Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRS_Critical_Areas_Report_190116_v2 R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A S R E P O R T (I n c l u d i n g W e t l a n d A s s e s s m e n t , S t r e a m S t u d y , a n d W i l d l i f e / H a b i t a t A s s e s s m e n t ) Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project Prepared for: Bradley Strauch PSE Energize Eastside 355 110th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Prepared by: Revised January 2019 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 111103.8 The Watershed Company Contact Person: Jennifer Creveling, Senior Biologist Katy Crandall, Ecologist / Arborist Or Clover McIngalls, Environmental Planner Cite this document as: The Watershed Company. Revised January 2019. City of Renton Critical Areas Report: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project. Prepared for PSE. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 i T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page # 1 Executive Summary............................................................................ 1 2 Introduction and Project Description ............................................... 2 3 Methods ............................................................................................... 4 3.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Data Compilation ................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Project Element Construction – Potential Impacts ............................................... 6 Pole Replacement ............................................................................................... 6 Access routes ...................................................................................................... 8 Stringing Sites ...................................................................................................... 9 Vegetation Management...................................................................................... 9 3.4 Critical Areas Impact Analysis............................................................................ 11 3.5 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 11 4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................... 12 4.1 Site Location ...................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Site Description ................................................................................................. 12 4.3 Critical Areas ..................................................................................................... 13 Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 13 Streams and Lakes ............................................................................................ 14 Habitat Conservation Areas ............................................................................... 15 Flood Hazard Areas ........................................................................................... 23 Geologic Hazard Areas...................................................................................... 23 Wellhead Protection Areas ................................................................................ 25 4.4 Shorelines of the State ...................................................................................... 26 5 Regulations ....................................................................................... 28 5.1 Critical Areas Regulations Exemption ................................................................ 28 5.2 Critical Area Buffers ........................................................................................... 29 Wetlands and Streams ...................................................................................... 29 Habitat Conservation Areas ............................................................................... 32 Geologic Hazard Areas...................................................................................... 32 5.3 Shoreline Master Program Regulations ............................................................. 33 6 Mitigation Sequencing ..................................................................... 33 7 Unavoidable Project Impacts .......................................................... 35 7.1 Critical Area Impacts .......................................................................................... 37 Wetland and Stream Buffer Impacts .................................................................. 37 Habitat Conservation Area Impacts ................................................................... 39 Geologic Hazard Area Impacts and Associated Buffer Impacts ....................... 39 Wellhead Protection Area Impacts .................................................................... 40 PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report ii 8 Mitigation Approach ......................................................................... 41 8.1 Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation Ratio ...................................................... 41 8.2 Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation Location ................................................. 42 9 Mitigation Plan .................................................................................. 42 9.1 Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation................................................................ 42 9.2 Geologic Hazard Area Mitigation ....................................................................... 44 10 Functional Lift Analysis ................................................................... 45 May Creek Sub-basin ........................................................................................ 47 Lower Cedar River Sub-basin ........................................................................... 48 11 Disclaimer .......................................................................................... 50 Appendix A Critical Area Assessment Maps Appendix B 2016 Delineation Study Appendix C 2017 Delineation Study Update Appendix D Detailed CAIA Methodology Appendix E Geological Hazards Report Appendix F Mitigation Plan The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 iii L IST OF F IGURES Figure 1. Map of Energize Eastside Project route in Renton and limits of the Critical Area Impact Assessment. ................................................................................. 4 L IST OF T ABLES Table 1. PSE construction scenarios. .............................................................................. 7 Table 2. State-listed wildlife species, excluding those listed as federally endangered and threatened. ............................................................................................. 16 Table 3. Excerpt of RMC 4-3-050.C.3 table of exempt activities. ................................... 28 Table 4. Summary of wetland critical area classifications and standard buffer widths. ... 30 Table 5. Summary of stream critical area classifications and standard buffer widths. .... 30 Table 6. Summary of geologic hazard area buffer requirements.................................... 32 Table 7. Matrix used for determining impact types based upon long-term condition of proposed activities and existing land cover types in critical areas and associated buffers. ................................................................................. 36 Table 8. Wetland and stream buffer impacts by wetland and/or stream feature and sub- basin. ..................................................................................................... 38 Table 9. Geologic hazard area impacts associated with pole replacement in Project area. ............................................................................................................... 39 Table 10. Vegetation conversion impacts to geologic hazard areas in the Project area. 40 Table 11. Actions within wellhead protection areas in the Project area. ......................... 41 Table 12. Calculation of mitigation needs for wetland and stream functioning buffer impacts. ................................................................................................. 43 Table 13. Descriptions of general impact area conditions and proposed changes. ........ 46 The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 1 C ITY OF R ENTON C RITICAL A REAS R EPORT P UGET S OUND E NERGY – E NERGIZE E ASTSIDE 1 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY PSE’s Energize Eastside Project (the Project) proposes to upgrade existing transmission lines in the city of Renton in order to increase transmission system capacity to 230kV power. The Project is needed to address electrical system deficiencies identified during federally required planning studies and to improve electrical supply and reliability to Eastside communities, including Renton, now and in the future. Regulated critical areas present in the Project area include wetlands, streams, and associated buffers; habitat conservation areas; flood hazard areas; geologic hazard areas (i.e., steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards); and wellhead protection areas. A portion of the Project area also lies within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar River. Project activities qualify as exempt from Renton critical area regulations. The Project was designed to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas in accordance with the City’s exemption criteria by utilizing the existing transmission line corridor, limiting disturbance and implementing best management practices (BMPs) when working in critical areas, and installing transmission lines between poles with minimal site disturbance. No new poles are proposed in wetlands, streams or stream buffers, flood hazard areas, or seismic hazard areas. New poles are proposed in erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas, coal mine hazard areas, habitat conservation areas and wellhead protection areas. These new poles will not significantly impact respective critical area functions. In wetland buffers, permanent impacts (i.e., poles) are limited to one new Energize Eastside pole and three Lake Tradition replacement poles. The Lake Tradition poles are being replaced in the same location as existing poles, but the replacement poles have a larger footprint than the existing poles. Two existing poles will also be removed from and replaced outside of wetland and stream buffer resulting in a net increase of only 68 square feet of permanent wetland buffer impact. Vegetation community conversion impacts in wetland and stream PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 2 buffers total 18,786 square feet and 19,235 SF square feet of temporary disturbance will occur. Vegetation conversion impacts are also proposed in erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas, coal mine hazard areas, habitat conservation areas and wellhead protection areas. The majority of wetland/stream critical area impacts, which are primarily limited to buffer impacts from vegetation management (i.e., tree removal) occur in the Lower Cedar River sub-basin. Mitigation for critical areas impacts will be focused in this sub-basin, specifically in the buffer of Wetland NR01 (see the Mitigation Plan). Additionally, creation of standing snags will occur near Honey Dew Creek, within the May Creek sub-basin. This report is intended to support the City of Renton’s critical area review process and to satisfy the exemption criteria of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050.C.3 – Critical Area Regulations. 2 I NTRODUCTION AND P ROJECT D ESCRIPTION Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (“PSE”) proposes the construction of a new 230 kV to 115 kV substation (Richards Creek Substation in Bellevue) and to upgrade approximately 16 miles of existing 115 kV transmission lines located within an approximately 100-foot wide regional utility corridor to accommodate 230 kV power (collectively “the Project”). The Richards Creek Substation will be built to accommodate the 230kV to 115kV transformer needed to accommodate the transmission line upgrade, which is necessary to address a deficiency in electrical transmission capacity during peak periods. Combined with aggressive conservation, the Project will improve reliability for Eastside communities, including the city of Renton (“Renton” or “City”), and supply the needed electrical capacity for anticipated growth and development on the Eastside. Within Renton, the Project corridor extends north-south for approximately 4 miles (Figure 1). The proposal for the Energize Eastside Project includes the removal of 144 existing poles and installation of 41 new poles. Existing and proposed pole locations are shown on the maps in Appendix A. PSE owns and operates an existing 115 kV transmission line between the Talbot Hill substation in Renton and the Lake Tradition substation in Issaquah (Talbot Hill - Lake Tradition #1). To better accommodate the Project, a short section of the Lake Tradition #1 line will “trade” places with one of the Lakeside -Talbot Hill 115 kV lines, which will be rebuilt to 230 kV as part of the Project. This The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 3 relocation work will take place within PSE’s existing easement near the Shadow Hawk condominiums on parcel #7701590000. (Refer to Appendix A for pole locations.) The work will include replacement of the existing three-pole wood turning structure (115-5) that is situated on the Shadow Hawk property. The 115 kV conductor will then be “jumpered” for one span underneath the new 230kV lines to another replacement three-pole wood structure (115-4). One new two- pole wood structure (115-3) will be added to provide additional wire clearance for the existing 115 kV conductor just east of the corner structures (115-4 and 115- 5). Additionally, two of the existing three-pole wood structures (115-1 and 115-2) north of the Talbot Hill substation on the Talbot Hill – Lake Tradition #1 line will be replaced with similar structures as part of general maintenance and repair due to the poor condition of the existing structures. The existing overhead 115 kV conductors (wires) will remain in place and be reattached to the new and replacement wood pole structures. This work will maintain the existing transmission line corridor and will not require any additional easements. The existing transmission lines are located in PSE’s Sammamish-Lakeside-Talbot transmission line corridor, which was established in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Within the existing utility corridor, the proposed upgraded lines will place poles in generally the same locations as existing poles. In some instances, poles will be moved to accommodate landowner preferences and easement considerations, and to minimize impacts to critical areas. During construction, selective tree removal will occur within the corridor to meet federal vegetation management requirements and PSE standards (see Section 3.3.4 for more information). The purpose of this Critical Areas Report is to document the exempt-status of Project activities relative to specific critical areas, document critical area impacts, and outline how the Project proposes to compensate for those impacts. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 4 Figure 1. Map of Energize Eastside Project route in Renton and limits of the Critical Area Impact Assessment. 3 M ETHODS A Critical Areas Impact Assessment (“CAIA”) was conducted for the Project in Renton. The analysis combined GIS-based assessment with field-verified conditions and evaluated proposed project elements in relation to existing land cover types and regulated critical areas. The location and type of each proposed activity was used to determine impacts and inform the Mitigation Plan and is based upon preliminary site plans provided by PSE (on 6/30/17 with updates through 11/06/17). A detailed description of the CAIA process and methods is provided in Appendix D. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 5 3.1 Study Area For the purposes of this report the study area is limited to a segment of the proposed Energize Eastside corridor within Renton. The Renton corridor runs from the north Renton city limits south of SE 95th Way to the existing Talbot Hill substation in the vicinity of Beacon Way S, a distance of approximately 4 miles. The study area in Renton is limited to the area within the boundaries of an approximately 100-foot wide regional utility corridor, except between the Talbot Hill substation and Shadow Hawk neighborhood where the study area was widened to capture additional area based on refined design parameters. The study area is depicted by the red line on the attached maps (Appendix A). 3.2 Data Compilation Critical areas evaluated as a part of the analysis include wetlands, streams and lakes, habitat conservation areas, flood hazard areas, geologic hazard areas (including steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards, wellhead protection areas, shorelines, and any associated critical area buffers. To facilitate the CAIA, the following data were compiled and reviewed: tree inventory, wetland and stream surveys, and publically available data. Tree Inventory Existing trees with the potential to reach a height greater than 15 feet located in the Project area corridor were inventoried between March and November 2015 and September and October of 2017. Tree inventory methodology and results are available in the City of Renton Tree Inventory Report: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project (The Watershed Company 2016b). Tree data used in this CAIA were obtained and compiled from surveys, GPS, and digitization using high- resolution imagery. Wetland and Stream Surveys Wetlands and streams were originally delineated and classified within a defined study area which generally consisted of a 100-foot wide corridor defined by an established PSE easement, between March and October 2015. This delineation is documented in the City of Renton Critical Areas Delineation Report: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project (The Watershed Company 2016a) included as Appendix B. As the Project design became more refined, the need for additional delineation was identified in the vicinity of the Cedar River and south of the original study area corridor between the Talbot Hill substation and Shadow Hawk neighborhood. These areas were delineated between September and October of 2017 and are documented in PSE Energize Eastside-2017 Additional Wetland and Stream Delineation in Renton (The Watershed Company 2017) included as Appendix C of this report. Wetland and stream data were compiled from field generated GPS data and are limited to the study areas defined in the PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 6 delineation documentation. Delineation study methodology is detailed in the previously-referenced reports. Publicly Available Data Publicly available Renton GIS data were utilized for mapping the following critical areas in Renton: landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas, coal mine hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, and flood hazard areas. Data used to map impervious surfaces and development include the King County Impervious and Impacted Surface data (King County 2009), supplemented with land survey data and high-resolution aerial photography provided by PSE. Additional detail about the data inventory elements and methodology are available in Appendix D. 3.3 Project Element Construction – Potential Impacts Project elements that have the potential to impact critical areas are defined in this section and include the following: - Pole replacement: o removal of old poles o installation of new poles  pole buffer (6-foot radius outside of pole footprint),  pole construction work area (varies by pole type, see description below); - Access routes (approximately 20 feet wide); - Stringing sites; and - Vegetation management requirements. Pole Replacement Existing H-frames (consisting of 2 or 3 poles) will be replaced with new monopoles (i.e., a single pole). Existing pole sizes have been presumed to be approximately 2.75 feet in diameter on average. The diameter of new poles ranges from 3-6 feet. In general, relocation activities will occur in close proximity to the existing H-frames, but some of the replacement poles will be moved to accommodate landowner preferences, due to easement considerations, and to minimize impacts to critical areas. To conduct this work, PSE created construction scenarios specific to the type of structure being installed. Table 1 below describes the scenarios applicable to the Project. These scenarios provide assumptions used to assess impacts. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 7 Table 1. PSE construction scenarios. Description Scenario No Critical or Recreation Area Present Direct embed-single pole  Temporary work area is generally 2,500 square feet  Create hole (hole will be larger than diameter of the new pole)  New pole and backfill delivered to site  Place pole in hole and backfill annulus  Stabilize site A A1 Foundation-single pole  Temporary work area is generally 5,000 square feet  Create hole (hole will be slightly larger to accommodate foundation installation)  New pole and foundation materials delivered to site  Build foundation and install pole  Stabilize site C C1 Critical or Recreation Area Present Direct embed-single pole  Establish construction buffer from critical area using appropriate BMPs  Temporary work area is generally 2,500 square feet  Create hole (hole will be larger than diameter of the new pole)  New pole and backfill delivered to site  Place pole in hole and backfill annulus  Stabilize site A A2 Foundation-single pole  Establish construction buffer from critical area using appropriate BMPs  Temporary work area is generally 5,000 square feet  Create hole (hole will be slightly larger to accommodate foundation installation)  New pole and foundation materials delivered to site  Build foundation and install pole  Stabilize site C C2 While the work area for each pole type is defined as a consistent size to be conservative, the shape of the disturbed area will vary depending on the presence of critical areas or other sensitive features in the Project corridor. During construction, critical areas and other sensitive features will be excluded from the disturbance area where possible. Pole replacement will potentially result in three types of impacts: permanent, vegetation conversion, and temporary. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 8  Permanent impacts will be associated with the installation of new poles, which will have a base diameter ranging from 3 feet to 6 feet depending on the pole type (direct imbed, or new foundation which has a larger base diameter). However, some existing poles (which currently contribute to permanent fill) will be removed from critical areas and this was taken into account for wetland and stream buffer impact calculations.  Vegetation conversion impacts will be associated with the removal of incompatible transmission line vegetation. The transmission line corridor, experiences routine vegetation management which will continue. All vegetation in the wire zone and managed right-of-way (ROW) portions of the transmission line corridor, when mature, will be fifteen feet or less (unless the topography allows for at least a 20-foot clearance between vegetation and the lines). During typical inspections and maintenance of the poles, vegetation is routinely disturbed; as such, no trees of any size will grow within 6 feet of the new poles.  Where pole construction work areas and pole buffer areas do not require the removal of trees, the resulting impacts will be temporary. The majority of pole construction work area and pole buffer impacts are expected to be temporary due to the existing use and management of the corridor (i.e., lack of trees) and consideration that existing groundcover will be restored or regenerate on its own within one growing season. After construction, the temporarily disturbed areas will be re-vegetated and left to return their natural state or enhanced. BMPs will be used to minimize impacts resulting from pole replacement activities. In critical areas or buffers, mats will be placed over existing vegetation where possible. Typically, crushed vegetation rebounds within one growing season resulting in only temporary impacts to vegetation. Post-construction, all disturbed areas will be re-vegetated, if necessary, and left to return to their natural state. The impacts are further analyzed and quantified in Section 7 of this report. Access routes Access to pole removal and construction sites in critical areas will generally occur using existing, partially vegetated access (established during original construction and re-used over time to maintain the corridor). BMPs will be used to minimize ground disturbance in these areas, and in new areas of access. In critical areas or buffers, mats will be placed over existing vegetation where possible. Typically, crushed vegetation rebounds within one growing season resulting in only temporary impacts to vegetation. Where access route alignment requires tree removal, impacts will be characterized as conversion. Post- The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 9 construction, all disturbed areas will be re-vegetated, if necessary, and left to return to their natural state in compliance with vegetation management requirements. Based on the existing conditions, proposed construction BMPs, and post-construction methods, disturbance associated with access in the transmission corridor will predominantly be temporary. Stringing Sites In order to replace the transmission conductor, stringing and tensioning equipment will be staged near new steel poles at specific locations along the corridor in preparation for the stringing of new wire. The disturbance area associated with the equipment and materials to restring the conductor wire will be outside of wetlands and streams. In other critical areas and buffers, mats will be placed over existing vegetation where possible to allow access to poles for stringing activities. Typically, crushed vegetation rebounds within one growing season resulting in only temporary impacts to vegetation. Tree removal activities necessary for the stringing of new wire (in the wire zone) will be performed in a manner to minimize impacts to underlying shrubs, groundcover and other trees, and with minimal disturbance to soil. Various techniques will be utilized to string the wire to minimize surface disturbance (i.e., shooting the wire past obstacles, pulling it along established guide wire, helicopter, etc.). For this analysis, stringing sites have been identified as point locations and not polygons (Appendix A). However, each stringing site will cause approximately 7,500 square feet of disturbance. Similar to pole construction work areas, the shape of the stringing site will depend upon the presence of adjacent critical areas, existing land conditions, and area needed for equipment staging based on the necessary angle needed to string the conductor. In many areas, this disturbance will overlap with various impacts quantified for proposed access, pole installation, and vegetation management. While impacts have not been quantified for stringing sites, stringing sites are expected to largely overlap other work areas and are not expected to require additional tree removal. Any additional impacts resulting from stringing sites, not already quantified in Section 7 through other Project elements, will be temporary in nature. Stringing sites will not result in permanent impacts to critical areas. Temporary impact areas will also be avoided to the extent feasible. Unavoidable temporary impact areas will be re-vegetated and left to return to their natural state or enhanced following construction. Vegetation Management Vegetation in the existing corridor is routinely managed. The corridor was initially disturbed during original construction (including soil compaction associated with construction activities for the line itself and roads, parking lots, subdivisions, trails, and commercial development). Disturbance is regular and PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 10 ongoing due to maintenance and pole replacement activities. With the exception of the Cedar River and Honey Creek areas, the majority of trees in the existing corridor are ornamental and associated with existing residential or commercial property uses. Vegetation in a transmission line corridor that has an operational voltage of more than 200 kV must be managed in compliance with federal requirements. Vegetation management standards vary depending upon the location of vegetation management in relation to transmission wires. These specific locations are defined as follows:  Wire Zone – Section of a utility transmission ROW extending to 10 feet from the outside transmission wire(s). Vegetation with a mature height of 15 feet or less is allowed in this zone.  Managed ROW – The section of a transmission line ROW that extends 6 feet outside of the wire zone. Vegetation with a mature height of 15 feet or less is allowed in this zone.  Legal ROW – The full width of the easement. While vegetation maintenance is permitted within the full extent of the legal ROW, based on communication with PSE, only a portion of the legal ROW is intended to be maintained; this area is described as the maintained legal ROW and generally extends 10 feet from the edge of the managed ROW. Maximum height of mature vegetation between the managed ROW and legal ROW is dependent upon tree species, tree health, and distance from the wires. Consistent with federal standards, vegetation in the wire zone must have a mature height of no greater than 15 feet, unless the topographic change is sufficient to allow a 20-foot vertical clearance between the power lines and the mature height of trees under the power lines. The same vegetation requirement was applied to the managed ROW zone. The legal ROW is composed of existing and proposed easements; its width is approximately 100 feet through Renton. The area outside of the managed ROW, but still within the legal ROW, is also subject to select clearing of trees that pose a risk of damaging the lines. To facilitate the CAIA, in the maintained legal ROW, a maximum mature tree height of 70 feet was presumed. However, existing trees greater than 70 feet, or with a mature height of greater than 70 feet will not necessarily be removed. Accordingly, the CAIA conservatively estimates the number of trees that will be removed. Impacts resulting from required vegetation management are characterized as conversion in Section 7 of this report. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 11 3.4 Critical Areas Impact Analysis The CAIA was conducted by placing tree points/polygons and critical area polygons on a georeferenced base map and overlaying preliminary site plans to determine impacts. Impervious surfaces and other similar areas characterized as developed were removed from wetland and stream buffer areas for this CAIA as non-functioning buffer areas. The resulting functioning wetland and stream buffers are shown in Appendix A. Where Project elements (as discussed in Section 3.3) are located in critical areas or their functioning buffers, impacts are quantified based on area (square footage [SF] of impact). Impact results were generated based upon the expected long- term condition of the area compared to the existing condition and include permanent impacts, impacts that result in vegetation conversion, temporary impacts, and activities that result in no change or no impact (see Section 7). For more detailed methodology on the CAIA, refer to Appendix D. Impacts associated with new or replaced Lake Tradition Line poles were analyzed differently than the rest of the Project elements as the adjustments made to the Lake Tradition line to accommodate the Project entail different elements and impacts than the actions associated with the Project. Work associated with the Lake Tradition line is restricted to one area of the project corridor, affecting approximately five adjacent spans. Work includes resetting existing poles, adding new poles, and rehanging lines on existing poles. Due to the limited work and the utilization of existing poles, no vegetation impacts resulting from conflicts between wire height and tree height are anticipated. Therefore, for new or replaced poles along the Lake Tradition line, tree removal impacts were calculated based solely on proximity to proposed pole work areas. The long-term condition and impact characterization for “pole work area” was consistent with the parameters of the Energize Eastside analysis, as described in Appendix D. 3.5 Limitations The Watershed Company’s technical expertise is specific to wetlands, streams, habitat conservation areas, and shorelines. The geotechnical assessments and interpretation of impacts within geologic hazard areas have been addressed by others and referenced in the report and incorporated as Appendix E. This document represents a point-in-time analysis of the proposed Project, critical area and buffer impacts, and an approach to mitigation. Refinements made as a result of ongoing design are expected to decrease Project impacts to critical areas and critical area buffers moving forward. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 12 4 E XISTING C ONDITIONS 4.1 Site Location The Renton study area is dominated by urban land uses. The majority of the corridor is zoned residential, commercial, or industrial. Within the residential areas, the corridor passes through several distinct neighborhoods; from north to south, these include Glencoe, Honey Creek Ridge, Sunset, Liberty Ridge, and Shadow Hawk. The largest patch of remaining undeveloped land is located adjacent to the Cedar River and zoned Resource Conservation (RC). The study area corridor is primarily located in the Cedar-Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8). Within WRIA 8 the Project area lies within three drainage basins. The north end of the study area is within the May Creek basin, the middle portion is within the East Lake Washington basin, and the southern portion is in the Lower Cedar River drainage basin. No wetlands or streams were identified in the East Lake Washington basin. At the southern end of the corridor, near the Talbot Hill substation, the study area drains into the Black River basin of the Duwamish- Green Watershed (WRIA 9). The study area corridor in the Renton is located in Township 23N, Range 05E, and Sections 4, 9, 16, 20, and 21. 4.2 Site Description When the corridor was constructed in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the entire corridor was cleared. Construction activities resulted in a compacted subsurface in those areas where the poles were installed. Since that time, the corridor has been continually maintained by PSE through easement rights. Using existing access routes/paths, poles have been replaced and vegetation has been managed. To do so, vehicles and equipment (such as cranes) have been used in the corridor. Over time, development has occurred adjacent to and within the corridor, including residential development, roads, parking lots, commercial development, and the establishment of trails (using overgrown access routes). The Talbot Hill area is utilized by an extensive number of co-located critical utilities. PSE owns and operates the Talbot Hill substation located on parcel #2023059003 into which nine existing 115 kV transmission lines connect, as well as the existing PSE-owned Talbot Hill–Berrydale #3 230 kV transmission line. Two of the 115 kV transmission lines will be upgraded to 230 kV as part of the Project. Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) owns and operates the BPA Maple Valley substation located immediately east of the Talbot Hill substation on adjacent parcel #023059062 into which one PSE-owned 230 kV, two BPA- owned 230 kV, and two BPA-owned 500 kV lines connect. Two 230 kV lines connect the Talbot Hill substation to the BPA Maple Valley substation. Seattle City Light (SCL) owns and operates two 230 kV transmission lines in the area, The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 13 one of which connects to the Talbot Hill substation and the other to the BPA Maple Valley substation. Between the two substations on parcel #2023059051, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) owns and operates three large watermains that transport the primary water supply from the Cedar River Watershed to the City of Seattle. The 20-inch-diameter Olympic Pipeline (OPL) traverses west to east within several easements north of the PSE and BPA substations within the transmission line corridor utilized by PSE, BPA, and SCL. Within this utility corridor, PSE and BPA also operate dedicated fiber optic lines that are attached to the existing transmission line pole structures. In general, vegetation management requirements of pipelines are more restrictive than the vegetation management requirements for the transmission line described herein. For example, trees and shrubs are expected to be mowed or removed on a more regular basis than for the transmission lines to prevent damage to the pipeline by large roots. In addition, a corridor of herbaceous vegetation may be maintained both to keep the area free of large tree and shrub roots and to be able to easily, visually inspect the pipeline corridor from the ground and/or air. As noted above, the OPL traverses west to east within several easements north of the PSE and BPA substations at the southern end of the project area, and again is within the Project transmission line easement in the northern end of the Project area where the Renton City limits intersect with unincorporated King County. This, and other co-located utilities act as a regular, contributing source of ongoing vegetation maintenance in the shared corridor. Most of the study area corridor in Renton has been developed. Vegetation in residential, commercial, and industrial areas can be generally described as maintained yards or landscaped. On parcels that have not been developed as commercial or residential property, vegetated areas are often dominated by invasive plants including Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. Forested patches are limited to topographically low regions near the Cedar River and Honey Dew Creek. 4.3 Critical Areas This section defines Renton-regulated critical areas per Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations) of the RMC and describes the general location(s) of each critical area type in the proposed Project corridor. Regulated critical areas include wetlands, streams, habitat conservation areas, flood hazard areas, geologic hazard areas (i.e., steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards), and wellhead protection areas. Wetlands Renton defines wetlands as follows (RMC 4-11-230): PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 14 Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands include artificial wetlands created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Seven wetlands were identified in the vicinity of the proposed Project corridor in Renton. They are generally located near the Cedar River and south, between SE Cedar Ridge Drive and the Shadow Hawk neighborhood. Wetlands will not be directly impacted as a result of the Project (Section 7). See Section 5.1.1 for further description of identified wetlands and Appendix A for wetland locations. Streams and Lakes Renton defines streams and lakes by class in RMC 4-3-050.G.7 as follows: Type S: Waters inventoried as “Shorelines of the State” under chapter 90.58 RCW. These waters are regulated under Renton’s Shoreline Master Program Regulations, RMC 4-3-090. Type F: Waters that are known to be used by fish or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish and that have perennial (year-round) or seasonal flows. Type Np: Waters that do not contain fish or fish habitat and that have perennial (year-round) flows. Perennial stream waters do not go dry any time of a year of normal rainfall. However, for the purpose of water typing, Type Np waters include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow. Type Ns: Waters that do not contain fish or fish habitat and have intermittent flows. These are seasonal, non-fish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. Ns Waters must be physically connected by an above-ground channel system to Type S, F, or Np Waters. Under this section, non-regulated features include: …irrigation ditches, grass-lined swales and canals that do not meet the criteria for Type S, F, Np, or Ns Non-regulated waters may also include streams created as mitigation. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated through documentation, photographs, statements and/or other persuasive evidence. A total of four streams are located along the proposed Project corridor in Renton. Stream MR01 (Honey Dew Creek) is located on the north side of Renton, north of The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 15 SR-900, and is a tributary to May Creek. The corridor crosses the Cedar River located further to the south, near the Maple Valley Highway. Streams NR01 (Ginger Creek) and NR02 are tributaries to the Cedar River, located between the Talbot Hill substation at the corridor’s southern extent and the Shadow Hawk neighborhood. No lakes are present in the Project area. See Section 5.1.1 for detail of stream types. Streams will not be directly impacted as a result of the Project (Section 7). Habitat Conservation Areas Renton provides two classifications or definitions related to regulated habitat areas that vary slightly. The following are a “classification of critical habitats” from RMC 4-3-050.G.6 and definition of “critical habitat” from RMC 4-11-030, respectively: Classification of Critical Habitats: Habitats that have a primary association with the documented presence of non-salmonid or salmonid species (see subsection L1 of this Section and RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, for salmonid species) species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive and/or of local importance. Critical Habitat or Critical Wildlife Habitat: Habitat areas associated with threatened, endangered, sensitive, monitored, or priority species of plants or wildlife and which, if altered, could reduce the likelihood that the species would maintain and reproduce over the long term. Available Habitat The Project area is located in an urban and developed landscape. While the power line corridor is vegetated, vegetation predominantly consists of low- growing grasses, landscape plants and invasive plant species typical of maintained utility corridor areas. The corridor generally offers little in terms of habitat value when compared to other natural urban parks and greenspaces, which are expected to provide more vegetative cover, structure, and diversity, and fewer invasive plant species. Two forested patches are present in the Project area that are considered to have an increased potential for wildlife use (when compared to other Project areas in Renton); these include the forested ravines associated with Honey Dew Creek and the Cedar River. Even at these locations, original construction of transmission lines, existing and ongoing vegetation maintenance activities associated with the corridor, and the surrounding urban landscape setting reduce the likelihood that regulated species will utilize power line corridor areas for breeding. WDFW’s online mapping program, Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) on the Web, was reviewed for known priority habitats in the Project area. Two Biodiversity Areas and Corridors are mapped on forested slopes north and south PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 16 of the Cedar River, respectively. North of this area, two small freshwater pond polygons are also shown. The areas located at and in the vicinity of the freshwater pond polygons were screened during the original delineation study; no ponds or wetlands are located in the vicinity of these mapped features. The environmental designation of the shoreline zone on the south side of the Cedar River is Urban Conservancy, qualifying this area as a Class 1 Fish and Habitat Conservation Area per RMC 4-3-090.D.2.c.iii. Federally-listed Species Endangered Species Act (ESA) documentation for the south segment of the Project, which includes the South Bellevue Segment, Newcastle, and Renton was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Biological Evaluation- Puget Sound Energy Energize Eastside Project, The Watershed Company September 2018) and addresses the potential for the project to impact federally-listed species. As summarized in that document, the proposed Project will may effect but is unlikely to adversely effect ESA-listed species based upon lack of documented use, lack of suitable habitat, and/or avoidance during the project’s limited in-water work. State-listed Species State-listed species, that are not also listed as federally threatened or endangered (i.e., covered in the ESA document) are provided in Table 2. Of the species listed in Table 2, none are expected to occur in the Project area; use of the corridor is precluded by absence of suitable habitat and/or the species’ known distribution and range in Washington State. Table 2. State-listed wildlife species, excluding those listed as federally endangered and threatened. Wildlife Type Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status1 State Federal Mammals fisher Martes pennanti SE FSC - Habitat/Distribution: Historic range includes western Washington lowlands. Current range is fragmented in Washington (and is from the species reintroduction in national parks) and more extensive in Canada. Preferred habitat is closed-canopy forests. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. gray whale Eschrichtius robustus SS -- - Habitat/Distribution: Marine. - Determination: Habitat not present in Project area. Mazama pocket gopher Thomomys mazama ST FSC2 The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 17 Wildlife Type Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status1 State Federal - Habitat/Distribution: Distribution limited to prairie habitats in Pierce and Thurston Counties. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. sea otter Enhydra lutris SE FSC - Habitat/Distribution: Marine. - Determination: Habitat not present in Project area. Birds American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos ST -- - Habitat/Distribution: Breeding and non-breeding range is limited to central and eastern Washington. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. common loon Gavia immer SS -- - Habitat/Distribution: Known to breed on secluded lakes in King County. Commonly over winters in protected marine waters of Puget Sound. - Determination: Habitat not present in Project area. ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis ST -- - Habitat/Distribution: Steppe or shrub-steppe habitat of eastern Washington Counties. - Determination: Habitat and distribution does not overlap Project area. greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus ST FSC - Habitat/Distribution: Shrub-steppe habitats of central and eastern Washington. - Determination: Habitat and distribution does not overlap Project area. sandhill crane Grus canadensis SE -- - Habitat/Distribution: No historic or current breeding sites in King County. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus ST -- - Habitat/Distribution: Historical range is non-forested areas east of Cascades; current range is much smaller and fragmented in eastern Washington. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. tufted puffin Fratercula cirrhata SE -- - Habitat/Distribution: Coastal waters of Washington. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda SE -- - Habitat/Distribution: Scattered historical breeding records for eastern Washington; may now be extirpated. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 18 Wildlife Type Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status1 State Federal Reptiles and Amphibians Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata SE -- - Habitat/Distribution: Historical distribution likely included western King County; however, no current populations are known in this area. In Washington, the species was essentially extirpated by the 1980s. Important aquatic habitat features include underwater refugia, still/slow water, and basking structures. - Determination: Suitable aquatic habitat may be available in permanently ponded areas of Wetland NR02 and Wetland NR03. However, the local distribution and populations (only three known, none of which are in King County) of this species have been well studied and indicate that western pond turtles are not likely to occur in the Project area. Larch Mountain salamander Plethodon larselli SS -- - Habitat/Distribution: Populations generally limited to southern Washington counties near the Columbia River Gorge. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens SE -- - Habitat/Distribution: Current and historic distribution limited to eastern Washington. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. Fishes pygmy whitefish Prosopium coulterii SS -- - Habitat/Distribution: Only known population in King County is in Chester Morse Lake and associated portions of the Cedar and Rex Rivers (tributaries for breeding); all populations in Washington are believed to have been identified. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. margined sculpin Cottus marginatus SS -- - Habitat/Distribution: Confined to the Tucannon and Walla Walla drainages in southeastern Washington. - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. Olympic mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi SS -- - Habitat/Distribution: Known populations in southern and western lowlands of the Olympic Peninsula, the Chehalis and lower Deschutes River drainages, and south Puget Sound lowlands west of the Nisqually River. Recent occurrences in King and Snohomish Counties are considered to be outside of the species’ natural range. - Determination: Project area is located outside of species’ natural range. Insects Mardon skipper Polites mardon SE FSC - Habitat/Distribution: Distribution in Puget Prairie (Pierce and Thurston counties) and South Cascades (Klickitat and Yakima counties). The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 19 Wildlife Type Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status1 State Federal - Determination: Distribution does not overlap Project area. 1 Listing Status Codes: SE = State Endangered SS = State Sensitive ST = State Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern 2 depending upon subspecies. Priority Species WDFW’s PHS data were also reviewed for the Project vicinity (PHS on the Web). Salmonid fish use is mapped for the Cedar River and Honey Dew Creek and as stated previously, Biodiversity Areas and Corridors are shown north and south of the Cedar River. According to WDFW’s online databases (PHS on the Web and SalmonScape), salmonid species known or modeled to occur in the Cedar River are cutthroat trout, bull trout, steelhead, kokanee, sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon, thereby establishing the Cedar River as a Habitat Conservation Area (HCA). Similarly, salmonids known or modeled to occur in Honey Dew Creek include steelhead, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, and cutthroat trout, thereby establishing Honey Dew Creek as a HCA as well. In addition to reviewing WDFW’s database (PHS on the Web) for known PHS locations, the Priority Habitats and Species List (WDFW 2008) was reviewed in conjunction with species’ known distribution, range, and habitat, to determine the likelihood of priority species’ association with observed habitat in the Project area. A list of 95 priority species for King County (WDFW 2013) were reviewed for this assessment. The vast majority are not expected in the Project area, using the same process outlined in Table 2, due to a lack of suitable habitat types or special habitat features. Priority species that have the greatest potential to utilize habitat in the corridor are Columbian black-tailed deer, western toad, great blue heron, pileated woodpecker, and cavity nesting ducks. These species can be relatively common in urban settings, and are discussed below. Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) are Washington’s most common deer sub-species. They are relatively tolerant of disturbance and occur in a variety of habitats from residential areas and logged lands to coniferous forests. Their priority-species status is based upon recreational, commercial, and/or tribal importance (WDFW 2008). Local populations and habitat areas are not considered to be in PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 20 jeopardy. Columbian black-tailed deer are not dependent upon habitat in the Project corridor. Furthermore, habitat in the corridor is not expected to be significantly altered by the proposed transmission line upgrade. Columbian black-tailed deer use of the corridor is expected post-Project construction. Temporary construction activities have the potential to affect the distribution of some individuals. Deer are expected to avoid construction activities by moving to other habitat areas. There are no areas in the corridor that are considered a HCA based upon association with Columbian black-tailed deer at this time. Western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) range spans much of Washington State including western Washington and the greater Seattle area. The species reportedly remains common throughout much of its range but has experienced population declines. Western toad can be found in many habitats including desert springs and streams, meadows, woodland, mountain wetlands, and agricultural land (IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2015). Western toad habitat in the study area is generally limited to aquatic and terrestrial habitats associated with the Cedar River including Wetlands NR02 and NR03 that could be used for breeding (i.e., shallow slow-moving water). PHS on the Web (WDFW n.d.) documents western toad occurrences in King County, but none are in the vicinity of the Project area. No western toads were observed during field work activities. Project activities will not significantly impact the habitat in the Cedar River ravine, where western toad habitat is most suitable. There are no areas in the corridor that are considered a HCA based upon association with western toad at this time. Great blue herons (Ardea Herodias) are large wading birds most often found near water. Great blue herons forage in a variety of habitats near streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, saltwater shorelines, and upland fields. They nest in colonies, typically in trees near foraging habitat. There are no known great blue heron nest sites (i.e., rookeries) in close proximity to the Project area (WDFW n.d.). One great blue heron was detected near the Cedar River and Wetland NR02 during October 2017 field work activities. The Cedar River and Wetland NR02 likely provide foraging habitat for this species. If an active heron rookery is identified along the Project corridor, a PSE avian biologist will develop and implement a strategy to prevent impacts to the heron rookery during the nesting season in coordination with WDFW. Project activities will not significantly alter the habitat in the Cedar River ravine. There are no areas in the corridor that are considered a HCA based upon association with great blue heron at this time. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 21 Pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) most often nest in old-growth forest and mature forest stands. However, they are increasingly found in urban areas as long as there are large trees that can provide roosting and nesting habitat. One pileated woodpecker was observed in the Honey Dew Creek ravine during field work activities in 2015. The topographic relief between the transmission lines and existing vegetation in the Honey Dew Creek and Cedar River ravines has allowed for forests to become established beneath the transmission lines at these locations. Outside of these ravines, the Project area does not contain the appropriate vegetation to support this species due to the vegetation management requirements associated with the power lines; however, pileated woodpeckers have been known to use utility poles for nesting. Pileated woodpeckers may utilize the forested habitat of the Honey Dew Creek and Cedar River ravines, as well as utility poles in the Project area, for some portion of their life history. If pileated woodpeckers are observed excavating poles, trees, or snags within the Project area, PSE avian biologists will be consulted to determine whether the pole, tree, or snag is being used for nesting or foraging. If it is determined to be in use for foraging by pileated woodpeckers, the Project will have minimal effects by potentially causing temporary disturbance to foraging behavior. If pileated woodpecker nests are found, depending on nest occupancy, a PSE avian biologist will develop and implement a strategy to prevent impacts to the pileated woodpeckers during the nesting season in coordination with WDFW during construction and maintenance activities. There are no areas in the corridor that are considered a HCA based upon association with pileated woodpecker at this time. Even so, recommended mitigation strategies and BMPs currently proposed include the creation of habitat snags, retaining stumps, and placement of large woody debris, consistent with WDFW’s general management recommendations for this species (Lewis and Azerrad 2003). Cavity nesting duck habitat consists of wetlands, riparian areas, lakes, or beaver ponds that contain a forested canopy with abundant downed logs and downed woody debris. Suitable cavity nesting duck habitat, namely for hooded mergansers and wood ducks in western Washington, exists in the study area in the vicinity of Wetlands NR02 and NR03 near the Cedar River. Project impacts in this area occur entirely outside of the jurisdictional shoreline and will not negatively alter the habitat in the Cedar River ravine; new transmission lines will span the ravine and construction activities will not occur at the bottom of the ravine. While no cavity nesting ducks are known to be present in the Project area currently, PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 22 if they are present, they could be disturbed by increased noise but would be expected to continue use of the area after construction work is complete. There are no areas in the corridor that are considered a HCA based upon association with cavity nesting ducks at this time. Other priority species that are less likely to use habitat available in the Project corridor, but may be present particularly while traveling or foraging include Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), and band-tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata). However, these species are not closely associated with habitat found in the existing transmission line corridor. Any disturbance from Project-related activities would be temporary and would not impede the foraging of nearby habitats. Species of Local Importance Renton does not currently maintain or regulate a list of species of local importance. HCA Summary To summarize, the south side of the Cedar River within shoreline jurisdiction is considered a Class 1 Fish Habitat Conservation Area; and the Cedar River and Honey Dew Creek are considered Habitat Conservation Areas. The associated stream buffers and critical area regulations for streams are expected to adequately protect the Cedar River and Honey Dew Creek habitat areas for the duration of the Project. Two PHS-mapped Biodiversity Areas and Corridor polygons are present in the Project corridor. When considered as a whole, habitats of wildlife species regulated under RMC 4-3-050.G.6 (like pileated woodpecker) are presumed to have a primary association with these large swaths of forest. Therefore, the PHS Biodiversity Areas and Corridor polygons are also considered HCAs. While Columbian black-tailed deer, western toad, pileated woodpecker, and cavity nesting ducks could be expected to utilize habitat in the Project corridor, proposed activities are not expected to significantly affect the use of the corridor by these species. At this time no additional HCAs related to these species are considered to be present in the Project area. In addition, PSE implements an Avian Protection Plan to protect avian wildlife from harmful interactions with their utility equipment. The Plan includes preventing the creation of potentially harmful nests and monitoring known nest sites when construction activities occur in close proximity during the nesting season (Puget Sound Energy n.d.). Potential Project impacts to birds that could be expected to utilize habitat in the Project area are mitigated through the PSE’s bird protection programs and procedures. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 23 Flood Hazard Areas The City of Renton defines Flood Hazard Areas in RMC 4-3-050.G.4 as follows: Flood hazard areas are defined as the land in the floodplain subject to one percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on flood maps always includes the letters A or V. Flood hazard areas are mapped along the Cedar River in the corridor. Flood hazard areas include both the 100-year floodplain and floodway. As Project activities are not proposed within flood hazard areas, impacts will not occur. Geologic Hazard Areas Geologic hazard areas are regulated as critical areas per RMC 4-3-050.G.5. Geologically hazardous areas include steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazard, seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards as defined below. a. Steep Slope Types: i. Sensitive Slopes: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by: (a) an average slope of twenty five percent (25%) to less than forty percent (40%) as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City; or (b) an average slope of forty percent (40%) or greater with a vertical rise of less than fifteen feet (15') as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City; (c) abutting an average slope of twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%) as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City. This definition excludes engineered retaining walls. ii. Protected Slopes: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by an average slope of forty percent (40%) or greater grade and having a minimum vertical rise of fifteen feet (15') as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City. b. Landslide Hazards: i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (15%). ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%), and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mapped or identified landslide deposits. c. Erosion Hazards: PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 24 i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and a slope less than fifteen percent (15%). ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and a slope more than fifteen percent (15%). d. Seismic Hazards: i. Low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have site classifications of A through D, as defined in the International Building Code, 2012. ii. High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally have site classifications E or F, as defined in the International Building Code, 2012. e. Coal Mine Hazards: i. Low Coal Mine Hazards (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred. ii. Medium Coal Mine Hazards (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than two hundred feet (200') for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence. iii. High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet (200') in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. All geologic hazard area types are present in the study area. They have been reviewed and summarized in a report by GeoEngineers (Appendix E), the findings of which have been incorporated into this report where appropriate. According to GeoEngineers, mapped sensitive and protected steep slopes and moderate or unclassified landslide hazard areas are present within the Project area, however many of these areas are developed and include rockeries, landscaped residential or commercial development slopes and cut slopes associated with paved roadways. GeoEngineers states that the following areas (described in terms of proposed activity) are unlikely to be adversely impacted by the Project and are excluded from their detailed analysis:  One tree removed in the mapped corridor east of North 23rd Court; The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 25  Multiple trees removed east of the residence at 2101 Newport Court NE;  One tree removed east of the residence at 23118 NE 18th Street;  One tree removed on the east side of the Goodwill parking lot at 3208 NE Sunset Boulevard;  Multiple trees removed on the east side of an existing parking lot for 3244 NE 12th Street;  Multiple trees removed on the east side of existing residence from 1082 to 1074 Lynwood Avenue NE;  One tree removed on the campus of the Renton Technical College; and  One tree removed west of the apartment complex at SE 8th Street and Harrington Place SE. Localized natural areas of sensitive and protected steep slopes and moderate or unclassified landslide hazard areas in the Project area include the Honey Dew Creek drainage and the Cedar River drainage, which include slopes greater than 40 percent with a 15-foot vertical elevation rise. GeoEngineers focused their analysis on these areas. For the purposes of the impact analysis, these areas are referred to as priority steep slope and priority landslides hazard areas and are shown in the attached critical area maps (Appendix A). A detailed discussion of proposed Project impacts to geologic hazard areas is provided in Section 7 of this report. Erosion hazards are located on slopes north and south of the Cedar River and Honey Dew Creek. The only mapped seismic hazard area in the study area is associated with the Cedar River and lands immediately adjacent to the river. Coal mine hazards are mapped from the southern end of the study area, including the Talbot Hill Substation, to the Shadow Hawk neighborhood. Wellhead Protection Areas Renton defines Wellhead Protection Areas in RMC 4-3-050.A.8 as follows: …the portion of an aquifer within the zone of capture and recharge area for a well or well field owned or operated by the City. The following Wellhead Protection Area Zones may be designated: (a) Zone 1: The land area situated between a well or well field owned by the City and the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour. (b) Zone 1 Modified: The same land area described for Zone 1 but for the purpose of protecting a high-priority well, wellfield, or spring withdrawing from PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 26 a confined aquifer with partial leakage in the overlying or underlying confining layers. Uses, activities, and facilities located in this area are regulated as if located within Zone 1 except as provided by this subsection G8. (c) Zone 2: The land area situated between the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a well or well field owned or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to such a well, well field, or spring is naturally protected by confining overlying and underlying geologic layers, the City may choose not to subdivide a Wellhead Protection Area into two (2) zones. In such a case, the entire Wellhead Protection Area will be designated as Zone 2. The study area spans wellhead protection areas mapped as Zone 1 and Zone 2. Zone 1 encompasses the Cedar River. Zone 2 surrounds Zone 1, excludes the Talbot Hill Substation, and extends north. They have been reviewed and summarized in a report by GeoEngineers (Appendix E), the findings of which have been incorporated into this report where appropriate. As with their analysis of proposed actions within geologic hazard areas, GeoEngineers’ review focuses on the Honey Dew Creek and Cedar River drainage areas. Project actions are not expected to impact wellhead protection areas in these drainage areas. 4.4 Shorelines of the State The Cedar River is the only Shoreline of the State present in the Project area. Shorelines of the State and critical areas located in shoreline jurisdiction are regulated under RMC 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program [SMP] Regulations) and are defined as follows: The Renton Shoreline Master Program applies to Shorelines of the State, which include Shorelines of Statewide Significance and shorelines as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC and as listed below. 1. Shorelines of Statewide Significance: a. Lake Washington; b. Green River (the area within the OHWM of the Green River is not within the Renton City Limits, but portions of the two hundred foot (200') shoreline jurisdiction are within City limits). 2. Shorelines: a. Cedar River; b. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and NE 31st Street in the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM; c. Black River; d. Springbrook Creek from the Black River on the north to SW 43rd Street on the south; The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 27 e. Lake Desire (in the City’s potential annexation area at the time of adoption of the Shoreline Master Program). 3. The Jurisdictional Area Includes: a. Lands within two hundred feet (200'), as measured on a horizontal plane, from the OHWM, or lands within two hundred feet (200') from floodways, whichever is greater; b. Contiguous floodplain areas; and c. All marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with streams, lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act. A combination of field data and GIS inventories were used to map Cedar River shoreline jurisdiction. Floodway and floodplain areas were provided by City of Renton GIS. Within the Project area, no floodplain extends outside of the mapped floodway. The mapped floodway overlaps with the estimated ordinary high water mark (OHWM) on the north bank of the river and extends slightly beyond it on the south bank. As a result, a buffer of 200 feet was applied to the Cedar River floodway to form the basis for shoreline jurisdiction. On the south bank of the river, a delineated wetland (Wetland NRO2) falls within that 200-foot buffer and extends outside of the 200-foot buffer to the south. Consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and RMC, this wetland was considered “associated” with the Cedar River, and the shoreline jurisdiction was extended to encompass its entire delineated boundary. On the north bank of the Cedar River a potential wetland, “Cedar North”, was also identified within 200 feet of the OHWM on the northern bank of the Cedar River, which likely extends outside of the 200-foot buffer to the north. However, this feature was not delineated. Therefore, the extent of shoreline jurisdiction on the north side of the Cedar River is approximated, conservatively to encompass the approximated area of this wetland. The Project has been designed to avoid all impacts within shoreline jurisdiction. Conservatively, this includes avoiding all tree removal and impacts to other native vegetation within the vicinity of Wetland NRO2 as well as the approximated boundaries of the Cedar North wetland which defines the northern extent of the shoreline jurisdiction boundary. Renton and the Department of Ecology have documented that the Project should be reviewed as a maintenance and repair shoreline exemption (email communication between J. Ding and S. Leverette 11.6.17). PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 28 5 R EGULATIONS 5.1 Critical Areas Regulations Exemption As noted above, most critical areas, including those within shoreline jurisdiction, are regulated under Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations) of the RMC. According to this section, certain activities, including types of private utility work within existing easements, are exempt from Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050.C.3). Exempt activities are permitted in applicable critical areas and critical area buffers according to a table in RMC 4-3-050.C.3. The Project qualifies as exempt per RMC 4-3-050.C.3.e.iii (Table 3). As demonstrated in Table 3, the referenced exemption does not apply in flood hazard areas or wellhead protection areas. The Project proposes no significant adverse alterations to critical areas that are not covered under the applicable exemption (Table 3). Table 3. Excerpt of RMC 4-3-050.C.3 table of exempt activities. Exempt Activity Flood Hazard Area Geologic Hazard Area Habitat Conservation Area Streams and Lakes: Type F, Np, & Ns Wellhead Protection Areas Wetlands e. Roads, Parks, Public and Private Utilities18: iii. Utilities, Traffic Control, Walkways, Bikeways Within Existing, Improved Right-of-Way or Easements15 X X X X Footnotes: 15. Within existing and improved public road rights-of-way or easements, installation, construction, replacement, operation, overbuilding or alteration of all natural gas, cable, communication, telephone and electric facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances, traffic control devices, illumination, walkways and bikeways. If activities exceed the existing improve d area or the public right-of-way, this exemption does not apply. Where applicable, restoration of disturbed areas shall be completed. 