Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RS-CriticalAreasReport_181108-V2.pdf
Critical Areas Report (Including Stream Study, Habitat Report, Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study, and Vegetation Management Plan) Cedar River Apartments City of Renton, Washington October 2018 Prepared for: City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Prepared on Behalf of: SRMRenton, LLC 111 N. Post, Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 Title-page image: Existing bankline of Cedar River at western end of property. Statement of Accuracy: 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 Reference Number: 170314 The Watershed Company Contact: Clover McIngalls, Environmental Planner and Sarah Sandstrom, Senior Fisheries Biologist The Watershed Company October 2018 i Table of Contents Page # 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................... 3 2.1 Description of Project Area .................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Cedar River ......................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Habitat Conservation Areas ............................................................... 6 2.1.3 Flood Hazard Areas .......................................................................... 12 2.1.4 Geologically Hazardous Areas .......................................................... 12 2.1.5 Wellhead Protection Areas .............................................................. 13 3. Regulations......................................................................................... 13 3.1 Shoreline Master Program ................................................................. 13 3.2 Critical Area Regulations..................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Habitat Conservation Areas ............................................................. 14 3.2.2 Flood Hazard Areas .......................................................................... 15 3.2.3 Wellhead Protection Areas .............................................................. 15 4. Project Description ............................................................................. 15 4.1 Impact Evaluation ............................................................................... 15 5. Mitigation Sequencing ........................................................................ 16 6. Buffer Restoration and Shoreline Public Access Improvements ......... 17 7. Code Compliance ............................................................................... 18 7.1 Shorelines ........................................................................................... 19 7.1.1 No Net Loss ...................................................................................... 19 7.1.2 Public Access .................................................................................... 20 7.1.3 Standards for Density, Setbacks, and Height ................................... 24 7.1.4 Residential Development ................................................................. 24 7.1.5 Stormwater Management ............................................................... 25 ii 7.1.6 Vegetation Conservation ................................................................. 26 7.1.7 Shoreline Stabilization ..................................................................... 28 7.2 Habitat Conservation Areas ................................................................ 28 7.3 Flood Hazard Areas ............................................................................. 29 7.4 Geologically Hazardous Areas ............................................................ 31 7.5 Wellhead protection areas ................................................................. 31 Appendix A Shoreline Landscape Plan Appendix B Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study The Watershed Company October 2018 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Figure 1. Vicinity Map and street level aerial (King County iMap). ............ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2. Figure 2. View of the typical condition in the western portion of the property facing southeast and a treed portion of the riverbank, beyond the fence. Photo taken 9-12-17. ............ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 3. Figure 3. Typical condition in the southwest property corner, adjacent to Cedar River Park. Photo taken 3-8-17. ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4. Figure 4. View of the remnant wash ponds, facing west, with the Cedar River beyond the fence on the right of photo. Photo taken 3-8-17. ................. 4 Figure 5. Figure 5. View of the typical condition of the southeastern portion of the shoreline buffer, looking west. Photo taken 3-8-17. ................................... 5 List of Tables Table 1. Table 1. State-listed wildlife species, excluding those listed as federally endangered and threatened. ............................................................................. 8 The Watershed Company October 2018 1 Critical Areas Report C EDAR R IVER A PARTMENTS – R ENTON, WA 1. Introduction The purpose of this report is to document potential critical area impacts and restoration activities proposed in conjunction with the development of the Cedar River Apartments in Renton, WA. The proposed project is located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway (parcel 1723059026) at the site of a former cement manufacturing facility (Figure 1). The property is zoned Commercial Office/Residential (COR) and currently consists of a large, cleared gravel and/or compacted dirt lot adjacent to the northern bank of the Cedar River. The proposed development will be located entirely outside of the City’s standard 100-foot Cedar River buffer, but a portion of the proposed development will be within shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar River. Project actions include extensive buffer restoration and public access improvements in compliance with Renton’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). As a portion of the project area is located within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar River, development will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP). Actions proposed are also within the mapped floodplain of the Cedar River. This report fulfills the criteria of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specific to activities in the proximity of the Cedar River and its floodplain. It presents a detailed discussion of the habitat and existing ecological functions on-site and how the proposal will be implemented to result in no net loss of on-site or off-site critical area functions and values. The scope of this report is primarily limited to the documentation and evaluation of stream, habitat, and floodplain function within the project area. Critical areas present within the proposed project area also include geologically hazardous areas and wellhead protection areas. This report addresses consistency with the requirements of wellhead protection areas. Geologically hazardous areas have been addressed by others with expertise in those fields and are not discussed in detail in this report. SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 2 Figure 1. Vicinity Map and street level aerial (King County iMap). Project location Parcel #1723059026 The Watershed Company October 2018 3 2. Existing Conditions 2.1 Description of Project Area The project area is located just southeast of the intersection of Maple Valley Highway and Interstate 405 in Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. It lies within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin or the Cedar-Sammamish Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 8). The property is bordered to the west by Cedar River Park, to the east by a developed commercial parcel, to the north by Maple Valley Highway, and to the south by the Cedar River. Across the Maple Valley Highway from the parcel is an undeveloped, forested open-space tract. Another undeveloped, forested parcel, owned by the City of Renton, is present along the southern bank of the Cedar River across from the project area. Site visits were conducted in May, September and March of 2017 to evaluate the existing conditions of the site. Assessments conducted included a tree inventory and delineation of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River. Public-domain information on the subject property was also reviewed. These sources include USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web and SalmonScape), COR Maps, and King County’s GIS mapping website (iMAP). The project parcel was historically used as a concrete facility. Although industrial facilities have been removed from the site, a constructed settling pond is present along the Cedar River shoreline. This pond was used for settling of concrete was water. Today, it is separated from the Cedar River by a concrete wall. The settlement pond is filled with water with a distinct color difference from the Cedar River, indicating that there is no transfer of water between the settlement pond and the river. A concrete bulkhead extends east from the settling pond, forming the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River. To the west of the settling pond, the shoreline bank slopes gradually, and a retaining wall is located well landward of the OHWM. A chain link fence sits on top of the concrete wall and retaining wall along the length of the shoreline property The lot in its current condition is almost entirely cleared with a gravel and/or compacted dirt base. Tree and shrub species are mainly limited to the edges of the parcel. Fifty three SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 4 individual trees were inventoried within the parcel. Tree species present are primarily red alder, black cottonwood and big leaf maple. The Cedar River is located to the south of the subject parcel. The water surface elevation of the Cedar River is influenced by operations at the Masonry Dam and the Landsburg Diversion Dam upstream in the Cedar River. Together, the dams are managed for water supply to the Seattle metropolitan area; to ensure base flows necessary to support instream uses, including fish habitat; for hydroelectric power; and for flood control. Along the parcel, the Cedar River flows as a glide or riffle along the length of the parcel, depending on the season. A large pool is present at the eastern extent of the parcel. Figure 2. View of the remnant settlement ponds, facing west, with the Cedar River beyond the concrete wall and fence on the right of photo. Photo taken 3-8-17. The Watershed Company October 2018 5 Figure 3. View of the typical condition of the southeastern portion of the shoreline buffer, looking west. Photo taken 3-8-17. No wetlands or streams, other than the Cedar River, are present on site. However, several other features classified as critical areas by the City of Renton have been identified within the project area. Each of these are described in more detail below. 2.1.1 C edar River The Cedar River flows along the southern boundary of the project area. It is designated as a Shoreline of the State under RMC 4-3-090 (Renton’s Shoreline Master Program [SMP]). Shorelines of the State and critical areas located in shoreline jurisdiction are regulated under the SMP. As defined in RMC 4-3-090-3, shoreline jurisdiction 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. SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 6 No shoreline-associated wetlands are present within the subject parcel, thus shoreline jurisdiction is limited to the land within 200 feet of the delineated OHWM, which encompasses all mapped floodway, and contiguous floodplain areas. The Cedar River originates in the Cascade Mountains and discharges to Lake Washington approximately 1.7 miles northwest of the project area. Salmonid species known or modeled to occur in the Cedar River include cutthroat trout, bull trout, steelhead, kokanee, sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon (WDFW Salmonscape 2018). 