The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSpringbrook Boardwalk Critical Areas ReportMOFFATT & NICHOL SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT MOFFATT & NICHOL SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT PREPARED FOR: MATT PERRY MOFFATT & NICHOL 505 S 336TH ST, SUITE 510 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 PREPARED BY: FARALLON CONSULTING, L.L.C. DBA GRETTE ASSOCIATES 2709 JAHN AVE. NW, SUITE H-5 GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 (253) 573-9300 SEPTEMBER 2024 ______________________________________ __________________ CHAD WALLIN DATE PROJECT BIOLOGIST SEPTEMBER 2024 ______________________________________ __________________ TERRA HAUSER DATE STAFF BIOLOGIST Moffatt & Nichol i September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 1 2.1 Current Land Use and Existing Conditions ........................................................ 1 3 CRITICAL AREAS FEATURE SUMMARY ........................................................... 2 4 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 3 4.1 Local Critical Areas Inventory............................................................................ 3 4.2 National Wetlands Inventory .............................................................................. 3 4.3 Sensitive Wildlife and Plants .............................................................................. 3 4.4 State Water Classification System ...................................................................... 4 4.5 Soil Information .................................................................................................. 4 5 METHODS ................................................................................................................. 4 5.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 4 5.1.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation ......................................................................................... 5 5.1.2 Wetland Hydrology................................................................................................ 5 5.1.3 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................................... 6 5.2 Streams ................................................................................................................ 6 5.3 Habitat Conservation Areas ................................................................................ 6 6 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 6 7 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 7 7.1 Wetland A ........................................................................................................... 7 7.1.1 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 7 7.1.2 Hydric Soils ........................................................................................................... 7 7.1.3 Wetland Hydrology................................................................................................ 7 7.1.4 Wetland Categorization ......................................................................................... 7 7.2 Streams ................................................................................................................ 8 7.3 Habitat Conservation Areas ................................................................................ 8 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 8 9 NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 8 10 CITY OF RENTON EXEMPTIONS...................................................................... 9 11 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................. 9 11.1 Disclaimer ......................................................................................................... 10 12 BIOLOGIST QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................... 11 12.1 Chad Wallin, PWS – Project Biologist ............................................................. 11 12.2 Terra Hauser – Staff Biologist .......................................................................... 11 13 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity map .........................................................................................................1 Figure 2. Extent of fire damage ...........................................................................................2 Moffatt & Nichol ii September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Wetland delineation summary ..............................................................................3 Table 2. Stream delineation summary ................................................................................3 Table 3. Definitions for USFWS plant indicator status ......................................................5 Table 4. WETS precipitation analysis ................................................................................6 Table 5. Wetland rating and categorization summary ........................................................7 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Proposed Project Plans Appendix B. Critical Areas Delineation Map Appendix C. Wetland Summaries Appendix D. Wetland Datasheets Appendix E: Wetland Rating Form Appendix F: Queried Database Figures Moffatt & Nichol 1 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates 1 INTRODUCTION Farallon Consulting, L.L.C. dba Grette Associates (Grette) is under contract with Moffatt & Nichol to prepare a critical areas report that summarizes the critical areas reconnaissance conducted in the vicinity of the City of Renton’s Springbrook Trail Boardwalk (“project area”; King County tax parcel 1253810090; Figure 1). In April of 2023, a fire was set to the northern section of the boardwalk, destroying the northernmost 100 linear feet of boardwalk that runs through a known wetland (Beymer 2023). The City of Renton proposes to replace this section of boardwalk to restore existing public access (Appendix A). Figure 1. Vicinity map This report documents all wetlands, streams, and habitat conservation areas (HCAs) located on and within the vicinity of the project area for conformance with Section 4-3-090 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). This report also includes a discussion of no net loss of ecological functions for replacement of the damaged section of boardwalk, as required in RMC 4-3-090D2. 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Current Land Use and Existing Conditions The project area is located within a public greenspace in an industrial area. North of the project area is primarily industrial, while west, south, and east of the project area is the greenspace making up the Springbrook Creek wetland and habitat mitigation bank. Springbrook Creek is roughly parallel to the project area and is positioned approximately 40 feet to the west of the project area (Figure 2). Within this area, off-trail use is not permitted. The Springbrook Trail Boardwalk is the only access point. The project area and its immediate surroundings are dominated by black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), fringed willowherb (Epilobium Project area Moffatt & Nichol 2 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates ciliatum), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and swamp rose (Rosa pisocarpa). Figure 2. Extent of fire damage After the 2023 fire, the trees and shrubs immediately surrounding the boardwalk were scorched. Herbaceous species quickly recolonized the burned areas. The total damaged area, including vegetation and boardwalk, is approximately 4,800 square feet. 3 CRITICAL AREAS FEATURE SUMMARY A Grette Biologist visited the project area on June 20, 2024 to conduct an assessment to identify any wetlands, streams, or HCAs on or within the vicinity of the project area. Grette collected wetland delineation data and delineated one wetland feature (Wetland A; Appendix B) within the project area that contained all three wetland criteria defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Federal Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), and the USACE’s Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (2010). This wetland was determined to be within shoreline jurisdiction as it is located adjacent to a shoreline of the state (Springbrook Creek) and is therefore subject to regulation by the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP; RMC 4-3-090). Wetland A was rated according to RMC 4-3-090D2d and the Washington State Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western WA – 2014 Update: Version 2 (Hruby and Yahnke 2023). A wetland delineation summary, field datasheets, and wetland rating forms and figures are presented in Appendices B, C, and D, respectively. A summary of the delineated wetland is provided in Table 1. Two additional offsite wetlands were identified within the vicinity of the project area: one west of Springbrook Creek, and one just north of the project area across SW 27th Street. Burned area to be restored Moffatt & Nichol 3 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates Table 1. Wetland delineation summary Feature Size (Approximate) Cowardin Class1 Hydrology Modifier HGM Class2 Wetland Category Buffer Width3 A 25 acres PFO/PSS/PEM Saturated/ Seasonally Flooded Depressional II 110 ft. 1 Classification based on Cowardin et al. (1979). 