18. Maintenance activities, including routine vegetation management and essential tree removal, and removal of non-native invasive vegetation or weeds listed by the King County Noxious Weed Board or other government agency, for public and private utilities, road rights -of-way and easements, and parks. In order to receive an approved letter of exemption from the City, a critical area report and mitigation plan is required per RMC 4-3-050.C.2.c and the following “Administrator Findings” (RMC 4-3-050.C.2.d) must be true: The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 29 i. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other provision of the Renton Municipal Code or State or Federal law or regulation; ii. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; iii. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored; iv. Where water body or buffer disturbance has occurred in accordance with an exemption during construction or other activities, revegetation with native vegetation shall be required; v. If a hazardous material, activity, and/or facility that is exempt pursuant to this Section has a significant or substantial potential to degrade groundwater quality, then the Administrator may require compliance with the Wellhead Protection Area requirements of this Section otherwise relevant to that hazardous material, activity, and/or facility. Such determinations will be based upon site and/or chemical- specific data. As explained in detail below, the Project complies with state and federal regulations, employs best management practices, and follows mitigation sequencing criteria required by the code (see Section 6). No significant adverse impacts to critical areas will result from Project activities. 5.2 Critical Area Buffers In order to avoid, minimize, document, and mitigate for critical area impacts in accordance with the applicable exemption criteria, required critical area buffers are described in this section and displayed in Appendix A. Flood hazard areas and wellhead protection areas do not require buffers. PSE limits, to the extent feasible, impacts to critical area buffers. Wetlands and Streams A summary of relevant wetland and stream critical area classifications and standard buffer widths provided in the Delineation Report (The Watershed Company 2016a) and 2017 additional delineation documentation (The Watershed Company 2017) in Appendices B and C are presented again in Tables 4 and 5, below. Standard buffer widths for wetlands outside of shoreline jurisdiction are based upon the type of land use proposed, wetland category (using the 2014 Ecology rating system), and habitat score. The proposed land use is not considered low impact due to the vegetation management requirements of the new lines. For wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction, the wetland category is based on the 2004 Ecology rating system (RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.ii) and the minimum buffer width is based on the category and wildlife function score (RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.iv). PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 30 Standard buffer widths for streams are based upon the stream type. Table 4. Summary of wetland critical area classifications and standard buffer widths. Table 5. Summary of stream critical area classifications and standard buffer widths. Stream Name Stream Type Standard Buffer Width (feet) MR01 – Honey Dew Creek Type F 115 NR01 – Ginger Creek Type Np 75 NR02 Type Ns 50 Cedar River Shoreline 100 Functioning buffers are shown in Appendix A. Functioning buffers are generally characterized as vegetated upland areas adjacent to wetland and stream critical areas. Impervious surfaces and development have been removed from standard buffers to generate functioning buffers so as not to quantify existing impacts as new Project impacts. Additionally, RMC requires modification of the standard buffer width for wetlands and streams in certain circumstances. Buffers have been modified according to the following provisions: Wetland Name 2014 Ecology Wetland Rating Category Standard Buffer Width (feet) Water Quality Hydrologic Function Habitat Total NR01 5 6 7 18 III 100 NR03 6 5 7 18 III 100 NR04 5 5 6 16 III 100 NR05 5 6 7 18 III 100 Talbot wetland* -- -- -- -- ~III ~100 2004 Ecology Wetland Rating (shoreline wetlands) NR02 12 12 29 53 II 225 Cedar north* -- -- -- -- ~III ~125 * Wetland not delineated or formally rated; rating is estimated and a moderate habitat score is presumed to determine approximate buffer width. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 31 Per RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.iv.a, buffers for wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction, … shall not include areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions. Similarly, per RMC 4-3-050.G.2 footnote 6, for buffers for wetlands outside of shoreline jurisdiction: Areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface or sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided shall not be counted toward the minimum buffer unless these areas can be feasibly removed, relocated or restored to provide buffer functions. Therefore, portions of wetland buffers that are effectively disconnected from the wetland by a road or other permanent development have been removed. Per RMC 4-3-090.D.2.d.iv.e, the presence of steep slopes adjacent to wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction also alters the required buffer width as follows: Increased Buffer for Steep Slopes: Where lands within the wetland buffer have an average continuous slope of twenty percent (20%) to thirty five percent (35%), and the required buffer width is less than one hundred feet (100'), the buffer shall extend to a thirty percent (30%) greater dimension. In all cases, where slopes within the buffers exceed thirty five percent (35%), the buffer shall extend twenty five feet (25') beyond the top of the bank of the sloping area or to the end of the buffer associated with a geological hazard if one is present, whichever is greater. Wetlands NR02 and Cedar North are both adjacent to steep slopes, therefore their buffers have been extended in compliance with this provision. Finally, per RMC 4-3-050.G.2, footnote 5, when a required stream/lake buffer falls within a protected slope or very high landslide hazard area, the stream/lake buffer width shall extend to the boundary of the protected slope of very high landslide hazard area. Stream MRO1 (Honey Dew Creek), Stream NRO1 (Ginger Creek), and Stream NRO2 have had their buffers extended to the top of adjacent slopes in compliance with this provision. The altered, functioning wetland and stream buffers described above have been used as the basis for the critical areas impact analysis and are shown on the maps in Appendix A. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 32 Habitat Conservation Areas Renton has the option to establish buffer areas for activities in, or adjacent to, habitat conservation areas regulated under Renton’s Critical Areas Regulations when needed to protect fish and wildlife habitats of importance. Buffers shall consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation, or areas identified for restoration, established to protect the integrity, functions and values of the affected habitat. Per RMC 4-3-050.G.6.c, buffer widths shall be based on: 1. Type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted on the site and adjacent sites. 2. Recommendations contained within a habitat assessment report. 3. Management recommendations issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. As noted in Section 4.3.3, the Cedar River and Honey Dew Creek are considered Habitat Conservation Areas. This report documents available habitat within those areas, potential impacts and proposed mitigation for Project actions in compliance RMC 4-3-050.G.6.c. The associated stream buffers and critical area regulations for streams are expected to adequately protect the Cedar River and Honey Dew Creek habitat areas for the duration of the Project. No additional buffer requirements are recommended. Additionally, in compliance with federal ESA requirements, a Biological Evaluation has been prepared for the Project. As summarized in that document, the Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species based upon lack of documented use, lack of suitable habitat, and/or avoidance of in-water work and vegetation removal where listed species are known to occur. Geologic Hazard Areas Geologic hazard areas include steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards. Required buffers for these critical areas (or lack thereof) is indicated in Table 4, per RMC 4-3-050.G.2. Per City requirements, these areas have been evaluated by GeoEngineers (Appendix E). Table 6. Summary of geologic hazard area buffer requirements. Geologic Hazard Area Buffer Requirements Steep Slopes - Sensitive Slopes - Protected Slopes Based upon the results of a geotechnical report and/or independent review, conditions of approval for developments may include buffers and/or setbacks from buffers. Landslide Hazards - Low - Medium - High Based upon the results of a geotechnical report and/or independent review, conditions of approval for developments may include buffers and/or setbacks from buffers. Very high landslide hazards require a 50-foot buffer. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 33 Geologic Hazard Area Buffer Requirements - Very High Erosion Hazards - Low - High None Seismic Hazards - Low - High None Coal Mine Hazards - Low - Medium - High Based upon the results of a geotechnical report and/or independent review, conditions of approval for developments may include buffers and/or setbacks from buffers. Per GeoEngineers, the Project area does not include any mapped very high landslide hazard areas and, as such, there are no required buffers in the project area. GeoEngineers does not recommend any additional buffer areas (Appendix E). 5.3 Shoreline Master Program Regulations The Cedar River, Class 1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction are regulated under the Renton SMP. However, the project has been designed to avoid all impacts, including native vegetation removal, within shoreline jurisdiction. PSE and Renton have sought and received documentation from the Washington State Department of Ecology that proposed Project actions within shoreline jurisdiction (spanning wires across the Cedar River) are exempt from the requirements of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) or Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (email communication between J. Ding and S. Leverette 11.6.17). 6 M ITIGATION S EQUENCING Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.1.b, PSE has taken steps to avoid and minimize impacts to the critical areas and associated buffers located in the Project corridor. Avoidance Proposed new poles have been sited to avoid any direct impacts to wetlands or streams. All impacts have been avoided within the shoreline jurisdiction including within all flood hazard areas. Completely avoiding pole impacts to geologic hazard areas and wellhead protection areas is not feasible due to the prevalence of those features in the Project area. Furthermore, pole replacement PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 34 activities associated with the transmission line upgrade must occur in specific locations for proper functioning of the electrical system due to complex engineering considerations making pole placement in some critical areas unavoidable. Where avoidance wasn’t possible, PSE worked with engineers to minimize impacts through design revisions; such changes reduced pole footprints and increased line heights to avoid critical area impacts to the extent feasible. Temporary impact areas associated with construction access, pole construction work areas, and stringing sites also avoid critical areas to the extent feasible. For example, specific pole construction work areas have been adjusted to exclude critical areas on a pole-by-pole basis. Minimization Minimization techniques were utilized during the design process in order to limit impacts to critical areas and their associated buffers. Minimization measures included the following: 1. Utilizing the existing transmission line corridor, which has experienced significant disturbance as a result of adjacent development and ongoing corridor maintenance. 2. When working within a critical area, limiting the construction disturbance to the minimum feasible size around each pole and access point. 3. Installing 230 kV transmission lines between poles with minimal site disturbance. Where feasible given maximum distance allowed between poles, the poles will be located outside of critical areas. Transmission lines will span above critical areas, minimizing ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and loss of critical area function. 4. Where vegetation removal is required in critical areas, trees will be accessed by foot, stumps will be left in the ground, and debris will be chipped or dispersed as appropriate, preventing critical area disturbance by large heavy equipment. Compensation Mitigation will occur in accordance with RMC 4-3-050.L and with best management practices as required by the exemption criteria. Proposed mitigation includes restoration of temporary impacts (including maintenance of slope stability) and wetland buffer enhancement (Appendix F) The mitigation approach and plans are discussed in Section 8 and 9, respectively. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 35 7 U NAVOIDABLE P ROJECT I MPACTS Impact types resulting from the Project have been quantified based upon the long-term condition of the proposed work areas and existing land cover types in the corridor. Quantified impacts have been characterized as one of four types using this analysis and include permanent, conversion, temporary, and no change. A summary of the impact types based on proposed work and existing land cover is provided in Table 7. Permanent impacts are characterized as a change from a vegetated critical area to a transmission line pole. Impacts that result in vegetation conversion are caused by vegetation management activities resulting in a shift from forested to shrubby or herbaceous vegetation. Conversion impacts will be limited to disturbance of vegetation; soils will remain intact. Temporary impacts will occur in geologic hazard areas, wetland and stream buffers, and wellhead protection areas as part of the following activities: pole installation, maintenance, and removal; and construction access route re-establishment/use. Temporary impacts will be restored in-place after construction work is complete. No Project impacts occur in wetlands, streams, flood hazard areas, or in shoreline jurisdiction. Permanent, conversion, and/or temporary Project impacts are proposed in erosion hazard areas, steep slope and landslide hazard areas, coal mine hazard areas, wellhead protection areas, habitat conservation areas, and buffers associated with wetlands and streams. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 36 Table 7. Matrix used for determining impact types based upon long-term condition of proposed activities and existing land cover types in critical areas and associated buffers. Existing Land Cover Types Impact Description Long-Term Condition1 Forested to be Removed Forested to Remain Understory only Other (mostly lawn) with under story no under story with under story no under story Proposed Activities Pole footprint (actual footprint of pole structure based on engineering drawings from PSE) Developed P P P P P P Pole buffer (6 foot radius outside of pole footprint) Mixed vegetation2 C C T T T T Access routes (20 foot width based on alignments from PSE) Mixed vegetation2 C C T T T T Pole construction work area Mixed vegetation2 C C T T T T Wire Zone Mixed vegetation2 C C NC NC NC NC Managed ROW Mixed vegetation2 C C NC NC NC NC Legal ROW Mixed vegetation2 C C NC NC NC NC Type of Impact based on proposed activity, long term condition, and existing land cover type: P = Permanent, C = Conversion, T = Temporary, NC = No Change 1 Long term condition determined in coordination with PSE. 2 Subject to varying height restrictions described in Section 3.3.4. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 37 7.1 Critical Area Impacts Wetland and Stream Buffer Impacts Minor permanent impact is proposed to wetland buffer as a result of one new pole on the south side of the Cedar River in the outer buffer of Wetland NRO2, and three increased footprints from Lake Tradition Line replacement poles in the buffer of the Talbot Wetland. Two existing poles (totaling 12 SF) will be removed from the overlapping buffers of Wetlands NRO1 and NRO5 and replaced outside of their buffer area, resulting in the removal of 12 SF of fill within this functioning buffer area. Following pole removal the holes will be filled in with dirt and restored with grass seed (Table 8). Vegetation conversion impacts are also proposed to wetland and stream buffers in the Project corridor in Renton (Table 8). Temporary impacts for the establishment of access routes and pole installation and maintenance will also occur in the buffers of Wetland NR01, Wetland NRO2, Wetland NR05, and the Talbot Wetland (Table 8). A qualitative description of buffer impacts can be found in Section 10 (Functional Lift Analysis) followed by a description of the mitigation activities proposed to compensate for the impact. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 38 Table 8. Wetland and stream buffer impacts by wetland and/or stream feature and sub- basin. Stream/Wetland Impact Type Area1 of Net Impact (SF) Source of Impact Lower Cedar River Stream NRO1 (Ginger Creek) Buffer Permanent 0 None Conversion 4,962 Removal of vegetation Temporary 0 None Stream NRO2 Buffer Permanent 0 None Conversion 311 Removal of vegetation Temporary 0 None Wetland NR01 Buffer Permanent -6 Removal of existing pole Conversion 1,562 Removal of vegetation Temporary 8,152 Access route Wetland NRO2 Buffer Permanent 13 New pole Conversion 9,423 Removal of vegetation Temporary 2,371 Pole work area, access road Wetland NRO5 Buffer Permanent -6 Removal of existing pole Conversion 313 Removal of vegetation Temporary 9,813 Access route Talbot Wetland Buffer Permanent 67 Replacement poles2 Conversion 0 None Temporary 6,220 Pole buffer, pole work areas TOTAL1 Lower Cedar River sub-basin Permanent: 68 SF Conversion: 15,948 SF Temporary: 19,235 SF May Creek Stream MRO1 (Honey Creek) Buffer Permanent 0 None Conversion 2,838 Removal of vegetation Temporary 0 None TOTAL1 May Creek sub-basin Permanent: 0 Conversion: 2,838 SF Temporary: 0 1 Area column does not sum to total impact reported because where wetland/stream buffers overlap total impact has been adjusted down to count each impact area only once. 2Three Lake Tradition Line poles are being replaced in the buffer of the Talbot Wetland. Replacement poles are in the same location as existing poles, but have a larger footprint. Only the net increase in development footprint is counted. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 39 Habitat Conservation Area Impacts Three existing poles, totaling approximately 18 SF, will be removed from the HCA mapped south of the Cedar River, outside of the extent of shoreline jurisdiction. These poles will be replaced with one new pole totaling 13 SF. Thus, there will be a net reduction in fill in this HCA. The new pole is located outside of the 100-foot Cedar River buffer, and the entirety of the shoreline jurisdiction, as well as outside of all non-shoreline stream and wetland buffers. The pole is located just north of an existing road and parking area associated with the Shadow Hawk development. It is not expected to significantly impact habitat in the area. Geologic Hazard Area Impacts and Associated Buffer Impacts Impacts to geologic hazard areas have been reviewed by GeoEngineers based on PSE’s proposed activities. As stated previously, the main areas of the corridor associated with geologic hazards are the Honey Dew Creek and Cedar River drainage areas where several overlapping geologic hazards are mapped. As such, GeoEngineers focused their review of impacts to this area. New poles will be installed in erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas and coal mine hazard areas (Table 9). However, new poles are replacing existing poles which will be removed. Per GeoEngineers Report (Appendix E), for poles located in geologic hazard areas, old poles should be cut one to two feet below the ground surface, leaving the remaining portion of the pole below ground in place in order to minimize impacts. Table 9. Geologic hazard area impacts associated with pole replacement in Project area. Geologic Hazard Area or Associated Buffer Number of New Poles1 (and proposed size in SF) Erosion Hazard Area 10 (283 SF) Landslide Hazard Area 9 (239 SF) Priority Steep Slope Hazard Area 7 (123 SF) Seismic Hazard Area 0 Coal Mine Hazard Area 18 (478 SF) 1 Several poles are present and/or are proposed in overlapping geologic hazard areas. Poles in table are counted in each area they occur in. Area based on pole diameter ranging from 3 feet to 6 feet depending on the pole type. Vegetation management activities will also result in impacts to geologic hazard areas. Impacts quantified by canopy removal are presented in Table 10 below as PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 40 vegetation conversion, and are caused by tree removal associated with the Project. Vegetation conversion quantities presented here were not utilized by GeoEngineers in their analysis of Project impacts to geologic hazard areas. GeoEngineers’ review of geologic hazard areas included a site visit to evaluate the hazard areas identified along the slopes of Honey Dew Creek and the Cedar River. They determined that PSE’s proposed work is consistent with the management activities of the existing power line right-of-way and is not anticipated to impact the mapped geologic hazard area within these drainage areas (provided no tracked or rubber-tired equipment is used to remove trees). Their report notes that proposed removal of trees in the Honey Dew Creek drainage is located upslope of any identified recently active slope failures and is not anticipated to exacerbate localized slope failures. Recommended mitigation strategies are discussed in Section 8 of this report. Refer to the GeoEngineers Report for additional details (Appendix E). Table 10. Vegetation conversion impacts to geologic hazard areas in the Project area. Geologic Hazard Area or Associated Buffer Vegetation Conversion (SF) Source of Impact Erosion Hazard Area 19,512 Legal ROW, managed ROW, wire zone, Priority Landslide Hazard Area 18,291 Legal ROW, pole work area, managed ROW, wire zone, access road, pole buffer Priority Steep Slope Hazard Area 25,133 Wire zone, legal ROW, managed ROW, pole work area, pole buffer Seismic Hazard Area 0 None Coal Mine Hazard Area 25,424 Legal ROW, managed ROW, wire zone, access road Wellhead Protection Area Impacts Wellhead protection areas are mapped within most of the Project corridor. Impacts to wellhead protection areas have been reviewed by GeoEngineers based on PSE’s proposed activities (Appendix E). Project actions within mapped wellhead protection areas are summarized in Table 11 below. Impact reported for pole footprints in Table 11 accounts for where new pole footprints overlap existing pole footprints (only new area of impact resulting from the new, bigger, pole is counted). The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 41 Table 11. Actions within wellhead protection areas in the Project area. Wellhead Protection Area Area (SF) Source of Impact Zone 1 Permanent 791 Pole footprints Conversion 0 none Temporary 23,196 Pole work area, access road, pole buffer Zone 2 Permanent 706 Pole footprints Conversion 40,696 Wire zone, managed ROW, access road, legal ROW, pole work area, pole buffer Temporary 131,387 Pole work area, pole buffer, access road, 1Permanent impact reported for pole footprints accounts for where new pole footprints overlap existing pole footprints. Only new area of impact resulting from the new, bigger, pole is counted. As with their analysis of proposed actions within geologic hazard areas, GeoEngineers’ review focused on the Honey Dew Creek and Cedar River drainage areas. They determined that PSE’s proposed work in wellhead protection areas is consistent with the management activities of the existing power line right-of-way and is not anticipated to impact the mapped wellhead protection areas within these drainage areas (provided no tracked or rubber-tired equipment is used to remove trees). Recommended mitigation strategies are discussed in Section 9 of this report. Refer to the GeoEngineers Report for additional details (Appendix E). 8 M ITIGATION A PPROACH 8.1 Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation Ratio In general, alterations to critical areas or buffers must provide restoration or mitigation to ensure that they do not result in a loss of critical area functions or values. For exempt activities, mitigation is required consistent with RMC 4-3- 050.L (Mitigation, Maintenance, and Monitoring) unless otherwise waived by the Administrator, per RMC 4-3-050.C.2.c. While RMC 4-3-050.C.2.b states that exempt activities do not need to comply with mitigation ratios, the requirements of RMC 4-3-050.L clarify that all mitigation shall be based on best available science (e.g. mitigation ratios). Therefore, mitigation ratios have been utilized in this mitigation approach. As described in Section 7, the vast majority of wetland and stream buffer impacts for the Project are vegetation removal/conversion. Interagency guidance for PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 42 mitigating vegetation conversion impact (in wetlands, specifically) is as follows (Ecology et al. 2006): Loss of functions due to the permanent conversion of wetlands from one type to another also requires compensation. For example, when a forested wetland is permanently converted to an emergent or shrub wetland (e.g., for a utility right- of-way) some functions are permanently lost or reduced. The ratios for conversion of wetlands from one type to another will vary based on the type and degree of the alteration, but they are generally one-half of the typical ratios for permanent impacts. Where functioning wetland or stream buffers are impacted by a conversion of vegetation (not fill or grading), the proposed minimum mitigation ratio to off-set impacts is 0.5:1, consistent with the guidance for this type of impact to wetland areas. Temporary wetland and stream buffer impacts will be restored in-place at a 1:1 ratio. Permanent buffer impacts will be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1, consistent with Renton’s standard provisions. 8.2 Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation Location In general, mitigation sites are more successful when combined into fewer larger areas, rather than piecemealed across several smaller sites. Furthermore, mitigation on properties which are publicly owned or PSE-owned would be more accessible and ultimately more successful compared to privately owned properties. The City of Renton has directed PSE to avoid City-owned property in locating a suitable mitigation site. Therefore, PSE properties were evaluated for mitigation potential in the Lower Cedar River sub-basin, where the majority (85 percent) of Project impacts occur. The degraded buffer of Wetland NR01, which extends onto a PSE-owned parcel east of Cedar Ridge Drive SE at the southern end of the Project corridor near the Talbot Hill substation, provides buffer enhancement mitigation opportunities. 9 M ITIGATION P LAN 9.1 Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation The mitigation plan is designed to enhance wetland buffer in the Lower Cedar River sub-basin and increase the number of habitat structures in the Honey Dew Creek buffer. The plan accounts for utility maintenance needs, site topography, habitat connectivity, and vegetation height restrictions. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 43 The Mitigation Plan (Appendix F) includes notes that fulfill the mitigation and monitoring requirements of the RMC and provide clear direction for mitigation goals, performance standards, monitoring and maintenance protocols, and contingencies for the duration of the required five-year monitoring period. The minimum size of the mitigation area (Table 12) was calculated based upon wetland and stream buffer impacts and the mitigation ratios presented in Section 8.1. Table 12. Calculation of mitigation needs for wetland and stream functioning buffer impacts. Impact Type Net Area of Impact (SF) Proposed Mitigation Ratio Mitigation Required (SF) Lower Cedar River Sub-basin Permanent 68 1:1 68 Conversion 15,948 0.5:1 7,974 Total: 8,042 May Creek Sub- basin Permanent 0 1:1 0 Conversion 2,838 0.5:1 1,419 Total: 1,419 Grand Total: 9,461 Required minimum buffer mitigation for the Project in Renton is 9,461 SF. Opportunity to fulfill this mitigation need exists in the buffer of Wetland NR01, on parcel #2023059001. Mitigation for the Lower Cedar River sub-basin impacts, as proposed in the attached plan (Appendix F), consists of 9,500 SF of wetland buffer enhancement. Proposed mitigation activities include invasive species removal and installation of native small trees, shrubs, and groundcover plants. In the Honey Dew Creek buffer, snag creation will mitigate for some impacts to habitat occurring within the May Creek sub-basin. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 44 A five year maintenance and monitoring plan is included in accordance with the requirements of RMC 4-3-050.L.3. See the Mitigation Plan in Appendix F for specific details. 9.2 Geologic Hazard Area Mitigation GeoEngineers has proposed mitigation strategies to minimize impacts to geologic hazard areas in the corridor in their analysis report (Appendix E). As stated previously, and in their report, with implementation of these strategies, proposed activities are not expected to impact the geologic hazard areas in the Honey Dew Creek and Cedar River drainage areas and are consistent with the management activities of the existing corridor. They recommend replacement planting with native shrubs within the Honey Dew Creek drainage to increase root strength after tree removal and to reduce impacts within the landslide hazard area. Pole Replacement Pole replacement activities are proposed in erosion hazard areas, landslide and steep slope hazard areas, and coal mine hazard areas. For pole replacement activities, the disturbed area will be stabilized using BMPs that reduce potential impacts including plant replacement, seeding, or hog fuel application in areas of bare soil and scattering chipped wood or tree debris. Soil removed from new pole excavations will be scattered into vegetation and away from landscaped areas. If the work area is wet or has standing water, driving mats will be used under all equipment and all soils excavated for pole installation will be removed from the site for offsite disposal. The requirements of a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan will be addressed in the Project-specific TESC Plan and Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP). Additionally, for poles located in geological hazard areas or associated buffers, the old poles will be cut off approximately 1-2 feet below the ground surface and the remaining underground portion of each pole left in place to minimize ground disturbance. Vegetation Management Options for mitigation of vegetation management and tree removal in geologic hazard areas include limiting disturbance to these areas by large equipment (only by foot and hand-cutting with chainsaws), leaving cut stumps of snags in place, and chipping or scattering tree debris where feasible. GeoEngineers recommends trees are felled across the fall line and left perpendicular to the slope if they are not chipped. Within the Honey Dew Creek drainage, replacement planting with native shrubs is recommended to increase root strength after tree removal and to reduce impacts within the landslide hazard area. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 45 Temporary Work Areas Where vegetation clearing is required to reestablish access on existing trails or old access routes, BMPs will be implemented. These BMPs may include, but are not limited to outsloping road surfaces, crowning road surfaces (where appropriate, such as at ridge tops and where roads climb gently inclined surfaces), and installing water bars or rolling dips at regularly spaced intervals to avoid concentrating surface water flow along the road surface. After construction, disturbed areas should be graded to a stable free-draining configuration, treated with appropriate erosion control measures, and seeded. Most, if not all, access routes can be abandoned following construction using erosion control measures and seeding. 10 F UNCTIONAL L IFT A NALYSIS Impacts to wetland and stream functional buffers have been qualitatively assessed in addition to the quantitative analysis in Section 7. For the purposes of this section, the pre-existing condition of the Project area is compared against the proposed post-Project condition to ensure that no net loss of critical area functions is achieved. In general, proposed wetland and stream buffer impacts are located in areas that are disturbed and dominated by invasive plants such as non-native blackberry. The majority of these impacts are classified as a vegetation conversion that involve removal of native and non-native trees from buffer areas. Buffer impacts are proposed in three main areas - Honey Dew Creek, the Cedar River ravine (outside of shoreline jurisdiction), and the Talbot substation to Shadow Hawk development portion of the corridor south of the Cedar River ravine. Except for Honey Dew Creek, all other wetland and streams identified in the study area are located in the Lower Cedar River sub-basin. Buffer conditions of these features can be generally described based on location. Table 13 summarizes impacts, existing conditions, and proposed conditions in the three proposed impact areas. The functional lift analysis describes how the mitigation plan will provide equivalent or greater critical area functions when compared to existing conditions overall. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 46 Table 13. Descriptions of general impact area conditions and proposed changes. Critical Area Existing and Proposed Conditions May Creek Sub-basin Honey Dew Creek Buffer Existing Conditions: Honey Dew Creek is the only wetland or stream critical area in the Project area located in the May Creek sub-basin. The Honey Dew Creek buffers are predominantly forested with native tree species and include steep, protected slope areas. The forest understory is degraded in places where invasive weeds are patchy and homeless encampments have removed understory vegetation and compacted soils. Proposed Conditions:  Removal of 18 trees from forested buffer area to accommodate new, higher voltage transmission lines. - 2,838 SF of canopy will be lost, predominantly near the outer portion of the buffer on the north side of the creek.  Where suitable, standing snags will be created from trees that require removal to mitigate for some habitat impact to the buffer area. Other buffer impacts will be mitigated in the buffer of Wetland NR01 in the Lower Cedar River sub-basin through invasive species removal and native vegetation planting. Lower Cedar River Sub-basin Talbot to Shadow Hawk Area Wetland and Stream Buffers (Wetlands NRO1, NRO5, Talbot Wetland, and Stream NRO1) Existing Conditions: The buffers of wetland and streams located south of the Cedar River ravine between the Talbot Hill substation and the Shadow Hawk neighborhood are degraded due to the existing use of the corridor. This area is in close proximity to residential development and is part of the managed corridor. Roads, parking lots, commercial development, and trails established from overgrown access routes are also present in this area. The Talbot Hill area is also utilized by an extensive number of co-located critical utilities which also have vegetation management requirements. The BPA easement parallels the Project area in this portion of the corridor. Vegetation in this area is dominated by small trees, shrubs, and grasses. Areas are currently mowed that are within the overlapping BPA easement. Invasive species present include but are not limited to Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, and reed canarygrass. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 47 Critical Area Existing and Proposed Conditions Proposed Conditions:  Conversion from forested buffer area to shrub buffer area to accommodate new, higher voltage transmission lines.  Temporary impacts associated with establishment of access routes and pole installation and maintenance.  Removal of two existing poles from buffer area, resulting in a net reduction of 12 SF of buffer fill.  Installation of three replacement poles for the Lake Tradition Line in the same area as existing poles, but with a larger footprint resulting in 67 square feet of new developed area.  Corridor will continue to be maintained.  Impacts will be mitigated through enhancement of Wetland NRO1 buffer near Ginger Creek. Cedar River Ravine Wetland and Stream Buffers (Wetland NRO2, and Stream NRO2) Existing Conditions: The buffers of wetland and streams located in the Cedar River ravine contain a mix of native and nonnative vegetation; the canopy is dominated by native trees, while the understory contains native plants and localized, dense patches of Himalayan blackberry and invasive knotweed. Proposed Conditions:  One new pole in the outer buffer of Wetland NRO2, south of the Cedar River.  Conversion from forested buffer area to shrub buffer area to accommodate new, higher voltage transmission lines.  Temporary impacts associated with establishment of access routes and pole installation and maintenance.  Impacts will be mitigated through buffer enhancement of Wetland NRO1 including: - Removal of invasive vegetation - Installation of native, transmission-line appropriate vegetation, including low-growing trees and shrubs - Snag dead trees in the overlapping wetland and stream buffer to remain as habitat features May Creek Sub-basin Honey Dew Creek As summarized in Table 13, 2,838 SF of vegetation conversion impact is proposed within the Honey Dew Creek buffer. This impact is predominately in the area of buffer which has been expanded to encompass the adjacent steep slopes, per code requirements (See Section 5.2.1). Eighteen (18) trees total are proposed for removal. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 48 Trees proposed for removal are assumed to provide some water quality and hydrologic functions through interception of water (rainfall) and uptake of groundwater and nutrients. While these trees and their associated functions will be removed, the understory and adjacent tree canopy to remain will be left in its existing condition. The effect of limited tree removal on water quality and hydrologic buffer functions is not expected to be significant. Removal of canopy may reduce the structural and vegetative species diversity of the stream buffer areas as well as reduce forage opportunities for some urban wildlife species. However, the overall character and habitat functions of the buffer is not expected to change significantly as a result of the limited vegetation management proposed. Additionally, the existing trees that are not compatible with the 230 kV lines will be topped and “snagged” in order to provide additional habitat. Areas that will experience temporary disturbance will be replanted with native transmission line compatible species. Net Condition The impacts associated with tree removal/snagging in the Honey Dew Creek buffer are not expected to significantly change the water quality or hydrologic functions of the stream buffer area compared to existing conditions. A slight modification in the variety of foraging habitat and vegetative structure for urban wildlife species is anticipated. However, the overall vegetation composition of the area is not expected to change substantially. Lower Cedar River Sub-basin Wetlands NRO1, NRO5, Talbot Wetland and Stream NRO1 Within the Talbot to Shadow Hawk area the majority of wetland and stream buffer impact is proposed in the buffer of Stream NRO1 (Ginger Creek) due to vegetation conversion resulting from the removal of eleven trees. As stated previously, trees proposed for removal are assumed to provide some water quality and hydrologic functions through interception of water (rainfall) and uptake of groundwater and nutrients. While these trees and their associated functions will be removed, the affected area will be left to become revegetated, likely with herbaceous or shrub vegetation. The water quality and hydrologic functions provided by potential replacement vegetation is expected to be comparable in water quality and hydrologic function to the existing small trees. Therefore, the net effect on water quality and hydrologic buffer functions anticipated from removing these trees from respective buffer areas, is not expected to be significant. Removal of canopy is expected to reduce the structural and vegetative species diversity of the stream buffer areas as well as reduce forage opportunities for some urban wildlife species. However, the overall character and habitat The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 49 functions of the buffer (i.e., managed corridor dominated by non-native species) is not expected to change significantly as a result of the limited vegetation management proposed. Temporary impacts will incorporate standard BMPs and temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures to minimize impacts to downstream water quality and hydrologic functions of the critical area buffer. Vegetation impacted in temporary work areas is expected to rebound within one growing season. Net Condition Vegetation conversion to these buffers is not expected to significantly change the water quality or hydrologic functions of the buffer areas compared to existing conditions. A slight reduction in the variety of foraging habitat and vegetative structure for urban wildlife species may occur. However, the overall vegetation composition of the area is not expected to change substantially due to the managed character of the corridor in this area. Restoration of impacts will include planting of native transmission line compatible species in those areas that are disturbed. Wetland NRO2, and Stream NRO2 All impacts to wetland and stream buffers within the Cedar River ravine (Wetland NR02 and Stream NR02) are located outside of shoreline jurisdiction, within the outer portion of the combined buffer area south of the Cedar River. As stated previously trees perform water quality and hydrologic functions through interception of rainfall and uptake of groundwater and nutrients. Native trees also provide important habitat functions. Tree removal is not expected to significantly disturb understory vegetation and soils. Trees proposed for removal in these buffer areas are also within geologic hazard areas and will be accessed by foot and removed by hand-cutting with chainsaws per GeoEngineers recommendations. In addition, stumps will remain in the ground and tree debris scattered within the ROW. Areas that will experience temporary disturbance will be replanted with compatible native species. Net Condition Restoration activities in the buffer of Wetland NR01 are expected to maintain water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions of buffer areas in the Lower Cedar River sub-basin when compared to the existing conditions. Existing and proposed dense, native trees and shrubs are expected to compensate for the loss of water quality and hydrologic functions provided by larger trees. Native plants and the creation of snags will provide cover and forage opportunities for wildlife. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 50 11 D ISCLAIMER The information contained in this report is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, state and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The Watershed Company Revised January 2019 51 R EFERENCES Ding, Jill and S. Leverette. Email Communication. 11.6.17. Environmental Science Associates (ESA). May 2017. Energize Eastside Project: Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for the Cities of Bellevue, Newcastle, Redmond, and Renton. Available online: http://www.energizeeastsideeis.org/library.html#phase2deis GeoEngineers. 2017. Revised Targeted Critical Areas Geologic Hazard Evaluation: Energize Eastside Project in Renton, WA. Prepared for PSE. IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. 2015. Anaxyrus boreas. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T3179A53947725. Accessed 20 June 2017: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T3179A53947725.en. Lewis, J.C. and J.M Azerrad. 2003. Pileated Woodpecker. Pages 29-1 – 26-9 in E. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA Puget Sound Energy. (n.d.) Avian Protection Program Brochure. Accessed 12 July 2017: https://pse.com/aboutpse/PseNewsroom/MediaKit/4483_Avian_program_brochu re.pdf The Watershed Company. May 2016a. City of Renton Critical Areas Delineation Report: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project. Prepared for PSE. Available online: http://www.energizeeastsideeis.org/library.html. The Watershed Company. May 2016b. City of Renton Tree Inventory Report: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project. Prepared for PSE. Available online: http://www.energizeeastsideeis.org/library.html. Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. March 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011a. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Priority habitats and species list. Olympia, WA 295 pp. PSE Energize Eastside Project Renton Critical Areas Report 52 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2013. PHS Statewide List and Distribution by County Excel Spreadsheet. Accessed September 2017: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017. SalmonScape. Accessed October 2017: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/. A P P E N D I X A Critical Area Assessment Maps B l a c k R i v e r E a s t L a k eW a s h i n g t o n- B e l l e v u e S o u t h E a s t L a k e W a s h i n g t o n - R e n t o n L o w e rC e d a rR i v e r M a y C r e e kW a t e r- L a k eW a s h i n g t o n W e s t L a k eW a s h i n g t o n -S e a t t l e S o u t h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8910 11 Newcastle Renton Newcastle King County Renton King County Renton Segment of PSE Route 1 PSE, TWC PSE Route outside of Renton SegmentPSE Map Page Extent (numbered)TWC Basin BoundaryKC TrailsCON Road CenterlinesCOB City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P - C O V E R PA G E §¨¦405 §¨¦90 ¬«169 0 750 1,500 Feet o Notes: 1. Critical areas were defined within a 100' corridor along the existing powerline corridor. 2. Map pages highlighted are where critical areas, as designated in Renton Municipal Code, are mapped within the Renton corridor. All other map pages were omitted. 3. Only those steep slopes designated as priority through geotechnical field investigation are mapped within the corridor. Please refer to discussion in Critical Areas Report. ¬«900 Data sources: Puget Sound Energy (PSE), The Watershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (COR), King County (KC), and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. King County 3/6 N E W P O R T C T N E 125TH AVE SE NEWPORT CT NE NE 21ST STP S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o1 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV 3/5 3/5 STREAM MR01 [HONEYDEW CREEK] P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o2 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV NE 17TH PL P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o3 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV Sh ore lin e Jurisdiction based on ap pro xima te extent of Cedar Northwetland bo u ndary. 1/1 CEDAR NO RTHWETLAND -ESTIM ATED P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o4 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV WETL AND NR0 2 CEDARNORTH W ETLAND- ESTI MATED M A P L E V A L L E Y H W Y C E D A R R I V E R[D E L I N E AT E D S O U T H E R NEXTENT ON LY ] S T R E A M N R 0 2 P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o5 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV WETL AND NR0 3 WETL AND NR0 2 RIVERVIEW PARK WALK CEDAR RIVER TRAIL STREAM NR02P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o6 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV 0/9 SE 8TH ST HARRINGTON PL SEHARRINGTON PL SEKIRKLAND AVE SE P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o7 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV 0/8 0/8 0/8 0/8 0/9 0/9 0/9 0/1 0 0/1 0 0/1 0 WETL AND NR0 4 HARRINGTON PL SESE 8TH STSE 8TH PLSE 10TH STHARRINGTON PL SE H A R R IN G TO N PL SE115 -0/8 115 -0/8 115 -0/9115 -0/9 115 -0/9 115 -0/10 115 -0/10 115 -0/10 STREAM NR02 P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o8 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV 0/7 WETL AND NR0 1 WETL AND NR0 5 NR05 -ESTIM ATED STREAM NR01[GINGER CREEK] P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o9 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV 0/6 WETL AND NR0 1 WETL ANDNR05 WETL AND NR0 5 NR05 -ESTIM ATED P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o10 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV 0/3 0/4 0/4 0/3 0/3 0/3 0/4 0/4 0/4 TAL BO T W ETLAND- ES TIM ATED BEACON WAY SACCESS RD 115 -0/3 115 -0/3 115 -0/3 115 -0/4 115 -0/4 115 -0/4 P S E E E 2 3 0 - R E N T O N C R I T I C A L A R E A A S S E S S M E N T M A P Da ta so urce s: Pu g et So un d Ene rg y (PSE), Th e Wat ershed Company (TWC), City of Renton (CO R), King County (KC), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and HDR. Aerial imagery from PSE, 2011. §¨¦405 Renton 0 20 40 Feet o11 Note s :1. Critica l are as we re d efin ed w ith in a 1 00 'co rrido r a lon g th e existin g t ran smissio n lin ecorridor.2. Acce ss ro ute s sh o wn a t t ypica l widt h of 2 0 fe et .3. De te rmine d in t he f ie ld b y g e ot ech n ica lconsultant. Se e d iscu ssion in Critica l Area sReport.4. We llh ea d Pro tect io n Are a s cove r mo st o f th eproject are a , a nd a re n ot sho w n fo r map p in gpurposes. Se e CAI A re p ort fo r impa cts. UV900 UV169 N e w c a s t l e Cr itic alAreas De lin ea ted Stream BoundaryTW C De lin ea ted Wetland BoundaryTW C Estimat ed Wetland BoundaryTW C St rea mTW C Wet la nd TW C Est ima te d WetlandTW C Limit o f F unctioning Buffer Area TW C Co mb in e d Functioning Wetland/Stream BufferAreaTWC- w hite sh a din g Prio rit y Ste ep Slo pe s3 TW C Ero sion H a za rd CO R Prio rit y L an dslide H a zard Are a s CO R Co al Min e Ha zard CO R Se ismic Ha zard CO R Sh o reline Ju risd iction TW C Flo o dw a yCO R Flo o dp lain CO R ....Prio rit y H ab it at WD FW Imp ac tsWire sPS E La ke Tra d it io n 115 k Wire sPS E !?Exist in g Po le s to b e Re mo ved PS E !H Exist in g Po le s to b e Re ta ine d PS E Wire Z on e PS E Ma n ag e d Righ t-o f-Wa y PS E Ma int ain ed L eg a l RO WPS E -p a le ye llo w sha d in g Pro p ose d Acce ss R ou te s 2 P SE %%,Pro p ose d Pole Fo o tp rin ts PS E %%,Pro p ose d L ake Trad ition Po le F oo tp rints PS E #*Pro p ose d String ing Site sHDR St ud y Area TW C City L imit KC D Tre e s t o Re mo veTW C D De a d Tre e s to R e mo ve TW CV A P P E N D I X B 2016 Delineation Study C ITY OF R ENTON C RITICAL A REAS D ELINEATION R EPORT Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project Prepared for: Jens Nedrud Puget Sound Energy 355 10th Avenue NE Mail Stop: EST03W48 Bellevue, WA 98004 Prepared by: May 2016 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 111103 The Watershed Company Contact Person: Jennifer Creveling, Senior Biologist or Katy Crandall, Ecologist Cite this document as: The Watershed Company. May 2016. City of Renton Critical Areas Delineation Report: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project. Prepared for PSE. The Watershed Company May 2016 i T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page # 1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Methods ............................................................................................................ 4 2 Site Description .................................................................................. 5 3 Critical Areas ....................................................................................... 5 3.1 Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Streams ............................................................................................................ 7 3.3 Wildlife and Habitat ........................................................................................... 8 3.4 Critical Area Classifications and Standard Buffers........................................... 11 3.4.1 Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 11 3.4.2 Streams ............................................................................................................. 11 4 Mitigation Opportunities .................................................................. 12 4.1 Segment M (Honey Dew Creek Ravine) .......................................................... 12 4.2 Segment N (near Talbot Hill Substation) ......................................................... 12 Appendix A Critical Area Delineation Maps Appendix B Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C Wetland Rating Forms PSE 230kV Route Renton Delineation Report City of Renton Critical Areas Delineation Report - II L IST OF F IGURES Figure 1. Map of proposed Oak and Willow routes from the Energize Eastside website. The Oak route is depicted in green while the Willow route variation is shown in orange. ...................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Overview of the study area corridor in the City of Redmond including the southern portion of Segment M and Segment N. ...................................... 3 Figure 3. Location of osprey nest in the vicinity of Segment N in the City of Renton. .... 10 Figure 4. General area (yellow) where mitigation opportunities exist in Segment M ..... 12 Figure 5. General area (yellow) where mitigation opportunities along Segment N. ....... 13 L IST OF T ABLES Table 1. Wetland rating and associated buffer width. ................................................... 11 Table 2. Summary of stream classifications and associated standard buffer widths. .... 11 The Watershed Company May 2016 1 C ITY OF R E NTON D ELINEATION R EPORT P UGET S OUND E NERGY – E NERGIZE E ASTSIDE P ROJECT 1 I NTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose The purpose of this report is to identify and document potential critical areas associated with Puget Sound Energy’s (PSE’s) Energize Eastside project. The Energize Eastside project proposes to build a new electric substation and higher capacity transmission lines to serve homes and businesses on the Eastside. Current route options include ‘Oak’ and ‘Willow’ routes that will extend from Redmond to Renton (Figure 1). Each route option includes a set of PSE-labeled segments. The Oak route comprises Segments A, C, E, G2, I, K2, M, and N. The Willow route comprises Segments A, C, E, J, M, and N. This report addresses critical areas located along the proposed routes in the City of Renton, and includes PSE-labeled Segment N and a portion of Segment M 1 (Figure 2). The length of the study area corridor in the City of Renton is approximately 3.7 miles beginning south of May Creek and continuing south to the Talbot Hill substation (Figure 2). At the direction of PSE, the study area excluded the lower portion of the Cedar River ravine because there are no pole placement locations nor anticipated PSE development in this area. In this location, the study area was defined as follows: on the south side of the ravine, survey limits included the area approximately 425 feet north-northwest beyond the existing structure(s); and on the north side of the ravine, survey limits included the area approximately 250 feet south-southeast beyond the existing structure(s). The study area corridor includes two existing 115 kV transmission lines spaced approximately 50 feet apart on center. Each line is composed of three conductors (wires) connected to H-frame pole structures. The study area corridor is approximately 100 feet wide. 1 PSE Segments M and N comprise Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Segment 3. PSE 230kV Route Renton Delineation Report 2 Figure 1. Map of proposed Oak and Willow routes from the Energize Eastside website. The Oak route is depicted in green while the Willow route variation is shown in orange. The Watershed Company May 2016 3 Figure 2. Overview of the study area corridor in the City of Renton including the southern portion of Segment M (red) and Segment N (green). PSE 230kV Route Renton Delineation Report 4 1.2 Methods Limits of the study area were determined in the field using aerial maps, GPS, and by measuring 25 feet out from the center of each pole set. Public-domain information on the study area corridor was reviewed for this critical areas study. These sources include USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web and SalmonScape), City of Renton’s online mapping application (COR Maps), and King County’s GIS mapping website (iMAP). The study area corridor was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Regional Supplement (Corps 2010). The wetland boundary was determined on the basis of an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Areas meeting the criteria set forth in the Regional Supplement were determined to be wetland. Soil, vegetation, and hydrologic parameters were sampled at several locations along the wetland boundary to make the determination. Data were recorded at three of these locations. Data sheets are included in Appendix B. Updates to the City of Renton’s critical areas regulations occurred after field work was conducted in the City of Renton. Renton’s wetland classification system changed as a part of these updates. Delineated wetlands have been re- classified using the 2014 Rating System (Hruby) currently cited in the Code, based on observations of site conditions and aerial photos. Wetland Rating Forms and Figures are included in Appendix C. Watercourses were determined to be streams if they met the definition provided by the City of Renton. The center-lines of streams in the study area were recorded in the field. Streams were classified according to the Renton Municipal Code. Wetland boundaries, stream center-lines, data points, and other features (such as culverts) were GPS-located using a hand-held Trimble Geo-XH unit. Following field location, the GPS data was differentially corrected using GPS Pathfinder Office and exported into ESRI ArcGIS software for mapping. Stream and wetland delineation maps are included in Appendix A. Incidental wildlife observations and detections were recorded during field studies and summarized in Section 3.3 of this report. Possible mitigation opportunities were noted during field studies. The approximate extent of these areas is shown on aerial photos included in Section 5 of this report. The Watershed Company May 2016 5 2 SITE D ESCRIPTION The study area corridor in the City of Renton is dominated by urban land uses. The majority of the corridor passes through parcels zoned residential, commercial, or industrial. Within the residential areas, the corridor passes through several distinct neighborhoods; from north to south, these include Glencoe, Honey Creek Ridge, Sunset, Liberty Ridge, and Shadow Hawk. The largest patch of remaining undeveloped land is located adjacent to the Cedar River and zoned Resource Conservation (RC). The study area corridor is primarily located in the Cedar-Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8). Within this watershed, the north end of the study area drains to the May Creek basin while the remainder is located in the Lower Cedar River drainage basin. At the southern end of the corridor, near the Talbot Hill substation, the study area drains into the Black River basin of the Duwamish- Green Watershed (WRIA 9). The study area corridor in the City of Renton is located in Township 23N, Range 05E, Sections 4, 9, 16, 20, and 21. Most of the study area corridor in the City of Renton has been developed. Vegetation in residential, commercial, and industrial areas can be generally described as maintained yards or landscaped. Remaining vegetated areas are often dominated by invasive plants including Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. Forested patches are limited to topographically low regions near the Cedar River and Honey Dew Creek. 3 C RITICAL A REAS A total of one wetland and four streams are located along the proposed Energize Eastside corridor in the City of Renton. All are located in the Cedar-Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8). Sign or presence of any wildlife species or habitat areas that may be regulated by the City were also noted and are described in this section. For the purposes of this study, the nomenclature used to identify critical areas has been based on the PSE segment in which a feature is located, and the local jurisdiction. Critical areas were then numbered sequentially, in the order in which they were inventoried. For example, the first wetland inventoried as a part of this study on Segment N in Renton is called “NR01.” PSE 230kV Route Renton Delineation Report 6 3.1 Wetlands Wetland NR01 Wetland NR01 is a slope wetland located near the southern end of the study area, between SE Cedar Ridge Drive and the Shadow Hawk neighborhood (Appendix A, Page No. 31). Vegetation is dominated by palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine emergent vegetation classes. Common plants observed include hardhack spirea and reed canarygrass. Sampled wetland soils (Appendix B; DP- 1) were a gravelly loam and met the criteria for hydric soil indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6). Primary hydrology indicators were not observed at the test pit, but saturation and/or surface water was present in small depressions in the wetland during field investigations. Conditions at the data point met the criteria for two secondary hydrology indicators. Wetland NR01 is primarily supported by groundwater and supplemented by surface water and precipitation. This wetland is rated as a Category III wetland. Unmapped Wetland Areas Two wetland areas are mapped on COR maps underneath the powerlines between the Cedar River Trail and the Cedar River. As described in the Methods section above, this wetland area was not verified or classified as part of this study. There are neither pole placement locations nor anticipated PSE development in this area. Their approximate locations have been sketched onto the Critical Areas Maps (Appendix A). Non-wetland Areas A possible wetland feature is mapped by NWI and the City of Renton on a parcel located west of Monroe Avenue NE (parcel number 1623059059). The parcel is undeveloped. A review of the City’s online public records indicates this area, known as Upper Balch Pit, was a permitted sand/gravel pit from 1962 to 1982; since 1982, the site has been an upland fill and reclamation site. In 2010, a wetland reconnaissance technical memorandum documenting no wetlands on the property was reviewed and approved by the City (City of Renton, File # LUA 10-056, ECF, SP). Field investigations (DP-3, Appendix B) support this conclusion. While some surface water ponding may occur during wet months, the site does not meet wetland criteria. Off-site Wetlands At least two wetlands appear to be located near the powerline corridor, but outside of the designated study area on Segment N between SE Cedar Ridge Drive and the Cedar River. Their approximate locations have been sketched onto the Critical Area Delineation Maps (Appendix A). These features were not thoroughly investigated or rated during field work activities, but are mentioned here because they may have regulated buffers that extend into the project area. The Watershed Company May 2016 7 Subsequent field work efforts may be needed to address these off-site features if project impacts are proposed in the vicinity. 3.2 Streams The streams discussed below have been mapped and classified by the City of Renton in the City of Renton’s online interactive mapping application (COR Maps). Stream MR01 (Honey Dew Creek) Stream MR01, also known as Honey Dew Creek, is located at the north end of the study area corridor (Appendix A, Page No. 6). It flows northwest through the corridor and drains to May Creek located approximately 0.6 mile downstream. Honey Dew Creek is located in a forested ravine. There are small pockets of riverine wetland vegetation within the OHWM of the creek. It is approximately 10 feet wide through the study area corridor. COR Maps classifies Honey Dew Creek as Type F, or fish-bearing, at this location. Field observations are consistent with this classification. Stream NR01 (Ginger Creek) Stream NR01, also known as Ginger Creek, is located east of Wetland NR01 (Appendix A, Page No. 30). Ginger Creek flows generally north through the study area before draining into the Cedar River, approximately 0.3 mile downstream. It is mapped by COR Maps as originating southeast of the study area in Cascade Park. Through the study area, Ginger Creek is located in a very steep-sided ravine. The bed is made up of coarse cobble and the average width is approximated at 8 to 10 feet. COR Maps classifies this stream as Type Np, or non-fish bearing perennial. During the summer field investigations, no flow was observed in Ginger Creek in the study area. This is not likely characteristic of the stream, as it was visited near the end of summer during a drought. The Seattle office of the National Weather Forecast Office reported drier than normal conditions summer months in May through July (-1.36 inches departure from normal precipitation). Stream NR01 should still be classified as Type Np, as Renton Municipal Code specifies that Type Np waters can include intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow during years of non- normal rainfall. If pole placements are to be placed here, it may be prudent to re- visit the creek on a non-drought year to assess whether the stream should be re- typed as Type Ns, or non-fish bearing seasonal. PSE 230kV Route Renton Delineation Report 8 Stream NR02 Stream NR02 is a seasonal stream that flows north through, or adjacent to, the study area corridor (Appendix A, Page No. 28, 29 and 30). It crosses or approaches the corridor at two locations. At the upstream location, it is located approximately 250 feet east of Ginger Creek, west of the Shadow Hawk neighborhood. At this location, the stream channel is just beginning to form and is poorly defined. The channel here was dry and estimated at approximately 2 feet wide. Banks are predominantly vegetated with Himalayan blackberry. The bed is made up of mostly dirt with some rock and cobble present. An off-site wetland, located just south of this area, appears to contribute flow to this stream during wetter months. Downstream, near the Cedar River Trail, Stream NR02 approaches the study area corridor again. Here, the stream channel flows in distinct banks and the bed contains rock and gravel. Average width of the stream at this location is 3 feet. This portion of the channel was flowing during the site visit. COR Maps classifies this stream as Type Ns, or non-fish bearing seasonal. Field observations are consistent with this classification. Cedar River While the area immediately adjacent to the Cedar River was specifically excluded from this study area as described in Methods section above , the Cedar River is a prominent critical area located in the subject powerline corridor and is therefore discussed briefly in this section. The Cedar River is a regulated Shoreline of the State. Aerial photo measurements indicate that the width of the Cedar River under the powerline corridor is generally between 70 to 90 feet. Fish use in the Cedar River is well documented and incudes bull trout, coho salmon, sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, kokanee, and resident cutthroat trout (SalmonScape and PHS on the Web). 3.3 Wildlife and Habitat The City of Renton regulates habitats that have a primary association with species listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, sensitive, and/or local importance as critical areas. The City also considers areas designated as priority habitats in the Priority Habitat and Species Program of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife as habitat conservation areas. Washington State Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) maps were reviewed for the project vicinity. In addition to the salmonid species documented in the Cedar River and Honey Dew Creek, PHS maps depict forested patches adjacent to the The Watershed Company May 2016 9 Cedar River as Biodiversity Areas and Corridors. No other PHS features are mapped in or near the powerline corridor. Significant wildlife observations were recorded during field investigations. A pileated woodpecker was in a forested patch near the Honey Dew Creek ravine. A bald eagle was also observed flying overhead in this general area. More significantly, an active osprey nest was observed near the study area corridor on Segment N. The nest was located in a cell tower (Figure 3) southwest of Cedar Ridge Drive SE. Two adults and one juvenile osprey were visible using the nest on several occasions during the summer field visits. PSE 230kV Route Renton Delineation Report 10 Figure 3. Location of osprey nest in the vicinity of Segment N in the City of Renton. Habitat in the study area is limited to forested patches in topographically low areas (ravines) associated with Honey Dew Creek and the Cedar River. These forested areas are typically dominated by deciduous trees including red alder and bigleaf maple in the canopy. Habitat located in and adjacent to the study area corridor may have the potential to support regulated wildlife species. Osprey nest location The Watershed Company May 2016 11 3.4 Critical Area Classifications and Standard Buffers Critical areas in the City of Renton are regulated in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), Title IV Development Regulations, Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay District, 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. Shorelines of the State in the City of Renton are regulated under the Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090). 