2.1.2 Habitat Conservation Areas Renton provides two classifications or definitions, which vary slightly, related to regulated habitat areas which are considered Habitat Conservation Areas (HCA). The following are the “classification of critical habitats” from RMC 4-3-050(G)(6) and the 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) 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. As noted in Section 2.1.1, ESA listed salmonid species are present in the Cedar River, qualifying it as an HCA per both definitions above. The following sections further describe available aquatic and upland habitat on site and any potential association with other listed or priority species which would qualify as an HCA. Available Habitat The project area is located in an urban and developed landscape, though it is in proximity to two large areas of undeveloped, forested area, in addition to the Cedar River. Within the project area, vegetation is extremely limited and is mostly contained within a few areas along the shoreline on the western and far eastern ends of the site. A concrete wall is present along the majority of the shoreline with a chain link and barbed wire fence on top of it. The area landward of the wall consists of compacted gravel over much of the site. Some trees and shrubs were observed waterward of the wall. The The Watershed Company October 2018 7 western end of the site, adjacent to the Parks property, exhibits a natural shoreline slope, but vegetation is limited to a narrow strip along the shoreline. The concrete wall abuts the OHWM in the eastern portion of the site. Current species use of the vicinity of the project area is expected to be limited to fish in the Cedar River and occasional crossing of the site to connect to other more suitable habitat in the vicinity, predominantly by bird species. Federally-listed Species According to a species list generated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) website, threatened or endangered species in addition to steelhead, Chinook, and bull trout, that should be addressed in the project area include marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). None of these terrestrial species have been documented in the project area. Furthermore, there is no suitable habitat for any of these species in the project vicinity. Nesting marbled murrelets require old-growth/mature coniferous forests in dense coastal stands; yellow- billed cuckoos require large, continuous riparian corridors populated by dense willow and cottonwood forests; and streaked horned larks require open grasslands, prairies, herbaceous balds, or sandy islands. None of these habitats is present in the project area or immediate vicinity. As portions of the project area located within a designated floodplain, a Biological Assessment/Critical Area Study is required to evaluate potential project impacts on listed species and their habitat and determine what effect, if any, the project may have on them. See Appendix B for a complete effects analysis and determinations of the project’s effect on the listed fish species present, pursuant to the requirements of RMC 4- 8-120D.2. State-listed Species State-listed species, that are not also listed as federally threatened or endangered (i.e., covered elsewhere in this document) are identified in Table 1. Of the species listed in Table 1, none are expected to occur in the project area. Use of the project area is precluded by absence of suitable habitat and/or the species’ known distribution and range in Washington State. SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 8 Table 1. 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 - 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. The Watershed Company October 2018 9 Wildlife Type Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status1 State Federal 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. 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: Local distribution and suitable habitat does not overlap project area. Larch Mountain salamander Plethodon larselli SS -- SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 10 Wildlife Type Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status1 State Federal - 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). - Determination: Distribution does not overlap project area. The Watershed Company October 2018 11 Wildlife Type Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status1 State Federal 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). According to WDFW’s online databases (PHS on the Web and SalmonScape), salmonid species known or modeled to occur in the Cedar River include cutthroat trout, bull trout, steelhead, kokanee, sockeye salmon, Chinook salmon, and coho salmon. No other priority habitat is mapped within the project area itself. However, Biodiversity Areas and Corridors are shown just outside of the project boundaries, one north of the Maple Valley Highway, and one south of the Cedar River, encompassing the undeveloped forested corridors present in those locations. No other species from WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species List (WDFW 2008) are expected to use the project area, using the same process outlined in Table 1, due to a lack of suitable habitat types or special habitat features. Some priority species, particularly birds, may be present while traveling between the forested corridors on either side of the project site. However, these species are not directly associated with the project area and any disturbance from project-related activities would not impede their current use of the site. Species of Local Importance Renton does not currently maintain or regulate a list of species of local importance. HCA Summary To summarize, the Cedar River is considered a Habitat Conservation Area based on the presence of listed salmonid species. The associated buffer and shoreline regulations for the Cedar River are expected to adequately protect it for this project. No other habitats or species are associated with the site which would warrant different or additional protections or HCA designations. SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 12 2.1.3 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 within the project area include the 100-year floodplain mapped along the Cedar River. The floodplain was delineated for the site using the most conservative (highest) 100-year flood profile based on a comparison of the FEMA Effective FIRM (FEMA 1995), preliminary DFIRM (FEMA 2013), and output results from the updated HEC-RAS based model (containing the latest available LiDAR data) as received from King County River and Flood District. The preliminary DFIRM presented the most conservative floodplain elevation values for the site, and therefore, it was used as the basis for the floodplain delineation. A horizontal projection of the 100-year flood boundary was delineated by intersecting the site topography surface and the flood water surface using a digital surface created in Civil 3D based on topographic contours from the site survey from D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., dated August 16, 2017. Based on this delineation, the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River includes the southern portion of the project area extending up to approximately 150 feet landward from the OHWM. The mapped floodway is generally consistent with the delineated OHWM, except in the western portion of the site, where the floodway extends approximately 35 feet landward from the OHWM. Although not designated as a flood hazard area in the SMP, a channel migration zone high hazard area encompasses the entire property (King County 2015). Floodplain function is currently limited within the project area by a concrete wall along the length of the shoreline. Vegetation is sparse and no shoreline wetlands are present. 2.1.4 Geologica lly Hazardous Areas Geologically hazardous 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. The Watershed Company October 2018 13 City of Renton mapping identities Sensitive and Protected steep slopes on the subject parcel as well as seismic hazard areas. All other geologic hazard area types are not known to be present in the study area. Geologic hazard areas present on site have been reviewed and summarized in a separate report. 2.1.5 Wellhead Protection Areas Renton mapping shows the entire site covered by a Zone 1 wellhead protection area. Wellhead Protection Areas are defined in RMC 4-3-050(A)(8) as 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. A Zone 1 designation indicates 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. 3. Regulations 3.1 Shoreline Master Program Activities within the portion of the site located within shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar River are regulated by the City’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP), RMC 4-3-090. The shoreline environment designation of the property is High Intensity and the underlying zoning of the property is Commercial Office/Residential (COR). Within the High Intensity shoreline environment, the SMP allows all uses allowed in the underlying zoning. Attached dwelling units are an allowed use in the COR zone per RMC 4-2-060. The SMP requires a 100 foot Vegetation Conservation Buffer from the edge of the OHWM of the Cedar River (RMC 4-3-090D.7). New development is required to develop a vegetation management plan to preserve, enhance or establish native vegetation within the buffer area (RMC 4-3-090F.1). All shoreline use and development must be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. Within the High Intensity shoreline environment, uses adjacent to the water’s edge and within buffer areas are reserved for water-oriented development, public/community access, and/or ecological restoration (RMC 4-3-090C.4.c). SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 14 Most new development, and specifically any new non-single-family development (RMC 4-3-090.D.4.b.iv), must incorporate physical or visual public access to shorelines as part of the development proposal. Each shoreline reach has specific public access requirements (RMC 4-3-090D.4.f). The subject parcel lies within Cedar River Reach C which has the following performance standards for public access within the shoreline: Public/community access along the waterfront should be provided as private lands on the north side of the river redevelop, considered along with the goal of restoration of ecological functions. Public or community access shall be provided when residential development occurs consistent with standards of the Shoreline Master Program. Chapter 9 below provides a discussion of how the proposed project complies with specific applicable provisions of the SMP. 3.2 Critical Area Regulations As noted above, most critical areas, including those within shoreline jurisdiction, are regulated under Section 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations) of the RMC. The Cedar River and uses proposed within shorelands associated with the Cedar River are regulated under the Renton SMP and discussed above. Regulations applicable to the other critical areas on site are discussed below. 3.2.1 Habitat Conservation Areas Renton has the option to establish buffer areas for activities in, or adjacent to, habitat conservation areas 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 2.1.2, the Cedar River is considered a Habitat Conservation Area. This report documents available habitat, potential impacts and proposed restoration effecting the Habitat Conservation Area in compliance RMC 4-3-050.G.6.c. The 100-foot The Watershed Company October 2018 15 standard shoreline buffer and associated vegetation enhancement is expected to significantly improve riparian habitat conditions of the Cedar River in the subject reach. The buffer will improve habitat connectivity between the biodiversity areas to the south and northeast of the site. No additional buffer requirements are recommended. 3.2.2 Flood Hazard Areas Residential construction within a flood hazard area is required to meet specific standards per RMC 4-3-050.G.4.d.i. Per RMC 4-8-120D.2, vegetation removal and fill within the floodplain, riparian buffer zone, and channel migration zone requires documentation that describes proposed impacts on the floodplain and instream habitat functions and processes and how the project will ensure there will be no adverse effect on listed salmonids. 3.2.3 Wellhead Protection Areas No buffer is required for wellhead protection areas (RMC 4-3-050.G.2). Certain uses with the potential to contaminate groundwater are prohibited within 100 feet of a well, within 200 feet of a spring, and within Zone 1 wellhead protection areas (RMC 4-3-050C.5.c). Activities with the potential to contaminate wellhead protection areas are regulated through RMC 4-3-050G.8. 4. Project Description The proposal includes development of a residential, multifamily apartment complex, a commercial development pad, and extensive shoreline buffer restoration and public access improvements on a 546,121 SF lot adjacent to the Cedar River which was formally used by a concrete facility. 4.1 Impact Evaluation The project has been designed to avoid impacts to critical areas to the extent feasible. The proposal involves new development on a lot formerly used for industrial operations. The lot in its current condition is almost entirely cleared with a gravel and/or compacted dirt base. All development is proposed outside of the shoreline buffer and Cedar River habitat conservation area, with exception of a public access trail and associated access areas along the shoreline, provided in compliance with the public access requirements for multi-family shoreline development. The remainder of the buffer will be restored with native plantings which will provide a net improvement over SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 16 the existing condition and provide some screening between the upland development and the river. The proposed project will result in no net loss of floodplain storage or conveyance capacity as a result of balanced cut and fill within the floodplain. The project will not alter existing bank stabilization measures. Therefore, the project will not affect channel migration or bank stability. The addition of woody plant material to the shoreline buffer, and throughout the landscaped upland portions of the site, is expected to improve the degree of rainwater interception compared to existing conditions. As it matures over time, this vegetation will support detritus, woody debris, and invertebrates, which provide a prey source for juvenile salmon. In the long-term, the proposed project will generate runoff from both pollutant and non- pollutant generating surfaces. All stormwater from pollutant-generating surfaces (at- grade parking and open-air parking garage) will be routed to a two-facility treatment train, including a wet vault and a Contech StormFilter system, recognized as a General Use Level Designation (GULD) for basic treatment. The treatment system will be sized to treat 91% or more of the total runoff volume. Following treatment, stormwater will be conveyed through a pipe to the southeastern side of the building. Stormwater from non- pollutant generating surfaces (building roofs) will be collected and routed separately from the pollutant-generating surfaces on the southwest side of the building. The two separate stormwater pipes will outfall at the landward edge of the buffer into a lined vegetated swale. The swale will provide additional biofiltration prior to reaching the Cedar River. As a result of treatment and biofiltration within the buffer, effects to water quality within the Cedar River are expected to be insignificant. 