2 Classification based on Hruby and Yahnke (2023) 3 Buffers are based on RMC 4-3-090D2d. The habitat score was 7 (Appendix D). In addition to wetlands, Springbrook Creek was identified approximately 40 feet west of the project area. An ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) determination was outside of the scope of work, but the depth of the ditch led to the conclusion that the OHWM is likely limited to the width of the ditch. The stream was also typed according to criteria in WAC 222-16-030 and RMC 4-3-090B; as the stream is mapped as a shoreline of the state, Springbrook Creek was determined to be Type S with a buffer width of 100 feet as defined by Table 4-3-090D7a in the City’s SMP. A summary of the identified stream is provided in Table 2. Table 2. Stream delineation summary Feature Stream Type1 Buffer Width2 Springbrook Creek S 100 ft. 1 Stream typed according to criteria in WAC 222-16-030 and RMC 4-3-090B 2 Buffer widths determined per Table 4-3-090D7a of the SMP No other critical areas were identified within the vicinity of the project area. 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 Local Critical Areas Inventory Renton’s publicly accessible GIS application City of Renton Map Viewer (COR Maps) was queried to determine if any critical areas in or within the vicinity of the project area are mapped by the City (City of Renton 2024). According to this mapper, the project area is within a known wetland and is within the Urban Conservancy shoreline environment designation (SED) that is associated with the adjacent Springbrook Creek (Appendix F) just west of the project area. Two additional wetlands are mapped: one directly west of Springbrook Creek, and one north of the project area across SW 27th Street (Appendix F). 4.2 National Wetlands Inventory The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was queried to determine if previously-identified wetlands are present within the vicinity of the project area (USFWS 2024a). According to the NWI Interactive Online Mapper, the project area is within a palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland and is adjacent to palustrine forested (PFO) wetlands (Appendix F). 4.3 Sensitive Wildlife and Plants The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database on-line mapper was queried to determine if state or federally listed fish or wildlife species occur on or within the vicinity of the project area (WDFW 2024a). According to the PHS database, Springbrook Creek is known habitat for Chinook Moffatt & Nichol 4 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon, and steelhead (O. mykiss) and resident coastal cutthroat (O. clarkii) trout (Appendix F). Additionally, WDFW’s SalmonScape on-line mapper was queried to determine what state- listed fish species are identified by WDFW to occur within the vicinity of the project area (WDFW 2024b). According to SalmonScape, Springbrook Creek is known habitat for chum (O. keta), Chinook, and coho salmon, and steelhead and resident coastal cutthroat trout (Appendix F). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species on-line mapper was queried to determine what federally-listed non-marine fish and wildlife species inhabit the vicinity of the project area (USFWS 2024b). According to this tool, no federally-listed non-marine fish and wildlife potentially occur on or within the vicinity of the project area (Appendix F). The National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) National NMFS ESA Critical Habitat Mapper was queried to determine what federally-listed marine fish and wildlife are known to occur within the vicinity of the project area (NMFS 2024). According to this mapper, Springbrook Creek is known habitat for federally-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead trout (Appendix F). The Washington Department of Natural Resources’ (WDNR) Rare Plant and Ecosystem mapper was queried to determine if the subject parcel occurs in a location reported to contain high quality natural heritage wetland occurrences or occurrences of natural heritage features commonly associated with wetlands (WDNR 2024a). According to WDNR’s mapper, there are no records of rare plants or high-quality native ecosystems occurring on or within the vicinity of the project area (Appendix F). 4.4 State Water Classification System The Washington Department of Natural Resources’ (WDNR) Forest Practice Application Mapping Tool on-line mapper was queried to identify the water typing of any wetlands or streams mapped by WDNR (WDNR 2024b). According to WDNR, the project area is within a mapped wetland, and several additional wetlands are mapped in the vicinity (Appendix F). In addition to wetlands, Springbrook Creek is mapped as Type S, or shoreline of the state (Appendix F). 4.5 Soil Information According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2024a), the soils on and within the vicinity of the project area consist of Snohomish silt loam, which is listed as hydric according to the NRCS (Appendix F). 5 METHODS 5.1 Wetlands The project area was investigated and data were collected to confirm wetland boundaries. The identified wetland was delineated according to the procedures described in the USACE’s Federal Wetland Delineation Manual (1987), and the USACE’s Regional Supplement (2010). Paired data plots and soil test pits were excavated to evaluate wetland and upland conditions. Guidance from the USACE’s Regional Supplement was used to evaluate the data at each data point. Moffatt & Nichol 5 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates The boundary of the wetland was established based on changes in vegetation, field indicators of hydric soils, water table levels at or above 12 inches, topographic changes, and best professional judgment. Data plots were established in and adjacent to the wetland. The location of the wetland boundary was defined by placement of florescent orange flagging tape. The location of each data plot was defined by the placement of pink flagging tape. The onsite portion of the wetland boundary flagging was labeled alpha-numerically (i.e., A-1, A-2, etc.), where the letter designates the wetland and the number designates the specific flag angle point. Plants were determined to be more or less associated with wetlands based on their wetland indicator (FAC) status. The percent dominance for each plant strata was determined using the 50-20 Rule, which is the recommended method for selecting dominant species from a plant community in instances where quantitative data are available (USACE 2010). In utilizing this rule, dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total coverage of vegetation in the stratum plus any other species that, by itself accounts for at least 20 percent of the total. 