HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP2702817_10HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
d RCW 77.55.100 - appeal purs ant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Department of Fish and Wildlife
r' Region 4 Office
FISHaaa 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WDLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: January 12, 2004 LOG NUMBER: ST-G 1503-01
t!Tlf .TV S Y S ? �c
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) replaces log number ST-D4609-14, which was issued December 31, 2003 to clarify the need
to test the size of gravel placed as supplementation to mitigate impacts of dredging (see Provision 7). ST-134609-14 was a
modification of the original HPA issued April 24, 1998 and last modified on August 7, 2000. This replacement was necessary
because the original HPA was issued more than five years ago.
PERMITTEE
City of Renton Surface Water Utility
ATTENTION: Ron Straka
1055 Grady Way South .
Renton, Washington 98055
(425) 430-7248
Fax: (425) 235-2541
AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
Not Applicable
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection and Flood Wall, Raise Levees, and Perform
Mitigation: Reconstruct 600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques,
Construct a Groundwater -fed Spawning Channel, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Lower River,
Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River, and Mitigate for Over -dredging
PROJECT LOCATION: Dredging, levee and flood wall additions, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth
upstream to the Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport;
reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning
channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek; modification of the Elliot Levee and
enhancement of spawning and rearing habitat just downstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek;
and replenishment of spawning gravels in the Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY TRIBUTARY TO
1 08.0299 Cedar River Lake Washington
1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
17 23 North
18 23 North
23 23 North
05 East King
05 East King
05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a reasonable amount of effort to
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and that further mitigation actions,
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or, altematively, other upstream levees on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and has been or shall be completed as
follows:
a. Dredging and bank protection were completed by August 15, 1998.
b. Mitigation and monitoring shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3) and Provisions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12.
c. Construction of the Renton flood wall shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 2000.
d. Replenishment of spawning gravels at Landsburg shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 2000-2010.
e. Work within the OHWL of the Cedar River on the upstream and downstream connections of the project to
mitigate for over -dredging shall be constructed between June 16 and August 25, 2000. Other components of the
over -dredging mitigation project, including installation of the landscape plan, shall be completed by March 1,
Page 1 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Drm�ef RCW 77.55.100 - appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Region 4 fotFish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHaod 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
MAN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: January 12, 2004 LOG NUMBER: ST-G 1503-01
2001. The permittee shall provide maintenance of this over -dredging mitigation project in a manner to ensure it
can achieve its estimated productivity, which is documented in the report entitled, "SECTION 205 FLOOD
CONTROL PROJECT LOWER CEDAR RIVER, WASHINGTON SALMON REARING CHANNEL
PRODUCTION ANALYSIS -FINAL-", dated February 17, 2000, for a minimum of 10 years following
construction.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least three
working days prior to start of work, and again Within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I,11,111(Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-11", dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; letter by Beth Spelsberg of Golder
Associates dated December 21, 1999 "RE: CEDAR RIVER 205 GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJECT", with
accompanying plans; "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated); CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE
LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May
28, 1998; "FINAL DESIGN REPORT LANDSBURG GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJECT RENTON,
WASHINGTON", dated June 1, 2000; "STATEMENT OF WORK CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
SOCKEYE SPAWNING CHANNEL MITIGATION SITE SPAWNING CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT PROJECT",
dated June 22, 1999; "RENTON FLOOD WALL", dated July 20, 1999; and "CEDAR RIVER MITIGATION", dated
March 3, 2000 (These are the over -dredge mitigation plans.), except for the revision of plate C-2 plotted June 9, 2000
to include the frog pond, and submitted to the WDFW, except as modified by this HPA. These plans reflect design
criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate
impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. A qualified stream and wetland ecologist shall be on site to oversee the construction of the over -dredge mitigation
project.
5. Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion of the sockeye run spawning in
the reach from the Renton Library to the river mouth. This proportion may be revised as follows:
a. The City of Renton (the City) shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW to
determine, over a period of five years following completion of dredging (beginning with the 1998-99 brood year
through the 2002-2003 brood year), the average proportion of the total sockeye escapement that is spawning in
the reach and mitigation channel combined. Success will be defined as the five year average proportion equaling
or exceeding 15%.
b. If the five year average is below 15%, the City shall either construct an additional mitigation channel or
modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based on the shortfall and the observed spawner use
rate (# females/sq. yard) in the initial mitigation channel.
c. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based on any new information
collected during the course of the monitoring program that results in a more accurate estimation of the fry -to -lake
contribution from the dredged reach.
d. The City has identified and set aside land that could be used for further mitigation should it become necessary.
Page 2 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Drp moo( RCW 77.55.100 - appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Department of Fish and Wildlife
FISHand Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: January 12, 2004 LOG NUMBER: ST-61503-01
6. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
Prior to commencement of fall salmon spawning in 1998 and in 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning
riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the
dredged river reach. This reach shall be evaluated in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or
more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a stratum shall constitute an impact which Will
require additional mitigation. (Additional mitigation for chinook salmon would include either dike removal or
setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce constrictions.) The City shall use the methods
described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module with the
following exceptions: length Will be 2.5 in; use of an anchor of up to one pound; a wooden float will be used at
the free end; and 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16". The City shall also: use the monitoring plan
recommended by the Tribe on pages seven and eight of attachment #3; provide monitoring records to the Tribe
Within one week of the measurements; and consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and
incidental observations of the Tribe. The AHB shall be consulted and be the final arbiter should issues arise.
b. Monitoring required for the over -dredge mitigation project includes spawning by chinook, coho, steelhead, and
sockeye salmon until is has been documented that the production from the 1800 sockeye redds which were lost
due to the channel degradation which resulted from the over -dredging has been replaced. Monitoring of rearing
by juvenile salmonids would also be beneficial and should be done if practicable. This may be facilitated by
coordination With on -going research on the river or other studies related to salmon recovery.
c. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the
WDFW AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
7. Gravel used in the supplementation program shall generally range in size from one-half to five centimeters in
diameter, with at least 50% larger than one centimeter and no more than 10% smaller than one-half millimeter.
Gravel shall be seive sampled prior to placement to ensure it meets these specifications. Results of a minimum of
three random samples each consisting of a minimum of 10 pounds of material for each year's supply of gravel shall
be provided to the WDFW AHB at least two weeks prior to placement. This requirement will be modified when
adequate sampling has demonstrated a trend over the years of available data. Such a trend could show the need for
less or more sampling, depending on the level of variability in the data.
8. If permits cannot be secured to allow the gravel supplementation program to be implemented, then the City shall use
the funds set aside for the program ($150,000) to create holding pools for chinook salmon according to suggestions
made by the Tribe on pages eight and nine of attachment #3 or an equivalent alternative subject to approval by the
AHB.
Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the escrow account to
WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance
dredging.
10. Management of large woody debris which becomes entrapped at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall occur
per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment #3.
Page 3 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington '
d RCW 77.55.100 - appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Department of Fish and Wildlife
IjISHaa Region 4 Office
WULN 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE• January 12 2004 LOG NUMBER: ST-G1503-01
11. The lighting control proposal (Provision 3) shall be evaluated by Roger Tabor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or by another person mutually agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW, and the City. A study plan shall be
finalized by December 31, 1998 and implemented in 1999 and 2000.
12. By October 31, 1998, the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and representatives of the USACE,
USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to commence proceedings to determine standards for what
constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye and chinook juvenile and for standards for any
additional mitigation measures that may be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any
increase in predation caused by the dredging operation.
13. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the OHWL shall be restricted to the minimum amount necessary
to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
14. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
15. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it Will not re-enter the water.
16. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
Withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
17. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
18. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall
not be removed or trimmed without prior WDFW approval.
19. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by WDFW.
20. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river and/or its tributaries and/or
their associated wetlands. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment
ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
21. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
22. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the OHWL to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to the river and/or
its tributaries and/or their associated wetlands.
23. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
Page 4 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Dewbwd Of RCW 77.55.100 - appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH"d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
KDLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: January 12, 2004 LOG NUMBER: ST-G1503-01
24. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
25. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river and/or
its tributaries and/or their associated wetlands.
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997; DNS by City of Renton final on May 24,
2000.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: January 12, 2004 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Lambert041 [P 1 ]
Larry Fisher (425) 649-7042 �;,o�for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 77.55 - formerly RCW
75.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s)
performing the work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results
from failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred
dollars per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 77.55.100 or 77.55.200 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if
the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such
action. The permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to
RCW 77.55.110 may be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with
the permittee: PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
established in RCW 77.55.170.
Page 5 of 6
' HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
a-a�raot RCW 77.55.100 - appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHMd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
{ alm Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: January 12, 2004 LOG NUMBER: ST-G 1503-01
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW
77.55.100, 77.55.110, 77.55.140, 77.55.190, 77.55.200, and 77.55.290:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems
are resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL
REVIEW shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington
98501-1091 and shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of
an order imposing civil penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are
occurring between the aggrieved party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection
Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its
designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.100
OR 77.55.140:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure
Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way
North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be
RECEIVED DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being
challenged. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal
appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the
date of the Department's written decision in response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.110, 77.55.200, 77.55.230,
or 77.55.290:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made
part of a EPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic
Appeals Board per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six,
Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 393, LAWS OF 2003:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made
part of a HPA may request a formal appeal. The FORMAL APPEAL shall be in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 393. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Environmental and Land Use Hearings
Board.
E. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE
FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 6 of 6
�r(y p� CITY OF RENTON
♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
�O� Kathy Keolker, Mayor
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
N 1-1-4-OW10
August 2, 2006
Bob Everitt, Director
WDFW, Region 4
16018 Mill Creek Blvd
Mill Creek, WA 98012
SUBJECT: DRAFT HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL PERMIT (ST-G1503-02)
REVISIONS FOR CEDAR RIVER DREDGING AND MITIGATION
Dear Mr. Everitt:
The City of Renton has reviewed your letter dated June 6, 2006, and the proposed Draft
Hydraulic Project Approval (Control Number 00000G1503-02). The Draft Hydraulic Project
Approval (HPA) replaces the original HPA Permit (Log Number ST-G1503-01) for the next five
years. The City is providing the following comments regarding the provisions listed in the
reissued Draft HPA.
Project Expiration Date:
Revise the permit expiration date to extend 5 years from the date that the revised HPA is
issued after the permit is finalized and agreed upon. The revised draft permit has an
expiration date of January 11, 2009, which does not give the permit a full 5-year duration.
We request that WDFW issue the permit no earlier than January 1, 2007, with an expiration
date of December 31, 2012.
Provision #1, Page 1 of Reissued ETA:
The Draft HPA states, "Landsburg gravel supplementation to occur from 1998-2008."
Gravel supplementation was started in 2000, not 1998. Therefore, the 10 years should be
from 2000 - 2009. Since, no gravel supplementation occurred in 2002 due to the lack of
enough sediment being transported downstream from the supplementation area, the current
gravel supplementation end year would be December of 2010. Please revise the project
expiration date as requested above, to allow the gravel supplementation to be completed prior
to the expiration of the revised permit.
Provision #4a of Reissued HPA:
Revise the sentence "...Elliot Channel is maintained and functioning to its full potential..." to
read as "...Elliot Channel is maintained to function as defined in Provision # l e..." This
revision references the design report for the channel that can be used to determine if the Elliot
Channel is being utilized and function as originally designed.
Provision 94b of Reissued HPA:
Revise the provision to make it clear that the City only has to pursue the construction of a
second spawning channel if the Elliot Channel is damaged beyond repair or is not functioning
as originally designed. The revised HPA as currently written requires the construction of a
second spawning channel. The City agrees to only have one spawning channel.
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
® This paper contains50% recycled material, 30% post consumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
l
Everitt/Draft HPA Comments
August 2, 2006
Page 2 of 2
Provision #5a of Reissued HPA:
Please revise to clarify that only one mitigation channel is needed. Change text to read,
"Continuation of the spawner surveys in the Elliot Channel and subsequent mitigation
channel, if constructed to replace the Elliot Channel, as described in the original monitoring
plans."
Provision #6 of Reissued IPA. - Gravel Used in the Supplementation Program:
The original HPA Provision # l d specified a range of gravel to be used within the
- supplementation project and the requirement of conducting sieve sampling prior to gravel
supplementation each year. The City has used the same source gravel stockpile from the .
Cedar•River for each year's gravel supplementation project. Each year's sample has been
submitted to the Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) for review and each sample has been within
the specified gravel size as specified in the original HPA., Language within the original HPA
stated that after a gravel -sampling trend has been established, the gravel sieve sampling
reporting could be re-evaluated by the AHB. After 2005's gravel sieve sample report was
submitted to the AHB, a determination was made that future sieve sampling would not be
.required due to consistent trends established from the source pile. Please modify the.reissued
Draft HPA Provision #6 to exclude the gravel sieve sampling requirement.
The City wishes to express its thanks to WDFW for working with us to modify the existing
project HPA. Please revise the HPA to include the above requested changes. We look .forward to
working with you and others to develop a Memorandum of Understanding to provide long-term
certainty regarding the City's need to perform maintenance dredging, as required by the Army
Corps of Engineers Section 205 Lower Cedar River Flood Hazard Reduction project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 425-430-7311 or
Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor, at,425-430-7248,
Sincerely, ,.
Gregg Zimmerman, P.E.
Administrator
cc: Kathy Keolker, Mayor
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Lys Hornsby, P.E:; Utility Systems Director
�RoriTca[ITNP tility Engineering Supervisor
H:Tile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)W-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project\07.0 -
Permits and Plan Review\7.03 - WDFW (Final Permits)\HPArevAppr COR_Util Comments_06-29-06.doc\RStp
C -GG'S ACTIO_AT 11IFI-3I0
F /
To: D_VI'I C:lt(
`7 --- C7 ROUTE TO:
[J For }`our' Information IEEE � /�
ISSUE/CONCERN: � �--��=-�,� ti
9------_--_----- _ � �'`;7J I�or Actior7
(71 For Sif;naturc -l)I b
L`1 Your Recommcndati�,
f f - __ n CITY OF HEN -TON
GbAL/, Ycr (Air convc ration t7TiCfTY 'ST�M1la
PREI F RRED of i FCOME
-- - ---- --- —/ � L� Per your Request
Copies of this note sent to: _
r
SPFCIIiG'DR DON'TS � - ----- -
z,
roLLo,r UP:
TICF:LI P FILEZ)
l� jl�%0,� RESULTS:
DUE D 1 I E:
j
for '1(I III M 1 DOC,---
4k 4— f. a
J UN 3 ?�
,6 STA
oF�.
0
CITY GF REN 1 G;•s
118UC WORKS ADM. -
State of Washington
DFPARTMFNT OF F1414 AND W11.DL FF
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard. Mill Creek. WA 98012 • (425) 775-1311 • Fax (425) 338-1066
June 6, 2006
Greg Zimmerman
City of Renton
Planning/BOding/Public Works
1055 Grady Way South
Renton, Washington 98055
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
Thank you for your letter dated August 15, 2005 providing clarification points regarding
the re -issue of the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) for the Cedar River Dredging and
Mitigation (HPA Control # 00000G1503-02). Based upon the ongoing discussion
between our respective staff we have developed a DRAFT copy of a revised HPA for
your review and comment (copy enclosed). As you undertake the review of this draft,
please consider the following:
HPA Provision #5 requiring the use of the mitigation channel by 15% of the sockeye
run spawning from the Renton library to the mouth of the river.
As stated in my letter dated June 27, 2005, we agree that it is appropriate to modify
Provision #5 to establish a reasonable requirement for the percentage of sockeye
spawning in the river downstream of the library and in the Elliott Channel. That
modification is described in the DRAFT HPA under Provision #4. A percent of the
sockeye run spawning in the river reach is no longer specified. To assure continued
production of sockeye, it is essential that the City of Renton (City) maintain the Elliott
Channel to design specifications. Should the Elliott Channel fail to provide appropriate
production, the City will need to continue to pursue the construction, of a second
spawning channel.
HPA Provision #6 requiring monitoring and assuring continued use of a mitigation
channel by spawning sockeye
Following your request, the requirement to monitor out -migration is deleted. According
to Provision #5 of the DRAFT HPA, the City shall only need to continue to conduct
spawning surveys as described in the original monitoring plan. A report for each of the
monitoring components of the mitigation plan is also required.
Greg Zimmerman
June 6, 2006
Page 2
Assurances that an HPA will be granted for future maintenance dredging of the
lower Cedar River
As stated in my earlier correspondence, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) is unable to assure that an HPA will be granted for future activities due to a
statutory limit of 5 years for such approvals. We are also unable to assure in advance that
no additional mitigation will be required for unspecified future maintenance dredging.
Such determination can only be made given the project specifics at the time the work is
undertaken. However, WDFW does acknowledge that a single, fully functioning and
appropriately maintained channel (Elliott Channel) can provide the required mitigation of
the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard Reduction project.
WDFW will begin to work with the City to develop an MOU that addresses the City's
need for long-term certainty, and also addresses the need (if any) for appropriate
mitigation for detrimental impacts to fish life. We invite the participation of other
relevant parties to this MOU, including Tribal governments, but cannot speak for their
interests or involvement at this time.
I look forward to meeting with you and/or other City representatives to discuss this
DRAFT HPA in more detail in order to reach a FINAL version that is acceptable to the
City. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 425-775-1311, extension 118.
Sincerely,
Bob Everitt
Regional Director
Enclosure: DRAFT HPA Control Number 00000G1503-2
Cc: Ron Straka, City of Renton
Bruce Baucan, City of Seattle
Isabel Tinoco, Muckleshoot Tribe
Jeff Koenings, WDFW
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDLIFE
(425) 775-1311
I aid: Control Number: 00000G1503-2
Ex Expiration Date: January 1 p ry 1, 2009 FPA/Pubhc Notice #: N/A
PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENTS CTO
City of Renton Surface Water Utility
ATTENTION: Ron Straka
1055 South Grady Way 5th Floor —
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-7248
Project Name: Cedar River Dredging and Mitigation
Project Description: Dredging, levee and flood wall additions, and lighting reduction from the
Cedar River mouth upstream to the Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection
for 900 feet at the Renton Airport; reconstruction of the revetment at the
Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning channel just upstream
of the mouth of Madsen Creek; modification of the Elliot Levee and
enhancement of spawning and rearing habitat just downstream of the mouth
of Madsen Creek; and replenishment of spawning gravels in the Landsburg
area.
PROVISIONS
1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and has been or shall be
completed as follows:
a. Dredging and bank protection were completed by August 15, 1998.
b. Mitigation and monitoring shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3) and Provisions 4, 5,
6, 7, and 8.
c. Construction of the Renton flood wall was completed by August 15, 2000.
d. Replenishment of spawning gravels (up to 1,000 cubic yards per year until 10,000 total cubic
yards have been placed) at Landsburg has been on -going and shall occur between June 16 and
August 15, 2006-2008.
e. Work within the OHWL of the Cedar River on the upstream and downstream connections of the
project to mitigate for over -dredging was completed by August 25, 2000. Other components of the
over -dredging mitigation project, including installation of the landscape plan, were completed by
March 1, 2001. The permittee shall provide maintenance of this over -dredging mitigation project in
a manner to ensure it can achieve its estimated productivity, which is documented in the report
entitled, "SECTION 205 FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT LOWER CEDAR RIVER, WASHINGTON
SALMON REARING CHANNEL PRODUCTION ANALYSIS -FINAL-", dated February 17, 2000, for
a minimum of 10 years following construction.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be
contacted at least three working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of
completion of work to arrange for compliance inspection for each project component listed in the
above project description.
DRAFT Page 1 of 7
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDLIFE ,4
(425)775-1311
Issue Date: Control Number: 0000OG1503-2
Project Expiration Date: January 11, 2009 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A IQP
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN
SHEET 1, SHEET 2, SHEET 3"; "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I, Il, III (Plates M-1,
M-2, and M-3)", dated February 17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-11", dated March
23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE", (undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated
April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN", (undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING
DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; the letter by Beth Spelsberg of Golder Associates dated
December 21, 1999 "RE: CEDAR RIVER 205 GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJECT", with
accompanying plans; "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE
REDUCTION PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated); "CENTRAL REGION FAMO
NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May 28, 1998; "FINAL DESIGN REPORT LANDSBURG
GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", dated June 1, 2000;
"STATEMENT OF WORK CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT SOCKEYE SPAWNING
CHANNEL MITIGATION SITE SPAWNING CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT PROJECT", dated June
22, 1999; "RENTON FLOOD WALL", dated July 20, 1999; and "CEDAR RIVER MITIGATION',
dated March 3, 2000 (These are the over-dredge_mitigation.plans.), except for the revision of plate
C-2 plotted June 9, 2000 to include the frog pond, and submitted to the WDFW, except as modified
by this HPA. These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect
mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these
plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. Mitigation for impacts of dredging shall be provided as follows:
a. The City shall maintain the Elliott Channel per the original design (Provision 1 e above) for
sockeye spawning and for beneficial refuge and rearing habitat for Chinook and coho salmon.
WDFW recognizes that, if the Elliott Channel is maintained and functioning to its full potential, the
resulting benefits to fish life and habitat serve as appropriate mitigation for the Flood Hazard
Reduction Project construction and future maintenance dredging. Current available data indicates
a decline in the production of sockeye fry in the Elliott Channel consequently it is essential that the
City actively maintain the Elliott Channel to its design specifications.
b: The City shall actively pursue the construction of a second spawning channel that will supplement
the production of sockeye fry in the Elliott Channel in order to assure fully functioning mitigation.
This shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, ?Cedar River Mitigation Channel?,
dated January 1, 2004 (HPA Log Number ST-F8333-02, issued January 12, 2004).
c. Fully functioning mitigation as described above shall be in place prior to issuance of an HPA for
maintenance dredging in the lower Cedar River.
5. Monitoring shall include:
a. Continuation of the spawner surveys in the Elliott Channel and spawner surveys in the
replacement channel as described in the original monitoring plans.
b. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be
submitted to the WDFW AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
DRAFT Page 2 of 7
r Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDLIFE
(425) 775-1311
Issue Date: Control Number: OOOOOG1503-2�
Project Expiration Date: January 11, 2009 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A�
6. Gravel used in the supplementation program (Provision 1d) shall generally range in size from
one-half to five centimeters in diameter, with at least 50% larger than one centimeter and no more
than 10% smaller than one-half millimeter. Gravel shall be seive sampled prior to placement to
ensure it meets these specifications.
