The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWP2702001_1BLACK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN VOLUME 3: APPENDICES B-L CITY OF RENTON May 1993 Prepared by R.W. Beck and Associates and Herrera Environmental Consultants in association with Jones & Stokes Associates Funded in part by Washington Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan Volume ? : Appendices B L Prepared for: City of Renton Department of Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Washington Department of Ecology Prepared by: R.W. Beck and Associates Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Jones & Stokes Associates May 1993 CONTENTS Appendix B. Sediment Loading Estimates Appendix C. East Side Green River Watershed Plan Issues and Criteria Appendix D. Public Involvement and Education Appendix E. Technical Advisory Committee Appendix F. Wetland Inventory Appendix G. Wetland Mitigation Strategies Appendix H. Habitat Inventory Appendix I. Preliminary Water Quality Problem Definition Appendix J. Water Quality Alternatives Analysis Appendix K. Alternative Analysis for East Side Green River Watershed Plan and Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan Appendix L. Evaluation of Management Practices APPENDIX B Sediment Loading Estimates July 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1 Hydrology............................................................................................................ 3 Soils......................:............................................................................................... 3 Existing Erosion Problems............................................................................... 4 LandUse....................................................................................................................... 7 SoilErosion................................................................................................................... 7 Methodology..................................................................................................... 11 Universal Soil Loss Equation............................................................... 12 Metro Pollutant Washoff Model......................................................... 17 Application to Black River Study Area .............................................. 18 Results............................................................................................................... 19 ChannelErosion........................................................................................................ 21 Summary...................................................................................................................... 27 References.................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix A: Calculations LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title Page 1 Black River Study Area Boundaries .............................................. 2 2 Landslide Hazard Areas in the Black River StudyArea......................................................................................... 6 3 Predicted Land Use Changes in Springbrook Creek Basin................................................................................................... 9 4 Predicted Land Use Changes in Panther Creek Basin ............. 10 5 Existing Stream Channel Erosion Problems in the Black River Study Area................................................................. 25 Table No. LIST OF TABLES Title Page 1 Erosion Problems Identified in Black River StudyArea......................................................................................... 5 2 Land Use in Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek Basins.................................................................................................. 8 3 Construction Impacts..................................................................... 16 4 Black River Summary of Sediment Loading Estimates........... 20 5 Estimated Sediment Loading Due to Soil Erosion and Washoff in the Black River Study Area .............................. 22 6 Current and Future Estimated Peak Flows in Black River Study Area................................................................. 26 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this evaluation is to identify the effect that projected future development will have on erosion and associated sediment loading/sedimentation conditions in the Black River basin. This information will be used to help direct planning efforts currently being conducted for the City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan (BRWQMP). The study area comprises roughly 6,000 acres in the lower Black River basin located within the City of Renton corporate limits. It includes all of the Panther Creek basin, lower Springbrook Creek basin, and those portions of middle Springbrook Creek basin that lie within the City of Renton (Figure 1). Not included in the BRWQMP study area are upper Springbrook Creek and some of the major tributaries in the upper basin such as Garrison Creek and Mill Creek. Soil erosion and stream channel erosion are the two primary contributors to stream sediment loading. Soil erosion is caused primarily by landclearing activities associated with future construction and development in the basin. In addition, the accumulation and subsequent washoff during storm events of street dust and litter from impervious surfaces in urban areas also contributes to the suspended solids loadings in urban streams. Soil erosion mechanisms have been evaluated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). Pollutant accumulation and washoff have been evaluated using a model developed by Metro (Pelletier et al. 1984). Stream channel and gully erosion results from the erosive action of concentrated runoff. Gullying occurs on open hillsides as previously unconcentrated sheet runoff becomes concentrated in rills and gullies, forming drainage channels where none previously existed. Erosion and sediment transport in existing stream channels is a natural process that occurs as the stream channel responds to changes in hydrologic and sediment loading conditions. Channel geometry and bedload transport are usually determined by larger runoff events. Increases in the peak flow rate and duration caused by urban development can significantly affect channel stability and increase the amount of sediment transported by the stream. Past experience has shown that mass wasting from landslides and streambank degradation caused by uncontrolled urban development can contribute large amounts of sediment loading to the stream. 178IG\SEDLOAD 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. A —LA f MAI Ile 814 T.. V rl— V; �Ic LZf, -N-2.-46 F-1 11i M j NO 30 . . . . . s '24 Z4 J? t N Y 29t — ----- N 'o- f I all 25 30 ad -2 V ....... .. . 1-7 It U17fill - I, 1111 N) 36 r F—, je. IL V -1p am 2 ru so � '.fir • � �y �:. -\ N-I all 3" TL I 4,0 • low 0 2= 3000 7000 RI'7 • � aa- ; '�l' !/ � \�•f Figure 1. Black River Study Area Boundaries Hydrology Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek are the two main streams in the study area. Springbrook Creek flows northward along the valley floor through the study area. The upper basin which includes a large portion of the City of Kent and the Mill Creek area are beyond the boundaries of this study area. Major tributaries of Springbrook Creek originating outside the study area include Mill Creek and Garrison Creek. The lower portion of Springbrook Creek, known as the P-1 channel, has been enlarged over the years to accommodate flood flows. Springbrook Creek joins the Black River in the northern end of the basin at the Black River Pump Station. The pump station transfers water from the Black River basin to the Green River. Panther Creek drains the upland plateau in the eastern portion of the study area. Panther Lake is located at the headwaters of Panther Creek. At the valley floor, Panther Creek enters a large wetland, the Panther Creek wetland, which extends along the east side of the Valley freeway (SR-167). During large storm events, excess flow from Panther Creek enters the south end of the wetland. A series of culverts under SR-167 convey flow from the wetland to the Springbrook Creek drainage. However, low flows are routed under SR- 167 via a culvert before entering the wetland. The culvert merges with a storm drain on 34th Street which eventually discharges to Springbrook Creek. Excess runoff from the Rolling Hills basin also enters at the north end of the wetland during large storm events. Under low flow conditions, flow from the Rolling Hills basin passes under the Valley freeway via a culvert before entering the Panther Creek wetland and enters the Springbrook Creek drainage. Soils The study area can be divided into two major physiographic regions. An upland plateau extends along the eastern portion of the basin. The plateau is part of the Covington drift plain, a mix of glacial till covered in places with recessional outwash or deposits from post - glacial lakes. The highest point on the plateau is at an elevation of approximately 500 feet. From the western edge of the plateau, the hillside drops fairly steeply down to the valley floor. Slopes along this hillside which extends along the entire eastern portion of the study area range between 10 and 50 percent. 178IG\SEDLOAD 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Soils on the plateau consist primarily of Alderwood series gravelly sandy loams with a small percentage of Beausite and Everett gravelly sand loams. Alderwood soils are moderately well drained in the upper soil layers, but exhibit a low permeability, clay hardpan at depths of about 35 inches that restricts drainage (Snyder et al. 1973). Erosion hazard for these soils is moderate. The western part of the basin is located in the Green River valley floodplain. The soils in this lowland area are comprised primarily of Woodinville and Snohomish series silt loams. These series are characteristic of wetland soil with low permeabilities and poor drainage characteristics. These fine-grained soils are typically less erodible than the plateau soils because of the generally flat topography in the lowland area where these soils are found. Existing Erosion Problems Existing erosion problems in the basin were documented by King County as part of their Basin Reconnaissance Program (King County 1987). Specific problems identified in the Black River study area are described in Table 1. Most of the existing erosion problems are associated with urban development in the basin. Forested lands in the basin are being converted to residential and commercial development. The increase in the amount of impervious surfaces that accompanies development has resulted in a greater amount (both volume and rate) of stormwater runoff entering nearby streams. Increased runoff has accelerated naturally occurring erosion in steep ravines present along the western slope of the upland plateau. Channel downcutting is prevalent in Panther Creek and other tributaries serving the eastern plateau. Landslides have also occurred in some areas. Areas with high landslide potential are shown in Figure 2. When sediment -laden runoff from the upland areas reaches the valley floor, the sediments settle out and are deposited in the stream channel. Excessive sedimentation in virtually all tributaries in the Black River basin is filling wetlands and choking salmonid spawning gravels. In addition, sediment deposition has reduced the carrying capacity of many sections of the stream and clogged existing conveyance systems. Reduced conveyance capacity has increased the potential for flooding during large storm events. 178IG\SEDLOAD 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. TABLE 1: EROSION PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN BLACK RIVER STUDY AREA NO STREAM RIVER DESCRIPTION MILE 1 Panther Creek 1.4-2.6 Channel downcutting at upstream end. Bank erosion evident. Deposition above 180th Street and at wetland downstream of Talbot Road. 2 Panther Creek 1.5 Sediment deposition and landslides filling wetland and blocking fish access to stream. 3 Panther Creek 1.8-2.55 Extensive bank erosion, channel downcutting, and sedimentation has damaged fish habitat. Large organic debris and bedload material movement in channel. 4 Panther Creek 2.15 Large landslide area/slope eroded due to undercutting by stream and drainage from road. 5 Panther Creek trib. 0.1-0.2 Channel eroding below development. Downcutting at upper end. Slope failure throughout. 6 Unamed trib. 1-1.7 Erosion below culvert outfall causing sedimentation problems in R/D facility. 7 Panther Creek trib. 0-0.15 Streambank and slope eroding below construction equipment storage area. 8 Panther Creek tdb. 0.15-0.2 Extensive downcutting, bank erosion, and bedload movement. 9 Upper Springbrook Creek 0.2 Excessive sediment deposition in sedimentation facility. 10 Upper Springbrook Creek 0.6 Excessive sedimentation damaged private trout farm. 11 Upper Springbrook Creek 0-0.5 Bank erosion, landslides occurring due to storm drain outfalls. 12 Upper Springbrook Creek 0.4 Development and roadway construction on steep slopes, erosive soils have increased erosion. Reference: King County 1987. SEDIMENT LOADING ESTIMATES FOR BLACK RIVER STUDY AREA (TASK IG) Prepared for R.W. Beck & Associates 2101 - 4th Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98121 and City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1414 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98109 July, 1992 C ? -s G o u c O V CO U N O N O C O i O O > O 2 C O OC N O .O O U > C o N D N C o o E m a E '^ U N V D -C O o C � >CC 7 O O 3r O U n -a O -0 © -0o o H O. N C = , > L O C m 0 F- C C O -0 U �I I� 0 s KENT Source: Goo Logineers 11/17/91 B FILEVU E q �p ....... ISSAQ '" dOfu•M ' O Z CR 5. ...... _ •:::7.'lC... fig .: LL to LL e� A, hJ 1 rLL F 1 z � s � D s' CrUE7ER' RD . LL - p LrXr XATHLErNra '• "' ...:::. rACDONALD p...... ....... ..... : Kca:. • V.t' Ei F.r .... ... �.. -. , LIXX DXSIRr Rp SPRING L1Xr N 60D P o - � .1a r iAXX LIXs - N LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Lakes ® Very High (City of Renton) High (City of Renton) LMedium (City of Renton) LL Low (City of Renton) Hazard (King County) �- Streams Rivers Highways Main Roads Study Area Boundary Sphere of Influence Bound Note: Areas shown are those mapped by Kng County or by consultants under contract with the city. Note: Kennydale landslide area not yet mapped. 0 6000 12000 1:72000 LONG RANGE PUNNING P/B/PX Technical Services 6 December 1991 Robert T. Mao Onle. Jr. Figure 2. Landslide Hazard Areas in the Black River Studv Area Sediment deposition has filled in portions of the wetland located at the mouth of Panther Creek. Excessive sedimentation from upstream erosion has also damaged a private trout farm located on Springbrook Creek west of Talbot Road. LAND USE Land use conditions in the basin have recently been described by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (1991). Present and future land use in the Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek basins are described in Table 2. Current land use conditions were defined using aerial photographs of the area from 1988 and 1989. Future land use representing full buildout conditions was estimated from area comprehensive plans and local zoning maps. Commercial development predominates in the lowland areas in the western portion of the study area, (i.e., Springbrook Creek basin) along the SR-405 and SR-167 corridors, and in the Renton commercial district (Table 2). Although a large portion of the Springbrook Creek basin is currently undeveloped (approximately 1,510 acres), most of this area (approximately 870 acres) is expected to be converted to commercial and high density residential use under full buildout conditions. As shown in Figure 3, future development in Springbrook Creek basin will convert the existing undeveloped forested, and low density residential areas in the basin to predominantly commercial and high density residential use. Most residential development has occurred and will continue to occur in the eastern part of the study area in the Panther Creek basin. The two primary categories of residential use that currently exist in the upland areas are high density (710 acres) and low density (391 acres) development (see Table 1). Under future buildout, most of the existing low density residential and remaining undeveloped forested lands will be converted to high density and multi -family development (Figure 4). SOIL EROSION Soil erosion due to wind and water action is a natural weathering process that occurs in all watersheds regardless of whether they have undergone development. However, natural erosion processes are often accelerated by land clearing activities associated with urban development. Improper management of soils exposed at construction sites can be a major source of additional sediment loading to nearby streams. After construction is completed 178IG\SEDLOAD 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. TABLE 2: LAND USE IN PANTHER CREEK AND SPRINGBROOK CREEK BASINS LAND CURRENT CONDITIONS (Ac) FUTURE CONDITIONS (Ac) USE PANTHER SPRINGBROOK PANTHER SPRINGBROOK COM 296.9 1108.2 305.1 1821.1 MULTI 186.3 75.7 282.3 61.7 HDR 710.5 156.7 1058.2 386.1 MDR 280.4 75.6 218 220 LDR 391.5 240.8 300.3 24.5 OF 487.6- 253.7 327.5 197.4 UC 226.6 231.4 103.3 48.3 LU 79.7 1089.2 67.4 462.3 LAKE 84.4 0.3 76.3 0.3 Total 2743.9 3231.6 2738.4 3221.7 COM Commercial MULTI Mufti -family residential HDR High density residential MDR Medium density residential LDR Low density residential OF Upland forest UC Upland cleared LU Lowland undeveloped LAKE Lake COM MULTI HDR MDR LDR FOR CLEAR UNDEV LAKE Land Use Category Figure 3: Predicted Land Use Changes in Springbrook Creek Basin to m a COM MULTI HDR MDR LDR FOR CLEAR UNDEV LAKE Land Use Category Figure 4: Predicted Land Use Changes in Panther Creek Basin and exposed soils are stabilized with vegetation or are paved, soil erosion typically declines to levels that are below the peak levels experienced during site construction. Although there is usually less soil surface exposed after development due to paving for roads and buildings, post -development soil erosion and watershed sediment loadings may not decrease to pre -development levels. Long term erosion losses are likely to occur due to: alteration in vegetative cover that accompanies development (e.g., heavily forested lands converted to residential yards); development on steep slopes where soils are highly susceptible to erosion; and to the greater intensity of human activity in the basin. In addition, dirt and litter from paved surfaces constitute an additional source of sediment loading from urban areas. Street dust generated by vehicular wearing of the road surface, litter, and atmospheric deposition can be a significant source of suspended solids in urban streams. Methodology The following two methods were used to evaluate potential changes in soil erosion after full buildout occurs in the Black River study area: o Universal soil loss equation (USLE). The USLE has been used to evaluate soil erosion potential in the study area. Soil eroded from some areas may be redeposited further downstream in the basin without entering the stream system. Therefore, this method provides an indication of overall erosion potential, but may overpredict sediment loading to nearby streams. o Metro's pollutant washoff model for urban drainage basins (Pelletier 1984). This model was developed using stormwater quality data from the Seattle area. The model estimates the total annual loading of various pollutants (including total suspended solids) from different urban land use categories. The following sections describe the application of these two methods to the Black River study area. 178IG\SEDLOAD 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Universal Soil Loss Equation The USLE is commonly used to estimate soil erosion, particularly from disturbed areas such as agricultural and construction sites. It was developed using experimental data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA 1978). As shown below, the equation relates physical soil characteristics, site topography, local rainfall conditions, and land management practices to soil loss in the basin: A = (R) (K) (L-S) (C) (P) Where: A = Soil loss in ton/acre R = Rainfall energy factor K = Soil erodibility factor LS = Slope -length factor C = Cropping management (i.e. vegetative cover) factor P = Erosion control practice factor. The rainfall energy factor is a measure of the erosive force and intensity of rainfall in an average year. It reflects the combined erosive potential of raindrop impact to dislodge soil particles and runoff turbulence to transport soil particles from the site. Studies have shown that the average annual rainfall energy factor can be approximated from the 2-year, 6-hour rainfall for the area of interest. The relationship between the annual R factor and 2-year, 6-hour rainfall (p) in western Washington is shown below (Goldman et al. 1986): R=(10.2)p2.2 The soil erodibility factor (K) is a measure of the susceptibility of soil particles to becoming dislodged and transported by rainfall and runoff. Soil texture, structure, organic matter content, and permeability are the primary factors affecting erodibility. The length -slope factor (LS) describes the combined effect of site slope and slope length for each site based on the following equation: 178IG\SEDLOAD 12 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 65.41s2 + 4.56s 1 m LS= _ +0.65 — s2 + 10,000 s2 + 10,000 72.5 where: 1 = slope length (ft) s = slope gradient (ft/ft) m = exponent dependent on slope steepness kJ.2 for slopes < 1%, 0.3 for slopes of 1 to 3%, 0.4 for slopes of 3.5 to 4.5%, and 0.5 for slopes > 5 %). The cropping factor takes into account the varying degrees of protection provided by different vegetative cover types. Bare soils are assigned a C value of 1.0. The erosion practice factor (P), accounts for land management techniques such as contouring and surface roughening that can be implemented to reduce the amount of erosion from a bare soil surface. Specifically, the P factor is the ratio of soil loss with a given soil surface condition to the corresponding loss with up and down hill plowing. Application to Black River Studv Area. The USLE was applied to small subbasins within the larger study area. The study area was divided into subbasins that exhibit similar land use, soil characteristics, and slope conditions. Individual subbasins were delineated using the available land use maps for both current and future development conditions (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 1991), topographic maps, and soil survey maps (Snyder et al. 1973). For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that soils in the study area could be broken into two major soil types i.e., upland soils characterized by Alderwood series gravelly sandy loam soils and lowland soils characterized by the Woodinville and Snohomish series silt loam soils. For the most part, this evaluation used the subbasins defined in the Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (1991) report (see Figure A-1 in Appendix A). The Panther Creek basin lies almost entirely on the upland plateau area. Soils in this basin are primarily from the Alderwood series, although subbasins P2, P4, and P5 contain some lowland soils (i.e., Woodinville -Snohomish series). The Springbrook Creek basin contains primarily lowland soils. Alderwood series soils have been identified only in subbasins S3, S6, S16, and S17. 178IG\SEDLOAD 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. The following soil erodibility factors were used for the two soil types, based on information from Snyder et al. (1973) and King County (1991): Soil Tune K Factor Lowland soils (Woodinville -Snohomish) 0.40 Upland soils (Alderwood) 0.15 The rainfall erosion index (R) was calculated based on the 2-year, 6-hour storm for the study area (1.0 inches) (Miller et al. 1973). An R factor of 10 is estimated for the study area. Because only the pervious portions of each subbasin would be subject to erosion, impervious or paved areas (e.g., roadways, rooftops, driveways) were deleted from the basin area calculations. The amount of impervious surface in each subbasin was determined based on land use as shown below: Land Use Commercial Multi -family High density residential Medium density residential Low density residential Open space Highway Percent Impervious 85 70 60 30 10 0 95 Vegetative cover factors were selected from the literature (Goldman et al. 1986; USDA 1978; McElroy et al. 1976). It was assumed that pervious areas in commercial, industrial, and all categories of residential use would be seeded with grass. C factors used in the analysis are summarized below: Land Use Commercial Multi -family High density residential Medium density residential Low density residential Undeveloped cleared Undeveloped forested Lowland undeveloped C Factor 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.008 0.012 178IG\SEDLOAD 14 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Evaluation of Construction Impacts. The USLE was also used to evaluate potential increases in sediment loading that could occur during site construction. Erosion losses due to construction have been estimated on a per acre basis for the two major soil types in the basin (i.e., upland soils and lowland soils). For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that construction occurs over a five month period, beginning in May. The following types of erosion control measures were evaluated to determine the approximate range in sediment loadings from construction activities: o None (i.e., bare soil) o Temporary seeding o Mulching o Immediate revegetation using sod. The results summarized in Table 3 show that erosion losses due to construction can be greatly reduced by implementing proper erosion control practices. Without erosion control (i.e., exposed soils not stabilized), erosion losses could range from 2.31 ton/Ac for the steeper upland sites (slopes ranging from 5-20 percent) to 0.17 ton/Ac for relatively flat lowland construction sites. However, these losses can be reduced to about 0.01 to 0.02 ton/Ac if disturbed areas are rapidly revegetated with sod. To predict the approximate impacts due to construction for the duration of the buildout period, it was assumed that construction will occur at a constant rate starting in 1989 and continuing until buildout is complete. As of 1989, approximately 800 acres and 1,575 acres of undeveloped land remained in the Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek basins, respectively. The Renton Planning Department estimates that the commercial portion of the study area (i.e., Springbrook Creek basin) will be completely developed in the next 5-7 years (Meyer 1991 pers. comm.). Assuming that development occurs uniformly during this period, approximately 250 acres of land will be under construction each year in the Springbrook Creek basin. Full buildout in the predominantly residential Panther Creek basin is not expected to occur as quickly due to water supply and transportation constraints. For this analysis, it was assumed that full buildout in the Panther Creek basin would occur over the next 15-20 years. Assuming that development occurs at a constant rate, the amount of land under construction each year in the Panther Creek basin would be approximately 45 acres. summarized below: Estimates of total erosion loss per year due to construction are 178IG\SEDLOAD 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. TABLE 3: CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS BASIN AREA (Ac) RAINFAL FACTOR (R) SOIL ERODIBILITY FACTOR (K) SLOPE N LENGTH (ft) LENGTH SLOPE (LS) COVER (a) (C) SUPPORT PRACTICE(b (P) SOIL LOSS (Ton/Ac) Upland 1 2 0.15 5 200 0.68 1 1.3 0.27 Alderwood 1 2 0.15 5 200 0.68 0.4 0.9 0.07 Series 1 2 0.15 5 200 0.68 0.05 0.9 0.01 1 2 0.15 5 200 0.68 0.01 0.9 0.00 1 2 0.15 20 200 5.93 1 1.3 2.31 1 2 0.15 20 200 5.93 0.4 0.9 0.64 1 2 0.15 20 200 5.93 0.05 0.9 0.08 1 2 0.15 20 200 5.93 0.01 0.9 0.02 Lowland 1 2 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 1 1.3 0.11 Seattle- 1 2 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.4 0.9 0.03 Oridia- 1 2 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.05 0.9 0.00 Woodinville 1 2 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.01 0.9 0.00 Series 1 2 0.40 1 200 0.16 1 1.3 0.17 1 2 0.40 1 200 0.16 0.4 0.9 0.05 1 2 0.40 1 200 0.16 0.05 0.9 0.01 1 2 0.40 1 200 0.16 0.01 0.9 0.00 Note: Assume 5 month construction period where soils are exposed. May -September rainfall = 7.49 inches (a) Cover Factor: 1: No cover, bare soil 0.4: Temporary seeding 0.05: Hay or straw mulch (2 tons/acre) 0.01: Sod (laid immediately) (b) Support Practice: 1: Soil surface compacted and smooth 0.9: Trackwalked up and down slope Estimated Total Erosion Loss ton r Panther Creek Without controls 104 With immediate sodding 0.7 Springbrook Creek Without controls 42 With immediate resodding 0.3 If adequate controls are not implemented during the construction phase, significant erosion losses could occur, particularly in the Panther Creek basin where soils are more susceptible to erosion due to the presence of relatively steep slopes and erodible soils. Metro Pollutant Washoff Model The Metro pollutant washoff model (Pelletier et al. 1984) was developed from existing stormwater data to predict pollutant washoff from urban areas. The model uses data collected during 26-34 storm events from three sites in the Seattle area to define accumulation rates (measured in lb/day) for various pollutants (e.g., total suspended solids, lead, and phosphorus) on the land surface between storm events. Pollutant washoff is then calculated as a fraction of the pollutant accumulated since the last storm based on the magnitude of the storm event. Pollutant washoff is modeled as a first order differential equation. The model uses a first order rate constant of 4.6 based on the assumption that 90 percent of the accumulated pollutants are removed when the runoff from the watershed reaches 0.5 inches. Runoff is calculated from rainfall using standard runoff coefficients for urban areas. The equation used to predict pollutant washoff is presented below: M = [(A'wet)*Sum(nweti*fi) + (APdry*Sum(ndryi)*fi))*(AF)*(Area) where: M = the amount of pollutant washed off the basin each year (lb/yr) i = storm size category as described above nweti = number of storms of size "i' that occur during the wet season ndryi = number of storms of size "i" that occur during the dry season 178IG\SEDLOAD 17 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. APwet = wet season accumulation period APdry = dry season accumulation period AF = accumulation rate factor (lb/Ac/yr) Area = watershed area (Ac) fi = 1-exp(-br) where: • Elmo r = runoff generated by storm of magnitude "i" Separate calculations are performed for wet and dry seasons. Rainfall data from stations in the Seattle area have been compiled to compute rainfall frequencies and accumulation periods for the following size storm events: 0 0.01-0.099 inches 0 0.1-0.49 inches 0 0.5-0.99 inches o > 1.0 inches. Application to Black River Study Area. The Metro pollutant washoff model was applied to individual subbasins within the Black River study area as described previously for the USLE. Rainfall statistics for the basin were determined as the mean rainfall between Kent and Seattle stations: Number of Storms Precipitation Wet Season Dry Season 0.01= 0.099 34 11 0.10-0.49 62 12 0.50-0.99 14 2 > 1.0 4 0 Accumulation Period Wet Season: 2.11 days Dry Season: 5.09 days The accumulation rates for total suspended solids for the different land use categories used in the analysis are summarized below (Pelletier et al. 1984): 178IG\SEDLOAD 18 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Land Use Commercial Multi -family High density residential Medium density residential Low density residential Undeveloped cleared Undeveloped forested Lowland undeveloped Results Accumulation Rate (lb/Ac/dav) 0.93 2.08 2.08 0.34 0.08 3.00 0.06 0.06 The results of the USLE and washoff model calculations are presented in Appendix A. A comparison of the two methods is presented in Table 4. Table 4 shows that for each land use category, both methods produce similar trends in sediment loading reflecting changes in land use from current conditions to predicted future buildout conditions. However, the magnitude of sediment loading predicted by each method is quite different. The washoff model generally predicts greater sediment loadings from urban land, but lower loadings from undeveloped land than does the USLE. This difference is especially evident for the undeveloped cleared land use category where the loadings predicted by the USLE are about 10 times greater than those predicted by the washoff model. As a result, for the entire study area, the washoff method predicts a slight increase in sediment loading under full buildout conditions (from 316 to 401 ton/yr), while the USLE predicts a threefold decrease in sediment loading (from 1226 to 408 ton/yr). The washoff model, which was developed using stormwater data from three basins in the Seattle area, is probably better than the USLE at estimating sediment loadings from largely impervious urban basins. Sediment release from these urban basins is typically more a function of accumulated sediments being washed off paved surfaces during storm events than it is a function of soil erosion. This is due to the large percentage of paved areas in urban basins and relatively small amounts of exposed soil that are subject to erosion. Sediments accumulate on paved surfaces from a variety of sources, including street litter, vehicle tire wear, abrasion of road surfaces by traffic, pets, and construction activities. The USLE, which is based solely on physical soil characteristics and erosion control practices is not capable of evaluating inputs from paved areas. For undeveloped areas, where most of the land remains unpaved, soil erosion is the major contributor to sediment loading. Because the washoff model was developed based on data 178IG\SEDLOAD 19 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. TABLE 4:BLACK RIVER SUMMARY OFSEDIMENT LOADING ESTIMATES Comm HDR High density residential K8OR Medium density residential U]R Low density residential UF Undeveloped forested UC Upland cleared LU Lowland undeveloped LAKE Lake from three urban basins in Seattle, available data to define pollutant accumulation rates for nonurban land uses such as forested areas are limited. Furthermore, the washoff model is not particularly applicable to undeveloped areas because there is relatively little accumulation of sediment and other pollutants from human activity in undeveloped watersheds. Therefore, the USLE probably provides a better estimate of the erosion losses from forested and other undeveloped subbasins in the Black River study area. Table 4 shows that soil loss from undeveloped, cleared areas constitutes the largest portion of the total erosion loss in the Black River study area. The USLE predicts the amount of soil eroded from the basin. As explained earlier, these values represent the potential erosion loss from the basin, but must be adjusted to determine the amount of sediment actually delivered to the receiving streams. This adjustment, known as the sediment delivery ratio can be calculated from field measurements or estimated from nomographs developed by the SCS (McElroy et al. 1976). Sediment delivery ratios for the Panther Creek basin and Springbrook Creek basin are estimated at 25 percent and 50 percent, respectively, based on the method described by McElroy et al. (1976). Watershed sediment loading to Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek has been estimated by combining the results of Metro's washoff model for urban subbasins (i.e., residential and commercial land uses) with the USLE predictions (accounting for actual sediment delivery) for undeveloped basins (i.e., forested, undeveloped cleared, and lowland undeveloped land uses). Results summarized in Table 5 indicate that sediment loading to Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek can be expected to decline from the current level of approximately 750 ton/yr to 510 ton/yr after buildout is complete. This decline is due in large part to the reduction in the amount of undeveloped cleared land (from 458 acres to 152 acres) that remains after full buildout. Land that has been cleared, but not developed is highly susceptible to erosion, particularly in the Panther Creek basin where the soils and slope conditions are conducive to erosion. CHANNEL EROSION Channel erosion refers to degradation of stream banks and bottoms due to the erosive action of flowing water. The two basic factors influencing stream channel degradation are 1) hydraulic conditions, such as channel slope, peak flow rates, and flow depth; and 2) the particle size distribution of sediments in the channel bed and banks. In most natural 178IG\SEDLOAD 21 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. TABLE 5: ESTIMATED SEDIMENT LOADING DUE TO SOIL EROSION AND WASHOFF IN THE BLACK RIVER STUDY AREA BASIN SEDIMENT LOADING (ton/yr) Current Future Panther Creek Urban subbasins 140 200 Undeveloped subbasins 80 40 Springbrook Creek Urban subbasins 110 190 Undeveloped subbasins 420 80 ..:. ..:...... ......................... Total 750 streams, channel geometry continues to change in response to changes in flow conditions. However, a long term balance is usually achieved between channel degradation and aggradation processes. Studies have shown that streamflows having a recurrence interval of 1-2 years, define stream channel geometry in most natural streams (Pemberton and Lara 1984). Significant amounts of channel erosion and bedload movement usually only occur when flows reach these levels. When any one of the factors influencing stream channel degradation change, either due to storm flow conditions or due to changes in the drainage basin, the stream channel responds to accommodate increases in flow. These changes usually result in increased sediment loading in the stream from mass wasting due to streambank sloughing. In extreme cases, landslide activity introduces large amounts of sediment to the stream. In the Black River study area, such changes have been occurring as a result of increased development in the basin. With development, previously undeveloped forest lands in the watershed are rapidly being converted to residential and commercial use. Building and road construction that accompanies urban development increases the amount of impervious surface in the basin. This increase in impervious area, combined with landclearing activities usually associated with development, results in an increase in surface water runoff. Consequently, nearby streams will be required to convey greater amounts of flow as development progresses. Past experience has shown that, if left uncontrolled, additional runoff generated by urban developments can cause serious erosion and sedimentation problems in adjacent streams. Most cities, including Renton, have recently implemented ordinances to control urban runoff. Renton's storm and surface water ordinance was passed in 1986. This new ordinance should help to prevent problems from future development. However, there are many pre-existing problems in the Black River basin that have resulted from older developments constructed prior to implementation of the drainage ordinance. Most of the existing channel erosion problems have occurred in the streams that drain the eastern plateau area. Soil and slope conditions combined with increased runoff from urban development have resulted in severe channel downcutting and erosion of streambanks in this area. King County investigated the Black River basin in 1987 as part of its basin reconnaissance program (King County 1987) and documented existing problems in the 178IG\SEDLOAD 23 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. basin. As shown in Figure 5, most of upper Panther Creek and upper Springbrook Creek are already experiencing channel degradation problems. Downcutting is evident in the upper 1 to 1.5 miles of the Panther Creek where stream gradients are as high as 15 percent. The extreme upstream end of the channel has not generally exhibited erosion problems, mainly due to the low channel gradient (i.e., 0.5 to 1.0 percent slope) that exist in the area immediately below Panther Lake. While erosion problems have also not occurred in low gradient areas at the downstream end of Panther Creek (where it enters the Panther Creek wetland), this section of the stream has experienced sedimentation problems. Sediments derived from the upper basin are depositing in these lower energy areas, filling the existing wetland, and blocking fish passage in the lower section of the stream (King County 1987). Similar conditions exist in upper Springbrook Creek where channel gradients exceed 15 percent along some sections of the stream (see Figure 5). In addition, localized erosion problems have occurred at some storm drain outfalls that enter the creek from adjacent developments. A quantitative analysis of sediment loading from stream channel degradation has not been conducted as part of this study. However, based on the soil and slope conditions present in the upper Springbrook and Panther Creeks, it is evident that channel erosion is a primary component of sediment loading in these two streams. Hydrologic analyses conducted as part of the East Side Green River project and summarized in Table 6 indicate that significant increases in peak flow rates are expected in all major streams in the Black River study area (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 1991). Based on anticipated growth and development, peak flow rate increases of approximately 20-60 percent have been predicted based on recent modeling efforts. The largest increases (i.e., 60 percent) are predicted for upper Springbrook Creek which is already experiencing severe channel erosion problems. Increases in peak flow rates in Panther Creek are on the order of 35-40 percent. While the modeling effort included the effects of regional detention facilities planned in the basin, it did not account for local retention/detention facilities that will be required under Renton's drainage ordinance. Under the drainage ordinance, which adopts the King County drainage manual, all new development will be required to install detention facilities that are capable of controlling peak runoff rates to pre -development levels for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. Although these new design standards will help 178IG\SEDLOAD 24 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Black River S17 N Pump Station S16 711� i / �.,. Rolling 11111s '—� Tributary S14 `�� ) � �, P5 S15 1 \ S11 P4 �\ S 10 /�� ,\ �•� S9 �/ \ Panther r Creek 0 Wetland I� 0" � t v � 1 Kent / Lagoons • 1 S7 !ISB S5 P3 `� • •S 1 BOth to ca P2 \ S6 I � S4 \ I ` \ 167 S3 \ -Panther 1\ o 1 Lake re \ O \I ova c� % --nof MM 0 ff� 1 I S1 I I I � I I 515 I I � I -A / i I I Legend I k Basin boundary \ M M M Channel erosion damage \ "NOWIM Study area boundary \` Base map from NHC (1991) \ / Figure 5. SCALE Existing Stream Channel Erosion r , , miles Problems in the Black River 1�2 ° 2 Study Area to reduce impacts from future development, additional work will likely be required to correct problems caused by earlier developments whose stormwater control facilities do not meet current standards. Retrofitting existing systems to improve runoff control and rehabilitating/stabilizing damaged stream channels are two possible solutions to alleviate existing erosion problems in the basin. In addition, implementation of more stringent detention standards may also be required in erosion sensitive areas such as upper Panther Creek and upper Springbrook Creek to reduce impacts from future development. Experience has shown that even the most current design standards may not be adequate to protect highly sensitive areas. As a result, many communities have adopted more stringent criteria (e.g., control post -development 2-year, 24-hour peak flow rates to 0.5 of the pre - developed rate) for erosion sensitive areas. SUMMARY The major sources of sediment loading in the Black River study area are upland erosion in the watershed and in -stream channel erosion. A quantitative analysis of upland erosion in the basin using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) indicates that soil erosion will likely decline as the basin is completely developed. Sediment loading is predicted to decline from the current level of 770 ton/yr to about 520 ton/yr after development is complete. This reduction is largely due to the conversion of existing undeveloped, cleared areas to residential and commercial land use. Because many of these cleared areas are located in upland areas in the eastern part of the study area, where topography and soil conditions are conducive to erosion, they are currently contributing a significant proportion of the total basin sediment load. Once developed, a large portion of the area will be covered with pavement and buildings which will reduce the amount of exposed soil that is subject to erosion. In addition, landscaping in commercial and residential developments is also predicted to reduce erosion from these cleared areas. The USLE was also used to evaluate soil erosion that occurs during construction. The analysis indicates that construction activities can be a major source of sediment loading, particularly in the upland areas that are highly susceptible to erosion. However, with proper erosion control measures, the effects from construction can be greatly reduced. For example, for upland areas in the Panther Creek basin, soil loss during construction can be reduced from a high of 2.3 ton/acre (assuming no controls i.e., bare soil for the 5-month construction period and 20 percent slopes) to about 0.01 ton/acre if disturbed soils are immediately revegetated with sod. The analysis also demonstrated that other erosion 178IG\SEDLOAD 27 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. control practices such as mulching and reseeding are also effective in reducing erosion losses. Washoff of sediments that accumulate on impervious surfaces in the developing basin was found to be an additional source of sediment loading to streams in the Black River study area. Sources of accumulated sediments include tire wear on street surfaces, vehicle undercarriage washoff, abrasion of street surfaces due to vehicular traffic, pet waste, and other organic debris. Although this source of sediment loading was predicted to increase as a result of development, the decrease in sediment loading that will occur as a result of reductions in soil erosion in the basin far outweigh the increase from impervious surface washoff. Sediment loading from channel degradation and streambank erosion is also expected to increase with development unless adequate stormwater control facilities are constructed to reduce the rate of stormwater runoff from developing areas. Regional detention facilities proposed for the basin are not expected to be adequate to control sediment loading from this source. The areas of greatest concern are upper Panther Creek and upper Springbrook Creek where extensive development is predicted and where already unstable bank conditions would be aggravated by increased flows from future development. Onsite detention provided by new developments as required under the City of Renton's current drainage ordinance should help to reduce future impacts. However, retrofitting some of the existing drainage systems to comply with current design standards and stabilization/rehabilitation of erosion sensitive channels may also be required to correct existing problems. 178IG\SEDLOAD 28 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. REFERENCES Goldman, S.J., K. Jackson, and T. A. Bursztynsky. 1986. Erosion and sediment control handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. King County. 1987. Basin Reconnaissance Report No. 14. Black River Basin. Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division, King County, Seattle, WA. King County. 1991. Surface water design manual. Surface Water Management -Division, Department of Public Works, King County, Seattle, WA. McElroy, A.D., S.Y. Chiu, J.W. Nebgen, A. Aleti, and F.W. Bennett. 1976. Loading functions for assessment of water pollution from nonpoint sources. EPA 600/2-76-151. Prepared for Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO. Meyer, M. 1991. Personal Communication (phone by Ms. Beth Schmoyer). Planning Department, City of Renton, WA. Miller, J.F., R.H. Frederick, and R.J. Tracey. 1973. NOAA Atlas 2. Precipitation - frequency atlas of the western United States, Volume IX -Washington. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 1991. East side Green River watershed hydrologic analysis. Prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates and City of Renton, Department of Public Works, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., Kent, WA. Pelletier, G.J., J.M Buffo, and J.I. Davis. 1984. Review, calibration, and validation of Metro's "Desktop" model for estimation of annual pollutant washoff from urban watersheds: lead, phosphorus, and suspended solids. Water Pollution Control Division, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, WA. Pemberton, E.L. and J.M. Lara. 1984. Computing degradation and local scour. Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Section, Hydrology Branch, Engineering and Research Center, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil survey, King County area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Pullman, WA. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses, a guide to conservation planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 178IG\SEDLOAD 29 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. TABLE 6: CURRENT AND FUTURE ESTIMATED PEAK FLOWS IN BLACK RIVER STUDY AREA STREAM LOCATION 2-YR PEAK FLOW (cfs) CURRENT CONDITIONS FUTURE CONDITIONS 10-YR 25-YR 50-YR 100-YR 2-YR 10-YR 25-YR 50-YR 100-YR Panther Creek Inflow to Panther Creek wetland 69 95 110 122 135 93 132 151 166 181 Rolling Hills tributary Inflow to Panther Creek wetland 76 95 103 109 114 102 147 171 190 209 Upper Springbrook Creek At SR-167 crossing 27 35 39 42 45 43 65 78 88 98 Springbrook Creek Upstream of P-9 channel 499 701 818 913 1015 610 832 956 1054 1157 Springbrook Creek At1-405 bridge 549 789 926 1041 1164 697 957 1098 1208 1323 Springbrook Creek Black River pumping station 671 928 1062 1163 1266 789 1089 1254 1383 1518 Reference: NHC 1991 and RW Beck 1991 APPENDIX A Calculations Le end Basin boundary P5 Subbasin number mono Study area boundary Base map from NHC (1991) SCALE 1 miles 1 1/2 0 t 2 TABLE A-1: BLACK RIVER SEDIMENT LOADING: UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION PRESENT CONDITIONS (NHC 1991) Panther Creek basin BASIN AREA (6c) ERODIBLE AREA (Ad LAND RAIN/RUN EROD USE FACTOR FACTOR (R) (n SLOPE LENGTH N (ft) LENGTH SLOPE (LS) COVER SUPPORT PRACTICE (C) (P) SOIL LOSS (Tmn a P1 95.3 38.12 HDR 10 0.15 2 50 0.16 0.05 1 0.5 Pi 34.7 0 LAKE 10 0.15 0 0 0.00 0.05 1 0.0 P1 105.7 95.13 LDR 10 0.15 1 200 0.16 0.05 1 1.1 P1 77.8 54.46 MDR 10 0.15 1 100 0.13 0.05 1 0.5 P1 42.2 12.66 MULTI 10 0.15 1 25 0.09 0.05 1 0.1 P1 82.5 82.5 UC 10 0.15 1 200 0.16 0.2 1 3.9 P1 31 31 OF 10 0.15 1 400 0.20 0.008 1 0.1 P2 91.4 13.71 COM 10 0.15 7 5 0.18 0.05 1 0.2 P2 118.9 47.56 HDR 10 0.15 4 50 0.30 0.05 1 1.1 P2 243.6 219.24 LDR 10 0.15 5 200 0.68 0.05 1 11.3 P2 0.5 0.5 LU 10 0.40 0.5 50 0.08 0.012 1 0.0 P2 80.4 56.28 MDR 10 0.15 4 100 0.40 0.05 1 1.7 P2 38.5 11.55 MULTI 10 0.15 10 25 0.69 0.05 1 0.6 P2 61.5 61.5 UC 10 0.15 15 400 5.19 0.2 1 95.8 P2 180.8 180.8 OF 10 0.15 20 100 4.19 0.008 1 9.1 P3 52.1 7.815 COM 10 0.15 5 5 0.16 0.05 1 0.1 P3 0.2 0.2 OF 10 0.15 5 300 0.81 0.008 1 0.0 P3 2.7 2.7 UC 10 0.15 5 200 0.68 0.2 1 0.6 P4 16.1 2.415 COM 10 0.15 8 5 0.22 0.05 1 0.0 P4 136.8 54.72 HDR 10 0.15 7 50 0.58 0.05 1 2.4 P4 49.7 14.91 LAKE 10 0.15 10 25 0.00 0.05 1 0.0 P4 24.2 21.78 LDR 10 0.15 10 200 1.95 0.05 1 3.2 P4 64.6 64.6 LU _ 10 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.012 1 0.3 P4 93.7 65.59 MDR 10 0.15 8 100 0.99 0.05 1 4.9 P4 41.3 41.3 UC 10 0.15 15 1000 8.21 0.2 1 101.7 P4 73.8 73.8 OF 10 0.15 20 400 8.39 0.008 1 7.4 PS 137.3 20.595 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.2 P5 349.5 139.8 HDR 10 0.15 5 50 0.39 0.05 1 4.1 P5 10 4 HDR 10 0.40 0.5 50 0.08 0.05 1 0.1 P5 18 16.2 LDR 10 0.15 5 200 0.68 0.05 1 0.8 P5 12.4 12.4 LU 10 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.012 1 0.1 P5 28.5 19.95 MDR 10 0.15 10 100 1.38 0.05 1 2.1 P5 105.6 31.68 MULTI 10 0.15 15 25 1.30 0.05 1 3.1 P5 41.3 41.3 UC 10 0.15 20 400 8.39 0.2 1 103.9 P5 201.8 201.8 OF 10 0.15 20 50 2.97 0.008 1 7.2 40 .... 1742a57...........:.......:..:...::.........:::.,.:.:.......:::::.r......:.....::::................::;:;::;:.>;:;;>;>:::............................14 TABLE A-2: BLACK RIVER SEDIMENT LOADING: UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUA-nCN PRESENT CONDITIONS (NHC 1991) Springbrook Creek basin BASIN AREA (Ac) ERODIBLE AREA (Ad LAND RAINIRUN EROD USE FACTOR FACTOR (R) (m SLOPE LENGTH N (ft) LENGTH SLOPE (LS) COVER SUPPORT PRACTICE (C) (P) SOIL LOSS (T o6g) S3 22.5 3.375 COM 10 0.15 2 5 0.08 0.05 1 0.0 S3 80 32 HDR 10 0.15 1 50 0.10 0.05 1 0.3 S3 46.2 41.58 LDR 10 0.15 10 200 1.95 0.05 1 6.1 S3 75.6 52.92 MDR 10 0.15 5 100 0.52 0.05 1 2.1 S3 220 220 UC 10 0.15 25 400 12.33 0.2 1 813.7 S3 158.7 158.7 OF 10 0.15 25 250 9.75 0.008 1 18.6 S5 32.3 4.845 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S5 32.3 32:3 LU 10 0.40 0.5 400 0.13 0.012 1 0.2 S6 5 0.75 COM 10 0.15 2 5 0.08 0.05 1 0.0 S6 30.8 4.62 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.0 S6 2 1.8 LDR 10 0.15 5 200 0.68 0.05 1 0.1 S6 3.2 2.88 LDR 10 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.05 1 0.1 S6 15 15 LU 10 0.40 0.5 500 0.13 0.012 1 0.1 S6 14 4.2 MULTI 10 0.15 5 25 0.30 0.05 1 0.1 S6 14 4.2 MULTI 10 0.40 0.5 25 0.07 0.05 1 0.1 S6 1.3 1.3 UC 10 0.15 5 200 0.68 0.2 1 0.3 S7 48.7 7.305 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S7 83.1 83.1 LU 10 0.40 0.5 400 0.13 0.012 1 0.5 S8 149.6 22.44 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.2 SS 73.2 73.2 LU 10 0.40 0.5 50 0.08 0.012 1 0.3 S9 27.9 4.185 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.0 S9 297.4 297.4 LU 10 0.40 0.5 1500 0.16 0.012 1 2.3 S10 88.3 13.245 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S10 103.4 103.4 LU 10 0.40 0.5 300 0.12 0.012 1 0.6 S11 40.7 6.105 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S71 36.1 32.49 LDR 10 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.05 1 0.7 S11 92.7 92.7 LU 10 0.40 0.5 100 0.10 0.012 1 0.4 S12 28.4 28.4 LU 10 0.40 0.5 100 0.10 0.012 1 0.1 S13 47.6 7.14 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S13 57.7 57.7 LU 10 0.40 0.5 400 0.13 0.012 1 0.3 S14 33.9 5.085 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S14 11.6 10.44 LDR 10 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.05 1 0.2 S14 43.6 43.6 LU 10 0.40 0.5 100 0.10 0.012 1 0.2 S15 40.7 6.105 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S15 39.7 39.7 LU 10 0.40 0.5 250 0.11 0.012 1 0.2 S16 311.5 46.725 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.5 S16 35.2 14.08 HDR 10 0.15 7 50 0.58 0.05 1 0.6 S16 41.5 16.6 HDR 10 0.40 0.5 50 0.08 0.05 1 0.3 S16 9 9 UC 10 0.40 7 200 1.17 0.05 1 2.1 S16 62.4 56.16 LDR 10 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.05 1 1.2 S16 29.4 29.4 LU 10 0.40 0.5 250 0.11 0.012 1 0.2 S16 15.8 4.74 MULTI 10 0.15 7 25 0.41 0.05 1 0.1 S16 13 13 OF 10 0.15 7 150 1.01 0.008 1 0.2 S17 228.7 34.305 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.4 S17 79.3 71.37 LDR 10 0.40 0.5 200 0.11 0.05 1 1.6 S17 193.3 193.3 LU 10 0.40 0.5 800 0.14 0.012 1 1.3 S17 31.9 9.57 MULTI 10 0.15 12 25 0-91 0.05 1 0.7 S17 1.1 1.1 UC 10 0.15 12 200 2-57 0.2 1 0.8 S17 82 82 OF 10 0.15 12 700 4.81 0.008 1 4.7 ......323.30...........2fX�T:�:<>::»»>::::::':'� TOTAL 5975.70 3838.13 :>:::::=>�>:::>::�<::-#�<::::`•i:.i��:<:::>>:::»s�`:::,:<:�:<:»>'•:<::::»»=>:>:<> •'a>�N» ... zz:<:1�i:�'s 1231 TABLE A3: BLACK RIVER SEDIMENT LOADING: UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION FUTURE CONDMONS (NHC 1991) Panther Creek basin BASIN AREA (Ad ERODIBLE AREA (Ad LAND RAIN/RUN EROD USE FACTOR FACTOR (R) (n SLOPE LENGTH (N) (ft1 LENGTH SLOPE IS) COVER SUPPORT PRACTICE (C) (P) SOIL LOSS (TonNr1 Pi 309.1 123.64 HDR 10 0.15 2 50 0.16 0.05 1 1.5 Pi 36.1 0 LAKE 10 0.15 0 0 0.00 0.05 1 0.0 P1 22.9 16.03 MDR 10 0.15 1 100 0.13 0.05 1 0.2 P1 48.3 14.49 MULTI 10 0.15 1 25 0.09 0.05 1 0.1 P1 34.9 34.9 UC 10 0.15 1 200 0.16 0.2 1 1.7 P1 17.8 17.8 OF 10 0.15 1 400 0.20 0.008 1 0.0 P2 90.7 13.605 COM 10 0.15 7 5 0.18 0.05 1 0.2 P2 201.2 80.48 HDR 10 0.15 4 50 0.30 0.05 1 1.8 P2 259.7 233.73 LDR 10 0.15 5 200 0.68 U.05 1 12.0 P2 69.2 48.44 MDR 10 0.15 4 100 0.40 0.05 1 1.5 P2 44.1 13.23 MULTI 10 0.15 10 25 0.69 0.05 1 0.7 P2 8.4 8.4 UC 10 0.15 15 400 5.19 0.2 1 13.1 P2 140.9 140.9 OF 10 0.15 20 100 4.19 0.008 1 7.1 P3 53.2 7.98 COM 10 0.15 5 5 0.16 0.05 1 0.1 P3 0.4 0.4 OF 10 0.15 5 300 0.81 0.008 1 0.0 P4 19.8 2.97 COM 10 0.15 8 5 0.22 0.05 1 0.0 P4 188.5 75.4 HDR 10 0.15 7 50 0.58 0.05 1 3.3 P4 24.7 22.23 LDR 10 0.15 10 200 1.95 0.05 1 3.2 P4 95.5 66.85 MDR 10 0.15 8 100 0.99 0.05 1 5.0 P4 56.9 17.07 MULTI 10 0.15 10 25 0.69 0.05 1 0.9 P4 15.2 15.2 UC 10 0.15 15 1000 8.21 0.2 1 37.4 P4 1.7 1.7 OF 10 0.15 20 400 8.39 0.008 1 0.2 P4 40.2 0 LAKE 10 0.15 0.5 0 0.00 0 1 0.0 P4 54.8 54.8 LU 10 0.15 0.5 200 0.11 0.012 1 0.1 P5 349.4 139.76 HDR 10 0.15 5 50 0.39 0.05 1 4.1 P5 15.9 14.31 LDR 10 0.15 5 200 0.68 0.05 1 0.7 P5 30.4 21.28 MDR 10 0.15 10 100 1.38 0.05 1 2.2 P5 133 39.9 MULTI 10 0.15 15 25 1.30 0.05 1 3.9 P5 44.8 44.8 UC 10 0.15 20 400 8.39 0.2 1 112.7 P5 166.7 166.7 OF 10 0.15 20 50 297 0.008 1 5.9 P5 141.4 2121 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.2 P5 10 4 HDR 10 0.40 0.5 50 0.08 0.05 1 0.1 P5 12.6 12.6 LU 10 0.15 0.5 200 0.11 0.012 1 0.0 t47 8€ 2t998 2738:40 _. TABLE A4: BLACK RIVER SEDIMENT LOADING: UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION FUTURE CONDITIONS Springbrook Creek basin BASIN AREA (Ad ERODIBLE AREA (AQ LAND RAIN/RUN EROD USE FACTOR FACTOR (R) (IQ SLOPE LENGTH N (ft) LENGTH SLOPE IS) COVER SUPPORT PRACTICE (C) (P) SOIL LOSS (T =) S3 26.8 4.02 COM 10 0.15 2 5 0.08 0.05 1 0.0 S3 190 76 HDR 10 0.15 1 50 0.10 0.05 1 0.6 S3 24.5 22.05 LDR 10 0.15 10 200 1.95 0.05 1 3.2 S3 220 154 MDR 10 0.15 5 100 0.52 0.05 1 6.0 S3 40 40 UC 10 0.15 25 400 12.33 0.2 1 147.9 S3 101.7 101.7 OF 10 0.15 25 250 9.75 0.008 1 11.9 S5 36.9 5.535 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S5 27.8 27.8 LU 10 0.40 0.5 400 0.13 0.012 1 0.2 S6 8 1.2 COM 10 0.15 2 5 0.08 0.05 1 0.0 S6 14.3 4.29 MUL11 10 0.15 5 25 0.30 0.05 1 0.1 S6 50.6 7.59 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S6 12-4 12.4 LU 10 0.40 0.5 500 0.13 0.012 1 0.1 S7 101.6 15.24 - COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.2 S7 32.7 32.7 LU 10 0.40 0.5 400 0.13 0.012 1 0.2 S8 216.8 32.52 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.3 S8 0.3 0 LAKE 10 0.40 0.5 0 0.00 0 1 0.0 S8 0.1 0.1 LU 10 0.40 0.5 50 0.08 0.012 1 0.0 S9 173.8 26.07 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.3 S9 146.4 146.4 LU 10 0.40 0.5 1500 0.16 0.012 1 1.2 S10 151.8 22.77 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.2 S1 o 38.9 38.9 LU 10 0.40 0.5 300 0.12 0.012 1 0.2 S11 160.7 24.105 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.3 S11 9.7 9.7 LU 10 0.40 0.5 100 0.10 0.012 1 0.0 S12 16.7 Z505 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.0 S12 11.7 11.7 LU 10 0.40 0.5 100 0.10 0.012 1 0.1 S13 82.5 12-375 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S13 25.7 25.7 LU 10 0.40 0.5 400 0.13 0.012 1 0.2 S14 78.3 11.745 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S14 6 6 LU 10 0.40 0.5 100 0.10 0.012 1 0.0 S15 47.4 7.11 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.1 S15 33.1 33.1 LU 10 0.40 0.5 250 0.11 0.012 1 0.2 S16 344 51.6 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.5 S16 58.4 23.36 HDR 10 0.40 0.5 50 0.08 0.05 1 0.4 S16 23.9 23.9 LU 10 0.40 0.5 250 0.11 0.012 1 0.1 S16 5 1.5 MULTI 10 0.40 0.5 25 0.07 0.05 1 0.0 S16 58.4 23.36 HDR 10 0.15 7 50 0.58 0.05 1 1.0 S16 10.1 3.03 MULTI 10 0.15 7 25 0.41 0.05 1 0.1 S16 14.5 14.5 OF 10 0.15 7 150 1.01 0.008 1 0.2 S16 8.3 8.3 UC 10 0.15 7 200 1.17 0.2 1 2.9 S17 325.2 48.78 COM 10 0.40 0.5 5 0.05 0.05 1 0.5 S17 93.9 93.9 LU 10 0.40 0.5 800 0.14 0.012 1 0.7 S17 15 4.5 MULTI 10 0.40 0.5 25 0.07 0.05 1 0.1 S17 79.3 31.72 HDR 10 0.15 12 50 1.29 0.05 1 3.1 S17 17.3 5A9 MULTI 10 0.15 12 25 0.91 0.05 1 0.4 S17 81.2 81.2 OF 10 0.15 12 700 4.81 0.008 1 4.7 »::>:>. SLR......�1.�'0:...........'1'.i.'O.�X-::::::.�:::::::.�x:::..::::•;;;::;•::;•;::;:-:::•;:;•::;::::-:.�:::.,::.�::::::::::::.:. TOTAL sawn In :>;::»::; 9904 97 .. •::. .................... ....................... <: 408 TABLE A-5: BLACK RIVER SEDIMENT LOADING: METRO WASHOFF MODEL CURRENT LAND USE Panther Creek Land nwed term ndryf term TSS LOAD Lhe facre,5I I 11 jil IV SUM AP'SUM 1 II III IV SUM AP'SUM AF _ Oburl. COM 296.9 6.36 28.68 12.31 3.94 51.28 107.69 2.06 5.55 1.76 0.00 9.37 47.67 0.93 42897.16 MULTI 186.3 5.39 25.05 11.59 3.87 45.90 96.39 1.74 4.85 1.66 0.00 8.25 41.97 2.08 53614.95 HDR 710.5 4.38 21.02 10.57 3.75 39.72 83.41 1.42 4.07 1.51 0.00 7.00 35.61 2.08 175902.00 MDR 280.4 2.63 13.30 7.84 3.20 26.97 56.64 0.85 2.57 1.12 0.00 4.55 23.14 0.34 7605.92 LDR 391.5 1.53 7.99 5.24 2.41 17.17 36.06 0.49 1.55 0.75 0.00 2.79 14.20 0.08 1554.42 OF 487.6 0.39 2.10 1.55 0.82 4.86 10.21 0.13 0.41 0.22 0.00 0.75 3.84 0.06 397.34 UC 226.6 2.27 11.59 7.07 2.99 23.93 50.25 0.73 2.24 1.01 0.00 3.99 20.30 3.00 47956.87 LU 80.2 1.53 7.99 5.24 2.41 17.17 36.06 0.49 1.55 0.76 0.00 2.79 14.20 0.06 233.78 LAKE 84.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ul3TTAI.......a7�d............................................................................:............................:....::..............:...................................::...:.:..:...::....:....... :...:E�Yr iss ton/a Springbrook Creek Land nwetf term ndryf term TSS LOAD Use (acres) 1 II III IV SUM AP'SUM 1 II III IV SUM AP'SUM AF (IbNrl COM 1108.2 6.36 28.68 12.31 3.94 51.28 107.69 2.06 5.55 1.76 0.00 9.37 47.67 0.93 160116.64 MULTI 75.7 5.39 25.05 11.59 3.87 45.90 96.39 1.74 4.85 1.66 0.00 8.25 41.97 2.08 21785.57 HDR 156.7 4.38 21.02 10.57 3.75 39.72 83.41 1.42 4.07 1.51 0.00 7.00 35.61 2.08 38794.99 MDR 75.6 2.63 13.30 7.84 3.20 26.97 56.64 0.85 2.57 1.12 0.00 4.55 23.14 0.34 2050.67 LDR 240.8 1.53 7.99 5.24 2.41 17.17 36.06 0.49 1.55 0.75 0.00 2.79 14.20 0.08 956.08 OF 253.7 0.39 2.10 1.55 0.82 4.86 10.21 0.13 0.41 0.22 0.00 0.75 3.84 0.06 206.74 UC 231.4 2.27 11.59 7.07 2.99 23.93 50.25 0.73 2.24 1.01 0.00 3.99 20.30 3.00 48972.73 LU 1089.2 1.53 7.99 5.24 2.41 17.17 36.06 0.49 1.55 0.75 0.00 2.79 14.20 0.06 3175.01 LAKE 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 U.i�TQTAI�.::::::.32sy,�.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.,::::::.:.:: :::::..:::::.,.::.:.:.:..•:::.:::>:::.::::::..:::::::::::::::::::::::.,.:::::::.:..:.....:.............................................,............................................................................27AO�� 138 ton/yr TOTAL 606220.86 Ib/yr 303 tonNL TABLE Af: BLACK RIVER SEDIMENT LOADING: METRO WASHOFF MODEL FUTURE LAND USE Panther Creek Land awed term ndryf term TSS LOAD USA (acres) I II III IV SLIM AP'SUM 1 II III IV SUM AP•SUM AF (Ibtyr) COM 305.1 6.36 28.68 12.31 3.94 51.28 107.69 2.06 5.55 1.76 0.00 9.37 47.67 0.93 44081.92 MULTI 282.3 5.39 25.05 11.59 3.87 45.90 96.39 1.74 4.85 1.66 0.00 8.25 41.97 2.08 81242.63 HDR 1058.2 4.38 21.02 10.57 3.75 39.72 83.41 1.42 4.07 1.51 0.00 7.00 35.61 2.08 261983.80 MDR 218 2.63 13.30 7.84 3.20 26.97 56.64 0.85 2.57 1.12 0.00 4.55 23.14 0.34 5913.31 LDR 300.3 1.53 7.99 5.24 2.41 17.17 36.06 0.49 1.55 0.75 0.00 2.79 14.20 0.08 1192.32 OF 327.5 0.39 2.10 1.55 0.82 4.86 10.21 0.13 0.41 0.22 0.00 0.75 3.84 0.06 266.88 UC 103.3 2.27 11.59 7.07 2.99 23.93 50.25 0.73 2.24 1.01 0.00 3.99 20.30 3.00 21862.07 LU 67.4 1.53 7.99 5.24 2.41 17.17 36.06 0.49 1.55 0.75 0.00 2.79 14.20 0.06 196.47 LAKE 76.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 :.:: i:::::r ::>::::::::.:::....... 208 nrtly� Springbrook Creek Land nwed term ndryf term TSS LOAD Use (acres) 1 II 111 IV SUM AP'S 1M 1 II 111 IV SUM AP•S 1M AF (I &r) COM 1821.1 6.36 28.68 12.31 3.94 51.28 107.69 2.06 5.55 1.76 0.00 9.37 47.67 0.93 263118.94 MULTI 61.7 5.39 25.05 11.59 3.87 45.90 96.39 1.74 4.85 1.66 0.00 8.25 41.97 2.08 17756.54 HDR 386.1 4.38 21.02 10.57 3.75 39.72 83.41 1.42 4.07 1.51 0.00 7.00 35.61 2.08 95588.68 MDR 220 2.63 13.30 7.84 3.20 26.97 56.64 0.85 2.57 1.12 0.00 4.55 23.14 0.34 5967.56 LDR 24.5 1.53 7.99 5.24 2.41 17.17 36.06 0.49 1.55 0.75 0.00 2.79 14.20 0.08 97.28 OF 197.4 0.39 2.10 1.55 0.82 4.86 10.21 0.13 0.41 0.22 0.00 0.75 3.84 0.06 160.86 UC 48.3 2.27 11.59 7.07 2.99 23.93 50.25 0.73 2.24 1.01 0.00 3.99 20.30 3.00 10222.05 LU 462.3 1.53 7.99 5.24 2.41 17.17 36.06 0.49 1.55 0.75 0.00 2.79 14.20 0.06 1347.60 LAKE 0.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 197.1 torvyr TOTAL 810999 Ib/yr APPENDIX C East Side Green River Watershed Plan Issues and Criteria October 3, 1991 JONES 8 STOKES ASSOCIATES. INC. /2820 NORTNUP WAY, SUITE 100 / BELLEVUE, WA 98004 20S)822-1077 DATE: October 3, 1991 FAX 20S/822.107P TO: Mr. Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beek Mr. Ron Straka, CQry of Renton FROM: Jonathan H Ives Robert Denman Elizabeth J. MacWhinney SUBJECT: Task DI.B.2 - ESGRWP Issues and Criteria Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify issues/criteria associated with the development of ESGRWP watershed management alternatives in the City of Renton. Wetland issues that should be considered during selection of an alternative are descnbed. Because the detailed wetland inventory (Task ILL of the study area has not been conducted and the project alternatives have only been defined in general terms, this memo presents general considerations and criteria for alternative evaluation. This memo includes an overview of wetland functions and how they generally relate to project design considerations. This section is followed by a table and narrative which Present, by alternative, the wetlands which would most likely be affected, the wetland function altered, and design features to maintain wetland functions. Wetland regulations that would affect the project are also discussed. B6CK/R=,'r" TJ Isfor9l Mr. Mike Giseburt Mr. Ron Straka October 3, 1991 Page 2 Wetland Functional 'Values Wetlands within the study area provide a variety of functional values, dependent on a number of factors, including, but not limited to, location of the wetland in the watershed, the type and amount of vegetation, and the proximity of the wetland to stream corridors. The Federal Highway Administration's Wetland Functional Assessment Method (Adamus 1983) bas identified 11 wetland functions, 8 of which, including groundwater support, flood control, water pollution control, and biologic support, are discussed in the following sections. A brief discussion of ways that wetland functions could be maintained, reduced or enhanced through flood control alternatives is presented_ An inventory of functional values specific to the wetlands within the study area will occur at a later date as a part of Task ILC. Groundwater Discharge and Recharge Groundwater discharge can maintain a high water table in wetlands and contribute water necessary to maintain streams during dry months. Groundwater recharge can replenish groundwater supplies to the underlying aquifers. It is difficult, however, to predict recharge and discharge from the physiographic setting of the wetland. Certain wetlands contribute significantly to the recharging of regional groundwater. The majority of hydrologists believe, however, that most wetlands in areas where glaciation has occurred (such as the Northwest) do not recharge aquifers (Erwin 1990). The recharge and discharge functions of wetlands would be eliminated if wetlands are filled or drained. In addition, if wetlands are isolated from other waters, such as ephemeral creeks, the discharge value would be reduced. Flood Storage Wetlands can reduce storm runoff peaks by storing and then slowly releasing stormwater runoff. Such attenuation of flood flows results in lower peak volumes of runoff occurring for longer durations. The flood storage value of a wetland varies with factors such as topography, location within the watershed, soils, surrounding land uses, association with other aquatic systems, and the type and amount of vegetation that is present. Any reduction in the amount of wetland acreage in the valley through filling would reduce flood storage. Of particular importance are those wetlands in the middle third of the watershed, because they have large tributary areas, but still have the ability to store BBCxJVMqrCx T 1 10/m/9t Mr. Mike Giseburt Mr. Ron Straka October 3, 1991 Page 3 water and prevent flooding in the main drainage. Outlet modification, such as ditching, could also reduce the volume of floodwaters stored. Shoreline Anchoring Wetland vegetation binds shoreline and streambank sediments with root systems, thereby anchoring the substrate. Additionally, abovc-ground biomass reduces turbulence during overland flows, which results in reduced velocity and erosive power. If vegetation is removed from streambanks, either through higher flow velocities or clearing, the anchoring function would be reduced. Water Purification Wetlands can purify water through a variety of mechanisms. The reduced velocities in wetlands cause sediments, metals, and certain chemicals to be deposited; once in the wetlands, mechanical, chemical and biological processes can remove certain pollutants from the water. The ability of a wetland to perform this function is based an a number of factors, including residence time and the type and density of vegetation. This function is particularly important when a wetland discharges into a watercourse. A reduction in this function would occur if velocities are increased. Increased velocity would reduce opportunities for materials to settle out, as well as decreasing the residence time. If velocities are increased significantly, scouring could occur, thereby adding sediment to the water leaving a wetland. If there is an increased input of sediments or pollutants into a wetland, the capacity of the wetland to "treat" the water could be compromised. Any alternatives that reduce the residence time of water in wetlands could lead to a reduction in water quality. Finally, if vegetation is removed or altered, water purification functions would be reduced. Removal of vegetation can lead to increased velocities. In addition, wetlands that are densely vegetated with emergent species have the ability to trap sediments and take up pollutants in the water; with removal of vegetation, this ability is lost Food Chain Support Wetlands can be highly productive ecosystems that are used by numerous species for nesting, spawning, rearing, and feeding. Primary productivity is usually high in wetlands, and Bscr✓n -1n T-1 LOM19L Mr. Mike Giseburt Mr. Ron Straka October 3, 1991 Page 4 is generally highest in emergent wetlands that contain water year-round because they support fast-growing plant species. Wetlands trap and store nutrients, thereby providing a constant source of nutrients for release over time. This creates conditions that support intricate food chains, high species diversity, and long complex life cycles. These conditions are predominant in mature wetlands (Erwin 1990). Wildlife Habitat A number of bird, mammal, amphibian, and reptile species are dependent upon wetlands for all or part of their life cycle. The wildlife habitat value of a wetland is dependent in part on the structural and species diversity of plant communities, the proximity of desirable upland habitat, and surrounding land uses. If vegetation is removed or disturbed, the wildlife value will be altered or reduced, at least temporarily. In addition, if a wetland is subjected to increased human activity or noise, its value to wildlife will he reduced. Fishery Habitat Some wetlands are important sources of food and habitat for fish species. In many urban streams, fish use is limited due to degraded water quality and inconsistent flows. Any activities that would create an impassable barrier to fish would obviously eliminate fish habitat upstream of the barrier. In addition, activities that would cause flows to be either less consistent or extremely low during summer months would degrade or reduce fish habitat. Widening and deepening Springbrook Creek would lead to an alteration of the habitat in the Creek, depending on how the changes are designed, this could have a negative effect on fishery habitat_ Active Recreation, Passive Recreation, Heritage, and Education Wetlands can provide valuable opportunities for recreation and education, such as bird watching or studying a natural system It is difficult to evaluate what impacts to education and recreation opportunities of a wetland would be without site -specific information. In general, however, if wetlands are URCKIRENro?i 7.1 zn/mAi Mr. Mike Giseburt Mr. Ron Straka October 3, 1991 Pagc 5 degraded, their value for education and recreation would be reduced. If wetlands are physically isolated from public access, recreation and education opportunities are removed. Wetland/Alternative Impact This section includes a comparison of the proposed alternatives with respect to potential wetland impacts. As stated earlier in this report, the lack of detail regarding specific wetland functions and alternative design features prevents this comparison from evaluating all possible wetland impacts and opportunities at this time. Specifically, measures to improve habitat quality cannot be determined until the wetland functional analysis is completed under Task ILC. Table 1 presents by alternative the wetlands most likely to be affected by alternatives and the mechanism of the impact In most cases, wetland impact can be categorized into hydrologic affects and excavation of the wetland to allow placement of channels. Hydrologic impact consists of altering the hydroperiod of the wetland through a change in inundation or saturation depth, frequency, or duration. For example, without hydrologic separation of the channel from adjacent wetlands, excavation of the P-9 channel would ncly result in some degree of dewatering of wetlands 4,7,8,9, and 10. The other most obvious wetland impact, excavation., would occur from the placement of by-pass channels through wetland 3. It should be noted that although the hydrologic changes would be the most obvious and immediate, other changes to functional values would occur over time. In particular, wetland plants are extremely sensitive to changes in wetland hydroperiod. If the hydroperiod were alter4It is likely that the diversity of plant communities would change. This in turn would likely result in changes in wildlife habitat value and food chain support. These types of changes can not be included in Table 1 until hydrologic impacts are gnantified. Design Features for Wetland Maintenance As noted above, the most common impact to wetland resources from the proposed alternatives begins with alteration of the hydrologic regime of the wetland_ Although specific design features cannot be developed at this point, some general guidelines can be addressed. Specifically, construction of channels near wetlands create the potential for significant hydrologic modification to the wetland through dewatering. In order to minimize A2CKPZ04-rCW T•1 IAlmf91 Table L Potential A1trrnatlirs lmpacts Wetlands Potentially Alternative ABected Impact Mechanism 2 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 4 12, increased flow in Springbrook Creek at high water events; and 13 km= Springbrook Crcak at normal water events, affect fisheries in Springhmok Creek; increase sedimentation in Wetland 5; increase ponding is Wetland 5 at high water events; in== sedimentation in Springbrook Creek; potentially dcwate- Wetlands 7, 8, 9, 1Q 11, 12, and 13; direct impact to Wetlands 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12; alter hydrology in Wetland 4; dlrect lass of Wetland 13; possible loss of some of Wetlands 7, 8, and 10 3 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 1-0, 11, 12, increased flow in Springbrook Creels at high water events; 13, and 16 lower Spr;n,brook Creek at normal water events, affect fisheries in Springbrook C ztek; increase sedimentation in Wedand 5; increase pondiag in Wetland 5 at high water events, inert= sedimentation in Springbrook Creek; potentially dewater Wetlands 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13; direct impacts to Wetlands 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16; alter hydrology in Wetland 4; direct loss of Wetlands 3 and 13; posalc loss of some of Wetlands 7, 8, 10, and 13 4 same as Alternative 3 same as Alternative 3 6 5 increase water entEring the Green River, reduce ponding in Wetland 5 during high water events; maintain existing hydrology 7 none maintain existing hydrology 8 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, lower Springbrook Creek at normal water events; affect and 13 fisheries in Spriagbrook Creek; increase sedimentation in Wetland 5; increase ponding in Weiland 5 at high water events; increase sedimentation in Springbrook Greek; potentially dewater Wetlands 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13; direct impact to Wetlands 7, 8, 9, and 10; slteratian of hydrology of Wetland 4; possible loss of some of wetland 7, 8, and 10-, some increased flow in Springbrook Creek at high water events 1D 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 alteration of hydrology of Wetland 4; reduced dirort impact to Wetland 7, 8, 9, and 10; potentially dewater Wetlands 7, 8,9,and 10 11 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 &oct loss of Wetland 3; possible loss of some of Wetland 7, 8, and 10; potentially dewatcr Wetlands 7, 8, 9, and 10; direct impact to Wetlands 7, 8, 9, and M alteration of hydrology of Wctland 4; possible loss of some of Wetland 7, 8, and 10 12 none affect fisheries in Springbrook Creek; increase flow to Green River, maintain exirtiag hydrology arCc/REMIOx r-) 10/03/91 Mr. Mike Giseburt Mr. Ron Straka October 3, 1991 Page 6 this impact, ditches should be designed to be bydrologically isolated from wetlands_ Combinations of berms and impervious ditch linings are examples of design features to achieve this goal Additional design features include variable discharge control structures which maintain the existing wetland hydrologic regime. This feature would relate specifically to the Panther Creep wetland and Alternatives 2,3,4,8,10, and 11 which involve modifications to the outlet -of tl i -wetland. Regulatory Implications U.S Army Corps of Engineers The Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of fill material into wetlands and other waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act_ At this time, federal wetland regulation is going through a period of rapid change; this makes it difficult to predict the federal regulatory implications to this project. A discussion of the current status of federal wetland regulation follows_ Delineation Methodology. Until recently, wetlands under Section 404 Jurisdiction were delineated using the methodology described in the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. This document represents an interagency effort whereby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFNVS). U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the U.S. Environmental Prdtection Agency (EPA) agreed upon a consistent approach to wetland delineation. A proposed revised federal manual for delineating wetlands was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 1991. This revised manual is proposed to replace the 1989 manual. The 1991 proposed revised manual states that the 1989 manual will remain in effect untk the revised manual becomes final. However, on August 17, 1991, the Corps suspended use of the 1989 manual because of the signing of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1992. The Corps will use, the 1987 manual until the proposed revised 1991 manual is finalized unless the permit applications were ongoing as of August 17, 1991. An ongoing permit application is defined as: '... formal individual permit applications (ENG FORM 4345), letters requesting verification of authorization under regional or nationwide permits, or prediscbarge notices as required by nationwide permits received before BCQJRMCMW T.l lofm 91 Mr, Mike Giseburt Mr, Ron Straka October 3, 1991 Page 7 August 17, 1991, where no permit has been issued, verified or denied, and existing jurisdictional delineations where no permit has been requested." Table 2 illustrates the differences between the three wetland delineation manuals. Pcrmlts. A Section 404 permit is required to place fill material into a wetland. Two types of permits are available: individual, and nationwide. The individual permit process is somewhat complex, and includes coordination with other resource agencies, a comment period, and mitigation requirements. This process usually requires an alternatives analysis to justify the proposed action_ The purpose of a Nationwide permit program is to "autbori2e activities that cause only minimal individual and cumulative effects with little delay or paperwork" (Elmore 1988). Currently, 26 different nationwide permits are available for a variety of activities, such as utility crossings or filling of less than one acre. However, changes to the Nationwide Permit Program have been proposed. Proposed new rules that modify some of the existing nationwide permits and establish 13 new nationwide permits were published in the Federal Register on April 10, 1991. Some of the proposed nationwide permits were presented with several options for public comment. Newly drafted rules on nationwide permits are expected to be published in the Federal Register in September 1991. Washington State Department of Ecology The State of Washington has at least two regulations that could apply to the proposed project. Each is described below. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Projects that are in areas considered 'Shorelines of the State" or wetlands normally require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit. Areas regulated by this include: 1. streams with flows greater than 20 cubic feet per second (efs); 2. lakes 20 acres or larger; 3. all lands that extend 200 feet landward from 1 or 2 above; 4, all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas that are "associated with 1 or 2". Shorelines permits are issued by the local jurisdiction (City of Renton), but the Washington State Department of Ecology has the power to deny a perrrvt approved by the city. B M TA WPM Cr1Y0FRE,"fMN DRAFT LIST OF ALTERNATIVES FAST Mr)F GRFEYRiVFR WATFRSf{Prn PTAnt FEQ Ahernatjves Dissadvantages Advantages Comments I No Action — existing chin act system under future flows a Flooding of SW43rd o No new impacts towetlands This alternative differs from original scope ofwock bcc—st o Flooding of EVH o Predicted ltbye err event is it doesn't include the assumption that the P-9Ch nand lad PCW o Flooding of Ljad blow euab,ishcd FEMA cicvxioat. arc m proved_ o Springbeookovertopping SW3kh o Lack of Fish Paua yc to Panther Creek 2 Spriagbeook Creek ineorpor acing wctlaod s- o Lowering Springbcook W'SP to chit ealcat will o Eliminates flooding ofmajoc systems (in This alternative would Include improvements to kv cr Spriagbrook WSP Includes P-9chaoacVPCW impro n, cats require additional culverts or colvezt replacement with escption may be the acw system draining to elcva(ioo 13 at SW 43rd. (&uume only improveme at to sw 43rd system it bridges ac5W n1s, SW 34 and Oaksdslc), chav act Tukwila area) listed hie arc a few peelimieary idea prevent dcwatering o(wctlaadt: ReR W section of W pipe, so design WSE at widening and/oe deepening. o Do not It— to replace entire SW 43rd tyucm — Drect drainages from valley developments and stress into SW 43rd it 13.0) o would likely have to relocate 6C' dia. City of Scattic welandsrather than Spcingbcook. Thiswould require Cedar River Pipeline (roughly 51,000,WC) pretreatment o Wetlands will be dewaccrcd unless specific — Pumping flaw Eom Spcivgbrook into importantwelandt efforts arc made to maintain water supply ' — Mitg2ce wttlAad impacts by providiag additional water supply towetlands during summer low flow periods by using structures at key locations which would divert flow intowcdand s 3 Original P-1 .Vgnmcoc at defined by SCS o Land acquisitioa to becoscly o Could be io,oepora[ed with Oaksdale project o nit all _. aitivewould Includechaaael sizes smaller thaa originally incorporating P-9ChanoeVPCW improvements oRealigning SpringbrookCreek would o Moeecoosisieatwich original SCS project eavisioacd bySCS divert flow away from wctlaods goals wbich may provide better assuraocc of o Bridges would probably still be required for some streets o Raises question of what happcos to Springbeoolc Crect. funding depeadivg oo the traaspoeation plan. Thiswould add to the cow e apeciallycon sideriog possible hlz2rdous waste sediments o Could be dcuigned to eliminate nearly all flooding. of this slier, a[ive owould likelyhavetorelocate 6,7dia.City ofSeattle Flooding wculdstill oecuratSW16system draining , Cedar River Pipeline (roughly S1,W0,CCA) Tukwila arcs_ o Probably highest cost alternaciw. o Possiblvhi hest eavironm ental impact alternative 4 Springbcook Creek Low f1ow/P-1 Chaoncl high flows o Could result in reducing flow intowctlaods o Maintains Spiagbcook Creek in natural location o This alternative would consist of weir overflow diversion dii of SW 43cd incorporating P-9ChavacVFCW improveme au o The posaibiliry of straoded fish would be s coucera o Could iacorf�oraec overflow into Oaksdale design and which would dire_t flows into a new system (either channel or pipe) mad possibly RID for funding along Oaksdale. Itwould be designed is twh a manner as toreduce o Eliminates flooding ofmajor systems (excpt 16(h) flooding of SW 43rd system. o Could be designed under two approaches. First, miner impcowmeact to SW43rd system so design wse is 13, a second, new fvstcm aloag SW43rd so de,i n wse is I& 5 Develop P-1 Channel to P-9Channel o It is suspected that this would have little affect in solving o This would cllowcomplction of? —9 China cl wo,rv. incorpoeatiag P-9ChanneVFCWimprovements the flooding peoblcm at SW 43rd since the esistivg and help toreduce flooding of East ValleyH. culverterossings upstream cause sigaifscane increases o Thiswouldreducewater surface profile somewhat iawater surface Profile, - 6 Modify Greco River Management A&rcemeat 0 nit mayrcduce the level of protection Provided o Could sigoificattlyreduce the maxim um water surface to allowgrceer discharges during high bythc Grcca River dowastzcam of BRPS is the BRPS foccbay. Thitcouldreduce flooding of flows its the Greta Rive-- proposed ntem Along SW 16th dr2ininjt Tukwila arc a- 7 Establish Critcatwatershed designatioalad o Does not correct existing problems cs Least cost toCity increase on —site detention requiem cats o Costly foe aew devdopm eat, could drive develop -cm cat o Could be implemented as temporary as casurc to other &rest o Would iaezc,se jurisdKrioa awarncu to problem and gain - support for Itructural impro ns cats E Replace SW Thh, 34ch And Oaksdale with bridges o Replacing culvertswith beidgcs iscostly o Requ ies link exawtion of Speingbeook o This type of project could incorporate design features to help and incorporate P-9Channel/PCWProject and oProvisions would probably berequired tored uec oCocrectsfloadingpcoblems maintain water source for important Wetlands SW43rdStreet improwmeats impacts towetlandscausedbylowering chcwster o No land Co.'I surface o61c o Fisheries ca:oura es beid es in lieu ofculvc-rt crossings 9 Use Inge lake proposed by Boeing for storage. o Would Iticclyred ucc developable laod within Boeing o Would not have to replace SW Z th culverts niscould include the con nectioa of the Renton property, dcpeod ing on the size of their proposed lake o Provides adQitioaal storage than other alternatives wetland to proposed Boeing lake. Culvertcrouings o Would not resultin dewatcringwetl&ad (W-11Critcal of SW 3-kh and Oaksdale would need to AreasXwc(l nd 7 — FEQ) be replaced lad SW 43rd system would need o Requcesliv'k exavatioa ofSpriagbeook to be installed_ T'hiscould incorporate o Corr Sets flo.diag problems P-9ChanneVPCW Project 10 Improve west side of SR-167 drainage system. This o Does not com plywith EMA o Substavtiall',reduce flooding of EVH o These impcowmcatscould include regrading ditch aloagwest side improvement is a specific alternative to the P-9 o Since does not corn plywith EMS SCS funding would be o'Leu oppotitioa from WSDOT of SR-167, new EVHcrouiog, and new system to Spciaghrook ChanoeVPCW project (ir, in lieu of P-9/PCW jeopardized o Mayhaw reduced impseta towetlandt along P-9Chanael project) o Fish pauagc to Panther Crc ck would not be included o could not manipulaecwatcr regimes in wetland, therefore no mosquito abatement 11 High Flow diversion at SW 43rd to Greco River o It is suspected that gravity diversion would only function o Could be ve.