5.1.1 Hydrophytic Vegetation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NWI have established a rating system that has been applied to commonly occurring plant species based on their frequency of occurrence in wetlands (Table 3). Species indicator status expresses the range in which plants may occur in wetlands and non-wetlands (uplands). Under this system, vegetation is considered hydrophytic when there is an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW) or obligate wetland (OBL) (Table 3). The hydrophytic vegetation criterion for wetland determination is met when more than 50 percent of the dominant species in the plant community are FAC or wetter. The USACE’s National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2023) was used to determine vegetation indicator status. Table 3. Definitions for USFWS plant indicator status Plant Indicator Status Category Indicator Status Abbreviation Definition (Estimated Probability of Occurrence) Obligate Upland UPL Occur rarely (<1 percent) in wetlands, and almost always (>99 percent) in uplands Facultative Upland FACU Occur sometimes (1 percent to <33 percent) in wetlands, but occur more often (>67 percent to 99 percent) in uplands Facultative FAC Similar likelihood (33 percent to 67 percent) of occurring in both wetlands and uplands Facultative Wetland FACW Occur usually in wetlands (>67 percent to 99 percent), but also occur in uplands (1 percent to 33 percent) Obligate Wetland OBL Occur almost always (>99 percent) in wetlands, but rarely occur in uplands (<1 percent) Not Listed NL Not listed due to insufficient information to determine status 5.1.2 Wetland Hydrology Evidence of permanent or periodic inundation (water marks, drift lines, drainage patterns), or soil saturation to the surface for 14 consecutive days or more during the growing season meets the hydrology criterion. Oxidized root channels in the top 12 inches and hydrogen sulfide are primary indicators and water-stained leaves and geomorphic position are secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. Hydrologic conditions were compared to the Wetland Hydrology Indicators detailed in the USACE’s Regional Supplement (2010). Moffatt & Nichol 6 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates 5.1.3 Hydric Soils Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil horizons are considered hydric soils. Field indicators include histosols, the presence of a histic epipedon, a sulfidic odor, low soil chroma, and gleying. Soil conditions were compared to the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils detailed in the USACE’s Regional Supplement (2010). 5.2 Streams Waterways meeting the definition of a watercourse according to RMC 4-6-100 were identified. An OHWM determination was outside the scope of work for this effort, but an approximate stream border was identified due to the topographic boundary along the outer edge of the stream channel. RMC 4-3-090B was consulted when determining the type of stream. Springbrook Creek is specifically designated as a Shoreline of the State (Type S stream) under RMC 4-3- 090B2d. 5.3 Habitat Conservation Areas Per RMC 4-3-090D2c, an HCA is defined as shoreline environments designated as Natural or Urban Conservancy, and Type S streams and lakes. Areas in the vicinity of the project area were traversed to identify any features that would meet the criteria of an HCA. 6 PRECIPITATION ANALYSIS During the site assessment, the Seattle Tacoma Airport National Weather Station was used to create a WETS table summarizing climatic conditions near the project area in the three months prior to the field investigation (NRCS 2024b, Table 4). Table 4. WETS precipitation analysis Preceding Month WETS Rainfall Percentile (inches) Measured Rainfall1 (inches) Conditions2 Condition Value3 Month Weight Value 30% 70% May 1.15 2.22 1.54 Normal 2 3 6 April 1.80 3.30 0.89 Dry 1 2 2 March 2.82 4.56 2.36 Dry 1 1 1 Sum: 94 1Observed rainfall for the month (NRCS 2023b) 2Dry conditions are below 30% WETS table value, Normal conditions are between 30% and 70% of the WETS table values, Wet conditions are above 70% of the WETS table value. 3The condition value for a dry, normal, or wet month is 1, 2, or 3, respectively 4If the sum is 6-9, the conditions are drier than normal. If the sum is 10-14, conditions are normal. If the sum is 15-18, conditions are wetter than normal. Bins were established to evaluate the overall rainfall period during the field investigation; dry (sum is 6-9), normal (sum is 10-14), wet (sum is 15-18). A sum of 9 indicates that hydrologic conditions at the site during the delineation were drier than normal according to the WETS table. Moffatt & Nichol 7 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates 7 RESULTS 7.1 Wetland A One wetland, Wetland A, was identified in the project area. Wetland A is a large depressional feature that is also influenced by Springbrook Creek by occasional overbank flooding (Hruby and Yahnke 2023) and classified as a palustrine forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetland using the Cowardin classification method (1979). Hydroperiods within Wetland A consist of saturated and seasonally flooded areas. See Appendix C for a summary of the wetland, and Appendix D for the full wetland and upland field datasheets. Other wetlands in the vicinity of the project area were not investigated as the focus of the project is concerning impacts within Wetland A rather than buffer impacts associated with identified offsite wetland features. 7.1.1 Vegetation Dominant vegetation observed within Wetland A included black cottonwood (FAC), Oregon ash (FACW), swamp rose (FAC), and fringed willowherb (FAC; Appendix D; USACE 2023). This combination of species met the Dominance Test and Prevalence Index for hydrophytic vegetation (USACE 2010). 7.1.2 Hydric Soils Soils in Wetland A consisted of a top layer (0-10 inches) of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) clay with 20% dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) redox features and a lower layer (10-20+ inches) of dark gray (10YR 4/1) clay with 25% dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) redox features (Appendix D). These soils met the Depleted Below Dark Surface, Depleted Matrix, and Redox Dark Surface hydric soil indicators (USACE 2010). 7.1.3 Wetland Hydrology Wetland hydrology indicators observed within Wetland A included Algal Mat or Crust, Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots, and Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Appendix D; USACE 2010). Primary hydrological support for the wetland likely includes shallow groundwater, sheetflow, precipitation, and, in some parts of the wetland, floodwaters from Springbrook Creek. 7.1.4 Wetland Categorization To determine the categorization of Wetland A based on function, the wetland classification guidelines in Ecology’s wetland rating system (Hruby and Yahnke 2023) were used. Based on this guidance, Wetland A was given a score for each of three functions: Water Quality, Hydrology, and Habitat (Table 5). Wetland A was rated Category II. See Appendix E for the full rating forms. Table 5. Wetland rating and categorization summary Feature Cowardin Class HGM Class Water Quality Hydrology Habitat Total Category Wetland A PFO/PSS/ PEM Depressional/ Riverine 8 7 7 22 II Per RMC 4-3-090D2d, wetlands are subject to a buffer to protect the integrity and function of said feature. According to RMC 4-3-090D2d, Category II wetlands with moderate Moffatt & Nichol 8 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates habitat function scores (6-7) that are under the jurisdiction of the Renton SMP are subject to a buffer of 110 feet. 7.2 Streams One stream (Springbrook Creek) was observed on or within the vicinity of the project area. Springbrook Creek was observed flowing through a ditch adjacent to Wetland A to the west. Based on topographic maps, it appears there are conditions that allow waters from Springbrook Creek to flow into the southern portion of Wetland A during high flow events. Springbrook Creek is mapped as a shoreline of the state, or Type S. It flows north into the Black River. The east bank of the creek, where the project area lies, is designated Urban Conservancy, and per Table 4-3-090D7a of the SMP, vegetation conservation buffers within this SED are 100 feet. 7.3 Habitat Conservation Areas Per RMC 4-3-090D2c, HCAs include Natural and Urban Conservancy SEDs and Type S streams and lakes. Areas 200 feet east of the Springbrook Creek, including the entire project area, are within the Urban Conservancy SED, making the project area within the boundary of an HCA. In addition, Springbrook Creek itself is Type S and provides habitat for federally-listed Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, and state priority species Chinook and coho salmon, and resident coastal cutthroat and steelhead trout, as discussed in Section 2. This makes Springbrook Creek a Fish Habitat Conservation Area as well. HCAs do not have specific buffers listed in the SMP aside from stream buffers, but Urban Conservancy SEDs are subject to vegetation conservation guidelines typical of buffers. 