7. Management of large woody debris which becomes entrapped at the Maplewood Golf Course
revetment shall occur per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment #3.
8. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to
perform the project components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3),
shall be maintained as necessary, including watering as needed, for three full years following
planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall not be removed or trimmed without prior
WDFW approval.
9. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or
water quality problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), immediate notification shall be
made to the Washington Emergency Management Division at 1-800-258-5990, and to the AHB.
10. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the stream.
These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds,
check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of
exposed areas.
11. Prior to starting work, the selected erosion control methods (Provision 10) shall be installed.
Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the erosion
control methods after completion of work.
12. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed
to an area landward of the OHWL to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to
being discharged to the river, its tributaries, or their associated wetlands.
13. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this
project shall be deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
14. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall
stop until the flow subsides.
15. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement,
sediments, sediment -laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed
to enter or leach into the river, its tributaries, or their associated wetlands.
DRAFT Page 3 of 7
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
y' Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
FISH and RCW 77.55.021 -Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDLIFE
(425) 775-1311
Issue Date: Control Number: 0000OG1503-2
Project Expiration Date: January 11, 2009 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A�
x
PROJECT LOCATIONS
Location #1 Cedar River Dredging
At
rDrdivVing
RT: January 12, 2004 WORK END: January 11, 2009
Waterbody: Tributary to:fl
Cedar River Lake Washington
ion: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: County:
23 N 05 E N 47.50042 W 122.21580 King
Directions
Location #2 Cedar River Dredqinq
TART:
January 12, 2004
WORK END: January 11, 2009
g
Waterbody:
Cedar River
Tributary to:
Lake Washington
Section:
SE 1/4 06
Township: Range:
123 N 105 E
Latitude: Longitude:
N 47.48364 W 122.20521
County:
King
Location #2 Driving Directions
Location #3 Elliott Mitigation Channel
WORK START:
January 12, 2004
WORK END: January 11, 2009
WRIA:
08.0299
Waterbody:
Cedar River
Tributary to:
Lake Washington
114 SEC: Section:
NW 114 22
Township:
23 N
Range:
05 E IN
Latitude:
47.47089
Longitude:
W 122.15386
County:
King
Location #3 Driving Directions
Location #4 Golf Course Revetment
WORK START: January 12, 2004 IWORK END: January 11, 2009
WRIA: Waterbody: Tributary to:
08.0299 Cedar River Lake Washington
114 SEC: Section: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: County:
NW 1/4 22 23 N 05 E N 47.47154 W 122.15665 King
Location #4 Driving Directions
DRAFT Page 4 of 7
r= ;� Washington
Department of
FISH and
WILDLIFE
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL
RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW
Issue Date:
Project Expiration Date: January 11, 2009
Location #5 Landsburg Gravel Supplementation
Control Number:
FPA/Public Notice #:
North Puget Sound
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
(425) 775-1311
0000OG1503-2
N/A
WORK START:
January 12, 2004
WORK END: January 11, 2009
1WRIA:
08.0299
Waterbody:
Cedar River
Tributary to:
Lake Washington
1/4 SEC: Section:
SW 1/4 19
Township: Range:
22 N 07 E
Latitude:
N 47.37498
Longitude:
W 121.97173
County:
King
Location #5 Driving Directions
NOTES
This HPA supersedes all previous HPAs issued for this project.
This HPA has been issued to update the project status and alleviate concerns related to the
installation and operation of a sockeye collection facility under 1-405.
APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS
This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code,
specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW (formerly RCW 77.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be
necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying
for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be
necessary for this project.
This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the
person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work.
This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may be held
liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this
Hydraulic Project Approval.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one
hundred dollars per day and/or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 77.55.021 (EXCEPT agricultural irrigation, stock watering or
bank stabilization projects) or 77.55.141 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the Department
of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal
such decisions. All agricultural irrigation, stock watering or bank stabilization Hydraulic Project Approvals issued
pursuant to RCW 77.55.021 may be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after
consultation with the person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued: PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such
modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 77.55.301.
APPEALS INFORMATION
If you wish to appeal the issuance or denial of, or conditions provided in a Hydraulic Project Approval, there are
informal and formal appeal processes available.
DRAFT Page 5 of 7
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
Department or 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDLIFE
(425) 775-1311
IL
Issue Date: Control Number: OOOOOG1503-2 ,�
Project Expiration Date: January 11, 2009 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.021,
77.55.141. 77.55.181, and 77.55.291: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department
actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic
Project Approval; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW shall be in WRITING to the Department
of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and shall be
RECEIVED by the Department within 30 days of the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval or receipt of an
order imposing civil penalties. If agreed to by the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party is the Hydraulic Project
Approval applicant, resolution of the concerns will be facilitated through discussions with the Area Habitat Biologist and
his/her supervisor. If resolution is not reached, or the aggrieved party is not the Hydraulic Project Approval applicant,
the Habitat Technical Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision
to the Director or his/her designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may
be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.021
(EXCEPT agricultural irrigation, stock watering or bank stabilization projects) or 77.55.291:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request a formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic
Project Approval;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other 'agency action' for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure
Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals
Coordinator, shall be plainly labeled as 'REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL' and shall be RECEIVED DURING
OFFICE HOURS by the Department at 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, within 30-days of
the Department action that is being challenged. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during
consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal
appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.021 (agricultural irrigation,
stock watering or bank stabilization only), 77.55.141, 77.55.181, or 77.55.241: A person who is aggrieved or adversely
affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
Hydraulic Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to
the Hydraulic Appeals Board per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two -
Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 43.21 L RCW: A person
who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or
provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The FORMAL APPEAL shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 43.21 L RCW and Chapter 199-08 WAC. The request for FORMAL APPEAL
shall be in WRITING to the Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board at Environmental Hearings Office,
Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, P.O. Box 40903,
Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
E. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS results in forfeiture of all appeal rights. If there is
no timely request for an appeal, the department action shall be final and unappealable.
DRAFT Page 6 of 7
x T Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL North Puget Sound
Department of 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
FISH and RCW 77.55.021 - Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296
WILDLIFE (425) 775-1311
Issue Date: Control Number: OOOOOG1503-2
Project Expiration Date: January 11, 2009 FPA/Public Notice #: N/A a
i
ENFORCEMENT: Sergeant Chandler (34) P1
Habitat Biologist for Director
Larry Fisher 425-649-7042 WDFW
CC: WDFW: Bob Everitt, Steve Foley, David Brock
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department
NOAA Fisheries
US Fish & Wildlife Service
DRAFT Page 7 of 7
Ikpwtawni a
FISH .d
�L:DLt�`B
5wP 27 2 81-7 7.3
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: August 7.2000
LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-13
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes all previous HPAs for this project, is a response to the need to extend
the work window to complete the mitigation project for over -dredging. This HPA is a modification of the original HPA issued April
24, 1998 and last modified on June 23, 2000.
PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
City of Renton Surface Water Utility RECEIVED Not Applicable
ATTENTION: Ron Straka
1055 Grady Way South AUG - E 2900
Renton, Washington 98055
(425) 430-7248 CITY OF RENTON
Fax: 425 235-2541 UTILITY SYSTEMS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection and Flood Wall, Raise Levees, and Perform
Mitigation: Reconstruct 600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques,
Construct a Groundwater -fed Spawning Channel, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Lower River,
Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River, and Mitigate for Over -dredging
PROJECT LOCATION: Dredging, levee and flood wall additions, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth
upstream to the Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport;
reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning
channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek; modification of the Elliot Levee and
enhancement of spawning and rearing habitat just downstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek;
and replenishment of spawning gravels in the Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
1 08.0299 Cedar River Lake Washington 17 23 North 05 East King
18 23 North 05 East King
23 23 North 05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a reasonable amount of effort to
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and that further mitigation actions,
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or, alternatively, other upstream levees on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and has been or shall be completed as
follows:
a. Dredging and bank protection were completed by August 15, 1998.
b. Mitigation and monitoring shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3) and Provisions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12.
c. Construction of the Renton flood wall shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 2000.
d. Replenishment of spawning gravels at Landsburg shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 2000-2010.
J0 Work within the OHWL of the Cedar River on the upstream and downstream connections of the project to
mitigate for over -dredging shall be constructed between 1 16 and August 25, 2000. Other components of the
over -dredging mitigation project, including installation of the landscape plan, shall be completed by March 1,
2001. The permittee shall .provide maintenance of this over -dredging mitigation project in a manner to ensure it
Page 1 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Departmentof RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 of of Fish and Wildlife
�ISgaad Region S Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek. Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: August 7, 2000 LOG . )MBER: 00-D4609-13
can achieve its estimated productivity, which is documented in the report entitled, "SECTION 205 FLOOD
CONTROL PROJECT LOWER CEDAR RIVER, WASHINGTON SALMON REARING CHANNEL
PRODUCTION ANALYSIS -FINAL-", dated February 17, 2000, for a minimum of 10 years following
construction.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least three
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I,11, III (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-11", dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; letter by Beth Spelsberg of Golder
Associates dated December 21, 1999 "RE: CEDAR RIVER 205 GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJECT", with
accompanying plans; "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated); CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE
LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May
28, 1998; "FINAL DESIGN REPORT LANDSBURG GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJECT RENTON,
WASHINGTON", dated June 1, 2000; "STATEMENT OF WORK CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
SOCKEYE SPAWNING CHANNEL MITIGATION SITE SPAWNING CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT PROJECT",
dated June 22, 1999; "RENTON FLOOD WALL", dated July 20, 1999; and `.`CEDAR RIVER MITIGATION", dated
March 3, 2000 (These are the over -dredge mitigation plans.), except for the revision of plate C-2 plotted June 9, 2000
to include the frog pond, and submitted to the WDFW, except as modified by this HPA. These plans reflect design
criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate
impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. A qualified stream and wetland ecologist shall be on site to oversee the construction of the over -dredge mitigation
project.
Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion of the sockeye run spawning in
the reach from the Renton Library to the river mouth. This proportion may be revised as follows:
a. The City of Renton (the City) shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW to
determine, over a period of five years following completion of dredging (beginning with the 1998-99 brood year
through the 2002-2003 brood year), the average proportion of the total sockeye escapement that is spawning in
the reach and mitigation channel combined. Success will be defined as the five year average proportion equaling
or exceeding 15%.
b. If the five year average is below 15%, the City shall either construct an additional mitigation channel or
modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based on the shortfall and the observed spawner use
rate (# females/sq. yard) in the initial mitigation channel.
c. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based on any new information
collected during the course of the monitoring program that results in a more accurate estimation of the fry -to -lake
contribution from the dredged reach.
d. The City has identified and set aside land that could be used for further mitigation should it become necessary.
Page 2 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
ot RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
DewtowntFISH and Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: Ausust 7, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-13
6. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
Prior to commencement of fall salmon spawning in 1998 and in 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning
riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the
dredged river reach. This reach shall be evaluated in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or
more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will
require additional mitigation. (Additional mitigation for chinook salmon would include either dike removal or
setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce constrictions.) The City shall use the methods
described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module with the
following exceptions: length will be 2.5 m; use of an anchor of up to one pound; a wooden float will be used at
the free end; and 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16". The City shall also: use the monitoring plan
recommended by the Tribe on pages seven and eight of attachment #3; provide monitoring records to the Tribe
within one week of the measurements; and consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and
incidental observations of the Tribe. The AHB shall be consulted and be the final arbiter should issues arise.
b. Monitoring required for the over -dredge mitigation project includes spawning by chinook, coho, steelhead, and
sockeye salmon until is has been documented that the production from the 1800 sockeye redds which were lost
due to the channel degradation which resulted from the over -dredging has been replaced. Monitoring of rearing
by juvenile salmonids would also be beneficial and should be done if practicable. This may be facilitated by
coordination with on -going research on the river or other studies related to salmon recovery.
c. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the
WDFW AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
7. Gravel used in the supplementation program shall generally range in size from one-half to five centimeters in
diameter, with at least 50% larger than one centimeter and no more than 10% smaller than one-half millimeter.
8. If permits cannot be secured to allow the gravel supplementation program to be implemented, then the City shall use
the funds set aside for the program ($150,000) to create holding pools for chinook salmon according to suggestions
made by the Tribe on pages eight and nine of attachment #3 or an equivalent alternative subject to approval by the
AHB.
Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the escrow account to
WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance
dredging.
10. Management of large woody debris which becomes entrapped at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall occur
per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment #3.
11. The lighting control proposal (Provision 3) shall be evaluated by Roger Tabor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or by another person mutually agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW, and the City. A study plan shall be
finalized by December 31, 1998 and implemented in 1999 and 2000.
12. By October 31, 1998, the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and representatives of the USACE,
USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to commence proceedings to determine standards for what
constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye and chinook juvenile and for standards for any
Page 3 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
DepartVwAl 0( RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108Department 4 of Fish and Wildlife
R
Fjsg a,d Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: August 7. 2000 LOGNUMBER: 00-D4609-13
additional mitigation measures that may be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any
increase in predation caused by the dredging operation.
13. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the OHWL shall be restricted to the minimum amount necessary
to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
14. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
15. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
16. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
17. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
18. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall
not be removed or trimmed without prior WDFW approval.
19. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by WDFW.
20. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river and/or its tributaries and/or
their associated wetlands. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment
ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
21. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
22. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the OHWL to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to the river and/or
its tributaries and/or their associated wetlands.
23. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
24. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
25. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river and/or
its tributaries and/or their associated wetlands.
Page 4 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
d RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH sod 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOlM Mill Creek. Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: August 7, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-13
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997; DNS by City of Renton final on May 24,
2000.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February 23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Peck 024 [P1]
Larry Fisher (425) 649-7042� for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
Page 5 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.103 Department of Fish and Wildlife eputzuiu of
FI9H�d Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WULN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: August 7. 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-13
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 6 of 6
. 0 1 w ,
5 W P 27 2,81 `7 7r 3
Dcputwnt of
FISH and
W10LUE
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 23, 2000
LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-12
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes all previous HPAs for this project, is a response to the need to
include formalization of the mitigation project for over -dredging and the Cedar River Trail Floodwall project into the HPA. This
HPA is a modification of the original HPA issued April 24, 1998 and last modified on April 13, 2000.
PERMITTEE I AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
City of Renton Surface Water Utility Not Applicable RECEIVED
ATTENTION: Ron Straka
1055 Grady Way South JUN 2 8 2000
Renton, Washington 98055
(425) 430-7248 CITY OF RENTON
Fax: 425 235-2541 UTI
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection and Flood Wall, Raise Levees, and Perform
Mitigation: Reconstruct 600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques,
Construct a Groundwater -fed Spawning Channel, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Lower River,
Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River, and Mitigate for Over -dredging
PROJECT LOCATION:
Dredging, levee and flood wall additions, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth
upstream to the Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport;
reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning
channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek; modification of the Elliot Levee and
enhancement of spawning and rearing habitat just downstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek;
and replenishment of spawning gravels in the Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY
TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
1 08.0299 Cedar River
Lake Washington 17 23 North 05 East King
18 23 North 05 East King
23 23 North 05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a reasonable amount of effort to
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and that further mitigation actions,
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or, alternatively, other upstream levees on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and has been or shall be completed as
follows:
a. Dredging and bank protection were completed by August 15, 1998.
b. Mitigation and monitoring shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3) and Provisions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12.
c. Construction of the Renton flood wall shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 2000.
d. Replenishment of spawning gravels at Landsburg shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 2000-2010.
e. Work within the OHWL of the Cedar River on the upstream and downstream connections of the project to
mitigate for over -dredging shall be constructed between June 16 and August 15, 2000. Other components of the
over -dredging mitigation project, including installation of the landscape plan, shall be completed by March 1,
2001. The permittee shall provide maintenance of this over -dredging mitigation project in a manner to ensure it
Page 1 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
VkAM A RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
DeDa�+u of Region 4 Office
F�ISHnad 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
I►�1 L Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE• June 23, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-12
can achieve its estimated productivity, which is documented in the report entitled, "SECTION 205 FLOOD
CONTROL PROJECT LOWER CEDAR RIVER, WASHINGTON SALMON REARING CHANNEL
PRODUCTION ANALYSIS -FINAL-", dated February 17, 2000, for a minimum of 10 years following
construction.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least three
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I, II, III (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-11", dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; letter by Beth Spelsberg of Golder
Associates dated December 21, 1999 "RE: CEDAR RIVER 205 GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJECT", with
accompanying plans; "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated); CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE
LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May
28, 1998; "FINAL DESIGN REPORT LANDSBURG GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJECT RENTON,
WASHINGTON", dated June 1, 2000; "STATEMENT OF WORK CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
SOCKEYE SPAWNING CHANNEL MITIGATION SITE SPAWNING CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT PROJECT",
dated June 22, 1999; "RENTON FLOOD WALL", dated July 20, 1999; and "CEDAR RIVER MITIGATION", dated
March 3, 2000 (These are the over -dredge mitigation plans.), except for the revision of plate C-2 plotted June 9, 2000
to include the frog pond, and submitted to the WDFW, except as modified by this HPA. These plans reflect design
criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate
impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. A qualified stream and wetland ecologist shall be on site to oversee the construction of the over -dredge mitigation
project.
5. Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion of the sockeye run spawning in
the reach from the Renton Library to the river mouth. This proportion may be revised as follows:
a. The City of Renton (the City) shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW to
determine, over a period of five years following completion of dredging (beginning with the 1998-99 brood year
through the 2002-2003 brood year), the average proportion of the total sockeye escapement that is spawning in
the reach and mitigation channel combined. Success will be defined as the five year average proportion equaling
or exceeding 15%.
b. If the five year average is below 15%, the City shall either construct an additional mitigation channel or
modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based on the shortfall and the observed spawner use
rate (# females/sq. yard) in the initial mitigation channel.
c. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based on any new information
collected during the course of the monitoring program that results in a more accurate estimation of the fry -to -lake
contribution from the dredged reach.
d. The City has identified and set aside land that could be used for further mitigation should it become necessary.
Page 2 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH.d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE• June 23, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-12
6. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
Prior to commencement of fall salmon spawning in 1998 and in 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning
riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the
dredged river reach. This reach shall be evaluated in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or
more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will
require additional mitigation. (Additional mitigation for chinook salmon would include either dike removal or
setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce constrictions.) The City shall use the methods
described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module with the
following exceptions: length will be 2.5 m; use of an anchor of up to one pound; a wooden float will be used at
the free end; and 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16". The City shall also: use the monitoring plan
recommended by the Tribe on pages seven and eight of attachment #3; provide monitoring records to the Tribe
within one week of the measurements; and consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and
incidental observations of the Tribe. The AHB shall be consulted and be the final arbiter should issues arise.
b. Monitoring required for the over -dredge mitigation project includes spawning by chinook, coho, steelhead, and
sockeye salmon until is has been documented that the production from the 1800 sockeye redds which were lost
due to the channel degradation which resulted from the over -dredging has been replaced. Monitoring of rearing
by juvenile salmonids would also be beneficial and should be done if practicable. This may be facilitated by
coordination with on -going research on the river or other studies related to salmon recovery.
c. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the
WDFW AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
7. Gravel used in the supplementation program shall generally range in size from one-half to five centimeters in
diameter, with at least 50% larger than one centimeter and no more than 10% smaller than one-half millimeter.
8. If permits cannot be secured to allow the gravel supplementation program to be implemented, then the City shall use
the funds set aside for the program ($150,000) to create holding pools for chinook salmon according to suggestions
made by the Tribe on pages eight and nine of attachment #3 or an equivalent alternative subject to approval by the
AHB.
9. Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
)WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the escrow account to
WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance
dredging.
10. Management of large woody debris which becomes entrapped at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall occur
per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment #3.
11. The lighting control proposal (Provision 3) shall be evaluated by Roger Tabor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or by another person mutually agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW, and the City. A study plan shall be
finalized by December 31, 1998 and implemented in 1999 and 2000.
12. By October 31, 1998, the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and representatives of the USACE,
USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to commence proceedings to determine standards for what
constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye and chinook juvenile and for standards for any
Page 3 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RFuhhVUn RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Department of
Region 4 Office
FISH ad 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
wom Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 23.2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-12
additional mitigation measures that may be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any
increase in predation caused by the dredging operation.
13. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the OHWL shall be restricted to the minimum amount necessary
to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
14. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
15. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
16. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
17. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
18. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall
not be removed or trimmed without prior WDFW approval.
19. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by WDFW.
20. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river and/or its tributaries and/or
their associated wetlands. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment
ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
21. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
22. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the OHWL to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to the river and/or
its tributaries and/or their associated wetlands.
23. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
24. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
25. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river and/or
its tributaries and/or their associated wetlands.
Page 4 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Dent of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
jFISH and 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLIFE Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 23, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-12
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997; DNS by City of Renton final on May 24,
2000.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February 23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Peck 024 [P1]
Larry Fisher (425) 649-7042 for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
cc: WDFW: Peter Birch, Ted Muller, Steve Foley, Kurt Fresh
Muckleshoot Fisheries Department
ATTENTION: Rod Malcom
39015 172"d Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98002
National Marine Fisheries Service
ATTENTION: Gordy Zillges
510 Desmond Drive Southeast Suite 103
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
Page 5 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Fk"hLWton RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Departm ra Region 4 Office
FISH ate+ 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLK Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 23.2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-12
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 6 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
p,� RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FMill Creek Boulevard
WOLN RECEIVED Mill
Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: April 13, 2000 APR 17 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-11
CITY OF RENTON
UTILITY SYSTEMS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes all previous HPAs for this project, is a response to the need to
include formalization of the mitigation project for over -dredging and the Cedar River Trail Floodwall project into the HPA. This
HPA is a modification of the original HPA issued April 24, 1998 and last modified on January 24, 2000.