-ycoa effective solution to solve SW Ord o Greco River water surface proGics would have to be reviewed to during high local flan and normal Greco River Flow flooding (for high local flow situation) determine if this is a feasible alternative and not during high Green River flows 12 Mix cllancout OptlonslAlternatiwi A Culvert additions versus bridge rcplaccmcat B Kent pump a percentage of BRPS alocencat C Greco River Lcwc impcovem cats downstream of BRPS D High flow by —paw divcrtcd back to Spriajbcook prior tocrossing COS Ccdar R. pipeline E Combine Altcn ative 6witb other alternatives Tabk 2. Comparison of Mandatary Technical Criteria for Identyifying Wetlands 1991 Proposed Revised Interagency Manual 1989 Interagency Manual 1987 Ccq-n Atanuala HydmIogy 15 or more consecutive days of inundation, 21 or more consewtive days of saturation to the surf$ce Periodically tidally flooded Soils Soil listed by series in "Hydric Soils of the United States' Iiistosols except Fohsts Mineral soils listed as Sulfuquents, Hy&aquents, or Histic subgroups of Aquic suborders Soils that meet NMIS criteria° 7 or more consccativc days of inundation or saturation Surface hydrologic conditions inferred from combinations of soil permeability and drainage and water table level Soils that mee NTCIIS criteria° Saturated or inundated far more than 12-5% duration of the growing season (some areas saturated or inundated for be(wten 5% and 125% duration of the growing seasoa arc also wetlands) Soil saturation within a major portion of the root zone - Soils that meet NTCHS criteria' o p `s MI Proposed Revised Intcragax7 Manual vwtatlo■ Prevalence index value of <3.0 for analysis of all spoci" For dominant species from all strata, the number species of OBI, + FACW > FACU + UPI. (FAC neutral test) Table I Continued 1989 Interagency Manual More than 50% of dominant species from all strata arc OBL, FACW, or FAC Prevalence index value of c3.0 for analysis of all species Hyclric soils, wetland hydrology, and FACU- dominated community (or prevalence index value between 3b and 4.0) that is a problm area wetland 1987 Corps Manuals More than 50% of dominant species arc OBL, FACW, or FAC (dominant species determinal by a different method than M manual) For dominant species, the nambea of rpccies of OBL + IIACW > PACU + UPL (FAC neutral test) Ifydric soils, wetland hydrology, and all species are FAC (or OBL + FACW — FACU + UP L) Mandatory criteria were not separated from field indicators in the 1987 manual, so important field indicators are presented in this column. National Technical Committee for Nydric Sails (N MS) criteria for hydric soils are as follows: 1) Niztosols except Folists; 2) soils in certain recognized Aquic &oil taxonomic groups with specific combinations of drainage, permeability, and water table level for a week or more during the growing season; 3) aoib pondcd for long daration during the growing season; or 4) soils frequently flooded for long duration during the growing season. Mr. Mike Giseburt Mr. Ron Straka October 3, 1991 Page 8 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). SEPA is a state program that is administered by local jurisdictions. This act requires that environmental impacts of any proposed activity be evaluated. Other. The Washington State Department of Ecology has prepared a Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance. At this time, however, the State has no regulatory authority over wetlands that are not associated with shorelines of the State. Washington Department of WJJIdlife or Fisheries Hydraulic Project approval WA). An HPA is required for all work within the ordinary high water mark of waters of the state. This program is jointly administered by the Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) and the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). This process is triggered by an application for a permit with the Corps. If a Corps permit is not being sought, WDF or WDW should be contacted directly for approval. The agencies will not issue an HPA until the project has complied with SEPA. In salmon - bearing streams, in -stream work is typically limited to the summer season (June 15 to September 15). City of Renton The City of Renton is in the process of developing and adopting an ordinance to protect wetland resources. The Draft Wetlands Management Ordinance (City of Renton 1991) includes a wetland rating system and corresponding undisturbed buffer requirements. This draft ordinance is currently undergoing further revisions and refinements. It is estimated that a final version will be adopted near the end of 1991 or early 1992. Literature Cited Adamus, P. R. and L I. Stockwell. 1983. A method for wetland functional assessment. Volumel, Critical review and evaluation concepts. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Elmore, 1 1988. Reguhitory guidance letters, nationwide permit program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. No.8&6. 6 Pages. BBayRsxrvH T-1 ,o(W/9, Mr. Mike Giseburt Mr. Ron Straka October 3, 1991 Page 9 Erwin, K L 1990. Wetland evaluation for restoration and creation. J. A. Kusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.): Wetland creation and restoration: the status of science. 1990. Jones & Stokes Associates. 1991. Critical areas inventory - City of Renton wetlands and stream corridors. Bellevue, 'OVA. Renton, City of. 1991. Draft wetlands management ordinance. June 1991. 23 Pages. Vt (VMn"4T-1 W03/91 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Mike Giseburt, R W Beck and Associates From: Wendy Gibble, Herrera Environmental Consultants Date: October 2, 1991 Re: Water Quality Issues for ESGRWP Watershed Management Alternatives This memorar„fum presents the water quality issues associated with the proposed channel alternatives for the East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP). This information includes existing water quality issues that may be affected by proposed channel modifications, possible design criteria for enhancing water quality, and water quality issues that may arise as a result of implementation of a given alternative. General water quality considerations for the valley area are presented first, followed by a discussion of the water quality issues associated with each alternative. GENERAL WATER QUALITY ISSUES The existing water quality of Springbrook Creek is extremely poor. Water quality problems include low dissolved oxygen, high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria, and high levels of turbidity, conductivity, total phosphorus, solids, metals, and ammonia. Existing water quality in Springbrook Creek may be affected by past structural changes in the channel, the amount (i.e., reduction) of polishing received from wetlands, and an increase in pollutant sources. Low dissolved oxygen levels measured in Springbrook Creek will be difficult to remedy. Increasing the level of dissolved oxygen in the creek during summer low flow periods is hindered because it is fed by poorly oxygenated groundwater. Furthermore, the channel exhibits a low gradient with low stream flow velocities which make structural modifications to enhance reoxygenation difficult to engineer. Although shallow flow enhances oxygenation, it can also cause the water temperature to rise which is also detrimental to fisheries and aquatic habitat in general. Structural and/or mechanical measures can be used to introduce oxygen into the system, however these measures are generally costly and may or may not be feasible for Springbrook Creek. Sedimentation within Springbrook Creek will also be difficult to control. The sediment carried by the creek is very fine and does not readily settle out. Most of the sediment 178\WOISSUES 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. loading enters Springbrook Creek during high flow events. Diverting high flows away from wetlands would reduce the amount of solids retained in the wetlands and increase sedimentation in the channel. Sedimentation could be better controlled by eliminating sources of sediment in the watershed, for instance by controlling erosion and runoff from construction areas. The Springbrook Creek basin consists of numerous small wetlands located throughout the valley, some of which are hydrologically connected to the creek. These wetlands are recharged with surface water particularly during high flow events. Without inputs of surface water, the wetlands may experience a decrease in water quality. Dissolved oxygen may decrease because a greater proportion of the water feeding the wetland will be from poorly oxygenated groundwater. Water temperatures may increase as a result of standing shallow water. Also, there would be less flushing of inorganic and organic material from the wetland. Several wetlands may potentially be dewatered if changes in water levels occur in Springbrook Creek or if the stream channel alignment is altered. Measures could be taken to continue to supply surface water to the wetlands to mitigate the impacts of channel modifications. This may be accomplished by 1) routing stormwater with pretreatment through the wetlands, 2) pumping water from Springbrook Creek, or 3) installing structures in the channel to divert flows to the wetlands. If these options prove infeasible, then wetlands could be constructed elsewhere to offset the loss of existing wetlands. Maintaining creek flow through wetlands is also important for the water quality of the creek. The wetlands provide important polishing of the water and sediment entrapment, especially during high flows. Therefore, efforts should be taken to maintain the connection and flow of Springbrook Creek through existing wetlands. Any modifications to Springbrook Creek, such as widening, deepening, or realignment of the channel, could result in the excavation of potentially contaminated sediments. Samples of dredged material from the P-1 pump station forebay were analyzed as part of an EIS for a proposed development at the site. Analysis of the samples indicated that the bottom sediments of the forebay are contaminated with heavy metals and semi - volatile organic compounds. Possible sources of pollution include the lower reach of Mill Creek (to the city limits of Renton) and the Western Processing Site, which are both 178\WQISSUES 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. designated state superfund sites. Because both of these sites are upstream of Springbrook Creek, pollutants from these sources may have been transported downstream and deposited along the entire reach of the creek. Therefore, any sediments dredged or excavated from the existing stream channel may contain contaminates which would require special disposal at an approved WDOE facility. Another important consideration for widening the Springbrook channel is that water temperatures will rise during low flow periods because of shallow channel depths and a lack of riparian cover. To minimize this effect, channel widths should be kept as small as possible. Fast growing native species should be planted along the channel to provide maximum cover to minimize this effect. Construction work along the Springbrook Creek channel may also impact water quality. In particular, work conducted within the channel without a diversion of stream flows may result in significant turbidity and suspended solids downstream of the construction site. If possible, the water should be diverted around all construction areas to minimize the impacts on water quality. Such construction would require a permit from WDOE (i.e. Temporary Water Quality Modification). SPECIFIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE The issues presented above may pertain to one or more of the alternatives being considered for ESGRWP. In the following section, each alternative is considered in terms of beneficial and detrimental water quality issues associated with the proposed modifications. P-9 Channel/Panther Creek Wetlands (PCW) improvement. The improvements described under the Environmental Mitigation Agreement (EMA) included a P-9 spawning channel and routing of Panther Creek through the associated wetlands. All the SR 167 culverts except the 3'x4' box culvert will be plugged and a new outlet crossing constructed at SR 167 which will connect with the P-9 channel. These improvements are included in several of the alternatives, and therefore will be discussed separately. However, at this time a spawning channel is not proposed and there will not be a flow control structure at the outlet of the wetlands. 178\WQISSUES 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. The P-9 channel will be located in an existing drainage ditch that is hydrologically connected to a wetland just to the south. Construction of the P-9 channel will sever this connection, causing the wetland to dewater. Maintaining a low flow bypass to this wetland will diminish the risk of dewatering the wetland and also benefit the water quality of the creek. Similarly, routing Panther Creek through the PCW will also benefit the creek and the wetlands. Alternative 1: No action. Under this alternative, no channel improvements would be made and improvements to the Panther Creek wetlands and P-9 channel would not be completed. Springbrook Creek will continue to have extremely poor water quality, high temperatures and low dissolved oxygen during low flow periods, and sedimentation problems. However, the wetlands will continue to benefit from Springbrook Creek water overflowing into them during high flow periods. Alternative 2: Springbrook Creek incorporating wetlands. This alternative consists of replacing several culverts along Springbrook channel and widening the channel at isolated locations. Efforts will be taken to incorporate wetlands into the system. This alternative also includes those issues discussed above for the P-9 channel/PCW improvements. Replacing several of the culverts as well as widening the channel may cause certain wetlands, particularly W-11 and W-12 to dewater. Additional efforts will need to be taken to supply wetlands with water particularly during low flow periods as discussed above. Alternative 3: Original alignment of P-1 channel with wide channels. This alternative includes the construction of large channels as proposed by SCS, including a high flow channel separate from Springbrook Creek. This alternative would incorporate the P-9 channel/PCW improvements. Widening the channel of Springbrook Creek could result in increases in water temperature because of a lack of riparian cover and shallow water during summer low flow periods. Furthermore, wetlands W-11 & W-12 will be dewatered because high flows will be diverted through a new high flow diversion channel which is not hydraulically connected to the wetlands. Finally, potentially contaminated sediments excavated from the existing Springbrook channel or from the proposed high flow diversion alignment could require special disposal at an approved WDOE facility. Alternative 4: Springbrook Creek low flow/P-1 channel high flow. This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 except that the proposed channels will not be as wide. Water 178\WQISSUES 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. temperature will not be as severely impacted as under Alternative 3 because the channel may be expected to have better riparian cover. Also, less potentially contaminated sediments will be removed from the channel. Alternative 6: Modify Green River Management Plan. Under this alternative, the Green River Management Plan would be modified to increase the allowable discharge rate from the P-1 pump station when the Green River has flow rates exceeding 9,000 cfs. This alternative coulc be implemented in conjunction with other alternatives. Pumping at a higher rate would result in less required storage area in the forebay, therefore detention time in the forebay would decrease. This would result in less accumulation of sediments in the P-1 pump forebay under extreme high flow events when pumping would normally have to ne reduced. Because these high flows occur very infrequently, the significance of this alternative on water quality in the Springbrook Creek basin would be minimal. Alternative 7: Establish critical watershed designation. Under this alternative, the Springbrook Creek basin would receive critical watershed designation and larger on -site detention systems would be required. Providing detention for larger storm events is not expected to significantly improve water quality from new development. To improve the water quality of stormwater, more stringent water quality controls could be implemented, particularly for industrial sites where the potential exists for greater levels of contamination of runoff. Such measures might include oil/water separators, adding sedimentation basins, or biofiltration swales. Alternative 8: Springbrook Creek improvements without incorporating wetlands. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except that additional measures to incorporate wetlands into the modified system will not be taken. Under this scenario, several wetlands may be dewatered and the water of Springbrook Creek will not receive sediment or nutrient removal normally afforded by these wetlands. Alternative 10: Improve west side of SR 167 drainage system. Under this alternative, the ditch on the west side of SR 167 will be enlarged and a new drainage system would be installed to convey flow from the ditch to Springbrook Creek. This alternative would replace the P-9 channel/PCW improvements. Panther Creek would no longer benefit by having its channel be diverted through the wetlands. On the other hand, wetlands on the south side of SW 23rd St may not be impacted by channel 178\WQISSUES 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. improvements to the existing drainage ditch depending on the actual improvements proposed. Alternative 11: High flow diversions at SW 43rd. This alternative would provide for a high flow diversion at SW 43rd to the Green River. A portion of Springbrook Creek will benefit by less in -channel erosion downstream of diversion and decreased sedimentation because sediment loads carried during high flow conditions will be diverted. This would only be feasible at high flows in Springbrook Creek and during low flows in the Green River, and therefore it is not expected to have significant impact on water quality. But, diversion of potentially contaminated sediments from upstream areas of Mill Creek may be considered to be a positive water quality benefit for Springbrook Creek. Alternative 12: Options. One option proposes to pump and divert high flows to the Green River at the Kent Lagoons. This would also benefit Springbrook Creek by resulting in less erosion in the stream channel as well as decrease sedimentation downstream of the pumping station. Furthermore, the amount of pollutants transported from the upper reaches of Mill Creek will decrease, although contaminants from the Western Processing Site as well as the reach of Mill Creek designated as a state superfund site will continue to pass through Springbrook Creek. The Kent Lagoons are located upstream of these sites. Another option would increase the stream discharge capacity at road crossings by adding additional culverts instead of bridges. This is not expected to exert a significant impact on water quality in the basin. 178\WQISSUES 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. RW BECK AND ASSOCIATES 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 ■ Seattle, Washington 98121.23 -5 ■ USA Telephone (206) 441=7500 ■ Fax (206) 441-4964 Consulting, (206) 441-4962 Engineering Telex 4990402 BECKSEA W-W-1159-BA2-CE 3101 MEMORPSIDUM October 1, 1991 TO: RON STRAKA, CITY OF RENTON FROM: MIKE GISEBURT, R.W. BECK P-ND ASSOCIATES DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1991 SUBJECT: Fishery Issue=_/Criteria for ESGRWP Flood Control Alternatives The following paragraphs describe fishery issues and criteria related to the ESGRWP flood control alternatives. This information was prepared as a part of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan Task III.B.2. Design issues Structural Measure Criteria Implementation of the Eastside Green River Watershed Plan could require structural measures to reduce floodwater damage, depending upon the alternative chosen. These measures may adversely affect several basin resources, including water quality, fish passage and wetland preservation. Design issues associated with potential impacts to fish passage may arise in conjunction with various flood control alternatives. The design criteria set forth below address those types of impacts that can be reduced or eliminated and set forth guidelines to be followed during the selection and implementation of the preferred flood control plan. A. Design Issue - Flood Flow Velocities Juvenile salmonids can maintain sustained swimming speeds of from 1 to slightly more than 2 feet per second, depending upon the size of the individual fish. Adult salmon and steelhead can sustain speeds of from 4 to 12 feet per second. Where floodwater runoff speeds exceed the tolerance levels of juvenile fish resident during early life stages (esp. coho salmon and steelhead trout), protection from being washed downstream is often afforded by large boulders, undercut banks and rootwads. Such natural obstructions are not conducive to the rapid passage of large volumes of water. If floodwater channels cannot be designed to slow high flows to between 2 and 4 feet per second for a 2-year event, some means of providing cover should be considered. Gabions and/or deflectors could be used in reaches considered important or potentially important as rearing areas for juvenile salmonids. Boston, MA ■ Columbus, INT • Denver, CO ■ Indianapolis, IN ■ Minnnpolis, M-N Nashville, T • Orlando. FL • Phoenix, AZ ■ Sacramento, CA ■ Seattle, WA B. Design Issue - Eater Temperature Water temperatures above 70 degrees F. will adversely impact both adult and juvenile salmonids, either directly through stress and eventual mortality or indirectly as a synergistic factor to be considered when measuring other environmental indicators of stress, such as oxygen availability, swimming speed, disease organisms and the effects of certain pollutants. Controlling water temperatures during peak flood events may prove difficult or impossible, and is probably unnecessary. It is during low flow conditions that the greatest potential for adverse water temperatures exists. Many of the drainage pathways, including the P-9 Channel and Springbrook Creek itself, within the plan area are low gradient, slow moving channels with little or no overhead or bankside cover. The combination of solar warming and low rate of flow can lead to water cruality conditions above the Page 2 tolerance levels of salmonid fishes during periods of clear summer weather. When considering the effects of adverse water quality on fish, design engineers must remember to design for the extreme, not the average, condition. One of the most effective ways to reduce stream water temperatures is to provide shade over the waterway. Consistent with the primary goal of flood control, planting fast growing shade trees such as hybrid cottonwoods along the water courses would help to reduce the warming caused by solar absorption. The floodwater management alternative selected for the watershed should include a riparian zone planting component directed toward the reduction of water temperatures during summer low flow periods. The spacing of trees recently planted along lower Springbrook Creek is not adequate to afford the necessary level of shading required to effectively reduce water temperatures. C. Design Issue - Fish Passage The channels throughout the system serve as passageways for salmon and trout migrating upstream to Panther Creek or other suitable spawning grounds. Barriers to fish passage could occur as a result of structural measures included in several of the flood control alternatives. Conversely, alternatives that incorporate culvert removal and replacement with free standing bridges also enhance fish passage. Any control structure at the head of the P-9 Channel to control water levels in the Panther Creek Wetland would have to include structural provisions for fish passage. In addition, any alternative selected should include the removal of the culvert where Panther Creek flows under Talbot Road. This culvert should be replaced with either an arch culvert or a free standing bridge. The present structure is a barrier to upstream fish migration and eliminates Panther Creek as a potential spawning area for anadromous fishes. Construction/operation innacts 1. Culvert replacement, bridge construction and any other work within a stream channel will require a Hydraulic Permit from the Washington Department of Fisheries. Limitations will be placed on the timing and extent of work that can be done in the stream channel. Scheduling instream work will have to be done in consultation with the r_partment of Fisheries. 2. Measures must be taken entering the stream at the stabilization and revegetation construction program. Page 3 Alternative Evaluation Alternative 1 - No Action to prevent or minimize sediment point of construction. Bank will be required as part of any Under this alternative the barrier on Panther Creek at Talbot Road would remain, preventing upstream movement of anadromous fish. Water temperatures would continue to be high during periods of hot weather, increasing the stress on both juvenile and adult fish. Flood flows would continue to wash out rearing juvenile salmon and steelhead and stranding may result in fish mortality as floodwaters recede. Alternative 2 - Springbrook Creek, P-9 Channel Under this alternative the P-9 Channel, proposed as a fish spawning channel under terms of the Environmental Mitigation Agreement prepared as partof the East Side Green River Watershed Project, would have a series of eight low weirs installed between the Route 167 culvert and Lind Avenue. Other- measures were included in the agreement to foster the spawning channel concept. After a careful scrutiny of the existing channel, the available drop in gradient, and the opportunity for subsurface percolation and sedimentation, the conclusion has been reached that conditions necessary for the successful construction and operation of a spawning channel are not present. We recommend that this aspect of Alternative 2 be deleted. As an alternative choice, we recommend that all necessary measures be taken to ensure fish passage through lower Panther Creek, including removing the culvert at Talbot Road, to encourage the use of the natural spawning opportunities afforded by the system. Alternative 3 - Original P-1 Alignment The wide P-1 configuration increases the opportunity for solar warming and decreases the streamside cover to surface area ratio, thereby reducing the channel's value as rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon and steelhead trout. These features are not critical if the channel carries water only at high flows. In such cases, however, the possibility of fish becoming stranded as flood waters recede creates an additional problem with this configuration. Alternative 4 - Modified P-1 Alignment This alternative reduces Alternative 3 above, although the not entirely eliminated. Page 4 the adverse impacts noted in potential for fish stranding is Alternative 6 - Modify Green River Management Agreement Under this alternative opportunities for improving fish habitat and passage within the system would remain relatively the same as under the no action alternative. Water temperatures would continue to rise during low flow periods and current obstructions to fish passage on Panther Creek would remain. Alternative 7 - Establish Critical Watershed Designation This alternative does not address existing conditions that are detrimental to fish passage and water quality parameters that impact fish resources. Alternative 8 - Culvert Replacement This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 and impacts fish resources in a like manner. Replacing culverts with bridges is almost always beneficial to fish by improving 'conditions for upstrean and downstream movement and increasing usable habitat. Alternative 10 - Enlarging Existing System Enlarging existing channels will exacerbate the water temperature problem mentioned above by reducing the shading effect of riparian vegetation. The work necessary to reintroduce fish into Panther Creek is not included in this alternative. Alternative 11 - High Flow Diversion at SW 43rd This alternative would probably not result in any improvement to fish habitat within the project area. Diverting high flows from Springbrook Creek could reduce the chance of any fish rearing in the section of stream below SW 43rd Street from being swept downstream. 1 Alternative 12, Option A - Culverts Culverts are seldom an acceptable alternative to free standing bridges from a fish management viewpoint. In the event that agreement was reached with the Department of Fisheries that no fish resources or habitats were being affected, then the substitution of culverts for bridges may be a viable alternative. Alternative 12, Option B - Pumping Station This alternative would have little impact on fish resources and potential habitat in the project area. APPENDIX D Public Involvement and Education R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 ■ Seattle, Washington 9S121 375 ■ USA Telephone (206) 441-7500 ■ Fax (206) 441-4964 Consulting, (206) 441-4962 Engineering Telex 4990402 BECKSEA WW-1159-BA2-DD 3023 Mr. Ron Straka, Supervisor Storm Water Utility City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ron: Subject: City of Renton Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan Public Education Plan October 20, 1992 Attached herewith is our task report on the Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan (BRBWQMP) Public Education Plan. This task report summarizes the public involvement and education program conducted as a part of the project and recommends several ongoing public involvement and education (PIE) programs which should be implemented following completion of the BRBWQMP. This task report also includes copies of meeting agendas, handout materials, and meeting minutes developed during the projects public involvement program. Please call me if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES i FrInchot L. Fenske Project Manager Boston, MA ■ Columbus, NE ■ Denver, CO ■ Indianapolis, IN ■ Mintua[Xdis, MN Nashville, TN ■ Orlando, FL ■ Phoenix, AZ ■ Sacramento. CA ■ Seattle. WA CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC EDUCATION PLAN FOR THE BLACK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN lom,ng =Mf as Mike Giseburt and Franchot Fenske R. W. Beck and Associates 2121 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 WMGM1 . �� 1 • City of Renton Department of Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES OCTOBER 1992 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC EDUCATION PLAN FOR THE BLACK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 3 B. PROGRAM COMPONENTS ................................ 3 1. Fact Sheet ........................................ 3 2. Questionnaire ...................................... 3 3. Citizen Task Force .................................. 4 4. Public Meetings .................................... 4 C. ONGOING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS........................................... 4 1. Process for Developing Recommendation .................. 4 2. Recommended Program ............................... 6 1159WW0.715 -i- DRAFr 10/20192 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC EDUCATION PLAN FOR THE BLACK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN A. INTRODUCTION The public involvement and education program was an important element of the Black River Basin Water Quality Man: dement Plan (BRBWQMP). The purpose of the program was to: • Increase public awareness of the water resources present in the basin, • Inform and educate the public and local businesses that their actions can lead to water quality degradation, • Reduce the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system through voluntary action of the public and businesses, and • Evaluate and recommend ongoing public involvement and education programs that the City could implement following completion of the BRBWQMP. These objectives were accomplished through a series of public involvement and education program components including a fact sheet/flyer, questionnaire, formation of a Citizen Task Force (CTF), and public meetings. These program components are discussed in the following section. B. PROGRAM COMPONENTS 1. Fact Sheet A fact sheet/flyer providing information about water quality and control of pollutant sources in a question and answer format was mailed to approximately 1,500 residents and businesses in the City's portion of the Black River Basin. The flyer also informed the public about the BRBWQMP and encouraged residents to attend a public meeting about the project. A copy of the fact sheet is included in the Appendix. 2. Questionnaire A Questionnaire was also mailed to approximately 1,500 residents and businesses in the basin requesting information on interests or concerns relating to the Black River Basin. In addition, the questionnaire invited individuals to be members of the project's Citizen Task Force (CTF). Over 100 questionnaire responses were received with 35 people showing interest in being members of the CTF. The primary issues of concern as rated by the respondents to the questionnaire are listed below in order of priority. A 1159WW0.715 -1- DRAFT 10 /92 copy of the questionnaire and detailed results of the survey are included in the Appendix. Issues of Concern Preserving Water Quality Prevention of Toxic and Hazardous Waste Spills from Industrial Sites and Traffic Accidents New Development Impacts on Water Quality Educating the Public About How Their Actions Affect Water Quality Protecting and Preserving Wetlands Control of Household Hazardous Waste 3. Citizen Task Force The Citizen Task Force (CTF) was formed to participate in the planning effort and provide input on the project. The primary emphases of the CTF are to identify, evaluate and select public involvement and education programs that the City, interested citizens and businesses could implement following completion of the BRBWQMP. Three CTF meetings have been held and a fourth is planned. The first meeting included an introduction to the project. The second and third meetings involved presenting results of the study findings and the identification and evaluation of public involvement and education programs. The fourth meeting will be conducted following issuance of the draft plan to present the study findings and receive input. A copy of the meeting agendas, sign-up sheets and handouts are included in the Appendix. The CTF's involvement in developing the preferred PIE program is discussed in the following section. 4. Public Meetings One public meeting has been held and a second public meeting is planned. The first public meeting was conducted on November 19, 1991 and included an introduction to the project. Copies of the meeting sign-up sheet, agenda and handout materials is included in the Appendix. Only one person attended the meeting. A second meeting will be conducted following public issuance of the draft report to present the study findings and receive public comment. C. ONGOING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS As discussed above, one of the purposes of the study's public involvement and education (PIE) program was to recommend a series of ongoing PIE programs that could be implemented after completion of the study. To ensure local support, the CTF was used to select the most suitable programs within basin. Although the emphasis of this study was the Black River Basin, both City staff and the CTF believe that these programs would be effective on a City wide basis. This section discusses the evaluation process used to select the programs and the implementation of the recommended programs. 1159WW0.715 -2- DRAFT 10/20/92 1. Process for Developing Recommendation Of the four CTF meetings, two specific CTF meetings were set aside to discuss ongoing PIE programs. During the first meeting, there was a general discussion about public involvement and education programs. To increase the awareness of the different types of programs available, a summary of 28 sample public education programs taken from the Public Involvement and Education Model Projects Fund - 47 Success Stories From Puget Sound (Department of Ecology, 1991) was provided to each CTF member. In addition, select programs from Puget Soundbook, a guidebook on maintaining the health of the Puget Sound region (Marine Science Society, 1991), were provided to all members. The task force reviewed relevant examples of programs that might be effective in the Black River Basin. Following the general discussion, the committee was divided into two smaller groups for further discussion about programs specific to the Black River Basin. Out of the small discussion groups, eight additional PIE programs were identified. Following the smaller discussion groups, the additional programs were recorded and shared with the full committee. Each member then voted on their three most preferred programs and the 36 possible programs were screened down to the following 13 programs. 1. Interpretive Trail - 8 votes 2. Lawn/Chemicals - 6 votes 3. Salmon Days - 5 votes 4. Renton River Days - 5 votes 5. Fact Sheet - 3 votes 6. Hazard Free Community - 2 votes 7. C.A.R. (change and recycle) Oil Committee - 2 votes 8. Public Information Television Channel - 2 votes 9. Rainy Days Festival - 1 vote 10. Water Resources Poster - 1 vote 11. Waste Management for Auto Shops - 1 vote 12. Stream Team Program - 1 vote 13. Calendar of Events - 1 vote The second meeting included a continuation of the PIE program evaluation process. The objective of the second meeting was to review and elaborate on the 13 PIE programs identified during the first meeting and then to conduct a second voting to select the preferred PIE programs that would be the most effective for reducing water quality degradation in the basin. As a result of discussions during the second meeting, the task force identified several new programs and revised emphasis on some of the previous 13 PIE programs. Important points included the following: 1159WW0.715 -3- DRAFT 10/20/92 • Using resource identification signs such as "Entering the Black River Basin", "Springbrook Creek", "Panther Creek", and "Panther Creek Wetlands" was emphasized as a part of the interpretive trail PIE alternative to increase the public awareness of important environmental resources. • Using a stream team program in which local volunteers would organize litter pick-up would be successful. • Organize a speaker bureau of volunteers to speak to interested groups about water ruality, such as churches and citizen groups. Following the discussions, the CTF members voted for the programs that they felt would be most effective in eliminating water quality problems. Each member was given four colored dots each with a different value based on relative importance and asked to vote for their preferred programs. The results of the voting are itemized below. 1. Resource signing/interpretive trail - 7 points 2. Fact Sheet with various focuses - 5 points 3. C.A.R. (change and recycle) Oil Committee - 4 points 4. Renton River Days Booth - 3 points 5. Stream Team Clean Up - 3 points 6. Newspaper Article - 3 points 7. Hazard Free Community - 2 points 8. Lawn/Chemical Use - 2 points 2. Recommended Program The recommended ongoing PIE program would consist of both informational and action elements. The informational elements of the program include fact sheets on such things as proper lawn and chemical usage, newspaper articles, and an exhibitor booth at the annual Renton River Days festival. The action elements, which include investment of capital expenditures and labor, consist of resource signing, forming a change and recycle oil committee, stream team clean up committee, and hazard free community pledges. A discussion of the recommended PIE program elements and their respective implementation is included in the following paragraphs. The following programs are listed in order of priority as determined by the CTF. The actual number of programs and the order in which these programs are implemented will likely vary depending on the level of interest generated by different citizens, City staff, and possibly area community groups. a. Resource Signing/Interpretive Trail. This PIE program would include placing signs to identify valuable environmental resources. The signs should be made and installed by the City. The creative development of the signs should be done by interested citizens, through a student contest, or a citizen group with final approval by the City. Signing should be integrated with the currently proposed trail plans by the City's Parks Department. A small number of suggested signs and locations are listed 1159WW0.715 -4- DRAFT 10/20/92 Sign below, however, the citizen group taking interest in this PIE program should develop this program. Possible Locations 1) I "Entering Black River Basin" I I-405, SR-167, SW 43rd, Empire Way S., Puget Dr., 180th Ave. SE 2) 1 "Springbrook Creek" I Grady Way, SW 43rd For the above two signs, the City should work cooperatively with King County and Kent to install signs in their jurisdictions. Interpretive signs could be used to emphasize the Heron Rookery located at the BRPS forebay. 3) "Panther Creek Wetland" SR-167 4) "Panther Creek" Talbot Road An interpretive sign could be used at the proposed site of the ESGRW Plan spawning channel to describe the project and the City's attempts to re-establish salmon spawning. 5) 1 "Black River" SW 7th Street An interpretive sign could be used to describe the history of the Black River. b. Fact Sheet. The fact sheets could be sent out quarterly or twice a year with each mailing directed to a different audience and/or different focus. An example might be to send a specific message to the top 50 priority industries on ways to safe guard against accidental spills of pollutants. Another example would be a fact sheet to residents on the proper lawn care and the use of chemicals. The City could provide copying and mailing services, while a citizen group could be responsible for authoring the fact sheet. The fact sheets could be distributed with the City's utility bills. Because the fact sheet can be directed to specific audiences with a specific message, it is recommended that the fact sheet also be used as the primary media for the Hazard Free Community PIE program. A fact sheet should be sent to residences and businesses in the basin with the objective to decrease individual dependence on hazardous materials and increase knowledge of alternatives to hazardous materials. C. C.A.R. (Change and Recycle) Oil Committee. This program would consist of organizing a committee to implement an education program for the do-it-yourself oil changer. The committee would primarily consist of representatives from automotive supply stores and related businesses, 1159WW0.715 -5- DRAFT 10/20/92 however, interested citizens could also be involved. This program is planned for implementation by Communications Northwest in Seattle under a possible Department of Ecology PIE grant (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991). Possible methods for implementing the program include developing a brochure which could be given to consumers purchasing oil and other products from automobile supply stores. The brochure could explain the consequences of improper disposal and direct the consumer to locations for recycling. The City could fmance the reproduction of the brochures, and the committee could be responsible for authorship. Another method would be to develop a video to train automobile supply store sales people on how to encourage oil recycling when consumers purchase oil. d. Renton River Days Booth. The Renton River Days Booth would be for the purpose of providing information to the public on the broader issue of surface water management in the City of Renton and on the BRBWQMP. In addition, the booth would provide an opportunity for Renton employees and interested citizens to participate by answering questions regarding water quality, environmental resources, flooding problems, and how they as citizens can help protect their resources. e. Stream Team Clean Up. This program would be similar to the program developed by the City of Bellevue, Washington, with emphasis on litter control of the riparian corridor along streams. Teams could be formed for targeted streams or segments of streams. The City could provide assistance during the initial organization of teams while the teams themselves organize periodic clean up dates and perform the clean up. The City could also provide assistance to obtain property access approvals. f. Newspaper Articles. Newspaper articles would be prepared on different aspects of the BRBWQMP to help educate and inform residents about different issues that exist in the basin and how their voluntary actions can protect and improve water quality. A citizen group working with support from the City could author the articles, and the articles could be sent to the Valley Daily News for publication. g. Lawn and Chemical Use. This program would have the purpose of educating gardeners and small farmers about the effects of their activities on water quality and promote good gardening practices and the proper use of chemicals. Informational materials in this area have already been developed for the King County area under a PIE program called "SOUND Gardening, SOUND Farming" sponsored by Washington State University (WSU)/King County Cooperative Extension (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991). These informational materials include 10 information sheets on various aspects of gardening with consideration of water quality, 1159WW0.715 -6- DRAFr 10l20/92 a color poster on sound gardening practices, a brochure, a slide illustrated lecture, and buttons proclaiming "Good gardening is SOUND Gardening". The City of Renton, working with a citizens group could coordinate with the WSU/King County Cooperative Extension to obtain these materials and distribute them or have them available for citizens in the Black River Basin. 1159ww0.715 -7- DRAFT 10r-0/92 REFERENCES (1) Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991. Public Involvement and Education Model Projects Fund - 47 Success Stories from Puget Sound. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (2) Marine Science Society. 1991. Puget Soundbook. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and Metro. 1159WW0.715 -8- DRAFT 10/20/92 CONTENTS 1 Fact Sheet/Flyer 2 Questionnaire and Results 3 November 19, 1991 Public Meeting 4 February 19, 1992 Task Force Meeting 5 May 5, 1992 Task Force Meeting 6 September 10, 1992 Task Force Meeting 1159WW0.715 -9- DRAFT 10/20/92 Public Meeting November 19, 1991 CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN November 19, 1991 Public Meeting AGENDA 7:00 p.m. Open House 7:15 p.m. Introduction and Preview of Meeting Ron Straka, Renton 7:20 p.m. Overview Planning Process Franchot Fenske o History R. W. Beck and Associates o Integrated Planning Approach 93 Goals and Objectives 0 Planning Process El Public Involvement and Education 7:25 p.m. Project Tasks/Initial Findings Wally Trial, Herrera BRWQMP Task 1 — Water Quality Assessment Task 2 — Wetland Inventory/Assessment Task 3 — Water Quality Analysis and Source control Alternative Evaluation Task 4 — Integrating Environmental Considerations Into ESGRWP 7:35 p.m. Project Tasks/Initial Findings ESGRWP Task 1 — Hydrologic Analysis Task 2 — Hydraulic Analysis Task 3 — Fisheries Task 4 — Policies and Financial Considerations 7:40 p.m. Where Do We Go From Here? 7:45 p.m. Questions and Answers Mike Giseburt R. W. Beck and Associates Ron Straka Franchot Fenske R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES 1Z'I CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN November 19, 1991 Public Meeting Sign—up Sheet Namc Address Phone Z 7- sC 2 a�.e�s G�I;I�+�i o rr ✓c S �8-4-37( 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STORM WATER RUNOFF DOES STORM WATER RUNOFF IS IT A PROBLEM? WA AFFECT WATER QUALITY? YFS. Storm water runoff in t lie project area starts as rainwater ITS. Hard surfaces, such as rooftops, streets, and asphalt that flows overland into ponds, wetlands, streams. and eventu- Ory HAIL parking lots turn rain into fast -flowing storm water runoff. ally the Green River and Puget Sound. Before development. � This frequentlycrodesstream banks and deposits sediments in occurred in the Renton area, abundant trees and other vegeta- ►tI streams which in addition to construction site runoff are the tion helped control runoff. Forests slowed down the rate at LACK RIVE major sources of sediment_ Sediment deposition can ruin which rain hit the ground. Acres of undeveloped land with P STATION STUDY AREA spawning habitat for fish that use streams to reproduce. Water many plants and established root networks absorbed most of RENTON quality also deteriorates as water drains from urban areas car - the runoff. This system prevented erosion and provided for -A rying pesticides, animal waste, oil and heavy metals into our natural filtering. ' groundwaterandstreams. Combined, sediment and othcrpol- lumnts threaten wildlife habitat and the water around you. Today, the area is experiencing growth. When houses, streets, shopping centers, and businesses are built, natural soil and 0 ARE ENVIRONMENTAL plant cover is replaced by hard, impervious surfaces such as tosu roads, pavement, and asphalt. Rainwater falls on these hard RESOURCE'S TI IREATENED? surfaces and cannot soak into the soil or plants and quickly o K KING , YES. There arc many valuable environmental resources becomes runoff. These factors often combine to cause prop COUNTY within the Study Area that are threatened. Springbrook Creek eny damage, threaten public safety from flooding, and pollute f � Supports trout and several species of salmon. Valley wetlands surface water. �� provide excellent wildlife habitat as well as water quality en - CM INm hancement_ These and other resources are threatened unless It CiST.__ _ efforts to protect and preserve Riem are taken now. " 1RNT WHAT IS BEING DONE TO �' �� l ► �; PROTECT THESE RESOURCES? PO4TDN C1 tt LMTS The City of Renton with funding from the Washington Slate Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant 10W j� 1 tin R Program is preparing a Water Quality Management plan for muN 3 ,,,,�,� t ;: : • : ':'�'�- ...''• :., r, LAKC the Renton portion of ttte Black River E3asin. Ttte study will contain recommendations for water quality improvements. :•. This study is being prepared concurrently with the East Side ClOi WAY" "C"AACE R000-G .<XIVTA T WN.0" Green River Watershed Plan which will address the flood con e trol issues in the valley. NATURAL BUILT UP PROJECT AREA MAP Prepared by R. W. heck and Associates, Senule. k ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I_ D�ff�a� o ao o snoo o> r3n9 zz.00°a n�'Cofc a E`=n78 oo r S° F Z F o o NN C n i3-3Cr n o O o. F n v �_ ��" mac^ sn< O'Q yam= =01 ads, E� �'�� o� a 5 �• ��'Ev�. a� -��'n Q° o y o o 2 G v n ti H moo' a 0 n a= f: >5 a O N Sc (7 Cr t7 w^ `� n S o <CL O > �' C c o 00 > —U City of Renton BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN We need your help to solve water quality problems. This project is partially funded by a Washington State Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant. rlSrlrS101 SIIIS OIIlrlrlrl 01 ECOLOGY CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 - CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN INTEGRATED PLANNING APPROACH Black River Water Quality Management Plan Water Quality Assessment Wetlands Inventory Source Control Environmental Considerations for Flood Control Public Involvement East Side Green River Watershed Plan Hydrology Hydraulics Fisheries Policies/Financia Recommended ANALYSIS Solutions to Improve Water Quality in Basin Water Quality/Wetlands/ Aquatic Resource Information Recommended Flood Control Solution ANALYSIS Sensitive to Environmental Considerations K.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN HISTORY ■ PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY ■ GREEN-DUWAMISH WATERSHED NONPOINT ACTION POINT ■ CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND GRANT R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ■ DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ® CONTROL AND IMPROVE WATER QUALITY ■ PROTECT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES e INVOLVE AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING PROCESS ■ GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ■ DATA COLLECTION ■ WETLANDS INVENTORY ■ WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS/ SOURCE CONTROL ■ PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION ■ ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION/ RECOMMENDATIONS R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION PROGRAM ■ INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS ■ INFORM AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY ■ REDUCE POLLUTION ■ IDENTIFY ON -GOING PROGRAM R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ` MERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? ® REVIEW STUDY FINDINGS ■ MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ■ CONDUCT PUBLIC MEETING ■ ESTABLISH SCHEDULE R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Questionnaire Indicate which issues related to the Black River Basin are of greatest concern to you by putting a number in each box according to the followin sg tale: 1 — Most concern 3 — Little concern Protecting/preserving wetands Re—establishing a fish resource Preserving water quality New development impacts to water quality Educating the public about how their actions affect water quality 2 — Some concern 4 — No concern 5 — No opinion Using wetlands and streams for education/ recreation Prevention of toxic/hazardous waste spills from industrial sites and traffic accidents Control of household hazardous waste Other (Describe) The city of Renton is preparing a water quality management plan for the Black River Basin. The purpose of this study is to characterize the existing water quality conditions in the study area and to develop recommendations for improvement of water quality. An important step in protecting and improving water quality is public education. Education is needed to increase citizen awareness and to let people know that their actions can help to reduce water quality degradation. The introduction of pollutants into storm drainage systems can be reduced through voluntary action by the public and local business communities. As a part of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan, the city will be forming a 12—member citizen Task Force. The purpose of this Task Force is to participate in the planning effort and provide input on such matters as goals and objectives, new policies and regulations that will affect citizens and businesses within the study area, and to review various public education programs and and identify an ongoing program best suited for our community. The Task Force member responsibilities will include attendance at five evening meetings. In addition, the Task Force members will be requested to review materials and provide input during the meetings. Are you interested in being a member of the Task Force? Yes No The Task Force needs to represent a mix of interests. How would you best describe yourself? Citizen interested in protecting the environment A member of the business community Name: A member of an environmental group A member of the development community Other (describe) Telephone No.: Address: CITY OF RENTON AND DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CCWF GRANT PROGRAM BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RESULTS 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 MOST SOME LITTLE NO NO TOTAL RANK ISSUE OF CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN OPINION SCORE* PROTECTING/PRESERVING 48 39 7 5 6 197 5 WETLANDS RE-ESTABLISHING A FISH 31 46 12 5 11 234 7 RESOURCE PRESERVING WATER QUALITY 91 8 0 2 4 135 1 NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS 54 35 4 4 8 192 3 ON WATER QUALITY EDUCATING THE PUBLIC 54 31 8 3 9 197 4 ABOUT HOW THEIR ACTIONS AFFECT WATER QUALITY USING WETLANDS AND 23 34 25 9 14 272 8 STREAMS FOR EDUCATION AND RECREATION PREVENTION OF TOXIC/ 66 23 6 3 7 177 2 HAZARDOUS WASTE SPILLS FROM INDUSTRIAL SITES AND TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS CONTROL OF HOUSEHOLD 53 29 7 6 10 206 6 HAZARDOUS WASTE TOTAL NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES MAILED: 1,529 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES: 105 * LOWEST TOTAL SCORE IS THE ISSUE OF CONCERN OF MOST IMPORTANCE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN BEING MEMBERS ON THE CITIZEN TASK FORCE: 35 Page 1 CITY OF RENTON AND DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CCWF GRANT PROGRAM OTHER CONCERNS RECEIVED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE CLEAN-UP OR MIGRATION OF EXISTING TOXIC WASTE SITES: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE EFFECTS ON ECONMOMIC DEVELOPMENT: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE NO MORE NEW DEVEOPMENT: TWO MOST CONCERN RESPONSES PROVIDE PROPER AUTO OIL DISPOSAL: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONPE MOSQUITO CONTROL (NON -CHEMICAL) EFFECT OF THIS ON QUALITY OF LIFE FOR AREA CITIZENS: TWO MOST CONCERN RESPONSES, ONE SOME CONCERN RESPONSE BIRD POPULATION: ONE SOME CONCERN RESPONSE EDUCATING PUBLIC ABOUT COST, TAXES AND DISTRIBUTION OF MONIES TO WATER QUALITY PRESERVATION: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE WASTEING MONEY ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUES OF CONCERN: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONE CLEAN RUSTY WATER PIPE LINES AND EXCESSIVE WATER PRESSURE: TWO MOST CONCERN RESPONES PUGET POWER -CONTROL RATE RAISES: ONE SOME CONCERN RESPONSE A CONVENIENT TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL PLACE OR PLACES: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE BAD ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS ARE MAKING OUR NATION A LOSER IN THE WORLD: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE REGULATORY ACTIONS: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE BIRD HABITAT PRESERVATION: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE Page 2 OEM Toxins flow into nature area By DEAN A. RADFORD Valley Daily News RENTON - Some of the most polluted surface water in Renton is flowing into the nature preserve the city purchased in set- tling a longstanding dispute with a nearby developer. The city is testing water quality through- out the Black River drainage basin as part of a study to find ways to improve the basin's water. .; �a k&I lu joy c %'` f f r ( %; We% `*"' fto%j worship By STEVE NOLEN Valley Daily News KENT - Tatyana Storozhuk gazed at her infant daughter cradled in her arms, smil- ing as a chorus of childrin sang a Ukrainian hymn thanking God for the birth of Christ nearly 2,000 years ago. At her side, Talyana's husband. Oleg. hardly could disguise his joy about what was going on inside the Kent Alliance Church Wednesday afternoon, The chapel was overflowing with more ?,,,tttan.300 Christians from Russia, Ukraine The centerpiece of the south Renton pre- serve is the so-called P-1 pond, which was dug years ago for flood control. It's at the receiving end of pollutants flushed down the industrial Green River Valley through Springbrook Creek and a smaller creek off Nachos Avenue. "They didn't realize it (Springbrook Creek) was a hot bed for all this non -point pollution," said Rob Zisette, water quality specialist for Herrera Environmental Con - Nitrates found A3 sultants of Seattle. "The pollutants don't (lush out. They accumulate and sit there." The pollutants "inhibit any sort of aquatic growth," he said. The water samples are some of "the worst I've seen. The lower Duwamish is worse. I stuck my bucket in and it came up coated with leaches," Zisette said. He said the handful of salmon that make it up Spring - brook Creck "must be pretty tough." Zisette said his preliminary sampling has found high levels of hydrocarbons, such as gasoline and oil, and some heavy metals in the sediment from Springbrook Creek. Most of the hydrocarbons are coming from street runoff on the Valley floor. "We found highly contaminated sedi- See POLLUTION, A5 Valley Daily News Thursday, December 26, 1991 ■ A5 's\ :.r Valley Daily News photo by DUANE HAMAMURA he Kent Alliance Church. regation said they are -ing over remaining Wily members before r clamp down. )w what will happen chev," said Anatoly tinian living in Feder - is wife and five chil- Jn't done what he did, here." ults in the congrega- ,cupied with political -iildren were getting f the celebration. 2, of Everett said his e two years ago from r the Kret family, life States truly. was the care. Eye exams and y were cut from the tied under the states c system for the poor. ldren of the working nes most in need of ital care because low- y provide minimal -e worker but not for fulfillment of a dream. "My dad had a dream 16 years ago that his pastor told him he would go to America," Kret said. Yesterday was his second Christmas in the United States. Kret said he enjoyed looking at the lights on people's houses and playing with a remote control car he received as a gift. But when asked what he thought was the best thing about Christmas in the United States, his quick answer made it clear he hadn't been jaded by the commercialism and hype of the season. "I am so happy that we can come here today and celebrate the birth of Jesus," he said.. Riel said many people don't volun- teer because they believe that "if their name gets out, everybody will be on their doorstep and they become overwhelmed." But that need not happen, say directors of charitable organizations. Anybody who wants to donate ser- vices can set the amount of time or Wetlands expected to play key role Continued from page At ments. If the city wants to dredge the sediments from Springbrook Creek, they can't take it just anywhere," Zisettc said. What's significant, too, Zisettc said, is that few of the pollutants are traceable to Western Processing. the now -closed, chemical -recycling plant in Kent that is being cleaned up under the federal Superfund pro- gram. Zisette said there is "some really horrible water" that runs into the P-1 forebay from some a small creek along+ Naches A%cnue. He ha-s found hydrocarbons that arc near a level considered hazardous, as well as high fecal coliform levels. "It looked god -awful." Zisette said. Another consultant is trying to determine the pollution sources in the basin. The pollution level in the P- I pond or forebay probably -mirrors that of the streams that feed it, Zisette said. Zisette said that his analysis is pre- liminary and sampling will continue throughout the winter and spring. The city took responsibility for dredge spoils from the P-1 pond under an agreement reached among the city, First City Washington. which is developing the nearby Blackriver Corporate Park, and environmental groups. The spoils, according to the agree- ment, "contain soils with certain contamination exceeding standards under the State Model Toxics Con- trol Act." City Attorney Larry Warren. in presenting the final part of the Blackriver project to the city's hear- ing examiner Dec. 17, said one area the city purchased "has some low- level toxic materials on the site." He said the source was probably West- ern Processing. The city may put a cap on the material. "The threat is for percola- tion of materials into the P-I fore - bay," he told the hearing examiner. Thecity study, which will result in free care in his office. He said he isn't worried about being able to han- dle the demand. Spencer suggests people urge their doctors to donate some of their services to people in need. Caldwell said volunteering at the Community Health Care Centers has been painless. a Black River Water Quality Man- agement Plan, will cost about S229.000. Seventy-five percent of the cost is being paid with a grant from the state Department of Ecolo- gy Centennial Clean Water Fund. The plan, according to Ron Straka, stormwater utility civil engi- neer and project manager, will "characterize the existing water quality in the basin and then will identity sources of pollutants and how to control those." The overall goal of the plan, according to Zisettc and Straka, is to improve water quality throughout the basin. Zisette said the plan will recom- mend ways to improve the quality of the P-1 pond, which "has been abused for years." "There are pollutant concentra- tion, 111 the water that will inhibit the gro%k-ih of some species," he said. "The more resilient ones will pro- vide a wonderful natural setting." Wildlife has "survived for years, but they'll be happier in the next 10 years. " The study was recommended after Metro testing found water in the basin met only Class B standards, characterized by high temperatures. which destroy aquatic organisms, low oxygen levels and muddiness. Class B. Straka said, is "not real good. - Straka is looking for citizens, business people and environmental- ists, among others, to serve on a 12-member citizens task force that will help develop recommendations for improving the basin's water quality. The Black River plan also will provide information about wetlands and their functions, which the city will use to prepare a flood manage- ment plan for the area. Straka said. Straka said the study area, which starts at South 43rd Street and runs north, will need about 500 acre feet of storage fora 100-year storm when the basin is fully developed. The P- I pond provides about 230 acre feet of storage and wetlands provide anoth- er 250 acre feet. Wetlands, either real or man- made, probably will play a key role in solving water -quality problems in the basin. Zisette said. we get a few other people to do it, it would sure help." Homeless advocates say the most active professional volunteers are lawyers and legal aides. Caldwell said started volunteering I years ago because he had a little regular free time and wanted to give �(llllCthlrtr+ tl•rr•t' rn Ittr• �•nm+t+unir+ Citizen Task Force Meeting February 19, 1992 7:00 p.m. 7:30 p.m. CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN - February 19, 1991 Citizen Task Force Meeting AGENDA Introductions and Preview of Meeting Project Overview ❑ Comprehensive Storm and Surface Water Management Plan ❑ Black River Water Quality Management Plan ❑ East Side Green River Watershed Plan 7:50 p.m. Expectations of Citizen Task Force 7:55 p.m. House Rules 8:00 P.M. Goals and Objectives 8:45 p.m. Where Do We Go From Here? Randall Parsons City of Renton Randall Parsons Franchot Fenske R. W. Beck and Associates Mike Giseburt R. W. Beck and Associates Franchot Fenske Franchot Fenske Franchot Fenske Franchot Fenske R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD LOCATION THOSE IN ATTENDANCE NMNfE ORGANIZATION IJJ/l^%� <L,,— � DNS C-/ `^ ADDRESS TELEPHONE GcT9 O F' QT�tJ /� CVF-� Iv1 1V1 Zon ►yt , LL ►4V F S ��t/ n �, •-� / 2-77 1�� 3^]Z s? Par `/17 Ziz� �-, �, f�< [ ,� f� . �L J i 1 L(� Ll ( c`u- /ft � . �, Z 9 '-P—c4x/�� 1,j 377 57R—lfor ��/z� �5--S) 2) �c S f Zb o o r)-P 5 zGS:Z; 5 ID 61y� I i b -HclG �Z -yf, f ✓ �O� ,ice R`' 1�� 2-3S- �JZ� � UC gr-LLA ol's" < <Pa�� 7 1�Qs -P.G. I37C 70 c / L'S/?.�cui V�iLLiMr0Ci%1 4uv S 4.3- STf�r«✓ `IbcS� z)-/ -S /9 / 24 � '�Ik Ave— SW i�,o 2f)l-9 957 352- - Sa s'� 7�t l.v Q` J S[� /L �S L �y� ;`1�vs,� Z I G - Q Fom :MEETATTN Wli-1159-BA2-DA February 17, 1992 Black River Water Quality Management Plan CITIZEN TASK FORCE MEETING February 19,' 1992 PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES To control and improve surface water quality within the Black River Basin. To identify mechanisms to reduce ccntanination and deposition of stream sediments. To characterize and identify measures to improve surface water quality impacts on fish access and habitat. To characterize and identify measures to maintain and enhance existing and constructed wetlands for improved surface water quality, wildlife habitat, and flood control. To identify appropriate point and nonpoint source control strategies and regulatory options for surface water management within the Black River Basin. To conduct an appropriate public involvement and education program. To assure coordination of this plan with the programs of the other jurisdictions within the Black River Basin. - To prepare environmental elements and surface water quality information in forms which can be utilized in preparing the East Side Green River Watershed Plan. CITY OF REN T ON BLACK RWER WATER OUALiTY MANAGEMENT PLAN INTEGRATED PLANNING APPROACH lack fryer Wz',er Oualrty Management Plan Ws1er OuaNmeRecommended y Assessment ANALYSS SoMions to E nproye C Wetlands Inventory Vt'aler Ouafrty-►n Basin ve Source ontrol EnVro=,enial Coruideralions for Hood Control Pubk Involvement Water Ouafrty/Wetiands/ Aquatic Resource lritormation East Side Green River Watershed Plan Hydrology Hydraulics Fm-series Porgies/F-&-aancial ANALYSS Recommended Food Control Solution Sensrlive to Environmental Considerations R.W. BECK AKD A.Z4DCSAiTS CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER 'WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ■ DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ■ CONTROL AND IMPROVE WATER QUALITY ■ PROTECT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ■ INVOLVE AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER 'WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND EDUCATION PROGRAM ■ INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS I-NIFORM AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY ■ REDUCE POLLUTION ■ IDENTIFY ON -GOING PROGRAM CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Questionnaire Indicate which issues related to the Black River Basin are of Greatest concern to you by puttin Q a number in each box according to the follwAing scale: 1 — Most concern 3 — Little concern 2 — Some concern 4 — No concern 5 — No opinion ❑ Protecting/preser,ing wetands ❑ Re—establishing a fish resource ❑ Presenzng water quality ❑ New development impacts to water quality ❑ Educating the public about how their actions affect water quality ❑ using wetlands and streams for education/ recreation ❑ Prevention of tox7c/h2zardous waste spills from industrial sites and traffic accidents ❑ Control of household hazardous waste ❑ Other (Describe) The city of Renton is preparing a water quality management plan for the Black River Basin. The purpose of this study is to characterize the existing water quality conditions in the study area and to develop recommendations for improvement of water quality. An important step in protecting and improNing water quality is public education. Education is needed to increase citizen awareness and to let people know that their actions can help to reduce water quality degradation. The introduction of pollutants into storm drainage systems can be reduced through voluntary action by the public and local business communities. As a part of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan, the city Rill be forming a 12—member citizen Task Force. The purpose of this Task Force is to participate in the planning effort and pro%ide input on such matters as goals and objectives, new policies and regulations that'Mll affect citizens and businesses within the study area, and to re-,iew various public education programs and and identify an ongoing program best suited for our community. The Task Force member responsibilities will include attendance at Eve evening meetings. In addition, the Task Force members will be requested to reNiew materials and pro,.Ide input during the meetings. Are you interested in being a member of the Task Force? ❑ Yes ❑ NO The Task Force needs to represent a mix of interests. How would you best describe yourself? Citizen interested in protecting the environment ❑ A member of the business community Name: Address: ❑ A member of an environmental group ❑ A member of the development community ❑ Other (describe) Telephone No.: CITY OF RENTON AND DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CCWF GRANT PROGRAM BLACK RIVER WATER QUAUTY MANAGEMENT PLAN QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RESULTS 2 ( 3 1 4 MOST SOME UTTLE NO NO TOTAL RANK ISSUE OF CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN OPINION SCORE* PROTECTING/PRESERVING 47 39 7 5 6 196 5 WETLANDS RE-ESTABUSHING A FISH 31 45 12 5 11 232 7 RESOURCE PRESERVING WATER QUALITY 90 8 2 5 139 1 NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS 54 34 4 4 8 190 3 ON WATER QUAUTY EDUCATING THE PUBUC 54 30 8 3 9 195 4 ABOUT HOW THEIR ACTIONS AFFECT WATER QUAUTY USING WETLANDS AND 23 34 24 9 14 269 8 STREAMS FOR EDUCATION AND RECREATION PREVENTION OF TOXIC/ 65 23 6 3 7 176 2 HAZARDOUS WASTE SPILLS FROM INDUSTRIAL SITES AND TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS CONTROL OF HOUSEHOLD 52 29 7 6 10 205 6 HAZARDOUS WASTE TOTAL NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES MAILED: 1,529 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES: 104 * LOWEST TOTAL SCORE IS THE ISSUE OF CONCERN OF MOST IMPORTANCE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN BEING MEMBERS ON THE CITIZEN TASK FORCE: 35 Page 1 WW-1159-BA2-DA 3107 Black River Water Quality Management Plan CITIZEN TASK FORCE MEETING February 19, 1992 MEETING MINUTES February 27, 1992 This was the first meeting with the Citizen Task Force (CTF). There will be a total of five meetings with the CTF during the planning process for the project. There were fourteen members of the CTF present. An attendance roster is (attached). Also, a copy of the meeting agenda is (attached). The primary purposes of the CTF involvement program is to provide input on the study goals and objectives and new policies and regulations for protecting water quality, and to develop an appropriate public involvement and education program for the Black River Basin. As indicated on the agenda, Randall Parsons introduced the City staff and consulting engineering team and then asked all those in attendance to introduce themselves and give some background about themselves, their interests in the project, and the role which they could play as a member of the CTF. Each individual's strengths were recorded. Following the introductions, an overview was provided for all of the related planning efforts currently underway by the City of Renton. Following the project overviews, an opportunity was provided for the task force members to ask questions regarding the projects currently underway. Enclosed are copies of the overhead materials that were used for the project overviews. Next, Franchot Fenske discussed the expectations which the City and consulting engineering firm have of the CTF as follows. This was the first of five scheduled meetings, each meeting having a maximum duration of two hours. The meetings will be spread out over the balance of the year with meetings scheduled approximately every two months. The planning process is scheduled to be completed by the end of 1992. We look to the CTF to provide input on the plan goals and objectives, policies and regulations, and a public involvement and education program. House rules which define the CTF rules of operation were discussed. The house rules consisted of preparing a specific agenda for each meeting with strict time schedules. In addition, decision making would be based on consensus building. The remainder of the meeting was spent discussing plan goals and objectives (attached). The plan goals and objectives were compared with the results of the questionnaire (attached) sent to all residents within the study area which identified primary environmental concerns and interests of area citizens. Meeting Minutes (Cont'd) - 2 - February 27, 1992 To facilitate the discussions, the CTF was divided into two smaller discussions groups. Because there were several different interests represented by the members in attendance, each group was made up of a balance of representatives from the general public, business community, developer community, other,- and environmentalists. The .groups were asked to identify additional goals and objectives that were not included in the project team's plan goals and objectives. Through the discussion groups, the project team's goals and objectives were reviewed and additional goals and objectives were identified. The additional goals and objectives are listed in the table below. Following the individual group discussions, all members met together and developed a composite list of the goals and objectives. All members of the CTF were issued four colored dots and asked to indicate their preference of four goals and objectives by placing a dot next to the goals and objectives of their choice. In addition, the color of the dots (blue, red, yellow, and green) represent relative priorities of the goals and objectives. Blue indicating an individual's first choice, red representing their second choice, yellow their third choice and green their fourth choice. The results of this exercise are shown in the table below. At this point, the meeting was concluded with an announcement that the next CTF meeting is scheduled for April 21, 1992 and the topics of discussion will be the results of the completed work tasks and development of the public involvement and education program. CONSULTING TEAM'S PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES To control and improve surface water quality within the Black River Basin. 7 blue, 1 yellow To identify mechanisms to reduce contamination and deposition of stream sediments. 1 blue, 2 red, 1 yellow, 1 green To characterize and identify measures to improve surface water quality impacts on fish access and habitat. 2 red, 3 yellow, 1 green To characterize and identify measures to maintain and enhance existing and constructed wetlands for improved surface water quality, wildlife habitat, and flood control. 1 blue, 2 red, 1 yellow, 5 green To identify appropriate point and nonpoint source control strategies and regulatory options for surface water management within the Black River Basin. 1 red, 2 yellow, 1 green To conduct an appropriate public involvement and education program. 1 blue, 2 red, 1 yellow, 1 green Meeting Minutes (Cont'd) - 3 - February 27, 1992 To assure coordination of this plan with the programs of the other jurisdictions within the Black River Basin. 1 red, 1 yellow, 1 green To prepare environmental elements and surface water quality information in forms which can be utilized in preparing the East Side Green River Watershed Plan. ADDITIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES "To control and improve water quality within the Black River Basin" is a global goal and objective identified by the CTF for the Black River Quality Management Plan. Long term monitoring program. 1 red Incentive programs. 1 yellow Public involvement and education program. Hazard source collection program. Calendar of events relating to household antifreeze. Stream steward program. Household hazardous wastes. Workable water quality management plan. hazard wastes, crankcase oils, and Develop a plan that recognizes the need for proper disposal of household hazardous wastes. 3 blue, 1 green Incorporate into the plan a provision for retrofitting existing drainage facilities. Address the potential for ground water contamination including UURHOTS. Recognize upstream water quality influences on the Black River Basin (i.e. Kent). 1 red Develop a plan that recognizes the need for enforcement of water quality violations. 1 green (FLF.132) WW-1159-BA2-DA 3023 Black River Water Quality Management Plan PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES February 27, 1992 The following is a complete list of the goals and objectives that were identified during the Citizen Task Force meeting held on February 19, 1992. In addition, based on the CTF's preference of relative importance, the goals and objectives have been ranked by priority to reflect the number of colored dots placed by the task force members. The number of points for each goal and objective is based on the following: blue 4 points, red 3 points, yellow 2 points, and green 1 point. 1. To control and improve surface water quality within the Black River Basin. 7 blue, 1 yellow/30 points 2. To characterize and identify measures to maintain and enhance existing and constructed wetlands for improved surface water quality, wildlife habitat, and flood control. 1 blue, 2 red, 1 yellow, 5 green/17 points 3. To conduct an appropriate public involvement and education program. 1 blue, 2 red, 2 yellow, 1 green/15 points 4. To identify mechanisms to reduce contamination and deposition of stream sediments. 1 blue, 2 red, 1 yellow, 1 green/13 points 5. To characterize and identify measures to improve surface water quality impacts on fish access and habitat. 2 red, 3 yellow, 1 green/ 13 points 6. Develop a plan that recognizes the need for proper disposal of household hazardous wastes. 3 blue, 1 green/13 points 7. To identify appropriate point and nonpoint source control strategies and regulatory options for surface water management within the Black River Basin. 1 red, 2 yellow, 1 green/8 points 8. To assure coordination of this plan with the programs of the other jurisdictions within the Black River Basin. 1 red, 1 yellow, 1 green/6 points Plan Goals and Objectives (Cont'd) - 2 - February 27, 1992 9. Long term monitoring program. 1 red/3 points 10. Recognize upstream water quality influences on the Black River Basin (i.e. Kent). 1 red/3 points 11. Incentive programs. 1 yellow/2 points 12. Develop a plan that recognizes the need for enforcement of water quality violations. 1 green/1 point 13. To prepare environmental elements and surface water quality information in forms which can be utilized in preparing the East Side Green River Watershed Plan. no points 14. Public involvement and education program. Hazard source collection program. Calendar of events relating to household hazard wastes, crankcase oils, and antifreeze. Stream steward program. Household hazardous wastes. no points on this item please refer to number 3 above 15. Workable water quality management plan. no points 16. Incorporate into the plan a provision for retrofitting existing drainage facilities. no points 17. Address the potential for ground water contamination including UURHOTS. no points (FLF.131) mjjemark that sqggel!s., ,progress h . as bein*made. and McDonnell Dc;ujlas,. t with -.the U.S. govern- Airb6s and its west Eurd-1. i i o rs, ;are' prisifng- their ir . cases.: AC stake -are por- in Iiq4ust that'-6n -the i lost money but continues Lire for nations and compai- d the world:' :o6e4l991':-stud*y' by the gresO,.Office of Technolo ment.'said that the industry' le,,has'lost $40 billion on revenues:' 14 1 See'AIRBUS, Al 4 Villey Daily News v. . , -4.��av: October,,.,.*.,, m6kipig ai'rOane�arts in his basement. Over the prU Z1, E As'rldi .- 149&* --A;;-P-'!The`i�'co`n-1i'p'ii n'y.'n6,k' a's. T —.Heath-Tecjna I qp,py 204ycari,, Heath; Guilt the.,busin,�si, into a Y lul l 11 d; I in the.aerospice-iin stry';;C.(?W Lny.,:.,.'e�jJnc,f6dir1g Ft3q0'ip-Kent -;Prid iv0§ifie&ma60a t' 'ri bu curing 1 1. . -A e-. ar. P ,Rxecu,vV" ..;ham, J, Ii .640c `dd? to-Cr ton*:iq'.19 ftmlk J-,?1J.1 86. ter. 11i ge Preside6t nd C 'gWedby"anothei con-' its Krlpg' §qyi.-, i :,a�iosp4�djirms& F,6' eah�,'-.', Cti Qn.,'evebtukll� iya�.eri 4jlfie"siai 'nit; �.i hoop f ifi, The'-Kerit which sold Heath T kna division Wa. -ba7sed*-firfnA§ 'tiffeted by T.A.. % I 8001ts,W61 ;Js ,.glomerate, whi X 1 .1. 1 i e .,. r 66. - basic 'force at 7he --.Boe1ng'iCo.,,.'_ 0 e of Switzerland in 1989. Ciba- abol ble'the,6 ;eigy, doO RUN, 1! an P $ I .4 qr� - ti 'Geigy,bad'db e 4�e, andW odt $16 Willion; in worldwide sales rn d A W worldwide de' p 'dij .B4t;H6atI1*hds-.d1v A t I not', .�.jquiQ y,.. ast1y'LaY;,',`wtth interests in a variety of fields, that ro cti, Mi l'd1d,,gro Jng-A,- n iiidVdlnj`pfiarmaciuticals, cheinicals, igric'ul- tion 161n..a small Boeing 0., 1 ni" '.,'Kring said of the ffiir`kd't" L'!i'kd!'o'the'rJe'r pace� with $110 million in annual sales to a Variety, f: officials; ', *' he s a a' fir I f-n' 6 s e, 've' nf 66' 11 y' w" 0 I'h a" v'e" to .... .. tuiria I *'p'r'odu' cts' and.co*riipositc '- :... ` : " materials.. Arw customers, including' Boeing.,�i4&fl6`ichiefby,,Vd*_plands, 'aging fleetg,ard That's -Heath T&fii's specialty.A thoup4 the Ri rivals,Nirbus,lndustrieand.Mc36ahef ou9MriciWfueleconomy, pollutionhhd-!,noiN rh1remani.)heworidleadii:ir-retidfi(Iier that "AJde, orscr.commerclql,)011in6rs'(with'60cnt. ,r e We are impacted by. the economic climate of "I would agree that there• is, �iunt.the market); rdentA!o its usiness n6vis .ilid. ''" commercial aviation," Kring said tfii9'4dek'-So; Aemand over: the next 20 years;" he said.t -a o; far that has meant 20 layoffs lisuN66fiber. and,... $ee in Kent in 1950,!.,when:,,:... HEATH; A5 z. ...,Cl, 'N"�,r'I��O C, 1 -17,(` Chem�cals.�'�� reamA.- 4 •.r lull y^`�t• I, 1yf l tl �, d. .' `' •. ,�0�� v: awninB EN V y STEVE NOL '-MetaI§, plant -,saitMike cHartalleyZally News ! 1 4.._.i,!,,-K0nt:f1re.depaq ent.$po esmqn..01of iaI n )e1fift said ifii? iA6 Hundreds 6 s,of.9 zard-' --J fl ablethemg 6t D to t ous chemicil'gushed fr6im"i 1,br6kem hosiat'a Kent '. rn anufackt!irfnj,�Iani' "Ati IV '--f1owM into .Is p A% pind stogy I �00ov4 ,Pj.ttat 'S "'"morning,`contaminating" plant ' , N " Thursday 41 tj4ifitb Mill:treek J9, .,imp soil i6d spilling -into nearby sal at, �he,fF qt:of the�prppert I ", 4 1� .1 b@ y 'No' y'lWa -injure , ut'a L,� By DAVID AMMONS cinc '.on spawning stream: `71, t 41 d' 0 6 7 4, 1 1 -AP Polifidal Writer h Ma, T h e"a6c i d fit aii.'Fiberchem�nc.,.i p o o � p-- 10'-,, w. e i ie- evacuated': i -e I' a s i P" 1.4SEATTL19 "Democratic pres- her( 11211 166Ave. S;,.occurred a'bo'ut` ";m oklj 6)'pi'6kct t" In 8:45' la'sa tank6r truckk,,qdWpqeq-Jt.:.;j dtna MON60"101i 6 us i.defiiiil :hopefuli Paul TsQngas ka dr by� 4, ry o 6� 6ih'usias- J, ac kw�as r s anqJFr . firown ep XNffy A -;.mer, �,wreactive u ter -t tosins.; made said ag p I A n t � im"ail .'I.d 8 �shuk concrete do track ja , n�a Jntq.soil�,petween; chem,#d. the, nearby: . usto _', 111i ►I V . . ,ttc,-�crqWds Thursday; as.' they van " tied I gw:. ecpemilcall, Arcon T, .'brpu,'$hu,their. quei�46r:natibnal - ric�, a � s gd. ,z -.-jc8fi`4eJ1Jion: Aekgakq;,�. and. a - nia U - to! px 1W, & Js j4a d Va _.angd,'in the itittis,4 tb'.,Wash- hol, ,IQ A� rn , o 6hh 0 as ng li,,,a 'Z t9c .4ington state. Tu( W.•• Iowa i'- S e'n' . 'Tb !Hirkin; and :V Di 4iffieni ti'l Y 4 VT ,434 1 . MW 6 Bill';',Clinton grit 6,1; VA fff-'so- 1-sal th tr1u, Idng,,co K 'o follow -close on their are 1'* it p-as epocra ic-can-- t rac �14*0ec :cIdanup,#b9? . !�A or p the Ever - to 01ki"TrgaSicaM aiq :.groan before Tuesday's pre: -4 ki 0 k. 40• �� )"e_..", he! refused to declare' the tint -day Samish legal successors ,e tribe that signed the 196ten-' Treaty of Point Elliott.. ,tablishing ! that!• succession :t Id be necessary to help the Sam-! ration pin rights awarded to ful-:!% ecognized tribes.- Such rig htS Ae fishing rights; in, the.'w.ater.�, ind the tribe's aboriginal i hoipe,.� ,lands in Wasihington's northern nd waters. he Samish, which number about 00 people, have struggled to An federal recognition since the - 'Os. he.findirij'! aIeMmtd ;from the � it 6" 1 , 11 - A fish in g'-Iii ihis"'O cigi6p by,UIS. V trict' U' " 'Odorgi`Boldt,'� which ' g� tubes; the right to half. rifted treaty harvestableNaIrrion', and -stedl A returnitig to traditional off-, res- ationfishinegrounds.' " 'five,land-7 Fhe Samish were one of . .•1. 1. . i tribes inthe'.staie that'joined to fishing -rights lawsuit. .. Fhe Sarnish,, who once infiiibiied out 200 square milesin Western ashingt6ni were tone of seven bes that in'l 855 signed the Treaty. Point Elliott, which cleared the ay f6r settlement of Western lashington and., establishment of .-a city of Seattle.' ')tAt the Samish - like the other tnever had a reserva- oldt decisiori, the BIA I . .. C_: I - _I ._ .,.,.At SPILL■ et, 41, ConIlnued.ro.n,.PW11 .1 ly i 777-777_,�Fy ;,-;pahiei:werb btoughOrf-to''d.ispois f" ca s trapp 'd ,;;.ofjhe;chmi 'I 1 ,,n.sto seweripipes-A, Kent hire, depart�*ir- menti'hazirdous.,maie�ria�k::,team" oJ blocked off the-pipes,tci.contain thd•••'.; spill and .used.,absorbent booms,W' spat up the chemical ..floating; '6t1'',f; rile surface bf'the, creek .,.*i Abramson •said, I,',! But it. looks,'Ij6'; the T iih- ihould- be. I �'f Tit "ripanycould.b6.firiddluptriti The dO ..I.J. .,;.g athkzk�11 '.1 to $15'Oucq&-aii6fidrgin`, doiui I chirnib . aft- ta Ab rnson iald-1 Buiish6-.shdiucha!,see.ie,pehk�v:, cial. Icil has HE A• composites is .,A .5. -....-firms''strength ., Continued from page Al composite structures for the'.,'aero'-.� 11 A space industry. The co'm'pany.specialiies in.using , thin layers of fabric, made 61.1 t. of 10 such materials as graphite, V lit hi'fiber- glass and aramid, to create, gh- strength, low -weight structures. That includes wing parts, engine intake ducts for MD-11 jetliners, radomes (nose cones) for 737s and fair- 14 other Boeing jets, wing -to -body 7 Ag _--gs, and interior stowage bins.:.; layers i , . The fabric is arrayed in on . molds, reinforced with honeycomb in R core where necessary, and co i oked a high-pressure autoclave...,.The Q results are composites that are'stron-" ger but lighter than alurninum., Kring said the -use of composites ' Veltey.Dally News photo by CHARY KISSEL on selected parts nsave I:) to 25 ca7 e I Lyears:Fibeic�6m- R6h.S)Wdard`and Kurt Self of thb KdritFire Department apply. percent in energy costs versus a IU : 'at'the Kent facility. I. III Thurs'day. minum over the life of a jetliner. -,-ab§ . orbaht.Ods'to Sp The trade -:off is cost. Graphite §E . �►TtL . E (AP) -'Diiturba - 6C69 ;I on the'.Ijniversity,.6f,Wishingtont "Greek Row" are getting'so violent that police .sometimes refuse to respond to callS,.*--,.,��_,io University administrators **,sai` I* I there's little thdytan do'b ' ecausethe fraternities are on private property, Police Skt.' Norman=ow says he's seen a`drarnatic escalation of violence since 1989, when he began patrolling the neighborhood *north of the school, -where about 30 fraterni- t;-C %kl;th ') ?00 members are locat- fabric, for instance, can cost..Divv : llit;�,,:,�_ n. SC..Mli v per square yard. Aircraft designersand engineers have to strik6"'a-bal- ','j e - ante between material cost and sav Ing s from reduced weight.!;: Kring said H sales to"t e big' eAth the -S" their three jet builders matches*,,(I' 1 1 'f ..r. "`'. -Row h about Greekshares of the market, with of total business' going to fraternities last. March. About percent Airlines 'g i 15' responge,to.the neighborhood.! fra those three firms*. Airli t e The Seattfe'Fire Depairtment final- $1,000 in property damage was percent of Heath's outpu. t with 5 ly. sought a; police escort for an'aid .. reported And one person was percent . . to other customers' car'..'