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of the proposed project is to return the Springbrook Trail to pre-fire conditions. The new decking will consist of structural plastic lumber. The railings will be constructed using structural plastic lumber and chain link fence fabric. Approximately 30 new concrete footings measuring approximately 1 square-foot will be installed in the same or approximately the same location as the existing footings. The concrete footings will be pre-cast concrete blocks that are placed on the ground and secured by driving small diameter steel pipes through holes in the footings. The steel pipes will be driven using tools such as a sledgehammer and a handheld jackhammer. No dredging or filling is anticipated. 9 NO NET LOSS ANALYSIS To determine no net loss of ecological functions, RMC 4-3-090D2a requires the demonstration that actions have been taken to mitigate adverse impacts to critical areas. In order, the mitigation actions are: (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. The project cannot fully avoid impacts to the wetland. The Springbrook Trail includes an existing boardwalk was built through the wetland, so the replacement of the damaged section will necessarily to reestablish use. Moffatt & Nichol 9 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates (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. The boardwalk replacement project was designed to minimize adverse impacts by designing the new section of boardwalk within the original footprint and using pin piles to avoid dredging or filling within the wetland. Standard best management practices will be followed with construction activities, including: using an existing pathway to access the project area; removing and disposing construction debris properly; restoring vegetation damaged by construction activities; storing and containing construction materials properly to avoid spillage; handling fuels and servicing equipment offsite to avoid contamination; and stockpiling materials offsite. (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. Given the nature of the proposed project, rectifying impacts is not feasible. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. As minimization and rectification were achieved, reducing the adverse impact over time is not feasible. (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. No compensation is proposed. The proposed project is limited to restoring a section of damaged boardwalk. 10 CITY OF RENTON EXEMPTIONS Per RMC 4-3-090D2c, the critical areas ordinance (CAO) as codified in RMC 4-3-050 is adopted by the SMP with regards to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Activities within wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction, as is the case in this project, are subject to regulations in the SMP. Development within shoreline jurisdiction typically requires a shoreline permit as detailed in RMC 4-9-190. However, RMC 4-9-190C1c lists normal maintenance or repair of existing structures, including those that suffer fire damage, as exempt from the permit system. As the design of the new section of boardwalk will return the boardwalk to pre- fire conditions, the construction meets the definition of normal repair and is therefore exempt from typical SMP permit regulations. 11 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Critical areas are regulated by agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. At the local level, critical areas and their associated buffers in the City of Renton are regulated under Renton’s critical areas ordinance (Title 4-3-050 of the RMC). Shorelines of the state and associated wetlands are additionally regulated by the City of Renton’s SMP (Title 4-3-090 of the RMC). Moffatt & Nichol 10 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates At the state level, wetlands are regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology through the Federal Clean Water Act (Section 401). The requirement for a Water Quality Certification from Ecology for wetland impacts is triggered by an applicant’s applying for a federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the Corps. Ecology may also issue an Administrative Order under the State’s Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48), allowing them wetland regulatory authority without a federal nexus. Additionally, WDFW regulates work within state waters to protect fish life under the State’s Hydraulic Code (RCW 77.55) through a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) permit. At the federal level, impacts (specifically dredging or filling) to wetlands are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency through the US Army Corps of Engineers. The USACE administers the federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) for projects involving dredging or filling in Waters of the US (lakes, streams, marine waters, and most non- isolated wetlands). It is the project proponent’s responsibility to contact each potential regulating agency and confirm their regulatory status and requirements. 11.1 Disclaimer The findings and conclusions documented in this plan have been prepared for specific application to this proposed project site. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In addition, changes in government codes, regulations, or laws may occur. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. Wetland boundaries are based on conditions present at the time of the site visit and considered preliminary until the flagged wetland and/or drainage boundaries are validated by the appropriate jurisdictional agencies. Validation of the boundaries by the regulating agencies provide a certification, typically in writing, that the wetland boundaries verified are the boundaries that will be regulated by the agencies until a specific date or until the regulations are modified. Only the regulating agencies can provide this certification. Since wetlands are dynamic communities affected by both natural and human activities, changes in wetland boundaries may be expected. Because of such changes, our observations and conclusions applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part. Moffatt & Nichol 11 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates 12 BIOLOGIST QUALIFICATIONS 12.1 Chad Wallin, PWS – Project Biologist Chad Wallin is a Biologist and Pierce County Qualified Wetland Specialist with extensive training in wetland science and ecology restoration. Chad also has professional experience in stream and fish restoration, marine monitoring, mitigation monitoring, and fish and wildlife assessments. Chad has earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Environmental Studies from the University of Washington along with certificates in ecology restoration and wetland science and management. Chad is also a certified Professional Wetland Scientist through the Society of Wetland Scientists. For a list of representative projects, please contact him at Grette Associates. 12.2 Terra Hauser – Staff Biologist Terra Hauser is a Biologist with training in wetland science and management. Terra also has experience in wildlife biology and ecological restoration. Terra has earned a Bachelor of Arts and Sciences degree from Quest University Canada along with a certificate in Wetland Science and Management from the University of Washington. For a list of representative projects, please contact her at Grette Associates. 13 REFERENCES Beymer, K. 2023. Parks & Recreation Department Memorandum, June 13, 2023. To: R. McIrvin and Members of Renton City Council. Subject: Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Fire and Damage. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats for the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. Hruby, T and A. Yahnke. 2023. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update, Version 2.0. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication # 23-06-009. City of Renton. 2024. City of Renton Map Viewer (COR Maps) [map online]. GIS Services. Accessed June 24, 2024. URL: https://maps.rentonwa.gov/Html5viewer/Index.html?viewer=cormaps National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2024. National NMFS ESA Critical Habitat Mapper (online application). Queried July 3, 2024. URL: https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=68d8df16b39c48fe9 f60640692d0e318 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024a. United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey [map online]. Queried June 24, 2024. URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ Moffatt & Nichol 12 September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024b. Climate Data for King County, WA. National Water and Climate Center. WETS Table. Seattle Tacoma Airport Station. Accessed June 24, 2024. URL: https://agacis.rcc-acis.org/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2023. National Wetland Plant List2022 National Wetland Plant List, version 3.6. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. URL: http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. Wetland Mapper [map online]. National Wetlands Inventory. Queried June 19, 2024. URL: https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023b. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species [map online]. Environmental Conservation Online System. Queried July 3, 2024. URL: https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe0 9893cf75b8dbfb77 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2024a. PHS on the Web [map online]. Priority Habitats and Species. Queried June 19, 2024. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2024b. SalmonScape [map online]. All SalmonScape Species. Queried July 3, 2024. URL: https://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html# Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2024a. Rare Plant and Ecosystem Map [map online]. Washington Natural Heritage Program. Queried July 3, 2024 URL: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/174566100f2a47bebe56db3f0f78b5d9/page/ Rare-Plant-and-Ecosystem-Locations/ Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2024b. Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool [map online]. Base Resource Map. Queried June 19, 2024. URL: https://data-wadnr.opendata.arcgis.com/apps/forest-practices-application- mapping-tool/explore Moffatt & Nichol A September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates MOFFATT & NICHOL SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX A: PROPOSED PROJECT PLANS Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 4 1 0 : 4 0 A M WASHINGTON VICINITY MAP SCALE: NTS N LOCATION MAP SCALE: NTS SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT 2705 LIND AVENUE SW, RENTON, WA 98057 SHEET INDEX INDEX NO.SHEET REF. NO.SHEET TITLE 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 REV PROJECT LOCATION SPRINGBROOK TRAIL PR : 100% SUBMITTAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E COVER SHEET SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N COVER SHEET GENERAL NOTES & LEGENDS OVERALL SITE PLAN OLD FOUNDATION DEMOLITION PLAN BOARDWALK FOUNDATION PLAN BOARDWALK FRAMING PLAN TYPICAL RAILING ELEVATION TYPICAL SECTION CONNECTION DETAILS (1 OF 2) CONNECTION DETAILS (2 OF 2) S-200 S-300 S-500 S-501 S-502 S-503 S-504 S-101 S-100 V-400 V-100 G-001 G-002 TYPICAL BOARDWALK RAILING DETAIL (1 OF 3) TYPICAL BOARDWALK RAILING DETAIL (2 OF 3) TYPICAL BOARDWALK RAILING DETAIL (3 OF 3) OWNER CITY OF RENTON BETSY SEVERTSEN CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 (425) 430-6600 MAYOR ARMONDO PAVONE RENTON CITY COUNCIL JAMES ALBERSON JR. RYAN MCIRVIN VALERIE O'HALLORAN RUTH PÉREZ ED PRINCE CARMEN RIVERA KIM-KHÁNH VĂN PREPARED BY ENGINEER OF RECORD MOFFATT & NICHOL 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WA 98101 (206) 622-0222 Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 4 1 0 : 4 0 A M GENERAL NOTES 1.THESE NOTES CONTAIN GENERAL INFORMATION AND ARE NOT COMPLETE FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. VERIFY INFORMATION GIVEN HERE WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND BRING ANY CONFLICTS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER BEFORE BEGINNING AFFECTED WORK. THE PROJECT ENGINEER WILL RESOLVE ANY SUCH CONFLICT. 2.IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS, GENERAL NOTES, AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT CONTROL. 3.GENERAL, STATE AND LOCAL SAFETY REGULATIONS MUST BE FOLLOWED. METHODS OF DEMOLITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND ERECTION OF MATERIALS ARE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. 4.REVIEW AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY-OBTAINED PERMITS. OBTAIN OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL DEPARTMENT REQUIRED PERMITS AFFECTED BY THE WORK NOT PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED BY THE CITY. 5.FOLLOW ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS, PERMITS, LAWS, AND REGULATIONS. 6.PLACE CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS CONTROL DEVICES, BOOMS, TARPAULINS, AND OTHER DEVICES AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT DEBRIS FROM ENTERING THE WATER, AND AIR BORNE MATERIALS FROM LEAVING THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE SITE. CLEANUP AND REMOVE ANY MATERIALS DEPOSITED OUTSIDE AND WITHIN THE WORK AREA. 7.HAZARDOUS / NON HAZARDOUS AND REGULATED / NON REGULATED DEBRIS MUST BE DISPOSED OFF THE PROJECT SITE TO A PERMITTED LANDFILL. 8.AREAS OF THE FACILITY NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION MUST REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTION. KEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PERSONNEL CLEAR OF FACILITY OPERATIONS AND TENANT ACCESS. COORDINATE ACCESS TO THE SITE WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER. 9.VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS FOR COMPATIBILITY BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION OR MATERIAL PROCUREMENT. ANY DISCREPANCIES IN DIMENSIONS OR CONDITIONS MUST BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING. DO NOT BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OR MATERIAL PROCUREMENT UNTIL THE DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER. 10.LOCATIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE. VERIFY DISCREPANCIES WITH THE PROJECT ENGINEER. UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. REVIEW AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE RECORD DRAWINGS, AND VERIFY IN THE FIELD ANY WORK THAT CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING UTILITIES. EXISTING UTILITIES AFFECTING THE WORK MUST BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. THE PROJECT ENGINEER WILL RESOLVE ANY SUCH CONFLICT. 11.CONTRACTOR-INITIATED CHANGES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION OR CONSTRUCTION. CHANGES SHOWN ON SHOP DRAWINGS ONLY WILL NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT. 12.CONTRACTOR MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ERECTION STABILITY AND TEMPORARY SUPPORT AS NECESSARY. TAKE PREVENTATIVE MEASURES TO ENSURE PLATES REMAIN STABLE AND THRU-ROD SLEEVES REMAIN ALIGNED WHEN THRU-RODS ARE REMOVED. 13.PROTECT EXISTING SURFACES AND STRUCTURES THAT WILL REMAIN. 14.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. DRAWINGS ARE FOR USE ON THIS PROJECT ONLY; DO NOT REUSE WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM MOFFATT & NICHOL. 15.THE DRAWINGS DO NOT INDICATE THE METHOD OF SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION, EXCEPT AS MAY BE SPECIFICALLY NOTED. THE CONTRACTOR MUST BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN AND SUPPLY OF ALL ERECTION BRACING AND SHORING TO RESIST VERTICAL AND LATERAL LOADS, AND FOR SAFETY PROGRAMS, METHODS, AND PROCEDURES OF OPERATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DESIGN SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. CODES AND STANDARDS 1.DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC), AND CITY OF RENTON DESIGN CODE, LATEST EDITION AVAILABLE, . 2.FABRICATION OF PLASTIC LUMBER (CUTTING, DRILLING, CONNECTING, ETC) MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR WOOD CONSTRUCTION (NDS) 2024 EDITION. 3.REFERENCES: THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED IN THE PROJECT MANUAL: A.RECORD DRAWINGS: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1-405 SPRINGBROOK CREEK WETLAND AND HABITAT MITIGATION BANK, DATED AUGUST 4, 2006 B.GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: GEOTECHNICAL BASELINE REPORT I-405 SPRINGBROOK CREEK WETLANDS AND HABITAT MITIGATION BANK PROJECT, BY HART CROWSER, DATED OCTOBER 4, 2005 AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION SERVICES MEMORANDUM FOR THE SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK BY GEOENGINEERS, DATED JULY 31, 2024. STRUCTURAL DESIGN 1.THE MINIMUM DESIGN LOADS ARE AS FOLLOWS: A.VEHICLE LOAD SEE SKETCH BELOW B.PEDESTRIAL LIVE LOAD 60 PSF C.SNOW LOAD 20 PSF D.WIND LOAD 110 MPH E.SEISMIC DESIGN SDS 1.15 F.SEISMIC DESIGN CATAGORY D G.RAILING LOADS 50 PLF OR 200 LBS POINT LOAD MATERIALS 1.STRUCTURAL PLASTIC LUMBER: A.PLASTIC LUMBER MUST BE STRUCTURAL PLASTIC LUMBER MANUFACTURED WITH FIBER-REINFORCED HDPE. B.REFER TO THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLASTIC LUMBER REQUIREMENTS. 