3.4.1 Wetlands According to RMC 4-3-050-G.9, wetlands are classified based on the 2014 Rating System (Hruby). Wetland buffers are measured from the wetland edge and are based upon the wetland rating, associated habitat score, and impact of land use. The adjacent land use would not be considered low intensity, therefore the buffer width for “all other land uses” applies. Wetland NR01 rates as “moderate” for habitat functions. The following table shows the rating for Wetland NR01 and its associated standard buffer width. Table 1. Wetland rating and associated buffer width. Wetland Name 2014 Ecology Wetland Rating Category Standard Buffer Width (ft) Water Quality Hydrology Habitat Total NR01 5 6 7 18 III 100 Wetland delineations are valid in the City of Renton for up to five years from the study date of completion. This period may be extended if it can be confirmed that on-site conditions have not changed. 3.4.2 Streams Streams are classified based on Washington State’s Permanent Water Typing System (WAC 222-16-030, RMC 4-3-050-G.7.a). Status as Shoreline of the State, permanence of flow, and presence of fish or fish habitat are considered to make the stream class determination. Stream buffers are measured from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Shorelines of the state (Type S streams) are regulated under the City of Renton SMP (RMC 4-3-090); all other streams are regulated under RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. A summary of stream types and buffer widths is provided in Table 2, below. Table 2. Summary of stream classifications and associated standard buffer widths. Stream Name Stream Type Standard Buffer Width (ft) MR01 (Honey Dew Creek) Type F 115 NR01 (Ginger Creek) Type Np 75 NR02 Type Ns 50 Cedar River Type S, Shoreline 100 PSE 230kV Route Renton Delineation Report 12 4 M ITIGATION O PPORTUNITIES Mitigation opportunities located in the study area were noted during field investigations. These areas include degraded/disturbed wetland and stream critical areas and their buffers; all are located under existing powerline corridors. The degraded and disturbed areas are dominated by invasive species such as reed canarygrass and Himalayan blackberry. Any proposed revegetation would need to adhere to vegetation height limits prescribed by PSE standards. Special care would also need to be given in areas with steep slopes. Locations where mitigation opportunities exist have been briefly summarized below. 4.1 Segment M (Honey Dew Creek Ravine) Mitigation opportunities are present in Segment M along the Honey Dew Creek Ravine (on City of Renton parcels 0423059342 and 0423059035). This site includes Honey Dew Creek (Stream MR01). Figure 4. General area (yellow) where mitigation opportunities exist in Segment M 4.2 Segment N (near Talbot Hill Substation) The area that appears to provide the largest opportunity for mitigation within the City of Renton is the segment of the corridor between Cedar Ridge Drive SE The Watershed Company May 2016 13 and the Cedar River trail (private parcels 7701570000 and 7701590000; PSE parcels 2023059001, 2023059050, and 1623059012; and the City of Renton parcel 2123059003). The site includes portions of Streams NR01 (Ginger Creek), NR02, Wetland NR01, and critical area buffers. Figure 5. General area (yellow) where mitigation opportunities along Segment N. PSE 230kV Route Renton Delineation Report 14 R EFERENCES City of Renton. (2015). City of Renton Municipal Code. Retrieved December 31, 2015, from: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Renton/#!/RentonNT.html City of Renton GIS Department. (2015) City of Renton (COR) Maps. Retrieved from December 31, 2015, from the City of Renton: http://rp.rentonwa.gov/SilverlightPublic/Viewer.html?Viewer=COR-Maps Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Publication #14-06-029. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Kaufman, F. 2010. Upper Balch Pit Grade & Fill, File No. LUA-10-056, ECF, SP. Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton. King County GIS Center. (2015). King County iMap Interactive Mapping Tool. Retrieved December 31, 2015, from King County GIS Center: http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/Maps/iMAP.aspx U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Washington Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 2.0 (Regional Supplement). Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2015). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved December 31, 2015, from Natural Resources Conservation Service: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2015). Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved December 31, 2015, from National Wetlands Inventory: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html [WDFW] Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. (2015). PHS on the Web. Retrieved December 31, 2015, from Priority Habitats and Species: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ [WDFW] Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. (2015). SalmonScape web application. Retrieved December 31, 2015, from WDFW: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/ The Watershed Company May 2016 A PPENDIX A Critical Area Delineation Maps King County Ren ton M 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM1 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. King County Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM2 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. King County King County Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM3 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. King County Rento n Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM4 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. King County Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM5 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M115'STREAM MR01 (Ho ne y C r e e k) St ream Critica l Area Bu fferTWC Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM6 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM7 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM8 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM9 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM10 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM11 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM12 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM13 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM14 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM15 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM16 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM17 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM18 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Ren ton M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM19 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM20 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM21 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM22 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM23 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM24 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n M N Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM/N25 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n N Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTM/N26 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento nN WETLANDUNNAMED(COR )200'C e d a r River St ream Wetland Critica l Area Bu fferTWC 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTN27 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. 2. Wetlands shown were mapped by City of Renton (2012), but were not investigated as par t of the PSE st udy. WETLANDUNNAMED(COR ) Rento n N WETLANDUNNAMED(COR ) 50'STREAMNR02St ream Wetland Critica l Area Bu fferTWC Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTN28 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. 2. Wetlands shown were mapped by City of Renton (2012), but were not investigated as par t of the PSE st udy. Rento n N WETLA NDUNNAMEDSTREAMNR02 St ream Wetland Critica l Area Bu fferTWC Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTN29 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n N WETLA NDUNNAMED 50'75'ST R EAM NR02 STREAM NR01(GingerCreek) St ream Wetland Critica l Area Bu fferTWC Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTN30 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. 2. Obser ved while in the f ield and sketched, b ut not delineated. Rento n N DP-1 DP-2 WETLANDNR01 WETLA NDUNNAMED 1 0 0 ' Data PointTWC Wetland Critica l Area Bu fferTWC Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTN31 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. 2. Obser ved while in the f ield and sketched, b ut not delineated. Rento n N Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTN32 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n N Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTN33 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento nN Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTN34 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. Rento n N Existing Pole LocationPSE 100' Screening L imit TWC City LimitKC P S E E E 2 3 0 - C R I T I C A L A R E A S A S S E S S M E N T M A P 0 25 50 Fee t PAG E NO. SEGMENTN35 Da ta sources: Puget Sound Energy, The Watershed Company, and K ing Count y. Aerial im agery from PSE. Notes: 1. Category IV wet lands that are less than 2,500 SF in area, do not have a buffer. The Watershed Company May 2016 A PPENDIX B Wetland Determination Data Forms US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Segment N, parcel number 2123059003 Sampling Date: 7/8/2015 Applicant/Owner: Puget Sound Energy Sampling Point: DP- 1 Investigator: Katy Crandall, Rose Whitson City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 16 T 23 R 05 State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope Slope (%): ~5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: AgC – Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8-15% slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☒ No ☐ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Wetland NR01 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Spiraea douglasii 15 Y FACW Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 15 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 95 Y FACW 2. Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☒ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 95 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: DP- 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-1 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 5 YR 3/1 97 5 YR 3/4 3 C M Gravelly loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 ☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☒ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☒ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Less than average rainfall. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Segment N, parcel number 2123059003 Sampling Date: 7/8/2015 Applicant/Owner: Puget Sound Energy Sampling Point: DP- 2 Investigator: Katy Crandall, Rose Whitson City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 16 T 23 R 05 State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Hillslope, hummocky Slope (%): 2 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: AgC – Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8-15% slopes NWI classification: NA Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Out-pit near wetland NR01. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Spiraea douglasii 40 Y FACW Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 40 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Gaultheria shallon 75 Y FACU 2. Pteridium aquilinum 15 Y FACU Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. ☐ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 90 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ 1. Rubus armeniacus 20 Y FACU 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: DP- 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-2 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/2 100 Loam 6-12 7.5YR 4/2 80 5YR 4/6 20 C M Gravelly loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 ☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☒ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Less than average rainfall. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 822-5242 watershedco.com WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Segment M, parcel number 1623059059 Sampling Date: 5/22/2015 Applicant/Owner: Puget Sound Energy Sampling Point: DP- 3 Investigator: Katy Crandall, Mike Foster, Ryan Kahlo City/County: Renton Sect., Township, Range: S 16 T 23 R 05 State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Depression Slope (%): <5 Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: An – Arents, Everett material NWI classification: PABFh Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Low area on Segale property; area appears to have been disturbed in the past. Mix of wetland and non-wetland vegetation near DP. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5m diam.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet 1. Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3m diam.) 1. Populus balsamifera 30 Y FAC Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Salix lucida 20 Y FACW Total % Cover of Multiply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = 50 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1m diam.) Column totals (A) (B) 1. Juncus effusus 70 Y FACW 2. Achillea millefolium 10 N FACU Prevalence Index = B / A = 3. Phalaris arundinacea 5 N FACW 4. Cirsium arvense 5 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Carex stipata 3 N OBL ☐ Dominance test is > 50% 6. ☐ Prevalence test is ≤ 3.0 * 7. Morphological Adaptations * (provide supporting 8. ☐ data in remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ☐ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants * 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. 93 = Total Cover * Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: Remarks: DP- 3 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point – DP-3 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 4/2 99 10YR 4/4 1 C M Gravelly sandy loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 ☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type: ________________________________________ Depth (inches): _____________________________________ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☒ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) Field Observations Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Damp low in soil profile; not saturated The Watershed Company May 2016 A PPENDIX C Wetland Rating Forms Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 1 RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland NR01 Date of site visit: 7/8/2014 Rated by: Trained by Ecology? ☒Y ☐N Date of training: 09/2014 HGM Class used for rating: Slope Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ☐Y ☒N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map: City of Renton online mapping application (COR Maps) OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY (based on functions ☒ or special characteristics ☐) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS ☐ Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 ☐ Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 ☒ Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 ☐ Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 5 6 7 18 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above ☒ Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 2 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of unit vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes H 1.1, H 1.4 Hydroperiods H 1.2 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of 150 ft buffer (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) S 3.3 Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 3 HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ☒NO – go to 2 ☐YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ☒NO – go to 3 ☐YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ☐At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ☒NO – go to 4 ☐YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☒The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ☒The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ☒The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ☐NO – go to 5 ☒YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ☐The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 4 ☐NO – go to 6 ☐YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ☐NO – go to 7 ☐YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ☐NO – go to 8 ☐YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 11 SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1%-2% points = 2 Slope is > 2%-5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 1 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0 0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0 6 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐12 = H ☒6-11 = M ☐0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? Other sources Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐1-2 = M ☒0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 1 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which unit is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above 1 Rating of Value If score is: ☐2-4 = H ☒1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 12 SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually >1/8 8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1 All other conditions points = 0 1 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☒1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses or cover that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐1 = M ☒0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 2 S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: ☒2-4 = H ☐1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 13 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ☐ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ☒ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 ☒ Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ☐ Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ☐ The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon 1 H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ☐ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ☐ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ☒ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 ☒ Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ☐ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ☐ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points 1 H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 1 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are HIGH = 3points 1 Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 14 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ☐ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ☐ Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland ☐ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) and/or overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m) ☐ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed) ☐ At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians) ☐ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata) 0 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐15-18 = H ☐7-14 = M ☒0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat: 0 + [(40% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]: 20 = 20% If total accessible habitat is: > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 2 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat: 20 + [(50% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2]: 25 = 45% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 2 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☒4-6 = H ☐1-3 = M ☐< 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 ☒ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) ☐ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) ☐ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species ☐ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources ☐ It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 2 Rating of Value If score is: ☒2 = H ☐1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 15 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. ☐ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). ☒ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). ☐ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. ☐ Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ☐ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above). ☒ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ☐ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above). ☒ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ☐ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page). ☐ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ☐ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. ☐ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ☒ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 16 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ☐ The dominant water regime is tidal, ☐ Vegetated, and ☐ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ☐Yes –Go to SC 1.1 ☒No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? ☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) ☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. ☐ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ☐Yes = Category I ☐No= Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ☐Yes – Go to SC 2.2 ☒No – Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf ☐Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 ☒No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No = Not a WHCV Cat. I SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☐No – Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? ☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☐No = Is not a bog Cat. I Wetland name or number: NR01 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 17 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. ☐ Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. ☐ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? ☐ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks ☐ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ☐Yes – Go to SC 5.1 ☒No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? ☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). ☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. ☐ The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) ☐Yes = Category I ☐No = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: ☐ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 ☐ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 ☐ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ☐Yes – Go to SC 6.1 ☒No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ☐Yes = Category II ☐No – Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ☐Yes = Category III ☐No = Category IV Cat I Cat. II Cat. III Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form NA Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 18 Wetland name or number This page left blank intentionally W ETLAND NR01 2014 W ETLAND R ATING F ORM F IGURES Figure 1. Map of Cowardin plant classes with 150-foot buffer for Wetland NR01. ........... 2 Figure 2. Map of hydroperiods for Wetland NR01. .......................................................... 3 Figure 3. Approximate 1 km polygon that extends from Wetland NR01 edge including polygons for undisturbed and moderate intensity land use. ...................... 4 Figure 4. Screen capture of map of 303d listed waters in basin (from Ecology web site). 5 Figure 5. Screen capture of list of TMDL’s for WRIA in which wetland unit is found (from web). ........................................................................................................ 6 2 Figure 1. Map of Cowardin plant classes with 150-foot buffer for Wetland NR01. S4.1 – Scrub-shrub and emergent Cowardin classes are considered both dense and rigid. Emergent Scrub-shrub 3 Figure 2. Map of hydroperiods for Wetland NR01. Saturated only Occasionally flooded 4 Figure 3. Approximate 1 km polygon that extends from Wetland NR01 edge including polygons for undisturbed and moderate intensity land use. 1 km polygon Moderate intensity (orange) Undisturbed (purple) High Intensity 5 Figure 4. Screen capture of map of 303d listed waters in basin (from Ecology web site). Approximate location of wetland 6 Figure 5. Screen capture of list of TMDL’s for WRIA in which wetland unit is found (from web). A P P E N D I X C 2017 Delineation Study Update November 29, 2017 Kelly Purnell Project Manager PSE Energize Eastside 355 110th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Via email: Kelly.Purnell@pse.com Re: PSE Energize Eastside Project – 2017 Additional Wetland and Stream Delineation in Renton The Watershed Company Reference Number: 111103.8 Dear Kelly: This letter presents the findings of an additional wetland and stream delineation study in the vicinity of the Energize Eastside Project (the Project) in Renton. Original wetland and stream delineation field work for the Project in Renton occurred in 2015 and is documented in the City of Renton Critical Areas Delineation Report: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project (The Watershed Company 2016; hereafter “Renton Delineation Report”). Project design changes warranted additional wetland and stream delineation inventory and assessment. This letter documents the findings of the latest delineation effort in Renton; it is intended to be included as an appendix to the City of Renton Critical Areas Report: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project (The Watershed Company 2017; hereafter “Renton CAR”). The following documents are enclosed:  Wetland Determination Data Forms  2014 Ecology Wetland Rating Forms and Figures for wetlands outside of shoreline jurisdiction  2004 Ecology Wetland Rating Forms for wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction 2017 Renton Wetland and Stream Delineation Study PSE, Kelly Purnell December 2017 Page 2 Study Area The study area for the original 2015 delineation field work was an approximate 100-foot wide corridor based on the location of two existing transmission lines which were typically spaced approximately 50 feet apart. If the field, study area boundaries were determined by measuring 25 feet out from the center of each pole set. The approximate study area is depicted in Appendix A (Critical Area Delineation Maps) of the Renton Delineation Report. The length of the corridor was approximately 3.7 miles in Renton, but specifically excluded the lower portion of the Cedar River ravine, described as follows: on the south side of the ravine, survey limits included the area approximately 425 feet north-northwest beyond the existing structure(s); and on the north side of the ravine, survey limits included the area approximately 250 feet south-southeast beyond the existing structure(s). As the Project design has become more refined, the need for additional delineation was identified in the vicinity of the Cedar River (previously excluded) and south of the original study area corridor between the Talbot Hill substation and Shadow Hawk neighborhood. These areas are depicted approximately in Figure 1 below. The portion of a wetland boundary adjacent to the original study area corridor was also captured during this additional field work, located at the base of the slope between the Cedar River Trail and Shadow Hawk neighborhood (Figure 1). 2017 Renton Wetland and Stream Delineation Study PSE, Kelly Purnell December 2017 Page 3 Figure 1. Approximate locations of additional wetland and stream delineation study areas (orange). Methods Public-domain information on the study area was reviewed for this delineation study and include the following:  USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (WSS) application  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web and SalmonScape) 2017 Renton Wetland and Stream Delineation Study PSE, Kelly Purnell December 2017 Page 4  Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Application Mapping Tool (FPARS)  Washington Department of Natural Resources, Wetlands of High Conservation Value Map Viewer  King County’s GIS mapping website (iMap)  City of Renton (COR) maps Characterization of climatic conditions for precipitation was determined using the WETS table methodology from the USDA NRCS document Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook, National Engineering Handbook, Hydrology Tools for Wetland Identification and Analysis, Chapter 19 (September 2015). The Seattle-Tacoma International AP station as recorded by NOAA (http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/) was used as a source for precipitation data. The WETS table methodology uses climate data from the three months prior to the site visit month to determine if normal conditions are present. Wetlands The study area was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 (Regional Supplement) (US Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] May 2010). Wetland boundaries were determined on the basis of an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Areas meeting the criteria set forth in the Regional Supplement were determined to be wetland. Soil, vegetation, and hydrologic parameters were sampled at several locations along the wetland boundary to make the determination. Identified wetlands within the study area were classified using the 2014 Update to the Western Washington Wetland Rating System (Hruby 2014; hereafter “2014 Rating System”), in accordance with Renton’s critical area regulations. If wetlands in the study area were located in shoreline jurisdiction, they were rated using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, Version 2 (Hruby 2004; hereafter “2004 Rating System”), in accordance with Renton’s Shoreline Management Program (SMP). Streams The study area was evaluated for streams based on the presence or absence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as defined by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030 and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 220-660-030. The OHWM edge was located by examining the bed and bank physical characteristics and vegetation. Streams were classified according to applicable Renton regulations. 2017 Renton Wetland and Stream Delineation Study PSE, Kelly Purnell December 2017 Page 5 GPS Location Wetland boundaries, stream OHWM edges or centerlines, data points, and other features were GPS-located using a hand-held Trimble Geo-XH unit. Following field location, the GPS data were differentially corrected using GPS Pathfinder Office and exported into ESRI ArcGIS software for mapping. Findings Wetlands Four wetlands were entirely or partially delineated during this recent field work effort. Two additional wetlands were identified, but not delineated. These six features are described below. Wetland NR02 Wetland NR02 is a depressional wetland located south of the Cedar River crossing. Vegetation is dominated by palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine forested vegetation classes. A large portion of this wetland in permanently ponded. The pond appears to have been created from beaver activity in 2011-2012 based on Google Earth aerial images. The ponded area has transitioned from palustrine forested/scrub-shrub vegetation to palustrine aquatic bed and open water. As a result, standing snags and downed woody debris are abundant in the permanently ponded area. Common plants observed include red alder, black cottonwood, salmonberry, redtwig dogwood, skunk cabbage and lady fern. Sampled wetland soils (DP-5) were a silty loam and met the criteria for hydric soil indicator Hydrogen Sulfide (A4). Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) was also the primary hydrology indicator observed. In addition, soils were nearly saturated and met two secondary hydrology indicators. Wetland NR02 is primarily supported by groundwater seeps and groundwater supplied by a culvert at the eastern end of the wetland that conveys water from Wetland NR03, south of the Cedar River Trail. Hydrology is also affected by the historic beaver activity in the area. Wetland NR03 Wetland NR03 is a depressional wetland located southeast of Wetland NR02, on the opposite side of the Cedar River Trail. The majority of the wetland is permanently ponded. Vegetation is dominated by palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine aquatic bed vegetation classes with a considerable amount of dead wood also present. Common plants observed include willows, salmonberry, redtwig dogwood, Himalayan blackberry, bittersweet nightshade, soft rush, and duckweed. Sampled wetland soils (DP-6) were a loam/clay loam and met the criteria for hydric soil indicator Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) and Redox Dark Surface (F6). Primary hydrology indicators observed at the test pit include Saturation (A3), Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1), and Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3). Wetland NR03 is primarily supported by a high 2017 Renton Wetland and Stream Delineation Study PSE, Kelly Purnell December 2017 Page 6 groundwater table. A culvert under the trail conveys water to Wetland NR02 to the northwest. Wetland NR04 Wetland NR04 is a slope wetland located west of the Shadow Hawk Condominiums. Vegetation is dominated by a palustrine emergent vegetation class. Common plants observed include reed canarygrass, stinging nettle, Himalayan blackberry, lady fern, and salmonberry. Sampled wetland soils (DP-8) were a clay loam and met the criteria for hydric soil indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6). Primary hydrology indicators were not observed at the test pit, but conditions at the data point met the criteria for two secondary hydrology indicators. Wetland NR04 is primarily supported by groundwater seeps and supplemented by surface water and precipitation. Wetland NR05 Wetland NR05 is a depressional wetland located east of SE Cedar Ridge Drive near the southern end of the study area. Vegetation is classified as palustrine forested, palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine emergent. Common plants observed include red alder, Oregon ash, salmonberry, cattail, lady fern, giant horsetail, soft rush, and small-fruited bulrush. Sampled wetland soils (DP-10 and DP-12) were a gravelly clay loam and met the criteria for hydric soil indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6). Soils in the wetland were saturated and conditions at the data point met the criteria for two secondary hydrology indicators. Wetland NR05 is primarily supported by groundwater seeps and supplemented by surface water and precipitation. Cedar North Wetland (not delineated) The Cedar North Wetland is a slope wetland located at a break in the steep slope north of the Maple Valley Highway/State-Route (SR)-169. Soil saturation, surface water seeps, and obligate plants were observed in this wetland. The approximate size and location of this wetland has been drawn based on field observations, aerial images, and topography. The Cedar North Wetland is presumably located in shoreline jurisdiction based on the approximate wetland boundary. Talbot Wetland (not delineated) The Talbot Wetland is a small, depressional wetland located north of the Talbot Hill substation. Vegetation is dominated by facultative and facultative wetland plants, soils meet at least one hydric soil indicator, and two secondary hydrology indicators were observed during the site visit. The approximate size and location of this wetland has been depicted based on field observations, aerial images, and topography. 