�Earlie�r, medics had run into' injured. Defense'work has 'fallen o con - threats . and: harassment when they -Two fraternities and about 50 siderably, he said. With.,'rar6 tried to helo'a woman who had been students were involved in 'a street exception, the products we s . ell: . for struck -on the head with a full bottle brawl last May that was broken up military applications are the same of beer. A second aid car was trying by pojice in five squad cars. types of applications we do for civil - to 'reach a Delta Chi member who -An officer was injured during a an aircraft." had been knocked unconscious with BB gOn battle between two fraternity Kring said Heath hopes to contin- a baseball bat. houses last June. Two who were at ue to diversify its product * offerings; Gow, who was in the escort car, the Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity but that the necessarily higher.stan-, says it was the first time he truly felt were charged. dards required for aircraft don't apprehensive in the area. Police responses to the area run as '11; ,rr(,nt hinter than in always translate well when i(ci5mes Citizen Task Force Meeting May 5, 1992 7:00 p.m. 7:15 p.m. 7:35 p.m. CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN May 5, 1992 Citizen Task Force Meeting AGENDA Overview 2/19/1992 CTF Meeting Franchot Fenske R. W. Beck and Associates Review Investigations/Results Questions and Answers 7:50 p.m. Public Involvement and Education Program Review Possible Programs 8:05 p.m. Small Study Groups 8:35 p.m. Convene Larger Group 9:00 P.M. Where do we go from here? Wally Trial Herrera Environmental Consultants Franchot Fenske Mike Giseburt R. W. Beck and Associates Franchot Fenske Franchot Fenske RW BECK AND ASSOCLATbS CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN May 5, 1992 CTF Meeting Sign—up Sheet Name Address Phone 2 tj)CVJ, 4 4- 5 A Lt2 6 o'iMottic, 6 77 P O u1:- Z L A o E Se w f? iY, 7 ct�>i �Scc i �O . `l0 Sf4jt4 cc �4 �1$13� 4� -�3 O 8 i,j ZS-I-(.kit 9 C/fib?GGG�7�r� b-/ f �� c�c� r �� }�:• s = r/ sus ti��'l/-/ ��/g 10 %o�-.'LZ��C� �r vv SC -7 Si 0,7l -77 37Z 12 55 Zzt-3-7r. �s r-sig 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2.8 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ,Ie- Summary of Public Education Programs General Clean Water Community (Steilacoom) Purpose: Educate community in water quality issues Methods: 1) Development of a "Puget Sound Promoter" theme with various activities to encourage participation 2) Water quality presentations in schools 3) Student monitoring of local waters 4) County declaration of Puget Sound Promoter Week 5) Distribution and collection of pledge cards endorsing water quality Clean 'tVater Action Committee (North Mason Community) Purpose: Build community support for the addition of the water quality element to the Mason County Comprehensive Plan Methods: I) Brochures to increase awareness 2) Developing water quality dement of comprehensive plan based upon community recommendations 3) Increase general awareness about water quality using information gathering technique called "sondeo" Water in Vt'hatcom County Purpose: Broaden community involvement in watershed issues Methods: 1) Developing educational materials 2) Establishing network for disseminating information 3) Promoting watershed related events Opportunities for Public Involvement Purpose: Increase public awareness of importance of watershed in involving citizens in developing watershed plans Methods: 1) Public awareness meetings 2) Training for citizen advisory committees 3) Involvement of boy scouts in cleaning up stormwater detention ponds 4) Establishment of an Adopt -a-Wetlands program Puget Sound Project Purpose: Give educators a program focusing on the science an social issues that will determine the future of Puget Sound and to use that program as a basis for public outreach Methods: 1) Developing curricula on Puget Sound for elementary, middle, junior, and senior high students Public Service Announcements for Radio Purpose: Increase public awareness of water quality issues and positive steps listeners may follow to improve water quality Methods: I) Development of 18 - 30 second public service announcements Rainy Days Festival: The Problem of Slormwaler Runoff (Federal Way) Purpose: Inform residents of the damaging effect of stormwater runoff on Puget Sound and about remedies to correct the problem Method: 1) Junior high school science students developing a video tape and fact sheet School Stormwaler Education Project (Roosevelt) Purpose: Increase household and small business awareness about how their activities affect stormwater runoff and what they can do to reduce pollution Method: 1) A year long curriculum for students including Classroom. field, and community activities Household Hazardous Waste Household Hazardous Waste Collection Purpose: To give households a safe Way to dispose of hazardous waste Method: 1) Collection events (e.g.. 3 per year) . 2) Public notice (advertising) events, flyers, newspaper, etc. C.A.R. (change and Recycle) Oil Committee Purpose: Encourage proper disposal of oil for the do-it-yourself oil changer Methods: 1) Establishment of Committee consisting of representatives of auto supply stores and related businesses 2) Video to help train staff at these stores to encourage oil recycling when they sell oil 3) Brochure explaining consequences of improper disposal and identifjing locations for proper disposal Hazard Free Community Purpose: Decrease household use of hazardous materials and increase knowledge of alternative materials Methods: 1) Get households and businesses to sign Hazard Free Community Pledges 2) Recruit and train 50 community volunteers to be actively involved in the project 3) Distribute information to all students in area Oil Recycling Project Purpose: Increase proper disposal of oil by do-it-yourself auto oil changers Methods: 1) Bring together high school students enrolled in science, vocational marketing, and graphics to market a product (the Gott Drain Tainer) which makes it easy for car owners to properly dispose of oil Wetlands Wetlands Awareness (for Mercer Slough) Purpose: Involve community in protecting wetlands (Mercer Slouch) Methods: 1) Development of interpretive trail and canoe tour 2) Wetland dean -up day 3) Stream and wildlife enhancement projects 4) Training of park naturalist in water quality issues 5) Environmental studies by Bellevue Community College students Wetlands Public Education Program (San Juan Islands) Purpose: To der..,nstrate the value of wetlands Methods: 1) Coordination with planning department 2) Contacting wetland owners to inform them of protective measures 3) Booth at fair emphasizing value of wetlands Water Resources Poster Purpose: Increase a community's awareness of its largest wetland and other resources Method: 1) Inventory of Weiland and Creeks 2) Design of poster (map, text, and photos) 3) Evaluation survey 4) Distribution of survey and poster Small Businesses Waste Information Network Purpose: To reduce amount of hazardous waste produced and/or improperly disposed of by small businesses Method: 1) Gain support/assistance from trade associations 2) Staging a waste information network trade fair 3) Informational brochures on waste disposal Waste Management for Auto Shops Purpose: To show people in auto shops what to do with hazardous waste Method: 1) Workshopshrade fair on waste disposal 2) Hazardous waste rum -in day at local treatment facility 3) Poster campaign aimed a auto shop employees Team Consultations for Small Businesses Purpose: Increase pollution prevention from small businesses Methods: l) Formation and training of industry/agency consultation teams to address pollution control faced by small businesses 2) Team Consultations conducted for small business requesting consultation 3) Development of a resource guide containing compliance expectations, pollution prevention suggestions, and listing resource contacts. Hazardous Waste ?tfanagement Assistance Purpose: Worm area dry cleaners of proper pollution control Methods: 1) One on one consultations with dry cleaner operators informing them of costs associated with improper disposal and of the benefits of proper disposal Painting Contractor Education Purpose: Inform paint contractors of proper disposal and waste reduction Methods: 1) Brochure, posture, and live telephone information shall be used to communicate information 2) Information shall be disseminated through local paint suppliers Water Qualitv Monitoring Water Quality Monitoring Project Purpose: Train students to perform scientific investigation of water quality in Green River that will be used by regulatory bodi es Methods: 1) Selecting teachers to devote class time to technical training 2) Using college science students to teach testing techniques Volunteer Monitoring Program (Stilliguamish River) Purpose: Involve diverse groups of citizens in collecting baseline data on water quality Methods: 1) Designating 13 sites for sampling over 7 month period 2) Recruiting, training, and coordinating students, trout fisherman, tribal members, and environmentalist in water quality monitoring techniques and related issues Construction/Erosion Practices Water Quality and Construction Practices Purpose: Encourage contractors to understand construction related impacts to Water quality Method: 1) Bring together contractors and discuss problems/solutions (seminars) 2) Distributing information to contractors 3) Compile regulations which apply to contractors Streams Stream Enhancement Newsletter Purpose- To communicate the details of successful stream enhancement projects Methods: 1) Publication of a quarterly newsletter Stream Team Program (City of Bellevue) Purpose: Involve people in caring for their neighborhood stream and to provide data on those streams to regulatory agencies ?lethods: 1) Creating stream teams for specific areas 2) Workshops training volunteers to observe, gather data, and enhance streams 3) Public information campaign, city mailings, local media, and presentations to community groups Blackjack Creek Brochure 'purpose: Increase awareness of the value of Blackjack Creek which was one of the few remaining salmon spawrting stream in the City of Pon Orchard Methods: I) Development/distribution of information brochure 2) Boy scouts stencilling storm drains to discourage damping of oil Miscellaneous Horse Waste and Land Management Education Purpose: Teach horse owners methods of waste and pasture management Method: 1) Producing/distributing information about environmentally responsible methods for keeping horses SOUND Gardening, SOUND Farming Purpose: Educate gardeners and small farmers about the effects of their activities on water quality Methods: 1) Developing instructional materials to be used in the ongoing Master Gardener and Seattle Food Gardener programs 2) Training and sending volunteers to educate proper gardening practices 3) Conference on better farming practices 4) Newsletter on water quality tips for farmers R.W. BECK 1159WW0.593 AND ASSOCIATES, INC. City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan - Citizen Task Force Meeting May 5, 1992 SUNTMARY OF MEETP;G MINUTES Ron Straka kicked off the meeting introducing the"consulting team and project. The meeting agenda, handout materials, and sign-up sheet are attached. Attendance was moderate, 8, likely due to warm sunny weather. Franchot Fenske provided an overview of the prior February 19, Citizen Task Force (CTF) meeting. A summary of the prior meeting minutes had been sent to each committee member. Wally Trial provided an overview of the project findings to date. The discussion included a slide presentation of the study area and some of the water quality problem areas. Some of the water quality problems discussed are listed below. Wally indicated that the results are preliminary because not all of the water quality data had been received and characterized. Water Quality Problems • Poor dissolved oxygen • Heavy metals, the highest concentration noted was at SW 43rd reflecting stormwater from Kent • High fecal coliform generally everywhere. Previously, high fecal coliform was thought to be the result of Longacres, however the results indicate the fecal coliform is high upstream of Longacres also. • Stream erosion and resulting sedimentation • Construction related erosion and resulting sedimentation • High water temperatures • - " Fish passage problems • Illegal dumping • Automobile related products off parking lots into streams • Contaminated sediments Wally also showed slides of techniques currently being used to prevent water quality degradation. Some of these included biofilters, sedimentation ponds, filter fabric fences, and constructed wetlands. A—m. rx . ate,«, MA . NE . D—, . co R.W. BECK �n1Je.,N . �, �n ir. �,� . t,� a. U r.�,.M r.. au..so agonssocv,TEs AZ '—,kun Minutes of Meeting Page 2 The meeting was then opened up for questions before moving on to the public involvement and education program. There were two questions associated with the aquifer protection area and one related to regulations on controlling fills in stream and wetlands. Franchot discussed the second purpose of the meeting, to review and identify possible public involvement and education programs for the study area. Mike Giseburt provided an overview of the various programs that have been used successfully by other communities in the Puget Sound area. The committee was then asked to identify any additional programs which should l,P considered for the project. The following additional programs (or program elements) were discussed: • Resource signing • Calendar of events • Lawn/chemicals • Renton River Days • Salmon Days (Similar to the City of Issaquah's Program) • Interpretive Trail along Springbrook Creek Developing a Fact Sheet • Public information television channel Ron Straka discusses how the public involvement and education program for this BRWQM plan will provide a good base of information for the whole city. At the end of the meeting, the committee members were asked to vote on the most appropriate involvement/education program for Renton and the Black River Basin. Members were also told that instead of voting, they could write down suggested programs and send them to Ron prior to the next meeting. These suggested programs would be brought up for further discussion at the next meeting. The results of the voting are listed below: (MSG.044) Interpretive Trail - 8 votes Lawn/Chemicals - 6 votes Salmon Days - 5 votes Renton River Days - 5 votes Fact sheet - 3 votes Hazard Free Community - 2 votes CAR (change and recycle) Oil Committee - 2 votes Public Information Television Channel - 2 votes Rainy Days Festival - 1 vote Water Resources Poster - 1 vote Waste Management for Auto Shops - 1 vote Stream -Team Program - 1 vote Calendar of events - 1 vote A .yin TX a Boston. MA QAJu n. NE w D i . CO R.W. BECK 1nl"urv��lu. I.N MirvicTaJy i.2N S.wmrn�o. Gi N.J ,&, TN ■ QLnii. R. AND ASSOCIATES PFwrryY, A2 wank U'A Citizen Task Force Meeting September 10, 1992 CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN September 10, 1992 Citizen Task Force Meeting A� e nd a 7:00 p.m. Project Status Franchot Fenske, R. W. Beck 7:10 p.m. Results of Water Quality Assessment Wally Trial, Herrera 7:45 p.m. Review Preliminary List of Source Control Wally Trial Measures 8:00 p.m. Public Involvement and Education Franchot Fenske o Review Prior Meeting Results o Select Priority Programs 9:00 p.m. Where Do We Go From Here? Franchot Fenske MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD SUBJECT: %I%i �i dFaZ W 4q-Cl- ( AL4 P/ / A/ � I� '�� DATE: LOCATION: & /ff^/ THOSE IN ATTENDANCE NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRES PHONE s , LA FIAII (A mul - 7 Z7 - V6 0 -�L - i -AFt;- 2-4,o') NlarYis 7tve. s. 2S5--b�� PROPOSED SOURCE CONTROL ALTERNATIVES BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Control of runoff pollutants from commercial and industrial areas Control of runoff pollutants from residential areas Control of construction activities and resulting runoff Establishment of an ongoing water quality monitoring program Establishment of a runoff/water quality public education program Establish a rigorous drainage facility operations and maintenance program Protection/acquisition of wetlands Stream and streambank protection/rehabilitation Emergency spill response/containment cleanup Establishment of a household hazardous waste collection program Flood control program Development of an integrated pest management (IPM) plan for city management/use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals Institute regulatory controls 178\CTRLALTS 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. The following alternatives focus primarily on the control of urban runoff pollutant sources rather than treatment. The control of pollutant sources is preferred over treatment options because of cost and because source control automatically reduces the amount of pollutants actually released to the environment. Control of runoff pollutants from commercial and industrial areas Commercial and industrial areas within the basin may potentially exert a significant influence on the quality of stormwater runoff and downstream receiving waters. Therefore, control of these sources either through retrofitting of existing facilities or operational controls for new facilities are proposed. Depending upon the type of facilities, various BMPs or combinations of BMPs may be appropriate. Specific controls that could be implemented to reduce stormwater pollutants in commercial and industrial areas include the following: o Enclosure/covering of outside activities o Waste segregation o Storage containment o Spill response plan Control of runoff pollutants from residential areas Water quality may be adversely affected by runoff from existing residential areas within the basin. Residential activities, such as improper disposal of household hazardous wastes, may be controlled through various means, the foremost of which is public education/information. While various techniques for control are identified and addressed more specifically elsewhere as separate source control alternatives, residential pollutant runoff controls generally includes the dissemination of information regarding the following: o Environmentally friendly consumer products o Availability of toxic household product disposal o Locations of used oil recycling centers o Signage programs for streams and storm drains o Local school education programs o Stream enhancement projects 178\CTRLALTS 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Control of construction activities and resulting runoff Construction activities can cause high sediment and phosphorus loading in receiving waters as a result of the exposure and disturbance of soils. This potential is particularly acute in urban, rapidly developing areas and may be a significant contributor to poor water quality in the Black River basin. Control of runoff from construction activities includes the following: o limiting the area disturbed o limiting contact of water with disturbed areas o treating water that does come into contact with disturbed areas Successful implementation of these controls requires not only good design but also regular inspection and maintenance of facilities. Adequate review and inspection implies increased fiscal and staffing burdens for the city. High phosphorus loadings throughout the Black River basin and instances of high sediment deposition in the basin may in part be due to erosion from construction activities. This suggests that increased efforts at controlling runoff from construction sites are warranted. Establishment of an ongoing water quality monitoring program To verify the effectiveness of those controls implemented as part of any of these alternatives, it is appropriate that an ongoing water quality monitoring program be instituted. This program would focus on those water quality parameters of concern for various streams and wetlands within the basin. The data collected would be used to modify or adapt, as necessary, the various alternative controls implemented. Establishment of a runoff/water quality public education program The behavior of individuals and organizations have significant effects on nonpoint source pollution. Education is a necessary complement to regulation, because some forms of regulation are neither feasible.nor desirable. Education can be a key influence resulting in awareness of the impacts of runoff and implementation of best management practices. Information on proper storage and disposal of waste as well as stencilling programs have been effective educational tools in other jurisdictions. 178\CTRIALTS 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Establish a rigorous drainage facility operations and maintenance program Without adequate maintenance, stormwater systems, even though designed properly, rapidly lose their effectiveness at detaining and treating stormwater. More frequent inspection and maintenance of stormwater systems would likely result in improved water quality in the Black River basin. Renton does not have a regular program of inspecting private stormwater facilities. The experience of other jurisdictions that do have regular programs of inspection suggests that the private facilities in Renton are probably poorly maintained. Renton currently cleans its catch basins on a once in five years cycle. The experience in other jurisdictions suggests that at least once per year is a more appropriate cleaning frequency. Protection/acquisition of wetlands Aside from their value as wildlife habitat, wetlands can remove pollutants from runoff and provide storage capacity reducing the adverse effects of downstream flooding. Water quality data indicate, for example, that the Panther Creek wetlands act to reduce phosphorus loadings downstream of the wetlands. A series of existing regulations at the federal, state, and local level protect wetlands from the direct impacts of filling and other disturbance. A fuller measure of protection is provided by public acquisition of wetlands. Public ownership would reduce the potential for inadvertent or illicit disturbance of wetlands. Stream and streambank protection/rehabilitation Stream channel and streambank degradation has occurred at various places within the basin as a result of excessive flows and past stream management practices. A program to rehabilitate existing streambanks and channels in the lower basin should focus on arboreal plantings that would also provide shade and habitat improvement for fish. In steep -sloped areas of the upper basin, structural controls may be necessary to reduce erosion and streambank cutting that threatens downstream wetlands and aquatic habitat. Appropriate structural controls could include: o Gabions o Riprap o Tight -lining of drainage 178\CTRLALTS 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Emergency spill response/containment cleanup Local fire districts currently handle emergency spill response and inspect businesses under the National Fire Code to review the handling and storage of flammable materials. While present procedures are generally effective in responding at the point of spillage, a more broadly based program that includes regular monitoring at high risk and downstream locations as well as a comprehensive information network would reduce the risk from spills. Establishment of a household hazardous waste collection program It is proposed that the City, in conjunction with King County, begin to actively promote and sponsor a household hazardous waste collection program. This program, currently administered by King County, presently serves to provide local disposal centers that accept household toxicants on a regularly scheduled basis. Additional informational and educational materials would be disseminated by the City as part of the overall control program to reduce pollutants in runoff from residential areas. Flood control program The City of Renton is currently addressing flooding issues within the basin as part of the East Side Green River Management Program (ESGRMP). This program is incorporating water quality and habitat findings of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan (BRWQMP) into flood control alternatives for the basin. The flood control program should continue to interface with those control alternatives identified as part of the BRWQMP and to incorporate, where possible, those flood control techniques protective of water quality within the basin. Development of an integrated pest management (IPM) plan for city management/use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals Development and use of an integrated pest management (IPM) plan by the city will ensure that ongoing and future toxicant use practices by city personnel are protective of water quality within the basin. Such a plan will document the types of chemicals to be used (particularly near streams), application rates, and spill response measures to be followed. 178\CTRLALTS 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. This plan will serve to limit the use of chemicals to those which are least toxic and only absolutely necessary for proper management of city properties. Institute regulatory controls Regulatory controls allow local jurisdictions to enforce compliance with water quality policies and standards. Adequate enforcement is necessaryif regulatory controls are to be effecti,ye. For example, design of new stormwater systems reflect the current state of engineering knowledge, but the systems are in some cases ineffective because post - construction inspection and maintenance are inadequate. In addition, advances in understanding of water quality issues periodically creates the need to update particular regulations. 178\CTRLALTS 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANA aEMENT PLAN September 10, 1992 Citizen Task Force Meeting PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS Interpretive Trail — 8 Votes Lav,m/Chemical Use — 6 Votes Salmon Days — 5 Votes Renton River Days 5 Votes Fact Sheet — 3 Votes Hazard Free Community — 2 Votes CAR (change and recycle) 00 Committee — 2 Votes Public Information Television Channel — 2 Votes Rainy Days Festival — 1 Vote Water Resources Poster — 1 Vote Waste Management for Auto Shops — 1 Vote Stream Team Program — 1 Vote Calender of Events — 1 Vote City of Renton Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan Citizen Task Force Meeting September 10, 1992 SUMMARY OF MEETING > ENTTJTES Ron Straka kicked off the meeting with a brief introduction and preview of the meeting agenda. Ron also noted that the draft report is currently being prepared and that the results of the draft report would will be presented to the Citizen Task Force (CTF) at the next meeting to get CTF input prior to finalizing the plan. (Please note that later in the meeting, it was decided that interested CTF members should be sent a copy of the draft plan prior to the next meeting). Franchot then re -stated the purpose of the meeting and introduced Wally to discuss the results of the water quality assessment. A copy of the meeting agenda, meeting handouts, and sign-up sheet are attached. Wally noted that the discussion of water quality problems during the previous CTF meeting was preliminary. With the completion of the water quality assessment report, a greater understanding of specific water quality problems is known. Wally overviewed water/sediment sampling locations and results, including flow, particulate, fecal coliform and several other pollutants. High loadings occurring in specific subbasins were presented. Some of the problems noted included high particulate loading in the Rolling Hills and Black River subbasins, high fecal coliform in the Panther Creek and Rolling Hills basins, high total petroleum hydrocarbons in the Black River Basin, and high cadmium levels in Panther Creek. Larry Brown, CTF member noted that an environmental audit was conducted on a property located next to the existing auto wrecking yard along East Valley Highway which showed high level of pollutants. This could indicate that the auto wrecking yard is a likely candidate for the source of the cadmium problems in Panther Creek. Wally also discussed the presence of commercial and industrial businesses within the basin that contribute to water quality degradation. Wally noted that there were approximately 200 businesses of concern within the basin, 50 of which are high priority. Examples of high priority businesses include automobile wrecking yards, and gas stations. Wally then discussed the proposed source control alternatives to improve water quality. A list of these alternative source controls was handed out at the meeting (attached). Wally briefly discussed the aspects of the various alternatives. Summary of Meeting Minutes Page 2 Franchot then began the discussion on public involvement/education (PIE). He reviewed the results of the May 5, 1992 meeting, in which the CTF conducted a preliminary vote on the preferred PIE programs. He said that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to have an open discussion on each of the preferred PIE programs identified during the previous meeting and then to conduct a second vote to narrow down the number of preferred PIE programs that could be implemented by the City/CTF. Through the open discussion, the following items were noted. o Using resource identification signs such as "Entering the Black River Basin", "Springbrook Creek", "Panther Creek", and "Panther Creek Wetlands", was emphasized as a part of the interpretive trail PIE alternative to increase the public awareness of important environmental resources which need protection. o One CTF member felt that a stream team program, in which volunteers would organize litter pick-ups would be successful. o One CTF member volunteered to write a letter with City/R. W. Beck support to the editor of the Valley News about water quality which could be published by the paper to increase awareness. o The fact sheet/mailer was thought to be a versatile program with several focuses. It could be used to send a specific message to the 50 or so priority industries, and a different message could be sent to residences. Use of water utility bills as a means of getting the information notices out was also mentioned. o One approach also noted was to use a mailer, or some type of specific media to target high polluters, while using a general media, such as newspaper or television to target the residential population. o Franchot recommended that once the City starts on a PIE program, the people organizing the program contact the person in charge of a similar type program from another community. DOE's book of successful PIE programs could be used as a resource of programs. o One CTF discussed the possibility of a speakers bureau, in which a group could be organized which volunteer to speak to interested groups about water quality, such as church or citizen groups. o Including an article on water quality in the "Renton Report" which is annually sent to City residents was noted. Summary of Meeting Minutes Page 3 o To decrease confusion about the project, Steve suggested that the name of the project be changed from the "Black River Water Quality Management Plan" to the Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan". 0, Regarding signing, Ron noted that resource signs could be made at the City shop. One idea for signing would be to have a contest through the school system to come up with the best sign. o It was noted that after this report is approved by DOE, the City could apply for PIE program funds to implement the preferred PIE program. Following the open discussion, a second vote was conducted on the preferred PIE programs. Franchot noted, that with only three CTF members present, the results would have to be considered preliminary. Each of the CTF members were given four voting stickers which rated the programs 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th priority. Using a point system (1st priority = 4 points, 2nd priority = 3 points, etc.) the point totals were as follows:,. PIE Program Total Points Priority Resource Signing/ 7 1 Interpretive Trail Fact Sheets w/Various Focuses 5 2 CAR (change and recycle) 4 3 Oil Committee Renton River Days Booth 3 4 (tie) Stream Team Clean Up 3 4 (tie) News Paper Articles 3 4 (tie) Hazard Free Community 2 5 (tie) Lawn/Chemical Use 2 5 (tie) (N4SG.060) Citizen Task Force Meeting November 17, 1992 CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN November 17, 1992 Citizen Task Force Meeting Agenda Project Status Franchot Fenske, R. W. Beck Summary of Results and Problems Recommendations Recommended Public Involvement Program Where Do We Go From Here? Wally Trial, Herrera Wally Trial Franchot Fenske Ron Straka, City of Renton What To Pay Metro has a two zone fare system. Seattle is one zone, the rest of King County the other. The Seattle city limits is the zone line. Exact fare is required at all times. Transfer issued only when fare is paid. Peak hour trips are shaded on all weekday schedules. Travel Travel Within Between Zones One Zone Total Fare a a Adults (18 yrs & older) $1.10 $1.60 a Youth (5-17 yrs) 750 750 a a Adults (18 yrs & older) 850 $1.10 o W ¢ Youth (5-17 yrs) 750 750 Senior Citizen & w ¢ LL Disabled 250 250 n (with Metro permit) Accessible Formats This information is available on request in accessible formats for persons with disabilities — call (206) 684-2046 (voice) or (206) 689-3413 (TTY). How To Pay Pay your fare with exact change, tickets, or use one of Metro's convenient passes. Metro has several passes to choose from depending on when and how far you ride. Selected monthly passes and ticket - books are sold at all stores of Bartell Drugs and at limited additional outlets in King County. All passes and ticketbooks are sold at Metro Customer Service offices. If you are disabled, or at least 65 years of age, you may buy a Regional Reduced Fare Permit at the Customer Service Office, 821 Second Avenue in downtown Seattle, and ride for 25o per trip. Call 553-3060 for details. Holiday Information There is no service on this route on weekends or the following holidays: Presidents' Day Feb. 19 Memorial Day May 27 Customer Services Metro has two Customer Service offices in downtown Seattle to serve you: Exchange Building Transit Tunnel 821 Second Avenue Westlake Station (at Marion St) 98104 (Mezzanine level) Monday -Friday Monday -Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 9 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. 24-hour Rider Information ..........................553-3000 Toll Free ........................................ 1-800-542-7876 TTY (hearing impaired)............................684-1739 BUS -TIME .................................................. 287-8463 Lost and Found (M-F, 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.) ...... 553-3090 Toll Free ........................................ 1-800-542-7876 Customer Service ......................................553-3060 TTY (hearing impaired)............................684-2029 Pass Sales.................................................624-PASS Carpool/Vanpool........................................ 625-4500 TTY (hearing impaired)...... .......................684-1855 Community Transit .......................... 1-800-562-1375 Pierce Transit .................................. 1-800-562-8109 Special Fare Information Shaded areas on weekday schedules indicate peak hour trips: $1.10 one -zone and $1.60 two - zone fares apply. When To Pay When traveling toward downtown Seattle, pay your fare as you board the bus. When traveling away from downtown, pay as you leave. The downtown Seattle Ride Free Area is not in effect between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. Always pay as you board during this time period. On routes that don't go downtown, pay when you board. Also, if your ride begins before you enter downtown Seattle and your destination is beyond, ask for a transfer when you pay your fare. Transfers received on off-peak trips may be used on peak -hour trips by paying the balance of the peak fare. This paper 60% recycled content, including 10 % post -consumer waste. Environmentally sensitive vegetable -based inks were used to print this document. Feb.10 thru May 31,1996 1111111111111111111111 IN IN ::f 5 71 73 t UNIVERSITY NE 47th 7248 74 DISTRICT 4 . - 30-44 - NE 5l - T T T 67,= = s 3.s i NE Cam us Pk t2- Jk0 �•� c 49 273 E Martin IIO25 272 70 ]4 102 = 72 305 73 T E Roanoke zs 25y 7 r T E John St 43A �63 SEAME qc❑ a-- 7 -O 10 E Pine St 0 F-11- T 11 E Pike St E Union St 2 T 2—>• 12 < - 12 T _ 1`t C sEAnLE ❑aervEaslrr �Med\5�6° T E Jeffers i 3,4— — • E Roy �o ROADWAY w CAPITOL ,e\`olgpls/a p, .a o HILL F — so- T E Ye�ler Way 27 toE T _ John n a S Jackson BROAOWAY SEAYYLECCC ❑ FLAYFIELO 14 -� 'ya' 06 36 60 E Pine El O —10— P 9A t NS E Pike T „ . � (See detail map) o^ E Je._. MAP LEGEND e, T 3.4 S Jackson � O\St Makes all regular stops. • TIME POINT: Street Intersection usao for 213221228 2/8 ..214 226 229 lmh� S20 22] 235 �/ time schedule reference point listed at Ina I of lime columns to estimate bus amvel and trip times. 431 ) TRANSFER POINT: Raul. intersection60for Iransfemrg to the connecting route or mules indicated. FRANKLIN �30-S 43 © TIMEPOINTrFRANSFER POINT HIGH SCHOOL combined. ❑LANDMARK: T A significant geographical reference point. Ny 9. 9 e -i c 'r S Genesee 12 O 39--� 42 ❑ RAINIER ae 39 PLAYFIELD i— 4e - T S Alaska St BRANCH URBANY❑ COLUMBIA E]CITY BRIGHTON S Graham St PLAYFIELD a To UNIVERSITY DISTRICT -► Ralnier Bear-h Columbia Citv Broadwav University District Rainier Ave S Rainier Ave S Rainier Ave S 121h Ave S Broadway Broadway E Eastlake Ave E 12th Ave NE S Rose St S Graham St S Genesee St S Jackson St E Pine St E Roy St Harvard Ave E NE 47th St L 6:03 6:09 6:16 6:28 6:37 6:42 6:48 6:58 L 6:32 6:38 6:45 6:59 7:08 7:13 7:19 7:30 L 6:52 6:5 7:05 7:19 7:2 7:33 7:40 7:52 L 7:22 7:28 7:35 7:49 7:58 8:03 8:10 8:22 L 7:52 7:58 8:05 8:19 8:28 8:33 8:39 8:51 L 8:4 8: 4 :1 :27 L 8:57 9:03 9:10 9:24 9:33 9:39 9:45 9:57 L 9:27 9:33 9:40 9:54 10:03 10:09 10:15 10:27 L 9:57 10:03 10:10 10:24 10:33 10:40 10:46 10:58 L 10:27 10.33 10:40 10:54 11:03 11:10 11:16 11:28 L 10:57 11:03 11:10 11:24 11:33 11:40 11:46 11:58 L 11:27 11:33 11A0 11:54 12:0 12:10 12:18 12:30 L 11:57 12:03 12:10 12:24 12:33 12:40 12:48 1:00 L 12:27 12:33 12:40 12:54 1:03 1:10 1:18 1:30 L 12:57 1:03 1:10 1:24 1: 1:40 1:48 2:01 L 1:27 1:34 1:41 1:55 2:04 2:11 2:19 2:32 L 1:57 2:04 2:11 2:25 2:34 2:41 2:49 3:02 L 2:27 2: 4 2:41 2:55 3:04 3:12 3:20 3:33 L 2:57 3:03 3:10 3:24 3:33 3:41 3:49 4:02 L 3:27 3:33 3:40 3:55 4:04 4:12 4:20 4:33 L 157 4:03 4:10 4:25 4:4 4:42 4:0 :0 L 4:27 4:32 4:39 4:54 5:83 5:11 5,19 5:32 L 4:57 5:02 5:09 5:24 5:33 5:41 5:49 6:02 L :27 5:32 5:39 5:3 7 L 5:57 6:02 6:09 6:23 6:32 6:39 6:46 6:58 L 6:27 6:30 6:36 6:49 6:58 7:05 7:12 7,24 L 6:57 7:00 7:06 7:19 7:28 7:35 7:42 7:52 L 7:32 7:35 7:41 7:53 8:02 8:08 8:15 8:25 TO RAINIER BEACH -► 000zoo; University Rainier District Broadwav Columbia Citv Beach 12th Ave NE Eastlake Ave E Broadway E Broadway 12th Ave S Rainier Ave S Rainier Ave S Rainier Ave S NE 47th St Harvard Ave E E Roy St E Pine St S Jackson St S Genesee St S Graham St S Rose St L 6:47 6:56 7:04 7:10 7:18 7:30 7:36 7:40 L 7:10 7:20 7:30 7:36 7:44 7:56 8:02 8:06 L 7:40 7:50 8:00 8:06 814 :26 8:32 8:36 L 8:10 8:20 8:30 8:36 8:44 8:56 9:02 9:06 L 8:40 8:49 8:59 9:05 9:13 9:25 9:31 9:35 L 9:05 9:14 9:24 9:31 9:39 9:51 9:57 10:01 L 9:35 9:44 9:54 10:01 10:09 10:21 10:28 10:32 L 10:05 10:16 10:26 10:33 10:41 10:53 11:00 11:04 L 10: 5 1 :4 10:5 1 :0 11:11 11:23 11 1: 4 L 11:04 11:15 11:25 11:32 11:40 11:52 11:59 12:03 L 11:33 11:44 11:54 12:01 12:09 12:23 12:31 12:36 L 12:03 12.14 12:24 12:32 12:40 12:54 1:02 1:07 L 12:33 12:" 12:54 1:02 1:10 1:24 1:32 1:37 L 1:03 1:14 1:24 1:32 1:40 1:54 2:02 2:08 L 1:33 1:44 1:53 2:01 2:09 2:23 2:31 2:37 L 2:03 2:14 2:23 2:31 2:39 2:53 3:01 3:07 L 2:33 2:44 2:53 3.01 3:09 3:24 3:32 3:38 L 3:03 3:14 3:23 3:31 3:39 :54 4:02 4:8 L 3:33 3:45 3:54 4:02 4:10 4:25 4:33 4:39 L 4:03 4:15 4:24 4:31 4:39 4:54 5:01 5:07 L 4:33 4:45 4:54 5:01 5:09 5:24 5:31 :37 L 5:03 5:15 5:24 5:31 5:39 5:53 6:00 6:06 L 5:33 5:45 5:53 6:00 6:08 6:21 6:28 6:34 L 6:03 6:14 6:22 6:29 6:37 6:50 6:57 7:03 L 6:33 6:44 6:52 6:59 7:07 7:20 7:27 7:33 L 6:44 6:55 7:03 7:10 7:18 7:31 7:38 7.44 L 7:03 7:14 7:22 7:29 7:37 7:50 7:57 8:03 L 8:03 8:14 8:22 8:29 8:37 8:47 8:54 9:00 L 8:33 8:41 8:49 8:55 9:03 9:13 9:20 9:26 RAINIER S Rose St V BEACH 7-10e-107 AM -Lighter Type PM —Darker Type Timetable Symbol L - Accessible bus (wheelchair lift). CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN November 17, 1992 CTF Meeting Sign—up Sheet Name Address Phone iSoc.-77--7-ck�oq 2 3 S��✓L� L fi S'�M l�I f 11 -7 CL L h� �12_ , S . Cn/ 4 Q o wl/ 5- 6 O'er --cam _ ( 1 '� 1O -RAsI 7 AV 5 (L Z1Z- 43 ,E, 7 /E 3fl Sw �y CSf �C Aa, �7✓�5c7 -Z.ZV 9'� 1 ( , ^-=-14r, ! 4 r �i l%�Y�-+ A- Jf- .- io 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ., 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 �a� CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN November 17, 1992 Citizen Task Force Meeting RECOMMENDED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS Resource Sign ing/Intcrpretive Trail Fact Sheet CAR (change and recycle) Oil Committee Renton River Days Booth Stream Team Clean Up Newspaper Articles Lawn/Chemical Use RW BECK AND ASSOCIATES PROPOSED SOURCE CONTROL ALTE RNATIVE S BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Control of runoff pollutants from commercial and industrial areas Control of runoff pollutants from residential areas Control of construction activities and resulting runoff Establishment of an ongoing water quality monitoring program Establishment of a runoff/water quality public education program Establish a rigorous drainage facility operations and maintenance program Protection/acquisition of wetlands Stream and streambank protection/rehabilitation Emergency spill response/containment cleanup Establishment of a household hazardous waste collection program Flood control program Development of an integrated pest management (IPM) plan for city management/use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals Institute regulatory controls Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan Citizen Task Force Meeting November 11, 1992 SUMMARY OF MEETING MINUTES Ron Straka welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted his appreciation for their involvement. Copies of the meeting agenda, handout, and sign-up sheet are attached. Attendance was moderate, 6 committee members. Franchot Fenske then provided a project status report. Franchot noted that the preliminary draft of the report was done and it was available for their review. Franchot indicated that the purpose of this meeting was to overview the findings and recommendations of the report and receive input from the committee. Wally Trial then discussed the findings of the water quality assessment which included a general discussion of the problems. Wally then overviewed the major recommendations of the report (see handout attached). Franchot then provided a summary of the specific recommendation regarding the public involvement and education program (handout attached). Ron concluded the meeting with a discussion of the implementation of the plan and how the citizens could participate in any of the public involvement and education programs. Important items noted during the meeting include the following: • Ron suggested adding "one liners" relating to water quality on the City's utility bills. For example, 100,000 (or what ever amount) gallons of oil reaches Puget Sound every year. Another example, listing locations which accept used oil. • Ron noted that the interpretive trail PIE program could be coordinated with the interpretive trail currently being discussed by the City's historical society. • The committee agreed that a specific fact sheet should be dedicated to on -site erosion control. The preliminary draft of the BRWQMP should be modified to reflect this. • Another idea that was brought up regarding erosion control was for the City to put on a seminar on proper erosion control for contractors, and possibly even require a seminar to obtain a business license. It was then noted that King County and other organizations are already conducting seminars for contractors. R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES Summary of Meeting Minutes (MSG.06E) Page 2 • Another idea on erosion control was to have the City assign an "Erosion Control Sergeant". The sergeant would function something like a stream steward, yet trying to reduce erosion in the City, Ron mentioned that the City did have inspectors which are responsible for requiring erosion control. • Another idea on the fact -sheet or a resource signing was to put the telephone number of the City and ask the public to cali and report water quality violators. R_ AND ASSOCIATES APPENDIX E Technical Advisory Committee Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 12, 1991 CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN November 12, 1991 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 1:30 p.m. I. Introduction and Preview of Meeting Ron Straka o Relationship between BRWQMP and ESGRWP II. Expectations of the TAC Ron Straka o BRWQMP/ESGRWP coordination o Provide expertise o Review and input on project deliverables III. Overview Planning Process Franchot Fenske o History o Goals and Obectives o Public Involvement IV. Scope of Work/Initial findings BRWQMP Wally Trial Task 1 — Water Quality Assessment Task 2 — Wetland Inventory/Assessment Task 3 — Water Quality Analysis and Source Control Alternative Evaluation Task 4 — Integrating Environmental Considerations Into ESGRWP Task 5 — Public Involvement and Education V. Scope of Work/Initial Findings ESGRWP Mike Giseburt Task 1 — Hydrologic Analysis Task 2 — Hydraulic Analysis Task 3 — Fisheries Task 4 — Policies and Financial Considerations VI. Preliminary ESGRWP Flood Control Mike Giseburt Solutions VII. Where Do We Go From Here? Franchot Fenske MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD ��/+Lt lL• �,L.Z vt/,+�z Q,�hc.,.ty ww-<.r�L ��tZ- ��.rk� SUBJECT: -tom rrisii <' r�i�F'i 5o/Z y Car�,�� tf�P iE�'i�st Cam% DATE: 11//Z LOCATION: 12-�77r,/ THOSE IN ATTENDANCE NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS PHONE , iv �Ti �� airy � s IZ�%ra.s� Zo v Nl � c� �✓� 5 -g L!<< � K EN RYA 1 -53- 2,-7 7 - s 'S'l i irKE r 0A'1/LT f7(U R�� z��Z ( S/S//- 7S� C JwII� l �'�41 ( ram E,,J�Y� � C�,,.�. -&s �1ti-�- I `i 1 `� ��x / ''l• 78/01 2-PI 4 Ave JAC*-' -D.P1ActiSkGC-:; a�cx ► bv� WtS`� 6�t�� k��1i �1�3�3Z sS4--j2oa a / x7- ,41 �rz inn,-� r.•,�a .4�,r- �; '�4l1�' t��/ Uit�_ 9 45S 3�S S, -74T-rt-C- 26ac>3 AD�w•s A�fl�m� ��4L wta goy �� g8'7 Z� � � �nn� ,h� KG Sw �I 40 o i` eS\��yJ •� � . -oa UV7 City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan and East Side Green River Watershed Plan Common Project Issues o Preserve and protect wetlands o Protect and enhance fisheries o Equitable allocation of costs o Water quality protection/enhancement o Sediment contamination o Jurisdictional cooperation Project Issues Specific to Black River Water Quality Management Plan o Control of Sediment o Source Control/BMPs Project Issues Specific to East Side Green River Watershed Plan o Local flooding/level of protection o GRM Agreement o Implementation of CIP o Status of Environmental Mitigation Agreement o Future Development o Regionalization of Facilities City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan and East Side Green River Watershed Plan Common Project Goals o To control and improve surface water quality o To reduce contamination and deposition of stream sediments o To improve fish resource by improving water quality and fish passage o To maintain and enhance wetlands for improved water quality, wildlife habitat, and flood control o To coordinate planning with other jurisdictional programs within the basin o To develop an integrated program which coordinates the need to provide flood control with environmental sensitivity to wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, fisheries resource, and recreational amenities Goals Specific to the Black River Water Quality Management Plan o To develop point and non -point source control strategies and regulatory options for surface water management which improve water quality o To conduct a public involvement and education program Goals Specific to the East Side Green River Watershed Plan o To protect the Renton Valley from flooding during the 100-year flood o To maintain a good relationship with SCS and the Green River Basin Program, and to preserve the funding relationship with SCS o To identify other possible funding sources o To develop a flood control system with low, long-term maintenance costs City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan Scope of Work/Initial Findings Task I - Water Quality Assessment o Existing Data Review Metro, EPA, DOH, Kent WQMP o Monitoring Plan o Water Quality Sampling o Sediment Sampling o Industrial/Commercial Discharge Review o Potential Hazards/Spill Containment o Sediment Loading Estimates o Water Quality Assessment Task II - Wetlands Inventory/Assessment o Existing Data Review o Wetlands Work Plan o Wetland Inventory o Wetland Mitigation Strategies Task III - Water Quality Analysis and Source Control Alternative Evaluation o Water Quality Problem Definition o Black River Pump Station Evaluation o Evaluation of Management Practices o Source Control Alternative Development and Implementation Strategies Task IV - Integrating Environmental Considerations Into Valley Flood Control o Water Quality/Wetlands/Aquatic Resource Issues for ESGRWP Flood Control Solutions o Watershed Management Alternative Analysis for ESGRWP Flood Control Solutions Task V - Public Involvement and Education o Citizen Task Force o Technical Advisory Committee o Fact Sheet/Mailer o Public Meetings o Public Education Plan 0 Public Awareness and Change in Behavior >s- -� CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN INTEGRATED PLANNING APPROACH Black River Water Quality Management Plan Water Quality Assessment Wetlands Inventory Source Control Environmental Considerations for Flood Control Public Involvement East Side Green River Watershed Plan Hydrology Hydraulics Fisheries Policies/Financial Recommended n LYSIS Solutions to Improve Water Ouality in Basin Water Ouality/Wetlands/ Aquatic Resource Information Recommended Flood Control Solution ANALYSIS Sensitive to Environmental Considerations R.W. BECK AND ASSCMA71S -� CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT AREA MAP CITY HALL E,ypJR� BLACK RIVE �9y MP STATION �i --STUDY AREA, RENTON BOUNDARY 405 I81 i w � i 515 CS CD c� w o _ C 167 ? KING I w 9 COUNTY I V) � 181 CARR ROAD S.W. 43r1 ST._ - .--- r- KENT 1 � L - RENTON CITY LIMITS PANTHER LAKE RW BECK AND ASSOMTES -� CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER (DUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN WETLANDS /STREAMS DY AREA INDARY R.W. BECK AND ASSO(7ATES City of Renton East Side Green River Watershed Plan Scope of Work/Initial Findings Task I - Hydrologic Analysis o HSPF Hydrologic Model - Continuous Simulation - Interaction with the Green River - Allows investigation of low flow o Establishes Local Flood Event to Size Conveyance Facilities and High Green River Flow to Size Storage Facilities Task II - Hydraulic Analysis o FEQ Hydraulic Model - Non -Steady State Model - Direct Interaction Between Springbrook Creek and Major Valley Wetlands - Represents Black River Pump Station Constrained By High Green River Flow o Used to Develop Flood Control Alternatives For Conveyance and Storage Task 3 - Fisheries o Habitat Inventory o Impact Identification o Mitigation Task 4 - Policies/Financial Analysis o Policy Review Review inconsistencies Develop recommendations for policy changes Work with TAC in developing draft agreements; water quality controls, design standards, allocation of responsibility for maintenance o Identify Benefits and Contribution - Develop methodology to identify benefits to affected jurisdictions Compare benefits to costs for capital improvements and maintenance o Financial Analysis - Develop allocation of costs based upon "degree of contribution" o Allocate Cost City of Renton East Side Green River Watershed Plan Preliminary Flood Control Solutions I. Problem/Solutions o Eliminate flooding of SW 43rd Street - Localized improvements to Springbrook Creek combined with SW 43rd Street drainage system improvements - High flow diversion Channel - Pump diversion to Green River - Preserve/enhance wetlands and mitigate wetland impacts o Eliminate flooding of East Valley Highway/Fish Passage to Panther Creek - Divert Panther Creek and plug SR-167 culverts - Drainage system improvements - Talbot Road Culvert Replacement - Preserve/enhance wetlands and mitigate wetland impacts o Provide Adequate Storage for high Green River flows (Modify Green River Management Agreement) (Increase BRPS forebay/channel storage) H J (AL( -11HM v Fl. � PIC- L co oe L P� 7it; ,c 5 � h I SCALE- h / POWEu 60' v� C P P- f A ATION BLAC RIVER PUMP STATION n n PIC-2► NG TAL96 \i 0 0 N N AV SW N f0 GREEN-�DUMVSH � IVER f, RADotoos AV 4186 MORRIS AV 7S BST RDA SP�O� V sr r SHATTUCK DABS AV �+ TALBOi CREST D �q 4� - PANIHER CREEK IL YET�c� LAKE Al S LAKE St S VAiI>V �ftMV 167 fyi t �•.. AhS 60' SR- 161 36' 161 36' • E PIC-311- ALLEY RD N t m V N Q v)48, Ci 60' � o, LIND SW — 3 in PlC 5► � r N 3 ... ... H n N v W 21.. N N LL O N N LEGEND AKESDALE AV SW 38 0 FLOOD PLAIN -BASE FLOHD (100-YR) n LONGACRES ® FREQUENTLY FLOODED ? RACETRACK AREAS (IN ADDITION II n TO FLOOD PLAIN) JACKSON SW PIC-1 ► LOCATION/DIRECTION RENTON CITY LIMITS OF PICTURE NO. 1, RE[o MILLTO FIGURE 7 CREE it TUKWILA R Y _ EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN RR CURRENT CONDITIONS DOCUMENT WEST VALLEY HWY FLOOD AREAS CURRENT CONDITIONS lam. VY. LLul\ AND ASSOCIATES 'R LEGEND •� CITY OF R E N T O N High Springbrook Creek Flows (Existing) High Springbrook Creek Flows (Future) East Side Green River Watershed Plan High Green River Flows (Existing) High Green River Flows (Future) SPRINGBROOK CREEK WATER SURFACE ELEVATION PROFILE 22—..._—..._ _.......— — ---. 20 18 16 4 2 0 —2 0 ROADWAY SURFACE TOP OF CULVERTS BOTTOM OF CULVERTS 5000 10000 15000 Distance (ft) mam- EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN WATER SURFACE PROFILE SPRINGBROOK CREEK R.W. BECK nun .�tgx7n�e L11 l 1 r '� N N C SUITHERS D RAD01008 e ` N vv ~� RD S 981h AV l -IIHM ti a I L40RRIS AV S �BOI � of SHAiiUCK Y W I' S AY SHATTUCK �—_� DIVERT PA ER £ a N + OAV15 AN w iALBOT CREST OR CREEK INT WETLAND n =� `pV �JI PANTHER CREEK WETLAND QQ �I Rp\N�ER EAKE AV S LAKE ST S 48' z � •~ �yJ` 60' SR-167 36' 36 167 � ' �PW�E Pv n E VALLEY RD 18E VALLEY H RD 11 ; ❑ t L 48' � r 1-405 :5 LIND AV S LIND AV 60' n SW 3 SENECA 3 ; ;n' N ; e rn ;, Z si�a ZIP N 3 Y I y � SCALE 1'a1000' THOMAS AV SW N N N n POWELL AV SW 1p 60PK LEGEND � 1 . 54' N pRE�' RE � r6 � 36" OAKESDALE AV SW 36' 5P\N\ pNpNN 36" DIAMETER STORM DRAIN CHANNEL �P' . —► STREAM/DRAINAGE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT r—< CULVERT(S) LONGCRES RACETRACK® CULVERT(S) REPLACEMENT/IMPROVEMENT It— PLUG EXISTING CULVERT(S) JACKSON SW CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT �► NEW STORM DRAIN MILL RENTO CITY LIMITS CREE q-- PUMP STATION RR TUKWILA tl FOREBA I/ EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN B LAC RR PROJECT SUMMARY DOCUMENT RIVER \ WESi VALLEY HWY PUMP � \ STATION i i ALTERNATIVE 2 1 RIVER rREEN-DUWAMISH \ \ R� _ J R.W. BECK r AND--ASSOC]A= N N IJCL SHINERS t2 U t p RCS g�\h P� !, R�ooiooe 5\ N l 7 ~� RO S 981h A 9i s I MORRIS AV S glg�l \� tP�p` Jj -11HM , N Rp - �' z S AV (� DIVERT PA THEIR r HATTUCK c j AN SHATTUCK �-�J yET1ANp CREEK INTO DAWS NEW CONTROL,,, TALBOT CREST DR PANTHER CREEK WETLAND d ❑ STRUCTURE RSH HABI Rp\N\ER pV !J?' lAK( PN S LAKE ST S NEW OPEN WATE vYR1Y 167 i0' � qyJ, 80' SR-167 NEW DIKE 36' 36' 167 E VALLEY RD 10' E VALLEY RD j N V � � v {-n N J 48+ 60* Yo �-405 r UND AV S LIND ` n ,o AV SW 3 SENECA w N Y -—Q y 21' h � o SCALE 1'=1000' THOMAS AV SW N U POWELL AV SW P !O N wr 54' 60' HIGH FLOW DIVERSION 1 THROUGH I-405 !-1 LEGEND OAKESDAIE AV SW 36' P-I HIGH FLOWOW DIVERSION ` 36" Y \ GN u I 36" DIAMETER STORM DRAIN STREAM/DRAINAGE CHANNEL g LONGACRES ` >—< CULVERT(S) I z RACE TRACK I ID—< PLUG EXISTING CULVERT(S) v3 -► -► CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT I I DIVERSION JACKSON SW ---. NEW STORM DRAIN U STRUCTURES RENTON CITY LIMITS 4L MILL CREEK �PU P STATION RR TUKWILA F EBAY EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN RR PROJECT SUMMARY DOCUMENT RIVER IWES7 VALLEY HWY FIGURE 3 R' PUMP s STATION I i ALTERNATIVE 3 TRO GREEN-DUWAMISH �\ \ p�EEN R\�� \ I RW. BECK `J AND ASSOCIATES Technical Advisory Committee Meeting January 29, 1992 CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN January 29, 1991 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 1:30 p.m. I. Introduction and Preview of Meeting Ron Straka o Over -view of first TAC meeting o Preview of this meeting II. BRWQMP Project Accomplishments o Public meeting Franchot Fenske o Citizen Task Force/Questioniare o Potential Hazards/Spill Containment o Industrial Discharge Review o Aquatic resource information Mike Giseburt o Wetlands inventory o Sediment sampling and water quality monitoring Walley Trial o Sediment Loading Estimates III. Where do We Go From Here on the BRWQMP Franchot Fenske IV. ESGRWP Project Accomplishments Mike Giseburt o Project Summary Document o Hydrologic Analysis Report o Hydraulics Analysis Report — Existing Channel System o Alternative evaluation screening process (12 alternatives) o Description of four primary flood control alternatives o Evaluation Process of four primary flood control alternatives V. Where do We Go From Here on the ESGRWP Mike Giseburt -1 - 1 CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN January 29, 1992 TAC Meeting Sign-up Sheet MM Name Address Phone frlrh�E 61- EFjf l . (},gyp , ,0,- 2 N G.Tti o f ?-�-NTDN Zoo ,N.lG f/✓E. s _ Z7. 7 - YS4: - - 3 _ S 4 A/ LA STRRc,- 35 PQc,�)ELLA✓c.s,eJ. Pevryy 76�{QQO33�s S CER:�� ADAw,S Z� 3 AJC IJ(G,f`OGk— RJ i�,cy,4LL9Soi9 7Cig'c%Zo7 6 J/�GK f�cLSc�J Go' Y.( Czou[E, KEr.fi Q$07Z Q�5`4-"jZ��o 7 MAgV 5T1 erEL CnJZ I Zo 17�u'�,Quc � 9+�o S ch� 'Mio l (o ZZss , 8 1061 ( e-.) 0 �- -i,-</ 753-.7qi� 9 aryt t 2.0 1-4k; iz 0 yYr A,*- Sa ;gj-?-Jc 10 Kevti, 11 a`� � •�� f.�VyC4r. rvl, Yo.-w+��'i•� `�-+r'�I t'�+ �u�^�b�-I 12-io,.�. J saa�.� Fic�tiF (`�2fi.-o �=,-ti�. Lg�• Z1�3 13 7 5C-S 3 ? -7 L - 3'3 2 14 1 r6S\,v/Y1 ICT —(,fs . %- 16 % / 7- S// , g 3 Z . 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 zrl 78 Sz City of Renton East Side Green River Watershed Plan January 29, 1992 TAC Meeting Preliminary Listing of Evaluation Criteria which will be used to Evaluate the Flood Control Alternatives - Effectiveness in Solving flooding - Wetland Considerations - Water Quality Considerations - Fish Considerations - Cost - Public Acceptance - Operation and Maintenance Implementation/financing - Permits - Interjurisdictional Requirements CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER 'WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Questionnaire Indicate which issues related to the Black River Basin are of greatest concern to you by putting a number in each box according to the following scale: 1 — Most concern 3 — Little concern 2 — Some concern 4 — No concern 5 — No opinion Protecting/preserving wetands ❑ Using wetlands and streams for education/ recreation Re—establishing a fish resource Prevention of to)dc/hazardous waste spills from Preserving water quality industrial sites and traffic accidents New development impacts to water Control of household hazardous waste quality Educating the public about how their Other (Describe) actions affect water quality The city of Renton is preparing a water quality management plan for the Black River Basin. The purpose of this study is to characterize the eazsting water quality conditions in the study area and to develop recommendations for improvement of water quality. An important step in protecting and improving water quality is public education. Education is needed to increase citizen awareness and to let people know that their actions can help to reduce water quality degradation. The introduction of pollutants into storm drainage systems can be reduced through voluntary action by the public and local business communities. As a part of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan, the city will be forming a 12—member citizen Task Force. The purpose of this Task Force is to participate in the planning effort and provide input on such matters as goals and objectives, new policies and regulations that will affect citizens and businesses within the study area, and to review various public education programs and and identify an ongoing program best suited for our community. The Task Force member responsibilities will include attendance at five evening meetings. In addition, the Task Force members will be requested to review materials and provide input during the meetings. Are you interested in being a member of the Task Force? Yes a No The Task Force needs to represent a mix of interests. How would you best describe yourself? Citizen interested in protecting the environment A member of the business community Name: Address: A member of an environmental group A member of the development community Other (describe) Telephone No.: CITY OF RENTON AND DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CCWF GRANT PROGRAM BLACK RIVER WATER OUAUTY MANAGEMENT PLAN QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RESULTS 2 ( 3 1 4 MOST SOME LITTLE NO NO TOTAL RANK ISSUE OF CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN OPINION SCORE* PROTECTING/PRESERVING 37 34 7 4 5 167 4 WETLANDS RE-ESTABLISHING A FISH 27 34 12 4 10 197 7 RESOURCE PRESERVING WATER QUALITY 75 5 2 5 118 1 NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS 44 28 3 4 8 165 3 ON WATER QUALITY EDUCATING THE PUBLIC 43 25 7 3 9 171 5 ABOUT HOW THEIR ACTIONS AFFECT WATER QUALITY USING WETLANDS AND 19 25 24 6 13 230 8 STREAMS FOR EDUCATION AND RECREATION PREVENTION OF TOXIC/ 49 23 5 3 7 157 2 HAZARDOUS WASTE SPILLS FROM INDUSTRIAL SITES AND TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS CONTROL OF HOUSEHOLD 41 24 7 5 i0 180 6 HAZARDOUS WASTE TOTAL NUMBER OF QUESTIONNAIRES MAILED: 1,529 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES: 8 87 * LOWEST TOTAL SCORE IS THE ISSUE OF CONCERN OF MOST IMPORTANCE Page 1 CITY OF RENTON AND DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CCWF GRANT PROGRAM OTHER CONCERNS RECEIVED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE CLEAN-UP OR MIGRATION OF EXISTING TOXIC WASTE SITES: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE EFFECTS ON ECONMOMIC DEVELOPMENT: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE NO MORE NEW DEVEOPMENT: TWO MOST CONCERN RESPONSES PROVIDE PROPER AUTO OIL DISPOSAL: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE MOSQUITO CONTROL (NON -CHEMICAL) EFFECT OF THIS ON QUALITY OF LIFE FOR AREA CITIZENS: TWO MOST CONCERN RESPONSES, ONE SOME CONCERN RESPONSE BIRD POPULATION: ONE SOME CONCERN RESPONSE EDUCATING PUBLIC ABOUT COST, TAXES AND DISTRIBUTION OF MONIES TO WATER QUALITY PRESERVATION: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE WASTEING MONEY ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUES OF CONCERN: ONE MOST CONCERN RESPONSE CLEAN RUSTY WATER PIPE LINES AND EXCESSIVE WATER PRESSURE: TWO MOST CONCERN RESPONES PUGET POWER -CONTROL RATE RAISES: ONE SOME CONCERN RESPONSE Page 2 City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan Summary of January 29, 1992 Technical Advisory Aleeting Minutes The following paragraphs provide a brief description' of the important items noted during the second TAC meeting. A copy of the meeting agenda, handout materials, and sign-up sheet is attached. Ron Straka kicked off the meeting with an overview of the first TAC meeting. Franchot then discussed the project accomplishments of the BRWQM Plan. He summarized the public information mailer and the lack of attendance at the first Public Meeting. He then discussed the development of the citizen task force by using the questionnaire. He also discussed the results of the questionnaire. Franchot then summarized the methodology and results of the industrial discharge review and potential hazards task. Items noted during the discussion included the following: o Andi indicated that specific quality problems can be traced to specific land uses (e.g., the problem California is having with hydrochloric acid in Silicon Valley). o Bill noted that under the general NPDES permit requirements, industries will have to develop spill prevention plans and comply with requirements within the next 5 years. o Bill also indicated that Kent is now working on putting industries on alert to give them plenty of advance notice of the NPDES requirements. o Andi asked whether there are any wrecking yards in the study area, because, based on his experience, wrecking yards are a major polluter, yet do not fall under spill prevention regulations like other industrial areas do. o Andi said that Bill Ecklehead is the person within the County organization knowledgeable in this area. Mike Giseburt then summarized the results of the aquatic resource information. Items noted during this discussion included: o WDF plants Mill Creek with coho. o Joe questioned the use of a $/fish analysis when evaluating whether or not to implement the P-9 spawning channel. o Muckleshoot Indian Tribe did a study on the effectiveness of the fish air lift at the BRPS. Black River Water Quality Nlanagement Plan Technical Advisory Meeting Notes Page 2 Mike then summarized the wetland inventory. The discussion included wetland functions and values. Some of the high value and low value wetlands were identified. Walley Trial then summarized the results of the sediment loading estimates. Items noted during this discussion included: o Andi recommended considering an upland cleared land use to account for areas under construction which are major contributors of sediments. o Ron said that the City's primary problem at this time is the lack of education and enforcement. o Bill suggested that today's ESC technology is not adequate to meet the present state water quality standards. In addition, in the northwest climate, timing of construction is crucial to proper ESC. o Bill suggested that the Cities of Kent and Renton work closely together regarding erosion and sedimentation control as both Cities are in the same basin. Mike then summarized accomplishments made towards the ESGRW Plan. Comments made during this discussion included the following: o Andi indicated that there may be a good chance that the GRMA may be revised such that new discharges (30 cfs max) to the Green River would be allowed up to Green River flows of 12,000 cfs. o Joe recommended water quality enhancements to be incorporated with recommended projects which involve pipe discharges to Springbrook Creek. o Ron indicated that as part of the BRWQM Plan, water quality enhancements such as retrofitting Springbrook Creek outfalls would be considered. (MSG.028) Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 17, 1992 CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER BASIN 'WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN November 17, 1992 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda I. Introduction and Status of BRBWQMP II. Water Quality Assessment/Problems Ill. Recommendations IV. Status of ESGRWP V. Where Do We Go From Here? Franchot Fenske, RW Beck and Associates Wally Trial, Herrera Environmental Consultants Wally Trial Mike Giseburt, RW Beck and Associates Ron Straka, City of Renton 1 CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN November 17, 1992 TAC Meeting Sign-up Sheet Name Address Phone Al/ le, Gam, t3'E c % f '665 s 7Z7 - ,z6 0 �Z- 2 RcD rde-r- //,I,* fu 74,Y-33L5 3 W.(L_ 1 Y'al ��rtir G�J.�-,- s. (4Iy �-x -,y-, 1L I -q-4.,i 4 1 57 00 D4, -44-o-454-D 5 S 6 �- Ci 7Y e ' 7, 7 2-M9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 — ?4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 CITY OF RENTON BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN November 17, 1992 Citizen Task Force Meeting RECOMMENDED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS Resource Sign ing/Interpretivc Trail Fact Shect CAR (change and recycle) Oil Committee Renton River Days Booth Stream Team Clean Up Newspaper Articles Lawn/Chemical Use R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 17, 1992 SUMMARY OF MEETING MINUTES Ron Straka kicked off the meeting and provided a brief introduction. Copies of the meeting agenda, handouts, and sign-up sheet are attached. Attendance was light, 3, including representatives from King County, SCS, and the Department of Transportation. Franchot Fenske then provided a brief overview of the project because it had been a long time since the last meeting. He also provided a status report to the committee. The committee had received a copy of the preliminary draft report prior to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to overview the findings and recommendations of the report and receive input from the committee. Wally Trial then discussed the findings of the water quality assessment which included a general discussion of the problems. Wally then overviewed the major recommendations of the report (see handout attached). Mike Giseburt provided a brief discussion on the status of the East Side Green River Watershed Plan. Mike discussed the wetland mitigation strategies in the valley are, which was one of the deliverables submitted since the last TAC meeting. Ron then closed the meeting and thanked the committee for their involvement. He also said that if the committee members had any additional comments on the report, the City would like to receive them within three weeks in order to incorporate them into the public draft. Important items noted during the meeting include the following: • The report indicates that Springbrook Creek is a Class A stream, however Ron thought it might be Class B. Wally was -going to verify this. • The King County health department has a new ordinance regarding mosquito control. The new ordinance includes provisions which must be met by Cities located in King County. The ordinance requires and integrated pest management plan. • Rod asked whether there was any specific contaminants from Mill Creek that are of concern. Wally indicated that cadmium is very high. It was further noted that Kent has completed their own water quality management plan for the entire City of Kent, which would include Mill Creek. Summary of Meeting Minutes (MSG.068) Page 2 • Rod asked about sediment removal from the channel (for flood control). Wally indicated that based on the sediment samples, the materials would have to be disposed of at a lined landfill, such as Cedar Hills. • There was a general question about the consistency between the City of Kent plan acid the BRWQMP. Wally indicated that they are generally consistent. Kent is currently a little behind on adopting standards, but will be adopting standards in the near future. • King County is beginning work on a water quality management plan for the Green River. There will be some overlap between this plan and the BRWQMP. • Bob Winter indicated that the Department of Transportation did not want their SR-167 culverts plugged until the P-9 channel was in. He also indicated that the proposed culvert to drain the wetland should be equipped with features to allow adjustment of the water levels in the wetland. • There was a question as to the specificity of recommendation in certain areas, such as illicit connections. Wally indicated that several of the recommendations were for more detailed studies at a later date which would get into specific solutions. APPENDIX F Wetland Inventory September 22, 1992 The City of Renton Black River Water Quality Management Plan Wetland Inventory Report Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates 2820 Northup Way, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 822 - 1077 September 22, 1992 W A S H I N G T 0 N STATE DEFAHTMEN1 OF ECOLOGY Funded in pan by the Washington State Depamnent of Ecology is the Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant Program - Grant No. G9200030. Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1 PURPOSE ..................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY .............................................. 3 Comprehensive Data Collection .................................. 3 Intermediate -Level Data Collection ............................... 4 RESULTS ..................................................... 4 Wetland Functional Values ..................................... 4 Groundwater Discharge and Recharge .......................... 4 Flood. Storage ............................................ 5 Shoreline Anchoring ....................................... 5 Water Purification ......................................... 5 Food Chain Support ....................................... 6 Wildlife Habitat .......................................... 6 Fishery Habitat ........................................... 6 Active Recreation, Passive Recreation, Heritage, and Education ....... 6 Wetland Descriptions .......................................... 6 Wetland3............................................... 7 Wetland4............................................... 7 Wetland 5.............................................. 15 Wetland 7 North ......................................... 17 Wetland 7 South ......................................... 18 Wetland 8 North ......................................... 19 Wetland 8 South ......................................... 21 Wetland 9.............................................. 21 Wetland 10............................................. 22 Wetland 11............................................. 24 Wetland12............................................. 25 Wetland 13A............................................ 26 Wetland13B............................................ 28 Wetland 13C............................................ 29 Wetland 14............................................. 30 Wetland 16............................................. 30 Wetland 22............................................. 31 Wetland 32............................................ 32 Wetland 33............................................. 33 We+.land 37............................................. 33 Wetland40............................................. 35 Wetland45............................................. 35 BECKM BLACK RIVER I9inro2C i Page Regulatory Framework ....................................... 36 CITATIONS.................................................. 39 Printed References .......................................... 39 Personal Communications ..................................... 41 APPENDIX A - WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORMS APPENDIX B - WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUES FIELD FORMS BECKP3 BUCK RIVER 09i22/92c ii List of Tables and Figures Page Table 1 City of Renton Wetland Inventory ........................ follows 6 2 Wetland Types as Defined by the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States ......................... 8 3 Wetland Plant Common and Scientific Names ..................... 9 4 Hydric Soils and Soils with Hydric Inclusions within the City of Renton Study Area ........................................ 11 Figure 1 City of Renton Wetland Field Inventory Study Area ................. 2 2 Wetlands of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan ... follows 2 3 Wetlands Impacted by Proposed Alternatives for the Black River Water Quality Management Plan ......................... follows 3 BECKjn BLACK RrVER 09/22/92c 111 INTRODUCTION The City of Renton has initiated two planning studies to provide a comprehensive examination of the Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek watershed area known as the East Side Green River Watershed or the Black River Basin. The first study, the Black River Water Quality Management Plan (BRWQMP), is intended to improve water quality within the study area and will address such environmental issues as water quality, aquatic resources, and preservation and enhancement of the valley wetlands. This study is 75% funded under the Washington Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund Program. The second study, the East Side Green River Watershed Plan (ESGRWP), will characterize the hydrology and hydraulics of the stream system, identify existing and future flooding conditions, and develop channel improvements necessary to eliminate major flooding problems. The ESGRWP study will incorporate the findings of the BRWQMP relative to water quality, wetlands, and aquatic resources to ensure that channel improvements are environmentally compatible solutions. This wetland inventory is part of the BRWQMP study. During May 1991, Jones & Stokes Associates conducted an initial inventory of the city's wetland resources as part of the overall water quality and flood management plan (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991). The inventory encompassed the entire City of Renton and an additional area in unincorporated King County termed the Renton "sphere of influence". The initial inventory was prepared based on review of existing literature and minimal field verification. The primary purpose of the initial inventory was to identify the general condition and location of wetland resources within the city limits so that a wetland management ordinance could be developed. This report presents the results of a more detailed field inventory, which builds on the initial inventory and provides more detailed wetland information within the Black River watershed study area. The study area is approximately 5,935 acres, and is shown in Figure 1. As a result of this field inventory, additional wetland areas were identified. Wetlands identified within the study area are shown in Figure 2. The primary purpose of the field inventory was to verify wetlands mapped during the initial wetland inventory (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991), to add wetlands not previously identified, and to expand on the knowledge of functional values of the wetlands. Information. will be used to assist the city in the management and protection of these wetland resources. The information will also be used to define impacts associated with flood control alternatives defined as part of the ESGRWP. BECKM BLACK RrvER 1 o9/n/v2c S 3rd Street b Swgth SU�gr �. �,,,,,...•" k Fort Dent m Park *al CM±1 c� SYi m "05 � �0 SW 16th Street ac a Q� Race v3i v m � Tradr m 0 c Q b c > u, SE 1647h Sheet 1 - SW 271h Street c 3 SW 341h Street 5 � v m < SW 391h St. m fa SE 176th St. Cr SW 43rd Street , Uj SE 1861h St 192nd Street SE % m YSE 196th Street uj m ' 3s >_ <' 200th Street SE a' L L ��+...,......�... Panther ; SE204t ':;: Lake eet Figure 1. City of Renton Wetland Field Inventory Study Area BECK/" BLACK RrVM 09/u/91e Figure 2. Wetlands of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan 9/17/92 METHODOLOGY For the purpose of this study, the federal definition of wetlands was used to determine whether an area was a wetland. This definition includes "those areas that are saturated or inundated at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances typically do support, vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil conditions." The following information sources were used to conduct the wetland field inventory: • Critical Areas Inventory - City of Renton Wetlands and Stream Corridors and accompanying AutoCAD base maps of the city (1"=1,000') and sphere of influence (1"=2,000') (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991); • 1990 true color aerial photographs (1" = 1,000') of the City of Renton; • wetland reports prepared for various properties within Renton (see Citations); • U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1973 Soil Survey of the King County Area, Washington (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1973); • Washington Hydric Soils List (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1990); • King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio 1990 (King County 1990); • City of Renton wetlands study (City of Renton 1981); and • National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps - Mercer Island and Renton Quadrangles. In addition to review of these materials, each wetland was visited in November and December 1991 to assess current conditions and functional values. The Critical Areas Inventory map was updated based on information collected. Wetland boundaries were not delineated, but approximate boundaries were defined based on any existing wetland reports and interpretation of aerial photographs. A two -tiered data collection approach was used during the field investigation. The approach is described in the following paragraphs. Comprehensive Data Collection A comprehensive approach was used for those areas that might be impacted from any of the proposed alternatives in the ESGRWP. In these areas, wetlands were visited and data sheets (Appendix A) containing a list of dominant vegetation, soil descriptions, and obvious indicators of wetland hydrology were completed. Figure 3 represents wetlands eECKM scwcx RFVM 3 o9/u/v� within the study area that would be impacted by the alternatives. In addition, a wetland assessment form (Appendix B) was developed to assess functional values of each wetland. This form was completed for each wetland and a description of each wetland was prepared. Intermediate -Level Data Collection Information collected for wetlands located outside the area of impact described above was less detailed. The presence of each wetland was verified, and hydrologic connections and dominant plant species were noted. This information was also added to the summary table of wetlands. This level of analysis did not include completion of data sheets or descriptions of wetlands. Data sheets describing conditions and functional values were not completed and wetland paragraphs were not written for this level of analysis. RESULTS The study area contains 38 wetlands located during this inventory. The majority of the wetlands are located in the Green River Valley adjacent to Springbrook Creek. This section presents a general discussion of wetland functional values within the study area and a description of each wetland surveyed using the comprehensive methodology. Wetland Functional Values Wetlands within the study area provide a variety of functional values, dependent on a number of factors including, but not limited to, size, location of the wetland in the watershed, the type and amount of vegetation, and the proximity of the wetland to stream corridors. If a wetland will be impacted, it is necessary to assess in detail its existing functional values so that if mitigation is proposed, the field values in the replaced wetland can be duplicated. The Federal Highway Administration Wetland Functional Assessment Method (Adamus 1983) recognizes 11 wetland functions. Many of the functions are difficult to quantify or qualify without extensive research (Erwin 1990). The following is a general discussion of the 11 wetland functions and values. Groundwater Discharge and Recharge The groundwater discharge function of a wetland helps to maintain a high water table in wetlands and contributes water necessary to maintain streams during dry months. Groundwater recharge can replenish groundwater supplies to the underlying aquifers. It is difficult, however, to predict recharge and discharge from the physiographic setting of the wetland; usually more detailed hydrogeological studies are necessary. Certain wetlands BECKM BLACK RIVER 09i22/9u 4 Figure 3; Wetlands Impacted by Proposed Alternatives for the Black River Water Quality Management Plan 9;17;92 contribute significantly to recharging regional groundwater. The majority of hydrologists believe, however, that most wetlands in areas where glaciation has occurred (such as the Northwest) do not recharge aquifers (Erwin 1990). Wetlands may, however, recharge shallow or perched lenses of groundwater which in turn discharge to streams. Many of the wetlands along Springbrook Creek act both as recharge and discharge sites, depending on the season. During high water periods, the wetlands store overbank flows and act to recharge local groundwater. During low flow periods, the wetlands act as discharge sites, helping to maintain streamflow in Springbrook and Panther Creeks. Flood Storage Wetlands can reduce storm runoff peaks by storing and then slowly releasing stormwater. Such attenuation of floodflows results in lower peak rates of runoff occurring for longer durations. The flood storage value of a wetland varies with factors such as size, topography, location within the watershed, soils, surrounding land uses, association with other aquatic systems, and the type and amount of vegetation present. Shoreline Anchoring Wetland vegetation binds shoreline and streambank sediments with root systems, thereby anchoring the substrate. Additionally, aboveground vegetation reduces velocities and turbulence during overland flows, which results in reduced erosive power. Water Purification Wetlands can purify water through a variety of mechanisms. The low current velocities in wetlands cause sediments, metals, and certain chemicals to be deposited; once in the wetlands, mechanical, chemical, and biological processes can remove certain pollutants from the water column. The ability of a wetland to perform this function is based on a number of factors, such as residence time of the water in the wetland and the type and density of vegetation. Wetlands that are densely vegetated with emergent plants have the ability to trap sediments and take up pollutants in the water. Biofiltration is particularly important when a wetland discharges into a watercourse. This function is also highly dependent on the relationship of the wetland to surrounding water bodies. Wetlands which receive significant quantities of pollutant laden water either through stormwater input or overbank floodflows posses a high potential for water purification. A more detailed assessment of this function, as well as groundwater discharge/ recharge and flood storage, will be possible following completion of hydrologic modeling BECKM BUCK RlVM o9inv2c 5 being conducted as part of the ESGRWP. The modeling will evaluate the depth, frequency, and duration of wetland inundation associated with Springbrook Creek flooding. Food Chain Support Wetlands can be highly productive ecosystems that are used by numerous species for nesting, spawning, rearing, and feeding. Primary productivity is usually high in wetlands, and is generally highest in emergent wetlands that contain water year round because they support fast-growing plant species. Wetlands trap and store nutrients, thereby providing a constant source of nutrients for release over time. This creates conditions that support intricate food chains, high species diversity, and long complex life cycles. These conditions are predominant in mature wetlands (Erwin 1990). Wildlife Habitat Many bird, mammal, amphibian, and reptile species are dependent upon wetlands for all or part of their life cycles. The wildlife habitat value of a wetland depends in part on the structural and species diversity of plant communities, the proximity of desirable upland habitat, and surrounding land uses. Fishery Habitat Some wetlands are important sources of food and habitat for fish species. In many urban streams, fish use is limited due to degraded water quality and inconsistent flows. Active Recreation, Passive Recreation, Heritage, and Education Wetlands can provide valuable opportunities for recreation and education, such as bird watching or natural system studies. Wetland Descriptions Twenty-five of the 38 wetlands within the study area were surveyed using the comprehensive approach. Descriptions of vegetation, soils, hydrology, and functional values are included for each wetland. Wetland numbers referred to in this section are based on the numbering system for the initial wetland inventory. Because this field inventory covers less area than the initial inventory, the wetland numbers in this report and Table 1 are not sequential. For example, Wetlands 1 and 2 are outside of the study area, so the first wetland described herein is Wetland 3. A summary of information about wetlands within BECK/13 Buck RrvEx 09i22/92c 6 Table 1. City of Renton Wetlands Inventory Mapped as Permanent RcL Wctl.nd AIS, a Dominant Hydrae Soils or Flory 1"-&.guc Cvtkt No, Sou- Name cr. IL S) S" an Th>P A- Sp-o (SCS) Scamrul P."- Connca,ons Iypc Comm W Ikhncarcd (.icl; rry W-3 City of Renuoo 81 O.LJ- Pond 73N 4E 36 Valley POW, PFO, FL14 6 POTR. SASPP, OfSA. ALRU. PHAR RUSPP yrr uasonal open .at cr moo apLuea p-hl, Sp -fund sate 2 W4 Cary of Reottm 8l - Panther Cr-k 23N Sr 19, 30. Panther Creek PPO, PSS, PFM 65 POTR, SASPP, ALRU, PHAR, TYLA yes permarun , m k� and .l,ered mp Panther C,eck mutt -loon to tFte .- r A tns-tuil rerouted now, diverse habitat; third h oo I R W. Beck M J1 v.11cy -a haghty -ankcd wctlantd m ary W-5 City of Rroton 81 Binh River rtr-n ZIN 4F 13 Dyer 1:mpare PPO 20 f0'IR, FRLA, ACMA, SASPP yes uamnal s-onally 600dcd P-1 Pond. uau>nally flooded pond h,gh value open gssce; higt><et ranked wetland m ary lonarru 1 by 81 -1.,y; rani fans of thrt ary art uplatd W-Sa City of Rotor 9I Bl-k- Tracy A 23N 4E 13 1-, E-p,rc PSS 0.1 JUSPP. SASPP - ,o; hydrc sasonaJ rsoWcd Done rune dmunxd sne; to be ren.o.ed and mitigated yr. 3 intcl usaons W-5b cey of Row- 91 Blackr Tray B 23N 4E 13 F. Ln F uc PSS, PUM 114 SASPP, ALRU, RUSP, M)GPP, TYLA, SCM1. nta; hydrc K trsonal runo[L [boding P-1 Pood gxxd rt mnant of okl Blade R duannel ye• 3 PHAR, Jula. a iusaons W-5e JSA 90. Blahrner Tray C 73N 4E 13 lover Flntfnre PPO, PSS 23 POIR. SASPP yes permanent gro-d a cr P-1 Pond P-1 Pond to P-1 Pood dcarcut m 1997: panulty filkd yts 2 W6 F. id Survey 91 16th So -et 23N 4E 24 Valley P1'O, PSS 3 P07R, SASPP no uasona7 u.knor.-n gtourd..