5. Mitigation Sequencing Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050.L.1.b, and 4-3-090-D-2-a-iii, the project seeks to avoid and minimize impacts to the critical areas and ensure no net loss of overall ecological function. Avoid The project has been designed to avoid all development within the shoreline buffer and habitat conservation area, other than the required public access elements. No water will be discharged to groundwater to avoid impacts to the wellhead protection area. The proposed project will result in no net loss of floodplain storage or conveyance capacity The Watershed Company October 2018 17 as a result of balanced cut and fill within the floodplain. The project will not alter existing bank stabilization measures. Minimize Minimization techniques were utilized during the design process in order to limit impacts to shorelines, critical areas and their associated buffers: • The public access trail within the shoreline buffer will be unpaved, and will be the minimum width necessary to provide compliance with ADA requirements. • Runoff will be treated prior to dispersal to the restored buffer through a lined, vegetated channel. • A temporary erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater construction pollution prevention plan will be implemented. Rectify Previous adverse impacts to the shoreline from clearing and industrial activities will be rectified by restoring the shoreline buffer area. The existing settlement pond will be removed and wall lowered to improve floodplain connectivity, and extensive native vegetation will be installed. Reduce The restored shoreline area will be maintained to ensure successful establishment and will be preserved through a recorded covenant. Compensate Balanced cut and fill will be used to ensure no loss of floodplain storage or conveyance capacity. No other compensation is necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological function. 6. Buffer Restoration and Shoreline Public Access Improvements The proposed shoreline landscape plan has been designed to meet the vegetation management plan requirements of RMC 4-8-120.D.22 and 4-3-090.F.1.i, as well as the public access requirements of RMC 4-3-090.D.4.d. The plan proposes restoration of the entire 100 foot Cedar River buffer by establishing native vegetation including trees, shrubs and groundcover; as well as passive-use public amenities, including viewpoints, SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 18 a trail, and sitting areas. The trail will connect to the adjacent City park to the west and will provide a connection to the public sidewalk to the east. The path will be pervious and ADA accessible. The shoreline landscape plan will improve the shoreline ecological function of the site compared to the existing, degraded condition. The addition of native plants will provide an improvement in water quality and hydrologic function by intercepting runoff, and it will improve habitat function, which is not currently present on the site. The restoration area will connect to other vegetated open spaces along the shoreline, increasing the overall accessible area for both people and wildlife. 7.Code Compliance This Critical Areas Report has been prepared to support the City’s critical area review process for the issuance of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and is intended to satisfy the requirements of the RMC 4-3-050 – Critical Areas Regulations and RMC 4- 3-090 – Shoreline Master Program Regulations. Because the Project is seeking land use approval for activities within shoreline jurisdiction and within the vicinity of critical areas, it is subject to the reporting requirements of RMC 4-3-090.D.5.b.ii, RMC 4-3-050.F and RMC 4-8-120.D. This Critical Areas Report documentation is intended to comply with the requirements for a Stream Study and Habitat Report. The Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study is included as Appendix B. The preceding sections identify and characterize critical areas, document appropriate buffers, and thoroughly evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts including an assessment of impacts of the development proposal on the identified critical areas, and contain an assessment of the impacts of the proposed critical area alterations and proposed compensation for such impacts. Mitigation sequencing has been followed as described in Chapter 5. Specific code provisions applicable to this project are presented below (italicized), followed by a Project-specific response describing how the proposal complies with the standard. The Watershed Company October 2018 19 7.1 S horelines 7.1.1 No Net Loss 4-3-090.D.2.a- No Net Loss of Ecological Functions i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. Response: The proposal avoids and minimizes adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. While the project proposes revegetation of the buffer, consistent with code requirements, no other mitigation is necessary, as the project has been designed to meet code requirements and will protect or enhance fish and wildlife habitat and other shoreline functions. Shoreline processes will be maintained or improved though the addition of native vegetation in the riparian area. See Appendix B for a complete discussion of floodplain habitat functions and processes and how the project will ensure there will be no adverse effect them or the species they support. ii. Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or processes, project-specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on- or off-site. Response: This report provides an assessment of baseline conditions on-site and the impact of proposed project activities, and concludes there will be no net loss of ecological functions or processes. Appendix B includes a discussion of functions and processes provided on site and consideration of cumulative impacts as a result of this project. iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 20 mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Response: See Section 5 for a full discussion of mitigation sequencing. The proposal will result in no net loss of ecological functions. The project will restore function of the Cedar River buffer which is currently significantly degraded. All structures, other than those for public access amenities, are proposed outside of the buffer and restoration of the full 100 foot vegetation conservation area is proposed. 7.1.2 Public Access 4-3-090.D.4- Public Access d. Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the following location and design criteria: i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites where vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water’s edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water’s edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed The Watershed Company October 2018 21 of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. iv. Resolution of Different Standards: Where City trail or transportation plans and development standards specify dimensions that differ from those in subsections D4di, D4dii, or D4diii of this Section, the standard that best serves public access, while recognizing constraints of protection and enhancement of ecological functions, shall prevail. Response: A public access trail is proposed roughly parallel to the shoreline along the length of the property, which will connect to adjacent public uses on either side of the property. The trail will provide viewing areas and access to the Cedar River. The shoreline area around the trail will be restored with native vegetation. A ten-foot-wide trail is proposed to accommodate significant bidirectional public use. Additionally, per RMC 4-3-090.D.4.e.i, public access should include provisions for handicapped and physically impaired persons where feasible; therefore, the trail surface is proposed to be asphalt and the location of the trail will be positioned to ensure grades consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. e. Public Access Development Standards i. Relation to Other Facilities: (a) Preferred Location: Public access shall be located adjacent to other public areas, accesses, and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and include provisions for handicapped and physically impaired persons, where feasible. (b) Parking Requirements: For private developments required to provide more than twenty (20) parking spaces, public parking may be required in addition to the required parking for the development at a ratio of one space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of public access area up to three (3) spaces and at one space per five thousand (5,000) square feet of public access area for more than three (3) spaces. Parking for public access shall include the parking spaces nearest to the public access area and may include handicapped parking if the public access area is handicapped accessible. Response: The public access trail will connect to the adjacent Cedar River Park and the the SR 169 right of way. It will provide access to handicapped SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 22 and physically impaired persons. The total public access area is approximately 18,000 square feet; therefore, four parking spaces are required. Parking will be provided in the outdoor lot. ii. Design: (a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to reach, touch, and enjoy the water’s edge and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and vertically to the shoreline’s edge as feasible; provided, that public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological features or lead to an unmitigated reduction in ecological functions. (b) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by avoiding locations adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential open spaces or by screening or other separation techniques. Response: The public access trail will roughly parallel the shoreline. It will provide opportunities to view the Cedar River, and it will provide access to reach the shoreline at the location of the former settlement ponds. The public access trail will be separated from the private area through the use of vegetative screening and grade separation. Vegetation will be restored throughout the shoreline buffer to support ecological functions. iii. Use and Maintenance: (a) Public Access Required for Occupancy: Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity or in accordance with other provisions for guaranteeing installation through a monetary performance assurance. Response: Public access will be developed and available for public use prior to occupancy. (b) Maintenance of Public Access Required: Public access facilities shall be maintained over the life of the use or development. Future actions by The Watershed Company October 2018 23 successors in interest or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of required public access areas and associated improvements. Response: Public access facilities will be maintained for the life of the development. (c) Public Access Must Be Legally Recorded: Public access provisions on private land shall run with the land and be recorded via a legal instrument such as an easement, or as a dedication on the face of a plat or short plat. Such legal instruments shall be recorded prior to the time of building occupancy or plat recordation, whichever comes first. Response: A legal instrument documenting public access provisions will be recorded prior to building occupancy. (d) Maintenance Responsibility: Maintenance of the public access facility shall be the responsibility of the owner unless otherwise accepted by a public or nonprofit agency through a formal recorded agreement. Response: The responsibility for maintenance of the public access facility will follow with property ownership. (e) Hours of Access: Public access facilities shall be available to the public twenty four (24) hours per day unless an alternate arrangement is granted though the initial shoreline permitting process for the project. Changes in access hours proposed after initial permit approval shall be processed as a shoreline conditional use. Response: In order to provide security and privacy to property tenants, public access will be limited to the hours of dawn to dusk. This will be indicated on a sign, and the gate to the trail will be closed outside of these hours. The trail may also be closed on a limited basis for occasional private events. (f) Signage Required: The standard State-approved logo or other approved signs that indicate the public’s right of access and hours of access shall be installed and maintained by the owner. Such signs shall SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 24 be posted in conspicuous locations at public access sites and at the nearest connection to an off-site public right-of-way. Response: Signs documenting the public’s right of access and hours of access will be posted at connections to the SR 169 right-of-way and at the connection to Cedar River Park. 7.1.3 Standards for Density, Setbacks, and Height 4-3-090D.7.a. Shoreline Bulk Standards Footnote 10. Up to five percent (5%) impervious surface is allowed in vegetation conservation buffers/setbacks for access to the shoreline, or a pathway up to six feet (6') wide, whichever is greater. In addition, for projects that provide public access and the opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shoreline, up to twenty five percent (25%) impervious surface is allowed; provided, that no more than five percent (5%) impervious surface is allowed closer than twenty five feet (25') from OHWM. Response: The public access is proposed at 6-foot-width. The trail surface will be pervious asphalt to provide a hard, durable surface for disabled persons. Impervious surfaces within the buffer will be limited to a set of stairs and a concrete slab bridge, well below the five percent limit. 