PERMITTEE I AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
City of Renton Surface Water Utility Not Applicable
ATTENTION: Ron Straka
1055 Grady Way South
Renton, Washington 98055
(425)430-7248
Fax: (425) 235-2541
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection and Flood Wall, Raise Levees, and Perform
Mitigation: Reconstruct 600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques,
Construct a Groundwater -fed Spawning Channel, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Lower River,
Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River, and Mitigate for Over -dredging
PROJECT LOCATION: Dredging, levee and flood wall additions, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth
upstream to the Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport;
reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning
channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek; modification of the Elliot Levee and
enhancement of spawning and rearing habitat just downstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek;
and replenishment of spawning gravels in the Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
1 08.0299 Cedar River Lake Washington 17 23 North 05 East King
18 23 North 05 East King
23 23 North 05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a reasonable amount of effort to
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and that further mitigation actions,
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or, alternatively, other upstream levees on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and has been or shall be completed as
follows:
a. Dredging and bank protection were completed by August 15, 1998.
b. Mitigation and monitoring shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3) and Provisions 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12.
c. Construction of the Renton flood wall shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 2000.
d. Replenishment of spawning gravels at Landsburg shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 2000-2010.
e. Work within the OHWL of the Cedar River on the upstream and downstream connections of the project to
mitigate for over -dredging shall be constructed between June 16 and August 15, 2000. Other components of the
over -dredging mitigation project, including installation of the landscape plan, shall be completed by March 1,
2001. The permittee shall provide maintenance of this over -dredging mitigation project in a manner to ensure it
Page 1 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
pro( RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH"d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
KDLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: April 13, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-11
can achieve its estimated productivity, which is documented in the report entitled, "SECTION 205 FLOOD
CONTROL PROJECT LOWER CEDAR RIVER, WASHINGTON SALMON REARING CHANNEL
PRODUCTION ANALYSIS -FINAL-", dated February 17, 2000, for a minimum of 10 years following
construction.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least three
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I,11, III (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-I I", dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; letter by Beth Spelsberg of Golder
Associates dated December 21, 1999 "RE: CEDAR RIVER 205 GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJECT", with
accompanying plans; "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated); CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE
LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May
28, 1998; CEDAR RIVER US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE
REDUCTION PROJECT SPAWNING GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PLAN", dated June 5, 1998;
"STATEMENT OF WORK CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT SOCKEYE SPAWNING CHANNEL
MITIGATION SITE SPAWNING CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT PROJECT", dated June 22, 1999; "RENTON
FLOOD WALL", dated July 20, 1999; and "CEDAR RIVER MITIGATION", dated March 3, 2000 (These are the
over -dredge mitigation plans.), and submitted to the WDFW, except as modified by this HPA. These plans reflect
design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or
eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. A qualified stream and wetland ecologist shall be on site to oversee the construction of the over -dredge mitigation
project.
Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion of the sockeye run spawning in
the reach from the Renton Library to the river mouth. This proportion may be revised as follows:
a. The City of Renton (the City) shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW to
determine, over a period of five years following completion of dredging (beginning with the 1998-99 brood year
through the 2002-2003 brood year), the average proportion of the total sockeye escapement that is spawning in
the reach and mitigation channel combined. Success will be defined as the five year average proportion equaling
or exceeding 15%.
b. If the five year average is below 15%, the City shall either construct an additional mitigation channel or
modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based on the shortfall and the observed spawner use
rate (4 females/sq. yard) in the initial mitigation channel.
c. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based on any new information
collected during the course of the monitoring program that results in a more accurate estimation of the fry -to -lake
contribution from the dredged reach.
d. The City has identified and set aside land that could be used for further mitigation should it become necessary.
Page 2 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
&WaAww
Vwbwd of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHmd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
RUN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: April 13, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-11
6. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
Prior to commencement of fall salmon spawning in 1998 and in 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning
riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the
dredged river reach. This reach shall be evaluated in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or
more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will
require additional mitigation. (Additional mitigation for chinook salmon would include either dike removal or
setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce constrictions.) The City shall use the methods
described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module With the
following exceptions: length will be 2.5 m; use of an anchor of up to one pound; a wooden float will be used at
the free end; and 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16". The City shall also: use the monitoring plan
recommended by the Tribe on pages seven and eight of attachment #3; provide monitoring records to the Tribe
within one week of the measurements; and consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and
incidental observations of the Tribe. The AHB shall be consulted and be the final arbiter should issues arise.
b. Monitoring required for the over -dredge mitigation project includes spawning by chinook, coho, steelhead, and
sockeye salmon until is has been documented that the production from the 1800 sockeye redds which were lost
due to the channel degradation which resulted from the over -dredging has been replaced. Monitoring of rearing
by juvenile salmonids would also be beneficial and should be done if practicable. This may be facilitated by
coordination with on -going research on the river or other studies related to salmon recovery.
c. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the
WDFW AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
7. Gravel used in the supplementation program shall generally range in size from one-half to five centimeters in
diameter, with at least 50% larger than one centimeter and no more than 10% smaller than one-half millimeter.
8. If permits cannot be secured to allow the gravel supplementation program to be implemented, then the City shall use
the funds set aside for the program ($150,000) to create holding pools for chinook salmon according to suggestions
made by the Tribe on pages eight and nine of attachment #3 or an equivalent alternative subject to approval by the
AHB.
Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the escrow account to
WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance
dredging.
10. Management of large woody debris which becomes entrapped at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall occur
per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment 43.
11. The lighting control proposal (Provision 3) shall be evaluated by Roger Tabor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or by another person mutually agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW, and the City. A study plan shall be
fmalized by December 31, 1998 and implemented in 1999 and 2000.
12. By October 31, 1998, the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and representatives of the USACE,
USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to commence proceedings to determine standards for what
constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye and chinook juvenile and for standards for any
Page 3 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RDepartment of Fish and Wildlife
CW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108
Region 4 Office
FISHMd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
MAN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: April 13, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-11
additional mitigation measures that may be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any
increase in predation caused by the dredging operation.
13. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the OHWL shall be restricted to the minimum amount necessary
to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
14. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
15. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
16. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
17. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
18. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall
not be removed or trimmed without prior WDFW approval.
19. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by WDFW.
20. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river and/or its tributaries and/or
their associated wetlands. These may include, but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment
ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
21. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
22. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the OHWL to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to the river and/or
its tributaries and/or their associated wetlands.
23. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
24. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
25. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river and/or
its tributaries and/or their associated wetlands.
Page 4 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
rg Ff H.W 16018 Null Creek Boulevard
ISOWULN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: April 13, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-11
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February 23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Peck 024 [P 1 ]
Larry Fisher (425) 649-7042 for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
cc: WDFW: Peter Birch, Ted Muller, Steve Foley, Kurt Fresh
Muckleshoot Fisheries Department
ATTENTION: Rod Malcom
39015 172nd Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98002
National Marine Fisheries Service
ATTENTION: Gordy Zillges
510 Desmond Drive Southeast Suite 103
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
Page 5 of 6
• HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHed 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
wain Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE, OF ISSUE: April 13, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-11
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 6 of 6
DR161A1A L Perm l'+S1 Fi na
' HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
W"UNIba
d RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
DomhuMRegion 4 Office
FISHmd ® 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
IIQ, LN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
C�,`t�i
v
DATE OF ISSUE• January 24 2000 �� '�0% LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-10
N16
Q OF R�NEMs
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes a{Y` W HPAs for this project, is a response to: 1. a verbal
request by Gary Shimek of the City of Renton to implement the Landsburg gravel supplementation mitigation component and that
funds which would have been spent on river delta planting ($20,000) are to be used to reduce artificial lighting on the lower river; and
2. a written request by Merri Martz of the U.S. Army Cotes of Engineers to eliminate the requirement to conduct chinook redd
sampling and designate that funds which would have been spent on chinook redd sampling ($5,000-$10,000) are to be used to
augment the over -dredging mitigation project. As of the date of this HPA, the site and design of the over -dredging mitigation project
had not been decided. This HPA is a modification of the original HPA issued April 24, 1998 and last modified on June 30, 1999.
PERMITTEE I AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
City of Renton Surface Water Utility Not Applicable
ATTENTION: Ron Straka
1055 Grady Way South
Renton, Washington 98055
(425)430-7248
Fax: 425 235-2541
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection, Raise Levees, and Perform Mitigation: Reconstruct
600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques, Construct a Groundwater -fed
Spawning Channel, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Lower River, Replenish Spawning Gravels in
the Upper Cedar River, and Mitigate for Over -dredging
PROJECT LOCATION:
Dredging, levee addition, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth upstream to the
Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport; reconstruction of the
revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning channel just upstream of the
mouth of Madsen Creek; replenishment of spawning gravels in the Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY
TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
1 08.0299 Cedar River
Lake Washington 17 23 North 05 East King
18 23 North 05 East King
23 23 North 05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a reasonable amount of effort to
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and that further mitigation actions,
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or, alternatively, other upstream levees on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
TIMMG LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and has been or shall be completed as
follows:
a. Dredging and bank protection were completed by August 15, 1998.
b. Mitigation and monitoring shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3) and Provisions 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13.
c. Construction of flap gates, the boat ramp, flood walls, and modification of the mitigation spawning channel
within the ordinary high water line (OHWL) occurred between June 16 and August 15, 1999.
d. Replenishment of spawning gravels at Landsburg shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 2000-2010.
e. Mitigation for over -dredging shall be constructed between June 16 and August 15, 2000.
Page 1 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WO1N Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: January 24, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-10
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least three
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I,11, Ill (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-I I", dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; letter by Beth Spelsberg of Golder
Associates dated December 21, 1999 "RE: CEDAR RIVER 205 GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PROJFCT", with
accompanying plans; "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION
PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated); CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE
LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May
28, 1998; CEDAR RIVER US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE
REDUCTION PROJECT SPAWNING GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PLAN", dated June 5, 1998;
"STATEMENT OF WORK CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT SOCKEYE SPAWNING CHANNEL
MITIGATION SITE SPAWNING CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT PROJECT", dated June 22, 1999 and submitted to
the WDFW, except as modified by this HPA. These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These
plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these
plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion of the sockeye run spawning in
the reach from the Renton Library to the river mouth. This proportion may be revised as follows:
a. The City of Renton (the City) shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW to
determine, over a period of five years following completion of dredging (beginning with the 1998-99 brood year
through the 2002-2003 brood year), the average proportion of the total sockeye escapement that is spawning in
the reach and mitigation channel combined. Success will be defined as the five year average proportion equaling
or exceeding 15%.
b. If the five year average is below 15%, the City shall either construct an additional mitigation channel or
modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based on the shortfall and the observed spawner use
rate (# females/sq. yard) in the initial mitigation c an:-1e1.
c. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based on any new information
collected during the course of the monitoring program that results in a more accurate estimation of the fry -to -lake
contribution from the dredged reach.
d. The City has identified and set aside land that could be used for further mitigation should it become necessary.
5. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
Prior to commencement of fall salmon spawning in 1998 and in 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning
riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the
dredged river reach. This reach shall be evaluated in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or
more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will
require additional mitigation. (Additional mitigation for chinook salmon would include either dike removal or
setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce constrictions.) The City shall use the methods
described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module with the
following exceptions: length will be 2.5 in; use of an anchor of up to one pound; a wooden float will be used at
the free end; and 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16". The City shall also: use the monitoring plan
Page 2 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
mar RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH"d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WIN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: January 24, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-10
recommended by the Tribe on pages seven and eight of attachment #3; provide monitoring records to the Tribe
within one week of the measurements; and consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and
incidental observations of the Tribe. The AHB shall be consulted and be the final arbiter should issues arise.
b. during dredging, twice weekly beach seining in the dredge reach 200 yards above and below the location of
dredging for abundance of juvenile chinook salmon; and
6. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the WDFW
AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
7. Gravel used in the supplementation prow am shall genera'ly range in size from one-half to five centimeters in
diameter, with at least 50% larger than one centimeter and no more than 10% smaller than one-half millimeter.
8. If permits cannot be secured to allow the gravel supplementation program to be implemented by September 1999,
then the City shall use the funds set aside for the program ($150,000) to create holding pools for Chinook salmon
according to suggestions made by the Tribe on pages eight and nine of attachment #3 or an equivalent alternative
subject to approval by the AHB.
9. Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the escrow account to
WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance
dredging.
10. The City shall erect signs at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment to:
a. warn boaters to take reasonable precautions through this reach; and
b. describe the nature of this mitigation project and the expected benefits it will have for fish life.
11. Management of large woody debris which becomes entrapped at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall occur
per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment #3.
12. The lighting control proposal (Provision 3) shall be evaluated by Roger Tabor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or by another person mutually agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW, and the City. A study plan shall be
finalized by December 31, 1998 and implemented in 1999 and 2000.
13. By October 31, 1998, the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and representatives of the USACE,
USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to commence proceedings to determine standards for what
constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye and Chinook juvenile and for standards for any
additional mitigation measures that may be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any
increase in predation caused by the dredging operation. The target date for agreement by the parties is January 31,
1999.
14. Upon completion of the dredging, the riverbed shall contain no pits, potholes, or large depressions to avoid stranding
of fish.
15. Equipment shall be operated to minimize turbidity. During excavation, each pass with the bucket shall be complete.
Dredged material shall not be stockpiled in the river.
Page 3 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH"d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
W010 Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: January 24, 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-10
16. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the OHWL shall be restricted to the minimum amount necessary
to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
17. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
18. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
19. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
20. LWD used to reconstruct the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall be coniferous material with a minimum
diameter at breast height of 24 inches.
21. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
22. The outfall structures shall be constructed to prevent the entry of fish.
23. Excavation for the placement of the outfall structures or armoring materials shall be isolated from the wetted
perimeter.
24. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall
not be removed or trimmed without prior WDFW approval.
25. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by WDFW.
26. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river. These may include, but are
not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or
other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
27. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
28. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the ordinary high water line to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to
the stream.
29. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
Page 4 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Region gion4 Department of Fish and Wildlife
` R4 Office
FISHmi 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
wolm Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: January 24.2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-10
30. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
31. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river.
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Peck 024 [P1]
Larry Fisher (425) 649-7042 �;_ for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
cc: WDFW: Peter Birch, Ted Muller, Steve Foley, Kurt Fresh
Muckleshoot Fisheries Department
ATTENTION: Rod Malcom
39015 172"d Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98002
National Marine Fisheries Service
ATTENTION: Gordy Zillges
510 Desmond Drive Southeast Suite 103
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
Page 5 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
d RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
PJSB..+ 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
jPp,�l,�pg Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: Janm= 24. 2000 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-10
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biclogist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAT. APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 6 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
> RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
DowbmMof Region 4 Office
FISHOW 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
RUN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 30, 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-09
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes all previous HPAs for this project, is a response to a written request
dated June 22, 1999 by Ronald J. Straka of the City of Renton to modify the upper end of the mitigation spawning channel. This HPA
is a modification of the original HPA issued April 24, 1998 and last modified on March 19, 1999.
PERMITTEE
City of Renton Surface Water Utility
ATTENTION: Ron Straka
1055 Grady Way South
Renton, Washington 98055
(425) 430-7248
Fax: 425 235-2541
AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
Not Applicable f C�
J U L 21999
C11 i Ci7 r, .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection, Raise Levees, and Perform Mitigation: Reconstruct
600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques, Construct a Groundwater -fed
Spawning Channel, Plant the River Delta, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Dredge Reach, and
Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River
PROJECT LOCATION: Dredging, levee addition, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth upstream to the
Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport; planting on the river
delta; reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning
channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek; replenishment of spawning gravels in the
Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY
1 08.0299 Cedar River
TRIBUTARY TO
Lake Washington
1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
17 23 North
18 23 North
23 23 North
05 East King
05 East King
05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a reasonable amount of effort to
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and that further mitigation actions,
including the potential removal of the levee pcnt o, is of tho Y=oje-t cr -..-rn t- . —, other �inctrPan? 1P,VeeS on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and has been or shall be completed as
follows:
a. Dredging and bank protection were completed by August 15, 1998.
b. Mitigation and monitoring shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3) and Provisions 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13.
c. Construction of flap gates, the boat ramp, flood walls, and modification of the mitigation spawning channel
within the ordinary high water line (OHWL) shall occur between June 16 and August 15, 1999.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least three
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
Page 1 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
moo/ RCW 75.20.100 or RCW Department75.20.108 Rgion4f of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHMd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WIN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 30. 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-09
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I, H, III (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-11", dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; "PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS
CEDAR RIVER DELTA CEDAR RIVER 205 MITIGATION PLAN", (undated); "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR
RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated);
CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May 28, 1998; CEDAR RIVER US ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS (USACE) SECTION 205 FLOOD DAM,,kGE REDUCTION PROJECT SPAWNING GRAVEL
SUPPLE0viENTATiON PLAN", dated .mane 5, 1998; "STATEMEN OF WORK CEDAR MW :. 171.:001)
CONTROL PROJECT SOCKEYE SPAWNING CHANNEL MITIGATION SITE SPAWNING CHANNEL
ENLARGEMENT PROJECT", dated June 22, 1999 and submitted to the WDFW, except as modified by this HPA.
These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to
significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during
construction.
Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion of the sockeye run spawning in
the reach from the Renton Library to the river mouth. This proportion may be revised as follows:
a. The City of Renton (the City) shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW to
determine, over a period of five years following completion of dredging (beginning with the 1998-99 brood year
through the 2002-2003 brood year), the average proportion of the total sockeye escapement that is spawning in
the reach and mitigation channel combined. Success will be defined as the five year average proportion equaling
or exceeding 15%.
b. If the five year average is below 15%, the City shall either construct an additional mitigation channel or
modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based on the shortfall and the observed spawner use
rate (# females/sq. yard) in the initial mitigation channel.
c. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based on any new information
collected during the course of the monitoring program that results in a more accurate estimation of the fry -to -lake
contribution from the dredged reach.
;; S1-a11 iaer:tif;� ��a set aside lard that could be used for further mitigation should it become necessary.
Details of such land shall be provided to WDFW for recording in the HPA by October 31, 1998.
5. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
Prior to commencement of fall salmon spawning in 1998 and in 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning
riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the
dredged river reach. This reach shall be evaluated in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or
more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will
require additional mitigation. (Additional mitigation for chinook salmon would include either dike removal or
setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce constrictions.) The City shall use the methods
described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module with the
following exceptions: length will be 2.5 m; use of an anchor of up to one pound; a wooden float will be used at
the free end; and 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16". The City shall also: use the monitoring plan
recommended by the Tribe on pages seven and eight of attachment #3; provide monitoring records to the Tribe
within one week of the measurements; and consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and
incidental observations of the Tribe. The AHB shall be consulted and be the final arbiter should issues arise.
Page 2 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Dq o/ RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
pjSHmd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
mix Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 30, 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-09
b. during dredging, twice weekly beach seining in the dredge reach 200 yards above and below the location of
dredging for abundance of juvenile chinook salmon; and
c. the dredged reach shall be surveyed for chinook salmon spawning at least once per week from September 1
through November 30, 1998 and 1999; redds and numbers of live and dead salmon shall be recorded; location of
chinook redds shall be mapped and triangulated; the following February, chinook redds shall be hydraulically
sampled to assess survival; details shall be worked out with WDFW Fish Management Program; costs of fry
transportation and rearing shall be paid by the permittee.
6. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the WDFW
AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
7. Gravel used in the supplementation program shall generally range in size from one-half to five centimeters in
diameter, with at least 50% larger than one centimeter and no more than 10% smaller than one-half millimeter.
If permits cannot be secured to allow the gravel supplementation program to be implemented by September 1999,
then the City shall use the funds set aside for the program ($150,000) to create holding pools for chinook salmon
according to suggestions made by the Tribe on pages eight and nine of attachment #3 or an equivalent alternative
subject to approval by the AHB.
Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
)WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the escrow account to
WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance
dredging.
10. The City shall erect signs at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment to:
a. warn boaters to take reasonable precautions through this reach; and
b. describe the nature of this mitigation project and the expected benefits it will have for fish life.
11. Management ui iurgc NJOUCy deb -is w1uch become�entrrnrne_d..the_ n'olf Course revetm nt'hall occur
per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment #3.
12. The lighting control proposal (Provision 3) shall be evaluated by Roger Tabor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or by another person mutually agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW, and the City. A study plan shall be
finalized by December 31, 1998 and implemented in 1999 and 2000.
13. By October 31, 1998, the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and representatives of the USACE,
USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to commence proceedings to determine standards for what
constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye and chinook juvenile and for standards for any
additional mitigation measures that may be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any
increase in predation caused by the dredging operation. The target date for agreement by the parties is January 31,
1999.
14. Upon completion of the dredging, the riverbed shall contain no pits, potholes, or large depressions to avoid stranding
of fish.
Page 3 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
col RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
F(SHd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
wolm Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 30. 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-09
15. Equipment shall be operated to minimize turbidity. During excavation, each pass with the bucket shall be complete.
Dredged material shall not be stockpiled in the river.
16. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the OE WL shall be restricted to the minimum amount necessary
to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
17. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
18. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
19. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
20. LWD used to reconstruct the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall be coniferous material with a minimum
diameter at breast height of 24 inches.
21. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
22. The outfall structures shall be constructed to prevent the entry of fish.
23. Excavation for the placement of the outfall structures or armoring materials shall be isolated from the wetted
perimeter.
24. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall
not be removed or trimmed without prior WDFW approval.
25. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operatio .s wall cease and NITDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by WDFW.
26. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river. These may include, but are
not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or
other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
27. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
28. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from Within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the ordinary high water line to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to
the stream.
Page 4 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
peyo o/ RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FI8H=d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
KDLK Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 30, 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-09
29. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
30. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
31. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river.