-ater unJu- DFA has surveyed site, -rib of Group Health 3 W-7N Cary of Ron- '81 Fit Valley B 23N 5E 19 V.Iky PEM, PSS 12 IYIA. SASPP, ALRU, SPDO yes permanen, tsolarcd tone nu>,x vrry h,gh d-ty and vto-ture; good qualtty nr, 2 IES 190 vctland W-7S Cary of Renton 81 Fit Valley B 23N 5E 19 Vaiky PSS, PEM 3 SASPP, SPDO, TYLA. PI[AR. IRPS yes -.wool isotartd none n+ne ,h. we,la,d oo-,. of two d„,h- ryt 3 IFS 90 W-gN City of Renton 81 Eaa Valley C 23N SE 30 Valley PSS, PF7.1 11 FRLA, O06i, SASPP, PO-[iZ TYLA, IRS yes permanent flow through Spnngbrook Cte h euherts good eruaunl d,ve n,ry reel varxry of rctlard types; yes Z Racdeke 91 a, b and uasonal ,,ght-dandy, seven on lop of Lll W-8S Cuy of Ren,oa 81 Fan Valky C 23N 5E 30 Valley P17.4 5 JUFF, EIPA yes uawrul -Wed none none .null vctlands d-k pcd on fill ye. 3 R,ac ckc 91a WA Cary of Renew 81 Fin Va1ky D Z3N 5E 19 V.Iky PFO 2 POTR. ALRU, AC". SASPP, COST yes permanent flaw through Spongb-A Croon dra.nagc duch ,najonry of-tlartd has been 61kd; reins..( tw yea ycz 3 JSA 90b sdc of property W-10 Guy of Renton 81 F-a Valley E 23N 5E- 30 V.1kY PFO, POW 13 SASPP, COST, POTR ys-s permanent fk- through Spnngbrook C,e-ek drainage d.,b one of ltu highest quah,y rctla,ds an the �ry 2 W-11 Cary of Renton 81 Era Vancy F 23N SE 30 valley PF]A, PSS 29 P1LAR, TYIA. SASPP, JUFF yes permanent --ity flo9ded Sp,wgb,nok C-k good hahuat drvers,ry, -p 2 W-12 Cary of Rent- "Al P-- Wetland 23H 4E 25 Va11cy PSS. PF7.4 41 PIIAR. TYIA, SASPP, ILMPP, SPDO yes permanent now through Spnngbrook Crock draarage ditch ngnifiorn open wax- area and h,gt st -.k d no 1 vet lard an ary W-13a Bocang 91 Imgaocs 23N 4E 24 V.lkY PFO, PEM. PSS 42 POTIl, SASPP. SPDO, PHAR ro pernuncnt flow thmugb adj.-w to Sprwgbrook Crock arum Corp..cnf ,non 91 yn 3 L C. In 91a, b Springbrook W-I No Shapiro and Astoe 92 Longaaaas main 23N 4E 24 Valley FDA 202 POPR, POAPA, SCAC, JUFF, PLMA, COC-'O, yes -oal altered ad)-m to Spl-gb ook Crock en.l ert Corp. venftcaton 91 yes 3 ratcctrb& AGTF, RARF- QPA, POAS W-13c Shaptno and Assoc 92 Longaaes ,torch DN 4E 24 Valley POW, Pf7.4. PSS IIA SASPP. SPDO, TYLA, PHAR yes permanent alterrd adp-t to Spnng¢nook Crock unk-, Coq. -of-t ton 91 yes 2 marsh a,d uawrul WA4 D. Burns A Assve'Wa, Searle Tames care 23N 4E 25: valley PSS, PEM 3Jf1 JULF, AGSPP. POTR SASPP yes uaso<ul ivaWed so laud none J-urned; nnm, of me 411.d and devebped; v tlandc YC1 3 b. 91d Z3N SE 30 on fill W-15 Fsrth co .. U..0 90 R-Tt-h 23N 4E 13 Loner Envo . PPO, PSS 3 POTR, FRLA, SASPP, C-( J. SPDO yes Perwoea unkno.-n to P-1 Pond culvert t t P-1 Pond asanaa,ed vuh Mack River nina a and P-I Pond ye. 3 South Renton area W-16 IFSrS 90 ALIPAC .arc 23N 4E 25 Valley PF714, P 2 POTR, PAR, SASPP,TYLA isocd dsurbcd sac y 3Y W-21 Shapiro A Aa- -M Co u- Corp. site 23N 4E 24 I- Fagrire PEM, PSS 4.7 SA-SPP. unadenta6ed grasp ya permanent now through Bt" Rner dmurbcd b.Ad-g adjacent; vetiand as wzwi d vath yes 3 a,uty Blah Rrer W-22 NWI 73 Rcdoa ♦ 14 Pawl 23N 4E 25 Valley PEM. PSS, PFb 1&79 MAP- SASPP. PYFU. OOSC. SPCO. POTR yes unknown stream flow through &Ucrcd dabs r<lic arum channel o-tte, fill actwilacs have ak,-d yes 2 Aerial Pbotoa 90 hydrology of wetland DR.- A Amos 91. Fidel Sutrsey 91 W-25 Aerial Photos W - 24N 5E 36 Loner E-pw I'm I ALRU. RUSP no; hyd6c perma,.ed aream fbw thno O SPnngtxvok unk -.: small wetland amswcd with tribunary to ,xt 2 Fwld Survey 91 uuciuswnx dace Spnogbrook Crock: fenced - w Renton watersbed W-JI Acrid Photon 90 Puget W"U d 23N SE 19. 20 Rolling HaDa PR7, PE34 1 SAS". TYLA I t>o perauncnt now through .ream Arcata south of Pugc, Power property on 3 W-32 Atrial Phdw 90 - 23N 4E 30 Valley PPO. PSS 65 POTR. SAS". JUFF, AI.SPP. AGSPP, yes -.,a uoWcd uoW eel none -Land. on fill ao 3 Fead Survey 9I tmidmttfe gaw BFc7K/13 mAQC R[vLiR 09/22N2e Table 1. Continued RcL �1a{ry�cd u Pcrmancm No. Source Ilrotno 1 AAcrrs - IIyd Soils Name (T. R S) Suti,.s,n Tn Sp _fit yes S—nal P:[tery Con—tpn5 'type Commcntf Del[rra[cd Category W-33 Acrud Phot«� Fwld urvey 9 — 23N SE 30, 31 Valley PL3.4, PSS 4 AGSPP. unidew�cd grace+, POTR seasonal molded solatcd tooe on till: seen small . Lwcd areas tp 3 D. E_'van. & Aa.oc gib hydric W-34 Acrid Ptsaoa 90 Fie kl Survey 91 Tatxrt F2as.d 23N SE 30 Panther Creels PF?.1 1 TYLA per —.l Go— througb pram cram . L—J .t head-1— of —11 --k w Tab x Road no 3 mdusiow Sout h W-35 Actin Pb.(— 90 — 23N SE 30 Panther Crack PDA 1 JLJFF sowed i-Wcd dcprecsion; runoff from road and adja¢w 3 F.Jd Rcoon. 91 no; hydric xasonal rorse reocrves jytd LLfto- no; hydrie h.— W-36 KCSA — 23N 5E 29 Pawhcr C,c PF7M 17 lI1FJ� eeawrul iaowcd r.nited root d.st urbed pasture m 3 uxJw; yes W-37 KtSA Paw her (eke 21N SE 5,4 Pa,xher Creek POW, PSS, PF].( 62.6 AIRII, SASPP, CASPP, RARF, JIJFF, VFAM, pernunew f1— through Yaw her Creek stream aetLnd rated 2 try K(.'SA m 2 VASPP W.38 JSA ".9 — 22N AE 25. 26 Va U7 PFO, PS'S, PF7.l SR SASPP, SPDO„ MA, ATSPP no seasonal isoWed tsc>latcd ron< tarot u WctlatuJ 12. Tukwila lavcwory 2 W40 Fr6d Reeon 91 — 23N 5E 30 Valley PF-1.1, PSS % 1 JllF yes pexieets of siandtng tsater on GII r*t 2 D. Funs & An glc W41 Watersbod Dyrumia< 91 — 23N 3, 4E 24, Valley PSS, FEM 21 SASPP, RUSP. COST, JUE F. PiL R no --I euwrd wA.ted nooc Includes north po—n of Wetland 38 yn 3 25 W42 1SA 'W — 23N 4E 24 Valley POW, PLM, PSS l POTR S.LSPP, TYIA, JUEJ: oo; hydrae perm.ncw —Wed u.,it-1 none ovint.,ned pond in Fort Dew Park: came u rp 3 'nci— rp Wetland & Tskwl. I—W—y W43 D.FNans & Acaoc. 91f R-atoo 46 P-1 23N SE 30 V.lky PT.M 022 A GE$ ALGE, FiYRA, JUFF, PF1AR AICA, scan nal wwcd nooc none wilt arc Gil muerul' pm'tousty ditched, but ducbcs yes 2 TRRE, HOLA do n, drain ow of xtland area W-44 DF.vans & Auoe 91g Rewon IS Parcel 23N SE 30 Valky PDA, PSS ID7 PHAR ALGE,TYEA, SALA, Kn-R, RUDI no uavonal sowed toot oorse —1. — fill matted; previousty du�bod yea 3 W4S F Id Survey 91 F— 23N 4E 2S Valley PFO. PSS, PF3s/ 18 rTR POSAS". A1RU, SPOG, PHAR, JUEF. yes s --I no.. Ihro.gp duch Wetlands U and 3 large ..+etl.rxl .te.: g—J habitat ou 2 TYLA, HO[A a Rcfcr to Appcodix A for dcdnitioo of —twr d eypr , — b Rcfcr to Table 3 for dcfinifkt of tp—t aoony n, Slate and Eeden threai—d apC - Wd e'+0, r Refers to wetland dclir—tioa ooctd—xM and aetland -port rcvic s«1. BFACjE3 BLACK RIVER rn 122 o2r the study area is presented in Table 1. Wetland classification codes are shown in Table 2. Common and scientific names for plant species are shown in Table 3; Table 4 presents information about soils mapped within the study area. Wetland 3 Wetland 3, Orillia Pond, would be classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al. 1979) as a palustrine forest, emergent, and open water system. The wetland is located east of the Burlington Nor -them railroad tracks and north of Southwest 43rd Street. This site is being tested by Seacor Environmental Engineering for high levels of toxins resulting from automobile debris located in the wetland (Seacor Environmental Engineering 1991). At this time, tests have not been completed. There is some possibility that the site could be designated as a Superfund cleanup site. Vegetation. Dominant vegetation within the forested portion of the wetland includes black cottonwood, willow, and red alder. Salmonberry is dominant within the shrub layer. The emergent portion of the wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass. Soils. Soils in this wetland have been mapped by U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Puget silty clay loam and Woodinville silt loam, both of which are hydric soils (Table 4). Soils were not sampled in this wetland due to the concerns regarding health risks due to contamination. Hydrology. The wetland is not connected to Springbrook Creek through surface water. The wetland receives water from runoff from adjacent development. Functional Values. Functional values within this wetland are minimal due to the high metal content in the soils and the small size of the wetland. The forested portion of the wetland does provide some habitat for small mammals and birds. Wetland 4 Wetland 4, the Panther Creek Wetland, would be classified as a palustrine scrub - shrub, emergent, and forest system. The wetland, which is approximately 65 acres, is the largest wetland in the study area. The wetland is a topographically level area situated between the east side of the Valley Freeway (SR 167) and the base of the Talbot Hills Plateau slope. The following description is based on reports by R. W. Beck and Associates (1989), the City of Renton Wetland Study (1981), and the Jones & Stokes Associates field investigation. The north half of the wetland supports a dense scrub -shrub community that is a remnant of original valley floor wetlands. This area has never been cleared or drained for agricultural purposes (R. W. Beck and Associates 1989). The southern part of the wetland BECKM BLACK RNER m7 �n/sx� Table 2. Wetland Types as Defined by the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States Wetland Type Definition POW Palustrine open water PSS Palustrine scrub -shrub PEM Palustrine emergent PFO Palustrine forested Source: Cowardin et al. 1979. BECK/n BUCK RIVM m/zz/vu 8 Table 3. Wetland Plant Common and Scientific Names Code Common Name Scientific Name ACMA big -leaf maple Acer macrophyllum AGSPP bentgrass Agrostis spp. ALRU red alder Alnus rubra ALSPP foxtail Alopecurus spp. AGSPP water fern Azolla spp. CASPP sedge Carer spp. CAOB slough sedge Carex obnupta COCO brass buttons Cotula coronopifolia COST red -osier dogwood Comus stolonifera DAG L orchard grass Dactylis glomerata ELPA common spike-rush Eleocharis palustris EPWA Watson's willow -herb Epilobium watsonii EQAR common horsetail Equisetum arvense FRLA Oregon ash Fraxirw latifolia GLEL mannagrass Glyceria elata HOLA velvetgrass Holcus lanatus IRPS yellow flag Iris pseudaconu JUEF soft rush Juncus efjusus JUEN dagger -leaf rush Juncus ensifolius JUSPP rushes Juncus spp. OESA water parsley Oenanthe sannentosa PHAR reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea PLMA common plantain Plantago major POAPA fowl bluegrass Poa palustris POHY smartweed Polygonum hydropiper POPA Pacific silverweed Potentilla pacifica POPR Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis POSPP smartweed Polygonum spp. POTR black cottonwood Populus hichocarpa PYFU western crabapple Pyres fusca BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/Z2/9U 9 Table 3. Continued Code Common Name Scientific Name RARE creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens RUDI Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor RUSP salmonberry Rubus spectabilis RUSPP blackberry Rubus spp. SARA red elderberry Sambucus racemosa SASPP willow Saa spp. SCAC hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus SCMI small -fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus SODU bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamera SPDO Douglas' spires Spiraea douglasii TRRE white clover Trifoliurn repens TYLA common cattail Typha latijolia VASPP huckleberry Vaccinium spp. VEAM American brooklime Veronica americana VESC marsh speedwell Veronica scutellata I BECKM BUCK RIVER W/Z2/9k 10 Table 4. Hydric Soils and Soils with Hydric Inclusions within the City of Renton Study Area Symbol Soil Name Description Hydric Inclusions AgB Alderwood moderately well drained to poorly drained No Yes gravelly sandy soil on nearly level or undulating loam, 0 to 6% topography; runoff is slow slopes AgC Alder -wood --ioderately well drained soil on upland No Yes gravelly sandy glacial deposits; permeability is moderately loam, 6-15% rapid to the substratum and very slow slopes through it; runoff is slow to medium BeC Beausite gravelly well -drained soil underlain by sandstone No Yes sandy loam, 6 to found on rolling slopes; permeability is 15% slopes moderately rapid; runoff is medium BeD Beausite gravelly well -drained soil that formed in glacial No Yes sandy loam, 15 deposits; runoff is rapid to 30% slopes No Norma sandy poorly drained soil that formed in alluvium Yes N/A loam on glaciated uplands and along stream bottoms; permeability is moderately rapid; runoff is slow; the seasonal water table is at or near the surface Pu Puget silty clay poorly drained soil that formed in alluvium Yes N/A loam in small depressions of the river valley, permeability is slow; runoff is slow to ponded; the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface Os Oridia silt loam somewhat poorly drained soil that formed Yes N/A in alluvium in river valleys; permeability is moderate to moderately slow in the subsoil; the seasonal water table is at a depth of 1 to 2 feet Py Puyallup fine well -drained soil that formed in alluvium; No Yes sandy loam found in natural levees and valley bottoms; permeability is moderately rapid; runoff is slow Rh Riverwash long, narrow areas of sand, gravel, and Yes N/A stones along channels of the larger streams Sk Seattle muck very poorly drained organic soil in Yes N/A depressions and valleys on the glacial till plain; permeability is moderate; runoff is ponded; the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface BECKfn BUCK RIVER 09i22/92c 11 Table 4. Continued Symbol Soil Name Description Hydric Inclusions So Snohomish silt poorly drained soil that formed in alluvium Yes N/A loam in stream valleys; permeability is moderate in the upper part of the profile and moderately rapid in the lower part; runoff is slow; the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface Tu Tukwila muck very poorly drained organic soil that Yes N/A formed in wet basins of upland depressions and on stream bottoms; permeability is moderate; runoff is ponded; the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface Wo Woodinville silt poorly drained soil that formed in alluvium Yes N/A loam and stream bottoms; permeability is moderately slow; runoff is slow; the seasonal high water table is at or near the surface Note: N/A = not applicable Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1973. BECKTD BLACK RIVM 09i22i92c 12 supports an emergent wetland. The Panther Creek Channel enters the south end of the wetland. A palustrine forested wetland is present along the channel. The wetland is bisected by several utility easements, including Seattle and Renton water lines, Metro sewer trunk, Olympic Oil Pipeline, and a powerline corridor. Vegetation. The scrub -shrub portion of the wetland is a mosaic of shrubs, emergent vegetation, and standing water. The shrub layer is dominated by willow, red alder, Douglas' spirea, and red -osier dogwood. Common cattail and yellow flag interspersed with open water comprise the herb layer. The emergent portion of the wetland consists of large stands of common cattail and reed canarygrass. Rushes and smartweed occur occasionally within this community. The forested portion of the wetland is dominated by black cottonwood, willow, and red alder. Soil. Soils in this wetland have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Seattle muck and Puget silty clay loam, both hydric soils (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1990) (Table 4). Hydrology. Although the Panther Creek Wetland receives water from many sources, the two primary sources are Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Drainage. Panther Creek originates at Panther Lake and flows generally northwest. The Panther Creek Channel has been partially rerouted west under SR 167 via two culverts at the extreme south end of the wetland and into the street storm system on East Valley Road. A small portion of this surface drainage flows north into the emergent area of the wetland. The northern portion of the wetland receives surface water runoff through 48-inch and 132-inch culverts under I-405 that originate from the Rolling Hills Drainage (Giseburt pers. comm.). In addition, Talbot Hills Drainage, seeps, and small surface and storm drains- along the eastern slope of the wetland supply water to the wetland (R. W. Beck and Associates 1989). Two utility dikes separate the wetland into three isolated cells, which have surface water connections during high water periods. Surface water connections are common during heavy winter rains. Approximately 10 culverts extend under SR 167, that were designed to drain surface water from the wetland to the east side of SR 167. Some of these culverts are currently overgrown with vegetation, and could not be located during field surveys. The culverts are most likely plugged with sediment and it has not been determined whether or not the culverts provide surface water drainage (Straka pers. comm., R. W. Beck and Associates 1989). According to a previous report (R. W. Beck and Associates 1989) water from Panther wetland drains west to Springbrook Creek via four different routes. Not all of these routes were visible during the field visit. These routes include an open ditch along the west side of SR 167; a storm drainage system under local roads; drainage ditches bordering the north side of Wetlands 8 and 9; and a 3-foot by 4-foot box culvert that feeds directly into the storm drainage system west of SR 167. At the time of the site visit, approximately 2 feet BHCKM Buac Rr.M M,22,9U 13 of water was observed in the open ditch along the west side of SR 167; however, inlet or outlets could not be located. In addition, water was observed in the drainage ditch north of Wetland 8. Functional Values. Wetland 4 is one of the most significant wetland systems in the study area and provides excellent functional values. Due to the site, diversity, and topographic setting of this wetland it provides high biologic and hydrologic functions. Flood storage is rated very high due to the large size and the depressional topography. This wetland is one of four wetlands within the study area that received a very high rating for this function. Shoreline anchoring is only applicable where Panther Creek enters the south end of the wetland. The canopy cover in the forested portion provides good shoreline anchoring. Trees and shrubs dissipate the erosive forces near the alluvial fan during a flood event. The sediment trapping abilities are excellent due to the presence of the extensive and densely vegetated emergent community. Common cattails and reed canarygrass provide biofiltration of heavy metals from water (Kulzer 1990). This is very important because this wetland receives runoff from basins which are heavily urbanized. In addition, this function is critical for maintaining water quality in adjacent wetlands (Wetlands 8 and 9) and Springbrook Creek as runoff increases from roads and adjacent developments. The presence of standing water and an extensive community of fast growing emergent species provides for high primary productivity and food chain support. Since the wetland is very large and diverse, opportunities for wildlife use are abundant. Forested areas provide nesting habitat for ground, shrub, and tree nesting birds. Shrub and herbaceous layers provide good cover to small mammals, invertebrates and amphibians. It is highly unlikely that this wetland supports fish at this time. Panther Creek empties approximately 4 feet above the stream grade at the Talbot Road crossing and forms a barrier to fish migrating upstream. Fish habitat in Panther Creek is limited for several reasons including low summertime flow, migration barriers, and conveyance pipes between Springbrook Creek and the Panther Creek Wetland. In addition, a fishery survey conducted by R. W. Beck and Associates in 1989 yielded only several fish. These fish were thought to originate from Panther Lake (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991). However, this wetland does serve to improve water quality to Springbrook Creek, which does support fish. Runoff to the creek would have an effect on fisheries habitat. BECK/n BUCK Rn M 14 09i22� Active/passive recreation potential such as bird watching is very good in this wetland. However, this function is decreased because there is no public access to the wetland. Steep slopes border the east side of the wetland and SR 167 borders the west side of the wetland. Wetland 5 Wetland 5 (includes 5a, 5b, and 5c) is a palustrine forest, scrub -shrub, and emergent wetland that is located within the historic Black River channel. The majority of the wetland supports a forested and scrub -shrub community (5b and 5c). The southern portion of the wetland area supports primarily an emergent community (5a and 5b). The portion of this wetland that is designated 5a includes two small isolated wetlands that have developed in depressions atop fill. This wetland will be described and discussed separately. Wetlands 5, 5b, and 5c will be discussed collectively. Wetland 5a. Wetland 5a includes two wetland areas: palustrine scrub -shrub and palustrine emergent wetlands that occur as enclosed depressions located on Tract A (Figure 2). Tract A has been graded and filled and is primarily vegetated with upland grasses. The wetland area is bounded by Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to the south, Springbrook Creek to the east, the King County pump station to the west, and the P-1 Pond to the north. The following description is based on a previous wetland report (Jones & Stokes Associates 1990a) and the Jones & Stokes Associates field investigation. Vegetation. Scrub -shrub wetland is dominated by willow saplings; red alder saplings and red -osier dogwood occasionally appear. Underneath the shrub community is an herbaceous layer that consists of soft rush, orchard grass, and reed canarygrass. The emergent wetland lacks vegetative diversity; soft rush is the dominant herbaceous species within the emergent wetland. Soils. Soils on Tract A have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Puyallup fine sandy loam. Puyallup fine sandy loam is described as a soil formed in alluvium, typically found in valley bottoms, and is not listed as hydric by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Soils in this wetland were observed to be low chroma silty fine sands with mottles. As previously stated, this site has been graded and filled. The soils observed are compacted fill material. Hydrology. The primary source of water is precipitation which does not percolate through the compacted soils. Standing water was observed within the wetland. Functional Values. Functional values within this wetland are minimal due to the small size, isolated nature, lack of structural or species diversity, and disturbed nature. Wetlands 5, 5b, and 5c. Wetlands 5, 5b, and 5c are located on land south of the railroad tracks, Tract B, and Tract C within the historic Black River channel. The wetland area is bounded by Springbrook Creek and the P-1 Pond to the west, Naches Avenue aerie BLACK wvEt 15 09/22/92e Southwest and office complex to the east, railroad tracks to the north, and Southwest Seventh Street to the south. This wetland was described by the City of Renton (1981) as the most valuable wetland within the city. The following description is based on previous wetland reports (City of Renton 1981, 1991; Jones & Stokes Associates 1990a) and the Jones & Stokes Associates field investigation. Vegetation. The forested portion of the wetland consists of black cottonwood, red alder, Oregon ash, and big leaf maple in the canopy layer. Willow is the dominant species within the shrub layer of the forested wetland. The scrub -shrub portion of the wetland is comprised of red alder, willow, and salmonberry: red elderberry, Oregon ash, and red -osier dogwood occur occasionally. Vegetation within the emergent portion of the wetland includes smartweed, common cattail, Watson's willow -herb, small fruited bulrush, reed canarygrass, and soft rush. Soil. Soils in this wetland have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Woodinville silt loam which is a hydric soil (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1990) (Table 4). This wetland is located in a depression at an elevation approximately 15 feet below the surrounding upland fill areas. Soils within the wetland were observed to be black mucks to a depth of 3 feet. Hydrology. A 4- to 5-foot-diameter concrete culvert placed in an approximately 50-foot-wide berm divides the wetland into northern and southern portions. The culvert invert elevation is higher than the wetland elevation; water flowing through the culvert is most likely during high storm events. The primary source of water within this wetland is high groundwater levels, and back flooding from the P-1 Pond. Water flows north from this wetland to a small channel which connects to the P-1 storage pond. Functional Values. Functional values within this wetland are significant because of the connection of this wetland with the P-1 Pond and Springbrook Creek. Because this wetland is fed primarily by groundwater, the connection with the P-1 Pond is an important discharge site. Limited regional groundwater recharge occurs during high storm events. This wetland has been rated high for flood storage due to the large size and the depressional topography. This primarily takes place within the northern portion of the wetland which is connected to the P-1 Pond. The southern portion of the wetland is only connected during high storm events. Sediment trapping capabilities of the wetland are rated medium. Although the wetland is large, emergent vegetation is not as dense as other wetlands of this size. However, this function directly benefits water quality in Springbrook Creek. Food chain support has been rated medium. Although the wetland is not densely vegetated with emergent vegetation, the presence of year-round water in portions of the wetland increases the rating of this function from low to medium. BECK s eucx RrVM 16 09ia� This wetland is one of the highest rated wetlands for wildlife habitat. Dense shrub vegetation surrounds this wetland, offering protection from human intrusion. Passerine and prey species utilize the dense vegetation within the wetland as cover, nesting, and feeding habitat. Great blue herons and waterfowl utilize the wetland extensively. Active/passive recreation and education have been rated very high in this wetland. This area is a major Audubon birding site locally. Wetland 7 North Wetland 7 North would be classified as palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub - shrub. This wetland is approximately 12 acres in size. This wetland is bounded to the north by Southwest 19th Street, East Valley Road to the east, Lind Avenue Southwest to the west, and Southwest 21st Street to the south. Vegetation. Emergent vegetation consists of a monotypic stand of common cattail that is interspersed with open water. Scrub -shrub vegetation occurs in small patches, and is dominated by red alder, willow, and Douglas' spirea. A few black cottonwood snags were observed within the wetland. Soil. This area has been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Snohomish silt loam, Puget silty clay loam, and Tukwila muck which are all listed as hydric soils (Table 4). Soils observed during the field investigation at a depth of 10 inches were low chroma, dark gray silts with mottling. Hydrology. This wetland is a topographically level, isolated depression at the original valley floor elevation. Water sources for this wetland are primarily precipitation and the regional groundwater. No inlet or outlet structures were observed. Water from the road is not diverted into the wetland. However, during high storm events, this wetland receives overland flow from adjacent roads and development. During field investigation, saturation at the surface or inundation to a depth of 2 inches was observed. Functional Values. The primary source of water to this wetland is the regional groundwater. During flooding events or increased precipitation, this wetland provides recharge of the regional groundwater. The lack of a discharge site (inlet or outlet) limits this functional value. This wetland functions primarily as storage and possible recharge of regional groundwater. This wetland has been rated medium for flood storage, especially during high storm events due to the large size and depressional topography. These values become increasingly important as development increases in the area and flooding volumes continue to increase. Sediment trapping has been designated as medium in this wetland. Emergent vegetation is very dense which provides for high biofiltration capabilities. This rating is lowered to medium because the wetland is isolated. However, during flooding events this BBCKM BLACK RIVER o9,n/9k 17 wetland receives water from road runoff and adjacent developments; sediment trapping capabilities become very important due to the pollutants carried by the flooding water. The presence of standing water and an extensive community of fast growing emergent species provides for high primary productivity and food chain support within this wetland. Wildlife habitat has been rated high. The patches of scrub -shrub vegetation and the few snags provide cover and perching sites for birds. The large emergent areas and the presence of standing water provide suitable habitat for amphibians and small mammals. Active/passive recreation such as bird watching is good. The wetland is accessible from the sidewalk that bounds the wetland to the east, west, and north. Wetland 7 South Wetland 7 South would be classified as palustrine scrub -shrub and emergent wetland. This wetland is approximately 3 acres in size and is located south of Southwest 21st Street, west of East Valley Road, east of Lind Avenue South, and north of the Seattle Water Department and adjacent gas right-of-way. This wetland consists of two ditches along the Seattle Water Department pipeline right-of-way, the larger of which is approximately 25 feet wide with an east -west orientation. The other ditch is approximately 20 to 25 feet wide, has a north -south orientation, and flows north. During the initial inventory a forested area located north of the east -west ditch and west of the north -south ditch was identified as forested wetland. This investigation has determined this area is an upland forest. Vegetation. The wetland community type in the east -west ditch is primarily emergent, with occasional patches of scrub -shrub. Dominant emergent species observed include common cattail, reed canarygrass, and bittersweet nightshade. Slough sedge occurs occasionally in the herb layer. Scrub -shrub portions of the wetland consist of willow and Douglas' spirea. The north -south ditch is comprised of yellow flag. and bittersweet nightshade in the herbaceous layer. Black cottonwood saplings are monotypic within the scrub -shrub community. This ditch is shaded by an overstory of red alder. Soil. Soils in this area have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Tukwila muck and Snohomish silt loam which are both listed as hydric by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Soils in the wetland area were observed to be low chroma black muck with no mottling. Hydrology. This wetland receives sheetflow runoff from the adjacent disturbed upland forest, Seattle Water Department and adjacent gas right-of-way, roadways, Shurgard Storage buildings and parking lot. Other water sources to this wetland are precipitation and regional groundwater. Water in the wetland flows west underneath Lind Avenue South via a culvert and continues west in a ditch and then empties into Springbrook Creek. At the BECKM BUCK RIVER I9/22,9k 18 time of observation water depths within the wetland ranged from 2 to 8 inches. Water marks were observed on the bark of shrubs indicating water levels could reach approximately 3 feet during high flow periods. Functional Values. Wetland 7 South provides moderate functional values. This wetland was rated medium for flood storage capacity. Although the wetland is connected via the ditch to Springbrook Creek, its small size and channelized nature limit the flood storage capacity. Sediment trapping has been rated medium due to the dense emergent vegetation. Biofiltration of water in this wetland is important in maintaining water quality because of its connection to Springbrook Creek. The limited quantity of direct surface water input to the wetland reduces the quantity of pollutants that can be trapped. Food chain support is medium due to the emergent vegetation present however, the lack of year-round water in this wetland decreases this function. Wetland 7 South is relatively small and provides minimal cover for wildlife. However, the adjacent upland forest located north of the wetland offers a diverse area for passerine birds and small mammals. Active/passive recreation opportunities have been rated medium in this wetland. The adjacent roadways and the Seattle Water Department right-of-way provide easy access to the wetland. At the time of the field investigation this area was being used frequently by pedestrians. Wetland 8 North Wetland 8 North would be classified as a palustrine scrub -shrub and emergent wetland. This wetland is approximately 11 acres in size and is one of the most diverse wetlands in the study area. The City of Seattle water pipeline berm bounds the wetland to the north, Southwest Lind Avenue is to the west, East Valley Road is to the east, and the toe of fill establish the southern boundary. Vegetation. The scrub -shrub cover is dense and occurs within the outer portions of the wetland. Dominant shrub vegetation consists of Oregon ash, red -osier dogwood, black cottonwood, and willow. Black cottonwood and Oregon ash occasionally occur within the canopy layer. Emergent vegetation within the scrub -shrub community is sparse. Bittersweet nightshade, reed canarygrass, and creeping buttercup occur occasionally within the herbaceous layer. Toward the center of the wetland, a dense emergent community dominated by common cattail and yellow flag occurs. Mannagrass and water parsley occur occasionally within the herbaceous layer. BECKrM BUCK RIVER 09/22/92c 19 Soil. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soils in this wetland as Snohomish silt loam which is listed as hydric (Table 4). Soils observed during the field investigation, sampled at a depth of 8 to 10 inches, are low chroma dark gray to very dark brown silty loams. Hydrology. The primary water source for this wetland is flow from a culvert at the northeastern corner of Wetland 8 North which directs water from city street storm systems west into Wetland 8 North. This ditch is located along the northern wetland boundary. Other water sources in this wetland are precipitation, runoff from adjacent fill area, regional groundwater, and backup from Springbrook Creek during flooding events. Water exits the wetland via a ditch which flows west through Wetland 10 and empties into Springbrook Creek. Inundation in emergent areas ranged from 1 to 12 inches. Saturation to the surface or 1 inch of inundation was observed in scrub -shrub portions of the wetland. Functional Values. Due to the surface water connection with Springbrook Creek, the wetland exhibits both recharge and discharge functions. During high flow periods, some recharge of groundwater occurs as flows from Springbrook Creek back up into the wetland. During low flow the wetland discharges flow to Springbrook Creek. The magnitude of this function is limited by the small size and ditch configuration of the wetland. Springbrook Creek provides an excellent groundwater discharge site. Groundwater discharge functions to maintain water levels within Springbrook Creek. During periods of flooding and backup from Springbrook Creek, the wetland functions to recharge the regional groundwater. This wetland also provides excellent flood storage due to the large size, depressional topography, proximity to roads, commercial development, association with Springbrook Creek, and presence of structures that direct water flow (ditch, inlet, and outlet). This wetland possesses a direct surface water connection to Springbrook Creek and receives pollutant -laden runoff from urban areas. These factors, in combination with the dense and diverse shrub and emergent vegetative community, promote excellent sediment trapping capabilities. The presence of standing water and an extensive community of fast growing emergent species provide for high primary productivity and food chain support ratings. The vegetative structure and size of the wetland provide good wildlife habitat for small birds, small mammals, and amphibians. Although fish do not utilize this wetland, the wetland does serve to improve water quality to Springbrook Creek, which supports fish. Runoff to the creek would have an effect on fisheries habitat. Fish may utilize the ditch along the north side of the wetland. Active/passive recreation opportunities were rated medium in this wetland and the surrounding wetlands. The adjacent roadways and the Seattle Water Department right-of- way provide easy access to the wetland. At the time of the field investigation this area was being used frequently by pedestrians. BECKM BLACK RPJM 09in/92c 20 Wetland 8 South Wetland 8 South is a series of small isolated wetlands that would be classified as palustrine emergent. Collectively, these wetlands are approximately 5 acres in size. The wetlands occur in an area that was previously graded and filled. The wetlands have developed in depressional areas due to uneven grading and soil compaction. Upland grass immediately surrounds these wetlands. Generally, Wetland 8 North, Southwest 27th Street, East Valley Road, and Southwest Lind Avenue border these wetlands to the north, south, east, and west respectively. Vegetation. Vegetation within these wetlands is not diverse. In the lowest portion of the wetlands, common spike-rush is the dominant herbaceous species. Soft rush occurs commonly within the outer portions of the wetland. Occasionally, reed canarygrass and bentgrass occur interspersed within the soft rush. Soil. Soils in this area have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Snohomish silt loam which is indicated as hydric by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Table 4). This area has been graded and filled; soil color is not applicable in determining hydric soil characteristics. Soils were assumed based on the presence of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrology. These wetlands are hydrologically isolated from adjacent water bodies. The water source is primarily precipitation. Wetlands may receive some runoff from adjacent upland fill areas. The lowest portions of these wetlands typically are inundated with about 1 inch of water. Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated low due to the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature. Collectively, these wetlands provide for some flood storage and wildlife habitat. However, these wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping, food chain support, and groundwater recharge and discharge. Wetland 9 Wetland 9 would be classified as a palustrine forested system located north and east of Springbrook Creek and north of Southwest 23rd Street. The wetland is a linear system approximately 2 acres in size, has a north -south orientation, and is connected by a drainage ditch to Springbrook Creek at the southwestern corner. The wetland is a remnant of the original valley floor and the elevation is much lower than the surrounding recent fill areas. Vegetation. The canopy is comprised of black cottonwood, red alder, willow, and red - osier dogwood. Dominant species in the shrub layer include vine maple and red -osier dogwood. The herbaceous layer is sparse due to the dense shrub layer. 9EC.KM suck RTVM 09/22/9U 21 Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam which are both listed as hydric soils (Table 4). Soils observed onsite at a depth of 8 inches are dark gray sandy loams with mottles. Hydrology. The wetland receives surface water via the ditch which originates from Panther Creek Wetland, runoff from development west of the wetland, overbank flooding from Springbrook Creek, and regional groundwater. No soil inundation or saturation was observed during the field investigation; however, wetland hydrology was assumed based on water marks on trees, drift lines, and the presence of algal mats. Functional Values. Functional values for this wetland have been reduced due to the recent filling east of the wetland and the small size of the wetland. Groundwater discharge and recharge have been rated medium due to the small size of the wetland. The wetland is connected to Springbrook Creek thus providing some discharge during low flow periods. Flood storage is low due to the small size and linear shape of the wetland. However, this function is important due to the close proximity of new development to the wetland and the direct connection to Springbrook Creek. Water purification in this wetland is rated low due to the lack of dense herbaceous vegetation. Water quality is likely to be poor due to surface runoff from adjacent development and pollutants in Springbrook Creek. Food chain support and wildlife habitat are low due to the lack of a diverse emergent layer, open water, and the small linear shape. However this forested system could provide habitat and nutrients utilized by small mammals, birds, and invertebrates. Fishery habitat in this wetland is rated low; however, this function is important because of the connection of this wetland to Springbrook Creek. Active and passive recreation is low because of the small size of the wetland and lack of access and sight to the wetland. Wetland 10 Wetland 10 would be classified as a mature palustrine forest. The wetland is approximately 13 acres in size and is located east of Springbrook Creek and north of Southwest 27th Street. The wetland is a linear system that is connected by a drainage ditch that runs east -west from Lind Avenue Southwest to Springbrook Creek. A beaver dam is located at the point where the ditch discharges into Springbrook Creek. The wetland is a remnant of the original valley floor and the elevation is approximately 6 to 8 feet lower in areas than the surrounding fill areas. In addition, a small portion of this remnant wetland exists north of Southwest 27th Street and east of Lind Avenue Northwest. BFCKM BEACK R VM 09i22/9U 22 Vegetation. The canopy consists of black cottonwood and willow. The shrub layer is very dense and is dominated by red -osier dogwood. The herbaceous cover in the wetland is sparse due to shading and competition from the shrub layer. The wetland is interspersed with standing water. Reed canarygrass is found growing occasionally on the edges of the wetland where disturbance from road construction occurs. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Snohomish silt loam, and Puget silty clay loam which are both listed as hydric soils (Table 4). Soils observed onsite at a depth of 12 inches are very dark brown loams with no mottles. Hydrology. The wetland receives surface water from development east of the wetland via the ditch and along the northern wetland boundary, overbank flooding from Springbrook Creek, sheetflow runoff, and regional groundwater. Saturation to the surface and inundation to a depth of 1 inch were observed in the wetland areas at the time of the field investigation. In addition, water in the ditch was at a depth of 2 feet. Functional Values. This wetland was rated as one of the highest quality in the City of Renton during the City of Renton Wetlands Study (1981). Functional values for this wetland have been reduced since that study was completed due to adjacent development and loss of wetland acreage. Groundwater discharge and recharge have been rated high for this wetland due to its size and proximity to Springbrook Creek. The ditch at the south end of the wetland, however, reduces floodflow residence time. Flood storage capabilities have been rated as one of the highest in the study area because the wetland is at the original elevation and is considerably lower than the surrounding fill areas. In addition, the direct surface water connection to Springbrook Creek allows floodwaters to back up into the wetland. This function is somewhat decreased by the small size of the wetland. Shoreline anchoring is rated very high. Large black cottonwood trees and dense understory line the banks adjacent to Springbrook Creek, reducing turbulence from overland flow during flood events. Water purification is an important function in this wetland because water discharges directly into Springbrook Creek. However, the lack of dense herbaceous vegetation limits the amount of water purification abilities. Water quality is most likely poor due to pollutants received from Springbrook Creek. Food chain support is rated low due to the lack of a diverse emergent layer. Since the wetland contains two wetland classes, wildlife habitat has been rated medium. This BECKM BLACK RtVM 09/u/va" 23 wetland could support a number of different species. Forested and shrub areas are densely vegetated and are Likely to provide nesting habitat for ground, shrub, cavity, and tree nesting birds. Shrub and herbaceous layers provide good cover for small mammals, invertebrates, and amphibians. Fishery habitat in this wetland has been rated low. However, this function is important because of the connection of this wetland to Springbrook Creek. Active/passive recreation opportunities are rated medium because the wetland is accessible by a road. Wetland 11 Wetland 11 would be classified as a large palustrine emergent and scrub -shrub wetland of approximately 28 acres. The wetland is located east of Springbrook Creek, south of Southwest 27th Street, and west of Lind Avenue Southwest. The wetland is most likely a remnant of the original valley floor, with the elevation being lower than the surrounding roads and development. Vegetation. The palustrine emergent community is located in the eastern portion of the wetland and consists of monotypic stands of common cattail. The remaining wetland is scrub -shrub and is densely vegetated in portions with willow and Douglas' spirea. Reed canarygrass is the dominant species in the herbaceous ' layer and is found growing on the outer edges of the wetland and in areas appearing to have higher elevation. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam; both are listed as hydric soils (Table 4). Soils observed at a depth of 10 inches are very dark grayish brown silts with mottles. Hydrology. Water sources to this wetland include overbank flooding from Springbrook Creek, sheetflow runoff from roads, and regional groundwater. At the time of the field investigation, soils were not inundated; however, soils were saturated to the surface. There are no ditches associated with this wetland. Functional Values. The size and diversity of this wetland impart high functional values. Wetland 11 is one of the largest wetlands in the study area and functional values have been rated very high. Groundwater discharge and recharge have been rated high for this wetland due to its size and proximity to Springbrook Creek. The lack of a surface water inlet or outlet allows floodflows from the creek to remain in the wetland for extended lengths of time. This promotes infiltration and recharge. Flood storage capability has been rated very high because the wetland is at the original elevation and is considerably lower than the surrounding fill areas. This function BWKM BUCK RrVER 09iMr92c 24 is enhanced because of the large size, dense vegetation, and location for fill. In addition, there is no inlet or outlet, so residence time of water is increased. Shoreline anchoring is rated very high. Dense vegetation lines the banks adjacent to Springbrook Creek, reducing turbulence from overland flow during flood events. Water purification capabilities are very high in this wetland. The large size, combined with dense stands of cattails and long residence time of water, provide excellent biofiltration. Food chain support has been rated medium due the dense herbaceous layer. This function is decreased slightly due to lack of diversity and open water. Since the wetland contains two wetland classes with no open water, wildlife habitat has been rated medium. Shrub and herbaceous layers provide good cover for small mammals, invertebrates, and amphibians. Fishery habitat in this wetland is low because of the lack of a connection of this wetland to Springbrook Creek. Active and passive recreation in this wetland is rated high. There are good opportunities for wildlife observation, and access to the borders of the wetland are from a road. Wetland 12 Wetland 12 would be classified as palustrine emergent, scrub -shrub, and ponded open water. This wetland is approximately 41 acres in size and is one of the largest and most diverse wetlands in the study area. This wetland is located west of Springbrook Creek, south of Southwest 27th Street, and north of Southwest 31st Street. The wetland is bisected by a north -south walking trail. A wide, shallow ditch borders the northern portion of the wetland and empties into Springbrook Creek. The wetland is most likely a remnant of the original valley floor, with the elevation being lower than the surrounding roads and development. Vegetation. The palustrine emergent community is interspersed with open water and scrub -shrub communities. The emergent community is dominated by monotypic stands of common cattail. The remaining wetland is scrub -shrub and is densely vegetated in portions with willow and Douglas' spirea, which are dominant within the shrub layer. Reed canarygrass is the dominant species in the herbaceous layer and is found growing on the outer edges of the wetland and in areas appearing to have higher elevation. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Woodinville silt loam, which is listed as hydric (Table 4). Soils observed at a depth of 10 inches are very dark grayish brown sandy silts with mottles. BECK/n BUCK RIVER 09i22/92c 25 Hydrology. Water sources for this wetland include overbank flooding from Springbrook Creek, sheetflow runoff from roads, and regional groundwater. At the time of the field investigation, soils were not inundated; however, soils were saturated to the surface. A wide shallow ditch located on the north boundary of the wetland contained no standing water. Functional Values. Wetland 12 is one of the largest wetlands in the study area, and functional values are rated as some of the very highest in the study area. Groundwater discharge and recharge are similar to those described for Wetland 11. The ditch at the north end of the wetland, however, reduces floodflow residence time. Flood storage capabilities are rated very high because the wetland is at the original elevation and is considerably lower than the surrounding fill areas. This function is enhanced because of the large size, dense vegetation, and location of fill. Shoreline anchoring is rated very high. Dense vegetation lines the banks adjacent to Springbrook Creek, reducing turbulence from overland flow during flood events. Water purification capabilities are rated very high in this wetland. The large size, combined with dense stands of cattails and long residence time of water, provides excellent biofiltration. Food chain support is very high due the dense herbaceous layer, diversity of plant communities, and open water. Since the wetland contains a variety of plant communities, wildlife habitat is rated very high and could support a number of different species. Shrub and herbaceous layers provide good cover for small mammals, invertebrates, and amphibians. Fishery habitat in this wetland is low; however, this function is important because of the connection of this wetland to Springbrook Creek. Active and passive recreation in this wetland are high. There are good opportunities for wildlife observation, and access to the borders of the wetland is by road or boat from Springbrook Creek. Wetland 13A The Springbrook Creek riparian wetland would be classified as a palustrine forest, scrub -shrub, and emergent system. The wetland is approximately 4 acres in size and is bisected by Springbrook Creek. It is directly adjacent to the Springbrook Creek channel and has been designated as "Waters of the State" by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District). The wetland is located east of the Longacres Race track and south of Southwest 16th Street. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology are highly disturbed due to site grading, BECKM BL.ICK RrvM 26 09i22� stormwater management activities, and hydrology in Springbrook Creek. This description is based on reports by L. C. Lee & Associates (1991a) and the Jones & Stokes Associates field investigation. Vegetation. Wetlands in and along the stream channel are approximately 10 to 15 feet below the upper wetlands due to channelization of the creek and fill in upper areas. The western portion of the wetland supports a riparian forest/shrub community dominated by black cottonwood and willow. The major portion of the wetland supports a scrub -shrub community interspersed with an emergent community. Himalayan blackberry and Douglas' spirea comprise the scrub -shrub portion of the wetland. Reed canarygrass is dominant within the herbaceous layer. West of the riparian shrub/forest area, the community changes to a palustrine emergent wetland dominated by reed canarygrass. Soils. Soils in this wetland have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Puyallup fine sandy loam, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils sampled in limited areas in the wetland at 10 inches have dark brown chroma with no mottles. Hydrology. Water sources to this wetland have been altered and consist of a combination of precipitation input, overbank flows from Springbrook Creek, stormwater flow from urban/industrial sites, parking lots, and subsurface flow. Stormwater discharges into Springbrook Creek. At the time of the site investigation, soils in the palustrine emergent portion of the wetland were saturated to a depth of 2 inches in areas. Functional Values. Groundwater discharge and recharge in this wetland are rated medium due to the association with Springbrook Creek. However, these functions are limited because of the elevation difference between the stream and the wetlands. A more detailed analysis of this function and flood storage will be possible when hydrologic modeling of floodflow elevations is completed. Flood storage in this wetland is low because the creek has been channelized and the steep sides do not provide for good flood storage. In addition, the reed canarygrass meadow area is topographically level and provides minimal flood storage. Shoreline anchoring is medium due to vegetation growing along streambanks. However, this function is decreased due to the steep streambanks. Water purification is rated medium in portions of the wetland that are densely vegetated. The major portion of the emergent community in this wetland is reed canarygrass which has been shown to remove metals from water (Kulzer 1990). In addition, this function is important because the wetland is associated with Springbrook Creek. However, wetlands in the stream channel provide low purification, and water quality is poor due to pollutants in Springbrook Creek. Food chain support is low due to low plant diversity. Wildlife habitat is rated medium in the forested portions of the wetland, which provide canopy cover and nesting for aECKM BLACK RIVM o9/n/9x 27 birds and mammals. Since the emergent portion of the wetland consists of a monoculture of reed canarygrass, this area provides low wildlife habitat. Fisheries habitat in this wetland is important and has been rated high because of its association with Springbrook Creek. The emergent portions of the wetland inundated by Springbrook Creek provide rearing and cover areas for salmonids. Active/passive recreation, heritage, and education are low because the property is privately owned and development is proposed in the area. Wetland 13B These wetlands are located inside the main racetrack infield at Longacres and would be classified as palustrine emergent. The wetlands are approximately 20 acres in size. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology are highly disturbed due to landscaping activities, site grading, stormwater management activities, and management of hydrology in Springbrook Creek. This description is based on reports by Shapiro and Associates (1992) and from the Jones & Stokes Associates field investigation. Vegetation. Four palustrine emergent wetlands are located within the main racetrack infield. Emergent vegetation within these wetlands is actively maintained and mowed. In general, these wetlands are a mosaic of swales and small depressions either associated with a drainage ditch or hydrologically isolated. Wetland vegetation is similar within drainage ditch portions of wetlands and within swale and depression portions of wetlands. Wetland vegetation within the drainage ditches includes soft rush, common spike-rush, hardstem bulrush, creeping buttercup, and bentgrass. Dominant vegetation within swales and depressions includes Pacific silverweed, common plantain, and bentgrass; brass buttons and creeping buttercup occur occasionally. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped this area as Urban land, a nonhydric soil (Table 4). Soils and hydrology in the wetland were not sampled; however, a detailed wetland report revealed soils at 10 to 12 inches are sandy clay loams and silty clay loams with low chroma, dark gray with strong brown mottles (Shapiro and Associates 1992). Hydrology. Water sources to this wetland have been altered and consist of a combination of precipitation input, stormwater flow from urban/industrial sites, parking lots, and subsurface flow. Stormwater discharges into Springbrook Creek. A previous wetland report described depth to standing water at 7 to 14 inches. Functional Values. Functional values as a whole are minimal or nonexistent for this wetland because it is a maintained racetrack. Water quality is assumed very poor due to high animal usage and fertilizers. errs BLACK RIVER 28 09i22� Wetland 13C The South Marsh wetland would be classified as palustrine emergent. The wetland is approximately 11 acres. The wetland is located in Longacres Park south of the main racetrack infield and west of Wetland 12. This description is based on reports by Shapiro and Associates (1992) and the Jones & Stokes Associates field investigation. Vegetation. Dominant emergent vegetation within this wetland includes dense stands of reed canarygrass, and common cattail. Patches of willow saplings and trees occur throughout the wetland area. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped soils in this area as Woodinville silt loam, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils sampled at a depth of 10 inches were grayish brown silt loams with dark brown mottles. Hydrology. Water sources to this wetland have been altered and consist of a combination of precipitation input, stormwater flow from urban/industrial sites, parking lots, and subsurface flow. Stormwater discharges through a culvert into Springbrook Creek. At the time of the site investigation, open water was observed and areas of the wetland were inundated with 3 inches of water or saturated to the surface. Functional Values. The depressional topography and association with Springbrook Creek allow this wetland to function alternately as a recharge and discharge site for the shallow groundwater lenses associated with the creek. Flood storage in this wetland is high due to the large size and the depressional topography. The wetland is densely vegetated, which allows the area to store large amounts of water. In addition, the wetland is associated with Springbrook Creek so it can receive and store water during the peak flood season. The ability for this wetland to function in water purification or sediment trapping is high. Vegetation in the wetland is very diverse and densely vegetated. This function is important because of the wetland association with Springbrook Creek. Water quality in this wetland is probably fair due to runoff from fertilizers. If the wetland receives floodwaters from Springbrook Creek, water quality would decrease due to pollutants. Food chain support in this wetland is rated very high due to the diversity of vegetation and the large palustrine emergent community interspersed with standing water. Since the wetland contains a variety of plant communities, wildlife habitat is rated very high. This wetland could support a number of different species. Forested areas are likely to provide nesting habitat for ground, shrub, cavity, and tree nesting birds. Shrub and herbaceous layers provide good cover for small mammals, invertebrates, and amphibians. BFCKM BU►« RIVER I9,22,92c 29 Active/passive recreation, heritage, and education in this wetland are rated medium. The wetland is diverse and offers bird watching and easy access. However, public access is minimal because the property is privately owned and development is proposed in the area. Wetland 14 Wetland 14 is a series of isolated wetlands and would be classified as palustrine scrub -shrub and emergent. The wetlands collectively are approximately 3 acres in size and are located west of Lind Avenue Southwest and north of Southwest 34th Street. Palustrine scrub -shrub and emergent wetland is located west of Springbrook Creek; palustrine emergent wetlands are located east of Springbrook Creek. The wetland area has been previously graded and filled and wetlands have developed in depressional areas of uneven grading and compacted soils. Vegetation. The palustrine scrub -shrub community consists of black cottonwood and willow in the shrub layer. Dominant species in the herbaceous layer include reed canarygrass, bentgrass, soft rush, and common spike-rush. Vegetation observed within the palustrine emergent wetlands east of Springbrook Creek is comprised of common spike-rush and soft rush. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam, both of which are hydric soils (Table 4). Soils observed in all of these wetlands were non-native fill material. Hydrology. Water sources for these wetlands are precipitation and road runoff. Saturation to the surface and inundation to a depth of 1 inch were observed in the wetland areas at the time of the field investigation. Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated low due to the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature. The shrub layer in the wetland west of Springbrook Creek provides some cover for wildlife. However, these wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping, food chain support, and groundwater recharge and discharge. Collectively, wetlands provide for some flood storage and wildlife habitat. Wetland 16 Wetland 16 is a palustrine scrub -shrub and emergent wetland located east of Oakesdale Avenue, north of Southwest 27 Street and Wetland 12, south of Longacres property, and west of undeveloped cleared property and Springbrook Creek. Vegetation. The majority of the wetland is vegetated with a dense shrub community and is dominated by black cottonwood, willow, and Douglas' spirea. Reed canarygrass occurs occasionally within the herbaceous layer underneath the shrub community and is BECKM BLACK RrVM 30 o9/n� /v dominant within the emergent community. Common cattail and creeping buttercup occur occasionally within the emergent community. Soils. Soils within this wetland have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Woodinville silt loam, which is a hydric soil (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1990) (Table 4). Soils observed at a depth of 10 inches are dark gray silts. Hydrology. This wetland is an isolated enclosed depression that receives water from road runoff and precipitation. During the field investigation, approximately 3 inches of standing water was observed throughout the majority of the wetland. Functional Values. Functional values for this wetland have been rated low due to its size and isolated nature. The presence of more than one community type provides some structural diversity that augments the wildlife habitat value, and the depressional topography offers some flood storage. However, the surrounding land uses, isolated nature, and size of this wetland extremely limit the potential for food chain support, sediment trapping, active/passive recreation, and groundwater recharge and discharge. Wetland 22 Wetland 22 is a palustrine forest and palustrine scrub -shrub wetland. This wetland is approximately 18 acres in size and is located north of Southwest 33rd Street and west of Oakesdale Avenue South just south of Longacres Park.' The wetland area is generally flat and has been graded and filled. An east -west ditch is situated along the northern edge of the wetland. This ditch turns south at the northwestern wetland corner, continuing south through Wetland 45 and eventually into Wetland 3. The following description is based on previous reports (David Evans and Associates 1991g) and the Jones & Stokes Associates field investigation. Vegetation. The wetland consists of dense patches of an even mixture of palustrine forest and scrub -shrub communities. Palustrine emergent wetland occurs occasionally in small areas where the forest and scrub -shrub communities open up. Forested portions of the wetland are dominated by western crabapple, willow, red -osier dogwood, black cottonwood, and red alder. The shrub layer is sparse underneath the dense canopy. However, in areas where the canopy is open, the shrub layer is densely vegetated with saplings of the dominant canopy species listed above, as well as Douglas' spirea. The herbaceous layer is sparse and commonly vegetated with creeping buttercup, soft rush, and common horsetail. The wetland edge is densely vegetated with Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and soft rush. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Woodinville silt loam which is listed as hydric (Table 4). The till layer was reached at approximately 4 inches. Soils observed at a depth of 4 inches were gravelly sands; soil color was not sampled due to soil texture. BBCKrr3 BLACK RIVM 09/22/gu 31 Hydrology. The primary source of water for this wetland is precipitation and a drainage ditch. The ditch enters the wetland at the northwestern corner and is situated east - west along the northern wetland edge. The ditch turns north -south at the northeastern wetland comer and continues south out of the wetland. A relict stream channel is evident within the central portion of the site; however, this has been disturbed by fill activities. Surface and groundwater flows are presently diverted away from the relict stream through the drainage ditch. Functional Values. Functional values of this wetland are moderate to low. The level topography offers limited flood storage. The connection with the ditch provides some water purification values; however, this is limited by the lack of emergent vegetation present within the ditch. The dense canopy and shrub community provide cover and nesting or perching sites for small mammals and birds. Wetland 32 Wetland 32 is a series of wetlands that would be classified as a palustrine forest in the southcentral portion of the site and scrub -shrub in the northern portion of the site. The wetlands collectively are approximately 6.5 acres in size and are located east of Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, south of Southwest 34th Street, and north of Southwest 39th Street. The wetland area has been previously graded and filled, and wetlands have developed in depressional areas of uneven grading and compacted soils. Vegetation. The forested community is dominated in the canopy layer by black cottonwood and willow. Black cottonwood and willow saplings comprise the shrub layer. Herbaceous cover is sparse; grasses and forbs occasionally occur. The emergent wetlands are shallow depressions in a topographically level upland area dominated by bentgrass. The herbaceous vegetation is dominated by (oxtail, soft rush, and bentgrass. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Woodinville silt loam, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils observed onsite were non-native fill material. Hydrology. The water source for these wetlands is primarily precipitation input. Wetlands at this site lack an inlet or outlet source. At the time of the investigation, no inundation or saturation was observed in the forested portion; however, wetland hydrology was assumed based on depressional topography and bare ground. This area has recently been confirmed as a wetland by David Evans and Associates (1991b). Saturation to the surface and inundation to a depth of 1 inch were observed in the emergent wetland areas. Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated low due to the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature. Wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping, food chain support, and groundwater recharge and discharge. Collectively, wetlands provide for some flood storage BF.CKM Bucx RFVM 09iM/92e 32 and wildlife habitat. The surrounding land use is primarily commercial development. The canopy and shrub layer do provide cover for some small birds and mammals. The depressional topography also provides some flood storage values. Wetland 33 Wetland 33 is a series of seven isolated wetlands that would be classified as palustrine scrub -shrub and emergent. Collectively the wetlands are approximately 4 acres in size and are located east of Lind Avenue Southwest and south of Southwest 34th Street. The wetland area has been previously graded and filled, and wetlands have developed in depressional areas of uneven grading and compacted soils. Vegetation. The wetlands are interspersed throughout the area with upland. The upland areas are dominated by various upland grasses. The scrub -shrub wetland is dominated by a monotypic stand of black cottonwood saplings. There is no understory. The emergent wetlands are dominated by soft rush, reed canarygrass, and bentgrass in the herbaceous layer. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Snohomish silt loam, which is a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils observed onsite were non-native fill material. Hydrology. Water sources for these wetlands are precipitation input and road runoff. Wetlands at this site lack an inlet or outlet source. Saturation to the surface and inundation to a depth of 1 inch were observed in the wetland areas at the time of the field investigation. Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated low due to the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature. Wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping, food chain support, and groundwater recharge and discharge. Collectively, wetlands provide for some flood storage and wildlife habitat. The surrounding land use is primarily commercial development; the shrub layer provides some habitat for small birds or small mammals. Wetland 37 Wetland 37, known as the Panther Lake Wetland, is classified as palustrine scrub - shrub, emergent, and open water. This wetland is approximately 63 acres and is located west of 116th Avenue Southeast and south of Southeast 200th Street. This wetland is associated with Panther Lake, a shallow eutrophic lake that is becoming densely vegetated as it develops into a scrub -shrub wetland. The lake has an outlet on the north side to Panther Creek. This wetland has been previously identified in the King County Sensitive Areas Inventory as Black River 6 Panther Lake. BEGKM BULK RIVER 09/22,92c 33 Vegetation. The wetland consists of a large open water area surrounded by scrub - shrub and emergent communities. The shrub layer is dominated by red alder, willow, and Douglas's spirea. The emergent community consists of creeping buttercup, soft rush, and sedge in the herbaceous layer. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Seattle Muck, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils were not sampled onsite because the wetland was previously identified by King County. Hydrology. The water source within this wetland is precipitation, runoff from adjacent residential housing, and backup from Panther Lake and Panther Creek. Panther Lake is fed by the upper reaches of Panther Creek, which drain the urban areas of east Kent. The hydrologic regime of this wetland is dictated by the water levels in Panther Lake. Panther Lake and Panther Creek are also discharge sites for the wetland. Functional Values. This wetland provides excellent wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, and sediment trapping functional values. The association with Panther Lake and Panther Creek, large size of the wetland, and the structural and community diversity of this wetland augment such functional values. Due to its association with Panther Lake, this wetland provides excellent discharge/recharge capabilities. During high storm events, the wetland functions in recharge of the regional groundwater. During periods of low lake or creek levels, the wetland functions in maintaining water levels by discharge of groundwater from the wetland. Flood storage is rated very high due to the large size, dense vegetation, and association with Panther Lake. This wetland has been rated high for shoreline anchoring. The dense vegetation present in the wetland helps prevent shoreline erosion by lake level fluctuation and wave action. Sediment trapping capabilities of the wetland have been rated very high due to the large size and dense herbaceous vegetation. This will directly benefit water quality in Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek. The presence of standing water and an extensive community of fast-growing emergent species provides for very high primary productivity and food chain support. The dense shrub cover provides suitable habitat for various small mammals, small birds, and amphibians. Panther Lake provides a good landing site for migratory birds. As mentioned in the description for the Panther Creek Wetland, a fishery survey of the lower reaches of Panther Creek conducted by R. W. Beck and Associates in 1989 BECKM BUCK RIVER 09/22/9-2c 34 yielded only several fish. These fish were thought to originate from Panther Lake (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991). Fish habitat in this wetland is important because of its association with Panther Creek. The emergent portions of the wetland inundated by the lake provide rearing and cover areas. Most of the surrounding land is residential. Access to the wetland is limited because property surrounding the wetland is privately owned. This decreases any active/passive recreation or education available beyond the property owners' use. Wetland 40 Wetland 40 is a group of six small wetlands, five of which are classified as palustrine emergent wetlands; one is classified as scrub -shrub. The wetlands are located west of Lind Avenue Southwest and south of Southwest 34th Street, and collectively they are less than 1 acre in size. The wetland area has been previously graded and filled, and wetlands have developed in depressional areas of uneven grading and compacted soils. Vegetation. The emergent wetlands are shallow depressions in a topographically level upland area dominated by bentgrass. The emergent wetlands consists of either monotypic stands of reed canary grass or foxtail, soft rush, and bentgrass. Marsh speedwell occurs occasionally within the herbaceous layer. Black cottonwood dominates the scrub -shrub wetland. Herbaceous cover is sparse with grasses and (orbs occurring occasionally. Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as Woodinville silt loam, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils observed onsite were non-native fill material. Hydrology. Water sources for these wetlands are precipitation input and road runoff. Wetlands at this site lack an inlet or outlet source. Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated low due to the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature. Wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping, food chain support, and groundwater recharge and discharge. Collectively, wetlands provide for some flood storage and wildlife habitat. Wetland 45 Wetland 45 would be classified as palustrine forest, scrub -shrub, and emergent. This wetland is approximately 18 acres in size and is located north of Wetland 3 (Orillia Pond), south of Longacres property, east of Burlington Northern railroad tracks, and west of Longview Avenue South. A ditch bisects the wetland in a north -south direction. This ditch originates at the southern end from Wetland 3 and at the northern end from Wetland 22. BBcx/n BLACK RPVM 09/22,92� 35 Vegetation. The wetland is primarily palustrine forest and palustrine emergent interspersed with palustrine scrub -shrub wetland. Dominant canopy cover within the forested portion of the wetland consists of black cottonwood and willow; red alder and Oregon ash occur occasionally. The shrub layer within forested portions of the wetland includes saplings of red alder, Douglas' spirea, and willow. Herbaceous vegetation underneath the canopy and shrub layers is usually sparse; soft rush occurs occasionally in patches where the canopy and shrub cover are less dense. Scrub -shrub portions of the wetland occur in patches between forested and emergent portions. Douglas' spirea is the dominant shrub and usually occurs as the only dominant. A few small scrub -shrub areas that consist of red alder, black cottonwood, and willow saplings occur. Herbaceous vegetation underneath the Douglas' spirea is sparse and consists of soft rush and reed canarygrass. Herbaceous vegetation underneath the black cottonwood and willow shrub communities is more dense but consists of the same species (soft rush and reed canarygrass). Emergent portions of the wetland consist of two plant community types. The southernmost portion of the wetland is diverse in emergent vegetation. The area includes dominant species of cattail, reed canarygrass, soft rush, and velvetgrass; mannagrass and creeping buttercup occur occasionally. The second emergent community is much less diverse, with primarily monotypic stands of reed canarygrass; soft rush occurs occasionally. Soils. This area has been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Puget silty clay loam and Woodinville silt loam, which are listed as hydric soils (Table 4). Soils observed at a depth of 10 inches were low chroma dark gray to very dark grayish brown clay loam, silty loam, and silty sands. Hydrology. Water sources for this wetland are overbanking of the ditch and precipitation. During field investigation, saturation at the surface or inundation to a depth of 6 inches was observed. Functional Values. This wetland provides moderate functional values. The large size of this wetland provides some flood storage; however, this is limited by the relatively level elevation of the wetland, which is not significantly lower than surrounding upland areas. The large size, connection to other wetlands through the ditch, and presence of dense emergent species augment the wetland sediment trapping and food chain support functions. The vegetative structure and size of the wetland provide good wildlife habitat for small birds, small mammals, and amphibians. Regulatory Framework Wetlands within the City of Renton are protected through the City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance (No. 4346), which generally supports no net loss of BECKM BLACK RNER 09,22/92c 36 wetland acreage, values, and functions by protecting high value wetlands and requiring restoration of disturbed wetlands, or creation of new wetlands when wetland losses are unavoidable. Under the Wetland Management Ordinance, wetlands are assigned a rating of Category 1 (Very High Quality Wetlands), Category 2 (High Quality Wetlands), or Category 3 (Lower Quality Wetlands), based on a combination of factors, including size, diversity of habitat, and type of plant communities present. Category 1(Very High Quality Wetlands) are wetlands greater than 2,200 square feet which meet one or more of the following criteria: • The presence of species listed by federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species; • Wetlands having 40% to 60% permanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with two or more vegetation classes; • Wetlands equal to or greater than 10 acres in size and having three or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water; • The presence of plant association of infrequent occurrence, or at the geographic limits of their occurrence; or • Wetlands assigned the Unique/Outstanding # 1 rating in the current King County Wetlands Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended. Category 2 (High Quality Wetlands) are wetlands greater than 2,200 square feet which meet one or more of the following criteria: • Wetlands greater than 2,200 square feet that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; Wetlands that have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not Category 1 wetlands; • Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, but are not Category 1 wetlands; • Wetlands assigned the Significant #2 rating in the current King County Wetlands Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended; • Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human -related physical alteration such as diking, ditching, channelization. BECKM sucx wvat 37 09/22/92e Category 3 (Lower Quality Wetlands) are wetlands greater than 5,000 square feet which meet one or more of the following criteria: Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human -related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization, and /or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal, and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. • Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: (1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. • All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. It is the responsibility of City of Renton planners to make a final determination of wetland ratings. All wetlands in the City of Renton are required to have a buffer; the size of the buffer is based on the wetland category rating and, if applicable, the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) land use designation. Wetlands not regulated by the SMP and with a category rating of 1, 2, and 3 require buffers of 100, 50, and 25 feet, respectively. Wetlands regulated under the SMP could receive one of three types of designation: urban, conservancy, and natural for each of the wetland category ratings. Category 1 wetlands which are assigned urban, conservancy, or natural SMP designations require buffers of 100, 200, and 300 feet respectively. Category 2 wetlands require buffers of 50, 100, and 200 feet respective to urban, conservancy, and natural SMP designations. Category 3 wetlands require buffers of 25, 50, and 50 feet respective to urban, conservancy, and natural SMP designations. The buffer is measured horizontally from the edge of the wetland and extends into the upland. _ BECKM BLACK RrVM 38 09/22rok CITATIONS Printed References Adamus, P. R., and L. R. Stockwell. 1983. A method for wetland functional assessment. (No. FHWA-1P-82-23.) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Office Research, Environmental Division. Washington, DC. Boeing Company. 1991. Longacres Park development information letter to the City of Renton, Don Erickson. Renton, WA. January 11, 1991. City of Renton. 1981. Wetlands study: A reconnaissance study of selected wetlands in the City of Renton. Prepared by the City of Renton Planning Department and Northwest Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1991. Black River Corporate Park tracts A and B office buildings, final environmental impact statement. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Bellevue, WA. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep water habitats of the United States. (FWS/OBS-79/31.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. David Evans and Associates. 1989a. Wetland delineation of the Alaska Distributors site, Renton, Washington. Prepared for Alaska Distributors Company, Seattle, WA- . 1989b. Wetland delineation for the Seattle Times facility. 1991a. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 1, lot 12 site (Renton #6 parcel), Renton Washington. Bellevue, WA. 1991b. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 5 site (Renton #9 parcel), Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA. . 1991c. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 6, lots 3 and 4 site (Renton #2 parcel), Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA- . 1991d. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 8, lots 1, 2, and 3 site (Renton #8W parcel), Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA. 1991e. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 8, lot 4 site (Renton #8E parcel), Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA. BECKM BLACK RrvER 09i22/92c 39 . 1991f. Wetland determination on the proposed Orillia block 1, lot 3 site (Renton #5 parcel), Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA. 1991g. Wetland determination on the Renton # 14 parcel, Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA. Earth Consultants Inc. 1990. Wetland delineation of the Rivertech Corporate Park. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Bellevue, WA. Erwin, K. L 1990. Wetland evaluation for restoration and creation. Pages 429-458 in J. A. Jusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.), Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press. Washington, DC. IES Associates. 1990. Biological report of the Austin Property, Renton, WA. IES Associates and Scales and Associates. 1990. Preliminary wetlands evaluation of the Al Pac site Southwest 27th Street, Renton, WA. Prepared for Al Pac Associates, Seattle, WA. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1989. Tukwila wetland inventory. Bellevue, WA. Prepared for City of Tukwila, Tukwila, WA. . 1990a. Letter to Washington Department of Ecology regarding wetlands on tract C (northside). 1990b. Wetland report of the Vyzis Southgate property, Bellevue,WA. 1991. Critical areas inventory, City of Renton wetlands and stream corridors. Bellevue, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA. King County. 1983. King County wetlands inventory. Three volumes. Seattle, WA- . 1990. Sensitive areas map folio. King County Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. Seattle, WA. Kulzer, L. 1990. Water pollution control aspects of aquatic plants: implications for stormwater quality management. METRO. Seattle, WA. L. C. Lee & Associates, Inc. 1991a. An analysis of the distribution and jurisdictional status of waters of the United States, including wetlands, at Longacres Park, Renton, WA. Prepared for The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA. 1991b. Letter concerning U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, verification of wetlands at Longacres Park, August 1, 1991. Seattle, WA. Prepared for Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, WA. BECKrM Buck RFVER 40 09/22/92e Raedeke Associates Scientific Consulting. 1991a. Puget Western, Inc. Materials Management Complex (MMC) property, Renton, WA. Letter report. . 1991b. Conceptual wetiand mitigation plan for the Puget Western Business Park, Renton, WA. March 11, 1991. R.W. Beck and Associates. 1989. City of Renton, WA, Panther Creek wetlands/P-9 channel design wetland inventory. Draft. Seacor Environmental Engineering. 1991. Data from Sternco site remediation. (unpublished data.) Bellevue, WA. Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1989. Wetland delineation of the Container Corporation of America site, Renton, WA. Seattle, WA. Prepared for Bruce Blume and Company, Seattle, WA. . 1992. City of Renton jurisdictional wetland determination for Longacres Park development project. Prepared for Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Renton, WA. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil survey of the King County area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC. . 1990. Hydric soils of the state of Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC. Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 1991. Wetlands evaluation and delineation report, wetlands avoidance and mitigation plan, Tukwila project site west of Longacres, City of Tukwila, WA. Auburn, WA. Prepared for McLeod Development Company, Kirkland, WA. Personal Communications Giseburt, Mike. Project manager. R. W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, WA. December 18, 1991 - telephone conversation. Straka, Ron. Civil engineer. Public Works Department, City of Renton, Renton, WA. December 4, 1991 - meeting. BECKM BUCK RNER 09i22192e 41 Appendix A. Wetland Delineation Data Forms JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSTTE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Ives/Schroder Date: 5/5/92 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 5 Plant Community: PFO Plot #: 1 Weather: clear VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy 2. Frazinus latifolia, FACW, canopy 3. Rubus spectabilis, FAC, shrub 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Mix Mottle rLis-y Texture 0-10" 2.5Y 3/1 yes no silt Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: 10" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Other spp. include; CAspp, ATFI, SYAL, and URDI. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSTTE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Ives/Schroder County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PSS Weather: clear Dominant Plant Species, Indicator 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, shrub 2. Saliz spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Date: 5/5/92 Wetland # 5-c Plot #: 1 VEGETATION Status, Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydrlc list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Glev Texture 0-101, 2.5Y 5/1 yes no silt Other hydrlc soil indicators: Is the hydrlc soil criterion met? yes Rationale: chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Other spp. include Carez obnupta. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PSS/PEM Weather: overcast Date: 12/4/91 Wetland # 7 North Plot #: 1 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Alnus rubra , FAC, shrub 2. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub 3. Typha latifolia. OBL, herbaceous 4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam. Puget silty clay loam, and Tuckwila muck Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o Depth Matrix Mottle IS-1 10" 10YR 4/1 yes no Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY SCS bydric list? yes Is the area Inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Other spp. include Salix spp. Texture silt JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PEM Weather: overcast Date: 12/4/91 Wetland # 7 North Plot #: 2 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 10090 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam, Puget silty clay loam, and Tuckwila muck Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Gley 10" lOYR 4/1 yes no Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY SCS hydric list? yes Is the area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Small open water areas are present interspersed within the TYLA. Texture silt JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Green River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PEM Weather: clear Dominant Plant Species, Indicator 1. Iris Pseudacorus, OBL, herbaceous 2. Solanum spp., FACU-FAC, herbaceous 3. Carex obnupta, OBL, herbaceous 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Date: 11/5/91 Wetland #: 7 South Plot #: 1 VEGETATION Status, Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: >50% of dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Tukwila muck and Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o Depth Matrix Mottle 8" 10YR 2/0 no no Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1-2" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: OHWM about 3 feet Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland is a north -south 20-25 foot wide ditch. Texture peaty muck JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Green River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/5/91 County/City: City of Renton Wetland #: Plant Community: upland forest and shrub Plot #: 1 Weather: clear VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy 2. Alnus rubra sapling, FAC, shrub 3. Rubus parviflorus, FACU+, shrub 4. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub 5. Rubus discolor, FACU-, shrub 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 60% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: >50% of dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS SerIes/Phase Tukwila muck and Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o Depth Matrix Mottle -GW 0-8" N/A no no Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? no Rationale: soil is fill material, lacks chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? n o Depth to water: Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: none Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? no Rationale: lacks evidence of hydrology JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Texture rocky, gravelly, loam Is the sample plot a wetland? no Comments: Area 7 has been mapped on aerial photos as wetland. Field verification showed that this area is not wetland. The area has been graded and filled. This area was probably wetland before grading and filling activities. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Green River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PSS/PEM Weather: clear Date: 11 /5 /91 Wetland #: 7 South Plot #: 2 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub 2. Saliz spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 3. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous 4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Tukwila muck and Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle SzLgY 8" IOYR 210 no no Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 6-8" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland is an east -west ditch that eventually flows into Springbrook Creek. Texture peaty muck JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Green River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PSS/PEM Weather: clear Date: 11/5/91 Wetland #: 8 North Plot #: 1 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Saliz spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 2. Cornus stolonifera sapling, FACW, shrub 3. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous 4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 5. Iris Pseudacorus, OBL, herbaceous 6. Glyceria elata, FACW+, herbaceous 7. Solanum spp., FACU-FAC, herbaceous 8. Oenanthe sarmentosa, OBL, herbaceous 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 88% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: >50% of dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Sz1gX Texture 12" 10YR 212 yes no loam Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: 12" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: drift lines on trees at 12", algal watts, and drift wood. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and evidence of seasonal hydrology JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland is very diverse, wetland edge is the toe of fill. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Green River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PSS/PEM Weather: clear Date: 11 /5/91 Wetland #: 8 North Plot #: 2 VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, shrub 2. Salu spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 3. Typba latifolia, OBL, herbaceous 4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 5. Agrostis spp., FAC-FACW, herbaceous 6. Ranunculus repens, FACW, herbaceous 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp, are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Hlstosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle G1ev 8" IOYR 4/1 yes no Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: soils are fill material; till at 12" HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Texture gravelly, sandy loam Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland area has been graded and filled. Where there has been uneven grading, wetland has developed within the depressions. Other spp. include JUEF, PLLA, and PIMA. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PEM Weather: clear Dominant Plant Species, Indicator 1. Elocharis palustris, OBL, herb 2. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Date: 11/5/91 Wetland # 8 South Plot #: 3 VEGETATION Status, Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix 'viottle Glev 8" 10YR 4/1 yes no Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: soils are fill material; till at 12" HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Texture gravelly, sandy loam Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland area has previously been graded and filled. Where uneven grading has taken place, wetland has developed within the depressions. Year-round ponding in some of these areas. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PFO Weather: clear Dominant Plant Species, Indicator 1. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, canopy 2. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy 3. Alnus rubra , FAC, canopy 4. Corms stolonifera , FACW, shrub S. Acer circinatum, FACU, shrub 6. 7. 8. 9. Date: 11/5/91 Wetland # 9 Plot #: 1 VEGETATION Status, Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 80% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: >50% of dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no eR th Matrix Mottle fLLX 8" 10YR 4/1 yes no Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water: Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: water marks on trees, drift logs, and algal matts Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: evidence of hydrology JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Texture sandy loam Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Wetland is a linear system that is connected to Springbrook Creek at the southwestern comer JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PFO Weather: clear Dominant Plant Species, Indicator 1. Saliz spp., FAC-FACW, canopy 2. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy 3. Cornus stolonifera , FACW, shrub 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Date: 1115/91 Wetland # 10 Plot #: 1 VEGETATION Status, Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam and Puget silty clay loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Glev Texture 12" 10YR 2/2 no no loam Other hydrlc soil Indicators: Is the hydrlc soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Ditch adjacent to wetland drains into Springbrook Creek; about 2 feet of water during field investigation. A beaver dam occurs in the ditch adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Phalaris arundinacae occurs occassionally in the wetland. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSTTE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Invest igator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 11 Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 1 Weather: overcast VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub I Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub 3. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam SCS hydrlc list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Glev Texture 10.1 10YR 312 yes no silt Other hydrlc soil indicators: Is the hydrlc soil criterion met? yes Rationale: mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Wetland is adjacent to Springbrook Creek. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSTTE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 11 Plant Community: PEM Plot #: 2 Weather: overcast VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Devth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture 10" lOYR 3/2 yes no silt Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland is adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Plot was taken in the eastern portion of the wetland, which is a large PEM area. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 12 Plant Community: PSS/PEM/POW Plot #: 1 Weather: overcast VEGETATION Dominant Plant _ Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 2. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub 3. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous 4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Glev 10" 10YR 3/2 yes no Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Wetland is adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Texture sandy silt JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Invest igator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 13-a; Springbrook Creek Riparian Wetlands Plant Community: PEM/PSS/PFO Plot #: 1 Weather: overcast VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy 2. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 3. Spiraea douglasii. FACW, shrub 4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Puyallup fine sandy loam SCS hydrlc list? no Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Glev 10" 10YR 3/3 no no Other bydric soil indicators: Is the hydrlc soil criterion met? no Rationale: lack of chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? no Depth of water: Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: 2" Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Texture sandy loam Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:This area has been determined as wetland in the L.C. Lee environmental assesment report. Wetland is adjacent to Springbrook Creek. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSTTE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Invest igator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4191 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 13-c; South Marsh Wetland Plant Community: PEM/PSS/POW Plot #: 1 Weather: overcast VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Saliz spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 2. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub 3. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous 4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no D€uth Matrix Mottle aLu Texture 10" 10YR 5/2 7.5 YR 4/4 no silt loam Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 3" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:This area has been determined as wetland in the L.C. Lee environmental assesment report. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PSS Weather: rain Dominant Plant Species, Indicator 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, shrub 2. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 3. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceou: 4. Agrostis spp., FAC-FACW, herbaceous S. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous 6. Elocharis palustris, OBL., herbaceous 7. 8. 9. Date: 11 /8/91 Wetland # 14 Plot #: 1 VEGETATION Status, Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no R e R th Matrix Mottle Srl.t<X 0-8" N/A no no Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: impervious till at 8" HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: algal matts Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Texture fill material Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland area has previously been graded and filled. Wetland has developed in depressional areas of uneven grading and where water has collected. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91 County/City: City of Renton wetland # 16 Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 1 Weather: overcast VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, shrub 2. Saliz spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 3. Spiraea douglasii. FACW, shrub 4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Glev Texture 10" lOYR 4/1 yes no silt Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 3" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Wetland is an isolated system that receives water from adjacent development and road run-off. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Invest lgator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PSS/PEM Weather: rain Dominant Plant Species, Indicator 1. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. Date: 11 /8/91 Wetland # 3 2 Plot #: 1 VEGETATION Status, Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle -La 0-10" N/A no no Other hydric soil lndlcators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: impervious till at 10". HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Texture fill material, mixed Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland area has previously been graded and filled. Wetland has developed in depressional areas of uneven grading and where water has collected. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSTTE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/8/91 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 33 Plant Community: PSS Plot #: 1 Weather: rain VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa saplings, FAC, shrub 2. Juncus bufonius, FACW+, herbaceous 3. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 4. Agrostis spp., FAC-FACW, herbaceous S. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Glev 0-8" N/A no no Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: impervious till at 8" HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Texture fill material Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland area has previously been graded and filled. Wetland has developed in depressional areas of uneven grading and where water has collected. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSTTE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein County/City: City of Renton Plant Community: PSS/PEM Weather: overcast Dominant Plant Species, Indicator 1. Alnus rubra , FAC, shrub 2. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub 3. Saliz spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 4. Ranunculus repens, FACW, herbaceous 5. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous 6. 7. 8. 9. Date: 1214/91 Wetland # 37; Panther Lake Wetland Plot #: 1 VEGETATION Status, Stratum Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 10040 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Seattle muck SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Glev N/A Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? N/A Rationale: Comments: soils were not sampled; areas has previously been identified by King County. HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? yes Depth of water: >2 feet Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: surface Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Wetland has been identified in the 1981 King County Wetland Inventory. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investlgator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/8/91 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 40 Plant Community: PEM Plot #: 1 Weather: rain VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, shrub Z. Agrostis spp., FAC-FACW, herbaceous 3. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydrlc list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no D eR th Matrix Mottle Szlg� 0-10" N/A no no Other hydrlc soil indicators: Is the hydrlc soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: impervious till at 10". HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Texture fill material. mixed Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: Wetland 40 consists of five unidentified wetlands that have little vegetation. POTR occurs occassionally. These areas have previously been flagged and identified. Area has previously been graded and filled. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Schroder Date: 4/14/92 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 45 Plant Community: PFO/PSS Plot #: 1 Weather: rainy VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy 2. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 3. Spuaea douglasii, FACW, shrub 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Death Matrix Mottle fLw 0-10" 10YR 4/2 no no Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 3" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Plot located at southern end of wetland; north of railroad tracks and wetland 3 Texture clay loam JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Schroder Date: 4/14/92 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 45 Plant Community: PEM Plot #: 2 Weather: rainy VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous 2. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous 3. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 4. Ranunculus repens, FACW, herbaceous 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle aLu Texture 0-10" 10YR 4/2 no no clay loam Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: aquic regime Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments:Plot located in emergent area adjacent to ditch. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Schroder Date: 4/14/92 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 45 Plant Community: PFO/PSS Plot #: 3 Weather: clear VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy and shrub 2. Saliz spp., FAC-FACW, shrub 3. Alnus rubra , FAC, shrub 4. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous 5. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Hlstosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Glev Texture 0-10" 10YR 3/2 yes no silty sand Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: chroma and mottles Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 3" Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? yes Comments: JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR Client: R.W. Beck Project/Site: Black River Wetlands Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Schroder Date: 4/14/92 County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 45 Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 4 Weather: clear VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum 1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy and shrub 2. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous 3. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. SOILS SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes Is the observed soil a Histosol? no Depth Matrix Mottle Clev 0-10" 10YR 4/1 no no Other hydric soil Indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes Rationale: chroma Comments: HYDROLOGY Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1-Y Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation: Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes Rationale: saturation and inundation JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL Is the sample plot a wetland? ,yes Comments: Texture silty loam Appendix B. Wetland Functional Values Field Forms Wetland Functional Values Feld Form City of Renton Wetland #: 3 Date: 11/05/91 Weather: Clear Field Investigators: Pesha Klein and Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: b. wetland is isolated Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: a. runoff b>pr cipii3o 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a. large b _` iezA c. small:; Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level c. other BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 1 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPINGJWATER QUALITY Association to: .............. b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow Comm Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation .......... ... r_w. b* d. .....ver ..... ........ ...... *-2'5% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge 'A'_,'b1 .s .. ........... it iarke c. visible discharge Source: Wetland was historically used as a battery acid dump. 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ...... .....of xva toyed w�tbk.rgent'tt;ttia ......... .. .... ............. d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation .......... .....y. Water present: ........ I" ., year-round ........... 13ECKM BLACK RrVER 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres C- acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% ...................... e. 0% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or Linmaintained grassland r- active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential rifle ......... Unique features: Presence of water: permanent, Seasonal 6. FISHERIES HABITAT COW" b. applicable Comments• BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail c:boat d. none Environmental problems: i4s, ... .......... Location to schools: Not applicable. BECKM BEACK RP/M 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 4 Date: 11/08/91 Weather:— Clear. Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a ornilrf io the wetland such as a ditch <x culvert ........... b. wetland is isolated Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: .................................... 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: .......... b. medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level ..... . .. c . . . - other BECK/M BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPINGIWATER QUALITY Association to: CAM ...................... ....................... b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b 5E -�5 oaf u d cavez�d t h ezuer�nt �getadb C. - -50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: b. probable discharge c. visible discharge 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: seasonally, BECK/73 BACK Rn/ER 09/18/92 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water . . ..... . . Ve M ....... .... .... ...... c- Medium divers'i't'-y-,'�2—wetland "'—classes w/out Open Water d. Low diversity-, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a- 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres c- 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% -2 ............. ............... e. 0% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or x1nmaintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass Mid Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects Presence of water, seasonal 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable ............. Comments: BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail bzl� ............ c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c. boat im water Environmental problems: xqt Location to schools:— Not applicable. BECKM BLACK RrVER 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 5 Date: 5/05/92 Weather: Clear Field Investigators: Jon Ives and Lynn Schroder 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert b eiau .�saed ................................................ Comment: Overland backflow from P-1 Pond. Surface water; water perched on fill: srunz# ...................... .. ................... .................................. . mn 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: b. medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level b. depressional C<tESer .................... ................... ................. BECKrr3 BLACK RPAM 09/18/92 1 Comments: Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ........ ....... .. ......... .................. e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge ..... . .... bM**'f'a,ib,k.' -.0 d . ilk C. visible discharge Source:. Spring -brook Creek 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation -bover �ilVim Water present: year-round BECK/T3 BIACK RWM 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water W NP.M-m ma ater. . .... ..... d. Low diversity, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres MMMW d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a- b. 50-75% c- 25-50% d. 0-25% e. 0% Surrounding land uses: .. ..... ..... ........ ... . . ....... . ............... ....... .... .. r — active agricultural/grass (moderate) d. urban: residential (poor) I fill n d Unique features: <,25 feet h! ;Ins d "'i—M t"' amp OLA tree or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presence of water: permanent, 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable Comments: BECKrM BLACK RfVER 09/18M 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail W-gi-bid c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c. boat one Environmental problems: visual, air, ise er Location to schools:. Not applicable BECKM BEACK RIVER 09/19192 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 5a Date: 11/08/91 Weather: Clear Field Investigators: Pesha Klein and Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert b ...we. ..... is:rsol t cl ................................................ Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: a. runoff 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a. large b. medium G>'5IT2 .................... Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level C. other BECK/n BLACK Luvat 09/18/92 1 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: a. stream b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: ....... ...... ilel b. 's 'e'ei ... flow c. channelized flow Comments: Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ii.......... '..AC()= *Iffi Mergeut veg�tatzon ........... e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: b. probable discharge c. visible discharge Source: 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation i h . ........... ......... ............ ... I Water present: ... Pt year-round BECKtM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c- Medium diversity-, 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water Vic ani t am ......... . .............. Size of wetland: b. 5-10 acres c- 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c- 25-50% d. 0-25% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or uumnintained grassland c- active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential .... ....... .. ...... ...... bazt . . . ... ........ ........... Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians d. perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds e. canopy cover f. other Presence of water: permanent, SsQi BECKM BLACK RWER 09/18/92 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail ........... c- boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: ........... b. road c. boat d. none Environmental problems: visual, air, noise, water Location to schools:. Not applicable BFCKfM BLACK RIVER 09/18/42 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 5b Date: 11/08/91 Weather— Clear Field Investigators: Pesha Mein and Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. b. wetland is isolated Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: .. ............... .... ... ... Drecim Ion 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: b.—m-ediuni c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level c. other BECKM BLACK RIVER 09118M 1 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: ...................... ....................... ...:::........... b. a<str.�2i�ai ...................... nother wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow rltacnelize'fiav ............................................ Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent -vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge b , prebbTe disc arg c. visible discharge Source: Springbrook Creek 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation anresd wrnergenf.vegetabcn ........ d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: seasonally, yeazstiud ........................ BECK/r! BLACK wvFx 09/19/92 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. ......... ............. ............. I.D.PW b. High diversity-, 3 wet -land classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c. Medium diversity, 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water d. Low diversity-, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres c. 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres e oyez � acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% Of ...... ........ d. 0-25% e. 0% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland C- active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential Unique features: Presence of water: Pertiaue, seasonal 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable Comments: BECKfM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail .................. .................. c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c. boat U.zee Environmental problems: visual, air, noise, W.Wite' ... r Location to schools:— Not applicable BECKjM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 5c Weather: Field Investigators: _ - Jon Ives and Lynn Schroder 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. wilt € iYt DnUe€ <iha. vVetfandssiich as:a ti'i€C ix cuiverf b wetland is isolated Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: ...................... ..................... .................... b. precipitation 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: b.: medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: Date: 5/05/92 b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level ��> depresso°i :.:::.....::.:.........:::::.:..::.. c. other BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/I8/92 Comments: a. no outlet Co Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation . .............. emiergeid Vegetatiou e. vegetation removed or aiterea Com Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge c- visible discharge Source: Springbrook Creek 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: year-round BECKfM BLACK RFVER 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity: a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water jcaut Open .. .... ... Aw d. Low diversity-, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres L. 5-10 acres ................................. d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% e. 0% Surrounding land uses: ............ . ... ....... . .. ........... u�nainfalne c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential ..... ...... ... ............. Unique features: Presence of water: permanent, kiag .. ............. - 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable Commc BECKfM BLACK RFVER 09/19192 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail K#M c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c- boat Environmental problems: visual, air, ........... Location to schools: Not applicable BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 7 North Date: 12/04/91 Weather:— Overcast, occasional rain. Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert ... . ...... ............................................ Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: a. runoff 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: ...ge......... b. medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level c. other BECKn3 BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: a. stream b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: t <` sheet how .............................. c. channelized flow Comments: Water source to wetland is primarily groundwater and precipitation. Vegetation density. X- ere w aU. .Gov .: ui...... X ?.. b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: .:.:.........:...:;.:.:,,<.::::::..... . b. probable discharge c. visible discharge Source: 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. b. 50-75% of wetland covered witi.h emergent vegetation c.-25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: seasonally, BECK/r! BACK RFV R 09/19/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity: a. Very ; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water c. Meaium mversiry; L weuana c d. Low diversity, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres t " E1r7..... d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% e ET% .............. ............... ............... Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential e urban �tns#rial caznmai lstld: Unique features: out Open Water a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects Presence of water: paneut seasonal 6. FISHERIES HABITAT b. -:applicable Comments: BECKM BUCK RIVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c. boat d. none Environmental problems: t�istaat>< water Location to schools: Not applicable. BECKM BUCK RIVER o9/18M Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 7 South Weather:— Clear and sunny. Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: ......... ..... ......... . the wetiartd ............ .... --- ....... - .... .... .................... - .................................................... b. wetland is isolated Comment: Wetland is a 20- to 25-foot-wide ditch. Surface water; water perched on fill: - Wff ........ ........ ....... ........ ........ ....... 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: Date: 11/05/91 a. large b. medium Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level i<erona c. other BECKM BLACK RXVER 09/18/92 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: ................ treani ............ b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow Comments: Water flow is south then west, eventually emptying into Spring -brook Creek. Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation .. ................... .. ...................... ................ ............................ . ..... .... .. . . ................... . ..... . ...... .... .......... .. *... -, . . ............. . .... c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comm Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: b. probable discharge c. visible discharge 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation C 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: seasonally, YM......: v BECKfO BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HA 31'TAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c Med'Lum c 'avers y 2 w and ➢vj� C%.. W ei d. Low diversity, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: ............................ ........................... ............................ b. 5-10 acres c. 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% .............. ............... ............... Surrounding land uses: a�'<�tgTant�rest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects .................... Presence of water:ermaue seasonal ................:..::.... 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable Comments: The hydrologic connection between this wetland and Spring -brook Creek is important in maintaining water quality and fishery habitat within the creek. BECKM BLACK RNER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: ................ b>30 ............... c: boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c. boat � ...............'0 .................. ............... nBne Environmental problems: visual, air, nc"vvati r Location to schools: Not applicable. BECKM BLACK RP61M 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 8 North Date: 11/05/91 Weather: Clear and sunny. Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: __. utlet 1ii::iho t�retiand sFtch U >dt <tu..culvert ................................................................_..................... ................................................................................................................................. b. wetland is isolated Comment: Inlet and outlet of wetland are culverts at eastern edge and western edge. Surface water; water perched on fill: arif ................... ..................... 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: >1 .gc b. medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level <Mepei ::::.:............:... . C. other BECK/T3 BLACK RMER 09/18/92 1 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: ................ b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. h e, e, I` *' f! * * G' * W ............... ........... ...... .... .... ........ ... ..................... ............. ............ - ..... ........ ... .... .... Comments: Water in ditch flows west, eventually empties into Spring -brook Creek. Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ... ............. emergent.................. . ...... ... ... ... ......... .. . ........ V.. Xcoveted W9WM".:.. .. .. ... . . ........ ............. C. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Dense ewer y-ent vegetation: patchy distribution. Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge -pliable........... hrg C. visible discharge Source:. Spring -brook Creek. 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ........ ... . .. . ..... .......... ...... . ....... ..... .. .......... c..L25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: year-round BECKM BLACK RWER 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity', 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water - mrry2:. an M. :... . n Wafer .................. .... .... .. — ... ... .. ...... ........ asses . .. .... .. d. Low diversity-, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres acres c 10-26 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% ............... ............... Sur -rounding land uses: b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential urban��10"Xj e com .. ....... . .................... . . ..... I ..... . ......... Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects e. canopy cover f. other Presence of water: permanent, seasonal 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable b 6 ................ Comments: The association of this wetland with Springbrook Creek is important in maintaining water quality and fishery habitat in the creek. BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: Access on the wetland: b. road c. boat d. none ..................... Environmental problems: visual, air, wise; xvte Location to schools: Not applicable. BECKIM BLACK RIVER Ln/La/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 8 South Date: 11/05/91 Weather:- Clear. sunny, Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert t** 6-A Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: a. runoff ... ........... I ... ..... . to .. . ........... 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a. large b. medium Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level c. other BECKn3 BLACK RMER 09/18192 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: a. stream b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: ................... ........... b. sheet flow c. chnnnelized flow Comments: Precipitation collects in depressional areas caused by uneven grading. Wetland has developed in such areas. Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation .. .... .. . .. ... . .. .. ...... d. 0 25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: b. probable discharge c. visible discharge Source: 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with .. emergent vegetation . ... ....... . .... ........ wt dtafi , M ..... ..... ....... d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: gUWhifiyi,*'year-round BWKM BL,%Cr RVVER 09/13/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water M'2' OOM ......... ....... ....... d. w- diversity-, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: b. 5-10 acres c. 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential "d p e . ........... ................... ................. ... .. . ...... Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians d. perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds e. canopy cover f. other Presence of water: permanent, seasonal BECK/73 BLACK RNER 09/18/92 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail .................... c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c. boat .......... Environmental problems: V"ig"d- air, no water Location to schools:- Not applicable. BECKfM BLACK RFVER 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 9 Date: 11/06/91 Weather: Clear Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACI'ION Regional groundwater: b. wetland is isolated Comment: Wetland drains into Sr)ringbrook Creek. Surface water; water perched on fill: a[rurirzff ...................... ..................... ................................ i <preC pi & of 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a. large ............. ....... <�edii .......................... ......................... .......................... c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level f}<::J eS:WiI_._ C. other BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 1 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: ..................... ....................... .....:..... . ?.streaiac.. ..................... ....................... ...................... b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow c. channelized flow Comments: Outlet is at the southern tip of wetland: empties into Springbrook Creek. Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation w..n .......................................................................................................... . d. i3-25 tip r?.Love . w h ergeut Negetado ........:::.::::.......::.....::..........::........:....:..:.:::..:..:..............:.........:.............:............. e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: n grge b. probable discharge c. visible discharge Source: 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: sepaaiip year-round 13ECK/r3 BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water C. Mrftum div�rsrtyi 2 �!etlansiIssesvptt open afe` d. Low diversity, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: .................... . a < fl `Acres ............................ ........................... ............................ b. 5-10 acres c. 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% � <;�` $°l '.. e 0%v;:;.. Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b shrub or ltmnam€ained assiai d ......::.:....:...... c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential e urbazt du trialI c me ai f f e Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects .................. Presence of water: permanent, seasonal 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable i7`�applua�I Comments: The association of this wetland with Spring -brook Creek is important in maintaining water purification and fishery habitat in the creek. aeacrM eucx Rn M 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a fry b. road c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c- boat nine Environmental problems: jm'�"Aa:' air, i4isn1 water Location to schools:- Not applicable, BECKrr3 BIACK RPAa( 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 10 Weather: Clear, sunny. Field Investigators: Pesha Klein Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Date: 11/06/91 Regional groundwater: a islet bz ontlef to he wefiand such as a ditch or cuIverf .......:..................... . b. wetland is isolated Comment: Ditch along the northern wetland edge drains into Spring -brook Creek; creek may also overflow into wetland via the ditch. Surface water; water perched on fill: a. runoff b. precipitation 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a 'l'argc b. medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not ger into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level c. other BECKfn BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 1 Com 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: ...................... ....................... ...................... b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow c channelizei ffacv ................................:...................................................... Comments: Beaver dam at the northwestern corner of the wetland backs up water in the ditch along the northern wetland edge. Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation . E1-250 0 an wvered€hznergeni vegeta6ci .......::..:.:.:....:....................::::.:.:..:::.:..::::.:.::.:::,....:::..:::.::::...............:.....::.......:..: e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge .............................................. it 'pr ..... l sc arge c. visible discharge Source: Springbrook Creek. 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation .p w mar veget tan Water present: stray= year BECKM BLACK RN M 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c. Meticum d'iversitp; 2 �cceitand cl�sscs �vJout Czpe� �{fa�e. d. Low diversity, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres ............................ . IEI`7Aacres ................................ ................................ d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% ................. c. 25-50% d. 0-25% e. 0% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential e urban unustralrz32df Unique features: other ................ Presence of water: permanent Seasa zal ............ 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable >aP Comments: The association of this wetland with Springbrook Creek is important in maintaining water quality and fishery habitat in the creek. BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c- boat ............ . .......... .. .......... Environmental problems: --d'a air, i6isiwater Location to schools:- Not at)Vlicable. BECKrr3 BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Feld Form City of Renton Wetland #: 11 Weather. Overcast, occasional rain. Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert b. wetland is isolated Comment: Wetland is adiacent to Springbrook Creek. Surface water; water perched on fill: a< r n ...................... ..................... b re a . apon 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: Ic'larg b. medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: Date: 12/04/91 a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. ' b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level egXDfal c. other BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 1 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet c. channelized flow Com Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation wand j M ............... etaaa .... . . . .... q ....... .... c. 25-50% otwetland -covered with emergent .vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge Iprad. ..... arge .... . ............... . c. visible discharge Source: Springbrook Creek. 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent rgent vegetation ..... wiffi.... ... 00. C. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: year-round BECK/n BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water ... ..... .......... & ...... ....... . 'i�Efl ............. vaml 2 VtFater .......... d. Low diversity-, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 2-5-50% d. 0-25% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c- active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential .......... ...... - .......... ............................ - ...... .. ................... Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects Presence of water: permanent, S 0 . n .. i 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable Comments: The association of this wetland with Spring -brook Creek is important in maintaining water quality and fisheryhabitat in the creek. BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail W� ............... ................. c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c. boat .M ..... Environmental problems: Q6" .' air, i6iiE water Location to schools:— Not applicable. BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 12 Date: 12/04/91 Weather: Clear, Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: .. ..... ......... - ......................... b. wetland is isolated Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: b. medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level C. other BECKM BEACK RrVER 09/18/92 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: ...................... ....................... a><sYf` ...................... ...................... ...................... b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b > i eet"jIa w .............................. .............................. .............................. c. channelized flow Comments: Vegetation density. 1�4° o wet an o..ered.. ih em,:.r$ ni ve$ .........,. b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge ............................................. >rprrta%�lisc�azg c. visible discharge Source: Springbrook Creek. 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density- a..::a;>td:tavezd wzucrztain: b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: seasonally, year=rp BECKns BACK RIVER m/18M 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity- b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c. Medium diversity-, 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water d. Low diversity-, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres c. 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest ................................. .grass ......... ... ........ ... . ........................... .. ... C. active agricultural/ d. urban: residential e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects Presence of water: W*� seasonal ......................... 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable .. . . .... .. Comments: The association of this wetland with Springbrook Creek is important in maintaining water guality and fisheryhabitat within the creek, BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: Access on the wetland: Ctrs b. -road c. boat d. none Environmental problems: visual, water r Location to schools:- Not applicable. BECKM BLACK RrVER 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 13a Date: 12/04/91 Weather: Clear. Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: .._ _. _ ............__. a, iiot ti�tiTCY..io, he..... d such as a d'Ltch b.wetland is isolated:.::::.......................................................................... ........................................................................... Comment: Springbrook Creek flows through the middle of the wetland. Surface water; water perched on fill: a. runoff b. precipitation 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a. large b. medium ................... .................... ................. Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: ;�' revel .................. .................. b. depressional c. other BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 1 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: another ...""'"'- b. wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow Comments: Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation TUVCM emergent vegetate d. 0--`2-5%- of wetland -covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge .............. ...... . .. . . ................. gc c. visible discharge Source: Springbrook Creek 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ............... ..... .. ... .. . X. etadcu . .. ....... ........ d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: seasonally, Ww BECKn3 BLACK RrrM 09/18/92 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water .... ........ c. Medrum ........... .....W.- ........... 2 .. Viand.... .. ....... ....... ive say; Mas ......- ......... . .. ................. ................... . ..... . d. Low diversity-, 1 wedand class Size of wetland: ............. b. 10 acres c. 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 5G-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians d. perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds f. other Presence of water: &#** seasonal 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable Comments: Spring -brook Creek supports fish habitat, BECKfM BLACK RrVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACMVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail md.. c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c. boat Environmental problems: visual, air, noise, water Location to schools:- Not applicable, BECKM BIACK RIVER 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 13B Weather: Clear Field Investigators: Pesha Klein and Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: uile ttiit 4tttlet iD the Wetland sigh as a ditch or calved b. wetland is isolated Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a. large c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: Date: 12/04/91 b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level c. other BHCKM BACK RFvER o9/1s/9z Com 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPINGIWATER QUALITY Association to: ....................... a «: 5ttiS b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow c c..... d;fioq Co Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation 1r 50~S°ja tii wand cavered w►th emergent iiegetattuz c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: ::::.........:...:::.:....,..:::...... . b. probable discharge c. visible discharge Source: 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ter. ed ern .g� .. sregetattc c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: s�, year-round Be.CKfM BLACK RWER 09/19/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c. Medium diversity, 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water i. diversity; :1 ive and ass _... _:..............m........ Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres f:EI~7.Q acres .................................. ................................... .................................. d. 30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c- 25-50% d. 0-25% ............... ............... Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland ``ave` ctiYtza� .. d. urban: residential e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians d. - perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds e. canopy cover f. other .................. Presence of water: permanent seas0:i: ................. .................. 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable Comments: Adjacent to Spring -brook Creek drainage from wetlands into Springbrook. BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: b. road - c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: b. road c. boat d. none Environmental problems: W�S';V:': air, noise. wagg Location to schools:— Not applicable BECKM BLACK RMER 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 13c Weather:- Clear, Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert b. wetland is isolated Comment: Wetland is adiacent to Snriny-brook Creek. Surface water; water perched on fill: ............... .... .. ..... .......... ia .......... 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: b. medium c. small Date: 12/04/91 Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level li ....... .. ........... ssatiria ............ c. other BECKM BLACK RrVER 09/18192 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: a. stream b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b....eetilotiv .............................. .............................. .............................. c. channelized flow Comments: Vegetation density. .............. ../ flf wettanc ccfveced with emergent s etahon b 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: b. probable discharge c. visible discharge 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density: zr 75 {l( of xve#1 c cm aced wlih emerg�nt've$ - ati0A b. SO45% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: seasonally, ys=rgtid BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. b -.' � " `High"-*....diversity;-,**--'"'3' ---wetland classes w/no' Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c. Medium diversity-, 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water d. Low diversity-, I wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres X.: 4.0 ...res .. ...... c, 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians Presence of water: &rYn::seasonal 6. FISHERIES HABITAT .......... . ... .... L ............... .......... ....... b. applicable BECKfn BLACK RrVER 09/19/92 3 Comments: 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: Access on the wetland: b. road c. boat d. none Environmental problems: **49*9e water Location to schools:- Not applicable. BECKfD BUCK RIVER 09/19/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 16 Date: 12/04/91 Weather: Clean Field Investigators: Pesha Klein Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert Comment: Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level C. other BECKM BLACK RtvER 09/18/92 1 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: a. stream b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a« nq t2ule€ ............................ ........................... ............................. li>�ee�flau� .............................. .............................. .............................. c. channelized flow Com Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation . f75% of x tovcxd wafbmergeut vegeCat3oz :...::..:.......:...............................::......:.....:.:...:......::...::::.......::...::::.::......:: e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: b. probable discharge c. visible discharge 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation 00.. Water present: sea;naliy= year-round BECICIn BLACK RIVER m/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water d. Low diversity-, I wetland class Size of wetland: b. 540 acres c. 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 5G-75% c. 25-50% d. 0-25% ............. .............. Sur -rounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential e urban wcomme"WAilled ............... Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects Presence of water: permanent, Seasaual 6. FISHERIES HABITAT b. applicable Comments: BECKfM RLACr RIVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland. a. trail c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: Environmental problems: :.4ir-maEse. water Location to schools:- Not applicable. F7 L BECKM BACK RFVER og/18/w Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 22 Weather: Field Investigators: Bob Denman and Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: ar 011 et to.z wefTaud such as a; iifch t r L',u it 'is b. wetland isolated Comment: The wetland area has previously been graded and filled. Surface water; water perched on fill: a. runoff DI MIOU ................ 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a. large . C. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: Date: 6/04/92 a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: b. depressional c. other BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: a. stream Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow c. channelized flow Comments: Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ... qrnfif'A' e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge .......... . ........................ ......... ............... .................. .............. C. visible discharge Source: Via the ditch, which is connected with wetland 3 (Orilla Pond) 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: seasoria.]j, year-round BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water ............. d. w diversity-, wetlandJ`class "—- Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres ............ acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% d. 0-25% e. 0% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential "A""' h A ....... ... Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects c- fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians Presence of water. permanent, .................. 6. FISHERIES HABITAT Ica i0 b. applicable Comments: BECKM BLACK RfVER 09/19/92 3 -7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail h'*XiW ................. C . . - boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail . C . - : boat d. none Environmental problems: visual, air, noise, water Location to schools:. Not applicable BECK/13 BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 32 & 33 Weather: Rain consistently throughout the day. Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert ... iand> is 'ts.. i ................................................ Comment: Surface water; water perched on fill: a >rtoff .................... ..................... .................................. 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a. large b. medium Date: 11 /08/91 Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level b>'�ri�priDria C. other BECKfM BLACK RW R 09/18/92 1 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: a. stream b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a<>na `iout�et ........................... b. sheet flow c. channelized flow Comments: Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation . w�an�, ...... wx€................. �tegttaa�z e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: ..:::::.:::.::.:.:,.:.:::;..: ;;<:..:... . b. probable discharge c. visible discharge 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: n year-round BECKM BACK RIVER 09/19/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c. Medium diversity-, 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water ... .. . .... ... .. i(3 ass .......... ....... ... ... ......... % ................................................. Size of wetland: - V5-:'=C.S ............. ............................ .' 5-16"a ... acres c. 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres c. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c- 25-50% d. 0-25% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c- active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential urban ......... . ... ... UI s . ..... Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects c- fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians d. perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds e. canopy cover f. other Presence of water: permanent, SsOa 6. FISHERIES HABITAT mwwo" b. applicable Comments: BWXM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail brt ................. c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: -i&6.' Environmental problems: nowater Location to schools:. Not applicable. BECK/n BLACK REVER 09/18/92 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 37 Date: 12/04191 Weather: Overcast occasional rain Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a inlet oat btitle� I�5 Lhe tvetiand s�tclz as a` ditch az L:uiverf ..........._....:..:......................::.:........................................... . . b. wetland is isolated Comment: Associated with Panther Lake. Panther Creek channel is the outlet for the lake. Surface water; water perched on fill: a>runoff ...................... ..................... b preagRt3txaz 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: a<aarge b. medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level ........................... 1%_' degre�soai C. other BWKM BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 1 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPINGJWATER QUALITY Vegetation density. a % t�f wezfaad .covered wlili:�mmergent vegetatwn b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: b. probable discharge c. visible discharge Source: 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a ofd aavr�d watb etnezgentgetaitoA .. ........ . b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: seasonally, *#0w BECK f M BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a,rrY fi ccrs; 3.mpr wetland cassesr ewef whsch_rs tlpen Wafer b. High diversity 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water d. Low diversity, 1 wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres c. 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres .................................... ................................... e ......... . ..................................... acres ........................... Percent of forested wetland: Surrounding land uses: ............................. a' uplan'�o�esY b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass i<ur -resatsa� ............................................... .............................................. e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amplubians Presence of water ft*a g seasonal 6. FISHERIES HABITAT a. not applicable Comments: Emergent portions of the wetland inundated by the lake provide rearing and cover areas. BECrM BLACK RNFR 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road d. none ` Environmental problems: W1'*1* .. I I noise water ............. Location to schools:. Not applicable, BECKfn BLACK RNIM 09/19/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 40 Weather: Overcast Field Investigators: Pesha Klein Margaret Edwins 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert i...weland ss'Isola€ed ................................................. Comment: Date: 11 /08/91 Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the wetland cannot provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: a. level fir;><;cEepzeSsaDna c. other BECKM BLACK RIVER 09/19/92 1 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPINGJWATER QUALITY Association to: a. stream b. another wetland Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a:rio;putle ......:..................... ........................... .................... b. sheet flow c. channelized flow Comments: Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation t 25- f vcetlaaci covered .I e?? erg ?i vi etahoa d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: b. probable discharge c. visible discharge Source: 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation C.3CC7YCitCd Wt€ Ezfr'Vg4�iafltUi of wetland covered with emergent vegetation Water present: n$1Iy year-round BECKM BLACK RINIER 09/18/92 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high diversity-, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water b. High diversity-, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water c. Medium diversity-, 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water d.owvetsvetlan i. cuss ............... Size of wetland: b. 5-A acres c- 10-20 acres d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% c- 25-50% d. G-2-5% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agricultural/grass d. urban: residential Unique features: a. raptures nest structures b. Snags > 25 feet high or < 25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians d. perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds e. canopy cover f. other Presence of water: permanent, SSCtfia 6. FISHERIES HABITAT b. applicable Comments: BECKfM BLACK RrVER 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: a. trail c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c. boat Environmental problems: y�sn' air, 60As6':- water Location to schools:. Not applicable. BECKrM BLACK RIVER 09/18/92 4 Wetland Functional Values Field Form City of Renton Wetland #: 45 Date: 4/14/92 Weather:- Overcast Field Investigators: Margaret Edwins and Lynn Schroder 1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION Regional groundwater: . ...... .... A ---- - ----- �S u b. wetland is isolated Comment: A norfh-south ditch connects wetland 45 with wetland 3 and wetland 22. Surface water; water perched on fill: a. runoff CIM—a-axon 2. FLOOD STORAGE Size of wetland: b. medium c. small Elevation of wetland to drainage feature: a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can provide flood storage. Topography of wetland: b. depressional c. other BECK[T) BLACK LAVER 09/19/92 Comments: 3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY Association to: a. stream Evidence of water movement through the wetland: a. no outlet b. sheet flow i*�'.*"*:a*a"i*!*,I,iA**b,rlzed*ft w ............ Vegetation density: a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ( ...................... ................ d'� ........... ...... cover afwd d. 0-25% of wetland covered ... wi,tl, emergent vegetation e. vegetation removed or altered Comments: Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: a. no known discharge h'a"r" Re c. visible discharge Source:- Wetland 3 via the ditch 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT Vegetation density. a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation b , 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation ... Mbii d. O-S% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation- ... . I Water present: 4. � year-round BECKIM BLACK RFVER 09/18/92 2 5. WILDLIFE HABITAT Diversity. a. Very high c. mecuum diVerSIty, L WeuanG d. Low diversity-, I wetland class Size of wetland: a. 0-5 acres b. 5-10 acres co 10204cTe& d. 20-30 acres e. over 30 acres Percent of forested wetland: a. 75-100% b. 50-75% 2-5-50 . . ............ d. 0-25% e. 0% Surrounding land uses: a. upland forest c- active agricultural grass d. urban: residential e urban industrial tniilie;�rsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unique features: out Open Water Water a. raptures nest structures b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects f. other Presence of water: permanent,SSftii 6. FISHERIES HABITAT b. applicable Comm BECYM BLACK RNTR 09/18/92 3 7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION Access to wetland: if .............. c. boat d. isolated Access on the wetland: a. trail b. road c- boat : . Environmental problems: visuals, worse, water Location to schools:. Not applicable BECKM BLACK RNM 09/18192 4 APPENDIX G Wetland Mitigation Strategies July 8, 1992 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. / 2820 NORTHUP WAY, SUITE 100 / BELLEVUE, WA 98004 206,822-1077 DATE: July 8, 1992 TO: Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck and Associates, Inc. FROM: Lynn Schroderd1j, Jonathan Ives SUBJECT: Task II.D - Wetland Mitigation Strategies for the City of Renton TECHNICAL MEINIORA1\TDUINI Introduction FAX 206.822-1079 The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify potential strategies for the City of Renton's wetland mitigation program. In March 1992, the City of Renton passed an interim ordinance relating to wetland management. Section 4-32-6.G of the ordinance allows for the development of a mitigation bank to satisfy wetland mitigation requirements. This technical report summarizes the goals for wetland mitigation in the City of Renton and assesses various mitigation strategies for implementing these goals. The wetland mitigation banking concept is discussed in detail and general implementation procedures and recommendations are outlined. Opportunities for restoration are defined and two sites are discussed as potential restoration sites. Mitigation Goals The City of Renton has identified several goals for wetland mitigation. With the approval of Wetland Management Ordinance No. 4346, the city council established goals of no net loss of wetland acreage and/or functions and values. The intent of the ordinance is to preserve and protect existing wetlands and to restore disturbed, low -value and/or historic wetlands. BECKM - BUCK RNER 07/U/97c Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 2 Other goals for mitigation, as established by the Department of Long Range Planning, include improving stormwater control, flood storage, and water quality; creating wildlife corridors; increasing aquifer recharge; and consolidating wetland mitigation within the Green River valley to enhance wildlife habitat and hydrologic value (Myer pers. comm.). Mitigation Strategies The Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) has defined mitigation to include avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require compensatory mitigation when unavoidable impacts are caused to wetlands. In a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Corps and the EPA concerning wetland mitigation, onsite or adjacent mitigation is identified as the primary compensatory mitigation alternative. If onsite or adjacent mitigation is not practical, offsite mitigation within the same watershed may be considered. Mitigation banking is also identified as an acceptable form of compensatory mitigation. Five potential approaches to compensatory mitigation are considered in this technical report. Onsite Mitigation Onsite mitigation is the primary compensatory mitigation addressed in the 1990 MOA between the Corps and the EPA (Corps and EPA 1990). Mitigation for impacted wetlands is accomplished through creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands on or adjacent to the project site. Onsite mitigation usually requires a baseline study, a conceptual mitigation plan, performance standards, a construction plan, a monitoring plan, and a contingency plan. Usually, long-term monitoring is also required. The primary advantage of onsite mitigation is that wetland functions and values are replaced in the area where they are lost. If the mitigation is successful, no net loss of wetland acreage and functions and values results. Onsite mitigation requires project proponents to plan their projects carefully to either avoid impacting wetlands or compensate for the impact on wetlands at the site. Onsite mitigation also requires that the project proponent bear the total cost of design, construction, monitoring, and maintenance. ' The primary disadvantage to onsite mitigation is that it can result in numerous, small, scattered creation or restoration projects that may not be cost effective, adequately designed, ' or efficiently constructed (Castelle et al. 1992). The utility in terms of wetland functions and values (i.e., habitat and hydrology) of scattered mitigation projects may be questionable (Short 1988). Individual project proponents may not have the time, money, or commitment to develop ecologically sound, well -planned, and effective mitigation plans. Furthermore, BCCK[n - BLACK RIVER mi08/9U Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 3 project sites may be costly or impractical for construction of desirable mitigation. From a regulatory perspective, onsite mitigation does not allow for a comprehensive planning approach to mitigation and it can be time-consuming and costly to manage and monitor numerous projects. Or site mitigation is an important component in achieving the city's no -net -loss goal and is the primary approach to compensatory mitigation outlined in the Corps/EPA MOA. If onsite mitigation is successful, no net loss of wetlands occurs and wetland functions and values are maintained at the location. However, unless lost or degraded wetlands are available at the project site, restoration of historic wetlands is not achieved with onsite mitigation. Furthermore, other goals identified by Renton's Department of Long Range Planning (i.e., hydrology benefits and wildlife corridors) may or may not be attained by onsite mitigation. Offsite Mitigation Offsite mitigation is addressed in the Corps/EPA MOA as an alterative to onsite mitigation (Corps and EPA 1990). Offsite mitigation allows the project proponent to fully develop the project site. Mitigation for wetlands impacted at the project site occurs offsite at a selected site usually within the same drainage basin. Offsite mitigation may allow project proponents to consolidate mitigation requirements from several projects or allow two parties to consolidate their individual mitigation requirements. Offsite mitigation differs from mitigation banking in that the offsite mitigation is exclusive to a specific project or projects. Credits are not established for unknown future impacts on wetlands. Once the mitigation is completed for a specific project or projects, the offsite mitigation site cannot be used for mitigation of future impacts on other wetlands. Construction of offsite mitigation usually occurs prior to, or at the same time as, the impact on existing wetlands. The mitigation wetland provides the same functions and values as the impacted wetland and may provide more. As with onsite mitigation, long-term monitoring is usually required. Offsite mitigation can result in restoration of historically important lost or degraded wetlands. If offsite restoration opportunities are available to a project proponent, the city's goal of an overall gain of restored historic wetlands can be achieved through offsite mitigation. Furthermore, if the city allows project proponents to combine mitigation requirements from different projects or to pool mitigation requirements of several developers, the city's goal of consolidating mitigation can also be achieved. With a consolidated mitigation effort, design, construction, monitoring, and mitigation evaluation may be easier. Consolidation may result in an increase in regional wetland functions and values and may increase the likelihood of success of the mitigation. BECKM - BUCK RlVFR 07i09/92c Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 4 The primary disadvantage of offsite mitigation is the loss of wetland acreage at the project site. This results in a net loss of wetland functions and values for a particular area and public. Offsite mitigation does not allow for comprehensive planning of mitigation efforts. Also, if offsite mitigation is too readily available, project proponents may not plan their projects carefully to either avoid impacting wetlands or compensate for the impact on wetlands at the site. Consideration must be to given to the ability of wildlife species to relocate to offsite mitigation sites. According to Josselyn et al. (1990), resident species with restricted ranges may not be able to migrate to newly created or restored wetlands. This would result in a loss of species diversity within the mitigation wetlands. Offsite mitigation may be a successful way to achieve no net loss of wetland acreage while potentially contributing to the city's goal of restoration of historic wetlands. If several projects are mitigated at one site, then the city's goal of consolidating wetlands for wildlife and hydrologic support could be achieved. Concerns about loss of species could be addressed by locating mitigation wetlands along already established wildlife corridors or by a wildlife relocation program. Regional wetland functions and values such as stormwater control, flood storage, water quality, and aquifer recharge may be enhanced with a consolidated offsite mitigation effort. Because of the cost involved with land acquisition and restoration, offsite mitigation is most cost-effective for larger mitigation projects. Fee -In -Lieu Programs Fee -in -lieu programs are designed to allow the project proponents to proceed with a development without requiring specific compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts. Instead the project proponent simply pays an impact fee to the city. The fee is placed into an accumulating fund that is used to create consolidated mitigation projects. Under a fee - in -lieu system, the city is responsible for the creation, operation, and maintenance of mitigation projects. Fee -in -lieu programs offer some advantages. First, the program can simplify the local permit process for the project proponent. Second, the city can consolidate mitigation efforts at sites that provide significant restoration opportunities. Third, fee -in -lieu programs can provide the funds to create large mitigation areas that may be more ecologically valuable and more easily monitored and maintained than smaller mitigation areas. Finally, a fee -in - lieu program would allow the city a limited degree of preplanning for restoration efforts. The disadvantages of a fee -in -lieu program are that the program does not provide compensation prior to or concurrent with wetland impacts. The result is a net loss of wetland functions and values in the interim between the impact and creation of compensatory mitigation. Also, fee -in -lieu programs are fee -driven and dependent on development to produce the funds for compensation projects. Because the amount of money available for compensation projects cannot be determined in advance, planning 13WY 3 - Bucx RIVER 07il,8rok Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 5 efforts are limited. If the funds are insufficient to complete a mitigation project, the city may end up providing some of its own money to complete the project. A fee -in -lieu program may result in project proponents relying too heavily on impact fees without proper planning to avoid wetland impacts. As with other forms of offsite mitigation, fee -in -lieu programs can result in a loss of wetland functions and values in a particular area. Finally, fee -in -lieu programs place the burden of mitigation on the city. Because fee -in -lieu programs do not provide for mitigation that is concurrent with impacts, this type of program does not provide adequate compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts under Corps jurisdiction. Additionally, the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) does not view fee -in -lieu programs as appropriate compensatory mitigation (Castelle et al. 1992). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) views fee -in - lieu programs as appropriate compensatory mitigation only in very limited situations (i.e., highly urbanized areas) (Stellini pers. comet.). Because of the inherent problems of fee -in -lieu mitigation and the lack of federal and state suppoFt, such a program does not appear to be an appropriate strategy for compensatory mitigation for the City of Renton. Special Areas Management Plan A Special Areas Management Plan (SAMP) is a federally sponsored, inter - jurisdictional aquatic resource protection program that involves advance planning for critical aquatic resources and wetlands. The outcome of the SAMP process is a regional development plan that is agreed upon by the appropriate federal agencies, cities, counties, and other interested parties. Potential areas for development are identified, and predetermined mitigation approaches for wetlands within the special area are outlined. High -value wetlands that are off-limits to development are also identified. A regional permit to fill designated wetlands may be issued by the Corps as part of the process. SAMPs can include wetland preservation, offsite mitigation, and mitigation banking. (Marshall pers. comm.) In Section 4-32-6.G of Ordinance No. 4346, the city encourages the use of a SAMP program where appropriate. The City of Kent is currently involved in a SAMP. The SAMP process is effective in establishing regional strategies for managing aquatic resources. Advance comprehensive planning of wetland resources and potential mitigation is the primary advantage of this approach. Advanced planning is beneficial to the local governments, landowners, and developers. Disadvantages include the difficulty of reaching an agreement among all involved parties including landowners and developers. Additionally, because it is impossible to BCCXfn - BUcx Rn'FR 07iC8ro2c Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 6 anticipate all the needs of all potential projects, the comprehensive planning approach results in a generalized approach to managing wetland resources. Furthermore, the up -front costs of a SAMP may be greater than other approaches. The SAMP process is appropriate for urbanizing areas and ar-as that are experiencing extensive growth (Marshall pers. comet.). The comprehensive planning approach identifies areas for potential development, addresses water quality issues, develops regional wetland hierarchy and regional mitigation approaches, and establishes performance standards. Because the city has already addressed many of the issues through Washington Growth Management Act requirements, the Black River Water Quality Management Plan, and the East Side Green River Watershed Plan, the SAMP process may not be a feasible approach and logical step to wetland management in the Green River valley portion of Renton. Mitigation Banking Mitigation banking is "wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement undertaken expressly for the purpose of providing compensation for wetland losses from future development activities" (Lewis 1990). Mitigation banking differs from more traditional types of mitigation in that it provides for a cooperative approach to mitigation by agencies, developers, and nonprofit organizations. It allows for consolidation of mitigation efforts from a variety of unrelated development projects. Additionally, mitigation banking is intended to provide compensation for wetland impacts in advance of development activities. (Short 1988.) A mitigation bank operates much like a conventional bank account. The bank holder creates, restores, or enhances a predetermined wetland acreage in advance of the need for mitigation for specific development projects. The banked wetland is then evaluated and quantified into credits for future use. The evaluation methodology used to quantify the banked wetland is agreed upon by the regulatory agencies and bank holder prior to the commencement of the banking project. After the credits are determined, they can be 'withdrawn" to compensate for small, unavoidable wetlands losses associated with development projects. The bank holder can continue to "withdraw" credits from the mitigation bank for development projects until the balance reaches zero. At that time, the wetland bank is no longer available as potential mitigation for additional wetland losses. The bank holder, however, continues to be responsible for the success of the wetland bank. (Short 1988.) There are several advantages of a mitigation bank. Wetland banks provide for , consolidation of mitigation for small, scattered, relatively minor wetland losses within a drainage basin. Consolidation of mitigation may provide a larger, more environmentally ' valuable area that is more efficient and more economical to develop than scattered wetland BECK/77 - BLACK RrVER m/os/vu Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 7 mitigation projects (Castelle et al. 1992, Short 1988). Regional wetland functions and values may be increased as a result of the concentrated mitigation effort (Short 1988). The likelihood of success of the mitigation may be increased due to the larger area; consolidation of management, finances, and the required monitoring program; and a greater planning effort (Kusler 1992). Additionally, construction, monitoring, and evaluation of mitigation may be easier for a larger mitigation site. Mitigation banks provide for increased cooperative planning efforts on the part of the project proponents and government agencies and shorten the permit process. Finally, mitigation banks provide mitigation in advance of impacts on wetlands. Notwithstanding the numerous advantages of mitigation banking, there are disadvantages. By definition, mitigation banks are wetland areas that are created, restored, or enhanced in advance of wetlands losses; however, it is difficult to design appropriate functions and values to offset unknown future impacts. Although mitigation banks are usually within the same drainage basin as impacted wetlands, the mitigation may occur at a considerable distance, resulting in a net loss of wetland functions and values for a particular area and public (Kusler 1992). As with offsite mitigation, wildlife species may not be able to relocate to newly created mitigation bank sites. Also, creating a mitigation bank in an area decreases the availability of potential mitigation areas for the surrounding property owners. Mitigation banks may be used to mitigate for a variety of wetland types and could result in a net loss of specific wetland types. Furthermore, project proponents may rely too heavily on a bank to provide mitigation for their projects and may not fully examine other potential (and possibly more appropriate) mitigation alternatives (Kusler 1992). If the mitigation bank involves wetland enhancement rather than wetland restoration or creation, an overall net loss of wetlands results. Because it takes several years to determine the success of a mitigation bank, a net loss of wetlands could occur if credits are used prior to the evaluation of success. Finally, the cost in time and money for the involved agencies to develop and maintain a mitigation bank program may be prohibitive and may never be totally recovered (Castelle et al. 1992). The USFWS has developed a decision chart to determine the appropriateness of mitigation banking (Figure 1). The USFWS conceives mitigation banking as an appropriate form of compensatory mitigation for projects that involve numerous small unavoidable wetland losses where other mitigation alternatives are limited. According to the UFWS, mitigation banks "appear to be especially applicable for small projects with individual losses that are relatively minor and cannot be fully mitigated on, or immediately adjacent to, the project site" (Short 1988). The most effective and successful wetland bank sites are filled or otherwise degraded wetlands that would benefit from restoration or enhancement (Castelle et al. 1992, Short 1988). Mitigation banking, in conjunction with onsite mitigation and offsite mitigation, has the potential to fulfill the city's policy of an overall no net loss of wetlands. Mitigation BECKfn - BLACK RIVER m/oa/v2c Do the projects for which the mitigation bank is being No established require federal or local wetland permits? Yes Will several small projects be involved with neces- No sary and unavoidable losses that would be difficult or impossible to mitigate on an individual basis? Yes No Are other mitigation possibilities limited or nonexistent? 