2015a). The nearest location where critical habitat has been designated for the marbled murrelet is more than 25 miles from the project action area. Yellow-billed cuckoos (Coccyzus americanus) require large blocks of riparian forest habitat for breeding and foraging. No such habitat is present in or near the project action area. Currently, the species no longer breeds in western Canada and the northwestern continental United States (Washington, Oregon, and Montana) (79 FR 59992, October 3, 2014). No observations of this species have been documented within 10 miles of the project action area (WDFW 2015a). No critical habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo has been proposed in Washington State. • Streaked homed larks (Eremophi/a a/pestris strigata) are known to occur in Washington State only in portions of southern Puget Sound, along the Washington coast, and at lower Columbia River islands (78 FR 61452, October 3, 2013). Breeding habitat for streaked homed larks in Washington consists of grasslands and sparsely vegetated areas at airports, sandy islands, and coastal spits. The subspecies is largely absent from the Puget Trough during the nonbreeding season; individuals observed in this area outside of the breeding season have been seen using habitats similar to those used for breeding. No such habitat is present in the project action area, and the project action area is not within the known range of the subspecies. The nearest location where critical habitat has been designated for the streaked horned lark is more than 90 miles from the project action area. Based on the above, the proposed project has no potential to affect Canada lynx, gray wolves, marbled murrelets, yellow-billed cuckoos, or streaked horned larks. These species will not be addressed further in this analysis. Information from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage database indicates that no ESA-listed threatened or endangered plants are known to occur within 5 miles of the project site (WDNR 2014). The only ESA-listed plant with the potential to occur in or near the project action area is golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), which is known from historical observations in the region. Suitable habitat for golden paintbrush (open grasslands in glacial outwash prairies) is not present at any locations where project-related actions will occur. For these reasons, the proposed project has no potential to affect this species. September 2015 17 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Species and Critical Habitat Occurrence The project action area includes the Black River approximately 0.25 mile upstream of its confluence with the Green River. Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout are present in the Green River at the Black River confluence. Although the Green River is outside of the project action area, all three species could venture into the Black River, with varying degrees of likelihood. The author of this BA conducted a site visit on April 3, 2015. Additional information about site-specific habitat conditions was collected by scientists conducting field visits for studies to support federal, state, and local permitting. Information from those field visits was also incorporated into this analysis. Before conducting fieldwork, project biologists reviewed maps and materials on the soils, hydrology, topography, land use, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat at and near the project site. This site visit verified instream and riparian habitat conditions within project action area. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU are listed as threatened under the ESA (63 FR 11482, March 24 1999). Primary factors contributing to declines in Chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU include habitat blockages, genetic modification of wild fish through interbreeding with hatchery fish, urbanization, logging, hydropower development, harvests, and flood control and flood effects (NMFS 1998). The overall abundance of Chinook in the Puget Sound ESU has declined substantially, with both long-and short-term abundance trending predominantly downward. According to WDFW (2015b), fall-run Chinook salmon are present in the Black River in the project action area, and rearing habitat is available in the Green River at the Black River confluence. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning or rearing do not exist in the project action area. Recent and historical records indicate that Chinook do not use the Black River for spawning or rearing (Williams et al. 1975; Harza 1995). However, small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped in Springbrook Creek above the Black River pump station. There is little if any suitable spawning habitat in Springbrook Creek, and the pump station blocks downstream passage of adult salmon (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Adult salmonids that make it past the pump station are believed to experience high levels of stress or be killed outright before spawning (Harza 1995). If any juvenile Chinook salmon are produced in Springbrook Creek, they face degraded water quality conditions and would be able exit the system only when the downstream passage facility is operating, between early April and mid-June (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Chinook salmon in the Green River system are a summer/fall-run stock. Adult summer/fall Chinook migrate upstream in the Green River from late June to mid-November, spawning from September through mid-November. Most spawning generally takes place in the mainstem Green River from river mile 23 to river mile 61.2 and in the lower 6 miles ofNewaukum and Soos creeks (WDFW 2002). Those areas are more than 10 miles upstream of the Black River/Green River confluence. Most Chinook salmon in the Green River exhibit an ocean-type life history, in which juveniles migrate to estuaries during the first year of life, generally within 3 to 4 months of emergence (Lister and Genoe 1970). Seaward migration of Green River Chinook fry typically begins in January and peaks in early March; a secondary peak of outmigration (consisting offingerlings, not fry) occurs from May through July (Ruggerone and Weitkamp 2004). A small proportion of Green River Chinook salmon are stream- September 2015 18 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat type fish-that is. juveniles that overwinter in the watershed before migrating seaward (Grctte and Salo 1986 ). Stream-type Chinook salmon may migrate to the ocean any time of year (Healey 1991 ). Green River summer/fall-run adult Chinook salmon may venture into the project action area while they are migrating upstream between June and mid-November. Juvenile Chinook salmon migrating down the Green River could be carried into the project action area during flood flows and other situations when water elevations downstream of the Black River pump station are higher than those on the upstream side. Overlaps between high flows and Green River juvenile outmigration are most likely to occur from January through June. Any juveniles that may be produced in the Springbrook Creek system would only be able to enter the project action area (which is downstream of the Black River pump station) from April through mid-June. Puget Sound Steelhead The Puget Sound steelhead DPS is listed as a threatened species under the ESA (72 FR 26722, May 11, 2007). The DPS includes all naturally spawned anadromous winter-run and summer-run Oncorhynchus mykiss (steelhead) populations, in streams within the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and Hood Canal, Washington. The DPS also includes steelhead from artificial propagation programs in the Green River. According to WDFW (2015b), winter steelhead are present in the Black River in the project action area. Juvenile steelhead have been captured at numerous locations in Springbrook Creek upstream of the Black River pump station, although degraded water quality in the lower reaches of the stream likely hinder juvenile survival (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Adult steelhead that migrate upstream of the pump station cannot return to the Green River mainstem (Harza 1995). The nearest documented spawning habitat is in the mainstem Green River more than 10 miles upstream of the Black River/Green River confluence (WDFW 2015b). Natural-origin steelhead that spawn in the Green River system are a winter-run (ocean-maturing) population 1. Adults typically enter fresh water and migrate upstream from November through May, and spawning generally occurs from early March through mid-June (WDFW 2002; Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team 2013). Juvenile steelhead tend to reside in fresh water for 2 years or more before migrating to marine habitats. Juvenile outmigration typically takes place during April and May (Busby et al. 1996). The downstream passage facility at the Black River pump station operates between early April and mid-June, so the pump station is unlikely to hinder outmigration of juvenile steelhead. Adult steelhead may venture into the project action area while they are migrating upstream between November and May. Juvenile steelhead migrating down the Green River could be carried into the project action area during flood flows and other situations when water elevations downstream of the Black River pump station are higher than those on the upstream side. Overlaps between high flows and Green River juvenile outmigration are likely to occur during April and May. Juveniles produced in the Springbrook Creek system may also be able to enter the project action area (which is downstream of the Black River pump station) during April and May. 1 A summer~run steelhead population is also present in the Green River. That population originated from the Skamania Hatchery in the Columbia River Basin and is not included in the ESA-listed Puget Sound DPS. September 2015 19 Bull Trout Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Bull trout is listed as a threatened species (64 FR 58910, November I, 1999). Historically, bull trout were present in the White River (Mongillo 1993), which was once connected to the Green/Duwamish river system but has since been diverted to the Puyallup River. Today, the lower Green River, Duwamish River, and adjacent nearshore habitats appear to be used only by foraging anadromous bull trout that originate in other river systems (70 FR 56212, September 5, 2005). Bull trout have been reported in the lower Green River as far upstream as the mouth ofNewaukum Creek (about river mile 41) (King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks 2002; Goetz et al. 2004). Reports of historic use of tributaries in the lower Green River are rare (King County Department of Natural Resources 2000). Bull trout are not known to occur in the Black River, and there have been no documented occurrences of spawning (WDFW 2015b). Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by this species (Harza 1995). The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan did not identify the Green/Duwamish river system as a bull trout core area-that is, the system is not considered to be a biologically functioning unit for bull trout because it lacks the necessary combination of core habitat (i.e., habitat with all necessary components for spawning, rearing, foraging, migrating and overwintering) and a core population (Shared Strategy for Puget Sound 2007). However, the lower Green River, including the reaches immediately downstream of the project action area, supports foraging, migration, and overwintering habitat for subadult and adult bull trout (USFWS 2010; WDFW 2015b). Anadromous bull trout migrate from the marine environment into freshwater habitats in the fall or early winter. Overwintering subadults and adults remain in freshwater habitats until late winter and spring (Goetz et al. 2004; USFWS 20 l 0). Based on the absence of documented sightings and the lack of suitable habitat, bull trout are not known or expected to use the Black River in the project action area. The possibility for fish to venture from the Green River into the project action area cannot entirely be discounted, however. Adult or subadult bull trout could enter the project action area from fall through late winter. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat The lower Green River and much of the Black River, including the portion of the Black River within the project action area, have been designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005). The following PCEs of Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat may be found in the project action area: I. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Chinook salmon are neither known nor expected to spawn in the project action area. Water quality in the system that drains to the Black River is generally poor, characterized by high temperatures, low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and elevated levels of contaminants. Stream bed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts and are not likely to be suitable for spawning, incubation, or larval development. September 2015 20 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to fonn 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. Existing Conditions: Chinook salmon are neither known nor expected to rear in the project action area, and conditions favorable for rearing are not present. Water quality in the system that drains lo the Black River is generally poor, characterized by high temperatures, low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and elevated levels of contaminants. No large woody debris (LWD) is present in the stream channel in the project action area, and the Black River pump station precludes the recruitment of LWD from upstream. Kerwin and Nelson (2000) were not able lo assess the existing extent or condition of off-channel habitat in the Springbrook Creek subbasin, which includes the Black River. It is clear, however, that floodplain connectivity in the Lower Green River sub-basin is severely limited as a result of the diversion of the White River, construction of levees and revetments, and operation of the Howard Hansen Dam (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). 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. Existing Conditions: The Black River in the project action area is unlikely to function as a migratory corridor for Chinook salmon. The Black River pump station presents a significant barrier to migration. Adult fish that make it past the pump station are believed to experience high levels of stress or be killed outright before spawning (Harza 1995). If any juvenile Chinook salmon are produced in Springbrook Creek, they would be able exit the system only when the downstream passage facility is operating, between early April and mid-June. Water quality in the system that drains to the Black River is generally poor, characterized by high temperatures, low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and elevated levels of contaminants. No LWD is present in the stream channel in the project action area. Mobility and survival of juveniles and adults are further impeded by the lack of natural cover provided by the steep, armored streambanks that are dominated by invasive shrubby species such as Himalayan blackberry. Puget Sound Steelhead Critical Habitat The lower Green River and much of the Black River, including the portion of the Black River within the project action area, have been proposed for designation as critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead (78 FR 2726, January 14, 2013). The PCEs identified in the proposed rule for Puget Sound steelhead are identical to the PCEs identified in the final designation of critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. The existing condition of Puget Sound steelhead critical habitat PCEs is as described for Puget Sound Chinook salmon PCEs, above. Bull Trout Critical Habitat Critical habitat was designated for bull trout in 2005 and then re-designated in 2010 (75 FR 63898, October 18, 20 I 0). The portion of the Green River into which the Black River empties is mapped as September 2015 21 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat critical habitat for bull trout. The Green River is not within the project action area. however, and the Black River was not included in the designation. Analysis of Effects A high priority was placed on designing the project to include measures and features that avoid and minimize adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife. Construction activity will be limited to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to existing cleared areas to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. The project does not include construction activities below the OHWM of the Black River; therefore, the project will not result in any stream fill, nor will alterations to fish passage structures be required. The following discussions analyze potential direct effects (i.e., those related to construction-related impacts, riparian habitat modifications, and the presence of the pedestrian bridge and new impervious surfaces) and indirect effects of the proposed Lake to Sound-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge project. Construction-related Impacts Construction activities occurring directly adjacent to the Black River could increase turbidity and total suspended sediment levels in the river, resulting in disrupted feeding or migration, physiological stress, or increased metabolic oxygen demand. However, by adhering to the terms of applicable federal, state, and local permits (including the HPA issued by WDFW), the project will meet applicable water quality standards. Furthermore, the potential for increased turbidity or suspended sediment levels will be minimized or avoided through the implementation ofBMPs and the TESC plan in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002). Moreover, construction work for pedestrian bridge installation will take place primarily during the summer months, when ESA-listed fish species are highly unlikely to be present in the project action area. Upland sources of erosion, such as construction access roads, will be contained using erosion control and sediment detention measures. Erosion control measures will be frequently inspected as to maintain a continuous barrier between ground-disturbing activities and the Black River. Proper implementation and maintenance of these and other measures described in this assessment will essentially eliminate the risk that upland activities could generate turbidity in the project action area. Project activities near waterbodies also have the potential to introduce pollutants through spills of fuel, hydraulic fluid, or other substances. All work will be conducted in compliance with the SPCC plan for the project and BMPs will be implemented to prevent construction-related pollutants from entering streams. Based on these factors, the potential for construction activities to result in the introduction of pollutants into waters that support ESA-listed fish is extremely low. Overwater work will be confined to the footprint of the new pedestrian bridge. The proper application of BMPs will ensure that no concrete, falling material, or dust enters project waters. All overwater work for bridge installation will be performed in accordance with the requirements and conditions specified in the HPA issued by WDFW. Conditions may include limiting such work to the fish window established for the project, which typically corresponds with the period when most salmonids are least likely to be September 2015 22 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat present in in the project action area. Approved work windows for Green River and its tributaries typically extend from August I through August 31. Vibratory installation of sheet piles for the containment walls around the ground improvement areas will be conducted above the OHWM and in the dry (i.e., above the waterline at the time of construction). Based on monitoring of in-water noise levels associated with impact pile driving adjacent to or within the OHWM ofa river, WSDOT (2014) has determined that driving in the dry is an effective means of minimizing the effects of sound in the water and protecting fish. Moreover, studies of sound levels in waterbodies adjacent to land-based pile driving activities have focused on impact pile driving, which generates substantially higher sound intensity levels than vibratory driving. For these reasons, elevated sound intensity levels from vibratory driving of sheet piles will not have any adverse effects on fish. Adult Green River summer/fall-run Chinook salmon are the only species life stage with an appreciable potential for exposure to effects from overwater work. Chinook salmon from the Puget Sound ESU typically migrate from marine habitats to freshwater spawning areas between June and mid-November and could therefore be present in the project action area when such work is underway. The likelihood of exposure to contaminants from overwater work is extremely low, however, because (1) the risk will be minimized through the proper application of appropriate BMPs, (2) the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration through the area, (3) reaches of the Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area not known or expected to provide suitable spawning habitat for Chinook salmon, and (4) work will be performed in accordance with the requirements and conditions (including fish windows) specified in the HPA, likely limiting overwater work to late summer months when it is unlikely that high flows in the Green River will cause migrating adult salmon to seek low-velocity resting areas in the Black River. Other species and life history stages are extremely unlikely to be present in the project action area when overwater construction activities occur. Juvenile Chinook salmon could enter the project action area from January through June; adult steelhead could enter the project action area while they are migrating upstream between November and May; juvenile steelhead could enter the project action in April and May; and adult or subadult bull trout could enter the project action area from fall through late winter. All of these periods are outside of the anticipated late-summer window for overwater work. There is a slight potential for species and life history stages other than adult Chinook salmon to be present in the project action area when ground-disturbing construction work (other than overwater work) takes place. Site preparation in the ground improvement areas could begin as early as May, with ground- disturbing activities continuing through the spring and summer months. Juvenile Chinook salmon could enter the project action area during May or early June and adult or juvenile steelhead could enter the project action area during May. The potential for exposure to elevated levels of sediment or turbidity will be extremely low because ( 1) no ground-disturbing work will occur below the OHWM, (2) ground- disturbing work is expected to occur during the late spring and summer months, when water levels in the Black River are generally low and there is almost no possibility of high flows in the Green River causing adult or juvenile fish to seek low-velocity resting areas in the Black River, (3) work in the initial stages of construction (i.e., during the period when steelhead or juvenile Chinook might enter the project action area) will consist of activities (site preparation and riprap removal) with a very low potential of delivering sediments or pollutants to the Black River, and ( 4) the risk of exposure will be minimized through the proper application of appropriate BMPs in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered September 2015 23 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002). In addition, the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration through the area. The likelihood is further reduced for juvenile Chinook salmon because reaches of the Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area are not known or expected to provide suitable spawning habitat for Chinook salmon. No ground-disturbing activities will take place during the fall and late winter months, when adult or subadult bull trout could enter the project action area. Riparian Habitat Impacts Installation of the pedestrian bridge and construction of the approach trail segments are expected to result in minimal effects on the condition of riparian habitat along the Black River. The existing vegetated buffer of the Black River in the project action area is generally degraded, of limited width, and dominated by non-native herbaceous and shrubby species. Approximately 2,900 square feet within the Black River riparian buffer (1,100 square feet on the north bank and 1,800 square feet on the south bank) will be permanently or temporarily affected by ground improvement work. This includes the ground improvement areas themselves, as well as the areas that will be enclosed within the containment walls around the ground improvement areas. The work will entail the removal of existing vegetation (primarily Himalayan blackberry with a few scattered and small trees), removal of existing riprap, installation of containment walls, and wet soil mixing, after which riprap will be returned to the steep stream banks and the level areas at the top of the banks will be scarified and planted. It is assumed for this analysis that vegetation removal in all portions of the ground improvement areas, and in the areas directly underneath the pedestrian bridge, will be permanent. The remaining portions of the areas within the containment walls will be subject to temporary impacts. For bank stability, the existing riprap that is temporarily removed for wet soil mixing will be put back in place after construction work is complete. Disturbed areas that are not covered by impervious surfaces or riprap will be hydroseeded with native grasses. The portion of the north bank of the Black River that will be affected by temporary or permanent clearing is covered almost entirely by Himalayan blackberry. The existing vegetation on the north bank does not provide shade or L WO, nor does it contribute substantially to stream channel formation or maintenance, organic matter input, or other functions that support ESA-listed fish species. No trees are within the affected area. Vegetation disturbance on the north side of the river is not expected to result in any adverse effects on ESA-listed fish. The portion of the south bank of the Black River that will be affected by temporary or permanent clearing is covered primarily by Himalayan blackberry and other low-growing shrubs, but more trees are present than on the north bank. Clearing of the ground improvement area will entail the removal of a 12-inch dbh red alder and about 5 saplings (cottonwood, western redcedar, and Sitka spruce, all smaller than 4 inches dbh). The removal of trees from the riparian area will reduce the potential for future recruitment of LWD to the Black River, reducing the potential for the development of complex in-stream habitat features that could be used by ESA-listed fish species. The potential for adverse effects is minimal, however, because the September 2015 24 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-fisted Species and Critical Habitat Black River does not support reproductive populations of Chinook salmon, steelhead, or bull trout. The effects of clearing will also be mitigated by replanting native vegetation at a nearby location in the riparian area of the Black River. Over the long term, the native grasses, shrubs, and trees planted at the mitigation site may provide greater ecological function than the mostly non-native vegetation that will be affected at the project site. The riparian functions that will benefit from mitigation include L WO recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. It is also likely that new trees will be able to take root and start growing in the disturbed areas on the stream bank, as was evidently the case with the trees growing in the riprap there now. Based on the nature and location of buffer impacts, no substantial degradation of riparian functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or processes (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; stream channel formation/maintenance) will result from permanent project-related clearing and no substantial effects on stream habitat or fish resources are anticipated in the Black River. In addition, the project will comply with the requirements of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program, which will entail the implementation of measures to ensure no net loss of ecological function. Pedestrian Bridge Impacts A 11 bridge components spanning the Black River will be designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits issued for the project. Per WAC 220-660-030, the HPA provisions will be designed to ensure no net loss of habitat functions necessary to sustain fish life. Compliance with the provisions of the HPA and other permits will be expected to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects resulting from the loss of in-stream habitat due to bridge construction. Any unavoidable impacts will be addressed through compensatory mitigation. Shade from overwater structures such as bridges can be a migration barrier for fish. Juvenile salmonids avoid dark, shaded areas under structures, resulting in loss of access to habitat, blockage of movement, and potentially increased exposure to predators. In addition, shade from overwater structures can provide hiding cover for some non-native species, such as small mouth bass, that prey on native fish. The new pedestrian bridge over the Black River will be 14 feet wide. The portion of the bridge spanning the OHWM of the river will be approximately 44 feet long, meaning approximately 616 square feet of the river will be affected by shading from the bridge. The bottom of the bridge deck will be at least 3 feet above the elevation of the JOO-year floodplain, which is approximately 10 feet higher than the OHWM. The height of the bridge above the water will reduce the intensity of any shade-related effects. The bridge will be oriented on a north-south axis, minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day. The Black River is not considered to be an important migratory corridor for salmonids because the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the study area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. In addition, reaches of the Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream of the project action area are unlikely to provide suitable spawning or rearing habitat for Chinook salmon or high-quality spawning or rearing habitat for steelhead. Moreover, the narrow footprint and north-south orientation of the bridge will further diminish the potential for the structure to cast shade that presents a migration barrier for any juvenile salmonids that may pass through the project action area. The potential September 2015 25 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat for the bridge to present a migration barrier to juvenile bull trout is negligible because bull trout are not known or expected to use habitats in the Black River within or upstream of the project action. All above-ground bridge elements will be situated upslope of the OHWM and outside of the 100-year floodplain elevation. Therefore, the presence of the bridge will not affect the flood storage capacity of the Black River floodplain. Impervious Surface Impacts Management of runoff from Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, including the pedestrian bridge and approach trail segments, will comply with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology 2012). No inter-basin transfers of stormwater will occur (i.e., all stormwater will remain in the basin in which it originated). The new impervious surfaces will support only non-motorized traffic and will therefore be non-pollutant-generating. Metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other contaminants commonly associated with roadway runoff will not be generated by the pedestrian and bike trail, meaning the proposed project will have no discernable effect on water quality in the project action area. Therefore, this analysis considers only the potential for effects on stream flows due to changes in the amount of impervious surface in the project action area. Construction of the pedestrian bridge and associated project features will add approximately l,080 square feet (0.02 acre) of impervious surface within the project action area. No changes in flow regime, including peak flows and base flows of the Black River, are expected because the volume of runoff from the small amount of added impervious surface will be miniscule compared to the magnitude of stream flows within the Black River and the lower Green River. The anticipated increase in the 100-year peak runoff flow rate under developed conditions will be less than O. l cfs (Parametrix 2015). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the maximum regulated flow for the JOO-year recurrence interval is 12,000 cfs at the project site. In addition, most runoff from the approach trail segments is expected to infiltrate within or be intercepted by vegetated buffers along the Black River, which are between 25 and 50 feet wide. Based on the above, the increased amount of impervious surface in the project action area is not expected to result in any appreciable effects on the hydrology of the Black River, including base flow and peak flow. Indirect Effects The possible introduction of excess sediment and pollutants into action area waterbodies during project construction could reduce the availability of prey items for ESA-listed fish species in the project action area. However, the potential for any such impacts will be avoided or minimized by the implementation of BMPs and the TESC plan in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002). Any unavoidable impacts will occur only while and immediately after the ground-disturbing activities take place and are not expected to cause any long-term changes in foraging behavior or prey availability. September 2015 26 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Construction of the pedestrian bridge on Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail will not cause any indirect effects associated with induced changes in land use. for the following reasons: The project will not create any new roads, lanes, intersections, interchanges. or other facilities with the potential to alter access to nearby lands. The project will not alter the level of service on existing roads in the project action area. No building moratoria are in place that are contingent on the proposed project. • No land use changes are tied by permit condition to the proposed project. • No reasonably foreseeable actions or land use changes will be caused by or result from the project. • No current development plans include scenarios for the planning area where land use differs based on ·'build'' versus "no-build" outcomes related to the proposed project. No land use changes are likely to occur at a different rate as a result of the proposed project. Conclusions and Effect Determinations We have determined that the proposed Lake to Sound-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge will have no effect on ESA-listed species for the following reasons: • No suitable habitat for ESA-listed terrestrial species is present within or near the project action . area. Appropriate BMPs will be employed to minimize or eliminate sediment and pollutant inputs to waterbodies during construction. ESA-listed aquatic species are not expected to be present in the project action area when construction activities are underway; project construction activities will be timed and sequenced to avoid ground-disturbing activities in sensitive areas when migrating salmonids may be present. No spawning habitat for ESA-listed aquatic species is present in the project action area, and the potential for water and substrates in the project action area to provide suitable rearing, foraging, or refuge habitat is extremely low, based on poor water quality; lack of L WO and other sources of instream cover; steep, armored streambanks that are dominated by invasive shrubby species; and the presence of the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area, which presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. • The Black River does not support reproductive populations of Chinook salmon. • Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by bull trout. • The vegetated buffer of the Black River in the project action area is generally degraded. of limited width, and dominated by non-native herbaceous and shrubby species. In addition, only a small portion (approximately 2,900 square feet) of the riparian buffer will be affected by ground- disturbing activities, and the effects of riparian vegetation loss will be mitigated by replanting native vegetation in the riparian area of the Black River. The project will comply with the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program, which requires the implementation of measures to ensure no net loss of ecological function. Shade from the pedestrian bridge is not expected to present a migration barrier for juvenile salmonids because the bridge will be narrow and well above the water's surface, and the bridge will be oriented on a north-south axis, minimizing the amount of time that any given point receives shade over the course of a day. September 2015 27 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat • Management of runoff from new impervious surfaces will comply with the requirements of Ecology's 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. • The volume of runoff from 0.02 acre of new impervious surface will be miniscule compared to the magnitude of stream flows within the Black River and the lower Green River. We have determined that the proposed Lake to Sound-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge will have no effect on designated or proposed critical habitat for ESA-listed species for the following reasons: • Designated critical habitat for bull trout is not present in the project action area. • Conditions favorable for spawning or rearing by Chinook salmon or steelhead are not present, and the presence of the Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area presents a significant barrier to migration, meaning the primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead are essentially absent from the project action area. Table 2 provides a distinct statement of the overall effect of the project on each species and critical habitat considered in this analysis. Table 2. Effects Determinations for Species and Designated Critical Habitat Species Status Federal Effect Determination Critical Habitat Jurisdictioh Effect Determination Chinook salmon Threatened NMFS No Effect No Effect (Puget Sound ESU) Steelhead trout Threatened NMFS No Effect NIA' (Puget Sound DPS) Bull trout Threatened USFWS No Effect No Effect 1 Critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead has been proposed but not designated. Proposed steelhead critical habitat occurs m the proJect action area. Should critical habitat be designated before project completion. the project will have no effect on critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead. We have further determined that the project will not adversely affect EFH for Pacific coast salmon, Pacific coast groundfish, or coastal pelagic species. A full EFH analysis is included as Appendix E. September 2015 28 Literature Cited Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Busby, P. J., et al. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 281 pp. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Storm water Management Manual for Western Washington, Volumes I -V. Publication Number 12-10-030. Prepared by Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. Olympia, Washington. August 2012. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. 2012 Washington State Water Quality Assessment (305[b] report and 303[d] list). Available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.htm1. Accessed February 3, 2015. Goetz, F.A., E. Jeanes, and E. Beamer. 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore. Preliminary draft. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle, WA. Grette, G.B., and E.O. Salo. 1986. The status ofanadromous fishes of the Green/Duwamish River system. Prepared for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, by Evans-Hamilton, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Harza. 1995. Comprehensive fisheries assessment of the Springbrook, Mill, and Garrison Creek watershed. Bellevue, Washington: prepared for City of Kent, Washington. Healey, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311 393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. Kerwin, J. and T. S. Nelson. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island). Washington State Conservation Commission and King County Department of Natural Resources. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 2002. King County bull trout program: 2001 bull trout surveys, freshwater and marine nearshore. Prepared by Taylor Associates, Inc. Seattle, WA. King County Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Literature review and recommended sampling protocol for bull trout in King County. Seattle, WA. King County. 2014b. Water Quality Index Report for Springbrook Creek (Station 317). http://green.ki ngcounty. gov /wl rlwaterres/streamsdata/WQ !Report. aspx?Locator=03 17. King County. 20 \Sa. Stream report for Springbrook Creek (Station 0317). Available at http://green2.kingcounty.gov/wlr/waterres/streamsdata/watershedinfo.aspx. Accessed February 3, 2015. Lister, D.B. and H.S. Genoe. 1970. Stream habitat utilization by cohabiting underyearlings of Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (0. kisutch) salmon in the Big Qualicum River, British Columbia. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 27:1215-1224. Mongillo, P.E. 1993. The distribution and status of bull trout/Dolly Varden in Washington State, June 1992. Washington Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division. Report No. 93-22. Olympia, Washington. September 2015 29 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Factors contributing to the decline of Chinook salmon: an addendum to the 1996 west coast steelhead factors for decline report. Protect Resources Division, Portland, Oregon. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Preparing essential fish habitat assessments: a guide for federal action agencies. Available at httpJ/www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/fish _ habitat/efh _ consultations _go .html. Parametrix. 