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February 23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Boone 030 [P 1 ]
Larry Fisher (425) 649-7042 �;� for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
cc: WDFW: Peter Birch, Ted Muller, Steve Foley, Kurt Fresh
Muckleshoot Fisheries Department
ATTENTION: Rod Malcom
39015 172"d Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98002
Washington Department of Ecology
ATTENTION: Public Notice Permit Coordinator
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
National Marine Fisheries Service
ATTENTION: Gordy Zillges
510 Desmond Drive Southeast Suite 103
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
Page 5 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
peparuo/ RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHawr 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 30. 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-09
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. IivrORN-IAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPAP.TiAF-I'IT ACTIONS TAKEN P L'RSUAR'T TO .-,-- ' 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "iZEQUEST FOR FOIUvIAL APPEAL" and shall be ECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 6 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
moRCW 75.
o( Region 4 Office
FISHad 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOW Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: March 19. 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-08
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes all previous HPAs for this project, is a response to a written request
dated March 10, 1999 by Ross Hathaway of the City of Renton to complete unfinished work on flap gates, the boat ramp, and flood
walls. This HPA is a time extension of original HPA issued April 24, 1998 and last modif .'ci on October 28, 1998.
PERMITTEE
City of Renton Surface Water Utility
ATTENTION: Ron Straka
1055 Grady Way South
Renton, Washington 98055
(425) 430-7248
Fax: (425) 235-2541
AUTH(N`
Not A;
E T R CONT
MAR 2 3 i999
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection, Raise Levees, and Perform Mitigation: Reconstruct
600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques, Construct a Groundwater -fed
Spawning Channel, Plant the River Delta, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Dredge Reach, and
Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River
PROJECT LOCATION: Dredging, levee addition, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth upstream to the
Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport; planting on the river
delta; reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning
channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek; replenishment of spawning gravels in the
Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY
1 08.0299 Cedar River
TRIBUTARY TO
Lake Washington
1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
17 23 North
18 23 North
23 23 North
05 East King
05 East King
05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a reasonable amount of effort to
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and that further mitigation actions,
t
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or, aiteniatively, uuli;i urstr ,a: 1; - CS on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and has been or shall be completed as
follows:
a. Dredging and bank protection were completed by August 15, 1998.
b. Mitigation and monitoring shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3) and Provisions 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13.
c. Construction of flap gates, the boat ramp, and flood walls within the ordinary high water line (OHWL) shall
occur between June 16 and August 15, 1999.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least three
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
Page 1 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
WhAww RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
DryortAeM of Region 4 Office
FISH=d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: March 19, 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-08
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I, 11, III (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-1 V, dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; "PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS
CEDAR RIVER DELTA CEDAR RIVER 205 MITIGATION PLAN", (undated); "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR
RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated);
CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May 28, 1998; and CEDAR RIVER US ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS (USACE) SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT SPAWNING GRAVEL
SUPPLEMENTATim4 PLAiv", dated June 5, 1998 and subs -witted to the ex,-,ept as modified by this HPA.
These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to
significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during
construction.
4. Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion of the sockeye run spawning in
the reach from the Renton Library to the river mouth. This proportion may be revised as follows:
a. The City of Renton (the City) shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW to
determine, over a period of five years following completion of dredging (beginning with the 1998-99 brood year
through the 2002-2003 brood year), the average proportion of the total sockeye escapement that is spawning in
the reach and mitigation channel combined. Success will be defined as the five year average proportion equaling
or exceeding 15%.
b. If the five year average is below 15%, the City shall either construct an additional mitigation channel or
modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based on the shortfall and the observed spawner use
rate (# females/sq. yard) in the initial mitigation channel.
c. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based on any new information
collected during the course of the monitoring program that results in a more accurate estimation of the fry -to -lake
contribution from the dredged reach.
d. The City shall identify and set aside land that could be used for further mitigation should it become necessary.
Details of such land shall be provided to WDFW for recording in the HPA by October 31, 1998.
5. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
Prior to commencement of fall salmon spawning in 1998 and in 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning
riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the
dredged river reach. This reach shall be evaluated in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or
more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will
require additional mitigation. (Additional mitigation for chinook salmon would include either dike removal or
setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce constrictions.) The City shall use the methods
described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module with the
following exceptions: length will be 2.5 in; use of an anchor of up to one pound; a wooden float will be used at
the free end; and 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16". The City shall also: use the monitoring plan
recommended by the Tribe on pages seven and eight of attachment #3; provide monitoring records to the Tribe
within one week of the measurements; and consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and
incidental observations of the Tribe. The AHB shall be consulted and be the final arbiter should issues arise.
b. during dredging, twice weekly beach seining in the dredge reach 200 yards above and below the location of
dredging for abundance of juvenile chinook salmon; and
Page 2 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
jai RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 RDepartment of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
Ff3Ha d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
wolm Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: March 19. 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-08
c. the dredged reach shall be surveyed for chinook salmon spawning at least once per week from September 1
through November 30, 1998 and 1999; redds and numbers of live and dead salmon shall be recorded; location of
chinook redds shall be mapped and triangulated; the following February, chinook redds shall be hydraulically
sampled to assess survival; details shall be worked out With WDFW Fish Management Program; costs of fry
transportation and rearing shall be paid by the permittee.
6. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the WDFW
AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
7. Gravel used in the supplementation program shall generally range in size from one-half to five centimeters in
diameter, with at lease 50% larger than one centimeter and n o -more than 10%., smaller than one-half millimeter.
8. If permits cannot be secured to allow the gravel supplementation program to be implemented by September 1999,
then the City shall use the funds set aside for the program ($150,000) to create holding pools for Chinook salmon
according to suggestions made by the Tribe on pages eight and nine of attachment #3 or an equivalent alternative
subject to approval by the ABB.
9. Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the escrow account to
WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance
dredging.
10. The City shall erect signs at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment to:
a. warn boaters to take reasonable precautions through this reach; and
b. describe the nature of this mitigation project and the expected benefits it will have for fish life.
11. Management of large woody debris which becomes entrapped at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall occur
per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment #3.
12. The lighting control proposal (Provision 3) shall be evaluated by Roger Tabor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or by another person mutually agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW, and the City. A study plan shall be
finalized by December 31, 1998 and implemented in 1999 and 2000.
13. By October 31, 1998, the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and representatives of the USACE,
USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to commence proceedings to determine standards for what
constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye and Chinook juvenile and for standards for any
additional mitigation measures that may be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any
increase in predation caused by the dredging operation. The target date for agreement by the parties is January 31,
1999,
14. Upon completion of the dredging, the riverbed shall contain no pits, potholes, or large depressions to avoid stranding
of fish.
15. Equipment shall be operated to minimize turbidity. During excavation, each pass with the bucket shall be complete.
Dredged material shall not be stockpiled in the river.
Page 3 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
�d RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
FJ�aad Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
MAN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: March 19, 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-134609-08
16. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the OHWL shall be restricted to the minimum amount necessary
to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
17. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
18. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
19. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other rcund cobbles shall not be used as exterior anrior.
20. LWD used to reconstruct the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall be coniferous material with a minimum
diameter at breast height of 24 inches.
21. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
22. The outfall structures shall be constructed to prevent the entry of fish.
23. Excavation for the placement of the outfall structures or armoring materials shall be isolated from the wetted
perimeter.
24. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall
not be removed or trimmed without prior WDFW approval.
25. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is giver. by NSTDFW.
26. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river. These may include, but are
not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or
other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
27. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
28. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the ordinary high water line to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to
the stream.
29. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
Page 4 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Dep� o/ RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
17J�goad Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
KDLA Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: March 19, 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-08
30. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
31. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river.
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February 23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Peck 024 [P I]
Larry Fisher (425) 649-7042 for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
cc: WDFW: Peter Birch, Ted Muller, Chuck Phillips, Kurt Fresh, Carol Smith
Muckleshoot Fisheries Department
ATTENTION: Rod Malcom
39015 - 172"d Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98002
Washington Department of Ecology
ATTENTION: Public Notice Permit Coordinator
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
National Marine Fisheries Service
ATTENTION: Gordy Zillges
510 Desmond Drive Southeast Suite 103
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Page 5 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Dever of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
FISH d Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: March 19, 1999 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-08
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVA-1 1
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 6 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Dwfawd( RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHMd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: October 28, 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-134609-07
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes all previous HPAs for this project and has a resulted from
administrative changes requested by Gayle Kreitman of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), is a change of the
original HPA issued April 24, 1998 and last modified on September 21, 1998. Provisions 1 and 4 have been changed to help clarify
project timing limitations.
PERMITTEE
City of Renton Surface Water Utility
ATTENTION: Ron Straka/Ross Hathaway
1055 Grady Way South
Renton, Washington 98055
(425)430-7205
Fax: (425) 235-2541
AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
Not Applicable
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection, Raise Levees, and Perform Mitigation: Reconstruct
600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques, Construct a Groundwater -fed
Spawning Channel, Plant the River Delta, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Dredge Reach, and
Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River
PROJECT LOCATION: Dredging, levee addition, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth upstream to the
Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport; planting on the river
delta; reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning
channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek; replenishment of spawning gravels in the
Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY
1 08.0299 Cedar River
TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHH' RANGE COUNTY
Lake Washington
17 23 North
18 23 North
23 23 North
05 East King
05 East King
05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is Issued with the understanding tl-iat the requited mitigation is a reasonable amo-ant of ev i � iG
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and that further mitigation actions,
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or, alternatively, other upstream levees on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and has been or shall be completed as
follows:
a. Dredging and bank protection were completed by August 15, 1998.
b. Mitigation and monitoring shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3) and Provisions 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least three
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
Page 1 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
F18Hand 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOlN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: October 28. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-07
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I, II, III (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-I I", dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; "PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS
CEDAR RIVER DELTA CEDAR RIVER 205 MITIGATION PLAN", (undated); "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR
RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated);
CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May 28, 1998; and CEDAR RIVER US ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS (USACE) SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT SPAWNING GRAVEL
SUPPLEMENTATION PLAN", dated June 5, 1998 and submitted to the WDFW, except as modified by this HPA.
These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to
significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during
construction.
4. Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion of the sockeye run spawning in
the reach from the Renton Library to the river mouth. This proportion may be revised as follows:
a. The City of Renton (the City) shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW to
determine, over a period of five years following completion of dredging (beginning with the 1998-99 brood year
through the 2002-2003 brood year), the average proportion of the total sockeye escapement that is spawning in
the reach and mitigation channel combined. Success will be defined as the five year average proportion equaling
or exceeding 15%.
b. If the five year average is below 15%, the City shall either construct an additional mitigation channel or
modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based on the shortfall and the observed spawner use
rate (# females/sq. yard) in the initial mitigation channel.
c. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based on any new information
collected during the course of the monitoring program that results in a more accurate estimation of the fiy-to-lake
contribution from the dredged reach.
d. The City shall identify and set aside land that could be used for further mitigation should it become necessary.
Details of such land shall be provided to WDFW for recording in the HPA by October 31, 1998.
Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
Prior to commencement of fall salmon spawning in 1998 and in 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning
riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the
dredged river reach. This reach shall be evaluated in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or
more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will
require additional mitigation. (Additional mitigation for chinook salmon would include either dike removal or
setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce constrictions.) The City shall use the methods
described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module with the
following exceptions: length will be 2.5 m; use of an anchor of up to one pound; a wooden float will be used at
the free end; and 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16". The City shall also: use the monitoring plan
recommended by the Tribe on pages seven and eight of attachment #3; provide monitoring records to the Tribe
within one week of the measurements; and consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and
incidental observations of the Tribe. The AHB shall be consulted and be the final arbiter should issues arise.
b. during dredging, twice weekly beach seining in the dredge reach 200 yards above and below the location of
dredging for abundance of juvenile chinook salmon; and
Page 2 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
mar RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FI`�ai 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
lULN hull Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: October 28. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-07
c. the dredged reach shall be surveyed for Chinook salmon spawning at least once per week from September 1
through November 30, 1998 and 1999; redds and numbers of live and dead salmon shall be recorded; location of
Chinook redds shall be mapped and triangulated; the following February, Chinook redds shall be hydraulically
sampled to assess survival; details shall be worked out with WDFW Fish Management Program; costs of fry
transportation and rearing shall be paid by the permittee.
6. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the WDFW
AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
7. Gravel used in the supplementation program shall generally range in size from one-half to five centimeters in
diameter, with at least 50% larger than one centimeter and no more than 10% smaller than one-half millimeter.
8. If permits cannot be secured to allow the gravel supplementation program to be implemented by September 1999,
then the City shall use the funds set aside for the program ($150,000) to create holding pools for Chinook salmon
according to suggestions made by the Tribe on pages eight and nine of attachment 43 or an equivalent alternative
subject to approval by the AHB.
Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the escrow account to
WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance
dredging.
10. The City shall erect signs at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment to:
a. wam boaters to take reasonable precautions through this reach; and
b. describe the nature of this mitigation project and the expected benefits it will have for fish life.
11. Management of large woody debris which becomes entrapped at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall occur
per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment 43.
12. The lighting control proposal (Provision 3) shall be evaluated by Roger Tabor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or by another person mutually agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW, and the City. A study plan shall be
finalized by December 31, 1998 and implemented in 1999 and 2000.
13. By October 31, 1998, the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and representatives of the USACE,
USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to commence proceedings to determine standards for what
constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye and Chinook juvenile and for standards for any
additional mitigation measures that may be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any
increase in predation caused by the dredging operation. The target date for agreement by the parties is January 31,
1999.
14. Upon completion of the dredging, the riverbed shall contain no pits, potholes, or large depressions to avoid stranding
of fish.
15. Equipment shall be operated to minimize turbidity. During excavation, each pass with the bucket shall be complete.
Dredged material shall not be stockpiled in the river.
Page 3 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Drya e/ RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: October 28, 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-07
16. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the ordinary high water line shall be restricted to the minimum
amount necessary to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
17. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
18. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
19. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
20. LWD used to reconstruct the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall be coniferous material with a minimum
diameter at breast height of 24 inches.
21. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
22. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall
not be removed or trimmed Without prior WDFW approval.
23. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by WDFW.
24. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river. These may include, but are
not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or
other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
25. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
26. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the ordinary high water line to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to
the stream.
27. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
28. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
29. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river.
Page 4 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
>
0( RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
FISHOW Region 4 Office
WOlN 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
0 Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: October 28 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-07
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February 23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Peck 024 [PI]
Larry Fisher (425) 392-9159
�.o�.. Area Habitat Biologist for DirectorWDFW
cc: WDFW: Peter Birch, Ted Muller, Chuck Phillips, Kurt Fresh, Carol Smith
Muckleshoot Fisheries Department
ATTENTION: Rod Malcom
39015 - 172nd Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98002
Washington Department of Ecology
ATTENTION: Public Notice Permit Coordinator
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
National Marine Fisheries Service
ATTENTION: Gordy Zillges
510 Desmond Drive Southeast Suite 103
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
GENERAL PROVISION
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
Page 5 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
d RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHwr 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: October 28, 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-07
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of.
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Wzy North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a I -IPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 6 of 6
,I . 0 r
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Dwagion
v~ of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHa+ 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WIN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE• September 21. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-06
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes all previous HPAs for this project and has a resulted from the
informal appeal of the original HPA by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (the Tribe), is a change of the original HPA issued April 24,
1998 and last modified on September 4, 1998.
PERMITTEE I AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
City of Renton Surface Water Utility I Not Applicable
ATTENTION: Ron Straka/Ross Hathaway SEP
1055 Grady Way South 2 `` 1993
Renton, Washington 98055
(425)430-7205
Fax: (425) 235-2541
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection, Raise Levees, and Perform Mitigation: Reconstruct
600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques, Construct a Groundwater -fed
Spawning Channel, Plant the River Delta, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Dredge Reach, and
Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River
PROJECT LOCATION: Dredging, levee addition, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth upstream to the
Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport; planting on the river
delta; reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning
channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek; replenishment of spawning gravels in the
Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY TRBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
1 08.0299 Cedar River Lake Washington 17 23 North 05 East King
18 23 North 05 East King
23 23 North 05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a reasonable amount of effort to
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace auy impacts oa su 1:110c and habitat; and that fiirther r-rit.c0tion actions,
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or, alternatively, other upstream levees on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
1. TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin immediately and shall be completed per Provisions 3
through 13 and 22.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least three
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I,11, III (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-I I", dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN',
Page 1 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
d( RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
DowwAdRegion 4 Office
FISHMd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE• September 21 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-06
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; "PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS
CEDAR RIVER DELTA CEDAR RIVER 205 MITIGATION PLAN", (undated); "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR
RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated);
CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR WASHINGTON
STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May 28, 1998; and CEDAR RIVER US ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS (USACE) SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT SPAWNING GRAVEL
SUPPLEMENTATION PLAN", dated June 5, 1998 and submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW), except as modified by this HPA. These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC.
These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of
these plans shall be available on site during construction.
Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion of the sockeye run spawning in
the reach from the Renton Library to the river mouth. This proportion may be revised as follows:
a. The City of Renton (the City) shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW to
determine, over a period of five years following dredging, the average proportion of the total sockeye escapement
that is spawning in the reach and mitigation channel combined. Success will be defined as the five year average
proportion equaling or exceeding 15%.
b. If the five year average is below 15%, the City shall either construct an additional mitigation channel or
modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based on the shortfall and the observed spawner use
rate (# females/sq. yard) in the initial mitigation channel.
c. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based on any new information
collected during the course of the monitoring program that results in a more accurate estimation of the fry -to -lake
contribution from the dredged reach.
d. The City shall identify and set aside land that could be used for further mitigation should it become necessary.
Details of such land shall be provided to WDFW for recording in the HPA by October 31, 1998.
5. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
Prior to commencement of fall salmon spawning in 1998 and in 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning
riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the
d*edged river reach. This reach shall be evaluated in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or
more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will
require additional mitigation. (Additional mitigation for chinook salmon would include either dike removal or
setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce constrictions.) The City shall use the methods
described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module with the
following exceptions: length will be 2.5 m; use of an anchor of up to one pound; a wooden float will be used at
the free end; and 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16". The City shall also: use the monitoring plan
recommended by the Tribe on pages seven and eight of attachment #3; provide monitoring records to the Tribe
within one week of the measurements; and consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and
incidental observations of the Tribe. The AHB shall be consulted and be the final arbiter should issues arise.
b. during dredging, twice weekly beach seining in the dredge reach 200 yards above and below the location of
dredging for abundance of juvenile chinook salmon; and
c. the dredged reach shall be surveyed for chinook salmon spawning at least once per week from September 1
through November 30, 1998 and 1999; redds and numbers of live and dead salmon shall be recorded; location of
chinook redds shall be mapped and triangulated; the following February, chinook redds shall be hydraulically
sampled to assess survival; details shall be worked out with WDFW Fish Management Program; costs of fry
transportation and rearing shall be paid by the permittee.
Page 2 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
wakwo
d( RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
D*wftuWRegion 4 Office
F%SEw/ 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WULN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE• September 21, 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-06
6. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the WDFW
AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
7. Gravel used in the supplementation program shall generally range in size from one-half to five centimeters in
diameter, with at least 50% larger than one centimeter and no more than 10% smaller than one-half millimeter.
8. If permits cannot be secured to allow the gravel supplementation program to be implemented by September 1999,
then the City shall use the funds set aside for the program ($150,000) to create holding pools for chinook salmon
according to suggestions made by the Tribe on pages eight and nine of attachment #3 or an equivalent alternative
subject to approval by the AHB.
Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the escrow account to
WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance
dredging.
10. The City shall erect signs at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment to:
a. warn boaters to take reasonable precautions through this reach; and
b. describe the nature of this mitigation project and the expected benefits it will have for fish life.
11. Management of large woody debris which becomes entrapped at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall occur
per item eight on pages nine and 10 of attachment #3.
12. The. lighting control proposal (Provision 3) shall be evaluated by Roger Tabor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or by another person mutually agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW, and the City. A study plan shall be
finalized by December 31, 1998 and implemented in 1999 and 2000.
13. By October 31, 1998, the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and representatives of the USACE,
USf'WS, and the National Marne Fisheries Service to commence proceedings to determine standards for what
constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye and chinook juvenile and for standards for any
additional mitigation measures that may be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any
increase in predation caused by the dredging operation. The target date for agreement by the parties is January 31,
1999.
14. Upon completion of the dredging, the riverbed shall contain no pits, potholes, or large depressions to avoid stranding
of fish.
15. Equipment shall be operated to minimize turbidity. During excavation, each pass with the bucket shall be complete.
Dredged material shall not be stockpiled in the river.
16. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the ordinary high water line shall be restricted to the minimum
amount necessary to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
17. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
Page 3 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
W-WhIft
DV~ o/ RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WULM Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE• September 21. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-06
18. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
19. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
20. LWD used to reconstruct the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall be coniferous material with a minimum
diameter at breast height of 24 inches.
21. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
22. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival and shall
not be removed or trimmed without prior WDFW approval.
23. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by WDFW.
24. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river. These may include, but are
not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or
other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
25. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
26. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the ordinary high v*rater litne to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to
the stream.
27. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
28. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
29. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river.
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Peck 024 [P 1 ]
Page 4 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
4f RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
Weed 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE• September 21. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-06
Larry Fisher (425) 392-9159 �;,�_ for Director
Area Habitat Biologist 0 WDFW
cc: WDFW: Peter Birch, Ted Muller, Chuck Phillips, Kurt Fresh, Carol Smith
Muckleshoot Fisheries Department
ATTENTION: Rod Malcom
39015 - 172"d Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98002
Washington Department of Ecology
ATTENTION: Public Notice Permit Coordinator
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
National Marine Fisheries Service
ATTENTION: Gordy Zillges
510 Desmond Drive Southeast Suite 103
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
Page 5 of 6
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
WOUNION d RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
Ff3Haoi 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WIN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE• September 21. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-06
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an FSFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT 'i O RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a
HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 6 of 6
w
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
k of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 11. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-134609-02
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), which now supersedes the previous HPA for this project, is a change of the original HPA
issued April 24, 1998, at the request Ross Hathaway, of the City of Renton Surface Water Utility, on June 10, 1998.