1 Yes No Will the permit applicant(s) support offsite mitigation? Yes No Will the city's regional wetland goals be enhanced by a mitigation banking effort? I T Yes Will the expected expenditure of time and money be No worth what will be gained from a mitigation pempedive? Yes Will the projects be planned and strictly operated in No accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations? Yes No Is there acommitment from all involved parties that the bank, once established,will not be used as a substitute for proper project planning or as assurance of blanket approval of future permit applications? Yes Mitigation banking may be considered as a Source: Adapted from Short 1988. mitigation approach. Figure 1. Determining the Appropriateness of a Mitigation Banking Effort B6cKIn - BLACK MIR rr/oa/vk Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 9 banking may meet the city's goal of consolidating wetlands within the Green River valley for wildlife and hydrologic support. Regional wetland functions and values such as stormwater control, flood storage, water quality, and aquifer recharge may be enhanced with a consolidated mitigation effort. Each mitigation banking proposal must be evaluated individually to determine the appropriateness of such an approach. Implementing Mitigation Banking The Department of Long Range Planning presently favors mitigation banking as an alternative strategy for compensatory mitigation in Renton. Following are recommendations for planning and implementing a mitigation banking program. Recommendations The success of a mitigation bank depends on the success of the wetland mitigation. In a recent report, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation found that only 27% of the mitigation actually conducted in the State of Florida was ecologically successful (Redmond 1992). Only 127o of the freshwater mitigation projects were ecologically successful. The reasons for such large failure rates include the lack of permit compliance; only 6% of the permits reviewed were found to be in full compliance with the permit requirements (Redmond 1992). In the Pacific Northwest where the science of wetland restoration and creation is relatively new, the success of mitigation may be further hindered due to the limited technical and scientific literature base (Josselyn et al. 1990). Given these considerations, the city should approach mitigation banking with caution. To increase the probability of mitigation success and ensure the city's goal of an overall no net loss of wetlands, mitigation banking programs should include several elements. First, mitigation banks should be limited to restoration of historic wetlands. Although enhancement and creation are mitigation options, the opportunities for restoration within the city are excellent. Additionally, the probability of success of the mitigation is greater for restoration than for creation (Kruczynski 1990b). Furthermore, enhancement alone does not qualify as no net loss of wetlands and would only be appropriate for seriously degraded wetlands with very limited functional values (Kruczynski 1990a, 1990b). Second, because the success of the restoration efforts cannot be guaranteed, it is important that an evaluation of success be completed prior to the withdrawal of credits (Lewis 1992). Lewis (1992) recommended that mitigation banks be monitored for a minimum of 3 to 5 years before issuing mitigation credits. Third, mitigation credits should only be used when wetland impacts are unavoidable and all other mitigation options are exhausted. Potential bank users should be required to complete an alternatives analysis prior to an application to use any bank credits. BSCKM - BUCK RIVM QI/OB/97a Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 10 Mitigation banks should be designed to incorporate as many of the city's identified goals as possible and to maintain habitat diversity. Although it is difficult to design appropriate functions and values to offset unknown future impacts, developing a mitigation bank that includes different wetland types may minimize this concern. To ensure that a particular area and public benefit from mitigation, banks should be located within the same drainage basin and as close to the impacted wetlands as possible. The area of bank applicability should be defined prior to construction of the bank site. Finally, long-term monitoring and maintenance are necessary to ensure the success of the bank. Long-term monitoring should focus on enforcement of permit specifications and evaluation of effectiveness (i.e., functional value) of the restoration project. Remedial action should be required in case of partial or complete bank failure. Implementation Process The first step in implementing a mitigation bank is to identify the bank operator and establish an interagency team (Short 1988). The bank operator is the legal entity responsible for the implementation of the mitigation bank. In the case of the city, the Department of Long Range Planning may assume the lead role on mitigation banking projects. An interagency team should be established to coordinate and negotiate issues that arise during the planning process and to determine goals of the mitigation bank. At a minimum, the team should include representatives from the Corps, EPA, USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), WDOE, Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW), and other departments within the city. A formal banking agreement stating the goals and objectives, outlining the guidelines for bank uses, and defining obligations of all involved parties should be drafted. The agreement should also include a decision -making process that will be used in case of conflicts concerning the agreement or the use of the bank. The agreement usually takes the form of an MOA that is signed by the interagency team. Once an agreement is established, a conceptual mitigation plan can be developed. Mitigation should focus on maintaining habitat diversity and increasing wetland functions and values. The funding for creating the mitigation bank program should be provided by the permit applicants. The following steps (adapted from Short 1988) are recommended when implementing a mitigation bank: 1. Identify agencies and other interested groups that would be appropriate to consider for an interagency team. 2. Select the type and category of wetland that needs to be included in the proposed bank. EECKM - etwcx PJVM a7/oZro2. Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 11 3. Identify potential bank sites. 4. Evaluate potential bank sites and select the most suitable candidate site. 5. Conduct a baseline study of the candidate site. The study should include an assessment of the water regime, water source, pH of soil and water, potential soil contaminants, soil type, and other technical considerations. Recommendations about the restoration potential and site design should be made at this time. 6. Select the final bank site and acquire the land. 7. Develop a detailed mitigation plan that mitigates for the designated wetland types and category. In -kind mitigation should be emphasized. Develop a long-term monitoring plan, management policy, and evaluation methodology. 8. Agree to the bank credit and debit procedures, including any restrictions on the use of bank credits. 9. Construct the bank site and determine the available credits using the selected evaluation methodology. 10. Use the bank, as appropriate, to mitigate for necessary and unavoidable project impacts. .Site Selection A mitigation bank site should be specifically selected for each banking proposal based on defined selection criteria, site -specific technical considerations, and project -specific goals and objectives (Castelle et al. 1992). Each potential site should be evaluated individually. Consideration should be given to adjacent land use, site ownership and ownership of adjacent properties, zoning, future development of the area, and habitat tradeoffs. The selection criteria should be established by the interagency team with input from property owners and developers (Castelle et al. 1992, Short 1988). Because restoration is more successful than creation, potential mitigation bank sites should be limited to areas with significant wetland restoration opportunities. Potential sites should be within the same drainage basin and as close to the development projects as possible. The potential banking sites should be large enough to provide significant wildlife B[CKrn - BUCK RWER 07/08/97e Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 12 habitat and hydrologic support. The landowner should be willing to sell the land for mitigation banking purposes. Sites with contaminated soil should not be considered. The flow chart in Figure 2 can be used to identify potential bank sites. To best achieve the city's identified mitigation goals of improving stormwater control, flood storage, and water quality; creating a wildlife corridor; increasing aquifer recharge; and consolidating wetlands for wildlife habitat and hydrologic support, priority should be given to potential bank sites in the following order: 1. sites owned by the city, 2. sites adjacent to Springbrook Creek or the Black River, 3. sites that are located in the upper part of Springbrook Creek, 4. sites that possess a surface water connection to Springbrook Creek or the Black River, 5. sites near significant wildlife habitat and/or established wildlife corridors, 6. sites larger than 10 acres, 7. sites that have been illegally or recently filled, and 8. sites located away from industrial activity. Bank Crediting There are several methodologies for establishing credits for mitigation banks. Because the city has identified specific wetland mitigation goals, a method for crediting based on created area and wetland functions is appropriate. This type of crediting would award credits based on the city's established replacement ratios and the creation of multiple wetland functions. Evaluation Methodology The evaluation methodology used to determine the available credits should be based on wetland functions. Three wetland evaluation methodologies are available: the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), and the WDOE Wetland Rating System (Castelle et al. 1992). The City of Tukwila also has a wetland rating system that may be an appropriate evaluation methodology. BECKIn - BUCK RNM 07/08192. No No No Is the site for which the mitigation bank is being considered within the same drainage basin as the impacted wetlands? Yes Is the soil at the site free from hazardous or toxic contaminants? Yes Are significant restoration opportunities available at the site? Yes No Is the potential mitigation bank site large enough to meet the mitigation requirements of the specific development project(s)? Yes, No Are goals and objectives of the mitigation bank compatible with the site? Yes �. No No No No ►M. No No No No The site should not be considered as a potential mitigation bank site. Does the mitigation wetland at the site possess the potential to exceed the functional values of the impacted wetlands or increase established regional wetland mitigation goals of flood storage, flood conveyance, wildlife habitat, orother wetland functions? Yes Is a potential water source that is suitable to maintain the water regime and hydroperiod of the mitigation wetland available onsite? Yes I Have any legal restrictions on the use of the potential water source in the mitigation wetland been addressed and resolved? Yes 1 Can suitable topography be attained to support the mitigation wetland? Ye 4 Can desirable planted species out -compete undesirable or invasive weeds? Yes Is the mitigation wetland technically feasible at the site? Yes.l Can the mitigation wetland be maintained without human assistance? Yes 1 Can an upland buffer of the size appropriate for the category of the mitigation wetland be created? Yes,lj. Can the site be acquired by the city? Yes i The site may be considered as a potential mitigation bank site. Figure 2. Determining Site Suitability for Mitigation Banking EEC- - BLACK ruvER 13 m/oa/vm Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 14 The HEP analysis is a species -specific habitat evaluation that rates habitat quality and quantity. The HEP analysis quantifies the impacts of the changes to the land in terms of habitat of specific species. The HEP does not quantify other wetland functions. The WET is a comprehensive assessment of wetland functions and values but is not quantitative. Also, because the `VET analysis was developed to evaluate large, rural wetlands, the WET analyses is not a particularly good evaluation methodology for urbanized wetlands. The WDOE wetland rating system, which categorizes wetlands based on wetland functions and values, is quantitative, The wetland rating system developed for the City of Tukwila is also a quantitative approach to wetland analysis. A combination of the HEP and either a modified WDOE rating system or a modified Tukwila rating system may be used to calculate mitigation bank credits. An evaluation methodology specifically developed for mitigation banking for Renton should also be considered. Potential Opportunities for Restoration Two sites appear to be suitable candidate sites for mitigation banking: Wetland 22, the proposed Glacier Park mitigation bank site, and Wetland 5c, the Black River Tract C (as defined in the City of Renton Wetland Inventory [City of Renton 19921). Significant opportunities for restoration are available at these sites. Both sites have large areas of historic wetlands that were legally filled in the past. Restoration of these areas would enhance the functional values of the existing wetlands and increase regional wetland mitigation goals. Baseline site evaluations would be necessary to determine the restoration potential of these sites and to evaluate potential bank design. VYetland 22 - Glacier Park Site The proposed Glacier Park mitigation bank site is a 31-acre site situated in the historic Green River floodplain. The site is presently zoned for industrial use. Because of the size and number of wetland habitat types, Wetland 22 can be considered a Category 2 wetland according to the wetland classification system outline in the city's wetland ordinance. The land surrounding the site includes Wetland 13c to the north, undeveloped commercial land to the east and west, and developed commercial/industrial land to the south. Wetland 13c was previously categorized by Jones & Stokes Associates in the Wetland Impact Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum as a Category 1, very high -quality wetland (Jones & Stokes Associates 1992). The Glacier Park wetland (Wetland 22) consists of three separate, seasonally wet wetlands totaling approximately 19 acres (David Evans and Associates 1991). Wetland habitat at the site is classified as palustrine emergent marsh, scrub -shrub, and forested wetland (David Evans and Associates 1991). The remaining 12 acres of the site is upland meadow and shrubland (David Evans and Associates 1991). BWKM - BUCK PJVFR 07i08/9k Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 15 Although only 12 acres is available to create a mitigation bank, this site ,,would benefit from restoration. Because of the size and quality of Wetland 22 and proximity to high quality wetland habitat to the north, restoration of the 12-acre fill would augment the wildlife habitat value of the area. Parts of Wetland 22 already have moderate to high value for storm water, floodwater control, and hydrologic support (David Evans and Associates 1991). These functions would increase proportionally with an increase in wetland acreage. Additionally, if an open water component were added to the existing wetland habitat types, wildlife habitat, flood storage, stormwater control, and hydrologic support functions of the wetland would be significantly increased. Restoration at the site would not significantly enhance the groundwater recharge capability. NVetland 5c - Black River Tract C The Black River Tract C is a 42-acre site situated along the remnant channel of the Black River. The site is surrounded by high -quality (Category 1 and 2) wetland habitat to the west, east, and south and by a railroad track and upland forest to the north. The Black River old -growth riparian wetland borders the property to the south and west. Wetland 15 is a palustrine forested and scrub -shrub wetland that borders the property to the east. The P-1 pond is also present south of the property. Wetland 5c is approximately 23 acres of dense, monotypic black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and willow (Salix spp.) saplings. The saplings are approximately 30 feet tall and the canopy cover is approximately 95111o. The wetland is hydrologically connected to the P-1 pond by seasonal overland flow. The remaining 19 acres is upland grassland. Because of its large size and habitat type, Wetland 5c can be categorized as a Category 2 wetland. Restoration of the upland grassland would benefit Wetland 5c and the surrounding wetlands. Again, the wildlife habitat value would be augmented by increasing the wetland area. By adding structural diversity to the wetland, the wildlife habitat would be further enhanced. Increasing the wetland area would increase the flood storage, storm water control, and hydrologic support of Wetland Sc and adjacent wetland systems. Additionally, adding an emergent habitat component to the existing wetland would increase the primary productivity of the wetland and increase the ability of the wetland to trap sediments and take up pollutants. The added area may increase the residence time of water in the wetland and further improve water quality. Groundwater recharge, however, would not be significantly enhanced at the site. Summary Mitigation banking, in conjunction with ofsite and offsite mitigation, is an appropriate alternative for achieving the goal of no net loss of wetland acreage, values, and functions for the City of Renton. Mitigation banking has the potential to meet the city's BECKr M . BUCK PJVM 07/O8/97c Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 16 goals of consolidating wetlands within the Green River valley for wildlife and hydrologic support, increasing stormwater control and flood storage, and enhancing water quality. Mitigation banking is best suited for areas where significant restoration opportunities exist. Potential sites should be evaluated individually based on selection criteria established by the interagency team, project -specific goals and objectives, and site -specific technical considerations. Priority should be given to sites that are currently owned by the city or sites that could provide significant hydrologic benefits. The Glacier Park mitigation site and the Black River riparian area appear to be suitable mitigation bank sites. Significant restoration opportunities resulting from past filling are present on each of these sites. A banking effort at either site would increase the hydrologic and wildlife benefits of the surrounding wetlands and augment regional wetland goals. CITATIONS Printed References Castelle, A. J., S. Luchessa, C. Conolly, M. Emers, E. D. Metz, S. Meyer, and M. Witter. 1992. Wetlands mitigation banking. Adolfson Associates, Inc. Edmonds, WA. Prepared for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Corps and EPA. See "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency". David Evans & Associates, Inc. 1991. Wetland determination on the Renton # 14 parcel. Bellevue, WA. Glacier Park Company, Seattle, WA. Josselyn, M., J. Zedler, and T. Griswold. 1990. Wetland mitigation along the Pacific Coast of the U.S. Pages 3-36 in Jon A. Kusler and Mary E. Kentula (eds.), Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press. Washington, DC. Jones & Stokes Associates. 1992. Wetland impact alternatives analysis; technical memorandum. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA. BE7C/n • BLACK RMUt m/oe/v2c Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 17 Kruczynski, W. L. 1990a. Mitigation and the Section 404 program: a perspective. Pages 549-555 in Jon A. Kusler and Mary E. Kentula (eds.), Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press. Washington, DC. 1990b. Options'o be considered in preparation and evaluation of mitigation plans. Pages 555-570 in Jon A. Kusler and Mary E. Kentula (eds.), Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press. Washington, DC. Kusler, J. Environmental Law Institute. 1992. The mitigation banking debate. National wetlands newsletter 14(1):4. Jan./Feb. 1992. Lewis, R. R. 1990. Wetlands restoration/creation/enhancement terminology: suggestions for standardization. Pages 417-422 Jon A. Kusler and Mary E. Kentula (eds.), Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the science. Island Press. Washington, DC. Environmental Law Institute. 1992. Why Florida needs mitigation banking. National wetlands newsletter 14(1):7. Jan./Feb. 1992. Redmond, A. Environmental Law Institute. 1992. How successful is mitigation banking? National wetlands newsletter 14(1):5-6. Jan./Feb. 1992. Renton, City of. 1992. Critical areas inventory. City of Renton wetlands and stream corridors. Renton, WA. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Bellevue, WJA- Short, C. 1988. Mitigation banking. (Biological report 88[41].) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Memorandum of agreement between the EPA and the Department of the Army concerning the determination of mitigation under the ' Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Washington, DC. Personal Communications Marshall, John. Environmentalist III. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. May 1990 - telephone conversation. EECK/73. BLACK RIVER 0I/I9/92e Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck July 8, 1992 Page 18 Myer, Mary Lynne. Principal planner. City of Renton, Department of Long Range Planning, Renton, WA- March 19, 1992 - telephone conversation. Stellini, Joanne. Fish and wildlife biologist. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA - March 23, 1992 - telephone conversation. LS:dat BECK/73 - BLACK RrVM a7/08/92. APPENDIX H Habitat Inventory January 31, 1992 (Revised February 12, 1992) WW-1159-BA2-AH TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To; Michael S. Giseburt From: David T. Hoopes Date: January 31, 1992 (Revised 2/12/92) Subject: Black River Water Quality Management Plan Habitat venter Introduction This Technical Memorandum includes a general description of the habitat conditions comprising the aquatic environment (excluding wetlands) within the area bounded to the north by $W Grady Way, to the east by Talbot Road, to the south by SW Ord Street and to the west by the Green River. The two streams within the study area are Springbrook Creek (P-1 Channel) and Panther Creek (P--9 Channel in part). A more complete description of these two streams and their drainage basins may be found in the Current Conditions Document prepared for the City of Renton by R.W. Beck and Associates (Beck, 1991). Special consideration has been given to a discussion of water quality impacts on the aquatic habitat based upon water quality information received to date. This information is to be integrated into the water quality assessment task. Habitat Inventory sprjngbrook Creek gubstrate: From the Black River Pump Station upstream to SW 43rd Street, Springbrook Creek flows through the valley bottom at a gradient of less than one percent (<1%). The combination of low gradient, channelization and heavy sediment loading has resulted in a substrate composed primarily of a dark grey fine silty sand and black fine to medium sand. in some reaches small Pebbles become mixed in with grey medium to coarse sand. Nearer the upstream limit of the study area in the vicinity of SW 41st Street and oaksdale Avenue SW, the stream bottom becomes underlain with grey clay beneath a covering of black silty sand. Riparian Coysr: The streamside corridor primarily supports a mixture of shrubs and grasses although along certain segments landowners have landscaped their property adjacent to the stream banks. The overstory canopy is restricted in practically all instances, leaving the stream surface open to solar insolation. The flobdway along the regulated reach of the creek immediately upstream of the Black River Pump Station has been planted recently with trees and shrubs that, when mature, will provide some shade - 2 - but the plantings are so widely scattered and the reach itself is so wide and shallow at base flow that little improvement in water quality can be expected from this attempt at riparian mitigation. Except for bank stabilization and aesthetics, these plantings offer little in the way of overall improvement to aquatic resources, Panther Creek - Existing Condition Substrate: Under existing conditions the lower segment Of Panther Creek lea%es the Panther Creek Wetland at its upstream end and crosses under SR-167 by way of several culverts. From the west side of SR-167 to the intersection of East Valley Road and 34th Street, Panther Creek flows through a short, open drainage ditch. At 34th Street the creek enters a series of underground stormwater drains where it is carried a distance of about 2,300 feet to daylight at its confluence with Springbrook Creek. The substrate in the short open portion of the stream between the wetland and 34th Street is composed primarily of silty sand. Substrate upstream of the wetland is described below under Lure Co ditions. Riparian Cover: Banks along the existing short reach of open channel between the Panther Creek Wetland and 34th Street are covered with low shrubs and grasses dominated by the exotics Scotch broom and Reed canary grass. Cover upstream of the SR167 crossing is described below under Future _Qonditions. Panther Creek - Future Condition Substrate: The lower, regulated segment of Panther Creek, from its confluence with Springbrook Creek at SW 23rd Street upstream to the Panther Creek Wetland, will flow through a deepened and widened ditch, passing under Lind Avenue, East Valley Road and SR-167 through culverts. This portion of the stream (presently referred to as the proposed re-establishment of Panther Creek) will have a very low gradient and the substrate will be composed Primarily of silty sand. Within the Panther Creek Wetlands the stream channel will be braided and the substrate contains a high percentage of decomposing organic material. From the upstream end of the wetland to Talbot Road, the stream gradient steepens, the bottom is. composed principally of sand, small gravel and some small cobbles and the channel is braided as a result of past high water events. Much of the base flow in this reach appears'to percolate through the loose gravel substrate. The stream channel is not well defined through this reach at base flows and appears subject to shifting in response to flood events. If the streambed were to remain stable in this reach, it would afford spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and resident trout. A poorly installed culvert at -- 3 - Talbot road completely blocks further fish passage upstream. Riparian Cover: The lowermost, or re-established Panther Creek, portion presently has banks covered with small shrubs, grasses and fcrbs. The channel itself receives little or no shading from the riparian vegetation in this reach. Within the wetland, an understory of reeds, sedges and rushes is topped by stands of willow and a broken overstory canopy of cottonwood and bigleaf maple. During summer months sore shade is provided by riparian vegetation in this reach of Panther Creek (re-- established). The section from the upper end of the wetland upstream to Talbot Road supports a fairly dense understory of blackberry bushes and other shrubs and an almost ccrplete canopy of deciduous trees. Water Ouallty Impacts Recent water quality conditions in Springbrook Crack have been summarized by Zisette (1991) from data collected by Metro (1990) . Data collected during the current Black River study do not reflect the extreme conditions reported by Metro but samples to date have been obtained at a time of the year (fall) when conditions of precipitation and ambient terperature are normally conducive to improved water quality. Data collected in late September (9/26/91, 9/30/91) and early October (10/1/91) showed dissolved oxygen (DO) values in the study reach of Springbrook Creek to vary from 7.6 ppm at SW 43rd Street on September 26 to 8.7 ppm just upstream of the confluence with the P-9 channel on September 30. This proposed re-established alignment of Panther Creek showed an extreme drop over just a few days from a- Do of 8.9 ppm for a sample taken at Talbot Road on September 26 to a DO of 0.4 ppm calculated from a sample taken on October 1 from the P-9 channel just upstream of its confluence with Springbrook Creek. The fact that these two samples were taken several days apart from entirely different locations along the stream may have considerable bearing on the marked difference in recorded values. Water temperatures in both Springbrook and Panther creeks ranged from 55 degrees F. to 60 degrees F. during the same period.. Water temperatures observed during a storm event in mid -November were cooler, ranging from 46 to 49 degrees F. Values for pH remained around 7.0 throughout the period, except for one reading.of 8.0 from Panther Creek on September 26. The historic data indicate that the above water.quality parameters can fall below the tolerance level of anadromcus and resident salmonid fishes. Certainly a DO of 0.4 at the lower end of the re-established portion of panther Creek represents a - 4 - condition intolerable to fish. Aside from that value, however, no water temperature, Do or pH data collected so far during the present study indicate conditions that would stress organisms in the aquatic environment. However, as stated above, the current samples were collected at a time of year normally known for ameliorated water quality conditions. Effects of Metal Contamination Elevated levels of lead, copper, zinc, nickel, chromium and cadmium have been reported for Springbrook Creek in the past (Metro, 1990). At times values for these substances have exceeded EPA chronic criteria standards. Sediment samples from the mouth of Springbrook Creek contained zinc concentrations of 85.4 mg/kg. Past highh flow sampling has indicated elevated levels of zinc that exceeded acute standards on four of six occasions (Metro, 1990). Leacl Toxic effects from lead have been reported in fish at concentrations as low as 0.ol mg/l, although other tests have shown absence of toxic effects at concentrations as high as 4.0 mg/l. A grab sample taken from Springbrook Creek near Oaksdale Avenue during a storm event on November 19, 1991 had a lead content of 0.18 mg/l. An earlier sample from this location taken on September 26, 1991 during base flow conditions contained only a trace amount of lead. Samples collected at other sites throughout the study area during both base flow and storm event sampling contained only trace amounts of lead. Copper The effects of copper on fish appear to be magnified enormously by the fact that it interacts with other metals such as zinc and cadmium to form compounds of greater toxicity. Concentrations of copper as low as 0.015 mg/1 have been reported as toxic to fish. Other aquatic organisms of importance to the food chain of ;Fish are also quite sensitive to copper. The maximum recommended concentration of copper sulfate (a common algicide) is 0.014 mg/l. During base flow sampling in late September and the beginning of October, 1991, a concentration of 0.058 mg/1 was recorded for a water sample obtained from the Black River at the pump station forebay. Concentrations of 0.013 and 0.014 mg/1 were recorded from Springbrook Creek near the Longacres Race Track and SW 41st Street, respectively. During the storm event on November 261 1991, concentrations of copper in Springbrook Creek reached 0.031 mg/1 near SW 43rd Street. Earlier, on November 19, 1991, a concentration of 0.013 mg/1 was recorded for a sample taken just downstream of SW 34th Street, less than a quarter mile - 5 - downgzadient. The remainder of water samples collected within the study area during the fall of 1991 contained only small amounts of copper, less than 0.01 mg/1. Zing Fish are strongly affected by zinc. concentrations as low as 0.01 mg/1 have been observed to be lethal. Some synergistic effects appear to occur when zinc is present in combination with copper and cadmium. The normally accepted concentration goal for zinc is the limit of detectability. At many sampling points within the study area during base flow sampling concentrations of zinc exceeded the upper limit for continuous exposure in soft water (0.01 mg/1) set by the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). Only the Panther Creek value fell below this level. During storm event samplinq, half of the stations (including Panther Creek) has concentrations of 0.05 mg/l or more, which exceeds the WDF continuous exposure level for hard water. Cadmium Fish appear to be quite sensitive to cadmium. In addition, there appears to be a synergistic effect between cadmium and other metals, notably zinc. The lowest concentration indicated as being lethal to fish is equal to the U.S. Public Health Service limit of 0.01 mg/l. Salmon fry are reported to have been killed by 0.03 ng/1 of cadmium together with 0.15 mg/1 of zinc. Analyses of samples collected during both base flow and storm events indicate that cadmium levels at the time of sampling were well below levels considered dangerous for fish and other aquatic organisms. Other Potential Pollutants The unquantified presence of possibly toxic substances has already been noted at several sites during the present water quality sampling program. The extent to which these observations indicate potentially adverse conditions remains unknown at ,this time but the presence of any foreign substances in the aquatic Environment in concentrations detectable to the senses indicates conditions that are probably unsuitable for aquatic life if allowed to persist for any long period of time. on September 30, 1991 an odor of petrochemicals was detected along Springbrook creek in the vicinity of its confluence with Panther Creek (P-9 Channel) and an oil sheen was observed on bottom sediments in the vicinity of the sample site. These same conditions were noted upstream at the SW 43rd Street sampling station as well. Large amounts of suspended white flocculent were observed in Springbrook Creek near SW 36th Street on October 1, 1991. An oil sheen was observed again on November 19, 1991 in the vicinity of SW 34th Street accompanied by an odor resembling some form of pesticide. An odor of petroleum and a slight sheen was noted downstream near the pumn station that same day. At that site conditions worsened during the brief sampling period, perhaps from bottom sediments disturbed while taking stream flow measurements. Discussion The suitability of Springbrook Creek as a source of spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous and resident salmonids has been rated as poor based on several important characteristics (Metro, 1990). The present inventory made as part of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan confirms this evaluation. While Do and water temperature values generally fell within acceptable limits, these figures only represent conditions over a brief period of the annual cycle. Substrate composition is not suitable for spawning throughout the study reach. Significant improvements in riparian vegetation management would be necessary before cover requirements advantageous to aquatic life forms could be met. Open streams such as Springbrook Creek provide prime foraging sites for large piscivorous birds such as great blue herons. With little available cover, rearing salmonids become susceptible to heavy.losses from predation by herons and other similar predators. The presence of heavy metals represents a potentially adverse factor the magnitude and severity of which is difficult to quantify at this time. Nonetheless, any action taken to reduce the presence of these substances in the aquatic environment will benefit all organisms inhabiting Springbrook Creek. The lower portion of Panther Creek (re-established) will suffer from conditions similar to (hose found in springbrook Creek. Substrate composition and lack of cover reduce the value of this reach as habitat for salmonids. Upstream of the wetland, conditions improve but the lack of a defined channel and the presence of a complete block to upstream movement severely restrict the value of a re --established Panther Creek to anadromous fish. Without suitable spawning habitat and questionable rearing capacity due to degraded water quality, especially during the warm summer months, both Springbrook Creek and Panther creek offer little in the way. of fish habitat within the study area. Upstream of Renton, however, Springbrook Creek and its tributaries, Mill Creek and Garrison Creek, may contain habitat conditions suitable for salmonid spawning and rearing. in that respect lower IL Springbrook Creek serves as an essential link between the Green River and headwater spawning grounds. This stream should be managed so that it continues to serve in that vital capacity. References R.W. Beck. 1991. East Side Green Rive- Watershed Plan: Current Conditions Document. City of Renton, Dept. of Public Works, Renton, Washington. 23 pp. (Processed) Bell, Milo C. 1989. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological criteria. Corps of Engineers, North pacific Division, Portland, -Oregon. Metro. 1990. Quality of local lakes and streams: 1988- 1989 status report. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Water Resources section, Water Pollution Control Department. Seattle, Washington. Zisette, Rob. 1991. Water quality monitoring and quality assurance project plan for the Black River Water water Quality Management Plan. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. for the City of Renton, Department of Public Works, Renton, Washington. 26 pp. plus appendices (Processed) APPENDIX I Preliminary Water Quality Problem Definition March 20, 1992 BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY PROBLEM DEFINITION Prepared for R.W. Beck & Associates 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98121 and City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1414 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98109 March 20, 1992 BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY PROBLEM DEFINITION INTRODUCTION Water quality conditions within the Black River basin are primarily a function of ongoing human activities and practices that take place within the basin. This preliminary analysis of water quality problems focuses on the relationships between land use, population dens: �, and other factors that affect water quality. Existing and anticipated water quality problems, including point and nonpoint sources of pollution, are identified and discussed. Because water quality monitoring and pollution source identification within the basin are ongoing, this analysis and problem definition must be considered preliminary. Source control alternatives are not identified herein but will be addressed later as part of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan (BRWQMP) (Task 3.B.1). The major surface water features of the planning area are Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek. Springbrook Creek receives most of the surface runoff generated within the basin, including runoff generated within the Panther Creek subbasin. In turn, Springbrook Creek flows enter the P-I detention pond and are then pumped to the Green River via the Black River pump station. The only remaining remnant of the Black River, a small drainage ditch, also flows to the P-I pond. Springbrook Creek, as the recipient of most surface water runoff within the planning area, is reflective of those ongoing watershed activities that adversely affect water quality. The following discussion focuses on existing water quality problems within the planning area and on current and projected activities or uses that may adversely affect water quality. LAND USE AND POPULATION DENSITY Existing Conditions The study area for the BRWQMP comprises approximately 6,000 acres. This area includes portions of the City of Renton, the Panther Creek subbasin (including the Panther Creek wetlands), and the lower and middle Springbrook Creek basin. The study area can roughly be divided into two major physiographic regions, an upland and lowlands. 1783A1\PREWQDEF 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. The upland plateau, which includes the Panther Creek basin, extends along the eastern portion of the planning area and is dominated by residential development. The categories of existing residential use are high density (710 acres), medium density (280 acres), and low density (391 acres) (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 1991). Commercial use accounts for approximately 300 acres, and the remaining acreage (approximately 880 acres) is undeveloped. Commercial land uses predominate in the lowlands of the planning area along the SR-405 and SR-167 corridors and in the Renton commercial district. This land use (1,100 acres) represents approximately one-third of the total acreage (3,200 acres) in the lowlands. Residential land use accounts for approximately 550 acres of developed area, while 1,575 acres remain undeveloped in the lowlands (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants 1991). Land use relates directly to the quality of urban runoff generated within a given basin or subbasin. Urban and commercial uses result in an increase in impervious area yielding higher runoff during storm events. In addition, urban and commercial land uses result in an increase in pollutant loading that is carried via stormwater runoff to receiving waters such as Springbrook and Panther Creeks. Within the Black River basin, degraded water quality conditions may, at least in part, be attributed to the urban and commercial land uses present. Various commercial and light industrial operations located within the valley are believed to contribute pollutants to Springbrook Creek via surface water runoff. These operations include auto wrecking yards and several light manufacturing firms. Improperly stored chemicals and waste materials enter storm drains from these facilities and are believed to adversely impact water quality in Springbrook Creek. In addition to surface water, groundwater may also be adversely impacted at these facilities. Improper disposal of chemical wastes and accidental spills of chemicals at these facilities can result in contaminated soils and groundwater. Other urban and rural residential activities that occur within the basin and potentially impact water quality include hobby farming (fertilizers, fecal coliform bacteria), gardening and lawn maintenance (fertilizers, pesticides), onsite wastewater disposal (nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria), and improper disposal of wastes (paint, antifreeze, petroleum products, pet wastes). 1783A1\PREWQDEF 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Future Conditions While a major portion of the lowlands (Springbrook Creek subbasin) is currently undeveloped (approximately 1,575 acres), a large portion of this area (approximately 870 acres) is expected to be converted to commercial and high -density residential use under full build -out conditions. The City of Renton Planning Department estimates that the commercial portion of the lowlands will be completely developed in the next five to seven years (Meyer 1991 personal communication). Assuming that such development occurs uniformly during this period, approximately 200 acres of land will be under construction each year in the Springbrook Creek subbasin. The uplands portion of the planning area (Panther Creek subbasin) contains approximately 880 acres of undeveloped land. Because of water supply and transpiration corridor constraints, full development in this primarily residential basin is not anticipated to occur as quickly as in the lowlands. Full development may be estimated to occur within the next 15-20 years. Construction and land clearing activities carry the potential to severely impact water quality and aquatic habitat within the basin. Because of the level of development that is predicted to occur, the potential for water quality problems to occur from this activity is relatively large. Controls such as best management practices including resodding will be important to minimize degradation of water and habitat quality within the basin. The City of Renton has recently adopted the King County Surface Water Design Manual, which identifies stormwater detention and treatment required for new development. Thus, for all new development that occurs within the. BRWQMP area, storage and treatment of stormwater runoff is required. While this requirement will provide detention and treatment of runoff from new development, retrofitting of existing stormwater drainage systems will be necessary to reduce or eliminate water quality problems arising from existing developed areas within the basin. 1783A1\PREWQDEF 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION Existing Conditions Based upon current land use in both the Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek subbasins, existing sediment loading due to soil erosion and washoff is estimated at approximately 750 tons per year (Herrera 1992a). Problems related to stream channel erosion have been identified by King County (1987). Soil and slope conditions combined with increased runoff from urban development have resulted in severe channel downcutting and erosion of streambanks along major portions of upper Panther Creek and upper Springbrook Creek. Downcutting is evident in the upper 1 to 1.5 miles of Panther Creek where stream gradients reach as high as 15 percent. Sediments derived from the upper basin are being deposited in lower -energy areas of the stream, filling in the existing wetland, and blocking fish passage. Similar conditions exist in the upper Springbrook Creek channel where channel gradients exceed 15 percent. Localized erosion problems have also occurred at some storm drain outfalls to the creek. Future Conditions Based upon predicted future land uses within the BRWQMP area, water quality problems were estimated quantitatively based upon the potential for soil erosional losses that could be anticipated during construction activities (Herrera 1992a). Erosional losses during construction in the Panther Creek basin are estimated at 16 tons per year without controls and 0.1 tons per year with controls (immediate sodding). For the Springbrook Creek basin these losses are estimated at 26 tons per year without controls and 0.2 tons per year with controls. Overall, however, sediment loading is predicted to decrease from a total of 750 tons per year in both basins to 510 tons per year. This decline in sediment loading will result primarily from the reduction in the amount of undeveloped cleared land (from 458 acres to 152 acres) that remains after full development. Undeveloped cleared land is highly susceptible to erosion, particularly in the Panther Creek basin where soils and steep slopes are conducive to erosion. Once developed, a large portion of this land will be covered with impervious surface and will no longer be Subject to erosion. Streambank erosion and channel degradation in both the Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek subbasins are anticipated to increase with development unless adequate stormwater 178.3A1\PREWQDEF 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. control facilities are constructed to reduce the rate of runoff from developing areas. Areas of most concern are upper Panther Creek and upper Springbrook Creek where extensive development is anticipated and where already unstable streambank conditions would be aggravated by increased runoff. WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY Existing Conditions Based upon historical water quality data compiled for the Black River basin, several problem areas have been identified (Herrera 1992b). Available chemical and biological data indicate that the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek exhibit poor water quality. According to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro 1990), Springbrook Creek is among the most degraded of the 21 streams routinely sampled in the Metro service area. Chronic water quality problems include very low concentrations of dissolved oxygen (during summer low flow); high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria; high turbidity; and elevated concentrations of suspended solids, total phosphorus, and ammonia. State standards or criteria are consistently exceeded for dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform bacteria. Sediment quality in Springbrook Creek may also be classified as poor. Concentrations of heavy metals in Springbrook Creek and upstream Mill Creek are elevated and exceed freshwater sediment criteria (Ecology 1991) for cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc. The primary source of these metals is believed to be the Superfund site located upstream on Mill Creek (i.e., Western Processing). The transport of contaminated sediments downstream into Springbrook Creek from Mill Creek is an ongoing problem. Aquatic insect (benthic invertebrate) communities in sediments of lower Springbrook Creek also indicate poor water and sediment quality. Low numbers and a low diversity of insects have been observed by Metro (1992). Poor habitat conditions including low dissolved oxygen levels and toxicants have contributed to this problem. Metro (1990) also reports that the suitability of Springbrook Creek for salmonid spawning and rearing is poor. Coho salmon are known to return to the Springbrook Creek system. Garrison Creek, located outside the planning area and tributary to Springbrook Creek, is 1783A1\PREWQDEF 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. believed to provide spawning and rearing areas for these fish because the conditions in Springbrook and Mill creeks are unsuitable (Metro 1990). Future Conditions Because residential, commercial, and industrial development is predicted to increase rapidly within the planning area, future impacts to water quality, sediment quality, and aquatic habitat arising from practices associated with these land uses are also anticipated to increase. Thus, water quality conditions within the Black River basin are anticipated to worsen unless controls are implemented. The BRWQMP is addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollution within the planning area and will recommend controls including best management practices to improve and protect water quality. FLOODING Existing Conditions Recurrent flooding along the Springbrook Creek drainage corridor is caused by various problems including a lack of capacity in the existing stormwater drainage system. The low gradient present in the valley floor exacerbates backwater conditions during high runoff events, resulting in frequent recurring flooding at several areas within the basin. Drainage problems related to flooding in the valley have been identified by R.W. Beck (1991). Water quality problems arising from frequent flooding are related to various circumstances, such as the inundation of stored materials, including toxicants, that may be released and enter into -flood flows. Flood waters may also carry away contaminated soil from commercial or industrial activities or from improperly stored waste products. Other flood -related impacts to water quality that occur within the basin include those associated with stream channel vertical erosion combined with lateral erosion and sediment deposition. High turbidity and suspended solids result from these processes, negatively impacting instream beneficial uses including fish and other aquatic habitat, fish spawning, and aquatic plant productivity. 1783A1\PREWQDEF 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Future Conditions Continued recurrent flooding within the lower Springbrook Creek drainage corridor may be expected to increase if flood controls are not instituted in the future. In addition, increased development may be expected to increase the volume of stormwater runoff and thus further exacerbate flooding unless onsite or regional detention controls are employed. Within the upper reaches of Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek, an increase in development and a subsequent increase in impervious area may also be expected to result in increased stormwater flows. Increased development will also result in an increase in stormwater pollutants entering Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek. While erosion and sedimentation impacts may decrease due to an increase in impervious area, impairment of instream beneficial uses in Springbrook Creek and in Panther Creek may be expected to continue as a result of increases in other stormwater pollutants such as metals, organic compounds, and fecal coliform bacteria. If flood controls are instituted as part of the East Side Green River Watershed Management Plan, water quality problems within the lower Springbrook basin may be expected to decrease. The level of flood -related improvement in water quality will be dependent upon the alternative, if any, chosen for flood control. 1783A1\PREWQDEF 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. REFERENCES Ecology. 1991. Summary of criteria and guidelines for contaminated freshwater sediments. Compiled by J. Bennett and J. Cabbage, Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Herrera. 1992a. Sediment loading estimates for Black River study area. Task 1G. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. February 12, 1992. Herrera. 1992b. Review of historical water quality data for the Black River Water Quality Management Plan. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. February 26, 1992. King County. 1987. Basin reconnaissance program. Metro. 1990. Quality of local lakes and streams: 1988-1989 status report. Prepared by Water Resources Section, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. Metro. 1992. Unpublished data provided by B. Bremner, Water Resources Section, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA. Meyer, M. 1991. Personal communication (phone by Beth Schmoyer). Planning Department, City of Renton, WA. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. 1991. East side Green River watershed hydrologic analysis. Prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates and City of Renton, Department of Public Works. R.W. Beck. 1991. East Side Green River Watershed Management Plan. . Current conditions document. October 1991. 178.3A1\PREWQDEF 8 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. APPENDIX J Water Quality Alternatives Analysis March 3, 1992 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Giseburt, R.W. Beck & Associates FROM: Wally Trial, Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. DATE: March 3, 1992 RE: Water Quality Alternatives Analysis for the Black River Water Quality Management Plan INTRODUCTION Potential impacts to water quality as a result of the four preliminary flood control alternatives proposed for the East Side Green River Watershed Plan (ESGRWP) are described herein. Each of the alternatives, except the no -action alternative, proposes hydrologic/hydraulic modifications to Springbrook Creek or its tributaries to control or reduce flooding in the lower reaches of the East Side Green River Watershed. This analysis also identifies potential enhancement measures that will serve to improve water quality for each of the proposed constructed alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3, and 4). Generally, flood control measures can be expected to enhance and improve water quality simply because a reduction in the occurrence of flooding or excessive flow events may be expected to result in reduced erosion and sedimentation which in turn reduces the in -stream levels of turbidity and suspended solids. However, construction activities that alter existing stream channel(s) and stream channel hydrology may also potentially result in adverse impacts to water quality. These potential impacts, if they exist, are noted for each of the alternatives. Specific elements of the proposed Alternatives have been previously described in the East Side Green River Watershed Plan Project Summary Document (R.W. Beck 1991) and are also summarized here to provide a basis for the description of potential water quality impacts or benefits afforded by each Alternative. 178A\WQMPALTS 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Alternative 1 - No Action Because Alternative 1 proposes that no new flood controls be implemented as part of the ESGRWP, water quality within Springbrook Creek may be expected to remain in a degraded condition. Existing water quality has been rated as poor by Metro and includes exceedances of Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) standards for oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, and turbidity. Levels of conductivity, total phosphorus, total solids, metals, and ammonia are also high and are indicative of a degraded system. Past structural changes in the stream channel may have contributed to degraded water quality but land use activity within the basin is believed to the major cause of the existing water quality impairment. Therefore, Alternative 1 may be expected to result in continuing flood -related impacts to the water quality of Springbrook Creek. Flood -related impacts to water quality include those that are associated with stream channel vertical erosion and aggradation (i.e., scour and fill) combined with lateral erosion and sediment deposition. High turbidity and suspended solids occur as a result of these processes and exert a negative impact on stream beneficial uses including fish and invertebrate habitat, fish spawning, and aquatic plant productivity. Flooding can -also affect water quality through the inundation of stored chemicals or other hazardous materials including petroleum products. Flood waters may also cause the backup and overflow of sanitary sewer systems resulting in the discharge of untreated wastewater. Flooding may also result in the washoff of contaminated surface soils which have been previously impacted by uncontrolled site activities such as wrecking yards, automotive repair, and illegal waste disposal. The presence of contaminated sediments in Springbrook Creek indicates that the control of such sources is warranted. Under Alternative 1, Springbrook Creek will continue to exhibit an impairment to those beneficial uses affected by periodic flooding. In addition, further increases in impervious area due to development within the basin may be expected to result in additional runoff, thus increasing flooding and resulting in further degradation of water quality in Springbrook Creek. 178A\WQMPALTS 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Because Alternative 1 proposes no new structural controls to improve drainage within the basin, benefits to water quality as well as drainage from this alternative would depend entirely upon the on -site control of stormwater. On -site detention of stormwater by individual property owners (i.e., new development) would not control existing flooding but could reduce the magnitude of future flooding and the associated impacts to water quality. Alternative 2 - Localized Improvements to Springbrook Creek Alternative 2 proposes that local improvements be made to the Springbrook Creek drainage course at strategic locations within the basin. These improvements, including wetland enhancement and fish passage, are designed to improve drainage capacity and reduce flooding. Proposed local improvements include the following: 1. Improved capacity of existing Springbrook Creek culvert crossings is proposed for SW 27th Street, SW 34th Street, and along SW 43rd Street between Lind Avenue and 41st and Oaksdale Avenue. 2. The widening and deepening of the Springbrook Creek channel from Oaksdale Avenue to the existing railroad bridge is also proposed to increase the stream channel capacity. As a result of this proposed activity, steep stream bank slopes would be created along this reach of Springbrook Creek. 3. Wetland mitigation is proposed for selected locations that would control water levels and allow for fish passage through various wetlands of the valley. Specifically, enhancement of the Panther Creek Wetland is proposed in conjunction with the re-establishment of Panther Creek (P-9 channel). This would provide fish passage and the re-establishment of a natural stream channel between Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek. Hydraulically, these improvements are intended to eliminate flooding problems along the East Valley Highway where undersized culverts prevent drainage from flowing to Springbrook Creek. A new culvert crossing is proposed for SR-167 to convey Panther Creek Wetland flows to the new Panther Creek Channel. All other culvert flows would be 178A\WQMPALTS 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. plugged thus directing all Panther Creek Wetland flow across SR-167 and into the new Panther Creek Channel. Widening of the Springbrook Creek channel from Oaksdale Avenue to the existing railroad bridge, while reducing flood -related impacts to water quality, would result in steep stream banks to achieve the desired depth and channel width. These steep side slopes would, unless substantially stabilized, be subject to erosion and could potentially result in impacts to water quality. Also, establishment of vegetative cover along this section of stream channel would be difficult. Such cover is necessary to reduce water temperatures and increase dissolved oxygen levels in Springbrook Creek and to provide cover for fish populations that the channel is also designed to enhance. Deepening of the channel, if excessive, could also result in stagnant water conditions during summer low -flow periods. Such conditions could impair water quality and the fish habitat provided by the channel improvements. Directing all of the upstream Panther Creek flows through the entire length of the Panther Creek Wetland may be expected to result in an improvement in downstream water quality. Biofiltration and removal of total suspended solids and associated pollutants would serve to enhance settling and removal of these particulates in the wetland. Directing the bulk of the incoming stream flow through the wetlands instead of allowing diffuse water losses will promote ad improvement in downstream dissolved oxygen during the summer, low-water months. Increasing the capacity of the existing storm drainage system (i.e., installing longer culverts or bridges) will serve to prevent flooding and flood -related impacts to water quality in those areas of the valley south of SW 27th Street. Channel and wetland enhancement for Alternative 2 should also include the planting and development of streamside vegetation along Springbrook Creek. Small trees and other vegetation would act to stabilize the streambanks, provide shade and reduce water temperatures, and provide cover for fish. Streamside vegetation is most important for those areas along Springbrook Creek where summer low -flow conditions result in low dissolved oxygen and elevated temperatures. 178A\WQMPALTS 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Alternative 3 - Flood Flow Diversion Alternative 3 proposes the diversion of high flows from Springbrook Creek and wetland enhancement: 1. High flows from Springbrook Creek would be diverted from the stream channel into a new flood diversion channel. This diversion channel would begin at SW 43rd Street and then rejoin Springbrook Creek approximately 8,000 feet downstream. The diversion channel bottom width would be 70 feet with 3:1 side slopes. A diversion weir would maintain low flows (up to the two-year storm flow) within Springbrook Creek. 2. Alternative 3 would also provide for enhancement of the Panther Creek Wetland as noted for Alternative 2. 3. Alternative 3 would also include stream channel improvements between 16th Avenue SW and SW Grady Way, which would include a high flow diversion through the existing I-405 box culvert. The high flow diversion channel proposed at SW 43rd Street would result in a reduction in flood -related impacts to water quality. Diversion of only high flood flows and maintenance of lower flows within Springbrook Creek would also be expected to reduce sediment deposition at least in that portion of Springbrook Creek that was by-passed. Erosive impacts of flood flow and sediment deposition would still potentially impact those areas of Springbrook Creek located downstream of the diversion channel. Low flow water quality conditions in Springbrook Creek would likely remain unchanged as a result of the SW 43rd Street diversion channel. Potential impacts to water quality as a result of the proposed Panther Creek Wetlands enhancement would be the same as those described for Alternative 2. Stream channel improvements proposed between 16th Avenue SW and SW Grady Way would simply divert high flows through the existing I-5 box culvert. Such a diversion is expected to reduce the impact of erosive flood flows on the existing Springbrook Creek 178A\WQMPALTS 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. channel. Thus, a reduction in erosion potential for this segment of Springbrook Creek is expected to result in a reduction in downstream sedimentation impacts. As noted for Alternative 2, all proposed channel and wetland enhancement should also include provisions for the establishment of a streamside vegetation community in those areas where year-round stream flow will be maintained. Alternative 4 - Diversion of Stormwater to Kent Lagoons and the Green River Alternative 4 focuses on the upstream diversion of flood flows from the lower reaches of Mill Creek which is a tributary to Springbrook Creek. Peak flows would be diverted from Mill Creek into the City of Kent Lagoons. Pumping from the lagoons would transfer this water directly into the Green River. Alternative 4 is dependent upon several factors including a change in the regulatory requirement which states that discharges to the Green River are allowed only up to high river flows of 9,000 cfs. This Alternative then, would require that pumping to the Green River be allowed at river flows of up to 12,000 cfs. Because upstream diversion of Mill Creek at the City of Kent would dramatically reduce the downstream flows in Springbrook Creek, flooding conditions in Springbrook Creek could be dramatically reduced. With this reduction in Springbrook Creek flooding, water quality improvements would also occur. These would, as noted for the other Alternatives, be related primarily to erosion and sedimentation impacts. However, other flood -related impacts to water quality would also be reduced including the inundation and release of improperly stored chemicals, and washoff of contaminated soils including agricultural wastes. Because the diversion of high flows upstream of Springbrook Creek would reduce the erosive effects of these flows and prevent large amounts of sediment from reaching the creek, water quality and fish habitat would be improved significantly. Also, because the construction of engineered channels would not occur as identified for Alternatives 2 and 3, the potential impacts to water quality for Alternative 4 would be less than for all of the other Alternatives. Likewise, water quality benefits accruing as a result of Alternative 4 would be the greatest of all Alternatives. 178A\WQMPALTS 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. APPENDIX K Alternative Analysis for East Side Green River Watershed Plan and Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan April 14, 1992 City of Renton East Side Green River Watershed Plan/Black River Water Quality Management Plan ESGRW PLAN FLOOD CONTROL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION (Task III.B.3 of the BRWQM Plan) April 14, 1992 I. Introduction This memorandum describes the preliminary alternative evaluation process used to select the preferred flood control alternative for the East Side Green River Watershed Plan. The alternative evaluation process was conducted two times, first by the Consulting Team (R.W. Beck, Herrera, Jones and Stokes and Associates, and Matrix Management Group), and second by the City Is Design Team. This memorandum uses the following organization: I. Introduction II. Relevant Information III. Alternative Selection Process IV. Consulting Team Results V. City Design Team Results VI. Discussion of Results This memorandum also contains several worksheets which were used during the evaluation process by the consulting team and City Design Team. A summary list of these worksheets is as follows. Worksheet Number Description 1 Blank Criteria Weighting Worksheet 2 Blank Alternative Ranking Worksheet 3 Consulting Team's Criteria Weighting Worksheet Results 4 Consulting Team's Alternative Ranking Worksheet Results 5 City Design Team's Alternative Ranking Worksheet without Weighted Criteria Values 6 City Design Team's Criteria Weighting Worksheet Results 7 City Design Team's Alternative Ranking Worksheet Results 8 Comparison of Alternative Ranking Worksheet between Consulting Team and Design Team II. Relevant Information Several sources of information were used as a basis for understanding the proposed flood control alternatives. This information included descriptions of the alternatives as well as _. identification of potential impacts and benefits these alternatives would have on the drainage system. This information included the following: 1 o ESGRW Plan Hydrologic Analysis Report, December 1991 by NHC o ESGRW Plan Hydraulic Analysis Report, March 1991 by R.W. Beck o R.W. Beck March 13, 1992 memorandum which evaluates each flood control solution with respect to the criteria "effectiveness in solving flooding" o Herrera March 3, 1992 memorandum which evaluates each flood control solution with respect to the criteria "water quality considerations" o R.W. Beck March 13,- 1992 memorandum which supplements the water quality considerations o R.W. Beck February 2, 1992 memorandum which evaluates each flood control solution with respect to the criteria "fisheries/wildlife considerations" o Matrix Management memorandum which evaluates each flood control solution with respect to the criteria "implementation and financing" o Matrix Management memorandum which summarized alternative benefits o March 13, 1992 Alternative Evaluation Summary (3 sheets) o R. W. Beck Preliminary cost summaries of alternatives (dated 3/30/92) o Jones and Stokes March 16 memorandum which evaluates each flood control solution with respect to the criteria wetland considerations" o City of Renton February 25, 1992 memorandum which evaluates each flood control alternative with respect to the criteria "transportation considerations" III. Evaluation Process The evaluation of flood control alternatives was conducted in two steps. The first step included identifying criteria for which to evaluate the flood control alternatives and developing relative weights of importance between each of these criteria. The evaluation criteria included the following: o Effectiveness in solving flooding o Wetland considerations o Water quality considerations o Fisheries considerations o Cost/Benefit o Aesthetics/Human Environment o Operations and Maintenance o Implementation and Financing o Difficulty of Project 0 Interjurisdictional Requirements o Transportation Considerations These criteria are defined on the attached worksheet 1. Our experience has shown us that evaluation criteria are not generally considered equally important to one another. For example, in comparing "solving flooding" against "wetland considerations", we would generally regard solving flooding to be of greater importance for this project. This argument is supported by past City projects as well as with other jurisdictions when flood control projects are implemented that impact wetlands. Generally, such flood control projects would include mitigation measures for impacts to wetlands. To determine the relative importance of evaluation criteria, a worksheet is used which compares each criteria against every other criteria. A point system is used to show a preference of importance between each criteria. After comparing all criteria, the total points for each criteria are added giving the relative importance. A blank worksheet is attached (worksheet 1). The second component of the alternative evaluation includes scoring how well each of the alternatives perform against the criteria. A point system is used to define whether an alternative results in a benefit or a negative impact. The point system is as follows: Score Description +1 The alternative creates significant benefits, greater benefits than other alternatives +0.5 The alternative creates moderate benefits 0 No significant change, the alternative benefits are offset by impacts -0.5 The alternative creates moderate negative impacts -1 The alternative creates significant negative impacts, greater negative impacts than other alternatives The score of the alternative with respect to a criteria is then multiplied by the criteria weight to determine the number of points for that criteria (see worksheet 2). Adding the total number of points of every criteria gives the total number of points for the alternative. The alternative with the highest number of points is the preferred alternative. This process is shown on the attached blank alternative evaluation worksheet 2. IV. Consulting Team Results The Consulting team's results on both the criteria weighting spreadsheet and the alternative ranking spreadsheet are attached. 3 City of Renton — East Side Green River Watershed Plan Criteria Weighting Process Criteria Number Dew rir)tion A A Effectiveness in Solving Flooding How important is it to meet the City's adopted stormwater management standards B Wetland Considerations How important is it that the 2ltern3tive improvements do not negatively Scori impact and/or enhance wetlands C Water Qaulity Considerations How important is it that the ahernative improvements do not negatively impact and/or enhance water qualiry D Fisheries Considerations How important is it that the alternative improvements do not negatively impact and/or enhance the fish resource E Cost/Benefit How important is the cost in terms of benefits in ev2luation of alternatives F Aesthetics/Human Environment How important are the aesthetics/human environment in selecting the preferred alternative. Examples of this criteria include appe2rence, whether or not the alternative facilitates opens space, parks, trails, or recreational opportunities. NVU the project look natural or out of place? G Operations and Maintenance How important are operation and maintenance considerations. O and M cortsiderations include new O&M cost for new facilities, ease of maintenance, and reliabiliry H Implementation and financing How important is implementation and financing I Difficulty of Project How important is the number end extent of permits and approvals required before the project can be implemented J Interjurisdictional Requirements How Important How L•nport2nt are interjurisdictional requirement-? Does 3 — Major Preference the alternative require other jurisdictions to do something 2 — Minor Preference before project can be implemented or financed 1 — SlightNo Preference K Transportation Considerations (one point each letter) How important are transportation cort_siderations? Total Points A B C D E F G H I J Please complete Scoring Matrix Table. Enter a letter and number in each square. K For example box A— B: o if the effectiveness in soling flooding is much more important than wetland consideration, write in A3 o if wetland considerations are moderately more important than soling flooding, write in B2 o If there is only a slight or no preference, write in AB Then add up the total number of points for each Criteria. East Side Green River Watershed Plan Altcrnativc Evaluation Flood Contol Alternatives Criteria Critcria weight (1) Alternative 1 — No Action Score 2 [I'oinl� 3 _ ---(Z �_Z Alternative 2 — Springl,rook Cr. Alternative 3 — Flood Flow Alternative,l — Kew lagoons Score 2 _ _I' in Ls 3- - (2 �_)- Score_ 2 1_Poinls ,(-) 3 - - -(3) Score(2)-Pints - --- - 3 _ Effcctivcncss in Solving Flooding Wetland ConsideratiorLs Watcr Quality Considcradons Fishcrics/Wildlife Considcratiorus Cost[Bcncftt Acsihctics/I-lurnan Environment Operations and Maintenance Implementation and financing Difficulty or Project Imc 'urisdictional Rcquircmcnis Terns ort160n Considerations Total Scores Rank Notes (1)From Criteria Weighting Process workshect (2) Scoring shall be based upon the table below. A positive score indiates that the alternative results in a benefit for the particular alternative. A negative score indicates that the alternative results in negative impacts. Score Description + 1 Alternative creates significant benefits, greater benefits than other alternatives -I- 0.5 Alternative creates modcratc benefits 0 No significant change, Alternative Benefits are offset by impacts — 0.5 Altcrnativc creates modcratc negative impacts — 1 Altcrnativc creates significant negative impacts, greater impacts than other alternatives (3)Points arc delermined by the product of the criteria weight and the score Criteria t'Veichlinq Prccess Cri,.e7i2 .''umber De`,-: 1 A Effectiveness in Sel�ing Flooding F, O\i'L^r ::c,-,t S iI iO,i,eet i:,e Clij S 2G0171ed Si1e7 :.,2 2Ce.—ln et Si2:,G27dS 3 NT7etland Considerations H 0 W u:,pJ r zr,t is :t 12 21 1 h e 2Jiern 2:i\'e imP,0\'emCn1S d0 nC,I AnC`2 ii\'e1y Li,p2Ct anu!0i VIL 2r1CC'«'etla7,GS C NVater Qauhty Considerations HOw 'S 1t that Lyle 21:ernz:ive do not ngziively in, Pzcl 2ndfOr erilznCe ��ter CL 11 V D Fisheries Considerations How L7r 7t2nI'S It Lh21 i-le zlie:nzllve imp: ove:;,Cn LS d0 not neia:ively i,—.p2ct and/or erihance the fish 7esource E Cost/Benefit How the cent irl ,C7 of benefls Li e\z1u21ion of zlierr,2tivcs l? Aesthetics/Hum2n En�-iro=ent How in, Port2ni 2Te Lhe 2eS1 heJCShL`,;,an en\Joru,,en,t Ln selez-,L.Q the preferred aliCrnz:ive. 'Examples of Ll'i c7lie7i2 L"lclude 2ppe2rence, whether or not the 2hern2Uve feC' 112ieS GpCiS Sp.2ce, pzrl'S, U21S, or 7eCreiUon2l oppor iu:Jiles. Wi!l -t,e project look n2 iur21 or Out Of p12ce? G Operations and ?Rlainten2nce HOW L.,7p hint z7G znd -,zLntenznce corside721io S. C and'%f co:Slde72iic7'S L,clude new Cc( ?.i test for new facilities, ease of ,.,zI ,iC ,ante, znd 7 elt2bi1iry H Implementation and financing Hc)-,' L7pJ7 2-iI L L-ple nentiaon and Al.n.znciIng I Difficulty of Project How i „pJi znl:s then :.,be7 znd eaient of pe,;,:.s and zp•p7o\2S-CauiTed befo: a t -,e project can be i„plemenied J Interjurisdictional Requirements Hev.' I-,:lorunt How LT,pJ; �ni 2re 7e0ui emenuz? Do-ts 3 — ?".2jor Preference the zherr2u\'e revui:e other:Ur-,,�dic;ions to do somei ng 2 —Minor Preference before project czn be impie-menled or financed 1 — Slicht/o Preference K Transportation Considerations (one point each letter) How• u„p.: zr,l 27e coZldera,,ioris? 3 C D E F G H I J K Totzl Po nts A— Z I I. 1 4"1 hS I r I Z I I r S A z o 3 (I- I S! ID 1 3 z 1 -2 1 E3 I =1ri I L I ?z I =_z B I c CID I (-/:!� I r I F I 1 C i\ DI r� I D, -z- I CIS I Z D 13 F I , 1 Z. I �/.!:: I F_JI- I Cz E F G I Z. I Fa I=Z I KZ F S G 1/-/` I 1 rz- G z - Scoring Matrix H Z r z Hlt,-3 - I J Z. Z. J �Irc J 10 ?lea -se complete Scoring ,N,aIrix Table. Enter 2 kltei znd number in each squire. KFor cx2mplebox A-3: : o if the effectiveness in sohing flooding is much more imp6rt2nt then wetl2nd co:><iderziion, uTite in A3 o if weilznd eonsiderziions 2re moderately more i;,portznt then solving flooding, `.Tile in B2 o lS there is only 2 slight or no preference, "Tile in A.3 T'nen add up the io'.zl number of points for each Criteria. AZ C7 T' Last Side Grccn River Watershed Plan Allcrnativc Evaluation Flood Contol Alternatives Criteria Critcria weight (1) Alternative 1 - No Action Score ( -I'oints_ 1� Alternative 2 - SPrinrI rook Cr. Score 2) Points 3 _ Alternative 3 - Flood Plow Score 2 _ I'�ints_ 3 Alternative 4 - Kcnt Lagoons Score 2 _Points (3)_ Effectiveness in Solving Flooding 20 -1 -20 0.5 10 1 20 1 20 Wetland Considerations 16 0 0 0.5 R 0.5 R 0.5 R Water Quality Considerations 11 -0.5 -5.5 0.5 5.5 0.5 5.5 1 1 1 Fishcrics/Wildtire Considerations 13 -0.5 -6.5 0.5 6.5 0.5 6.5 0.5 6.5 COSUBCnCflt G 0 0 0.5 3 0 0 1 G Acstlictics/lluman Environment 5 0 0 0 0 -0.5 -2.5 0 0 OperationsandMaintenance 2 -0.5 -1 0 0 -1 -2 -0.5 -I Impicmcntation and financing 13 0 0 1 14 -0.5 -9 -0.5 -9 Difficulty of Projccl 2 0 0 0.5 1 -1 -2 -1 -2 Intc tirisdictional Rcquircmcnls 10 0 0 0.5 5 -0.5 -5 -1 -10 Trinsp�rtati�nConsidcrations 9 Q t7 _ -0_5 -4.5_ -1 -9 I_ -9- Total Scores -33 4 - 52.5 1 10.5 3 8.5 2 Rank Notes (1)From Critcria Weighting Process workshcct (2) Scoring shall be based upon the table below. A positive score indiatcs that the altcrnativc results in a benefit for the particular alternative. A negative score indicates that the altcrnativc results in negative impacts. Score Description + 1 Alternative creates significant benefits, greater benefits than other alternatives + 0.5 Alternative creates moderate benefits 0 No significant change, Allcrnativc Benefits are offset by impacts -0.5 Altcrnativc crcatcs moderate negative impacts - I Alternative creates significant negative impacts, greater impacts than other alternatives (3)Points are determined by the product of the criteria weight and the score Based on the Consulting team evaluation, Alternative 2 - Localized Improvements to Springbrook Creek was selected as the preferred solution. The consulting team's results is shown on worksheets 3 and 4. V. City Design Team Results The City design team met with the consulting team on April 1, 1992 to go through the alternative evaluation process. A copy of the meeting agenda is attached. The first hour of the meeting included a detailed discussion of the proposed flood control alternatives. Following this discussion, the consulting team attempted to assist the City Design Team through the criteria weighting worksheet process. The City Design Team had several questions about the methodology for weighting the criteria. As a result, it was decided to perform the second part of the evaluation prior to the criteria weighting. The results of this process is attached, worksheet 5. One change from the consulting teams process was the addition of a new criteria, "Reliability". The Consulting Team had previously considered reliability as one element to the Operation and Maintenance criteria. The total number of points for each of the alternatives was summed without consideration of the weighted criteria. Consequently, these results reflect the alternative evaluation -ssuming that all criteria are equal. Assuming that all criteria were considered equal, the preferred alternative was found to be alternative 2, Localized improvements to Springbrook Creek. During the completion of this worksheet, there were two items noted relating to scoring and assumptions made about the alternatives. These were as follows: (1) For Alternative 3 under "wetland consideration". The consulting team had recommended a positive score for this alternative under the assumption that the flood flow channel would create a large new wetland. The Design Team indicated that without more specific information as to how this could be achieved, a score of 0, was appropriate. It was agreed that if it can be shown that the wetland could be created, this score could be increased to 1. (2) For Alternative 4 under "water quality". A plus 1 score was assigned for this alternative on the assumption that the Springbrook Creek would be heavily planted above the floodway. After completing the alternative ranking worksheet, the Design Team again attempted to complete the criteria weighting worksheet. Mary Lynn Myer, of the City design team objected to the 4 methodology, and declined to participate. Mary Lynn felt that the relative importance of criteria differed between alternatives (e.g., one criteria might be more important than another criteria for a specific alternative, but this was not necessarily true for every other alternative). Although Mary Lynn objected, the Design Team decided to complete the process without her involvement. The result of the Design Team's weighting criteria is attached, worksheet 6. Also a second alternative ranking worksheet, containing the criteria weights and revised point totals is attached, worksheet 7. By including the criteria weights in the analysis, the preferred alternative changed from Alternative 2 to Alternative 4. VI. Discussion of Results Criteria Weights The following table compares the consulting team criteria weights with the City Design Team's. Consulting Team City Design Team Flooding 20 Flooding 24 Imp & financing 18 Reliability 18 Wetland 16 Wetlands 16 Fisheries 13 Water Quality 16 Water quality 11 Aesthetics/Env 15 Interjurisd. Req. 10 Transportation 13 Transportation 9 Imp. & financing 12 Cost/Benefit 6 Fisheries 10 Aesthetics/Env. 5 Cost/Benefit 7 O & M 2 Difficulty 4 Difficulty 2 Interjurisd. Req 3 Reliability not used O & M 2 In general the consulting team weighted the criteria similar to the City. Some of the variances include the following: o Reliability in terms of protection against flooding was added as a criteria. After further consideration of this criteria, we do not believeit should be added. Alternatively, it should be considered as under effectiveness in solving flooding. Adding this criteria to the process tends to increase the weighted value to the criteria "Effectiveness in Solving Flooding". Consequently, an alternative which does well in solving flooding would receive substantially more point than an alternative which solves flooding to a lesser degree. Adding reliability to the Design Team process is one of 5 Last Side Green River Watershed Plan Altcrnativc Evaluation Flood Contol Alternatives Criteria Criteria weight (1) _ Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative 2 - Springhrook Cr. Alternative 3 - Flood Flow Alternative 4 - Kent Lagoons _Score 2��I'�iinls -1 3_ _ _Sc�rc. 2 -mints_ 3 _ -_Score 2 Pc�inls_ 3 _ Sere 2- I- ints_(3 _ Effectiveness in Solving Flooding 0.5 1 1 Welland Considerations 0 0.5 0 0.5 Water Quality Cons idcralions -0.5 0.5 0.5 1 Fishcric.VNVildlifc Considcralions -0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Cost/Bcncfit -0.5 0.5 0 1 Aesthetics/1-luman Environment 0 0 0.5 0 Operations and Maintenance -0.5 0 -1 -0.5 Implementation and financing; 0 1 -0.5 -1 Difficulty of Project 0 0.5 -1 -1 Intcrjurisdictional Requirements 0 1 0 -1 Transportation Considcralions -1 0 -1 0.5 Rdliabilit -11 0 0.51 1_ Total Scores Rank _ -5 1 5 1 _--.1 -0.5 3 2 2 Notes (, (1)Front Criteria Wcighling Process workshect (1 (2) Scoringshall be based upon the table below. A positive score indiates that the alternative results in a brnefit for the particular �1 alternative. A negative score indicates that Utc alternative results in negative impacts. Score + 1 Alternative creates significant benefits, grcatcr benefits Ihan other alternatives + 0.5 Alternative creates moderate benefits ttt 0 No significant change, Alternative Benefits are offset by impacts -0.5 Altcrnativccrcatcs moderate negative impacts - 1 Alternative creates sign ificanI negative impacts, grcatcr impacts Ilia other alternatives -- i ints - --tcn ' by odu ' " -lie c ' � we* - ad tf re U iY CT mef,iC'I — LcSI .`.SCE L,Ecn tnI Er r',an Criteria `'Veightinq Process Criteria'`u;,,',er Descniatien A Effectiveness in Sol`-ing Flooding How important is it to meet the Cizy's adopted stormw2ter rnanaee:.,en,t standards B Wetland Considerations How important is it , at the alternative improvements do not negatively impact aadicr enhance.-,etlands C Water Qaulity Considerations How i-npcinznt is it that the alternative i„pmvements do not negatively impact and/or enhance water quality D Fisheries Considerations How important is it that the alternatve improvements do not neeadvely impact and/or enhance the f"Lh resource E Cost/Benefit How important is the cost in terms of benefits in e.-luation of alternatives F Aesthetics/Human En,,iro=ent How important are the aestitetics/hu,man enMionment in selecting the preferred alternative. Examples of the criteria include appezrence, whether or not the alternative facilitates opens space, parks, nails, or recreational opporturjties. Fill tr,e project look natural or out of place? G Operations and Maintenance How important are operation and maintenance considerations. O and 1.1 considerations include new O&NIL cost for new facilities, ease of maintenance, and reliabiliry H Implementation and financing How i-nperta;,t is, irnpletmenta:ion and financing I Difficulty of Project How important is the number and ea;ent of permits and approv21s required before the project can be implemented J Interjurisdictional Requirements How Important How important are interjursdictional requiremenu? Does 3 — N-fajor Preference the alternative require other jurisdictions to do something 2—Minor Preference before project can be implemented or financed 1 — SlightTo Preference K Transportation Considerations (one point each letter) How important are trarspor ration considerations? B C D E F G H I J K L Points A I Z I R -L- A :r' 1 " Z 1 rr3 1"I L A Z`f — B G/c. I F -z� 1' z 1 1 F 1 37. 