4-3-090D.7.d. Activities Exempt from Buffers and Setbacks: ii. Underground Utilities: Underground utilities, including stormwater outfalls and conveyance pipes. Response: Stromwater drainage is piped through the outer portion of the buffer. It discharges into lined vegetated swales within the buffer to support biofiltration functions. See additional information related to stormwater in Section 7.1.5. 7.1.4 Residential Development 4-3-090.E.9- Residential Development c. Public Access Required: Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety, or environmental concerns, new single family residential developments, including subdivision of land for ten (10) or more parcels, shall provide public access in accordance The Watershed Company October 2018 25 with subsection D4 of this Section, Public Access. Unless deemed inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental concerns, new multi-family developments shall provide a significant public benefit such as providing public access and/or ecological restoration along the water’s edge. For such proposed development, a community access plan may be used to satisfy the public access requirement if the following written findings are made by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee: i.The community access plan allows for a substantial number of people to enjoy the shoreline; and ii.The balance of the waterfront not devoted to public and/or community access shall be devoted to ecological restoration. Response: The project proposes both public access and ecological restoration within the shoreline buffer. This will be a significant public benefit as it will enhance shoreline ecological function and provide for passive water enjoyment activities. It will also provide a connection to adjacent public uses. e.Critical Areas: New residential development shall include provisions for critical areas including avoidance, setbacks from steep slopes, bluffs, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, riparian and marine shoreline erosion areas, and shall meet all applicable development standards. Setbacks from hazards shall be sufficient to protect structures during the life of the structure (one hundred (100) years). Response: The project has been designed in compliance with critical areas regulations. No in-water work is proposed and activities within the riparian area are limited to restoration and public access, per SMP requirements. See the geotechnical report for a discussion of project compliance with geologically hazardous areas protections. 7.1.5 Stormwater Management 4-3-090-E.11.d.iv Stormwater Management (b) All new development shall meet current stormwater management requirements for detention and treatment. Response: The proposed development will meet stormwater management requirements for detention and treatment. The subject reach is exempt from flow control requirements, therefore, no stormwater detention is proposed. SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 26 (d) Stormwater ponds, basins and vaults shall be located as far from the water’s edge as feasible and may not be located within vegetation conservation buffers. Response: Stormwater vaults will be located outside of the vegetation conservation buffer and as far as feasible from the water’s edge. (e) The location design and construction of stormwater outfalls shall limit impacts on receiving waters and comply with all appropriate local, State, and Federal requirements. Infiltration of stormwater shall be preferred, where reasonably feasible. (f) Stormwater management may include a low impact development stormwater conveyance system in the vegetation buffer, if the system is designed to mimic the function and appearance of a natural shoreline system and complies with all other requirements and standards of subsection F1 of this Section, Vegetation Conservation. Response to e and f: The two stormwater pipes will outfall into two lined, vegetated drainage swales. The swales will slow flows and allow for biofiltration within the buffer. 7.1.6 Vegetation Conservation 4-3-090.F.1. Vegetation Conservation a. Standard Vegetation Conservation Buffer Width: Except as otherwise specified in this Section, water bodies defined as shorelines shall have a minimum one hundred foot (100') vegetation management buffer measured from the OHWM of the regulated shoreline of the State. Where streams enter or exit pipes, the buffer shall be measured perpendicular to the OHWM from the end of the pipe along the open channel section of the stream. Response: The proposed development will follow the standard 100-foot buffer. i. Vegetation Management Vegetation adjacent to water bodies in the shoreline shall be managed to provide the maximum ecological functions feasible, in accordance with these standards: iv. New development or redevelopment of nonconforming uses shall develop and implement a vegetation management plan that complies with the standards of this Code. Unless otherwise provided, a vegetation management plan shall preserve, enhance or establish native vegetation within the specified vegetation buffer. If a low impact development stormwater system is proposed in accordance with The Watershed Company October 2018 27 subsection E.11.d.iv(f) of this Section, it must be included in the vegetation management plan. When required, vegetation management plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional; provided, that the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may establish prescriptive standards for vegetation conservation and management as an alternative to requiring a specific plan for a development. Vegetation management plans shall describe actions that will be implemented to ensure that buffer areas provide ecological functions equivalent to a dense native vegetation community to the extent possible. Required vegetation shall be maintained over the life of the use and/or development. For private development a conservation easement or similar recorded legal restriction shall be recorded to ensure preservation of the vegetation conservation and management area. Response: The provided shoreline landscape plan is designed to meet the vegetation management plan requirements. The plan will enhance existing native vegetation and/or establish native vegetation where none is currently present within the shoreline buffer. The two stormwater pipes will outfall at the landward edge of the buffer into two lined, vegetated drainage swales. The swales will slow flows and allow for biofiltration within the buffer. A covenant will be recorded to ensure the long term preservation of the vegetation conservation area. l. Vegetation Conservation Buffer Standards by Reach: The following table identifies the performance standards for maintenance and restoration of the vegetation conservation buffer and shall be applied if required by the use regulations or development standards of the Shoreline Master Program. Cedar River C Enhancement of native riparian vegetation within the standard or modified buffers shall be provided upon redevelopment of the north shore, except in areas where public/community access is provided. The vegetation conservation buffer may be designed to incorporate floodplain management features including floodplain compensatory storage. Response: Proposed native vegetation enhancement, public access, and floodplain compensatory storage measures are consistent with the standards established for Cedar River Reach C. SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 28 7.1.7 Shoreline Stabilization 4-3-090.F.4.c. Existing Shoreline Stabilization Structures Existing shoreline stabilization structures not in compliance with this Code may be retained, repaired, or replaced if they meet the applicable criteria below: iii.Changes in Land Use: An existing shoreline stabilization structure established to serve a use that has been abandoned per RMC 4-10-060, Nonconforming Uses, discontinued, or changed to a new use may be retained or replaced with a similar structure if: (a) There is a demonstrated need documented by a geotechnical analysis to protect principal uses or structures from erosion caused by currents or waves; and (b) An evaluation of the existing shoreline stabilization structure in relation to the hierarchy of shoreline stabilization alternatives established in subsection F4aiii of this Section shows that a more preferred level of shoreline stabilization is infeasible. In the case of an existing shoreline stabilization structure composed of rigid materials, if alternatives (a) through (c) of the hierarchy in subsection F4aiii of this Section would be infeasible then the existing shoreline stabilization structures could be retained or replaced with a similar structure. Response: An existing concrete wall shoreline stabilization structure is present along the entire shoreline frontage of the parcel. The project proposes a change in land use, and is therefore subject to provision iii above. The project proposes to retain the existing structure east of the settlement pond in compliance with this provision. A geomorphic analysis has documented that there is a demonstrated need for stabilization to protect the principal uses. Softer stabilization options are not feasible at this site given the expense that wall removal, material excavation and removal, and soft stabilization design and implementation would entail. See report by Golder and Associates. 7.2 Habitat C onservation A reas 4-3-050.G.6.d Alterations Require Mitigation The Administrator may approve mitigation to compensate for adverse impacts of a development proposal to habitat conservation areas through use of a federally and/or state certified mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program. Response: Adverse impacts to HCAs are not expected. Compliance with the vegetation conservation requirements for the buffer of the Cedar River is The Watershed Company October 2018 29 expected to adequately protect the HCA on site. All development will be outside of the 100 foot buffer. Additionally, the buffer improvements proposed will increase the function and value of the habitat adjacent to the Cedar River above the existing conditions. 7.3 Flood Hazard Areas A Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study is provided in Appendix B of this report, which includes a discussion of floodplain functions and project effects to listed species. 4-3-050.G.4.d. Specific Standards: In all flood hazard areas, the following provisions are required: i. Residential Construction: (a) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated a minimum of one foot (1') above base flood elevation. (b) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of flood waters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: (1) A minimum of two (2) openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided; and (2) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot (1') above grade; and (3) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices; provided, that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. Response: The delineated floodplain elevation in the area of intersect with the proposed building is less than 44 feet NAVD 88. The lowest finished floor elevation is 52 feet NAVD 88. Therefore, the structure well exceeds the minimum requirement of one foot above the base flood elevation. No fully enclosed areas will fall below the lowest floor; therefore, floodproofing requirements do not apply. SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 30 4-3-050.G.4.e. Additional Restrictions within Floodways i. Increase in Flood Levels Prohibited: Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development are prohibited unless certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrates through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that: (a) Encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge; and (b) There are no adverse impacts to the subject property or abutting or adjacent properties; and (c) There are no higher flood elevations upstream; and (d) The impact due to floodway encroachment shall be analyzed using future land use condition flows. Response: The project avoids fill within the floodway. 4-3-050.G.4.g. Compensatory Storage i. Compensatory Storage Required: Development proposals and other alterations shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. If grading or other activity will reduce the effective storage volume, compensatory storage shall be created on the site or off the site if legal arrangements can be made to assure that the effective compensatory storage volume will be preserved over time. Compensatory storage shall be configured so as not to trap or strand salmonids after flood waters recede and may be configured to provide salmonid habitat or high flow refuge whenever suitable site conditions exist and the configuration does not adversely affect bank stability or existing habitat. Effective base flood storage volume shall be based on the elevations shown in the flood hazard areas map, identified in subsection E3 of this Section or as determined through a study where no base flood evaluation information exists. Response: The floodplain was delineated on-site based on a comparison of the most conservative floodplain model and surveyed site elevations. The project will incorporate compensatory floodplain storage so that it will result in a net increase in floodplain storage capacity. Compensatory storage will be configured to be free draining. The Watershed Company October 2018 31 7.4 Geologically Hazardous Areas Compliance with applicable code provisions for geologic hazard areas has been evaluated by the project’s geotechnical experts and can be found in a separate report. 