PERMITTEE
City of Renton Surface Water Utility
ATTENTION: Ron Straka/Ross Hathaway
1055 Grady Way South
Renton, Washington 98055
(425) 430-7205
Fax: (425) 235-2541
AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
Not Applicable
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Conduct Dredging, Install Bank Protection, Raise Levees, and Perform Mitigation: Reconstruct
600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques, Construct a Groundwater -fed
Spawning Channel, Plant the River Delta, Reduce Lighting Levels in the Dredge Reach, and
Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River
PROJECT LOCATION:
Dredging, levee addition, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth upstream to the
Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport; planting on the river
delta; reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course; construction of a spawning
channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek; replenishment of spawning gravels in the
Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY
TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
1 08.0299 Cedar River
Lake Washington 17 23 North 05 East King
18 23 North 05 East King
23 23 North 05 East King
NOTE: This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a reasonable amount of effort to
attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and that further mitigation actions,
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or, alternatively, other upstream levees on
the Cedar River, may be necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin June 16, 1998 and shall be completed by August 15,
1998, except for provisions 4, 6, and 16.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least 3
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I, H, III (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-1 V, dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE I 1 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; "PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS
CEDAR RIVER DELTA CEDAR RIVER 205 MITIGATION PLAN", (undated); "MITIGATION PLAN CEDAR
Page 1 of 5
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Dew�mnf ofRegion 4 Office
F10 d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WOUR Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 11, 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-02
RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON", (undated);
CENTRAL REGION FAMO NORTH SOUTH BRIDGE LIGHTING CONTROL PROPOSAL FOR
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES", dated May 28, 1998; and CEDAR RIVER US ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) SECTIN 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT SPAWNING
GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION PLAN", dated June 5, 1998 and submitted to the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW), except as modified by this HPA. These plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110
WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A
copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
In July 1998 and July 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with
transects not more than 500r feet apart, for one mile upstream of the dredge river reach. This reach shall be evaluated
in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains
within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will require additional mitigation (Additional mitigation for
Chinook salmon would include either dike removal or setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce
constrictions.); and
b. during dredging, twice weekly beach seining in the dredge reach 200 yards above and below the location of
dredging for abundance of juvenile chinook salmon; and
c. the dredged reach shall be surveyed for chinook salmon spawning at least once per week from September 1 through
November 30, 1998 and 1999; redds and numbers of live and dead salmon shall be recorded; location of chinook
redds shall be mapped and triangulated; the following February, chinook redds shall be hydraulically sampled to
assess survival; details shall be worked out with WDFW Fish Management Program; costs of fry transportation and
rearing shall be paid by the permittee.
5. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the WDFW
AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
6. Terms of the document entitled "CITY OF RENTON WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL ESCROW ACCOUNT AGREEMENT", dated June 5, 1998,
shall be adhered to. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in (at the discretion of
WDFW) either renegotiating the mitigation item(s) or the turning over of funds remaining in the bond or escrow
account to WDFW for the purpose of completing the required mitigation and may result in the denial of future
maintenance dredging.
7. Upon completion of the dredging, the riverbed shall contain no pits, potholes, or large depressions to avoid stranding
of fish.
Equipment shall be operated to minimize turbidity. During excavation, each pass with the bucket shall be complete.
Dredged material shall not be stockpiled in the river.
9. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the ordinary high water line shall be restricted to the minimum
amount necessary to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
10. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
Page 2 of 5
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
kv of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHand 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WH.flLIFI4' Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 11, 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-134609-02
11. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
12. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (I"), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
13. LWD used to reconstruct the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall be coniferous material with a minimum
diameter at breast height of 24 inches.
14. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to place,neni of bank protection material.
15. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival.
16. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by WDFW.
17. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river. These may include, but are
not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or
other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
18. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
19. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the ordinary high water line to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to
the stream.
20. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
21. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
22. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river.
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Boone 030 [PI]
Page 3 of 5
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Departmni of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
ME as 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WILDLIFE Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 1 l . 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-02
Larry Fisher (425) 392-9159 �_ for Director
Area Habitat Biologist WDFW
cc: WDFW: Ted Muller, Chuck Phillips, Kurt Fresh, Carol Smith
Muckleshoot Fisheries Department
ATTENTION: Rod Malcom
39015 - 172' Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98002
Washington Department of Ecology
ATTENTION: Public Notice Permit Coordinator
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
National Marine Fisheries Service
ATTENTION: Gordy Zillges
510 Desmond Drive Southeast Suite 103
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
Page 4 of 5
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
DepwtMniRegion 4 Office
FISH a d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
y OLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: June 11, 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-02
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and -shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of
a HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 5 of 5
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
Department of AMENDMENT FOR Department of Fish and Wildlife
FISH and Habitat Program
WILDLIFE 600 Capitol Way North, MS 3155
RENEWAL/TIME EXTENSION Olympia, WA 98501-1091
(360)902-2534
RCW 75.20.100; RCW 75.20 103; RCW 75.20.106, RCW 75.20.108
LAST NAME FIRSIT'
DATE OF ISSUE
PAGE J OF /
/'
STREET OR RURAL ROUTE
CONTROL NUMBER
WRIA, STREAM NUMBER
ATiN :
CITY STATE ZIP
r W Ia 90 84O ss
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
G,,., �� �t e a �.-.s-1-o►
WATER TRIBUTARY TO
2.r' Lai kA) o f �--
(� _ y�'►\ %Y) �t n ib �� C
1/4 SECTION SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
1 7 �t3
THIS HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES AND THE PROVISIONS OF
THE PREVIOUS HPA, INCLUDING THE GENERAL PROVISIONS, FOLLOWED BY THE PERMITTEE AND OPERATORS
PERFORMING WORK. THIS RENEWAL/TIME EXTENSION SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE PREVIOUS HYDRAULIC
PROJECT APPROVAL AND SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES.
PROVISIONS:
This is a �1"- or time extension of the original HPA issued on A'P d .2 � 9Y 8 and last modified on
-
19 ge It is in response to a u"4*41 request by tr- ` , of
and it supersedes all previous HPAs and modifications for this project.
❑ TIME LIMITATIONS: to
❑ Work below the ordinary high water line may only occur between and
6x The time limitations in Provision(s) shall be changed as follows:
ldi Y w . f ► -;{� o r t� ��.aY .;� "J.�ter kr%a �pytl" � Cu
SEP 10
ALL OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE PREVIOUS HPA FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL APPLY
AREA HABITAT BIOLOGIST PHONE CONTACT
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ID# PRIORITY
L.a.Y Y- F ,.s kjw (�T LS`) 7,4 a
0 2-41) [ ]
AUTHORIZED BY:
for DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
U
ORIGINAL TO PERMITTEE
COPIES TO: AREA HABITAT BIOLOGIST - ENFORCEMENT - WRIA FILE (OLYMPIA)
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
600 CAPITOL WAY NORTH
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98501-1091
(360) 902••2534
T&i : Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional
authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee
and operator(s) performing the work.
This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish
habitat which results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred
dollars per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions,
conditions or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information
indicates the need for such action. The permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All
Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due
to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject
cc appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOJ WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL, THERE ARE INFORMAL AND
FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20,100, 75.20.103, 75.20,106, AND
75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project
Approval; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are resolved at
this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW shall be in WRITING to
the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and shall be RECEIVED by the Department
within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval or receipt of an order imposing civil penalties. The 30-day time
requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved party and the Area Habitat Biologist
and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a review and recommend
a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR 75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project
Approval;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter
34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia,
Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED DURING OFFICE HOURS
by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is
suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal
appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or
provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in
WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe
Six, Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY
REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE.
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N - Olympia, WA 98501-1091 - (360) 902-2200. TDD (360) 902-2207
Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building - 1111 Washington Street SE - Olympia, WA
August 20, 1998
Ms. Karen Allston
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
Office of the Tribal Attorney
39015 172" Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98092-9763
Dear Ms. Allston:
V
p�G 2 � 1998
CITY OF RENTO t.
Engineering D P
Re: Informal Appeal of HPA No 00-D4609-01 - Cedar River
An informal hearing of the above appeal was conducted on July 17, 1998, by Peter Birch, a staff
member of the Habitat and Lands Services Program. A copy of the attendance list is enclosed.
Also enclosed is a copy of the memorandum from Dr. Birch that summarizes the issues, findings,
and recommended new provisions to be added to the permit. I concur with these findings and will
direct that the permit be modified accordingly.
If you wish you may lodge a formal appeal of this action pursuant to WAC 220-110-350. Such a
request must be in writing and received during office hours of the agency within 30 days of the date
of this letter.
Sincerely,
ALane, Assistant Director
Habitat and Lands Services Program
EAK:PB:kam
Enclosures
cc: Ron Straka City of Renton
Ross Hathaway, City of Renton
Merri Martz Corps of Engineers
Kurt Fresh WDFW
Ted Muller WDFW
Larry Fisher WDFW
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elyse Kane
FROM: Peter Birch
SUBJECT: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe - Informal Appeal of HPA No. D4609-01 (Cedar
River)
DATE: August 14, 1998
1. Background:
Process: This agency received a request on May 22, 1998 from the Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe for an informal review of permit number D4609-01 that was issued to the City of
Renton on April 23, 1998. The Tribe listed fourteen items for review by WDFW.
My first response was to request the Tribe to attempt to resolve the issues at an informal
conference with Region 4 RHPM (Ted Muller). This did not transpire for reasons
indicated in Ted Muller's letter to the Tribe (enclosed attachment # 1) so I then proceeded
to arrange first a field inspection with affected parties on June 25, 1998, and second an
"informal hearing" on July 17, 1998 (list of attendees attachment #2). This memorandum
summarizes my findings and recommendations based on those meetings, subsequent
correspondence from the parties involved (attachments #3 and #4), and several
discussions with Kurt Fresh of the Fish Program and other WDFW staff.
Permit Issues. The subject permit has been issued to the City of Renton to allow
dredging of the Cedar River from the mouth up to the Williams River Bridge
(approximately 3,330 feet) and to raise levees adjacent to the Renton Airport. The "no
action" alternative would eventually result in increased frequency of local flooding and
possibly an avulsion of the river through Renton Airport. The Tribe is not appealing these
operations but rather that there is insufficient mitigation for the project.
The Tribe lists fourteen specific appeal items (detailed below) but the essence of the
appeal is the impact on sockeye spawning in the dredged channel. Impact to Cedar River
chinook is raised as a second issue.
2. Findings
A great deal of professional effort went into producing the subject permit. The provisions
provide for extensive mitigation for which an escrow account for $800,000 has been
established. The difficulty faced by all concerned is that it is not possible to accurately
Page 1 of 6
quantify the impacts of the dredging, nor is it possible to accurately predict the
effectiveness of proposed mitigation. Nevertheless, the Tribe raises a number of valid
concerns, and while I believe that the mitigation measures may well prove sufficient, I am
recommending that the permit be revised to increase the certainty by which impacts and
mitigation efforts are measured and the process by which additional mitigation steps
would be taken should they be needed.
The following are my responses to the fourteen issues raised. Where necessary I have
made specific recommendations for new provisions that should be added to the permit.
1. Increase the size of the spawning habitat associated with the groundwater -fed
spawning channel 3 times. Kurt Fresh provided persuasive information in his
memorandum dated January 5, 1998 that resulted in the City increasing the proposed
mitigation channel from 9,000 sq. ft to 24,000 sq. ft of spawning area. This channel is to
mitigate for an estimated potential spawning area of 307,500 sq. ft impacted by dredging.
This inherently assumes that the channel is more productive in terms of fry -to -lake per
unit of spawning area and/or the dredging will not cause a complete loss of the long term
average fry -to -lake contribution from the spawning area that is dredged. In any event, an
overall measure of success is that the future number of fry entering the lake from the
dredged reach following dredging, plus the contribution from the channel, is the same as
the contribution from the reach before dredging.
This measure of success is complicated by the fact that no direct measurements of the fry -
to -lake contribution from the reach have been made, and in any event would have been
variable from year to year because of sequential deposition and dredging of materials in
the past. Nevertheless for the purposes of this permit a reasonable target must be
established to provide for the proper protection of Cedar River sockeye.
These are my recommendations for new provisions to be added to the permit:
1. Impacts of dredging shall be based on provisionally adopting 15% as the proportion
of the sockeye run spawning in the reach from Wells Avenue to the mouth. (This
approach takes into account a lower estimate of the COEIUSFWS of 11 % and a higher
estimate of 19% by Kurt Fresh of WDFW. The COEIUSFWS estimate is an average from
1993 - 1997 and is based on redd counts. Kurt Fresh's estimate was based on spawner
counts for 1996 and 1997. If the river were allowed to establish a more natural dendritic
flow pattern rather than being artificially constrained by urban development, the
proportion could be even higher than the present use. From the perspective offish
habitat this represents `Yost opportunity ". )
Page 2 of 6
2. The City shall monitor the reach and mitigation channel in coordination with WDFW
to determine, over a period of five years following the dredging, the average proportion of
the total sockeye escapement that is spawning in the reach and mitigation channel
combined. Success will be defined as the 5-year average proportion equaling or
exceeding 15%. An alternative would be to measure the contribution from the library to
the mouth in which case a proportionately adjusted target shall be used.
3. If the five year average falls is below 15% , the City shall either construct an additional
mitigation channel, or modify the existing channel. The size of the channel will be based
on the shortfall and the observed spawner use rate (# females/sq. yard) in the initial
mitigation channel.
4. The provisional measure of 15% may be modified, at the discretion of WDFW, based
on any new information collected during the course of the monitoring program that
results in a more accurate estimation of the fry -to -lake contribution from the dredged
reach.
5. The City shall identify and set aside land that could be used for further mitigation
should it become necessary. Details of such land shall be provided to WDFW for
recording in the permit by October 31, 1998.
2 Increase the length of rock revetment to be constructed by bioengineering
techniques to a length equivalent to the cumulative length of riverbank the dredging
will convert to lake backwater.
I consider the rock revetment proposal to be an adequate part of the overall mitigation
package - provided it is properly constructed and monitored. The Tribe raises some
important considerations but does not provide a persuasive argument that the
reconstruction length be increased because:
• impacts to chinook by the dredging have not been quantified and are likely
limited;
• the quality of the proposed habitat reconstruction is high and exceeds that which
would be required by standard HPA provisions and certainly exceeds that in the
dredged reach.
• the conditions in the dredged reach will fluctuate between backwater (immediately
after dredging) and free flowing following further deposition of materials.
I recommend that monitoring of this site be conducted jointly with the tribe to ensure that
plantings and the laying of large woody debris (LWD) proceed according to plan. I also
recommend that the Tribe, WDFW the City and the COE collaborate to devise a more
detailed monitoring plan that quantitatively assesses the added habitat value of the
Page 3 of 6
plantings and LWD.
3. Specify the length and type of scour chains used; and (4) specify a monitoring and
maintenance program for the scour chains to ensure that the chains are not
removed.
Agreement has been reached to follow the methods described in the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module.
These are my recommendations for new provisions to be added to the permit:
1. The City shall use the methods described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission salmonid spawning gravel scour module with the following exceptions:
• length is 2.5 in;
• use an anchor of up to one pound;
• a wooden float will be used at the free end;
• 3/8" cable will be used instead of 3/16"
2. The City shall also:
use the monitoring plan recommended by the Tribe on pages 7 and 8 of
attachment #3 ;
provide monitoring records to the Tribe within one week of the measurements and;
consult with the Tribe should discrepancies arise between reports and incidental
observations of the Tribe. The Area Habitat Biologist shall be consulted and be
the final arbiter should issues arise.
5. Specify the size of gravel to be used in the gravel supplementation program is to
be within the range required for chinook and sockeye spawning.
Agreement has been reached on the request and shall be according to the recommendation
on page 8 of attachment #3.
6. Specify that if the gravel supplementation plan has not received the necessary
permits by January 1999, then the City shall construct an additional side channel
equivalent to that proposed under the present permit.
Recommendation for new provisions to be added to the permit:
1. If permits cannot be secured to allow the supplementation program to be implemented
by September 1999 then the City shall use the funds set aside for the gravel
supplementation project ($150,000) to create holding pools for chinook according to
suggestions made by the Tribe on page 8 and 9 of their comment memorandum
(attachment #3) or an equivalent alternative subject to approval by the Area Habitat
Biologist.
Page 4 of 6
7. Direct that the in -water gravel berm at the Maplewood revetment not be
constructed.
Agreement has been reached to substitute the rock deflector with a log deflector.
Recommendation for new provisions to be added to the permit:
1. The City shall use the suggestions on page 9 of the Tribes memorandum (attachment
#3) as general guidelines for design purposes.
2. In addition the City shall erect signs along the reach that:
a) warn boaters to take reasonable precautions through this reach and;
b) describe the nature of this mitigation project and the expected benefits it will have for
fish life.
8. Specify that any woody debris that becomes entrapped by the reconstructed rock
revetments not be removed, or if removed that within one calendar year of removal
the large woody debris is incorporated into riverbank restoration projects below
River Mile 5.5 of the Cedar River.
Agreement on procedures for this have been reached and should be followed using the
suggestions on pages 9 and 10 of the Tribe's memorandum (attachment #3) as guidelines.
9. Specify that the lighting reduction program must reduce the light level to below
that which is required by predators to feed upon juvenile salmonids.
The suggestion by the tribe to ask Roger Tabor of USFWS (or another person mutually
agreed upon by the Tribe, WDFW and the permittee) to evaluate the project is reasonable.
10. Specify that recreational trails or observation towers not be located within 100
feet of the groundwater -fed spawning channel.
The Tribe makes reasonable points regarding buffer widths and disturbance of spawning
fish by the public. However, at this site, further movement of the trail would result in
undesirable wetland impacts. The present plans to incorporate plantings of devils club to
deter access, combined with seasonal closures of the trail, seems a reasonable
compromise.
11. Either:
(a) eliminate the requirement for hydraulic sampling of Chinook redds; or
(b) specify the sampling methodology, the location of juvenile rearing after
sampling, the duration of time of rearing, and the age or size at which the fry are to
Page 5 of 6
be released, mitigation measures for mortality during sampling and rearing and
finally specify what level of egg or alevin mortality is considered a project impact
and will require additional implementation of additional mitigation measures by the
applicant.
The hydraulic sampling of chinook redds should proceed according to procedures
required by Carol Smith of WDFW. The suggestions made by the Tribe on pages 12 and
13 of attachment #3 regarding determination of impacts of dredging on chinook redds
may be used as guidelines - subject to agreement by WDFW.
12. Specify that any increase in predation upon out -migrating juvenile sockeye or
juvenile chinook in the project area is a significant impact that will lead to the
requirements for additional mitigation.
The Tribe makes a reasonable suggestion about specificity of predator impacts.
The permit should be modified to include the following provision:
1. By October 31, 1998 the City and WDFW will convene a meeting with the Tribe and
representatives of the COE, USFWS and NMFS to commence proceedings to determine
standards for what constitutes increased impacts from predators on out -migrating sockeye
and chinook juveniles, and for standards for any additional mitigation measures that may
be required if current mitigation measures are not compensating for any increase in
predation caused by the dredging operation. The target date for agreement by the parties
is January 31, 1999.
13. Implement other measures required to prevent avoidable impacts to sockeye
and Chinook salmon.
The general intent of this request has been addressed in the other responses.
14. Ensure that all conditions of the permit are enforceable and within the authority
of the City of Renton.to implement.
No changes in the permit are needed to address this request.
file cAmy files\appeals\mklapp2.mem
Page 6 of 6
r�r�•
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
c018 ,L1iil :reex Sct_evard -Mid CreeK. �Vasnrnaron 98012 - (206) ; i 3-1311 FAX 1206) 338-1666
June 15, 1998
Karen Allston, Attorney
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
39015 172"d Avenue SE
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
RE: REQUEST FOR LN. FORNL-kL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299 T21N. R05E, SECTIONS
17,18, AND 23. ICING COUNTY.
Dear Ms. Allston;
This letter is to document our telephone conversation on May 29, 1998 in which we discussed the
subject appeal and Mr. Peter Birch's letter. In his letter to you, Mr. Birch advised you that it is
customary to conduct an informal conference prior to the informal appeal to see if a settlement
can be reached at the regional level.
However, in the instant case the terms and conditions of this approval were not developed
unilaterally by a single person on my staff, or even by one of my staff members and I in
collaboration. The terms and conditions were derived after several meetings both intra-agency and
inter -agency, attended by many different people - and I was not present at all of those meetings.
So, I do not believe that I could hear your complaint and make a unilateral decision changing the
content of the approval.
Therefore, I requested that you take this case immediately to informal appeal so that all of the
parties involved in the original negotiations can be reassembled to hear your complaint and reach
a conclusion as to whether, and to what extent, changes can be made and still meet everyone's
expectations.
I asked that you call Mr. Birch directly and arrange to have this complaint heard through the
informal appeal process. I trust that this is what you have done.
If you have any questions or comments that I can answer, please give me a call. (425) 775-1311
EX 114
Sincerely,
�"
Theodore A. Muller
Regional Habitat Program Manager
tam
cc: Peter Birch
Larry Fisher
L UN 18 1998
711 -7'5� -- -- --- - --- -- -- D ; 9- c j--
2-
Ile
-
�.�/ayr
errt rp 37-ce _.
211
MUCKLESHOOT INDUN TRIBE
OFFICE OF THE TRIBAL ATTORNEY
39015 - 172ND Avenue S.E. - Auburn, Washington 98092-9763
Phone: (253) 939-3311 - FAX: (253) 931-8570
TO: Peter Birch
FROM: Karen Allston
RE: Muckleshoot Tribe's comments in followup to informal hearing
DATE: July 31, 1998
Enclosed are the Tribe's comments promised to you at the informal hearing. Thank you for your
patience while we attempted to coordinate with Renton and the Corps. Please call Rod Malcom
(Ext. 119) or Eric Warner (Ext. 125) if you have any questions about our comments.
C7
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 1
INFORMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T2IN,R05E,SECTIONS 17,18,AND23. KINGCOUNTY.
Introduction
The goal of the Tribe is to ensure:
1) no reduction in the number of Cedar River sockeye or chinook juveniles that enter
the Lake Washington;
2) that actions or activities associated with the dredge project, its mitigation, or
otherwise parcel to the dredge project do not hamper efforts to restore coho,
chinook, and sockeye salmon production in the Cedar River or efforts to restore
the natural processes that create and maintain salmon habitat;
3) no reduction in overall habitat quality and quantity
To these ends, the Tribe's goal in this appeal is to ensure that neither the number of
fry/smolts produced per female nor the total number of fry/smolts produced per female
does not decline as a result of the dredge project. Furthermore, the Tribe believes that a
position that the project impacts have been successfully mitigated if the number of
fry/smolts produced per female does not decline may continue the long term decline in the
number of salmon produced in the Cedar River.