2011. Technical Memorandum: Preliminary stormwater management plan, Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A. October 12, 2011. Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A. Final Technical Information Report: Drainage and Floodplain. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Puget Sound Steelhead Technical Recovery Team. 2013. Identifying historical populations of steelhead within the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment. Final Review Draft. 149 pp. Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group. 2002. Regional road maintenance Endangered Species Act (ESA) program guidelines. Developed by the Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group, Seattle, Washington. Available at http://wvv\v.kingcountv.gov/transpnrtation/kcdot!Roads/Environment/Re!:!ionalRoadiv1aintenanc~ESA Guidelines.aspx. Ruggerone, G .. T. and D.E. Weitkamp. 2004. WRIA 9 Chinook salmon research framework: Identifying key research questions about Chinook salmon life histories and habitat use in the Middle and Lower Green River, Duwamish Waterway, and marine nearshore areas. Report prepared for the WRIA 9 Steering Committee. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. 2007. Puget Sound salmon recovery plan. Adopted by National Marine Fisheries Service 19 January 2007. Volume I (plan) and Volume II (local watershed chapters). Available online at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected _species/salmon_ steel head/recovery _planning_ and _implementati on/puget_ sound/puget_ sound_ chi nook _recovery _plan.html Accessed July 2, 2013. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Bull trout final critical habitat justification: rationale for why habitat is essential, and documentation of occupancy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon. September 2010. WDFW (Washington Department offish and Wildlife). 2002. Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SaSI). WDFW, Olympia, Washington. Available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/sasi/. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015a. PHS on the Web: An interactive map of WDFW priority habitats and species information for project review. Available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed January 16, 2015. WDFW (Washington Department offish and Wildlife). 2015b. Salmonscape fish database and mapping application. Available on line at https://fortress. wa.gov/dfw/salmonscape/. Accessed January 16, 2015. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2014. Washington Natural Heritage Program geographic information system data set. Data current as of September 2014. Obtained July 30, 2015. WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2014. Biological assessment preparation advanced training manual. Version 04-02-2014. Available online at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology /BA/BAguidance.htm. September 2015 30 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX A October 2011 No-effects Determination for Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Parametrix ENGINEERING• PLANNING• EMVIRONME.NTAL SCIENCES 4J110Sth AVENt:E !',;F., SPITE 1800 BELLEVUE, W"A 98004M5571 T. -125 • -1.ss • 6200 F. .iis • ..i,ss • 6363 """'w.r-,u,1n1c1rix,,;,,n1 October 24, 2011 PMX No. 554-1521-084 (A/2T300F) Jason Rich King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division 20 I South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Re: No Effects Letter Lake to Sound Trail Improvements -Segment A Dear Mr. Rich: King.County is proposing to develop a I.I-mile segment (Segment A) of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The project is a non-motorized trail located in the jurisdictions of Renton and Tukwila in King County, Washington. Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part ofa Regional Trail System that provides non-motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non- motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. We have prepared this assessment on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in response to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. We also evaluated the presence of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as indicated in the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). The federal nexus for this project is federal-aid fonding provided by FHWA, as administered by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Highways and Local Programs Division. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, to determine whether species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered and potentially occurring in the project vicinity will be affected by project construction or operation. Effects upon critical habitat, as applicable, are also evaluated. The USFWS and NMFS species lists were accessed on their websites on September 15, 2011 (attached). Based on information provided at those websites, the following ESA-listed species could occur within the action area: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) (Threatened) Steelhead trout (0. mykiss) Puget Sound ESU (Threatened) King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page2 Bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) Coastal/Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Threatened) • Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) Southern DPS (Threatened) • Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (Threatened) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) (Threatened) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) (Threatened) • Gray wolf(Canis lupus) (Endangered) Grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis) (Threatened) Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta) [historic] (Threatened) Designated critical habitat occurring in or near the action area includes the following: • Puget Sound Chinook salmon critical habitat • Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout critical habitat USFWS identifies endangered, threatened, and proposed species that may be present in a project area based on the species that are known or expected to be present within the county or counties in which the project occurs. For most of the species on the list for King County (Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, northern spotted owl, and marbled murrelet), the project area-in a lowland, urban setting, with no roadless areas or old-growth forest nearby-does not fall within the species' current or historical range, does not contain suitable habitat, or both. No observations of any of these species have been documented within IO miles of the project site (WDFW 201 la). The proposed project, therefore, has no potential to affect these species and they will not be addressed further in this analysis. Information from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage database indicates that no threatened or endangered plants are known to occur within 1.5 miles of the project site (WDNR 2011 ). Suitable habitat for golden paintbrush ( open grasslands in glacial outwash prairies) is not present at the project site. For these reasons, the proposed project has no potential to affect this species. NMFS recently listed the southern DPS of Pacific eulachon as threatened (75 FR 13012, March 18, 2010) and has proposed critical habitat for this DPS (76 FR 534, January 5, 2011). Because there are no suitable eulachon spawning rivers within at least l O miles of the action area and no proposed critical habitat within 60 miles of the project, the project has no potential to affect this species. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located adjacent to the Black River within the cities of Renton and Tukwila, King County, Washington in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian (Figure!). The project area is located within the lower Green River basin and the Black River sub-basin (Watershed Resource Inventory Area [WRIA] Stream Number 09-004). The basin has a sixth-field hydrologic unit code (HUC) designation of 171100130305. King County Department of Natura/ Resources and Parks Parks Division October 2./, 2011 Page3 The Segment A project area is a linear corridor mostly within an existing trail corridor. Two parallel railroad tracks (Burlington Northern Santa Fe [BNSF] and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges oriented north-south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks is located north of the eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail corridor, with an east-west bearing. These tracks tie into the north- south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Renton; west of the railroad bridges the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Tukwila. The project area is described from east to west below. The eastern terrninus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern three- quarters of the proposed trail alignment, from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road (approximately 4,300 linear feet), follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east-west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. The gravel maintenance road is commonly used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel and ranges from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas immediately outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low-growing annual plants. blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Uses outside this portion of the project area include a concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses just north of the railroad tracks. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using the existing Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road. the alignment lies south of the Black River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. Land use in the area is a mix of parkland and commercial/industrial sites. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green Rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. Interstate 405 is located less than I mile south of the site. The project alignment is bisected by both Monster Road, a main arterial within the City of Renton, and the railroad bridges. Waterbodies potentially affected by the project include the Green and Black Rivers. The project alignment meets the Green River at about river mile (RM) 11.0 on the right bank of the river and parallels the lower 1,500 feet of the Black River (RM 0.0 to 0.3). Both streams are located within the Green/Duwarnish River Watershed, within WRIA 9. The Duwamish River is defined as the portion of the Green/Duwamish River system downstream from the confluence of the Black River (River Mile [RM] 11.0) to Elliott Bay (RM 0.0), while the Green River extends upstream from the Black River. For the purpose of this report, the terrn "Duwamish River' pertains to the first 11 miles of the river system, while the terrn "Green River' pertains both to the portion of river above RM 11.0 and to the river system as a whole. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page4 The Lower Green River basin begins at the Auburn Narrows (RM 31) and continues to just downstream of the confluence with the Black River in Tukwila (RM 11). The lower Green River basin is composed of two areas that are split by the Black River basin to the north and the Mill Creek basin to the south. It is mostly on the urban side of the urban growth boundary and contains portions of the cities of Kent, Auburn, Tukwila, Federal Way, and SeaTac. Land uses include residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural, as well as some major highways, including Interstate 5. There are extensive areas of office/commercial and multi-family residential development. This area has developed rapidly over the past 20 years. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of the Segment A project is to design and construct an alternative non-motorized transportation corridor and multi-use recreational trail between Naches Avenue SW and the Green River Trail in the cities of Renton and Tukwila. Segment A will provide non-motorized access to recreation and employment centers and complete a link in the Regional Trail System network. The trail is intended to safely accommodate a variety of groups such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair users, and skaters. Trail design standards will safely accommodate different ages and skill levels within those groups. Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and I - foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The construction schedule for the project has not been determined, but the project will include: Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft-surface (gravel) shoulders Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,500 cubic yards of cut and I, I 00 cubic yards of fill, disturbing an area of approximately 2 acres outside the proposed trail footprint) • Creating non-motorized improvements on the east side of the Monster Road Bridge over the Black River • Installing a pedestrian-actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris • Building one small retaining wall, 2 to 3 feet tall and no more than 200 feet long • Constructing up to two JO-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and potentially one north of Fort Dent Park) Installing one culvert Installing split-rail fencing and plantings to minimize the potential for disturbance to sensitive wildlife The proposed project will not add any pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) to the project area. For this reason, no stormwater treatment is required per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Similarly, flow control facility requirements are waived because the anticipated increase in the 100-year peak runoff flow rate under developed conditions does not exceed 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) in each of the four threshold drainage areas that were identified within the project boundaries (Parametrix 2011 ). The trail has been designed to King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page5 direct stormwater to the river side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. The use of permeable asphalt is not proposed at this time. Construction machinery that will be used includes typical equipment such as trucks, backhoes, compressors, and pumps. Potential best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control include, but are not limited to, placement of silt barriers, storm water drain inserts, or straw bales/matting, as necessary. All erosion control measures will be inspected regularly to ensure adequacy and assess maintenance needs. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan will be implemented to ensure that sediment-laden water does not enter any waterbody or drainage system. During the construction period, TESC measures will be implemented and maintained. Both a spill prevention control and countermeasures (SPCC) plan and a TESC plan will be closely followed during construction activities. ACTION AREA The action area for the proposed project is defined as the immediate construction area and all terrestrial habitat within 0.25 mile, as well as waters and aquatic habitat within the Green and Black Rivers, immediately adjacent to the trail alignment extending to 300 feet downstream of the alignment (Figure 1). We believe this is a conservative estimate of the maximum extent of terrestrial construction noise and of possible water quality effects (turbidity) on fish species. HABIT AT CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE OF PROPOSED OR LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABIT AT A Parametrix biologist conducted a field reconnaissance on February l, 2011. This site visit verified instream and riparian habitat conditions within the two project area streams. Both streams are highly urbanized, although riparian conditions within the Black River Riparian Forest, south of the trail alignment, are generally good. See attachments for photos of habitat conditions within the action area. The eastern three-quarters of the trail alignment (approximately 4,300 linear feet, from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road) follows an existing, maintained gravel maintenance road. This portion parallels the BNSF railroad tracks and is commonly used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel and ranges from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low-growing annual plants, blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Traveling west from Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces for approximately 150 feet. The next 650-foot stretch follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges. The westernmost 600 feet of the trail alignment is on maintained lawns within Fort Dent Park. lnstream habitat of the Black River within the project area is dominated by run-type channel morphology, with maximum stream depths of greater than 6 feet. At the time of the site visit (February 2011 ), the wetted width ranged between approximately 30 and 40 feet and no pools or riffles were observed. Stream bed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts. The streambanks are relatively steep (approximately a SO-degree angle) and bank condition appears to be relatively stable. Underneath the Monster Road Bridge, both streambanks are 100 percent armored with riprap, from the edge of the water to the bridge deck. King County Department ofNatural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 6 No large woody debris (LWD) was observed in the action area, and the presence of the Black River pump station above the project site precludes LWD recruitment from upstream. Overall, the quality of fish habitat is poor, with little habitat diversity. Within the action area, the Black River would probably be used for salmonid migration or possibly rearing, although instream cover is somewhat limited. The stream buffers in the Black River within the project area are generally degraded, of limited widths, and composed of herbaceous, shrub, and nonnative species. Downstream of Monster Road Bridge the stream buffer widths vary between 50 and 100 feet on the north side of the river to about 75 to 150 feet on the south side. The entire trail alignment west of Monster Road is within the regulatory buffers identified by the Cities of Renton and Tukwila on the south side of the Black River; approximately the westernmost 200 feet of the alignment is within the buffer for the Green River. Upstream of the bridge, the vegetated buffer widths average from 100 to 150 feet on both sides of the Black River. Only the westernmost 700 feet of the trail alignment east of Monster Road is within the buffer on the north side of the Black River. The vegetated buffer consists of lightly forested and herbaceous plant communities, although the forested zone is restricted to within 50 feet of the river. Vegetation includes red alder (A/nus rubra), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), western swordfern (Polystichum munitum), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus). Where the trail alignment is within 200 feet of the Black River upstream of Monster Road, riparian vegetation is sparse, with only a few scattered deciduous trees. Nonnative shrub vegetation is dominant; the area between the trail alignment and the river is covered almost entirely by Himalayan blackberry. The vegetation in this area is not adequate to support a properly functioning riparian zone ( e.g., stream shading, L WO recruitment, leaf litter input, stream channel formation and maintenance). Under existing conditions, the riparian corridor throughout the project area is not fully functioning, but it does provide some functions that support aquatic species, including some level of small woody debris or L WO recruitment, overhead stream cover, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality maintenance. The predominant cover type within the project footprint is the gravel surface of the existing maintenance road. Where the existing surface does not consist of gravel, a worn dirt trail exists and is largely free of trees and shrubs that would support riparian functions. WDFW (2011 a, b) data indicate that Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steel head trout, and cutthroat trout all have documented presence within the Black River, within the action area. The type of use is listed as migration for all species except coho, which use the lower Black River for juvenile rearing. Conditions favorable for Chinook salmon spawning and rearing do not exist in the project area; recent as we11 as historical records indicate that Chinook do not use this area for spawning or rearing (Harza 1995; Williams et al. 1975). However, small numbers of adult fall Chinook migrating up the Green River occasionally stray into the Black River and become trapped above the Black River pump station (the pump station blocks downstream passage of adult salmon). ln the fall of 1997, adult Chinook were observed entering the Black River and attempting to spawn near the SW 27th Street culvert, in Springbrook Creek, 2.3 miles upstream of the project area (WSCC 2000). Bull trout are not known to occur in the Black River, and there have been no documented occurrences of spawning (WDFW 1998). Water temperatures in the Black River basin are too high to support reproduction by King County Department o/Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page 7 this species (Harza 1995). Small numbers of bull trout have been documented using the Duwamish River downstream of the confluence of the Green and Black rivers (WSCC 2000). Bull trout are considered possible but not likely present in the Green River upstream of that point. The western terminus of the trail alignment is approximately 50 feet from the Green River and approximately 200 feet upstream of the Green/Black confluence. The lower Green River and the majority of the Black River, including the reaches within the action area, have been designated as critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon (NMFS 2005). Much of the length of the mainstem Duwamish/Green River (including a small portion of the action area) has also been designated as critical habitat for bull trout (USFWS 2010), although this designation does not include the Black River. Critical habitat for the Puget Sound steelhead DPS has not been proposed or designated at this time, but based on steelhead distribution and life history requirements, designated critical habitat for steelhead in the future would likely include those reaches of the Black and Green Rivers designated as Chinook salmon critical habitat. POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS Impervious surfaces: Upon the completion of trail construction, the 16-foot-wide trail corridor will generally consist of 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders, all of which is considered impervious surface. This amounts to 2.1 acres of impervious surface over the I. I-mile length of the trail, which is an increase of 0.8 acre from current conditions (the existing hardened gravel surfaces in the trail corridor cover approximately 1.3 acres). Construction of the two pull-out rest areas will result in an additional 400 square feet (0.01 acre) of impervious surface. Stream buffer impacts: After trail construction is complete, approximately 23,500 square feet (0.54 acre) of land area within stream buffers will consist of paved or graveled surfaces. Under current conditions, approximately 18,000 square feet (0.40 acre) of this area consists of pavement, gravel, or other impervious surfaces. Trail construction, therefore, would result in a net increase of approximately 5.600 square feet (0.13 acre) in the amount of impervious surface within stream buffers. Trail construction near the western trail terminus will result in the removal of two Douglas-fir trees (14 inches and 19 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]) approximately 50 feet from the Green River and three Douglas-fir trees (19 to 24 inches dbh) approximately 100 feet from the Black River. Two ornamental deciduous trees (5 and 7 inches dbh) within 80 feet of the Black River will also be removed. Between the railroad tracks and Monster Road, two large cottonwood trees (30 and 36 inches dbh) approximately 40 feet from the Black River will be removed. Four or five small (6 to 9 inches dbh) cottonwood trees will also be removed in this area. Between two and five deciduous trees may be removed near the eastern trail terminus; all of these are more than 500 feet from any streams. Temporary disturbance: Approximately 6,565 square feet (0.15 acre) of vegetation will be temporarily disturbed by construction activities, largely within 2 feet of the project footprint. EFFECTS ANALYSIS Impervious surfaces: No changes in the water quality of project area streams will result, because no new PGIS will be created. No dissolved metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). or other contaminants commonly associated with roadway runoff will be generated on the pedestrian and bike trail. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 2011 Page8 No changes in flow regime are expected, including peak flows and base flows of the Black River or Green River, because the amount of flow generated from the small amount of added impervious surface (0.8 acre) wil I be miniscule compared to the magnitude of stream flows within the lower Black and Green Rivers. The mean monthly flow rate in the lower Duwamish River immediately downstream of the confluence of the Black and Green Rivers varies from 400 cfs in August to 2,600 cfs in January. Peak flows are substantially higher. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the maximum regulated flow for the 100-year recurrence interval is 12,000 cfs at the project site. Proposed changes in land cover are expected to increase I 00- year peak flows by less than 0.1 cfs (Parametrix 2011). In addition, the vegetated buffers between the trail and the Black and Green Rivers will allow ample opportunity for stormwater runoff to be infiltrated or intercepted before entering the waterbodies. Most of the trail alignment (0.7 mile of the total 1.1-mile length) is between 200 feet and 1,000 feet from the Black River, separated from the waterbody by the wide, flat, densely vegetated Black River Riparian Forest. All stormwater from this portion of the trail will be infiltrated or intercepted before it reaches the water. Even where the trail is less than 200 feet from the Green River or Black River, most stormwater is expected to infiltrate within or be intercepted by vegetated buffers that are between 25 and 50 feet wide. No inter-basin transfers of storm water will occur (i.e., all storm water will remain in the basin in which it originates). For the reasons identified above, the project will have no impact on the hydrology or water quality of the Black River or the Green River. Stream buffer impacts: The overall quality of the riparian buffer areas that will be permanently displaced is low to moderate. Of23,500 square feet of the proposed trail alignment that falls within regulatory stream buffers, only about 5,600 square feet consists of natural or other pervious surfaces-primarily grass or nonnative herbaceous and shrub species. The existing buffer functions of the areas within the project footprint are somewhat degraded, compared to fully forested conditions. Where it falls within stream buffers, the trail alignment is generally between 25 and 50 feet from the project area streams. The low-growing vegetation in the project footprint does not provide shade or LWD, nor does it contribute substantially to stream channel formation or maintenance, organic matter input, or other functions that support ESA-listed fish species. Several of the trees in the trail alignment west of Monster Road have the potential to provide shade, L WO, and other riparian functions for the Black River. Removal of these trees could reduce the capacity of the riparian area to contribute to habitat conditions required by Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. The potential for adverse effects is negligible, however, because the Black River does not support reproductive populations of any of these species. In addition, the coniferous trees are more than 50 feet from the stream on relatively flat slopes and, therefore, have little potential to contribute shade or LWD. Lastly, the areas from which the trees will be removed are relatively densely wooded, compared to most portions of the trail alignment; numerous other trees will persist and contribute to riparian functions in those areas after project construction is complete. Based on the nature and location of buffer impacts, therefore, no substantial degradation of riparian functions (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; water temperature maintenance) or processes (e.g., water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; stream channel formation King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 24, 201 I Page 9 and maintenance) is expected to result from project-related clearing and no effects on stream habitat or fish resources in the project area streams are anticipated. Furthermore, an equivalent or greater area of riparian buffer will be enhanced as part of the project mitigation activities. Locations for buffer mitigation planting have not yet been established. The preferred option for buffer mitigation is on-site planting with native trees and shrubs in areas along the project alignment between the proposed trail and the Black and Green Rivers. All removal of trees from stream buffers will occur within the jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila, which requires a Tree Clearing Permit for such activities. Under the terms of this permit, all trees larger than 4 inches diameter that are removed will be replaced with one or more new trees, based on the replacement ratios in the Tukwila Municipal Code. All understory vegetation within the root zone of protected trees will either be retained or removed by methods that do not damage the tree, and then replaced with suitable vegetation. Temporary disturbance: Construction activities occurring directly adjacent to project area streams could increase turbidity and total suspended solids levels. However, no earthwork or riparian clearing will occur within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Green or Black River, and in most cases the closest construction distance to the rivers will be greater than 40 feet. Furthermore, any such effects will be avoided through the development and implementation of BMPs, including TESC and SPCC plans. Any overwater work will be confined to the existing Monster Road Bridge surface. All work in this area will be conducted in the dry season and the proper application of BMPs will ensure no concrete, falling material, or dust enters project waters. Temporarily cleared areas will be restored to pre-construction conditions and re-planted or seeded with native species after construction activities are complete, and no effects on listed species will occur. Impact minimization and mitigation: Key project elements and mitigation measures to reduce and avoid impacts of the project are as follows: The streams in the action area have been avoided to the greatest extent feasible and no permanent filling of streams is anticipated. A high priority was placed on avoiding and minimizing riparian buffer impacts. The plan includes the use of retaining walls to narrow the trail footprint in the vicinity of some riparian buffers. Earthwork and clearing near streams will be limited to the dry season to reduce the potential for sediment runoff. Construction of the trail will occur on an existing gravel maintenance road to minimize impacts to functioning riparian buffers. • Where feasible, the trail will be widened on the north side of the existing corridor to minimize impacts to riparian buffers and wildlife habitat. No direct or indirect effects to forage species are expected within or downstream of the action area, and the project will neither increase traffic capacity nor have any measurable effect on human population growth in the area. For these reasons, the project is not expected to have any indirect effects on ESA-listed species. Segment A is intended to become part of a larger planned Lake to Sound trail system connecting to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. The improvement of the larger trail system, therefore, is King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 2./, 2011 Page JO considered an interrelated activity under ESA, because the activity is related, but not dependent upon, completion of the larger Lake to Sound Trail system (i.e., Segment A has independent utility as a local trail). A second segment of the trail. Segment B, located adjacent to Des Moines Memorial Drive in the cities of SeaTac and Burien, is currently funded for design and is currently undergoing a separate ESA consultation. The other segments of the trail are not funded. Based on the location of the proposed trail, local land use codes, critical areas ordinances, and state and federal regulations, these interrelated activities are not expected to affect listed species. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ON PROPOSED OR LISTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT Listed or proposed species will not be susceptible to impacts related to project activities for the reasons summarized in Table I and in the bulleted statements below. Therefore, we have determined that this project will have no effect on all species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Additionally, the project will have no effect on designated critical habitats for these species. Table I identifies the listed or proposed species that may occur in the project vicinity and summarizes the nearest known occurrences, effect determination, and the rationale for the determination for each species. Table 1. Effect Determinations and Rationale -Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A W&tedi.$pectesf· Jurisdrctlonal. NearestSuitablei.. ... i..i.Effllct.i. Ctitlcal Habitat Agency,. °Habitat . Detennlnatlon Effect Detennrnatton Ratfonele Chinook salmon NMFS Black River No Effect See below (25 feet) Chinook salmon critical habitat NMFS Black River No Effect See below (25 feet) Steelhead trout NMFS Black River No Effect See below (25 feet) Bull trout USFWS Green River No Effect See below (SO feet) Bull trout critical habitat USFWS Green River No Effect See below (50 feet) Eulachon NMFS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Marbled murrelet USFWS Marine waters No Effect No suitable habitat present (> 5 m·i.1es) Northern spotted owl USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Canada lynx USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Gray wolf USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Grizzly bear USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present Golden paintbrush USFWS > 10 miles No Effect No suitable habitat present The proposed project will have no effect on bull trout, Chinook salmon, or Puget Sound steelhead for the following reasons: • The project will not result in additional PGIS within the action area and there will be no increase in pollutant loading, so no negative effects to ESA-listed fish will result. King County Department oflVatural Resources and Parks Parks Divis ion October 2./, 2011 Page 11 No alteration of peak flows or base flows in project area streams will result from the increase in impervious surface associated with trail construction because the amount of flow generated from the added impervious surface (0.8 acre) will be miniscule compared to the magnitude of stream flows within the lower Black and Green Rivers, and the existing riparian buffers will effectively infiltrate or intercept the small amount of runoff generated from these surfaces. No inwater or overwater work will occur and appropriate BMPs will be implemented to eliminate the risk of erosion and the chance of sediments entering action area waterbodies. As part of this effort, TESC and SPCC plans will be prepared and implemented. Based on the project location (relative distance to designated critical habitat) and the nature and scope of project activities as discussed above, the project will have no effect upon designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon or bull trout. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) ANALYSIS The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) includes a mandate that NMFS must identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for federally managed commercially harvestable fish, and federal agencies must consult with NMFS on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fishes, and coastal pelagic fisheries. Of the federally managed commercial habitat species, the Green and Black Rivers contain EFH for Pacific salmon, such as Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. However, for the reasons listed above, the project will have no deleterious effects on the physical, chemical, or biological components of these or other fish-bearing waterbodies. Therefore, the project will have no effect on Pacific salmon EFH. No EFH for groundfish or coastal pelagic species occurs within or adjacent to the action area. Based on these findings, the project will not adversely affect EFH. CONCLUSION This assessment satisfies FHWA's responsibilities under Section 7(c) of the ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act at this time. We are sending you this copy of our assessment for your files. We will continue to remain aware of any change in status of these species and will be prepared to reevaluate potential project impacts if necessary. Please call me at 425-458-6200 if you require additional information or have any questions about this project. Sincerely, Parametrix <J;w/al! Mike Hall Scientist Attachments: Figure l -Project Vicinity and Action Area Map USFWS King County Species List NMFS Species List Project Area Photographs REFERENCES King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Parks Division October 2 4, 2011 Page 12 Harza. 1995. Comprehensive fisheries assessment of the Springbrook, Mill, and Garrison Creek watershed. Bellevue, Washington: prepared for City of Kent, Washington. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Endangered and threatened species; designation of critical habitat for 13 evolutionarily significant units of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and steelhead (0. mykiss) in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; Final Rule. September 2, 2005. Federal Register 70( l 70):52630-52858. Parametrix. 2011. Technical Memorandum: Preliminary stormwater management plan, Lake to Sound Trail- Segment A. October 12, 2011. USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule. October 18, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 75(200):63898--{;4070. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. 1998 Washington State salmonid stock inventory. Appendix: Bull trout and Dolly Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 43 7 pp. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 201 la. Priority Habitats and Species Report for the Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A project vicinity. Olympia, Washington. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011 b. Salmonscape database. Available at: <http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscapc!indcx.html>. Accessed on May 2. 2011. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2011. List of surveyed land sections in Washington identified by the Natural Heritage Program as reported to contain Natural Heritage Features. Available at http:/lvvvv\v.dnr.wa.u.ov/Rc~carchSckncc/l·lo\1/l.o/ConscrvationR,;;storatinn/Pagcs/amp nh data instructio ns.aspx. Williams et al. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Washington. WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island), Olympia, Washington. December 2000. ATTACHMENTS Parametrix j N 400 BOO -Feet Sources: King County, City of Renton, WDFW 2011, WSDOT, Aenals Express 2009. Legend: Proposed City Boundary Trail Alignment --+--+-Railroad Existing Trail .-••••••• : •••••• ; ActionArea River Riparian Forest Figure 1 Project Vicinity and Action Area Map Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN LISTED IN KING COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised August 1, 2011) Bull trout (Salvelinus conf/uentus) -Coastal-Puget Sound DPS Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal species include: 1. 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 !axon in project vicinity. 2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss of habitat. 1. Changes in hydrology where !axon is found. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl PROPOSED None CANDIDATE Fisher (Martes pennanti) -West Coast DPS North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) -contiguous U.S. DPS Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) [historic] Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) SPECIES OF CONCERN Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Belier's ground beetle (Agonum belleri) Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi) Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= C/emmys) marmorata marmorata) Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) 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 zerene bremeri) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Aster curtus (white-top aster) Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort) Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane) Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead :, Chinook Salmon Species1 Snake R1~er Ozettelake BakerR,ver Okanogan River l.akeWenatchee QmnaltLake Lake Pleasant \O. tshi.rnytwhu) 10 SacramentoRiverWmter-run Upper Columbia River Spnng-run Snake River Spring/Summer-run Snake River Fall-run Coho Salmon {Okm11ch) Chum Salmon . (0 ke1a) S1celhead tn m1•k1ss) P,nl...Salmon (0 gorhuscha) 12 Puget Sound 13 LowerColumb1aR1ver 14 UpperW1llamei:teRiver 15 'Central Valley Spring-run 16 C'ahfomiaCoastal 17 : CcntralValleyFallandLateFall-run 18 Upper Klamath-Tmuty Rivers 19 Oregon Coast 20 Washington Coast 21 M1ddleColumb1aR.iverspnng-run 22 Upper Columbia River summer/fall-run I 23 Southern Oregon and Northern Ca\1fom1a Coast 24 DeschutesR1versummerlfall-run ( 25 , Central Cahfomta Coast ; 26 i Southern OregontNonhem California ! 27 I LowerColumb1aR1ver 28 I OregonCoast '29 I SouthwestWashmgton "lO '. PugetS0und/Strru1ofGeorg1a '. 