1- L I Z B r_ /„_-- CG/'�)Ir-Z lu= I L2 I C_4` D 1 GZ I L= 1 c, I �2 I I - I. s D i0 — E I %Z- I c/G- L fELIA61LIV-e F'/la Iy 1 F Z I I iZ I L E -7. t F I If3— A 1 t 1 5�3 1 r.5 1 1 FZ GL 2- I Z I_ z I Y_z TZ G L x3 Scoring Matrix H 7- L 1 K-z- I"/t_ H I Z- I = / I r/y z. I 4 13 J (,Z J. 3 >FL Please complete Scoring Matrix Table. Enter a letter and number in each square. 0- K 13 �- For example box A— B: o if the effectiveness in sohirtg :looAung is much more important than wetland consideration, w7ite in ?3 o if wetland considerations are moderately more important than solving flood ine, wTite in B2 o if there is only a slight or no preference, v-Tite in A/B Then add up the total number of points for each Criteria. PL-�� Glr� Itllz� East Side Green River Watershed Plan Alternative Evaluation Flood Contol Alternatives Criteria Criteria weight (1) Alternative 1 — No Action Alternative 2 — Springbrook Cr. Sc(�rc_ 2 ].Paints 3 __Score_ Alternative 3 — Flood Flow Allcrnativc 4 — Kcnt I�.agoons — Scare_ 2 _[Paine (t�_ S(—Or 2 _Paints 3 _ 2 _ Poinis_ 3 Effectiveness in Solving Flooding 24 —1 —24 0.5 12 1 24 1 24 Wetland Considerations 16 0 0 0.5 8 0 0 0.5 8 Waler Quality Considerations 16 —0.5 —3 0.5 8 0.5 8 1 16 Fishcric.VWildlifc Considerations 10 —0.5 —5 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 5 Cost/Bcncfit 7 —0.5 —3.5 0.5 3.5 0 0 1 7 Acsthetics/Human Environment 15 0 0 0 0 0.5 7.5 0 0 Operations and Maintenance 2 —0.5 —1 0 0 —1 —2 —0.5 —1 Implementation and financing 12 0 0 1 12 —0.5 —6 —1 —12 Difficulty of Project 4 0 0 0.5 2 —1 —4 —1 —4 Inledurisdictional Requirements 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 —1 —3 Transportation Considerations 13 —1 —13 0 0 —1 —13 0.5 6.5 Rcliabili lg_ _ —1_ —18 0 Q_ 0.5 9_ 1 18 Total Scores —72.5 53.5 28.5 64.5 Rank 4 2 3 1 Notes (1)From Criteria Weighting Process workshcet (2) Scoring shall be based upon the table below. A positive score indiates that the alternative resulL% in a benefit for the Particular alternative. A negative score indicates that the alternative results in negative impacts. Score Description + 1 Allcrnativc crcatcs significant bcncfits, grcatcr bcncfits than other alternatives + 0.5 Alternative creates modcrale benefits 0 No significant change, Alternative Benefits are offset by impacts —0.5 Alternative creates moderate negative impacts — 1 Alternative creates significant negative impacts, grcatcr impacts than other alternatives Dint, le(ci 1 by rod the a wi ind .)rc -> /. the major reasons that the preferred alternative switched from alternative 2 to alternative 4. o The consulting team rated implementation and financing higher than the Design Team. o The Design Team rated aesthetic/human environment higher than the consulting team. Alternative Ranking A comlarison was made of the consulting team's alternative scoring and the Design Team. Attached is a alternative ranking worksheet which denotes where the consulting teams scoring differed from the Design Team (worksheet 8). These differences are identified by number. The following numbered paragraphs discuss the corresponding differences. (1) Alternative 3 under "wetland considerations". Please refer to the qualifying assumption number 1 discussed under Section V. (2) Alternative 1 under "cost/benefit". The consulting teams score of 0 was modified to -.5 to reflect the increase in cost associated with additional flooding without any benefits. (3) Alternative 3 under "aesthetics/human environment". The consulting team had scored this alternative low because the new large channel was considered to be out of place and not aesthetically pleasing. The Design team modified this scoring to a +.5 due to benefits associated with trails and with sufficient landscaping, the flood flow channel would not look out of place. (4) Alternative 4 under "implementation and financing". The consulting team had given this alternative a value of - .5. Although the construction cost for this alternative is very low, the team believed this alternative to be difficult to finance because of the number of jurisdictions involved. The Design Team scored this alternative even lower (-1) probably for the same reasons. (5) Alternatives 2 and 3 under "Inter! urisdictional reauirements". The consulting team had scored alternatives 2 and 3 with 0.5 and -0.5 respectively. The Design team raised each of these scores to 1 and 0 respectively. Alternative. 2 will only require minor coordination with Kent for the SW 43rd Street improvement. Alternative 3 will require somewhat more coordination with Kent for SW 43rd Street plus the 2 diversion of the flood flow channel. Alternative 4 would require coordination with Kent for SW 43rd Street, the pump station and modification of the GRMA which involves several jurisdictions. (6) Alternatives 1 and 2 and 4 under "transportation considerations"'. the score for Alternative 1 was lowered from 0 to -1 by the Design team because no action would result in a worsening of street flooding. The score for Alternative 2 was raised from -0.5 to 0 by the Design Team. Alternative 2 includes replacing the SW 27th Street and Sw 34th Street culverts with bridges which result in negative impacts, however these impacts are offset by solving street flooding. The score for alternative 4 was raised from 0.5 to 1 because this alternative has very little impact to transportation planning and solves street flooding. (7) As previously discussed, the Design Team added the new criteria of "reliability". By adding this criteria the preferred alternative changed from alternative 2 to alternative 4. After further- consideration of this criteria, we do not recommend treating it as its own separated criteria, but rather as an element under the effectiveness in solving flooding. Treating it as a separate criteria tends to increase the importance of solving flooding, giving it extra weight in the analysis. 7 I _City of Renton Black River Water Qaulity Management Plan and East Side Green River Watershed Plan April 1 1992 Team Meetinq Aaenda I. Introduction (3 Min) II. Purpose of Meeting (3 Min) III. Flood Control Alternative Description (10 Min) IV. Questions and Answers (40 Min) V. Alternative Evaluation Criteria Ranking (30 Min) VI. Alternative Ranking (40 Min) Ron Straka Franchot Fenske Mike Giseburt Mike Giseburt Mike Giseburt Mike Giseburt WW-1159-BA2-CF MEMORANDUM March 13, 1992 3101 To: Ron Straka, City of Renton From: Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck and Associates Subject: Black River Water Quality ManagEment Plan Alternative Analysis -Effectiveness in Solving Flooding Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum is to evaluate the ESGRW Plan flood control solutions in term of their effectiveness in solving the major flooding problems in the Renton Valley. The major flooding problems in the valley are described in the ESGRW Plan Existing Conditions Document, October, 1991, and the ESGRW Plan Hydraulic Analysis Report -Existing Drainage System, March, 1992. Each of the four ESGRW flan alternatives were modeled with the FEQ hydraulic computer model. The modeling effort was used to predict the hydraulic response of proposed improvements in order to determine which of the alternatives would correct the major flooding problems in the Renton Valley. These major flooding problems include the following: 1) Springbrook Creek overtopping of SW 34th Street Culvert 2) Springbrook Creek overtopping of Oaksdale Avenue Culvert 3) Flooding of SW 43rd Street Drainage system 4) Flooding of East Valley Highway (EVH) Drainage system It is important to note that the FEQ hydraulic modeling of the EVH (Problem No. 4 above) drainage system was simplified and did not take into consideration exit and entrance losses from manholes as well as local inflows. Each of the flood control alternatives 2 through 4 predict that problem Number 4 would be corrected. However, due to the simplification made in analyzing this system, we recommend that the City perform a detailed hydraulic analysis of this system. If system improvements are required for this system, we anticipate their cost to be MEMORANDUM TO: -2- March 13, 1992 Ron Straka reiatively minor in terms of the overall flood control alternatives. Therefore, the results of the City's analysis should not have an affect on the selection of the preferred alternative. One additional flooding problem identified through the FEQ modeling is the proposed 48" diameter drainage system along SW 16th Street planned to drain an area located within the City of Tukwila. This is a predicted flooding problem based on future conditions. The problem consists of a planned 48" diameter storm drain which is simulated to have insufficient capacity during the 100-year future "storage" flood (high Green River :lows which requires the pump station to limit pumping). This flooding problem is not specifically addressed by the ESGRW Plan. None of the alternatives being considered will solve this predicted problem. This problem could be substantially reduced or eliminated by increasing the diameter of the proposed 48" diameter storm drain. The following paragraphs describe the effectiveness in soiving the flooding problems. The effectiveness in solving flooding is defined as meeting the City's adopted stormwater management standards (King County Surface Water Design Manual). The alternatives are described in the ESGRW Plan Project Summary Document, December 1991 and further described in the ESGRW Plan Supplemental Alternative Information to Project Summary Document, January 20, 1992. A summary Table of the predicted peak flows and maximum water surface elevations at various locations in the system is attached. Throughout the discussion of the alternatives, there will be a reference to two types of flooding situations, "conveyance" floods and "storage" floods. The "conveyance" floods refer to high Springbrook Creek flows in which the pump operations of the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) are not limited by high Green River flows. The "storage" floods refer to high Green River flows in which the BRPS must limit pump discharges in accordance with the Green River Management Agreement. Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative This alternative includes no improvements to correct the flooding problems. Under this alternative, the current flooding problems will become exacerbated as development continues in the upstream watershed. For example, the FEQ hydraulic model simulates a surface ponding volume (on roads and private property) of 5 acre-ft at EVH for the current 100-year (conveyance) event. Under future conditions, the volume of surface ponding is predicted to increase to 33 acre-ft. All of the above mentioned problems'would fail to comply with the City's stormwater management standards. In addition to these major systems, smaller systems which drain to these system would also not comply because of insufficient downstream capacity. Summary of Peak Flows and Water Surface Elevations Flood Control Altematives Roadway Top Eiev. Elevation Goal ?00-fear CurTent Flow CoavcN.acc Current 700-fear Future flow Convcvance Ctr. cnt Svstem Elev cf<_ leek ,00-`.'ear Ctrcent Flowl]00-Year Storz a Cu-ert syslcm Eicv (cfs) feet Future flow Storace Cur-ent Svztefl Eicv crs (feet 100-year Future AJ•e^a_ tive 2 ?) FoW Elev WS feet Condition -- Hicb S . 4 Altcmativc . ( ) Flow Elev crs (reel) 113 120 69 inrbrook 17.27 � 36.0. Creek Flows 1-iternative 4 (5) Flow Elev cfs reel 172 119 75 i i'_5 ]S02 :00-vcar tcrrativc _ (?� Al ' Fiew Elcv crs feet 65 91 62 Futtre 16.bF 15.12 Condition -- Hich Alte^ alive Flow lev cfs reel CIS 94 63 Geer. River 7601 15.14 tows Alternative < (5) ow Icv c`s (reel) � 94 63 i6.91 15.14 Location�Disaiption ws;cn Flow Elev cfs reef Pantbcr Crcck u/s of Wetland Rolling Fills u/s 132' covert PCW nortb outlet 16 (1) 115 118 17.28 Ell15.87 113 119 17.30 79 16.14 65 70 46.61 50 14.62 68 95 16.92 63 15.23 113 120 17.27 67 16.09 Springbrook Creek i3RPS outflow BRPS i,)flow G-ad) �'z) u!s SW 76tb Street Confluence of Nor -Lb 60' SS Confluence of P-9 SW 27tb u/s SW 34tb u/s SW34tle u/el's OaksdaOaksdalc u/s SW 43rd d!s SW 43rd u!s P-1 Cbanncl d/s 17.9 17.9 17.1 17.1 22.9 22 9 16(2) 903 903 F47 F�6 F44 i67 7F0 941 bit bi4 b67 667 4.05 9.44 901 1131 12.12 1431 15.45 16.43 17.60 17.F9 16.40 1439 1305 1007 1005 1003 925 934 1097 1025 70� 1017 1017 9.10 9.99 ]0.52 11.97 12.F] 15.65 16.15 17.09 17.93 19.21 19.01 925 5F8 `02 Ol 499 461 4$7 501 477 477 477 477 8.10 F.64 b.64 9.63 10.36 11.29 12.31 1332 13.90 14.33 14.46 1439 950 b31 804 792 6F0 656 765 720 720 728 728 1205 13.01 13.04 13.16 13?b 1< 25 15.04 15.74 17.16 1739 17.68 1439 t 7 2 1163 1162 1159 1111 10_4 1096 1020 1020 IQ14 1014 6.<1 10.46 11.06 1256 13.44 a 1_.S6 14.45 15.62 16.90 ]739 16.04 1439 1243 711 1145 1141 10.56 $'4 498 421 421 018 7078 318 640 6.49 10.43 10.65 1L�4 13:7 1- 14.42 14.65 ]d07 14.17 1<02 13.63 13.52 1006 1006 F59 654 b50 7F0 675 715 661 655 655 506 9.4b 9.06 12.1 72.18 13.67 15.10 15 t6 ]7.01 17 ,' V-9 979 b56 E'_6 FIS 765 729 fU9 7d6 7 4 i44 13.01 13.G6 13.10 13'36 ]3.36 13.49 13.70 14.15 l5_0 1537 i439 979 565 F'2 8I0 i<7 435 458 412 412 411 165 106 12.68 12.93 12 96 13.21 ]3.21 13.52 13.b1 73.99 14.17 14.40 13.30 13 27 i4:9 914 792 785 705 705 5N 594 539 539 534 S34 12 M 1'' 43 12.<b 12.62 12.7b 1202 13.15 13.62 13.92 1435 1<.4b P-1 Cbanncl u/s !Cotes: (3) Elevation goal based upon not exceed existing simuated maximum elevation in Pantbcr Creek Ni'etland, approximately 16 (2) Elevation goal based upon back water analysis of SW 43rd Street, assuming storm drainage improvements (3) Alternative 2 -- Diverting Pantbcr Creek, to P - 9 cbannel w•itb bridges replacing culverts at 27tb and 34tb and channel widened between therailroadbridge and 41st byg70 feet (4) Alternative 3 -- Diverting Pantbcr Creek to P-9 cbannel and diverting bigb flows to the P-1 channel. Hyd-au• ics of diversion weir based u n t: ain:ainin gthe existin 2-)ear base flow of about 3b0 cfs in S pr in Ebrook Creek_ (5) Alternative 4 -- Vzximum flow f'om ]✓,ill Creek limited to300 cfs. MEMORANDUM TO: -3- March 13, 1992 Ron Straka Exacerbated flooding would lead to increased private and public property damage, water quality degradation, impairment of emergency vehicles by road closures, and increased operation and maintenance costs. Alternative 2 - Localized Improvements to Springbrook Creek This alternative includes replacing the existing Springbrook Creek culvert crossings at SW 27th and 34th Street with full span bridges, adding a fifth parallel culvert to the existing four culverts at the Springbrook Creek crossing of Oaksdale Avenue (Please note that the improvement at Oaksdale was not previously noted in the ESGRW Plan Project Summary Document), improvements to the SW 43rd Street Drainage system, and improvements to the Panther Creek Wetlands and the re-established Panther Creek (along P-9 Channel). This alternative solves problems 1 through 4 listed above. The Springbrook Creek water surface profile is lowered (from predicted future conditions) by approximately 1.5 feet at the } downstream section of the Oaksdale crossing and lowered approximately 1 foot at the upstream section of SW 43rd Street. Flooding is predicted for the proposed new system along SW 16th Street which is planned to drain an area in Tukwila (subbasin 15). The predicted volume of surface ponding is 25 ac-ft for the future 100-year "storage" flood. This alternative would also provide a minor flood control benefit for the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek in Kent due to the lower maximum water surface elevations at SW 43rd Street. The lower water surface would lessen the backwater influence on the upstream system, thereby increasing its conveyance capacity. Alternative 3 Flood Flow Diversion Channel/Springbrook Creek Fisheries Flow Channel This alternative consists of constructing a flood flow channel to carry Springbrook Creek flood flows from upstream of SW 43rd Street to the confluence of Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek re-established (P-9). In addition, the alternative would include system improvements along SW 43rd Street and improvements to the PCW and re-established Panther Creek. This alternative solves problems 1 through 4 listed above. The Springbrook Creek water surface profile is lowered (from predicted future conditions) by approximately 2.5 feet at the downstream section of the Oaksdale crossing and approximately 4 feet at the upstream section of SW 43rd Street. These elevations reflect the 100-year "conveyance" flood. Alternative 3 lowers the Springbrook Creek water surface elevations more significantly than Alternative 2, thereby providing better flood protection and a greater margin of safety. The lower water surface elevation at the outlet of the Springbrook Crossing of Oaksdale would benefit the proposed system improvements along SW43rd Street by allowing the pipe size to be reduced. MEMORANDUM TO: -4- March 13, 1992 Ron Straka Similar to Alternative 2, flooding is predicted for the proposed new system along SW 16th Street which is planned to drain an area in Tukwila (subbasin 15). The predicted volume of surface ponding is 21 ac-ft. This alternative also provides somewhat greater flood protection than alternative 2 for the "storage" floods, or high Green River flow situation, which requires that the Black River Pump Station limit pumping rates. This is because of the large storage volume provided by the flood flow channel (approximately 300 acre-ft). This alternative would also provide flood control benefits for the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek in Kent due to the lower maximum water surface elevations at SW 43rd Street. This benefit would be significantly greater than Alternative 2. Alternative 4 - Pumping of Stormwater from the Kent Lagoons to the Green River. This alternative consists of modifications to the current plans by the City of Kent for the Lagoons Project to include a pump station which would be allowed to pump (approximately 50 cfs) into the Green River for Green River flows up to 12,000 cfs. In addition, the alternative would include system improvements along SW 43rd Street and improvements to the PCW and re-established Panther Creek. The effectiveness of this alternative to control flooding should be considered more preliminary than either alternative 2 or 3 due to several assumptions we have made regarding the effectiveness of the Kent Lagoons to divert peak Mill Creek flows. The primary assumption was that the Kent Lagoons facility with pumping to the Green River could limit the peak Mill Creek flows entering Springbrook Creek to 300 cfs. Based upon the work by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, this assumption appears to be quite reasonable. This alternative solves problems 2 through 4 listed above, however, minor overtopping of the SW 34th Street Culvert Crossing of Springbrook Creek was predicted for the 100-year "conveyance flood. Overtopping of 0.2 feet was simulated. Therefore, the SW 34th Street crossing would not comply with the City's drainage standards. Because the overtopping is minor, and because the performance of the Kent Lagoons may be greater than was is assumed in this analysis, there would be a possibility that SW 34th may not be overtopped. Further study on the effectiveness of the Lagoons project with pumping to the Green River would be necessary. If the Kent Lagoon project was unable to further restrict flows, the City could install a third parallel culvert or raise the road to correct this problem. In either case, replacing SW 34th Street with a bridge (as under Alternative 2) would not be required. For this alternative Springbrook Creek water surface profile is lowered (from predicted future conditions) by approximately 1.5 feet at the downstream section of the Oaksdale crossing MSG.035 MEMORANDUM TO: -5- March 13, 1992 Ron Straka and approximately 1.8 feet at the upstream section of SW 43rd Street. These elevations reflect the 100-year conveyance flood. Alternative 4 lowers the ,Springbrook Creek Water surface elevations approximately the same as Alternative 2 at Oaksdale but a greater reduction than Alternative 2 at SW 43rd Street. This is because the peak flows through the system are significantly reduced. The reduction in water surface elevations are less than what would be predicted for Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 2 and 3, flooding is predicted for the proposed new system along SW 16th Street which is planned to drain an area in Tukwila (subbasin 15). The predicted volume of surface ponding is 12 ac-ft. This alternative provides the greatest flood protection for the high Green River flow situation which requires that the Black River Pump Station limit pumping rates. This is because a large volume of floodwaters would be pumped into the Green River prior to reaching the City of Renton system. This alternative would also benefit the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek and Mill Creek in Kent due to the reduced peak flow rates and a lower maximum water surface elevations at SW 43rd Street. Both Alternative 3 and 4 would provide much greater flood benefits to the upstream areas in Kent than alternative 2. It cannot be estimated whether alternative 3 or 4 provides the greatest flood benefit to Kent because this section of the drainage system was not analyzed. Mike Giseburt MSG:ato:cs MSG.035 WW-1159-BA2-CF MEMORANDUM March 13, 1992 3101 To: Ron Straka, City of Renton From: Mike Giseburt, R. W. Beck and Associates Subject: Black River `'Water Quality Management Plan Alternative Analysis - Supplement to Water Quality Considerations Introduction One of the elements recommended for each of the flood control alternatives in the March 3, 1992 Technical Memorandum by Herrera Environmental Consultants relates to the planting of stream banks with small trees and other vegetation to increase shade and provide cover for fish. This memorandum discusses the affects of increasing vegetation on flood control .or each alternative. Alternative 1 - No Action No comments Alternative 2 - Localized Improvements to SprinQbrook Creek Planting of trees along side slopes below the 100-year predicted water surface profile would not be recommended unless one of the two following actions were taken: 1) Perform a specific study to determine the impacts on the existing channel roughness from proposed tree plantings in the flow area. 2) Include additional channel improvements over and above what is included under alternative 2 such as channel widening to compensate for the increase in channel roughness and corresponding loss in conveyance capacity. Planting of trees within the flow path will act to increase the channel roughness causing higher Springbrook Creek water surface elevations which would tend to exacerbate flooding. ou 3 Memorandum to: - 2 - Ron S traka March 13, 1992 Planting of trees above the 100-year predicted water surface profile would be acceptable to improve water quality, decrease temperatures, increase DO and provide cover for fish. Alternative 3 - Flood Flow Diversion Channel /Spri n gbrook Creek Fisheries Flow Channel For this alternative, the flows in Springbrook Creek between S.W. 43rd Street and the Re-established Panther Creek (P-9 Channel) would be substantially reduced to approximately the 2-year flood flow. At this low flow, this section of the stream could be heavily planted along the Channel side slopes and therefore provide more water quality benefits than alternative 2. Downstream of the re-established Panther Creek, tree planting should be kept above the flow path for maximum conveyance. Alternative 4 - Pumping of Stormwater from the Kent Lagoons to the Green River. Same as for Alternative 2. Mike Giseburt MSG/ato 034.3 WW-1159-BAl-BC TECHNICAL MEMOR.A.NDUM To: Michael S. Giseburt From: David T. Hoopes �� Date: January 31, 1992 (Revised 2/13/92) Subject: Black River Water Quality Management Plan ESGRWP Alternatives Analvsis Introduction This Technical Memorandum describes the anticipated impacts of four (4) alternative flood control solutions proposed for the East Side Green River watershed Plan. Each alternative is examined from the viewpoint of its potential for affecting the aquatic environments of Springbrook and.Panther creeks, including water quality and fish passage, with the added potential of improving conditions for the novenent and production of anadromous and resident salnonid fishes. Potential impacts to terrestrial wildlife species are noted where present and possible mitigation measures are indicated where appropriate. This evaluation is based upon agency consultations, site visits and examination of the data developed during preparation of the East Side Green River Watershed Plan: Project Summary Document (Beck, 1991) and the Current Conditions Document for the same plan (Beck, 1991). Evaluation Criteria The following criteria were used to evaluate each alternative: o Does the alternative affect physical parameters of the instream and riparian habitat (e.g. substrate composition, streamside vegetation) with respect to quality and quantity? If so, in what way? o Does the alternative affect fish passage through Springbrook Creek? Into Panther Creek? what features can be included to improve fish passage? o Can the. alternative result in improved water quality, especially water temperatures and dissolved oxygen (DO)? What features can be incorporated to accomplish improvements in these parameters? o Does the alternative proposed ..improve the aquatic and/or terrestrial habitat in a technically feasible and cost effective manner? - 2 - The provision for including a spawning channel as part of the Panther Creek improvements is evaluated independently because all alternatives except No. 1 include improvements to Panther Creek. Alternative Analysis Alternative 1--No Action Under this alternative flooding conditions would remain unchanged throughout the study area, increasing in future years as stormwater flows become greater due to further development. The following conditions would prevail as a result of the No Action alternative: o Substrate composition in both Springbrook and Panther creeks would continue to be unsuitable for salmonid spawning under conditions of severe sedimentation. Low gradient in Springbrook Creek and the lower portion of Panther Creek will probably preclude any improvement in habitat. o Fish passage into Panther Creek and upstream of Talbot Road would continue to be restricted by culverts and a beaver dam along the re-established portion of Panther Creek and a complete block at Talbot Road. The alluvial fan area where Panther Creek discharces into the Panther Creek Wetland would continue to impede fish movement and reduce habitat value to spawning and rearing fish. Fish passage to upper Springbrook Creek and its tributaries could become even more impeded as existing culverts become filled with sediment. o Poor water quality (i.e. high temperature, low DO) would prevail, especially during periods of warm weather and low base flows. o The broad expanses of shallow, stagnant, unshaded water in and near the Panther Creek Wetland would continue to afford poor fish habitat. o The prolonged deterioration of conditions in the aquatic environment could lead to the eventual abandonment of the stream by migrating salmon and a subsequent loss in production from upstream spawning areas (i.e. Mill and Garrison creeks). The Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) currently releases 80,000 to 100,000 coho fry annually into the P-1 Channel. Adult progeny from these releases return to Springbrook Creek to spawn, probably, in Mill and Garrison creeks. During the last seven years (1983-90) an average of 106 adult salmon have passed upstream through the Black River Pump Station fish pass. - 3 - Alternative 2: Localized Innrovenents The localized improvements incorporated into Alternative 2 will do little to alter the condition of the substrate, regardless of what other measures are adopted because low stream gradient in the valley controls deposition of fine materials. Fish passage can be improved at SW 27th Street and SW 34th Street by replacing existing culverts with bridges or arch culverts that restore the natural stream channel width. - If improving the capacity of existing culvert crossings is part of any selected alternative, fish passage will always benefit from those measures that retain or restore stream flows within the natural banks, reduce or eliminate velocity barriers and approximate natural stream gradients. The proposed improve -rent between the railroad and SW 41st Street would also benefit fish passage. The proposal to enhance valley area wetlands by diverting spring flows into adjacent wetlands to hydrate them must be executed with extreme caution. While wetland enhancement will benefit wildlife, flows must be diverted from stream reaches containing no juvenile fish to prevent entrainnent and stranding. If, as currently suggested, spring flows are diverted from Panther Creek at SR-167 into Wetland 8N, then it would be necessary to screen the intake to the storm drain with a fairly fine mesh screen (1/4 inch bar mesh) if salmon are re -introduced into upper Panther Creek. Conversely, closing off the other culverts draining Panther Creek Wetland under SR-167 will prevent any juvenile fish from becoming diverted into the convoluted drainage system to the west of the East Valley Highway. Even though this system eventually leads to either Panther Creek or Springbrock Creek, it is possible that small salmonids could become diverted and lost before reaching Springbrook Creek. Deepening and widening the existing ditch (P-9 Channel alignment) to re-establish lower Panther Creek will prove of little value in restoring salmon runs to the stream if the alluvial fan between Talbot Road and the upper end of the Panther Creek wetland. is not stabilized, the blockage under Talbot Road is not removed and passage under Carr Road farther upstream is not ensured. The entire reach from the Panther Creek Wetlands to Panther Lake should, be made available to spawning salmon if downstream improvements are to yield desired results. Some water quality improvement can be realized by planting trees and other vegetation to shade lower Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek along reaches not already landscaped. Any measures taken to reduce insolation and predation on young salmon will be an improvement over existing conditions. Plantings will also add vegetative diversity and enhance the riparian zone for birds and other wildlife. - 4 - Alternative 3: Flood Flow Diversion Channel Diverting high flows down a new P-1 High Flow Diversion has the potential effect of stranding fish in the high flow channel as flood waters recede. The risk involved may vary somewhat, depending upon the season of the year flows are diverted, but because coho salmon are resident in the stream for a year or more, stranding can be a threat at any season. Preventative measures would likely be required. These measures could include downramping flood flows at a rate that would allow small fish time to move into the low flow channel (1/2 to 1 foot/hour) and shaping the banks of the high flow channel to eliminate isolated pooling as flood waters receded. Measures directed toward preventing wetland dewatering can affect water quality and fish habitat -if additional water is diverted into wetlands during summer low flow periods, further reducing already low flows in lower Springbrook and Panther creeks. Diversion can lead to increases in water temperature and a decrease in Do, thereby further stressing any fish rearing in the lower reaches of these two streams. Enhancing the Panther Creek Wetland will require installing a new outlet control structure that includes provisions for fish passage. Creating an open water marsh may adversely affect water quality by increasing solar insolation. The open water portion of the wetland would also provide opportunities for predators to- take juvenile fish rearing in the open wetland channel. Further, as in the case of Alternative 2, there is little reason to pass fish up through the control structure if they can proceed upstream only as far as Talbot Road. Alternative 4: Pumping Stormwater from Kent Lacoon Under this alternative fish passage through lower Springbrook Creek would remain unimproved. There would be no improvements at the culvert crossings under SW 27th Street and SW 34th Street. Improvements would still be made to re-established Panther Creek and the Panther Creek Wetlands with the same consequences and concerns as outlined above for Alternatives 2 and 3. The danger of stranding fish after a high flow event would not be a serious risk as in Alternative 3 and.there would be additional advantages gained by reducing flood flows in lower Mill Creek and Springbrook Creek. Any fish rearing in these two streams would be less apt to be flushed downstream during high flow events. Wildlife benefits would be similar to those projected for Alternative No. 3 above. . - 5 - Fish Snawnino Channel The proposed fish spawning channel is described in the Environmental Mitigation Agreement (EMA) where the concept was first developed as part of a fish passage program. The concept is supported by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the Washington Department of Fisheries (Joseph. L. Robel, WDF, pens. Comm. 11/26/91). Using spawning channel criteria set forth in Bell (1989) and an estimate of available flow from the Panther Creek basin, including water from the Rolling Hills watershed, an estimate of spawning channel capacity was derived (See attached estimate). Based on these data, it is estimated that a spawning channel 2 feet wide (spawning channels are normally designed for widths of 12 to 14 feet) and 800 feet long will provide 177 square yards of spawning substrate. This amount of area could ideally support 12 spawning coho pairs, or about 25 fish, at the recommended 14 square yards per spawning pair. The two -foot channel width is based on optimum requirements; however, spawning coho could probably tolerate some reduction in Neater depth which would allow the channel to be increased in width somewhat. At the minimum area required (3.4 sq. yd.), 104 fish could be accommodated, provided they dispersed evenly throughout the channel and did not interfere with 'each other. This assumption is probably not valid in a channel only 2 feet wide. The cost of construction per spawning fish to incorporate the spawning channel into the proposed flood control in.provements has been estimated at $190 for the optimum spacing and $46 for the minimum spacing over a 50 year utility life span. At some artificial spawning channels in British Columbia, costs run as high as $500 per spawner. This cost estimate is based on the incremental cost required to incorporate the fish spawning channel into the already planned flood control channel and primarily includes the cost of extending/relocating utilities at Lind Avenue. The extension/relocation of utilities would be necessary to raise the grade of the spawning channel between Lind Avenue and the East Valley Highway. While it appears technically feasible to construct some type of spawning channel along lower Panther Creek, we are not certain the expenditure is justified. Problems of low gradient leading to siltation and poor water quality have not yet been overcome and questions remain as to the quantity and quality of the rearing habitat available to juvenile fish once they have emerged from the gravel. Metro (1990) classified Springbrook Creek water quality and biotic index as poor and speculated that it was tributaries such as Garrison Creek that provided the only available spawning and rearing areas in the system. We can only draw the same conclusions from what information we have been able to collect to date during the present study. FrAINCL\G, LAIPLEME\TATION, AIND LNTER-RTRISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES 1. OVERVIEW This section presents alternative financing strategies for the East Side Green River Watershed Plan. Surface water management improvements in the planning area involve capital projects designed to mediate flooding, rehabilitating wetlands and fish corridors, and improving drainage. As a general rule, it is recommended that water quality and flood control projects required to mitigate the impacts of new development be financed and constructed by developers. Projects intended to remedy existing problems are financed by the City, or by residents and businesses within the planning area. 2. FDgA.NCD G STRATEGIES AVAILABLE Six financing alternatives are described below. The appropriate and inappropriate use of each of these alternatives is also described. The six alternatives are: 1. Utility Revenues 2. Basin surcharges 3. Developer/property owner financing 4. Regional Sources (Utility Local Improvement District, Drainage District) 5. Developer Incentives 6. Grants District, Flood Control Zone Utility Revenues — This is an existing charge for all developed properties within the City's surface water management utility service area. It is assessed to fund Renton's current SWM program. Funded activities include capital improvement projects; maintenance and operations; planning; regulation, enforcement, and inspection; and public education. Charges for a particular property are based on the percentage of impervious area to total parcel size. Kent and Tukwila also rely on surface water utility charges. Revenues from these programs could be used to fund ESGPW projects. Appropriate for: Capital improvement projects. Includes components such as: • City-wide planning; • capital improvement programs for existing programs; • regulation, inspection, and enforcement; • maintenance, and • public education and involvement. Inappropriate for: On -site facilities for future development; small stream enhancement programs localized to the East Side Green River Watershed area. rcmaa.sd\working.ppslhnstnt..Jt I Basin Surcharges — A basin surcharge is a fee, in addition to the City or County base rate, charged to property owners in a specific basin only. Basin surcharges provide flexibility to finance special projects or higher levels of service in a particular basin or service area such as the East Side Green River Watershed. This alternative requires coordination with other jurisdictions within the basin. These charges allow the utility to counter the charge, "All our money is going elsewhere." Appropriate for: Projects required by the basin plan to meet basin -specific quantity and quality objectives (capital and non-structural); projects over and above the City's level of service. Inappropriate for: On -going operations and maintenance; regulation, enforcement and inspection; projects designed to meet City-wide level of service standards. Developer/property owner financing — Developers and property owners finance and construct on -site facilities, or cooperate to finance and construct regional facilities. Appropriate for: New facilities (both on -site and regional) being constructed to handle future growth. Conveyance systems for new facilities. Inappropriate for: Existing problems, on -going operations and maintenance, retrofit projects, highway runoff, fish habitat and sensitive area protection, regulation, enforcement, and inspection. Regional Sources - These include utility local improvement districts (ULIDs), Flood Control Zone Districts (FCZDs), and Drainage Districts (DDs). These sources would be approved and/or administered at the County level. UL1Ds are formed to implement regional surface water improvements. A resolution of the County legislative authority or a petition signed by the owners of at least 51 percent of the area of land within the limits of the local district to be created is required. Special assessments can be levied up to the total cost of improvements on all property benefitting from local improvements. Bonds are usually sold to finance improvements, they are retired with special assessments and/or proceeds from regular utility service charges. FCZDs and DDs provide flood control and drainage systems for properties within the districts. The districts collect special fees assessed on property owners within, the district boundaries. These fees provide municipalities with a dedicated source of funding to administer flood control and drainage programs including operations, maintenance, and capital improvement projects. Appropriate for: Flood control facilities, new regional facilities and conveyance systems constructed to handle future growth, or existing problems affecting an entire basin. FCZD and DD funds may be used for O&M. Inappropriate for: On -going operations and maintenance under ULID, highway runoff, fish habitat and sensitive areas protection, regulation, enforcement, and inspection. rcotoo.sd%woriting . ppslfinstrat.ait 2 Developer Incentive - Developers and property owners can maximize the use of property by participating in stream and wetland enhancement projects, and replanting buffer zones. The City would be involved in setting guidelines for acceptable projects and incentives. Properly used, developer incentives permit the City to complete certain types of projects without having to purchase land or be responsible for on -gong maintenance efforts. Appropriate for: Fish habitat and sensitive area protection. Inappropriate for: Treatment facilities, retrofit projects, highway runoff, conveyance systems, maintenance, regulation, enforcement, and inspection. Grants - Due to the concerns over water quality and nonpoint source pollutants, particularly in the Puget Sound and related marine environments, several grant and loan funding are available in Washington. These include, but are not limited to, the Flood Control Assistance Accounts Programs, the Centennial Clean Water Program, the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, and the State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund. The criteria differ for each of these programs, but in general they can be used for projects that control floods and improve the surface water infrastructure with respect to water quality improvements. Appropriate for: Capital improvement programs, particularly those relating to water quality and environmental issues. Inappropriate for: 0&M; regulation, inspection, and enforcement; on -site facilities. 3. COMPARISON OF ALTER -NATIVES The attached table provides an overview of the funding sources and inter jurisdictional requirements for each of the four alternatives. These options are described briefly below. Alternative I - No Action This alternative is the easiest for Renton to fund and implement, since it requires no inter - jurisdictional coordination and could be funded under Renton's existing surface water utility. program. Funding of the program would continue to come from utility revenues charged to property owners in the City. New on -site facilities are financed by developers. There are no inter -jurisdictional requirements under this alternative. Alternative II - Localized Improvements to Sprinabrook Creek The alternative results in benefits to Renton, Kent, and Tukwila. Therefore, all jurisdictions should participate in funding the improvements, either through utility revenues, a basin surcharge, or regional sources. In particular, Tukwila could participate in improvements to SW 16th street which results in drainage to an area in Tukwila. Kent could participate in funding improvements along SW 43rd. Regional sources would require King County's involvement for approval and administration, but could be used to fund capital improvements. Renton would retain responsibility for O&M, as well as regulation, enforcement, and inspection. The degree of difficulty in securing funding depends on which funding option is selected. The regional rcni«n.sal.Workint.r), :,rt,svzt.;.n 3 solutions and/or participation by Kent and Tukwila will require inter -jurisdiction agreements prior to implementation, presenting a potential barrier to equitable region -wide funding. Alternative III - Flood Flow Diversion Channel As in alternative II, Kent and Tukwila benefit from this alternative and could help finance improvements through utility revenues, a basin surcharge, or regional sources. Both Kent and Tukwila receive greater benefits under this alternative than under alternative II. Because there are greater basin -wide benefits, a basin surcharge or regional approach would be easier to require under alternative III than under alternative II. Renton would maintain responsibility for maintenance and regulatory activities. The need for inter -jurisdictional coordination would again pose potential barriers to implementation. , Alternative IV - Pumyins� Stormwater from Kent Lagoons This alternative is the most difficult to fund and implement due to the large number of inter - jurisdictional requirements involved. King County and Tukwila are adverse to pumping into the Green River, and amendments to the GRMA for pumping would be required. Significant coordination with Kent is required, as project benefits would not be felt until Kent implemented plan. Renton could share Kent's capital improvement and pumping costs. Because there are basin -wide benefits, the entire basin could participate in funding the alternative through a basin surcharge or regional sources. Alternative II -IV could potentially receive partial funding from grant sources. rcnton.A\worLin;.pps\rinnnt.all 4 CITY OIL RENTON LAST SIDI; GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN FINANCING AND IMPLL'MEN'1'ATION OFALTERNATIvE STRATEGIES ALEMNATINIM PROGRAM ELEMENT ALTE'RNATIVI, FUNDING 1N'I'I:R-JURISDICTION AL SOURCES IZI;QUIIZI�MEN'CS I. No Action a. New on -site treatment and I. Developer (directly finances & None quantity control facilities constructs) b. Mai Mena lice I. Renton Utility Revenues c. Regulation, inspection & I. Renton Utility Revenues enforcement CITY OIC REN ON LAST SIDE AEEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN FINANCING AND IMPLCMEW rArNON OIL ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM ELEMENT ALTERNATIVE' FUNDING INTER -JURISDICTIONAL SOURCI?S REQUIREMENT'S II. Localized Improvements a. New on -site treatment and I. Developer (direc(ly finances and to Springbrook Creek quantity control facility constructs) b. Acquisition of land I. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administration of regional sources C. IJill roveneul projects I. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, I--C-ZD, 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administration of regional sources d. Creek widening I. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, I--CZD, 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administration of regional sources C. Conveyance systems 1. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, hCZD, 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administralion of regional sources f. Wetland mitigation I. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility 1. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional Sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County for approval and/or DD) administration of regional sources g. Maintenance I. Renton, Kent, & Tukwila Utility 1. Kent and Tukwila Revenues h. Regulations, enforcement 1. Renton, Kent & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila and inspection Revenues CITY OI+' RENTON LAST SIDE Gi(EEN RIVER WATERSIIED PLAN FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM ELEMEN'C ALTERNATIVE FUNDING INTER -JURISDICTIONAL SOURCES REQUIREMENTS III. Flood Flow Diversion a. Ncw on -site facilities I. Developer (direc(ly finances and Channel consl I ucts) b. Acquisition of land I. Rcnton, Kcnt, & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional sources (ULID, I-CZD, 3. King County approves and/or DD) administers regional sources c. Improvement pmjecls I. City base rate I. Kent and Tukwila 2. l;llSill Sllrcllarge 2. Jurls(LJions 111 basil, Who bellefit 3. Regional sources (UL11), FCZD, 3. King County approves and/or DD) administers regional sources d. Welland rchabililation I. Renton, Kenl, & Tukwila Utility I. Kent and Tukwila Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. Regional sources (ULID, FCZD, 3. King County approves and/or DD) administers regional sources 4. Developer incentive program e. Maintenance 1. Rcnlon Ulilily Revalues f. Regulation, enforcement & I. Rcnlon Ulilily Revenues InspCCl,on CITY OF RENTON EASTSIDE „AELN RIVER WAT'ERSIIED PLAN II MNANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES A L'I'ERNATIVE, S V. Pumping Stormwater from Kcnl Lagoons PROGRAM ELEMENT a. Regional Irealment and tluantily conlrol facilities b. Pumping c. Improvement projects d. Environmental rehabilitation C. Modifications to Operations and Procedures Plan f. Maintenance g. Regulations, enforcement & inspection ALTERNA'I'IVI: FUNDING SOURCES I. Renton & Kent Utility Revenues 2. Regional sources (ULID, I-.C'LC, DD) I. Renton and Kcnt Utility Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 3. Regional sources (ULID, I'CZD, l�D) I. Renton and Kent Utility Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 3. Regional sources (ULID, DEED, DD) I. Rcnlon and Kent Utility Revenues 2. Basin surcharge 3. Regional sources (ULID, I:CLD, DD) A. Developer incentive program I. Renton and Kent Utility Revenues 2. Basin surcharge I. Renton Utility Revenues I. Renton Utility Revenues INTER -JURISDICTIONAL RI'QUIREMEN`I'S I. Kent builds lagoons; Renton contribute to construction costs 2. King County approves and/or administers regional sources I. Share humping costs with Kent 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. King County approves and/or administers regional SOuI'CCS I. Kent 2. Juristliclions in basin who hencfit 3. King County approves and/or administers regional sources I. Kent 2. Jurisdictions in basin who benefit 3. King County approves and/or administers 2. GRMA amendment for pumping into Green River; King County and Tukwila adverse to pumping 1. Contribute to O&M for Kent Lagoons I Summary of Benefits ESGRNN'P Alternatives 1-4 Alternative I - No Action This alternative results in no measurable benefits overall. This alternative may indeed result in negative benefits in the long run as flooding problems become more acute. Alternative II - Localized Improvements to Soringbrook Creek This alternative results in medium benefits overall. It addresses most flooding problems as well as wetland and fish protection. Because flooding will still occur in some areas, the economic and water quality benefits are not as great as are other benefits. Alternative III - Flood Flow Diversion Channel This alternative results in medium -high benefits except for economic development. It results in a net loss of 43 acres of potentially developable land. On the other hand, it addresses flooding problems, environmental protection, and political factors better than any of the other alternatives. Alternative IV - Pumping Stormwater from Kent Lagoons This alternative results in medium benefits overall. It is the best of all alternatives at addressing flooding and water quality problems, and results in medium benefits for economic, environmental protection, and political factors. CCI'Y OIL RENTON CAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Summary of Bcucfits IIENEFIT INDICATOR ALTERNATIVE I. 1I. 111. IV. I. Economic nenefrls Business developmelil, lax base None Low Negative Medium 2. Reduced flooding Reduccd property damage, no disruption in emergency services, reduced clean-up costs None Mcdinm High High 3. Waler Qualily Improvements Reduced peak flows, erosion and scclimenlalion control None Low+ Medium High 4. 1=ish Ilahilal Protection Proteded/improved spawning grounds and fish corridors; improved 02, lemperalure None Medium Mcxd1um+- Medium+ - 5. Welland Protection Prolcclion/c.nhancoancnl of wellands Low Medium High Medium G. Political Benefits L•MA compliance None Mcclium Iligh tMccliuml CITY OF RENTON EASI'SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION (page 2 of 3) Flood Control Alternative Effectiveness in Solving Flooding Wetland Considerations Wafer Quality Considerations Fisheries/Wldlife Considerations Cost/Benefit 1 No Action a Flooding would continue and become worsened a Refer to attached Exosting Wetland Functional a Water quality is exacmely poor and would a Substrate compcnition would continue to be a No Cast for a Ea;sting drainage system under future flows by continued development i n the watershed Values Table be expected to remain in degraded condition unsuitable for salmonoid spawning improvements b Implement no structural solutions to correct b Several systems would not comply with City's b Several Wetlands provide significant flool b Flood related impacts to water quality would b Fish passage wo•ild continue to be restricted b Low benefits problems stormwater management standards including storage become emserbated as development continues. to Panther Creek Springbrook Creek at SW 34tb and Oaksdale, c Some wedands such as 7nonth are These impacts include channel erosion and c Poor water quality would previal SW 43rd system, East Valley Highway system, disconnected from system aggradation and resulting high turbidity and d Panther Creek Wetland would continue the proposed SW 16th system draining Tukwila, suspended solids which negadvaly affect fish and to afford poor lsh habitat and smaller systems which connect to these systems iver abrate habitat_ Flooding can also e The prolonged i eterioration of conditions degrade water quality through inundation of could lead to the eventual abandonment of stored chemicals or petroleum products or stream by migrating salmon and subsequent causing sewer overflows, loss in producton of upstream spawning areas. However, stream is planted with 80,000 to 100,00 coho fry annual) by WDF 2 Localized improvements to Springbrook Creek a Most of the major flooding in the valley would a Refer to attached Functional Value ImpanTable a Flood related impacts to water quality would a Fish passage wood be improved at SW 27th a Estimated cost of a Includes P-9 channel/PCW improvements be solved. Flooding is still predicted for the future b P-9 Channel improvements will result in be reduced. and SW 34th b:,replacing culverts w/ brid ges improvements S6.2 b Includes improvemcnt to SW 43rd system system along SW 16th (High Green R. event) dcwatcring wetlands 3 and 4 unless b Re-routing Panther Creek flows into the wetland b The proposed improvemcnt between SW 41st Million (S5.9 Million if City c Includes improvement to SW 27th Street, b System improvements would likely be required to specific measures arc taken. Also, would improve waterquality of Panther Crock and the RR bridge would also improve purchase Glacier Part land for SW 34th Street and crossings solve Gooding of East Valley Highway permanent loss of appro)dmately 2S acres of discharges into Springbrook Creek passage by reducing velocities S200,000) d In addition to improvements described in project wetland requiring 5.5 acres of either wetland c Heavy planti ng along improved channel banks c Wetland cohanc--ment would benefit wildlife b Moderate overall benefits; Summary Document, installation of an additional creation or replacement per City ordinance would improve water quality through lowering d Fish spawning channel is technically feasible except for low economic 84" dia. culvert crossing at Oaksdale would be c Routing flow to the Panther Cr. Wetland of water tempattres and increasing DO to construct. P oblems of low gradient and and water quality bencG is required. will improve wetland vegetation and habitat c.' Temporary waterquality degradation would poor waterqua ity need to be addressed. diversity, however, this could also increare result during construction of channel improvements Questions remain as to the quantity and mosquito population \ quality at the rc aring habitat available to d Impacts to other wetlands are minimal juvenile fish the t emerge from the gravels \ e Any measures to rsluce isolation and predation on young salmon will be an improvement over existing conditions. Plantings will a so enhance riparian zone for birds and aher wildlife 3 Flood Flow Diversion Channcl/Sptingbrook a Most of the major flooding in the valley would a Referto attached Functional Value ImpactTable a Flood related impacts to water quality would a Potential for str� nding fish in high flow a Estimated cost of Fisheries Flow Channel be solved. Flooding is still predicted for the future b P-9 Channel impacts would be same as discussed be reduced. channel would :cave to be addressed such improvements S24.7 a Includes P-9 charmel/PCW improvements system along SW 16th (High Green R. event) under Alternative 2 b Sec tote b - Alt. 2 as dowrrampin ; and shaping of banks Million (S17.3 Million if City b Includes improvement to SW 43rd system b System improvements would likely be required to c If using SCS alignment, flood flaw channel would c See note c - Alt_ 2 b PCW cnbancem:!nts would require control purchase Glacier Park land for solve flooding of East Valley Highway bisect wedand inv. 03 (Orilis Pond) which d See note d - Alt. 2 structure with Esh passage. Marsh would $200,000) c Provides greatest flood control for high Springbrook may be a superfund cleanup site. This would a Longterm stream erosion between SW43rd and the P-9 increase water temperatures and provide b Moderate to high benefits; Creek Flows result in removal of appz. 3.4 acres of wetland. Channel would be reduced (lower than Alt 2) opportunities f r fish predators erupt for economic d Provides better flood control than Alt 2 for high d Wcdand 7 (FEQ designation) could be dcwatercd due to lower stream velocities c Also see note d •- Alt-2 development opportunities Green river flows since Good flow channel unless specific steps arc taken { f�C"t✓�:f7 �yLtix ��l�i�nlL�� d Also see note a -• AJL 2 would provide approxdmatcly 300 ac-ft storage e Tbc flood flaw channel would create a major new 1 � I -tIIj�� 71-%t"�I 11� L� � wetland habitat, appz 16 acres. I 4C — a Estimated cost of 4 Pumping of Stormwater from Kent Lagoons into a Most of the major flooding in the valley would a Refer to attached Functional Value Impact Table a Flood related impacts to water quality would a Fish passage through at SW 27th and SW 34th improvements $4.0 Green River be solved. Minor overtopping (0.2) of SW 34 is b P-9 Channel impacts would be same as discussed be reduced both in Penton and the areas would remain u,vmpravcd Million (S3.8 Million if Gry a Indudcs P-9 channel/PCW improvements simulated. This could be corrected by improving under AJtermtive 2 o(Kent receiving flood benefits. b Nodanger of un nding fish as in Alt. 3 purchase Glacier Part land for b Includes improvement to SW 43rd system the cf6 deny of the Lagoon project or by c Pumping of stormwater from the Kent La):eon would b Water Quality impact to Green River would be a Reduced Good fl 3ws would improve fish S2Q0,000) installation of a third parallel culvert need to be controlled to ensure that wcd:cnd minimal due to ext risive water quality controls habitat/passage b Higbest overall benefits b System improvements would likely be required to habitat in the lagoon is not adversly affected. ind uded as a part of the Lagoon project and d Also see noted - A1L2 "ve flooding of East Valley Highway d Impacts to other wedands are minimal because the contibutioa from the lagoon makes. up a Also ace note e - AIL 2 c Flood benefits would also be received in the Cityof less than 112 percemt of the Green River flow Kent for the lower portion of Mill and Springbrook during flood conditions creeks to the Renton Gty limits c This alternative world provide the greatest d Provides greatest flood control for high Green water quality improvement associated with River flows since large volume of water flooding is diverted 'err to enterin Renton CITY OF RENTON EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 'page 3 of 3) Flood Control Alternative Aesthetics/Human Environment Operations and Maintenance Implementation and financing Difficulty of Project a Number and type of permits are as follows Interjurisdicfional Requirements None Transportation Consideration a No impact 1 No Action a No Change to existing system ■ Operation and maintenance associated a No impact in aess fume a Existing drainage system under future flows b Existing wetlands would be available for with flooding would continue and Is Do« not comply with Environmental — No permits required b implement no structural solutions tocorrmt educational opportunities increase with continued dc-clopmcot Mitigation Agrexment problems Is Responsibilities for maintenance ofcufva-W and channels is unclear between City sod drainage district e No ocw responsibilities for maintaining new system improvmcnts 2 Localized improvements to Springbrook Creek a Improvements to wetlandscould provide a Substantially reduce O R M associated with a Moderate Icvel of financing required a Numberr and type of pamits arc as follows ■ Minor coordination with Kent for SW 43rd a Bridge at SW 27th Strcct would have to a Include P-9chann[VPCW improvements educational opportunities flooding b Minimum Land a:quisition — EIS Street Project, however most of the project cwotually be widened to four lanes Is Includes improvement to SW 43rd system b This alternative would not create large b Annual estimated cost for maintaining new c Can be implemented and financed — Hydraulic Permit Approval is within atyc03trol Is Prcfarcd alignment for SW 43rd street c Includes improvement to SW 27th Sccet, unnatural appearing channels facilities in negligible (no net gain in through Re too Stermwata program — Corp 404 nationwide permit (po"bly b Participation byTukwila desirable improvement 6 Lind A,-nue and SW SW 34thStrec( and crossings c Spawning Channel, if included could maintocramc cost due to potential d Panel compliance withEnviroomcnW individual) c Possible King Countyiovohement depending 41stStrcct or Lind sod RR right— d In addition to improvcmcots dcsaibcd in project provide educational opportunities savings from plugging SR-167culveru) Mitigation Agrecmcat — Possibly WSDOETcmporary Water Quality on finuscul strategy of—wayduc to trs(fc impacts Summary Document, installation of an additional c Regional financial participation Modifiations permit c This sltartative has moderate 84' dies culvert crossing at Oaksdalc would 6c is dcsirsbk but potentially difficult — Shoreline Substantial Development Permit impacts to transportation required. — Renton Wclands Modification Permit bu is seccptsble Is Whik the oumber and «tent of pvmits arc substantial, the prcimt iscomidacd ku difficult than Alt. 3 or 4. Alternative 3 will require more extensive permitrevicws due to it size and nature of covironmenW impacts. Alternative 4 will require more approvals which deal with ot6a agencies 3 Flood Flow Divmion Chanocl/Springbrook a improvemcnts to wetlands could provide a Substantially reduce O R M associated with a Highcst level of financing required a Number and t)pc of pamits arc as follows ■ Minor coordination with Kent for SW 43rd a Affects two projects, SR-167JSW 27tb Fisbcrics Flow Channel educational opportunities flooding Is Appm)dmatcly 43 screas of land acquisition — EIS Streit project and the flood Bowchannd street HOV acces and Oaksdale a irncludes P-9chanucVPCW impro%,cmcots b The flood flowcbanncl would look lark b Ncw facilities to maintain_ Annual estimated required — Hydraulic Permit Approval diversion located upstream of SW43rd Strcct Ncw bridges would be rcquirod Is Includes improvement to SW 43rd system and unnatural, bowcacr it could provide cost for maintaining new facilities is S5,000— c Complies with Envronmental Mitigation — Corp 404 nationwide permit (povibly, in Kent. Most � f project is wit-hin City CoatroL for both projects. Cost estimates open space, eductation and trail opportunities S6,000) Agreement individual) Is Participation by takwila desirable do Dot includc costs for future c Spawing Cbsoncl, if included could c Provides grater rcliabilitythan Altanatim d More difreult to impicmcnt due to the size — Possibly WSDOE Temporary Water Quality c Possible King County involvement depending bridges_ Due to tbcsccooccrDs provide educational opportunities 2 because there would be 2 flow paths between and nature of project Modifutions permit on financial strategy this alternative is not preferred SW 43rd and P-9 Cbsnael a Regional financial participstiou — Shoreline Substantial Dcaclopmcot Permit by the City's transportation is dcairablc but potentially difficult — Renton Wclands Modification Permit division Is Permits and required approvals will be difficult due to the size and nature of the project and the rate potential for cmironmentaf impacts a Number and type of pamits arc as follows a Significaotcoordination with Kent for a This sltanatrw his ku impact on a Improvements to wetlands could provide a Substantially reduce O R M associated with a Lowest Icvel of financing required — Renton EIS orchocklist for PCW/P-9 Project and financing pump station improvemcnn. SR-167/SW 27th Street HOV access 4 Pumping of Stormwater from Kent L.agoorn into educational opportunities flooding b Difficult to impieneat and finance — Kent EIS for Lagoons Project Project bcncfiu would not be realized until project Green Rive b This alternative would not create large b New facilities to maintain. Annual estimated due to number c(jurisdctions and — Hydraulic Permit Approval (PCWJP-9) Kcnt would implement plan. Thedare, Is This alternative his fewest impacts a includes P-9chaoncVPGW improvements unnatural appearing channels cost for maintaining new facilities is S3-4,000 approvals requc.:d — Corp 404 nationwide permit (posibly Renton his ksscontrol. to traasporation b Includes improvement to SW 43rd system c Spawning Channel, if included could Thiscost includes the cost to maintain the c Partial compliant, withEnviromacDtal individualxPCW/P-9) b Would required approvals from the COE and provide educational opportunities station which would be operated by KcnL Mitigation Agre. ment — Possibly WSDOE Tcm porary, Water Quality the Greco Rivo• Management Agreement c Pump station would require emergency power d Amendments to(iRMArequced Modifications permit (PCWIP-9) c PossibkKing Countyinvolvementdepending d Provides the best overall reliability because c Renton would mskc financialcontribudons — Rcaton Wclands Modification Permit on financial stratgy flow would be removed from system upstream to Kent (PCW/P-9) of Renton, and therefore facilities in Renton — Modification of GRMA and Iowa Kent would not have to be sized — Possibly approval by ODE for discharra W and maintained to accomodate all flows Greca River Is Pam its and required approvals will be diffeuh A— to the cum her of encies itnolved CITY OF RENTON EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION (page 1 of 3) March 31, 1991 Flood Control Alternative Advantages Dissadvantages Comments 1 No Action a No new impacts to wetlands a Flooding of SW43rd a This alternative differs from original scope of work because a Existing drainage system under future flows b Predicted 100 year event i s b Flooding of EVH it doesn't include the assumption that the P-9 Channel a 3d PCW b Implement no structural solutions to CClreCt below established FEMA elevations. c Flooding of Und are improved. problems c No cost for implementing solutions d Springbrook overtopping SW34th and Oaksdale e Lack of Fish Passage to Panthcr Creek f Poor water quality g Cost impacts from floods 2 Localized improvements to Springbrook Creek a Eliminates flooding of major systems (an a Several wetlands will be dewatcred unless specific a This alternative would include improvements to lower Sprirgbrook WSP a Includes P-9 channcUPCW improvements exception may be the new system draining ef7orta arc made to maintain water supply to elevation 16 at the downstream section of Oaksdale b Includes improvement to SW 43rd system Tukwila area, SW 16th) to wetland s c Includes improvement to SW 27th Street, b Little or No Land acquisition required b Any excavation in Springbrook Creek may be SW 34th Street and crossings contaminated and required dirposal at lined land d In addition to improvements described in project fill Summary Document, installation of an additional M' dia. culvert crossing at Oaksd ale would be required. 3 Flood Flow Diversion ChanncUSpringbrook a Maintains Spingbrook Creek in natural location o The possibility of stranded Gsh •would be a concern a This alternative would comist of weir overflow diversion u/s of SW 43rd Fisheries Flow Channel b Could incorporate overflow into Oaksdale design and o Wetlands will be dewatered unless specific which would direct flows into a new channel system a Includes P-9 cbanncUPCW improvements and possi bly RID for funding efforts are made to maintain water supply b It would be designed to be a wide wetlands cocridor (70' b(xtom width) b Includes improvement to SW 43rd system c Eliminates flooding of major systems (except SW 16th) to wetlands c This alternative is not preferred by the City Transportation d Flood flow diversion channel could be wetland o Requires Land acquisition department due to i mpacting the SR-1671SW 27th HOV Access cooridor as an environmental benefit o Would require future bridge over Oaksdale and SW 27th and the exicmion of Oaksdalc Street 4 Pumping of Swcmwater from Kent Lagoons into o Eliminates flooding of major systems o Requires modification of GRIN % to allow Green River o Rcduce vdume of surface runoff cntcring Renton pumping into the Green River up to Green River a Includes P-9 channcl/PCW improvements o Does not require improvements to Springbrook flows of 12,000 cis b Indudes i mprovemcnt to SW 43rd system Creck and associated impacts o Depends on actions by other jurisdictions Criteria Number A City of Renton — East Side Green River Watershed Plan Criteria Weighting Process Description A Effectiveness in Solving Flooding How important is it to meet the City's adopted stormwater management standards B Wetland Considerations How important is it that the alternative improvements do not negatively impact and/or enhance wetlands C Water Qaulity Considerations How important is it that the alternative improvements do not negatively impact and/or enhance water quality D Fisheries Considerations How important is it that the alternative improvements do not negatively impact and/or enhance the fish resource E Cost/Benefit How important is the cost in terms of benefits in evaluation of alternatives F Aesthetics/Human Environment How important are the aesthetics/human environment in selecting the preferred alternative. Examples of this criteria include appearence, whether or not the alternative facilitates opens space, parks, trails, or recreational opportunities. Rill the project look natural or out of place? G Operations and Maintenance How important are operation and maintenance considerations. O and M considerations include new O&M cost for new facilities, ease of maintenance, SCori and reliability H Implementation and financing How important is implementation and financing I Difficulty of Project How important is the number and extent of permits and approvals required before the project can be implemented J Interjurisdictional Requirements How Important How important are inter urisdictional requirements? Does 3 — Major Preference the alternative require other jurisdictions to do something 2 — Minor Preference before project can be implemented or financed 1 — Slight/No Preference K Transportation Considerations (one point each letter) . How important are transportation considerations? Total Point A B C D E F G H I I I J J Please complete Scoring Matrix Table. Enter a letter and number in each square. K For example box A—B: o if the effectiveness in sohing flooding is much more important than wetland consideration, write in A3 o if wetland considerations are moderately more important than solving flooding, write in B2 o If there is only a slight or no preference, write in AB Then add up the total number of point for each Criteria. City of Renton East Side Green Rivcr Watershed Plan Cast 1--mimatcs of Flood Control Alcrnativcs Estimated Unit Total Description Quantity Unit Cost Cost comments Land Acquislion 0.50 AC $165,000 $82,500 43rd Street lmlrovemcnls Assume Parallel pipe system Mobilization (10%) 1 US $76,302 $76,302 — required size 72" dia (28.2 sf) Excavation 100 CY $8 $800 — existing size 48" dia (12.6 so Embankment Fill inc. Compaction 20 CY $16 $320 — approximated required size (15.6 so Structure removal I LS $5,000 S5,000 — assume 54" dia. parallel pipe 54" dia. cone 3350.00 1 1' $150 $502,500 Manholes, 96" dia 11.00 EA 8500.00 593,500 Assume ever 300 feet Ashphall Concrete Pavement removaVrestoration 320 SY S10 $9,000 Assume 3 street crossings and 5 drives Concrete Sidewalk restoration 1100.00 SY 50.tX1 $55,0M Assumc 50:6 require restoration Traffic Control 1.00 LS S5,0tx) S5,000 Misccllanous bid items 1 LS S 15,000 $15,000 Subtotal $763,022 Panther Crock Wclland/Itc—establishing Panthcr Crock (w/o mitigation) Subtotal — For Breakdown See Estimate from Alternative Number 2 $490,889 Mitigation 1 — wcltands (incorporating Lincr cxcavation(along south slope) 4000 CY S8 $32,000 Clay Liner along south slope 4000 CY S12 $48,000 11crm along south slope 325 CY $12 $3,900 Storm Drain ny—pass 18"dia CMP 800 LF $30 $24,000 Ashpliall Concrete Pavement rcmovaVrest 35 SY S30 $1,050 Control Structure 1 I S $4.000 $4,000 Manholes, 48" 3 EA $2,500 $7,500 New Wetland Berm 300 CY $20 S6.000 PCW Outlet Control Structure I LS $90,000 $90,000 Assume fish passage rcgq'd Subtotal $216,450 Mitigation 2 — Spawning Channcl Subtotal — For Breakdown See Estimate from Alternative Number 2 $137,500 City of Itcnlon (last Side Green Itivcr Watershed Plan Cost Estimates of Flood Control Alcrnativcs Description Embankment Fill Inc. Compaction Landscaping and restoration 'Temporary Erosion Control Reinforce Earth weir Gabion over now Miscellanous bid items Subtotal Land Acquistions Flood Flow Channcl (SCS Channcl size) Mobilization (10%) Clearing & Grubbing Soils Sampling Excavation and Disposal Embankment Fill Inc. Compaction Landscaping and restoration Access Road Temporary Erosion Control Dcwalcring Erosion & Scdimcnia(ion Control Misccllanous bid items Subtotal Land Acquistlon 1- 405 1 ligh Flow Channcl Mobilization (10%) Excavation and Disposal Embankment Fill Inc. Compaction landscaping and restoration Temporary Erosion Control Rcinforcod Carih wclr Gablon over flow Dcwatcring Erosion & Sedimentation Control Misccllanous bid items Estimated Unit Quantity Unit Cos( 1000 CY $16 1 1 S S 10,00) 1 LS S 10,00o I I,S $50,000 500.00 CY 150.00 I LS $20.000 0.60 AC $165,000 1 IS $757,278 43 AC S3,(W 1.00 I S $50,000 72((X)O CY $8 1000 CY $16 43 AC $5,0o0 8000.00 IX 30.00 1 IS S 10,0a) 1.00 I'S S400,000 43 AC $500 1 LS $100,000 43.00 AC $165,000 1 I'S $17,111 7(W CY $8 500 CY $16 1 IS S 10,000 I I S $10,000 1 I S S20,000 100.(H) CY 150.00 1.00 LS $10,000 1 LS S5,000 1 LS $20,000 Total Cost comments $ 16 Ooo S I O'(W S I O,OW S 30,000 $75,0W $20,000 $268,889 $99,000 Assume Lenght 9500 ft. blm wid 70 ft. - avc lop width 200 ft S757,278 - total area 43 ac S3,(Xx) $50,000 $5,760,000 Assume avc surface cicv 20, Assume S 16,000 no hazardous waste encountered $215,000 $240,000 $10,000 $400,000 $21,500 $100,000 $7,572,778 $7,095,000 $17,111 $56,(M $8,000 510,0W $10,0W S20,((X) $15.000 $10,000 sspo ) $20,000 Subtotal $171,111 City of Benton List Side Green River Watershed Plan Cost Gstimalcs of Flood Control Alcrnativcs L•slimatcd Unit Total Description Quantity Unit Cost Cost comments Alternative 1 - No Action No Cost Alternative 2 - Localized Improvements to Sprinbrook Creek 27th Street Dridgc Improvements Mobilization (10%) 1 IS $73,744 $73,744 Excavation 3500 CY $8 $28,000 Embankment fill Inc. Compaction 200 CY $16 S3,200 Structure removal I LS $25,000 $25,000 Concrete for Bridge 400 CY M $120,000 Steel ltcbnr for Bridge 80000 I,I1S S1 S40,000 Ashphalt Concrete Pavement removaVrestoralion 400 SY $30 S12,000 Bridge Aproach Slab 70 CY $250 $17,500 Shoring and Cribbing 1.00 LS St30,OM $130,000 Utility Work 1 LS S40,000 S40,000 comparison with SW 16th Bridge Erosion Sedimentation Control 1.00 LS S3,000 S3,000 Taffic ControVsigning 1.00 LS s5,000 $5,000 Gaurdrailsystem 1.00 I S $10,(= S10,000 Dcwalcring 1.00 1 S S40,000 $40,000 Double cost for SW 16th Bridge Bridge Superstructure 1 LS S 130,000 $130,000 Misccllanous Bit Icros 1 L.S $60,000 $60,000 Subtotal $737,444 341h Street Bridge Improvements Mobilisation (10%) 1 1 S S76,078 $76,078 Excavation 3500 CY $8 S28,M10 Embankment bill Inc. Compaction 200 CY $16 S3,200 Structure removal 1 IS S25,000 S25,000 Concrete for Bridge 4(X) CY $300 $120,000 Steel Itcbnr for Bridge 80000 I,IIS $I $40,000 Asliphall Concrete Pavement rcmoval/restoratlon 600 SY $10 $18,000 Dridgc Aproach Slab 130 CY $250 $32,500 Shoring and Cribbing 1.00 LS S 130,(x)0 S 130,000 Utility Work 1 IS $40,000 S40,000 comparison wills SW 161h Bridge Erosion Sedimentation Control L(X) IS $3,000 S3,000 Taffic Control/signing 1.00 1 S $5,000 $5,000 Gaurdrail system 1.00 LS S10,000 $10,000 Dcwatcring 1.00 LS $40,(X)0 S40,0(X) Double cost for SW16th Bridge Bridge Superstructure 1 LS S130,000 $130,000 "r�scctlr--••- nit Ic-- I LS $60,000 $60,000 1 .�.. 1. 1 .. .. City of Rcnton Bast Side Green River Watershed Plan Cost Estimates of Flood Control Alcrnalivcs Description Sublotal 41st Slrcet Improvements Mobilization (10%) Excavation Embankment Fill Inc, Compaction Structure removal 84"dia. cmp Ashphall Concrete Pavement rcmovaVrestoration 1 Icadwall Concrete Sidewalk restoration Traffic Control Dcwatcring Misccllanous bid Items Subtotal 43rd Street Improvemcnis Mobilization (10%) Excavation Embankment Fill Inc. Compaction Structure removal 54" dia, cone Manholes, 96"dia Ashpliall Concrete Pavement rcmoval/restoration Concrete Sidewalk restoration Traffic Control Misccllanous bid items Subtotal Springbrook Creek Widening (SW 41st St. to RR Bridge) Mobilization (10%) Excavation and Disposal Excavation and Disposal to Landfill Embankment Fill Inc. Compaction Gocicxlllc for soil stabilization Landscaping restoration Soils Sampling and Testing LsIimaIcd Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost $760,778 comments 1 LS $8,630 $8,630 50 CY $8 - S400 20 CY S 16 $320 1 1 S $5,000 S5,(w 165.00 L t $170 $28,050 230 SY $30 S6,900 2.00 EA 4000.00 S8,000 20.00 SY 50.00 $1,000 1.00 L S S5,000 $5.000 1.00 1 S S8,000 $8,000 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $86,300 Assume Parallel pipe system LS $76,302 $76,302 - required size 72" dia (28.2 sQ too CY S8 $800 - existing size 48" dia (12.6 sf) 20 CY $16 $320 - approximated required size (15.6 sQ LS S5,000 S5,000 - assume 54" dia. parallel pipe 3350.00 117 $150 $502,500 11.00 EA 8500.00 S93,500 Assume ever 300 feel 320 SY $30 $9,6t10 Assume 3 street crossings and 5 drives 1100.00 SY 50.00 $55,(M Assume 5076require restoration 1.00 LS S5,(M $5,000 1 IS $15,000 $15,000 $763,022 1 I S S 14,861 S 14,8(4 1700 CY $8 $13.600 300 CY $170 $51,000 Tipping fee of S10,Vln 300 CY $16 $4,800 7500.00 St. 1.25 $9,375 1 IS S 10,0m $10,000 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 City of Rcnlon List Side Green Rivcr Watcrshcd Plan Cost Estimates of Flood Control Alcrnativcs Estimated Description Quantity Unit Temporary Erosion Control 1 IS Misccllanous bid items 1 LS Subtotal Land Acquisiton 0.1 AC Panther Crcck Wei land/Rc-establishing Panthcr Crock (Wo mitigation) Mobilization (10%) 1 LS Excavation and Disposal 14000 CY Embankment fill inc. Compaction 300 CY Landscaping and resloralion 1 I S Plugging SR-167 Culverts 1 L.S Temporary Erosion Control 1 L S SR-167 culvcr crossing, 72"dia by boring 400.00 IT Misccilanous bid items 1 LS Subtotal Land Acquisiton 3.2 AC Miligalion I - wcttand lAncr cxcavation(along south slope) 4000 CY Clay Uncr along south slope 4000 CY Bcrm along south slope 325 CY Storm Drain By-pass 18" dia CMP 800 Ll. AshphallConcrete PavcmcntrcmovaVrest 35 SY Control Structure 1 I S Manholes, 48" 3 I?A PCW Outlet Control Structurc 1 LS Subtotal Mltigalion 2 - Spawning Channcl Spawning Gravel 150 CY ltcplacc EVI I Avenue Culverts 4000 CY Structure Removal I US New Box Culvert 1 LS Ashphalt Concrete Pavement rcmovaVrest 70 SY Extend Und Avenue Drainage System I LS 48" dia CMP 700 Lf l)nit Tolal Cost Cost comments S I0,000 $10,000 $15,000 SI5,000 $148,639 $165,000 $16,500 $49,089 $49,089 $8 $112,000 $16 $4,800 510,000 510,000 S l opoo $10,000 $10,000 SIO'Dw 700.00 $280,000 $15,000 $15,000 5490,889 S 165,000 5528,000 $8 S32,000 $12 $48,000 S 12 $3,900 $30 $24,000 $30 $1,050 $4,000 54,000 $2,500 $7,500 $70,000 570,000 Assume fish passage rcgq'd - Does not include wctland berm $190,450 - Does not include wctland enhancement features Assume Ihis is dic additional cost to include Sp. Channcl $20 $3,000 Assume 5'wd,l'dp,800'ing S 12 $48,000 Assume do not need to relocate sewer S5,(K)0 55,000 $24,000 $30 $2,100 S4,000 $4,000 $85 $59,500 City of Itcnton Gast Sidc Grccn Itivcr Watcrshcd Plan Cost GsNmalcs of Flood Control Alcrnalivcs Dcscriplion Manholc, 72" Subtotal Emimatcd Unit Total Quantity Unit Cost Cost 3 L.S $5,300 $15,900 $137,500 Summary Altcrnativc 2 27th Strcct (lridgc Improvcmcnts 3411% Strcct (lridgc Improvcmcnts 41s1 Strcct Improvcmcnts 43rd Strccl Improvcmcnts Springbrook Crcck Widcning (SW 41sl St. to RR Ilridgc) Panllicr Crock Wctland/lic—cstablishing Panthcr Crock (w/o mitigation) Mitigation 1 — wclland Mitigation 2 — Spawning Channcl Subtotal Construction Contingcncics (30%) Tax, Gnginccring and Administration (30^/0) Subtotal Land Acquistion — Springbrook Widcning Land Acquistion — P-9 Channcl Total Alicrnativc 3 — flood now Divcrsion Channcl/Sprinbrook Crock Fishcrics Flow Channcl commcnts Construction Contingcncics (1) Lind Total Cost Q 60% Acquisition Projccl Cost $737,444 $442,467 $1,179,911 $760,778 $456,467 $1,217,244 SR6,300 S51,7130 $138,080 $763.022 $457,813 $1,220,836 S148,639 S89,110 $16,500 $254,322 S490,R89. $294,533 $528,000 $1,313,422 S190,450 S114,270 $304,720 $137.500 $82,500 $220,000 $3.315,022 $994,507 $994,507 $5,304,030 S 16,500 $528,000 $5,848,536 $5,848,536 Springbrook Crock Divcrsion Mobilization (10%) 1 1 S S26,1189 $26,889 Clcaring & Grubbing 1 1 S $5,000 55,000 Excavation and Disposal 7000 CY $8 $56,000 City of Renton East Side Grccn River Watershed Plan Cost Estimalcs of flood Control Alcrnativcs Estimated Description Quantity Unit Total Unit Cost Cost comments Summary Alternative 3 Springbrook Creek Diversion Flood Flow Channel (SCS Channel sirs) 1-4051 ligh Flow Channel 43rd Street Improvements Panther Creek Wctland/Rc—establishing Panthcr Creek (w(o mitigation) Mitigation 1 — wcltand Mitigation 2 — Spawning Channel Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Tax, Engineering and Administration (30%) Subtotal Land Acquistion - Floodflow Channel Overflow Land Acquistion — FloodFlow Channel Land Acquistion — 1405 Flood flow Channel Land Acquistion — P-9 Channel Total Alternative 4 — Pumping of Stormwalcr from Kent Lagoons into Green River Note that the following costs estimate includes only those costs over and above what is already proposed by the City of Kent as a part of their Lagoon Project. The current cost estimate for the Kent Lagoons project as proposed In the Preferral Plan — Combined Slormwater DclentiotJEnhanced Wetland Facility is S 14,0MOOO ($10,000,000 of which Is Lind acquisition). Pump Station. Kents present cost estimate Includes an allowance of $115,000 for an outlet control structure. 'Phis outlet control structure would have to be modified Construction Contingencies (1) Land Total Cost @ 60"lo Acquistion Project Cost SUA889 5161,333 $99,0W $529,222 $7,572,778 54,543,667 57,095,000 $19,211,444 5171,111 $102,607 $82,500 $356,278 $763,022 S457,813 $1.220,836 5490,889 5294,533 $528,000 $1,313,422 $216.450 $129.870 $346,320 $137,500 $82,500 $220,000 $9,620,639 $2,886,192 $2,886,192 $99,000 57,095,000 $82,500 $528,000 $23,197,522 $23,197,522 City of Itcnlon East Side Grccn ltivcr Watershed Plan Cost Estimates of Flood Control Alcrnatives Estimated Description Quantity to include a pump station capable of pumping 50 cfs with an approximate total dynamic head of 30fl. A preliminary sizing of this pump station is 3 — 25 cfs 10011P pumps (with only two operating at any one lime) with provisions for a stand —Iry emergency generator. The estimate for pump station Is $700.000, so that the increased cost to the project would be $700,000 — $115,000, or $585,000 Pressure Oulfall. Kent% present cost estimate includes an allowance of $640,000 for 1,600 feet of 48" dia cone. oulfall to the Grccn ltivcr. By pumping the sizc of the pipe could be reduce to approximately 30" dia., however it would need to be constructed of either steel, plaslic,or I ID polyclhclync. Because of the smaller pipe size and elimination of deep Irench excatlon, the cost of the dishcharg to the Grccn ltivcr can be reduced. Using $30Mf at 1,600 ft a $480,000 Thcrc for Micro would be a reduced cost of $640,000 — $480,00 Subtotal 43rd Slrccl Improvcmcnls Subtotal — For Breakdown See Estimate from Allcrnalivc Numbcr 2 Panther Crcck WellandAtc—establishing Panthcr Crock (w/o mitigation) Mitigation I — wchand Mitigation 2 — Spawning Channcl Subtotal — For Breakdown See Eslimale from Allcrnalivc Numbcr 2 Summary Altcrnativc 4 Unit Total Unit Cost Cost comments $585,CM (S 160,000) $425,000 $763.022 $490.989 $190,450 $137,500 $8111,839 Construction Contingencies (1) [and Total Cost Q 60% Acquistion Project Cost Cily of Rcnlon Gast Sidc Grccn Rivcr Walcrshcd Plan Cost Cstimalcs of Flood Control Alcrnativcs Dcscription BsIimaIcd Unit Total Quantity Unit Cost Cosl commcnts Pumping From Kcnl Lakoon to Grccn Rivcr S425,000 S255,000 S68Q000 43rd Slrccl Improvcmcnls $763,022 $457,813 S1,220,836 Pan lhcr Crcck Wclland/Iic—cstablishing Ilanthcr Crock (w/o mitigation) S490,889 $294,533 $528,000 $1.313,422 Mitigation 1—wclland $190,450 S114,270 S304,720 Miligation 2 — Spawning Channel S137,500 $82,500 $220,000 Subtotal S2,000,861 Construction Conlingcncics (30%) S602,058 Tax, Cnginccring and Administration (30;b) $602,058 Land Acquistion — P-9 Channcl $528,000 Total $3,738,978 $3,738,978 East Side Green River Watershed Plan Alternative Evaluation Ranking Workshcct Flood Contol Alternatives Crileria Criteria Weihl Alternative I — No Action Alternative 2 — Springhrook Cr. Alternative 3 — flood [;low Ahcrnalivc 4 — Kcnl l a oons Score oil nt•� Score points Score points Score �oinls Effectiveness in Solving Flooding Welland Considerations Water Quality Considerations Fishcrics/Wildlifc Considerations Cost/Dcncfit Acsthctics/I Iuman Environment Operations and Maintenance Implementation and financing DifGcully of Project Inlerjurisdictional Requirements Transportation Considerations Total Scores Rank PLANNING/ BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ItILINICIPAL BUILDING 2001.41LLAVE. SO. RENTON,WASH. 98055 0 UTILITY SYSTENIS DIVISION - 235-2631 0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEms DIVISION - 235-2620 WORK ORDER FILE CODE .2tk ENCLOSURE FILED IN _(S) TO: DATE: 303 NO..: RE: 2.10 _211-111 xc ATTN- GENTLEME'N: WE ARE SENDING YOU c3 ATTACHED o UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: o SHOP DRAWINGS o PRINTS o REPRODUCIBLE PLANS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS o COPY OF LETTER o COPIES DATE NU.leER DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS v D 1992 ov%l T.tESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: a FOR APPROVAL o APPROVED AS SUBMITTED a RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL a FOR YOUR USE o APPROVED AS NOTED o SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBL'!Tlidk oAS REQUESTED a RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS o RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS t3 FOR REVIEW AND COK-ENT o ,fo PRINTS RETURNED A R LOAN TO US .COPIES TO: V _,-o n7� SIGNED TITLE k IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT ON+E t CITY OF RENTON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DIVISION 1\MMORANTDL71%T DATE: February 25, 1992 TO: Ron Straka FROM: Mob Mahn SUBJECT: East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRN' D Plan and Black River Water Quality Management (BRWQK Plan ES GRW PLAN Summary of Transportation Systems recommendations The three "do -something" flood control alternatives presented in the Project Summary Document are listed below in the order of our preference. Alternative No. 4 has the fewest transportation impacts Alternative No. 2 is acceptable Alternative No. 3 has serious transportation impacts Alternative No. 3 P-1 channel located on the west side of Oakesdale is not acceptable Further discussion of anticipated impacts of the flood control alternatives on Valley transportation is included in the following responses to questions you have raised to Transportation Systems concerning the ESGRW Plan Project Summary Document. The intent of this input is to provide issues and concerns that should be considered when evaluating the flood control alternatives presented in the Project Summary Document. 