7.5 Wellhead protection areas 4-3-050.G.8.c. Limited Exemptions: Activities that are exempt from some, but not all, provisions of this Section are listed below… Response: The project will not store, handle, treat, use, or produce hazardous materials with the exception of the limited exemptions identified in RMC 4-3- 050.G.8.c. 4-3-050.G.8.d. Use of Pesticides and Nitrates- All Wellhead Protection Areas: i. Use of Pesticides: The application of hazardous materials such as pesticides shall be allowed in a Wellhead Protection Area, except within one hundred feet (100') of a City owned well or two hundred feet (200') of a City owned spring; provided that: a) The application is in strict conformity with the use requirements as set forth by the EPA and as indicated on the containers in which the substances are sold. (b) Persons who are required to keep pesticide application records by RCW 17.21.100.1 and WAC 16-228-190 shall provide a copy of the required records to the Department within seventy two (72) hours of the application. ii. Fertilizers/Nitrate-Containing Materials: The application of fertilizers containing nitrates shall be allowed in a Wellhead Protection Area except within one hundred feet (100') of a City owned well or two hundred feet (200') of a spring; provided, that: (a) No application of nitrate-containing materials shall exceed one-half (0.5) pound of nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square feet per single application and a total yearly application of five (5) pounds of nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square feet; except that an approved slow-release nitrogen may be applied in quantities of up to nine-tenths (0.9) pound of nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square feet per single application and eight (8) pounds of nitrogen per one thousand (1,000) square feet per year; and (b) Persons who apply fertilizer containing nitrates to more than one contiguous acre of land located in the Wellhead Protection Area either in one or multiple SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 32 application(s) per year shall provide to the Department within seventy two (72) hours of any application the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the person applying the fertilizer; (2) The location and land area of the application; (3) The date and time of the application; (4) The product name and formulation; (5) The application rate. Response: Based on a review of the City of Renton’s Wellhead Protection Plan, the project location is not within 100 feet of a City-owned well, and no seeps were noted within 200 feet of the property. Any pesticide or fertilizer applications through the operation of the property will be applied following the above specifications. 4-6-040.J.1.a. Wastewater Disposal – Zone 1: i. New developments (residential and nonresidential) shall, as a condition of the building permit, be required to connect to a central sanitary sewer system prior to occupancy. Response: The proposed development will connect to a central sanitary sewer system prior to occupancy. 4-3-050.G.8.f. Surface Water Requirements – Zones 1 and 2: Refer to RMC 4-6-030E, drainage plan requirements and methods of analysis for additional surface water requirements applicable within Zones 1 and 2 of a Wellhead Protection Area. Response: The project has been designed in compliance with all surface water requirements per the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual and RMC 4-6-030. No groundwater will be withdrawn and no water will be discharged to groundwater as a result of this project. See the submitted Drainage Report for full details. 4-3-050.G.8.i. Fill Material Requirements – Zones 1 and 2: Refer to RMC 4-4-060N4, Fill Material – Zones 1 and 2, regarding quality of fill and fill material source statement requirements within Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas. Response: The applicant will provide a source statement indicating that fill material is from a clean source. The Watershed Company October 2018 33 References King County. 2015. Cedar River Channel Migration Study. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Priority habitats and species list. Olympia, WA 295 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017. PHS Statewide List and Distribution by County Excel Spreadsheet. Accessed April 2018: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2018. SalmonScape. Accessed April 2018: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/. Author Qualifications Sarah Sandstrom, MSc, CFP, PWS Senior Fisheries Biologist Sarah has 17 years of experience in natural resources management, research, planning, and permitting. Over the past eight years at The Watershed Company, Sarah has worked on a variety of wetland and stream delineation, mitigation, and monitoring projects, shoreline and critical areas regulation development, and permit application development and review. Education: Master of Science in Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, 2008, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Bachelor of Science in Biology (Concentration in Marine Biology), 2001, Duke University, Durham, NC, University of Washington Extension, Wetland Science and Management Certification, 2010. Certifications: Certified Fisheries Professional, 2013; Professional Wetland Scientist, 2014; “Senior Writer” for WSDOT Biological Assessments, 2013. Clover Muters, PWS Environmental Planner Clover is an environmental planner with nine years of experience helping public and private clients meet Washington's environmental regulatory requirements and mitigate for project impacts. Clover joined The Watershed Company in 2013. Her education and SRMRenton Cedar River Apartments Critical Areas Report 34 background as a biologist, and certification as a Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) complement her work as an environmental planner. Education: Master of Marine Affairs, 2013, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science, 2006, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA Certifications: Professional Wetland Scientist, 2015 A PPENDIX A Shoreline Landscape Plan MAPLE VALLEY HWY EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"PERIMETER LANDSCAPE AREA (BY OTHERS)SHORELINE PLANTING AREA: MIX OF NATIVE TREES,SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVER. ADDITIONAL MATERIALSMAY INCLUDE SITE FURNISHINGS, BOULDERS, EDGING,LANDSCAPE GRAVEL, TURF, OR OTHER SURFACEMATERIALS. WHERE APPLICABLE, SITE LANDSCAPE WILLCOMPLY WITH CITY CODES. PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES TOBE >80% NATIVE, LOW WATER REQUIREMENT, TYPICAL.WATERCOURSE 100' BUFFERFALL PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BY FILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SET GM2 11-1-18 SSDP SET GM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_SITE PLAN.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHORELINE OVERVIEW200'50'25'0'100'LEGENDW1SHORELINE VIEW 1SHORELINE VIEW 2100'SHEET INDEXW1 SHORELINE OVERVIEWW2 SHORELINE SITE PLANW3 SHORELINE PLANTING PLANW4 PLANT INSTALLATION DETAILS AND NOTESW5 LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (1 OF 3)W6 LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (2 OF 3)W7 LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (3 OF 3)W8 TREE INVENTORY PLANW9 TREE PRESERVATION DETAILS AND TABLE100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN100-FT SHORELINE BUFFERAPPROXIMATE FLOODWAY EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52PERIMETER LANDSCAPE AREA (BY OTHERS)SHORELINE PLANTING AREA: MIX OF NATIVE TREES,SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVER. ADDITIONAL MATERIALSMAY INCLUDE SITE FURNISHINGS, BOULDERS, EDGING,LANDSCAPE GRAVEL, TURF, OR OTHER SURFACEMATERIALS. WHERE APPLICABLE, SITE LANDSCAPE WILLCOMPLY WITH CITY CODES. PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES TOBE >80% NATIVE, LOW WATER REQUIREMENT, TYPICAL.WATERCOURSE 100' BUFFERFALL PROTECTIONEL: 52' - 0"SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BYFILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SETGM2 11-1-18 SSDP SETGM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_SITE PLAN.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHORELINE SITE PLAN120'30'15'0'60'LEGENDW2SHORELINE VIEW 1SHORELINE VIEW 2W52PATH ENTRYFEATURE1W6CONCRETE SLABPATH BRIDGE1W7FALL PROTECTIONCONTIGUOUS WITHHANDRAILFALL PROTECTIONSTART AT 30" HEIGHTW54CIP STEPS, 10' WIDTHASPHALT SEAM TOSIDEWALKPERVIOUS ASPHALT SEAM TOBRIDGEDROP INPREFABRICATEDPEDESTRIAN BRIDGE,FOOTINGS BY OTHERSOVERLOOK STRUCTURETO MATCH PEDESTRIANBRIDGE, FOOTINGS BYOTHERSPERVIOUS ASPHALT SEAM TOOVERLOOKDRAIN PIPEUNDERGROUNDSTORMWATERLID FEATURE 2ADAPATH2W6STORMWATERLID FEATURE 13W6ROUNDED BOULDERWALL4W61W5FENCE WITHGATE ONPROPERTY LINE -BY OTHERSBOULDERS ANDARMOREDPLANTING FROMEND OF FENCETO OHWM1W7FALL PROTECTION1W7100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN100-FT SHORELINE BUFFERAPPROXIMATE FLOODWAY DELINEATED WATERCOURSE OHWMWATERCOURSE BUFFERHIGH VISIBILITY, LOW-GROWING NATIVE PLANTING (30,821 SF)MAHONIA NERVOSA / LOW OREGON GRAPEGEULTHERIA SHALLON / SALALCORNUS SERICEA / REDTWIG DOGWOODPOLYSTICHUM MUNITUM / SWORDFERNTELLIMA GRANDIFLORA / FRINGECUPPANICUM VIRGATUM / SWITCHGRASSDESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASSMOWABLE NATIVE POLLINATOR MIX (MEADOW)VIEW PRESERVATION NATIVE PLANTING (72,858 SF)ACER CIRCINATUM / VINE MAPLECORNUS SERICEA / REDTWIG DOGWOODRIBES SANGUINEUM / RED-FLOWERING CURRANTHOLODISCUS DISCOLOR / OCEANSPRAYOEMLERIA CERASIFORMIS / INDIAN PLUMSPIRAEA DOUGLASII / DOUGLAS SPIREASALIX SPP. / WILLOWTRILLIUM OVATUM / TRILLIUMBLECHNUM SPICANT / DEER FERNADIANTUM PEDATUM / MAIDENHAIR FERNAQUILEGIA FORMOSA / WESTERN COLUMBINEFORESTED NATIVE PLANTING (23,374 SF)ALNUS RUBRA / RED ALDERTSUGA HETEROPHYLLA / WESTERN HEMLOCKACER MACROPHYLLUM / BIG LEAF MAPLEPSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII / DOUGLAS-FIRAMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA / SERVICEBERRYTHUJA PLICATA*INCLUDES UNDERSTORY ANDLOW GROWING NATIVES LISTED ABOVEEL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52PHASE IPHASCEDAR RIVEREL: 52' - 0"FIRE LANE.SEE CIVIL DRAWING.PHASE IPHASE IISHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BY FILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SET GM2 11-1-18 SSDP SET GM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_PLANTING PLAN.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSHORELINE PLANTING PLAN120'30'15'0'60'LEGENDCANDIDATE PLANT SCHEDULENOTES1. ALL SHRUBS TO BE 2 GALLON SIZE, INSTALLED AT A DENSITYOF 24" - 48" O.C.2. BROADLEAF TREES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 1.5" CALIPER ATTIME OF PLANTING. CONIFER TREES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 6'IN HEIGHT AT TIME OF PLANTING.3. ALL GROUNDCOVER TO BE 4" TO 1 GALLON SIZE, INSTALLED ATA DENSITY OF 12" - 36" O.C.4. GROUNDCOVER PLANTS MUST BE PLANTED AT A DENSITY THATWILL COVER THE ENTIRE AREA WITHIN THREE YEARS.5. PER THE ARBORIST REPORT, 122 TREES WILL BE PLANTEDWITHIN THE STANDARD SHORELINE BUFFER6. SEE SHEET W8 FOR TREE INVENTORY PLAN.W3SHORELINE VIEW 1SHORELINE VIEW 2 SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BYFILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SETGM2 11-1-18 SSDP SETGM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_PLANTING PLAN.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPLANT INSTALLATION DETAILS AND NOTESGENERAL 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 SPECIFICATIONSSCALE AS NOTEDScale: NTSLIVE STAKING1NOTES: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.BACKFILL PLANTING PITPREVIOUSLY AMENDED SOIL2 X ROOTBALL WIDTHNOTES:1. PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESSTHAN TWO TIMES WIDTH OF ROOTBALL2. LOOSEN ROOT-BOUND PLANTS BEFOREPLANTING3. SOAK PLANTING PIT BEFORE ANDAFTER PLANTINGCOMPACT SOIL TO PREVENTSETTLINGSOAK PLANTING PIT, SCARIFYEDGES OF PIT, AND REMOVEDEBRISPROVIDE A FOUR-INCH DEPTH MULCH, BUTDO NOT PILE MULCH AROUND THE BASE OFTHE TRUNK/STEM.SET TRUNK PLUMBFINISHED GRADE4"ATTACH TREE STAKES TO TRUNK WITHPLASTIC "CHAIN-LOCK" OR EQUAL HIGHDENSITY POLYETHYLINE TREE TIE MATERIAL.PROVIDE 1" OF SLACK TO ACCOMODATE TREEGROWTH.PROVIDE A 2.5-3" ROUND TREE STAKE MADEOF UNTREATED LUMBER. ANGLE AGAINSTPREVAILING WINDS AND DEEP ENOUGH TO BESTABLE.BACKFILL PLANTING PIT WITHNATIVE SOIL OR PROVIDE ASIX-INCH TOP-DRESSING OFIMPORTED TOPSOIL ORCOMPOST AMENDED SOIL IF SOILQUALITY IS POOR.2 X ROOTBALL WIDTHNOTES:1. PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THANTWO TIMES WIDTH OF ROOTBALL2.REMOVE BURLAP AROUND ROOT BALL3. LOOSEN ROOT-BOUND PLANTS BEFOREPLANTING4. SOAK PLANTING PIT BEFORE AND AFTERPLANTING5. LARGE TREES AND SHRUBS MAY NEED TOBE STAKEDCOMPACT SOIL TOPREVENTSETTLINGSOAK PLANTINGPIT, SCARIFYEDGES OF PIT,AND REMOVEDEBRISPROVIDE FOUR-INCH DEPTH MULCH, BUTDO NOT PILE MULCH AROUND THE BASEOF THE TRUNK/STEM.SET TRUNK PLUMBFOUR-INCH TALLWATER DAMFINISHED GRADE4"ATTACH TREE STAKES TO TRUNKWITH PLASTIC "CHAIN-LOCK" OREQUAL HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLINETREE TIE MATERIAL. PROVIDE 1" OFSLACK TO ACCOMODATE TREEGROWTH.IF STAKING IS NEEDED,PROVIDE A 2.5-3" ROUND TREESTAKE MADE OF UNTREATEDLUMBER. ANGLE AGAINSTPREVAILING WINDS AND DEEPENOUGH TO BE STABLE.