31 Olm 1cPemnsula Hood Canal Summer-run Columb,aR,ver PugetS0und/StrrutofGeorg1a Pac,ficCoas! S0uthcmCahfom1a UpperColumb1aR1ver : CentralCahformaCoast South Central Cahfomia Coast : i S0akeR1verBas1n Lower Columbia River CahfommCentralValley Upper Willamette River M1ddleColumb,aR1ver "\:orthemC'alifom1a 46 , Oregon Coast 47 'SouthwestWashmgton 48 OlymptcPcmnsula 49 Puget Sound 50 Klamath Mountams Pro,mce 51 >Even-year 52 Odd-ear .Vvt Warronled /'101 Warromed :Vo1Warromed 1'io1Warromed Spedao.{Cotteeni NOi Wununtcd .Vol Warronled .h/OI Warramed .Vo1W11mm1ed Xot Warromed £SA Listing Actions Under Review • Cnl!calhsbirnt • Cn11calhab1tat The ESA defines a "species"' to mclud~ any d1stmcl population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife For Pacific salmon, NOAA F1,henes Service considers an evolut1onanly s1gn1ficant 1m11. or '"ESU," a ··.~pec1es" under the ESA For Pacific steelhead, '.\OAA F1,henes Service hasdelincatcdd1st1nc1populahonsegments(DPSs)forcons1deratlonas··spec1es"undertheESA Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Photograph 1. View of left bank riparian vegetation along the Black River, looking east from Fort Dent Park. Note presence of shrub vegetation and scattered small trees. Himalayan blackberry and other non-native species are also present. Photograph 2. View of proposed trail alignment, looking east from near the Green River Trail. Note degraded understory riparian conditions and the lack of vegetated ground cover. The trees will be maintained in place, where feasible. No Fjfects letter Attachment 554-1521-084 (Al2T300F) rake tn Sound Tnzil -Segment A Photograph 3. View of riparian conditions on right bank of Black River, looking south from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. Note the presence of non-native vegetation and scarcity of mature trees. Photograph 4. View of existing gravel trail/proposed trail alignment, looking east from immediately upstream (east) of the Monster Road Bridge. The Black River is on the right side of the photo and the Black River Pump station is in the background. No Effects I.etter Attachment 554-1521-084 (A/213001) Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX B Bridge Plan and Elevation and Proposed Ground Improvement Areas ~1n f 1·-..., ~~{ :. ~ij l ~ ir \~ I I ~ ___ :,, I, I 1 I , ~ i i '""1 '° I ,, 'f'/ I -~ / I ,s -t.:Li~ -~" ===:: =:::;_.~ ~-.. -- p ~ "' ii: <;> Cl "' .. 0 z Cl .. z 0 I' I / .i / ~ ' ,i ,i X i I I I I ' .._,-, ·• I I I I l---,-1-' ! \o Ii Ii: : ; ! I i • I Ii I• ------1 ! i I : ,r ', r:-~, I I I,\ t ~-H--~- 1 j " 1 I ,, 'I I I ii I I '' I I jt t)-j-i if J I •• i I q1 : ~ ~ ( ~~ 1i I :,:: i ------~-----~·~--J ~ \ ; 0)\/i ~cJ i \, I ----~-1;!~0.. 1f1\ I I \ I \1 [, 1• --------1-+~ \\ \ ~w:=-=-~-z--,, ~\ \ \ I-'~ fl '\ 1\'1. \ : \f I , 1 1 I ,, g f I : I' I• i i..J.,t', I , / i' \ I, ; 11·1: ,/ V , /~ I 1 " : / /'! / I !/ \ I It 111 ,~ l I II I \\1 I 11 I ,I I 11 ! 111 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX C Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures Bridge Design: Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat A prefabricated pedestrian bridge will be used to reduce the risk of construction debris entering the river. The waterward face of all bridge elements that may come in contact with waters of the state will be landward of the OHWM. All above-ground portions of the bridge foundations, as well as the entire bridge itself, will be located upslope of the elevation of the IOO-year floodplain. • There will be at least 3 feet of clearance between the bottom of the bridge structure and the elevation of the 100-year peak flow. • There will be no permanent light fixtures on the bridge. To maximize the amount of light under the bridge, the bridge was designed to be as far above the water's surface as possible, within the constraints imposed by avoidance of wetland impacts and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bridge Installation: Contractors will be instructed to minimize damage to river banks when placing the bridge structure. • Biotechnical slope protection (i.e., using plants and plant materials for erosion control) outside the bridge shadow will be encouraged where feasible. Equipment Use: • Equipment use will be confined to specific access and work corridors to protect riparian, wetland, and aquatic vegetation. In stream buffers and wetland buffers, when wet or muddy conditions exist, equipment that reduces ground pressure will be used whenever feasible. Equipment will be checked daily for leaks; any required repairs will be completed in an upland location before the equipment is used in or near the water. Construction Materials: Construction and deconstruction material will be stored in a location and manner that will prevent contaminants such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment- laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or harmful materials from entering waters of the state. • Construction materials will not be stockpiled waterward of the OHWM unless no other feasible location exists and it is explicitly authorized by WDFW and the City of Renton. Only clean, suitable material will be used as fill. To prevent leaching, forms will be constructed to contain any wet concrete. Impervious material will be placed over any exposed wet concrete that has the potential to come in contact with waters of the state. Forms and impervious materials will remain in place until the concrete is cured. Wood treated with oil-type preservatives (e.g., creosote, pentachlorophenol) will not be used in any portions of structures that may come in contact with the water of the Black River. September 2015 C-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Construction-related Sediment, Erosion, and Pollution Containment: Sediment control measures and BMPs (e.g., sheet piles, sediment fences, erosion control blankets, hay bales, coir logs, storm drain inlet filters, jute matting, mulch application) will be installed before the initiation of construction activities that may increase the erosion potential or act as a sediment source. All erosion control measures will be inspected regularly to ensure adequacy and assess maintenance needs. A TESC plan will be implemented to ensure that sediment-laden water does not enter any waterbody or drainage system. During the construction period, TESC measures will be implemented and maintained. Both the TESC plan and a spill prevention control and countermeasures (SPCC) plan will be closely followed during construction activities. • All ground-disturbing work will be conducted above the surface elevation of the water in the Black River at the time of construction. • All ground improvement areas will be above the OHWM, and the drilling equipment used for wet soil mixing will remain upslope of the OHWM at all times. • Project-related contaminants, such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh concrete, sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or other toxic or harmful materials, will be prevented from entering or leaching into waters of the state. For example, when the concrete deck is being added to the bridge, edge containment will be employed to ensure that no concrete enters the river below. • Excess slurry and spoils will be delivered to an approved upland disposal site, such as a gravel pit, for backfilling or reprocessing. Upland sources of erosion, such as construction access roads, will be contained using erosion control and sediment detention measures. • No ground-disturbing activities will take place near the OHWM of any waterbodies in the project action area during rain events or when sufficient water is present to allow hydrologic connectivity with downstream waters. • Waste material from the project, such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt, or overburden, will be deposited in an upland area above the limits of anticipated floodwater. • All trash from the project will be deposited at an appropriate upland location. General • Areas for equipment storage, vehicle storage, fueling, servicing, and hazardous material storage will be established in a location and manner that will prevent contaminants such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh concrete, sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or other toxic or harmful materials from entering waters of the state. • The contractor will limit site work to daylight hours and comply with local permit restrictions. • Trees close to the trail will be limbed rather than removed where practicable. • Any straw used for erosion and sediment control will certified as free of noxious weeds and their seeds. The transport and introduction of aquatic invasive species will be prevented by thoroughly cleaning vessels, equipment, boots, waders, and other gear before entering or removing the gear from the job site. • There will be no change in the amount of fill within the JOO-year floodplain, or below the OHWM. September 2015 C-2 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX D Species Lists from NMFS and USFWS NOAA HOME WEATHER OCEANS FISHERIES CHARTING SATELLITES CLIMATE RESEARCH COASTS CAREERS Pulm~a\ions NOAA All1Hilh0S Howctol? LearnnwreaboutESA Sf.!ction l eonaul1ations Learnmor..,al;,outthef'ae,fic CoastalSa!rnonRecovary Fund • Lo9in1omylFQaeeount • Findab1olcgiealopinio,1 • Report a stranOOd or entangledmarinemarnrnal • Reportav1olahon • Flndgrantopportun1t1es I West Coast Region Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Domain The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Domain 1s located 1n the northwestern comer of Washington State 11 includes several large river systems fiowmg from the western slopes of the Cascade mountains, multiple es\uanes, the San Juan Islands. Hood canal, and a northern portion of the Olympic Peninsula This domain has three listed speaes of salmon and steelhead \h1sreg1onthrough1ts, Formore1nformat1on. please contact" Recovery Plans Puget Sound Chinook Population Trand9 Hood Canal Summer-run Chum PopulatlonTrends Puget Sound Steelhead Population Trends "'· NOAA F1shenes West Coast Region manages recovery planning and 1mplemen1at1on for Puget Sound Recovery Coord1naior, 206 526 4505 t, Recovery Information U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge /Pac Trust Resource Report Generated July 30, 2015 11 :41 AM MDT US Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Trust Resource Report Project Description NAME Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge PROJECT CODE 2EQSN-2BLMR-AJ7D2-SD7TE-4YZ48M LOCATION King County, Washington DESCRIPTION No description provided U.S. Fish & Wildlife Contact Information Species in this report are managed by: Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 (360) 753-9440 Endangered Species Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species that are managed by the Endangered Species Program and should be considered as part of an effect analysis for this project. This unofficial species list is for informational purposes only and does not fulfill the requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. which states that Federal agencies are required to "request of the Secretary of Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action." This requirement applies to projects which are conducted, permitted or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can be obtained by returning to this project on the IPaC website and requesting an Official Species List from the regulatory documents section. Birds Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. https:t!ecos fws aov/speciesProfile/orofi!etspeciesProfile.action?spcode:::BOBC Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata CRITICAL HABITAT There 1s final critical habitat designated for this species. https·tiecos fws gov/speciesProfile/pmfile/soeciesProfile actioo?spcode=BOB3 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus CRITICAL HABITAT There is proposed critical habitat designated for this species. https· //ecos fws aov/speciesProf1le/profi!e/speciesProfile actioo?spcode=BOOE Fishes Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus CRITICAL HABITAT There 1s final critical habitat designated for this species. https://ecos.~,J:!_Q_1esProfile/prof1le/speciesProfile.action?spcode:::E06S Flowering Plants Golden Paintbrush Castilleja levisecta CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. t"lttps 1tecos fws.gov/soeciesProfile/profile/spec1esProfi!e action?spcode-Q26U Mammals Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis CR!TiCAL t""ABI/AT There 1s final critical habitat designated for this species. b.tlQ._~_;_lLQJ;~govtsoeciesProfileiprof:le/speciesProfile action''?spcode=A073. Gray Wolf Canis lupus CRITICAL HABITAT No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Critical Habitats Proposed Endangered Potential effects to critical habitat(s) within the project area must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. Bull Trout Critical Habitat Final designated https://ecos.tws.qov/spec1esProfile1profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E06S#cnthab Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat Final designated https:1/ecos tws gov!sper1esProf1le/prof1le/speciesProfile.act1on?spcode=E06D#crithab Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat APPENDIX E Essential Fish Habitat Analysis Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Action Agency: FHWA (in collaboration with WSDOT, King County, and the Cities of Renton and Tukwila) Project Name: Lake to Sound Trail Pedestrian Bridge, Renton, WA Background The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law l 04-267), requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The objective of this EFH assessment is to determine whether or not the proposed action(s) "may adversely affect" designated EFH for relevant commercially, federally-managed fisheries species within the proposed action area. It also describes conservation measures proposed to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the proposed action. EFH has been defined for the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (NMFS 2004). NMFS has further added the following interpretations to clarify this definition: • "Waters" include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical. and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include areas historically used by fish where appropriate; "Substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; "Necessary" means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; "Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers the full life cycle of a species (NMFS 2004); and "Adverse effect" means any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity ofEFH; such impacts can include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption). indirect (e.g .• loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site-specific, or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has designated EFH for the Pacific coast groundfish fishery, the coastal pelagic species fishery, and the Pacific coast salmon fishery. The Green River tributaries in the project action area contain EFH for Pacific coast salmon. No marine habitats are present in the action area: therefore, EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species is not addressed in this assessment. The EFH designation for the Pacific coast salmon fishery includes all streams, lakes, ponds. wetlands, and other waterbodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above impassable barriers. The Pacific coast salmon management unit includes September 2015 E-1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. Chinook and coho salmon have been documented in areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action. The quality of water and substrates in the Black River as fish habitat is low. Water quality is generally poor, characterized by low dissolved oxygen concentrations, high temperatures, and high levels of fecal coliform bacteria, turbidity, and nutrients. Stream bed material consists almost exclusively of sands and silts. Mobility and survival of juveniles and adults are impeded by the lack ofLWD and other sources of instream cover, as well as steep, armored streambanks that are dominated by invasive shrubby species. The Black River pump station immediately upstream of the project action area presents a substantial barrier to upstream and downstream migration. Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action involves the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the Black River, as part of Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. The proposed action is described in greater detail in Section 1.2, Project Description. Potential Adverse Effects of Proposed Project The potential effects of the proposed project on fish habitat are described in Section 4, Effects of the Action. Following is a brief overview of potential adverse effects identified in that discussion. Construction activities above or adjacent to waterbodies, clearing, grading, and bridge construction, have the potential to introduce sediment and contaminants into those aquatic resources. However, this possibility will be minimized because no earthwork or riparian clearing will occur below the OHWM of the Black River. In addition, BMPs will be implemented during project construction in compliance with the Regional Road Maintenance Endangered Species Act Program Guidelines (Regional Road Maintenance Technical Working Group 2002), to reduce the potential for the introduction of sediment or contaminants into waterbodies in the action area. • Temporary or permanent impacts to riparian habitat adjacent to waterbodies in the action area are not expected to adversely affect fish habitat quality, based on (1) the absence of forested riparian habitat in the areas where temporary disturbance will occur, (2) the generally degraded condition of the riparian buffer of the Black River in the project action area, (3) plans to restore temporarily cleared areas to pre-construction conditions after construction activities are complete, including replanting or seeding with native species, and (4) compensatory mitigation for any reductions in the overall ecological functions of any affected riparian buffers, wetlands, and wetland buffers. • Shade from the pedestrian bridge is not expected to present a migration barrier for juvenile salmonids because (I) most of the bridge surface will consist of grated decking that will allow sunlight to reach the water's surface and (2) the bridge will be oriented on a north- south axis. In addition, areas directly under the new pedestrian bridge, where there is adequate height between the bridge and the ground level, will be replanted with native small shrubs and herbaceous plants. September 2015 E-2 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Pedestrian Bridge No Effects Documentation for ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures Strict adherence to permit timing restrictions and BMPs specified in Section 1.3, Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures, will protect fish-bearing waters within and downstream of the project action area from water quality effects during and after project construction. Conclusions The project will not result in any long-term adverse modifications to waters or substrates that support spawning, migration, or rearing by Chinook, coho, and pink salmon in the action area. As such, project construction or operation will have no direct. indirect. or cumulative adverse effects upon Pacific coast salmon EFH. No EFH for Pacific coast groundfish or coastal pelagic species occurs within or adjacent to the action area. Based on these findings, the project will not adversely affect EFH for Pacific coast salmon, Pacific coast groundfish, or coastal pelagic species. September 2015 E-3 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Zoning Compliance Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Shoreline Variance Prepared for King County Parks Division 201 South Jackson, Seventh Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared by Parametrix 719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.63$3 www.parametrix.com April 2015 I 554-1521-084 CITATION Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification. Prepared by Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015. Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1. PROJECT NARRATIVE This document addresses City of Renton Submittal Requirements for: Zoning Compliance • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit • Shoreline Conditional Use Permit • Shoreline Variance 1.1 Project name, size and location of site 1.1.1 Name Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A 1.1.2 Location Linear corridor from the Green River Trail in Tukwila to the west to Naches Avenue SW in Renton on the east. 1.1.3 Size The trail section is 14,317 feet long and 12 feet wide for an area of 3.94 acres, with the addition of two foot shoulders, the area is 5.26 acres. 1.2 Land use permits required for proposed project • Zoning Compliance • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit • Shoreline Conditional Use Permit • Shoreline Variance The trail has portions that are within and portions that are outside of Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for the entire project. Specific sections of the trail require Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance approval. The portions of the trail within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction are subject to the decision criteria and design criteria of the Renton Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-090 including Critical Area regulations in RMC 4-3-090.D.2.c. that apply only in the shoreline. Portions of the trail outside Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction are subject to non-shoreline Development Regulations in RMC Title IV, including Critical Area regulations found in RMC 4-3-050. The application of regulations to specific subsections of the trail is described below. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 1·1 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1.3 Zoning designation of the site and adjacent properties The trail corridor is located within three zoning districts: CO, Commercial Office to the east; RC, Resource Conservation within the largest portion of the Black River Riparian Forest; and • IM, Industrial-Medium west of Monster Road. The adjacent land has the following zoning: • CO, Commercial Office extends to the east to approximately Powell Avenue SW • IM, Industrial-Medium is to the east and southeast of the CO zoning • North of BNSF Railway the zoning is IL, Industrial-Light and IH, Industrial-High and contains a quarry • IM, Industrial-Medium is located to the south of the Black River and south and west of Monster Road • IH, Industrial High is located south and west of Oaksdale Avenue SW • The portion of the Black River Riparian Forest south of the river is zoned RC along the river and CO further south 1.4 Current use of the site and any existing improvements The western portion of the trail between Fort Dent Park and Monster Road is located on a combination of existing dirt path, dirt road, and paved surface area, on land owned by the City ofTukwila, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and the Union Pacific Railway. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park in the City of Tukwila. The trail then crosses under two existing railroad bridges and crosses Monster Road southeast of the existing Monster Road Bridge. The eastern portion of the alignment traverses the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest via an existing maintenance road and access path, both of which are used currently for recreation. The existing road surface in most of this portion consists of compacted gravel and ranges from 10 to 12 feet wide. This special area is described further below. 1.5 Special site features (i.e. wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes) For the western portion of the proposed trail alignment, the Black River is the major natural feature in this area. The city Sensitive Area Maps designate the river bank as a steep slope. The confluence of the Black and Green Rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. The eastern portion of the trail in the Black River Riparian Forest contains the Black River and six wetlands along the trail corridor and a Blue Heron nesting colony. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Monster Road to the cul-de-sac at Naches Avenue SW (approximately 4,300 linear feet) follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east-west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the 1-2 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Norrative and Justification King County Black River Riparian Forest. The gravel maintenance road is currently used for walking and pet exercise. Areas immediately outside the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low- growing annual plants, blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. The Black River Riparian Forest was acquired by the City in the early 1990s. This area supports a diverse wildlife community, including bald eagles and a colony of great blue herons that has actively nested here every year since 1986 and has been one of the largest such colonies in the Puget Sound region. Data from the WDFW PHS program indicate that the Black River Riparian Forest is also used by many waterfowl species, other bird species commonly found in riparian and wetland habitats in the Puget Lowlands, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. (See Vegetation and Wildlife Report, Section 3.3) 1.6 Statement addressing soil type and drainage conditions Soils very somewhat in different portions of the trail corridor: • Fort Dent Park to Monster Road -Soils are Newberg silt loam, an alluvial soil formed on floodplains. • East of Monster Road -Soils are primarily Woodinville silt loam, also an alluvial soil formed on floodplains with a substantial component of muck. This is a soil often associated with wetlands. A smaller portion of the area is Tukwila much, which is primarily organic materials formed within wetlands. Subsurface exploration occurred in the vicinity of the new bridge over the Black River, where the subsurface is underlain by granular soil (fill), over loose alluvium, over medium dense alluvium, and over Glacial Till or Bedrock. Because the loose alluvium is of geotechnical concern due to earthquake loading conditions, ground improvements will be constructed in the vicinity of the bridge foundation. Soils are further discussed in the Draft Geotechnical Report and in the Critical Areas Report in reference to wetlands delineated. Drainage from the existing informal trail, and from the land over which the proposed trail passes discharges through overland sheet flow to the north to the Green River, the Black River and wetland that are downgradient from the alignment. (See Technical Information Report Drainage and Floodplain.) 1. 7 Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail. Segment A extends from the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park to Naches Avenue SW. It runs from the Green River Trail parallel to the Black River, it crosses under two railroad bridges, crosses Monster Road, crosses the Black River on a non- motorized bridge and parallels railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest to Naches Avenue SW. (Figure 1-1). Most of the trail is within the City of Renton, with the municipal limit roughly between the two sets of railroad tracks west of Monster Road. Segment A is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non-motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. Once complete, Segment A would provide a much needed trail connection between the regional growth April 2015 I 554-1521-084 1-3 Lake ta Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Kmg(ounty centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail and a trail in the Eastside Rail Corridor. Project Features Segment A is typically 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot- wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The project includes: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft-surface (gravel) shoulders. • Creating a new pedestrian bridge spanning the Black River east of the existing Monster Road Bridge, which cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail use. • Installing a pedestrian-actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge. • Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris. • Constructing two approximately 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas (one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and one east of Monster Road and northwest of the Black River pump station) Installing split-rail fencing and plantings to minimize the potential for disturbance to sensitive wildlife Between Fort Dent Park and Monster Road, the trail alignment lies south of the Black River. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. It follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The 150 feet west of Monster Road is on existing paved surfaces. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a new pedestrian bridge. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road (approximately 4,300 linear feet) follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east- west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. The east terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. 1.8 For plats indicate the proposed number, net density and range of sizes (net lot area) of the new lots Not applicable 1.9 Proposed off-site improvements (i.e. installation of sidewalks, fire hydrants, sewer main, etc.) Not applicable 1-4 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1.10 $3,000,000 1.11 Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the proposed project Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed Construction of the trail will involve the following: Preliminary earthwork quantities indicate approximately 1,500 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill, including crushed rock and asphalt, will be necessary. Please note that cuts and fills within the 100-year floodplain are balanced, with no net fill. In addition, based on geotechnical conditions, ground improvements will be constructed in the vicinity of the new bridge. Several options are under consideration: stone columns and deep soil mixing. These ground improvements would disturb an area of approximately 0.17 acre on the approaches to the bridge. 1.12 Number, type and size of any trees to be removed The City of Renton has determined that all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail should be removed, as should all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection of public safety and the trail surface. A total of 151 trees would be removed as part of the project. Approximately 51 trees are within the riparian Vegetation Conservation buffer of the Black River in the City of Renton. About 45 trees would be removed within wetland buffers, of those 15 are also within riparian Vegetation Conservation buffers. About 70 trees are outside Critical Areas. 1.13 Explanation of any land to be dedicated to the City A trail easement across rights-of-way owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads is proposed to connect the trail to the Green River Trail. 1.14 Any proposed job shacks, sales trailers, and/or model homes During construction, a staging area and job shacks will be located on site, likely near the Monster Road portion of the alignment on areas currently cleared. 1.15 Any proposed modifications being requested (include written justification) Variances are requested for Wetland buffers within shoreline jurisdiction and are addressed in Section 7 of this submittal. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 1·5 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 1.16 For projects located within 100 feet of a stream or wetland, Distance in feet from the wetland or stream to the nearest area of work Wetland 1/2 the trail surface is within 25 feet at the closest (139+30) with the cut/fill line within 18 feet Wetland 2A the trail surface is within 20 feet at the closest (139+50) with the cut/fill line within 3 feet Wetland 3, the trail surface is within 8 feet at the closest (126+ 70) with the retaining wall within 3 feet Wetland 5, the trail surface is within 15 feet at the closest (104+10) with the cut/fill line within 10 feet Wetland 6, the trail surface is within 12 feet at the closest (106+90 with the cut/fill line within 10 feet Distance from closest area of work to the ordinary high water mark. Black River, the trail is within 22 feet at the closest (6+70) and the cut/fill line is within 20 feet. Description of the nature of the existing shoreline South side of the Black River The south side of the Black River, from the mouth to the railroad bridges is riprapped with shrub vegetation on the river banks and a scattering to medium to large trees between the river and the nearly sports fields. At the railroad bridges, there is little or no vegetation under the bridges, with shrub/scrub vegetation between the bridges. Between the railroad bridges and west Monster Road there is a variety of shrub/scrub understory with overstory trees consisting largely of cottonwood between the river and the existing roadway. On the east side of Monster Road to the proposed bridge there is a variety of shrub/scrub understory with overstory trees consisting largely of willows and cottonwood with a large grass areas adjacent to the road. North side of the Black River On the north side of the Black River from Monster Road to the dam/pump station the bank is riprapped with shrub/scrub vegetation and a scattering of trees near the top of the bank. East of the dam/pump station the shoreline on both sides of the river has a variety of understory with dense overstory trees. The approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view in the event the proposed project exceeds a height of 35-feet above the average grade level Does not apply. No element of the project exceeds 35 feet. The project is largely at grade level. 1-6 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 2. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 2.1 Introduction The following addresses criteria that apply to the project including • Zoning • Critical Areas Regulations in RMC 9-3-050 for portions of the project outside Shoreline Jurisdiction Shoreline Master Program Regulations in RMC 4-3-090 The primary regulations that apply to the proposed trail are found in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations. These regulations also cross reference other applicable regulations that apply in the shoreline. In addition RMC 4-3-090.D.1 provides that: Although there are a variety of criteria for approval of a Conditional Use and Variance for this project, the basic criteria are met, as outlined below. Justification • The proposed trail is allowed in the Natural Shoreline Environment if it meets Conditional Use criteria. • The Lake to Sound Regional Trail is designed as part of the regional trail network in Renton and King County. It is in harmony with the Shoreline Management Act and local Shoreline Master Program goals of enhancing public access to the shoreline. • The trail is an expansion of an existing trail and gravel road and incorporates design features to assure that it meets the overall Shoreline Management criteria of no net loss of ecological processes and functions. • A variance is required for a paved trail in excess of four feet wide within wetland buffers. The existing gravel road in the trail corridor is currently 10 to 12 feet wide and exceeds the code standard. The minor widening within the existing cleared area and the removal of additional vegetation will be mitigated by buffer enhancement that will enhance overall wetland function in the Black River Riparian Forest. • Vegetation removed to accommodate the trail will be replaced by additional plantings both within wetland and stream buffers and outside critical areas. • The proposed trail will follow existing paths, maintenance roads, and disturbed areas at the periphery of the Black River Riparian Forest. Construction activities likely to disturb nesting herons will not be allowed near the Black River heron colony during sensitive periods. Areas between the nesting colony and the trail will be planted with native trees and shrubs to provide additional visual screening for herons. The primary regulations that apply to the proposed trail are found in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations. These regulations also cross reference other applicable regulations that apply in the shoreline. In addition RMC 4-3-090.D.1 provides that: Applicability: This Section shall apply to all use and development activities within the shoreline. Items included here will not necessarily be repeated in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation of all shoreline permits. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-1 lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification Kmgcounty Renton Municipal Code provisions in Title IV, Development Regulations, Chapter 4, City-wide Property Development Standards (chapter 4-4 RMC) contain regulations and standards governing site development of property City-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others. Such provisions shall apply within shoreline jurisdictions unless there is a conflict with the standards set forth by the Shoreline Master Program. In case of conflict, the standards set forth in the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. A portion of the trail east of Monster road in the far northerly portion of the site near the railroad tracks is entirely outside Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction. This report reproduces or summarizes applicable code requirements. Justification for how the proposal meets these criteria is provided in the boxed text. 2.2 Zoning Regulations 2.2.1 Zoning Districts and regulations The trail corridor is located within three zoning districts as indicated in Figure 2-1: CO, Commercial Office to the East; RC, Resource Conservation within the largest portion of the Black River Riparian Forest; and IM, Industrial-Medium west of Monster Road. The Zoning Use Table in RMC 4-2-060 does not list trails as a use. Parks are an allowed use for Neighborhood Parks and for Existing regional and community parks and an administrative conditional use for new regional and community parks in the RC, IM and CO districts. 2.2.2 Critical Areas Within Critical Areas regulated by RMC 4-3-050 trails are designated as an Exemption in Buffers by RMC 4-3-050.C. 7.a. subject to the following: 2-2 i. Trails and Open Space: Walkways and trails, and associated open space in critical area buffers located on public property, or where easements or agreements have been granted for such purposes on private property. All of the following criteria shall be met. (1) The trail, walkway, and associated open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan. The City may allow private trails as part of the approval of a site plan, subdivision or other land use permit approvals. (2) Trails and walkways shall be located in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer, i.e., the portion of the buffer that is farther away from the critical area. Exceptions to this requirement may be made for: • Trail segments connecting to existing trails where an alternate alignment is not practical. • Public access points to water bodies spaced periodically along the trail. (3) Enhancement of the buffer area is required where trails are located in the buffer. Where enhancement of the buffer area abutting a trail is not feasible due to existing high quality vegetation, additional buffer area or other mitigation may be required. (Ord. 5676, 12-3- 2012) April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative ond Justification King County (4) Trail widths shall be a maximum width of twelve (12) feet. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials. Impervious materials may be allowed if pavement is required for handicapped or emergency access, or safety, or is a designated nonmotorized transportation route or makes a connection to an already dedicated trail, or reduces potential for other environmental impacts. Justification: • The portion of the trail outside of Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction is allowed outright. • The location is not restricted to the outer 25% of the buffer if it connects to existing tails where an alternative alignment is not practical. • The proposed 12 foot trail is allowed by Critical Area regulations. Impervious surface is allowed for a Regional Trail that is designed for nonmotorized traffic. 2.3 Shoreline Master Program Regulations Decision Criteria The trail corridor within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction is within a Natural Environment Designation as shown in Figure 2-2. Pursuant to RMC 4-9-190.B.7. Approval Criteria: In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria: a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance. b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted, provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall also be adhered to. Pursuant to RMC 4-9-190.1.5. Conditional Use, the following criteria must be met: a. Purpose: Upon proper application, and findings of compliance with conditional use permit criteria, a conditional use permit may be granted. The objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of uses can be expanded to include many uses. b. Decision Criteria: Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use permit may be granted subject to the Administrator of the Department of Economic Development or designee determining compliance with each of the following conditions: i. The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area. ii. The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines. iii. Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the Shoreline Master Program. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-3 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County iv. The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. v. The use meets the conditional use criteria in WAC 173-27-160. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-160, the following criteria must be met The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide a system within the master program which allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by local government or the department to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. (1) Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may be authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following: (a) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program; (b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; (c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program; (d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and (e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. (2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Because there is overlap in the criteria in RMC 4-9-190.1.5. and WAC 173-27-160, the criteria are discussed below in the following subsections: 2.4.1 Conditional Use Criteria -Allowed Use, Consistency with Purpose and Regulations 2.4.2 Conditional Use Criteria -Compatibility with Permitted Uses 2.4.3 Conditional Use Criteria -Public Use of Public Shorelines 2.4.4 Conditional Use Criteria -Cumulative Impacts 2.4.5 Conditional Use Criteria -Public Interest Pursuant to RMC 4-9-190.1.4. Variances, the following criteria must be met: 2-4 a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a substantial development permit may be granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Shoreline Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the Shoreline Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties. b. Decision Criteria: The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Shoreline Master Program is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a variance. The Hearing Examiner must find each of the following: Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King county ii. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. iii. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. iv. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. v. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance shall be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. vi. The proposal meets the variance criteria in WAC 173-27-170. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-170, the following criteria must be met The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (2) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; (e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and (f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (3) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-5 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (f) of this section; and (c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. (4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. Because there is overlap in the criteria in RMC 4-9-190.B.7.4. and WAC 173-27-170, the criteria are discussed below in the following subsections: 2.5.1 Variance Criteria -Exceptional or Unique Conditions 2.5.2 Variance Criteria -Reasonable Use 2.5.3 Variance Criteria -Detrimental to Public Welfare or Cause Adverse Impacts 2.5.4 Variance Criteria -Special Privilege 2.5.5 Variance Criteria -Minimum Necessary 2.5.6 Variance Criteria -Summary 2.4 Conditional Use Criteria Because there is overlap in the criteria in RMC 4-9-190.1.5. and WAC 173-27-160, the criteria are discussed below in the following subsections: 2.4.1 Conditional Use Criteria-Allowed Use, Consistency with Purpose and Regulations 2.4.2 Conditional Use Criteria -Compatibility with Permitted Uses 2.4.3 Conditional Use Criteria -Public Use of Public Shorelines 2.4.4 Conditional Use Criteria -Cumulative Impacts 2.4.5 Conditional Use Criteria -Public Interest 2.4.1 Conditional Use Criteria -Allowed Use, Consistency with Purpose and Regulations This subsection addresses the following criteria: 2-6 RMC 4-9-190.1.5. a. Purpose: Upon proper application, and findings of compliance with conditional use permit criteria, a conditional use permit may be granted. The objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of uses can be expanded to include many uses. RMC 4-9-190.1.5. b.iv. The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. Aprll 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County WAC 173-27-160 (1) Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may be authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following: (a) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program; (d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and In evaluating this criteria, the following subsections address the following provisions: 2.4.1.1 Consistency with Policies in the Act and Comprehensive Plan 2.4.1.1 2.4.1.2 SMP Use Regulations in RMC 4-3-090.E. Use Table 2.4.1.3 SMP Wetland Regulations in RMC 4-3-090.D.2 No Net Loss 2.4.1.4 Mitigation Sequence 2.4.1.5 Compliance with Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations Consistency with Policies in the Act and Comprehensive Plan Shoreline regulations are liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which they have been enacted in accordance with RCW 90.58.900, Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC and RMC 4-3-090.B.2.c. For context, the following provisions of the statute are relevant in interpreting objectives and purposes. RCW 90.58.020 Legislative findings -State policy enunciated -Use preference. [Part] The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which: (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single-family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks. marinas, piers. and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state. industrial and April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-7 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shore lands of the state shall be recognized by the department. Shorelines and shorelands of the state shall be appropriately classified and these classifications shall be revised when circumstances warrant regardless of whether the change in circumstances occurs through man-made causes or natural causes. Any areas resulting from alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines and shorelands of the state no longer meeting the definition of "shorelines of the state" shall not be subject to the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW. [Emphasis Added] Similar polies are found in the Shoreline Management Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan: Public Access Policies Objective SH-F. Increase public accessibility to shorelines and preserve and improve the natural amenities. Policy SH-20. Public access should be provided consistent with the existing character of the shoreline and consideration of opportunities and constraints for physical and visual access, as well as consideration of ecological functions, as provided in Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach, and in conjunction with the following policies. Policy SH-21. Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas although direct physical access to the water's edge may be restricted to protect shoreline ecological values. Public access shall be provided over all public aquatic lands leased for private activity, consistent with compatibility with water-dependent uses. Policy SH-22. Public access from public streets shall be made available over public property and may be acquired by easement or other means over intervening private property. Policy SH-24. Public access to and along the water's edge should be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that protects the natural environment and shoreline ecological functions and is consistent with public safety as well as compatible with water-dependent uses. Preservation or improvement of the natural processes shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is provided, including trail systems. Policy SH-26. Both passive and active public areas should be designed and provided. Policy SH-27. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking should be provided at frequent locations on public lands and rights of way and may be required on private development. Policy SH-28. In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and bicycle paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, rather than roads, except in areas where public boat launching would be desirable. Policy SH-30. Development and management of public access should recognize the need.to address adverse impacts to adjacent private shoreline properties and should recognize and be consistent with legal property rights of the owner. Just 2-8 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County compensation shall be provided to property owners for land acquired for public use. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall be provided to owners of property contiguous to said corridor in common with the public. Justification: The implementation of a Regional Trail System, as proposed in the Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A, is consistent with the policies providing a use preference to shoreline recreational uses and facilities that increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines and increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. These policies are subject to policies to reserve the natural character of the shoreline; enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines, and consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, which is a criteria in the approvals considered below. 2.4.1.2 SMP Use Regulations in RMC 4-3-090.E. Table 4-3-090El Shoreline Use Table regulates the proposed trail in two provisions. Public Hiking and Bicycle Trails, Over Land is a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use within the Natural Environment. Footnote 1. adds the following: Provided that the use does not degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area. Expansion of Existing Over-Water Trails is a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use within the Natural Environment. Footnote 10. adds the following: No new over-water trails shall be allowed unless it is part of the expansion of an existing over-water trail or over-water trail system. Such expansions shall be considered a conditional use if allowed in the Public Access Requirements by Reach Table at subsection D4f of this Section and if impacts are limited. [Reproduced below) Justification: Shoreline Use Table • The proposed trail is allowed if it meets Conditional Use criteria. • The trail is an expansion of an existing trail insofar as the portion of the trail on City-owned property has been used as a trail since the City acquired the property in the early 1990s. • Access to the trail is provided by sidewalks on the Monster Road bridge over the Black River, which constitutes an existing over-water trail. • Compliance with Conditional Use criteria is discussed in multiple Subsections of this discussion. Regulations for Trails are found in RMC 4-3-090.E.10,d Trails: i. Trails that provide public access on or near the water shall be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that protects the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of shoreline trails. ii. The location and design of trails shall create the minimum impact on adjacent property owners including privacy and noise. iii. Over-water structures may be provided for trails in cases where: (a) Key trail links for local or regional trails must cross streams, wetlands, or other water bodies. (b) For interpretive facilities. (c) To protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas from the adverse impacts of at grade trails, including soil compaction, erosion potential and impedance of surface and groundwater movement. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-9 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County iv. Trail width and surface materials shall be appropriate for the context with narrow soft surface trails in areas of high ecological sensitivity where the physical impacts of the trail and the number of users should be minimized with wider hard-surfaced trails with higher use located in less ecologically sensitive areas. RMC 4-3-090.D.4.d. Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the following location and design criteria: Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites where vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. iv. Resolution of Different Standards: Where City trail or transportation plans and development standards specify dimensions that differ from those in subsections D4di, D4dii, or D4diii of this Section, the standard that best serves public access, while recognizing constraints of protection and enhancement of ecological functions, shall prevail. v. Access Requirements Determined by Reach: A coordinated program for public access for specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Element, Policy SH-31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach and in subsection D4f of this Section, Table of Public Access Requirements by Reach: (a) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in applying these provisions to individual development sites. (b) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in planning and implementing public projects. The referenced entrv in the table reads: Black River /Springbrook A Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided as private lands redevelop. Expansion of public access in the Black River Riparian Forest should occur only if consistent with ecological functions. A trail system is present on the west side of the stream adjacent to the sewage treatment plant and should be retained and possibly enhanced to connect to the Lake to Sound Trail. Justification: Development Standards for Trails • Trails are recognized as a desirable element for enhanced public access, subject primarily criteria for protecting the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions which is addressed in Subsection 7.4.1.3, No Net Loss and under individual Critical Areas, below. • The location of the trail is the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, along an existing maintenance road, which minimizes impacts to the existing environment and shoreline ecological functions. The location of the trail does not create visual or noise impacts to adjacent property owners. The trail alignment diverts higher speed trail users away from the narrow soft-surface to the south that is used to view wildlife. • The trail meets the criteria for an overwater structure as an expansion of an existing trail insofar as the portion of the trail on City-owned property has been used as a trail since the City acquired 2-10 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County the property in the early 1990s. Access to the trail is provided by sidewalks on the Monster Road bridge over the Black River, which constitutes an existing over-water trail. • The provisions for permeable materials and width limited to 6 to 8 feet in areas of vegetated open space is modified by the recognition in RMC 4-3-090.D.4.d.iv. that adopted city plans may specify other dimensions that should prevail. In this case, the standards for a Regional Trail best serves public access, while recognizing constraints of protection and enhancement of ecological functions. • The policies for public access in different reaches is a guideline and not a directive. The criteria for the proposed trail is to be considered in terms of consistency with ecological functions, which is addressed in detail below. The trail referenced adjacent to the sewage treatment plant is the Springbrook Trail and is separate from the Lake to Sound Regional Trail under consideration. • Split rail fencing is proposed on the south side of the trail through the riparian forest to discourage foot traffic through adjacent sensitive areas. 2.4.1.3 SMP Regulations in RMC 4-3-090.D.2 No Net Loss The following applies to all development within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction: 2. Environmental Effects: a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions: i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on-or off- site. iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-11 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Justification: Analysis of potential ecological impacts of the proposal is contained in the following reports included in the application: Critical Areas Study Stream Report Vegetation and Wildlife Report Floodplain Study These studies document that: Impacts of the proposal are limited in magnitude because the route of the trail follows an existing gravel roadway east of Monster Road and an existing informal pedestrian path and roadway west of Monster Road. The impacts on vegetation and related elements of the natural environment are limited because the existing trail corridor has previously disturbed natural vegetation communities within the area affected by elements of the proposed trail. • Additional impervious surface will not have an adverse impact on receiving waters or nearby wetlands due to stormwater management. The trail is a non-pollutant-generating surface. The trail has been located and designed to minimize impacts of additional human use of the trail corridor on affect wildlife in the vicinity. Construction activities likely to disturb nesting herons will not be allowed near the Black River heron colony during sensitive periods. Areas between the nesting colony and the trail will be planted with native trees and shrubs to provide additional visual screening for herons. • Mitigation measures including wetland buffer restoration, plantings to further screen the heron colony, and fencing and a variety of construction mitigation in each report and summarized below will mitigate impacts to result in no-net loss of ecological functions. 2.4.1.4 Mitigation Sequence The provisions of RMC 4-3-090.D.2.a.i iii require demonstration that all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions and requires that mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order. (a) Consideration of avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action has taken place through evaluation of alternatives including: Justification: Alternatives have been evaluated in the development of the proposal and are depicted in Figure 2-4: • Alternative 1. This alternative alignment would follow the Springbrook Trail to Grady Way and then follow Grady Way west. This alignment would not continue across Interurban Avenue because of the high traffic volumes and safety considerations at this intersection. Instead, the trail would loop to the east to pick up the existing Interurban Trail which winds its way to an existing safe undercrossing of Interurban Avenue. The only portion of this alignment that would be separated from vehicular traffic is the stretch along the existing Springbrook Trail. Grady Way is a major arterial with high traffic volumes. The existing sidewalk along the north side of Grady Way is only 8 feet wide and is immediately adjacent to the curb. This does not meet regional trail standards for width or separation for a two-way 2-12 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County multi-use trail in an urban area. The vehicular lane widths cannot be narrowed to accommodate widening of the sidewalk, so widening must occur to the north. The widening of the sidewalk from Springbrook Trail to Longacres Drive SW would require the removal of mature street trees that screen the adjacent industrial uses from Grady Way and 1-405. From Longacres Drive SW to Interurban Boulevard, Grady Way is elevated. The estimated cost of bridge structure widening is seven times the cost of the proposed alignment for Segment A. In conclusion, Alternative 1 is not feasible and prudent due to cost and safety considerations. (See Figure 2-4) • Alternative 2. Like Alternative 1, this alternative alignment would follow the Springbrook Trail to Grady Way. Trail users would cross Grady Way via the existing traffic signal at Oakesdale Avenue and then go under 1-405 via an existing tunnel. Starting at SW 16th Street, the trail would follow the existing street system to Longacres Way and cross under the rail corridor via an existing undercrossing. However, the width of existing undercrossing is constrained by the existing railroad bridge piers. As a result, trail users must either share the road for a short distance, or modifications to the bridge structure would be required at substantial cost and potential disruption to the heavy rail lines. In conclusion, Alternative 2 is not feasible and prudent due to cost and safety considerations. (See Figure 2-4) • Alternative 3. This alternative would construct the proposed trail between Fort Dent Park and Monster Road and utilize Monster Road SW and Oakesdale Avenue SW to SW 7th Street at Naches Avenue SW. These streets are principal arterials with high traffic volumes. The existing sidewalk along the south side of Monster Road from the Black River Bridge about one quarter mile to Oakesdale Avenue is 4 to 6 feet wide and directly adjacent to the curb. On Oakesdale Avenue the sidewalk is separated from the curb by a 4 to 6 foot wide landscape area and is 4 to 6 feet wide. The width required for a regional trail combined with the required width of separation cannot be met in the available areaa. The vehicular lane widths cannot be narrowed to accommodate widening of the sidewalk, so construction of a trail to the north on Monster Road and widening on Oakesdale Avenue would be required. To provide adequate separation from the road, this would require the removal of mature trees in the adjacent Black River Forest and would encroach on the parking lot of the Black River Office Park for about 10,000 feet at Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 7th Street. Alternative 3 would not provide the same benefits or safety of the preferred two-way multi-use trail on a separate right-of-way. • Alternative 4. This alternative would construct the proposed trail between Fort Dent Park and Monster Road and utilize an existing trail through the Black River Forest from the Monster Road Bridge to the Springbrook Trail, then cross Springbrook Creek to SW 7th Street and continue as a side path to Naches Avenue SW. The existing trail on the south side of the Black River through Black River Forest is primarily a soft surface nature trail. It is located near the river and is currently used to view the Great Blue Heron Rookery on the north side of the river with limited intervening vegetation screening, as well as to view other wildlife and birds that occur in this area. Development of a Regional Trail on this alignment would not only increase the number, character and frequency of trail users and their associated visual and noise impacts, but it would require the removal of numerous trees in close proximity to an existing Heron colony and more extensive grading to create the necessary vertical and horizontal geometry. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-13 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. Justification: The proposal limits the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, and by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts by: • Alignment. The proposed trail follows the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, avoiding habitat fragmentation and disturbance within the central portion of the natural area. • Use of existing disturbed areas. The proposed trail follows existing paths, maintenance roads and disturbed areas (see Section 1.3, Project Area and Setting) and uses an existing bridge crossing of the Black River to minimize disturbance of adjacent, existing forest, significant trees, wetlands and buffers, stream buffers, and the species that use these areas. Strategic widening. In the Black River Riparian Forest, trail widening would occur toward the perimeter, again to avoid the central portion of the natural area and the associated habitat. • Minimizing earthwork. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. • Planting of trees. Where the trail runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, native trees and shrubs will be planted along the south side of the trail to provide additional visual screening of the trail from the central portion of the natural area to the south. As these plants grow taller and more dense, they will reduce the potential for trail use to disturb nesting herons. Plantings will be monitored to ensure establishment and long-term success. • Fencing. Fencing will be placed on the south side of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest in areas that appear inviting, to discourage people from accessing the central portion of the natural area. Vegetation planted for visual screening will further discourage incursions. Other wildlife viewing trails are provided on the south side of the forest. Wayfinding signage at Naches Avenue SW, Oakesdale Avenue SW, and Monster Road will describe the options. The following measures would be implemented before and during trail construction to avoid or minimize effects on vegetation and wildlife resources. These strategies would be implemented along with others designed to avoid or minimize effects on other resources, such as streams, wetlands, and soils. Those strategies would be expected to provide additional protection to vegetation and wildlife resources within and adjacent to streams and wetlands. o Limiting construction activity to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. o Preparing and implementing a revegetation plan that emphasizes the use of native species. o Where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, replacing all cleared trees over six inches diameter with new seedlings in accordance with the City of Rento~'s regulatory requirements. 2-14 April 2015 I 554-1521--084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County o To minimize harm to migratory birds, conducting vegetation clearing and construction activities outside the breeding season, which is typically considered to extend from March 15 through August 31. o Preventing disturbance of nesting great blue herons and their young due to trail construction and other noise-generating activities by implementing the following measure: Within 1,312 feet of the Black River heron nesting colony, conducting activities that are likely to disturb nesting herons outside of sensitive periods (i.e., restrictions would apply between January 15 and August 31). Restricting activities would include major earthwork and the use of heavy equipment and backup alarms. Construction activities that employ the use of hand tools would not be restricted. o If bald eagles construct a new nest within 660 feet of the trail alignment before construction begins, additional measures, such as timing restrictions on construction activities with the potential to disturb nesting eagles, will be implemented. o All areas temporarily affected by construction would be restored to pre-construction conditions and re-planted or seeded with native species. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Justification: The mitigation measures described will be monitored, particularly the survival of plants installed, and the effectiveness of wetland buffer mitigation and corrective action implemented to assure that the specifications of the mitigation plan are met. (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Justification: To compensate for ecological function adversely impacts • Habitat improvement and restoration will be implemented to mitigate project-related effects on wetland buffers and stream buffers. The mitigation plan focuses on providing compensatory mitigation measures for riparian buffers and wetland buffers at equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. Impacts to wetland buffers and stream buffers are generally replaced at a ratio of 1:1. The Black River Riparian Forest falls within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program, which specifies a replacement ratio of 1:1 for impacts to wetland buffers. The mitigation site would be planted at a ratio of at least 1:1 to offset project impacts. The proposed mitigation site is located near the proposed trail alignment but outside of the trail right-of-way, on land owned by the City of Renton in the Black River Riparian Forest natural area. Mitigation would consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing buffer conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on buffer resources by maintaining or enhancing those functions that support water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife. Proposed enhancements would include removal of invasive vegetation, tilling of soil, addition of organic soil amendments (where needed) and mulch, and planting of native vegetation. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-15 lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County • In addition to the habitat improvements described above, native trees and shrubs would be planted along approximately 250 feet of the trail to provide additional visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony. These additional plantings would be located west of the nesting colony, where views toward the colony are not already obscured by existing vegetation. The plantings would consist of both evergreen and deciduous trees to block views, as well as densely growing shrubs to discourage pedestrians from venturing off the trail. Such plantings, combined with fence installation along the southern edge of the alignment of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, are expected to reduce the potential for disturbance. 2.4.1.5 Compliance with Shoreline Critical Areas Regulations The attached Critical Areas Studies calculate impacts to critical areas and critical area buffers within Shoreline jurisdiction. Critical Areas Study • Stream and Lake Report • Vegetation and Wildlife Report • Floodplain Study Wetlands Wetlands with the SMP are governed by the provisions of RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d. Wetlands are rated based on the criteria provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, revised August 2004 (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025). There are for categories with varying buffers as indicated in the table below. City of Renton Rating IV Ill Wetland Buffer Widths Buffer Moderate Wildlife Low Wildlife Function Function (less than 20 points) (20-28 points) 50 50 75 125 100 150 125 150 High Wildlife Function (29 or more points) 50 150 225 225 Performance standards for trails within wetlands and wetland buffers are found in RMC 4-3- 090.D.2.d.ix.f and provides: 2-16 Recreational or Educational Activities: Outdoor recreational or educational activities which do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer (including wildlife management or viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted within Category II, Ill, or IV wetlands or their buffers and within a Category I wetland buffer if the following criteria are met: (1) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes; (3) The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. Trails or facilities within wetlands shall be placed on an elevated structure as an alternative to fill; (4) Wetland mitigation in accordance with subsection D2dx of this Section. Criteria (1) and (2) are addressed in the Variance discussion in Section 7.5, below Impacts Summary See the Critical Areas Study for a full discussion of Wetland Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigating Measures. • No wetlands would be permanently or temporarily affected as a result of this project. • Some impacts on wetland buffers are unavoidable, as shown in the table below. Wetland and Buffer Impacts Wetland Buffer Perm. Impacts Temp. Impacts Perm. Impacts Temp. Impacts City of Renton acres acres acres acres Wetland Rating.i (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) 1/2 Complex 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.27 (11,941) O.Q7 (2,848) IV 0.00 (O) 0.00 (0) 0.06 (2,695) 0.01 (600) 4 IV 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) Ill 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.14 (6,154) O.D2 (980) 6 Ill 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.01 (531) O.D2 (874) Ill 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (O) 0.00 (0) BR 0.00 (0) 0.00(0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) Totalb 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.49 (21,321) 0.12 (5,302) Renton SMP (4-3-090.0.2.d.ii) Total acreage of impact was determined by converting the square footage of the total impact into acres and then rounding to the nearest 0.01 acre. Total quantities include buffer impact areas that occur where wetland and stream buffers overlap. Perm.= Permanent, Temp.= Temporary Mitigation Proposed conceptual mitigation is detailed in the Critical Areas Report and includes enhancement of approximately 0.68 acre of wetland buffer and 0.19 acre of stream buffer at Mitigation Site 1 to mitigate the area of buffer displaced by the trail and enhancement of approximately 0.19 acre of stream buffer at Mitigation Site 2 for ground improvements at bridge abutments. At Mitigation Site 1, the proposed enhancement would include removal of invasive vegetation, tilling of soil, addition of compost (where needed) and mulch, and planting of native vegetation. At Mitigation Site 2, the proposed enhancement would include removal of invasive vegetation, rock and concrete pieces would be removed, soil and mulch installed, and native vegetation planted. Mitigation would consist of planting, or underplanting, in an area where existing riparian conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on stream resources by maintaining or enhancing those riparian functions that support water quality and fish habitat. The riparian functions that would April 2015 I 5S4-1521-084 2-17 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County benefit from mitigation include LWD recruitment, stream temperature regulation, bank stability, leaf litter recruitment, and water quality functions. The goal of the mitigation effort is to augment the Black River corridor by establishing native vegetation and enhancing buffer functions of the stream and Wetland 7 in areas dominated by invasive species. These efforts would meld with previous and future enhancement activities performed by others. Other areas of wetland buffer would be enhanced in accordance with RMC 4-03-090.D.2.d.xii. to maintain effective buffer conditions and functions where existing tree cover is less than a density of twenty (20) trees per acre, and where existing vegetation is not sufficient to prevent viewing the trail from within the buffer. See the Critical Areas Study, Section 5, Mitigation for full details. Justification: As indicated in the analysis above Trails are recognized as an appropriate use, as long as they do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer. • This trail corridor has been in existence at least since the 1960s as a gravel road. Any effects on the functions of the wetland or buffer has taken place and may be considered permanent, due to the length of time they have been present. The addition of a paved surface and minor grading and retaining walls in some areas will not significantly change the function of the affected wetlands and buffers. • The proposed mitigation outlined above addresses Criteria (3): The trail or facility is constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes disturbance of the wetland or buffer. • The buffer impacts will be mitigated through enhancement of buffer areas. • Criteria (1) through (3) are addressed in the Variance discussion in Section 7.5, below. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Fish Habitat Critical Area Regulations for Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas: Environments designated as Natural or Urban Conservancy are considered Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Areas in the Shoreline Master Program (SMC 4-3--090.D.2.c.iii.) Regulations for fish habitat conservation areas Class 1 Streams and Lakes are contained within the development standards and use standards of the Shoreline Master Program, including but not limited to subsection SMC 4-3-090.F.1 Vegetation Conservation, which establishes vegetated buffers adjacent to water bodies. The Vegetation Conservation Buffer for the Black River defined in Table 4-3-090D7a is 100 feet, however reductions in the buffer are allowed by Shoreline Conditional Use Permit in SMC SMC 4-3- 090.F.1.d.iv(l). The specific standards are discussed above in Subsection 7.3.2.2 SMP Use Regulations in RMC 4-3-090.E, the same justification applies to steams as a Critical Area. Impacts Summary See the Critical Areas Study and Stream Study for a full discussion of Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigating Measures. • It is anticipated that there would be no permanent impacts on streams. 2-18 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification 1<1ngCounty • Temporary impacts are related to construction of the pedestrian bridge, which would take place entirely above Ordinary High Water (OHW). The project would result in 0.38 acre of permanent impacts and 0.10 acre of temporary impacts on the Vegetation Conservation buffer of the Black River. • Additional stream buffer area will be impacted by the new pedestrian bridge. • Impacts to critical areas are minimized by locating the trail on an existing gravel maintenance road and path around the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. Additional methods used for avoiding and minimizing impacts are documented in Section 5 of the Critical Areas Study. • On site buffer enhancement is proposed for compensatory mitigation as outlined in Section 5 of the Critical Areas Study. For impacts resulting from the pedestrian bridge, a mitigation area is proposed between the Monster Road bridge and the pedestrian bridge on both sides of the river. Justification: Trails are recognized as an appropriate use within stream buffers, as long as they do not significantly affect the function of the wetland or regulated buffer. • This trail corridor has been in existence at least since the 1960s as a gravel road. Any effects on the functions of the stream or buffer has taken place and may be considered permanent, due to the length of time they have been present. The provisions in stream buffers for permeable materials and width limited to 6 to 8 feet in areas of vegetated open space is overridden by the recognition in RMC 4-3-090.D.4.d.iv. that adopted city plans may specify dimensions, In this case, the standards for a Regional Trail best serves public access, while recognizing constraints of protection and enhancement of ecological functions. • The only facility to affect the stream directly is the pedestrian bridge which will be constructed entirely outside of OHW and will include restoration of areas temporarily disturbed. • The stream buffer area disturbed by addition of a paved surface and minor grading and retaining walls in some areas will not significantly change the function of the affected stream buffers. The proposed mitigation outlined maintains or improves stream buffer function. • Stream Vegetation Conservation areas between the trail and the stream will be enhanced by restoration planting. Critical Habitat The Renton Critical Areas Regulations define Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas (FWCA) Critical habitats in RMC 4-3-050 K .. b.1 as " ... identified by lists, categories and definitions of species promulgated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Non-game Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011; in the Priority Habitat and Species Program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service." For this area, species assessed include Great Blue Heron, Bald Eagle, Western Toad, Peregrine Falcon, Pileated Woodpecker, and Townsend's Big-eared Bat. See the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report for additional detail on resources, impacts and mitigation. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-19 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County Great Blue Heron WDFW's management recommendations for great blue herons state that grading, construction, and vegetation clearing should not occur within a nesting colony or its year-round buffer. As shown in Figure 4-1 in the Vegetation and Wildlife Report, approximately 430 linear feet of the proposed trail alignment falls within the year-round buffer for the Black River nesting colony (i.e., a 656-foot radius from the outermost nests observed during field investigations; it should be borne in mind that future nesting attempts could occur in locations closer to the proposed trail alignment). At its nearest point, the trail would be approximately 600 feet from the nesting area. Specific mitigation is discussed in the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report and listed above in Subsection 7.4.2 Mitigation Sequence Bald Eagle The nearest bald eagle nest location is more than 1,000 feet from the proposed trail alignment. According to guidelines developed by the USFWS (2007), clearing, construction, and landscaping activities more than 660 feet away from an active nest are unlikely to cause disturbance to nesting bald eagles. Because the nearest nest is beyond this distance, trail construction would not be expected to result in any disturbance of nesting bald eagles. Based on recommendations from USFWS (2007), non-motorized recreational activities more than 330 feet from active nests are unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles. The entire alignment is more than 330 feet from any current or historical bald eagle nest sites. Western Toad Trail construction in wetland buffers could affect the quality of breeding habitat for western toads by modifications to wetland hydrology or water quality. The affected wetlands, however, may be too small to offer sufficient breeding habitat. Western toads are more likely to breed in larger ponds in the study area (Jones et al. 2005), none of which would be affected by trail construction. Wetland buffer mitigation may result in habitat improvements, although not necessarily within the study area (see the Wetland Discipline Report [Parametrix 2011a]). Peregrine Falcon No peregrine falcon nests have been documented within 5 miles of the project area, and no potentially suitable nesting sites occur within 1 mile Pileated Woodpecker No large trees or snags that provide potential nesting or foraging sites for pileated woodpeckers would be removed for trail construction. If any birds are present while construction activities are underway, their breeding or feeding activities could be disrupted by increased levels of noise and human activity. Such effects would be temporary and localized, however, and would not be expected to result in any long-term effects. Townsend's Big-eared Bat Nursery colonies of Townsend's big-eared bats are not likely to be located in the area because no caves or abandoned buildings occur in the study area, and the structures in the area are unlikely to provide suitable roosting sites. 