2.CONNECTIONS: CONNECTION HARDWARE MUST BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A153 AND ASTM F329, AND STEEL PLATES MUST BE HOT DIP GALVANIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A123. 3.STEEL PLATES: ASTM A36 4.BOLTS: REGULAR ASTM A307 5.THRU-RODS: ASTM A307 w/ THREADS EXCLUDED FROM SHEAR PLANE 6.SCREWS: ASTM F2329, D1761 AND D6117, NAILS: ASTM F1667, WASHERS: ASTM F844 7.OGEE WASHERS: ASTM A48. OGEE WASHERS SHALL BE USED UNDER BOLT HEADS AND NUTS (PLASTIC LUMBER ONLY). 8.COUPLERS: ASTM A563 9. GROUT A.GROUT SHALL BE SIKAGROUT 328, BY SIKA CORPORATION, OR APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. 10. CONCRETE ANCHORS A.USE OF DRILLED ADHESIVE CONCRETE ANCHORS, WHERE NOT SPECIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. B. EPOXY OR ADHESIVE ANCHORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURES'S RECOMMENDATIONS. C. ACCEPTABLE ADHESIVES ARE HILTI HIT HY 200, ICE, OR HVA SYSTEMS; OR SIMPSON EPOXY TIE (SET) SYSTEM. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS (ICBO) OR INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL (ICC) REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR ALL ADHESIVE ANCHOR PRODUCTS. D. EXPANSION ANCHORS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. B5 CS-555 SAMPLE VIEW TITLE SCALE: 1"=50' A3 SF-123 C4 G-101 CROSS-REFERENCE LEGEND VIEW NUMBER SHEET NUMBER VIEW REFERENCED TO VIEW TITLE SECTION CALLOUT VIEW NUMBER SHEET NUMBER VIEW REFERENCED TO DETAIL CALLOUT VIEW NUMBER SHEET NUMBER VIEW REFERENCED TO A3 SF-123 DETAIL CALLOUT WITH LEADERS C4 G-101 SECTION CALLOUT WITH JOG 1 KEYED NOTE * VIEW NUMBER IS BASED ON THE (DACS) LOCATION OF THE LOWER-LEFT EXTENTS OF THE VIEW ON THE REFERENCED SHEET. WHEN REFERENCING DRAWING INFORMATION BETWEEN SHEETS, BOTH THE VIEW AND SHEET NUMBERS MUST BE QUOTED TOGETHER - EITHER IN A CALLOUT FORMAT AS SHOWN ABOVE OR IN THE FORM; "VIEW NO./SHEET NO." (EG A1/CS-5001) DISCIPLINE DESIGNATORS DISCIPLINE DESIGNATOR GENERAL G SURVEY/MAPPING V GEOTECHNICAL B CIVIL WORKS W CIVIL C STRUCTURAL S MECHANICAL M ELECTRICAL E OTHER DISCIPLINES X SHEET TYPE DESIGNATORS 0 GENERAL (COVER SHEET, LEGEND, NOTES) 1 PLANS (HORIZONTAL VIEWS) 2 ELEVATIONS (NOT TYPICALLY USED) 3 SECTIONS (OVERALL VIEWS) 4 LARGE-SCALE VIEWS (PLANS, SECT. OR ELEV. - NOT DETAILS) 5 DETAILS (MAY BE PLAN, SECT. OR ELEV. VIEWS) 6 SCHEDULES 7 USER DEFINED 8 USER DEFINED 9 3D ISOMETRIC / PHOTOS SECONDARY DESIGNATORS DEMOLITION D GENERAL G SUBSTRUCTURE B FRAMING F COMPONENT C SITE S REVISION NUMBERING A00, A01...PRE-BID SUBMITTALS B00, B01...BID SUBMITTALS 000, 001...CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTALS 1 A A TI T L E B L O C K DRAWING AREA COORDINATE SYSTEM (DACS) Sheet Reference Number: SF102 SHEET DESIGNATOR SHEET TYPE SHEET SEQUENCE SHEET NUMBERING B B C C D D E E 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 DRAWING AREA ABBREVIATIONS PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E GENERAL NOTES & LEGENDS SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 4 1 0 : 4 0 A M PROJECT SCOPE (BENTS 157.5 TO 170) BEGIN AT BENT 157.5 END AT BENT 170 PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E OVERALL SITE PLAN SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N BENT NO, TYP EXISTING BOARDWALK OUTSIDE OF PROJECT EXTENTS TO REMAIN HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE (BMP C233) Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 4 1 0 : 4 0 A M TYPICAL BOARDWALK FOUNDATION SECTION SCALE: NTS TYPICAL FOUNDATION TO BE REMOVED 1 TYPICAL FOUNDATION TO BE REMOVED 2 DEMO REMAINING FOUNDATIONS IN PROJECT EXTENTS DEMO REMAINING FOUNDATIONS IN PROJECT EXTENTSDEMO REMAINING FOUNDATIONS IN PROJECT EXTENTS PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E OLD FOUNDATION DEMOLITION PLAN SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N 10'-0"10'-0"10'-0" 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 6X6 MF POST ON PRECAST PIN FOUNDATIONS, TYP PARTIAL FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE: 1" = 1' CL CL CL CL CL C T-LINEL CL Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 4 1 : 1 3 P M 1'0'1'2' SCALE: 1''=1' PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E BOARDWALK FOUNDATION PLAN SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N 166165164163 RAILPOST 4x6 (MF), TYP CL CL RAILPOST 6x6 (MF), TYP (MF) BLOCKING 2x12, TYP (2) 2x8 (MF) GIRDER, TYP DECKING 2x6 (MF) (PARTIALLY SHOWN) JOIST 2x12 (MB), TYP POST 6x6 (MF), TYP (BELOW) 10'-0" (TYP) LONG. BRACING 2x6 (MF) (BELOW), TYP GAP BETWEEN POSTS (2) CROSS BRACING 2x4 (MF) (BELOW) Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 4 1 : 1 4 P M 10"0"10"20" SCALE: 1:10 PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E BOARDWALK FRAMING PLAN SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N BOARDWALK FRAMING PLAN SCALE: 1:10 A S-200 B S-300 NOTE: 1.SEE DRAWINGS S-500, S-501, S-502, S-503, AND S-504 FOR CONNECTION DETAILS. SPACER, TYP 163 164 C T-LINEL OUTER WALKWAY JOIST, TYP GAP "A" BETWEEN DECKING, SEE GAP DIMENSION TABLE CL (2) CROSS BRACING, TYP CL 10'-0" 5'-0" BRACING, TYP DECKING, TYP 16 GA, 1"x1" WELDED WIRE MESH, TYP (2) GIRDER 2x8 (MF), TYP HANDRAIL 2x8 (MF), TYP GAP BETWEEN POSTS 1" GAP 5/4x4 (MF), TYP 5/4x2, TYP (2) CROSS BRACING 2x4 (MF), TYP Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 4 1 : 1 5 P M 10"0"10"20" SCALE: 1:10 PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E TYPICAL RAILING ELEVATION SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N A S-101 ELEVATION: TYPICAL RAILING SCALE: 1:10 NOTE: 1.SEE DRAWINGS S-502, S-503, AND S-504 FOR CONNECTION DETAILS. OUTER WALKWAY JOIST, TYP POST, TYP 163 164 8'-0" 3'-0"1'-0"3'-0"1'-0" 9 1/2"9 1/2" 1'-7"1'-4 1/2"1'-7"1'-4 1/2"3' - 6 " 30 ° HANDRAIL 2x8, TYP RAILPOST (TYP) DECKING 2x6 JOIST 2x12, TYP BLOCKING 2x12, TYP GIRDER (2)2x8 AP P R O X I M A T E L Y 3 6 " VA R Y A S N E E D E D T O M A T C H D E C K E L E V A T I O N S (S E E T A B L E ) POST 6x6, TYP LONG. BRACING 2x6 (2) CROSS BRACING 2x4 PRECAST PIN FOUNDATION 30 ° Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 4 1 : 1 6 P M 10"0"10"20" SCALE: 1:10 PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E TYPICAL SECTION SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N NOTES: 1.SEE DRAWINGS S-502, S-503, AND S-504 FOR CONNECTION DETAILS. TOP OF DECK EL. VARIES (SEE TABLE) (2) 1/2"Ø x 5" LAG SCREWS w/ 1/2" FLAT WASHER (TYP) A S-101 TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: 1:10 SPACER, TYP OUTER WALKWAY JOIST A S-101 S-200 S-300 DECK - JOIST CONNECTION SCALE: NTS B S-101 S-200 S-300 JOIST - GIRDER CONNECTION SCALE: NTS 1 JOIST BRACKET SCALE: NTS 2 COLUMN CAP BRACKET SCALE: NTS C S-101 S-200 S-300 GIRDER - POST CONNECTION SCALE: NTS OUTER WALKWAY JOIST DECKING (2) #9x3" COATED DECK SCREWS. COUNTER SUNK (TYP EA JOIST) JOIST, TYP JOIST BRACKET, SEE DET. 1 GIRDER SEE GAP DIMENSION TABLE THIS SHEET FOR FREE END FOR FIXED END SLOTTED HOLE FOR ONE END OF JOIST ONLY (4) 8Dx2-1/2" NAILS EA SIDE NOTES: 1.MODIFIED SIMPSON HS24 BRACKET SHOWN 2.GALVANIZE THE JOIST CONNECTION BRACKET (4) 3/8"Ø 2-1/2" BOLTS GIRDER POST COLUMN CAP, SEE DET 2 NOTES: 1.SIMPSON COLUMN CAP ECCQ46SDS2.5 SHOWN W/ (28) 1/4"x2-1/2" SDS GALV. SCREWS 2.GALVANIZE THE COLUMN CAP BRACKET Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 4 1 : 1 7 P M PR : 90% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E CONNECTION DETAILS (1 OF 2) SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N TEMPERATURE AT TIME OF INSTALLATION GAP BETWEEN BUTT ENDS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 90°F 1/32" 70°F 1/16" 50°F 1/8" LESS THAN 30°F 3/16" NOTE: 1.SIMPSON COLUMN CAP ECCQ46SDS2.5 SHOWN JOIST BLOCKING GIRDER POST LONG. BRACING Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 4 1 : 2 4 P M A BRACING: POST - JOIST (LONGITUDINAL SIDE) SCALE: NTS PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E CONNECTION DETAILS (2 OF 2) SPRINGBROOK TRAIL _ BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N B SECTION: DECK FRAMING CONNECTION SCALE: NTS FIXED CONNECTION THIS GIRDER ONLY NO JOIST TO GIRDER CONNECTION THIS SIDE GIRDER SPACER (2) 1/2"Øx5-1/2" BOLTS W/ 1/2"Ø CUT WASHER EACH END LONG ON SHEET S-101 A CONNECTION TO EXISTING ABUTMENT SCALE: NTS NEW JOIST EXISTING CONCRETE ABUTMENT AND SIDEWALK MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE ABUTMENT ELEVATION NEW DECKING DRILL AND EPOXY (4) 1/2"Ø x 6" LONG THREADED ROD 1/2" MIN. NON-SHRINK GROUT 2x6 LEDGER HANDRAIL 2x8 WELDED WIRE MESH RAILPOST (TYP) FENCE FRAME 5/4x2 DECKING JOIST 2" 8" 1" GAP 2" BLOCKING AT ALL BENTS AND MID SPAN LOCATION (TYP) POST 6x6 RAILPOST 4x6 DECKING 2x6 JOIST GIRDER (2) 5/8"Øx8" BOLTS W/ 5/8"Ø STD. WASHERS. 