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.NOTES:1. INSTALL HARDWOOD CUTTINGS DURING THEIR DORMANCY.DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO DRY OUT.2. CUTTINGS SHALL BE 34" TO 1" IN DIAMETEROR APPROVED EQUIVALENT.3. INSTALL TO MIN. 2/3RDS DEPTH INTO SOIL. USE TRIANGULARSPACING. SEE PLANTING SCHEDULE FOR SPACING.4. INSURE THAT BUDS ARE POINTING UP.5. FIRM UP SOIL AROUND INSTALLED CUTTING.6. WATER AFTER PLANTING AND BEFORE MULCHING.FORM PILOT HOLE W/ ROCKBAR, REBAR OR OTHERPLANTING TOOL. DO NOTHAMMER OR POUND INCUTTINGS UNLESS APPROVEDBY RESTORATION SPECIALISTFINISH GRADETAMP SOIL AROUND CUTTING,ENSURE NO AIR POCKETSSEE PLANTING SCHEDULEFOR MIN. LENGTHSANGLE CUT AT BASEMINIMUM TWO LIVE BUDSEXPOSED ABOVE GROUND.ANGLE CUTTING DOWNSLOPE.VERIFY ANGLE IN FIELD WITHRESTORATION SPECIALIST2/3RDSCUTTINGHT.1/3RDCUTTINGHT.SPECIFIED MULCH LAYERSOIL AMENDMENTS ASSPECIFIEDScale: NTSDECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING WITH STAKE2Scale: NTSPLANT SPACING3Scale: NTSSHRUB CONTAINER PLANTING5Scale: NTSCONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING WITH STAKE4W4 SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BYFILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SETGM2 11-1-18 SSDP SETGM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_PLANTING PLAN.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (1 OF 3)SCALE AS NOTEDScale: NTSCAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE STEPS418" MIN12"4"CITYAPPROVEDSIGN48" MINCOMPACTED SUBGRADECOMPACTED GRAVEL BASE.NO CONCRETE IS TO BEPLACED IN SENSITIVE AREAS.FINISH ELEVATION6" x 6" ROUGH-CUTUNTREATED CEDARPOSTCITY APPROVED CRITICALAREA PROTECTION SIGN. TOBE PROVIDED AT LOCATIONSSPECIFIED ON PLANS. SIGNSSHALL BE SPACED NOFURTHER THAN 50' ONCENTER.3"NOTE:SIGN TO BE POST MOUNTEDAS SHOWN, OR FENCEMOUNTED (NOT SHOWN).Scale: NTSCITY APPROVED SIGN3Scale: NTSHARDSCAPE SECTIONS1W5ES T . 2 0 2 0 GOODBYECE D A R R I V E R O V E R L O O K WELCOME3'℄⅊2'3'13' TYP.2' MIN.6' CLEAR5' CLEARBROOMFINISH,TYP.3' - 2" MIN.4' MIN.BROOM FINISH, TYP.1" RAD., TYP.6 TYP. PERVIOUS ASPHALT PEDESTRIAN PATH1'-0"PERVIOUS ASPHALTPEDESTRIAN PATHPERVIOUS ASPHALTPEDESTRIAN PATHPLANWET SET BRASSLETTERSLANDSCAPE PLANTINGLANDSCAPE PLANTING1" RAD., TYP.#4 REBAR, 4"CLEAR E.W.AGGREGATE BASE ALLAROUND12"6" TYP.BROOM FINISHPREPARED SUBGRADESECTION AA - PATH HEADERVARIES, SEE PLAN12" BASE COURSE PERMEABLE AGGREGATE 2" PERVIOUS ASPHALTSURFACE COURSEPREPARED SUBGRADESECTION BB - PERVIOUS ASPHALT PATHASPHALT,SEE SECTION BBScale: NTSPATH ENTRY DETAIL2AAW5BBW58'-4"11" TO 14"1'-6"6" MIN3" MIN1" (TYP)1/4"/FOOT MIN#3 Ø COATED 1'-0"1'-0"#4 Ø 12" C.C.1-1/2" CLEARANCE (TYP)6'-8"15'1/2" EXPANSIONJOINT (TYP)1/2" EXPANSIONJOINT (TYP)ROUND ALL CORNERSHANDRAIL SHOWN FORDEMONSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY.1/2" RADIUSNOSING BAR (TYP)6" TO 7"2"2 #4 Ø CONT. FENCE WITH GATE ONPROPERTY LINE BY OTHERS LANDSCAPE PLANTINGSSTORMWATER OUTFALLROUNDED RIVER ROCK SPLASH PADBOTTOM OF STORMWATER LID FEATUREEXISTING ECOLOGY BLOCK WALLTOP OF WALL AT 35' ELEV.NOTES - SECTION A-A1. BOTTOM OF STORMWATER LID FEATUREGRADUALLY SLOPES TOWARDS FINALGRADEEXISTING SOILFINAL GRADE - SEE SHEET W2BIORETENTION SOIL2'-0"1'-0"AAIMPERMEABLE GEOMEMBRANE LINERROUNDED RIVER ROCK SPLASH PAD3:1 SIDE SLOPEBIORETENTION SOILIMPERMEABLE GEOMEMBRANE LINERROUNDED RIVER ROCK SPLASH PADROUNDED RIVER ROCK 1:1 SLOPE - SEE DETAIL 3LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS3:1 SIDE SLOPEBIORETENTION SOILSTORMWATER OUTFALLROUNDED RIVER ROCK SPLASH PADBOTTOM OF STORMWATER LID FEATUREEXISTING ECOLOGY BLOCK WALLTOP OF WALL AT 35' ELEV.NOTES - SECTION B-B1. BOTTOM OF STORMWATER LID FEATUREGRADUALLY SLOPES TOWARDS FINALGRADEFINAL GRADE - SEE GRADING PLAN W2EXISTING SOILBIORETENTION SOIL1'-0"AA2'-0"DRAIN ROCKROUNDED RIVER ROCK12"- 24" DIAM.1:1 SLOPEPROPOSED GRADE - SEESHEET W2GEOMEMBRANE SEPARATESDRAIN ROCK FROM SOILDRAIN ROCKSHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BYFILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SETGM2 11-1-18 SSDP SETGM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_PLANTING PLAN.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (2 OF 3)SCALE AS NOTEDScale: NTSSTORMWATER LID FEATURE 11W6Scale: NTSSTORMWATER LID FEATURE 22Scale: NTSSLOPED BOULDER WALL3Scale: NTSPREFABRICATED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE4NOTES1. CROSSLINE BRIDGES BY STREETLIFE OR SIMILAR. SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BY FILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SET GM2 11-1-18 SSDP SET GM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_PLANTING PLAN.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (3 OF 3)Scale: NTSFALL PROTECTION FENCING1SCALE AS NOTEDW7 MAPLE VALLEY HWY EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EL: 52' - 0"EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES TO REMAIN (14 EA.):EVERGREEN SPECIES WITH DRIPLINEDECIDUOUS SPECIES WITH DRIPLINEEXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE REMOVED:EVERGREEN SPECIESDECIDUOUS SPECIESTREE PRESERVATION:TREE PROTECTION FENCING (463 LF)1. PER RMC 4-11-200, MEANS A TREE WITH A CALIPER OFAT LEAST SIX INCHES (6”), OR AN ALDER ORCOTTONWOOD TREE WITH A CALIPER OF AT LEASTEIGHT INCHES (8”). TREES QUALIFIED AS DANGEROUSSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT. TREESPLANTED WITHIN THE MOST RECENT TEN (10) YEARSSHALL QUALIFY AS SIGNIFICANT TREES, REGARDLESSOF THE ACTUAL CALIPER.2. TREES DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL WITHIN TREEPROTECTION FENCE FOR NEARBY TREE SHOULD BEFLUSH CUT TO MINIMIZE ROOT DAMAGE TO REMAININGTREES. DO NOT REMOVE TREES DESIGNATED FORREMOVAL WITHIN TREE PROTECTION FENCING AREABY PUSHING OVER WITH MACHINERY.3. SEE W9 FOR COMPLETE TABLE OF ALL TREESINVENTORIED ON-SITE AND THEIR ASSOCIATEDATTRIBUTES.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE SNAGGED:DECIDUOUS SPECIESSHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BY FILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SET GM2 11-1-18 SSDP SET GM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_CLEARING AND TREE INVENTORY.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONTREE INVENTORY PLAN200'50'25'0'100'ON-SITE TREE INVENTORYLEGENDW82W9TREE SNAG1W92W9 SHEET NUMBER:DESCRIPTIONNO.DATESUBMITTALS & REVISIONSBYDATEPRINTED BY FILENAMEGENERAL NOTES:© Copyright- The Watershed CompanySHEET SIZE:ORIGINAL PLAN IS 30" x 42".SCALE ACCORDINGLY.PROJECT MANAGER: SSDESIGNED: AM, LVDRAFTED: GMCHECKED: LV, AM, SSJOB NUMBER:S c i e n c e & D e s i g n750 Sixth Street SouthKirkland WA 98033p 425.822.5242www.watershedco.comCEDAR RIVER APARTMENTSSHORELINE LANDSCAPE PERMIT SETSRM DEVELOPMENT1915 MAPLE VALLEY HWYRENTON, WA 98057170314OF 91 10-24-18 REVIEW SET GM2 11-1-18 SSDP SET GM11/8/2018 GRAYSON MORRIS 170314_SRM_CEDAR RIVER_CLEARING AND TREE INVENTORY.DWGPERMIT SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONTREE PRESERVATION DETAILS AND TABLEON-SITE TREE INVENTORYScale: NTSTREE PROTECTION FENCING14'-0"TREE PROTECTIONFENCE: HIGH DENSITYPOLETHYLENEFENCING WITH 3.5" X1.5" OPENINGS; COLOR- ORANGE.STEELPOSTS INSTALLED AT8' O.C.2" X 6' STEEL POSTSOR APPROVED EQUAL.5" THICK LAYEROF MULCH.MAINTAIN EXISTING GRADEWITH THE TREE PROTECTIONFENCE UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED ON THE PLANS.8.5" x 11" SIGNLAMINATED IN PLASTICSPACED EVERY 50'ALONG FENCE.SECTION221.70'KEEP OUTTREEPROTECTIONAREACROWN DRIP LINE OR OTHER LIMIT OF TREE PROTECTION AREA.SEE TREE RETENTION PLAN FOR FENCE ALIGNMENT.NOTES:1.NO PRUNING SHALL BE PERFORMED UNLESSUNDER THE DIRECTION OF AN ARBORIST.2.NO EQUIPMENT SHALL BE STORED OR OPERATEDINSIDE THE PROTECTIVE FENCING INCLUDINGDURING FENCE INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL.3. NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS SHALL OCCURINSIDE THE PROTECTIVE FENCING.4. REFER TO TREE RETENTION PLAN FOR ANYMODIFICATIONS TO THE TREE PROTECTIONAREA.5. UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES IN TREE PROTECTIONAREA MAY REQUIRE EVALUATION BY PRIVATEARBORIST TO IDENTIFY IMPACTS ANDMITIGATION REQUIRED.6. EXPOSED ROOTS: FOR ROOTS GREATER THAN 1"DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, MAKE ACLEAN, STRAIGHT CUT TO REMOVE DAMAGEDPORTION AND INFORM CITY ARBORIST.SNAG NOTES:SEE TREE SNAG TABLE FOR TREES WHICH ARE TO BE RETAINED ASSNAGS. ALL TREES SHOULD BE:1. SNAGS ON SITE ARE TO BE TOPPED BY CLIMBING ARBORIST ORBROKEN WITH MACHINE TO HEIGHT AS INDIVIDUALLY CONFIRMEDON TREE SNAG TABLE.2. ONCE TOP HAS BEEN REMOVED ARBORIST IS TO MAKE A CORONETCUT TO GIVE A NATURAL BREAK APPEARANCE IF BROKEN BYMACHINE CORONET CUT IS NOT NECESSARY.3. RETAIN ALL BRANCHES FOR PERCHES AND HABITAT STRUCTURES-DO NOT LIMB.4. LIVE TREES SHOULD BE DEADENED BY CUTTINGTWO 6” WIDE, ANGLED BAND AROUND THE BASE OF THE TREE WITHAN AXE OR BY MAKING TWO CUTS AROUND THE TREE WITH A CHAINSAW TO A DEPTH OF APPROXIMATELY 1 INCH BELOW THE BARKLAYER.5. WATERSPOUTS MAY DEVELOP BELOW GIRDLING CUT DEPENDINGON SPECIES. THESE SHOULD BE REMOVED WITH ROUTINEMAINTENANCE AND MONITORING.GIRDLE CUTALL LIMBS REMAINCORONET CUTOR MACHINE BREAKGROUND6"Scale: NTSTREE SNAG2W9 A PPENDIX B Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study Biological Assessment/Critical Areas Study Cedar River Apartments Renton, Washington October 2018 Prepared for: City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Prepared on Behalf of: SRMRenton, LLC 111 N. Post, Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 2 Title-page image: Existing bankline of Cedar River at western end of property. Statement of Accuracy: 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 Reference Number: 170314 The Watershed Company Contact: Sarah Sandstrom, Senior Fisheries Biologist The Watershed Company October 2018 1 1. Background In 2008, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a Biological Opinion, which found that the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the Puget Sound region jeopardized the continued existence of federally threatened salmonids and resident killer whales. As a result, NMFS established Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives to ensure that development within the Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain), floodway, Channel Migration Zone (CMZ), and riparian buffer zone do not adversely affect water quality, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, or floodplain refugia for listed salmonids. Because the NFIP is implemented by FEMA through participation by local jurisdictions that adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances, FEMA has delegated responsibility to the local jurisdictions to ensure that development does not adversely affect listed species. To that end, RMC 4-8-120D.2 requires preparation of a biological assessment/critical areas study for projects with the potential to impact fish (Chinook salmon, bull trout, steelhead trout), unexpected, new, rare or other endangered species habitat (bald eagles). This report evaluates the likely effects of proposed alterations within the floodplain, riparian buffer zone, and channel migration zone and finds that the project is not likely to adversely affect threatened salmonids or critical habitat. The project does not have a federal nexus; therefore, consultation with NMFS and US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The project, as proposed, will not result in “take” of listed species; therefore, Section 9 of the ESA does not apply. 2. Site Description 2.1 Project Location The proposed project is located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway (parcel 1723059026) in the incorporated area of the City of Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The project area is located just southeast of where the Maple Valley Highway crosses beneath Interstate 405 in Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. It lies within the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin or the Cedar-Sammamish Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 8). The property is bordered to the west by Cedar River Park, to the east by a developed commercial parcel, to the north by Maple Valley Highway, and to the south by the Cedar River. Across the Maple Valley Highway from the parcel is an undeveloped, forested HOA open space tract. Another undeveloped, forested parcel, owned by the City of Renton, is present along the southern bank of the Cedar River across from the project area. 2 Figure 1. Vicinity Map and street level aerial (King County iMap). Project location Parcel #1723059026 The Watershed Company October 2018 3 2.2 Flood Features The Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain) of the Cedar River includes the southern portion of the project area extending up to approximately 150 feet landward from the OHWM (See Figure 2 and site plan). The most conservative 100-yr flood profile was determined based on a comparison of the FEMA Effective FIRM (FEMA 1995), preliminary DFIRM (FEMA 2013), and output results from the updated HEC-RAS based model (containing the latest available LiDAR data) as received from King County River and Flood District. The most conservative (highest) floodplain values came from the preliminary DFIRM, which was used as the basis for the floodplain delineation. A horizontal projection of the 100-year flood boundary was delineated by intersecting the site topography surface and the flood water surface using a digital surface created in Civil 3D based on topographic contours from the site survey from D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc., dated August 16, 2017. The mapped floodway is generally consistent with the delineated OHWM, except in the western portion of the site, where the floodway extends approximately 35 feet landward from the OHWM. Aside from the Cedar River, no other streams or wetlands are present in the project area. King County maps the entire parcel as within the severe CMZ hazard area (King County 2015). This classification is based on the historic river channel, which occupied the parcel location. Per the King County methodology, any area within the historical migration one was mapped as severe hazard area, and privately maintained structures were not considered as potential limits to migration. Today, shoreline stabilization in the eastern half of the project area limits potential channel migration into the site. The Riparian Buffer Zone (RBZ), designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), extends 250 feet landward from the OHWM. Within the boundaries of RBZ, the 100 feet landward from the OHWM is regulated as a stream buffer under the Renton Critical Areas Regulations. 