2-20 April 2015 I 554-1521·084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County Justification: • The most sensitive Critical Habitat in the area is the Great Blue Heron nesting colony located on the north side of the Black River, the location of the trail, seasonal limits on construction and enhancement by providing trees as a visual buffer will mitigate impacts. • Potential impacts of the proposed trail corridor are minimized because the existing roadway has been in existence at least since the 1960s and has been used as a pedestrian trail since the city acquired the land in the early 1990s, and the railroad and quarry to the north introduce regular impacts such as noise. • The use as a Regional Trail will increase use. The location of the trail meets WDFW recommendations for buffers. In addition, screening vegetation is proposed where existing vegetated cover is less dense. • The proposed trail is projected to minimize impacts on Critical Species that use the area. 2.4.2 Conditional Use Criteria -Compatibility with Permitted Uses This subsection addresses the following criteria: RMC 4-9-190.1.5. b. Decision Criteria: Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use permit may be granted subject to the Administrator of the Department of Economic Development or designee determining compliance with each of the following conditions: i. The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area. WAC 173-27-160 (1) (c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program; Permitted Uses The most general discussion of permitted uses is found in RMC 9-03-090.C.1., the description of the Natural Environment Overlay District: a. Designation of the Natural Environment Overlay District: The objectives and criteria for the designation of this district are located in the Shoreline Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan. b. Application: The location of this district is found on the Shoreline Environment Overlay Map, see subsection A6 of this Section, and shall include that portion of the north bank of the Black River lying west of its confluence with Springbrook Creek. c. Acceptable Activities and Uses: As listed in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations. The Comprehensive Plan contains the following provisions for the Shoreline Natural Environment Overlay District Objective: The objective in designating a natural environment is to protect and preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments that are ecologically intact as close to their natural state as possible. The natural environment is intended to provide areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-21 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County Areas to be Designated as a Natural Environment: A Natural Area designation is assigned to shoreline areas if any of the following characteristics apply: • The shoreline retains the majority of natural shoreline functions, as evidenced by the shoreline configuration and the presence of native vegetation. Generally, but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are free of structural shoreline modifications, structures, and intensive human uses. • Shoreline areas that provide valuable functions for the larger aquatic and terrestrial environments, which could be lost or significantly reduced by human development. • The shoreline represents ecosystems that are of particular scientific and educational interest. • Shorelines with large areas of relatively undisturbed areas of wetlands. • Shorelines that support specific important wildlife habitat, such as heron rookeries. The shoreline is unable to support new development, extractive uses, or physical modifications or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions. Table 4-3-090El Shoreline Use Table includes the following permitted uses: • Aquaculture Preservation and Enhancement of Natural Features or Ecological Processes • Low Intensity Scientific, Cultural, Historic, or Educational Use • Fish and Wildlife Resource Enhancement Table 4-3-090El Shoreline Use Table includes the following conditional uses: • Parks, Neighborhood Parks, Regional/Community • Passive Recreation • Public Hiking and Bicycle Trails, Over Land • Expansion of Existing Over-Water Trails • Structures for Floodway Management, Including Drainage or Storage and Pumping Facilities Justification: • The development of a trail is consistent with the range of uses anticipated for the Natural Environment Overlay District including parks and ttails. • As discussed above, it is also consistent with the general polices in the act and the Comprehensive Plan for increasing public access to the shoreline. 2-22 April 2015 I 554-1521--084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification KmgCounty • As indicated above n the discussion of Critical Areas in Section 7.3.2.5, the proposal is not expected to have an substantial impact on natural shoreline functions, or on valuable functions for the larger aquatic and terrestrial environments, or on ecosystems that arc of particular scientific and educational interest, on undistw:bed areas of wetlands (since the trail is within an areas currently disturbed), or on important wildlife habitat, such as heron rookeries, and will meet the overall objective of preserving unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments that arc ecologically intact as close to their natural state as possible 1.1.1 Conditional Use Criteria -Public Use of Public Shorelines This subsection addresses the following criteria: RMC 4-9-190.1.5. b.ii. The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines. WAC 173-27-160 (1) (b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; Normal use of the site of the proposed trail includes: • Preservation of shoreline ecological processes and functions; Flood control Railroad rights-of-way Public trail use • Public interpretive use Justification: • The development of a trail is consistent with the range of public uses anticipated for the Natural Environment Overlay District including parks and trails. • As discussed above, it is also consistent with the general polices in the act and the Comprehensive Plan for increasing public access to the shoreline. • As indicated above n the discussion of Critical Areas in Section 7.3.2.5, the proposal is not expected to have a substantial impact on natural shoreline functions, it will not adversely affect the flood control use, and will enhance public interpretive use. 1.1.2 Conditional Use Criteria -Cumulative Impacts This subsection addresses the following criterion: WAC 173-27-160 (2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Justification: Any additional requests for similar trails in the area would be required to meet the same stringent criteria as this trail. There are no other existing road corridors in the area that a trail system could to developed within, therefore there are not likely to be cumulative impacts for a "like action." April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County • The King County and City trail plans designate no other regional trail corridors in the area. 1.1.3 Conditional Use Criteria -Public Interest This subsection addresses the following criterion: WAC 173-27-160 (1) (e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. The public interest is the sum-total of all the purposes the Shoreline Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master Program is designed to further. Justification: As discussed above, the development of a trail is • Consistent with the purpose of providing public access to the shoreline • It will not have a substantial impact on natural shoreline functions, critical areas, public use of the shoreline, the current flood control use, and will enhance public interpretive use. 2.5 Variance Criteria Pursuant to RMC 4-9-190.1.7.5. Variances, the following general criteria must be met: a. Purpose: Upon proper application, a substantial development permit may be granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Shoreline Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the Shoreline Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties. [Emphasis Added] Pursuant to WAC 173-27-170, the following general criteria must be met The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation ofthe master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. [Emphasis Added] Variance is requested for the following provisions of the Shoreline Master program: RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.f (1) Trails shall not exceed four feet (4') in width and shall be surfaced with gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; (2) The trail or facility is located in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the buffer area unless a location closer to the wetland edge or within the wetland is required for interpretive purposes; 2.5.1 Variance Criteria -Exceptional or Unique Conditions This subsection addresses the following criterion: RMC 4-9-190.1.5.b.i. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. WAC 173-27-170 (2) (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Justification: The unique, and exceptional conditions applying to the property, that do not apply to other properties and do not result from the applicants actions include: The proposed location of the trail is on a corridor that either has been used informally as a public trail (the area west of Monster Road) or on a gravel road that was constructed prior to the acquisition of the property by the City of Renton and has been used by the public as a trail since that acquisition. The trail corridor is crossed by the mainline of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads west of Monster Road which substantially impacts natural functions on this portion of the corridor and renders additional impacts minor. Potential impacts of the proposed trail east of Monster Road will not have a substantial impact on natural shoreline functions because of the location of the BNSF to the north of the site and the adjacent quarry use, which establishes current proximity impacts to natural resources such as critical habitat on the site. The trail is located as far from the Black River, existing wetlands, and the Great Blue Heron nesting colony on the site as is practical, given the adjacent railroad and other uses. • Such conditions are unique to this area and are not generally present in other portions of the city and will not set a precedent for other trail corridors. 2.5.2 Variance Criteria -Reasonable Use This subsection addresses the following criteria: RMC 4-9-190.1.7.5.b.ii. The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. WAC 173-27-170 (2) (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; Justification: The imposition of 1. A four foot (4') width limit 2. A limit to gravel or pervious material, including boardwalks; and 3. A location in the outer fifty percent (50%) of the wetland buffer area would deprive the public of enjoyment of the benefits of a regional trail corridor and interferes with reasonable use of the property by: • Not recognizing the unique features of the site that make it especially suitable for a Regional Trail from the point of view of connection with other elements of the trail corridor • Not recognizing the informal path as a public trail west of Monster Road and the gravel road to the east that was constructed prior to the acquisition of the property by the City of Renton and has been used by the public as a trail since that acquisition. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-25 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County 2.5.3 Not recognizing that the existing uses, including the BNSF and UP railroad mainlines west of Monster Road and the existing gravel road to the east already has substantially impacts natural functions of buffers and is currently in excess of the four (4) foot limit and is closer to the wetland than the outer 50% of the buffer. Not recognizing that the limit to pervious surface are not necessary for protection of wetland function and also does not lead to additional impacts to other critical areas due to the small impervious area proposed, the limited runoff and the large setbacks generally provided to receiving surface waters. Variance Criteria -Detrimental to Public Welfare or Cause Adverse Impacts This subsection addresses the following criterion: RMC 4-9-190.1.5. b. iii. The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. iv. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. WAC 173-27-170 (2) (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; Justification: As documented above in the following Conditional Use Criteria: 7.3.3 Conditional Use Criteria -Allowed Use, Consistency with Purpose and Regulations 7.3.4 Conditional Use Criteria -Compatibility with Permitted Uses 7.3.5 Conditional Use Criteria -Public Use of Public Shorelines 7.3.6 Conditional Use Criteria -Cumulative Impacts 7.3.7 Conditional Use Criteria -Public Interest the design of the project is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act and the Renton Shoreline Master Program, compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; 2.5.4 Variance Criteria -Special Privilege This subsection addresses the following criterion: WAC 173-27-170 (2) (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; 2·26 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Justification: No other properties in this area: Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County • Are especially suitable for a Regional Trail from the point of view of connection with other elements of the trail corridor; • Have existing features that are currently in excess of the four (4) foot and are located closer to the wetland than the outer 50% of the buffer. 2.5.5 Variance Criteria -Minimum Necessary This subsection addresses the following criterion: WAC 173-27-170 (2) (e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and Justification: The standards for construction of the trail are the standards for Regional Trails adopted by both the City of Renton and King County as well as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Washington State Department of Transportation. 2.5.6 Variance Criteria -Summary This subsection addresses the following criterion: RMC 4-9-190.1.5.b.v. The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance shall be denied, but each property owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. WAC 173-27-170 (1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Justification: Granting the variance recognizes that • The trail width and location standards are not reasonably applicable to this specific case because the wetland functions they are designed to accommodate do not presently exists because of the long-standing presence of the existing gravel road which is wider than the four (4) foot trail limit and is closer to the wetland than the outer 50% of the buffer. • The addition of impervious surface to the trail would not add impacts those already existing due to the gravel road. • The purpose of the Shoreline Management Act in enhancing public access and Renton Shoreline Policy Policy SH-28 of providing emphasis on foot and bicycle paths consistent with the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan would not be fulfilled. 2.6 2.6.1 Other Shoreline Code Requirements Parking Parking Requirements are addressed by RMC 4-3-090.E.10.e. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-27 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County i. When Allowed: Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary to serve an authorized primary use. ii. Public Parking: (a) In order to encourage public use of the shoreline, public parking is to be provided at frequent locations on public streets, at shoreline viewpoints, and at trail heads. (b) Public parking facilities shall be located as far as feasible from the shoreline unless parking areas close to the water are essential to serve approved recreation and public access. In general, only handicapped parking should be located near the land/water interface with most other parking located within walking distance and outside of vegetation conservation buffers provided in subsection Fl of this Section, Vegetation Conservation. (c) Public parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impact upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the water view. Compliance Public parking is currently available at Fort Dent Park in Tukwila, near the western terminus of this trail segment. No new parking is proposed due to the sensitivity of the setting. As a Regional Trail, users are expected to include: Local users who live in walking distance of the trail and will access the trail by existing pedestrian facilities Users from local employment centers who will walk to the trail and park at existing employment centers Regional users of the trail who will access from residences Regional users who will access from regional destination recreational centers such as Fort Dent Park The relatively small component of local users who will want to park near the proposed facility will be adequately served the Fort Dent Park. Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. Compliance The project will not generate additional traffic. The proposal is to provide a non- motorized trail a part of a regional system adopted by King County, the City of Renton, and other cities. The regional trail system may reduce vehicular traffic to the extent that persons use the trail as an alternative to vehicular transportation. Some use of the trail as a destination by those primarily oriented to enjoyment of the Black River Forest open space area is likely, however such users are already served by the existing trail. The extent of use of the trail as a destination is not likely to change. No adverse effects from surrounding areas are projected from use of the trail. 2.6.2 Non-Conforming Use The following provisions of RMC 4-10-095 Shoreline Master Program Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sties apply to the proposed development Z-28 April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County F. Partial and Full Compliance, Alteration of an Existing Structure or Site Major Alteration Expansion of Install site improvements that protect the ecological impervious surface functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting by more than 25%; of either: o Pull compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions ofRMC 4-3-090F1, Vegetation Consenration, consisting of revegetation of a native community of the full required* buffer, or 100% of the area between an existing building and the water's edge if the full buffer cannot be planted, or at least 10 ft., or o An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or dcsigncc that would provide at least equal protection of ecological functions and processes as the full required* setback and buffer. Compliance This requirement is met by a revegetation plan for areas between the trail and OHWM where the trail is within the 100 foot Vegetation Conservation Area of the Black River. See Stream Discipline Report. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 2-29 r i UNINC. II KING COUNTY fl ,;--~-._ ____ ,----·---= ·-----J \ \,, .\ \ Concrete Re cycl ing Plant Martin Luther King Way s Black River Riparian Forest r==1 ~ 'fi ' \ \ ....... ,_ \\ / I t::: \ \:\ L ' . '-.. CITY OF RENTON Parametrix Sources: King County, City of Renton. WOFW201 4. WSDOT. Ii N 300 600 -Feet Legend : Proposed -,..-::~~-, City Boundary Trail Alignment -+--+-Railroad -Existing Trail Parks and WDFW Priority Habitat Areas Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map Lake to Sou nd Trail -Segment A Lake to Sou nd Trail-Segment A Permit Narrative and Ju stification King County Figure 2-1 Zoning Map Detail 2-30 -Resk1•ntial Mull-F1mity Urt.n Centtr -C.nterVilage -Center Downtown -UrbanC.nter-North 1 Urban Center -North 2 -Commercill Office/Residential m Commere91Artertal -Commerca lOffloe -Commercal N4Nghborhood lndu5trial-Llght -Residential Mufli.famity -Industrial -Medilffl -Residential Mulli-Famity Tniditional -Industrial -Heavy April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Figure 2-2 Shoreline Master Program Detail T'lltsml!)dt!l1cU11\tilf:!pro<malelocatoo!ll'ldt'<t.,t otar111 s!rjectto!heSWTheaa:1Jllex!flltofs!ioreli'M ;u,s,:hciion re(f.J~H ~ .silt-sped !o: ,,.,,.llalion Kl ndionlfyt'>e crdn!toyh"' ""'1• mark "'1dany ~n ,rut..:1-M'llh Tholr;a~onolit...20dsfrni1 11 fri:mUSGSl19'38') Fl oo¢,l/lfl wid&,:,,:h,aye:rt,ni ,i. bll1..:IOl'I FEW,m-'l)pn9 aidthelo..,rGrnnR:~rlAffPpingSl001byKin;Count,' Wel'ardk;,c,'io"lllH.tw<•;::un~•.tndh~dono"!tr Oll"tei,o,ul.,,.entor"'•-•ddbo"'"wetbndonu,brpr•:sen11ho11nnd.....,.,n 01'11h e m.,.,,.tnd1<rnrcltht .. u · .tu,••n -,,..,1W'ld,may "°"""'et lhe•eda,dcritl'\II Th1maDm 1'e1no1!.,n, 11<1 bwho1'1!11-~Rs •••uo•,,.1d•ilhlhe lhorltWl1o r notTl'os ""'!'lhouklnotbeuHd.atadMtrw ,O<Jn:1onH•cr:iat,dWeff ll'd "'dior9'ort'N tJ.dn,1Q lffltfflACl ]U11d ~too,.Sucl!JGet1rrnr,it>on •,rd b1mJOlon1'-'Se>-o)'-1.as1b111$ ; "\\~ '• \ A'\ \ \ \,,V \ \ '1 I ', \ \' \\ \\ April 2015 I 554-1521-084 .. · ... Shorelln• Environment O.slgnatlon -Netura1 l!:!I Stioretine~lnlensity LJ St1oretinelld1tedHl"1tnt ensity -Sl'lotelintS1ng11F1miry -Urban Con,ervtne:, Lake to Sound Trail-Segment A Permi t Narrative and Justification King County s~r•Un • Jurisdiction BRSC • Black River/Springbrook Creek Reaches CR • Cedar River Reaches GR -Green Rr.-e r Reache~ LO -Lake Desire Reaches LW -Lake washington Reaches MC. t.tly Creek Re.K:hes 2-3 1 Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A Permit Narrative and Justification King County Figure 2-3 Renton Park and Trails Map Detai l 0 l) > C 2-32 Earlingt~ Park SW7t -f-1!/f -M€.'rilllSl- -lOGllSI- {JIJS'IH;l(lUtH --Mul~u,,wllit,~ ...__, Mui~~ nal Loc:a,t --Bicydel.wle --Slgned :IMl'ed ro.tdw,liy --~rw>-ont,trall l'AOPOSCOl'OUTCS ••••Mull..-uai.R,egio,w ----M<AIMISl'!lll"'-l'XM ··•·lkyde •- ....... ~""'n!(I·~ ........ ~ont,1rall ---kc,...,, •• s.t,..,.,oil1cb ~ 1n1-.-fwy 8 St.le ...... P.rl. -S<t,ool * Am>nilyOi11101 1unily l.-ic • WalerTriOil.,._..d~.a,ffll>!I Si ...... ,,, ... ~..i. April 2015 I 554-1521-084 Proposed • • • • Alternative 1 -Alternative 2 -Alte rna tive 3 Alternative 4 Ex isting Trail Figure 2-4 Section 4f Alternatives Lake to Sound Trail Segment A . ? ~ IRt ...,SIONS f--f-----------f---!---jCHEfE~O DRAFT '1 1 1'IOT~•,'[','-"'Nl ,U'L' ocu.1:wc·-s,,..,.i:,....,,,. ,,,,,,.,.,,,,,.,_ LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAI L TO NACHES AVE SW LEGEND 1995 FEMA FLOODPLAJN BOUNDARY FLOODWAY -FEMA DSERV 2005 NATIONAL WETLAN D INVENTORY WETlmD BOUNDARY FIELD LOCATED WETl.AND DELINEATION FI ELD LOCATED OHWM 200 Fl AS MEASURED FROM FIELD LOCATED OHWM OR FEW. FLOOOWAY 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FEATURES RELEVANT TO SHORELINE JURISDICTION DRAW.NC MO. OF 47 SMA1 I t ! ! i ,, : i ~ ~ I i i PLAN ® SCAlf IN fITT !I/ --0 60 120 LEGEND 1995 FEMA FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY FLOOOWAY -FEMA DSERV 2005 NATIONAi.. WETlANO INVENTORY WETlAND BOUNDARY FIELD LOCATED Wm.AN D DELINEATION FIELD LOCATED OHWt.4 200 FT ;s tr.lEASUREO FROM FIELD LOCATED OHWM OR FEW. FLOOOWAY 60 % REVIEW SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCT ION OF 47 ~/:,·1~·"~' l°'rr i" loc•~"' I l:""'"~°"~·1 ~ ' I ~WN K"NOT,.C~ACC0RDINOLY 4iil::i4ih ~~o §f:5,,_08rnnc> DRAFT }:E~J~"i:;.7 -·-·~ .... ,-~u I II ::;HUt<t:LINt:J I ._ ... , .. ..,._ L-----'---------....J·'------'-· _.,__ --""------'· • ~L 2015 • .:: ... -·-• • GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW • • • I I LAKE TO SOUND TR A IL SEGM ENT A FEATURES RELEVANT TO -------···-"URISDICTION ~J l!(VISION S 01EO<ED Y. HO -¢N I: ,N ¢H A T F UI..-L 8<:Al.E. IF N OT, SC ... L I! ACC ORDINO L Y ~ 5'5°-4 1521 08-4 (A/2C ,,o,,,PRIL2015 60 DRAFT ,.,,,,., ... """"·''·"'""" "'""'-""-"''"""""' ,,,.,,.OJQ<,.,,, .. ,,., L A KE TO SO UND TRA IL SEGMENT A GREEN RIVER TRAIL TO NACHES AVE SW LEGEND 1995 FEMA FLOODPlAIN BOUNDARY FLOODWAY -FEijA DSERV 2005 NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTOR'!' WETLAND BOUNDARY FIELD LOCATED WETl.AND DELINEATION FI ELD LOCATED OHW~ 60% REVIEW SUBMITTAL NO T FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 47 FEATURES RELEVANT TO SHORELINE JURISDICTION SMA3 DEPARTMENT OF COMM'-... TY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT r• Cityof, ~ r 1 sf l [ (jJJ v I 1. 2. 3. TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Total number of trees over 6" diameter1, or alder or cottonwood trees at least 8" in diameter on project site _16""",_o_oo ____ trees Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dangerous2 _o ____ trees Trees in proposed public streets Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts Trees in critical areas3 and buffers Total number of excluded trees: Subtract line 2 from line l: 0 trees ----- 0 trees -----_8-',_oo_o __ trees _8""",_o_o_o ____ trees _8""",_oo_o ____ trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, R-6 or R-8 0.2 in all other residential zones 0.1 in all commercial and industrial zones 2,400 trees 5. List the number of 6" in diameter, or alder or cottonwood trees over 8" in diameter that you are proposing5 to retain4 : 7,869 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (if line 6 is zero or less, stop here. No replacement trees are required) 0 trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 0 inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: I (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 0 inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6: (If remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 0 trees 1 Measured at 4.5' above grade. 2 A tree certified, in a written report, as dead, terminally diseased, damaged, or otherwise dangerous to persons or property by a licensed landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. 3 Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in RMC 4-3-050. 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a. 6 When the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least six feet (6') tall, shall be planted. See RMC 4-4-130.H.1.e.(ii) for prohibited types of replacement trees. U:\PSO\Projects\Clients\1521-KingCo\S54-1521-084 l2S1\02WBS\PH-A 2 Rivers\Shoreline CUP\TreeRetentionWorksheet.docx 03/2015 Minimum Tree Density A minimum tree density shall be maintained on each residentially zoned lot (exempting single-family dwellings in R-10 and R-14). The tree density may consist of existing trees, replacement trees, or a combination. Detached single-family development7: Two (2) significant trees8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. For example, a lat with 9,600 square feet and a detached single-family house is required ta have four (4) significant trees ar their equivalent in caliper inches (one or more trees with a combined diameter of 24"). This is determined with the following formula: ( LotArea ) • x 2 = Mmimum Number of Trees 5,000sq.ft. Multi-family development (attached dwellings): Four (4) significant trees 8 for every five thousand (5,000) sq. ft. of lot area. (_ Lot Area ) 4 \s,ooosq.ft. x Min;mum Number of Trees Example Tree Density Table: Lot Lot size Min significant New Trees Retained Trees Compliant trees required 1 5,000 2 2 @ 2" caliper 0 Yes 2 10,000 4 0 1 tree (24 caliper Yes inches) 3 15,000 6 2 @ 2" caliper 1 Maple-15 Yes caliper inches 1 Fir-9 caliper inches. 7 Lots developed with detached dwellings in the R-10 and R-14 zoned are exempt from maintaining a minimum number of significant trees onsite, however they are not exempt from the annual tree removal limits. 8 Or the gross equivalent of caliper inches provided by one (1) or more trees. 2 U:\PS0\Projects\Clients\1521-KingCo\554-1521-084 l2S1\02WBS\PH-A 2 Rivers\Shoreline CUP\TreeRetentionWorksheet.docx 03/2015 Lake to Sound Trail Segment A Renton Permits NOTES ON TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees The site traverses a site ofabout 80 acres. We did not do a tree survey over the entire site APR l '/ We estimate 200 trees per acre, based on the tree density in a mature Pacific Northwest Forest from the following publications: Hardwoods of the Pacific Northwest, S.S. Niemiec, G.R. Ahrens, 5. Willits, and D.E. Hibbs. 1995. Research Contribution 8. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory http:// owic.o rego nsta te .ed u/ red-a Ider-a In us-rub ra Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas-fir Curtis, Robert O.; Clendenen, Gary W.; Reukema, Donald L.; DeMars, Donald J. 1982. Yield tables for managed stands of coast Douglas- fir. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-135. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 182 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw gtr135/pnw gtr135a.pdf Portions of the site have been cleared with limited tree cover, however this estimate is likely to be relatively accurate. 2. The deduction for 60 Critical Areas includes both wetlands and buffers. Wetlands have not been fully delineated, so this is a rough estimate. It is intended to be conservative. If wetlands and buffers are a greater percent of the sit, the number of trees required to be retained would be lower. 4. Trees that must be retained: The estimate of 2,400 was based on the maximum multiplier of .3. This is the tree count for the entire site outside Critical Areas, not just the portion within or near the trail corridor. 5. Trees proposed to be retained are all trees, minus 151 designated for removal= 7849 which is 98 percent of the trees on the non-critical portion of the site. 9. Tree replacement is proposed for all trees removed. DEPARTMENT OF COMM ITV AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT () . - Construction Mitigation Description Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 '-_. APR 1 7 2015 Construction Mitigation Description: Please provide 5 copies of a written narrative addressing each of the following: • Proposed construction dates (begin and end dates) Proposed construction dates are unknown and will be dependent upon permitting restrictions, fish windows, seasonal rain conditions, and habitat restrictions for nearby nesting herons. • Hours and days of operation Construction operations will be generally limited between Monday and Friday during an 8-hour consecutive period between 7:00am and 6:00pm. • Any special hours proposed for construction or hauling (i.e. weekends, late nights) Night, weekend and holiday work will not be permitted. • Proposed hauling/transportation routes Haul and construction site access with be from Monster Road and Naches Avenue, depending on the section of trail to be constructed. • Preliminary traffic control plan Traffic control along Monster Road will generally include single-lane traffic and sidewalk closures using floggers and standard WSDOT Work Zone Traffic Control plans. Traffic control at Naches Avenue and the trail head will be limited to parking restrictions; this is a cul-de-sac and serves as parking for infrequent trail users. • Measures to be implemented to.minimize dust, traffic and transportation impacts, erosion, mud, noise, and other noxious characteristics Temporary erosion and sediment control measures from the King County Surface Water Design Manual {2009), Appendix D, will be applied during construction to limit dust, erosion, mud, and noise and other noxious characteristics of the construction. WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CIIECKI.IST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an ElS is required. instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining ifthere may be significant adverse impact. U,e of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SI IEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A.BACKGROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A 2. Name of applicant: King County Parks 3. Address and phone number ofapplicant and contact person: Jason Rich, Capital Improvement Project Manager King Street Center 201 South Jackson, 7th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 4. Date checklist prepared: April 9, 2015 APR 1 7 2015 5. Agency requesting checklist: King County Parks City of Renton City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Final design and permitting complete in Fall 2015 Construction start in Spring 2016 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? lfyes, explain. Segment A is one segment of the longer Lake to Sound Trail, some of which has been constructed and some of which will be designed in the future. See attached Feasibility Study for additional information. Each future segment will have independent utility and will undergo separate environmental review. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to th is proposal. • Feasibility Study • Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report • Critical Areas Study • Stream Discipline Report • Technical Information Report • Cultural Resources Survey Report (ICF 2011) • Cultural Resource Survey Memorandum for the Amended APE (Aqua Terra 2015) • 60-percent Plans • Draft Geotechnical Report 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. The project is subject to federal funding through Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Previously, approvals had been provided for National Environmental Policy Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As a result of a project change to add the new trail bridge over the Black River, the reviews were re-opened. To date, only Section 106 has been completed. The other reviews are pending. No other applications have been submitted to date. See list in Item 10 below. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, including critical areas and drainage reviews, from Renton and Tukwila • Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Variance from Renton • Grading Permits from Renton and Tukwila • Street Use Permits from Renton • General Construction NPDES Permit from Washington Department of Ecology • Hydraulic Project Approval from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2 • Federal transportation funding triggers: o Documented Categorical Exclusion (National Environmental Policy Act) o National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Concurrence o Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Concurrence 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) King County, together with the cities of Renton and Tukwila (Cities), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2-mile segment of what will ultimately be the 16-mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2-mile segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail, and is also commonly referred to as the Two Rivers Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black River Riparian Forest, across Monster Road and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex in Fort Dent Park (see 60-percent plans). Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non-motorized, alternative transportation and a recreation corridor for multiple trail users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non-motorized transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have been historically underserved by such facilities. Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A provides a much needed trail connection between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines. In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A will connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and in the future to the Cedar River Trail. The Lake to Sound Trail -Segment A would: • Serve local and regional non-motorized transportation needs and provide access to the trail for local communities. • Help satisfy the regional need for recreational trails and provide safe recreational opportunities to a wide variety of trail users. • Provide a critical link in the regional trails system. • Provide economic and health benefits to communities along the trail. Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2-foot-wide shoulders and 1-foot-wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) guidelines. The project includes: • Constructing a 12-foot-wide asphalt pavement trail with soft-surface (gravel) shoulders • Performing minor grading to construct the trail • Installing a new trail bridge over the Black River to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge, which cannot be improved to safely accommodate the envisioned trail use • Installing a pedestrian-actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge • Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from potential falling debris • Building one small retaining wall along the trail and additional walls on the bridge approaches and the Monster Road approach. • Constructing up to two 10-foot by 20-foot pull-out rest areas ( one at the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and potentially one north of Fort Dent Park) • Installing split-rail fencing and plantings to minimize the potential for disturbance to sensitive wildlife 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Segment A is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Two parallel railroad tracks (Burlington Northern Santa Fe [BNSF] and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges heading north-south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks are located north of the eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail corridor with an east-west bearing. These tracks tie into the north-south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Renton; west of the railroad bridges the proposed trail alignment is within the City of Tukwila. The project area is described from east to west below. The east terminus is located at a cul-de-sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern three-quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to Monster Road (approximately 4,300 linear feet) follows an existing gravel maintenance road south of the BNSF east-west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a new bridge for non-motorized use to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road, the alignment lies south of the Black River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent Park. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green Rivers is located just north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River and south of the trail corridor. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS l. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The project area is generally flat, sloping gently from the east to the west. To the north is a railroad branch line serving the Renton Boeing Plant near the same elevation as the trail; a gravel mining operation on a steep slope north of the railroad and an apartment complex at the top of the slope at a considerably higher elevation than the project area. Additionally, there are steeper slopes down from the banks of the Black River, south of the project area, between the Black River Pump Station and 4 Monster Road. b. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The trail alignment is relatively flat. The steepest slope along the trail is approximately 5% on the approaches to the bridge. otherwise, the steepest slope on the site is adjacent to the Black river from the terrace (on which the trail is locate) down to the water level. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The majority of the project area is mapped as Woodinville silt loam. A small portion of the study area (near the northeast most part) is mapped as Tukwila muck. The Woodinville series consists of deep, poorly drained soils formed in recent alluvium on flood plains and low terraces. The Tukwila series consists of deep, very poorly drained soils formed in organic material stratified with diatomaceous earth and volcanic ash. Tukwila soils are in depressions on stream terraces and glacial uplands. Subsurface exploration occurred in the vicinity of the new bridge over the Black River, where the subsurface is underlain by granular soil (fill), over loose alluvium, over medium dense alluvium, and over Glacial Till or Bedrock. Because the loose alluvium is of geotechnical concern due to earthquake loading conditions, ground improvements will be constructed in the vicinity of the bridge foundation. d. Are there surface indications or history ofunstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Preliminary earthwork quantities indicate approximately 1,500 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards of fill, including crushed rock and asphalt, will be necessary. Please note that cuts and fills within the 100-year floodplain are balanced, with no net fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. In the absence of temporary erosion and sediment controls during construction, exposed earth could erode into adjacent lower lying wetlands, rivers, or the municipal storm sewer system. Temporary erosion measures consisting of Best Management Practices, will be implemented as outline in Item h below. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Development of the trail will result in a total of 2.9 acres of impervious surface, distributed over 1.2 miles and 5 drainage areas. Much of the 2.9 acres is already an existing gravel maintenance road. Within the 88 acre study area, the trail will total about 3.3 percent of the site. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Construction BMPs may include the following, as appropriate: Preserving Natural Vegetation (BMP C101) Buffer Zones (BMP C102) High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105) Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) Mulching (BMP C121) Plastic Covering (BMP C123) Concrete Handling (BMP C 151) Check Dams (BMP C207) Outlet Protection (BMP C209) 2. Air Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) Silt Fence (BMP C233) Sediment Trap (BMP C240) Construction Stormwater Filtration (BMP C251) a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, air emissions typically include primarily particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) and small amounts of carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen from construction machinery exhaust. The sources of particulates are fugttive dust from diesel exhaust. Temporary increases in particulate emissions may be noticeable if uncontrolled. In addition, temporary odors from machinery exhaust and paving activities will occur. Air emissions post-construction at the site are not expected to change from existing conditions. The non-motorized trail will not introduce any new activities that would involve air emissions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Offsite emissions include those from vehicles using the adjacent roadways and from trains operating on the heavy rail lines through the area. None of these emissions should affect the proposed trail. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: During construction, equipment emissions will not exceed state and national air quality standards. Construction BMPs will be implemented to control dust and limit impacts to air quality. These could include the following: • Wet down dust on site. • Minimize ground disturbances. • Remove excess dirt, dust, and debris from adjacent roadway if necessary. • Maintain construction equipment in good working condition. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) ls there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The trail alignment is located within WRIA 9, the Green-Duwamish River basin, and within the regulated buffers of the Black River and Green River. East of Monster Road, the trail alignment occurs north of the Black River. The trail will cross the Black River via a new non-motorized bridge east of the existing Monster Road bridge. West of Monster Road, the trail runs south of the Black River to the confluence with the Green River. The trail alignment intersects the Green River at about RM 11.0 on the right bank of the river. According to the WDNR stream typing system, both rivers are (Type S) streams, designated as shorelines of the state. For additional information, please refer to the attached Stream Discipline Report. 6 Seven wetlands occur in the project area: • The Wetland 1/2 complex is located west and east of the north end of Naches Avenue SW and north of the Black River, extending outside the study area. The Wetland 1/2 Complex was initially delineated as two separate wetlands in the field, but after further review of hydrologic conditions and connections, was determined to be one wetland complex. It is a Category II (Ecology rating), palustrine forested (USFWS classification), riverine/depressional (HGM classification) wetland complex. • Wetland 3 is located north of Wetland 1 and south of the existing gravel maintenance road and BNSF rail tracks. It is a Category IV (Ecology rating), palustrine scrub-shrub/palustrine emergent (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classifcation) wetland. • Wetland 4 is located just southwest of Wetland 3 and north of the Wetland 1 /2 Complex. It is a Category IV (Ecology rating), palustrine forested (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classification) wetland. • Wetland 5 is located north of the existing gravel maintenance road, east of Monster Road and south of the BNSF rail tracks. It is a Category Ill (Ecology rating), palustrine emergent (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classification) wetland. • Wetland 6 is located in the fork of the existing gravel maintenance road west of the Black River Pump Station. It is a Category Ill (Ecology rating), palustrine emergent (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classification) wetland. • Wetland 7 is located south of the existing gravel trail, northeast of the Black River Pump Station, and north of the Black River. It is a Category Ill (Ecology rating), palustrine emergent/palustrine forested (USFWS classification), depressional (HGM classification) wetland. • Wetland BR is southeast of the existing gravel trail, east-northeast of the Black River Pump Station, and north of the Black River. It is a Category II (Ecology rating), palustrine forested/palustrine emergent (USFWS classification), riverine/depressional (HGM classification) wetland. See the attached Critical Area Study for more information. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Construction of Segment A would occur within the regulated buffers of both the Green River and the Black River, but no work would occur below the ordinary high water mark of either river. In almost all cases, the quality of the riparian buffer that would be permanently displaced is low to moderate. Much of the riparian impact area along the Black River consists of grass or nonnative herbaceous and shrub species. Approximately 51 trees within the regulatory buffer of the Black River in the City of Renton would be removed. Construction of the western portion of the trail corridor would remove 14 trees within riparian buffers in the City of Tukwila. The total amount of riparian buffer permanently impacted by trail construction would be 0. 73 acre (31,641 square feet). Of this area, 0. 13 acre (5,715 square feet) also falls within wetland buffers and is identified as wetland buffer impacts for regulatory purposes (see below). An additional 0. 1 O acre (4,455 square feet) of temporary impact to riparian buffers is anticipated for construction. The construction impacts include ground improvements in the vicinity of the new bridge, as shown in the 60-percent plans. These improvements would be outside the ordinary high water mark and no closer than 5 feet of the water level during low summer flows when the improvements would be constructed. Construction of Segment A would occur within the regulated buffers of four wetlands, but no work would occur within the wetland boundaries. These buffers are generally low-functioning and are composed primarily of grasses and forbs along the existing maintenance road edge. A total of approximately 0.49 acre (21,321 square feet) of permanent impact to project area wetland buffers are anticipated as a result of the project. An additional 0. 12 acre (5,302 square feet) of temporary impact to wetland buffers is anticipated for construction. All unavoidable impacts to wetland and stream buffers would be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090) and City of Tukwila critical areas regulations (TMC 18.44 and 18.45). Mitigation for wetland and stream buffer impacts would consist of planting or underplanting native trees and shrubs in an area where existing buffer conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would offset the project's impacts on buffer resources by maintaining or enhancing those functions that support water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife. Proposed enhancements would include removal of invasive vegetation, tilling of soil, addition of organic soil amendments (where needed) and mulch, and planting of native vegetation. See the attached plans and Critical Area Study for more information. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No wetlands or streams would be permanently or temporarily filled or graded as a result of the project. All fill to be placed in wetland buffers and stream buffers will come from an approved off-site location. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions will be needed for this project. 5) Does the proposal lie within a I 00-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. Portions of the trail west of Monster Road occur in the 100-year floodplain. Cuts and fills will be balanced to result in no net fill within the floodplain. For additional information, see the attached Technical Information Report and Critical Areas Study. See attached plans. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. The trail is a non-pollutant generating surface, and BMPs are expected to prevent hazardous or waste materials from entering the stormwater conveyance system during construction. b. Ground: I) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn. Stormwater will be dispersed from the edge of the trail; however, the trail is a non-pollutant generating surface. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): l) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff at the project is limited to rainwater. The trail is exempt from flow control in both the Cities of Renton and Tukwila because the change from the existing land cover to the proposed land cover does not increase the 100-year peak flow of equal to or more than 0.1 cubic feet per second. However, the trail has been designed to direct stormwater to the side of the trail for dispersion as sheet flow. Whether by ground or surface water, the stormwater will ultimately flow to the Black River and Green River. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. The trail is a non-pollutant generating surface, and BMPs are expected to prevent hazardous or waste materials from entering the stormwater conveyance system during construction. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See the construction BMPs identified in Section B.1.h and Section 3.a.2) above. See the attached plans and Critical Area Study for more information 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _X __ deciduous tree: ~~aspen, other: black cottonwood, Pacific willow, Oregon ash _X __ evergreen tree: ifuJ, ~ pine, other _X __ Shrubs: blackberry, salmon berry, hazelnut, red-osier dogwood, red elderberry, snowberry _X __ Grass: reed canarygrass, upland grasses ---pasture ---crop or grain _X __ wet soil plants: ~attaiij, buttercup, bullrush, other ---water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _X __ other types of vegetation: lawn Please refer to the attached Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report for additional information. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The following discussion is summarized from the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report, which uses land cover types based on the structural categories defined by Johnson and O'Neil (2001). By locating the trail on an existing maintenance road, the amount of vegetation removal is greatly minimized. Nearly all clearing (approximately 1.8 acre) would occur along the existing maintenance road, most of which consists of hardened surfaces or non-native plants. Where the trail route falls within areas classified as riparian-wetland habitat, the project footprint is largely free of native trees 9 and shrubs that are the characteristic features of that habitat type. Clearing for trail construction would affect approximately 0.9 acre of this land cover type and is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover in the 88-acre study area. Some low-growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, however, and the overhead canopy may be slightly reduced in some places. Within the City of Tukwila, approximately 20 trees would be cleared for trail construction. Within the City of Renton, all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail would be removed, as would all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection of public safety and the trail surface. In total, approximately 129 trees would be removed within the City of Renton. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The WDNR Natural Heritage Program does not identify any rare plants within or in the vicinity of the project area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: As part of the project, trees will be planted in open areas adjacent to the trail with a line of sight toward the heron rookery (see #5 below). In addition, trees and native plants will be incorporated in proposed buffer mitigation areas. 5.Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: ~. ~ ~. !songbird~, other: pileated woodpecker, osprey, many waterfowl species mammals: deer, bear, elk, ~eavery, other: coyotes, raccoons, mice, voles, moles fish: bass, !salmo~, ~ herring, shellfish, other: Chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, bull trout The park is home to more than 50 species of birds, historically including one of the largest great blue heron colonies in the region. The site is a complex ecosystem with abundant wildlife habitat. The park is valued for year-round bird watching and nature viewing. Also: garter snakes, Pacific chorus frogs, and long-toed salamanders Please refer to the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report for additional information. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The federally listed species that potentially occur in the project vicinity are bull trout, the Puget Sound evolutionarily significant unit of Chinook salmon, and the Puget Sound distinct population segment of steel head. No ESA-listed or state-listed threatened or endangered wildlife species are known or expected to occur in the study area. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes. The habitat in the project area is suitable for and used by migratory birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The following measures have been incorporated into the trail design in order to avoid and minimize adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife: 10 • Alignment. The proposed trail follows the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, avoiding habitat fragmentation and disturbance within the central portion of the natural area. • Use of existing disturbed areas. The proposed trail follows existing paths, maintenance roads and disturbed areas to minimize disturbance of adjacent, existing forest, significant trees, wetlands and buffers, stream buffers, and the species that use these areas. • Strategic widening. In the Black River Riparian Forest, trail widening occurs toward the perimeter, again to avoid the central portion of the natural area and the associated habitat. • Minimizing earthwork. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas. • Planting of trees. Where the trail runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, native trees and shrubs will be planted along the south side of the trail to provide additional visual screening of the trail from the central portion of the natural area to the south. The plantings would include mature evergreen trees, to offset some of the temporal loss of canopy cover As these plants grow taller and more dense, they will reduce the potential for trail use to disturb nesting great blue herons. Plantings will be monitored to ensure establishment and long-term success. • Fencing. Fencing will be placed on the south side of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest in areas that appear inviting to discourage people from accessing the central portion of the natural area. Other wildlife viewing trails are provided on the south side of the forest. Wayfinding signage at Naches Avenue SW, Oakesdale Avenue SW and Monster Road will describe the options. The following measures would be implemented before and during trail construction to avoid or minimize effects on vegetation and wildlife resources: • Limit construction activity to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible. • Prepare and implement a revegetation plan that emphasizes the use of native species. • Where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, replace cleared trees larger than 6 inches in diameter that occur outside critical area buffers with new trees at a ratio of 1: 1 or greater. If City of Renton regulatory requirements result in a higher replacement ratio, the higher ratio will be used. Some larger evergreen trees to offset the temporal loss of canopy cover would be included. (Planting for visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony [see above] could result in the planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this requirement.) • To minimize harm to migratory birds, conduct vegetation clearing and construction activities outside the breeding season, which is typically considered to extend from March 15 through August 31. • Prevent disturbance of nesting great blue herons and their young due to trail construction and other noise-generating activities by implementing the following measure: II o Within 1,312 feet of an active colony, conduct activities that are likely to disturb nesting herons outside the courtship and nesting season (i.e., restrictions would apply between January 15 and August 31 ). Restricted activities would include major earthwork and the use of heavy equipment and backup alarms. Construction activities that employ the use of hand tools would not be restricted. • If bald eagles construct a new nest within 660 feet of the trail alignment before construction begins, additional measures, such as timing restrictions on construction activities with the potential to disturb nesting eagles, may be necessary. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Not applicable b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None proposed. The trail offers a nonmotorized transportation alternative. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? lfso, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None proposed b. Noise I) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Predominant noise in the project area results from vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways and highways, and from trains on the heavy rail lines through the area. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Long-term noise will be limited to voices of trail users, barking dogs, and bicycle tires. Temporary noise will occur during construction (includes typical equipment such as trucks, backhoes, compressors, and pumps), but will be relatively short-term. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction activities will be limited to day light hours. 12 8. Land and shoreline nse a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? East of Monster Road, Segment A traverses the northern and eastern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest. The Black River Riparian Forest is a 94-acre park facility, managed by the City of Renton as Open Space. A Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad line parallels the trail to the north. A business park is adjacent to the trail to the east. The existing gravel road that the trail will follow is used for walking and exercising pets. Moving west from Monster Road, the trail alignment traverses a secondary driveway for an adjacent business. The driveway occurs within the road right of way. It is gated to allow only periodic access and would accommodate the trail. The trail then traverses properties owned by the City of Tukwila, Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF, passing underneath two existing railroad bridges. At its western terminus, Segment A would connect to the Green River Trail along the northern edge of Fort Deni Park. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. East of Monster Road, the only structures are those associated with the Black River Pump Station. West of Monster Road, the only structures are the two railroad bridges and one utility bridge that cross over the proposed trail corridor. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? East of Monster Road, the site is zoned by the City of Renton as Commercial Office (along eastern edge of the Black River Riparian Forest) and Resource Conservation (elsewhere). West of Monster Road and east of the railroad bridges, site is zoned by the City of Renton as Industrial Light. West of the railroad bridges, the site is zoned by the City of Tukwila as Low Density Residential. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? East of the railroad bridges (City of Renton), the comprehensive plan designation is Employment Area -Valley. West of the railroad bridges (City of Tukwila), the comprehensive plan designation is Low Density Residential. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The City of Renton designates the Black River reach as a "natural" shoreline environment. The City of Tukwila designates the Green River and Black River adjacent to Fort Dent Park as "urban conservancy" shoreline environment. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? lfso, specify. Yes. Critical areas are in the project vicinity. Please refer to Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this checklist, the Wetland Discipline Report, the Stream Discipline Report, and the Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report for additional information. 13 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: City of Renton Based on the City's updated Shoreline Master Program, the trail project must obtain a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit that demonstrates that the trail would accommodate public access to public open space, while still protecting the natural resources in the area. Otherwise, City planning documents identify this trail connection specifically as a high priority. More generally, the City's circulation policy states: 1. Trails within the shoreline should be developed as an element of non-motorized circulation, of the City's Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Trails and Bicycle Master Plans and of the Shoreline Public Access program. Trails provide the potential for low impact public physical and visual access to the shoreline. 2. Trails should be developed as an element of a system that link together shoreline public access into an interconnected network including active and passive parks, schools, public and private open space, native vegetation easements with public access, utility rights of way, waterways, and other opportunities. 3. Public access to and along the water's edge should be linked with upland community facilities and the comprehensive trails system that provides no-motorized access throughout the city. 4. A system of trails on separate rights of way and public streets should be designed and implemented to provide linkages along shorelines including the Lake Washington Loop, the Cedar River, the Black River/Springbrook Creek, and the Green River. State Recreation & Conservation Office The Black River Riparian Forest was acquired with a variety of funding sources, including an Urban Wildlife grant from what is now the state Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). King County consulted with RCO to ensure the consistency of the project with the intent of the grant. RCO confirmed that the grant program encourages public access to wildlife areas, so the trail is consistent with the grant. City of Tukwila As described in the 2008 Tukwila Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan, current access to Fort Dent Park is from Interurban Avenue by Fort Dent Way and by a pedestrian bridge on the north end for the Green River Trail. The proposed trail would enhance access to Fort Dent Park by providing a trail connection from the east. The proposed trail is consistent with the City of Tukwila's 2009 Walk & Roll Plan and is shown as a planned future trail through the park. The proposed trail is also consistent with the City's updated Shoreline Master Program. 14 Other Plans In addition, from 2001 to 2004, the Cascade Bicycle Club undertook an extensive study of bicycling conditions within the Puget Sound Region, including King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties. The findings of the study were summarized in a report titled Left by the Side of the Road. This report identified the Two Rivers Trail (an alternative name for Segment A of the Lake to Sound Trail) as a missing link badly needed in the regional trail network. Private Properties King County is coordinating with the railroad companies regarding design features to protect the railroad operations and railroad property. Trail right of way or an easement will be acquired from the railroad companies following environmental review. Staff from the City of Renton have been coordinating with the adjacent business regarding the potential effects of the trail on a secondary driveway. The trail is not expected to adversely affect the business. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? BNSF has requested that the trail potentially be covered within 30 feet of the overhead railroad bridge to prevent debris from falling on trail users. If required, the cover will be 12 to 14 feet above the trail for vertical clearance, but must clear and cannot impede inspection of the railroad bridge above. The railings for the new bridge for non-motorized use to the east of the existing Monster Road Bridge would be approximately 4 feet above the trail surface. The entire structure is designed to be 7 feet in height. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The trail alignment is not adjacent to residential uses and abuts only a few business uses. Within the two parks, vegetation removal may affect the views of park users. However, the amount of removal has been minimized, as described in #5 above. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Any new planting of shrubs/trees/groundcovers will be selected and laid out to enhance trail integration into surrounding landscape. 15 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The new signalized crossing of Monster Road will be illuminated. The illumination will be comparable to other roadway lighting in the area. The remainder of the trail will not be illuminated as trail use is intended for dawn to dusk. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources oflight or glare may affect your proposal? No existing off-site sources of light or glare will affect the trail. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Black River Riparian Forest is a 94-acre park facility owned and managed by the City of Renton. The park is valued for year-round bird watching and nature viewing. The trail alignment is currently the location of a maintenance access road, used by walkers. Fort Dent Park is approximately 54 acres and has soccer fields, a playground, a picnic area, restrooms, trails, and open areas. Fort Dent Park includes the Starfire Sports Complex, which is a private concession providing indoor fields and activities. The proposed trail connects directly to the Green River Trail and indirectly to the Interurban Trail and Cedar River Trail. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Yes. The White Lake site (45K1438) is located on the south bank of the Black River at its confluence with the Green River. Comprising two loci (45K1438 and 45Kl438A), it is listed in the NRHP under criterion D for its potential to yield information important to prehistory. Data sets from the White Lake site provide necessary information in developing an understanding of the hunter-gather-fisher settlement subsistence pattern in the Green River-Duwamish Valley. Additional information is provided in the project's Cultural Resources Survey Report. While the proposed trail alignment traverses the boundaries of this site, a cultural resource survey found no evidence of the archaeological site was identified during field shovel probes. 16 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Although no historic properties were found in the APE, the western portion of the project area is nonetheless considered sensitive for the presence of precontact archaeological resources because of the nearby presence of 45Kl438 and known ethnographic villages. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Excavation to construct the trail within archaeological site boundaries has been minimized and will not exceed 9 to 12 inches. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. As shown on the vicinity map and site plans, the trail connects to Naches Avenue at its eastern terminus and crosses Monster Road. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The area is not well seNed by public transit: • Metro Transit route #150 seNes Interurban Ave S. to the west. • Metro Transit route #140 connects at Grady Way and Powell. • Sound Transit routes #566 and 560 connect at Rainier Ave S and SW 7th St. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project would neither provide nor eliminate parking. Trail users will be able to park at Fort Dent Park to access the trail. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal will construct a new signalized crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? Ifso, generally describe. Yes. The trail will cross under two existing railroad bridges west of Monster Road. The trail will also parallel an east-west BNSF line north of the Black River Riparian Forest. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No motor vehicle trips per day would be generated by the completed project. Persons using the trail are primarily expected to walk from residences or places of employment or to use existing facilities such as Fort Dent Park. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Completion of the proposed trail could result in reduction in the number of motor vehicles and bicycles using the roadways by transitioning some drivers into bicyclists or pedestrians using the trail. 17 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None proposed. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse serv- ice, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. The areas through which the alignment traverses are not served by utilities but numerous utilities cross the alignment. These utility crossings include telephone, stormwater, gas, sewer, electricity, and water. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The new pedestrian-actuated signal and illumination will require electricity. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ----~+--F-~-2J--~-~-· _ _, ___ _ Date Submitted: -----~A=o~ri~I ~;::=J-7,~2~0~1~5 __ _ 18 DRAFT DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON HWAProjectNo. 2010-IOOT200 February 24, 2015 Prepared for: Parametrix, Inc. um HWAGEOSCIENCES INC .,\1 HI , I, 1 7 t} DRAFT February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 Parametrix, Inc. 719 znd A venue, Suite 200 Seattle Washington 98104 Attention: Subject: Dear Jenny: Ms. Jenny Bailey DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON Enclosed is our draft geotechnical report for the proposed Lake to Sound Trail, Black River Bridge in Renton, Washington. To stabilize the river banks during a design earthquake event per AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, stone column treatment is recommended. Deep pile foundations will also be necessary for bridge support. We appreciate the opportunity of providing geotechnical services on this project. We look forward to receiving your review comments on this draft report. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Sa H. Hong, P .E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 I. I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION ............................ : ........................ 1 2. FIELD AND LADORA TORY INVESTIGATIONS .................................................. 1 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS ..................................................................................... ) 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................... 2 3. SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 2 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 2 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .................................................................. 2 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 3 3.3.l Soil Stratigraphy ........................................................................... .3 3.3.2 Ground Water ................................................................................ .4 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 5 4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN ............................................................................................ .5 4.1.1 General ........................................................................................... 5 4.1.2 Regional Seismicity ....................................................................... 5 4.1.3 Seismic Considerations .................................................................. 6 4.1.4 Soil Liquefaction ............................................................................ 6 4.1.5 Ground Fault Hazard ....................................................................... ? 4.2 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATIONS ..................................................................... ? 4.2.1 Static Slope Stability Analyses ....................................................... 7 4.2.2 Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analyses .......................................... 8 4.2.3 Post Liquefaction Slope Stability Analyses .................................... 8 4.2.4 Lateral Spreading and Sliding ......................................................... 8 4.2.5 GLOBAL STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENT .................................... 9 Static Slope Stability Analyses ................................................................ 9 Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analyses ................................................... 9 4.3 Ground Improvement Techniques (GIT) ........................................... 10 4.5 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................. 11 4.5.1 Axial Loading ................................................................................. 12 4.6 Axial Resistance for Pile Design ....................................................... 12 4.7 Laterally Loaded Driven Piles ............................................................ 14 4.8 DRIVEN STEEL PIPE PILE INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS16 4.9 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS AND WING W ALLS ......................................................... 16 4.9.1 Lateral Earth Pressures -Static Condition ..................................... 16 4.9.2 Lateral Earth Pressures during Seismic Loading ............................ 17 4.9.3 Abutment Wall Backfill .................................................................. 18 4.10 SPREAD FOOTING BEARING CAPACITY ON EXISTING DENSE FILL ................. 18 February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT 4.11 SLIDING RESISTANCE ON EXISTING FILL FOR CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE FOOTINGS ...................................................................................................... 18 4.12 STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIALS AND COMPACTION ........................................ 18 4.13 WETWEAIBER EARTHWORK ........................................................................ 19 4.14 EMBANKMENT SLOPES ................................................................................ 20 4.15 SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION ..................................................................... 20 4.15.1 Surface Water Control ................................................................. 20 4.15.2 Erosion Control ............................................................................ 21 5. CONDITIONS AND LIMITATJONS ......................................................................... 21 6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 23 LIST OF TABLES Table I. . ....................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. . ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3. . ....................................................................................................................... 10 Table 4. . ....................................................................................................................... 12 Table 5. . ....................................................................................................................... 13 Table 6. . ....................................................................................................................... 13 Table 7. . ....................................................................................................................... 14 LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure I. Figure 2. Figure 3. APPENDICES Vicinity Map Overall Site and Exploration Plan Bridge Area Site and Geotechnical Profile A-A Appendix A: Field Exploration Figure A-1. Figures A-2 -A-3. Legend ofTenns and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Logs ofBoreholes BH-1 and BH-2 Appendix B: Laboratory Testing Figures B-1 -B-4. Particle Size Distribution Test Results Appendix C: Slope Stability Analyses Results 2010·100 T200 DR 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. DRAFT DRAFf GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL, BLACK RIVER BRIDGE RENTON, WASHINGTON 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) completed a geotechnical study for the proposed Lake to Sound Trail Segment A, Black River Bridge in Renton, Washington. The location of the site and the general project layout are shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure I) and the Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2), respectively. The purpose of this geotechnical study was to explore and evaluate surface and subsurface conditions at the site and, based on the conditions encountered, provide recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of the project. According to current design plans, the new trail pedestrian bridge will consist of a, single-span steel or concrete girder structure with a span of approximately 114 feet over the Black River. The bridge foundation will be supported on either drilled shaft foundations or driven steel pipe piles. The new bridge is being designed in accordance with AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology. We understand wetland impacts will be mitigated to protect the wetland located north of the trail alignment, as well as the Black River channel. Geotechnical explorations were performed at the proposed ends of the bridge span to evaluate site soil and ground water conditions. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION Geotechnical engineering services was authorized in a subconsultant agreement dated November 7, 2014. Our scope of work included collecting and reviewing readily available geotechnical and geologic information for the area in the vicinity of the project site; coordinating the field activities with the project team; advancing two exploratory borings; performing laboratory testing and engineering analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements; and preparing a draft geotechnical report. 2. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 2.1 FIELD EXPWRATIONS Two geotechnical explorations were conducted on November 10, 2014 and January 6, 2015. Borehole BH-1 was drilled at the north side of the river and BH-2 was drilled on the south side, with hollow-stem auger drilling methods. The explorations were supervised and logged by an February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT HWA geologist, who observed the exploratory work on a full time basis. A detailed discussion of the field exploration methodologies and the equipment used is presented in Appendix A, along with the borehole logs and a legend of terms and symbols used on the logs. The exploration locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3. 2.2 LABORATORYTESTING Laboratory tests were conducted on selected samples obtained from the borings to characterize relevant engineering and index properties of the site soils. Laboratory tests included determination of in-situ moisture content, and grain size characteristics. The tests were conducted in general accordance with appropriate American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. The test results and a discussion of laboratory test methodology are presented in Appendix B, and/or displayed on the exploration logs in Appendix A, as appropriate. 3. SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed bridge alignment is located approximately 80 feet (south end) to 230 feet (north end) east of Monster Road Bridge in the City of Renton. The river banks are inclined at approximately 2H:I V. We understand the trail bridge approach will be slightly above the original ground surface on an embankment. Both banks are armored with rip-rap rock with a diameter ranging from 12 to 24 inches. 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The geology of the Puget Sound region includes a thick sequence of glacial and non-glacial soils overlying bedrock. Glacial deposits were formed by ice originating in the mountains of British Columbia (Cordilleran Ice Sheet) and from alpine glaciers which descended from the Olympic and Cascade Mountains. These ice sheets invaded the Puget Lowland at least four times during the early to late Pleistocene Epoch (approximately 150,000 to I 0,000 years before present). The southern extent of these glacial advances was near Olympia, Washington. During periods between these glacial advances and after the last glaciation, portions of the Puget Lowland filled with alluvial sediments deposited by rivers draining the western slopes of the Cascades and the eastern slopes of the Olympics. The most recent glacial advance, the Fraser Glaciation, included the Vashon Stade, during which the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet advanced and retreated through the Puget Sound Basin. Existing topography, surficial geology and hydrogeology in the project area were heavily influenced by the advance and retreat of the ice sheet. 2010-100 T200 DR 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT Surficial geological information for the site area was obtained partly from the published maps, "Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington" (Mullineaux, 1965) and "Geologic Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle, King County, Washington." (Booth and Waldron, 2004 ). The maps indicate that the uplands to the southwest and immediate north consist of Tertiary igneous bedrock predominantly mantled by Pleistocene Vashon till, while the valley floor is covered by alluvial deposits. The bedrock consists of highly jointed and faulted andesite. The till was deposited as a discontinuous mantle of ground moraine beneath glacial ice on the eroded surface of older deposits. Soils defined as Vashon till consist ofan unsorted, non-stratified mass of silt, gravel, and sand in varied proportions. The till is of high density/strength due to glacial over-consolidation, and typically has low permeability. The 1965 map, which includes the subject site, indicates the valley floor is covered by alluvium deposited by the White River and Green River, prior to historical diversion of the White River south into the Puyallup in 1906. According to the map this alluvium consists of silt and fine sand at the surface, becoming medium to coarse sand with depth. Black volcanic sand is typical of White River deposits in the valley. The Black River formerly was the outlet for Lake Washington, prior to completion of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1917. Very little to no sediment would be expected to exit a body of water, and therefore Black River deposits would consist merely of reworked sediment of the Cedar River and White River. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.3.1 Soil Stratigraphy Our interpretations of subsurface conditions were based on the results of field exploration, our review of available geologic and geotechnical data, and our general experience in similar geologic settings. It should be noted that in-situ tests performed during drilling, e.g. Standard Penetration Tests represented by N values, identified liquefiable fine sandy silt layers within both borings. For reference, the blow count values recorded during tests are included on the boring logs and are plotted on the penetration resistance chart on each log. Soil density descriptions on the boring logs are based on our observations of soil granularity vs. cohesiveness in addition to the recorded penetration values. In general, the area of the proposed bridge site is underlain by a sequence oflayers of recent silt and sand alluvium deposited by the historical White River and Black River, underlain by either bedrock or glacial till. Suitable bearing material for bridge foundations was encountered at approximately 45 feet on the north bank (glacial till, over bedrock in BH-1) and at 67 feet at the south bank (glacial till in BH-2). The soil units encountered in the borings are described separately and in more detail below. The conditions are also summarized in Figure 3. Appendix 2010-100 T200 DR 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT A contains detailed summary logs of subsurface conditions encountered at the individual exploration locations. • Fill-Both borings encountered fill at the ground surface to depths of7.5 feet in BH-1 and approximately 25 feet in BH-2. The fill consisted of medium dense to dense, gravelly silty sand in the upper 4 to 7 feet, then medium dense to loose sandy silt to silty sand with variable gravel content. In BH-2 this latter material had the appearance of alluvium with fine bedding below 17 .5 feet, however a chunk of rubber in the sampler obtained from 20 feet indicated the material was fill to approximately 25 feet. Based on this depth of fill, we speculate that it originated as dredge tailings fill from channel modifications to the Black River. The protective surficial layer of fill on both banks of the river consisted ofloosely placed riprap rocks. • Loose Alluvium -Recent alluvial deposits were encountered beneath the existing fill in both borings. The upper portion of alluvium in BH-1 consisted of fine sandy silt and silty sand. It was very loose with N values ranging from O to 5 and extended from approximately 7.5 to 30 feet deep. In BH-2, loose alluvium consisting of slightly silty sand and sandy gravel was encountered from 25 to 40 feet deep. • Medium Dense to Dense Alluvium -Gravelly, silty sand was encountered below the loose alluvium in BH-1 from approximately 30 to 40 feet. In BH-2, medium dense, clean to slightly sand was encountered from approximately 40 to 67 feet, with the upper 5 feet consisting of dense sandy gravel. • Glacial Till -Glacial Till was encountered below the alluvium in both borings, and consisted of unsorted, non-stratified dense to very dense, sandy, gravelly silt to silty, gravelly sand. • Bedrock -The bedrock layer was encountered at a depth of approximately 55 feet in borehole BH-1 at the north bank, but was not encountered within BH-2 at the south bank. This is also a pile foundation bearing strata at the site. The bedrock consisted of fractured basalt, becoming less weathered and stronger with depth. 3.3.2 Ground Water Ground water was observed during drilling in both borings, at depths of approximately 13.5 and 19 feet below the existing ground surface at BH-1 and BH-2, respectively. Because of relatively high permeability of the fill soils and silty sand, it is expected that ground water levels will be reflective ofriver level. The observed ground water levels during drilling are indicated on the boring logs and on Figure 3. The ground water conditions reported on the exploration logs are for the specific dates and locations indicated and, therefore, may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. Furthermore, it is anticipated that ground water conditions will vary 2010-100 T200 DR 4 HWA GEOSC!ENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 20 I 0-100 T200 DRAFT in response to other factors such as rainfall, time of year, local subsurface conditions, and other factors. 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnical recommendations are provided below for bridge seismic design criteria, bridge foundations with steel pipe piling, ground improvement to minimize potential liquefaction damages during a design earthquake, slope stability, riprap removal and replacement, and potential construction vibration during ground improvement. 4.1 SEISMIC DESIGN 4.1.1 General Based on the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2013), potential secondary effects of earthquakes on the proposed bridge include soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismically- induced settlement, or ground faulting. The following sections provide additional discussions and recommendations pertaining to these seismic issues for use in design of the bridge. 4.1.2 Regional Seismicity The seismicity of northwest Washington is not as well understood as other areas of western North America. Reasons for this include: (I) incomplete old historical earthquake records; (2) deep and relatively young glacial deposits and dense vegetation which obscure surface expression of faults (Hall and Othberg, 1974); and (3) the distribution of recorded seismic epicenters is scattered and does not define mappable fault zones (Gower, et al., 1985). Historical records exist, however, of strong earthquakes with local Modified Mercalli Intensities up to VIII (indicative of structural damage such as cracked walls and fallen chimneys). Since the 1850's, 28 earthquakes of Magnitude 5 (Richter Scale) and greater have reportedly occurred in the eastern Puget Sound and north-central Cascades region. Five events may have exceeded Magnitude 6.0. Researchers consider the North Cascades earthquake of 1872, centered near Lake Chelan, the strongest (Magnitude 7.4) historical earthquake in the region. Earthquakes of Magnitude 7.2 occurred in central Vancouver Island in 1918 and 1946. The most significant recent event, the Nisqually Earthquake, occurred on February 28, 2001, near Olympia and had a magnitude of 6.8. Other significant historical earthquakes in the region include a 1949 event near Olympia (Magnitude 7.2), and a 1965 event centered between Seattle and Tacoma (Magnitude 6.5). These latter three were intraplate Benioff Zone earthquakes, occurring at a depth of about 30 miles within the descending subducted oceanic plate. Potential sources of earthquakes that may be significant to the site include: (I) the Cascadia subduction zone, along which the Juan de Fuca oceanic plate is being thrust under the North 2010-100 T200 DR 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT American plate; and (2) shallow crustal faults that may generate earthquakes in the site vicinity (McCrumb, et al., 1989). The latest subduction zone earthquake in the Pacific Northwest had been determined from Japanese tsunami records to have occurred in 1700, and recent offshore sedimentological research has indicated that the entire length of the subduction zone slipped at once, which would result in an earthquake of around Magnitude 9 .0. 4.1.3 Seismic Considerations Earthquake loading for the proposed Black River bridge structure was developed in accordance with Section 3.4 of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Bridge Design, 2013. For seismic analysis, the Site Class is required to be established and is determined based on the average soil properties in the upper I 00 feet below the ground surface. Based on our explorations and understanding of site geology, it is our opinion that the proposed alignment is underlain by soils classifying as Site Class D. Table I presents recommended seismic coefficients for use with the general procedure described in the AASHTO, 2013, which is based upon a design event with a 7 percent probability of exceedance in 75 years (equal to a return period of 1,033 years). Ground motions for the site are based on probabilistic earthquake hazard mapping efforts including those conducted by the United States Geological Survey. Accordingly, a Seismic Design Category D, as given by AASHTO, 2013, should be used. Tb11s··cm· a e e1sm1c oe 1c1ents ~ E or valuation u· S 0 smgAA HT Soecifications Peek Spectnl Spectnl Site Amplification Site Ground Bedrock Bedrock Coefficients Desi&n A«eleration ci.ss A«eleration A«eleratlon A«eleration Coefficient PGA,(g) atO.lsec at 1.0 sec AJ,(g) S..(I) s,.(c) F,.. F, F, D 0.446 0.993 0.331 1.05 1.1 1.74 0.470 4.1.4 Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction occurs when saturated and relatively cohesionless soil deposits such as silts, sands, and fine gravels temporarily lose strength as a result of earthquake shaking. Primary factors controlling the development of liquefaction include intensity and duration of strong ground motion, characteristics of subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions and the depth to ground water. Potential effects of soil liquefaction include temporary loss of bearing capacity and lateral soil resistance, and liquefaction-induced settlement and deformations, with concomitant potential impacts on the proposed bridge and embankment fills. Based on the saturated loose nature of the alluvium noted below fill in BH-1 and BH-2, liquefaction shall be a design consideration for this project. 2010-100 T200 DR 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT Based on the Seed and Idriss (1971 ), and Ishihara and Yoshimine ( l 992), liquefaction for the loose alluvium/fill layer, 20 feet thick, below the road crust fill will liquefy during PGA=0.446g and a Mw=7.5 earthquake. 4.1.5 Ground Fault Hazard The Seattle and Tacoma Faults are probably the most serious earthquake threat to the populous Seattle-Tacoma area. Black River Bridge site is located between these faults. A 2005 study of bridge vulnerability estimated that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake on the Seattle Fault would damage approximately 80 bridges in the Seattle-Tacoma area, whereas a magnitude 9.0 subduction event would damage only around 87 bridges in all of Western Washington. The same study also found that with failure of just six bridges (the minimum damage from a BenioffM 6.5 event) there could be at least $3 billion lost in business revenue alone. Subsequent retrofitting by the Washington Department of Transportation and the City of Seattle would likely reduce damage to key bridges. 4.2 SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATIONS The proposed pedestrian bridge abutments are to be constructed above the top of the river bank slopes. The stability of these slopes was evaluated using limit-equilibrium methods utilizing the computer program SLIDE 5.0 (Rocscience, 2010). Limit equilibrium methods consider force (or moment) equilibrium along potential failure surfaces. Results are provided in terms of a factor of safety, which is computed as the ratio of the summation of the resisting forces to the summation of the driving forces. Where the factor of safety is less than 1.0, instability is predicted. With limit equilibrium, the shear strength available is assumed to mobilize at the same rate at all points along the failure surface. As a result, the factor of safety is constant over the entire failure surface. 4.2.1 Static Slope Stability Analyses The static factors of safety calculated along the Geologic Profile A-A', Figure 3, was evaluated with Spencer's method, Janbu's Simplified method, and Bishop's Simplified method with the observed condition at the site currently. The factor of safety of the slope at the southern abutment, under static loading, is approximately 1.3 and for the northern abutment is approximately 1.1, as shown on Figures C-1 and C-4 of Appendix C respectively. This analyses indicates that the factor of safety is slightly greater than unity which means that it is marginally stable under the static condition with the current condition of the slopes. 2010-100 T200 DR 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 DRAFT HWA Project No. 20 I 0-100 T200 4.2.2 Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analyses Geologic Profile A-A' was evaluated using pseudo-static methods to evaluate the response of the slope under earthquake loading prior to the onset of liquefaction. Spencer's, Janbu's Simplified, and Bishop's Simplified methods were used in this evaluation. Pseudo-static slope stability analysis model the anticipated earthquake loading as a constant horizontal force applied to the soil mass. For our analyses, we used a horizontal seismic coefficient of0.235g, which is one- half of the peak ground acceleration (PGA or As in Table 1 ). Pre-liquefaction strengths were used for all materials in this analysis. The results of these analyses indicate a factor of safety of approximately 0.65 and for the northern abutment is approximately 0.62, as shown in Figures C-2 and C-5 of Appendix C, respectively. This analyses indicates that slope instability is likely to occur during the design seismic event, prior to the onset of liquefaction. As a factor of safety less the 1.0 was calculated, we expect the existing slopes to undergo lateral spreading upon the onset of liquefaction. 4.2.3 Post Liquefaction Slope Stability Analyses Additional stability analysis were completed on the slopes depicted in Geologic Profile A-A' to determine the response of the slopes after the onset of liquefaction. The post liquefaction residual shear strengths for the liquefiable soils were used to model the anticipated loss of shear strength during a seismic event. The results of these analyses indicate a factor of safety of approximately 0.31 and 0.22, as shown in Figures C-3 and C-6 of Appendix C, respectively. As a factor of safety less the 1.0 was calculated, we expect the existing slopes to undergo lateral spreading upon the onset of liquefaction. 4.2.4 Lateral Spreading and Sliding Lateral spreading occurs cyclically when the horizontal ground accelerations combine with gravity to create driving forces which temporarily exceed the available strength of the soil mass. This is a type of failure known as cyclic mobility. The result of a lateral spreading failure is horizontal movement of the partially liquefied soils and any overlying crust of non-liquefied soils. We would expect displacements associated with lateral spreading to be on the order of several feet. Bartlett and Youd (1992) used a large data base oflateral spreading case histories and developed an empirical formula. According to the research, we calculated a yield acceleration (ay=0.2g) by means of a trial and error method for the existing bank slope (2H: 1 V) and Newmark's sliding block slope stability analyses. When an earthquake magnitude Mw=7 occurs, the estimated lateral spreading ranges from about 24 to 134 inches depending upon assumed epicenter distances, 60 km (Tacoma Fault) and 6 km (Seattle Fault) away, respectively. Although the results vary widely, the analyses demonstrate that large lateral spreading is a possibility. 2010-1001'200 DR 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 DRAFT HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 A summary of the anticipated factor of safety for global stability at the abutments are provided below in Table 2. T able 2. Global Stability Analyses Results Without GI T Factm-of SAfl!tv South Side Nordi$1de Static 1.3 1.1 Pseudo-Static 0.65 0.62 Post LiQuefaction 0.31 0.22 To mitigate these liquefiable soil conditions, we recommend that the proposed bridge be founded on driven piles that extend into the dense glacial till or bedrock at depth, and the strength of the slopes be increased by in-situ ground improvement techniques (GIT); namely vibrocompaction or stone columns. 4.2.5 GLOBAL STABILITY AITER GROUND IMPROVEMENT Static Slope Stability Analyses The static factors of safety calculated along the Geologic Profile A-A' were evaluated with Spencer's method, Janbu's Simplified method, and Bishop's Simplified method assuming ground improvement was performed. The factor of safety of the slope at the southern abutment, under static loading assuming GIT, is approximately 1.5 and for the northern abutment is approximately 1.4, as shown on Figures C-7 and C-9 of Appendix C, respectively. This analyses indicates that the factor of safety slightly increased after the application of GIT. Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Analyses Geologic Profile A-A' was evaluated using pseudo-static methods to evaluate the response of the slope under earthquake loading prior to the onset of liquefaction after the application of GIT. Spencer's, Janbu's Simplified, and Bishop's Simplified methods were used in this evaluation. Pseudo-static slope stability analysis model the anticipated earthquake loading as a constant horizontal force applied to the soil mass. For our analyses, we used a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.235g, which is one-half of the peak ground acceleration (PGA). Pre-liquefaction strengths were used for all materials in this analysis. 20I0-100T200DR 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 20 I 0-100 T200 DRAFT The results of these analyses indicate a factor of safety of approximately 0.84 and for the northern abutment is approximately 0.66, as shown in Figures C-8 and C-10 of Appendix C, respectively. This indicates that slope instability is likely during a seismic event, prior to the onset ofliquefaction. As a factor of safety less than 1.0 was calculated, we expect the GIT-treated slopes to undergo minor lateral spreading (non-catastrophic) upon the onset of liquefaction. The summary of the stability analyses is summarized in Table 3, below. Table 3. Global Stability Analyses Results after GIT Factor of Safety South Side North Side Static After GIT 1.5 1.4 Pseudo-Static After GIT 0.84 0.66 4.3 Ground Improvement Techniques (GIT) The bridge foundations should be designed to withstand liquefaction-induced lateral and down- drag loading as well as liquefaction-induced flow slide loading. To mitigate liquefaction conditions and densify the loose sand layer noted below the fill, vibrocompaction (VC) or stone columns (SC), which is sometimes called vibro-replacement, are considered. The process ofVC consists of first boring a hole by using air or water jetting with vibrating probe into the granular soils to the required improvement depth. Densification of the loose sand/silt is achieved by excitement applied to the soil at depth. To be effective, the soil should not have more than 15 percent fines. At BH-1, the soil has too much fines for this method to be effective. Also, the water jetting which will be necessary for the operation may not be acceptable due to environmental impacts. We recommend SC treatment for this site due to consideration of silt contents of the formation. The stone column method (SC) is a dry method (without injecting water) by which vertical columns are made of compacted aggregate extending through a deposit of loose soil, and result in increased shear resistance of the slope and relief of pore-water pressure during the design earthquake event. SCs are installed with a deep stone feed tube and with vibratory action of the probe forcing the aggregate radially into the loose soil zones, compacting the stone as well as any granular zones formed in the surrounding soil. Typical diameters of stone columns are 2 to 4 feet. The stone columns will provide dissipation of excess pore pressure during strong shaking and the treated soil layer will not liquefy. 2010-100 T200 DR 10 HWA GEOSCIENCES )NC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT As indicated in the previous sections of slope stability analyses, SC will not completely eliminate the slope instability problem during the design earthquake event, but it will prevent liquefaction of the loose alluvium layer, and thereby reduce lateral spreading (Bohn and Lambert, 2013). Consequently, SC will significantly improve the safety of the pedestrians on the bridge during the design earthquake event. At this site, the Medium Dense to Dense Fill at the surface is thick ranging from 8 to 18 feet, at the north and south bank, respectively. The stone column feed tube may not be able to penetrate the Fill layer to reach the Loose Alluvium layer which needs to be treated. Therefore, we recommend that the surface crust (Fill) be predrilled to insert the stone column tube. The existing slope is armored with riprap stones which shall be removed also prior to inserting the stone column tube. The cost associated with predrilling, removal and restoration ofriprap on the slopes shall be included for estimating the cost of the project. The areas of stone column treatment at both river banks shall include a SO-foot wide centered on the bridge centerline. The first row of treatment shall start from 5 feet away from the shoreline, with subsequent rows progressing up slope to 20 feet beyond the pile cap. The stone column spacing shall be 8 feet on center with a triangular pattern. The contractor shall allow the ground a sufficient time for dissipating excess pore pressures due to vibratory SC operations. If sufficient time is not allowed for pore pressure dissipation, slides can occur during SC treatment. It is the contractor's responsibility to ensure slides do not happen. This treatment shall occur in the dry summer months to take advantage of low water level. The treatment depths shall be down to EL 0 and EL -10 at the north and south banks, respectively. Loose Alluvium thickness to receive SC is about 20 feet, to depths of approximately 30 feet (north side) to 40 feet (south side). 4.4 Ground Improvement Verification Tests After the SC treatment, the soils between stone columns shall be tested with 3 test borings at each side of the river to verify the degrees of densification in terms of relative density, Dr(%). The minimum density shall be greater than 50 percent after stone column treatment. The verification test results shall be documented by means of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values and the geotechnical engineer of record shall evaluate the soil density improvement. 4.5 BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS Very dense glacial soils or bedrock was encountered below the alluvium in our borings. We recommend driven steel pipe piles (14-inch diameter) with closed ends be used to support the proposed pedestrian bridge. The slope stability analyses as shown on Appendix C indicate that even after the treatment with SC, the slope stability is still not satisfactory under the design level earthquake. However, it is 20!0-IOO T200 DR II HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 DRAFT HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 our opinion that shallow foundations shall not be used and, instead, pile foundations should be used for the bridge. This is to render a minimum support to safeguard pedestrians on the bridge during the design earthquake event. Pile foundations should be driven prior to the SC treatment to avoid interferences with stone column locations. When the pile foundations combined with stone columns are used for this bridge support, the probability of catastrophic bridge failure and human life fatalities will be significantly small. 4.5.1 Axial Loading Foundation design requirements provided by Parametrix are presented in Table 4. T bl 4 F d f R tti Nrth dS thAb a e ouu a ion eqmremen s or 0 an OU utmen s Approximate Maximum Ground Scour Preliminary Axial Loads (kips) Span Type Elevation Elevation Service 1, Strength I, Extreme I, (feet) (feet) kips kips kips Concrete 30 NA 229 317 209 Steel Truss 30 NA 135 200 91 4.5.2 Down Drag Loading During and after the ground is liquefied, the soils above the liquefied soil layer (loose Sand zone in our case) will tend to drag down the pile by mobilizing skin frictional forces. Such loading is called Down Drag and it can be calculated for during and after the design earthquake event. The fill and the loose sand layer will drag down as the ground settles. The residual angle of 5 degrees was assumed to act on the pile shaft. Assuming 14-inch steel pipe piles, the down drag loading including a 1.25 load factor is calculated to be 52 kips. When the area is treated with ground improvement, the down drag loading shall be ignored. This loading can be ignored, if SC treatment is applied. 4.6 Axial Resistance for Pile Design. The nominal end-bearing and skin frictional shaft resistances are calculated and presented in Table 5. The nominal capacity is sometimes called 'Ultimate Capacity'. 20!0-100 T200 DR 12 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 DRAFT HWA Project No. 20 I 0-100 T200 Table 5. Nominal Axial Resistance for 14 inch Diameter Steel Pipe Piles Nominal Axial North Bank, South Bank, resistances, SPT, Meyerhof method kips kips Rp, end bearing 1099 1282 resistance, kips Rs, side frictional 57 110 resistance, kips Nominal Resistance 1156 1393 Rn=Rp + Rs Resistance factor for the service and extreme cases is unity (I). 4.6.1 Uplift Resistance During and After Earthquake Resistance factor, <pstat 0.3 0.3 0.3 The net uplift resistances are tabulated in Table 6. Frictional resistance from Fill and Loose Alluvium layers during the design earthquake is ignored, because the magnitude of the uplift skin friction is relatively small. Table 6. Net Uplift Capacities, 14 inch Steel Pipe Pile North Bank, kips South Bank, kips Resistance factor, <pup Net Uplift 208 330 0.25 resistances, Rn 4.6.2 Summary of Resistance Factors All capacities tabulated above for single piles are assumed to be positioned with their spacings greater than 3 diameters. If pile spacings are less than 3 diameters, the nominal capacities will need to be reduced to account for group interaction effects. 2010-100 T200 DR 13 HWA GEOSClENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT For the strength limit state design, resistance factors of 0.3 for skin frictional resistance and 0.3 for tip resistance, are recommended. For uplift, the resistance factor of 0.25 should be used. For the extreme and service limit states, we recommend resistance factors of 1.0 and 1.0 for skin resistance and tip resistance, respectively. Our calculations indicate that for the service loads indicated, total pile settlements will be less than one percent (0.5%) of the pile diameter. An acceptable service load settlement (e.g., I inch) will be used for the design. Once the piles are driven to driving refusal and the tips have reached the bearing layers (till or bedrock), the settlement of the piles will be very close to the compression of structural element, i.e., the pile shaft elastic compression at this site. 4.7 Laterally Loaded Driven Piles We understand that lateral loads on the shafts will be evaluated using the computer program LPILE (Ensoft, 2002). This program is based on the p-y method (Reese 1984), which was originally developed for slender piles that tend to bend and deflect when subjected to lateral loads and bending moments. We recommend the design parameters presented in Table 7 for lateral analyses with LPILE. Because the loose sandy silts and silty sands are considered susceptible to soil liquefaction, design parameters for static and cyclic loading conditions (during and post-liquefaction) are presented in the table below. Table 7. Recommended Parameters (N & S banks) for Use in LPILE Analyses For Static and Seismic Pre-Liquefaction Modul•s of Horiz.. Effectivt Unit Fridion Angle + Apparut Subgrade Soil Typt Wt'ighty• (degrus) Cohesion t (psf) 6!8(9/•) RHction,k per degrees pd pci Topfill 130 36 0 125 -- Loose 48 28 0 20 Sandy Silt MD Sand 60 36 0 60 -- Glacial Till or Bedrock 80 45 0 4000 -- 2010-100 T200 DR 14 HWA GEOSClENCES )NC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT For During Liquefaction Modulus ofHoriz. Effective Unit Friction Angle + Appareat Weighty' (dqrns) Cobesioa c (psf) Sat.grade Soil Type Reaction. k &!e("lo) pd degrees psr pri Top Fill 130 36 0 125 -- Loose 48 Sandy Silt 0 0 0 MD Sand 60 36 0 125 -- Glacial Till 80 45 or Bedrock 0 4000 -- For Post-Liquefaction Mod•lus of Horiz. Eff'ertive Unit Apparent Friction Angk + Subgrade Soll Type Weighty' Cobtsion c &so(•!.) Readion, k per dcgrtts psf pd Top Fill 130 36 0 125 -- Loose 48 Sandy Silt 5 ** residual 0 2** residual MDtoD Sand 60 34 0 125 -- Glacial Till 80 or Bedrock 45 0 4000 -- • *Brandenberg et al (2007), herein adopted I 0% p-multiplier, mp for post liquefaction, ( I 0% of Static k), also per FHWA-NHI-10-016, May 2010, pp 12-61and WSDOT GDM Fig 6-16. For Static and Seismic Conditions after Stone Column Treatment Modulus of Horiz. EffediveUnit Frictioa Angle + Appal't'nt Weighty' Co•esion c (psf) S•hf:rade Soil Type (degrees) £90(%) Readioa, k pd degrees psf pel Top Fill 130 36 0 125 -- Loose 58 Sandy Silt 32 0 55 20IO-IOO T200 DR 15 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 DRAFT HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 MD Sand 60 36 0 60 -· Glacial Till 80 or Bedrock 45 0 4000 -· 4.8 DRIVEN STEEL PIPE PILE INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Piles shall be driven with a minimum hammer energy 35,000 to 45,000 ft-lb rated energy. The tip shall be driven down to glacial till or bedrock; at BH-1 EL -35' and at BH-2, EL -60'. The pile driving shall be witnessed and inspected by the geotechnical engineer of the record. The contractor shall submit the pile driving hammer Model Numbers with its specifications two week prior to the initiation of driving. Piles should be driven to a required minimum penetration so that they bear in dense to very dense soil, and to the penetration resistance required to achieve a net bearing capacity equal to twice the allowable load, as determined by the Wave Equation analysis of pile driving. All piles shall be driven to meet practical refusal, i.e., typically about 10 blows per inch. This analysis should be performed after the pile lengths, pile-driving hammer, cushion, and pile capblock have been selected by the contractor. 4.9 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS AND WING WALLS 4.9.1 Lateral Earth Pressures -Static Condition Lateral earth pressures used for design of bridge abutments under static loading conditions should be equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 55 pcf, assuming tops of the abutments are restrained from lateral movement. An equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf should be utilized if the tops are free to rotate (active case). The above recommendations assume properly compacted, well-drained granular fill adjacent to the abutments. Traffic surcharge loads should also be included in the abutment design. Lateral loads at bridge abutments can be resisted by passive resistance of buried structural elements. However, the passive resistance of soil or structural fill above design scour elevation should not be included in design. In this project, scour will not affect the lateral resistance. If the abutment vertical loads are to be carried by deep foundations, frictional resistance along the base of the abutments should not be included in calculating resistance to lateral loads. Passive resistance may be evaluated using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pcffor structural elements cast neat against undisturbed existing Fill (it is considered to be a structural fill) near the ground surface and the upper two feet shall be ignored for the passive resistances. We recommend a passive pressure resistance factor, cl>er, of 0.45 be used in design for the strength limit state. For the extreme event limit state, the corresponding factor should be 1.0. The passive 2010-100 T200 DR 16 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 DRAFT HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 resistance value assumes the existing structural Fill extends laterally beyond the structural clement for a distance equivalent to at least twice the height of the element. If the soils do not extend the required lateral distance, we recommend the passive resistance be ignored when evaluating lateral restraint. In addition, structural elements will need to be able to move sufficiently to generate the full passive resistance. The lateral movement required to generate 100 percent of the passive pressure is a function of the type of soil bearing against the footing and the thickness of the footing. We estimate structural elements founded against undisturbed structural fill would need to move laterally a distance of0.02H, to generate 100 p;rcent of the passive pressure, where H represents the height of the structural element. The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications state that surveys of the performance of bridges indicate that horizontal abutment movement less than 1.5 inches can usually be tolerated by bridge superstructures without significant damage. It appears therefore that, for abutments with heights not exceeding 6.25 feet, full passive resistance can be mobilized by allowing the abutment to move laterally the distance equal to 0.02H. For abutments higher than 6.25 feet, linear interpolation should be used to estimate the passive pressure contribution if lateral movement is limited to 1.5 inches, or less than the 2 percent of the abutment height required to mobilize the full force. The recommended design parameters presented above assume level ground surface at the top and base of the abutment walls. The above values for passive pressure do not incorporate a factor of safety. Suitable factors of safety should be incorporated in evaluating lateral resistance of bridge abutments. 4.9.2 Lateral Earth Pressures during Seismic Loading During a seismic event, active earth pressure acting on bridge abutments will increase by an incremental amount that corresponds to the earthquake loading. To determine the increase in lateral earth pressure under seismic loading, the Mononobe-Okabc analysis was utilized, as formulated by Richards and Elms (1992). For use in design of abutment walls with level backfill under seismic conditions, a uniform, rectangularly distributed, seismic pressure of 20H psf, where H equals the height of the abutment wall in feet, should be used in place of the active em1h pressure recommended in Section 4.9.1. Lateral loads applied to the bridge structure under seismic loading may be partially resisted by passive pressure of soils adjacent to abutment walls. Properly compacted fill shall be placed against the sides of abutment walls and pile caps or footings, and the ultimate passive earth pressure resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid weighing 450 pcf. The full passive resistance will only be mobilized if the wall moves laterally a sufficient distance. The above values assume level ground sutface at the top and base of the abutment wall under consideration. Passive pressure resistance factors, ~ep, of0.45 and 1.0 should be used as applicable in design for the strength limit and extreme event limit states, respectively. However, 2010-100 T200 DR 17 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 20 I 0-100 T200 DRAFT we recommend the passive resistance shall be ignored for the design, unless a sufficient inspection is achieved to make sure that all soils are compacted at the toe of walls. 4.9.3 Abutment Wall Backfill Abutment wall design and construction should be in accordance with applicable WSDOT Standards. Wall backfill materials should consist of Gravel Baclifillfor Walls (WSDOT 9- 03.12(2)), or Gravel Borrow (WSDOT 9-03.14), as described in the WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2014). Placement and compaction of fill behind walls shall be in accordance with WSDOT 2-09.3(1) E, with the exception that the compaction standard referenced in Section 2-03.3(14) D should be Modified Proctor, ASTM D 1557. Wall drainage systems should also be designed and constructed in accordance with the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Provisions for permanent control of subsurface water should at a minimum consist ofa perforated drain pipe behind and at the base of the wall, embedded in clean, free-draining sand and gravel. The base of the drain pipe should be a minimum of 12 inches below the base of the adjacent ground surface at the toe of the wall. The drain pipe should be graded to direct water away from backfill and subgrade soils and to a suitable outlet. 4.10 SPREAD FOOTING BEARING CAPACITY ON EXISTING DENSE FILL Shallow strip and square footings supporting bridge approach fills on level ground can be designed with the net bearing capacity (qnet) of 5,000 psf and on the sloped ground (2H:IH) 2000 psfwith a 3 feet minimum embedment depth. A resistance factor, c:pstat =0.5, shall be applied for the design. The footing settlement under the load will be less than one inch. The minimum depths of the footings should not be less than 18 inches below ground surface. The footing bottom shall be compacted to the densities as specified in Section 4.12. The resistance factor for the extreme and service cases is one. 4.11 SLIDING RESISTANCE ON EXISTING FILL FOR CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE FOOTINGS Friction on compacted fill or the existing Fill at the base of the footing shall be 0.4. Resistance Factor c:p, =0.8 shall be used. The resistance factor for the extreme and service cases is one. 4.12 STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIALS AND COMPACTION In our opinion, the existing fill on site will be suitable for use as structural fill, providing it is isolated of any fine-grained (silt and clay) or organic rich material. In addition, cobbles and boulders should be screened out of native site soil to be re-used as structural fill. If required, imported structural fill should consist of relatively clean, free draining, sand and gravel conforming to the Gravel Borrow specification, Section 9-03.14 (Gravel Borrow) of the 2014 WSDOT Standard Specifications. If earthwork is performed during extended periods of 2010-1001200 DR 18 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT wet weather or in wet conditions, the structural fill should conform to the recommendations provided in the Wet Weather Earthwork section following. In general, the backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a dense and unyielding condition, and at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by test method described in Section 2-03.3(14)0 of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications. The thickness of loose lifts should not exceed 8 inches for heavy equipment compactors and 4 inches for hand operated compactors. The procedure to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on the size and type of compaction equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being compacted, and on soil moisture-density properties. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness, and the adequacy of the subgrade preparation and materials compaction, be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant during construction. A sufficient number of in-place density tests should be performed as the fill is being placed to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. 4.13 WET WEATHER EARTHWORK The on-site fill is considered moderately moisture sensitive and may be difficult to traverse with construction equipment during periods of wet weather or wet conditions. Furthermore, the near- surface soils may be difficult to compact if their moisture content significantly exceeds the optimum. General recommendations relative to earthwork performed in wet weather or in wet conditions are presented below. • Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soil should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean structural fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe to minimize subgrade disturbance that may be caused by equipment traffic. • Material used as structural fill should consist of clean granular soil with less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, based on wet sieving the fraction passing the %-inch sieve. The fine-grained portion of the structural fill soils should be non-plastic. • The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water. 2010-100 T200 DR 19 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. February 24, 2015 DRAFT HWA Project No. 20 I 0-100 T200 • The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, and under no circumstances should soil be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. • Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be performed under the full-time observation ofa representative of the geotechnical engineer, to determine that the work is being accomplished in accordance with the project specifications and the recommendations contained herein. • Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be strategically located to control erosion and the movement of soil. 4.14 EMBANKMENT SLOPES We recommend that the planned compacted fill slopes or bank slopes be constructed/restored to no steeper than 2H:l V (horizontal:vertical). For fill slopes constructed at 2H:1V or flatter, and comprised of fill soils placed and compacted as structural fill as described above, we anticipate that adequate factors of safety against global failure will be maintained. Measures should be taken to prevent surficial instability and/or erosion of embankment material. This can be accomplished by conscientious compaction of the embankment fills all the way out to the slope face, by maintaining adequate drainage, and planting the disturbed slope face with vegetation as soon as possible after construction. To achieve the specified relative compaction at the slope face, it may be necessary to overbuild the slopes several feet, and then trim back to design finish grade. In our experience, compaction of slope faces by "track-walking" is generally ineffective and is, therefore, not recommended. Even after the SC treatment on the banks, riprap rocks shall be installed from the toe level of the slopes to the design flood level in the river. The riprap rocks removed from the slopes can be re- used. Riprap rocks (18" minus in diameter) meeting WSDOT 9-13 and 9-13.4(2) shall be underlain by a 12 inch layer of 4 inch minus Quarry Spalls, per WSDOT 9-03.6. lfripraps is not allowed by the agencies, bioengineered erosion protection shall be incorporated into the slope restoration, which is beyond our current scope of work. 4.15 SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION 4.15.1 Surface Water Control Surface runoff can be controlled during construction by careful grading practices. Typically, these include the construction of shallow, upgrade, perimeter ditches or low earthen berms and the use of temporary sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from damaging exposed subgrades. Also, measures should be taken to avoid ponding of surface water during construction. 2010-100 T200 DR 20 HWA GEOSCJENCES INC. February 24, 20 l 5 DRAFT HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 Permanent control of surface water should be incorporated in the final grading design. Adequate surface gradients and drainage systems should be incorporated into the design such that surface runoff is directed away from structures and pavements and into swales or other controlled drainage devices. 