3"Ø OD PLATE WASHER BACKSIDE OF TOP BOLT (2) 3/4"Øx8" BOLTS W/ 3/4"Ø STD. WASHERS. 3"Ø OD PLATE WASHER BACKSIDE OF TOP BOLT RAILPOST 6x6 1" GAP GAP BETWEEN POSTS 5'-0" A S-101 S-200 S-300 ELEVATION: RAIL - POST CONNECTION SCALE: 1:5 Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 4 1 : 2 7 P M 8"0"8"16" SCALE: 1:8 5"0"5"10" SCALE: 1:5 PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E TYPICAL BOARDWALK RAILING DETAIL (1 OF 3) SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N B S-101 S-200 S-300 SECTION: RAIL - POST CONNECTION SCALE: 1:8 BLOCKING BOTTOM OF FENCE FRAME RAILS RAILING POST WELDED WIRE MESH (2) 2x (BEVEL TOP TO FIT) Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 4 1 : 2 8 P M PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E TYPICAL BOARDWALK RAILING DETAIL (2 OF 3) SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N A SECTION SCALE: NTS B PLAN: RAILING POST CONNECTION SCALE: NTS FOR RAILING POST CONNECTION SEE SHEET S-504 JOIST GIRDER POST LONG. CROSS BRACING RAIL CAP OUTER WALKWAY JOIST (2) 5/4x4 HORIZ FENCE RAILS (2) 5/4x2 VERT. FENCE RAILS (TYP) 6x6 RAIL POST AT MID POINT LOCATIONS (BETWEEN BENTS) 4x6 RAIL POST AT EA. BENT LOCATION (2) 5/4x4 HORIZ. FENCE RAILS Q: \ S E A \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 \ 2 0 C A D D \ W o r k i n g \ A Y a n g \ 2 3 3 0 6 0 - 1 0 0 P E R C E N T . d w g 9/ 1 2 / 2 0 2 4 1 : 2 8 P M PR : 100% SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PR O J E C T N A M E C: LU A : SH E E T N O . PR O J E C T N A M E TYPICAL BOARDWALK RAILING DETAIL (3 OF 3) SPRINGBROOK TRAIL - BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT CITY OF RENTON AA A N N N N N N N 3 TYPICAL POST CONNECTION SCALE: NTS 1 TYPICAL POST DETAIL SCALE: NTS 2 TYPICAL POST DETAIL SCALE: NTS 4x6 RAIL POST (2) 5/8" Ø x 8" BOLTS W/ 5/8"Ø CUT WASHERS 3" Ø PLATE WASHER BACKSIDE OF TOP BOLT (2) 3/8" Ø x 2 1/2" BOLTS TYP NOTE: PROVIDE SLOTTED HOLES FOR ONE END OF JOIST ONLY (2)2x8 GIRDER 1/4"Ø DECK SCREWS @ 9" TO 12" CENTERS, TYP 16 GA, 1"x1" WELDED WIRE MESH 16 GA, 1"x1" WELDED WIRE MESH 16 GA, 1"x1" WELDED WIRE MESH 16 GA, 1"x1" WELDED WIRE MESH Moffatt & Nichol B September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates MOFFATT & NICHOL SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX B: CRITICAL AREAS DELINEATION MAP 1 1 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON SEE SCALE BAR MOFFATT & NICHOL 3360-009 TH CW 09/19/24 09/19/24DESIGNED BY:DRAWING SCALE: SITE ADDRESS: CHECKED BY: DATE: DATE: PROJECT #:CLIENT: E N V I R O N M E N T A L C O N S U L T A N T S Grette Associates 2709 JAHN AVE. NW, SUITE H-5 GIG HARBOR, WA (253) 573-9300 gretteassociates.com LLCSHEET OF APPROX. WETLAND BOUNDARY APPROX. STREAM OHWM LEGEND CRITICAL AREAS DELINEATION MAP SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT WETLAND A APPROX. PROJECT AREA DISCLAIMER: EXTENT OF WETLAND CONTINUES BEYOND THIS MAP SP1 SP2 APPROX. SAMPLE PLOTS APPROX. WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER 0 2020 SCALE IN FEET 10 SP R I N G B R O O K C R E E K SW 27TH ST Moffatt & Nichol C September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates MOFFATT & NICHOL SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX C: WETLAND SUMMARY Moffatt & Nichol C September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates WETLAND A SUMMARY Approximate Size (sq. ft.): 1,105,000 Cowardin Classification1: PFO/PSS/PEM HGM Classification2: Depressional/ Riverine Wetland Category3: II Wetland Buffer Width4: 110 ft. Sample Plot Total5: 2 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present (Y/N)? Yes Hydric Soil Indicator? Depleted Below Dark Surface, Depleted Matrix, Redox Dark Surface Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Summary of Findings Dominant Vegetation: Vegetation observed within Wetland A largely consisted of black cottonwood, Oregon ash, swamp rose, and fringed willowherb. Soil Profile: Soils in Wetland A consisted of a top layer (0-10 inches) of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) clay with 20% dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) redox features and a lower layer (10-20+ inches) of dark gray (10YR 4/1) clay with 25% dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) redox features. Primary Hydrological Support: Hydrologic support for Wetland A is shallow groundwater, precipitation, sheetflow, and overbank flooding from Springbrook Creek. Wetland A is situated in a distinct depression. Wetland Data Plot: Upland Data Plot: Notes: 1 Classification based on Cowardin et al. (1979). 2 HGM classification based on Hruby and Yahnke (2023) 3 Wetland rating was determined based on RMC 4-3-090D2d 4 Wetland buffer was determined based on RMC 4-3-090D2d 5 Sample plot total includes the collective amount of wetland and upland samples plots examined to define the wetland boundary. Moffatt & Nichol D September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates MOFFATT & NICHOL SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX D: WETLAND DATASHEETS Moffatt & Nichol E September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates MOFFATT & NICHOL SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX E: WETLAND RATING FORM AND FIGURES Figure 1: Cowardin plant classes in Wetland A Figure 2: Hydroperiods and outlets in Wetland A Figure 3: Areas within 150 feet of Wetland A Figure 4: Contributing basin of Wetland A Figure 5: Habitat and land uses within 1 kilometer of Wetland A Figure 6: 303(d)-listed waters in the vicinity of Wetland A (highlighted in yellow) Figure 7: TMDLs in the basin of Wetland A Moffatt & Nichol F September 2024 Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Critical Areas Report Grette Associates MOFFATT & NICHOL SPRINGBROOK TRAIL BOARDWALK CRITICAL AREAS REPORT APPENDIX F: QUERIED DATABASE FIGURES 4,514 376 Springbrook Trail Restoration Legend 2560128 Feet Notes 256 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere All data, information, and maps are provided "as is" without warranty or any representation of accuracy, timeliness of completeness. The burden for determining accuracy, completeness, timeliness, merchantability and fitness for or the appropriateness for use rests solely on the user. City and County Labels Addresses Parcels City and County Boundary Renton <all other values> Floodway Special Flood Hazard Areas (100 year flood) Environment Designations Natural Shoreline High Intensity Shoreline Isolated High Intensity Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy Jurisdictions Streams (Classified) S - Shoreline F - Fish Np - Non-Fish Ns - Non-Fish Seasonal Unclassfied Wetlands Network Structures Public Access Riser Private Access Riser Springbrook Trail U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine June 19, 2024 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:7,523 This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. User Comments/Notes: Springbrook Trail Priority Habitats and Species on the Web Buffer radius: 300 Feet Report Date: 06/19/2024 PHS Species/Habitats Overview: Occurence Name Federal Status State Status Sensitive Location Winter Steelhead N/A N/A No Steelhead Threatened N/A No Fall Chinook N/A N/A No Coho N/A N/A No Chinook Threatened N/A No Coho Candidate N/A No Resident Coastal Cutthroat N/A N/A No Wetlands N/A N/A No Freshwater Emergent Wetland N/A N/A No Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland N/A N/A No Winter Steelhead Scientific Name Oncorhynchus mykiss Priority Area Occurrence/Migration Site Name Black River Accuracy NA Notes LLID: 1222505474742, Fish Name: Steelhead Trout, Run Time: Winter, Life History: Anadromous Source Record 39388 Source Dataset SWIFD Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Geometry Type Lines PHS Species/Habitats Details: Steelhead Scientific Name Oncorhynchus mykiss