2017 Renton Wetland and Stream Delineation Study PSE, Kelly Purnell December 2017 Page 7 Streams No new streams were identified in the study area during recent field work activities. However, the extent or OHWM location of two streams previously discussed in the delineation report were expanded/collected. In the Renton Delineation Report, the Cedar River was discussed and depicted, but had not been delineated. During recent field work activities, the OHWM of the left bank of the Cedar River was delineated; the right bank of the Cedar River in the study area was not easily accessible and located at the edge of a large concrete retaining wall supporting the Maple Valley Highway/SR-169 and was not delineated. For the right bank of the Cedar River, the OHWM is presumed to be consistent with the mapped Cedar River floodway. By comparison, on the left bank, the floodway is more encumbering than the delineated OHWM edge. The extent of Stream NR02 was expanded downstream near the Cedar River, beginning at a culvert outlet under the Cedar River Trail, to where it meets Wetland NR02 and flows west outside of the study area. Stream NR02 originates at the north end of Wetland NR04 and flows north parallel to the study area, before entering the study area again (as previously described) near the Cedar River Trail. R egulatory Implications Critical areas in the City of Renton are regulated in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), Title IV Development Regulations, Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay District, 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations. Shorelines, and wetlands located in shoreline jurisdiction, are regulated under the Renton Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4-3-090). According to RMC 4-3-050-G.9, wetlands located outside of shoreline jurisdiction are classified based on the 2014 Rating System. Wetland buffers are measured from the wetland edge and are based upon the wetland rating, associated habitat score, and impact of land use. The adjacent land use would not be considered low intensity, therefore the buffer width for “all other land uses” applies. Table 1 shows the ratings for wetlands that are not located in shoreline jurisdiction and the associated standard buffer widths. Wetland NR02 and (presumably) Cedar North Wetland are located within shoreline jurisdiction and therefore the regulations in RMC 4-3-090 apply. Wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction are rated using the 2004 version of the Ecology rating system. Wetland buffer widths are determined based upon the wetland rating and associated habitat score. Wetland NR02 is a Category II wetland with a high habitat score and requires a standard buffer width of 225 feet (Table 2). 2017 Renton Wetland and Stream Delineation Study PSE, Kelly Purnell December 2017 Page 8 Classifications and buffer widths for wetlands that were not formally delineated or rated (Cedar North and Talbot Wetlands) have been estimated in Tables 1 and 2, below. Estimated buffer widths were used to determine if Project activities are likely or unlikely to affect these critical areas. Table 1. Wetland ratings and associated buffer widths for wetlands located outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Wetland Name 2014 Rating System Category Standard Buffer Width (feet) Water Quality Hydrology Habitat Total NR03 6 5 7 18 III 100 NR04 5 5 6 16 III 100 NR05 5 6 7 18 III 100 Talbot* -- -- -- -- ~III ~100 * Wetland not delineated or formally rated; rating is estimated and a moderate habitat score is presumed to determine approximate buffer width. Table 2. Wetland rating and associated buffer width for Wetland NR02 located in shoreline jurisdiction. Wetland Name 2004 Rating System Category Standard Buffer Width (feet) Water Quality Hydrology Habitat Total NR02 12 12 29 53 II 225 Cedar North* -- -- -- -- ~III ~125 * Wetland not delineated or formally rated; rating is estimated and a moderate habitat score is presumed to determine approximate buffer width. The additional delineation of streams in the study area do not change the regulatory implications described in the Renton Delineation Report. Therefore, they are not discussed further here. Disclaimer The information contained in this letter is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria outlined in the methods section. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this 2017 Renton Wetland and Stream Delineation Study PSE, Kelly Purnell December 2017 Page 9 report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, state and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Katy Crandall, WPIT Ecologist / Arborist Enclosures A P P E N D I X D Detailed CAIA Methodology A PPENDIX D Detailed CAIA Methodology This detailed Critical Area Impact Analysis (CAIA) is intended to further describe the methods used to generate critical area features and existing land cover classes used in conjunction with PSE site plans in order to quantify impacts resulting from implementation of the Energize Eastside Project (“the Project”). This Appendix is meant to complement and expand upon the methods described in the body of the Critical Area Report. Methodology Outline:  Critical Area Delineation and Mapping Methods - Wetlands - Streams - Functioning Wetland and Stream Buffers - Geologic Hazard Areas - Shoreline Jurisdiction  Existing Land Cover Mapping - Vegetation Assessment Methods  Impact Characterization - Energize Eastside 230K Line - Lake Tradition 115K Line  Critical Areas Impact Assessment  Quality Assurance Review of Analysis Steps and Results  Limitations  Data Sources Table The Watershed Company January 2018 II Critical Area Delineation and Mapping Methods Wetland and stream critical areas were delineated and classified by The Watershed Company between March and October 2015 coincident with the field work for vegetation inventory analysis. These delineated features were GPS‐ located. Responding to the design alignment provided by PSE in November and December 2017, supplemental reconnaissance and vegetation inventory was conducted to ensure coverage of the full project corridor. Critical area features not delineated in the field were mapped using publicly‐ available contour and aerial GIS data, which was then refined according to observations of the ecologists who conducted the field reconnaissance. A table provided at the end of this document lists data sources for each mapped critical area. Wetland Delineation The study area was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 (Regional Supplement) (US Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] May 2010). Wetland boundaries were determined on the basis of an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Areas meeting the criteria set forth in the Regional Supplement were determined to be wetland. Soil, vegetation, and hydrologic parameters were sampled at several locations along the wetland boundary to make the determination. Identified wetlands outside of shoreline jurisdiction have been classified using the 2014 Update to the Western Washington Wetland Rating System (Ecology publication #14‐06‐029) per Renton regulations. Wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction have been classified using the 2004 Ecology rating system per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4‐3‐090.D.2.d.ii. Stream Delineation The study area was also evaluated for streams based on the presence or absence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as defined by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030 and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 220‐660‐030. The OHWM edge was located by examining the bed and bank physical characteristics and vegetation. The centerlines of streams in the study area were recorded in the field, with stream widths approximated in the field and based on aerial photometry and elevation contours. Streams were classified according to the RMC. The Watershed Company January 2018 III Functioning Wetland and Stream Buffers Mapping Standard buffers were applied to delineated wetland and stream edges in GIS according to regulatory buffer widths in RMC Section 4‐3‐050 (Critical Areas Regulations). In some cases, developed areas intruded into these mapped standard buffers. To remove these non‐functioning buffer areas from the assessment of Project impacts, developed areas (see land cover mapping section) were manually removed from the standard buffer polygons in GIS (based on observed field conditions and recent aerial photography). The resulting functioning buffers were used to determine buffer impacts and mitigation needs. Geologic Hazard Areas and Buffers Mapping Five regulated geologic hazard area types occur within the Project corridor in Renton including erosion hazards areas, landslide hazards areas, seismic hazard areas, coal mine hazard areas, and steep slopes. According to RMC 4‐3‐050(G)(2), and the GeoEngineers Report (Appendix C), landslide hazard areas categorized as “very high” require a 50‐foot buffer and 15‐foot setback from the top, toe, and sides of the slope, while no buffer is applied to any other type of geologic hazard area. No very high landslide hazard areas are mapped within the Project area. Geospatial inventories of erosion, coal mine, seismic, and landslide hazards areas that are published by City of Renton GIS were used for this effort. The datasets were then clipped to the 500‐foot study corridor. Steep slopes in Renton are categorized and regulated as either “sensitive” or “protected” depending on grade and vertical rise. However, steep slope data provided by the City do not provide category information for the mapped features. In order to supplement the City’s inventory with this information, The Watershed Company generated steep slope hazard area data using high‐ resolution LIDAR data provided by PSE that represents the bare earth topographic surface for the greater study area. Topographic surface data were analyzed to identify and isolate areas where the slope of the ground surface is 40 percent or steeper. Features were then reanalyzed to identify and isolate slopes with an elevation change of at least 15 feet of vertical relief. These features were assigned the category of “protected,” while the remaining features were assigned the category of “sensitive.” The dataset was then clipped to the 500‐foot study corridor. Shoreline Jurisdiction Within the Project area, the Cedar River is designated as a Shoreline of the State and therefore subject to the City’s Shoreline Master Program (RMC 4‐3‐090). Shoreline jurisdiction is defined in RMC 4‐3‐090(B)(3) to include: a) lands within 200 feet from the OHWM, or lands within 200 feet from floodways, whichever is greater; b) contiguous floodplain areas; and c) all marshes, bogs, swamps, and The Watershed Company January 2018 IV river deltas associated with streams, lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA). A combination of field data and GIS inventories were used to map Cedar River shoreline jurisdiction. Floodway and floodplain areas were provided by City of Renton GIS. Within the Project area, no floodplain extends outside of the mapped floodway. The mapped floodway overlaps with the delineated OHWM on the north bank of the river and extends slightly beyond it on the south bank. As a result, a buffer of 200 feet was applied to the Cedar River floodway to form the basis for shoreline jurisdiction. On the south bank of the river, a delineated wetland falls within that 200‐foot buffer and extends outside of the 200‐foot buffer to the south. Consistent with the SMA and RMC, this wetland was considered “associated” with the Cedar River, and shoreline jurisdiction was extended to encompass its entire delineated boundary. A potential wetland was also identified within 200 feet of the OHWM on the northern bank of the Cedar River, which likely extends outside of the 200‐foot buffer to the north. However, this feature was not delineated. Therefore, the extent of shoreline jurisdiction on the north side of the Cedar River is approximated, conservatively, to encompass the approximated area of this wetland. Other critical areas mapped and analyzed include: Priority Habitat Protection Areas, Floodway, Floodplain, and Wellhead Protection Areas. These layers were downloaded from various sources and can be found in the Data Sources table at the end of this document. Existing Land Cover Mapping In order to quantify land cover changes from Project‐related activities, a layer showing existing land use was created to describe the current land cover conditions. The land cover base map was developed from the following existing data sources: • 2009 Impervious and Impacted Surface raster data set, King County GIS • Energize Eastside Corridor digital survey, APS Surveying, received May 2016 • Energize Eastside Corridor Tree Inventory data, The Watershed Company, compiled 2015‐2017 • Energize Eastside Corridor Vegetation Polygon data, The Watershed Company, compiled 2015‐2017 • Energize Eastside Corridor Wetland and Stream Inventory, The Watershed Company, compiled 2015‐2017 • High‐resolution aerial photography, PSE, captured in 2011 • 2015‐2016 aerial photography, King County GIS The Watershed Company January 2018 V Using the King County impervious surface raster, GIS analysts supplemented the mapped features using digital survey data. These data were further refined by manually reviewing mapped features against high‐resolution aerial photography and field‐verified conditions. After developed and non‐developed areas were mapped, vegetation and tree canopy coverage information were integrated (described in following subsection), as well as mapped open water areas (streams). This effort yielded a base map with six general land cover types: • Forested with understory vegetation • Forested without understory vegetation • Understory vegetation, unforested • Other (generally lawn) • Developed • Water Vegetation Assessment Methods A full description of the vegetation analysis methods, the results of which have been incorporated into the CAIA, is presented in the City of Renton Tree Inventory Report: Puget Sound Energy – Energize Eastside Project (The Watershed Company 2016b). The ways in which the results were used to generate the mapped features presented in the CAIA are summarized below. The Watershed Company certified arborists conducted a field‐based vegetation inventory from March 23, 2015, to November 9, 2015 associated with potential routes for the Energize Eastside Project. The methodology utilized during the inventory was developed to comprehensively identify, describe, and mark all vegetation greater than 15 feet tall, or that had the potential to reach a mature height of 15 feet or taller. Supplemental inventory was conducted using the same methodology in November and December 2017. Inventoried vegetation was mapped as points and/or polygons. Any tree with a diameter of six inches at four‐and‐a‐half feet above the ground surface (DBH) was mapped as a point and tagged with a unique number and its attributes were recorded. Landscaped vegetation with the potential to reach 15 feet or greater was also inventoried in this manner regardless of size. Finally, weedy vegetation (i.e., from seed [not planted] and not maintained) with a DBH of three to six inches was also inventoried in this way. This type of inventoried vegetation was typically survey‐located. In some instances, The Watershed Company certified arborists could not access or did not inventory vegetation that was previously or subsequently picked up by survey crews. This limitation was caused by a number of reasons that include a change in property access permissions; survey crew assessment limits as compared to the tree inventory study area; and/or the species, size, or condition The Watershed Company January 2018 VI of the tree or large shrub in question. Vegetation that was survey‐located but not inventoried by arborists has been incorporated into the CAIA analysis with an assumed maximum potential height of 25 feet and radius of 9 feet, as a rule. This assumption was based on the typical characteristic observed over majority of the project corridor. However, other attribute data associated with the survey‐ located only vegetation, such as species and condition, was not collected and no assumption was applied. A similar rule was applied in the area south of the Cedar River where trees were surveyed, but not inventoried by The Watershed Company crews. Based on the tree characteristics and species composition observed in this area, it was determined that the previously stated assumption of 25 feet for maximum potential height would be a significant underestimation. Lacking an arborist’s identification of tree species that could be used to assign maximum potential height, a proxy was used in the form of the surveyors’ notes. In order to approach a more accurate assumption for maximum potential height that could help determine potential tree impacts in this area, maximum vegetation height was based on the “best guess” tree species notes from the surveyors. The canopy radius was presumed to be 9 feet. Under the standard vegetation control parameters, some trees within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar River would be removed. However, as communicated by PSE, no trees within shoreline jurisdiction will be removed by this Project. Where eventual conflicts between wire elevation and maximum potential tree height are predicted, conflicts will be abated by other means, such as pruning. Therefore, no tree removal impacts are shown to occur within shoreline jurisdiction. Hedges and small weedy vegetation (less than three inches DBH) were mapped as polygons, not points. Polygons were sketched in the field based on observations then digitized in GIS using high‐resolution imagery. Vegetation attributes within polygons were averaged. No significant (regulated) trees were inventoried using this method. Resulting mapped features included in land cover mapping of the CAIA are vegetation points with the recorded canopy (or radius) applied creating circular “tree footprints” and polygons representing varying densities of smaller weedy vegetation with the potential to reach a height of 15 feet or more. Using inventoried tree point data and incorporation of 3D design data depicting proposed pole heights and vertical wire alignment, tree impacts related to the construction of the Project were quantified. Canopy cover for the anticipated trees to remain and trees to be removed or maintained was then mapped and overlaid, resulting in a polygon layer depicting the extent of anticipated canopy The Watershed Company January 2018 VII preservation and canopy loss. This data was incorporated into the land cover data, further refining existing land cover into eight general land cover types: • Forested to be removed (canopy loss) with understory • Forested to be removed, no understory • Forested to remain (canopy preservation) with understory • Forested to remain, no understory • Understory vegetation, unforested • Other (generally lawn) • Developed • Water Impact Characterization As the work associated with this permit application includes improvements on two powerline corridors—the Energize Eastside and Lake Tradition lines—two approaches were used to calculate critical area impacts within the City of Renton. Energize Eastside 230K Line Proposed development areas associated with the Energize Eastside Project were mapped using geometry from design files and data provided by PSE. As described by PSE, work proposed in Renton could be classified into eight types and maintained in the long term as described in the following table. The Watershed Company January 2018 VIII These proposed work areas were then intersected with the land cover data set described above. The result was a set of polygons defining pre‐Project conditions (land cover data set values) and post‐Project conditions (proposed work and long‐term condition values). Differences between post‐Project conditions and pre‐Project conditions, or impacts, were then characterized as one of four types – permanent, conversion, temporary, or no change – based on the nature of the change on the ground. These characterization types are defined in the matrix below. Proposed Work Long term Condition Pole footprint Developed Pole buffer, describes an approximate 6‐foot buffer around the proposed poles that will be disturbed during construction and tree growth will be managed long‐term Mixed Vegetation (Height maintained at 15 feet or where 20 feet of vertical clearance is provided beneath the vertical curvature of the lowest wire) Access route, describes approximate path used during construction activities Mixed Vegetation (Height may be maintained depending upon location relative to wire alignment) Stringing sites* Mixed Vegetation (Height may be maintained depending upon location relative to wire alignment) Wire zone (WZ) Mixed Vegetation (Height maintained at 15 feet or where 20 feet of vertical clearance is provided beneath the vertical curvature of the lowest wire) Managed right‐of‐way (MROW) Mixed Vegetation (Height maintained at 15 feet or where 20 feet of vertical clearance is provided beneath the vertical curvature of the lowest wire) Pole work area, approximate temporary disturbance related to pole construction Mixed Vegetation (Height may be maintained depending upon location relative to wire alignment) Maintained legal right‐of‐way (LROW), encompasses the areas of LROW where PSE intends to exercise long‐term vegetation management Mixed Vegetation (Height maintained at 70 feet) * Note: Impacts from stringing sites are captured within the footprints of other proposed work activities. During construction work associated with stringing sites, adjustments may be made in the field to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on critical areas should they occur. The Watershed Company January 2018 IX Existing Land Cover Types Impact Description Long-term Condition1 Forested to be removed with understory Forested to be removed, no understory Forested to remain with understory Forested to remain, no understory Understory Other (mostly lawn) Developed Water Proposed Activities Pole footprint Developed P P P P P P NC N/A Pole buffer Mixed vegetation2 C C T T T T NC N/A Access route Mixed vegetation2 C C T T T T NC N/A Pole work area Mixed vegetation2 C C T T T T NC N/A Wire zone Mixed vegetation2 C C NC NC NC NC NC N/A Managed ROW Mixed vegetation2 C C NC NC NC NC NC N/A Maintained Legal ROW Mixed vegetation2 C C NC NC NC NC NC N/A Type of Impact based on proposed activity, long term condition, and existing land cover type: P = Permanent to developed C = Vegetation conversion (not developed) T = Temporary impact, can be restored to existing land cover NC = No Change N/A = Not applicable/does not occur 1 Long term condition determined in coordination with PSE. 2 Subject to varying height restrictions described in Section 3.3.4. The Watershed Company January 2018 X Lake Tradition 115K Line Work associated with the Lake Tradition line is restricted to one area of the project corridor, affecting approximate five adjacent spans. Work includes resetting existing poles, adding new poles, and rehanging lines on existing poles. Due to the limited work and the utilization of existing poles, no vegetation impacts due to conflicts between wire height and tree height are anticipated. Therefore, for new or replaced poles along the Lake Tradition line, tree removal impacts were calculated based solely on proximity to proposed pole work areas. The long‐term condition and impact characterization for “pole work area” was consistent with the parameters of the Energize Eastside analysis, as described by the tables in the preceding section. Critical Areas Impact Assessment Application of the matrix yielded a map showing a full characterization of permanent, conversion, and temporary impacts associated with the Project. This impact characterization layer was then intersected with each individual mapped critical area in order to locate, characterize, and quantify impacts to that critical area. The results were summarized by critical area, and for wetlands and streams, by drainage sub‐basin. The ending table summarizes the data sources used for the critical areas analysis. Quality Assurance Review of Analysis Steps and Results Internal review of CAIA steps and results has occurred throughout the process described above and will be ongoing as the analysis is refined. Ecologists, arborists, GIS analysts, and planners worked collaboratively to ensure all appropriate critical areas were incorporated into the maps and where appropriate, classified and buffered according the local jurisdiction regulations. GIS analysts created the land cover base map, compiled from a variety of sources. Land cover classifications were reviewed for quality assurance first through the GIS department by comparing mapped data to high resolution aerial imagery. Following review by the GIS analysts, the land cover map was reviewed by an ecologist against delineation field notes and recollections from field work activities. Project elements and site plans have been provided by, and reviewed with, PSE Project staff. The mapped location and long‐term condition of Project elements is based upon discussions with PSE regarding best management practices and standard PSE programs and policies. All components of the CAIA have been generated/authored by reputable sources and have been cross‐checked internally for consistency. Quantified and depicted The Watershed Company January 2018 XI impacts resulting from the CAIA have been reviewed by ecologists for quality assurance to the extent feasible. Impact results will continue to be reviewed for accuracy as the Project plans and impact areas are refined and finalized. Limitations This analysis relies on a series of data products produced using different scales and methods; therefore, mapped features may not align with the planned real‐ world layout of proposed corridor facilities. Ground‐truthing of these results may reveal inaccuracies. Furthermore, as some features and design geometries were translated from AutoCAD into ArcGIS, some geometric refinements were necessary to address gaps and other issues, which could affect the accuracy of the analysis results. The Watershed Company January 2018 XII Data Inventory Elements and Information Sources: Inventory Element Information Gathered Data Source(s) Assumptions/Limitations Proposed Development Topographic surface data  Point map of surface elevations  Puget Sound Energy (PSE) tabular data (via email R. Weider); date received 4/19/2017  The Watershed Company (TWC)  Point elevations generated from LIDAR flight by consultant to PSE; flight date unknown  Data was post‐processed to generate a 3D surface map using ArcGIS software Proposed Energize Eastside Project Improvements  Pole structures  Wire alignments, including alternate alignment  Pole construction work areas  Proposed temporary construction access routes  Stringing sites  PSE (via email R. Weider, K. Purnell), design drawings in AutoCAD; date received: 6/30/2017‐11/6/2017  TWC  Reflects pole and wire design configuration from June 30, 2017, with updates through November 6, 2017  Design may be subject to revision or update based on regulatory comments, field conditions, or other factors Cadastral Datasets & Features Land Cover  Development and impervious areas  Other  Tree canopy  Understory vegetation  King County 2009 impervious dataset and 2015‐2016 aerial data  PSE high‐resolution aerial photography; date received 7/7/2015  APS Surveying, digital survey; date received 5/18/2016  TWC  Impervious dataset from King County, last updated 2009  Vegetation survey by TWC between 2015 and 2017  “Developed” category includes roads, structures, and heavily disturbed areas, such as compacted unimproved roadways  “Other” category observed to be mostly lawn based on visual observation of aerial photographs, but could include other conditions  Survey data was post‐processed to isolate and generate geospatial feature classes using ArcGIS software Parks  Park locations  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/17)  Park boundaries current as of 1/14/2017 The Watershed Company January 2018 XIII Inventory Element Information Gathered Data Source(s) Assumptions/Limitations City limits  Shapefile polygons  City of Renton (downloaded 6/2/17)  Does not reflect annexations beyond download date. Parcels  Shapefile polygons  City of Renton (downloaded 6/2/17)  Does not reflect parcel subdivisions beyond download date. Regulated Critical Areas Streams and Riparian Areas (RMC 4‐3‐050(G)(7))  Streams with study corridor  Stream buffers  TWC  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/17)  Streams delineated by TWC between 2015 and 2017  Feature buffers assigned according to City of Renton 2015 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO)  Floodplains See Flood Hazard Areas Wetlands (RMC 4‐3‐050(G)(9))  Delineated wetlands within study corridor  Wetland buffers  TWC  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/17)  Wetlands delineated by TWC between 2015 and 2017  Wetland feature ratings based on 2014 rating system  Feature buffers assigned according to City of Renton 2015 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (RMC 4‐3‐050(G)(6))  Priority habitat and species data (PHS)  Endangered/listed species  WDFW (received 6/27/2017) USFWS  No FWHCA features occur within project area  Scale may not be sufficient to capture individual occurrences or observations along the corridor  Accuracy does not supersede observation by PSE staff Geologic Hazard Areas:  Landslide hazard areas (RMC 4‐3‐050 (G)(5)(b))  Erosion hazard areas RMC 4‐3‐050 (G)(5)(c))  Steep slopes (RMC 4‐3‐050 (G)(5)(a))  Landslide hazard areas  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/17)  TWC  Data describes landslide hazards defined by City of Renton CAO  Data is not suitable for smaller scale site‐specific analysis; “Observation of actual on‐site conditions is required to determine if a particular parcel is in a landslide hazard area or not”  No very high landslide areas or buffers exist in the project area The Watershed Company January 2018 XIV Inventory Element Information Gathered Data Source(s) Assumptions/Limitations  Coal mine hazard areas (RMC 4‐3‐050 (G)(5)(e))  Seismic hazard areas (RMC 4‐3‐050 (G)(5)(d))  Erosion hazard areas  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/17)   Data describes erosion hazards defined by Renton CAO  Data is not suitable for smaller scale site‐specific analysis  Steep slope hazard areas  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/17)  TWC  GeoEngineers  TWC categorized City of Renton steep slope data through analysis of PSE LIDAR surface data. Areas where slope >= 40% and >15ft of relief were categorized as “protected”  No steep slope buffers are required according to City of Renton CAO under table RMC 4‐3‐050 (G)(2)  Coal mine hazard areas  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/17)  Identification of historical coal mine areas as defined by Renton CAO  Seismic hazard areas  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/17)  Identification of areas subject to potential surficial liquefaction based on DNR liquefaction data Flood hazard areas (RMC 4‐3‐050 (G)(4))  Flood hazard areas  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/17)  Data displays the Cedar River Floodway and 100‐Year Floodplain as defined by Renton CAO Shoreline Jurisdiction (RMC 4‐3‐090(B)(3))  Shoreline jurisdiction  TWC  Shoreline jurisdiction includes 200‐foot area around mapped floodway, as provided by City of Renton, as well as associated wetlands, as delineated by TWC Wellhead protection areas (RMC 4‐3‐050 (G)(8))  Wellhead protection areas  City of Renton (downloaded 4/6/2017)  Data displays aquifer protection zone areas A P P E N D I X E Geological Hazards Report Revised Targeted Critical Areas Geologic Hazards Energize Eastside Project Renton, Washington for Puget Sound Energy January 11, 2018 Revised Targeted Critical Areas Geologic Hazards Energize Eastside Project Renton, Washington for Puget Sound Energy January 11, 2018 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 January 11, 2018 | Page i File No. 0186-871-06 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 LOCAL REGULATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Code Definitions for Hazard, Hazards Areas, Wellhead Protection Zones and Buffers .................................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Field Observations ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Honey Dew Creek .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Cedar River North Slope ............................................................................................................................... 5 Cedar River South Slope ............................................................................................................................... 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Access Construction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Pole Installation ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Conceptual Impact Mitigation Strategy .............................................................................................................. 8 Vegetation Management and Tree Removal ............................................................................................... 8 CODE COMPLIANCE .............................................................................................................................................. 10 4-3-050 (G2) – Development Standards – Critical Area Buffers ................................................................... 10 4-3-050 (G5f) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Protected Slopes............... 10 4-3-050 (G5g) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Sensitive Slopes; Medium, High and Very High Landslide Hazards; High Erosion Hazards ...................................................................... 10 4-3-050 (G5i(ii)) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Coal Mine Hazards Found during Construction .......................................................................................................................................... 10 4-3-050 (G5d) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Seismic Hazards Found during Construction .......................................................................................................................................... 11 4-3-050 (G8) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Wellhead Protection Zones Found during Construction ............................................................................................................................... 