4 Figure 2. Approximate location of flood features. Landward extent of special flood hazard area depicted in blue. Landward extent of 100-foot buffer depicted in brown. Landward extent of 250-foot Riparian Buffer Zone depicted in yellow. OHWM depicted in purple. The Watershed Company October 2018 5 2.3 Environmental Setting The baseline conditions that in the Lake Washington watershed are described in Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for WRIA 8 (Kerwin 2001); and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (WRIA 8 2005). The following discussion describes the relevant site-specific baseline conditions, in particular focusing on those items that are unique about the site. Site visits were conducted in May, September and March of 2017 to evaluate the existing conditions of the site. Assessments conducted included a tree inventory, wetland reconnaissance, and delineation of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River. Public-domain information on the subject property was reviewed. These sources include USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife interactive mapping programs (PHS on the Web and SalmonScape), COR Maps, and King County’s GIS mapping website (iMAP). The project parcel was historically used as a concrete facility. Although industrial facilities have been removed from the site, a constructed settling pond is present along the Cedar River shoreline. This pond was used for settling of concrete was water. Today, it is separated from the Cedar River by a concrete wall. The settlement pond is filled with water with a distinct color difference from the Cedar River, indicating that there is no transfer of water between the settlement pond and the river. A concrete bulkhead extends east from the settling pond, forming the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River. To the west of the settling pond, the shoreline bank slopes gradually, and a retaining wall is located well landward of the OHWM. A chain link fence sits on top of the concrete wall and retaining wall along the length of the shoreline property The lot in its current condition is almost entirely cleared with a gravel and/or compacted dirt base. Tree and shrub species are mainly limited to the edges of the parcel. Fifty three individual trees were inventoried within the parcel. Tree species present are primarily red alder, black cottonwood and big leaf maple. The Cedar River is located to the south of the subject parcel. The water surface elevation of the Cedar River is influenced by operations at the Masonry Dam and the Landsburg Diversion Dam upstream in the Cedar River. Together, the dams are managed for water supply to the Seattle metropolitan area; to ensure base flows necessary to support instream uses, including fish habitat; for hydroelectric power; and for flood control. Along the parcel, the Cedar River flows as a glide or riffle along the length of the parcel, depending on the season. A large pool is present at the eastern extent of the parcel. 6 Figure 3. View of the typical condition of the southeastern portion of the shoreline buffer, looking west. Photo taken 3-8-17. No wetlands or streams, other than the Cedar River, are present on site. However, several other features classified as critical areas by the City of Renton have been 3. Species Identification and Site Use Three salmonid species are listed as threatened under the ESA in the Puget Sound area. These species include Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) of the Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment (DPS), steelhead (O. mykiss) of the Puget Sound DPS, and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). The project reach is used as a migration corridor for all of the species listed above and may be used for spawning and rearing by Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Cedar River, including the project reach, is designated as Critical Habitat for all three species. 3.1 Chinook Salmon In the Lake Washington watershed, Chinook salmon are broken into two stocks: 1) the Cedar River, and 2) the Sammamish River (City of Seattle 2008). The majority of summer/fall-run Chinook salmon migrate through the Lake Washington ship canal to reach spawning habitat in either the Cedar or Sammamish River systems, while a smaller proportion of Chinook salmon spawn in other Lake Washington tributaries. The Lake Washington basin has seen an average escapement of 1,214 returning Cedar Chinook salmon and 1,269 returning Sammamish Chinook salmon from 2004 to 2015 (WDFW SCORE electronic reference). The Watershed Company October 2018 7 Adults migrate into freshwater in late July through early September and spawn in the tributaries to Lake Washington between August and November (City of Seattle 2008). Graphs of trapping data indicate that juvenile Chinook salmon migrating from the tributaries into Lake Washington exhibit two basic strategies: 1) direct migration to the lake as fry without extended stream rearing; and 2) migration to the lake as parr or smolts (average length 100 mm), following extended stream rearing. Chinook fry begin entering Lake Washington around the first of the year, peaking in February, while parr and smolts enter the lake from April through July, peaking in late May (Tabor et al. 2006). Chinook salmon may use the project reach for spawning, rearing and migration. In particular, a deep pool near the eastern edge of the parcel may be used for holding during upstream migrations. 3.2 Steelhead Steelhead are currently present in the watershed. The Cedar River and South Lake Washington Winter steelhead are identified as a discrete stock within the Puget Sound steelhead DPS. These steelhead are characterized as a native stock with wild production. Historic steelhead escapement for the Lake Washington basin was estimated at 1,816 in 1986 and has steadily declined since that time. In 2002 their stock status was adjusted downward from “depressed” to “critical” due to chronically low escapements and severe short-term declines in escapement in 2000 and 2001. The Cedar River saw an average escapement of 11 returning steelhead from 2004 to 2015, with zero fish returning in 2009, 2012, and 2014 (WDFW SCORE electronic reference). Steelhead are documented to have spawned historically in many Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish tributaries. Adult steelhead may pass through the ship canal from February through June (City of Seattle 2008). The steelhead spawning period in the Lake Washington basin currently extends from March to September (City of Seattle 2008), with most adult fish in the run typically returning to the Cedar River. Both anadromous (steelhead) and resident (rainbow trout) life forms of O. mykiss (based on life history characteristics) are likely present in the Lake Washington basin. Juveniles generally emigrate as smolts between April and June, after two years of stream residence. However, the duration of freshwater rearing can range from one to seven years before juveniles grow large enough (>170 mm) to undergo smoltification. Steelhead exhibit a highly variable anadromous life history. Steelhead in the Lake Washington basin are winter run fish, characteristic of coastal streams. They enter freshwater from November to April and spawn shortly thereafter (Busby et al. 1996). Summer surface temperatures in the Lake Washington system often exceed the thermal preferences of most salmonids, including steelhead. 8 3.3 Bull Trout Native char are not commonly observed within the Lake Washington Watershed. Bull trout are observed at the Ballard Locks every year with numbers observed or caught varying from three to nine fish per year (F. Goetz, pers. comm., 14 May 2004). They are observed/caught at the Locks between May and July (note: little or no monitoring occurs at the Locks from February through April, so data are not available for that period). Bull trout are sensitive to high water temperatures, and would not be expected within river reaches when temperatures exceed 15˚C (generally, from May through mid-October). Juvenile bull trout remain in headwater streams until the onset of piscivory, at a body length of approximately 300 mm, at which point they migrate as subadults in search of improved foraging opportunities. Subadult bull trout often migrate with adults to headwater streams during the summer and fall, and return to larger rivers to overwinter. Bull trout may be attracted to spawning aggregations of prey fish. Many native char in populations from north Puget Sound exhibit anadromy, migrating to marine waters in late winter (F. Goetz, pers. comm., 14 May 2004). 3.4 Other Species According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Conservation, other threatened or endangered species that should be addressed in the project area include marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). None of these species have been documented in the project area per PHS Data. Furthermore, there is no suitable habitat for any of these species in the project vicinity. Nesting marbled murrelets require old- growth/mature coniferous forests in dense coastal stands; yellow-billed cuckoos require large, continuous riparian corridors populated by dense willow and cottonwood forests; and streaked horned larks require open grasslands, prairies, herbaceous balds, or sandy islands. None of these habitats is present in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on marbled murrelets, yellow-billed cuckoos, or streaked horned larks. No other endangered, threatened, sensitive, or priority species are documented by PHS Data for the property. No such species were observed during site inspections, and no additional critical wildlife habitat is present. 4. Project Description The proposal includes development of a residential, multifamily apartment complex, a commercial development pad, shoreline buffer restoration and public access improvements on a 546,121 SF lot adjacent to the Cedar River. The Watershed Company October 2018 9 All development is proposed outside of the shoreline buffer and Cedar River habitat conservation area, with exception of a public access trail and associated public access areas along the shoreline, provided in compliance with the City’s public access requirements. The remainder of the buffer will be restored with native plantings, which will provide a net improvement over the existing condition and provide screening between the upland development and the river. The floodplain area will be graded to result in a net increase in floodplain storage capacity. No fill will occur within the floodway. 5. Conservation Measures The project avoids and minimizes potential effects to listed species through the following measures: • Avoidance- No in-water work will be conducted. • Avoidance- The City’s standard 100-foot buffer and 15-foot setback will be followed. • Minimization- Best management practices will be employed, including but not limited to covering all exposed soils not worked within seven days and employing all erosion control measures within jurisdictional standards. • Minimization- Any construction debris and/or excavated materials will be removed and disposed of off-site. • Minimization- Compensatory storage will be provided for floodplain fill, such that there will be no net loss of floodplain storage. 6. Project Effects Potential direct and indirect effects of the project on listed salmonids include effects to water quality, flood storage and conveyance, habitat quality, and prey availability. Each of these potential effects are described below. 