1. A-oiiYe inpul on esch of Zbe pr000sed ,6IlerDflj es avd associoled cor1�kls to - proposed lrensporlation proJecls �z e., Ozyesdele Avenue S)V Response The Transportation systems Division is currently re-evaluating the transportation plan and funding strategies for the Valley. This is in response to recent developments affecting the Valley, including Boeing's Longacres Site development plans, funding ESGRW Memo February 25, 1992 Page 2 constraints of Renton, Tukwila, Boeing and other Valley developers, and the proposed Renton Wetland Ordinance. Preliminary discussions with Tukwila and Boeing have resulted in support for such a re-evaluation. Discussions are continuing and agreement on a revised Valley Transportation Plan and funding along with adoption by the city council is anticipated by the end of summer 1992. Discussion of impacts of the flood control alternatives on proposed revisions to the Valley Transportation Plan follows. The "No -Action" Flood Control Alternative has no impact on existing or proposed transportation I ciliues other than the flooding of streets in ;e Valley which currently occurs, and will continue under this alternative. Flood Control Alternative 2. A. This would affect one project of the revised Valley Transportation Plan; the SR- 167/SW 27th High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facility. This project will involve implementation of HOV only lanes to and from SR-167 and along S W 27th to proposed Oakesdale Avenue SW. Widening of SW 27th is anticipated to accommodate the HOV lanes. This flood control alternative proposes replacing the crossing of Springbrook Creek at SW 27th with a bridge. Widening a bridge at this location to accommodate the HOV lanes will be more costly than widening the existing roadway and culvert. This increased cost could affect the budget for the HOV Project. Diverting Panther Creek into the Panther Creek Wetland may impact the HOV interchange at SR-167. B. Design coordination will be needed between the SW 27th flood control bridge at Springbrook Creek and the HOV project to determine the appropriate width for the new bridge or to assure that the bridge can be widened in the future as part of the HOV project. C. The new storm drain line on SW 43rd proposed in this flood control alternative is of concern to Transportation Systems because of the major impacts envisioned to. traffic movement and driveway access on this major- arterial during construction. A minimum of two traffic lanes are anticipated to be affected even during peak traffic periods, as well as impacts on the traffic signal systems at Lind and at Oakesdale intersections. Refer to response to item S_ for more discussion. D. SW 23rd is not up to City standards at this time. The.P-9 channel may affect improvements to this street if, in the future, traffic needs warrant them. If this street is improved, it most likely will be done by abutting developers. ESGRW Memo February 25, 1992 Page 3 E. At this time, there are no anticipated transportation improvements that would be affected by replacement of the culvert under SW 34th at Springbrook Creek with a bridle. Flood control Alternative 3 A. The location of the P-1 high flow diversion channel could affect two proposed projects of the revised Valley Transportation Plan. One project is the previously mentioned SR-167/SW 27th HOV access and the second is the Oakesdale Project. Under the revised Transportation Plan, Oal:esdale would be extended from SW 16th southward to either the projection of SW 23rd or to SW 27th as a Phase 1 Project. Continuation of Oakesdale to the SW 31st terminus is still planned but as a future phase. Locating the P-1 high flow diversion channel west of proposed Oal:esdale would require bridges at its crossing of extended SW 27th and at its crossing of Oakesdale north of SW 27th. This could add to the cost of Oakesdale or the P-1 channel. Also to be considered would be the impact on Boeings Longacres development, which appears to be prohibitive. We are also concerned with impacts on possible future connection from Oal:esdale to Strander Boulevard. Locating the P-1 channel east of Oakesdale would only requireabridge at its crossing of SW 27th which impacts the SR-167/SW 27th HOV Project. The crossing of Oal:esdale south of 27th would also require a bridge but this is already contemplated in the Oakesdale Project in order to mitigate impacts on the wetlands at this Iocation. A location east of Oakesdale could have far less impact on Boeing's - Longacres development. - B. There is also concern with locating the P-1 channel adjacent to Oakesdale through the wetland areas. Study is needed to determine if this would be of benefit to either the channel project or the Oal:esdale Project under the proposed Renton Wetland Ordinance. However, this does not appear to be practical. funding for Oakesdale south of SW 27th is not available in the foreseeable future. (Refer to response to item 4 for more discussion.) r C. Enhancing the Panther Creek Yv7etland may impact the SR-167 HOV interchange. D. The same concerns regarding potential impacts on traffic operation on SW 43rd during construction of the proposed storm drain line are appropriate for this flood control alternative. (See item C under Alternative 2 and response to item 5.) ESGRW Memo February 25, 1992 Page 4 E. More information is needed on the diversion structure at SW 43rd proposed in j this flood control alternative in order to assess potential impacts on traffic movement on SW 43rd during its construction. F. See items D and E under Alternative 2 for additional comments regarding Alternative 3. Flood Control Alternative 4, as presented, would notaffect existing and proposed transportation facilities in the Valley other than to reduce flooding of the roadways. Thus this flood control alternative is preferred over the other alternatives. 2. 11ovld lror crl�lion svp�orl repJdcer�enl of cvlverls Nilh brJoa�es �IJlerndGre Response Transportation Systems can agree with a decision to replace existing culveiLs with bridges if this will reduce the occurrence of roadway flooding. We are proposing an HOV facility on SW 27th. This project is unfunded. If you construct a bridge, it would need to be desiEned to allow for future widening. 3. rir.��rook Creek o�erfops S1Y ,;:' Areel s&1 under ,�W1er�dLve A7 -K so en >Irprol'awed 10 the slreel el boe&Oro Hovlo' he reply .. The lrvfeJle&J o oI e hr>d'oe H ovlo'regvire the streef to he re)seo'. IYovld lhj.s to d problem? Response The major problem will be the cost of street restoration at the approaches on both sides of the bridge (new roadway, sidewalks, planting strips, driveways, street lighting, and adjustments to private utility facilities to name a few items). This cost will vary depending on how high the street needs to be raised. If the street approaches have to be raised too high, required adjustments to abutting property access and features (i.e., Seattle Times development), if feasible, will add to the cost of restoration. Information on a proposed bridge elevation was not found in reviewing the Project Summary Document. Once a specific height is identified, additional concerns and problems may become apparent. I ESGRW 1,1emo February 25, 1992 Page 5 4. l,Jow Hovld 11Ierr2e&Ve ho 3 effect Ire) porle&i v Rler kgr for Oeyesdele.' 1,I s Tre,Worletion der eloped a preferred elyarl er7l for Oekesdele.' Could the eltervellre �e comhked hitli ae Oe-esdele Project.' If Wlernetir-,e Al 7. 3 required Zhe kslMellon of �.ndffes for tie ex1eam2 of eaisvwz streets, rrovld Zh).s meye Ilse elterr7elir,e less preferred.' Response Only the P-1 high flow diversion channel proposal in Alternative 3 would affect the Oakesdale Project. There will need to be coordination betwe—en the P-1 channel and the Oakesdale Project regarding alignment of both facilities, number of crossings of Oakesdale over the channel, and right-of-way needs for both facilities. These inputs would be good to have during evaluation of alternative alignments for Oakesdale and selection of a preferred location. As previously mentioned, Phase 1 of the Oakesdale Project v.-M extend Oakesda]e from SW 16th to either SW 23rd or SW 27th. This will depend on Boeing proceeding with their Employment Center. Since Boeing has yet to commit to this development, the Oakesdale Project is proceeding slowly. We have not finalized a schedule for Phase 1 of Oakesdale, so we cannot determine, at this time, when we would need input regarding the P-1 channel if Alternative 3 is selected. When the extension of Oakesdale to S`'J 31st will occur is also not }mown. The cost of mitigating wetland impacts makes this section of Oakesdale difficult to fund. A- preferred alignment for Oakesdale has not been selected. Due to wetland impacts and Springbrook Creek's shoreline designation, an alignment through the Boeing Longacres site, rather than along the eastern edge of the site, appears to be the most practical at this time. The eastern alignment is not compatible with Boeing Longacres development and is probably prohibitively expensive. Combining Alternative 3 with the Oakesdale Project is assumed to mean combining only the P-1 High Flow Diversion channel with the Oakesdale Project. Oakesdale, south of SW 27th, is unfunded for the foreseeable future. Any channel construction should provide for future construction of Oakesdale. Alternative 3 would be less desirable if the decision to proceed with this proposal and design of the P-1 channel were to delay Phase I of the Oakesdale Project or impact the Boeing Longacres project. Also, this flood control alternative would be less desirable if bridges to accommodate extension of existing streets or replace culverts under SW 27th and SW 34th are required. ESGRW Memo February 25, 1992 Page 6 5. I>oes l ye rre Or1elion I &,Oe1&ent hel'e a preferred 94S'ned for ae proposed SIY 93rd Slreel slorrw syslaw to carry yenl fJoHs from &Wd end Sly 'L?,rd Slreel to OV esdele end SIY 4Jsl Slreel.9 Response Because of major impacts to traffic movement on SW 43rd are envisioned during construction, location of a new storm system out of the public right-of-way would be preferred. Could the storm system be located in Kent or in railroad right-of-way north of SW 41st? If this is not feasible, an alignment that goes north on Lind to SW 41st and then west on SW 41st to Oakesdale (see attached sketch) is a suggested alternative location. Using SW 41st for a major portion of the storm system would lessen the impacts on traffic movement during construction could reduce costs to the storm system project for traffic control and provide the opportunity to expedite construction along a less traveled street (SW 41st ). Please note that if you select an alignment on SW 43rd, you will need to keep existing lanes open during peak hours. r BRWQ'-N1 PLAN Transportation Systems currently envisions meeting water quality requirements of Renton's drainage ordinance for transportation projects both during and after construction. These requirements will add costs to these projects. We will want to continue to be involved in the development of the BRWQM Plan to provide input on water quality issues that could result in additional or more restrictive reOulations affecting transportation projects and the costs to implement them. r:m:::rrw JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. / 2820 NORTHUP WAY, SUITE 100 / BELLEVUE, WA 98004 2061822-1077 FAX 2061822-1079 DATE: March 16, 1992 TO: Mike Giseburt, R.W. Beck and Associates FROM: Jonathan Ives �-- Robert Denma SUBJECT: Task III.B.3 - East Side Green River Watershed Plan (ESGRWP) Alternatives Analysis Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum is to evaluate the ESGRWP flood control alternatives in terms of their effect on wetland resources within the watershed. This analysis is based on the December 26, 1991, Draft Wetland Inventory Report; the December 1991 East Side Green River Watershed Plan Project Summary Document (R. W. Beck and Associates 1991) plus supplemental information (The Coot Company 1989, Hong Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1989); and the results of Full Equations (FEQ) hydraulic modeling of 2-year maximum water surface elevations in 14 wetlands located in the vicinity of Springbrook and Panther Creeks. This memorandum includes the following: a discussion of the potential impacts of the four project alternatives on wetlands; a discussion of issues such as wetland storage potential, sedimentation and aquatic resource enhancement potential; and a discussion of wetland enhancement opportunities for project alternatives. The alternatives evaluated in this memorandum are those as defined in the _! December 1991 Project Summary Document and include the following: - BECK l3 Buac WEER 03/16/92 Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 2 • Alternative 1 - No Action. The existing Springbrook and Panther Creek wetland channels would be used for future flows and no structural solutions would be implemented to correct problems. • Alternative 2 - Localized Improvements to Springbrook Creek. Improvements would be made to include the P-9 Channel and Panther Creek wetlands and improvements to Southwest 3rd Street. Panther Creek would be rerouted into the Panther Creek wetlands. • Alternative 3 - Flood Flow Diversion Channel/Springbrook Creek Fisheries Flow Channel. This alternative would include the original SCS P-1 Channel and Panther Creek wetlands/P-9 Channel project with some modifications. The south portion of Panther Creek wetland would be transformed into an open water marsh. • Alternative 4 - Pumping Stormwater from Kent Lagoons into Green River. This alternative would including pumping stormwater from the Kent Lagoons to reduce peak flow rates in the lower reaches of Mill Creek. Improvements would be made to P-9 Channel and Panther Creek wetlands and to the Southwest 43rd Street system. Overview of Wetland Functional Values Functional values of wetlands in the study area were previously defined in the October 3, 1991, Task IH.13.2 criteria memorandum and in the subsequent field inventory completed in December 1991. Eleven wetland functional values were assessed during the wetland inventory: • groundwater discharge and recharge, • flood storage, • shoreline anchoring, • biofiltration, • food chain support, • wildlife habitat, • fishery habitat, and • active and passive recreation, heritage, and education_ Table 1 presents a summary of wetland functional values for those wetlands that may be impacted by the proposed flood control improvements and for which 2-year maximum BecY4n Bucx RIVER mil6/92 a m Table 1. Functional Values of Wetlands FEQ Groundwater Food Active/ Location Wetland Discharge/ Flood Shoreline Water Chain Wildlife Fisheries Passive Description' Number' Recharge Storage Anchor Purification Support Habitat Habitat Recreation 11C 4 high very high medium high high high low low PSFBY S high high n/a medium medium very high n/a very high lb 7N low high n/a medium high high n/a medium lb 7S low medium n/a high medium low low medium 3 8N high high n/a high high medium low medium 3 8S low low n/a low low low n/a low w 2 9 medium low n/a low low medium low low 4 10 high very high very high low medium medium low low 6 11 high very high very high very high medium medium low high 7 12 very high low` very high very high very high very high low high 12 13a medium low medium low/medium low medium high low 12 13c high high n/a high very high very high n/a medium 10 32 & 33 low low n/a low low low n/a n/a Number assigned for water surface elevation model. ° Wetland number assigned during wetland inventory (Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1991). ` Wetland 7 has low existing flood storage function because it is currently isolated from the Panther Creek wetland channel and Springbrook Creek. The flood storage potential would be very high if the wetland was reconnected to the system. Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 4 water surface elevations were modeled. The functional values were based on the 1991 wetland inventory for the Black River Water Quality Management Plan (Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1991). Overview of Wetland Impacts Impacts to wetlands are typically related to effects on ecological values such as biological diversity, hydrological regime, and water quality. The type and magnitude of impacts has been determined through information gathered during the wetland inventory and the results of hydrologic modeling conducted for 14 wetlands located in the valley portion of the watershed (Figure 1) and a review of wetlands literature. Table 2 presents a summary of the impacts of the four alternatives on functional values of select wetlands. Impacts to Wetlands of Project Alternatives This section of the technical memorandum presents a description of the impacts associated with the four project alternatives (including No Action). The impact analysis has been divided into six subsections: Wetland Hydrology which includes discussions of groundwater recharge/discharge and flood storage functional values; Biological Resources which includes analyses of impacts on wildlife and food chain support (fishery resource impact is being analyzed separately); Shoreline Anchoring; Biofiltration; Recreation, Heritage, and Education which includes both active and passive recreation; and Consistency of the alternative with City of Renton wetlands ordinance and the proposed comprehensive plan. Where possible and pertinent, the analysis of impacts focuses on resource values of those wetland resources described in the wetland inventory and analyzed in the FEQ modeling effort. Impacts are quantified whenever information is available. Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action Alternative would result in a continuation of the existing drainage system within the study area. No flood control improvements would be implemented. Under this alternative no significant change to any of the functional values in any of the wetlands within the study area would result. BECXM BUCK RIVER 03/16/92 Jt11Y G1-�L lUC 1J• 1L tCW pLVn t71VU tL7JVl 1nILJ rnA Irv. GUU ytiitiJUG v u„ L, VS- 1aLEOf c;resi'/ j 1 N _ � 1 IFV kin f SCALE 1'a �Cl Ln st N 1}10MAS AV 5. lcn PO'�r AV SV/ Bz /Lo S_6 PS F8y C .�r PUMP STATION . • FOREBAY !- z BLAC RIVER 4 Of PUMP STATIONTO G ��• ' WERE OUWAMlSH Z" or �r R.A100100J �l Lo \ S-28 bt\V //e -i� a• .r i .� l: --7 L.,N v 1 �E>7}ALE AV Sr! - - - - f "Cq � . JACKSON SPl WErLANOs fi TUK1V1 4 CRSEK �- _ -----.— RENTON CITY_ LIlifTS EAST SiOE GREEN RNEW�- AN CURRENT CONOfTfONSwpOJ H . 3 �.. sr vuLEr N1vY ' PROJECT_ARFA _ FAQ WETLAND__- D£st`tfilaVs 97, S— , 3 j Nr Table 2. Functional Value Impact Matrix for East Side Green River Watershed Alternatives Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (Flood Flow (Pump Stormwater Function (No Action) (Local Improvements) Diversion Channel) from Kent Lagoons) Groundwater recharge/discharge Flood storage Shoreline anchoring no likely change no likely change assuming wetland acreage remains the same no change potential dewatering of groundwater in wetlands FEQ Nos. 3 and 4 reduction in flood storage in FEQ Wetlands 3 (1.7 af) and 4 (0.76 af) due to construction of the P-9 Channel removal of 600 linear feet of vegetation along P-9 Channel alignment same as Alternative 2 plus potential dewatering of the Orillia Pond- and FEQ Wetland 7 from construction of the P-1 Channel same as Alternative 2 plus potential reduction in Orillia Pond (1.65 af) and FEQ Wetland 7 (337 af) same as Alternative 2 plus construction of an additional 21,600 linear feet of the P-1 Channel same as Alternative 2 same as Alternative 2 same as Alternative 2 Biofdtration reduced biofiltration slight reduction in biofiltration same as Alternative 2 plus reduction same as Alternative 2 capacity in wetlands as capacity in FEQ Wetlands 3 and 4 in biofiltration capacity in Orillia detention time is reduced due to loss of wetland acreage; Pond and FEQ Wetland 7 with higher flows improved biofiltration of Panther Creek flows through Panther Creek wetland Biological resources no change (wildlife and fishery) Active/Passive recreation, heritage, and education change in wetland types in Panther Creek wetland as a result of seasonal increase in surface water; beneficial impact to waterfowl; more habitat for mosquitos; removal of 1.7 acres of shrub -scrub wetland along P-9 Channel same as Alternative 2 plus additional loss of 3.37 acres of wetland habitat from construction of P-1 Channel; change in 34.8 acres of emergent and scrub -shrub wetland to open water and sparser emergent cover in Panther Creek wetland no change no impact; may be additional same as Alternative 2 opportunities for passive recreation and education at Panther Creek wetland same as Alternative 2 same as Alternative 2 Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 6 Wetland Hydrology. During a 2-year storm event, water elevations in FEQ-modeled wetlands would increase (Table 3). Increases in water elevations would range from 0.10 foot (Panther Creek wetland FEQ No. llc) to 0.46 foot (wetland FEQ 3 [wetland inventory No. 8N]) above existing 2-year storm event water elevations. These changes would not adversely affect groundwater discharge/recharge or flood storage functional values. Table 4 presents a summary of durations of 2-year maximum water surface elevations in FEQ Wetlands 3, 4, and 7. Durations of the 2-year events would increase -under the No Action Alternative. Biological Resources. Since the 2-year storm events would occur primarily during the non -growing season for wetland vegetation, no adverse impact on biological diversity (i.e., change in the structure or species of wetland vegetation), wildlife habitat, or food chain support functional values is likely to occur. Shoreline Anchoring. There would be no impact on shoreline anchoring functional values from this alternative. Biofiltration. The increase in water elevations resulting from the No Action Alternative would cause a slight reduction in biofiltration capacity in those wetlands connected to either Springbrook Creek or the ditch connecting the Panther Creek wetland with Springbrook Creek south of Southwest 21st Street. Biofiltration would be reduced because of the increased velocities and resultant reduced detention time of stormwater within the wetland. Biofiltration capacity would not be affected during non -storm events. Recreation, Heritage, and Education. There would be no impact on recreation, heritage, or cultural functional values. Consistency with Renton Wetland Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The No Action Alternative would be consistent with the proposed City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance (City of Renton 1992) and the proposed Comprehensive Plan wetland objectives and policies (City of Renton 1991). Alternative 2 - Localized Improvements to Springbrook Creek Alternative 2 would include the following improvements: improved culvert capacity at Southwest 27th Street and Southwest 34th Street by adding or replacing culverts with bridges; ( • improved capacity of storm drainage system along Southwest 43rd Street between Lind Avenue and the intersection of Southwest 41st Street and Oakesdale; and BBCKM Bcwcx Arvm 03/16/92 v Table 3. Summary of 2-Year Maximum Water Surface Elevations in Wetlands Elevation (ft) Hydraulic Wetland FEQ Connection Inventory Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Location Elevation Location Existing Future Future Future Future Description (ft) Description Flows Flows Flows Flows Flows Comments 1B 30 7N • isolated wetland 2 not used 9 -- -- -- -- -- wetland not modeled due to small size 3' 10.0 8N 10.19 10.64 10.78 10.49 10.47 4 10.0 10 10.22 10.68 10.72 10.63 10.61 5 11.5 not wetland 8 6 10S 11 10.32 11.37 11.06 11.07 11.15 7 10.0 12 10.60 11.36 11.06 11.07 11.15 8 16.0 14 . 9 16.0 14 16.12 16.26 16.26 16.26 16.26 10 16.0 32 11Ab 14.0 4 14.90 15.01 15.04 15.06 15.03 Panther Creek wetland north 11B° 203 4 14.28 14.39 13.49 14.14 13.49 Panther Creek wetland central 11G° 13.5 4 14.28 14.39 13.49 14.45 13.49 Panther Creek wetland south 12 varies 13 9.68 10.28 10.44 10.13 10.27 Boeing Longacres wetlands s Table 3. Continued Elevation (ft) Hydraulic Wetland FEQ Connection Inventory Alternative 1 Altcrnative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Location Elevation Location Existing Future Future Future Future Description (ft) Description Flows Flows Flows Flows Flows Comments BRPSF Pump Station Forebay P-9 Channel maximum (lows east of Lind - 4,609 cfs Springbrook Creek maximum flows upstream of Southwest 27th - 2,003 cfs 00 ' System overflows do not enter wetland. Wetland bottom elevation about 11 to 12 feet. Source: R. W. Beck and Associates 1991. 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 9.0 16.9 52 51 43 405 468 486 460 433 R Table 4. Summary of Duration of 2-Year Maximum Water Surface Elevations in FEQ Wetlands 3, 4, and 7 Duration (hours) FEQ Wetland Inventory Existing Alternative 1 Location Location Description Conditions (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 3 8N 7 27 18 12 11 4 10 5 20 23 14 19 7 12 45 62 54 51 60 Duration of 2-year storm event maximum elevation would not differ for remaining modeled wetlands (see Table 3). Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 10 Constructed P-9 Channel (re-established Panther Creek) between the Panther Creek wetland and Springbrook Creek by rerouting the mouth of Panther Creek into the wetland, plugging existing culverts underneath SR-167 and installing a new culvert crossing under SR-167 for the P-9 Channel. Wetland Hydrology. During a 2-year storm event, water elevations and durations would inc-:ase in a majority of the FEQ-modeled wetlands (Tables 3 and 4). Increases in water elevations would range from 0.14 foot to 0.76 foot above existing 2-year storm event water elevations. These changes would not adversely affect groundwater discharge/recharge or flood storage functional values. Panther Creek Wetland. An exception to water elevation increases would be the middle and southern portions of Panther Creek wetland (FEQ Nos. llb and llc). Two-year storm event water elevations are predicted to decrease 0.87 foot from existing 2-year storm event elevations. The impact of water elevation decreases will not be significant since the hydrograph of the watershed varies considerably from one year to another. Additionally, this decrease in elevation would occur during the winter months when wetland vegetation is dormant. The proposed diversion of Panther Creek stream flows into the wetland would also counteract the reduced winter water elevations by increasing the amount of water available during the growing season. Patterns of runoff into the wetland system vary depending on the frequency and significance of storm events. Duever (1990) found that small watersheds tend to have frequent and very "spikey" hydrographs. Frieberger (1972) found that the normal cycle of water level fluctuation in wetland environments is characteristically annual, but that the annual fluctuation varies in its extremes, rates, and timing from one year to the next He determined in hydrologic studies conducted in undisturbed wetlands, that during a year of heavy dry -season precipitation, hydrographs showed an annual water elevation fluctuation of less than 1.6 feet, while during a severe drought water elevations fluctuated over 4.9 feet. According'to Duever (1990), water elevations in a wetland typically decline during the growing season, with the decline in the water table becoming more rapid when the water table is just below ground, evapotranspiration is active, and water occupies about 30% or less of soil volume. Fine textured soils, such as peat or muck, tend to maintain a broader capillary fringe and therefore a higher water elevation than coarser soil types (Duever 1990). Soils in the vicinity of the Panther Creek wetland and the proposed P-9 Channel alignment are predominately peat (permeability of K = 3.0 x 10 -6 centimeters per second) (Hong Consulting Engineers 1989). Rooting depth may be as much as 5 feet deep. The hydroperiod for a wetland is defined as the annual period of inundation and is considered to be the dominant factor controlling both existence and plant community composition of wetlands (Duever 1990). The predicted increase in seven of the nine BBCKM BUCK RrVFR m/16/92 Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 11 modeled wetlands would not adversely affect the hydroperiod in any of these wetlands. The duration of inundation may be extended slightly, but not to the extent that changes in vegetative composition would occur. The predicted decrease in maximum water elevations in portions of the Panther Creek wetland may reduce the hydroperiod in areas having the most shallow water within the wetland system. A reduction of 0.87 Foot of water and a shortening of the hydroperiod could, over time, cause changes in the composition of vegetation in portions of the wetland. One factor that could counteract the impact would be the contribution of Panther Creek flows to the wetland during the entire year. At present, much of the Panther Creek flow bypasses the wetland. Under Alternative 2, the creek would be rerouted into the south end of the wetland. The greatest benefit to the wetland would occur if streamflows were discharged directly into the wetland rather than confined in a channel through the wetland. P-9 Channel. Construction of the P-9 Channel from Panther Creek to Springbrook Creek would require the excavation of a channel 2 to 5 feet below the existing channel profile. The channel would also be widened to an approximate bottom width of 8 feet and a top width of 60 feet. The channel would result in the shifting of approximately 1.7 acre- feet (af) of flood storage from a combination of shrub -scrub and emergent wetland in FEQ No. 3 (Wetland Inventory No. 8N) to open channel storage and conveyance. The channel would also shift 0.76 of of storage from FEQ Wetland 4 (Wetland Inventory No. 10) to channel storage. Excavation of the channel would lower the in -channel low flow (summer) surface elevation by approximately 5 feet along its length. The bottom of the channel would lie below the groundwater elevations (varies from standing surface water to 6 feet belowground elevation) along much of the alignment (Hong Consulting Engineers 1989). Geotechnical investigations by Hong Consulting Engineers (1989) indicated soils along the alignment are a combination of peat (a soil type of relatively high permeability) and fine sand and silt alluvium. Without channel lining or construction of a cutoff wall, there is a high potential for dewatering two wetlands (Wetlands 8N and 10) along the south side of the alignment. The channel would result in lower average water levels (particularly during the summer months) and shortened hydroperiods. Biological Resources. No changes to the biological resource values of a majority of the modeled and inventoried wetlands are anticipated to occur as a result of proposed flood control improvements. Since the 2-year storm events would occur primarily during the non - growing season for wetland vegetation, no adverse impact on biological diversity (i.e., change in the structure or species of wetland vegetation), wildlife habitat, or food chain support functional values is likely to occur. Panther Creek Wetland. An increase in surface water in the south end of the Panther Creek wetland would occur as a result of diverting Panther Creek into the wetland. aECK/773 BUCK RfVER mi1b,92 Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 12 This increase in surface water during the summer months would greatly enhance the diversity of the wetland, for both vegetation and wildlife. Areas of emergent vegetation (common cattail [Typha latifolia] and reed canarygrass [Phalaris arundinacea]) would change to open water habitat, thereby increasing biodiversity and the complexity of the food chain. Open water habitat would reduce the dense monotypic stands of cattails and reed canarygrass; increase wetland plant species such as duckweed (Lemna minor), pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.), smartweed (Polygonum hydropiper), and buttercup (Ranunculus spp.); and promote increased waterfowl nesting. The increase in open water in the wetland would result in available habitat for mosquitos which may result in an increase in mosquito populations in the south portion of the wetland. This 'increase would necessitate the use of additional mosquito control measures beyond those used in the present control program_ P-9 Channel. Construction of the P-9. Channel would result in the permanent removal of 1.7 acres (15% of the total 11-acre wetland) of scrub -shrub and emergent wetland in Wetland 8N and 0.76 acre (6% of the total 13-acre wetland) of similar habitat in Wetland 10. The wetland habitat would be replaced with a 60-foot-wide channel (3:1 side slopes) that may need to be lined to prevent dewatering of the wetland. The margins of the low flow channel may become vegetated during the summer months with annual wetland plants such as smartweed and duckweed. These vegetated margins would be inundated during the winter months. Additional habitat may be lost in the event a berm is constructed to separate the wetlands from the channel. Shoreline Anchoring. Vegetation that currently borders the channel along the P-9 Channel alignment would be removed during construction. Once the channel is constructed, vegetation would be planted on the side slopes (unless the channel is lined) to provide soil anchoring. Similar impacts would occur along 300 feet of Springbrook Creek at Southwest 41st Street in the event widening and deepening of the channel is necessary. Biofiltration. Biofiltration functions in wetlands, other than the Panther Creek wetland and Wetlands 8N and 10, would not be affected by Alternative 2. The routing of Panther Creek flows into the wetland would result in improved quality of water leaving the wetlands and entering the P-9 Channel. The dense emergent vegetation (cattails and reed canarygrass) would cause sediments and pollutants to be captured in the wetland. This would result in an overall improvement of water quality entering Springbrook Creek from the P-9 Channel once bank vegetation along the channel has become established. ESCKM BLACX RTVER M/16M Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 13 The biofiltration function of Wetlands SN and 10 should be maintained as long as flows from the P-9 Channel are allowed to enter the wetland during high flow events. Some biofiltration capacity would be reduced by the decrease in wetland acreage (2.46 acres) as a result of construction of the channel. Active and Passive Recreation, Heritage, and Education. The recreation, heritage and education functionpl. values of the wetlands would not be impacted by Alternative 2. Passive recreation and educational opportunities may be increased in the Panther Creek wetland as a result of improved habitat values. Consistency with Renton Wetland Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. According to the draft Wetlands Management Ordinance, the Panther Creek wetland is rated as a Category 1 wetland (very high quality) since it is greater than 10 acres in size and has three or more vegetation classes. Wetlands 8N and 10 are each larger than 10 acres but each has only two vegetation classes present; therefore, they are considered Category 2 wetlands (high quality). Section 4.1 i. of the ordinance allows new surface discharges to wetlands and the construction of surface water management structures provided that there would not be any significant change in water temperature or chemical characteristics. As required under Section 6.2, loss of wetland acreage must be compensated through a mitigation program. Based on the loss of 2.46 acres of Category 2 scrub -shrub wetland as a result of construction of the P-9 Channel, replacement acreage would be approximately 5.52 acres for either wetland creation or wetland restoration (City of Renton 1992). A mitigation plan must be prepared which identifies the proposed wetland restoration or creation. Alternative 2, with mitigation, would be consistent with the wetlands objective of the preliminary draft Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton 1991). Alternative 3 - Flood Flow Diversion Channel/Springbrook Creek Fisheries Flow Channel Alternative 3 would involve construction of the original SCS P-1 Channel and Panther Creek wetlands/P-9 Channel project with some modifications. The modifications, among other things, would include maintenance of Springbrook Creek for fish passage with a 2-year frequency flow and construction of a berm and outlet control structure in the Panther Creek wetland at the entrance to the P-9 channel. The project would include construction of 10,800 feet of P-1 Channel from Southwest 43rd Street to Springbrook Creek near the confluence of the new P-9 Channel. The bottom BECKM BLACK RIVER m/16/92 Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 14 width of the channel would be 70 feet with 3:1 side slopes. The P-9 Channel and diversion of Panther Creek flows to the Panther Creek wetland would be as proposed for Alternative 2; however, a berm would be constructed near the north end of the wetland to create open water habitat (summer water depth 6 inches to 1 foot). Wetland Hydrology. Wetland hydrology represents the most significant element of environmental impact wi.:i Alternative 3. Panther Creek and P-9 Channel. The impacts on hydrology associated with construction of flow diversions to Panther Creek and the P-9 Channel would be as previously defined under Alternative 2 and will not be repeated here. Two-year maximum water surface elevations in the middle portion of the Panther Creek wetland would decrease approximately 0.14 foot, while surface water elevations would increase in the north and south portions of the wetland. Under existing conditions, little standing water occurs in the wetland during the summer months (The Coot Company 1989). With Alternative 3, summer water depth on 34.8 acres of the wetland would be 0.5 to 1.0 foot. The water elevation would be maintained by the diversion of Panther Creek into the wetland and a berm constructed across the wetland near the exit to the P-9 Channel. Water elevations in all other monitored wetlands in the vicinity of the P-9 Channel would increase slightly with this alternative (Table 3). P-1 Channel. Construction of the P-1 Channel would result in hydrologic impacts on wetlands similar to those previously defined for Alternative 2. Wetlands lying adjacent to the proposed alignment would bisect 600 feet of Wetland 3 (wetland inventory) (Orillia Pond), a 6-acre wetland, and a possible Superfund cleanup site. The wetland is not presently connected to Springbrook Creek, but instead receives runoff from adjacent development. The P-1 alignment would also go between Wetland 12 and 13C (wetland inventory numbers) and adjacent to Wetland 16. Wetland 12 is a 41-acre wetland; Wetland 13C is 10 acres in size; and Wetland 16 is 2 acres. The channel would cross 600 feet of wetland and be constructed immediately adjacent to approximately 2,700 linear feet of wetland. As with the P-9 Channel, the bottom of the P-1 Channel would probably lie below the groundwater elevation, thereby making the adjacent wetlands vulnerable to dewatering caused by seepage. Biological Resources. No changes to the biological resource values of a majority of the modeled and inventoried wetlands is anticipated to occur as a result of proposed flood control improvements. Since the 2-year storm events would occur primarily during the non - growing season for wetland vegetation, no adverse impact on biological diversity (i.e., change BECxjr3 BUCK Rr VM m/1t/vz Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 15 in the structure or species of wetland vegetation), wildlife habitat, or food chain support functional values is likely to occur. Panther Creek Wetland/P-9 Channel. The impacts to biological resources from the P-9 Channel would be the same as those defined for Alternative 2. Impacts to the Panther Creek wetland would include changes in vegetative composition and dominance in the 34.8 acres of wetland created as open water marsh. Vegetative composition would shift from a dominance of reed canarygrass and cattails to open water and more scattered areas of cattails and reed canarygrass. Floating and rooted pond weeds (buttercup, Potamogeton, duckweed, and water lilies [family Nymphaeaceae]) may become established, particularly in those areas not dominated by emergent vegetation. Continual flooding will cause reed canarygrass, a pest plant species, to die off and to be replaced with either open water or more desirable emergents such as cattails, bur -Teed (Sparganium spp.), arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), and small -fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus). The shift in vegetative composition will result in a change in wildlife species and use. The open water marsh will create ideal habitat for water birds, particularly waterfowl and great blue herons (Ardea herodias). During wildlife surveys conducted in 1990, Beak Consultants (1990) observed only one waterfowl species, primarily because of the limited open water habitat present. Amphibian population will likely increase since the lack of open water appears to also be a limiting factor for amphibians (Beak Consultants 1990). Construction of the berm across the Panther Creek wetland would result in loss of approximately 0.1 acre of wetland. Wetland habitat would change to upland grasses and shrubs. This would be a minor impact to biological resources. P-1 Channel. Construction of the P-1 Channel through and adjacent to 3,100 linear feet of wetland habitat would result in, at a minimum, a decrease of 3.37 acres of wetland. The wetland habitat would be replaced with a 120-foot-wide channel (3:1 side slopes) that may need be lined to prevent dewatering of the wetland. Additional habitat may be lost in the event a berm is constructed to separate the wetlands from the channel. The bottom of the channel (70 feet in width) would probably become vegetated during the summer months with annual wetland plants such as smartweed and duckweed. Approximately 16 acres of additional in -channel wetland will be provided by the P-1 channel. The vegetated margins of the channel bottom would be inundated during the winter months. Shoreline Anchoring. The impacts on shoreline anchoring associated with construction of the P-1 Channel would be the same as previously described for Alternative 2. BF.00/TJ BLACK WEER Q3/16/92 Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 16 Construction of the P-1 Channel would result in 21,600 linear feet of unvegetated channel banks that would require revegetation. Until revegetation is complete, the banks would be susceptible to erosion that would result in an increase in sediment loading to Springbrook Creek and the P-1 Forebay. Biofiltration. The impacts to biofiltration associated with construction of the P-9 Channel would be similar to those previously defined for Alternative 2. The routing of Panther Creek flows into the wetland would result in improved quality of water leaving the wetlands and entering the P-9 Channel. The dense emergent vegetation (cattails and reed canarygrass) would cause sediments and pollutants to be captured in the wetland. This would result in an overall improvement of water quality entering Springbrook Creek from the P-9 Channel once bank vegetation along the channel becomes established. The biofiltration function of the remaining portion of Wetland 3 and Wetlands 12, 13C, and 16, should be maintained as long as flows from the P-1 Channel are allowed to enter the wetland during high flow events. Some biofiltration capacity would be reduced by the decrease in wetland acreage (3.37 acres) as a result of construction of the channel. Recreation, Heritage, and Education. The recreation, heritage, and education functional values of the wetlands would not be impacted by Alternative 3. As previously stated for Alternative 2, passive recreation and educational opportunities may be increased in the Panther Creek wetland as a result of improved habitat values. Consistency with Renton Wetland Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The consistency of for the Panther Creek wetland and P-1 Channel portion of Alternative 3 would be as previously defined for Alternative 2. According to the draft Wetlands Management Ordinance, the Orillia Pond wetland (Wetland 3) would be rated as a Category 2 or 3 wetland (high or lower quality). Wetlands 12 (41 acres) and possibly 13C (10 acres) would be rated as Category 1 wetlands. Wetland 16 (2 acres) would be considered a Category 3 wetland. Section 4.1 i. of the ordinance allows new surface discharges to wetlands and the construction of surface water management structures provided that there would not be any - significant change in water temperature or chemical characteristics. As required under Section 6.2, loss of wetland acreage must be compensated through a mitigation program. Based on the loss of 337 acres of Category 2 Scrub -shrub wetland as a result of construction of the P-1 Channel, replacement acreage would be approximately 6.74 acres for either wetland creation or wetland restoration (City of Renton 1992). A mitigation plan must be prepared which identifies the proposed wetland restoration or creation. eECX4M BLA«RrVER mi16/V2 Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 17 Alternative 3, vith mitigation, would be consistent with the wetlands objective of the preliminary draft Comprehensive Plan (City of Renton 1991). Alternative 4 - Pumping Stormwater from Kent Lagoons into Green River This alternative would invo'.-.-e controlled pumping of stormwater from the Kent Lagoons into the Green River to reduce stormwater flows to Springbrook Creek. As with Alternative 2, the Panther Creek wetland and P-9 Channel improvements would be a part of the project description. The only new element would be the pumping of stormwater from the Kent Lagoons into the Green River. Wetland Hydrology. The impacts on wetlands hydrology of this alternative would be similar to those previously described for Alternative 2. Table 3 presents 2-year maximum water elevations, while Table 4 summarizes the duration of the 2-year water elevations in modeled wetlands. In general, water elevations would be lower than those projected for the other project alternatives. Pumping of stormwater from the Kent Lagoons would need to be controlled in much the same manner as pumping at the King County P-1 Pond at the terminus of Springbrook Creek. Water elevations would need to be controlled to ensure wetland habitat in the ponds is not adversely affected by fluctuating water elevations. In general, this should not be a concern since a majority of the control would be during the dormant season for wetland plants. Biological Resources. The impacts on biological resources would be the same as for Alternative 2. Shoreline Anchoring. The impacts on shoreline anchoring functional values would be the same as for Alternative 2. Increased pumping into the Green River from the Kent Lagoons should not adversely affect shoreline anchoring in the river since vegetation on the river banks is well established and flood control improvements were designed to handle flood flow conditions. Biofiltration. The impacts on bio5ltration would be the same as defined for Alternative 2. Recreation, Heritage, and Education. See Altemative 2. Consistency with Renton Wetland Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. This altemative would be consistent with the City of Renton's draft wetland ordinance and comprehensive plan. -- BEC) /M BLACX RrvfR Q7/16/n Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 18 Approval for pumping to the Green River in excess of 30 cubic feet per second would require modification of the Green River Management Agreement. Mitigation Measures The following discussion identifies mitigation measures that could be (1) incorporated as design elements of the proposed action, or (2) presented as separate mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the project on wetland resources. The mitigation measures have been divided into the three major project components of the alternatives: diversion of Panther Creek into the Panther Creek wetland; construction of the P-9 Channel, and construction of the P-1 Channel. The Panther Creek wetland and P-9 Channel elements would be common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Panther Creek Wetland (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) • A water elevation control structure should be constructed at the discharge point from the wetland to the P-9 Channel to ensure optimum water elevations are maintained in the wetland. A management plan should be prepared for the Panther Creek wetland that defines habitat goals and objectives, water control, mosquito abatement, public access and use (e.g., passive recreation), and other factors. • Panther Creek flows diverted to the wetland should be discharged directly into the wetland rather than confined in a channel through the wetland. P-9 Channel (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) • More detailed borings (geotechnical investigation) should be done along the south side of the P-9 Channel to more accurately determine the depth to groundwater and to better determine the likelihood of dewatering Wetlands 8N and 10. • Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation, the south bank of the P-9 Channel should be lined or a cutoff wall should be constructed to prevent groundwater loss from the wetlands. BHCKIn Buoc RIVER m/16/92 Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 19 • A low overflow berm should be constructed on the south side of the channel paralleling Wetlands 8N and 10. This berm would aid in holding standing water provided from the storm drain bypass from the Panther Creek wetland used to hydrate the wetlands. • As an alternative to ditch lining and berm construction, a water elevation control structure could be constructed at the mouth of the P-9 Channel fo maintain high water elevations in the channel and to keep Wetlands 8N and 10 hydrated. This control structure could possibly be located to also provide higher water elevations and hydration of wetlands along Springbrook Creek south of the confluence with the P-9 Channel. • The side slopes of the P-9 Channel should be designed to allow for the planting of small shrubs and, where practical, emergent wetland plants. These plants would assist in reducing bank erosion and improving water quality. • Enhancement of Wetland 7N by connecting to the drainage system would be feasible if an outlet from the wetland system is also developed. • Once the Proposed Action is selected and the acreage of wetland permanently lost is determined, a detailed wetland mitigation plan should be prepared that conforms to the requirements set forth in the draft Wetland Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. P-1 Channel (Alternative 3) • The significance of the Orillia Pond as a Superfund site should be determined. • If determined necessary because of hazardous waste concerns, the P-1 Channel should be realigned to avoid the Orillia Pond. • Geotechnical studies as proposed for the P-9 Channel should be conducted where the channel would cross wetlands or run immediately adjacent to the wetlands. • A revegetation plan should be prepared for the channel bottom and banks. The plan could include slope changes or benches that could be used to create "pocket" wetlands. BE,CXm BLACK RIVER 03/16/92 Mike Giseburt March 16, 1992 Page 20 Citations Beak Consultants, Inc. 1990. Final report of wildlife surveys conducted at the Panther Creek Wetland Complex. Prepared for the City of Renton Public Works Department, Renton, WA. The Coot Company. 1989. Draft P-9/Panther Creek project wetlands inventory. Prepared for R. W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, WA. Duever, M. J. 1990. Hydrology. Pages 61 - 89 in B. C. Patten: wetlands and shallow continental water bodies. Volume 1, natural and human relationships. SPB Academic Publishing by The Hague. The Netherlands. Freiberger, H. L 1972. Streamflow variation and distribution in the Big Cypress watershed during wet and dry periods. Bureau of Geology Florida Department of Natural Resources Map Series 45. Hong Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1989. Preliminary soil investigation, Panther Creek, SR 167 - P-9 Channel project Renton, Washington. Prepared for R. W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, WA. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1991. Draft report - wetland inventory - Black River water quality management plan/ESGRW. Bellevue, WA. Prepared for R. W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, WA- R. W. Beck and Associates. 1991. East Side Green River watershed plan project summary document. Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton Storm Water Utility, Renton, WA. Renton, City of. 1991. Preliminary draft land use element, City of Renton comprehensive plan Renton, WA. Prepared by Renton Planning Commission and Long Range Planning Section, Renton, WA. . 1992. Wetlands management ordinance. Eighth draft. January 23. Renton, WA. _ BBCKM BLACK RIVQt m/ie/vs City of Renton East Side Green River Watershed Plan January 20, 1992 Supplemental Alternative information to Project Summary Document The following information provides additional detail about the alternative flood control solutions identified in the ESGRWP Project Summary Document, December 1991. This information is summarized to assist environmental team members in determining impacts and mitigation in terms of fish, wetlands and water quality. Alternative 2 Paragraph A - From the FEQ analysis, it was determined that adding one additional (7' or 8' diameter) culvert was insufficient to solve upstream flooding. Either adding more than one additional culvert at each street crossing, replacing the existing culverts with a much larger culvert, or replacing the culverts with a bridge would be required. Attached is a Table summarizing the wetland maximum water surface elevations for the 2 year event for the various alternatives. JSA has also been provided with tables showing "periods of inundation" in addition to maximum water surface elevations. This information can be used to determine impacts on wetlands. Paragraph B - This would include replacing an existing 54" diameter pipe with an approximate 72" +/- diameter pipe system. With the lower water surface profile of Springbrook Creek (accomplished by the work of Paragraph A), these system improvements will solve flooding of SW 43rd. Paragraph C - From the FEQ analysis, widening the Springbrook Creek section from the Oaksdale to the existing railroad bridge would be recommended. The extent of work would include widening the existing bottom width approximately 10 feet. Because there is very little room for widening along this section of stream, steep side slopes will probably require special construction. Paragraph D - We need to identify measures to enhance valley wetlands (need input from JSA). The City has brought up one idea which would include a control gate (capable of allowing fish passage) located near the vicinity of SW 23rd. The control gate would be wide open during City of Renton East Side Green River Watershed Plan January 20, 1992 Page 2 flood season to pass flood flows. During the spring, the gate could be adjusted to raise upstream water surface elevations to hydrate wetlands. We would like to identify more enhancements, for example could connecting wetland number 7n to the drainage system be considered an enhancement. Paragraph E - Attached is a more specific sketch of this alternative. One way to mitigate impacts to the wetlands is illustrated on this figure. This includes the installation of a bypass storm drain to hydrate the wetlands during desired seasons and lining the channel to prevent dewatering. A fish spawning channel, as highly desired by the DOF, may be possible. To maximize the flow through the P-9 Channel, the existing 3'x4' box culvert draining the north portions of the wetland would also need to be seasonally plugged. This would increase average flows to about 4 cfs during October and November (spawning season). The spawning channel would have to be very narrow for this low flow. In order to construct the spawning channel, extensive utility relocations would be required. Alternative 3 Paragraph A - It is important to note that the existing invert elevation of the box culvert crossing SW 43rd Street is very low, elevation 4. Therefore, the entire flood flow channel would be low and would become a wetland. Another important point is that the alignment is not completely set. The alignment shown in the Figure is based upon the SCS original alignment, however this alignment could possibly change to minimize impacts to resources. An example of another alignment could be parallel and adjacent to the extension of Oaksdale Avenue. Paragraph B - Alternative 2, Paragraph E would also apply to this alternative. Paragraph C - Alternative 2, Paragraph B. would also apply to this alternative. Alternative 4 For Alternative 4, it is important to identify the impacts not only on Renton, but other jurisdictions (other jurisdictions in a more generalized manner). The City of Renton is in the process of collecting more environmental information regarding this alternative such as a wetlands inventory. Since we do not have as much detailed information about this alternative as we have with other alternatives, it will be necessary to rely on what ever information we do have and use our best professional judgement. We hope to distribute more information about this alternative next week. (MSG.023) C, ©F Z6A T-a.o _P��PrizvFr� P-4- COMP. 5 s? CHK. REV. DATE---/U�S.r?I DATE DATE vM �.1 m l r% WE �4b P14,200, �-044 7' /p Z-z./"It pr 65 -------- R. W. BECK and ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS PROJECT—Z! 2142� FILE NO. PAGE OF PAGES LRP l ii i 1-r ..- , . I -�e I (o7 I %ocooN _ yp DV—.� L.O w APPENDIX L Evaluation of Management Practices June 28, 1992 BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Prepared for R.W. Beck & Associates 2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, Washington 98121 and City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1414 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98109 June 28, 1992 EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT Laws and Regulations Federal/State The federal Nationwide Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requires several categories of stormwater dischargers to submit permit applications including: cities over 100,000 in population and discharge associated with industrial activity. The program in Washington may be administered by Ecology. Recently, both EPA and Ecology have been working on a draft NPDES General Permit for both industrial and municipal stormwater discharges. Construction activities where more than 5 acres will be disturbed at one time is proposed to be included under the industrial General Permit. Specific discharge limits may or may not be included in General Permit conditions. In the General Permit process, applicants would file a notice of intent 30 days prior to construction. No individual review of proposals would take place and the permit system would function in an analogous fashion to the Corps 404 Nationwide Permit. RCW 90.48, Water Pollution Control, controls discharges into surface waters through issuance of a waste disposal permit. All solid and liquid, industrial and commercial waste is regulated. Under RCW 90.48, the state has adopted water quality standards for surface waters (WAC 173-201). WAC 173-275, Standards for Stormwater Management for the Puget Sound Basin sets out standards for stormwater management that local jurisdictions are required to meet or exceed. These standards are similar to those contained in King County's Surface Water Design Manual. Amendments to the Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows Program of the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan directs Ecology to write a general Puget Sound basin -wide NPDES permit for DOTS highway system. 178B\MANAGE2 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Soil Conservation Service works with farmers to develop procedures and practices that allow farmers to meet Ecology water quality standards. Ecology enforces these plans. King County A variety of county regulations directly or indirectly control surface water. The most direct control is exercised through the county's Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) adopted by the county in 1990. The SWDM requires drainage review for any project that would: o add more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, o collect and concentrate runoff from a drainage area of more than 5,000 square feet, or o contain or abut a sensitive area. The SWDM contains requirements for design, construction, and maintenance of drainage facilities. Renton/Tukwila/Kent The stormwater management regulations of Renton and Tukwila are similar to those of King County. Kent, however, follows the pre-1990 county manual. Management Practices and Their Effectiveness Federal/State PEA has drafted a best management practices manual for the handling of stormwater, but this has not yet been released publicly. Ecology currently administers the NPDES program, but the nature of its administration will change dramatically upon adoption of the rules regarding General Permits. With the NPDES program in flux, conclusions regarding its effectiveness are premature. The Corps of Engineers requires Section 404 permits for filling or locating a structure in waters of the United States. The state requires a Hydraulic Project Approval for work within the high water mark of freshwater streams and rivers. These permits are described 178B\MANAGE2 2 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. under the section on fisheries and wildlife protection, although they also serve to manage surface water quality. King County During construction, facilities and practices are required that will reduce erosion and sedimentation. These include checkdams, sediment filters, and revegetation. Storm drainage facilities associated with commercial or industrial facilities are typically privately maintained, while the county maintains facilities in subdivisions and some short plats. Bond requirements help to assure adequate design, construction, and initial functioning of drainage facilities. The county goal for inspecting commercial and industrial drainage facilities is once per year, although the actual frequency has been somewhat less. Subdivisions are inspected, and maintained if necessary, at least once a year. A program is currently underway to gradually retrofit old subdivisions. In general, the management program from design through construction appears to be effective. Inspection and maintenance after the construction period is complete appears to be generally effective. The county has been behind in its schedule of inspecting commercial and industrial facilities, but this situation is evidently improving. The county is currently revising its surface water design manual in an attempt to increase its effectiveness. The current county design tends to fail during back-to-back storm events, and the county is reviewing its design storm and pre -development runoff assumptions to determine if these assumptions should be modified to improve the effectiveness of their design requirements. King County, in conjunction with other local jurisdictions, is preparing a series of basin plans. These plans include recommendations for the protection of water quality and fishery and wildlife habitat. The recommendations propose both new regulations and specific capital improvement projects. 178B\MANAGE2 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Renton Commercial storm water facilities are maintained by property owners. Subdivision facilities are maintained privately through a homeowners' association. The city does not have a regular program of inspecting facilities after the final construction inspection. Catch basins are vactored at least once every five years and some private facilities are unofficially maintained by the city where [ is necessary to prevent stormwater damage. Management of design, construction, and initial operation of drainage facilities appears to be adequate. Inspection and maintenance of privately operated stormwater facilities is probably inadequate. Tukwila Most drainage systems in Tukwila are maintained privately. These systems are not inspected by the city and city personnel believe these systems are probably not well .maintained. Publicly maintained facilities are inspected once a year and maintained if necessary. Maintenance of public facilities appears to be adequate. Kent Drainage systems in the city are periodically inspected by the city, but are privately maintained. Adequate maintenance has been a problem, as well as uniformity of compliance. Kent is in the process of revising its stormwater regulations to comply with Ecology's standards. Once in compliance, Kent's standards will be similar to King County's standards. Kent has prepared a water quality program for the years 1992-1996. This program contains specific recommendations for monitoring, enforcement, improvement projects, maintenance, and education to improve water quality within the city. 178B\MANAGE2 4 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Recommendations to Improve Management Practices The local jurisdictions within the Black River basin appear to be approaching uniformity (conformity with the county Surface Water Design Manual) in their design and construction requirements for storm drainage facilities. There appears to be much less uniformity and consistency in inspection and maintenance of completed systems. Inadequate inspection and maintenance of drainage facilities appears to result from difficulties jurisdictions have had in implementing new regulations and from insufficient funding for inspection/maintenance programs. Regulations have most strongly focused on drainage facility design and have less strongly focused on defining post -construction responsibilities of the parties involved and procedures to assure the long-term functioning of the completed facilities. Either facilities should be publicly owned and maintained or requirements for maintenance as well as penalties for non -maintenance of privately -owned facilities should be more clearly defined by local jurisdictions. FLOOD CONTROL Laws and Regulations Federal/State The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 provide the statutory authority for the National Flood Insurance program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Washington state, under RCW 86.16, requires local jurisdictions to adopt floodplain regulations that meet or exceed federal requirements. Ecology reviews and approves local regulations. The Shoreline Management Act requires that local jurisdictions prepare shoreline programs which regulate development along designated shorelines. Areas subject to flooding along major drainageways may fall under the jurisdiction of the local shoreline program. The state Growth Management Act requires that each local jurisdiction designate "frequently flooded areas" as critical areas subject to development control. 178B\MANAGE2 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. King, County The county's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) requires that new structures be floodproofed and that new development not reduce the base flood storage volume of the floodplain. KentJRenton/Tukwila Each of these jurisdictions has floodplain regulations in its municipal code that require new structures to be floodproofed and that control reductions in flood storage capacity. Kent prohibits new development in designated floodways, and requires new developments in the flood fringe to mitigate 50 percent of any loss in flood storage. Management Practices and Their Effectiveness Federal/State The Federal Emergency Management Agency has prepared Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for King County that delineate 100-year floodplain boundaries in the Black River basin. These maps are the basis by which local jurisdictions determine whether a proposed development is subject to floodplain regulations. King County/Kent/Renton/Tukwila Floodplain regulations are applied at the building permit or site plan review stage of development proposals. Floodplain regulations are comparatively well defined and unambiguous, so that management of development in floodplains within the Black River basin is generally effective. Recommendations to Improve Management Practices No recommendations appear to be necessary. However, as development occurs in the Black River basin, the extent and frequency of flooding may change. Because FEMA mapping provides the basis for floodplain management, the accuracy of mapped floodplain boundaries should be reviewed periodically in the future. 178B\MANAGE2 6 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION/MANAGEMENT Laws and Regulations Federal/State RCW 90.48, Water Pollution Control, regulates the disposal of industrial and commercial, liquid and solid waste into groundwater. All such dischargers are required to obtain a waste disposal permit. This chapter also provides the authority for local health departments or the state to require disposal permits for on -site septic systems. Under the authority of RCW 90.48, the state has adopted water quality standards for groundwater. A wide variety of other federal and state regulations control specific uses or activities and these regulations also protect groundwater. The various federal and state hazardous waste regulations, for example, contribute to groundwater management. The Washington Pesticide Control Act provides some regulation on pesticide application and disposal and the Minimum Functional Standards include design standards for landfills that protect groundwater. King County/Kent/Renton/Tukwila The Seattle -King County Health Department regulates onsite sewage disposal systems, thereby contributing to management of groundwater quality. Renton has established an aquifer protection area. However, this lies outside the Black River basin. Local land use policies and regulations, which determine the location and extent of impervious surfaces and therefore influence local groundwater recharge, have a significant effect on groundwater. Management Practices and Their Effectiveness King County/Kent/Renton/Tukwila Apart from onsite sewage disposal, which is regulated by King County and described in the section on onsite wastewater disposal, local jurisdictions have not significantly managed groundwater within the Black River basin. The Seattle -King County Health Department is currently engaged in their Ground Water Management Program which will provide data on 178B\MANAGE2 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. groundwater quality. Preparation of a plan to protect groundwater is underway in an area that includes the city of Kent as well as areas to the west, east, and south. Recommendations to Improve Management Practices The effects of various widespread activities on groundwater quality are largely unknown. Many of these activities are likely to impact groundwater and should be studied. For example, the Soil Conservation Service and the Seattle -King County Heuith Department, in a joint issue paper under preparation, discuss the effects of pesticides and fertilizers on groundwater quality. Their conclusion thus far is that groundwater quality in King County has not been sufficiently examined to determine if there has been an effect from the widespread application of pesticides and fertilizers in commercial and household agriculture and in roadway maintenance. Specifically, an ongoing broad -based groundwater monitoring plan should be implemented to identify whether degradation of groundwater quality is occurring. Monitoring results together with identification of recharge areas would allow possible sources of contaminants to be identified. Education and, if necessary, regulatory programs could then target those potential sources of contamination. Recommendations regarding older onsite disposal systems, discussed under the section on onsite disposal systems, would positively affect groundwater management. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Laws and Regulations Federal/State The primary source of federal regulation of solid waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as amended. This legislation and its implementing guidelines require states to adopt comprehensive solid waste management programs that meet certain broad criteria. The state regulates the disposal of solid waste, including dangerous waste, through the Solid Waste Management Act and the Hazardous Waste Management Act and their 178B\MANAGE2 8 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. implementing regulations, the Minimum Functional Standards and the Dangerous Waste Regulations. These regulations, administered by Ecology, control .the disposal of solid waste, including the design of some solid waste facilities. The Minimum Functional Standards are being expanded to cover a wider range of solid waste facilities. King County/Kent IRenton /Tukwila King County is responsible for the disposal of solid waste in the Black River basin, except for the disposal of some hazardous wastes, which may be handled completely by private entities. The county has adopted a comprehensive solid waste management plan to meet the requirements of state and federal regulations. Management Practices and Their Effectiveness Ecology administers the handling of dangerous wastes and the effectiveness of its administration largely depends upon accurate reporting and appropriate handling by the large number of generators. Generators are responsible for determining if the waste they generate is regulated hazardous waste and for meeting Ecology reporting requirements. Facilities that treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste must receive a dangerous waste permit from Ecology. Municipal solid waste is collected by private haulers and delivered to county transfer stations for disposal by the county at the Cedar Hills landfill. The county is currently modifying its arrangements with private vendors for the handling of demolition waste. The county is also engaged in a program to provide disposal for small quantity hazardous wastes to businesses and households. Facilities for handling these moderate risk wastes are being developed or have been developed at various county transfer stations. Recommendations to Improve Management Practices Steps should be taken to facilitate the disposal of moderate risk waste, particularly waste, such as used automobile oil, that is handled outside homes and businesses. 178B\MANAGE2 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. EMERGENCY SPILL RESPONSE Laws and Regulation Federal/State Legislation to prevent or cleanup spills of oil and hazardous substances includes: RCW 70.105, the Hazardous Waste Management Act; the Oil Spill Prevention Act; and RCW 90.56, Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention and Response. Regulations adopted to implement this legislation includes: WAC 173-303, the Dangerous Waste Regulations; WAC 173-340, the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation; and WAC 173-181, Facility Contingency Plan and Response Contractor Standards. King County/Kent/Renton/Tukwila All these local jurisdictions have adopted the Uniform Fire Code, which contains standards relating to the storage and handling of flammable substances. Management Practices and Their Effectiveness The requirements of the Uniform Fire Code are applied to new development through the building permit process. Most fire districts have a hazardous materials van and team - typically one per district. Districts lacking hazardous materials capabilities (e.g. Fire District #20) will call upon the nearest fire district with the necessary capability. Fire Districts inspect businesses once every one to two years for compliance with the Uniform Fire Code. Emergency spill response is typically initially handled by the local fire district. Fire personnel will assess the spill and attempt to contain or stabilize it. In addition to reporting spills to Ecology, fire districts may call Ecology personnel to aid in responding to large spills. Remediation is carried out by non -agency personnel. Permitting, inspection, and spill response at the local level appears to be effective. 178B\MANAGE2 10 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Recommendations to Improve Management Practices Personnel involved in management of spills stated that they felt that management practices were effective and no recommendations for improvements were made. ONSITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL Laws and Regulations Federal/State RCW 90.48, Water Pollution Control, regulates the disposal of industrial and commercial, liquid and solid waste into groundwater. All such dischargers are required to obtain a waste disposal permit. Under the authority of RCW 90.48, the state has adopted water quality standards for groundwater.(WAC 173-200) and has adopted on -site disposal system regulations (WAC 246-272). The state is responsible for issuing permits for on -site systems receiving 3,500 or more gallons per day flow. Local health departments issue permits for smaller on -site systems. Chapter 90.48 provides the authority for local health departments or the state to require disposal permits for on -site septic systems. King CountyjKent/Renton/Tukwila Control of individual on -site disposal systems receiving less than 3,500 gallons per day flow rests with the Seattle/King County Health Department. The health department operates under King County Board of Health Title 13. New residential or non-residential development in the county may use an on -site disposal system if required soil and density criteria are met and no sewer hook-up is available within a specified distance. Management Practices and Their Effectiveness Existing design criteria for septic systems, which reflect recent gains in understanding of long-term septic system performance, evidently are adequate to protect groundwater. The county reviews designs for new systems and inspects the completed system. Many older septic systems were constructed under design criteria less stringent than those existing today. Particularly where older systems were constructed in coarse -grained soils, 178B\MANAGE2 11 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. treatment efficiency may be low and the associated risk of groundwater contamination may be high. At present, the health department has no regular program of monitoring existing septic systems. Recommendations to Improve Management Practices The county health department should determine whether any of the relatively small areas of excessively drained soils in the Black River basin contain significant numbers of older septic systems. If such areas with older septic systems are found, the health department should monitor groundwater quality in those areas for parameters of concern including nitrate, fecal coliform bacteria, and volatile organic compounds. DRINKING WATER Laws and Regulations Laws and regulations affecting groundwater that are described in the section on groundwater also affect drinking groundwater supplies. Federal/State A water right permit is required from Ecology before water is withdrawn from surface or groundwaters. Withdrawal of less than 5,000 gallons per day from groundwater does not require a water right permit. Aside from exceptional cases, development of wells for single family residences do not require a water right permit. The state also regulates the development of dams, reservoirs, and other public water supply facilities. Ecology grants approval authority for public water supply facilities to some local health departments. King County.lKent./Renton/Tukwila Regulation of drinking water rests largely with the Seattle/King County Health Department. Drinking water regulations are contained in King County Board of Health Title 12. Renton has prepared an aquifer protection ordinance, but its area of coverage does not extend to the Black River basin. 178B\MANAGE2 12 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Management Practices and Their Effectiveness Management of the resources, surface and groundwaters, used for drinking water are discussed in other sections. Management of the quality of drinking water itself, does not affect the quality of surface waters and groundwaters, although it may affect the quantity of groundwaters. Recommendations to Improve Management Practices No recommendations regarding drinking water management practices, apart from recommendations regarding surface water and groundwater, are necessary. FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION Laws and Regulations Federal/State Discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States (includes rivers, streams, and wetlands) requires a Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit. A Corps Section 10 permit is required for work in navigable waters. Any work that changes the flow, or occurs in the bed, of any freshwater (rivers, streams, and some wetlands) in the state requires a hydraulic project approval from the state Department of Fisheries. Other state regulations, such as those affecting water quality, also affect fisheries and wildlife habitat. King County The county provides protection to fisheries and wildlife habitat primarily through its Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). The SAO regulates development in geologic hazard areas, floodplains, wetlands, and streams and rivers. Regulation focuses on preservation and maintenance of these areas. Various zoning regulations that require landscaping or maintenance of buffers in developments also are beneficial for wildlife habitat. 178B\MANAGE2 13 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Kent The city is in the process of complying with the requirements of the . state Growth Management Act. A critical areas ordinance has been drafted and is being considered at a series of public hearings. The critical areas ordinance, once approved, will regulate development in areas of geologic hazards and in the vicinity of wetlands, streams, and rivers. Presently, Kent regulates the amount of impervious surface in hazard areas and applies interim guidelines for development near wetlands. Kent regulates the removal of trees during development activities, requiring compensatory plantings for removal of large trees. As in the county, various zoning regulations that require landscaping or maintenance of buffers in developments also are beneficial for wildlife habitat. Renton The city is in the process of complying with the state Growth Management Act. Renton currently provides protection to fisheries and wildlife habitat through a variety of regulations, particularly its Land Clearing and Tree Cutting ordinance. This ordinance limits land clearing and tree removal near shorelines and creeks, in wetlands, and on steep slopes. A wetlands management ordinance requiring preservation of wetlands and buffers is currently in draft stage. As in the county, various zoning regulations that require landscaping or maintenance of buffers in developments also are beneficial for wildlife habitat. Tukwila The city provides protection to fisheries and wildlife habitat primarily through its Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Tukwila's ordinance is similar to the county SAO, except that slope protection in the city relies more on engineering solutions rather than avoidance. City staff is presently preparing a draft of a tree protection ordinance. As in the county, various zoning regulations that require landscaping or maintenance of buffers in developments also are beneficial for wildlife habitat. Management Practices and Their Effectiveness Jurisdictions at all levels have established policies favoring avoidance of impacts on rivers, streams, and wetlands over mitigation of impacts. In all cases, substantial design detail, 178B\MANAGE2 14 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. including mitigation plans, are required before approval will be considered. Local regulations are implemented either during review of a land use permit application or during building or grading permit review. Federal and state regulations and management are generally effective in preventing major losses of fisheries and wildlife habitat designated as critical. Regulations at the county and city level have only recently been revised, or will shortly be revised, to be consistent with the state Growt:. Management Act, and it is too early to assess the effectiveness of these changes. Local regulations will probably be effective at preventing major losses to fisheries and wildlife habitat designated as critical or sensitive. Regulations at all levels do not generally provide a significant level of protection for wildlife habitat not designated as critical. In addition, activities occurring outside of designated critical areas can result in degradation of fisheries and wildlife habitat within the critical areas. Recommendations to Improve Management Practices Development proposals in sensitive areas typically require approval from several agencies. Increased communication between permitting agencies would provide better consistency of review for these permits. In addition, better enforcement would help to prevent accidental or intentional losses of habitat outside of the permit process. Facilities constructed to improve fisheries habitat in streams typically have had relatively short lifespans. Design of these facilities should address this issue of longevity and should provide for long-term maintenance. AIR QUALITY Laws and Regulations Federal/State The federal Clean Air Act is the primary federal authority regulating air quality. Under that authority, the U.S. PEA has established national ambient air quality standards. States are required to implement the federal standards. RCW 43.21A and 70.94 provide statutory authority within Washington state for the regulation of air quality. Ecology has established 178B\MANAGE2 15 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. state ambient air quality standards that are similar to the national standards. The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) was set up to implement national and state air quality standards within the King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties. PSAPCA has also established ambient air quality standards that apply to their geographical area of jurisdiction. These standards are similar to the state and federal standards. King County/Kent/Renton/Tukwila These local jurisdictions do not directly regulate air quality. However, their land use regulations determine the location and nature of new sources, and so have a major indirect effect on air quality. Management Practices and Their Effectiveness PSAPCA and Ecology monitor ambient air conditions at 35 locations within PSAPCA's geographical area of jurisdiction. Ecology and PSAPCA issue permits for all new major air contaminant sources through new source construction approvals and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits. In addition, Ecology regulates individual vehicle emissions in the Seattle area. During periods of poor ambient air quality, PSAPCA may apply additional regulatory measures, such as bans on open burning. Recommendations to Improve Management Practices Air emissions generally have limited impacts on water quality. Management of air emissions within existing guidelines appears to be generally effective, and no recommendations appear to be necessary. 178B\MANAGE2 16 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. CONTACTS Aden, John. 1992. Personal communication of May 28, 1992. Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA. Alderson, Mike. 1992. Personal communication of May 26, 1992. Tukwila Fire Department, Tukwila, WA. Anderson, Charlene. 1992. Personal communication of May 26, 1992. Kent Planning Department, Kent, WA. Casey, Kevin. 1992. Personal communication of May 26, 1992. Renton Fire Department, Renton, WA. Chamberlain, Olivia. 1992. Personal communication of May 26, 1992. Seattle -King County Department of Public Health, Kent, WA. Fraser, Phil. 1992. Personal communication of June 5, 1992. Tukwila Public Works Department, Tukwila, WA. Freemire, Ted. 1992. Personal communication of June 3, 1992. Tukwila Public Works Department, Tukwila, WA. Gettle, Larry. 1992. Personal communication of May 27, 1992. King County Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, WA. Jacobson, Ruth. 1992. Personal communication of May 27, 1992. King County Surface Water Management Facilities Maintenance, Renton, WA. Moe, Stan. 1992. Personal communication of May 26, 1992. Fire District #40, Renton, WA. Pierog, John. 1992. Personal communication of June 1, 1992. Tukwila Public Works Department, Tukwila, WA, 178B\MANAGE2 17 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. Schulz, Gary. 1992. Personal communication of May 26, 1992. Tukwila Department of Community Development, Tukwila, WA. Sorenson, Don. 1992. Personal communication of May 26, 1992. Fire District #20, Seattle, WA. Tazuma, Tom. 1992a. Personal communication of May 26, 1992. Kent Public Works Department, Kent, WA. Tazuma, Tom. 1992b. Personal communication of June 5, 1992. Kent Public Works Department, Kent, WA. Webb, Larry. 1992. Personal communication of May 26, 1992. Kent Fire Department, Kent, WA. Maykut, Nadine. 1992. Personal communication of May 27, 1992. PSAPCA, Seattle, WA. 178B\MANAGE2 18 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. REFERENCES Ecology. 1990. Commonly required environmental permits for Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Fitch, Lyle and Trudy Rolla. 1991. Ground water quality issues related to the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Draft issue paper prepared for Seattle -King County Department of Public Health, Seattle, WA. Kent, City of. 1991. City of Kent Water Quality Program 1992-1996. Kent Public Works Department, Kent, WA. Renton, City of. 1992. Comprehensive storm and surface water management plan, current picture. City of Renton Storm and Wastewater Utility, Renton, WA. Rolla, Trudy. 1991. Ground water quality issues related to solid waste landfills. Draft issue paper prepared for Seattle -King County Department of Public Health, Seattle, WA. Sandison, Derek. 1991. Ground water quality issues relating to on -site sewage disposal system use in King County. Draft issue paper prepared for Seattle -King County Department of Public Health,, Seattle, WA.. 178B\MANAGE2 19 Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. ' -, �. � `. _ >: . _ �i - .. i� �: ,� �i , � L i - 4t .� .. , M• .' ` . , , '�� e � .. E' � , i !.' ,_ �' - ,. .1 . • , : -- _ _ � - - - � - �- ,. ; - � ' � - I. � - � � a • _ •. ��' s• r� c • [�� 1 .� � _, � - � � - _ _ *4 p = 1 ` �. � � i - � - is •_ -- �� _ �� _-� - r - - _ - r .. • ` _ - - ,r ` .. - - n �J ... � .. -, •:« ' �i�:}• _ � � � , • i i .. i r. _- r. � .r •, � - � - . •.j , M _ i n -.