11 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 January 11, 2018 | Page 1 File No. 0186-871-06 INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) is pleased to present this revised report with the results for targeted critical areas evaluation of specific geologic hazards identified by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) for the Energize Eastside Project. Our services have been provided in general accordance with the proposal between GeoEngineers and PSE dated June 21, 2017. These services were authorized by Kelly Purnell with PSE on June 15, 2017, and formal authorization was received on June 26, 2017. This revised report supersedes our previous report and addresses comments provided by PSE on January 4, 2018. The project area is located along existing PSE rights-of-way and includes areas within the City of Renton. We previously provided a geologic hazard evaluation for various routes under consideration, including the route evaluated within this document, in a separate report submitted to PSE on December 19, 2014 (GeoEngineers 2014). The geologic hazards evaluation included in this report focuses on a desktop review for erosion, steep slope, landslide and coal mine hazard areas, and seismic hazards as assigned by PSE, relative to proposed vegetation management activities, including tree-removal required for construction access and pole replacement. PSE also requested an evaluation of wellhead protection areas mapped within the project area. PSE has provided specific locations for evaluation and a map developed by others that shows proposed pole replacement activities, including proposed tree removal, vegetation management zones and access roads. LOCAL REGULATIONS GeoEngineers assessed local regulations in the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations, 4-3-050, for the project areas identified by PSE that coincide with regulated geologic hazard areas. Code Definitions for Hazard, Hazards Areas, Wellhead Protection Zones and Buffers GeoEngineers assessed local regulations in the Renton Municipal Code, Definitions, Chapter 4-11 and Critical Areas, Chapter 4-3-050 for selected geologic hazard areas and wellhead protection zones. ■ Erosion: The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water and/or ice (Renton Municipal Code, 4-11-050). ■ Erosion Hazard Areas:  Low Erosion Hazard (EL): Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and a slope less than fifteen percent (Renton Municipal Code, 4-3-050).  High Erosion Hazard (EH): Areas with soils characterized by the NRCS as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and a slope more than fifteen percent (Renton Municipal Code, 4-3-050). There are no buffer requirements for low or high erosion hazards. ■ Seismic Hazard: Seismic are not described within the Definitions section of the Renton Municipal Codes as of December 19, 2017 (Renton Municipal Code 4-11-030). However, the Critical Areas January 11, 2018 | Page 2 File No. 0186-871-06 Regulations pertaining to Seismic Hazards does provide a description in Renton Municipal Code and are as follows:  Low Seismic Hazard (SL): Areas underlain by dense soils or bedrock. These soils generally have site classifications of A through D, as defined in the International Building Code, 2012. (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050).  High Seismic Hazard (SH): Areas underlain by soft or loose, saturated soils. These soils generally have site classifications E or F, as defined in the International Building Code, 2012. (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050). There are no buffer requirements for high seismic hazards. ■ Slopes, Steep (Also referred to as Steep Slopes): A hillside, or portion thereof, which falls into one of two (2) classes of slope, sensitive or protected (Chapter 11, Definitions 4-11-190).  Slope, Protected: A hillside, or portion thereof, with an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater grade and having a minimum vertical rise of fifteen feet (15').  Slope, Sensitive: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by: (1) an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to less than forty percent (40%); or (2) an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of forty percent (40%) or greater with a vertical rise of less than fifteen feet (15'), abutting an average slope, as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, of twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%). This definition excludes engineered retaining walls. There is no established critical area buffer for steep slopes within Renton. ■ Landslide Hazards: Landslide Hazards are not described within the Definitions Section (4-11-030) in the Renton Municipal Code as of December 19, 2017. However, the Critical Areas Regulations pertaining to Landslide Hazards are defined in Renton Municipal Code as follows:  Low Landslide Hazard (LL): Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050).  Medium Landslide Hazard (LM): Areas with slopes between fifteen percent and forty percent and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050).  High Landslide Hazards (LH): Areas with slopes greater than forty percent, and areas with slopes between fifteen percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050).  Very High Landslide Hazards (LV): Areas of known mapped or identified landslide deposits (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050). According to City of Renton’s Critical Area Regulations, a critical area buffer is not required for low to high landslide hazards. The established critical area minimum buffer for very high landslide hazards is 50 feet from the top, toe and sides of the slope. January 11, 2018 | Page 3 File No. 0186-871-06 ■ Coal Mine Hazard: Coal Mine Hazard are not described within the Definitions section of the Renton Municipal Codes as of September 18, 2017 (Renton Municipal Code 4-11-030). However, the Critical Areas Regulations pertaining to Coal Mine Hazards does provide a description in Renton Municipal Code and are as follows;  Low Coal Mine Hazard (CL): Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050).  Medium Coal Mine Hazard (CM): Areas where mine workings are deeper than two hundred feet (200') for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050).  High Coal Mine Hazard (CH): Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet (200') in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050). The are no established critical area buffers for coal mine hazard areas.  Wellhead Protection Area: The definition of Wellhead Protection Area is not provided in the Definitions Section of the Renton Municipal Codes as of December 20, 2017 (4-11-230). However, the Critical Areas Regulations pertaining to Wellhead Protection Areas do provide the following description as follows; a. Applicability: Developments, facilities, uses and activities discussed in this subsection shall comply with the applicable provisions and restrictions of this Section and chapters 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-9, and 5-5 RMC for the Wellhead Protection Areas, as classified below, in which the developments, facilities, uses and activities are located, except as preempted by Federal or State law. (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050). i. Wellhead Protection Areas: Wellhead Protection Areas are the portion of an aquifer within the zone of capture and recharge area for a well or well field owned or operated by the City. ii. Wellhead Protection Area Zones: Zones of a Wellhead Protection Area are designated to provide graduated levels of Wellhead Protection Area recharge. Zone boundaries are determined using best available science documented in the City of Renton Wellhead Protection Plan, an appendix of the City of Renton Water System Plan, as periodically updated. The following zones may be designated: (a) Zone 1: The land area situated between a well or well field owned by the City and the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050). (b) Zone 1 Modified: The same land area described for Zone 1 but for the purpose of protecting a high-priority well, wellfield, or spring withdrawing from a confined January 11, 2018 | Page 4 File No. 0186-871-06 aquifer with partial leakage in the overlying or underlying confining layers. Uses, activities, and facilities located in this area are regulated as if located within Zone 1 except as provided by this subsection G8 (Renton Municipal Code 4-3- 050). (c) Zone 2: The land area situated between the three hundred sixty five (365) day groundwater travel time contour and the boundary of the zone of potential capture for a well or well field owned or operated by the City. If the aquifer supplying water to such a well, well field, or spring is naturally protected by confining overlying and underlying geologic layers, the City may choose not to subdivide a Wellhead Protection Area into two (2) zones. In such a case, the entire Wellhead Protection Area will be designated as Zone 2 (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050). d. Wellhead Protection Areas: The City may require an applicant to prepare a hydrogeologic study if the proposal has the potential to significantly impact groundwater quantity or quality, and sufficient information is not readily available. Such a report shall be prepared by a qualified professional at the applicant’s expense. Report content requirements may be specified by the City in accordance with State or Federal guidelines or tailored to the particular development application. Peer review of the applicant’s report may be required in accordance with this subsection F (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050). The are no established critical area buffers for wellhead protection zones. EXISTING CONDITIONS GeoEngineers reviewed the City of Renton COR Maps, King County iMap and a previous report, titled Geologic Hazards Evaluation and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services report, submitted to PSE in December 2014, to assess existing conditions in the project area within the City of Renton (GeoEngineers 2014). Based on information presented in that report and a review of existing maps, the existing geology consists mainly of glacial drift, recessional outwash, glacially consolidated till and advance outwash deposits, with the exception of localized areas of alluvium, volcanic deposits and rocks, marine sedimentary rocks and artificial fill. Soil types anticipated in the project area include mainly silty gravel, silty sand and silt. Both steep sensitive slopes and protected slopes were observed locally within the project area. However, outside of the Cedar River corridor and the Honey Dew Creek corridor, the steep sensitive slopes where tree removal is proposed are generally developed and include rockeries, landscaped residential slopes, and managed right-of-way areas that are unlikely to be adversely impacted based on their current configuration and use. Protected steep slopes that include slopes of 40 percent or greater are observed locally within the project area; however, no access roads or pole replacement activities will occur within the mapped protected slopes. Tree removal for vegetation management purposes that is proposed on the protected slopes occurs in the regional areas of steep slopes, namely within the Honey Dew Creek drainage and the Cedar River drainage. January 11, 2018 | Page 5 File No. 0186-871-06 High erosion hazard areas, sensitive and protected steep slopes, and moderate landslide hazard areas are mapped at the Honey Dew Creek and Cedar River drainages, within the project area (City of Renton, City of Renton COR Maps). A prehistoric, deep-seated landslide is mapped on the southern side of the Cedar River drainage, within the project area (King County, iMap). Moderate coal mine hazard areas also are mapped in the Cedar River drainage, within the project area (City of Renton, COR Maps). No high coal mine hazards areas (CH) are mapped within the project site (City of Renton, COR maps). No high landslide hazard areas (LH) or very high landslide hazard areas (LV) are mapped within the project site (City of Renton, COR Maps). Moderate landslide hazards are mapped locally within Honeydew Creek and the Cedar River Valley, High Seismic Hazards are mapped within the project corridor for a distance of approximately 470 feet south of SR 169 within the Cedar River area in areas mapped with recent alluvial deposits. Wellhead Protection Zones 1 and 2 are mapped within the project vicinity. An approximate 3,000-foot segment along Monroe Avenue NE is not mapped within a wellhead protection zone. Zone 1 is located within Cedar River corridor that includes SR 169 and Zone 2 is located in the remaining majority of the project area. Field Observations A field reconnaissance was performed on June 28, 2017, to evaluate the geologic hazard areas identified along the slopes of Honey Dew Creek and the Cedar River. The reconnaissance was divided into three areas: Honey Dew Creek (north and south slopes), north slope of Cedar River, and south slope of Cedar River. Our field observations are summarized as follows. Honey Dew Creek The project area is within an existing utility corridor with overhead power lines. Vegetation consists of evergreen trees with bowed or pistol-butted trunks that suggest soil creep or episodic movement, deciduous trees and an understory that includes sword fern, blackberry, salal, Oregon grape and occasional hydrophilic plants (horsetail). Loose recessional deposits of sand and gravel are commonly exposed at the surface within the drainage. The slope on the south side of Honey Dew Creek is inclined between 65 to 100 percent locally. We observed two landslide scarps with 3 to 6 feet of vertical displacement and widths of 15 to 20 feet, where exposed soils are subject to localized erosion on the south slope, approximately 40 feet upslope of the Honey Dew Creek channel. The terrain on the slope south of the creek is somewhat hummocky. Localized groundwater seepage and/or hydrophilic plants were observed at an elevation approximately 10 feet upslope of Honey Dew Creek on both the south and north slopes, where a contact between the overlying outwash deposits and an underlying laminated silt was observed. The slope on the north side of Honey Dew Creek is commonly inclined between 60 to 70 percent, and includes a 15-foot-deep tributary drainage swale with sidewalls inclined up to 80 percent. Cedar River North Slope The project area within the Cedar River valley wall north slope, located north of SR 169, is within an existing utility corridor that includes overhead power lines. Vegetation consists primarily of deciduous January 11, 2018 | Page 6 File No. 0186-871-06 trees with occasional evergreens, and an understory that includes fern, salal, blackberry and Scotch broom. The conifer trees are generally straight and in a vertical growth position. Loose recessional deposits of sand and gravel are commonly exposed at the surface. The slope is inclined between 60 to 85 percent. We observed a small landslide scarp with 8 feet of vertical displacement and a width of 10 feet near the top of the slope. At mid-slope, we observed a larger arcuate landslide scarp with approximately 15 feet of vertical displacement and a width of about 100 feet. Conifer trees near the larger landslide commonly have bowed or pistol-butted trunks. A large hemlock tree (approximately 18 inches, diameter breast height) is growing within the landslide mass, indicating that the landslide is relatively old. The slope also is mapped within a moderate coal mine hazard area (City of Renton, COR MAPs), but we did not observe any evidence of land subsidence, sinkhole formation or deposits associated with coal mining activities. Cedar River South Slope The project area within the Cedar River valley wall south slope, located south of the Cedar River Trail Walk, is within an existing utility corridor that includes overhead power lines. Vegetation consists of deciduous and evergreen trees, with a dense understory that includes fern, salal, Oregon grape, blackberry, grass and nettles. The conifer trees are generally straight and upright, with occasional slightly bowed trunks. Loose recessional deposits of sand and gravel are commonly exposed at the surface. A large prehistoric, deep-seated landslide mapped by King County covers the corridor slope south of the Cedar River. The slope is commonly inclined between 30 to 60 percent. The terrain is slightly hummocky, but we did not observe any evidence of landslide reactivation or recent activity at the time of our site reconnaissance. The slope is mapped within a moderate coal mine hazard area (City of Renton, COR MAPs), but we did not observe any evidence of land subsidence or coal mining activities. IMPACT ASSESSMENT There are two primary ways in which tree removal activities may impact erosion and slope stability on steep slopes or landslide hazard areas. After tree removal (where the stump is left in place), root decay causes both the numbers of roots and the tensile strength of the remaining individual roots to decrease with time (Burroughs and Thomas 1977). Studies show that the period of minimum root strength is typically from 3 to 5 years after harvest (Ziemer 1981a; 1981b), but can extend up to 10 to 20 years, depending on the tree species. For example, minimum root strength in evergreens is typically 10 years after harvest, alders have a minimum root strength of 5 to 10 years after harvest, and maples typically maintain full root strength after harvest. The reductions in root strength result in a net decrease in the cohesive strength of the near-surface soil mass. Tree removal also might modify surface and subsurface hydrology. Tree removal may increase soil moisture by reducing canopy interception and evapotranspiration. Ground-based yarding equipment can compact soil, which may alter hydrologic processes in certain soil types. Elevated groundwater levels decrease the stability of slopes by reducing the shear strength of the soil and by adding additional weight. The probability of erosion and landsliding from elevated groundwater levels depends on the magnitude of the increase and the existing stability of the slope. The magnitude of potential changes in groundwater levels from tree removal is highly variable and depends on several factors, including the tree size, silviculture, subsurface conditions and topography. January 11, 2018 | Page 7 File No. 0186-871-06 In general, tree removal will increase the potential impact on wellhead protection zones, erosion and slope stability for erosion hazard areas, steep slopes or landslide hazard areas. Fewer impacts are expected in areas where tree removal is isolated to one or two trees, and the erosion, steep slope or mapped landslide hazard area is otherwise stable and well vegetated. Tree removal is not anticipated to impact mapped moderate coal mine or high seismic hazards. Additionally, fewer impacts are expected at the toe of the slope, compared to tree removal within the body or at the top of the slope. Access Construction Temporary access routes will generally follow previously established access trails and routes and, in some cases, will cross existing developed landscape. Therefore, little cutting or filling will be required. Small amounts of quarry spalls might be necessary to stabilize portions of existing routes. Many of the existing routes are overgrown with vegetation and, thus, will need to be cleared. Standard erosion control best management practices (BMPs) should be followed during construction (clearing and use of temporary access routes). Following completion of construction activities, restoration BMPs such as mulching and/or placing jute matting should be implemented. Pole Installation Where new poles are located in steep slope or landslide hazard areas, a temporary working bench might be necessary to install the pole. These benches may vary from about 10 by 10 feet to 30 by 30 feet in dimension. The same considerations discussed above for access routes also apply to benches needed for pole installation. We recommend that clearing activities be restricted to that necessary to auger the hole for the pole. Recommendations for the design and construction of poles are presented in our Geotechnical Engineering Services report dated June 8, 2016. In general, most of the site soils along the proposed route consist of recessional deposits or glacially consolidated deposits, and in some limited locations, bedrock. These soils should provide adequate support for the new poles, and it is our opinion that once the pole is installed, the pole will not adversely impact slope stability; the pole should actually provide additional resisting force against slope failure, provided the pole is embedded to a sufficient depth. New poles are proposed in areas mapped as a medium/moderate coal mine hazard, which is defined in Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050 as areas where the mine workings are deeper than 200 feet for steeply dipping seams or deeper than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. Based on the results of the subsurface soil investigation conducted in 2014 and our knowledge of the geologic conditions in this area, the installation of new poles in these areas is not anticipated to impact mapped moderate coal mine hazards. Conclusions Mapped high erosion, high seismic, sensitive and protected steep slopes and moderate or unclassified landslide hazard areas are present within the project area. Outside of the Honey Dew Creek and Cedar River valley areas, most of the remaining areas are developed and include rockeries, landscaped residential or commercial development slopes and cut slopes associated with roadways, and include the following: ■ One tree removed in the managed corridor east of North 23rd Court; January 11, 2018 | Page 8 File No. 0186-871-06 ■ Multiple trees removed east of the residence at 2101 Newport Court NE; ■ One tree removed east of the residence at 3118 NE 18th Street; ■ One tree removed on the east side of the Goodwill parking lot at 3208 NE Sunset Boulevard; ■ Multiple trees removed on the east side of an existing parking lot for 3224 NE 12th Street; ■ Multiple trees removed on the east side of existing residences from 1082 to 1074 Lynnwood Avenue NE; ■ One tree removed on the campus of the Renton Technical College; and ■ One tree removed west of the apartment complex at SE 8th Street and Harrington Place SE. Localized areas of high erosion, sensitive and protected steep slopes, and moderate or unclassified landslide hazard areas in the project area include the Honey Dew Creek drainage and the Cedar River drainage, which include slopes greater than 40 percent with a 15-foot vertical elevation rise. The Cedar River Area also includes a localized high Seismic hazard within the mapped alluvium. The project area is within an existing right-of-way that is maintained for vegetation by PSE. The proposed removal of selected trees in the Honey Dew Creek drainage, selected trees north of the Cedar River, and selected trees south of the Cedar River is consistent with the management activities of the existing power line right-of-way and is not anticipated to impact the mapped wellhead protection zones and geologic hazard areas within these drainage areas, provided that no tracked or rubber-tired equipment is used to remove the trees, in our opinion. Within the Cedar River corridor no trees will be removed within the shoreline/wetland areas. The proposed removal of trees in the Honey Dew Creek drainage is located upslope of any identified recently active slope failures and is not anticipated to exacerbate localized slope failures, in our opinion. Conceptual Impact Mitigation Strategy Vegetation Management and Tree Removal For vegetation management and tree removal in the City of Renton within the mapped geohazard areas outlined in the proposed PSE project segment, GeoEngineers suggests the following options for mitigating impacts after tree removal. In general, to limit impacts on erosion and slope stability from vegetation management and tree removal within steep slope and landslide hazard areas, the sites should be accessed by foot to reduce equipment impacts. Hand cutting with chainsaws should be implemented to trim branches and remove trees. Stumps should remain in place, but can be cut to ground level. Branches, limbs, trunks and other tree debris should be chipped and scattered around the removal site within the right-of-way. Where chipping is not feasible, unchipped tree debris can be scattered. We recommend that trees are felled across the fall line and are left perpendicular to slope if they are not chipped. In areas where tree removal is clustered, erosion control BMPs, such as grass seeding, leaving stumps, scattering straw, and/or replacement planting of native shrubs or small trees, should be implemented to reduce concentrated flows and minimize disturbance. January 11, 2018 | Page 9 File No. 0186-871-06 In areas where houses are located within 25 to 50 feet of vegetation management and tree removal, all tree debris should be removed from the owner’s property and communication with the property owner is suggested to identify possible reseeding, replacement tree or shrub, or landscaping options. If agreeable to the property owner, it is possible that the tree trunk can be cut and left below ground surface to maintain root strength (up to 5 to 10 years, depending on tree type), and a replacement tree or shrub may be planted near the trimmed trunk. Within the Honey Dew Creek and Cedar River drainage areas, where erosion, moderate landslide and steep slope hazard areas are mapped, it is recommended that tree removal be done by hand cutting with chainsaws, stumps left in place, and tree debris scattered. Within the Honey Dew Creek drainage, replacement planting with native shrubs is suggested to increase root strength after tree removal and to reduce impacts within the landslide hazard area. Reestablish Access Routes Where vegetation clearing is required to reestablish the access on existing trails and access routes, BMPs should be implemented; these BMPs can include, but are not limited to: outsloping road surfaces, crowning road surfaces (where appropriate, such as at ridge tops and where roads climb gently inclined surfaces) and installing water bars or rolling dips at regularly spaced intervals to avoid concentrating surface water flow along the road surface. The spacing depends on the grade of the route, the soil type present, proximity to streams and the intended use of the road (i.e., temporary or permanent). Most, if not all, access routes will be temporary and will be abandoned following construction of the transmission line. No temporary access roads will cross any drainages situated in geologic hazard areas. It is the contractor’s responsibility to complete construction work safely and in accordance with applicable local, state and federal laws. After access use is complete, where it is deemed necessary, limited regrading of the access route is recommended to avoid concentrating surface runoff along tracks, ruts or other potential flowpaths. Following completion of construction activities, the construction access routes will be graded to a stable free-draining configuration, treated with appropriate erosion control measures, such as mulching and/or placing jute matting and installation of water bars as needed to control runoff, and seeded. If jute mat is determined a necessary BMP, the jute mat should be anchored at the upslope and downslope ends and secured with staples per the manufacturer’s recommendations. Pole Installation Where a bench is required to install a pole on a steep slope or landslide hazard area, the recommendations presented above for temporary access roads also apply for pole installation. Appropriate erosion control BMPs should be implemented during construction, and the disturbed area should be restored after pole installation by seeding or revegetating and covering the disturbed area with appropriate BMPs. Soil removed from the new pole excavations should be scattered into vegetation away from the landscaped areas. Any areas of exposed soil must be seeded and mulched (or covered with hog fuel) to prevent transport of sediment down the steep slopes or into the seepage area during rain events. If the work area is wet or has standing water, driving mats should be used under all equipment and all soils should be removed from the site for off-site disposal. For poles located in geologic hazard areas, the old poles should be cut off approximately 1 to 2 feet below the ground surface and the remaining portion of each pole left in place. If poles installed on slopes January 11, 2018 | Page 10 File No. 0186-871-06 steeper than 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical), they should be embedded at least 3 feet deeper than the typical design embedment. CODE COMPLIANCE 4-3-050 (G2) – Development Standards – Critical Area Buffers The critical area buffer width for very high landslide hazard areas is 50 feet. Buffers are not required for steep slopes or high or moderate landslide hazards, based on the results of a geotechnical report and/or independent review. Response to Code Requirement: The site does not include any mapped very high landslide hazard areas (LV) and, as such, there are no required buffers in the project area. The proposed activities include vegetation management and tree removal and access routes (associated with the proposed pole replacement activities) that will be followed by mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to geologic hazards. These hazards include landslide and steep slope hazards. Possible mitigation measures include a variety of BMPs to reduce potential impacts to geologic hazards in the vicinity of neighboring properties, including plant replacement, scattering trimmed or removed tree debris, and chipping wood to reduce potential impacts to work areas as appropriate. Removal of vegetation by hand and/or using limited access machinery will reduce potential impacts to landslide and steep slope hazard areas. It is our opinion that the proposed project will not require additional buffers. There are no established critical area buffers for erosion hazard areas or coal mine hazard areas. 4-3-050 (G5f) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Protected Slopes Development is prohibited on protected slopes. Response to Code Requirement: No development is planned. Site activities include vegetation management and limited tree removal (associated with the pole replacement activities) within an existing utility right-of-way. No development or grading activities will be conducted on protected slopes. Replacement of existing utility systems are exempted, provided the work does not increase the footprint by more than 10 percent and that restoration shall be conducted where feasible. 4-3-050 (G5g) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Sensitive Slopes; Medium, High and Very High Landslide Hazards; High Erosion Hazards During construction, weekly on-site inspections shall be required at the applicant’s expense. Weekly reports documenting erosion control measures shall be required Response to Code Requirement: Site activities include vegetation management and limited tree removal (associated with the pole replacement activities). Weekly on-site inspections and reports documenting erosion control measures will be completed as required by the applicant. 4-3-050 (G5i(ii)) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Coal Mine Hazards Found during Construction Any hazards found during any development activities shall be immediately reported to the Development Services Division. Any coal mine hazards shall be mitigated prior to recommencing construction based January 11, 2018 | Page 11 File No. 0186-871-06 upon supplemental recommendations or reports by the applicant’s geotechnical professional. During construction, weekly on-site inspections shall be required at the applicant’s expense. Weekly reports documenting erosion control measures shall be required Response to Code Requirement: Any coal mine hazards found during the proposed vegetation management and tree removal activities associated with the pole replacement activities will be immediately reported to the Development Services Division. Any identified coal mine hazards will be mitigated prior to recommencing any activities based upon supplemental recommendations or reports by the applicant’s geotechnical professional. Weekly on-site inspections and reports documenting erosion control measures will be completed by the applicant. 4-3-050 (G5d) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Seismic Hazards Found during Construction Any hazards found during any development activities shall be immediately reported to the Development Services Division. Any seismic hazards shall be mitigated prior to recommencing construction based upon supplemental recommendations or reports by the applicant’s geotechnical professional. During construction, weekly on-site inspections shall be required at the applicant’s expense. Weekly reports documenting erosion control measures shall be required Response to Code Requirement: No tree removal is proposed within High Seismic Hazard areas. Any seismic hazards found during the proposed vegetation management and tree removal activities associated with the pole replacement activities will be immediately reported to the Development Services Division. Any identified seismic hazards will be mitigated prior to recommencing any activities based upon supplemental recommendations or reports by the applicant’s geotechnical professional. Weekly on-site inspections and reports documenting erosion control measures will be completed by the applicant. 4-3-050 (G8) – Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas – Wellhead Protection Zones Found during Construction Any potential risks to groundwater Wellhead Protection Zones found during any development activities shall be immediately reported to the Development Services Division. Any risk to groundwater wellhead protection zones shall be mitigated prior to recommencing construction based upon supplemental recommendations or reports by the applicant’s geotechnical professional. During construction, weekly on- site inspections shall be required at the applicant’s expense. Weekly reports documenting erosion control measures shall be required Response to Code Requirement: No construction dewatering is planned within the project area including Wellhead Protection Zones. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be implemented to address potential construction related contaminant handling associated within Wellhead Protection Zones. Potential contaminant impacts to Wellhead Protection Zones associated with removal and proposed vegetation management and tree removal activities associated with the pole replacement activities will be immediately reported to the Development Services Division. Any risks to Wellhead Protection Zones associated with the project will be mitigated prior to recommencing any activities based upon supplemental recommendations or reports by the January 11, 2018 | Page 12 File No. 0186-871-06 applicant’s geotechnical professional. Weekly on-site inspections and reports documenting erosion control measures will be completed by the applicant. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of PSE and their authorized agents for the Energize Eastside project located in Renton, Washington. The purpose of our services was to review slope stability impacts in relation to vegetation management and tree removal in erosion, steep slope, landslide and coal mine hazard areas along the transmission line corridor within the City of Renton. Impacts to slope stability for pile installation was evaluated in a separate report. Where appropriate, information from the previous reports have been used in developing our recommendations and comments presented in this report. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. REFERENCES Booth, D.B., and Wisher, A. P., compilers, Geologic map of King County, Washington Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies: scale 1:100,000, 2006. Available at http://geomapnw.ess.washington.edu/services/publications/map/data/KingCo_composite.pdf). Burroughs, E.R. Jr, and Thomas, B.R., 1977, “Declining root strength in Douglas-fir after felling as a factor in slope stability.” Research Paper INT-90, Ogden, Utah, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 27 p. City of Renton, COR Maps (http://rp.rentonwa.gov/SilverlightPublic/Viewer.html?Viewer=COR-Maps). City of Renton, Municipal Code (http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/renton/): Title IV, Ch. 3, 4-3-050, and Renton Ordinance 5137, Section II, part J. City of Renton, Sensitive Areas Steep Slopes Map (http://rentonwa.gov/uploadedFiles/Government/FIT/GIS/PDF_Files/SteepSlopes.pdf). GeoEngineers, Inc. December 19, 2014. Geologic Hazards Evaluation and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services, File No. 0186-871-02. Prepared for Puget Sound Energy. King County iMap (http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/?center=- 13600520%2C6025590&scale=2256.994353&) Accessed June 30, 2017. NRCS, National Resource Conservation Service Web Based Soil Survey, 2008. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Digital Report 2, Digital Geologic Maps of the 1:100,000 Quadrangles of Washington. January 11, 2018 | Page 13 File No. 0186-871-06 Ziemer, R. R., 1981a, “Roots and stability of forested slopes” in “International Symposium on erosion and sediment transport in Pacific rim steep lands,” 1981 January 25-31; Christchurch, New Zealand. IAHS Publication 132 International Association of Hydrologic Sciences Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 341 – 361. Ziemer, R. R., 1981b, “The role of vegetation in the stability of forested slopes” in “Proceedings, International Union of Forestry Research Organizations XVII World Conference,” September 6-17, 1981, Kyoto, Japan. IUFRO Congress Council, pp 297-308. Have we delivered World Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting www.geoengineers.com/feedback. A P P E N D I X F Mitigation Plan 11317XAPPROXIMATE PARCEL BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFER (100-FT)APPROXIMATE WETLAND BOUNDARYPROPOSED ENHANCEMENT AREA (9,500 SF)TREE TO BE REMOVEDXEE230 CORRIDORTALBOT MITIGATION PLAN80'20'10'040'LEGENDNOT FORCONSTRUCTION1VICINITY MAP (TALBOT)PROJECT MANAGER: DESIGNED: DRAFTED: CHECKED:SHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.BY© Copyright- The Watershed CompanyDATE PRINTED BY FILENAME THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYS c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comJOB NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER:SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATENO.PSE RENTON MITIGATION MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR: PUGET SOUND ENERGY ENERGIZE EASTSIDE PARCEL # 2023059001, 0423059342, 0423059035 RENTON, WA 98055JCLMLMJC/MF111103.11OF 61 01-08-2018 MITIGATION PLAN LM PARCEL #2023059001PARCEL #2023059003MOWED EASEMENT CORRIDORNR01NR05APPROXIMATE EDGEOF SHRUBS ANDLOW-GROWING TREES(UNMOWED AREA)OLYMPIC PIPELINESCALE: 1" = 20'SHEET INDEX1.TALBOT MITIGATION PLAN2.TALBOT PLANTING PLAN3.HONEY DEW CREEK HABITAT TREE PLAN4.PLANTING, SOIL PREP & HABITAT DETAILS5.PLANTING & MITIGATION NOTES (1 OF 2)6.PLANTING & MITIGATION NOTES (2 OF 2)TALBOTPROJECTLOCATIONPROPOSED ENHANCEMENT AREA.PREPARE SOIL PER DETAIL.F4VICINITY MAP (HONEY DEW CREEK)HONEY DEWPROJECTLOCATIONPSE RENTON MITIGATION: TALBOT AND HONEY DEW CREEK SITES accicrdoamalacciacciaccicrdocrdocrdocrdocrdoacciacciacciacciacciamalamalamalacciacciacciamalamalamalamalamalcrdoacciaccicrdocrdocrdoamalamalamalcrdoamalamalamalamalcrdocrdocrdocrdocrdocrdocrdocrdocrdocrdocrdoacciacciacciacci acciacci amalamalamalamalamalcrdocrdocrdocrdocrdocrdoacciacciamalamalamalacciacci amalacciAPPROXIMATE PARCEL BOUNDARYWETLAND BUFFER (100-FT)APPROXIMATE WETLAND BOUNDARYPLANT SPECIES LISTTREESSIZESPACINGQUANTITYACER CIRCINATUM / VINE MAPLE2 GAL9' O.C.25CRATAEGUS DOUGLASII / BLACK HAWTHORN2 GAL9' O.C.28AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA / PACIFIC SERVICEBERRY2 GAL9' O.C.25SHRUBSCORYLUS CORNUTA / BEAKED HAZELNUT1 GAL6' O.C.50MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM / OREGON GRAPE1 GAL6' O.C.50OEMLERIA CERASIFORMUS / OSOBERRY1 GAL6' O.C.50SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS / SNOWBERRY1 GAL6' O.C.50HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR / OCEAN SPRAY1 GAL6' O.C.50PHILADELPHUS LEWISII / MOCK ORANGE1 GAL6' O.C.50GROUNDCOVERPTERIDIUM AQUILINUM / BRACKEN FERN1 GAL24" O.C.500POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM / SWORD FERN1 GAL24" O.C.500GAULTHERIA SHALLON / SALAL1 GAL24" O.C.500accicrdoamalTALBOT PLANTING PLAN40'10'5'020'LEGENDPROJECT MANAGER: DESIGNED: DRAFTED: CHECKED:SHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.BY© Copyright- The Watershed CompanyDATE PRINTED BY FILENAME THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYS c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comJOB NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER:SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATENO.PSE RENTON MITIGATION MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR: PUGET SOUND ENERGY ENERGIZE EASTSIDE PARCEL # 2023059001, 0423059342, 0423059035 RENTON, WA 98055JCLMLMJC/MF111103.11OF 61 01-08-2018 MITIGATION PLAN LMPARCEL #2023059001PARCEL #2023059003NR012SCALE: 1" = 10'NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONF44" WOOD CHIP MULCH RINGSPROVIDE IRRIGATION FOR FIRSTTWO SUMMERS, SEE MITIGATIONNOTESNOTES1.REMOVE INVASIVES AND PREPARE SITE. SEE SOIL PREP DETAIL.2.SEE MITIGATION NOTES, SHEETS 5 AND 6. SSSSHSSSHSHHHHHHXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX15381535153715341533154115681563156215641557155815811583155015711545157015531582155215511547154915541555155615591560156515661573153615461547154815441542154315391540PSE EASEMENT BOUNDARYTREES TO BE SNAGGED (8)TREES TO BE HINGE CUT (8)TREES TO REMAINSTREAM BUFFER (115' STANDARD BUFFER,EXTENDED TO TOP OF ADJACENTPROTECTED SLOPES)PROPERTY BOUNDARYSTREAM (APPROXIMATE)SHXXLEGENDPROJECT MANAGER: DESIGNED: DRAFTED: CHECKED:SHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.BY© Copyright- The Watershed CompanyDATE PRINTED BY FILENAME THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYS c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comJOB NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER:SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATENO.PSE RENTON MITIGATION MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR: PUGET SOUND ENERGY ENERGIZE EASTSIDE PARCEL # 2023059001, 0423059342, 0423059035 RENTON, WA 98055JCLMLMJC/MF111103.11OF 61 01-08-2018 MITIGATION PLAN LM HONEY DEW CREEKH E A V Y V E G E T A T I O N - B L A C K B E R R I E S A P P R O X I M A T E T R E E L I N EHONEY DEW CREEK HABITAT TREE PLAN80'20'10'040'3SCALE: 1" = 20'NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPARCEL #0423059035PARCEL #0423059342B4A4 NOTES:1.SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION. VERIFY FALL DIRECTION IN FIELD WITH ASSISTANCE FROM THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT.2.TREE SHALL HAVE PLIABLE WOOD AND A MAXIMUM DBH OF 15 INCHES.4.USING ONLY A BACK CUT THAT DOES NOT FULLY SEVER THE TREE’S TRUNK FROM THE STUMP, LEAVE THE FALLEN TREECONNECTED TO THE STUMP BY A “HINGE” OF BARK.5.THE LENGTH OF THE HINGE SHOULD BE 80% OF THE DBH. VERIFY WITH RESTORATION CONSULTANT BASED ON SPECIES.6.FOR LARGER DBH TREES, PENETRATE TRUNK WITH A VERTICAL PLUNGE CUT PRIOR TO HORIZONTAL BACK CUT, OR MAKE ASHALLOW NOTCH, 1-2 INCHES DEEP, ON THE SIDE OF THE TREE FACING ITS FALL DIRECTION.HORIZONTAL BACK-CUTAT HEIGHT BETWEENTHREE AND SIX FEETABOVE GROUND LINE.PUSH TREE OVEROR PULL TRUNKTOWARD CHOSENFALL DIRECTION,AND LEAVEATTACHED TOHINGE.PLUNGE CUT AND/ORNOTCH WHENAPPROPRIATE. SEENOTES BELOW.EXISTING CONDITIONSTEP ONESTEP TWO15" DBH12" WIDE HINGE(80% OF DBH)BACK CUTHINGEOPTIONAL NOTCHPLAN VIEW OF CUTHINGE-FELLED TREESSHALL BE VERIFIED BYTHE RESTORATIONSPECIALIST.SNAG NOTES:SEE TREE SNAG TABLE FOR TREES WHICH ARE TO BERETAINED AS SNAGS. ALL TREES SHOULD BE:1.SNAGS ON SITE ARE TO BE TOPPED BY CLIMBINGARBORIST TO HEIGHT AS INDIVIDUALLY CONFIRMEDON TREE INDEX TABLE.2.LEAVE TOP OF SNAG ON THE GROUND NEARBY ANDANGLE LOG PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE.3.ONCE TOP HAS BEEN REMOVED ARBORIST IS TOMAKE A CORONET CUT TO GIVE A NATURAL BREAKAPPEARANCE.4.RETAIN ALL BRANCHES FOR PERCHES AND HABITATSTRUCTURES- DO NOT LIMB.5.LIVE TREES SHOULD BE DEADENED BY CUTTINGTWO 6” WIDE, ANGLED BANDS AROUND THE BASE OFTHE TREE WITH AN AXE OR BY MAKING TWO CUTSAROUND THE TREE WITH A CHAIN SAW TO A DEPTHOF APPROXIMATELY 1 INCH BELOW THE BARKLAYER.GIRDLE CUTALL LIMBS REMAINUPWARD BAT SLITS.MIN. 13'-0" SNAG HEIGHT,CORONET CUTOR MACHINE BREAKGROUND6"3' - 5'BAT ROOSTING SLIT NOTES1.TO MAKE BAT ROOSTING CUTS, BEGINAPPROXIMATELY 3'-0" BELOW CORONET CUT ATTOP OF SNAG. AT AN ANGLE OF 80 DEGREES TOTHE GROUND, CUT INTO TREE TRUNK WITH ANUPWARD SLANT. MAKE 3 PARALLEL CUTS,APPROXIMATELY 2'-0" DEEP.2.FACE OF BAT ROOST SLITS ARE TO FACE EASTOR SOUTH DEPENDING ON AVAILABILITY OFSUNLIGHT IN THE MORNING HOURS.3.TO DETER SPECIES SUCH AS WASPS FROMINHABITING ROOST AREAS IT IS RECOMMENDEDTHAT CUTS BE MADE TO A THICKNESS OF 3/4".80°NOTES:1. PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN (2)TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL DIA.2. LOOSEN SIDES AND BOTTOMS OF PLANTING PIT3. SOAK PLANTING PIT AFTER PLANTING2X MIN DIA. ROOTBALLREMOVE FROM POT OR BURLAP & ROUGH-UPROOT BALL BEFORE INSTALLING. UNTANGLEAND STRAIGHTEN CIRCLING ROOTS - PRUNE IFNECESSARY. IF PLANT IS EXCEPTIONALLYROOT-BOUND, DO NOT PLANT AND RETURN TONURSERY FOR AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVESPECIFIED MULCH LAYER. HOLD BACK MULCHFROM TRUNK/STEMSFINISH GRADEREMOVE DEBRIS AND LARGE ROCKS FROM PLANTINGPIT AND SCARIFY SIDES AND BASE. BACKFILL WITHSPECIFIED SOIL. FIRM UP SOIL AROUND PLANT.3"3"NOTES:1.PLANT GROUNDCOVER AT SPECIFIED DISTANCEON-CENTER (O.C.) USING TRIANGULAR SPACING, TYP.2.LOOSEN SIDES AND BOTTOM OF PLANTING PIT ANDREMOVE DEBRIS3.LOOSEN ROOTBOUND PLANTS BEFORE INSTALLING4.SOAK PIT BEFORE AND AFTER INSTALLING PLANTSPECIFIED MULCH LAYER.HOLD BACK MULCH FROMSTEMSSTEP 1STEP 2STEP 3STEP 4MIN. 8"PLANTING AREA PREPARATIONSTEP 1REMOVE UNDESIRABLE SPECIES. ADDRESS COMPACTION:COMPACTION LEVELS SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FORROOT GROWTH (75-85% PROCTOR DENSITY) OR ASOTHERWISE APPROVED BY ENGINEER. DRAINAGE RATESHALL BE BETWEEN 1 - 5 INCHES PER HOUR OR ASOTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. WORK WITHINEXISTING ROOT ZONES SHALL BE DONE BY HAND.PLACE TWO (2) INCHES COMPOST.STEP 2INCORPORATE COMPOST TO AN EIGHT (8) INCH DEPTH.STEP 3INSTALL MULCH RINGS FOUR (4) INCHES DEEP.STEP 4INSTALL PLANTS.4" MULCHEXISTING2" COMPOST4"IF VEGETATION EXISTS WITHINPLANTING AREA, SPACE AT 23 XFROM STEM OF EXISTINGVEGETATION2/3 X2/3 XAREA FOR SPACING ADJUSTMENTXXXX= PLANT SPACING= PLANTNOTE:FIRST PLACE PLANTS ALONG THEPERIMETER OF THE PLANTINGAREA, AND AROUND EXISTINGVEGETATION. THEN SPACE THEREMAINDER OF THE PLANTINGS.PLANTING, SOIL PREP & HABITAT DETAILSPROJECT MANAGER: DESIGNED: DRAFTED: CHECKED:SHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.BY© Copyright- The Watershed CompanyDATE PRINTED BY FILENAME THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYS c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comJOB NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER:SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATENO.PSE RENTON MITIGATION MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR: PUGET SOUND ENERGY ENERGIZE EASTSIDE PARCEL # 2023059001, 0423059342, 0423059035 RENTON, WA 98055JCLMLMJC/MF111103.11OF 61 01-08-2018 MITIGATION PLAN LM 4Scale: NTSCONTAINER PLANTINGEScale: NTSHINGE CUT TREEAScale: NTSSOIL PREPARATIONFScale: NTSTRIANGULAR SPACINGDScale: NTSGROUNDCOVER PLANTINGCScale: NTSSNAG TREEBSCALE: NTSNOT FORCONSTRUCTION GENERAL NOTESQUALITY ASSURANCE1. PLANTS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE SPECIFICATIONS OFFEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS REQUIRING INSPECTION FORPLANT DISEASE AND INSECT CONTROL.2. PLANTS SHALL BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, AND WELL-FORMED,WITH WELL DEVELOPED, FIBROUS ROOT SYSTEMS, FREE FROMDEAD BRANCHES OR ROOTS. PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROMDAMAGE CAUSED BY TEMPERATURE EXTREMES, LACK OREXCESS OF MOISTURE, INSECTS, DISEASE, AND MECHANICALINJURY. PLANTS IN LEAF SHALL BE WELL FOLIATED AND OFGOOD COLOR. PLANTS SHALL BE HABITUATED TO THE OUTDOORENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS INTO WHICH THEY WILL BEPLANTED (HARDENED-OFF).3. TREES WITH DAMAGED, CROOKED, MULTIPLE OR BROKENLEADERS WILL BE REJECTED. WOODY PLANTS WITH ABRASIONSOF THE BARK OR SUN SCALD WILL BE REJECTED.4. NOMENCLATURE: PLANT NAMES SHALL CONFORM TO FLORA OFTHE PACIFIC NORTHWEST BY HITCHCOCK AND CRONQUIST,UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PRESS, 1973 AND/OR TO A FIELDGUIDE TO THE COMMON WETLAND PLANTS OF WESTERNWASHINGTON & NORTHWESTERN OREGON, ED. SARAH SPEARCOOKE, SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY, 1997.DEFINITIONS1.PLANTS/PLANT MATERIALS. PLANTS AND PLANT MATERIALSSHALL INCLUDE ANY LIVE PLANT MATERIAL USED ON THEPROJECT. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO CONTAINERGROWN, B&B OR BAREROOT PLANTS; LIVE STAKES ANDFASCINES (WATTLES); TUBERS, CORMS, BULBS, ETC..; SPRIGS,PLUGS, AND LINERS.2.CONTAINER GROWN. CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS ARE THOSEWHOSE ROOTBALLS ARE ENCLOSED IN A POT OR BAG IN WHICHTHAT PLANT GREW.SUBSTITUTIONS1. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN SPECIFIEDMATERIALS IN ADVANCE IF SPECIAL GROWING, MARKETING OROTHER ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO SUPPLYSPECIFIED MATERIALS.2. SUBSTITUTION OF PLANT MATERIALS NOT ON THE PROJECT LISTWILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BYTHE RESTORATION CONSULTANT.3. IF PROOF IS SUBMITTED THAT ANY PLANT MATERIAL SPECIFIED ISNOT OBTAINABLE, A PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR USEOF THE NEAREST EQUIVALENT SIZE OR ALTERNATIVE SPECIES,WITH CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT OF CONTRACT PRICE.4. SUCH PROOF WILL BE SUBSTANTIATED AND SUBMITTED INWRITING TO THE CONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TOSTART OF WORK UNDER THIS SECTION.INSPECTION1. PLANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BYTHE RESTORATION CONSULTANT FOR CONFORMANCE TOSPECIFICATIONS, EITHER AT TIME OF DELIVERY ON-SITE OR ATTHE GROWER'S NURSERY. APPROVAL OF PLANT MATERIALS ATANY TIME SHALL NOT IMPAIR THE SUBSEQUENT RIGHT OFINSPECTION AND REJECTION DURING PROGRESS OF THE WORK.2. PLANTS INSPECTED ON SITE AND REJECTED FOR NOT MEETINGSPECIFICATIONS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY FROM SITEOR RED-TAGGED AND REMOVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.3. THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY ELECT TO INSPECT PLANTMATERIALS AT THE PLACE OF GROWTH. AFTER INSPECTION ANDACCEPTANCE, THE RESTORATION CONSULTANT MAY REQUIRETHE INSPECTED PLANTS BE LABELED AND RESERVED FORPROJECT. SUBSTITUTION OF THESE PLANTS WITH OTHERINDIVIDUALS, EVEN OF THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE, ISUNACCEPTABLE.MEASUREMENT OF PLANTS1. PLANTS SHALL CONFORM TO SIZES SPECIFIED UNLESSSUBSTITUTIONS ARE MADE AS OUTLINED IN THIS CONTRACT.2. HEIGHT AND SPREAD DIMENSIONS SPECIFIED REFER TO MAINBODY OF PLANT AND NOT BRANCH OR ROOT TIP TO TIP. PLANTDIMENSIONS SHALL BE MEASURED WHEN THEIR BRANCHES ORROOTS ARE IN THEIR NORMAL POSITION.3. WHERE A RANGE OF SIZE IS GIVEN, NO PLANT SHALL BE LESSTHAN THE MINIMUM SIZE AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE PLANTSSHALL BE AS LARGE AS THE MEDIAN OF THE SIZE RANGE.(EXAMPLE: IF THE SIZE RANGE IS 12" TO 18", AT LEAST 50% OFPLANTS MUST BE 15" TALL.).SUBMITTALSPROPOSED PLANT SOURCES1. WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER AWARD OF THE CONTRACT, SUBMIT ACOMPLETE LIST OF PLANT MATERIALS PROPOSED TO BEPROVIDED DEMONSTRATING CONFORMANCE WITH THEREQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED. INCLUDE THE NAMES ANDADDRESSES OF ALL GROWERS AND NURSERIES.PRODUCT CERTIFICATES1. PLANT MATERIALS LIST - SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION TOCONSULTANT AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO START OF WORKUNDER THIS SECTION THAT PLANT MATERIALS HAVE BEENORDERED. ARRANGE PROCEDURE FOR INSPECTION OF PLANTMATERIAL WITH CONSULTANT AT TIME OF SUBMISSION.2. HAVE COPIES OF VENDOR'S OR GROWERS' INVOICES ORPACKING SLIPS FOR ALL PLANTS ON SITE DURING INSTALLATION.INVOICE OR PACKING SLIP SHOULD LIST SPECIES BY SCIENTIFICNAME, QUANTITY, AND DATE DELIVERED (AND GENETIC ORIGIN IFTHAT INFORMATION WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED).DELIVERY, HANDLING, & STORAGENOTIFICATIONCONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY CONSULTANT 48 HOURS OR MORE INADVANCE OF DELIVERIES SO THAT CONSULTANT MAY ARRANGE FORINSPECTION.PLANT MATERIALS1.TRANSPORTATION - DURING SHIPPING, PLANTS SHALL BEPACKED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST CLIMATE EXTREMES,BREAKAGE AND DRYING. PROPER VENTILATION ANDPREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO BARK, BRANCHES, AND ROOTSYSTEMS MUST BE ENSURED.2.SCHEDULING AND STORAGE - PLANTS SHALL BE DELIVERED ASCLOSE TO PLANTING AS POSSIBLE. PLANTS IN STORAGE MUSTBE PROTECTED AGAINST ANY CONDITION THAT IS DETRIMENTALTO THEIR CONTINUED HEALTH AND VIGOR.3.HANDLING - PLANT MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE HANDLED BY THETRUNK, LIMBS, OR FOLIAGE BUT ONLY BY THE CONTAINER, BALL,BOX, OR OTHER PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE, EXCEPT BAREROOTPLANTS SHALL BE KEPT IN BUNDLES UNTIL PLANTING AND THENHANDLED CAREFULLY BY THE TRUNK OR STEM.4.LABELS - PLANTS SHALL HAVE DURABLE, LEGIBLE LABELSSTATING CORRECT SCIENTIFIC NAME AND SIZE. TEN PERCENTOF CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS IN INDIVIDUAL POTS SHALL BELABELED. PLANTS SUPPLIED IN FLATS, RACKS, BOXES, BAGS, ORBUNDLES SHALL HAVE ONE LABEL PER GROUP.WARRANTYPLANT WARRANTYPLANTS MUST BE GUARANTEED TO BE TRUE TO SCIENTIFIC NAMEAND SPECIFIED SIZE, AND TO BE HEALTHY AND CAPABLE OFVIGOROUS GROWTH.REPLACEMENT1.PLANTS NOT FOUND MEETING ALL OF THE REQUIREDCONDITIONS AT THE CONSULTANT'S DISCRETION MUST BEREMOVED FROM SITE AND REPLACED IMMEDIATELY AT THECONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.2.PLANTS NOT SURVIVING AFTER ONE YEAR TO BE REPLACED ATTHE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.PLANT MATERIALGENERAL1. PLANTS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN IN ACCORDANCE WITHGOOD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES UNDER CLIMATICCONDITIONS SIMILAR TO OR MORE SEVERE THAN THOSE OF THEPROJECT SITE.2. PLANTS SHALL BE TRUE TO SPECIES AND VARIETY ORSUBSPECIES. NO CULTIVARS OR NAMED VARIETIES SHALL BEUSED UNLESS SPECIFIED AS SUCH.QUANTITIESSEE PLANT LIST ON ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND PLANT SCHEDULES.ROOT TREATMENT1.CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS (INCLUDES PLUGS): PLANT ROOTBALLS MUST HOLD TOGETHER WHEN THE PLANT IS REMOVEDFROM THE POT, EXCEPT THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF LOOSE SOILMAY BE ON THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL.2.PLANTS MUST NOT BE ROOT-BOUND; THERE MUST BE NOCIRCLING ROOTS PRESENT IN ANY PLANT INSPECTED.3.ROOTBALLS THAT HAVE CRACKED OR BROKEN WHEN REMOVEDFROM THE CONTAINER SHALL BE REJECTED.PLANT INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONSMITIGATION NOTESPLANTING & MITIGATION NOTES (1 OF 2)SCALE: NTSPROJECT MANAGER: DESIGNED: DRAFTED: CHECKED:SHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.BY© Copyright- The Watershed CompanyDATE PRINTED BY FILENAME THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYS c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comJOB NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER:SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATENO.PSE RENTON MITIGATION MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR: PUGET SOUND ENERGY ENERGIZE EASTSIDE PARCEL # 2023059001, 0423059342, 0423059035 RENTON, WA 98055JCLMLMJC/MF111103.11OF 61 01-08-2018 MITIGATION PLAN LM 5NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONTALBOT MITIGATION PLANPSE ENERGIZE EASTSIDE 230 - RENTONEXECUTIVE SUMMARYPSE'S ENERGIZE EASTSIDE PROJECT (THE PROJECT) PROPOSES TO UPGRADEEXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES IN RENTON IN ORDER TO INCREASE TRANSMISSIONSYSTEM CAPACITY TO 230KV POWER. PROJECT ELEMENTS, EXISTING CONDITIONS,MITIGATION SEQUENCING, AND PROJECT IMPACTS TO CRITICAL AREAS AREDISCUSSED IN THE CITY OF RENTON CRITICAL AREAS REPORT (RENTON CAR)PREPARED BY THE WATERSHED COMPANY, JANUARY 2019. THIS MITIGATION PLAN ISINTENDED TO REPRESENT THE MITIGATION PLAN REFERENCED IN THE RENTONCAR. IT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO APPROPRIATELY MITIGATE FOR PROJECT IMPACTSOCCURRING IN WETLAND AND STREAM CRITICAL AREA BUFFERS AS DESCRIBED INTHE RENTON CAR AND REQUIRED BY THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC).PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITIES IMPACT WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFERS INTHREE POSSIBLE WAYS: PERMANENT IMPACTS RESULTING IN A CONVERSION TO ADEVELOPED CONDITION AS A RESULT OF POLE FOOTPRINTS, VEGETATIONCONVERSION FROM A FORESTED VEGETATION TYPE TO A SHRUB OR HERBACEOUSCOMMUNITY DUE TO VEGETATION MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS (CONVERSION),AND/OR TEMPORARY IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES(TEMPORARY). TEMPORARY IMPACTS WILL BE RESTORED IN PLACE AFTERCONSTRUCTION WORK IS COMPLETE. CONVERSION AND PERMANENT BUFFERIMPACTS REQUIRE MITIGATION WHICH IS PRESENTED HEREIN.THE PROJECT HAS AVOIDED ALL DIRECT PERMANENT IMPACTS (FILL) TO WETLANDS,STREAMS AND STREAM BUFFERS. ONE NEW POLE WILL BE INSTALLED WITHIN AWETLAND BUFFER AND THREE REPLACEMENT POLES WILL BE INSTALLED IN THESAME LOCATION AS EXISTING POLES WITHIN A WETLAND BUFFER, BUT WITH ALARGER FOOTPRINT. TWO EXISTING TRANSMISSION POLES WILL BE REMOVEDFROM WETLAND BUFFER, RESULTING IN AN OVERALL NET INCREASE OF ONLY 68 SFOF FILL MATERIAL IN BUFFER AREAS.VEGETATION CONVERSION (TREE REMOVAL) IMPACTS OCCUR IN THE BUFFER AREAOF THREE WETLAND AND THREE STREAM FEATURES AND ARE NECESSARY TOACCOMMODATE THE NEW 230KV TRANSMISSION LINE DESIGN AND MEET FEDERALSAFETY STANDARDS.MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS IS PLANNED IN THE BUFFER OF WETLAND NRO1 IN THELOWER CEDAR RIVER SUB-BASIN (TALBOT SITE). AS DISCUSSED IN THE RENTONCAR, THIS LOCATION WAS SELECTED FOR MITIGATION ACTIVITIES BASED UPON THELOCATION OF PROJECT IMPACTS, OPPORTUNITY PRESENT, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP,PROXIMITY TO OTHER REGULATED CRITICAL AREAS, AND THE VALUE OF THEENHANCMENT TO OVERALL CRITICAL AREA FUNCTION IN THE CORRIDOR.ADDITIONALLY, SNAG CREATION IS PROPOSED IN THE BUFFER OF HONEY DEWCREEK TO MITIGATE FOR SOME IMPACTS TO HABITAT OCCURING WITHIN THE MAYCREEK SUB-BASIN.THE MINIMUM MITIGATION AREA REQUIRED, AS PRESENTED IN THE RENTON CAR IS9,461 SF. THIS WAS CALCULATED BASED ON A PERMANENT IMPACT MITIGATIONRATIO OF 1:1 AND A VEGETATION CONVERSION MITIGATION RATIO OF 0.5:1 BASEDON ECOLOGY GUIDANCE.A TOTAL AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 9,500 SF OF DEGRADED BUFFER WILL BEENHANCED ON THE TALBOT SITE. THE ENHANCEMENT AREAS INCLUDE INVASIVESPECIES REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS, ANDGROUNDCOVER PLANTS.OVERVIEWTHE MITIGATION PLAN CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 9,500 SF OF WETLAND NRO1BUFFER ENHANCEMENT ON THE TALBOT SITE, PLUS SNAG AND HINGE-CUT TREECREATION IN THE BUFFER OF HONEY DEW CREEK. THE MITIGATION PLAN INCLUDESA COMPREHENSIVE FIVE-YEAR MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING PLAN, PER RMC4-3-50.L.3. THE PLAN SPECIFIES APPROPRIATE SPECIES FOR PLANTING ANDPLANTING TECHNIQUES, DESCRIBES PROPER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, AND SETSFORTH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO BE MET YEARLY DURING MONITORING.THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS WILL ENSURE THATENHANCEMENT/RESTORATION PLANTINGS WILL BE MAINTAINED, MONITORED, ANDSUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS FOLLOWINGIMPLEMENTATION.BUFFER ENHANCEMENT WILL INCLUDE REMOVAL OF INVASIVE SPECIES,INSTALLATION OF NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVER, AND CREATION OFHABITAT SNAGS AND HINGE-CUT TREES FROM SUITABLE TREES PROPOSED FORREMOVAL FROM THE HONEY DEW CREEK BUFFERTHESE MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ARE INTENDED TO INCREASE NATIVE PLANT COVER,DECREASE INVASIVE SPECIES PREVALENCE, IMPROVE NATIVE SPECIES DIVERSITY,AND PROVIDE FOOD AND OTHER HABITAT RESOURCES FOR WILDLIFE.GOALS1.ENHANCE DEGRADED CRITICAL AREA BUFFER.a.ESTABLISH DENSE AND DIVERSE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUTTHE MITIGATION AREA.b.INCREASE SPECIAL HABITAT FEATURES IN BUFFER AREAS THROUGHCREATION OF HABITAT SNAGS AND HINGE-CUT TREES.PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (TALBOT SITE)THE STANDARDS LISTED BELOW WILL BE USED TO JUDGE THE SUCCESS OF THEPLAN OVER TIME. IF THE STANDARDS ARE MET AT THE END OF THE FIVE-YEARMONITORING PERIOD, THE CITY SHALL RELEASE THE PERFORMANCE BOND.1.SURVIVAL:a.100% SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED WOODY VEGETATION AT THE END OF YEAR1, STARTING FROM THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE INSTALLATION.THIS STANDARD MAY BE MET THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTALLEDPLANTS OR BY REPLANTING AS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIREDNUMBERS.b.80% SURVIVAL OF ALL INSTALLED WOODY VEGETATION AT THE END OF YEAR2. THIS STANDARD MAY BE MET THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTALLEDPLANTS OR BY REPLANTING AS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIREDNUMBERS.i.SURVIVAL BEYOND YEAR 2 IS DIFFICULT TO TRACK. THEREFORE, DIVERSITYAND COVER STANDARDS ARE PROPOSED IN PLACE OF SURVIVAL (SEEBELOW).2.NATIVE VEGETATION COVER IN PLANTED AREA:a.ACHIEVE AT LEAST 60% COVER OF NATIVE SHRUBS BY THE END OF YEAR 3.TRANSMISSION LINE-FRIENDLY NATIVE VOLUNTEER SPECIES MAY COUNTTOWARD THIS STANDARD.b.ACHIEVE AT LEAST 80% COVER OF NATIVE SHRUBS BY THE END OF YEAR 5.TRANSMISSION LINE-FRIENDLY NATIVE VOLUNTEER SPECIES MAY COUNTTOWARD THIS STANDARD.3.SPECIES DIVERSITY IN PLANTED AREAS:a.ESTABLISH AT LEAST FOUR NATIVE SHRUB SPECIES, BYYEAR 5. TRANSMISSION LINE-FRIENDLY NATIVE VOLUNTEER SPECIES MAYCOUNT TOWARD THIS STANDARD. “ESTABLISHMENT” IS CONSIDERED TO BE ATLEAST FOUR HEALTHY, INDIVIDUAL PLANTS OF A GIVEN SPECIES PRESENTWITHIN THE MITIGATION AREAS.4.INVASIVE SPECIES STANDARD: NO MORE THAN 20% COVER OF INVASIVE SPECIESIN THE PLANTING AREA IN ANY MONITORING YEAR, EXCEPT SHALL NOT EXCEED10% COVER AT THE END OF YEAR 5. INVASIVE SPECIES ARE DEFINED AS ANYCLASS A, B, OR C NOXIOUS WEEDS AS LISTED BY THE KING COUNTY NOXIOUSWEED CONTROL BOARD. PLANTING & MITIGATION NOTES (2 OF 2)TALBOT MITIGATION NOTESMONITORING METHODSTHIS MONITORING PROGRAM IS DESIGNED TO TRACK THE SUCCESS OF THE MITIGATION SITE OVERTIME BY MEASURING THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS LISTED ABOVE AREBEING MET. A FIVE YEAR MONITORING PERIOD IS PROPOSED, CONSISTENT WITH THE METHODSOUTLINED IN RMC 4-3-50.L.3.PER RMC 4-3-50.L.3, SHOULD THE MITIGATION PROJECT FAIL TO MEET ESTABLISHED SUCCESSCRITERIA AT ANY POINT, THE MONITORING PERIOD SHALL BE STARTED OVER AT YEAR ONE. THEADMINISTRATOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY OR EXTEND THE MONITORING PERIOD ANDREQUIRE ADDITIONAL MONITORING REPORTS FOR UP TO TEN (10) YEARS WHEN ANY OF THEFOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY:A.THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN THE MITIGATIONPLAN;B.THE PROJECT DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT FOR THE FUNCTIONS AND VALUES OFTHE IMPACTED CRITICAL AREA;C.THE PROJECT INVOLVES ESTABLISHMENT OF FORESTED PLANT COMMUNITIES, WHICH REQUIRELONGER TIME FOR ESTABLISHMENT.MONITORING OF THE MITIGATION SITE AND ASSOCIATED MONITORING REPORTS WILL BECONDUCTED/PREPARED BY A RESTORATION SPECIALIST AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW.1.AN AS-BUILT PLAN AND REPORT WILL BE PREPARED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETEINSTALLATION OF THE MITIGATION AREA. THE AS-BUILT PLAN WILL DOCUMENT CONFORMANCE WITHTHESE PLANS AND WILL DISCLOSE ANY SUBSTITUTIONS OR OTHER NON-CRITICAL DEPARTURES.FOR THE TALBOT SITE, THE AS-BUILT PLAN WILL ESTABLISH BASELINE PLANT INSTALLATIONQUANTITIES, PHOTO POINTS, MONITORING TRANSECTS, AND SURVEY PLOTS THAT WILL BE USEDTHROUGHOUT THE MONITORING PERIOD TO MEASURE THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. FOR THEHONEY DEW CREEK SITE, THE AS-BUILT SHOULD NOTE THE CREATION OF ALL HABITAT TREES, ASWELL AS ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THIS PLAN SET.2.FOR THE FIRST YEAR FOLLOWING INSTALLATION, MONITORING REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTEDQUARTERLY TO THE CITY FOR THE TALBOT SITE. THEREAFTER ANNUAL REPORTS FOR THE TALBOTSITE SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE END OF THE GROWING SEASON (YEARS 2-5). ANNUALMONITORING REPORTS WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:a.SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS/SPRING VISITS.b.PLANT SURVIVAL AND/OR MORTALITY IN MITIGATION AREAS.c.CALCULATION OF NATIVE SPECIES COVER IN SURVEY PLOTS USING THE POINT-FRAME METHODAND ALONG TRANSECTS USING THE LINE-INTERCEPT METHOD.d.ESTIMATES OF NATIVE SPECIES COVER SITE WIDE.e.INVASIVE SPECIES COVER AT SURVEY PLOTS AND ALONG TRANSECTS AND ESTIMATED SITEWIDE.f.COUNTS OF ESTABLISHED NATIVE SPECIES TO DETERMINE SPECIES RICHNESS.g.PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION AT PERMANENT PHOTOPOINTS.h.INTRUSIONS INTO THE PLANTING AREAS, EROSION, VANDALISM, TRASH, AND OTHER ACTIONSDETRIMENTAL TO THE OVERALL HEALTH OF THE MITIGATION AREAS.i.RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE IN THE MITIGATION AREAS.j.RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REPLACEMENT OF ALL DEAD OR DYING PLANT MATERIAL WITH SAMEOR LIKE SPECIES AND NUMBER AS ON THE APPROVED PLAN.3.SPRING MONITORING IS RECOMMENDED EARLY IN EACH GROWING SEASON IN YEARS 2 THROUGH 5TO NOTIFY THE OWNER AND/OR MAINTENANCE CREWS OF NECESSARY EARLY SEASONMAINTENANCE. RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE ISSUED IN A SPRING MEMO AND WILL NOT BESUBMITTED TO THE CITY.CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONSGENERAL NOTESTHE RESTORATION SPECIALIST WILL OVERSEE THE FOLLOWING:1.TREE SNAGGING AND HINGE-CUTTING.2.INVASIVE WEED CLEARING AND SITE PREPARATION; AND3.PLANT MATERIAL INSPECTION.a.PLANT DELIVERY INSPECTION.b.50% PLANT INSTALLATION/LAYOUT INSPECTION.c.100% PLANT INSTALLATION INSPECTION.WORK SEQUENCE1.HABITAT FEATURE CREATION:a.SNAG DESIGNATED TREES ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAIL B, SHEET 4, AND CONSISTENT WITHRECOMMENDATIONS IN THE ASSOCIATED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.i. TREES SHOULD BE ACCESSED BY FOOT.ii. SNAG TOPS SHOULD BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE, OR ROUGHLY PARALLEL TOTHE SLOPE CONTOUR, IN A STABLE POSITION.iii. REMAINING TREE DEBRIS SHOULD BE SCATTERED UPSLOPE OF THE BUFFER AREA NEARBY.b.HINGE-CUT DESIGNATED TREES ACCORDING TO PLAN DETAIL A, SHEET 4.2.CLEAR THE PLANTING AREA OF ALL INVASIVE WOODY VEGETATION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TOHIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY. PULL OTHER HERBACEOUS INVASIVE VEGETATION AS ENCOUNTERED(E.G., REED CANARYGRASS, HERB ROBERT).3.INSTALL EROSION CONTROLS SUCH AS WATTLES OR JUTE MAT AS DETERMINED NECESSARY INCOORDINATION WITH GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT.4.PREPARE SOIL PER DETAIL F, SHEET 4.5.INSTALL PLANTING AREAS:a.LAYOUT VEGETATION TO BE INSTALLED PER THE PLANTING PLAN AND PLANT SCHEDULE WITHCONSIDERATION OF PLANT SPECIES GROWING CONDITIONS.b.PREPARE A PLANTING PIT FOR EACH PLANT AND INSTALL PER THE PLANTING DETAILS. INSTALLPLANTS DURING DORMANT SEASON (OCTOBER 15TH/ TO MARCH 15TH/).c.MULCH EACH PLANT WITH A CIRCULAR WOOD CHIP MULCH RING, 4 INCHES THICK ANDEXTENDING 9 INCHES FROM THE BASE OF THE PLANT (18-INCH DIAMETER). IF THERE ARE LOTS OFINVASIVE PLANTS REMOVED, BLANKET MULCH THE AREA. MAINTAIN THREE INCH GAP BETWEENMULCH AND PLANT STEM.d.SCHEDULE WATERING TRUCK TO PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE INCH OF WATER PER WEEK, ASNECESSARY, FROM JUNE 1ST/ TO SEPTEMBER 30TH/ FOR AT LEAST TWO SUMMERS AFTER INITIALPLANT INSTALLATION. ALTERNATIVE WATERING METHODS (E.G., GATOR BAGS) MAY BE UTILIZEDWITH APPROVAL FROM THE RESTORATION SPECIALIST.MAINTENANCEMITIGATION PLAN AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THEINITIAL PLANT AND SEED INSTALLATION.1.ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF TALBOT PLANTING AREAS:a.AT LEAST TWICE YEARLY, REMOVE BY HAND ALL COMPETING WEEDS AND WEED ROOTS FROMBENEATH EACH INSTALLED PLANT AND ANY DESIRABLE VOLUNTEER VEGETATION TO A DISTANCEOF 12 INCHES FROM THE MAIN PLANT STEM. WEEDING SHOULD OCCUR AS NEEDED DURING THESPRING AND SUMMER. FREQUENT WEEDING WILL RESULT IN LOWER MORTALITY AND LOWERPLANT REPLACEMENT COSTS.b.DO NOT WEED THE AREA NEAR THE PLANT BASES WITH STRING TRIMMER (WEED WHACKER).NATIVE WOODY PLANTS ARE EASILY DAMAGED OR KILLED, AND WEEDS EASILY RECOVER AFTERTRIMMING.c.DURING REGULAR WEED MAINTENANCE EFFORTS (FOCUSED AROUND INSTALLED VEGETATION),ALSO GRUB OUT ANY INVASIVE SPECIES PRESENT IN DESIGNATED MITIGATION AREAS ANDREMOVE FROM THE SITE.d.APPLY SLOW-RELEASE, PHOSPHOROUS-FREE, GRANULAR FERTILIZER TO EACH INSTALLEDPLANT ANNUALLY IN THE SPRING (BY JUNE 1) OF YEARS 2 THROUGH 5.e.MULCH THE WEEDED AREAS BENEATH EACH PLANT WITH WOOD CHIP MULCH AS NECESSARY TOMAINTAIN A MINIMUM 4-INCH-THICK, 18-INCH-DIAMETER MULCH RING.f.ENSURE PLANTS RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF ONE INCH OF WATER PER WEEK, AS NEEDED, FROMJUNE 1ST/ THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH/ FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS FOLLOWING INSTALLATION.THE MOST FEASIBLE IRRIGATION OPTION FOR THE SITE IS EXPECTED TO BE USE OF A WATERINGTRUCK. IRRIGATION BEYOND THE SECOND YEAR MAY BE NEEDED BASED ON SITE PERFORMANCEOR SIGNIFICANT REPLANTING.g.FOLLOW ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE SPRING OR ANNUAL MONITORING SITEVISIT.h.AS DIRECTED, INSTALL REPLACEMENT PLANTS DURING THE UPCOMING DORMANT SEASON(OCTOBER 15TH/ TO MARCH 15TH/) TO ENSURE AN 80% SURVIVAL RATE.CONTINGENCY PLANPER RMC 4-3-050.L.2,. A SURETY DEVICE IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE APPLICANT'S COMPLIANCE WITHTHE TERMS OF THE MITIGATION AGREEMENT. THE DEVICE SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SETFORTH IN RMC 4-3-050.L.2.MATERIALS1.COMPOST: SHALL MEET WSDOT STANDARDS SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPALCONSTRUCTION, 9-14.4(8) FOR FINE COMPOST.2.FERTILIZER (FOR NEAR AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTS): SLOW-RELEASE, PHOSPHOROUS-FREEGRANULAR FERTILIZER. LABEL MUST INDICATE THAT PRODUCT IS SAFE FOR AQUATICENVIRONMENTS. FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE. KEEP FERTILIZER INWEATHER-TIGHT CONTAINER WHILE ON-SITE. FERTILIZER IS ONLY TO BE APPLIED IN YEARS TWOAND THREE, NOT IN YEAR ONE.3.RESTORATION SPECIALIST: THE WATERSHED COMPANY [(425) 822-5242] PERSONNEL OR OTHERPERSON QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.4.WOOD CHIP MULCH: "ARBORIST CHIPS" (CHIPPED WOODY MATERIAL) APPROXIMATELY ONE TOTHREE INCHES IN MAXIMUM DIMENSION (NOT SAWDUST). THIS MATERIAL IS COMMONLY AVAILABLEIN LARGE QUANTITIES FROM ARBORISTS OR TREE-PRUNING COMPANIES. MULCH SHALL NOTCONTAIN APPRECIABLE QUANTITIES OF GARBAGE, PLASTIC, METAL, SOIL, AND DIMENSIONALLUMBER OR CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION DEBRIS.PROJECT MANAGER: DESIGNED: DRAFTED: CHECKED:SHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 22" x 34".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.BY© Copyright- The Watershed CompanyDATE PRINTED BY FILENAME THEWATERSHEDCOMPANYS c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comJOB NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER:SUBMITTALS & REVISIONS DESCRIPTIONDATENO.PSE RENTON MITIGATION MITIGATION PLAN PREPARED FOR: PUGET SOUND ENERGY ENERGIZE EASTSIDE PARCEL # 2023059001, 0423059342, 0423059035 RENTON, WA 98055JCLMLMJC/MF111103.11OF 61 01-08-2018 MITIGATION PLAN LM 6SCALE: NTSNOT FORCONSTRUCTION