6.1 Water Quality No in-water work is proposed, which significantly minimizes potential effects to listed fish species. Proposed grading within the riparian zone does present the potential to affect water quality in the Cedar River. In order to avoid and minimize any effects to water quality, the project will implement a temporary erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater construction pollution prevention plan. These plans will ensure that measures are in place to control erosion and prevent spills that could affect water quality. Any accidental spills of toxic substances will be contained on the site and appropriately treated and disposed of immediately upon discovery. In the long-term, the proposed project will generate runoff from both pollutant and non- pollutant generating surfaces. Urban stormwater, which may include sediments, heavy 10 metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and nutrients can enter waterbodies through bank erosion, road run-off, landslides, or overland flow. Stormwater generated through impervious surfaces with vehicular use can disrupt salmonid physiology and behavior, and is a significant water quality concern for salmonids (McCarthy et al. 2008; Spromberg and Scholz 2011). All stormwater from pollutant- generating surfaces (at-grade parking and open-air parking garage) will be routed to a two- facility treatment train, including a wet vault and a Contech StormFilter system, recognized as a General Use Level Designation (GULD) for basic treatment. The treatment system will be sized to treat 91% or more of the total runoff volume. Following treatment, stormwater will be conveyed through a pipe to the southeastern side of the building. Stormwater from non-pollutant generating surfaces (building roofs) will be collected and routed separately from the pollutant-generating surfaces on the southwest side of the building. The two separate stormwater pipes will outfall in the buffer into a lined vegetated swale. The swale will provide additional biofiltration prior to reaching the Cedar River. As a result of treatment and biofiltration within the buffer, effects to water quality within the Cedar River are expected to be insignificant.Flood Storage and Conveyance In a riverine setting, temporary storage of floodwaters can help reduce downstream flood heights and dissipate much of the energy of flood flows (Gregory et al. 1987). The proposed project will increase floodplain storage capacity as a result of net cut within the floodplain. 6.2 Habitat Quality The project will result in an improvement in floodplain functions through revegetation of the 100-foot buffer are with native trees, shrubs, and groundcover and restoration of floodplain connectivity. As it matures over time, this vegetation will support detritus, woody debris, and invertebrates, which provide a prey source for juvenile salmon. Restored floodplain areas will provide improved access to off-channel areas for rearing juvenile salmon during high flows. This is particularly valuable given the limited off-channel opportunities downstream from the project site. The project will not alter existing bank stabilization measures. Therefore, the project will not affect channel migration or bank stability. The proposed project will increase impervious surfaces within the 250-foot RBZ, as described by NMFS (2008). Potential effects from the development could arise from pollutants (see water quality above), effects to water quantity (see flood storage and conveyance above), and disturbance. Disturbance would be most likely to result from effects from lighting. The proposed project will avoid and minimize potential disturbance through the vegetated buffer, which will separate the development from the river, and through the use of downcast outdoor lighting, which will prevent glare from reaching the river. The Watershed Company October 2018 11 7. Critical Habitat Critical habitat includes areas with physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. 7.1 Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Primary constituent elements of Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead critical habitat are listed as: 1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation and larval development. 2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks. 3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. 4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity, and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh- and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels; and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. 5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. 6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Project activities that introduce or remove physical elements to and/or from the French Creek drainage, or that contribute to short-term changes in water quality, may alter certain primary constituent elements (Table 1). 12 Table 1. Assessment of primary constituent elements for Chinook salmon and steelhead. Primary Constituent Element Direct, Indirect, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects 1.Freshwater spawning By increasing floodplain storage capacity, the project will not increase flood flows downstream. Therefore the project will not contribute to increased scour of downstream redds. 2.Freshwater rearing By increasing floodplain storage capacity, the project will not increase flood flows downstream. The project will restore native vegetation within the area within 100 feet of the OHWM, which will support rearing habitat along the bank, as well as detritus and insect production. The project will increase accessible floodplain habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead. It will result in an increase in impervious surface area within the RBZ, but all stormwater from pollutant-generating surfaces (at-grade parking and open-air parking garage) will be routed to a two-facility treatment train, followed by a vegetated drainage pathway within the buffer. As a result of treatment and biofiltration within the buffer, effects to water quality within the Cedar River are expected to be insignificant. 3.Freshwater migration By increasing floodplain storage capacity, the project will not increase flood flows downstream. The project will restore native vegetation within the area within 100 feet of the OHWM, which will support holding areas during migration. The project will increase accessible floodplain habitat which may be used as a holding area during upstream or downstream migrations. It will result in an increase in impervious surface area within the RBZ, but all stormwater from pollutant-generating surfaces (at-grade parking and open-air parking garage) will be routed to a two-facility treatment train, followed by a vegetated drainage pathway within the buffer. As a result of treatment and biofiltration within the buffer, effects to water quality within the Cedar River are expected to be insignificant. 4.Estuarine areas The project would have no effect on estuarine areas. 5.Nearshore marine areas The project would have no effect on nearshore marine areas. 6.Offshore marine areas The project would have no effect on offshore marine areas. 7.2 Bull Trout The primary constituent elements of bull trout critical habitat area listed below. 1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia. 2.Migration habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. 3.An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. The Watershed Company October 2018 13 4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments, and processes that establish and maintain these aquatic environments, with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. 5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 degrees Celsius (°C) (36 to 59 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures that exceed the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will depend on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shading, such as that provided by riparian habitat; streamflow; and local groundwater influence. 6. In spawning and rearing areas, substrate of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount of fine sediment, generally ranging in size from silt to coarse sand, embedded in larger substrates, is characteristic of these conditions. The size and amounts of fine sediment suitable to bull trout will likely vary from system to system. 7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, minimal flow departure from a natural hydrograph. 8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. 9. Sufficiently low levels of occurrence of nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass); interbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competing (e.g., brown trout) species that, if present, are adequately temporally and spatially isolated from bull trout. Potential effects to bull trout critical habitat are limited, as described in Table 2. Table 2. Assessment of Primary Constituent Elements for Bull Trout Primary Constituent Element Direct, Indirect, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity. The project will have no effect on springs, seeps, groundwater, or subsurface connectivity Migration habitats with minimal barriers. The project will have no effect on migration barriers. An abundant food base. The project will increase detritus, bank vegetation, and associated insect production. These effects may support additional food base for bull trout. Habitat complexity The project will increase floodplain habitat connectivity. 14 Primary Constituent Element Direct, Indirect, Interrelated and Interdependent Effects Water temperature The project will support shading of the Cedar River through the revegetation of a 100-foot wide riparian buffer area. This will support cooler water temperatures for bull trout. . Spawning substrate The project will not affect spawning substrate. By balancing cut and fill, the project increases floodplain storage and conveyance capacity such that it may reduce scour caused by high flows during floods. Natural hydrograph The project will support the natural hydrograph by increasing floodplain storage and conveyance capacity. Sufficient water quality and quantity Water quality will be protected during construction through the use of best management practices and implementation of a temporary erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater pollution protection plan. In the long-term, effects on water quality from treated and biofiltered stormwater will be insignificant. Water quantity will be maintained through no net fill of the floodplain. Predation The project will have no effect on predation on bull trout. 8. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects entail the effects of future private, state, or federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur. The project area is located within the City of Renton and King County, Washington, an area that is experiencing rapid population growth. Significant demand for additional residential development has accompanied this population growth. Therefore, the area surrounding the project is expected to continue to urbanize and redevelop. Increasingly strict local, state, and federal regulations suggest that despite an increasing intensity of land use, redevelopment is likely to result in improvements in stormwater management and riparian and floodplain restoration. 9. Summary In summary, because potential adverse effects of the project related to water quality are insignificant, because the project will maintain flood storage and conveyance, and because the project will restore floodplain habitat functions within the 100-foot riparian zone, the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect listed salmonids. Similarly, given the direct, indirect, interrelated, and interdependent effects from the proposed action, the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat of Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, or Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout. The Watershed Company October 2018 15 References Gregory, S. V., and coauthors. 1987. Influence of forest practices on aquatic production. E. O. Salo, and T. W. Cundy, editors. Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Proceedings of a Symposium. Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1995. Flood Insurance Rate Map for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2010. Flood Insurance Study for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas. Flood Insurance Study Number 53033CV001B. Kerwin, J. 2011. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar- Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Prepared for the Washington Conservation Commission. King County. 2015. Cedar River Channel Migration Study. McCarthy, S., P. Incardona, and N. Scholz. 2008. Coastal storms, toxic runoff, and the sustainable conservation of fish and fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 64. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Endangered Species Act- Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation: Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington Phase One Document- Puget Sound Region. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. September 2008. 226 pp. 2006-00472. Spromberg, J. and N. Scholz. 2011. Estimating the future decline of wild coho salmon populations resulting from early spawner die-offs in urbanizing watersheds of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. WRIA 8. 2005. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. 16 Author Qualifications Sarah Sandstrom, MSc, CFP, PWS Senior Fisheries Biologist Sarah has 17 years of experience in natural resources management, research, planning, and permitting. Over the past eight years at The Watershed Company, Sarah has worked on a variety of wetland and stream delineation, mitigation, and monitoring projects, shoreline and critical areas regulation development, and permit application development and review. Education: Master of Science in Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, 2008, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Bachelor of Science in Biology (Concentration in Marine Biology), 2001, Duke University, Durham, NC, University of Washington Extension, Wetland Science and Management Certification, 2010. Certifications: Certified Fisheries Professional, 2013; Professional Wetland Scientist, 2014; “Senior Writer” for WSDOT Biological Assessments, 2013.