Elements of the Appeal
Our issues are outline in a numerical sequence used for the appeal letter.
(1) increase the size of the spawning habitat associated with the groundwater -fed
spawning channel 3 times
The Tribe requests a three -fold increase in the size of the proposed sockeye
mitigation channel and the land set aside for contingency mitigation in the event that the
sum of the number of sockeye that spawn in the dredged reach above the backwater and in
the sockeye mitigation channel is less than 15% of the total sockeye escapement into the
Cedar River basin. The Tribe's discussion of the impacts shall consist of two elements: 1)
impacts to the total area available for spawning, and 2) the magnitude of the impacts in the
project reach to the sockeye salmon that spawn in the river.
The proposal will reduce the area of available sockeye (US Army Corps, undated
(a)) and chinook spawning habitat by 2,300 lineal feet of river. Assuming an average
usable spawning width of 75 feet (WDFW 1998) then the area lost to the backwater is
172,500 ftZ. Allowing for that perhaps 50% of the habitat might not be used for spawning
(WDFW 1998), then 86,250 ft- of spawning habitat will be lost to the backwater. The
proposed mitigation plan will create a 24,000 ft'- sockeye spawning channel. Thus, given
certain assumptions, based upon information generated by WDFW staff (WDFW 1998),
the loss of sockeye spawning habitat is 3.5 times the size of the proposed mitigation
channel. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the proposed sockeye spawning channel will be
used by the spawning chinook, thus impacts to chinook spawning are unmitigated.
Despite assertions to the contrary by the Corps and the City of Renton, documentation
exists (King County SWM, 1993; WDF and Western Washington Treaty Tribes, 1994)
indicating chinook spawning the dredged reach.
0
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
INFORMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-134609-01. CEDAR RIVER W RIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18, AND 23. KING COUNTY.
In producing the Cedar River Basin Plan, King County analyzed hydraulic and
habitat conditions in the Cedar River. During the development of the Basin Plan, the
County on page 7-26 of the Current and Future Conditions Report (King County Surface
Water Management, 1993) in reference to the relocated reach of the Cedar River in the
City of Renton.
Despite its limitations, this reach serves as a migration route for many
fishes and is used extensively for spawning and limited rearing by
sockeve, chinook, and coho salmon and steelhead as cutthroat trout as
well as long fin smelt.
Thus, the proposed mitigation for the loss of spawning habitat fails to rectify
"adverse impacts by utilizing proven methods that demonstrate success of repairing,
rehabilitation, or restoring the affected habitat to its full productive capacity" and hence is
inconsistent with the Wild Salmonid Policy.
The magnitude of impacts to spawning salmon in the dredged reach can be
estimated in two ways - the proportion of total run and/or full seeding (i.e. - all useable
spawning area used).
Proportion of Total Run
Kurt Fresh (WDFW) found approximately 19°'o of the sockeye escapement
spawning in this reach in 1996 and 1997. Merri Martz of the US Army Corps stated that
the proportion was closer to 11% over the two previous years, However, the Corps'
figures are based upon redd counts, which the WDFW (1998) states are "inappropriate for
a mass spawning species such as sockeye". Before that time the numbers may have been
less, in the absence of dredging the fitture proportion would probably have been greater.
For the purposes of calculating impacts, the Tribe will use the average of the figures
proposed by the WDFW (1998) and the Corps (US Army Corps, undated (a)), or (15%.
At the full escapement of 300,000 sockeye, approximately 45,000 (22,500 females) would
spawn in the dredged reach. The applicant proposed mitigation for only 1980-2860
sockeye females (US Army Corps, undated (a)). Therefore, the ratio of impact to
mitigation spawners is 7.8-6.5 depending upon which figure is used for then number of
sockeye females expected to use the mitigation channel.
Full Seeding
The optimal number of sockeye females per area of spawning gravel in the Cedar
River has been estimated at 1.3 females/square yard (WDFW 1998). This figure has been
used by the Corps in estimating spawning in the mitigation channel . Assuming WFDW
(1998) estimate of 307,000 ft- (34,100 yd') of spawnable habitat below Williams Street,
the dredged reach could support, optimally, 44,330 female sockeye or 88,660 total
sockeye. Thus, the ratio of impacted to mitigation site females is 15.5-12.7 to 1,
depending on the number of sockeye females expected to use the mitigation channel.
The full seeding method assumes that Cedar sockeye runs coming in at less than full
escapement (300,000 fish) will spawn preferentially in the river reach in question until
almost 90,000 fish have spawned, only then colonizing the rest of the river. This method
0
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 3
INFORIMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT .APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18, AIND 23. KING COUNTY.
would provide the upper bounds for impact, however for the purposes of analyzing the
impacts, The proportional method, which is more conservative at all escapement levels,
will be used below.
Sockeve Spawning Mitigation Site
The mitigation site as it is planned now has 24,00 ft2 of spawning area. Using the
1.3 females/yd2 figure gives an optimal use of 3,467 females sockeye (6,933 total
sockeye), which does differ from the 1980-2860 sockeye females the site is designed to
hold (US Army Corps, undated (a)).
Egg/Fry Survival
The spawning channel will be spared, many of the floods in the Cedar River, and
so should have good egg/fry survival, maybe as high as 25%. However these fish will
experience significant riverine predation. In 1995, the fry outmigrants released into the
Cedar River at SR-405 (RNI 1.7) survived at a 92% rate to the fry trap located near RNI
0.25, with an average flow over the release period of 948 cfs. The mitigation site (RNf
4.5) is about 2.5 further upstream, so as an initial assumption we can assume an in -river
mortality rate of 2.5 times or 20%. However, the flows experienced in 1995 are 2-3 times
higher than both the current Instream Resource Protection Program (IRPP) flows and the
future flows proposed under the Seattle Public Utility's Habitat Conservation Plan. Thus
these flows that restricted mortality to about 81,/o are not expected to be typical of future
flows. Therefore, a value of 30% in -river mortality is probably more realistic and should
be used to consider the impacts of the dredge project in light of typical flows. A 25°?o
egg/fry survival with a 30% in -river mortality corresponds to an egg/lake-entering-fry
survival of 17.5%
Fry produced in the dredge reach suffer a different pattern of mortality compared
to fry produced in the mitigation side channel. The salmon spawning in the dredged reach
would have virtually no in -river mortality, as measured at the trap, because they spawn in
the same reach as the trap. The egV/fry survival for this dredged reach is difficult to pull
out of the data since individual redds are not inspected. However, it is reasonable to
expect in years with 190//o of the run spawning in the dredged reach, overall egg/fry
survival is better for any given flow than in years without as high of a lower river
spawning component. Since the overall egg/fry survival for the Cedar has been estimated
at approximately 12%, the average survival (floods included) for the dredged reach must
be significantly higher than 12%. The incremental difference in survival to the lake from
mitigation channel spawners compared to lower river spawners appears to be fairly small.
Therefore, the number of fry that enter the lake from equivalent numbers of female
spawners in either the dredged area or the mitigation site is expected to be similar.
Therefore, there is no inherent advantage of the mitigation site over the dredged site in
terms of fry/female that enter the lake. Furthermore, even if there is no reduction in the
number of fry/female that enter the lake, the total number of fry that will enter the lake will
be significantly reduced to an overall loss of spawning habitat.
Chinook
0
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
INFORMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17.18, AND 23. KING COUNTY.
It is unknown how many Chinook may have spawned in the dredged reach because
no dedicated Chinook spawner surveys have been conducted. Observations of Chinook
have been incidental to the sockeye spawning surveys. However, page 7-26 of the King
County Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report (King County Department of
Public Works, Surface Water Management Division 1993) states in reference to the
relocated reach of the Cedar River in the City of Renton:
Despite its limitations, this reach serves as a migration route for many
fishes and is used extensively for spawning and limited rearing by
sockeye, Chinook, and coho salmon and steeihead as cutthroat trout as
well as long tin smelt.
Given this observation and the fact that the Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife's Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory Report (WDF et al., 1994) Cedar
River Summer/Fall Chinook spawner distribution map includes the proposed dredge reach,
there is no dispute that Chinook salmon spawn in this reach and therefore mitigation is
required. no one ever looked at the right time. There should have been a few anyway.
Given the lack of data, I think it is best to make sure that there is no additional impact to
Chinook, i.e. - predation, while pushing hard for the ?ravel supplementation and/or scour
pools.
Under the best years, there can be 30,000,000 sockeye fry compared to 5 0, 000
Chinook fry/smolts travelling through the dredged reach. Even the most robust sampling
would be expected to see 600 sockeye fry for each Chinook fry/smolt observed in
predator stomachs. Therefore, any lack of Chinook fry in collected data regarding
predation is the result of the sample size, rather than a lack of predation. However, given
the size range of the outmiarating Chinook fry/smolt and the range of predators known to
be present in the dredged reach, predation upon Chinook fry/smolts is expected to occur.
(2) increase the length of rock revetment to be reconstructed by bioengineering
techniques to a length equivalent to the cumulative length of riverbank the
dredging will convert to lake backwater;
The proposed dredging project will cause the "loss of 2300 lineal feet (700 m) of
adult salmon spawning habitat between 1000 feet (300m) and 3300 feet (1000 m)
upstream of the mouth which will be inundated by lake backwater during much of the
spawning season" (US Army Corps, undated (a)), converting 4600 feet of free flowing
shoreline into a lake backwater. Converting free flowing river into a lake backwater is a
fundamental shift in habitat type in this reach of the River. Free flowing water provides a
variety of habitat benefits that will not be provided at all or in diminished quality or
function by the lack backwater area. Chinook and sockeye salmon spawn within the free
flowing reaches of the Cedar River. No information has been provided that Chinook or
sockeye salmon will be able to spawn successfully in the extended backwater area.
Indeed, it appears to be the consensus of those party to this appeal, that successful
spawning will not occur in this reach (US Army Corps, undated (a)). Juvenile Chinook
and coho salmon rear along stream and river edges in areas of moderately moving water.
Additionally, given the cumulative extent of impacts to the length of area of anadromous
accessible portions of the flowing Cedar River will be reduced in length by about 1.5%
0
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
INFORMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUbIBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18, .- IND 23. KING COUNTY.
while the length of lake shoreline will be increased by 0.4%. The proposed mitigation for
converting 2,300 feet of river or 4,600 feet of riverbank into essentially lake habitat
consists of.
1. vegetation plantings in the dredge area,
2. enhancement of 700 feet of rock revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course near
River Mile 4.3.
These proposed mitigation measures are insufficient to compensate for the impacts
and hence are not consistent with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wild
Salmonid Policy.
The vegetation plantings in the dredge area will replace existing vegetation that
was or is being removed as part of the dredging operation. The vegetation plantings over
the long-term might mitigate for the loss of riparian functions due to the removal of
existing vegetation, the vegetation planting does not mitigate for the conversion of the free
flowing water into lake backwater.
The enhancement of the 700 feet of rock revetment through vegetation plantings
and placement of large woody debris also fails to mitigate for the loss of free flowing
river.
The WDFW has provided no evidence that the vegetation proposed as part of the
enhancement of the Maplewood Golf Course Revetment, exceeds that which was required
as part of the HPA issued for the emergency work to place the rip rap material. Despite
verbal statements from the WDFW, the attached letter from the WDFW does not state
that the levee has been revegetated in accordance with the provisions of the original HPA
or subsequent communications between the City of Renton and the WDFW.
Secondly, but more importantly, the WDFW and the applicants have failed to
provide any evidence that enhancing 700 feet of one bank of the Cedar River will mitigate
the impacts from converting 4,600 feet of riverbank edge from free flowing to lake
backwater. As the proposed mitigation site is 1/6 the length of the total lost free flowing
shoreline reach of 4,600 feet, the quality of habitat proposed at the mitigation site must be
6 times that in the impacted reach.
Evidence contained in the Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group Report 1997
(Pacific Fisheries Management Council, 1997) suggests it is impossible for the mitigation
site to mitigate the impacts of losing 2,300 feet of free flowing river. This report notes the
following 0+ juvenile Chinook densities were 1.78 chinook/m- in backwaters, 0.97m/2 in
natural banks, 0.35/m2 in hydromodified banks and 0.44/m2 in bar habitat found in the
Skagit River Basin. Though it is not reasonable to expect similar densities in the Cedar
River, the ratio of use between various habitat units should be relatively similar. The
relative ratios for 0+ juvenile Chinook densities were 4.86 (backwaters), 2.71 (natural
banks), 1.26 (bar habitat) and 1.0 (hydromodified banks) in the Skagit River Basin. It is
important to note that the definition of "backwater" referred to in the Review Group
Report (PFMC 1997) is an "enclosed, low velocity area separated from the main river
channel". Bar habitats had a shallow, low -gradient interface with the shore and banks had
0
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 6
INFORIMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18. AND 23. KING COUNTY.
a vertical, or nearly vertical shore. Furthermore, the Report notes that though juvenile
chinook were associated with edge habitat, they were not found in mid -channel habitat
units. As the mitigation site is only 1/6 the length of lost free -flowing shoreline, it will
need to be six times as valuable to mitigate for the lost of inwater juvenile Chinook edge
habitat. The reach of the river to be converted to lake backwater is currently
hydromodified, though at low flows, it might function as bar habitat. The mitigation site is
also hydromodified. Yet, for the WDFW position to be correct that the Maplewood Site
will mitigate for lost river edge habitat, the WDFW is assuming a difference in presumed
juvenile chinook densities between these two hydromodified sites that is greater the
observed juvenile chinook densities between hydromodified sites and natural river banks.
The proposed monitoring plan will accept the mere presence of chinook fry at the
Maplewood Golf Course mitigation site as proof of successful mitigation. However, all
chinook fry hatched out upstream of this mitigation site must pass by this site and would
be expected to be in this area and given that both units are hydromodified, the densities of
Chinook in the areas might be similar leading to the false conclusion that they has been no
impact, though the overall production has decreased due to a reduction in the area of river
available for rearing. Indeed, densities of juvenile fish at a site do not correspond to the
productive value of a site. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (1997) notes that in
the same study which produced the juvenile chinook densities listed above, that 0—
juvenile chinook production for the habitat types was 1.36/m' in backwater, 0.911 M2 in
natural banks, 0.45/m' in bar habitat, and 0.23/m' in hydromodified banks are a ratio of
6.64, 3.25, 1.61, 1.00 respectively.
Due to such confounding issues, the proposed monitoring plan will not determine
if the proposed habitat improvements at the Maplewood Golf Course will be sufficient to
compensate for increased predation upon chinook in the expanded lake backwater. Thus,
this mitigation element is not in compliance with the Wild Salmonid Policy as it uses
speculative mitigation measures rather than "rectifying adverse impacts by utilizing proven
methods that demonstrate success of repairing, rehabilitation, or restoring the affected
habitat to its full productive capacity'.
Finally, these production and densities estimates are for those chinook that might
use the Maplewood Revetment Mitigation site. Compounding the lack of mitigation for
the loss of downstream free flowing river habitat, is the fact that chinook that are found in
the Maplewood site must migrate 2.5 more miles downstream, thereby decreasing
survival compared to juvenile chinook that would have been spawned in the area to be
converted to lake backwater.
Neither has the WDFW placed the habitat loss in the contest of cumulative
impacts to the River. Since 1935, the length of the Cedar River has decreased
dramatically. Perkins (1994) estimated the anadromous accessible extent of the Cedar
River was estimated to be 22 miles. Converting approximately 0.2 miles to lake
backwater will reduce the free flowing reach of the river by approximately 1.5%.
Therefore, in summary the proposed mitigation for impacts to habitat in the
backwater area is not consistent with the Action Strategies for Habitat Protection and
v
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 7
INFORMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18, AND 23. KING COUNTY.
Management of the Wild Salmonid Policy for the following reasons:
It has failed to avoid the impact altogether by not taking an action or part of an
action that would cause adverse impacts, therefore requiring mitigation of impacts
rather than avoidance.
2. Though by adopting an alternative with less dredging required than some of the
other alternatives, the project does not mitigate the impacts of the adopted
alternative as:
A. The proposed measures to rectify adverse impacts rely upon unproven
methods of repairing, rehabilitation, or restoring the affected habitat to its
full productive capacity;
B. the maintenance dredge operations during the life of the project will not
mitigate adverse impacts, but instead be impacts themselves upon, and/or
C. the proposed measures to monitor the impact are insufficient to determine
if the actual extent and magnitude of the impact, the thresholds for
implementing corrective actions, except for scour, are undefined, and
mitigation goal as not been identified in measurable standards.
(3) specify the length and type of scour chains to be used;
See next element
(4) specify a monitoring and maintenance program for the scour chains to
ensure that the chains are not removed;
A strata is defined as any 1/4 mile segment of the Cedar River within one mile
upstream of the dredge reach, strata are not sequentially such a 0 to 0.25, 0.25 to 0.50,
etc. If more than five scour chains are used per transect or in any one transect then the
phrase "six inches or more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains within a
stratum" shall be construed to read "six inches or more of scour or fill upon eight or more
scour chains with a stratum". The definition of fill shall not refer to fill relative to the pre -
scour height of the stream bed, but fill as measured from the maximum depth of scouring.
Six inches or more of scour will be presumed to have occurred at a scour chain location, if
any one of the following conditions is meet:
the number of balls that have moved to the free end of the chain indicate six inches
or more scour;
2. the chain can not be recovered, or
the chain is missing all the balls;
Six inches or more of fill will be presumed to have occurred, if any one of the
following conditions is met:
A. a cross sectional measurement shows six inches or more of scour;
B. when the scour chains are retrieved, six inches or more of sediment is
found upon the uppermost ball left in the insertion hole; or
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 8
INFORMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18.,UND 23. PING COUNTY.
C. the chain can not be recovered
Regardless of the flow events that occurred during the sampling period, scour or
fill shall be presumed to have occurred if the chains indicate scour and the City is unable to
produce monitoring records indicating that the ball(s) and/or chain(s) were removed,
pulled, or otherwise extracted from the riverbed prior to the first flow in the river equal to
or exceeding the mean annual flow.
The City shall provide the Tribe copies of the bi-weekly monitoring records within
three days of their collection. The Tribe reserves the right to check the chains following
receipt of the bi-weekly. If there is a discrepancy between the bi-weekly monitoring
reports and the observations of the Tribe, the Tribe and the City agree to meet to discuss
the discrepancy.
The methodology for scour monitoring shall be that described in the Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission Salmonid Spawning Gravel Scour Module, dated 1997,
except that data analysis and interpretation shall use the HPA defined impact (six inches or
more of scour or fill) rather than Table 4 of the Gravel Scour Module. All other elements
of the modules, including surveying bed elevations, unless modified by the HPA, this
agreement or subsequent written agreement between the Tribe and the City shall be
incorporated into the methodology to determine scour and fill.
(5) specify the size of gravel to be used in the gravel supplementation program is
to be within the range required for chinook and sockeye spawning;
The gravel used for the supplementation program shall such that greater than 50°% of the
gravel is large than 1 cm in diameter and less than 101/'a of the material is smaller
than 0.5 mm. In general, the material shall range from 0.5 to greater than 5 cm in
diameter.
(6) specify that if the gravel supplementation program has not received the
necessary permits by 1 January 1999 then the City shall construct an
additional side channel equivalent to that proposed under the present
permit;
If permits for the Gravel Supplementation Program (HPA Provision 2) as of 15
January 1999, are not expected to be issued in time to implement the Gravel
Supplementation Plan prior to the 1999 salmon spawning season, then the City shall
allocate a minimum $50,000 of the $150,000, noted in the City of Renton Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval Escrow Account Agreement
executed on 5 June 1998 to increase the quality of chinook spawning habitat by placing
large woody debris in the Cedar River in 1999 to create holding pools for adult Chinook
salmon. Each subsequent year that permits for gravel placement have not been obtained, a
minimum of $50,000 shall be allocated to the Chinook holding pool creation program from
the combined remaining Upper River Gravel Supplementation Funds and Delta Planting
Project funds if transferred for use to create holding pools.
It is the preference of the Muckleshoot Tribe that the City of Renton implement
the Delta Planting Project. However, if the City is unable to implement the Delta Plating
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 9
INFORNNIAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18, AND 23. KING COUNTY.
Project by June 1999 due to technical, safety, or other reasons, the City shall transfer the
$20,000 listed in the Escrow Agreement to a fund to place large woody debris into the
Cedar River to create holding pools for adult chinook salmon.
The sites where the large woody debris is placed to create holding pools shall be
monitored at years 2 and 3 following placement to determine if they meet the definition of
a holding pool. A holding pool is defined as a pool with a minimum area of 10 m2 with a
residual depth of greater than 1 m, a length or width of at least 20% of the bankfull
channel width, and with over 2001% overhead wood cover. The large woody debris (key
members) that are anchored into the bank to form the matrix for the holding pools shall be
coniferous trees and a minimum of 24 inches (DBH). To increase the quantity of instream
and overhead cover, non -coniferous trees may be used.
If the large woody debris does not form pools meeting the definition above, then
additional work is required to create pools that meet the definition. If the construction of
these holding pools is integrated with any other restoration or mitigation project, then only
the portions of the costs directly associated with the plan development, permitting, and
construction of the holding pools shall be credited against the monetary requirement to
create the holding pools.
The City and the Tribe may mutually agree to modify the allocation of funds to
large woody debris, gravel supplementation and delta plantings based upon changes in the
anticipated issuance of required permits.
(7) direct that the inwater gravel berm at the Maplewood revetment not be
constructed;
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the City of Renton agree that the rock berm
proposed for construction at the Maplewood Golf Course revetment will not be
constructed. Instead, two pieces of large woody debris will be used. One piece will be
sited in a manner to deflect recreation boaters away from the downstream large woody
debris at flows typically encountered in June through September. The definition of a piece
of large woody debris shall be that specified in Provision 14 of the HPA, dated 11 June
1998. This piece can be installed parallel to the plane of the riverbed or the surface water.
A second piece of large woody debris will be sited immediately downstream of the first
piece. The purpose of this second piece of large woody debris is to provide habitat and an
area of slow moving water over a range of river flows. To achieve this function over a
range of lows, this second piece of large woody debris will be installed obliquely with the
elevation of the landward end, a minimum of three feet higher than the elevation of the
waterward end.