4.15.2 Erosion Control In our opinion, erosion at the site during construction can be minimized by implementing the recommendations presented in Wet Weather Earthwork, Section 4.13, and by judicious use of straw bales, silt fences and plastic sheets. The erosion control devices should be in place and remain in place throughout site preparation and construction. Potential problems associated with erosion may also be minimized by establishing vegetation within disturbed areas immediately following grading operations. Vegetation with deep penetrating roots is the preferred choice, since the roots tend to maintain the surficial stability of slopes by mechanical effects and contribute to the drying of slopes by evapotranspiration. 5. CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Parametrix, Inc. and King County in design of a portion of this project. The report and any other applicable geotechnical data should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that subsurface soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between the submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions have changed due to construction operations at or near the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse. This report is issued with the understanding that the information and recommendations contained herein will be brought to the attention of the appropriate design team personnel and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and the necessary steps will be taken to verify that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA attempted to execute these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology in the area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental 201().100T200 DR 21 HWA GEOSCJENCES INC. February 24, 2015 HWA Project No. 2010-100 T200 DRAFT assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous substances in the soil, or surface water at this site. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein unsafe. --------0•0--------- We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Should you have any questions or comments, or ifwe may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Brad W. Thurber, L.G, L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist 2010-100 noo DR 22 Sa H. Hong, P .E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer HWA GEOSCJENCES INC. DRAFT 6. REFERENCES AASHTO, 2013, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Third Edition. Bartlett, S.F., Youd, T.L., 1992, Empirical analysis of horizontal ground displacement generated by liquefaction-induced lateral spread, Tech report NCEER-92-0021. Bohn Cecilia and Lambert Serge, 2013, Case Studies of Stone Columns Improvement in Seismic Areas, 3«1 Conference, Maghrebine en Engenierie Geotechnique. Brandenberg et al, 2011, Recommended Design Practice for Pile Foundations in Laterally Spreading Ground, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. EERI and Washington Military Dept. -Emergency Management Division, 2005, Scenario for a Magnitude 6. 7 Earthquake on the Seattle Fault. Ensoft, Inc (2002), Documentation of Computer Program LP/LE. Gower, H. D., J.C. Yount and R.S. Crosson, 1985, Seismotectonic Map of the Puget Sound Region, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1- 1613. Hall, J .8. and K.L. 0th berg, 1974, Thickness of Unconsolidated Sediments, Puget Lowland, Washington, State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W., 2007, SPT and CPT based relationships for the residual shear strength of liquefied soils, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Proc., 4th International Conf. on Earthq. Geotech. Engineering. Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits following Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Vol 15, No. I, pp 29-44. Kramer, S.L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall. McCrumb, D., et al., 1989, Tectonics, Seismicity, and Engineering Seismology in Washington, Engineering Geology in Washington, Vol. I, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 78. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I. M. 1971, Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 23 DRAFT U.S. Geological Survey, 1996, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2011, Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM), M 46-03.06. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2014, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. s, ;.~ s 13.s,ns, . ,,. J Black Rivel" Rip; /~rest !fl9.Wet J NORTH NOTTO SCALE BASE MAP FROM GOOGLE MAPS-DATA MAP © 2015 D~ I HWA GEOSClENCES INC VICINITY MAP FIGURE "°1 t---------B-LA~C~K~R~l~V~E~R=B~R~ID_G_E--------1 LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO 2010-100 T200 -'4. ""-""· ---8,----..... = = -. -· -. -·--.. _:..,_ ---- I .o ;:, fa ,... . ... .,. l l . DRAFT j·· \ . I .4+00 ...... _-. ·'· .... . --..:...J.-.:...,,~· .· ·+-· .·· 1.·.· ...... ~.-.. -.. -. -·.·1· .·· .. ~1~ PLAN A South f-"':.::' -j ..,_--------1l4'Pedeslrianllridge ---------< !11LEGEND I i BOREHCUOESIGN-.TION +Bl.0Wrotm WA"TERLFvEt.ATTIMEOF ""1UING " IlffRRED GEOUJGIC oo,m,::r 5 BOTTOM r,""""' GLAOAL TILL 21- ,,.j,, SOJ•· The subsurface conditions shown are based on wldely spaced borings artd/or test pits and should be considered approximate. Fu"ther, lhe contact lines SOOM1 between ooits are interpretive In nature and may vary~ or wrtlcaDy OYel" relatiYely short distances on site. Black River --~ --AUWMI PROFILE 3io 38J 390 ,«I() 'liO .. 20 U) DISTANCEJNFEET om I HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. "J'.,f .. rLL -..... 1--? 71-t SM GLACIAi. TILL ? ? BLACK RNER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WASHINGTON BEDROCK 1/l Scale: 1~=20' H/V= 1:1 PLAN AND PROFILE North A' 40 .,= ~. fr c:::,' 21 DRAFT APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION DRAFT APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Two geotechnical borings were drilled for the proposed Black River Bridge, on November I 0, 2014 and January 6, 2015. These borings were designated BH-1 and BH-2, and were drilled at the top of the river banks in the general centerline of the proposed bridge alignment. The borings were drilled to maximum depths ranging from 61 to 86.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The exploration locations were located in the field by taping distances from known site features and plotted. The locations of the borings are indicated on Figures 2 and 3. The borings were drilled by Holocene Drilling, Inc. of Puyallup, Washington, under subcontract to HWA Geosciences Inc. The borings were advanced using a track-mounted, Dietrich D50 drill rig equipped with hollow stem augers. Each of the explorations was completed under the full- time supervision and observation ofan HWA geologist. Soil samples were collected at 2.5-to 5-foot intervals using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) methods in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. SPT sampling consisted of using a 2-inch outside diameter, split-spoon sampler driven with a 140-pound drop hammer using a rope and cathead. During the test, a sample is obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with the hammer free-falling 30 inches per blow. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration is recorded. The Standard Penetration Resistance (''N-value") of the soil is calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N- value, provides an indication of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. HWA personnel recorded pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and ground water occurrence. Soils were classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-I, which also provides a key to the exploration log symbols. Representative soil samples were taken to our laboratory for further examination. The summary logs of boreholes are presented on Figures A-2 and A-3. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. Moreover, the soil and ground water conditions depicted are only for the specific locations and dates reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. 20!0-100 T200 DR A-I HWA GEOSCJENCES INC. RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE Density Very Loose LOO% Med1umDensti Dense Very Derise Coarse Grained Soils Mo,athan 50%Re\ained oo No 200Sievt1 Size Fine Grained S011s 50%orMore Passing No.200S1eve S1ze COHESIONLESS SOILS HJ ~ lLlciHIStVE SOlLS .a.~~ ... Approximate N(blows/ft) Approximate Consistency N (blows/ft) Undrained Shear Relative Density(%) Strength(psf) 0 to 4 0 15 VerySof1 0 to 2 <250 4 to 10 15 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 500 10 to 30 35 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 1000 30 to 50 65 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 2000 over50 85 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 4000 Hard over30 >4000 uses SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS Grav~and Gravelly Soils More than 50%ofCoarse Frnction Retained onNo.4S1eve Sand arid Sandy Soils 50%orMore of Coarse Frac~on Passing No 4 Sieve Silt '"' Clay S11t '"' Clay H1ghlyOrgarncS01ls Clean Gravel (little or no fines) Gravel with Fines(appreciabla amount of fines) Clean Sand (llttleornofines) Sand with F1nas(appreciable amount of fines) Uqu1dL1m1t Lesslhan50% Liquid limit 50%orMore GROUP DESCRIPTIONS •ii GW Well-graded GRAVEL : (y GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL ~lrt; GM Silty GRAVEL ~ GC Clayey GRAVEL ~::::: SW Well-graded SAND I\\/ SP Poorly-graded SAND I\Lt. SM Silty SAND ~'. SC Clayey SAND 111 ML SILT ~ CL Lean CLAY == QL OrgarncSILT/OrganicCLAY lil1I MH Elast1cSILT ~-C-H--'--F-at_C_LA_Y ____ ------' ~OH Organic SIL T/Orgarnc CLAY -PT PEAT TEST SYMBOLS %F Percent Fines AL Atterberg L1m1ts PL = Plastic Limit LL = Liquid Limit CBR CN DD OS GS MD MR PIO pp SG TC TV UC CJ I B 0 ~ [] 0 Cal1fom1a Bearing Ratio Consohdat1on DryDensity(pcf) Direct Shear Grain Size D1stnbution Permeability Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor) Res111ent Modulus Photoionizatton Device Reading Packet Penetrometer Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf) Specific Gravity Triaxial Compression Torvane Approx. Shear Strength (tsf) Unconfined Compression SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS 2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) (140 lb. harlYller with 30 in. drop) Shelby Tube 3-1/4" OD Splrt Spoon with Brass Rings Small Bag Sample Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Core Run Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0" OD split spoon) GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS Groundwater Level (measured at time of drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS COMPONENT Boulders Cobbles Gravel Coarse gravel Fine gravel Sand SIZE RANGE Largerthan121n 3mto 12m 3mtoNo4(4.5mm) 3mlo314in 3/4 m to No 4 (4.5mm) No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS <5% Clean 5-12% Slightly (Clayey, Silty, Sandy) 12-30% Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly 30-50% Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly) Coarse sand Medium sand Fmesand Silt and Clay No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) No. 40 (0.42 mm} to No 200 (0.074 mm) Smaller1han No. 200 (0.074mm) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities. NOTES: 8011 dassificat1ons presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation. Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order Density/consistency, COior, modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (if any), moisture content. ProportlOrl, gradation, and angularity of constituents, additional comments (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more complete description of subsurface conditions. -HWAGEoSCIENCEs INC Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington MOISTURE CONTENT DRY MOIST WET Absence of moisture. dusty, dry to the touch. Dampbutnovis1blewater Visiblefreewater,usually s01lisbelowwatertable LEGEND OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION LOGS PROJECTNO.c 2010-100-200 FIGURE: LEGEND 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 A-1 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich 0-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: $PT Aulohammer DRAFT SURFACE ELEVATION: 26.50 :t feet DESCRIPTION o-~rcr~r-cc-c-------,-------,---~~~~~---,------,---~ I.:. SM Medium dense, gray, silty to slightly silty, fine SAND, moist 5- 10- 15- 20- 25- Blocky texture, light brown at surface, trace organics and i::::[·:: (:: burnt wood bits. (FIU_) ML Medium dense, dark grayish brown, sandy SILT, moist. ML Very loose to medium dense, gray, fine sandy SILT, moist to wet. Trace organic bits and layers, some laminar bedding. (ALLUVIUM) Blow counts are weight of hammer only. Sample is wet at tip of sample. Ground water seepage was observed at 13.5 feet below ground surface. Abundant organics in sample. Laminar layers or organics. ·-w----------------------- < i'.'. Lots of heave encountered, 4-5 feet cleaned out of auger. Loose, grayish brown, silty, fine SAND, wet. ~S-1 ~ S-2 ~ S-3 ~ S-4 ~ S-5 ~ S-6 ~S-7 ~ S-8 I l 6-9-10 9-9-8 4-5-5 2-2-3 0-0-0 1-0-1 0-0-0 1-1-1 1-2-2 30- No recovery of sample. 0s-10 3-s-10 35-H'f.tc=t-:-:cc::---c-,:-------::,----:;---;:--;-------:==-----, ·:. SM Medium dense, gray, silty, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, V,s-11 6-10-10 1:,1·-.:·. I . ,,_ •.. wet Wood bits and organics observed. t,J (ALLUVIUM) 40-~~-~---------------~ ~ w >- ffi I b GS GS GS GS GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration tog should be read in conjunction with the text of the NOTE:9i-igtl~;~,~~i~iJ~~~~mions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times and/or locations Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington LOCATION. See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 11/10/2014 DATE COMPLETED: 11/10/2014 LOGGED BY. D. Coltrane Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot Water Content(%) Plastic Limit t------+---, Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: BH-1 PAGE: 1 of 2 PROJECT NO., 2010-100-200 FIGURE: BORING 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20115 A-2 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: SPT Autohammer DRAFT SURFACE ELEVATION: 26.50 i feet ~ J: 0 ~r; "' :, >-c~ "' 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 "' "' :'i () ~ ~ "' i;l :::, DESCRIPTION Medium dense to very dense, light brown, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse SAND, wet. Angular gravel and sands, blocky texture. (GLACIAL TILL) Bluish gray, moderately weak, highly weathered, fractured, basalt. Speckled coloring. (WEATHERED BEDROCK) Bluish gray, moderately strong, moderately weathered, fractured, BASALT. Speckled coloring. (TUKWILA FORMATION) Boring was terminated at 61 feet below surface in bedrock. Ground water seepage was observed at 13.5 feet below ground surface. ~ w () Z-w <(. a. :, I-. i:: :::, ~TI z en.;: w w ~ ~ ~, a. :, :, ~~ <( <( "' "' ~S-12 9-7-16 ~S-13 12-27-44 ~S-14 26-13-15 ~ S-16 50-5012" ~ "' I" "' w J: ti GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the NOTE:9r~~tl:;~f~~~~Ja~~~ditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. -HWAGEoSclENCES INC Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 11/10/2014 DATE COMPLETED: 11/10/2014 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane "' Standard Penetration Test w i 0 z :::, 0 "' "' (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit f----+--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: BH-1 PAGE: 2 of 2 PROJECTNO, 2010-100-200 FIGURE: BORING 2010-100-200.GPJ 2120115 J: t. ~~ 50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 100 A-2 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: SPT Autohammer DRAFT SURFACE ELEVATION. 29.00 :t: feet ~ 0 "' " in 20 25 30 35 40 "' "' :'i u ~ i5 "' "' u "' :, DESCRIPTION Grass at surface. Dense, light brown, shghtly silty, slightly gravelly, SAND, moist. Broken gravels and concrete. (FILI.) . ML ··. SM Medium dense, gray, slightly gravelly, very sandy SILT, moist. Wood bits observed. Loose, gray and brown, interbedded fine to medium SAND with SJL T layers, moist to wet. Ground water s~~pa~.e _o~se~~d a_t 19.0 feet du~ing drilling. Loose, gray, slightly silty SAND, wet. Initial 6-inch blow count 1s from chunk or rubber in sampler. Loose, gray, sandy, fine GRAVEL, wet. (ALLUVIUM) Loose, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, wet. " w w u w "' Z- " <( • Q._ t-0 ~ :, ~~ z rn.E w w cC cC ~~ " " ~! ~ ~ QS-1 20-18-19 Q S-2 9-12-15 QS-3 4-5-7 QS-4 5-10-10 Q S-5 3-6-6 ~ S-6 5-7-8 Q S-7 2-2-2 Q S-8 30-1-2 Q S-9 1-2-4 ~S-10 3-3-3 QS-11 4-3-3 "' t-:z t- " w :i: 0 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the NOTE: 9rt~tl:n~~~~~Ja~~~~litions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. -HWAGEoSclENCEs INC Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 1/6/2015 DATE COMPLETED. 11612015 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane " w ~ ~ !E :, 0 " '-' ¥- • . ... Standard Penetration Test {140 lb. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 • Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1-----e---t Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: BH-2 PAGE: 1 of 3 PROJECT NO., 2010-100-200 EIGI/RE· BORING 2010-100-200 GPJ 2120115 20 25 30 35 40 A-3 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: SPT Autohammer DRAFT SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.00 :t: feet "' "' '.'i " .., 0 g "' "' " ~ >-<I) :, 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 DESCRIPTION Dense, gray, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, wet. Broken gravels in sampler. Medium dense, black, fine to medium SAND, wet. Bits of wood noted in samples. No sample recovery, shells noted in cuttings. Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, wet. Shells observed. Poor recovery; broken gravel. Dense, gray, slightly sandy, gravelly, Sil T, wet. Broken gravels in sampler. (GLACIAL TILL) O'. w w " w "' z-" . ~ " I-• :, ~"5 z (I)-= w w ~, ~ ~ " " ~! " " <I) <I) ~S-12 6-16-19 ~S-13 4-8-11 ~S-14 2-11-10 ~S-15 7-10-11 ~S-16 6-10-13 ~S-17 6-20-19 ~S-18 9-11-20 "' I-"' w I- ffi I I- 0 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the NOTE: 9ri~t:g~f~~'f!~Ja~~~~~Htions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. -HWAGEoSCIENCFS INC Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 1/6/2015 DATE COMPLETED: 1/612015 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane O'. w I- i z :, 0 O'. '-' Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot Water Content (%) Plastic limit 1--------e-----liquid limit Natural Water Content BORING: BH-2 PAGE: 2 of 3 PROJECTNO., 2010-100-200 FIGURE, BORING 2010-10().200.GPJ 2/20/15 :c ii:-~j 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 A-3 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diedrich D-50 track rig with HSA SAMPLING METHOD: SPT Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 29.00 :i: feet DRAFT 0 <D " >-"' 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 "' "' '.I () 6 "' "' () "' :, DESCRIPTION Becomes medium dense, broken gravel in sampler. Very dense, gray, sandy, gravelly SILT, wet. Most likely driven on boulder. Bonng terminated at 86.5 feet below ground surface due to refusal. Ground water seepage was observed at 19 feet below ground surface dunng the exploration. C: w w () <D Z-w <( • D. " f-• ~ :, ~"5 z r/)_!: w w ~~ o' o' " " ~l <( <( "' "' ~S-19 12-13-17 l:8Js-20 5014" "' f-IB f- C: w l: .... 0 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the NOTE:9r1i~tl~;~f~~~~Ja~~~~ditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. -HWAGEoSclENcEs INC Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATE STARTED· 11612015 DATE COMPLETED: 1/6/2015 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane C: Standard Penetration Test w f-<( ,: Cl z :, 0 C: 0 {140 lb. weight. 30" drop} A Blows per foot 20 40 60 BO Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1--------e----1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: BH-2 PAGE: 3 of 3 PROJECT NO., 2010-100-200 FIGLJRE: BORING 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 l: .... ~j 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 100 A-3 DRAFT APPENDIXB LABO RA TORY INVESTIGATION DRAFT APPENDIXB LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to characterize relevant engineering and index properties of the site soils. Because of the predominantly coarse- grained nature of the encountered soils, the collected and tested samples should not be considered representative of the existing soils. For the same reason, only a limited number of laboratory tests could be performed on the obtained soil samples. HWA personnel performed laboratory tests in general accordance with appropriate ASTM test methods. We tested selected soil samples to determine moisture content and grain-size distribution. The test procedures and results are briefly discussed below. Moisture Content Laboratory tests were conducted to determine the moisture content of selected soil samples, in general accordance with ASTM D-2216. Test results are indicated at the sampled intervals on the appropriate boring logs in Appendix A. Grain Size Analysis The grain size distributions of selected soil samples were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 422. Grain size distribution curves for the tested samples are presented on Figures B-1 through B-4. 2010-100 T200 DR B-1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. DRAFT GRAVEL SAND Coarse ! Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-1 /2" , 5/8" 318" 1- J: C) iii s: >-Ill a:: w z u:: 1-z w 0 a:: w a. SYMBOL • • " 100 II 90 I' BO 70 Ii 60 Ir 50 II 40 I' 30 20 10 Ii 50 SAMPLE BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 - II I - I Ii I II I I' I Ii I 10 DEPTH (ft) S-2 5.0-6.5 S-3 7.5-9.0 S-5 12.5-14.0 HWAGEoSCIENCES INC SZ 20 O.GP #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 :,: ~ I -.p--I I r---1-4 I 1; I' ~ "' \ I !, 1, \ I I I ii Ir I I I II I' I I I I 1, 1, I I i 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name (ML) Dark grayish brown, Sandy SILT (ML) Dark grayish brown, SILT with sand (ML) Gray, SILT with sand Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington SILT CLAY 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC LL PL Pl Gravel Sand Fines ''-,,_ ,,_ 16 1.7 40.4 57.9 23 0.7 21.7 77.6 36 15.0 85.0 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO., 2010-100-200 FIGURE, B-1 DRAFT GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3" 100 90 3/4" 1-1/2" , 5/8" 3/8" II ~ I I 11 #4 #10 ~ rr I I #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 ; ~ II I Mlt---, , I I I ' 11 t -11>-I I"----~ I I f- J: (!) ijJ ?:: ~ (t'. w z u:: f-z w (.) (t'. w Q_ SYMBOi • • ... 80 70 60 h 50 40 II 30 20 10 ' ' 50 SAMPLE BH-1 BH-1 BH-1 - i I I I, I S-7 S-9 S-12 HWAGEoSclENCES INC HWAGRSZ 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20115 10 DEPTH (ft) 17.5-19.0 25.0 -26.5 40.0-41.5 ~ I I I I I \ ht---r+ ~ Ii 11 i Ii !~ \ ~ II II I I I I\ II T I I I I 11 11 i ' I i! 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name (ML) Gray, SILT with sand and organics (SM) Grayish brown, Silty SAND (SM) Yellowish brown, Silty SAND with gravel Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington --- SILT CLAY 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 56 38 25 LL PL Pl Gravel Sand Fines OL OL "'· 20.4 79.6 71.8 28.2 15.3 39.4 45.3 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO., 2010-100-200 FIGURE, B-2 DRAFT GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 100 1-1/2" , 5/8" 3/8" f- J: Cl w ?: ~ aJ ct'. w z u:: f-z w u ct'. w a_ SYMBOL • • • 90 I 80 70 60 1, 50 I 40 I 11 30 I 20 I 10 ' ' II 50 SAMPLE BH-2 BH-2 BH-2 - . - I I I I 10 DEPTH (ft) S-3 7.5-9.0 S-6 15.0-16.5 S-13 45.0-46.5 HWAGEOSclENCFSINC 522 00.GP #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 I I I I I I ~ r, I I I I ~ i 11--._ I \ 11"--. I I I ~ ~ I I\ I I I I~ I I ! 1, I I ) ~I I \ I I I' I I \ I I i I 1 I I i\ I I I"... I I I I'--. I I I ~ 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name (ML) Dark grayish brown, sandy SILT (ML) Dark grayish brown, sandy SILT (SP) Black, Poorly graded SAND Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington - SILT CLAY 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC LL PL Pl Gravel Sand Fines "· ' % 19 1.2 46.8 52.0 18 3.2 44.2 52.7 29 5.7 89.9 4.3 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJE,S!_NO.: DRAFT GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES I- I Cl w s: 10 >-6 Ill a:: w z ;:;: I-4 z w ~ w 0.. 3" I I I I I I I I I ) ) 1-1/2" IT\ 11 II 50 314" I 518" 318" #4 '' \~ I r-- I\ I I ~i: I ,.... .. t--- I I r--;........ I Ii ,....._ Ii I 11 11 I II I! 1: ll Ii I! I 1, 11 10 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 t--.. I I I I ~: I I I I I I I I I I I I i-----c ,.__ I I I I ~ I :~ I I ! 1! r--------... I I I ~ \11---.. _!_ ! 11 l ~ l I I I I I \ I I I I II I \ i I II I I I ll I I j\ I I l"'-J. I I 11 I ! ,! 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOi SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name • BH-2 S-16 • BH-2 S-18 " BH-2 S-20 -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC HWAGRSZ 2010-100-200.GPJ 2/20/15 60.0-61.5 75.0 -76.5 86.0 -86.5 (SP-SM) Dark gray, Poorly graded SAND with silt (GM) Gray, Silty GRAVEL with sand (ML) Gray, SILT with sand Lake to Sound Trail Black River Bridge Renton, Washington SILT CLAY O.Q1 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 23 21 21 LL PL Pl Gravel Sand Fines 0/. 0/. 0/. 0.9 92.0 7.1 27.7 22.7 49.6 12.3 23.5 64.2 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECTNO., 2010-100-200 FIGURE, B-4 DRAFT APPENDIXC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES, COMPUTER CALCULATION RESULTS S11fety r11ctor 11····· '~ o.soo 1.000 1.500 ~-2.000 i 2.500 3.000 3.500 '1••.ooo 4.500 5.000 I II···" fi.OOo+ ~ i ~ I ~ - Project Number: 2010...100...21 Task:200 Project Name: Black Riwef Bridge Lake to Sound Trail Renton, Washington South &de: Static Analysis 0100 om I HWA Grosc1ENCES INC M.rterial: Medium Dense AJh.Nium Strength Type. Mohr-Coulomb Umt Weight. 124 lbr1t3 Friction Ante· 35 degrees - STATIC STABILITY: SOUTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA PROJECT NO 2010-100-21 Safety !'actor 11,.,,, 'i 0.500 1.000 1.500 !~· 2.000 2.500 3.000 i~·'·'" -4.000 4.500 5.000 § II···" ~.000+ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ Project Number: 2010-100-21 Task:200 Project Name: Black Rtver Bridge Lake to Sound Trail Renton, Washington South Side: Pseudo-StabcAnalysts om I HWA GEosc1ENas INC SEISMIC STABILITY: SOUTH ABUTMENT (DESIGN EVEND BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON.WA ~"" PROJECT NO. 2010-100-21 ~ ·-0.500 Projecl Number: 2010-100-21 Tnk:200 Project Nam.: Black Ri\ier Bndge 1.000 Lake to Sound Trail Renton, Washingtoo '~ c:::i 1.500 South Side: Post Liquefaction Ana!lysis 2.000 2.SOO 11•::::: 4.000 4.SOO !1• s.aoo 5.500 6.00o+ ! I ~ i § L.... mm I HWA Grosc,ENCES INC POST LIQUEFACTION STABILITY: SOUTH ABUTMENT (DESIGN EVENn BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA PROJECT NO 2010-100-21 Sll.:fll!t;y !'ll=o:c-!1. 0.000 0.500 l.000 l.5DO ~i-2.000 2.5DO 3.DOO ~i• 3.500 ,.ooo 4.500 §1. 5.000 5.500 6.00o+ I ! ! ~ et'io 81~ Project Numbctt· 2010.100-21 Task:200 Project Name: Black Rwer Bndge lake to Sound Trail Renton, Washington North Side: Static Ana~sis Malerial: Medium Dense AlllMum Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb Un< Weight: 124 lb/113 Cohesion: 1 psf Friction Angle: 34 degrees Material: Medium Dense Glacial Till Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 1301bffl.3 Cohesion: 1 psf Fncllon Angle: 36 degrees mm I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC STATIC STABILITY: NORTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON.WA PROJECT NO 2010-100-21 ~ Safety !'actor ! .,.ooo 0.!500 1.000 e~m '·'" .-2.000 2.!500 3.000 !1• ,.,oo 4.000 4.!500 ~~· 5.000 s.soo 6.000+ ~ s I ~ § Project Number. 2010-100-21 Task:200 Project Name: Black Fwer Bridge Lake to Sound Trail Rentoo. Washington North Side: Pseudo • Stat1e Analysis Material: Medium Dense Anwium Strength Type: Mohr.Coulomb Uno We;ght: 124 lblft3 Cohesion: 1 psf Friction Angle: 34 degrees 01~ e,ao a:rm I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC "''" -"'"' ---- SEISMIC STABILITY: NORTH ABUTMENT (DESIGN EVENn BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA ~"" PROJECT NO 2010-100-21 1 Sa:tety Factor I ••. ,,, 0.500 1.000 11~ ,.soo 2.000 2.500 3.000 'i. 3.500 4.000 4.500 S.000 s.soo fi.000+ ~ B ~ ! ~ Projecl Number: 2010-100-21 Task:200 Projecl Name. Black River Bridge lake to Sound Trail Renton, Washington North Side: Post liquefaction Analysis Matenal: Medium Dense AIIIMum Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 124 lbl!lJ Cohesim'. 1 psf Fnction Angle: 34-d~ees um I HWA GEosc1ENas INC -.... POST LIQUEFACTION STABILITY: NORTH ABUTMENT (OESIGN EVENT) BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL RENTON, WA PROJECT NO. 2010-100-21 Safety !'actor" 0.000 0.500 !~-1.000 1.500 2.000 !~. 2.500 3.000 3.500 ,1. 4.000 4.500 s.ooo § II···" 6.000+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... - Project Number; 2010.100.21 Task:200 Project Name: Black River Bridge Lake to Sound Trail Renton, Washington South Side: Static Analysis Alter Ground lmprowments -0100 01 mm I HWAGEosc1ENCES INC 01«! 8180 8180 Material: Loose Sand Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 IMt.3 Friction Angle: 36 degrees STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: SOUTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL PROJECT NO 2010-100-21 Saf~ty !actor II O.ODO Project Numbec 2010-100-21 Task:200 !1 0.5DO Project Name: Black RM!< Bridge lake to Sound T,ait 1.000 Renton, w.-g1on 1.500 South Sade: Pseudo Static Analysis M8f Ground lmprowments ,1. 2.000 2.500 ----------- 3.000 ~1 • 3.5DO -4.000 4.500 S.000 ~i. 5.500 6.000+ ~ ! ~ ~ § mm I HWAGEoscrENCES INC ~,,~ Material: loose Sand Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb Unt Weight 110 lb/113 Friction An,Je: 28 degrees ..... --- PSEUDO-STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: SOUTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL PROJECT NO. 2010-100-21 !1!:!:!'!~;:r 0.500 1.000 !i E:11.soo 2.000 2.500 ~~. ,.ooo 3.500 4.000 4.500 §1. ,.ooo 5.500 6.00o+ ; ~ ! ~ e,s.i e1'.«, Project Number: 2010-100-21 Task:200 Project Name: Black RMr Bridge Lake to Sound Trail Renton, Washmgton North Side: Static Analysis M&r Ground lm~avemets D~ I HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. -.,,,, Material: Medium Dense Alluvium Strength Type: Mohr.Coulomb Unit Weight: 124 lblltJ Cohesion: 1 psf Friction Angle 34 degrees STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: NORTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL PROJECT NO 2010-100-21 1 Sll.feey Factor ! -0.000 0.500 1.000 i~ -1.500 -2.000 2.500 3.000 'i• ,.soo 4.000 ,.soo ~i•'·'" 5.500 6.000+ i ! I ~ § 1'120 Project Number. 2010-100-21 Task:200 Project Name: Bfack RiYer Bridge Lake to Sound Trail Renton, Washington North Side: Pseudo Slattc Analysis Mer Ground l~ments 1'140 Malerial: Medium Dense Allwium Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb Uno Weight: 124 lblft3 Coheston: 1 psf Friction Angle: 34 der,-ees .. om I HWA GEoSCIENCEs INC Material: Loose Sand Strenglh Type: Mohr-Coulomb UnrlWeight: 1251b'fl:3 Cohesion· 1 psf FnctronAngle: 36 degrees Material: Medium Dense Glacial TIii Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb Umt Weight: 134 lb'ft.3 Cohesion: 1 psf Friction Angle: 36 degrees --.... PSEUDO-STATIC STABILITY AFTER GROUND IMPROVEMENTS: NORTH ABUTMENT BLACK RIVER BRIDGE LAKE TO SOUND TRAIL ~,m PROJECT NO 2010-100-21 Title Reports -Lake to Sound Trail, Segment A Multiple Properties Reports range in size from 20 to 2,000 plus pages. Full reports can be found in City file system at: 1:PR .I 7 )i;!j H:\CED\Planning\Cu rrent Plan n ing\PROJ ECTS\15-00025 7. Kris\Su bmittal_Electron ic Files_ 041715\3.TitleRpts First cover page of each report file provided in the following pages. STEWART TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 9ill,01 ( 206) 622-1040 SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT TO: City of Renton Parks Your Ref. : Black River/302 807 Pel 6 Seller: First City Washington, Inc. Mortgagor/Purchaser: City of Renton Our Order No.: 144565 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Leslie Supplemental No.: 3 The following matters affect the property covered by this order: * 7. The following paragraph has been amended to read as follows: DEED OF TRUST, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: AFFECTS: First City Equities, a Washington partnership; and First City Developments Corp., a Washington corporation, jointly Transamerica Title Insurance Company Citicorp Real Estate, Inc., a Delaware corporation $14,000,000.00 -c--c--,---=' 1988 October 9, 1988 8610090658 Includes other property The amount now secured by said Deed of Trust and the terms upon which the same can be discharged or assumed should be ascertained from the holder of the indebtedness secured. DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: November 24, 1986 December 16, 1986 8612161335 DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: July 24, 1987 January 25, 1989 8901250003 NOTE: ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: (continued) G ua ra ntee/Certificate SUBDIVISION Issued By: Guarantee/Certificate Number: .Fidelity Nat~?,~.~~ l!!~!· 611007476 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES Parametrix herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set for in Schedule A. Please note carefully the liability exclusions and limitations and the specific assurances afforded by this guarantee. If you wish additional liability, or assurances other than as contained herein, please contact the Company for further information as to the availability and cost. Fidelity National Title Company of Washington, Inc. Dated: March 23, 2011 Countersigned By: Authorized Officer or Agent Subdivision Guarantee/Certificate SSCORPD0817 doc I Updated: 03.12.2010 8 By: Attest: President Secretary Printed· 03.29.11 @04:44PM 'NA-FTMA-610051-611007476 Z6'/pa1es Guarantee/Certificate SUBDIVISION Guarantee/Certificate Number: 611007475 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES Parametrix herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set for in Schedule A. Please note carefully the liability exclusions and limitations and the specific assurances afforded by this guarantee. If you wish additional liability, or assurances other than as contained herein, please contact the Company for further information as to the availability and cost. Fidelity National Title Company of Washington, Inc. Dated: April 1. 2011 Countersigned By: Authorized Officer or Agent Subd1v1ston Guarantee/Cert1f1cate SSCORPD0817.doc/ Updated 0312 2010 8 By: Attest: President Secretary Printed· 0411.11@08·22AM WA-FTMA-610051-611007475 STEWART TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206)622-1040 SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT TO: City of Renton Parks 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Leslie Your Ref. : Black River/302 80~ Seller: First City Washington,~ Mortgagor/Purchaser: City of Renton Our Order No.: 144562 Supplemental No.: 3 The following matters affect the property covered by this order: * The following paragraph has been amended to read as follows: 10. DEED OF TRUST, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: AFFECTS: First City Equities, a Washington partnership; and First City Developments Corp., a Washington corporation, jointly Transamerica Title Insurance Company Citicorp Real Estate, Inc., a Delaware corporation $14,000,000.00 ~~-~' 1988 October 9, 1988 8610090658 Includes other property The amount now secured by said Deed of Trust and the terms upon which the same can be discharged or assumed should be ascertained from the holder of the indebtedness secured. DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: November 24, 1986 December 16, 1986 8612161335 DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: July 24, 1987 January 25, 1989 8901250003 NOTE: ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: (continued) Guarantee/Certificate SUBDIVISION Issued By: Guarantee/Certificate Number: .Fidelity Nat~~~.~c~ l!!!!' 611007473 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. a corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES Parametrix herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1 . No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or wtth respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set for in Schedule A. Please note carefully the liability exclusions and limitations and the specific assurances afforded by this guarantee. If you wish additional liability, or assurances other than as contained herein, please contact the Company for further information as to the availability and cost. Fidelity National Title Company of Washington, Inc. Dated: March 23, 2011 Countersigned By: Authorized Officer or Agent Subdiv1s1on Guarantee/Certificate SSCORPD08H doc/ Updated: 03.12.2010 8 By: Attest: President Secretary Printed: 03.29.11@ 04:45PM WA-FTMA-610051-6110074 73 ,~. I.' STEWART TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206)622-1040 SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT TO: City of Renton Parks 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Leslie .3 . Your Ref. : Black River/302 807 ~ 9eller: First City Washington, Inc. Mortgagor/Purchaser: City of Renton Our Order No.: 144559 Supplemental No.: 3 The following matters affect the property covered by this order: * The following paragraph has been amended to read as follows: 11. DEED OF TRUST, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: AFFECTS: First City Equities, a Washington partnership; and First City Developments Corp., a Washington corporation, jointly Transamerica Title Insurance Company Giticorp Real Estate, Inc., a Delaware corporation $14,000,000.00 --~-~· 1988 October 9, 1988 8610090658 Includes other property The amount now secured by said Deed of Trust and the terms upon which the same can be discharged or assumed should be ascertained from the holder of the indebtedness secured. DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: November 24, 1986 December 16, 1986 8612161335 DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: July 24, 1987 January 25, 1989 8901250003 NOTE: ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: {continued) \ f I ,_ STEWART TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101 GARY M. BEAN, Senior Title Officer GRAE L. BEAN, Title Officer Unit No. 10 FAX Number 206-343-8404 Telephone Number 206-343-1331 City of Renton/Park & Recreation 200 Mill Avenue South Title Order No.: 144564 Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Leslie Customer Ref.: Black River/302 807 Pcl#8 A. L. T. A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Effective Date: May 3, 1991, at 8:00 a.m. 1. Policy or Policies to be issued: A. ALTA Owner's Policy Standard (X) Extended ( ) Proposed Insured: CITY OF RENTON WORK CHARGES Amount Tax Amount Tax PREMIUM TO BE AGREED UPON $250.00 $ 20.50 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this commitment is fee simple. 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Commitment vested in: RENTON PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, a Washington general partnership 4. The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the County of King, State of Washington, and described as follows: As on Schedule A, pages 2 through 5, attached. ( STEWART TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101 '(206)622-1040 SUPPLEMENTAL TITLE REPORT TO: City of Renton Parks 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Leslie Your Ref. : Black River/302 807 Pel 6 Seller: First City Washington, Inc. Mortgagor/Purchaser: City of Renton Our Order No.: 144566 Supplemental No.: 4 The following matters affect the property covered by this order: * The following paragraph has been amended to read as follows: . 8. DEED OF TRUST, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: AFFECTS: First City Equities, a Washington partnership; and First City Developments Corp., a Washington corporation, jointly Transamerica Title Insurance Company Citicorp Real Estate, Inc., a Delaware corporation $14,000,000.00 ~~~-~' 1988 October 9, 1988 8610090658 Includes other property The amount now secured by said Deed of Trust and the terms upon which the same can be discharged or assumed should be ascertained from the holder of the indebtedness secured. DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: November 24, 1986 December 16, 1986 8612161335 DEED OF TRUST MODIFICATION AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: July 24, 1987 January 25, 1989 8901250003 NOTE: ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: (continued) z,o ~,., fllt 9tt.g e Fidelity National Title Company of Washington Underwritten by Fidelity National Title Insurance Company 3500 188th St. SW, Suite 300 Lynnwood. WA 98037 (425)771-3031 I Fax No. (425)775-4734 Direct Line: (425)771-3031 Toll Free: 1-800-776-3021 First Report SHORT PLAT CERTIFICATE TO: King County Water and Land Resources Division 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 Attention: Neil DeGoojer Your Number: Reference Name: PORT OF SEATTLE OUR NUMBER: 2-101009893 -Short Plat Certificate Dear Sirs: Premium: Sales Tax: $ 350.00 $ 33.25 In the matter of the above described Short Plat submitted for your approval, this Company has examined the record of the County Auditor and County Clerk of King County, Washington, and from such examination hereby certifies that: TITLE TO the following described land is vested in: Port of Seattle, a municipal corporation THE LAND is situated in said King County, and is described as follows: See Attached SUBJECT TO the exceptions shown herein. No search has been made as to the taxes and assessments. THIS CERTIFICATE shall have no force or effect except as a basis for the Certificate applied for. Records examined to October 25, 2010 at 08:00 AM FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON By:_7:;L~-- Terry Sarver, Chief Title Officer RECEIPT EG00036837 ... Transaction Date: April 17, 2015 BILLING CONTACT Jason Rich King County Parks; ATIN: Jason Rich 201 S JACKSON ST , RM 700JASON RICH, CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGER; MAIL STOI SEATILE, WA 981043855 REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME ----· ··-" LUA 15-000257 PLAN • Environmental Review PLAN -HE Conditional Use PLAN • Shore Variance PLAN -Shoreline Substantial Dev Permits Technology Fee TRANSACTION TYPE "" Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment Fee Payment PAYMENT METHOD heck #14877990 Check #14877990 vheck #14877990 !:;heck #14877990 heck #14877990 SUBTOTAL TOTAL Ci\ AMOUNT PAID '" $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $240.00 S8,240.00 $8,240.00