Priority Area Occurrence Site Name Black River Accuracy NA Notes LLID: 1222505474742, Stock Name: Green River (Duwamish) Winter Steelhead, Run: Winter, Status: Healthy Source Record 6175 Source Dataset SASI Source Name Not Given Source Entity WDFW Fish Program Federal Status Threatened State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Geometry Type Lines Fall Chinook Scientific Name Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Priority Area Occurrence/Migration Site Name Black River Accuracy NA Notes LLID: 1222505474742, Fish Name: Chinook Salmon, Run Time: Fall, Life History: Anadromous Source Record 39384 Source Dataset SWIFD Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Geometry Type Lines Coho Scientific Name Oncorhynchus kisutch Priority Area Occurrence/Migration Site Name Black River Accuracy NA Notes LLID: 1222505474742, Fish Name: Coho Salmon, Run Time: Unknown or not Applicable, Life History: Anadromous Source Record 39386 Source Dataset SWIFD Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Geometry Type Lines Chinook Scientific Name Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Priority Area Occurrence Site Name Black River Accuracy NA Notes LLID: 1222505474742, Stock Name: Green River (Duwamish) Chinook, Run: Sum/Fall, Status: Healthy Source Record 1160 Source Dataset SASI Source Name Not Given Source Entity WDFW Fish Program Federal Status Threatened State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Geometry Type Lines Coho Scientific Name Oncorhynchus kisutch Priority Area Occurrence Site Name Black River Accuracy NA Notes LLID: 1222505474742, Stock Name: Green River/Soos Creek Coho, Run: Unspecified, Status: Healthy Source Record 3140 Source Dataset SASI Source Name Not Given Source Entity WDFW Fish Program Federal Status Candidate State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Geometry Type Lines Resident Coastal Cutthroat Scientific Name Oncorhynchus clarki Priority Area Occurrence/Migration Site Name Black River Accuracy NA Notes LLID: 1222505474742, Fish Name: Cutthroat Trout, Run Time: Unknown or not Applicable, Life History: Unknown Source Record 39383 Source Dataset SWIFD Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm Geometry Type Lines Wetlands Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name LONGACRES WETLANDS Accuracy 1/4 mile (Quarter Section) Notes FORESTED, SCRUBY-SHRUB AND EMERGENT WETLANDS. EXCELLENT WATERFOWL, PASSERINE BIRD AND RAPTOR HABITAT. LIKELY TO SUPPORT POPULATIONS OF AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES ANDSMALL MAMMALS. Source Record 902725 Source Dataset PHSREGION Source Name OPPERMANN, TONY Source Entity WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Emergent Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Emergent Wetland - NWI Code: PEM1A Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Emergent Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Emergent Wetland - NWI Code: PEM1A Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Emergent Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Emergent Wetland - NWI Code: PEM1Cx Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - NWI Code: PFOA Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - NWI Code: PFOA Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - NWI Code: PFOC Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - NWI Code: PFOC Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - NWI Code: PSSC Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Priority Area Aquatic Habitat Site Name N/A Accuracy NA Notes Wetland System: Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland - NWI Code: PSSC Source Dataset NWIWetlands Source Name Not Given Source Entity US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Status N/A State Status N/A PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence Sensitive N SGCN N Display Resolution AS MAPPED ManagementRecommendations http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/index.html Geometry Type Polygons DISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to variation caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old. SalmonScape City of Renton, County of King, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, Intermap, NGA, USGS, WDFW All SalmonScape Species July 3, 2024 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.15 0.30.07 km 1:9,028 Critical Habitat Report Area of Interest (AOI) Information Area : 0.04 km² Jul 3 2024 9:10:10 Pacific Daylight Time Summary Name Count Area(km²)Length(m) All Critical Habitat Polyline 2 N/A 449.85 All Critical Habitat Polygon 0 0 N/A All Critical Habitat Polyline #Listed Entity Common Name Scientific Name Length(m) 1 Salmon, Chinook [Puget Sound ESU]Salmon, Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 224.89 2 Steelhead [Puget Sound DPS]Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss 224.96 S W 2 7thSt Spr ingbr o o k Cr eek S p ringbr ook Cr ee k S W 2 7 t h S t S W 2 7 t h S t O a k e s d a l e A v e S W Li n d A v e S W L i n d A v e S W 167 167 S W 2 7 t h S t S W 2 9 t h S t E V a ll e y R d E V a l l e y R d S t a t e R o u t e 1 6 7 30 WNHP Rare Plant and Ecosystem Locations Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Renton, King County, WA State Parks GIS, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, Public Land Survey Sections Public Land Survey Townships State Boundary County Boundaries 7/3/2024, 9:51:13 AM 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.15 0.30.07 km 1:8,632 WNHP Plant & Ecosystem Map Viewer KNOWN PLANT AND ECOSYSTEM LOCATIONS REFLECT KNOWN OCCURRENCE LOCATIONS BUT MAY NOT REFLECT ALL OCCURRENCES OF RARE PLANTS OR ECOSYSTEMS. Maxar, Microsoft, Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Forest Practices Division, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Engineering Division, Esri, HERE, Garmin, iPC Extreme care was used during the compilation of this map to ensure its accuracy. However, due to changes in data and the need to rely on outside information, the Department of Natural Resources cannot accept responsibility for errors or omissions, and therefore, there are no warranties that accompany this material.Date: 6/19/2024 Time: 4:41 PM Forest Practice Application Mapping Tool (FPAMT) ¯ Approximate Scale :1:4,800 0 400 800200 Feet Legend County Tax Parcels County Boundaries 40 ft. Contours Water Bodies Removed (FP) Type S Type F Type N, Np, Ns U, unknown X, non-typed per WAC 222-16 Type A Wetland Type B Wetland Forested Wetland Other Wetland Other Impoundments Open Freshwater Subject to Inundation Glacier / Snowfield Wet Area Open Saltwater Artificial Feature Trail Railroad Railroad Grade Paved Road Unpaved Road/Surface Unknown Abandoned Orphaned Water Type Breaks (FP) Hydric Rating by Map Unit—King County Area, Washington (Springbrook Trail Boardwalk) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/24/2024 Page 1 of 5 52 5 5 6 4 0 52 5 5 7 0 0 52 5 5 7 6 0 52 5 5 8 2 0 52 5 5 8 8 0 52 5 5 9 4 0 52 5 6 0 0 0 52 5 6 0 6 0 52 5 6 1 2 0 52 5 5 6 4 0 52 5 5 7 0 0 52 5 5 7 6 0 52 5 5 8 2 0 52 5 5 8 8 0 52 5 5 9 4 0 52 5 6 0 0 0 52 5 6 0 6 0 52 5 6 1 2 0 558200 558260 558320 558380 558440 558500 558560 558200 558260 558320 558380 558440 558500 558560 47° 27' 21'' N 12 2 ° 1 3 ' 4 0 ' ' W 47° 27' 21'' N 12 2 ° 1 3 ' 2 2 ' ' W 47° 27' 5'' N 12 2 ° 1 3 ' 4 0 ' ' W 47° 27' 5'' N 12 2 ° 1 3 ' 2 2 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,480 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 19, Aug 29, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 31, 2022—Aug 8, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—King County Area, Washington (Springbrook Trail Boardwalk) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/24/2024 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Pu Puget silty clay loam 100 1.3 4.3% So Snohomish silt loam 99 28.2 93.2% W Water 0 0.7 2.3% Wo Woodinville silt loam 96 0.1 0.2% Totals for Area of Interest 30.3 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—King County Area, Washington Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/24/2024 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—King County Area, Washington Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/24/2024 Page 4 of 5 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—King County Area, Washington Springbrook Trail Boardwalk Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 6/24/2024 Page 5 of 5