(8) specify that any woody debris that becomes entrapped by the reconstructed
rock revetments not be removed, or if removed that within one calendar year
of removal the large woody debris is incorporated into riverbank restoration
projects below River Mile 5.5 of the Cedar River;
Any large woody debris that becomes trapped, entangled, or otherwise lodged in
or against (trapped large woody debris) any large woody debris (mitigation large woody
0
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 10
INFORMAL APPEAL OF HYDRXULIC PROJECT APPROVAL, LOG NUMBER 00-134609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18, AND 23. KING COUNTY.
debris) emplaced as part of this project (either that specified in Provision 13 of the HPA or
that which is the new contingency measure for Gravel Supplementation noted in HPA
provision 3, shall not be removed unless the City of Renton can demonstrate to the
WDFW that the large woody debris is threat to public safety. The demonstration that the
large woody debris is a threat shall occur at a meeting attended by the WDFW, the City of
Renton and the Tribe. Upon demonstration of such a threat, the City may reposition the
trapped large woody debris within the immediate area, or other location mutually
agreeable to the City, the WDFW and the Tribe. If this is not possible and the trapped
large woody debris must be moved, within one calendar year of removal, the large woody
debris shall be incorporated into riverbank restoration projects below River 'Mule 5.5 of the
Cedar River. This wood shall not be used for mitigation projects. If the removed trapped
large woody debris is not replaced within one calendar year, then the City is not in
compliance with the HPA.
(9) specify that the lighting reduction program must reduce the light level to
below that which is required by predatory birds to feed upon juvenile
salmonids
The plan to determine if the proposed lighting reduction program is effective shall
developed by Roger Tabor of the USFWS or another party mutually acceptable to the
Tribe, City of Renton, the Corps and the WDFW. The plan shall be finalized by 31
December 1998 and the studies conducted in 1999 and 2000.
(10) specify that recreational trails or observation towers not be located within
100 feet of the groundwater -fed spawning channel;
The sockeye spawning side channel is proposed as mitigation for impacts to
sockeye spawning habitat in the dredged reach. However, the quality of the mitigation
site will be diminished by human activity and intrusion due to the presence of a trail and
observation tails within 100 feet of the side channel. The presence of the trail within 100
feet of the side channel will compromise large woody debris recruitment into the side
channel. Long stretches of the shoreline of the Cedar River are currently lined with trails
that provide public access and education. However, the presence of public trails along the
river banks has reduced the potential for long term large woody debris recruitment and
lead to increased disturbance of migrating, holding and spawning salmon. The riparian
corridor of the Cedar River consists mainly of tree less than 75 years old and much of that
is deciduous (King County, 1993.). The Cedar River is short of large woody debris and
pools due to the active removal of large woody debris and the degraded nature of the
riparian corridor to provide suitable quantity and quality of large woody debris (King
County, 1993). Therefore any loss of future potential to grow trees that will eventually
contribute to salmon habitat is a cumulative impact to salmon habitat. Because the
mitigation side channel is being constructed as salmon habitat, actions that have the
potential to interfere with habitat forming processes should not be introduced into the
mitigation site. Trees will not be able to grow within the footprint of the trail and hence
the potential rate of long term recruitment to this reach of the Cedar River and its
floodplain in this reach, as well as the side channel will be reduced to the detriment of the
.J
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 11
INFORMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E. SECTIONS 17,18, AND 23. KING COUNTY.
creation and maintenance of salmon habitat over the long term. The long-term creation
and maintenance of salmon habitat through large woody debris inputs requires that actions
that reduce the future potential for tree growth within one site potential tree height of the
River's channel migration zone be minimized. The Wild Salmonid Policy recognizes this
in its statement on riparian buffers:
For Water Types 1-3, a buffer of 100 - 150 feet (measured horizontally),
or the height of a site potential tree representative of the mature dominant
native vegetation capable of growing on those soils, whichever is greater,
on each side of the stream's full channel migration or disturbance zone.
The proposed trail alignment is located within the riparian buffer of the Cedar
River and thus will reduce large woody debris recruitment, yet no specific mitigation
measures are proposed for the long-term loss of large woody debris recruitment. The
proposed riparian plantings are designed to enhance the spawning side channel, not to
mitigate the loss of large woody debris recruitment potential. The preferred means of
mitigation is not to locate the trail or tower within the riparian buffer. Though less
effective as a mitigation measure, the trail could be located outside the buffer width
described in the Wild Salmonid Policy, except for a short straight trail from the trail
proper to the observation tower. However, even this option would have long-term
impacts upon large woody debris recruitment and riparian function.
In addition to the impacts upon riparian and salmon habitat, the presence of people
in the tower or on the trail can disturb spawning salmon. >VIITFD studies conducted on
the Sammamish River demonstrated that the presence of people on riverbanks more than
20 feet removed from the water can disturb the upstream migration of adult salmonids.
Indeed, Merri Martz of the US Army Corps was provided a draft copy of the study to
assist in the review of another Corps project. The City's plan will now bring such impacts
to a mitigation site. Though the City might feel that it is compelled to provide public
access at the site, the City has failed to demonstrated that such access requires
constructing a trail within 100 feet and sometimes 50 feet of the spawning side channel.
Though the proposed vegetation after several years of growth and the proposed fencing
might deter some from entering the mitigation side channel, people will still be free to
disturb the salmon by throwing rocks or other debris. The City might argue that the
presence of the trail within the riparian buffer will diminish the possibility of poaching, the
presence of an observation tower 100 feet away from the side channel would have the
same effect.
Finally, it is our understanding that the City commenced construction of the trail
knowing that its location was subject to appeal. The City, thus engaged in actions
knowing that the permit might be rescinded or modified at its own risk. The mere fact
that the City has started construction does not justify taking no action to address this
issue. Protection of salmon and salmon habitat is paramount.
(11) either
(a) drop the requirement for hydraulic sampling of chinook redds; or
(b) specify the sampling methodology, the location of juvenile rearing
10
'J
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 12
INFORMAL ,APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18, AND 23. KING COUNTY.
after sampling, the duration of time of rearing, and the age or size at
which the fry are to be released, mitigation measures for mortality
during sampling and rearing and finally specify what level of egg or
alevin mortality is considered a project impact and will required
addition implementation of additional mitigation measures by the
applicant.
Roderick Malcom of the MITFD, as was suggested at the Informal Hearing, talked
to Carol Smith of the WDFW regarding her intent in requesting the sampling of chinook
redds. Roderick Malcom was assured by the conversation that sampling induced mortality
would not be factor and furthermore, that the sampling would provide information not
readily determined by other means. There is a particular concern the sedimentation in the
dredge reach could aversely impair chinook egg survival. The Draft Proposed
Recommendations Essential Fish Habitat produced for the Pacific Salmon Fishery
Management Plan by the National Marine Fisheries Service (tilarch ''6, 1998) contains the
following statement
Because their eggs are the largest of the Pacific salmon, ranging
from 6 to 9 mm in diameter (Rounsefell 1955, Nicholas and Hankin
1988), with a correspondingly small surface -volume ratio. they may be
more sensitive to reduced oxygen levels and require a higher rate of
irrigation than other salmonids.
Hence, the Tribe prefers that sampling of chinook redds proceed, but modified by
the following elements. Chinook redds shall be hydraulically sampled. The purpose of this
sampling is to determine if the dredging has had an impact upon the quality of chinook
spawning habitat. As baseline data for chinook egg to fry survival do not exist for this
reach of the river, the following methodology shall be shall be used to determine the
baseline egg to fry survival. The number of chinook fry collected at the sockeye fry trap
shall be divided by the number of chinook redds observed upstream of the sockeye fry
trap. The result will be the baseline number of fry expected to be produced by a chinook
reed. If the average number of fry, produced per redd, in the dredged reach is equivalent
to or greater then the calculated baseline number of fry produced per upstream redd, then
impacts to chinook spawning from the dredged reach have not been demonstrated.
Otherwise, impacts have occurred and additional mitigation measures will be required.
The additional mitigation measures required shall be either:
1. setback sufficient length of levee to improve egg to fry survival in the dredge reach
to that equivalent to the upstream reach; or.
2. increase the quality and quantity of chinook spawning gravel upstream to a level
that compensates for the loss of production in the dredged reach.
If the sockeye fry trap is not in use by the WDFW, then 50% survival from egg to
fry shall be considered baseline. The number of eggs presumed to be in a redd shall be the
mean number of eggs removed from female chinook at the Issaquah Hatchery in the same
brood year.
The number of chinook fry removed from the gravel shall be recorded. For every
0
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 13
INFORMAL APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT .APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, R05E, SECTIONS 17,18, AND 23. KING COUNTY.
50 chinook fry that die during rearing mitigation is required. Mitigation shall be either:
1. Place large woody debris to create one holding pool as defined elsewhere in this
agreement; or
2. increase the annual gravel supplementation program by 250 cubic yards. The
increase in supplementation shall occur over the ten year lifetime of the
supplementation program.
(12) specify that a 5% increase in total predation, either singularly or in
combination upon outmigrating juvenile sockeye and/or juvenile chinook in
the project area is a significant impact that will lead to the requirement for
additional mitigation;
See NIIT response to appeal item 14
(13) implement other measures required to prevent avoidable impacts to sockeye
and chinook salmon;
Addressed in other items of NUT response.
(14) ensure that all conditions of the permit are enforceable and within the
authority of the City of Renton to implement.
The Tribe is concerned that the monitoring plan and the threshold for instituting
the contingency plan or requirements for additional mitigation measures is vague and
unforceable. The HPA reads:
This HPA is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is
a reasonable amount of effort to attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace
any impacts on fish life and habitat: and that further mitigation actions,
including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or,
alternatively, other upstream levees on the Cedar River, may be
necessary, if so indicated by the results of the required monitoring
program.
However, with the exception of provision 4a in the HPA, no numerical standards
are specified that establish a threshold for what is considered necessary to cause
implementation of additional mitigation measures. The Monitoring and Contingency Plan
(US Army Corps, undated (b)) uses the following phrase:
If any of these monitoring studies, during any year of monitoring, shows
that the flood control project is having a more significant environmental
impact that was assumed, or that the mitigation sites are not functioning
as designed, then contingency planning must occur between the Corps,
Citv of Renton, NUT, USFWS, NMFS, WDFW and WDOE.
The term "more significant" is undefined and ambiguous. This language
results in unreviewabie permit authority to the WDFW Area Habitat Biologist in
determining what is a significant impact and hence, complete discretion if additional
mitigation measures are required. To reduce the potential for ambiguity in regard to the
HPA, the Tribe proposes the following wording:
'J
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 14
INFORMAL. APPEAL OF HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL LOG NUMBER 00-D4609-01. CEDAR RIVER WRIA 08.0299
T21N, ROSE. SECTIONS 17,18, AND 23. KING COUNTY.
By 30 September 1998, The Tribe and the City of Renton will convene a
meeting with representatives of the USFWS, NMFS, WDFW, and the
US Army Corps of Engineers to determine a numerical standard for what
constitutes a significant impact, and a narrative or numerical standard
for required additional mitigation measures. By 31 December 1998, the
narrative definition of significant impact and the narrative or numerical
standard for the required additional mitigation measures will be
presented for adoption by all parties to this appeal. If no agreement can
be reached regarding the required definitions, then the WDFW will
include a definition in subsequent Hi'AS issued for the dredge project or
its maintenance to the effect that that a 5% increase in total predation,
either singularly or in combination upon outmigrating juvenile sockeye
and/or juvenile chinook in the project area is a significant impact.
References
King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division 1993.
Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report.
Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 1997. Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group
Report 1997.
Perkins, Susan J. 1994. The Shrinking Cedar River -- Channel Changes following Flow
Regulation and Bank Armoring. American Water Resources Association. Effects
of Human -Induced Changes on Hydrologic Systems. pgs 649-658.
US Army Corps. Undated (a). Mitigation Plan, Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage
Reduction Project, Renton, Washington.
US Army Corps. Undated (b). Monitoring and Contingency Plan, Cedar River Section
205 Flood Damage Reduction Project, Renton, Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Letter from Kurt Fresh re Lower
Cedar River Dredging.
Washington Department of Fisheries and Western Washington Treaty Tribes. 1994. 1992
Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory Report.
v
T/1 .
N
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mailing Address: boo Capital Way N • Olympia, WA 98501-1091 • (360) 902-2200, TDD (360) 902-2207
Main Office Location: Natural ReeOtaC85 Building • 1111 Washington Street SE • Olympia, WA
October 7, 1996
Glenn Kost
City of Renton Parks and Recreation
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
SUBJECT: Hydraulic Project Approval - Maplewood Golf Course Bank
protection - Cedar River, Tributary to Lake Washington,
Northeast 1/4 of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range
05 East, King County, WDFW Control No. 00-B1450-0.
WRIA 08.0299
Dear Mr. Kost:
The City of Renton's proposal for complying with the vegetation
provision of the above -referenced Hydraulic Project Approval has
been reviewed. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
views the proposal as adequate, provided that:
1. All initial plantings are in prior to February 15, 1997,
2. The plantings are maintained to acheive 90% survival for
a period of 3 growing seasons. (Mortalities greater than
10`b will need to be replaced-)
1. The raster growing species of maple (Norway or bigleaf)
is planted. And,
4- Additional native tree and shrub species are planted in
subsequent years over the clay liner, if the clay line= is
successful in retaining a sufficient growth medium.
Thank you for your efforts in implementing this project_ If
there are any questions regarding this letter, I can be contacted
at (206) 392-9159.
we appreciate your Cooperation in our efforts to protect, perpe-
tuate, and manage the fish resources of the state of Washington.
Sincerely,
Larry Fisher
Area Habitat Biologist
Habitat Management Progzam
if
cc: WDFW, Olympia
WDFW, Muller
Post -it, Fax N'ootte, 7871 °a°° 717f
F ram
CaJDW. /biz T w0
Phone r► Phone a ,;"e s
Fan A
a�cx zs3 9'�/ - o7S
S-9
v
07/20/98 MON 14:47 [TX/RX NO 68711
lrf�c�l,�,+�,��
July 31, 1998
Peter Birch, Ph.D.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
birchpbb@dfw.wa.gov
SUBJECT: CEDAR RIVER ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SECTION 20S FLOOD
DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT - MIT APPEAL OF HPA
Dear Peter:
Please find herewith our response to the MIT's Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction
Project HPA appeal items, followed by some background information. We feel this is an acceptable
compromise with the MIT and generally good for the resource. Please review and advise. If you would
like to discuss any of these items or feel a formal letter is appropriate, please do not hesitate to give me a
call at 425-430-7205 or at home at 206-782-5699. Thank you again for your efforts and patience in this
difficult process.
Sincerely,
Ross Hathaway, P.E.
Project Manager, City of Renton Surface Water Utility
E-MAILED
cc: Ron Straka
Merri Martz, USACE
INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO THE MIT APPEAL OF THE HPa FOR THE CEDAR
RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC MIT REQUESTS ON RPa 00-D4609-01
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe requests that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife condition
Hydraulic Project Approval Log Numher 00-D4609-01 to:
1. increase the sire of the spawning habitat associated with the groundwater fed spawning channel 3
times;
The size of the spawning channel has been increased essentially three -fold from the original
proposal commented on by Kurt Fresh in his memo of 5 Jan 1998, this is in accordance with his
recommendation. The originally proposed area was 2,000 sf in the DEIS, which has successively
increased to 9,000 sf in the FEIS then to 24,000 sf at the request of various parties. We believe the
presently proposed design fulfills the commitment. To now increase the channel another three
times would mean an eight -fold increase from the 9,000 sf proposal and 36 times the original
proposed area. The Corps and the City of Renton do not believe this is justified by the data on
sockeye spawning in the lower river, nor is it reasonable. Also, the 205 project itself will help
maintain salmon runs.
For the sockeye spawning monitoring plan, as described in the plan included with the HPA, sockeye
spawners and redds will be monitored in the lower river in years 0,1, and 2 following construction
and in the spawning channel in years 0,1,2, and 5 following construction. To further specify this
monitoring procedure, monitoring will be conducted biweekly from September 1 through
December 31 (unless flows are too high to conduct monitoring safely) each year. Number of
sockeye spawners and redds will be counted from the library (--RM 1.5) down to the mouth of the
river. (Chinook spawning will be monitored separately.) Number of sockeye spawners and redds
will also be counted biweekly from September 1 through December 31 at the upstream spawning
channel. Fry production will be monitored in years 1,2, and 3 (spring following spawner/redd
counts) biweekly from February 15 through June 15. The proposed initial standard of success for
the mitigation and monitoring plan (tempered by the WDFW's best professional judgment) will be
based on an average (mean) of the percentage of sockeye that spawned in the lower river based on
spawner and redd counts conducted by the Corps and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service from 1993
through 1997, with supplemental information from the WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife surveys.
This is an initial approach and may need to be further refined as knowledge is acquired and the
spawning pattern is further analyzed, or if questions arise about the statistical validity of the
method. Corps/USFWS surveys found that from 2% - 20% of the total run in the Cedar spawned
from Wells Avenue down to the mouth over the period from 1993-1997. Surveys were not
conducted prior to that time period in the lower river based on the general observation that
spawning did not occur below rivermile 2 or so (likely due to previous dredging activities).
Approximately 6% of the total river habitat (based on linear length) occurs from Wells Avenue to
the mouth. It is not known if sockeye are spawning habitat limited in the Cedar River. The
current escapement goal is based on available spawning habitat as surveyed in the late 1960s by
Jim Ames and others from the WDFW.
The mean percent of the run which spawns in the lower river from Wells Avenue to the mouth
based on Corps/USFWS surveys is 10.5% (multiplying the peak # of redds or spawners, whichever
is higher, by 8 to account for 16 weeks of spawning). This extrapolates to 11.9% of the run, on
average, spawns from the library to the mouth, with a standard deviation of 11.4%. The combined
total spawning estimate from the library to the mouth of the river, plus the upstream spawning
channel should be 12% of the total run estimate plus or minus 6%, or roughly half a standard
deviation. This is very a conservative approach looking only at a very late term data set.
Historicallv the lower channel had very little if any spawning in it, if we increase the sample size in
years ultimately the mean drops near zero and the standard deviation narrows considerably.
Please note that it is not statistically proper to apply means and standard deviations to percentages
but it is still a tool. The ultimate target of the sockeye mitigation is a no net loss in fry per female
spawner to Lake Washington.
2. increase the length of rock revetment to be reconstructed by bioengineering techniques to a length
equivalent to the cumulative length of riverbank the dredging will convert to lake backwater;
The rock revetment rehabilitation was proposed in order to provide mitigation for an
unquantifiable negative impact to Chinook salmon from the possibility of increased predation in
the lower river. The impacts could not be quantified because Chinook have not been positively
identified in predator stomachs and their size during migration through the lower river is not
known. Impacts are not assumed to be significant; but to provide a reduced risk for the declining
Chinook population, this mitigation has been proposed.
(Chinook migrating from the river range from —40 mm - 1-50 mm in length; the most significant
predator of salmon fry, to date, appears to be prickly sculpin which had a mean fork length of
107-115 mm. [Tabor & Chan, 1996]) The Corps and the City of Renton do not agree that
additional mitigation is required.
ft
The impacts are now thought to be greatly less than originally assumed. We believe the presently
proposed length of rock revetment to be reconstructed by bioengineering techniques more than
compensates for the unquantified impacts, particularly with larger than assumed outmigrating size
of Chinook fry. The larger fry in particular also indicates that the backwater area of the river may
not be detrimental to Chinook survival.
3. speck the length and type of scour chains to be used.
We concur with this comment. The scour chains to be placed upstream of the dredged area will
follow the methodology described in the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (1997) salmonid
spawning gravel scour module.
The perforated golf ball system will be used similar to the methodology with the following
exceptions: 1) length --2.3 m, per MIT recommendation; 2) an anchor of up to one pound will be
used instead of a wooden dowel; 3) a wooden float will be used at the free end, also per MIT
recommendations; and 4) 318" cable will be used instead of 3/16".
4. specify a monitoring and maintenance program for the scour chains to ensure that the chains are not
removed;
We concur with this comment. The scour chains will be monitored at a minimum of once per
month following installation in July of 1998 and 1999. During the first three months (August,
September, October), the chains will be monitored every two weeks. Following flow events greater
than 2000 cfs, the chains will be observed to determine how many balls have been scoured out, etc.
Chains will not be reinstalled if removed due to vandalism because of the potential impacts to
salmon spawning. All removal, scour, deposition observed will be recorded and submitted in a
monitoring report in July of the year following each study (1999 and 2000).
S. speck the size of gravel to be used in the gravel supplementation program is to be within the range
required for Chinook and sockeye spawning;
We concur with this comment, although the intent is primarily for Chinook spawning. The gravel
used for the supplementation program will be taken from the reach immediately downstream of
Logan Avenue where greater than 50% of the material is larger than 1 cm in diameter and less
than 10% of the material is smaller than 0.5 mm.(NHC sediment data analysis). In general, this
material ranges from 0.5 cm to greater than 5 cm.
6. sped that if the gravel supplementation program has not received the necessary permits by January
1, 1999, then the City shall construct an additional side channel equivalent to that proposed under the
present permit;
The gravel supplementation program is not intended to replace sockeye spawning habitat and an
additional side channel or spawning channel would not have appreciable benefits for Chinook
salmon. If the spawning gravel supplementation program can not be implemented within a
reasonable time frame (September 2000), the City and LSACE would be willing to implement an
alternative mitigation measure provided it provided benefits to the species that the original
mitigation measure did, is acceptable to the other agencies, and there is no net increase in cost of
implementing the mitigation measure. The Corps and the City of Renton feel that two large woody
debris jams with approximately 6 or more LWD pieces could be placed in the vicinity of the
present spawning channel mitigation site or just upstream of I-405 to form holding or scour pools
for Chinook, as long as the net cost for the mitigation element does not increase.
7. direct that the in -water gravel berm at the .Maplewood revetment not be constructed:
A gravel berm has not been proposed for the revetment site; it is proposed to be rock. A berm of
some type is needed to deflect boaters away from the large woody debris clumps immediately
downstream. The Corps and the City of Renton believe that prudent precautions to avoid injury
and death to boaters are reasonable actions. The proposed plan was developed with input from all
parties and was proposed as a compromise between extremes. As public agencies we have a
responsibility to construct safe facilities, to protect the public from potential liability. We do not
believe that the proposed berm is significant in terms of its effect on fish habitat. If the berm
deflector is eliminated the HPA could be appealed by the boaters. The Corps and the City of
Renton will place two logs without rootwads (24" in diameter) as a deflector rather than the
previously proposed rock deflector. Rock will be used to anchor and ground the deflector logs so
flow does not go underneath them.
8. specify that any woody debris that becomes entrapped by the reconstructed rock revetments not be
removed, or if removed that within one calendar year of removal the large woody debris is incorporated
into riverbank restoration projects below River _Mile 5.5 of the Cedar River, -
Agree. We do not plan on removing any, we would only remove serious hazards, and then we
would still need to get a new HI'A with associated appropriate mitigation. The required HI'A
would more than likely require the woody debris removed to be located elsewhere in the river in a
safe manner or a new equivalent amount of woody debris be placed in the river as a condition of
the HPA.
9. specify that the lighting reduction program must reduce the light level to below that which is required
by predators to feed upon juvenile salmonids and that if lighting levels cannot be reduced to such levels,
then for every lineal foot of the project area exceeding this threshold, that the applicant remove 1 lineal
foot or enhance 10 lineal foot of levee upstream of the newly created lake baclavater with large woody
debris at a density of 10 pieces per 100 feet;
Once again, this mitigation was proposed to reduce the risk of negative impact to Chinook salmon.
even though those negative impacts are not quantifiable and may not occur. The light level below
which predators do not feed upon juvenile salmonids is not known. It is unlikely that in an urban
area, such a level could be achieved. Woody debris in the project area would interfere with flood
conveyance and would necessitate other unidentified actions to compensate for reduced flood
capacity. This mitigation has always been recognized as an experiment to reduce any risk to the
Chinook population, similar to the Maplewood Golf Course revetment rehabilitation. The Corps
and the City of Renton do not agree that additional mitigation is required the City and tiSACE
would be willing to discuss the implementation of an alternative mitigation measure in lieu of the
proposed light reduction plan, provided it provided adequate benefits to the species that the
original mitigation measure did, is acceptable to the other agencies, and there is no net increase in
cost of implementing the mitigation measure and can be completed in a reasonable time frame.
10. specify that recreational trails or observation towers not be located within 100 feet of the
groundwater fed spawning channel;
We have already modified the design as much as possible to address this concern, the deed for this
property requires public access, and we would began to have unacceptable wetlands impacts if we
move the access route further away from the channel. We are including a fence to minimize access,
we have already reduced the number of controlled access viewing platforms. The King County
channel which has experienced poaching and other problems has been located behind a fence and
generally off-limits to the public. The Corps and the City of Renton believe that a spawning
channel which is highly visible will experience fewer vandalism problems than one which is
remotely located away from the public view. It will also provide educational opportunities for
Renton residents and others. To keep people from the channel during spawning season two main
elements are part of the mitigation plan: 1) planting of devil's club and other species to deter
access; and ?) seasonal closures of the trail until vegetation is well enough established to prevent
visual disturbance. To move the trail to a further distance from the spawning channel would
require fill in wetlands and possibly rerouting Madsen Creek.
IL either
(a) eliminate the requirement for hydraulic sampling of Chinook redds; or
(b) speck the sampling methodology, the location ofjuvenile rearing after sampling, the duration
of time of rearing, and the age or size at which the fry are to be released, mitigation measures for
mortality during sampling and rearing and finally specify what level of egg or alevin mortality is
considered a project impact and will require additional implementation of additional mitigation
measures by the applicant;
Agree. There is no baseline data of Chinook survival from egg to alevin/fry in the Cedar River. It
is unclear what this monitoring would mean with regards to the flood control project and may
cause unnecessary mortality of chinook fry.
12. specify that any increase in predation upon out migrating juvenile sockeye or juvenile
Chinook in the project area is a significant impact that will lead to the requirements for additional
mitigation;
Predator monitoring will continue for two years following construction to document relative
predator population size and predation rates to the pre -construction studies. If a significant
increase in predation is documented, and the mitigation elements are NOT compensating for this
increase, then additional mitigation will be implemented following consultation with concerned
agencies, tribe, etc. A significant increase in predation should be (and will be part of his scope of
work) determined by Roger Tabor, et al, from USFWS who will be conducting the predator
monitoring.
13. implement other measures required to prevent avoidable impacts to sockeye and Chinook
salmon;
This needs further clarification
1.4. ensure that all conditions of the permit are enforceable and within the authority of the City of
Renton to implement.
We must work with all agencies. This statement needs further clarification.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
We feel the mitigation proposed for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Reduction Project at
present is well beyond what is needed in light of the big -picture of the project. However, we have sought
to "do the right thing" to help the salmon and ecosystem, and have already compromised at the estimated
cost of $800,000 to address the concerns of other parties. We have performed five years of extensive
environmental, technical and economic study of the problem along the lower Cedar River. We have
prepared a draft and final EIS which included comment and appeal periods for all parties including the
MIT, the MIT was also frequently invited to provide technical input. In order to develop the best
possible understanding of the environmental, technical, and economic issues, the process included
hydrologic and hydraulic studies including a HEC-RAS model, a sedimentation study including a HEC-6
model, fisheries impacts studies (longfin smelt study, predator study, habitat study/survey, sockeye
spawning survey, fish utilization studies, aquatic invertebrate study), wildlife study, alternatives analysis,
an economic impacts analysis, and project design analysis. Input was provided from US Fish and
Wildlife, State Fish & Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, King County Department of Natural
Resources, MIT, Federal Aviation Administration, King County Boater Safety Advisory Committee,
USDA, USACE, PSAPCA, WSDOE, the Boeing Company, the City of Renton and the public. The
proposed plan is the effective balance of technical function and avoided, minimized and mitigated
environmental impact. This work has included the opportunity for input from the Muckleshoot Tribe
(MIT) at most phases and we have tried to include many of their recommendations including additional
spawning channel area, lighting reductions along the lower river and on the delta, delta plantings, and
spawning gravel supplimentation. The following may be helpful in fully understanding the technical
issues and our position on the project environmental impacts
- a large quantity of hatchery fish have been released in recent years in the lower mile of the river to
maximize survival of transiting the river. These fish may very likely return to spawn to this reach even
though there are high concentrations of fine sediments in this lowest reach of the river.
- a large slug of gravel of ideal spawning media size from a large landslides upstream is moving through
the reach and may have temporarily attracted spawning to the area.
Sockeye not thought to be spawning habitat limited and the very recent infilling of the lower channel may
have provided for a convenient place to spawn, but without the test of time of spawning location viability.
It is a very unstable reach of river with a gradient far too low for is bedload. By normal assessment it is a
poor place to spawn, and may have short term success during no flood periods but is likely a long term
attractive nuisance to spawners.
LIKELY NO REAL INCREASE IN PREDATION ON CHINOOK:
The originally assumed potential increased predation on Chinook is probably incorrect. The conclusion
was based on the assumption that the dredging would result in an increase in prickly Sculpin, and that this
increase would result in an increased predation on Chinook fry. Although it had not been studied, it was
also assumed that Chinook out -migrate from the Cedar in the 30 to 50 mm size range, however, recent
observations indicate that many Chinook out -migrate at a much larger size than originally assumed (on
the order of 40 to 150 mm). The much larger size of Chinook fry than assumed, with a projected lower
than originally assumed Sculpin population, makes it unlikely that Prickly Sculpin realistically eat
significant numbers of Chinook fry.
Chinook typically do not spawn in low velocity and relatively finer grained media typical of the lower
channel. And it is not felt this is, nor should be, Chinook spawning habitat.
Because of timing and size, it is now felt that Chinook "eat their way" down the Cedar River in back
eddies, in slow water, and in side channels much more than originally assumed. Due to this mode and the
very large size of the Chinook entering the lower reach, the lower river being "slower water" due to
dredging is not thought to be detriment to Chinook.
PROJECT IN "BIG PICTURE" SELF MITIGATING:
The project is necessary to prevent the avulsion of the river across the airport and ultimately very
significant impacts or even elimination of several salmon runs using the river including the Chinook and
Sockeye. Therefore, the net result of the work is preservation of the species and the work itself, even
without mitigation, will have a long-term benefit for Chinook and sockeye. The mitigation work we had
originally proposed was what we felt was the "right thing to do".
This section of channel was never historically there, the Cedar River drained into the Black River, the
construction of the lower approximately 1.75 miles of artificial channel from present day I-405 to
connect the Cedar River to Lake Washington placed lucustrine habitat in the drainage of the river and
allowed the establishment, and is required to support, the modern salmon runs. This artificial channel is
a waterway facility and was continuously dredged to 10 ft deep from its construction, through the
establishment and height of the Sockeye run, and until a recent hiatus due to primarily permitting
concerns. The very recent infilling of the channel may have provided for a convenient place to spawn,
but without the test of time of spawning location viability. By normal assessment it is a poor place to
spawn, and is likely a long term attractive nuisance to spawners. The lower river is a permitted
constructed "facility", was never abandoned, and was never historically viable salmon spawning habitat.
The dredging and levees work proposed is an environmentally optimized continuation of facility
maintenance, as well as being required to for the preservation of the salmon runs.
To every rule there is an exception, however, with the greater body of knowledge now gathered and
further analysis we project that the assumed impacts will be greatly less than originally conservatively
estimated.
LIMITED IMPACTS TO SOCKEYE:
The assumed impacts on Sockeye were based on good research but were worst case; with further study
we now realize most likely they well exceed any actual impacts.
LOWERING OF ORIGINALLY ASSUMED SOCKEYE FRY PREDATION INCREASE: Predation
impacts on sockeye fry were conservatively estimated during the project EIS preparation. The expert on
predation in the lower river (Roger Tabor, USFWS) believes the dredging will result in a one to two year
decrease in Prickly Sculpin populations due to direct kill during the dredge. This will be followed by
repopulation to a level somewhere above the present population size and slow decrease in population as
the channel fills with sediment before the next maintenance dredge cycle (maintenance dredging is not
planned until the channel is filled in with more sediment than existed prior to this year's initial dredge).
This diminishes the predation impact assumed in the EIS.
SPAWNING ALONG LOWER RIVER SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE: Several regional fishery
biologists have pointed out that it is unusual that sockeye have recently been spawning along the tower
river and earlier in the year (October) than normal lower river spawners. Historically, significant sockeye
spawning was not observed along the lower river (in part related to frequent dredging of the lower river),
typically the early runs moved high in the system and the river was not thought to be spawning habitat
limited. There are several possible explanations for this change in spawning patterns, from conversations
with local experts we feel it may be one or a combination of-
- the fish collection weir placed across the river for collection for the hatchery (it is debated that this may
also have a significant deterrence on native Chinook migration in the Cedar)
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
R'hLVon RCW 7520100 or RCW 7520108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
/ LkPwt unt of . . . . Region 4 Office
FISR and 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
lOLN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: April 23.1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-01
PERMITTEE
City of Renton Surface Water Utility
ATTENTION: Ron Straka/Ross Hathaway
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, Washington 98055
(425)277-6205
Fax: (425) 235-2541
AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
Not Applicable
PROJECT DESCKI TION. Condw t Dredging, Install Batik Protection, Raise Levees, and Perfurin Mitigation:
Reconstruct 600 feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques, Construct a
Groundwater -fed Spawning Channel, Plant the River Delta, Reduce Lighting Levels in
the Dredge Reach, and Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper Cedar River
PROJECT LOCATION: Dredging, levee addition, and lighting reduction from the Cedar River mouth upstream to
the Williams Avenue bridge; bank protection for 900 feet at the Renton Airport; planting
on the river delta; reconstruction of the revetment at the Maplewood Golf Course;
construction of a spawning channel just upstream of the mouth of Madsen Creek;
replenishment of spawning gravels in the Landsburg area
# WRIA WATER BODY.
1 08.0299 Cedar River
TRIBUTARY TO 1/4 SEC. SEC. TOWNSHIP RANGE COUNTY
Lake Washington
17 23 North
18 23 North
23 23 North
05 East King
05 East King
05 East King
NOTE: This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) is issued with the understanding that the required mitigation is a
reasonable amount of effort to attempt to avoid, reduce, and replace any impacts on fish life and habitat; and
that further mitigation actions, including the potential removal of the levee portions of the project or,
aite;natively, other upstream levees on the Cedar River, may he necessary; if so indicated by the results of the
required monitoring program.
PROVISIONS
TIMING LIMITATIONS: Project construction may begin June 16,1998 and shall be completed by August 15,
1998, except for provisions 4, 6, and 16.
2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below shall be contacted at least 3
working days prior to start of work, and again within seven days of completion of work to arrange for compliance
inspection for each project component listed in the above project description.
Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications entitled, "FIGURE 4 DREDGE PLAN SHEET 1, SHEET 2,
SHEET 3" and "FIGURE 13 MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN I, II, III (Plates M-1, M-2, and M-3)", dated February
17, 1998; "PLATES C-4 to C-21" and "L-1 to L-11", dated March 23, 1998; "FIGURE 7 DREDGING SEQUENCE",
(undated); "PLATES C-7, C-14, and C-15", dated April 17, 1998; "FIGURE 11 UPSTREAM PLANTING PLAN",
(undated); "FIGURE 12 PLANTING DETAILS", dated February 9, 1998; "PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS
CEDAR RIVER DELTA CEDAR RIVER 205 MITIGATION PLAN", (undated); and "MITIGATION PLAN
Page 1 of 5
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
kawwtan
Deputmnf of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISHd 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, Washington 98012
D ATF OF ISSUE: April 23. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-01
CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON",
(undated) and submitted to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, except as modified by this HPA. These
plans reflect design criteria per Chapter 220-110 WAC. These plans reflect mitigation procedures to significantly
reduce or eliminate impacts to fish resources. A copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. Monitoring shall include:
a. evaluation of scour and/or deposition upstream of the dredged river reach as follows:
In July 1998 and July 1999, scour chains shall be installed in spawning riffles, on transects of five per riffle, with
transects not more than 500 feet apart, for one mile upstream of the dredge river reach. This reach shall be evaluated
in 1/4 mile strata in July 1999 and July 2000; six inches or more of scour or fill on 40% or more of the scour chains
within a stratum shall constitute an impact which will require additional mitigation (A.dditional mitigation for
chinook salmon would include either dike removal or setback in upstream reaches or bridge modification to reduce
constrictions.); and
b. during dredging, twice weekly beach seining in the dredge reach 200 yards above and below the location of
dredging for abundance of juvenile chinook salmon; and
c. the dredged reach shall be surveyed for chinook salmon spawning at least once per week from September 1 through
November 30, 1998 and 1999; redds and numbers of live and dead salmon shall be recorded; location of chinook
redds shall be mapped and triangulated; the following February, chinook redds shall be hydraulically sampled to
assess survival; details shall be worked out with WDFW Fish Management Program; costs of fiy transportation and
rearing shall be paid by the permittee.
5. A monitoring report for each monitoring component outlined in the mitigation plan shall be submitted to the WDFW
AHB within one month of monitoring completion for each monitoring year.
6. To mitigate for project impacts on fish life:
a. A gravel supplementation program shall be established on the Cedar River in the Landsburg area or other location
approved by WDFW. One thousand cubic yards of clean gravel shall be placed in the river per year for a period of
ten years; and
b. A lighting reduction program shall be established on the lower Cedar River in the reach proposed for dredging.
Details ofthese programs shall be finalized with the VIDFW A_MB and approved in a revised HPA prior to
commencement of dredging, bank protection, and levee work on the lower river.
7. A bond or escrow account in the amount of $800,000 shall be funded, and a signed contract shall be entered into
between the applicant and WDFW to execute the account prior to the commencement of construction. These funds
shall be disbursed solely for the purpose of covering the full costs of the required mitigation (approximately $140,000
for rebuilding the golf course revetment; $200,000 for construction of the groundwater -fed channel; $140,000 for
monitoring per the mitigation plan and Provision 4; $150,000 for the lower river plantings; $20,000 for delta
plantings; and $150,000 for upper river gravel supplementation. Details of fund disbursement shall be provided to
the WDFW AHB by August 31, 1998. Failure to complete any component of the required mitigation shall result in
the turning over of funds remaining in the bond or escrow account to WDFW for the purpose of completing the
required mitigation and may result in the denial of future maintenance dredging.
8. Upon completion of the dredging, the riverbed shall contain no pits, potholes, or large depressions to avoid stranding
of fish.
Page 2 of 5
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
kv � of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH d 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WULN Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: April 23. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-01
9. Equipment shall be operated to minimize turbidity. During excavation, each pass with the bucket shall be complete.
Dredged material shall not be stockpiled in the river.
10. Placement of bank protection material waterward of the ordinary high water line shall be restricted to the minimum
amount necessary to protect the toe of the bank or for installation of mitigation features approved by the WDFW.
11. The toe shall be installed to protect the integrity of bank protection material.
12. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water.
Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water.
13. Bank toe protection material shall be clean, angular rock and/or large woody debris (LWD), and shall be installed to
withstand 100-year peak flows. River gravels or other round cobbles shall not be used as exterior armor.
14. LWD used to reconstruct the Maplewood Golf Course revetment shall be coniferous material with a minimum
diameter at breast height of 24 inches.
15. Geotextile cloth or filter blanket material shall be placed prior to placement of bank protection material.
16. Alteration or disturbance of the existing riparian vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to perform the project
components. Plantings, which shall occur per the approved plans (Provision 3), shall be maintained as necessary,
including watering as needed, for three full years following planting to ensure 80 percent or greater survival.
17. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or water quality
problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), operations shall cease and the WDFW at (360) 534-8233 and
Washington Department of Ecology at (425) 649-7000 shall be contacted immediately. Work shall not resume until
further approval is given by the WDFW.
18. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water from entering the river. These may include, but are
not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric, temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or
other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas.
19. Prior to starting work, temporary filter fabric, straw bale, or pea gravel -filled burlap bag check dam(s) shall be
installed downstream. Accumulated sediments shall be removed during the project and prior to removing the check
dam(s) after completion of work.
20. Wastewater from project activities and water removed from within the work area shall be routed to an area landward
of the ordinary high water line to allow removal of fine sediment and other contaminants prior to being discharged to
the stream.
21. All waste material such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt or overburden resulting from this project shall be
deposited above the limits of flood water in an approved upland disposal site.
22. If high flow conditions that may cause siltation are encountered during this project, work shall stop until the flow
subsides.
Page 3 of 5
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
De� ,to( RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH and 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
IOLK Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: April 23, 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-01
23. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment -
laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the river.
SEPA: EIS by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adopted December 29, 1997.
APPLICATION ACCEPTED: February 23, 1997 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Boone 030 [P1]
Larry Fisher (425) 392-9159 �._..— for Director
Area Habitat Biologist ivi�F ry
cc: WDFW: Ted Muller, Chuck Phillips, Kurt Fresh, Carol Smith
Muckleshoot Fisheries Department
ATTENTION: Rod Malcom
39015 - 172" Avenue Southeast
Auburn, Washington 98002
Washington Department of Ecology
ATTENTION: Public Notice Permit Coordinator
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
National Marine Fisheries Service
ATTENTION: Gordy Zillges
510 Desmond Drive Southeast Suite 103
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization
from other public agencies may be necessary for this project.
This HPA shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the
work.
This HPA does not authorize trespass.
The person(s) to whom this HPA is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from
failure to comply with the provisions of this HPA.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars
per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
Page 4 of 5
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL State of Washington
De of RCW 75.20.100 or RCW 75.20.108 Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 4 Office
FISH 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
WILDLIFE Mill Creek, Washington 98012
DATE OF ISSUE: April 23. 1998 LOG NUMBER: 00-D4609-01
All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the
Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The
permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All HPAs issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may
be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED
HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130.
APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,
THERE ARE INFORMAL ANT) FORMAL .APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100,
75.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA; or
(B) An order imposing civil penalties.
It is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are
resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW
shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and
shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a HPA or receipt of an order imposing civil
penalties. The 30-day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved
party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her
designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the results
of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100 OR
75.20.106:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of:
(A) The denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of a HPA;
(B) An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North,
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED
DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The time period
for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal
appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in
response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.103 or 75.20.160:
A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a HPA, or the conditions or provisions made part of
a HPA may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board
per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two - Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington
98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
Page 5 of 5
STA Tg o�
i 7
t � Y
"� 2
S n
41, �eee w�v
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Region 4 Office: 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard - Mill Creek, Washington 98012 - (425) 775-1311
April 23, 1998
Washington Department of Ecology
ATTENTION: Public Notice Permit Coordinator
Post Office Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
Dear Public. Notice Permit Coordinator:
SUBJECT: Public Notice; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District & City of
Renton Proponent, Public Notice Number TB-98-01, Conduct Dredging,
Install Bank Protection, Raise Levees, and Perform Mitigation: Reconstruct
600 Feet of Rock Revetment Using Bio-engineering Techniques, Construct a
Groundwater -fed Spawning Channel, Plant the River Delta, Reduce Lighting
Levels in the Dredge Reach, and Replenish Spawning Gravels in the Upper
Cedar River, Cedar River, Tributary to Lake Washington, Sections 17, 18,
and 23, Township 23 North, Range 05 East, King County, WRIA 08.0299,
WDFW Log No. 00-D4609-01
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above -referenced
Public Notice received on February 23, 1998 and requests that the Department of Ecology take
the following action.
NO OBJECTION. See enclosed HPA.
If yoga have any questions regarding this request, please contact rre at (425) 392-9159.
Sincerely,
_2�� a,-4 -
Larry Fisher
Area Habitat Biologist
LF:lf.D4609.01 R
Enclosure: HPA, WDFW Control No, 00-D4609-01
cc/enc: WRIA File, Olympia
City of Renton